When ER first came on TV, I remember thinking it looked completely unrealistic because it was too damned white. Now I finally have some numbers to back up my instincts:
 |
|
Plenty more like her |
From 1980 to 2004, the fraction of medical school graduates describing themselves as white fell from 85 percent to 64 percent. Over that same period, the percentage of Asians increased from 3 percent to 20 percent, with Indians and Chinese the two biggest ethnic groups. [Link]
S. Balasubramaniam … recently queried 50 medical schools and calculated that 12 percent of the class that entered in 2006 is of Indian heritage. The highest percentages are in California, Texas, New York, New Jersey and New England. [Link]
<
p>While the article doesn’t indicate anything about Balasubramaniam’s sampling methodology, the numbers are consistent with my gut feelings about the number of brown faces I’ve seen amongst med students. When asked to explain why she went into medicine, one desi doctor said:
“We were never forced into medicine … But in the Indian community in Chicago, everyone was a professional. Everyone was a doctor or an engineer…” [Link]
<
p>Although there have always been many desi doctors, the numbers of current brown medical students represent a sizeable increase over past years since roughly 5% of all doctors are of Indian origin, and many of them studied abroad:
In the US, Indians and Indian-Americans make up the largest non-Caucasian segment of the American medical community, where they account for one in every 20 practicing doctors. [Link]
<
p>
<
p>My thoughts at this point go off in two different directions. The first is about the clannishness of desi doctors. How many times have you heard a doctor say that nobody can understand what they go through unless they’re a doctor themselves? It’s as if they think that being a doctor is distinct from other professions, on a plane of its own, completely inaccessible to people who do other things for a living. They also love to boast about the hours they work, even though (post-residency) my doctor friends work both shorter and more predictable hours than friends who are lawyers, iBankers or programmers.
<
p>I don’t understand why they feel this way though – I’ve never heard anything similar from engineers. Is it the combination of the long training and the high salaries? What’s at the root of this medical exceptionalism?
My other thought has to do with how little the multicultural nature of the medical profession is reflected on TV. ER finally has a one desi doctor. To the best of my knowledge, none of the other medical shows do (although I don’t watch much TV so please correct me if I’m wrong).
This is part of a larger problem, namely that the America you see on the small screen is significantly whiter than reality. An analysis of the 2001 Fall Season found that:
White characters received 81 percent of screen time, while non-Hispanic whites make up about 70 percent of the population. [Link]
<
p>An article I once read made the case that this was driven by audiences and advertisers, namely that white Americans felt most comfortable with shows that skewed whiter than what than realistic demographics, and therefore advertisers were willing to pay more to reach them. The article below makes a similar argument, but puts the blame more squarely on advertisers:
The FCC has collected plenty of … evidence, illustrating a range of racist assumptions about non-white customers openly cited by advertisers as reasons to pay less for ads in ethnic markets, or not to buy them at all. There’s the buyer for Ivory soap who refused to purchase time on a Latino-formatted station because “Hispanics don’t bathe as frequently as non-Hispanics.” (FCC study, “When Being No. 1 Is Not Enough: The Impact of Advertising Practices on Minority-Formatted Broadcast Stations,” 1/99) Companies have cited worries that “our pilferage will increase,” if they advertise on minority stations, or said simply, “Your station will bring too many black people to my place of business.” If that’s not racism, what is?… [Link]
<
p>
<
p>This is part of how we end up with TV shows like Friends that are set in New York City but which show a city which is whiter than Boise, Idaho. To me, that’s just bad television and I refuse to watch it.
<
p>I do realize that because of stereotypes about Asians we’re likely to see Asian representation on TV increase soon, but I want more than just parity for yellows and brownz. And yes, I do also realize that TV shows are fantasy not reality, but that’s precisely what bothers me. If the absence of minority characters represents the fantasy world of white viewers, then what does that tell us about them?
Related Stories: How Asian doctors saved the NHS
It’s cool, this blog has covered this before race=class, most recently here. As my own AfAm community expands its possibilities- we become free to let other’s exist outside of the old b-w paradigm
I just know I will regret this but: Care to explain what relevance this remark has on this discussion?
