For the last few years, every time I hang out with my crew its like “what’s up Macaca?” Or “Macaca puleez.” If one of them is acting ignorant I have to bust out with this derogatory term that we have appropriated from the Man and made our own. The distinction is clear: I love me my South Asian people. But I hate macacas.
Ok ok, I’m just kidding…and ripping off Chris Rock’s material a bit.
A few days ago one of our commenters made the following observation: “slumdog” is the new “macaca.” Bobby Jindal’s primetime response to Obama was given about 48 hours after Slumdog Millionaire mopped up at the Oscars. The most watched speech ever given by an Indian American occurred only two days after a huge audience watched a large cast of Indians take centerstage at an event embodying American culture. I think the combined effect of the two is greater than many people realize. Over the span of 48 hours desis literally dominated the airways. And, of course, that can be a double edged sword when you are a minority
On many websites and blogs, liberal commenters, who immediately pounced on Jindal’s poor performance to discredit his “rising star” hype, used the term “slumdog” to describe him. It wasn’t limited to liberals though. Conservative commenters and bloggers did the same exact thing. After Allen used it in Virginia, the term “Macaca” was denounced almost immediately, and to the best of my knowledge was never widely used by non-desis again. I get the feeling “slumdog” is going to have some legs, however. See this exchange today between the new Chairman of the RNC and a Guardian Angels founder turned conservative radio host Curtis Sliwa:
<
p>
Did Steele say “friggin’ awesome?” The Republicans have publicly stated that part of their strategy to come back from the wilderness has to be to aggressively court the urban youth vote:
Newly elected Republican National Committee Chairman Michael S. Steele plans an “off the hook” public relations offensive to attract younger voters, especially blacks and Hispanics, by applying the party’s principles to “urban-suburban hip-hop settings.”
The RNC’s first black chairman will “surprise everyone” when updating the party’s image using the Internet and advertisements on radio, on television and in print, he told The Washington Times. [Link]
If this is part of his strategy I think he should fire whoever is advising him. Is it just me or does Steele come across like an old white guy trying to sound like he can speak like a young black guy?
Mainly I would like to hear from our readers. Have any of you been called “Slumdog,” even jokingly, in the past few days? Were you okay with it or did it bother you?
Wut up slumdawg?
Apparently Bollywood composer Aadesh Srivastava has been called a slumdog. (Posted to the News tab by 3rdEye)
Yeah I’ve heard Jindal referred to as “Slumdog” a few times now. Separately, I was eating Lunch in Cerritos last week. Apparently Frieda Pinto had eaten and left a few minutes before, so people were talking about the “Slumdog wali” over their dilli chaat and pani puri.
wat abt slumcatz? I hope I can haz panearburgurz
Every black person i’ve talked to is offended by Steeles comments. The reaction is along the lines of, to pigeon hole us as only hip hop culture and the only way you can get to us is through hip hop is demeaning. Talk to us like regular Americans and not some racist gimmicky ploy.
The republicans have not gotten any smarter and continue to turn off minorities instead of opening up an honest dialogue.
What was most disappointing about the Sliwa-Steele exchange is that Sliwa is Latino I believe and Steele is African American. They should know better. But then just because a minority group has faced discrimination and been called racists things, doesn’t mean that minority group doesn’t hold racists views against other minorities. It is the same for Asians. We all should behave better and be more respectful. Words matter.
So far both liberals and conservatives have used “Slumdog” to refer to Jindal. I remember the people in the slums protesting the title of the movie, saying we are people not dogs and don’t refer to them as slumdogs. I was surprised then that more liberals did not support their protest. Looks like we need to speak up like them too and say to liberals and conservatives, whites and minorities, we are people not dogs and not to refer to South Asians as slumdogs.
It’s as if on some level Mr. Steele felt a need to present himself as a “real” black person (i.e. black=hiphop and its attendant accouterments) vs. that fake , clean cut & articulate Hopey McChangey guy. And it’s a slightly more contemporary approach than the news flash that Lincoln was a Republican.
He comes across as an old guy trying to sound young. Ummm wasn’t this your post?
Left right and center- many people are only comfortable in see black Americans one way. Black Republicans of a certain age/mindset (see Star Parker… whose book,Pimps-Whores-Welfare Brats was intro’d/ endorsed by no less than Rush Limbaugh) also fall into that category, Steel’s keeping it real stance is more of the same. The subtext/strategy of many GOP campaigns was black = bad. Now that it appears their just might be something to gain in acknowledging any positives in the presence of black people in America the GOP is now hip hop central.
