I read this article in the Cultural Connect (thanks, Sumaya) on desis and philanthropy that I’ve been mulling over for the past few days. NYU law student Maneka Sinha argues, among other things, that: a) South Asian Americans are more likely than other Americans of color to engage in international philanthropy and less likely to donate to American causes, b) the reason for this trend is because most South Asians identify as brown first rather than as American, and c) brown people should donate to domestic causes in order to assert our American identity to the mainstream population.
I have many thoughts on the article. But first, let’s go through Sinha’s arguments:
The national US population only donate to international causes at a rate of 2.2% of all charitable activity. Minority groups, on the other hand, tend to “give back” on an international scale at a higher rate of 13%. Though as a whole minority groups focus on international giving at higher rates, there are discrepancies between these rates among different ethnic groups. While all minority groups demonstrate a strong tradition of giving at home and abroad, African Americans tend to focus a large degree of their charitable activity on domestic efforts supporting community churches, other community organizations, and education. Asian Americans place the least emphasis on international giving, focusing a majority of charitable efforts on the Asian American community and education. The Latino community gives internationally at a level somewhere between those of the Black and Asian American communities and also tends to focus its charitable efforts on its own community here in the US as well as on education. However, South Asian Americans in particular often give back to communities tied not to their own upbringing, but to their parents’ upbringing – namely, communities in South Asia.
And that’s a problem because…
Though it may be hard to swallow, the truth remains that we are American – we’ve been raised, trained, and educated here. If we don’t establish ourselves as an active force investing in the development of our communities and in aiding those members of the American population less fortunate than our own “model” South Asian community, our kids won’t either. And not only that, we will continue to remain somewhat isolated in a nation that benefits from our skills, talents and brainpower. Cringing at the thought of being “American” without addressing the underlying reasons why we shy away from that label is not an option – it is necessary to give back to the communities where our future generations will be raised in. Showing the mainstream population that we identify as American and are fully invested in the betterment of our local communities will help the general population appreciate us as such and ultimately allow us to shatter some of those glass ceilings.
I disagree with most of these arguments. First, I think it’s important to re-evaluate what constitutes as “charitable giving.” I gave two years of my life to teaching in an under-performing school in New York City. That was my way of paying back society. But my work as a teacher wouldn’t be included under Sinha’s definition of “giving.” So I think it’s important to note that while many South Asians probably aren’t contributing financially to domestic causes, there are also several of us who have made public service to our fellow Americans our life’s work. I’d be more interested in an article that includes people who’ve chosen the public sector as a career path at any given time under the category of “domestic givers” and then see if Sinha comes up with the same conclusions.
Second, I don’t think that there’s anything wrong or un-American about wanting to give to international causes as opposed to domestic ones. Many Jewish Americans prefer to donate to Israeli causes as opposed to others — does that make them any less American than anyone else? So why should the burden be on brown people to prove how American we are by showing less interest in the motherland? Why the double standard?
I also don’t buy Sinha’s argument that glass ceilings for brown people will shatter once we start giving domestically. If that really were the case, then other people of color — who Sinha argues contribute more domestically than we do — would no longer be subject to glass ceilings, either.
That all being said, however, I’d like to see a more comprehensive article that details where exactly South Asian Americans donate philanthropically. I have a hunch that most Hindus, specifically, would rather contribute to their local temples first before donating elsewhere. I also think that part of the reason we don’t see many South Asians giving back to their own community in America through setting up scholarship funds for low-income desi teenagers or volunteering to teach English to newly arrived South Asian immigrants is because many of us are in the dark when it comes to those in our community who are less well-off. And I don’t think that’s out of selfishness or denial — it’s simply because we haven’t had the gift of time in this country like other groups have to establish social services for our own. So in future generations, our attitudes towards giving will probably change — not out of wanting to become more American, but most likely because our perception of who is most in need will probably change as well.
hmm… I need to take a look at this article, but the argument seems bizarre to me. The idea that “charitable giving” somehow establishes communities’ “Americanness” makes no sense to me. Furthermore, do desis really cringe at the thought of being American? My fellow second-generation desis don’t really reflect that to me. In fact most of them are barely aware of South Asian politics or charitable causes. I’ve been called out on the same by first-generation people my age.