I meant “in ” not “on”
She is talking about the “indian community” not her “social circle”:
You can see a number of posters regularly boasting about the same thing right here. As if all indians are doctors, lawyers or engineers.
Totally missed this the first time. Prema, REALLY!? As a 2nd/3rd gen ABD, I personally DO NOT feel liable for the “lack of factchecking” among Indians or that “backwardness” of India itself. Jeezus, Mary and Joseph. There has also been considerable discussion re: the model minority myth here at SM. I think a great read for the standard professional/upper/upper-middle class desi or child of such desis is Vijay Prashad’s Karma of Brown Folk. It breaks things down relatively accessibly, and its audience is decidedly “professional” immigrants and their kids.
nativity and citizenship status: native: 26.7% foreign born naturalized – 32% foreign born not citizen – 41.3%
increase the foreign % a bit for brownz as a while, this is only indians (though these are 90% of brownz).
(page 13 of the above URL)
camille, i wouldn’t take prema seriously. he/she/it has a long record of attesting to the poverty, primitivity, low IQ nature, small penis reality, hated-by-others and pathetic generality of brown people. i assume this is an attempt to serve as a counterpoint to the childish ethnic-boosterism which many brown americans exhibit (on pan-brown, caste, skin color, etc. dimensions), but of course it just antagonizes people.
Naren Shankar
Prema,
<
blockquote>everyone was a doctor or engineer [emphasis mine]
The operative word is “WAS.” And she was talking about the Indian community in Chicago, and she is currently a senior physician, which would indicate that she went into medicine at least 10 years ago. It is not unfathomable that her quote is relatively accurate for her time and her region. As someone who has family who were among the OG desis in Chicago, I’m telling you, when they moved there in the 1960s/70s, the Indian community in Chicago WAS composed solely of professionals. This was because of the U.S.’s immigration system at the time. I’m not saying its natural or organic or that Indians are the bomb dot com. I’m just saying she may be reflecting an accurate viewpoint re: her childhood.
I’m not saying that all desis are professionals. I’m just saying that people are not necessarily ignorant liars for voicing that in the area they lived this was what they observed.
foreign born naturalized – 32% foreign born not citizen – 41.3%
That’s very interesting. I sort of expected the foreign born not citizen number to be much more than 10% greater than the foreign born naturalized number. The numbers for all three categories are pretty close, actually.
I sort of expected the foreign born not citizen number to be much more than 10% greater than the foreign born naturalized number.
foreign born groups like canadians, latin americans (mexicans especially) and many europeans actually have the lowest naturalization rates from what i remember. the rationale is that they might want to go back or do business in their countries of origin. this is less true of asian immigrants.
The 2000 cenus said that 27.07 Indo-Americans were born in the United States another 29.04 became naturalized citizens.
I know, I’m sorry, I should know better. Bad Camille, bad self control. Thank you, though, for the stats, razib! Super interesting — I didn’t think the native born population was so small in comparison to the foreign born pop! I mean, I didn’t think we were an overwhelming majority, but also didn’t think we were such a small %. I’m going to go have fun on the census page now, I think.
Prema in #190 – you forgot to mention caste in your rant.
didn’t think the native born population was so small in comparison to the foreign born pop!
perhaps it is just your social circle 😉
I wonder how HMF will deal with the facts that only 27% of desi americans were born in the United States.
perhaps it is just your social circle 😉 Of course 😉 You know us ABDs — all we do is get together in ABD-only groups and bash DBDs (but of course, we use more derogatory acronyms). That is, when we’re not making fun of shaadi.com, contributing to India’s backwardness, or killing small children.
It’s not very clear if the foreign born non naturalized includes only GC holders (PRs) or it also includes various Visa holders – maybe I need to dig more. I searched a little and it seems that the numbers are totally dependent on respondents and any respondent who does not answer himself/herself to be a citizen gets included in the non citizen category and so it does not seem to take data from INS records etc. My guess would be that most Visa holders would not bother taking part in the census and thus a lot of the VISA holders are not included in these numbers and would explain why there seem to be more DBDs around than what is reflected in the numbers.
