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?
NM, this here comment is for you. (Continuing on the theme of caste and marriage). Just want to bring that to your attention since we can get lost in the myriad of increasing comments here:)
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.
Uh no; the guys is Rhodes Scholar and in his young age has accomplished a lot. I still remember my dad pointing him out many years ago when he got that health position and trying to shame me with my relatively mediocre accomplishments. I don’t like Jindal b/c of his politics, and him appearing awkward on tv made me happy b/c I’m hoping he and his conservative likes, won’t ever gain much momentum. I understand as a minority that a minority’s burden is that one individual can be stereotyped to represent everyone….I mean desis can do that to other minorities in the US. But I don’t live by such nonsense and if someone expects me to act like the last South Asian they met, then to me, they are kindof dumb. Jindal can run around naked for all I care – he doesn’t represent me; the important thing for me is that I hate his politics.
Steele and that radio host using “slum love” – that’s pretty insulting and ironic considering Jindal’s background. The Rep party just doesn’t know how to handle diversity.
I haven’t been referred to as a “slumdog” —-but get this, someone compared my oratory stylings (in jest, me hopes) to none other than Bobby freakin’ Jindal. Yeah…
Cool it, Brown_Dude. Your defensive rants about how to get back at “pink people” are unwelcome and inappropriate. Consider this a warning to stop posting them. “Pink people” don’t have a monopoly on racism or incest, so your “comment” verges on trolling. Enough.
Re: the ‘real’ slum kids from slumdog: The film-makers have a trust fund for the kids that will be accessible when they are 18 (it is NOT solely an educational fund)provided that they finish high school (its an incentive for the parents to make sure that the kids finish school). The film-makers are also paying for them to attend an English medium school with a rickshaw pick-up. They are also currently looking for apts. for the kids and their families close to the slum community where they live. An article also reports that the film-makers have stated that their involvement with the kids is a lifelong commitment. In consideration of their fame and change in fortune, the film-makers are also looking for a social worker to work with both families.
This is a very complex issue and i, for one, admire the fact that the film-makers are treating it as such and are not simply ‘throwing money’ at the kids. This would NOT be a sustainable solution. The film makers have obviously applied considerable thought in making sure that the kids and their families remain connected to their communities vs. the indian govts.’s plan to purchase apts. for the kids in a suburb away from their current community. It is imperative that the family is not isolated and cut off from their social support circle. An apt. in the ‘burbs will only result in more problems.
But yes, the picture of a crying Azhar devastated me. But…really its not that black or white.
PS: can you tell that I have been obsessed with the slumdog kids?
meanwhile, your girl ann coulter gets in on the action:
[linked here]
Someone posted this before – the Sun article about the Azhar being beaten by his dad.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2279435.ece
The article has three pictures of the boy crying – I have no doubt the father slapped him hard. But there is another picture of Azhar at the Oscars being hugged by Danny Boyle with the caption : “Contrast … star recieves hug from director”. These guys are not subtle are they.
I have very mixed feelings about this. On one hand that kind of physical disciplining of children is so common in India, both at home and in schools – I have seen it and I have experienced it. It does not mean that your parents do not love you and I would not call a slap from a parent “physical abuse” without knowing the context better. But this “spare the rod and spoil the child” doctrine can so easily degenerate into abuse – when does it stop being about discipline and start being about the parent’s own frustrations and inability to deal with them. Personally, I really like the way most Americans treat their children – with respect.
55 · serenityha said
Why would it devastate you? all kids cry when they get spanked or even pinched. Azhar is no different. The sun is trying to sensationalize this story for it’s western audience without putting things into context.
NM, I agree that the Sun story has some very problematic undertones i.e.: the before and after shot of azhar: one in which he is happy in the arms of the white man in the first world and the other: crying in the shack in the midst of ‘squalor’ that is his home. yes, us brown ppl are savages after all. when are we going to learn how to be more civilized?
if you read my post, you will note that my main point throughout is that this is a very complex situation that cannot be explained away through simplistic solutions.
as far as my reaction to azhar’s picture (and your reaction to my reaction): sorry dude, a visual of a kid who is crying because he was just slapped and kicked is not my favorite thing to see. does that offend you?
6 · Sonal said
Is Sliwa Latino? Wiki says Polish/Italian. Side note, the Guardian Angels are creepy.
My question to Danny Boyle and others is why are the kids still living in the same environment when the movie was completed back in 2007? It seems Boyle only decided to do something for the kids after the movie became a hit. If the movie had failed, then no action would have been taken. Call me cynical but I’m not buying all the new found love and concern being expressed now after the spotlight has been focused on the kids. Can you imagine the kids went from a five-star hotel back to the slums after the award show? Man how depressing is that? BTW why does the government have to provide housing for them when Boyle’s movie has made almost $200 million worldwide?