Until the GOP can approach more of black America with issues vs caricatures this is going no where. That might be a back burner issue,while the grand ole party worksout if white people can appear to be something other than plumbers from real America & politically viable at the same time.
It is offensive. I believe Jindal came from a family that was well off, or they were not living in poverty. Or is it one of those terms where Desis can call each other that name but it’s offensive if someone of another ethnicity uses the word? Like the n word.
Jindal’s family definitely did not come from a slum – at least not in Louisiana.
I remember when the movie Gandhi came out & I heard some Indian school kids were called “Gandhi” in a very taunting manner. This was in the “liberal” Bay Area/Silicon Valley in the early ’80s. Perhaps using the word “slum dog” as a demeaning expression might fade out quickly.
You can go to town with this kind of name calling, how about Ph.D.s (poor hungry dogs) or MDs (money dogs)? Of course they are offensive stereotypes.
Even if someone has/had an impoverished background, it’s still offensive to refer to call someone a “slumdog” or “poor as a church mouse” or even the wealthy as “fat cats” etc.
It’s completely offensive, especially coming from the chair of Jindal’s own party. Of course, Michael Steele seems to take a “see no evil, hear no evil” stance on racism in general. This is the same guy who once claimed to have no problem with whites-only golf courses because “I don’t play golf.”
So not only did Steele allow Sliwa to get away with calling Jindal a slumdog, but looking at Steele’s overall comments on Jindal – talk about damning with faint praise. “Gov. Bobby Jindal is doing a friggin’ awesome job in his state. He’s really turned around on some core principles, like hey, government ought not be corrupt. The good stuff … the easy stuff.”
I mean… really? Bobby Jindal is supposedly one of the rising stars of your party, and the best you can think to say about him is “friggin’ awesome job” and that he’s great at “the easy stuff,” like thinking government ought not to be corrupt? Good Lord, I’m a yellow dog Democrat and I could come up with more concretely nice things to say about Jindal.
Jindal just got thrown under the bus by his own party chair. IMO the question is whether Steele did it because he sensed which way the wind was blowing in the GOP, or if he’s just a complete moron. Of course, the two aren’t mutually exclusive.
i’ve seen the word slumdog on several cricket boards over the past few days, especially after india lost to new zealand, basically as – at best- cheesy digs and – at worst -tinged with animus. i think slumdog is an easy, almost guilt-free way to get an ethnic/national dig in without being accused of being tinged by bigotry (or thinking that you shouldn’t be). it’s basically being used now by people with lazy brains not imaginative enough to come up with some other putdown/quip or people who know it’s a term they can get away with.
i’d rather be compared to a stray dog from the slums than most of the people getting a kick out of using this word as some sort of clever, veiled put-down. the former have more honour.
I’ve been called “hey goop-ta”. Awaiting “slum-dawg”.
i;m gonna punch your freakin lights out if u call me a slumdawg
I was actually thinking “Everybody is a slumdog today” as a tagline or a facebook status or something the day after the Oscars 🙂
There might be brief flurry of overuse of the term “slumdog.” But whether it lasts after the movie fades from pop culture is another matter.
BTW – this concern is being raised by non-Indians as well. Daniel Larison, over at The American Conservative, wrote the following:
Next to Richard Corliss of Time, I can’t think of another American (in the media) who follows Bollywood as closely as Larison.
Ooops – forgot the link to Daniel’s blog – Eunomia
“slumdog” is being put to productive use in other settings, e.g. at this tenant protest a couple days ago against a real estate company that has allowed its apartment buildings in brooklyn to deteriorate:
recognizing good material, the headline writers at the new york daily news entitled the article “‘Slumdogs’ rip ‘millionaires’.”
Is it just me or are other Indian Americans also upset at Jindal? He’s making us look so bad. How many Indian Americans actually support him anyways? I only know one person who supports him, and all my other Indian American friends/family all dislike him.
I feel like if he ever ran for President, there would only be a small percentage of Indian Americans that would actually support him. Is that just me?
slumdog is an offensive term – there was a point in using it as a movie title for that particular film, but beyond that – offensive.
people should be outraged? or are they? from your post, it seems like the moniker is being used freely without much of a response?
I havent been called slumdog but several people after seeing the movie came straight to me and asked me if I saw the movie and comment on if it was ‘really true’ and what I thought of it. I just take it to the next level-‘I never saw those slums because when I was going up my elephant had an acute sense of smell and he preferred to go around the slums rather than through them, but I have heard that they exist’. The ignorant one are put off and the smart ones get it.
