Bobby Makes History

Mutineers, we have our first brown Governor. :) Join me, as I bold my favorite parts of the NYT article which declares this history-making outcome. Bobby Zindabad.jpg

Bobby Jindal, a conservative Republican congressman from the New Orleans suburbs and the son of immigrants from India, was elected Louisiana’s governor Saturday, inheriting a state that was suffering well before Hurricane Katrina left lingering scars two years ago.
Mr. Jindal, 36, defeated three main challengers in an open primary, becoming this state’s first nonwhite governor since a Reconstruction-era figure briefly held the office 130 years ago.
With more than 90 percent of the vote counted, Mr. Jindal received 53 percent, above the 50 percent-plus-one threshold needed to avoid a runoff in November. He will be the nation’s first Indian-American governor when he takes office in January.

Have I popped champagne? Yes, I have. No, I don’t believe in teaching Intelligent Design, I certainly am not an advocate of getting rid of a woman’s right to choose and I still support hate crime legislation.

I can guzzle bubbly despite all that, because there’s something else stirring within me– recognition that someone who looks like me did something so significant, combined with an uncomplicated thrill over the fact that Bobby made history.

There are so many valid reactions to Jindal; I know about them because thanks to Amardeep’s post, we have hosted a lively discussion regarding his background, his policy positions and the greater implications of his politicking, for “the community”. Amardeep’s thoughts resonated with many of us who are conflicted about Louisiana’s new Governor. The good news is, there are no wrong reactions.

Each of us is allowed to feel how we do, so while some of you gnash your teeth, I’m happy for him and by extension, us. Better than that, the next time some little kid decides that they want to be in government when they grow up, their immigrant parents now have a visual, a template, a precedent to latch on to, much the same way my English minor was suddenly acceptable once Jhumpa won.

There is much to do, much which is owed to the great state of Louisiana and her people; this is just the beginning of that story and I idealistically hope that it has a happy ending. What Jindal can do (and really, whether he can do it) remains to be seen. But I don’t think it’s disrespectful or inappropriate to raise a glass to him tonight and wish him a sincere congratulations.

Doing so doesn’t mean we buy in to his positions lock stock, neither does it mean he’s like, the greatest thing EVAR. It just means that we are happy for someone who accomplished something extraordinary. Congratulating Bobby is something I humbly think we should do, because ideally we should each choose generosity of spirit over bitterness and rancor. Choosing the former and congratulating a winner doesn’t lessen us or diminish our passionate convictions, it just demonstrates our tolerance, equanimity and good faith that we will allow a person’s actions to speak before we do, negatively and presumptously.

659 thoughts on “Bobby Makes History

  1. I’ll give you an example to illustrate this.

    I personally know ultra-religous desi’s who are against gay marriage, and more moderate desi’s that don’t give a shit if two gay guys make out on their front lawn. So if I saw a desi, I’d have really no expectation as to what they’d think

    However, fully privatized, insurance company driven health care, tends to disproportinately benefit rich white CEOs, rather than poor patients who cannot afford high premiums and copays, etc.. so if I see a desi, I’d somewhat surprised if he fully supported a fully privatized, profit driven health care system, ie, the system we have now.

  2. It’s obvious he meant Jindal’s values, views and beliefs in an American political context, as he further states: ” free-market health care, intelligent design instead of evolution, anti-choice and a fenced-in America.”

    exactly. only a bigot would be surprised that an indian-american would advocate free-market heath care. has this guy not met an indian doctor, or a kerala chritian, or a legal indian immigrant. only someone who has difficulty seeing a poc as an individual could have this bizarre monolithic vision. a bigot, in other words.

    He’s making very specific points about conservative policies in these specific arenas that would disenfranchise minorities, and have done so historically. (with the exception of the evolution bit) This is the second time I’ve written this, shall we go for a third?

    this article is not about four specific policies. after all, he only mentions them once. but related to his bigotry is the ideological close-mindedness that conservative policies “disenfranchise minorites”. notice how this mindset treats matters of opinion as fact, and the obliviousness to the suffering poc have endured under the regimes that practice this identity politics.

    i believe that globalization and free markets are a great liberating force for indians, and opposition to these polices will result in their disenfranchisment. but i would not be so close-minded as to assume those who oppose these policies hate indians, or themselves.