Why are you weirdly fetishizing what happens to these particular kids? There are tens of thousands of others just as deserving. Boyle’s actions are a total sideshow–neither the cause nor the potential solution for the slums. Copy Taiwan’s/S. Korea’s playbook from the 60’s and you’ll get a real amelioration of grotesque poverty–not super quick, but impressive over a decade.
56 · siddhartha said
Now that’s progress!
A few years ago, she’d be comparing him to Apu from the Simpsons.
Jindal looks like a total pussy. The man has no physical presence, he doesn’t even look Punjabi. There’s a word us Punjabis have for guys like him – “Muriya” (dead). He looks half dead. I thought that most American presidents have some “jaan” (life) in them. Haven’t the last few presidents been around 6ft tall?
In my opinion, the only decent Punjabi who’s appeared in US media recently has been Anil Kapoor.
We ABD’s have a term for your type, w/ your kind of analysis of Jindal–“low-class,’ aka, “non-clubbable”
66 · rob said
What are you implying?
I was trying to imply that physical presence can mean a lot to be a president. I read somewhere that bald or bearded men have little chance to become president too.
Ummm, I’m “implying” that your statement about Jindal that
is really weird. But what would I know? I’m so Scythian that the kids at school called me “Caspar” . . . .
64 · SomeBodyUK said
If you were unaware, on this site it’s inappropriate and unacceptable to call someone a “pussy” or make an ignorant claim like “he doesn’t even look Punjabi”. There are other ways to make your point without violating our commenting policy. Please consider this a warning.
Why am I not surprised at Ann Coulter saying that. It would be more surprising if she didn’t say something offensive.
FYI people are not only referring to Jindal as “Slumdog” but also I’ve read already a couple of times this “Gunga DIM.” Blast from the past. Witty to some I suppose. First time I read Jindal referred to as Gunga Din I paid it no mind. But then I kept seeing it pop up. So there are two lovely names that you can hear South Asians being called – Slumdog and some version of Gunga Din – by both conservatives and liberals.
26 · Edsa 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.
Oh yes! And the Mughals and the British came because they couldn’t find any other place to document poverty in the past thousands of years. There was no other place on earth that was so poor so they had to ride and sail across half the globe to get to poor little India and make it civilized and rich and.
71+ and pigs have been flying between Britain, Central Asia and India for centuries
The most sadly pathetic thing I’ve read in a long, long time, and the funniest thing about it all? That you probably don’t even know how stupid and ignorant it is.
Stupid fantasist narrative, true sign of ignorance and idiocy when people say that. Yeah, the land of Buddha and the Mahabharata and Shakuntala and of the most sublime architecture and art had no culture untik the ‘civilising’ Mughals and British arrived. I mean, truly, a sign of abject stupidity.
I mean the play Shakuntala that Kalidasa warote.
Anyway, Lee:
If you did some research you’d know that half of what you say isn’t even valid. For a start, the government doesn’t have to provide housing for the kids, it’s doing so of its own volition to ‘reward’ them for the glory they brought to India by being in an Oscar winning movie. It’s as much an election gesture by the ruling Congress party, because that’s what politicians in India are like, they couldn’t give a shit about them until all the hoopla of the Oscars happened, and if the movie had not have been a successs and won Oscars, it wouldn’t have happened at all. And if you can be bothered to read up on it you’d know that the producers are going to buy flats for them, that in once case they have deposited money to them for a new home and that money has dissapeared and no new home has been bought for them, and that they have been scrupulous and utterly ethical in ensuring that trust funds have been set up for the children to ensure that it secures their future and education.
It’s so easy and knee jerk to paint Danny Boyle and the producers of SM as horrible, moustache-twirling, cackling, exploitative white men, when the truth is the exact opposite, and just a few minutes of research on google will explain that.
On some of the anti-outsourcing sites, including ones for attorneys, Indians are now slurred as slumdogs. as in, those slumdogs who cant even read english are taking my job away.
75 · Bobby said
Excuse me. I have read up on the situation with the producers. If you really want to believe that it takes them two years to find housing for the kids, then please continue to bury your head in the sand. They could have bought flats for these kids outright as part of the trust so the money is not squandered. Yet here we are two years later and their situation has not improved much (or except for a trip to LA for the Oscars). Yipee
BTW I would prefer that the government not get involved unless they are planning to provide housing for everyone in the slums. Let the movie producers spend some of their money to help the kids they are exploiting.
“are not simply ‘throwing money’ at the kids. This would NOT be a sustainable solution.”
why would this NOT be suitable serenitya? Seems that now the film is pushing 100mil+ time to cut up the cake
It’s not two years. The movie finished filming one year ago. The only person burying your head in the sand is you. If you had done the research I suggested you do, you would know that the producers provided money for new accomodation to their parents, who gave the money to someone who promised to find them a new home, and that man, and the money, dissapeared.
