With eerily apposite timing, Gallup released the results of a new poll on anti-Muslim sentiment in the US on Thursday, the same day that the British government announced that they had foiled a new home grown plot. Most news reports on this poll emphasized that 40% of Americans admitted prejudice against Muslims but that this prejudice was less amongst the 40% Americans who personally knew a Muslim. This is a positive, almost pollyanish spin on the data, one that emphasizes the precepts of the “contact hypothesis” [an argument that prejudice is rooted in a lack of daily interaction between two groups].
Other portions of this survey, however, are far more troubling. Remember that this poll was taken before the latest plot was exposed. [Both the graphics presented below are from the Gallup Organization’s own press release. To gain access, you just have to watch a brief ad.]
Americans are deeply suspicious of Muslim loyalties, with only half seeing Muslims as loyal to America, and a third seeing them as sympathetic to Al-Qaeda! This means that a sizable minority of Americans see all Muslims as a fifth column of subversion.
Given that one of the objectives that led to 9/11 was Al-Qaeda’s desire to prompt a Clash of Civilizations between the West and Islam, is this evidence that the terrorists are winning?
I’m much more willing to accept a “Brian Patel” or “Greg Bhatia” than I am “Rajiv Patel” or “Sathish Singh” as 100% American
Well, whether you agree or not he has a point no? Chinese ppl invariably anglicize, like 90% I would guess. And names like, eg. “Razib” just reek of the rice paddies of Bengal 🙂 Why are “brownz” resisting this?
Pragmatically, many people do Anglicize – eg. Vikram becomes Vik, Naresh becomes Nick. And lots of brownz who do that are thought of as sell-outs by the greature brownitude.
That’s kind of Soviet, isn’t it? Instead of engaging people who disagree with you, attempting to persuade, etc., you threaten.
americans believe in private property. soviets muffled public discourse through government fiat. you shouldn’t try to dictate if you are guest, but i don’t expect that that will be a matter of choice soon anyhow.
Siddhartha writes:
“that, my friend, is your problem and not ours.”
I don’t know whose problem it is, but why is it unreasonable for a host country to expects that its immigrants — or at least its immugrants’ kids — will give their kids first names of the host country?
Kush Tandon writes:
“Are Barack Obama, Karim Abdul Jabbar, Muhammed Ali, Shaquille O’Neal American names?”
They certainly are not, any more that “Chuck” and “Steve” are Indian names. Barack is a Kenyan name, since his father is from Kenya. Kareem-Abdul and Muhammad are, as I suspect you know, Muslim names. I don’t know what the hell “Shaquille” is. None of them are American names, any more than “Mehmet” is a German name, even though I’m sure you can find Turkish kids born in Germany named Mehmet.
Yes, by “American” names I mean Christian, Westernized, English names. But you knew that.
Interesting about the East Asian tones, Razib, but I think there’s a hole in the theory: Japanese names are easy for Americans to pronounce, but anecdotally I don’t see Japanese immigrants giving their kids American first names less frequently than Chinese-American. I think it has to do with something more pro-assimilationist in East Asian-American immigrants than in South Asian. But maybe there’s a counterpoint I’m not aware of.
Yes, by “American” names I mean Christian, Westernized, English names. But you knew that.
popular male baby names now
1 Jacob – hebrew 2 Michael – hebrew 3 Joshua – hebrew 4 Matthew – hebrew 5 Ethan – hebrew 6 Andrew – greek 7 Daniel – hebrew 8 Anthony – latin 9 Christopher – greek 10 Joseph – hebrew
in other words, there are no names in the top 10 of germanic origin. like william.
correction: anthony might originally be etruscan. the point is that names are not fundamentally associated with a particular culture. the % of names like ezekial or abraham in the early republic would seem “foreign” to a modern american.
Razib —
I’m not “dictating,” I’m asking not to be banned. Sure it’s SM Intern’s prerogative, but I still think her phrasing was a little USSR-ish (state X or we will not listen to you!).
Risible writes:
“Pragmatically, many people do Anglicize – eg. Vikram becomes Vik, Naresh becomes Nick.”
