All day Manish has been foto-blogging (floging) highlights from the Indian State visit. He updated with this picture just a few hours ago:
This isn’t so much a post from me as it is a question to our Indian American readers. As an Indian-American, something with this picture just doesn’t sit right with me. I appreciate what the Administration might have been trying to do but…if the German Chancellor visited the U.S. would all the German American appointees be invited to pose for a picture with him? This picture (to me) smells of the unstated belief that Indian Americans somehow have a divided loyalty and are not simply American. Why the assumption that we would want to pose with “our” Prime Minister? I think I would have a hard time accepting such an invitation until I understood the logic of it. Why would I want to pose with him? Just because he is from India and so were my parents? I would most certainly want to meet and talk with him, but not in this manner. I wonder if a picture exists where the Indian American appointees were all called in to pose with just our President Bush?
I realize that I am probably over-reacting to this, but I am just curious as to what some of you think.
Why the assumption that we would want to pose with “our” Prime Minister?
i think it’s the natural Indian tendency to pose for any and all pics regardless if you’re supposed to be in it or not. I know when I go to Delhi and I am about to take a picture, there are 20 ppl in the background in proper pose and no smile. It’s almost as if I can stop time w/ a camera…literally ppl will stop doing what they do and all face the lens…so I’m assuming this is an evolved trait that we carried across the pond in our Indian genes.
Mathematiker, that’s the one and indeed you’re right, for Americans it ain’t too hard. But I wonder if the US had a handy cricket team…?
Anyway, it seems a bit off topic now so I’ll say my piece about the Tebbit test another time. Just my two cents (pence?) on the South Asian/Desi/Indian American debate/argument/palava.
Not to follow up on that tangent but to answer Abhi #48, my take is that politics & ideology certainly do come into the picture. The Chinese president is head of a (nominally) communist country, and thus it is unlikely for ‘traitors’ who migrated to the Land of the Capitalisy Free would be welcome around him. Definitely not 5/10 years ago – but maybe it’s not the same now. There is no ‘betrayal’ involved in migrating from India to USA…ummm this is just a misinformed “1st-Gen”‘s take on that…Curious to know what other people think of that.
Democrats don’t need to showcase diversity, it’s right infront of their eyes.
It’s a bit silly to constantly use analogies to other ethnic groups. Apples and oranges. Ofcourse there’s not going to be a mass rollout of German Americans when the Chancellor’s in town. Cuz when was the last time you heard someone refer to themselves as German-American. Exactly. Because unless you’ve been isolated in some genetic ghetto, your grandparents have probably mixed with other white mutts. Ergo you’re an American. As for Jews (non-Zionists), the ones that I know don’t have any connection to Israel, why should they?? Then the question arises of more recent Asian immigrants. Maybe a Chinese-American wouldn’t feel kinship with a Chinese leader. But I can certainly think of other white ethnic communities that still have a deep rooted connection to lands where their forebearers came from. It’s pretty clear everyone in the photo-op wanted to be there. If you’re an underpaid staffer that was asked to come, and you somehow feel ethnically marginalised get some balls and speak up.
I’m a little puzzled no one has mentioned the obvious, which is that pictures like this are purely a fundraising ploy designed to get Indian American $$$$ into the coffers of the RNC during the next election go-round.
I have my suspicions that even the pomp and circumstance of the state dinner is oriented to that. It allows Bush to make Indians think he’s pro-India, even as he continues to work with Musharraf on terrorism (or be played by Musharraf, depending on your perspective).
It wouldn’t work with German Americans for reasons about half of the 53 comments above have already explored.
Uggh… chilled asparagus soup! I dunno about all y’all but I’d be ordering room service as soon as I got back to my hotel room.
a few points
there is a lot of talk here about german americans because of an offhand comment earlier.* germans americans are a diverse immigrant stream.
a) ben franklin complained about the unassimibility of germans early on (“pennsylvania dutch” are germans, deutsch ~ dutch, see, anglo-whiteys are so ignorant).
b) there was a stream of immigration after 1848 than pretty much ended before 1900. much of this was before 1871, when germany became a unified nation. this an important point when comparing past immigrant streams and modern ones, germans arrived as germans, but also as former citizens of baden-baden, bavaria, prussia, austria. their ‘dual’ loyalty was weak because they didn’t have a national state they were emigrating from.
