On the heels of the recent outreach by Howard Dean, the website of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) announces the creation of an Indian American Council (IAC):
[On Sept. 15th], the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) announced the formation of an Indian American Council to provide the party with valuable insight on a broad range of issues important to the Indian American community.
Ro Khanna, appointed as chair of the Council by Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, said “The creation of this council is a historic step for the Indian American Community, and attests to the party’s appreciation for what the community has contributed to this country. Leader Pelosi has once again demonstrated her extraordinary vision in harnessing the talent, passion, and energy of the community…”The Council will be sponsoring an inaugural issues conference entitled “Innovate America: A Vision for the 21st Century.” The conference will initiate a dialogue between leaders of the community and the Congressional leadership about ensuring that our country remains competitive and generates high quality jobs and new opportunities throughout the 21st century. It will take place on October 1, 2005 in Fremont, California. [Link]
The council has been launched as part of the party’s Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) on the eve of the 2006 elections for the US Congress where it has no majority in the House or the Senate.But with controversial issues such as Iran’s nuclear programme where some Democrats accuse India of soft-pedalling, and US-India civilian nuclear cooperation against which a number of Liberal Democrats have spoken out, the party is going to be hard put to bring Indian Americans around.
Prior to the 2004 presidential elections, the Democratic Party had formed an Indian American Leadership Council at the Democratic National Committee (DNC). It is a sign of the increasing clout of this community that the Democrats have established the IAC as part of the more powerful DCCC.
See, this is where I get frustrated. I am a young liberal Democrat and I think India is soft-pedalling on Iran. I support some of the Democrats who are taking a hard-line against India on the nuclear issue. If this new IAC caters to older first generation Indian Nationalists living in America (there is no reason yet to believe they will), they will not have my support. As an American I want India to cut off support of Iran on all nuclear issues. Period. I do not want this newly formed committee giving into the demands of old Indian uncles living here simply because they control the purse strings for congressional donations. Khanna is also young and I hope his strategy shuns old first generation money AND issues if they run counter to American interests.
On another matter, I’d also like to ask why it is that all Indian newspapers assume that all Indian Americans are going to just blindly support issues that favor India. I have noticed this false assumption in nearly every on-line Indian publication I read. I am the opinion that reporters and editors over there just don’t get the changing realities that take place in a well-established NRI population. Take for example this quote:
Then there’s the question of US hardline policy toward Iran, where Lantos has been vehement in demanding that New Delhi toe the line with Washington, sharply criticising India for its alleged soft-pedalling on Iran.Even as they may try to bring around Congressmen like Lantos, Indian Americans are going to be lobbying “friendly” legislators rather than chasing those that are ranged against civilian nuclear cooperation, an issue a majority of the community wants to see move forward.
Where are they getting this information from? Where is the poll that shows this is true? Nobody polled me. I think Lantos had a point. I am excited to see what the IAC’s agenda will look like but I do not want to see yet another “Indian American” political committee that’s really just and “Indian” political committee.
Abhi, is a US policy that covers up for (at the least) and encourges (if you believe the worst) nuclear profileration a sound one?
Ask yourself this question as an American.
Then think about the whole China-AQ Khan-Pakistan-N.Korea-Iran-Libya affair.
well said Kush, China, France and Russia have multi-billion dollar investments in Iran. Even US service companies like Schlumberger and Halliburton operate in Iran.
Here is a partial list of companies involved in the South Pars gas field in Iran:
Total-Fina-Elf (France) ENI-AGIP (Italy) Foster Wheeler (UK & US) Toyo (Japan) Statoil (Norway)
And people like Abhi save their invective for India.
Just to clarify companies like Foster Wheeler, Schlumberger and Halliburton operate in Iran via their non-US subsidary companies.
I would really like to get Abhi’s view on this, shouldnt the US government try to stop US companies from operating in Iran before they stop others?
Correction: Iran has the second largest natural gas reserves in the world.
Read Daniel Yergin’s
Everyone wants the piece of action in Iran. – one way or other.
Sunny, exams have finished!
Razib, I expected better from you than that tired old yankee doodle line “You’d all be German”. It’s actually really ticked me off that you claim that American fear had anything to do with them joining either war. The first they got stuck in three quarters of the way through and the second only once the Japanese attacked them at home. Whilst I always try to refrain from painting all Americans with the same brush, its foreign policy is reliably consistent – selfish.
The point I was making is the same made by Michael Moore and Barry Glassner. That Americans have always existed in a state of fear.