Fair enough — I know lots of desi Jays — but why not go all the way and take/give an American first name?
“And lots of brownz who do that are thought of as sell-outs by the greature brownitude.”
This is my point, and I think this refutes Razib’s tonal idea. I can’t imagine Asian-American guys thinking that a “Mark Chang” is a sellout. Why do brownz?
I can’t imagine Asian-American guys thinking that a “Mark Chang” is a sellout.
bryant, my point is that they simply have no real option to have a tonal name and have people pronounce it correctly. east asians in east asia have alternative western names for business and what not because they know that westerners will never be able to say their name correctly. if you say the same name phonetically with a different tonal structure you change the name, or, worst, turn it into a different word (e.g., chinese people who westerners call “bathtub” because they do the “bathtub” tones for that sequence of consanants and vowels). i am not denying there is some truth to your point (east asians tend not be very attached to religion, and can switch more often, so they have no religious injunction to use a particular sort of name like jews or muslims), but really, there is a big difference in pronouncing a name like “amit” vs. an vs. however the hell you are supposed to pronounce “hsien” (whatever tone).
Razib writes:
“the point is that names are not fundamentally associated with a particular culture. the % of names like ezekial or abraham in the early republic would seem “foreign” to a modern american.”
Biblical names, while Hebrew in origin, are obviously part of the Christian, Western, Anglo tradition. I think your point is self-refuting — Biblical names are overwhelmingly popular today in America, and they were in Colonial times as well, as you point out. So how does that support that “the % of names like ezekial or abraham in the early republic would seem “foreign” to a modern american.”? There are fluctuations in which Biblical names are more popular now and then, but they’re all taken from the same tradition.
p.s. this is why japanese don’t do this, their language is not tonal, but flat and phonetic. the problem in that case is westerners tend to add accents to their names.
sure chief
Razib writes:
“they simply have no real option to have a tonal name and have people pronounce it correctly”
I hear your point, and it holds for Chinese names — but my counter was why then Japanese-American parents don’t give their kids Japanese names like “Taki” or “Toru” which are as easy to pronounce as “Amit” or “Neelu”. If it’s really a tonal thing, and not a regional cultural thing, then by your theory Japanese-American kids would be more likely to have Japanese names than Chinese-American kids are to have Chinese names, and I don’t think that’s the case. That’s why I think it’s mostly cultural.
There are fluctuations in which Biblical names are more popular now and then, but they’re all taken from the same tradition.
traditions are not closed. cultures are probability distributions of ideas and dispositions. whatever general truths you have, your specifics are problematic because you are projecting the idea of america as a platonic ideal, a set of axiomatic propositions. to some extent there are a few core propositions (adherence to the constitution), but in general it has evolved organically. until this century there was a fundamentally assumption (at least after 1840 when the irish immigrants showed up and “de-americanized” the church) that one could not truly be a full american unless one was protestant. by the 1950s a catholic-protestant-jew consensus developed. fixing on specific elements, aside from essentials like life, liberty, etc. (e.g., “your name isn’t david!”) seems infantile. of course, most humans aren’t too bright and such things are important, but in an intellectual conversation fixating on emotional impulses seems a little wrongheaded.
That’s why I think it’s mostly cultural.
i agree that that is the reason for why south asians “keep their names.” but, i wanted to make clear that the analogy is not as clear cut as you seem to think it is. i think the main reason is “religious” (i don’t know what hindu conventions about naming is). e.g., christian south asians often have “western names,” as one of the bloggers here. but the thing is, they consider “western” names as part of their culture (christianity has been in south india longer than in england).
I don’t know whose problem it is, but why is it unreasonable for a host country to expects that its immigrants — or at least its immugrants’ kids — will give their kids first names of the host country?
By that token, one should only name kids in Amreeka, like Abey, Adriel, Anoki, Onida – these are Native America names, the orginal owners of this country, and every sunsequently should have followed that.