Our community/ies is/are still relatively young in this country. There was a major gap in our immigration, and we didn’t have established communities like East Asians did between 1900 and the 1960s. I think it’s actually too early to start making these kind of proclamations.
great post, naina. i really hope the comments following mine explain even further where we stand as community that needs to unite in order to succeed and be confident.
my experience is there is so much competition amongst us that we don’t think of other desis as part of community.
hopefully it’s because
also, yeah you’re right. some of us hindus (at times only) do give a lot of money to temples. where does that go? to the maintenance of the temple and the devotees living there or a cause of some sort?
I read read Maneka’s post and I think she is predisposed to bias, and wrote it just for the heck of it, because she did not mention notable social causes which the south asians are involved in and just focussing on the other side. As respect to 1’st gen my father is graduate from IIT and mother is a doctor and they support underpriviledged children in India and they say they will continue to do so as they think its their moral responsibility. My father never forgets to mention he just paid 10% fees in college rest 90% of the tag was picked by govenment ( somehow he feels guilty of not serving the country)it is his way of saying Thankyou.They don’t expect the same from me and I respect them for what they are doing.
As for Maneka I don’t understand how by helping international cause affects our future generations either she too narrow minded or she is forgetting what American valus stand for that is of respect and generosity towards others. If she had watched President Bush in the recent State of Nation Address he specifically honoured people who have not forgotten their roots and helping others outside Americam borders, that is what being American means rather than defining in a narrow context.
For any of you who might have gone to high school with a huge south asian population or a university like NYU, UTexas, Rutgers etc…do a lot of the kids who hang out in those huge brown cliques mostly think of themselves as Indian/Pakistani/Bengali first?
I’m asking this cause I’m wondering if maybe Maneka Sinha’s idea of second generation desis comes from her own experience as a student at a university or high school or community with a huge indian population.
I just read her article and it is unclear to me that the statistics she uses apply solely to the current generation. When she is comparing groups, she talks about the ‘community’ – Latino community, Asian American community etc. To me, ‘community’ does not separate the generations – it just means all people in the US of a particular ethnicity. Only when she speaks of desis does she say ‘South Asian Americans’ – presumably the ‘American’ part is to denote the current generation. [Though even when you are including the ‘American’ moniker for any of the groups, it still, plausibly, speaks of the ethnic group living in this country, irregardless of generation.] If that is so, however, her statistics on the different groups are not comparable. Which means that the statistics could or could not be inclusive of the older generations. And that sort of takes away from her point that people of our generation are still tying their charitable efforts to their parents’ country of upbringing, and not to their own. Even if she had comparable statistics, I’m with Naina about the proof-of-Americanness bit. I’m a rather extremist cosmopolitan, so the idea that service to one community or country is somehow ‘better’ than that to other groups is not one that I accept.
Showing the mainstream population that we identify as American and are fully invested in the betterment of our local communities will help the general population appreciate us as such and ultimately allow us to shatter some of those glass ceilings.
Next time, I give money to Red Cross, Mercy Corp, Special Olympics, Local Firefighters Association, Local Cops, etc., I’ll post the receipts on my door and announce loudly in the hallways – It might help me get promoted and get salary raises.
Since when is charity done to break glass ceiling.
I think Ms. Sinha’s reasoning is little dense and highly selfish.
In a very simplistic argument, I think most 2nd generation South Asians would have visited their parents’ homeland atleast a few times in their lives, and would recognize the fact that the same amount of money goes a much longer way in India/Pakistan etc. in helping the under-priviledged, compared to here. But I guess this should be true for all who (or whose parents) are from countries where significant purchasing power disparity exists.
sinha’s article talks about how we (immigrants and 2nd genners) give money and time to folks back home in south asia, and not so much in the community we live in.
but honestly, i don’t even witness much giving back of time, money and wisdom to our own (desi) community in the U.S. i think that’s should be the first step at least.