Kush you make some good points and I defer to your superior knowledge about another field I’m not well versed in, energy. I harp on about China all the time – and you mention how they have lots of investments in Iran. China has also leapt ahead of much of the world by embracing many African investment opportunities. Africa is tipped to follow in India’s footsteps with an economic boom. Zimbabwe remains a rich African country despite Mugabe’s antics and who just met with him? Hu Jintao. India should not feel bound by some moral code imposed by the West.
The same standards must be applied to all countries – America, the UK, France and Germany have made billions from fear in Asia – stoking the fires of war to sell arms. Perhaps it’s somewhat just that Asian nations adopting the same business ethics are creating fear in the West.
That is a very relevant point!!! I am actually curious to know what are 2nd and 3rd gen. Chinese are feeling about it. If anyone has discussion with Chinese-Americans about this, please post it here, I would love to hear.
Just to clarify the Zimbabwe statement, it’s an analogy.
The US used to control Iran, now they are worried other countries will help them out, yet they continue to have business ventures in Iran.
Britain used to control Zimbabwe, now they are worried other countries will help them, so they are recommending other countries avoid doing business with Zimbabwe. Jack Straw even suggested to the ICC to ban the Zim cricket team. But no British politicians are willing to actually do anything.
China has invested in both countries.
bongdongs,
You are right on the mark. This is one of few topics I can go on and on…..I need to my work.
You walk into the corridors of ExxonMobil and Shell in Houston office, they already preliminary plans for doing business with Iran. If they don’t do it, then CNOOC, Total-Elf-Fina, BP will take them out of existence.
When I worked for Arco International Oil and Gas Company (100% American Company), there was an active Iran exploration group, waiting in the wings for action.
All this Iran rhetoric is not all that it seems – never was.
“Chinese are feeling about it. If anyone has discussion with Chinese-Americans about this, please post it here, I would love to hear.”
I have many times – most of them hate the communist system but they are very dedicated to Chinese “proper” place in the world, culturally and politically. Most of my friends are in oil patch. Even the Taiwanese.
Iran is the top supplier of oil and gas to China – there is nothing relative about it.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2004-10/30/content_2157826.htm
I have a bunch of Iranian friends. I was out drinking with one and some white friends on Friday. When he was talking to them, the debate drifted onto nukes and terrorism and so forth. They were rather accusatory and seemed to assume that a nuclear power station would create a terrorist nuclear threat. It all got a bit ugly and bad-tempered.
But when he and I talk, we’re far more friendly. He insists the Mughals were the best thing that happened to India and I demand the Peacock Throne back.
Who says the Indian relationship with Iran should be determined by anyone other than India and Iran?
Goodnight fellas.
If explained and described without tribal or religious fervor or very narrow definition of patriotism, I think we cAN agree on the axioms. But since the conditions are too many and tough, finally what is moral for one man may not be moral to another man.
I hope I made sense in the above statement. 🙂
Because Iran is a terrorist state led by a theocracy. The “people” would not be in charge of the nuclear program like they are in a democracy. All possible means should be persued to prevent them from having the ability to produce Nuclear weapons. Nobody beleives that autocratic countries only develop nuclear technologies for peaceful use. I’ve seen the latest unclassified intelligence reports. I know that according to Mossad and CIA they are several years away. But I also know there is very little HumInt on Iran. Nobody knows for sure. Nuclear weapons in the hands of Democracies such as the U.S., U.K., and India is bad enough. A nuclear weapon in the hands of a theocracy or autocracy (like NK) is just asking for trouble. I’m certainly not advocating a military solution but applying (even hardline)diplomatic and economic pressure seems wise in my opinion.
Identity politics is tricky and historically has revolved around the marginalization of a particular community. Native Americans, African Americans, and Women have a significant history of being abused, marginalized, and oppressed. As a response, organizations representing their grievances and issues sprung up from a grass roots level.
Abhi, when folks from the subcontinent start to flex their muscles on more American centric domestic agenda, they’ll cease to have the ‘glue’ that holds organizations that are based around an identity, in this case South Asian. You’ll see Indian Americans particpate in mainstream and join those ranks, rather than rallying around an Indian American Political Action organization.
We don’t have the historical ‘baggage’, so to speak, to have that common identity forged into the psyche of naturalized citizens or first, second, third, etc. generation immigrants. Such PACs will remain small, focused on very specific topics, and won’t be mainstream such as a NAACP. Instead you’ll see a Swaminarayan temple effect, where competing organizations with their own nuanced agendas sprout. The factors stand against such a union: Relatively small population, as a minority we’ve had it good so far, diverse backgrounds within the subcontinent.