Personally, I like Jindal, just not the more recent hokey version. When my brother was at McKinsey, he remarked at how smart and ambitious Jindal was. The speech was a disappointment. But keep in mind, the keynote speaker at the 1988 Democratic convention earned his biggest applause with the words, “In conclusion.” That was Bill Clinton. Anyone who is writing off Jindal now based on his speech – there are some Hillary Clinton supporters who could use the company.
I havent been called slumdog but everyone who watched the movie at my work seems to want my opinion on it “what do you think, it is really true, my god its awful’ etc. I usually respond with ‘when I was growing up, I never saw those slums, because my elephant didn’t like the smell so he preferred to go around them rather than through them.
followed by
got anything original, dude? 🙂
(Sorry, this elephant couldn’t resist)
As a frosh at a pretty pc college, I recall using the word ‘slum’ to describe shantytown-ish areas in desh (what we refer to as slums in India, anyway). My friends were shocked by that word. I guess in American context the word ‘slum’ is pretty derogatory. But I hadn’t known that, since ‘slumming it’ is used colloquially.
Is it just a pc liberal arts college thing (for context: the movie ‘PCU’ was inspired by my school), or is the word ‘slum’ considered offensive in mainstream Americanese?
Yes, I was greeted with a smile in a London pub as ‘slumdog’ but a friend and I soon joined the English chap who said it with two others at a table. Two of them had seen the film and they all asked: “Why is India so poor? SE Asia and East Asia are doing fine.”
I was stumped for a while and then explained to them that India has always been poor. Foreign invaders like the Mughals came and brought culture to the natives. Then the British came and brought modernity through railways, telegraph, roads etc. But the poverty remained. I said that poverty, caste, acceptance of misery is part of the Hindu way of life – they accept it as part of their karma and destiny. They have always been defeatist and have never been able to resist invaders. They are run by their gods and gurus, sadhus and swamis, endless rituals and festivals. Nothing else seems to matter. But how have the ogds helped the HIndus over the centuries? The old fogeys who run the country have intellectual lightwieghts, with no great vision. The politicians wallow in venality and banality. I added that the Booly directors are too ashamed to depict the grime and squalor in their films. They offer an escapist fare with light-skin actors, endless dances by skimpily clad girls (icnluding foreigners). It is pretty hopeless.
Why aren’t you people addressing a more important issue, which is that, two of the stars of the movie are now back living in that slum and danny boyle didn’t even have the decency to at least use some of the profits from the movie to buy them an apartment!
Now one of the kids just received a beating from his dad (in front of reporters) because he dared tell his father that he was tired of meeting people after enduring a long flight from L.A. to Mumbai.
It’s clear the father needs money, he thinks his star son can make it for him and there’s pressure all around. Shame on danny boyle
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2279435.ece
nm,
there was a report that mentioned the Maharashtra govt will be giving the kids and their families Mhada apartments.
“I was stumped for a while and then explained to them that India has always been poor.”
great analysis; but one minor quibble. weren’t the invaders attracted to India for its riches and resources?
Yup, no culture at all before they showed up. No art, literature, philosophy, scientific achievement, or birth of some of the world’s great religious traditions. No temples or architecture, nada.
None at all no sir.
And those worthless darkies sure couldn’t have built modern industries without the White men helping them out either.
i thought Edsa’s comment (#26) was a joke similar to what baingadabhartha posted (#23). Theres no way someone could be so clueless
@NM
Why is it Boyle’s fault that the kids’ parents are bastards? He contracted them for a film. Are they supposed to be on his payroll for the rest of their natural lives now? I know the kids made that movie, but how much is he expected to do for them? What makes them so special that all this responsibility for them falls on everyone else’s shoulders? There are plenty of foundations and NGOs that do work in India in those slums to help kids like them. Instead of jumping up on the high horse, why not raise awareness or do work to try and help those organizations?
http://www.developednation.org/issue/education/ngos.htm There is a place to start.
I have been using the term slumdog affectionately, and with a sense of pride, to capture the phase of adjustment when you are young and your parents are in the process of becoming financially settled. More specifically, when there is a combination of being south asian and finding yourself in a situation of want financially. This situation can create a “slumdog effect” due to being different relative to your peer group. I refer to other people who have gone through this phase by referring to them affectionately as “slumdog”. Often is the case that the phase of their development that I have alluded to has residual effects on their present day personas.