For me, it’s more a case of who needs the charity more: a person living in one of the richest countries in the world with a good welfare system, a new mosque for the local muslim community in aforementioned country or a person living in a developing country in abject poverty without bare necessities such as clean drinking water, food and shelter? The latter always seems to win for me as I am a human being first and Australian second.
the article is kind of dumb obviously as charitable giving is one metric. that being said, it’s an article and you need to fasten onto to superficial metrics to highlight a general trend, etc. etc. i think a previous commenter hit it spot on when they noted that we’re mostly an immigrant community, while east asians have groups like the japanese who are mostly multi-generation natives (that is, their great grandparents might be from japan if they are in their 20s, sometimes their great-great grandparents) or the cantonese chinese as well as newer immigrants from taiwan or south korea.
Many Jewish Americans prefer to donate to Israeli causes as opposed to others — does that make them any less American than anyone else? So why should the burden be on brown people to prove how American we are by showing less interest in the motherland? Why the double standard?
of curse it makes jews less american, i’ve talked to jewish american friends who are 4th generation americans who say if they had to pick between the USofA and israel they’d pick israel. to which i tell them to do the aliyah and leave my country 🙂 though seriously, there is a double standard in part because jews are under existential threat now and then and the holocaust happened and groups most prone to shit on them for their divided loyalties are the same groups (evangelical conservative whites) who are pro-zionist because of their religious beliefs. in contrast, liberals who might be anti-israel are less likely to accuse groups of being unpatriotic or third columnists (e.g., they might be more likely to criticize israel firsters for supporting colonialism and racism rather than being disloyal to the land of their birth).
also, a minor point of semantics, but i do think it is important to consider the USofA the “motherland,” and brownland (or whatever foreign land) the “ancestral land” or something accurate but which doesn’t imply that we’re visitors in the nation which we choose to make our lives, and our futures, in. there are semantic issues that many of us browns had to deal with adults, from our classmates and the general population assuming we were aliens by virtue of our looks, to our parents distinguishing between us and “americans,” that i think it is important to be uncompromising in the fact that his land is our land and it is the only land many of us will ever have, and had, and that goes to abandoning quirks of language which imply a detachment from this land that isn’t real.
Razib I think you had several good points, i’m too lazy to add anything new.
also, a non-trivial point, a indian american relationship with india that is cognate with the jewish american relationship with israel or cuban american relationship with cuba or the armenian american relationship with armenia isn’t going to happen because india is a far more important nation whose relations are more thorough and complex than israel, armenia or cuba. jews and arabs (and more or less muslims) might be obsessed with the israel-palestine issue as if it is the be all & end all, but its importance is only cuz the jewish lobby has america by the balls, israel has nukes and the arabs have oil. nukes, oil and ethnic lobbying are all important and significant, but i would assert that the number of parameters are pretty small when you consider that israel is the size of new jersey and the arab autocracies have their jew-hating-but-doing-nothing schtick down pretty well. in contrast, indian americans who have a relationship with india or chinese americans who have a relationship with china, are going to have to deal with the fact that their “special relationship” is going to be with two nations who are going to be rivals & allies with each other & america depending on very complex circumstances.
p.s. analogy, i’m talking about the difference between having dual loyalties between ireland & the usa, and between german & the usa. the former isn’t laudable, but ireland just isn’t a big player. germany wuz.
I don’t see the problem with giving to causes which are close to your hearts. Truth be told, the need is far greater in developing countries like India then it is here. Millions of kids die in India every ear because of entirely preventable causes. If people with South Asian heritage won’t care about these causes then who will. In my past three years oranizing fundraising events for child rights in India, I have found that a lot of Americans actually prefer to donate to these causes once they realize the scale of the problems in South Asia. Does it make them un-american in doing so? Hardly so.
So Sinha’s reason to give to charity is to ensure that direct benefits accrue to the giver. To make people like us and enable us to get ahead in our careers. Who cares about the poor back home? They can’t give us recognition or help us get ahead.
I much prefer giving according to what are considered “pre-modern” reasons — because of tribal affiliations, to acquire religious merit — to Sinha’s cold and calculated modern rationality.