  3. HMF- I’ve actually got to agree with Manju on this. I find the idea that desis should be against privatized health care bizarre. Mostly because many American desis tend to be rich doctors! It’s not just about the white man!

    I think Manju is stretching a bit with the word ‘bigot,’ because I think some of us are genuinely confused by Bobby Jindal. And it’s Emil’s belief that conservative policies disenfranchise minorities–which many believe, as you can see from the 90-10 Dem-Rep split among black voters-that leads to his confusion. I do think it is ridiculous to see Bobby Jindal as the same as black Americans, though, or to expect him to ‘unite’ with them, simply because of his skin color, and ignoring that his background (rich son of professionals who immigrated) is very different!

  4. the obliviousness to the suffering poc have endured under the regimes that practice this identity politics.

    what do you mean? if you mean socialist movements post-independence in many previous colonies, i think that some of those were genuinely believed by their leaders to be the right path to choose (though hindsight proves them wrong), not just ‘identity politics.’ sure, there was some of it, but I don’t think it’s fair to judge them all the same.

  5. if you mean socialist movements post-independence in many previous colonies, i think that some of those were genuinely believed by their leaders to be the right path to choose (though hindsight proves them wrong), not just ‘identity politics.’

    yes, that’s what i mean and i agree that they had genueine beliefs.

    the history of communism, in particular, is one of histories great riddles. how could men of such intelligence and good will descend into a madness only rivaled by slavery and fascism. the answer lies, in part, with the close-mindedness of ideology. if one views, as marxists did, that working-class people who diaagree with them suffer from a “false consciousness” (not unlike jindals in authenticity and self hatred) then one never has to answer ones critics. once an ideology becomes this close minded, the results are predictable.

    perhaps this was to communism, what racism was to slavery.

  6. I’ve actually got to agree with Manju on this. I find the idea that desis should be against privatized health care bizarre

    That’s an eroding stereotype first of all, more professional desi’s are in legal and tech, and many “rich doctor” desi’s I know are also dissatisfied with the current health care system. Because the insurance co’s shaft them just as much as they shaft the patient.

    only someone who has difficulty seeing a poc as an individual could have this bizarre monolithic vision. a bigot, in other words.

    This again, is a complete misreading of the word bigot. A statement like emil’s to me reads as recognition that poc have similar experiences, it makes no statement at all about their individuality (or lack thereof).

    Lets try for another example: Lets say a certain village was next to a garbage dump, and it always smelled like garbage. now lets say we have two people in this village, A & B.

    If a person A said to person B, hey we should do something about this smell, that’s not bigotry, it’s saying, through no fault or action or desire of our own, we have this shared experience and we are acknowledging it.

    That doesn’t take away their individuality, it has nothing to do with it in fact.

    Now, if person A says to person B, “To get rid of the smell we need to buy 3 trucks and build this wall around us” and expects it from person B, sure it makes assumptions, but even that isn’t “bigotry”

    bigotry is someone outside the village saying, “you’re from X village, get away from me, because you smell and you’ll always smell.”

  7. to be fair, Manju, I think a lot of criticism about Jindal’s ‘inauthenticity’ is coming because of his conversion, changing his name, etc. — not even because of his politics. and i would feel angsty too if a U.S.-born Suresh Gadda converted to Christianity, became Sam Gadda, and became Governor of Ohio, even if he was a Democrat. I would be glad that he won if I lived in Massachusetts, b/c I would be more likely to agree with his politics, but I think a lot people would still question his ‘Indian-ness.’

  8. to be fair, Manju, I think a lot of criticism about Jindal’s ‘inauthenticity’ is coming because of his conversion, changing his name, etc

    perhaps. to bad conversions to marxism didn’t have the same effect.

  9. A statement like emil’s to me reads as recognition that poc have similar experiences

    emil didn’t say experiences, rather he said “similar values, views, beliefs…”

  10. “similar values, views, beliefs…”

    Oh boy. once again. It’s clear, from what follows, that this isn’t in a general sense, rather it’s the values, views and beliefs rooted in shared experiences, within the American political institution.