I think manifest destiny is getting into your head, and even names are not out of bound.
re: the religion thing. east asians tend to secular, them most secular of american groups. so i think that explains why on many cultural issues they are pretty pragmatic. do as the romans do, because they don’t have many divine commandments to follow. i think the reason that south asians retain non-anglicized names is why some jews do: there are religious assoications. there is an element of ghettoization, but, i think there is also an element of fundamental piety (e.g., the calvinists of new englands used old testament names in part because they perceived themselves to be latter day hebrews).
Razib,
Are you saying Japanese immigrants to the US give their kids Japanese names more often than Chinese immigrants to the US give their kids Chinese names? I’ve never observed that, but if it’s true it validates your idea.
In case a lot of you didn’t notice there is this guy named eteraz (comment#78) he is extremely vocal and against the fanatic muslims. Visit his blog and you will see a long series of posts on issues like that. I think we all should encorouge reformists like him. But don’t you dare call him moderate 🙂
Are you saying Japanese immigrants to the US give their kids Japanese names more often than Chinese immigrants to the US give their kids Chinese names? I’ve never observed that, but if it’s true it validates your idea.
no. (one might note that the japanese immigrants to the USA in the early 20th century were encouraged by their government to convert to the religions of new countries and take up their names because they were excess peasants that japan was glad to get rid of)
Razib writes:
“i agree that that is the reason for why south asians “keep their names.” but, i wanted to make clear that the analogy is not as clear cut as you seem to think it is.”
No, I agree with you, I don’t think it’s 100% clear-cut.
“traditions are not closed. cultures are probability distributions of ideas and dispositions. whatever general truths you have, your specifics are problematic because you are projecting the idea of america as a platonic ideal, a set of axiomatic propositions.”
Not really — I’m all for the expanding definition of America. It seems that what we’re really debating is the speed and extent of the expansion. “Muhammad” is not an American first name and never will be; the name “Antonin” isn’t American, it’s Italian, and a US Supreme Court Justice having that 1st name doesn’t change that.
All the Polish, Italian, etc. immigrants shed their ethnic first names, the Pawels and Paolos becoming Pauls. So while America culture isn’t hermetically sealed, it’s not nearly as porous as some on this board seem to think/desire, for understandable but ultimatley untenable ethnic reasons. Like Antonin, Rajiv will never be an American first name.
I disagree with your views. But that’s neither here nor there: it happens to be true of several people on this list. I welcome that.
More to the point, your views are dangerously intolerant of diversity. You’re one teeny tiny step away from saying that only white Christians should be in America, and the others can go hop off a cliff. You’re welcome to hate yourself, of course. But don’t make it normative for others.
Thanks for describing the America you’d like to live in. You’ll be alone in that fantasy world.
I’ll go on record as saying I hope you get banned. It’s not up to me, of course. But that’s my hope. Your discourse is indeed (and I quote you) “crude, obnoxious and disrespectful.” In one stroke, you insult both naming traditions and citizenship, two things that people take very seriously indeed. How you came to adulthood without understanding this is a total mystery. Perhaps you do understand.
I predict you will get banned. I know people like you: you’ll get more and more provocative until someone satisfies your martyrdom complex. And they will. And in a day or two, we’ll forget you.
My 2 American cents.
bryant,
where can i find the Book of American Names? speak with the voice of a priori, so i want to see an explication of the axioms/premises somewhere.
Re: Bryant…wow, crackers these days don’t have anything better to do than fixate on desi first names? What a loser.
Heh heh.
I trust Rajni the Monkey, blissed out on banana liquor, has done the necessary.
[hiccup]… the needful only! [brrrp]
Razib (#100):
The retention of the white anglo majority? That’s wonderful.
aww.. man… i was just going to change my name … hmmm Chad Chopra … there’s a nice ring to it…
i love you rajni. are you single? is it true you look like linda bonham carter in POTA.
helena… helena… my amore makes my mind slip
“but I definitely believe the U.S should retain its white majority in order to retain its envy-of-the-world culture”
Bryant,
People from every race, color, religion help retain America its “envy of the world culture” and not just white people. Forget us south asians, every other community out their would find that offensive and racist. Also, i don’t know why you are worried about Asians so much, the major chunk of the immigrant population comes from down south.