The term South Asian Americans needs to be further segmented into American born vs. foreign born. For example, first generation immigrants, who are South Asian Americans as well, have a much greater affinity to their countries of birth and naturally donate to the causes and, more often, to poorer relatives left behind. Do the American born South Asians do the same? I would hope not. I would expect ABD’s to invest mainly in local issues and organizations, and in that sense be no different than other races. This article did not study the vast emerging American born South American Asians.
A group I work with raises funds for children in need right here, and proposed just yesterday that it was time to put some of the dollars we raise where they make a bigger difference. That’s another factor in sending money to the South Asian ancestral lands. Of course Euro-Americans have sent relief funds to Europe before–war torn and otherwise. In any case, without proffering any formal measurments/data to support what I’m about to say, it’s obvious, just from looking at the names of existing fundraising groups, that it’s quite usual practice for newly established communities here to start into philanthropy both by sending proceeds back to the Olda Contry and by starting local but culture-specific groups with a secondary purpose of asserting a collective presence, sometime via hyperbole (scroll down this page to see the part where New York Social Diary descrbes Sonal Mansingh as “india’s greatest dancer”) that entails networking—before and after individuals from the community get into the kind of earlier established causes that Sinha is identifying as mainstream– and then newcomers are more likely to get into crossover stuff or raising serious money for something universal like medical research rather than supporting older museums and opera houses and such. It also depends what one is invited to partcipate in, since a lot of this kind of activity tends to be by invitation only. It’s quite easy to take some pictorial measure of who’s supporting what online nowadays.
I think Maneka Sinha is missing another thing. She’s not counting how much money is collected from Euro-Americans here or living abroad to go to:
French Heritage Society The Prince’s Trust Save Venice King Baudouin Foundation United German-American Committee
…and who know what else.
bengali (#9):
What exactly do you mean by good welfare system? Most Americans would either say that the welfare system is inadequate or inadequately administered, or would say that there’s no such thing as a good welfare system. The bottom line is that there are plenty of people living in poverty in one of the richest countries in the world, and they deserve help too.
That said:
Given how significantly (to put it lightly) US economic and foreign policy impact the rest of the world, particularly developing countries, maybe those other Americans should look to up that 2.2% a bit…
Also, it’s not enough just to give. One has to take it upon oneself to do a bit of research into organizations and what exactly they do with the money they receive.
Do American desis give to groups that explicitly cater to the community’s needs in the US, like SAYA and Sakhi, and would that be seen as somehow disloyal to the larger nation? I don’t think it’s so unusual in American history for people to feel a stronger solidarity with those they relate to in some way – Italian and Polish migrants used to give to community self-help groups and churches, Jewish groups ditto (and to pro-Israel causes),even not-so-wealthy Mexican migrants send money back to their home villages, and evangelicals often give to their own church’s missions overseas. Not sure why this should be such a big deal.
They’re white. For a few centuries American and white were synonymous. Most Americans are still white, so the definition lingers at a subconscious level.
I agree. It’s very dense, you can only buy so much acceptance. What needs to change is the definition of an American, immigrants cannot be dealt an “either/or” choice – that is, either your with us or against us. People should be allowed to be “American” without having to sever ties to “Indian” or “Chinese” or “Malaysian” or whatever.
If desis want to establish themselves, then donate time and money to Politics. You get the biggest bang for the buck there.
Thanks for the great post, Naina. Some comments that popped up:
I believe this is the biggest hole in the article’s argument. Commitment to public service is quite common amongst the desi population, especially 2nd gen desis. Even with first generation desis, you had a lot of doctors, scientists, etc., that may not be non-profit professions, but certainly work toward the public good.