Taking yourself as an example, the issues you’ve stated are things that many other Americans, regardless of their skin color OR native country have a stake in. It’s an American issue. An example you stated:
You are making a sweeping assumption based upon a community and environment that you’ve been raised in. Sure Indian parents that you know, like their kids going the best schools, but do you know any people that didn’t go to the best schools, or got decent educations, or even cared to do such. I know far too many. We aren’t the academically focused (or active) superminorty many would like us to believe. There is a significant population of such folks (throwing out a number, say 50-50), but not enough to move the proverbial chains another 10 yards. This strong academic contingent has been visible, successful, and therefore much more well recognized.
I’ll offer up my own family as an example (although on a micro level) to debate this.
My immediate family (parents,sister) fall squarely in the group you quote. I consider myself a strong moderate and frankly find intelligent design an abomination attacking the very fundamentals of scientific method and education. My parents got here in the 70’s, my father was educated as an engineer…
My extended family got here in the late 80’s. They weren’t as well educated as my father was, their children (my cousins) aren’t the prototypical desi academic type. It’s a mixed crowd spanning the spectrum from shitty grade types to good ones. They weren’t particularly involved from a PTA level, my parents always were. If you’d ask a desi uncle, particularly the crowd that came in the 80s and 90s, a strong sprinkling of labor business types (7-11, Motel, stores, etc.)you’ll find that many really don’t care. There is also a strong underclass of service industry workers that don’t even have the luxury of paying attention to such issues(cabbies, food stand guys, illegal folks etc.)
My Aunt is an active member of the PTA at the local state ranked highschool/elementry/junior highschool, in the city you quoted: Fremont, CA. You know what her number one complaint is? No other Indian parents are really involved in the PTA, despite the significant population. Actually, not too many Asian parents (East Asians and South Asians). Most of the folks driving the agenda are traditionally whites and even latinos (who actually want more active involvement from Asians). The complaints in the grapevine are essentialy based around that the families only care about grades, not necessarily what material is really being investigated. Pump the kids in, get great grades, and move on the next step to college. Bottom line – this is an apathetic community that really doesn’t have issues staring it in the face as a south asian collective. Hell, there are even people in the bay that want competing India Day parades because they can’t get along.
The south asian community spans the spectrum culturally, socially, and economically. As such, we are actually a slice of Americana on every level. Your ideal of a pan-desi community flexing it’s muscles, albeit a rich idea, is flawed. Your assumptions and conclusions only affect portion of this community. We aren’t a major muscle group and most likely will never be in this country. I honestly believe we’ll never have our version of the NAACP pushing an agenda that this America centric sprinked with south asian interests.
Anyone with more information how these things work in Great Britain? I’d really be interested. The historical dynamics are definitely different (atleast on paper).
My apologies for an overly verbose response.
What the hell are you talking about? What “invective?” Why don’t you actually read and respond to the arguments instead of making empty “people like…” arguments.
Not in every instance. The U.S. has to engage the young people of Iran if they want them to eventually come to power. They can do this through business ventures. A non-military, non-nuclear engagement with Iran by any country (including India) is welcome and may eventually lead to the spread of democratic principles.
dude what is going to happen from what you all say here?
seriously you act like you’re deciding the fate of the world
the posts i like are ones with facts i didn’t know, like Kush’s. everything else is crap.
save it for when you run for election as president of the world
I have no illusions about a “pan-desi” community. Not for several generations at the very least. I am just hoping for a more cohesive Indian-American community that rallies around issues more significant to Indian-Americans than “Pakistan sucks,” and Indian Nationalism.
“A non-military, non-nuclear engagement with Iran by any country (including India) is welcome and may eventually lead to the spread of democratic principles. “
What I have read is Lantos crowd (some of the Deanics) are upset about Iran-India-Pakistan gas line deal. That is a non-military, non-nuclear engagement – wouldn’t you agree.
I read Condi Rice-Natwar Singh exchange very carefully. I thought Natwar Singh made his case very eloquently.
Abhi, My family and friends joke how “un-Indian”, I am. However, I know that something that matters most to India is “energy needs for growth and survival”, everything else is just a side show (fashion designers, food, philosophical discussion about religion, etc). I will stand up for that no matter.
Why don’t you please research more about India’s energy needs and oil politics?
