It’s like playing Whac-A-Mole: Every time you think this “model minority” BS is swept away for good, in comes yet another set of generalizations based on wishful thinking and selective observation, deployed by some so-called expert who sets him/herself up to make claims about the community as a whole.
This time it’s Manjeet Kripalani, the Bombay bureau chief of Business Week and currently a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. Kripalani, who first came to the US in the 1980s, has a piece today in the Los Angeles Times that a tipster kindly brings to our attention on the news tab. Behold the brilliant lede:
THE 2.2 MILLION Indian Americans in the U.S. constitute a model minority, highly educated and well paid. And now, following in the footsteps of earlier immigrant groups such as the Irish, the Jews and the Cubans, Indian Americans are emerging as an influential force in Washington.
I’m not going to rehash the whole critique of the concept of a “model minority.” At this point, either you get it or you don’t. Instead, I simply want to point out that by writing entirely in generalizations, some conveniently free of backing evidence and others normative and therefore unprovable, the sister not only has carried out very shoddy journalism, but also — thanks to the L.A. Times editors — been set up as an expert voice rather than a reporter investigating an issue.Among the generalizations:
This group loves its adopted land; it also cares deeply about the country of its heritage. …
As professionals — mostly doctors and engineers — they spent their first decades working hard and ensuring Ivy League educations for their children. (More than 60% of Indian Americans have college degrees.) Now they are established, law-abiding and wealthy…
Do you recognize yourself? If so, bully for you and for Kripalani. But if this airbrushed, aspirational narrative doesn’t sit all that well, you might be comforted to know that it’s coming from someone who was the deputy press secretary to Steve Forbes‘ presidential campaign back in 1996. How much you want those kinds of voices speaking unchallenged for you is something you need to decide for yourself.
How is Whac-a-mole pronounced? Same as guacamole?
Sidhartha, I think you’re making much ado about nothing. This is an editorial piece, a work of her own opinion. Not a news story. So she called Indians a “model minority” – is that so serious of an offense that it detracts from the whole premise of her editorial?
I’m really struggling to understand your frustration. And what matter does her former job as deputy press secretary for Steve Forbes mean? Does this make her opinion any less valid?
excellent observation, Siddartha. “playing Whac-A-Mole” was bang on target. 🙂 Kripalani is spelling out the criteria for assimilation.
this is kind of similar to what Amartya Sen says in his Identity and Violence – “the frantic Western search for the moderate Muslim”.
Steve Forbes is not a bad man at all. That’s all I can say.
uh, i read the article. what’s so objectionable? ethnic activists and promoters always publish embarrassing shit like this (think hadassah). that being said, there were facts in there (e.g., median income of $70,000). the idea that brown americans are all successful professionals is clearly fallacious, but so is the idea we are in the same situation as other non-white and/or immigrant groups. too often the narrative polarizes between those who wish to praise and promote, and highlight only the good, and those who want to emphasize the negatives in the interests of motivating for social justice (e.g., consider the dumb individual who stated last fall that “i don’t have the numbers on me, but indian amerians are underrepresented in higher education.” the reflex toward victimization and the narrative of oppression is powerful enough warrant attention even in the face of the preponderance of empirical data). it is a fact that south asians are diverse, but, the indian american community, which is 90% of the south asian pop. in the USA, is doing well by a great many metrics. that being said, i will agree with the sentiment that these sorts of articles are tiresome.
This article particular pisses me off because it’s the LA Times – they are usually good about working tightly with the Asian American community. This summer I was part of a group of researchers that met with the LA Times editors to strenghthen ties and make sure that they had accurate demographic information on the community. So it’s not like the LA Times editors didn’t have a report [the same one I blogged about on SM] or haven’t been told that model minority is a myth.
I almost feel like they let the article slide by because it was written by a South Asian. And/or because she was a part of SAJA.
It seems that even, as an Asian American community, meeting with LA Times journalists regularly and developing that communication pathway isn’t enough for an accurate portrayal. What else can we do?
razib, Model Minority implies two things, one that the the Indian-American way to success is a “model” to be followed. I sorta agree with this, Indians are pretty good at making something out of just about nothing. However, then they should be a model everybody not just minorities. That’s the second part, the second part, model minority implies something like “Know your role, you’re still a minority.” I think its a subtle attack on blacks for example who often have to forcefully fight for their rights in contrast to the more subservient image of Asians.