c) nevertheless, german language schools were relatively prominent as late as WW I. during this period many german language schools in the USA were closed, and there was a wave of anti-german hate crimes. many german americans changed their names to be more more “american.” (ie; i had a gf whose family went from reichmann to richman, frankfurter became hot dog).
so, you have a 60 year period where the majority of german americans were integrated into the US mainstream. that’s about 3 generations. you’ve had 4+ generations since then. so, when someone says that “german americans” are the most numerous group in the USA in terms of ancestry, they mean people who are 1/4 german, or 1/2 german, or 3/8 german. and often the more knowledgable people will say “my ancestry is prussian” instead of german because that is how their grand-parents and great-parents will have heard it from their “german” grand-parents.
the contrast with browns is obviously that almost all of our families emigrated from well crystallized nation-states and went through the period of ethnogenesis induced by modernity. yes, there was goethe and mozart and beethoven, and german nationlism did flower after 1848, but i think the analogy is sketchy because when german americans arrived they really had relatively weak ties to the “old country” which was formed after their departure (usually, most germans arrived between 1848 and the civil war, beer replaced hard liquor in the 1850s as the national beverage). in some ways, this resembles italian americans, who tend to associate regionally because the nation of italy was only 1-2 generations old when they left for america (remember, regional dialects of italian are almost unintelligible with standard italian derived from florentine).
does race matter? i think it does. we are “visible minorities.” but aside from the biological realities (i think there are some), i think there is a lot of (though not total) wiggle room in the sociological interpretation. when the first syrian immigrants arrived in boston the 18th century the local observors noted that barring the chinese, they were the most exotic and alien people to show up on america’s shores. now, arab americans have a phenotypic overlap with european americans, but there is still a difference. but people like ralph nader and casey kasem pretty much “pass” as post-ethnic (though casey kasem is an ethnic activist for his druze community in his spare time). unlike jewish americans, arab americans (the vast majority have of whom have been christian) have assimilated pretty well on society’s terms. one primary reason is that like the german americans above, they have weak ties to their nations of origin, many arrived from the general region of “syria” before it had been separated fully into the nations of syria, lebanon, israel and jordan.
the tie-in with arab americans is that if brown people intermarry with other groups, many of the first generation who have one white parent will probably fall in the rough physical range of “arab american.” barring name, they will likely be able to walk around without eliciting any wonderment at their physical appearence. so, i predict that 3-4 generations from now, more of the descendents of people chattering away on this message board will be blonde than know what chutney is (aside from what the american milieu would inform).
Where is the Tandoori Chicken in the Menu ???????
he Chinese president is head of a (nominally) communist country, and thus it is unlikely for ‘traitors’ who migrated to the Land of the Capitalisy Free would be welcome around him.
the emigrant community of chinese from taiwan and much of southeast asia would not be pro-PRC, but i’ve heard that the PRC does have a lot of support and ties to the young people in the chinese american community (which causes tensions with the anti-communist generations). and remember, chinese is communist-in-name-only. ideology doesn’t mean jack, it is becoming close to a ethnic-nationalist state from what i can see.
* full disclosure, my last two girlfriends have been german americans
How tall were they ?
Razib, I was going to mention the Pennslyvania Dutch, it should be said in the 20th Century considering who we were facing in the two world wars the P.D. didn’t bother to correct the misnomer. All in the name of assimilation. Just as other European arrivals de-ethnified their names as soon as they got off the boat. Literally. The nation-state argument is a very salient one. It certainly explains why my parents are more nationalistic to their country (India) than my grandparents, who had much more provincial cooncerns.
I’m off on a tangent here….. Speaking of the Penn Dutch , I visited an Amish community in rural MN this Sunday. They still live the same way their ancestors who sailed over from Deutchland in the 19th century did. They spurn anything modern – no electricity, no automobiles, no mechanized farm implements. They still wear dresses and hats right out of ‘Sleepy Hollow’ (actually it loked older than the ‘Sleepy Hollow’ styles), speak archaic German (even their schooling is in German), trot along merrily in horse-drawn buggies, and the men have bushy beards, no moosh, and a very unusual hairdo, sorta like a hat.