Yes I would agree (if it is true). I don’t agree with that thinking. Just because I’m a Democrat doesn’t mean I agree with everything Democrats say. Just because I am an American doesn’t mean I agree with everything America does. In general I think the entire world’s energy policy sucks.
I am no fan of Iranian Mullahs, but its not Iran who has invaded another sovereign country in the last 50 years. I cant say that for the democracy (where people are supposed to be in power) of America.
Also I am no fan of Iran’s foreign policy towards India.
Why? I know all about India’s energy needs. My question is an academic one. Why should I care. I am an American. Shouldn’t America’s energy needs be my prime concern and yours since you live here? The point of this post is that a group that represents me should not care about India’s energy policy it should care about my country’s energy policy.
What are some of the issues that a generic immigrant group couldn’t address to cover Indian-Americans?? One of them, if the only, would be ‘India’. The fact is that India plays a big role in the life of an Indian American in a multitude of ways, and this role is only going to grow stronger with shorter trans-atlantic flights, dual citizenships, BPO, shining India, Aishwarya Rai, and the likes of it. You are soon going to have nomads. Yes, your view may not be always be pro-India, just like your borthers in the ole country towards the country of your choice. But for every such view there will be an organization on either side to bridge the gap….. For everything else, ya got MTV Desi 🙂
AbhiGujuDude wrote:“Your ideal of a pan-desi community flexing it’s muscles, albeit a rich idea, is flawed. Your assumptions and conclusions only affect portion of this community.”
As do your ideas of a “Brown”, “South-Asianist” block acting in its own enlightened self-interest. What a silly idea!
“Nationalists” (not all of whom are uncles–there are many second generation nationalists) have emotional, cultural and perhaps even pragmatic interests in seeing America’s relationship with India (not that quixotic, good-for-marketing-MTV desi ‘South Asian’ category) prosper.
They have more chance of cohesion than virtually any other group, except perhaps professional/trade groups, and some religious groups. They will persist.
“Why? I know all about India’s energy needs. My question is an academic one. Why should I care. I am an American”
Because, the stability (political, economic, and cultural) of India depends on continual growth. Say, hypothetically, India ran out of fuel – they will be mayhem, and armagadden – Mahabarta.
As an American, do you want India to splinter into chaos? For a stable democracy to survive and have some parity with China – India should be energy happy. Will USA want China be the unchallenged “champion” of the region? You know that were joint military exercise between China ad Russia last month. [This would my reasoning if a Washington wonk aksed me – Maybe, you should introduce me to some Washington wonks (oops!! babes)]
God, I didn’t do any work today, and did not even go to karate. Weren’t you in Delhi (I have read you CV), you should know have how energy-starved/ energy-struggling India is?
PS: Maybe, Indian-Americans should market India as a counter-weight to China.
Exactly dude, let the Indians take care of their own sh**. If they gotta build some gawd damn pipeline let em do it. It ain’t any of my biznes.
Because Iran is a terrorist state led by a theocracy. The “people” would not be in charge of the nuclear program like they are in a democracy.
Yes Iran funds some terrorist groups, but then so does America and has done for a while.
Also, just because there is a democracy doesn’t mean there is more accountability and better information.
The UK was pulled into war with Iraq on false intelligence and consistently against the will of the people. Your assumption is that the Iranian govt can justify a nuclear attack on innocent people (presumably using Islam as a card) whereas the US can’t. I call that Hogwash.
The US and UK have both mis-lead their people and yet gotten away with it. Both have killed innocent people and gotten away with it. I’m not saying Iran is better, but you seem to be making out the USA is some lovely nice country that should be judged on a different level to Iran. I don’t share that view.
I’ll compare them equally thanks, and still say Iran has a right to carry on with its program. I might not like it, but its their freedom. And any mis-guided idea of attacking Iran would just be plain stupidity (again).
Karate? dude, are you trying to subvertly intimidate Abhi here 🙂
I was on my college’s boxing team so I doubt it 🙂
Sunny, this is off the liberal deep end. How can you compare the U.S. to Iran?
Yes. Yes it does.
No way. I’d be foolish to think Iran would attack anyone with a nuclear weapon. That would be the end of Iran. What if, Iran lost one of its weapons though. You know? They left the back door open and a weapon was just gone.
I’m not going to take that bait. Several people in this tread seem to want me to. I am an outspoken critic of the Bush Admin. That being said there can be no comparison between human rights in the U.S. and human rights in Iran. None.
I’m not sure who has advocated attacking Iran??
.