Umm, what is the problem again?
I continue to be fascinated by SM bloggers who don’t want to read any good thing on India/Indians/American Indians but don’t hesitate in dragging everyone under “South Asian” bucket.
Perhaps you will be happy when they survey all Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Nepalis, Maldivians, Srilankans in US and then conclude “Ummm..South Asians are not model minority afterall” than “Indian Americans are model minority”?
Or do I detect a frustration that one did not become a doctor, engineer and is now stuck writing pithy blog posts?
Is this your “South Asian” radar detector getting pissed off simply because writer mentioned “Indian Americans” instead of “South Asians”?
dear gaunwalla – ease up on the attackery just a smidgen. your point may get lost in the interpretation.
runnerwallah, if your comment wasn’t just the condensed version of razib’s and you really don’t understand what the big deal about using the “model minority” label is, you should start here and read on (I promise it’s well worth your time to read that whole post and thread if you haven’t yet).
WTF? Siddhartha just posted this last night. Even if he hadn’t, and even if the other bloggers didn’t blog on the good AND the bad (and everything in between), your complaint about the term “South Asian” totally from left field, dude. Why don’t you start a blog and post on sugar and spice and everything nice about
South Asians[insert people from subcontinental country of choice]?I don’t know. The article was sort of lame, especially the quality of the writing. Like Taz say, it seems like LAT/NYT have a quota system that requires a certain number of articles written by minorities to be published, no matter what. But given there are so many good Indian writers and bloggers, perhaps they should the editors should cast a wider net. The article itself was pretty harmless, nothing untruthful for the most part. But given the readership of that section of a newspaper, a little depth would be soooooooo welcome.
“South Asian” is a term used by those who choose to use it because it reflects geopolitical reality. it’s only as loaded as you want it to be. We Indians need to get over ourselves and stop pretending like there’s some massive cultural chasm (bigger than the ones that exist between Indians) separating us from the rest of the region. I admit all of this is imprecise but we work with what we have. Stop crying.
I would like to see some better statistics on the Indian community. Yes, razib, we do appear highly represented in higher education and our median incomes are above those of whites. However, I have trouble finding comparisons by education level, or region. The “model minority” statistics are often confounded by the fact that Asians generally live in areas with higher median incomes and higher costs of living (eg New York or LA). I think we all know that a very particular group of Indians was recruited (actively or by push-pull factors) to come to the United States particularly between ’65 and ’80. We also know that the fastest growing group of undocumented immigrants is, in fact, Indian. Do they represent a “model” for undocumented immigrant success? Are they outperforming other groups?
I think we easily get hard-ons for these statistics but they seem incredibly shallow to me given the specific factors affecting Indians in the United States. Also, it’s impossible for me to believe that Pakistanis and Bangladeshis are somehow more affected by racism than Indians are. Contrary to those who shit bricks when confronted with the word “South Asian”, we actually do all look the same, and that matters in the irrational oppressive sociopolitical construction that is race. Yet clearly Pakistanis and Bangladeshis in America on average show different statistics. The nationalist morons will no doubt chime in that it is the innate cultural superiority of Indians that has created this rift, but I think it’s more about how much education and capital Indians came here with, which is more complicated than Indian superiority.
Runnerwallah, I refer you to Shruti’s and Razib’s responses above. Taken together they do a great job answering your question.
iFob, I’m very happy with my career, but thank you for caring. As for the whole “south asian” thing, where does that come up in the post? She’s talking about Indian-Americans, I’m talking about Indian-Americans. You want to bring in extraneous issues and/or start a flame war over something that is not the point here, that’s on you, baby.
The person who was resorting to personal insults and statements about “other undesirables” has been banned.
what a pathetic op-ed. here’s another data free, over-generalizing gem:
Um, no. The bill’s “biggest backer[s]” were a relatively small handful of wealthy, plugged-in first-generation Indian elites.
Love how someone like Kripalani can just parachute back into the New York City after 10 years abroad and suddenly be deemed a free-ranging, insta-expert on “the Indian American community,” writ large.
Oh, and Siddhartha, interesting side note — not noted in any of the versions of her bio that you posted is that she also was Deputy Press Secretary for the Steve Forbes for President campaign in 1995-96.