I used the wrong text to quote in #218, that post would be more to imply that there are even more DBDs than you see in the numbers.
Actually you are a good example of this almost universal desi propensity of ignoring facts, as I showed in the other thread. Someone who thinks that a Nobel Laureate, with an international reputation to maintain, has pulled numbers out his arse when those numbers contradict her delusions, isnt exactly a rational person.
No, the operative word is EVERYONE. Show us how her claim that “Everyone was a doctor or an engineer” was true at any time in Chicago. Using your personal anecdotes to show that it was so does not cut mustard.
As a proud DBD, I say ‘Truer words have never been spoken’ 😉
Camille, Big shout out and kudos for not using you -know-what in place of DBD 🙂
Management includes managing motels, convenience stores etc. You will find more indians behind the counters of small convenience stores and low end motels than in a doctor’s office. Far more.
I am not going to continue to parse words with you. My point is your statement was extreme. You never fail to disappoint on that level.
Whatever, Prema. You know full well that is not what I said, but you are enamored with reinterpreting reality to fit your self-righteous, offensive, and condescending seat on your high horse. You can kiss my ass.
“I was once (actually a few months back) asked to help this Arab American immigrant who stopped to get a soda at a gas station off I-65 in Southern Kentucky and he ended up spending the next one month in jail. When I went down to get the guy off, I don’t think they had ever seen a non-white/black guy there period. The cops were not only openly racist but had no problems publicly using terms like ‘nigger’ etc. The Court assigned public defender missed the arraignment date and the public defender’s office told me that they didn’t have time for ‘them people’. The Court itself was a circus. From the clerk to the bailiff to the Judge, racism was not only in your face, they were engaging in it with impunity and scarce disregard for anything. I am not exaggerating the insanity of that place.
I can assure you that a remote rural town in Southern Kentucky is not like New York City. Maybe they had one or two desi families there owning a gas station or whatever and maybe their children had fine experiences growing up there. But the fact of the matter is that not all areas in the US are equally comfortable with minorities.”
Where in Kentucky was this? I am curious because I live in Kentucky.
You can kiss my ass.
amen!
Uhh. hello, I didn’t quote from “white chicks” I quoted from a movie that most film critics and cinema watchers as an accurate portrayal of race relations in america. A movie that nearly 20 years after its release still engenders debate. Don’t trivialize it the way you trivialized the socialized conceptualizations of race into yankees vs. redsox. And I didn’t discount your experience, I acknowledged it, but put it into a larger social context. I also said it could easily coexist with mine.
And I’m curious as to your answer to my question… Would these lovey dovey white neighbors of yours be completely comfortable living amongst a majority brown neighborhood? And of course the answer is no. Because chances are they feel more personally comfortable as they consider you as “one of them.”
Alright, then please do tell me, can a collective statement be made about any group ? I can easily flip this line of reasoning around on you. I base my statements on data from studies, readings, and personal anecdote. My language is replete with “majority, predominantly, tendency, are more likely…” etc.. The only case where I make absolutely statements is where it’s clearly hyperbole, where I use lots of swear words and other humorous devices.
You know full well that that is just what you were implying when you dismissed the numbers Amartya Sen gave for hunger in India:
Kiss your own ass, or get Razib to do the dirty deed 🙂
I was speaking, HMF, specifically about my town and the people in it that I know. I wasn’t generalizing, or shouldn’t have if I did. For you to tell me I’m wrong about people that I know and you don’t is bizarre. Seriously, it’s completely bizarre.
Also, you misread me. I was talking about provincialism as regards the yankees-red sox point. Provincialism is different from racism, okay? What I meant is that people in larger cities can be provincial, too.
Why are you so sure the white people I knew growing up were secretly racist? By your standards, so were all the desis I knew growing given their extreme concern their children marry other desis, preferably of a certain profession. You don’t know these people, I do. Who exactly is trivializing, here? Seriously, why do think you know more about people I do than you do? And, why don’t you ever link these studies you read?
in the Indian community in Chicago, everyone was a professional. Everyone was a doctor or an engineer What a shameless, brazen liar!
thanks for pointing this out. it’s a ridiculous statement to make, and one that is commonly made. it upsets me when people make their small indian circle to represent the entire indian american population in the area.
