Pream Anandarajah is a Canadian born Tamil teenager whose uninsured Scarborough home was recently firebombed, sending his mother Jeyaluckshmi to the burn unit at the hospital [via UB]. And yes, this was an ethnic attack, but not in the way you might think. His attackers weren’t white, they were Sri Lankan Tamils, but FOBs recent immigrants instead of Canadian born. Is FOB as bad a word as n–er?
That’s right — there’s intragroup gang violence between CBD and recent immigrant Sri Lankan Hindu Tamils, serious violence:
Hours before the firebombing, a friend of Anandarajah’s was stabbed … He rattles off the names of gangs that he says recently arrived Sri Lankan youth have formed: EST (East Side Thugs); BNS; BNS Juniors; Tux Boys (Tuxedo Park); Tiger Boys; Gilders (Gilders Street). [Link]
<
p>
 |
|
The house is now largely destroyed |
The firebombing was part of an escalating series of retaliatory attacks, including one where Anandarajah was jumped by 12 students in the high school parking lot and knifed:
Touching his neck he says, “I don’t know how I got this scar. It happened after I was knocked out. They beat me up real bad. My mom couldn’t even recognize my face.” [Link]
<
p>One major beef between the groups is the use of the word FOB:
Frequently tossed around in the escalating feud between the groups is a loaded word, used to bully, label and shame. The mostly Tamil Sri Lankan youth around Scarborough who get called FOBs say the word is used as a weapon against them.
“It’s like calling a black man, n—–,” says a Grade 10 student. [Link]
<
p>Apparently, that name calling also played a role in the firebombing:
Anandarajah says it was older youths who were responsible for the attack on his house, most of whom either dropped out or have been expelled. “I understand why they’re angry, calling them FOBs. But they took it too far with this…” [Link]
<
p>The whole thing seems to be about being “square”. Recent immigrants say they get harassed for not fitting in:
… [Recent immigrants] say the tension begins in high school. They get harassed for playing cricket, having unfashionable hairdos, wearing tight-fitting shirts, too high pants and speaking Tamil. [Link]
<
p>Their Canadian born brethren seem to agree. Recent immigrants are just uncool:
“They can’t speak English, they have these weird haircuts,” says Chris, a Grade 12 student at nearby L’Amoreaux Collegiate. “The way they walk and they dress bad. It gives Sri Lankans a bad name, it’s embarrassing.”
One of them blurts out that they’re “fresh off the banana boat, they’re all FOBs, Tiger Boys, and they always will be…” The differences seem minor. Unless you’re in high school. “It’s stupid,” Anandarajah says. “But when we’re playing soccer, why do they have to come over and play cricket? We don’t play cricket here…” [Link]
So what say you? Is FOB a highly offensive term? What term would you prefer? NRI is both exclusionary (doesn’t apply here), and imprecise (to the Indian government I’m both an NRI and an ABD). Is there a different term that works better?
Would you start a fight if you got called a “FOB” ?
what happened to that one commenter, “iFOB” ??? I would like to hear his input and his reason for choosing that name..
iFOB ?! iPOD for the FOBs ?
Spotted at the bookstore
Up & Coming: HipHop for FOBs aka JayZ Kiya Re. Bestseller: JATI for ABCDs, aka Caste is Go(o)d.
Not adults, but there are lots of kids who move back with their parents around middle school, especially since the 90s. (Don’t know how many stay for life though… most seem to go back to the US for college.) My experience is that they are generally idolized, so not much chance of there being derogatory terms.
I was reading somewhere that there are a few exclusive (gated, of course) suburbs now around Bangalore which look like S.California style neighborhoods – separate houses, big lawns, Spanish tile on the roofs…meant for returning NRI families.
The kids are idolized? Really? Not made fun of for being coconut-ized (in reality or perception)?
Really? I don’t know, I could see the idolization if they are there as visitors.. but if they are there trying to integrate into society as “average” members, I don’t see that as idolization. Also, idolization is not exactly a walk in the park either. It could make one very uncomfortable, sure, it’s not as alienating as derogatory remarks, but it’s a form of isolation.