Incorrect. Noted in both the CFR bio tha I linked to, as indeed in my post itself.
whoops — her bio doesn’t note it, but you do. interesting….
or haven’t been told that model minority is a myth.
you know, stuff like this pisses me off. on the one hand people on the Left emphasize the importance of subtle narratives when it comes to something like “the war on terror” or “the islamic threat,” but when it comes to “the model minority” it is just a myth. i hung with friends who were asian pacific american activists, and almost got a sense that they were pissed that they had to dig for examples of how shabby the asian pacific community was in the united states (several chinese american friends really loved the hmong, an example of an asian pacific american group with enough social pathology to fit into any victimological narrative). it is true that there are serious problem with the model minority paradigm, but it doesn’t come out of a vacuum. there is variation within the asian pacific american community, just as there is variation among south asians, and yes, even among indian americans. but simply dismissing the “myth” also tends to homogenize the narrative as if there isn’t a lot of things to be proud of (if you make ethnic pride a big issue). the reality is that the average brown american (which means indian american numerically) is doing relatively well by convential metrics (e.g., income, education, etc.).
That’s the second part, the second part, model minority implies something like “Know your role, you’re still a minority.” I think its a subtle attack on blacks for example who often have to forcefully fight for their rights in contrast to the more subservient image of Asians.
it’s not that subtle. and i tend to agree with the critics of ‘the model minority’ insofar as brown americans who come to the USofA come with a lot of social capital and so it is no surprise they succeed, it doesn’t have to do with something intrinsic in brown culture. but just because the MM narrative is obnoxious (i tend to tire of it) doesn’t mean that there isn’t empirical data out there which shows that different groups are attaining varying levels of success in the united states. after all, the MM narrative arose in part because chinese & japanese immigrants in the 1960s did shockingly well (education, income) despite the fact that there was a century long legacy of racism and bigotry against east asians on the west coast.
I think the link to Kobayashi that Shruti posted was quite appropriate. The problem with the model minority thing is not its mythic nature – or at least, I think we get tripped up when we try to claim that. You can’t ignore the large number of wealthy people in some of these communities. The problem is that it obscures poverty within those communities (despite the wealth of some) and implies that racism has been “overcome”, which is not a good way of going about dealing with what racism actually is and how it manifests itself. and of course it tells Blacks and Native Americans and Latinos that they have intrinsically “failed”, almost like comparing a successful sibling to a derelict one. not good. highly divisive. and it’s a great distraction from the real problem.
Yet clearly Pakistanis and Bangladeshis in America on average show different statistics. The nationalist morons will no doubt chime in that it is the innate cultural superiority of Indians that has created this rift, but I think it’s more about how much education and capital Indians came here with, which is more complicated than Indian superiority.
the nationalist narrative makes the ‘fundamental attribution error,’ imputing an outcome upon essential characteristics instead of the context. obviously indian culture isn’t superior if superiority is measured by economic output or quality of life indicators, seeing as how south asia has the greatest number of abjectly poor and destitute individuals in the world. and of course it is about education and capital, that explains the difference between bangladeshis and indians to a great extent i’m sure (e.g., many bangladeshis come here because of the “diversity lottery”, and they’re often quite dumb and mediocre in terms of human capital).
It appears that some “south asians” have a love-hate relationship with their ownselves.
raz, I think you’re Bangladeshi (I don’t know why I think that, maybe I’m wrong) but this:
is really just not nice.
The problem is that it obscures poverty within those communities (despite the wealth of some) and implies that racism has been “overcome”, which is not a good way of going about dealing with what racism actually is and how it manifests itself. and of course it tells Blacks and Native Americans and Latinos that they have intrinsically “failed”, almost like comparing a successful sibling to a derelict one
assuming racism as a given background condition though it shows that racism is not sufficient to explain the lack of success of particular groups (even if it is necessary). in fact, if you look at the south asian community, the lighter skinned pakistanis (sometimes near white) have less impressive SES metrics than darker skinned south indians.
is really just not nice.
so? it’s true. i have cousins who came because of the diversity lottery. much dumber and less a credit to this nation than those who didn’t come because of the diversity lottery. bangladeshis in the USA more “diverse” in intelligence than indian americans 🙂
the pakistanis’ lighter skins may privilege them in some ways but it does not really make them more or less affected by racism. I also think that saying racism is not sufficient to explain the lack of access is problematic, because racism has very complicated effects which are both internalized and environmental. I think that one shouldn’t assume that when racism is invoked as a cause of social problems, all other potential causes are being ignored.