On a wish list level, all I can say is “Ditto”.
Part of what I’m hypothesizing is that without a signifcant event/issue that rattles or threatens the South Asian community, even several generations down the stream, most of the issues facing us will the same facing most Americans, especially as the United States continues down its path of increasing diversity. As such, most will choose to act as Americans rather than a united brown front.
We’ll fight these issues, just as a part of a more diverse and stronger coalition of people attacking the issue itself, regardless of background.
To be honest, very few ideas come to mind that would trigger a cohesive subcontinental group to take united action on a consistent basis. Jews rally around the survival of Israel, African Americans and Native Americans have deep issues particulary when it comes to acceptance, generating wealth, and opportunity. What do we have to rally around, as South Asians Americans, not just Americans?
“How can you compare the US to Iran?”
Abhi: this confuses two separate issues; i.e. just because the US is WAAAAAY better than Iran domestically, it does not follow that the two cannot be compared in the international sphere. In the last 50 years (taking Iran alone as an example)the US had deposed a democratically elected Mossadegh and had him replaced by an absolute monarch (for decades denying involvement until the 1990s the evidence became too much for serious people to deny); the US continued weapons shipments to Pakistan in the midst of the genocide in Bangladesh/East Pakistan, and the Nixon administration claimed that anyone who used terms like “mass killings,” etc. was really pro-Soviet; I’m sure we all are aware of the US’s rather shameful track record in Latin America; and finally the US sided with Iraq as opposed to Iran during the Iran-Iraq war (take your pick; personally I think the Islamists in Iran have more of a claim to being democratic than the Baathists ever did).
The point is: it is no answer to say something is “off the liberal deep end”; Iran has a shitty foreign policy of exporting its revolution wherever it can. But the US (ostensibly less shitty) foreign policy, when combined with its vastly greater resources, means that the US possesses great power to do harm. And since 1945, in the so-called third world, it has more often than not been on the side of brutal dictators who can “deliver” (Mushie is the latest in a long line of favored autocrats). And more than just on their side: it has actively intervened, from Mossadegh in 1953 to air strikes on Iran in the 1980s, to a whole host of Latin American military men. What is “off the liberal deep end” about having a longer view?
this is pathetic. what sort of godforsaken thread has abhi as the militaristic-jingoist??? i recent saw a documentary where a german school-girl makes a comparison between the holocaust and the vietnam war (ie; yeah, germans killed 6 million jews, but look what you did to vietnam!). is this the norm the world over?
in a thread where the center of gravity seems to agree that america is equivalent to iran there really isn’t much to add…except that i wonder how long the lines are at iranian embassies the world over to emigrate to that land….
No one. Everyone who has claimed the US was about to, or thinking of doing so, is simply paranoid. Even the neocons recognize that Iran can’t be dealt with a military solution. Especially in the current predicament.
What the Iranians have proven to be is excellent negotiators. You get what you negotiate for, and they know if they push hard they’ll get a sweet deal. Europeans don’t have the backone and our hands are full.
Wait until I tell all my Republican friends 🙂
Lol, no I think Abhi’s intentions are good, I’m just playing devil’s advocate.
He says: You know? They left the back door open and a weapon was just gone.
Dude – that has been happening with Russia for years now, and the American govt still hasn’t woken up to it fully. If that really is the principle concern of the US govt or yours, then sadly you’re worried about the wrong country.
Iran has none or very little nukes to lose. Russia has 1000s.
But…aahh… yes it’s a democracy.
😐
That’s not really a fair comparison. The U.S. doesn’t have the leverage to do anything about Russia except offer them enticements so that they will police themselves better. America knows what is going on there they just can’t do anything about it. That’s the messed up reality. The world is messed up. You try and solve the problems that you can while you are still alive and pray that the rest work out. 🙁
UM,
i grant that the USA has been involved in some nasty events. i’m sure abhi would too. but what would you have us do? withdraw back into fortress amerika? it is a nasty world out there and i can’t see the feasability of a morally guided (as opposed to influenced) international policy, there is a reason that sweden can stand on its high horse* about its clean hands, it hasn’t done jack-shit in foreign policy since the napoleonic wars!
was the world better when the united states withdrew from the old world between WW I and WW II??? was the world better when we generally stayed out of old world events prior to WW I???
power corrupts all too truly. i for one would be glad if a coalition of european gov. offered to take american arms and become guardians of the UN and global justice for all. this whore is worn out, let the spinsters who criticize her step up and service the town drunks and see if they can keep their virtue.
i don’t make excuses for the way america has behaved, the topics are all too complicated for me even to get a grip on what has occurred (one reason i am skeptical of saying america acted in its “interests” is that i’m skeptical diplomats and leaders understand the present well enough usually make rational decisions). but i deny the utility of gross generalizations like BB has made that our foreign policy is “selfish” or driven by “fear.” such simple reductions are no different to me than the mindless “my country, right or wrong” formulae. howz that for equivalence???