Hi Runa, yeah, I remember your earlier comment, and the comments you were referring to, and can understand why they were upsetting. Of course there is truth to what you say, but I honestly believe it is more common that ABD’s try in different ways to relate positively to India. Some through community service, some through trying to learn about their religion of birth, of course many through bhangra/garba/Bollywood, etc.
Perception is all 🙂 For my part, what sticks out to me more on this site, and more frequently as of late, is an influx of some DBD’s (this does not include you of course) who stop by, apparently glance over what is current, and spew some hateful generalizing comment about ABD’s and this site. As you know this site has regular British-born, American-born, and Indian/Pakistani/Sri Lankan readers, in other words is more of a mixture than might appear on superficial first glance.
Which brings me to what I was going to say – the comments which originally upset you? I know that at least one of the commenters struck me as possibly being non-desi. I don’t know if it is true of course, but I got that feeling from the rhetoric used in the comment. But this is just to say that it is not necessarily true that non-DBD commenters are all ABD’s or of any Desi origin whatsoever. And in fact some of the critical, broad-brush negative generalizations about India come from DBD’s (in the vein of, “You privileged ABD’s – you don’t realize the wide extent of poverty/caste discrimination and violence/subjugation of women/etc. in India.”).
And of course my perception is that FOB arises as a reaction to being called ABCD by recent immigrants for whatever reasons (I am not starting a fight so I won’t list specific possibilities here). Who knows who’s right, or which term came first?
One thing that gets me sometimes is that people who immigrate and intend to settle and have kids still smugly use “ABCD” to describe people like me. Given that this is a younger generation than my parents, they are more westernized than my parents were when they immigrated – so do they really think their own children will be less “C” than me? I really take that to be an insult to my parents and others of their generation.
iABD, Absolutely agree with you.
I have definitely become more conscious of my heritage after visiting Sepia Mutiny and its thanks to all the wonderful ABD commenters/posters here. I have learnt a lot. Its just that I felt morally obliged to call out some of the generalizations by some of the commenters. By way of poor explanation I was called “Jhansi Ki Rani ” in college due to my inability to let the opportunity for any argument pass 🙂 and old habits die hard I guess.
Hey, I think it’s important too. 🙂 Your criticisms are well taken, I just wonder if some of those commenters were not actually ABD’s as you had originally attributed. Pax. 🙂
Your “Jhansi ki Rani” habit can’t possibly be as irritating as my last-word reflex 😉
Runa @ 200
I agree it cuts both ways.
Wow, I didn’t see this earlier, Digresser. So well put…a fight over cultural identity in the western world.
From what I’ve seen, yes. They’re not visitors — many come back around the age of 10 and stay at least till 18 or 20, which is the period you really have to settle in and integrate with your peers. They’re not made fun of — if they are, it’s playful, and generally by adults or older kids as a way of petting them. But I don’t know if my experience is representative… these were my classmates from international and missionary schools in B’lore, both of which are pretty Anglo-/Americo-phillic.
“Another question what is acting black?”
Good Question Doug. I have no idea..what that means or where it came from.
Acting American (and possibly British?) ghetto style. Black people are a majority in the ghettos of New York, New Jersey, Detroit and several other urban centers. So even though other ethnicities live there as well, being that black people are the majority, “acting black” means “acting ghetto”.
“Dressing black” would then mean “dressing ghetto”, “talking black” would mean “talking ghetto”, etc.
BlackWhite people are a majority of theghettosracists of New York, New Jersey, Detroit and several other urban centers. So even though other ethnicities are racist as well, being thatblackwhite people are the majority, “actingblackwhite” means “actingghettoracist”.Ditto, good call Doug.
Ask a black person what it means. They know.
White people are in the majority for racism? Since when?
Anyway, like I said, ask a black person what “acting black” means. They have NO problem knowing or telling you.
Unlike the rest of us non-blacks who act like we don’t know what that means. Come on!