  11. Oh boy. once again. It’s clear, from what follows, that this isn’t in a general sense, rather it’s the values, views and beliefs rooted in shared experiences, within the American political institution

    he made no mention whatsoever of shared experiences. even on the one line where he mentions specific policies (immigration fence, health care, abortion, etc) as opposed the the general political values that he’s clearly writng about, there is hardly any overwhelming concensus among poc that would lead someone to be so surprised. unless that person were prejudiced.

    there are just so many indian-americans who support free-market heath care, so many hispnics who belive in creationism and are oppossed to abortion. and actually, there are quite a few latinos who belive in the fence, not to mention blacks and indian-americans.

    maybe the guy just needs to get out more. it’s really a bizaare statement, to say the least.

  12. there are just so many indian-americans who support free-market heath care,

    Need to see stats. Most doc’s under 40 get shafted by HMO’s just as much. They don’t necessarily want universal health care (which would the correct direction to go towards), because they’d only be able to by 2 Merc’s instead of 8, but they dont want 30% of each health care dollar going to some insurance company.

    I dont consider it “free market” I consider it, insurance-co benefitting, profit-driven, ram a cyanide tipped-cattle prod up your ass health care.

    there are quite a few latinos who belive in the fence

    Again, need stats on this. Alberto Gonzales doesn’t qualify as “quite a few” As for the intelligent design thing, that was out of place.

  13. As for the intelligent design thing, that was out of place.

    its not really out of place in terms of displaying emil’s prejudice. in what bizaare world would it be surprising that a poc belives in creationism, or is pro-life for that matter. this guy needs to get out of the upper east side and visit spanish harlem immediately. talk about whitewashed

  14. Hispanics support a pro-life position by a 78-21 percent margin, African Americans backed the pro-life perspective 62-38.

    Wonderful, now tell me the stats concerning the # of bees that’ve migrated from poland to czech republic over the last 6 months. Because it would answer my question just the same, I challenged your statement regarding fence’s and immigration, not abortion.

    its not really out of place in terms of displaying emil’s prejudice.

    That’s my point, its out of place for him to bring up , although I don’t call it prejudice or bigotry, just a tangental statement, whether it’s accurate or not.

  15. Wonderful, now tell me the stats concerning the # of bees that’ve migrated from poland to czech republic over the last 6 months. Because it would answer my question just the same, I challenged your statement regarding fence’s and immigration, not abortion.

    i wasn’t responding to that challenge, but to emil’s bizaare exectations, which we’ve been discussing and debating, as oppossed to mgrating bees. wtf?

  16. re immigration, don’t have time to find a specific fence question, but a gallup poll had 46% of blacks want immigration decreased, 29 remain the same, and only 21% want an increase. hispnices: 30, 41, 25.

    results don’t surprise me. there’s a lot of diversity, as anyone who sees people as individuals knows.

  17. this thread won’t die. btw, did you see the WASHPO story about jindal being a potato? i never heard that term, but i like it.

    careful. prema might take offense. how dare we identify as potatos when we’re really black on the outside, ie oreos.

  18. to be fair, Manju, I think a lot of criticism about Jindal’s ‘inauthenticity’ is coming because of his conversion, changing his name, etc perhaps. too bad conversions to marxism didn’t have the same effect.

    that would be b/c most people don’t see marxism as religion.

    razib – I prefer the term coconut. (Down with aloo gobi!)

  19. perhaps. too bad conversions to marxism didn’t have the same effect.

    btw, what ever happened to people being individuals?

  20. btw, what ever happened to people being individuals?

    oh, just a joke nala. i don’t think indian marxists are inauthentic indians, other than to point out that if they held themselves to the standards they hold indian free-marketers, they would be.

    i mean, you and hmf don’t code too indian to me. if i were to learn you where actually white, it wouldn’t shock me. in contrast, moornam and amitabh for example code a bit more indian, as they remind me a bit more of my parents. but does that mean you and hmf want ot be white while moornam and amitabh are more comfortable in their own skin?

    put another way, it doesn’t take much knowledge of nehru to make a brown sahib out of him…his agnosticism, his fabianism, love for lady moutbatten, etc. we can easily turn this lens on the left, and the argument will cancel each other out.