I don’t think she was lying for god’s sake – I think this is just what she experienced and probably not being a sociologist didn’t qualify her statement.
Thats a ridiculous argument. You dont need to be a sociologist to notice that there are far more indians working in convenience stores, cheap motels etc than in hospitals.
I disagree with you Prema; I see no reason why this couldn’t be the girl’s experience. I’m sure it’s more that than a diabolical lie to make Indian-Ams look good. I do think she’s probably led a sheltered life.
Also, isn’t it good they considered me one of them? Isn’t that what we want? In a color blind society (which we don’t have) wouldn’t we all think we are all one? This is the trouble I have with your comments; it’s all shifting sands. I point out people I know who are wonderful and, as far as I know, with as little predjudice as a person can have (it’s hard, we all have them) and you belittle them as lovey-dovey. Why? In your shifting sands world, are there any good white people?
a color blind society (which we don’t have) wouldn’t we all think we are all one?
God no, this is not what I want. I think we should be aware that people have differences and similarities. More than likely a color-blind society will be won, in which everyone is made to look like the majority.
“This is a special case, and I still contend “brown christians” are have more cultural similarity with the 2nd generation Indian population (regardless of religion) rather than their white christian counterparts. From what little I know, Christianity as practiced in India is distinctly separate from how it’s practiced here in the States. but I may be wrong”.
As a former practising Catholic (my ancestry comes from ye olde portuguese days in goa), I can say, most of the catholics (christians are grouped into protestants and catholics in my circle of family and friends!) especially in Bombay/ Goa where I grew up, have a cultural similarity to the Latin American/ Hispanic culture than the “white” christian ideology. When I was in Miami, I felt like every Tia/ Abuela could be related to me; in terms of dress, attitude, greetings (kisses on cheeks), food and many thought I was hispanic because of my last name.
Also, most Goan Catholics are Indian in the most western sense, and yes may identify readily to a second or third gen. Indian American. From my experience, I can say my grandparents and great grandparents etc. considered themselves goans first (with a portuguese lifestyle) and Indians last. They made no attempt to assimilate into mainstream Indian (Hindu) culture, preferring to stay among their own catholic enclave of family and friends. By the way, mainstream India (bollywood) wholly misrepresents Goans and other minorities in movies as well as on television.
Again, nice characterization, you somehow contort my statement into me claiming your neighbors secretly had swastika flags and would break into your house at night and poison your food. What I am saying is, there is a perception that many white people have that white=normal, that their reality is the. As for provincialism, when it’s used against someone who is nonwhite, it cannot be separate from racism. The idea of “look at that brown skinned person there, he’s foreign, I’m native, this is my town, my country, etc…” is no way equatable to yankees vs redsox. That was the context I read it in.
I’ve noticed something in your posts, contextually, you think of white people as just another ethnicity, this is a false view. They are a socially constructed race. A race loosely based on melanin but moreso based on social class, ie a “club that either you’re in” by having someone else to “other” And entry into that club meant you gave up you’re true ethnicity. Irish people discarded their irishness, and became white, same with Italians, and greeks. All of these groups at one point were considered “foreigners who’d mess up the country”, now they’re all ‘white’. How do you explain that?
So in a sense, racial privelage and racial “normalcy” is inextricable from this concept of ‘white’ And this is true, whether you know them or I know them, or neither of us know them. Now there are a small percentage of whites that have confronted this, and analyzed it and spent a great deal of time combating their own socializations, but if you’d have me believe that all of them just happened to live next to you.. kudos to you, you’re very lucky.
And the fact of the matter is, whites in general can afford this level of indifference and insulation. in 1996, 6% of white people thought racism was still a problem, 12% of white people thought elvis was still alive. If whites are twice as more likely to think elvis is alive rather than race having a place in our national discourse, doesn’t it suggest a level of denial? Even the ones that live by you?
I’m still waiting for an answer to my question….
Alright, then please do tell me, can a collective statement be made about any group ?
yes.