So they are in the process of purchasing new flats for them, and doing it in such a way that they can ensure nobody else benefits other than the children and their immediate family, and that their family do not try to sign away the money held in trust to their children to third parties. This is all out there, on the record, but the image of the horrible Danny Boyle exploiting children like Fagin from Oliver Twist is too hard to shift from your mind, right?
Yes, we would all like Indian politicians to spend money on the slums and not give preferential treatment to anyone just because they happened to be involved in something that brought’glory’ to India and enhance their own election campaigns by associating themselves with that. But you can’t get over this mental block and straw man you have in your head. The movie producers are not ‘exploiting’ the kids. They are helping them, and have been helping them, and are helping them in good faith to get a long term, sustained benefit to their lives. They have done so ethically, with scruples, and in the face of things going awry because of things outside their control.
They are also working to institute a charitable trust to plough profits from the movie into helping children in Mumbai and other cities, something that they are in the process of finalising. The movie has also seen an exponential rise in donations and interest in the various charities that work in India helping young children, and its something that the producers will work willingly to lend their name to. So, all around, the child actors are being provided for, profits will go towards charities, and an unprecedented amount of charitable contributions and interest has been aroused on the issue of street children in urban India, and a massive debate on the causes and sustaining processes of poverty in India has been opened up both in India and around the world.
Yeah sure, they are being exploited, Danny Boyle is scum, such an evil, callous exploiter, you’re so right.
66 · SomeBodyUk said
Ay, there’s the rub. A stout, virile Sardar wouldn’t have a much better chance at the presidency than skinny Bobby, either.
Keep this thread on topic or I will delete your comments. This thread IS NOT about the Slumdog kids. Repeated offenders will be banned.
The slur that I hear, particularly from self identified liberals, is that Indian-Americans are the exploiters of the “Slumdog” rather than Slumdogs themselves. This is a view encouraged by many academics here in the US. It all depends on the circumstance. Depending on the SES of the bigot in question, Indians are either the villain (high SES) or the punchline (low SES).
80 · delurker said
The Scythian community should exercise some quality control to ensure brand preservation. Seriously, there must be a Lemurian doodhwallah somewhere in his biodata
Baseball fairy tale guys Rinku and Dinesh are sick of being compared to slumdog millionaire.
This was bound to happen. Stupid poverty porn ‘Slumdog Millionaire’ just wont leave us alone. There is this lady in my office who said that after watching the movie now she does not want to go to India. Before she had many times expressed her strong desire to visit India.
Whenever someone asks me about the slums in India and offer sympathy, I direct them towards contributing (by donating or volunteering) to some NGO that I know who works for improving the conditions of poor kids in India. Why not make some good of the sympathy when there is one (rather than apathy…the equilibrium state of all).
Edsa, and what did the Chinese travelers to ancient India (called ‘Fa-Hien’ and ‘Hiuen Tsiang’) write ? Have your heard of Nalanda ? Do your homework and comeback.
63 · cc said
Why would Coulter make fun of Jindal, another Republican? What’s up with her? Is she trying to sabotage her own party? She’s a loon, to put it nicely.
81 · Abhi said
Fair enough, but maybe there should be a blog entry about it. It’s become a very big controversy.
Just sayin’…
I wonder if part of the stickiness of “Slumdog” versus “Macaca” is who said it. The Conservative who made up the derogatory term (Macaca) got immediately panned by liberals and deemed as racist. “Slumdog” though is a word Danny Boyle said himself he made up the word for the movie title. So it appears to come up from the more liberal parts of society.
As I mentioned before when actual slum dwellers protested the title there was very little support that I saw for them from liberals because is was a liberal type of movie. There was this uncomfortable situation with the poor actually being mad at a liberal type movie. It did sadden me that Boyle did not change the title once he learned how offended the slum dwellers were. I would expect liberals to be more sensitive to the concerns of the poor especially for something very easy to change such as a movie title. If he had changed the title I cannot help but think it would not have had as much traction now, because people (liberals and conservatives alike) would know it is an offensive term to use to refer to South Asians.
When a liberal makes up a derogatory word for art is that more acceptable than when a conservative makes up a derogatory word? Should the slum dwellers not have been offended? Were they wrong to protest? Or were they right all along? And because not more people supported them then, we have the situation now where liberals and conservatives alike are comfortable using the term to refer to South Asians.
88 · Sonal said
Well, considering that the protests did not start until after the film had already been nominated for the Academy Awards, and had already been out in theatres for several months now, and already had several thousand prints out with the title “Slumdog Millionaire” on them, could you please propose how anyone would be able to change the title at that juncture, Sonal? I await your considerable expertise on this matter.