  21. i don’t think indian marxists are inauthentic indians, other than to point out that if they held themselves to the standards they hold indian free-marketers, they would be.

    does this really happen in india, though? i don’t doubt that free-marketers and socialists argue over ‘what’s best for india’ (i get the sense that many indians favor a free-market system now than would have before the 90s). they have a lot more ammo in india to shoot each other with (e.g. hindus vs. muslims)

    i mean, you and hmf don’t code too indian to me. if i were to learn you where actually white, it wouldn’t shock me.

    how dare you question my indian-ness?? i just ate a meal of chapati with channa masala while listening to the crooning of lata mangeshkar and watching Kkusum! seriously, though, i find this kind of funny… i consider myself to be more ‘in touch with my roots’ than most of my peers (e.g. i can actually speak, and even read and write, telugu).

    Gujjubhai – I said most people probably wouldn’t consider it a religion. I doubt that most people know what Marxism is, really.

  22. (About that commentary from Anna) And on another note I can’t believe there are so many Liberals on this board from allowing the killing unborn children to this impaired grotesque idea of “choice”. It’s utterly ridiculous that this second+ generation of hypocrites that used to chastize their parents when they spoke of killing their girls in India and China by drowning them in milk are somehow reasoning that it’s acceptable to kill their unborn kids is acceptable, by tagging it as a “choice”. It’s merely semantics that you can say somenone can stuff your head in a vagina blow your brains out and call it partial birth killing to an adult is different then a child.

    It’s utterly ridiculous that you would minimize and sensationalize something which is excruciatingly complicated and so very personal, to many of us. Do you really think it’s that binary? That people either LOVE abortions and throw parties after they have them or they hate and would ban them entirely? There’s an entire spectrum of reactions regarding this issue, as well there should be. Someone who has an abortion at 8 weeks is not guilty of “death by milk” or whatever strange practice you refer to, but this is neither the appropriate thread nor time to discuss that.

  23. Difference between a potato and a coconut — potatoes are thin-skinned.

    Be a coconut. Brown and hairy on the outside, sweet and white on the inside.

  24. The thing with abortion is that we have to come up with a legal definition of what constitutes a human being. It doesn’t really matter if the embryo can be considered ‘life,’ because obviously in this nation there is no prohibition on taking non-human life. One possibility is to consider any fetus which could survive outside its mother as human life. But this causes a problem in that in the future it is likely that support systems will further extend this period, perhaps one day to the point where the mother is no longer required as the carrier. Therefore I have always believed that the best way to determine the ‘humanity’ of a fetus is to have a fetal brain scan as the pre-requisite to any abortion. A particular point in brain development can be chosen, for example when the alpha,beta,gamma EEG waves start firing, which essentially means the fetus is capable of dreaming, and consciousness.

  25. i mean, you and hmf don’t code too indian to me. if i were to learn you where actually white, it wouldn’t shock me.

    Of course, here in lies the grandest of grand ironies. You spend nearly a tenth of this thread barking about how evil liberals are bigots that grant whites individuality while they lambast the poor POC into horrid confining and prescriptive categories, when in fact you are exhibiting the exact same behavior by assuming Indians have a “code” that must be adhered to. When I assume there’s nothing more that can surprise me, you never fail to shatter that assumption.

    Of course what your statement fail to acknowledge is: when liberals and progressives do make statements such as Emil’s (I wont speak on his case specifically, as I’ve already addressed your misuse of the word bigot, and decontextualized quoting), but when liberals do make statments regarding similarity of opinion expected by POC (rooted in shared experiences), it’s descriptive behavior, rather than prescriptive.

  26. I think it is understandable why people might want to support Jindal because of his ethnicity. He is a pioneer of sorts. Once the novelty of Indians running for such a high office fades, it will then hopefully cease to be a factor.

    I also agree with questioning the indianness being a valid topic of conversation because he has gotten good support from the local Indian community based on his ethnicity.

    Also, I agree with the person who questioned why anyone should feel obligated to mention stuff about his ethnicity in a political campaign. But I might add that he actually made an effort to distance himself when he mentioned a bunch of examples without mentioning Hinduism as him being able to deal with different beliefs in a prior campaign. So it was not mere indifference.

  27. when in fact you are exhibiting the exact same behavior by assuming Indians have a “code” that must be adhered to.

    i never said you must adhere to a code. emil did. and i’m not surprised that an indian-american like yourself sounds like a white leftist. we’re all human, more alike than unlike. the irony is that you sound about as white as i do. not that there’s anything wrong woth that.