I was implying that, with respect to the interview you cited, occasionally Amartya Sen lumps together regions to make a (more) dramatic point. If you read anything else into it, that is your problem, not mine. If you disaggregate SSA, the statistics do not necessarily bode as well, particularly when you exclude South Africa, which in my opinion should not be lumped in with the rest when measuring HDI or other development indicators. Additionally, the difference (regionally) between India and SSA is NOT huge along most indicators, they sit solidly at the bottom together most of the time, with the exception of female literacy. I was not arguing that his statistics were not correct, but that they had been subtly manipulated to provide more “shock value.” My full quote reads:
Also, since I am soooo delusional, I would love for you to come over to where I worked while in SSA and resurrect the bodies of infants, AIDS victims, women, and others who died — impoverished — from malnourishment, disease, etc. I must have been deluded or imagining things when I watched people die while I worked abroad. I must have completely imagined the sociopolitical hierarchy of the regions I worked in as well. Oh, silly me — because Amartya Sen has said it is worse in India, it must not be bad anywhere else. The last sentence was sarcasm, by the way. Would hate to have someone think I was “implying” anything different from that.
Also, with respect to Chicago, there is little to no empirical evidence (government-wise) of how many desis were employed in “non professional” fields in 1970 because they weren’t tracked. I checked. The 1970 census in Illinois only tracked the age and sex of “persons not white or Negro” in the 1970 census at the city level. For the state, there were 9,756 “Indians” (unclear if this means “indigenous” or desi), and 610 were foreign born. There is little to no information available online re: employment/economics or demographics therein. [cite]
What PS said, I also answered this earlier, in #74. Because in all honesty, when I push comes to shove, I know that even though they “see me” as equal, they’re more equal. This is a personal anecdote I know, but I’m not speaking about a state I wasn’t in myself. I wanted to believe “I was one of them” for so long, I also thought it was a good thing.. I uncle tom’d so hard I made clueless look like Louis Farakhan.
But very small little things, subtle things happened that all culminated in what I (and Sam Jackson from pulp fiction) call… a moment of clarity. Mind you I’m not saying any of this applies to you, your friends may be genuine, but they’re still products of the USA national consciousness..
Im glad you cleared that up.
Okay, I will just have to stop because you and I are so opposite in our beliefs, I don’t think we can talk to each other. I don’t mean that in a pejorative way; I just don’t understand what you are saying which I guess is pejorative to me. You basically are saying white is a social construct. Okay. But, then, you say some people have ‘true’ identities. So how do you tell true from the construct? People didn’t lose their Italianess or Irishness; they came here, had kids, and those kids became socialized to the country and culture they live in and as time went on, that became the new norm. Culture is not static. What I don’t get is why having grandparents born in Italy, but being American because you grew up here and your friend are here and you are socialized here, means you’ve lost something? Why isn’t your true identity the one based on your childhood experiences and travels? Why should my true identity be my parents identity? We didn’t have the same experiences.
The answer to your question is that they would do fine, but I bet class makes a difference, and you know that. If they moved to West Chicago, they’d have a problem, but so do the people living there. It’s a rough part of town. If they moved to a middle class brown neigbhorhood in Atlanta, they’d have adjustments to make, but they’d do it, and be fine with it. That’s my hypothetical answer to your hypothetical question.
I disagree my friend, white immigrants made special efforts not to teach their children their language and customes, because they felt immense pressure to “fit in” to anglo-american culture. Its clearaly laid out here: http://www.amazon.com/Irish-Became-White-Noel-Ignatiev/dp/0415918251, written by a white man, not the ooga booga reverse racist HMF!!
Well embedded in your answer is clear racial stratification, it’s no coincidence that colored folks happen to live in “rough parts of town” but if you honestly believe that white folks would be completely comfortable living in a neighborhood dominated by non-whites, when in fact 80% of white people in this country live in places where there are next to no minoritiess, you’re correct, we can’t talk with each other.
the 80% stat is here:
http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2003-12/19wise.cfm, the hyper link didnt take.