Too simplistic of an analysis by somebody who doesn’t understand the complex, frustrating interrelationships among the following in India: paternalistic (patriarchal?) dominant parent-child relationship, lack of awareness of child as a separate entity, obsequious treatment of house-guests (in this case, reporters) as Gods, class reverence, etc.
Laziness, lack of time and lack of a will prevents me from elaborating. Sorry.
Even my upper middle class parents couldn’t resist (and were ignorant). I got dirty looks and and mutterings (“ungrateful child”, “America-return” etc) for sleeping off jet lag for a whole week while visitors came to meet and greet me the first time I went back to India during grad school. (A genuine apology was given by my mother a few years later when she experienced the same jet lag going from west to east).
Having said all that, I will add to your sentiment by giving you a peek into my cynical yet troubled, sad, conflicted mind: End of the Cinderella Ball for these kids. Beginning of the Eliza Doolittle phenomenon.
The conflict comes from not knowing what is the right answer to this question: Should they not have experienced the Ball at all? After all, even I am some sort of an Eliza Doolittle and i have learnt to live with my own unmet aspirations and subsequent disappointments. Why do I assume that these children cannot handle wisening up to the ways of the world?
19 · Ashok said
Who is “us”? No one is treating me or my friends or family poorly because someone delivered a terrible speech. We need to stop being so insecure. On the other hand, if you’re associating with people who are looking at you differently after a politician flubbed his lines, the problem isn’t Jindal, it’s them.
I’m sick of people moaning, “He makes me ashamed to be Indian.” Really? If that’s all it takes to remove your pride in your culture or heritage, again the problem isn’t Jindal, it’s…
Oh nuts. In about 20 years VH1 is going to track those kids down and see what they’re up to aren’t they?
Edsa are you completely just uneducated or brainwashed? How can this type of thinking which ignores basic knowledge of world history, where India was one of the richest regions in the world, and produced some of the most sophisticated civilizations, breakthroughs in math and science and literature, actually go on? The only one who is hopeless is you, if this is what British education has taught you.
32 · Yoga Fire said
Why are you saying the kids parents are bastards? For a westerner (and I didn’t grow up in the west), any kind of physical punishment, would look like child abuse to them, but even though I’m not Indian, I can relate to the father’s sensibilities: he was trying to discipline the kid for being rude in front of guests and he did it, in the only way he knows how (talking back to adults is considered exceedingly rude, even in my country). Yes, the kid was tired, but he’s not going to be scarred for life by that beating. American kids are too soft. One little slap from their parents and they’ll go crying to DSS. That’s why you see them talking back to their parents and calling them names. They have no respect.
Anyway, if these kids were American, they’d probably have gotten royalty payments and all kinds of other incentives that would have made a difference for them and their families.
These kids were underpaid and taken advantage off. They made that movie what it was and danny boyle should pay them, the same rate and give them the same royalty payments that he would have given to american or british actors.
This can’t look good for danny boyle. It’s shameful.
It’s not the physical punishment, it’s the parading the kid around. I’d be willing to bet that those kids are going to be exploited like hell by their parents. It’s not an Indian thing, it’s a low-class parents wanting to live vicariously through their children thing. Jon Benet Ramsey’s parents did the same thing. I have a bit more sympathy for the parents in a slum since they actually are poor and need the money though.
That turns it from a competitive market to a lottery. Other kids auditioned for that role too. They’ll just pay for whoever’s cheapest.
you are on fie-ah! (is that asana called kickin’ ass?)
39 · Yoga Fire said
I would bet that those reporters just showed up at the kids slum dwelling uninvited. Then the father, in keeping with custom (& this is not necessarily confined to class, I don’t think), is inclined to ensure that these uninvited guests are treated with respect. The kid, tired, exhausted or whatever, talks back to his father in front of the guests and this is probably unheard of in the culture (even in my culture, it’s unheard of to talk back to ANY adult and the kid would have received the same kind of “beating”).
Now, western reporters, who are unfamiliar with these third world disciplinary methods are accusing the father of child abuse and focusing on him, instead of focusing on Danny Boyle’s stinginess in exploiting those children.
How does anyone on this board know how much these kids were paid, didn’t Boyle and company set up a trust that the kids could use to go to college.
Also to parade famous children is not a “low class” (I have no idea what this means by the way) phenomenon, I have seen plenty of people do it all the time.
PS,
edsa’s comments don’t appear to be a joke, unless he/she likes to repeat the same joke on various fora.
“great analysis; but one minor quibble. weren’t the invaders attracted to India for its riches and resources?”