But hell, it was an amazing experience – the whole atmosphere was one of innocence, and uncorruptedness, and being one with nature. They are apprently people who thought the Protestant Reformation hadnt gone far enough in renouncing materialism, and so decided to settle in the New World and live as ascetically as possible. Have to say they are doing a remarkable job till now.
How tall were they ?
5’7. y?
yes, al mujahid…WHY? 🙂
How tall were they ?
5’7. y?
yes, al mujahid…WHY? 🙂
Because a lot of Germanic women are over 5’10 which makes it difficult for us brownies to date them. My Germanic wife is 6’1 and when she wears high heels she towers over me and my family.
height differences between groups (on average) probably explain why men of various groups have a harder time getting dates outside their group. and why women often do not (asians).
I wonder what people of Indian descent who came over from countries like Fiji, Guyana, Kenya, SA, etc. would say to posing with the Indian PM and how it would affect their sensibilities.
the mentor i mentioned wayyy back in comment TWO is an american-born fijian. she happily went to the state dinner, etc. she saw the invitation as a privilege, the same way her indian-american colleague did.
i’m pretty sure people from the diaspora would be happy to pose for a pic– it’s not as much a question of self-definition as it is a very washington/political thing to do. all of those people in the above photograph got a copy of this and framed it for their office– i know, b/c when i took my interns around in the summer of 2002, such pictures were proudly pointed out as we toured the hill.
beyond that, my dad didn’t put up my graduation portrait, but he professionally-framed my pictures with willie brown, gov. pete wilson etc. that’s a brown thing to do. put brown people in washington and the proclivity to photo-op with anyone of substance is squared.
i think, re: diaspora, it depends on the part of the diaspora. east africans, mauritians and fijians have all retained relatively pretty close ties with brownland (saying ‘india’ is pretty weird because the india many left was british india, which includes pakistan and bangladesh). my readings suggest that west indian browns from trinidad and guyana tend to be more distant because there hasn’t been much back and forth. many trinidad indians (for example) have converted to western christian traditions and do not know any indian languages. i knew one guyanese brown chick as an acquaintance, and she did express irritation about how people expected her to know about india all the time since her grandparents were the last to remember “that country.”
razib, your analysis is really useful, but it omits the changed circumstances around race in general in the United States in 2005 vs. when Germans or Irish or other communities were in the same position as Indians–and more broadly, desis–are today. I’m not really sure what those changed circumstances are, but it would be hard to deny, at the very least, that race had a different role in American society mid 19th century or early 20th century than it does today (e.g. maybe partly mitigate the “physical visibility” issue for upper class / middle class desis).
Given migration flows, the changing statuses of India, the U.S. (and other countries and regions), economics, etc., 60-80 years is far too long time to usefully project into the future like that.
But in the near future, the rate at which desis marry other desis might increase from the data you presented on that other thread because of increasing community spaces (like SM, SALGA, etc.), increased desi population, the increased prestige and power of South Asia’s societies, etc. Anecdotal experience: in the bangali community i come from, the 2nd gen people who came of age in the 70s and 80s married mostly White people, but people near my age (i’m 27) are more frequently coupling with other desis than i remember the older folks doing (I think–I’m wearing my pro-intramarriage aunty goggles).
My hunch is that there’s a sharp change in people’s life experiences from folks 1/2 a generation older than me to people my age. Maybe it’s social (i.e. life in ethnic enclaves in queens vs. life in ny suburbs) or wealth or birth order or parents’ age or something else entirely–i’m not sure.
height differences between groups (on average) probably explain why men of various groups have a harder time getting dates outside their group. and why women often do not (asians).
Height difference plays an important part. However the widespread emasculation of Asian men in the popular American culture hasnt helped their cause either. Combine that with the conventional notions of what passes as ‘good looking’ in the US and its no surprise that the outmarriage rate in Asian men (2nd generation) is abysmal when compared to the outmarriage rate of Asian females.
If you look at campuses around the country, Asian FOBs (South and East Asian) get no play from the white american women (and black/hispanic women too for that matter) when compared to the play FOB Arab or FOB Latinos get (excluding the mexicans) from the American women. The more caucasoid looking men get more play than non caucasoid looking men in general. (Arabs and Latinos are more caucasoid looking than South/East Asians) Blacks might be an exception to this phenomenon though.
You mean power, not substance. I’ve never heard a similar story about framing pictures with Jane Jacobs.