In my experience this is very true, especially amongst South Indian Hindus. Nearly every sizeable South Indian community in the country builds a temple as soon as it establishes itself. Still, I don’t see the same level of community outreach as I do in churches and synagogues with similar sized congregations. There are two explanations that I can come up with. First, even though temples have an ancient tradition of being community centers, I don’t think that same tradition of community service exists, and the two are very different things. Second, my folks and their friends are very involved in the SSVT temple in Maryland. This temple has adopted the strategy that the first goal of the temple should be to pay off its mortgage and raise funds for an endowment the interest of which will be able to pay for the operating expenses of the temple in perpetuity. Any money raised after that can be used for other purposes. I believe most of the temples that haven’t gone under are following this model and they are only now reaching the point where they have money above and beyond the mortgage and endowment.
a) South Asian Americans are more likely than other Americans of color to engage in international philanthropy and less likely to donate to American causes,
In my case, absolutely. 80% of my charitable contributions are directed at India, mainly because I see a greater need for money there than here. The remainder goes to US political candidates I happen to like.
b) the reason for this trend is because most South Asians identify as brown first rather than as American, and
Yes, I think there is some truth to that, though many would say they consider themselves both, in equal measure, or some such thing, – that doesn’t make one anti-American or an irresponsible citizen btw.
c) brown people should donate to domestic causes in order to assert our American identity to the mainstream population.
I diasgree.
“Next time, I give money to Red Cross, Mercy Corp, Special Olympics, Local Firefighters Association, Local Cops, etc., I’ll post the receipts on my door and announce loudly in the hallways – It might help me get promoted and get salary raises.”
Seriously! I think the Democratic National Committee has telemarketed me out of half my earnings this year. Maybe I should add that to my resume, along with a little American flag logo on it so employers can see how patriotic I am before they decide to put a glass ceiling over my brown head. Ridiculous.
Another form of philantrophy besides local temples that Sinha conveniently overlooks is the funding of various South Asian educational centers at American Universities. My parents had been pretty active in the formation of SUNY Stonybrook’s India Studies Center, which has a wide variety of content and language courses, and a study abroad program. As it turned out, most of the people involved in the program each year are non-Indian. Most centers like this depend on foreign donors, but many are funded by local immigrant communities. In this way, desis in America can assert their Americanness by educating other Americans on their culture and origins. This seems like a more diginified channel than donating to various “neutral” causes just to prove some sort of baseless point about being committed to America.
From my experience, and I’m very embedded in the group of people that built the Bridgewater SV temple (been around since 1991), which is the largest revenue earning Hindu temple in the US. At least with that temple, the groups responsible for building it never had community (non-Indian) outreach as a major goal. The idea is to subtly recreate an environment connected to what existed back “home”. Once that goal is met, everything else is ancillary at best. But whether they like it or not, they are beacons for the Hindu religion (not necessarily the Indian community in general), its tragic they take it so lightly.
What I find interesting in the article is the assumption that it’s GOOD that Americans (I’m assuming “white” americans since the author goes on to discuss african americans, latinos and the other asian-americans–and I’m guessing native Americans wouldn’t be counted in her study since they aren’t considered immigrants) only donate 2.2% of their charity dollars to international efforts (in fact, white americans might donate much less than 2.2% since presumably the higher rates of the other ethnic blocks raises the national rate). Isn’t that one of the reasons used to scorn Americans–that such a relatively rich country is obsessed with itself? I mean, doesn’t the U.N. constantly cite low levels of U.S. government foreign aid relative to GDP as an issue? So, is it really bad to have some private citizens focus a higher rate of focus on international development, in recognition of obligations not just as a citizen of the U.S. but also a citizen of the world, especially when the majority of giving is still local (100%-13.3%=96.7% of money that stays local no?).
That’s without examining some of the other issues. For example, African Americans donate to local churches etc. What about Africans? Is the author lumping those communities of African immigrants who have arrived in the last 40 years with the descendants of those forcibly relocated to North America centuries ago with all ties to their ancestral land completely and irrevocably severed? I’d suggest that African Americans and Africans recognize that there are strong differences in their culture and beliefs and I wouldn’t be surprised if their allocation of charitable dollars was quite different. What about those who come from the Carribbean and identify as black? Do they donate to the local Baptist outreach centre as well? I’m not so sure. I’d at least like to know that the author had considered this difference instead of using the simplistic “same skin-tone =same” categories. Maybe their is a footnote somewhere in the article that deals with this issue.