  28. what you said:

    i mean, you and hmf don’t code too indian to me.

    How can anyone ‘code’ to any level of “indian-ness” if there’s no “indian code” that pre-exists in the first place? Not leftist ideology. It’s 3rd grade logic.

    and i’m not surprised that an indian-american like yourself sounds like a white leftist

    I dont give a fuck if I sound like a wine connaseur that wears purple polka dots while watching sally jesse raphael reruns. I draw from experience and keep it real, classify me how you will.

  29. How can anyone ‘code’ to any level of “indian-ness” if there’s no “indian code” that pre-exists in the first place? Not leftist ideology. It’s 3rd grade logic.

    there are accents, cultural references, ways of talking or writing, ways of dressing, etc. amitabh and moornam, although they have very different political beliefs, seem very rooted in indian culture…while you and nala seem westernized, not unlike bobby jindal. you seem like an assimilated american kid, though you chose to assimilate with a western left-leaning subculture. ditto for camille, who, to her credit, does not play this authenticity game. its simply hard to tell that you’re indian.

    but to say you expect all poc (and notice the weird conflation of a diverse group of ethnicities into one) have the “similar values, views, beliefs” is very different from noticing an accent, or a cultural trait. if we were to accept what you think is a devastating contextualization; that he’s speaking very specifically of “free-market health care, intelligent design instead of evolution, anti-choice and a fenced-in America” then emil expectations become even more bizarre, since blacks and hispanics overwhelmingly support creationism and pro-life policies, indians and free-market heath care would be almost commonsensical, and blacks disproportionately suffer from illegal immigration, and i don’t know why anyone would think indians would be against a fence. i’d like to see a poll too.

    emils expectations are bizarrely factually wrong, are a classic “they think all alike” prejudice, and signify an individual completely out of touch with the very people he claims to represent. he’s like an al-quada supporter who thinks all muslims support his group. (they’re bigots too, btw)

    poc simply do not have “similar values, views, beliefs” even in, and especially in, the very specific things emil mentions.

  30. well I won’t play “the authenticity game” anymore–never mind that this is a thread about Jindal and our reactions to him as brown Americans (it’s not like I go around lambasting him to everyone, or even anyone, I see… I’m not even going to try to defend myself on this anymore since anyone can scroll up and read what I’ve written). I’m honestly just confused that I apparently ‘code’ white through the computer screen. My problem with lumping ‘POC’ together has to do with what Manju says, we are not one monolithic group. My other problem with it is that it doesn’t break America’s black-white barrier. I get sick of black people not acknowledging that I am not white and my experiences are not irrelevant, and I get sick of white people alternately being afraid to say anything around me and at other times letting me know how uncomfortable they are with black people. I’m not black or white… I’m BROWN dammit!

  31. btw I don’t think anyone’s mentioned this so far, but I remember reading a comment that someone left on a different blog, coming from a republican about how glad they are that jindal won, not only b/c he’s a republican (obviously), but because he’s also a visible minority, and the republican party is (now) assumed to be the party of racist white people in american politics and they’re glad to have something to show the opposite or something like that. what i find funny and problematic about this is that even this guy is lumping all ‘minorities’ together – i don’t doubt that a much higher percentage of asian-americans and even hispanic americans are registered republicans as opposed to black americans. jindal comes from a very privileged background, and i would hesitate to hold him up as representative of minorities, especially in Louisiana where most of the other minorities are disproportionately poor blacks. i mean, jeebus, jena six? louisiana’s got its race problems still.

  32. you don’t code too indian to me

    that’s what the recruiter from infosys told me after he rejected me for that dream programming job in dubai. goddamned racist.

  33. I’m honestly just confused that I apparently ‘code’ white through the computer screen.

    well its somewhat obvious that you’re westernized and assimilated, even if its in a brown pride sort of way, as brown pride itself has its roots in western cultural relativism, as opposed to the BJP’s pride. its the old marxist dilemma, that as they speak for they working class they are never really one of them.

    perhaps this is emil’s problem: desperate for a unified brown politics that would mke him one of the tribe again, he projects his own opinions on his people and grotesquely distorts them into a caricatures almost completely reversed from what they really are.

    all us immigrants are cultural chameleons, which is a gift that can allow us to more easily escape plato’s cave and see the common humanity. but extremeists on the right and left want to push us back in.