AM, there are multiple components, but i think the “masculinity factor” is the most important, which plays to the reinforcing nature of stereotypes. but there is a cultural difference that predates the east asian migration to the USA, the chinese mandarin was a different archetype than the martial gentlemen in the west. while herakles was blackened by his exposure to the sun during his labors, the chinese mandarin was pround his long nails (no labor) and fair skin (no outdoor work).
but it omits the changed circumstances around race in general in the United States in 2005 vs. when Germans or Irish or other communities were in the same position as Indians–and more broadly, desis–are today. I’m not really sure what those changed circumstances are, but it would be hard to deny, at the very least, that race had a different role in American society mid 19th century or early 20th century than it does today (e.g. maybe partly mitigate the “physical visibility” issue for upper class / middle class desis).
yes, i agree. let me extend my analysis a bit, if you think of “ethnic identity” as a bundle of traits (race, language, religion, habits, etc.) i think there are objective differences that can be plotted out on a taxonomical tree using “characters”. so, for example, a tree with english, scottish and irish would probably have the irish be the outgroup.* if you add the french, the irish would be included in the english-scottish-irish cluster vs. the french. and so on. i think there are objective differences.
but, times change, and perception of Other change. 150 years ago americans were a protestant nation, and there was a lot of fear of “popper.” this included french canadians emigrated into new england, german catholics into the midwest and of course the irish. by 1960 the US had elected a catholic president, and it had transitioned to a christian identity. today, i would say it is judeo-christian (on average). objectively not much has changed as regards the differences between catholicism and protestantism, but the cognitive salience has decreased a great deal as perceptions of difference dampened.
so, objectively islam, hinduism or brown people might be far more alien to the WASP main-stock of this country than the irish were, but renormed for the times they might occupy the same cognitive space. of course, the outward paradigm that this country approaches outsiders with has also changed a great deal, so, to some extent apples and oranges. but, i think analogies can work, they only need to used judiciously and be well qualified.
popery, not, popper 🙂
the chinese mandarin was a different archetype than the martial gentlemen in the west
On a side note, speaking of martial people, the English had classified the Rajputs, Jats, Pathans, Moguls and Awans as the martial races of India. The Indian army during the Raj, had a disproportionate number of people from the above ethnicities as the English considered them to be more fit for martial duties.
On a side note, speaking of martial people, the English had classified the Rajputs, Jats, Pathans, Moguls and Awans as the martial races of India. The Indian army during the Raj, had a disproportionate number of people from the above ethnicities as the English considered them to be more fit for martial duties.
part of this was because the sikhs of punjab, for example, were loyal to them during the 1857 mutiny, while the other sepoy levies were not. but the armies of the east india company were disproportionately bengali and tamil (often with mixed-race “british” officers), because those were the regions under earliest british control.
off topic, but a fact i learned today, the head of the iranian military is traditionally always part of the 1/4 turkic minority because the perception that the turks are people of war (while persians are people of poetry).
Aside from posing for pictures, which has been identified as a brown trait, I think there is a larger pciture(no pun intended) here – people being selected just because they happen to be brown or of Indian origin. To some degree I think it points to the level of assimilation of a person of Indian origin. And I concur with Abhi especially with the issue of divided loyalty.
AM, interesting comments about South Asian men. So it wasn’t just me. 🙂
re: German-American assimiliation
My maternal grandmother was born to German immigrants and raised speaking German as a first language in a predominantly German-American midwest town, fittingly named Germantown. Following WWII, societal pressure compelled her and many of her relatives to assimilate, proving loyalty and all that. She told me some of her relatives (American born) thought Hitler was the shit. She stopped speaking German at 18 and has now completely forgotten the language. My paternal grandmother was born in Germany to a Jewish family, escaped to America and subsequently forgot her German as well. Needless to say she had reason to distance herself from her German heritage. It has always been a point of fascination to me that they managed to forget an entire language through purposeful neglect, for entirely different but related reasons.
part of this was because the sikhs of punjab, for example, were loyal to them during the 1857 mutiny, while the other sepoy levies were not. but the armies of the east india company were disproportionately bengali and tamil (often with mixed-race “british” officers), because those were the regions under earliest british control.
Punjab only fell to the British in 1949 so the 1857 revolt was mostly centered in the Bengali regiments (most of which were dissolved after 1859)
haha i wonder if bradon chillar actually went.