I’d like to know if the author considered charitable giving to organizations like Rotary, Lions etc. as local or international. Many of these local clubs allocate a percentage of collections towards international charitable efforts and their members are very aware of this. Thus, Joe American may be quite comfortable donating his charitable dollars to his Rotary Foundation, knowing that while some money stays local, other money goes towards international projects.
Finally, I guess I’m curious as to where the author falls on the issue of donating to local ethnic interests. It seems that she thinks that if you’re latino and donate to an american latino outreach program vs. sending money to the orphanage back in Mexico, you’re a better American. The author doesn’t seem to suggest that the money could be better served by an ethnic neutral organization such as the municipal food bank. So, it’s okay to segregate your charitable giving on the basis of ethnicity as long as the segregation is done within American borders? That’s an interesting interpretation of the much publicized American value of melting-pot assimilation.
Those are just a few of the problems I have with the article. I guess it’s hard for me to come to consider the ramfications of the author’s conclusions when it seems like the building blocks of her argument are a little unsteady.
Noted. To assert my Indian American identity, I give money to American Indians, the ones on the rez. The rez is the third world…in America. Other than that, to hell with the national identities. Help out those at the margins wherever they may be. A good spillover to such giving is that it brings positive balance to the idea that all Americans are bastards like the Bushies.
Very thought provoking article though not sure I agree with most of it. The act of giving in itself is a very American concept to me. In my world there are two kinds of giving, time/energy and money. Personally I give time/energy to my local community and money to charitable organizations in India. Two reasons for this. I am Indian, I was born there and understand the culture/problems there and feel closer to them than somewhere else.
And yes I am American and I don’t see how donating to India or supporting a country that I consider less fortunate (for the masses) than the United States, makes me any less American. In fact that implication alone is utterly ridiculous. I don’t generally donate money in the United States except to NPR but I do get involved in fundraising for various causes as well as give time. I find that to be the best use of my resources.
Time to community, money to where I can’t physically make a dent.
fascinating discussion…
i donate to ‘american’ causes… and ‘indian’ causes as well… whether it be financial, volunteering at medical camps whether it be here or abroad, or time doing things like stuffing envelopes to moving boxes..
help is help no matter what country, part of the world you do it in.. to divide it by color/country/race/ethnicity is just dumb.
or maybe i’m too much of a simpleton when i look at things like philanthropy.
does it matter who you help in the end? no. point is you’re doing something. that is a lot more than others are doing.
my favorite philanthropist of recent times: warren buffet.. a recent cnbc piece on him shows what a simple guy he is…and since the gates foundation is providing immunizations to the rest of the WORLD does it make bill and amanda less American and white? yeah…
joat: beautifully put.
p.s. naina, giving 2 yrs to inner city kids is awesome.. that is the highest form of charity… teachers rock. xoxo!
This article is absolute bull. Let’s take my example. I have never ever given any money to beggars in India. But the first time I went to the UK, I went berserk dumping “spare change” on white beggars; I mean WHITE beggars! WTF? For days I giddily wandered around the tube stations showering them with change. If I was giving someone four coins, I’d drop them one by one, very slowly, relishing each and every clang to the fullest. It was then that I truly understood the joys of giving. The novelty soon wore off though; still, those were the days…
HMF says: “People should be allowed to be “American” without having to sever ties to “Indian” or “Chinese” or “Malaysian” or whatever.” Oh come on. Anybody can be a “real American.” Anybody. The base of the Statue of Liberty says so. In fact, it even encourages the world to send whoever–“…send me your poor, your tired, etc., yearning to breathe free…etc.” Now of course, desi-Americans are mostly desirable as citizens and what is the problem with being a “model minority”? The same qualities are admired in them as were admired in any Yankee townsquare of yesteryear. But HMF, your proposition creates a Catch 22. You can’t expect “Americans” to accept and trust you if your prime loyalty is elsewhere and you’ve dragged all the baggage; yet, apparently, you are resentful of not being accepted. Got a quandary going on there. Forcryingoutloud, of course there are “real Americans” who are desi, and no rational person would question their national identity. Now–could a Swede be accepted as a “real Chinese” if he chose to live there? How about India? Nah. No way Jose, as they say. To comment on the initial posting: My experience is that desis are pretty generous to local causes in the U.S., and if they donate to Indian charities, fine. India needs help too. The only time it is a problem giving to causes of another country, is when it is at the expense of those in this country, who don’t want to be involved in such donations. Such as Americans giving to the Israeli lobby as opposed to Israel, or the IRA, as opposed to Irish charities. Then it is wrong because it is political.