  34. oh nala btw, i don’t think your like emil. and you certainly don’t have to prove your browness to me. so please don’t take the mcats or get an arrainged marriage.

  35. Manju, I actually just think it’s hilarious that I come across as westernized as opposed to indian (when i consider myself more ‘in touch with my culture’ than most of my peers), and as having ‘brown pride’ (i never got along with these people…). perhaps it is a generational and demographic thing?

    as brown pride itself has its roots in western cultural relativism, as opposed to the BJP’s pride. its the old marxist dilemma, that as they speak for they working class they are never really one of them.

    wth do you mean by this though? oh and you can’t stop me from taking the mcat dammit!

  36. you seem like an assimilated american kid, though you chose to assimilate with a western left-leaning subculture. ditto for camille, who, to her credit, does not play this authenticity game. its simply hard to tell that you’re indian.

    I don’t want to get dragged into the thread that will not die, nor do I want to over-indulge the “code Indian” argument (which I wouldn’t even pretend to do — I am South Asian American and make no claims at “Indian authenticity” which is, in itself, reductionist/inaccurate). I just want to state that “left leaning subculture” or politics is not a uniquely “Western” phenomena (although there is a valid argument for the unique nature of the politics of race and “American-ness” among the political left in the U.S.). The problem with a term like “left” is that it means so many different things in so many different political contexts. There is a long-standing tradition of grassroots advocacy — both on the “left” and “right” — in addition to ideas of social redistribution, gender equality, ethnic parity, etc., in the des. I think my politics are very much informed by my religious upbringing and lived experiences within the U.S. Perhaps that makes them hybridized, or maybe most of us are hybridized in our political outlooks? :)

    [also, perhaps an element of not "coding Indian" in your reading, Manju, is because there is a huge barrier to communication via blog -- commentators only comment on what interests them and in a written style that may or not reflect their conversational tone, other interests, etc.]

  37. “but to say you expect all poc (and notice the weird conflation of a diverse group of ethnicities into one) have the “similar values, views, beliefs” is very different from noticing an accent, or a cultural trait”

    Every non-white person in america is a victim to some degree of America’s legacy of white racism. In a sense, it is a cultural trait, as far as minorities in the US go. It’s not bigotry to implicitly noticing that trait and registering surprise when someone deviates from it.

    “since blacks and hispanics overwhelmingly support creationism and pro-life policies, indians and free-market heath care would be almost commonsensical, and blacks disproportionately suffer from illegal immigration,”

    I didnt know it was cherry picking season. Try this cherry pick on for size:

    “blacks and hispanic would easily support more universal healthcare as they disproportionately get shafted by the insurance co, profit driven, don’t give a fuck about humanity system, latinos would like to see some immigration reform that allows them opportunities to work towards citizenship if they have family here, and indians and asians will disproportionately support evolutionary studies”

  38. Nala, I think you have to really identify what ‘Racism’ is before you can use it to describe a society. In one sense, Jindal’s victory IS over racism. The fact that he is not ‘black’ or not impoverished, or that he is a conservative Christian is irrelevent. You can’t equate culturalism with racism….for example I could hate all Muslims, but that doesn’t make me racist in one bit. In fact when people call people like Jindal or Obama too ‘white,’ they are actually being racist. The most obscene type of racism is when it is regardless of cultural identity, class status or access to power. I think Jinda’s victory and others like it are a clear sign that America is pretty much over this type.

  39. I didnt know it was cherry picking season. Try this cherry pick on for size:

    cherry picking? wtf? these are the very 4 issues emil mentions. the very 4 issues you thought constitute your great insight into my disingenuous decontextualization. the very 4 issues you’ve repeatedly berated me for ignoring. i go even further an provide stats that indicate huge groups of poc, blacks and hispanics–the 2 groups that constitute the majority of poc in the American context, believe the precise opposite of what emil expects on the issue of immigration, abortion, and creationism. emil’s expectations are not only prejudiced, but bizarrely wrong.

    i’ve taken on the strongest formation of your argument, that emil was making a specif claim that poc w/i the american political context hold similar valus, views, and beliefs on the issues of health care, immigration, abortion, and evolution and shown that they in fact do not.