PG, now, now, take a deep breath, say Krishna thrice, and focus on your inner yoni (or outer one, if you prefer).
They are the same. It’s all one. Eka-yoni-tattwa.
Why fight over FOB or ABCD ? Let us spend more time on constructive things in life. We are all desis and we all have desi blood in us. No matter if you were born in US or India doesn’t matter..So Just chill chill…
Actually NRI is a tax status where an Indian Citizen resides in India for less than 182 days. Unlike US citizens who are taxed no matter where they live. Indian citizens are taxed on their global income if they are residents and only on Indian sourced income if they are NRIs.
If you are not an Indian citizen you CANNOT be a NRI.
You can be a PIO [Person of Indian Origin] if you apply for that status or if you apply for an overseas citizenship then an OCI [Overseas citizen of India].
Colloquially any desi outside of India is refered to as a NRI whatever their status.
@Sadaiyappan #14
The OCI is not a full citizenship. So you are actually citizen of only one country USA.
http://newdelhi.usembassy.gov/acsdualnation.html
I agree with you, iABCD, but I would like to point out that I am not you. !!!!
Racism implies a power difference, institutional control. White people are the only demographic capable of any meaningful kind of racism. Anyway, I was showing you the irony of your statement, that you’d most likely question my logic, when in fact it’s the same logic you used.
I don’t agree.
Maybe in some area of the world. In India I’m discriminated against all the time, both as a non-Indian and as a woman. As a foriegner I have very little clout over there.
Here in USA some of the most racist people I know are non-whites. That racism is directed towards of others (white or not) of a background different from theirs.
Anyway, to pretend we don’t get a visual in our mind of what “acting black” means when describing non-black gang members is just silly denial.
“Acting black” in that context means “acting ghetto”.
Do I really have to qualify that statement with “not all black people live in ghettos”??? We already know that.
Most black people may not be living in ghettos, however when “acting black” is used in the context it was, it means “acting ghetto style”.
So many blacks say, “oh he acts white”. What does that mean?
It means acting upper middle class suburbian. In other words, “acting American desi” – hee hee hee.
Dough, thank you for the reality check.
PG, honestly, did you ask every black person in the U.S. that question? I think you’d find a much different answer. The idea that “acting black”=”acting ghetto” is not an idea created or perpetuated by black communities in the U.S. The idea that there even is a singular way to “act black” is a deeply racist idea (as in, deeply rooted in racism).
i don’t know about this camille. if you read the black press, you’ll find this to be an issue of much debate especially in the field of education where it is alledged that the black kids perpetuate the idea that getting good grades = acting white. now you might debate the extent to which this is prevelent, but when various figures like cosby to obama have bought it up, it can hardly be considered an absurd idea, or one than can only be attributed to white racism. hese is obama:
i certainly agree with you, but the politcs of authenticity, designed to instil pride in the victims of racism, has sadly embraced a reverse racism, and even worse, embraced some of the worst stereotypes of those victims.
That racism is not institutional racism (it’s just “sticks and stones,” not “do you really deserve this job”), whereas I could agree with you that you might face institutional racism in India where the system is run by Indians.
By the way, PG, how do you know that Doug is not African-American? In which case he’s not someone trying to take a politically-correct stance as a quick self-esteem boost, but rather a very understandably offended person who would feel the need to challenge the use of the phrase “acting black.” If I were on a predominantly non-Desi site and had someone casually toss out a stereotype, you can bet I would question that statement.
I don’t know if I would chalk this one up to the politics of authenticity, Manju. It seems a natural (though obviously not always constructive) reaction of a group which has suffered prejudice – to defend itself by sharply defining the ingroup vs outgroup. I think it doesn’t involve a philosophy, but just fundamental automatic social psychology.