p.s. i have a cousin who has a master’s degree in physics who ended up immigrating to canada because it was easier to get to that country than the USA. she didn’t win in the lottery, which my idiot cousin did win and so came to the USA. just and idiotic immigration policy.
the pakistanis’ lighter skins may privilege them in some ways but it does not really make them more or less affected by racism.
you’re just asserting. there is a literature which suggests that lighter-skinned blacks tend to be seen as less threatening then darker-skinned blacks, and they’ve parlayed this into greater SES outcomes. i am pretty sure that the same, all things equal, would apply to south asians. some of us look near black (or as a black friend ones said, “brothers with straight hair” and some of us look near white (again, the black friend, “white people with a tan”).
I also think that saying racism is not sufficient to explain the lack of access is problematic, because racism has very complicated effects which are both internalized and environmental. I think that one shouldn’t assume that when racism is invoked as a cause of social problems, all other potential causes are being ignored.
i take this to mean that you’ll be happy to use racism as a simple explanation for a whole host of societal ills which minorities are subject too, but when someone wants to analyze and quantify its impact you’ll balk because it removes your catchall explanation from the realm of mysterious deux ex machina?
Immigrants and the Whiter-Shade-of-Pale Bonus
(the main criticism of this paper i’ve seen is that it is problematic because within group variation in skin color is often determined by occupation, so those who end up in blue collar jobs outdoors will be darker than they otherwise would have been, generating this outcome. but those who wish to emphasize the salience of racism in american society generally took this article’s conclusions)
Razib, I will also add my criticism to the paper you link in #27. Apparently the author of that paper has no problem with the discimination against short people. So why is skin tone so important and not height? I thought they were both physical characteristics.
I’m trying to understand the critique of the model minority theory. Is this it?
Not every Indian is doing well. In fact, some sub-groups of south Asians are doing pretty poorly.
It’s offensive to ask other minorities to miminck Indians when they are coming from a very differnent historical and socio economic background.
Selective immigration. Indians are arriving to the US better educated and with more financial resources so it is unfair to compare them to poorer less educated immigrants.
It underestimates the amount of racism in American society. The REAL myth is America is a place where all you have to do is work hard to suceed. Racism is likely to hold you back and the model minority myth covers this fact.
How’d I do? Is that it?
Yes, I understand this, but does that mean that lighter-skinned blacks are quantifiably less affected by racism? As an Indian I certainly understand what light skin privilege is about and also have seen various measures of the relationship between light-skin privilege and SES, self-esteem, etcetera. However, I don’t think it’s right to then make the bold assertion that light-skinned people of color are less affected by racism. Now, they may be less affected by a host of things, but racism is a broad system that we’re really only beginning to unravel, deconstruct, and comprehend.
give me a f***ing break, razib. I’m fully in favor of analyzing and quantifying the impact and nature of racism. my point is not to create a catchall explanation, my point is that responding to someone’s invocation of racism as a cause with “it’s necessary but not sufficient” implies that you assume that person is using racism as a catchall explanation when in fact they did not say that.
Apparently the author of that paper has no problem with the discimination against short people. So why is skin tone so important and not height?
there is also discrimination against the ugly and the fat. but people tend to coalesce around ethnic markers which exhibit more intergroup varation as opposed to intragroup variation, and skin color tends to fall within that class (e.g., most of the varation in skin color between africans and europeans is between groups, not so with height where most of the varation is found within the groups).
but racism is a broad system that we’re really only beginning to unravel, deconstruct, and comprehend.
racism is like god then. everyone talks about it, and they care about it, but you’re basically saying we can’t really comprehend or understand it. so where does that leave us?
I really wish you would actually read the words I wrote. This really helps facilitate conversation.
I never said we can’t comprehend or understand it, I said we are now learning to do so. Why is that so hard to swallow? I think only now are people beginning to really unravel racism and understand what it is, define it, quantify it, deconstruct it, etcetera. And because of that you shouldn’t make broad statements like “light skinned X is less affected by racism than is dark skinned Y”. I understand that there are differing levels of privilege and power within communities, my point is that the literature you cite does not imply something as general as being more or less affected by racism. jeezus!
people of color certainly experience racism in a million different ways, and I don’t want to discount that. I wonder if what I’m saying is really that unclear.
yeti, i don’t know what you are talking about.
fine, dodge it completely. congratulations.