Bong Breaker! Long time no see.Kush Tandon does karate? Sweet. As Razib says, this is rapidly turning into a god-forsaken thread, unlike all our other deeply pious ones. 😀
I’m going to ignore the details of the whole Iran-Nuclear thing, b/c I’m still more interested in the principle of the thing. There is one small aspect of the particular issue that does seem relevant:
So I’m more than willing to criticize India’s policies on this or that, both from a “what’s-best-for-India” pov and from a “what’s-best-for-America” pov. The quibble I have with Lantos is exactly as stated above–not his point, but his tone. It was disrespectful. This bothers me. Irrationally? Perhaps. But also rationally–I think it’s Manish who has pretty thoroughly articulated some of the motivations a SouthAsianAmerican community has to promote SouthAsianProsperity and appropriate respect for the various homelands.
Rationally, there are other considerations as well. According to Razib only about 40% of the Indian-American population is American born. While some significant portion of the other 60% may very well have become American citizens, I doubt they’ve cut all their emotional ties with India. (I’m sure my analysis extends equally well to other parts of South Asia, but I’m sticking with what I know and with what’s immediately at hand.) We’re an extremely mixed group. I know plenty of families where one parent is a citizen and the other is not, and the new sons and daughters-in-law may be a mix of born in in India and other ethnicities of American. I know families where one or more of the adults goes back to India for months at a time every freakin’ year, but the kids get homesick for the states after two weeks. Blood, love, culture and religion are all very thick things and they tie =Americans–Americans like me, who will sass out any one who questions our Americanness with a “I’m just as American as anyone”–to wanting India to enjoy peace and prosperity. Denying this is unrealistic. Personally, I think it’s a good thing. I think America is stronger when the various ethnic groups that combine to make it what it is maintain strong ties with the rest of the world, and are able to articulate their ancestral land’s interests in the language of their homeland. Ties like culture and trade are a poor insurance against war and the “law of the jungle” taking over, but they are some insurance.
But everbody has to negotiate their interests and their stakes and their ties for themselves. Personally, I’m much more interested in and engaged with American politics and an American spin on global politics than a lot of the other commenters here. That’s probably pretty obvious from my blog. That’s just where I choose to sit. Ain’t nothing wrong with sitting somewhere else, though. If we need a count of who sits where and who is willing to participate in what, well, that’s what surveys and polls and ballots and participation is for.
Back to Abhi-when-he’s-not-bragging-about-boxing:
and Razib said,
the list was pretty vanilla, i didn’t see anything that was distinctively indian.
Yep, pretty much. Except possibly for racial profiling and fighting the persecution of “idol-worshippers” I can’t think of much that’s very specifically Indian.
Which isn’t very surprising to me at all. Reflexively organizing your politics around your ethnicity always struck me as somewhat inefficient.
So what’s the point of these community groups? Well, I’d argue, not as much point as some people would have–but a still a very important thing to do.
Here’s why:
Let us take a totally different special interest group. The mermbers of this special interest group are Neil Gaiman Blog Groupies. I am one such. Now this group has a pretty specific set of interests. Sandman. Devils. Rondels and Vilanelles. Satanic tomatoes. Graphical arts. Etc. There are a few politcal causes that this group specifially champions–a very few. Specifically, The Comic Book Legal Defense Fund.
But does that prevent Mr. Gaiman from passing the cup every now and then, when say, a Tsunami strikes ( a part of the world where he very likeley has fewer readers than other parts?) Or a hurricane strikes? Or someone’s house burns down? No! It does not. Why doesn’t it? Because he has a built a community. This community is tied together over fun stuff. Goofy stuff. Not particularly important stuff. But tied together it is! And one of the things community is good for is to get people off their asses and out there doing good works. Those good works do not need to be directly tied to the group identity of the group in question for the group to use its group identity to mobilize action where otherwise none would be had. It’s like, why do people go to fundraising parties? Why do people do AIDS runs? Why do people have pledge drives? They could just send the check in and then have their own party. But they’re two great things that go great together. We are social creatures. We like to do stuff with social groups. The more you can inspire any given group–readers, environmentalists, scientists, musicians, artists, Indians, people-who-live-in-Fremont, runners, rock-and-roll-enthusiasts–to combine their chosen schtick with poltics or charity, the more likely you are to get them involved.