Umber Desi, this explains exactly what is being done for those kids; money, new houses, trust fund, etc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2grzeso6n0&NR=1
26 · Edsa said
I don’t think this exchage really happened. But nice flame, though.
That was bad word choice on my part. I didn’t mean social/economic class. I meant “low class” as in “crass,” “boorish,” or “lacking in taste or refinement.”
42 · umber desi said
Well, since the parents are still living under a sheet/blanket, they couldn’t have been paid that much.
Also, how easy is it to get into a good college in India? I know in my country, that getting into the university is brutally difficult because they are so many candidates and so few spaces. So, unless you are a straight A student, your chances of getting into a college that might actually give you a chance at a decent life are very slim. Therefore, the educational trust may or may not really help in the long run, if these kids don’t make it into a good college.
I also know from my country, that if you go to a school in a slum, your chances of making it into a decent college are drastically reduced. There is a vast difference in quality between slum schools and private schools.
Their compensation should not be entirely dependent on their having to go to school. A struggling actor friend of mine once told me that if you get into a major movie, even if you are an unknown, you could still do well financially because of the royalty payments (that’s where the real money is, in residuals). Are these kids going to get any residuals or royalty payments when this movie starts getting played on HBO, then television, then onto those DVD sales, etc, etc…
It’s much harder to achieve upward mobility in a third world country, even with education and that’s why their compensation should have been given up front.
If it’s given up front it will be wasted. Child actors are always in a tough position. They’re not smart enough to manage the money themselves and, generally, their parents cannot be trusted to look after the long term interests of the child. It is best to keep it in a trust fund for them when they mature. If the kids work at it they’ll get into a college. They won’t get into a top level college but they will get something. If they don’t get into a good college then when they reach adulthood the trust will (presumably) end up in their hands for them to do what they want with it.
And there is no way those kids are getting a fair royalty payment. That would have required having an agent or a lawyer at the negotiating table which I doubt they had.
You know, it never ceases to amaze me how many of my desi bros and sisses suffer from inferiority complex. Like Anna said, we need to stop being so insecure. Anytime anyone questions our country, our culture (like the arranged marriage system), we immediately retort with something negative back at them about their country or culture. Why? Are we THAT invested in our “Mother Land”? Look, every system, every country, every culture on this planet has both positive and negative aspects. If someone is asking us something about INDIA, why can’t we just isolate that question, stay on topic and answer? Why do we get sooooooooooo defensive? Why do we have to compare the best of our culture with the worst of their’s? Or why, for those of us frustrating with out Mother Land, do we compare the worst of our culture with the best of their’s? A fair measure would be to compare the best with the best and the worst with the worst.
Moreover, what really gets me is when priveleged folk wish to gloss over, silence and pretend that suffering slum dwellers do not exist. Or they have to point out that their are disenfranchised people all over the globe.
http://iht.com/articles/2009/02/26/asia/letter.php
Does anyone doubt that?
What exactly is the point of hiding India’s negative aspects? How will India ever change and grow for the better if it does not acknowledge it’s own drawbacks but simply sweeps them under a carpet?
And to be overly concerned what non-Indians think of us, that’s another sign of insecurity. The thing is, they probably think less of us than we do of them. Thanks to satellite TV, India is being bombarded with all sorts of negative images (relative to concepts of negativity, of course)of white and black folk 24 hours a day. Do you think THEY are cribbing and crying over what Indians or other people around the world think of them because of the Maury Povich show or something?
Indians are by far being exposed to more embarrassing images of the West than the West is being exposed to embarrassing images of India.
Even last night I was watching Salaam-e-Ishq and the way they portrayed the white “heroine” was cringe worthy.
Her lines;
“I want to be an Indian”, “I want to be a good Indian girl”. YUCK!
And her love interests’ speel to her that she is not a “Hindustani larki” until she, “fights for love, fights for her husband.”
In almost every Indian made movie I’ve seen, non-Indian women are portrayed as weak, fickle, cold, emotionaless and lacking in over all value and morals when juxtaposed to the ideal concept of Indian Womanhood.
Believe me when I say, we desis got it GOOD, when it comes to how we are portrayed in Western media compared to how the West and Western people are portrayed.
For good God’s sake. We need to get over it.
And at the end of the day, we all know we enjoyed Slumdog Millionaire.
PS,
edsa’s comments don’t appear to be a joke, unless he/she likes to repeat the same joke on various fora.
Yes, well those comments can be viewed as incredibly funny or tragically ignorant. But yeah, it was just a flame.