HMF – that position’s a cop out. So any non-white person is allowed to hurt a white person racially because, according to you, the non-white is not propped up by various power structures in society. What about the simple power of an individual reducing/discriminating against another individual on the basis of colour? Are white people somehow immune to the feeling of exclusion and dislike which racism brings? If a white person attended a majority black party and the black people mocked him/her on the basis of race, are you saying the white person would not be entitled to feeling discriminated against? If a desi refused to hire a white person for a job, and that white person was the best qualified, would the white person would have no right to claim himself/herself to be a victim of racism? I grant you that the reverse scenario (white not hiring a desi or a black) would be a racism with more reach and impact, because of the existing power structures. But the first scenario is still an example of racism, despite the victim being white – and could be devastating to the individual on the receiving end.
CB you have understand that HMF does not like white people,so there is nothing that you can do to change his mind.
CB, I don’t want to speak for HMF, but I think there is a distinction between “racial hatred” (your example of a white person mocked at a “black party”) versus “racism” (of the institutional type, as referenced by iABD). I also think it’s possible for people of color to be racist — isn’t this where the concept of an “uncle Tom” comes from? I also think it’s possible for people of any color to practice racial hatred – i.e. racist terms, hate violence, etc.
Manju, I understand what you’re saying, but my contention is that there wasn’t some congress of Black people who got together and said “acting black means ‘acting ghetto.'” I’m saying that the idea is not an organic idea that came out of Black communities, but rather, it’s something that came out of a system of racism in this country. That said, I don’t disagree that some folks attribute scholastic (or other) success as “acting white,” but I also don’t think that this is an idea that has any kind of positive traction when people think about. Internalized racism is still racism, unfortunately.
And my overall argument with PG is that just because “everyone knows what ‘acting black'” means in this context doesn’t mean that Black communities necessarily endorse or support that interpretation of the term. It’s still offensive. If someone asked me what “acting FOB-by” meant, I would know what they were referring to, and that it was pejorative. My understanding of the term in a pejorative way doesn’t mean that I agree with the implied characterization.
I agree with you, but I do place more priority on “racism with more reach and impact because of the existing power structures.”
I’m sure Iqbal Singh, while lying in a pool of his own blood, was very comforted by the fact that his attacker was not capable of any meaningful kind of racism.
Am i wrong in assuming that alot of the desis on this site do not have intimate and continuous contact with black Americans?
No. I didn’t say that. Sure individual power is applicable, but is not potent unless it’s applied in extreme, ie a black man shooting up a restaurant and targetting whites. It’s something that’s done to much more fanfare, and in many cases in a law breaking format. But racism as I understand it,
Be realistic. This scenario is highly unlikely for two reasons
If you honestly truly believe that white people are equally susceptible to having assumptions on their character made solely on their race, then that’s simply an erroneous observation.
Yes that’s exactly it. It was my evil twin BMF that said there are many whites who challenge the privelages they have in American society, and more people like them would assist in bringing a society based on true equity.
Manju,
I answered this point here:
“No. I didn’t say that. Sure individual power is applicable, but is not potent unless it’s applied in extreme, ie a black man shooting up a restaurant and targetting whites”
And I’ll follow up to say, that yes, indeed it could have a horrible adverse effect, but such acts of passion, and lack of premeditiation make the perpetrator highly accountable. Whereas, those acts of discrimination in education, housing, and criminal justice that routinely effect minorities do not come with the same accountability. I see your point, but the two cannot be equated.
Manju:
This quote does not specifiy the source of the “slander”, only that parents should eradicate it. It is your assumption the source is attributed solely, or even primarily to African Americans.
I experience this in India all the time.
That’s one of the reasons I stayed over here for over a year this time.
My comment is in an American context.
From my perspective, yes. 🙂 Then again, my experiences are totally skewed, and I doubt I am representative of most folks on this site.
hmf, just out of curiosity, haw does your definition of racism work outside the american context. can whites be racist in africa?
also in the US, is the KKK today really racist? they are poor, working class, powerless, extremist, and do not have much institutional control?
Manju,
Good questions.