Of course the real reason for this picture was the one Amardeep mentioned earlier. In case anyone has any doubt that he was correct in his statment I submit to you exhibit B. What a coincidence that he just happened to be invited on the same day.
I dunno — it’s better than the fact that the last time an Indian Prime Minister visited, Star Jones was invited to the welcoming dinner for some reason. (And I wasn’t!)
well, if star jones was invited that means there must have been smaller portions for everyone else. and since indians are kind of thin by stereotype….
(totally unrelated disclaimer) When was the last time you guys noticed an Indian PM and his/her spouse with the American First couple??!!!
Nehru was a widower, Indira Gandhi was a widow, Narasimha Rao was a widower and Atal ji was a bachelor when they visited the US. Rajiv and Sonia were the only Indian first ‘couple’ to visit.
Are IPs blocked here?
The real question is what happened to all the non-Indians who wanted to meet Singh and got elbowed aside by Indian-Americans who knew they needed a photo with him to show their moms.
Man, Abhi, you sure know how start threads 🙂
I think it’s a slight overreaction, and I agree with a lot of people that it has to do with money, ambition, and just the idead of posing with the US president and the Indian PM.
Btw, if you reallllly want to dig into it here are links to the other state dinners that Bush has hosted.
Also, it seems that NPR might be doing a India based stories while the PM is here on it’s Marketplace segments. Here are the links for Monday and Tuesday. I’m not sure if they are doing a week long thing or not. Monday’s piece seems to go along with the intent of this thread…sort of the, “ooooh look, Indians really do exist”
Looking at the guest list of the Polish state dinner, there are a lot fewer Polish-Americans there than there were Indian-americans for Manmohan. (But they did invite Duke’s Coach K!). A few politicians and diplomats (Mikulski, Brezinski) and one or two guys from the Polish-American association. Otherwise it was mostly businessmen (Sanford Weil of Citibank, etc).
Why the difference? Are Indians more desparate to hang out with ‘their’ PM, or is that just the perception at the GWB white House?
Text of Manmohan Singh’s Speech at a Reception, Tuesday Evening
I think one of the major differences as other people have noted, is the generational gap, i.e. how many more 1-2 generations Indians are there in the US as opposed to Polish. I don’t see why anyone would see this as desparation, it’s just part of the game. Sometimes you have to toot your own horn to get ahead, and if your ambitious and want to get into those arenas, then you have to go and get it.
KXB, I think you misread my statement. My point was that it’s insulting to the Indian PM if some guy from the mailroom is brought up to meet him simply on the basis of shared color/ethnic background. The implication is that a head of state is basically the same as a stockboy because color neutralizes stature. And that somehow GW deserves a pat on the back for his “appointees.”
Like I said, I DON’T KNOW if this is the case. It’s just a guess, and a cynical one at that.
This has NOTHING to do with “social betters” and I’m rather surprised that you misunderstood my point so badly. I speak from my own experiences as an envelope-licker and coffee-getter…who got to meet important South Asian authors because the higher ups wanted to show-off the brown faces on staff. Why, I have no idea. To dispell a lily-white rep? To reach across the cultural divide? I dunno..
Anyway, jolly good for me, yaar? But the poor author would of course know that I was an entry-level fart, and we’d make excrutiating small talk, feeling like performing monkeys, to the self-congratulatory beams of the muckety-mucks.
So like I said, it’s my litmus test.
Don’t think he misread you at all. You didn’t exactly paint a nuanced picture:
Fair enough. I’m still trying to juggle snarky with nuanced. Not enough room in one post for both, yeah? Not unless I bore you all by explaning my explanations, forcing you to scroll down endlessly…
The Bush administration may have recognised India as a responsible state with advanced nuclear technology but it is far from recognising India as a legitimate and responsible nuclear weapon state – Indian Express
) ben franklin complained about the unassimibility of germans early on (“pennsylvania dutch” are germans, deutsch ~ dutch, see, anglo-whiteys are so ignorant). Are you being sarcastic? I could cut and paste the posters to this site splitting hairs ad nauseum as to whom in India belongs to what group.
Everyone is so fucking busy finding differences with each other,– and then they wonder why there is no revolution or progress.
Well look in the fucking mirror.
I do hope you were just trying to be ironic.