However, realize the implications of HMF’s statment. If you are so sure that you have to be “white” to be perceived as a real “American”, that is your problem. Legally, you are just as much of citizen, with all the rights and responsibilities, as someone whose ancestors came over by means of the Mayflower, a slave ship, Ellis Island, or an orphan on a plane from Saigon. Why, U.S. law allowed an infertile woman from Nigeria to enter the U.S., get fertility treatment, and produce octuplets. How generous is that? The locals–in Texas yet–pitched in and gave the new family a house to live in, as the family had decided beforehand to remain here. Meanwhile, there are people born and raised here who can’t afford all that, but at least you couldn’t accuse Texans in this story of racism. You can’t always get what you want, but sometimes, you get what you need.
While the world may be one country someday, it’s normal to feel connected with, and supportive of, your ancestral lands and people. However, this virtual dual citizenship some people promote–and it doesn’t matter what countries you’re talking about–has ramifications for the immediate future. All countries are going to be evolving into something quite different in the future, but a social experiment not entirely under anyone’s control, is underway in America especially. People are being asked to leave priorities of ethnicity, race, nationality, religion, ideology, etc., behind and yet still respect such things. Difficult balancing act. Whether they can do that depends on what is there to replace what they give up. Has it been done before, I wonder? If so, in how many countries has this worked?
Excellent post but you miss a few points when you talk about philantrophy and giving back to the community, the donations dont always have to be monetary. Often times you can give back in terms of effort and time – helping pets get adopted, spending time with senior citizens, participating in charity walks. I seldom see any fellow macacas, in community related activities.
inside the beltway, great post! I agree 100%.
The focus on philanthropy is a bit confusing, but this is part of a larger debate on how newer generations assimilate into the mainstream American experience.
The prevailing view among “immigration reformers” is that new immigrants identify more closely with their country of origin, and therefore become American merely for convenience. They are neither invested in American ideals, nor supportive of American policies. With respect to foreign policy, all American conduct is filtered through the lens of their home country’s interests.
While you can dismiss the philanthropy argument quite easily, it’s hard not to see some truth in the assertion that many immigrants, and especially desi immigrants, are more Indian than they are American. It’s not a question of giving up your social or cultural values. It’s a question of participation in American life. I know plenty of recent South Asian immigrants who live in desi-dominated enclaves, only have desi friends, and generally disdain everything America stands for. Why become American in that case?
The article is generally correct…more desis should give money to institutions that affect them directly (like university chairs, buidling, cneters; and hospital outreach) instead of throwing millions at temples for whatever reason…the point that Jewish-Americans give a lot of money to Israel is irrelevant since they have given and created many many institutions in the U.S. beforehand {foundations, buildings, universities and colleges (Brandeis, Bloomberg, Geffen); Weill medical school, Mt. Sinai hospital, etc.)partly because their interests weren’t served well and they were trying to make a mark on American society…if one wants to “help India” and do it with the best Return on Investment, then one can give to Planned Parenthood (or other family planning services; to services that educate women to make them more independent from their family; and to conservation of the environment (water; and monuments and cultural records which are decaying quickly. The poster and many of the posts are too reflexive in their bias. I doubt the author was trying to undermine what it is to be an Indian-American.
Even in decline, the dollar handily beats all desi currencies. It is nice to see your donation multiplied by 45.
UberMetroMallu, your comments are always awesome (and hilarious)!
As for charities, give to whoever your heart dictates…just make sure it’s a decent, legitimate charity that doesn’t eat up all the donations with its own overheads.