    “blacks and hispanic would easily support more universal healthcare as they disproportionately get shafted by the insurance co, profit driven, don’t give a fuck about humanity system, latinos would like to see some immigration reform that allows them opportunities to work towards citizenship if they have family here, and indians and asians will disproportionately support evolutionary studies”

    now this is weird. you offer no stats but rather some “reasoning” as to why you expect certain poc to hold your views, and presumably those who differ form your opinions you will attack on the basis of their race or ethnicity (uncle tom smear).

    but even if you are right, don’t you prove my point? that some poc want universal heathcare, others don’t. some want immigration reform, others don’t. and even if there was a huge consensus on the above mentioned issues, which there is not, wouldn’t one want to make room for individuality?

  40. ….for example I could hate all Muslims, but that doesn’t make me racist in one bit.

    Are you saying this because Muslims are a religion and not a race?

  41. I just want to state that “left leaning subculture” or politics is not a uniquely “Western” phenomena

    i agree, camille. i don’t think it is uniquely western anymore than capitalism is. cultural relativism is over-rated. all these ideas exist within the realm of a common humanity, and thus it becomes absurd to try to asign particular ideas to particular people. india is a perfect example, a socialist land for 50yrs where ayn rand is immensely popular.

    my only point is that its an interesting exercise to deconstruct the left the way they do the right.

    actually, i think i thought you were black at one point camille. i forgot why. just goes to show…

  42. cherry picking? wtf? these are the very 4 issues emil mentions. the very 4 issues you thought constitute your great insight into my disingenuous decontextualization. the very 4 issues you’ve repeatedly berated me for ignoring. .

    The cherry pick was which ethnic group you chose to represent wich view, not which point emil mentioned. You seemed realize this later in your post.

    Reading the rest of emil’s article, it’s pretty clear his expectation derives from the understanding that POC have shared experiences (a descriptive characteristic, not prescriptive) I think he’d have done better to not pick out those specific issues, rather just say that given Jindal’s Republican party background, it isn’t necessarily a woo-haa victory for people of color in the US, as that party has historically not been too concerned with policies to correct past wrongs against minorities.

    presumably those who differ form your opinions you will attack on the basis of their race or ethnicity (uncle tom smear

    Now this is just plain stupid. The “presumable attack” is not based on their race or ethnicity, rather it’s the understanding that being in the US with that race/ethnicity has some meaning attached to it. It’s not because they’re black, or indian or whatever, it’s because being those races in the US has meant some undeniable consequences, and has meant you exist with a certain undeniable reality.

    Again, this is descriptive, go back to my analogy with the village living next to a garbage dump. It’s not bigotry to acknowledge the smell.

    It’s the difference between white bigotry (truly based on race and ethnicity) and the so called “bigotry” (which is a completely incorrect word to use) expressed in emils article.

    I’ll say Emil was definitely presumptive on some accounts, but not a bigot.

  43. Nala, I think you have to really identify what ‘Racism’ is before you can use it to describe a society. In one sense, Jindal’s victory IS over racism. The fact that he is not ‘black’ or not impoverished, or that he is a conservative Christian is irrelevent. You can’t equate culturalism with racism….for example I could hate all Muslims, but that doesn’t make me racist in one bit. In fact when people call people like Jindal or Obama too ‘white,’ they are actually being racist. The most obscene type of racism is when it is regardless of cultural identity, class status or access to power. I think Jinda’s victory and others like it are a clear sign that America is pretty much over this type.

    you have go to be kidding me! moreover, you have got to be kidding yourself if you think the facts that Jindal is not ‘black’ (I don’t know why that’s in quotation marks), comes from a rich background, and is a conservative Christian are irrelevant to his winning (and even him running for Governor in the first place)! He was probably considered ‘not like us’ when he last ran for governor and lost, but obviously something changed in Louisiana since then to make him electable by former David Duke/Kathleen Blanco voters (or maybe the opposition just sucked too much). Also, I’m not really sure why I’m getting this lecture… when did I ever talk about racism to describe a society? I said that Louisiana’s got race problems. That’s just too obvious to not see. I do agree with you that Jindal’s victory could be seen as ‘victory over racism’ — but only for one conservative Christian brown person, not for all minorities! — and I’ve tried to make sense of the rest of your comment, but it’s not working, and I don’t think it’s on my account.