I don’t get that white is socially constructed but every other race isn’t. All race is socially constructed. There’s no biological foundation for race…just something we created in our head, most likely b/c of political socioeconomic conditions. Humans are humans. And your race can change depending on where you live and the political socio-economic conditions you are in. RAce really is nothing more than culture….yes, people who have lived in certain areas for a long time, will begin to have noticeable distinct phenotypes — it’s funny how certain phenotypes are the demarcations for distinct races.
Wouldn’t it be interesting if all the red heads in the world were considered a separate race to the black-haired people of the world. Or everyone with a flat nose was a considered a separate race as opposed to people with pointy noses?
When I say “race”, I am using what is our political identity in the US, what I mark in the census box, and also what similarities I have culturally with other people.
Early immigrants were required to anglicize their names when coming to USA. With few to no mosques, muslim immigrants such as those in my family, quickly lost contact with their original cultures/languages. They assimilated and learned english really, really fast, which had it’s benefits (probably some drawbacks too, though I never anyone complain).
Things are different nowadays coz this country is so multi-culti, which also has it’s benefits.
Probably my grandfather, if he were to immigrate now instead of when he did, would have a mosque to attend and people of his faith/culture to hang and speak in his mother tongue with. He probably would’ve assimlated and learned english at a much slower rate.
noel ignatiev is not an uncontroversial scholar. here is the subheading for the journal he founded, “race traitor.”
http://www.racetraitor.org/
“treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity”
i think it is going to be hard to be taken seriously when whatever solid ideas he might have or promotes his wrapped up in such inflammatory rhetoric.
I don’t get that white is socially constructed but every other race isn’t. All race is socially constructed. There’s no biological foundation for race
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/01/race-current-consensus.php
anyway. the whole issue with white ethnics was less their race than their non-protestantism. the book Catholicism and American Freedom: A History chronicles this history. as for jews, the term ‘judeo-christian’ became popular only in the 1950s. until the 1960s jewish outmarriage was less than 10% (today is nearly 50%).
He’s also not the only scholar to subscribe to the proposed theory of whiteness:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/002-5987836-3410420?%5Fencoding=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books&field-author=David%20R.%20Roediger
Hello! Any cluster does this.
Being part of a Hindu group in which the majority is Indians, they, no matter where in the world they happen to be, think that their Indian style of the Hindu faith that is practiced by all backgrounds of people is the right way, and that we, the non-Indians, though marginally accepted, cannot really “get it” because we are afterall still “videsi log”. Basically they have a cultural superiority complex and think that theirlittle Indian cultural reality is the, and that we can never fit in or really be a part of it. As non-Indians we are relegated to the “cultureless”.
And they really have a thing against those of us who have divorced.
You’re correct. it was MD’s misinterpretation that you read. It’s just, whiteness is constructed on the basis of privelage (the “in” club, that “we’re” in, and other’s aren’t) Other races are not, they’re constructed on genetic similarity (africans share a degree of similarity given the salient skin color feature) and shared social experiences (descendents of slaves, targetted as terrorists, etc…)
He’s also not the only scholar to subscribe to the proposed theory of whiteness:
yes. there is something real in that area of research, though i think some of the scholars put too much of an emphasis on race (and the title of the area tends to lend that impression). the emergence of the ‘americanist’ movement in the catholic church, the stamping out of german in the american catholic church by the irish hierarchy, and the power of the reform movement in judaism, are all part of becoming ‘protestant’ tendency (sociological studies show that american catholics tend to exhibit the attitudes of protestants when it comes to their religion, and this trend has been a problem since the early 19th century as catholic parishes attempt to enter into a relationship with the church that is analogous to their protestant neighbors).
in any case, i don’t think that whiteness is special. one could do a ‘hindu studies’ (for south asia in terms of out dalits and tribals are/were assimilated into hindu identity). or ‘han studies’ for how south chinese dialect speakers became chinese. or ‘arab studies’ for how aramaic and coptic speaking christian peasants become arabic speaking muslims.
theirlittle Indian cultural reality
You said it pg… as far as you’re concerned, what ever us browns do is “little.” maybe its this condescending attitude which makes us suspicious of you videsi log?