Sorry for dropping the discussion all, but I was banned by the moderator. I’m on a friend’s computer now. Sure this ISP will get banned too, so this’ll be my last post here.
Mr Kobayashi writes:
“More to the point, your views are dangerously intolerant of diversity.”
Historically, diversity leads to racial conflict that often ends in war. Ethnic/racial/religious diversity is an incredibly stupid thing for a country to strive for; see the USSR, see Yugoslavia, see India being partitioned into three countries in the first three decades of its existence. Diversity doesn’t work. It just doesn’t. I’m intolerant of policies that lead to the unnecessary dissolution of my country, so I’m intolerant of diversity. I also find you dangerously intolerant of assimilation and sane immigration practices.
Mr. Kobayashi writes:
” (quoting Bryant) ‘Rajiv will never be an American first name.’ Thanks for describing the America you’d like to live in.”
Thanks for snipping my quote out of context. I said:
“All the Polish, Italian, etc. immigrants shed their ethnic first names, the Pawels and Paolos becoming Pauls. So while America culture isn’t hermetically sealed, it’s not nearly as porous as some on this board seem to think/desire, for understandable but ultimatley untenable ethnic reasons. Like Antonin, Rajiv will never be an American first name.”
…but you cut out the three European first names that I said are not American names (Pawel, Paolo, Antonin) and kept only the Indian one (Rajiv). That’s just blatant intellectual dishonesty. Then you said
“You’re one teeny tiny step away from saying that only white Christians should be in America, and the others can go hop off a cliff.”
Since your surname is Kobayashi, I’d be curious to know your views on whether Japan should open itself up to mass Third World immigration. I suspect you’d be in line with 98%+ of Japanese and say “no way,” which would reveal the inconsistency of your views on the matter. Whites aren’t supposed to be able to retain their lands, but others are. That’s gotta change.
Razib writes:
“where can i find the Book of American Names?”
Come on, Razib. I know you’re familiar with the concept of fuzzy sets, and you’re way too smart to play dumb. We all know what an American name is, and it ain’t Rajiv, Pawel, Antonin, Muhammad, or Paolo. American culture can stretch, as you and I discussed above, but not that much.
Rejimon writes:
“Re: Bryant…wow, crackers these days don’t have anything better to do than fixate on desi first names? What a loser.”
Interesting who gets banned and who doesn’t. I’d almost call it racist.
Jatin writes:
“People from every race, color, religion help retain America its “envy of the world culture” and not just white people. Forget us south asians, every other community out their would find that offensive and racist.”
Then why aren’t people flocking from all over the world to immigrate to Mexico, or India, or Nigeria? No, they want to go to Europe, the U.S., Canada, Australia…noticing the pattern? The idea that all groups have contributed equally to America’s greatest-nation status is a P.C., everybody-feel-good, historically ignorant joke. We’ve only been open to immigration from other (non-European) parts of the world since the 1960s, and America already had its #1 post cemented long before then. People from around the world flocked to America because it was (and is) the world’s greatest society, they didn’t cause it once they got here. You’ve got the arrow of causation pointing in the opposite direction.
Have South and East Asians made valuable contributions to America in the past 40 years? Of course. But there’s a reason they came here instead of staying in India or Taiwan: because the society created by whites in the 350 years before that was the greatest society the world had ever seen, and it afforded them great opportunity. But don’t mistake Sabeer Bhatia for Thomas Jefferson.
And if we’re being honest, people don’t move to the U.S to be around Mexicans, African-Americans, or Native Americans. As soon as they can afford it, they move to white neighborhoods.