Honestly, for this, I couldn’t tell you, I’ve never lived any where outside the US. But whites, and anyone really, can be racist in an institutional sense where that power and infrastructure exists, along with a more amorphous “psychology” has been embedded in the people. While that effect cannot be be quantified with Z-scores, ANOVA, and F-tests, I think it’s incorrect to ignore it.
And in fact, I’d say in most of the previous colonies, Africa, Asia, the whites that do live there, live more or less isolated from the general population, and do not intermingle as much.
Not anymore. They are not racist in an institutional sense, but they were, when they had institutional power in the form of judiciaries, police, etc… etc.. However, to whatever limited degree they exist, they are heavily prejudiced, and do have a history and legacy in this country, that can’t be completely ignored.
i’ve followed this debate, and in every instance i know of, the context has been “African American peer-culture.” which i did not take to mean white kids enforcing a code on black kids.
here is a interesting study.
PG, is this your way of hinting that you are right and everyone is wrong? Yes, by the way, I believe your assumption is quite wrong. How about you? Am I wrong in assuming that you do not have intimate and continuous contact with African-Americans?
As I have said above, I do agree that when you are in India you could well be victimized by institutional racism. When HMF makes his/her comments about institutional racism perpetuated by whites, s/he’s talking specifically about the US.
If in fact you do see yourself as able to make “insider” comments about African-Americans because you have indeed had intimate and continuous contact, that is an interesting grey area because of course that’s hard for others who do not know you to pick up on. In fact I think that is one of two interesting areas of conflict I see among commenters here. I hypothesize that some DBD’s are put off by ABD’s making statements about India because they see the ABD’s as “outsiders” making generalizations whereas the ABD’s see themselves as “insiders.” In fact you are enmeshed in this sort of conflict all the time here, being seen as an “outsider” stereotyping the ingroup whereas you see yourself as an “insider.” Obviously no judgment can really be made about who has the correct interpretation.
The second interesting area of conflict that I see, by the way, arises from of course not knowing who other commenters are – their age, race, gender, ABD, DBD, non-desi, life experience, etc. People make assumptions about the demographic of other commenters and respond accordingly and shape perceptions and generalizations about what the commenter’s assumed group thinks as a whole. I remember when something like this happened to Clueless, was it a few months back? Where he was disbelieved after making a very honest comment because some other commenters were for some reason convinced he was a woman.
While that’s true, it’s a bit nearsighted. And I believe people like the Coz and Obama would agree, that African American peer culture has developed into a “Be an entertainer or athlete, and if you read you’re just a whitey wannabe” culture because for the longest time, those were the only opportunities afforded to them. You cannot have any serious discussion of “pathologies” of African American peer culture without looking at what the white power structure has done to influence and develop those pathologies.
I’m sure African PhD students don’t think of themselves as “acting white” as they earn their degrees.
Pg I am black,I can tell not all black people act ghetto so if a white person is acting a fool should I tell them to stop acting trailer park.
South Africa has a long history of apartheid and is still one of the most racist nations today.
I think Manju meant, without controlling the institutions, infrastructure, etc… as in, can a single white resident be “racist” in a country where the infrastructure is controlled by non whites.
Why not? What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
Besides, the term “white trash” is used to refer to trailer park people anyway, isn’t it? At least that’s what I was told here.
Yes, you are wrong. My fiance is African-American.
The reason I assumed that was because “white” is used by the desis here in their writings as a default. Whenever they are talking about people stereotyping desis or whatever, their like, “I’m sick of white people thinking arranged marriages are forced marriages”, etc, etc, etc. It’s always white, White, WHITE people, which leads me to believe that the majority of people these desis are moving around are white.
How many western black people have a good understanding of what arranged marriages are about, and the difference between so-called “arranged” and forced? But by default it’s the white people given as examples.
I’m just using the arrange marriage thing as one example. There are numerous others.
What am I supposed to assume by that? That all you desis here work with and/or socialize with mostly black Americans as opposed to white ones?
I still think I’m not too far off the mark when I say the majority of you here are a majority time around white people – from your work, to your home, to your club, to your tennis court, to your gym, to your shopping center.