To lighten things up a bit… they cover all the stereotypes here
The Meaning of Being Desi
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8286679619611936760&q=show+me+meaning+desi
to be clear, i can say with certitude that my friend from mississipi, who is very dark skinned and mocked as a “skillet blonde midnighter” by “red bone” light skinned blacks experienced more racism than those who mocked him, who were also black, because he experienced racism from both whites and blacks, while they might have experienced racism from just whites (also, some of them were close enough to white that they could “pass” when they wanted too).
statistics when it’s convenient, anecdotes when it’s not.
Before Razib and his critics take us in a very obscure (pun not intended) direction: I also don’t find the term “myth of the model minority” useful. It’s not a myth, it’s a narrative and an argument. A myth is Theseus fighting the Minotaur, or Hanuman organizing the bridge of monkeys. “Model minority” is a narrative about society and should be engaged as such.
Now, to the celebrants of Indian (or any other) culture, listen up:
If you think your ethnic group is fabulous, that’s great. I got no problem with that.
If you think your ethnic group is brilliant, accomplished, powerful, beautiful, sophisticated, cultured, and generally the best thing to walk the Earth since Homo got Erectus, I got no problem with that.
If you call your ethnic group a model minority, then I got a problem.
Why?
First, because you refer to yourself as a minority. Minority is, in part, a state of mind.
Second, because the term implies there are more than one minority (since yours is a model), as well as a majority. In other words, you define yourself by reference to a majority, and you define others the same way. You fold them into your psychological disposition.
Third, you suggest that there is a right and wrong way for these purported minorities to conduct themselves.
My suggestion to you is to conduct yourself whatever way you see fit, and let people from other communities do the same.
I might add that speaking of a “model minority” betrays a pie-chart way of looking at our society that makes you very close in outlook to the PC/multicultural identity politics types you so frequently deride.
I might add that speaking of a “model minority” betrays a pie-chart way of looking at our society that makes you very close in outlook to the PC/multicultural identity politics types you so frequently deride.
aren’t most of the types proud about the attainments of their groups, whether they be brown, chinese or jewish, basically into right-wing identity politics?
i.e., nationalism = conservative X identity politics
All I’m trying to say is this:
1) Asserting “racism doesn’t account for everything” every time someone brings it up assumes that the person bringing it up believes that it does account for everything. Don’t make reactionary counterarguments to things that haven’t even been argued yet. It diverts the conversation and re-frames it deceptively.
2) Racism is complicated, and let’s treat it as such. And that INCLUDES analyzing and quantifying different aspects of it, but it also includes being cautious about what we do with those results.
My take on the issue of Indian-American model minority is double; one, its used as a foil to blast so-called non-model minorities, and thus is unfair. And two, within the Indian-American community, it creates a mirage of affluence that people have to live up to, and simply inculcates a sense that the more well-off you are, the more virtous. To me of the two, the more substantial one to address is the intra-community dynamic. Its simply not true that people with more money are better people; cleaner, more respectful, having sweeter smelling b.o et alia
Finally; Punjabi! braaaaaaah.
nationalism / identity politics = conservative
nationalism / (identity politics X conservative) = 1
Its simply not true that people with more money are better people; cleaner, more respectful, having sweeter smelling b.o et alia
of course, but this is a human problem.
Siddhartha:
That ain’t no myth yo. You have no idea what monkeys could do back in the day. The model macacas of today just can’t compare, whatever their “median income”.
If it makes anyone feel any better, the indo-canadian community has not been called the model minority, esoecially in the Vancouver area.
True, and I doubt it will go away. Its simply that, it feels appropriate to point out the prevailing assumption here. Clarity is the enemy of injustice
Also; Oye Chuk Dey! Punjabia da shaan vakarhi!
the indo-canadian community has not been called the model minority, esoecially in the Vancouver area.
how dare you lump non-punjabi indo-canadians with punjabi indo-canadians!
That’s right! Oh sala panchod harami soor da bacha! ja duffa ho sorr kisetho da!