Finally Jatin, the fact that someone would find something “racist and offensive” doesn’t mean they’re correct on the issue. Besides, I find it racist and offensive that people wave Mexican flags in U.S. cities while marching for rights they don’t have. I find it racist and offensive that a South Asian can put up a site called “Sepia Mutiny” without getting branded a hate group by the SPLC, while a white person who put up an openly racial site would get their head torn off. I find it racist and offensive that every other group in this country can openly discuss their group’s interests, but when whites do so, they are labeled “racist”. I find the blatant double standards perpetuated on this site to be racist and offensive. So Jatin, if you want to see the racist, look in the mirror. You too, SM Intern. We’re all racists. It’s only whites who get called on it — for now.
very few Westerners actually want to live in South Asia, so desi “racism” doesn’t get tested much. When it is tested, as with Sonia Gandhi, it fails.
Much before South Asians became fond of living in the West, it was Westerners who came in droves to live in South Asia. Most loved it. They came to seek fortune. We are just returning the favor.
You are a damn fool to suggest Sonia was a victim of racism. Millions love her. Can you imagine a woman who is an ethnic and religious minority be one of the most powerful persons in America? Salute India for what it is – a really tolerant society.
But she was never prime minister, was she, Jilted? Why do you suppose that is?
Now that I’ve finished laughing my head off, I’d like to say something quickly to those of you who want to jump all over Bryant: we should encourage the native stupidity of those like him. Why? Because in thirty years, when the immigration flow and the drain of wealth shifts and goes from West to East, when America slowly becomes a backwater full of fat white diabetics unable to afford their medication, or find a job, people like him won’t know what hit them. And if the rest of us are smart, we’ll have gotten our dual citizenships, invested in property overseas and fondly remember the fools who, complacently believing in their innate supremacy, made it all the more possible.
Bryant, dear, keep thinking the way you do – and please spread the gospel.
Don’t feed the trolls.
This Bryant guy is a troll. The only people in America I have heard say surname are desi FOBs. Besides his knowledge of India and Indians in the US is quite revealing.
Dharma Queen, I hope you are only joking. If not, go figure where the Bryants of America pick there fuel from.
I’m not joking, but then, neither am I American. I’m Canadian, and I can gratefully say that most white Canadians are not nearly as naive as this Bryant creature is. They too will be making a killing off the idiocy of the Bryants of the world.
Jilted,
I’m flattered that you think I’m Indian based on my knowledge of India! I actually have a deep admiration and appreciation for India and its culture. I just think, in the larger picture, it doesn’t make sense for countries to strive for ethnic diversity. Just look at Dharma, so proud of her dual citizenship and contemptuous of her host country. If you were me, honestly, would you want Dharma in your country?
Kobayashi: let’s stipulate that I am a troll, whatever that means. Now, can you answer my question in post #130 above — do you favor mass immigration from around the globe for Japan? So far your non-answers have consisted in hoping I get banned. Can we get some real argumentation from you?
I’m not joking, but then, neither am I American. I’m Canadian, and I can safely say that most white Canadians are not nearly as complacent or naive as this Bryant creature is. They too, I hope, will be making a killing off the idiocy of the Bryants of the world.
“If you were me, honestly, would you want Dharma in your country?” Oh dear, Bryant – if you really knew anything about India you’d never have put it quite like that. There are many people in many countries who would argue that Dharma is not in your country, and hasn’t been for a very long time. You don’t have to worry. (Or do you?)
Interestingly enough, that’s the French solution, not the American one. Your vision of the US sounds very much like France to me, in a number of different respects.
Don’t get me started on popular reaction towards the Sikh mountie or the Legion Halls 😉 I don’t know where bigotry is greater, but there’s enough to go around on both sides of the border.
Ennis, We’re not talking about bigotry, we’re talking about navel-gazing, solipsistic complacency. And boy have the Americans got us beat.
Bryant
Again, Sonia Gandhi was elected to be the PMship, she turned down the PM position instead choosing to wield power behind the scenes, Indians overwhelmingly voted for her directly and indirectly in the last general election. She is the most powerful woman in India, and i would argue more powerful than the actual PM.
Also, the different communities i referred to are the ones that make up America, they including Whites are responsible for making American culture the envy of the world today. I get your point about a white person being labeled a racist when he speaks up on race, but that comes from the burden of racial history