To summarize the various arguments for/against international vs. domestic giving: Nationalistic: 1) My country of citizenship and the people who live there deserve my special attention, hence I should consider giving to my country first. 2) No, my country of birth deserves special attention since I am culturally similar to the people living there; so I should consider giving to them first.
Cosmopolitan-utilitarian: I do not accept that people living in my country of citizenship deserve my special consideration. Humans qua humans deserve consideration,and artificial markers such as citizenship should not decide who gets special consideration. That being said I should give to causes or places where my donation of time/effort or money will have the maximum effect/ do the maximum good. Often this is the country of my citizenship, but not always.
egoistic-utilitarian: I should give to the people living in my country of citizenship sine this is good public relations and I will rise in the esteem of my fellow citizens.
Sigh – to your “nationalistic” category you might add “empathy” – the suffering of a certain group of people is something that I can relate to better or that is more important to me. It’s not always nationalistic – former alcoholics will give to AA, religious people to religious charities, in a similar way.
SP: you are right. I think that the nationalistic category is a particular subset of the empathic category. Doubtless some might argue that some empathies are more rational (such as the ones you describe) than others and on that basis might categorize nationalism differently.
I meant “some of the ones you describe” since many would consider religious empathy as irrational as empathy based on one’s citizenship.
And a quick glance at American history, clearly shows the context of the Statue of Liberty included immigrants of all racial backgrounds, right? It’s very disingenuous to quote such statements outside of the context it was intended.
Sure I can. By extending the definition of American, one doesn’t have to choose between “selling out” and “not being accepted” My point is, it isn’t us that should change, it’s the very definition. It’s counterintuitive when you’re sticking to “this-or-that” methodology. I don’t want acceptance in the sense you’re using the word.
In discussions of Indians settled in Kenya, mutineers mention that Indians use their money power to help in emergencies, and build up goodwill with the majority. I strongly commend this example. As minorities, we do need the goodwill of the majority, so outreach is important. The Hindu temple in Livermore has begun to do some outreach. In particular, it contributes money to local charities, one of which is (I think) a Christian charity. I feel the outreach would increase if second-generation Indian Americans become committee members in Hindu temples. It’s just a question of building consensus.
There are things other then helping the poor in there own country that some in the west give there money to. Some of those are issues in the homeland that have to due to political causes back in the homeland. My parents almost found out the hard way what happens when you don’t support those causes.
My parents in the early 80’s were being harrased by some right wing sikh’s to give to there stupid Khalistan movement. One time few of these idiots came to my parents house and told them that if they did not give money then they would be sorry. Yeah that made my parents scared at 1st. However one thing that set my parents apart most other desi’s in the west was that they had made friends with many of there white neighbors. A couple of those friends were in the police. So my parents were able to get there police friends to talk to these khalistan idiots and didn’t have to deal with these people ever again in Canada. But in India several of my dad’s cousins were beated by these idiots cause of my parents actions.
To this day when my parents come to visit the Vancouver area, there are some here who still look down on them for what they didn’t do.
Yet again Clueless it’s trollish statements like the above that prevent me from taking anything you say seriously.
However one thing that set my parents apart most other desi’s in the west was that they had made friends with many of there white neighbors. A couple of those friends were in the police.
I once offered a beer to my white neighbor. He accepted it. It made me feel good. That sets me apart from the other desis, IMO.
JaneofallTrades what did I say that was so wrong about that one statement. There are alot of desi in the west like Hema said in end of post#36 who don’t not have anything do with non-south asians.
I’m sorry that you don’t like what I had to say. I guess maybe if you were a 8 year old and your parents are threatened as a kid, it may have an impact of you views as you get older.
my father asks my sister and i to help him choose the NGOs and other organizations to which he makes an annual donation. he asks us to look at both local/state/national organzations as well as international so that we are helping people all over. while ms. sinha’s points are not lost on me, i do believe she is making some unfortunate generalizations.
in addition, i agree with those of you who were saying that 2nd generation south asians (like me!) are compelled to give back to local communities with the professional choices made. there are many south asian americans who have become teachers in underserved communities, non-profit workers, lawyers working for legal aid coalitions, etc.
there are many ways to give back to communities and it is important to do so both nationally and internationally.