And Manish–wail!–allyour nifty firefox buttons are gone again. Just when I was getting used to them! :*-(
Razib: for the record, I was NOT suggesting America withdraw from the world, what I was questioning was Abhi’s reflexive reaction that any comparison of Iran and the USA was crazy. And just to be clear, my argument is not as to which country treats its citizens better– the relative lines outside the two countries’ embassies speak eloquently enough. But in the context of foreign policy, even if one takes the position that America has no responsible choice but to engage with the world, that does not justify one taking the proposition as a “given” that Iran is not fit to be mentioned in the same breath as the US. A sober hard-headed analysis would show that Iran’s Islamic Revolution has grave limits– including those being put forward by the Iranian people (especially the young) every day. The US’ ideology is far more to my liking, but it has been a greater source of instability in the “third world” for the last fifty years than Iran, because outside of Iran’s own region, it’s voice is non-existent. This is not about which country we’d rather live in, but which country has the greater potential to harm other countries in the world. The answer is not a done deal, but I was reacting against a (what seemed to me like a) knee-jerk reaction (sorry Abhi) that seems to see the question itself as illegitimate. That reflects a deference to privilege I am unwilling to extend.
On a different note: I won’t respond to notions of “selfish” foreign policies because I am not sure how to comprehend such notions (in the sense that it’s not fair to single the US out for its selfishness, as it is no more or less selfish than countries like France, India, China, Nigeria, etc.)
saheli,
great comment! btw, i always thought you were a dude (there are a lot of brownish names that i can’t figure gender from, it isn’t like there are many ramina’s and muhammedina’s around).
when i first started checking out this blog it was with a little trepidation, cuz i was worried that browns were following the jewish model in terms of politics and a-people-apart. but pretty soon i got less and less scared, because it seems pretty clear that that isn’t ever going to happen, we just aren’t as cohesive as jews, because well, we aren’t really a people apart, we are peoples apart (more or less, as i have noted before, there is data out there that indicates that browns born here in the USofA have intermarriage rates that it too until the 1970s for jews to reach). i once stated that the model for brown people i would like to see develop as an identity-focused community would be more like italians or swedes, that is, focused on cultural ties that bind, rather than politically oriented, with a somewhat adversarial attitude toward the mainstream (like blacks and jews). reading SM has me convinced that the former is going to be the model that’ll emerge, the “push” factors from mainstream society aren’t what they were in the past for the latter two groups, and the “brown” group is too diverse to begin with to move forward as a cohesive group aside from a few core issues (religious liberty, profiling, etc.).
education attainment of foreign born by country (source):
india less than 9th 4.9% 9th-12th 6.9% hs 8.3% some college 7.2% associate 3.5% college 31.1% graduate/professional 38.0%
bangladesh less than 9th 8.7% 9th-12th 13.2% hs 15.9% some college 10.2% associate 5.6% college 25.1% graduate/professional 21.5%
pakistan less than 9th 7.0% 9th-12th 10.9% hs 15.3% some college 10.0% associate 5.5% college 28.5% graduate/professional 22.8%
sri lanka less than 9th 2.3% 9th-12th 10.7% hs 15.4% some college 13.2% associate 7.4% college 22.3% graduate/professional 28.8%
That educational attainment table is quite interesting; I wouldn’t have thought there’d be such a big gap between the Indian and SL figures, given that SL’s literacy rate is, I believe, higher…
Saheli,
For last 5 years, I go every year. The best part most of the time, I do not pay for my ticket or any expenses. For this year, I am still looking for a sucker – funding agency. I get a real high from the heat and dust. About 2-3 dozen people have told me that I look fresher and younger since I started doing India high.
It is a personal thing – I learned it from some of the European American friends I had in graduate school, especially first generation ones. I know two 8-9th generation, Scottish/ Irish Americans, who go Scotland and Ireland to find their clan castles and their ancestors. That is why I was bringing up Irish Americans – for cultural/ emotional attachment.
It all boils down to finances. This is the smartest decision I have made, like India has for the gas line deal.
I read this somewhere but it is very important;
America treats its citizens of different enthicities, the way they perceive their country of origin. An Anglo-American, Sweede-American were/ is treated very highly because their “mother country” is held in high esteem by Amserica as a whole. One of the reasons, Italian-Americans and Irish-Americans were treated shabily because they were poor countries a while ago. Let’s us introspect, how Americans have changed their behavior toward South Asians, since India has started merging as an economic heavy weight. Every one can vouch for that.
Therefore, for selfish/ randian reasons, South Asian-Americans should help South Asia prosper – have gas pipleines – so that they become astronauts and CEOs more easily. Selfishness, pure and simple.
Case in point, how African-Americans are treated different than African-Americans of South African origin. All South Africans I know in America are treated like gods for their confidence – I am not kidding. PPS: I have no ambitions of becoming a CEO or an astronaut. I am trying to speak a language that an American will always understand.
Kush: hey, I wasn’t meaning to make fun, just sayin’ how it is. I would probably go to India every year if I could afford to. 🙂 Pass me some of those suckers when you’re done with ’em. 🙂
Razib,
/Saheli wails.
/Saheli stops wailing and sniffles.
I guess that’s what I get for having a Hindi name, which means, cough cough, female friend. My fellow Bengali still thinks I’m a dude.
And of course this means Razib never felt the need to visit my blog before. My genomics-fangirl ego is crushed. :-p
You’re not the only one who thinks I’m a dude. Ah well. I’ll just have to write the great American novel.
Yes:
What decades of cultural education and activism by Indians could not correct, economic power has righted in a fraction of the time. Anything that South Asian Americans do to aid our home countries economically has a direct, beneficial effect on how we are treated in the U.S… To the extent that South Asia is viewed with respect, so are South Asians.
And of course this means Razib never felt the need to visit my blog before. My genomics-fangirl ego is crushed. :-p
i did visit your blog before. but i didn’t connect that the saheli at delong’s blog was the saheli at SM. btw, does chris mooney have a deep voice?
Manish,
That is a great write-up. At least we agree on few things (another being that the hottest female scientists are 1st gens or phoreners). Too bad – we do not agree on Peter Sellers and Rudyard Kipling.
I have been here for more two decades in two instances (childhood and adult) – I have seen a dramatic difference in perception of South Asian origins in America in last 2-3 years. Never before, such thing like that. The other day, a coed wanted me to do research on she could coach 1-800-Indians in American culture in India. She was serious.
Kush
An Anglo-American, Sweede-American were/ is treated very highly because their “mother country” is held in high esteem by Amserica as a whole. One of the reasons, Italian-Americans and Irish-Americans were treated shabily because they were poor countries a while ago.
kush, this is perhaps one component of variation, but
1) much of scandinavia was relatively poor until the 20th century. i have read that in much of scandinavia half of the people born in the 19th century emigrated overseas, usually to america.
2) the irish a special case, because the irish catholic and irish protestants brought their fights to the new world and the local anglo-saxon protestant elites had contempt for irish roman catholicism. similarly, there was contempt for italian roman catholicism. additionally, the skillset that the italians and irish brought to the new world was probably a bit lower than some of the english groups (same as the scotch-irish, but lower than the quakers or puritans).
3) cultural distance in absolute terms matters. catholic germans were a positive menace in the late 19th century (when germany was rich by the way!), and distrusted even by the irish (english speaking) roman catholic church heirarchy because of their intention to preserve their language. my reading does not suggest that lutheran germans had as intense of a problem aside from the extremely conservative missouri-synod group.
4) which power comes fear. the distrust of german americans up through world war I was in part because of the rise of the german nation as a world power. many german americans changed their names during world war I and the german language schools all closed.
Therefore, for selfish/ randian reasons, South Asian-Americans should help South Asia prosper – have gas pipleines – so that they become astronauts and CEOs more easily. Selfishness, pure and simple.
you know, i don’t give a shit about other countries, but i don’t really care about south asian prospering to help america or me out, we’re fat and happy as it is, let south asia prosper so the people aren’t so destitute. three cheers for the future!
razib,
yes, they did, so did Lord Mountbatten’s father had to do. However, this all was a white wash/ window dressing or just being with the right team. I do agree a lot had to do catholic-protestant under-pinnings. Like Salma Hayek (this tells you who I pay attention to) said: “Only thing America worships is Green“. Notre Dame U. priests love their bible but dollar (funding) more.
They were not sent to internment camps like Japanese-Americans.
Henry Ford, Charles Lindenburgh – maybe, a slap on the wrist.
I strongly believe that Americans carry their percetptions of one’s country of origin even if you are 8-9th generation.