By the way, Danny Boyle never once said he made up the name “Slumdog”, because he didn’t. It was the screenwriter Simon Beufoy who invented the term. I can understand getting that confused, but you didn’t stop there. You took the extra step of making the false claim that “Danny Boyle SAID HIMSELF he made up the word.” Which is a lie and an invention. And with that revealed, we can only judge the truth on the rest of what you have to say from here on.
Anything else? You’re hilarious.
And you are nasty, CC.
You and I can agree to differ on how possible it was to change the name. It is a movie title not the 10 Commandments. Me I think I rather side with the protesters, whom I think good liberals should support over any movie even if made by left leaning people. A movie title can be changed. The book’s name was Q and A so it is not like the movie was being that true to the book.
And yeah I made a mistake on which one Boyle or Beufoy. Get over it and don’t make it to be more than that. You are a really nasty person. Thanks for the correction on the name. My point was in the past people denied that he did make it up, that is why I emphasized “himself.”
Anyone else can share their thoughts on the questions I asked (please respond with civility)? : “When a liberal makes up a derogatory word for art is that more acceptable than when a conservative makes up a derogatory word? Should the slum dwellers not have been offended? Were they wrong to protest? Or were they right all along? And because not more people supported them then, we have the situation now where liberals and conservatives alike are comfortable using the term to refer to South Asians.”
90 · Sonal said
No, we actually can’t agree to differ on how possible it is, because you didn’t tell us how it can be changed after it distributed thousands of prints, was in theatres for several months already and was nominated for the Oscars BEFORE the protests began, and hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of dollars of advertising bearing the name of “Slumdog” that would then have to be pulled and replaced, including TV ads, print ads, movie previews and posters. The answer is: at that juncture, it wasn’t possible at all. Or if it is possible, I’d love to hear how it can be done. Since you didn’t come up with an answer, then you’ve tacitly acknowledged it couldn’t have been done, and your premise is flawed to begin with.
It’s got nothing to do with making a mistake on the name. I already said in my last post that’s a mistake anyone could make. Your problem is you went further and said Boyle himself has said he made up the name. That’s not a mistake. That’s an untruth, and it shows you have more on your mind than civil discourse.
Now, as to your question. Clint Eastwood has had a huge hit with “Gran Torino”, which receieved very decent reviews as well. He’s a conservative, he plays a character that spews more angry racial epithets (a few of them made up) than an evening of “All in the Family” on TV Land. And liberals aren’t complaining a bit. There goes your premise, your facts, your entire argument out the window.
Don’t worry, Sonal. I’m done now. Continue with your discussion. I won’t participate any further, but I look forward to reading it.
Isn’t Slumdog the archetypal conservative pull-yourself-up-by-the-bootstraps, if-you-stay-poor-it’s-your-fault movie?
Elsewhere at CPAC, Michelle “we need a HUAC” Bachmann goes off the hook and speaks jive with Steele.
And who can forget that notorious movie with the racist title referring to darker skinned people – “Grease”, and the song “Slummer lovin’, had me a blast!”?
SomebodyUk:
I know what you mean. He looks like a Bihari, Bengali or Tamil, like that other “punjabi” Manmohan Singh the Prime Minister of India.
Dont you also find it annoying that the REAL punjabis (who look nothing like desis) are mostly taxi drivers or in other blue collar professions in North America while the native looking indians are mostly in white collar professions? It also is annoying that these desi looking upper castes consign the scythian looking jatts of punjab to the lowest hindu caste. What’s up with that?
Wow, my favorite Ethiopian taxi-driver would count as a REAL punjabi ™ by your definition.
Taxi driver or blue collar profession? Check. Looks nothing like desis? Check.
I guess REAL punjabi(tm) is not a phenotype, it is an attitude, a state of mind. Even a Chinese barber could be a REAL punjabi ™, if he were awesome. Punjabi Munda, you’ve shown me the light. How narrow-minded I was, only looking for kada-wearing ma-behen-gaali-giving thumping-bass-pimp-car-driving REAL punjabi ™ boys in saddi Dilli’s Rajinder da Dhaba.
PS: Sometimes Jats don’t mind being OBCs. Ever heard of reservation benefits?
Bang on ! When the slum dwellers protested the general reaction (even amongst most desis i know) was – oh they are creating such a fuss and embarrassing us. Of course now that these relatively well to do Indians in U.S. are being called “slumdogs” on anti-immigration boards they are suddenly uneasy and find that they don’t relish it much. But like you pointed out, the time to protest has passed.
The word “slumdog” is becoming a slur for desi H1-Bs at sites like this. This site even has a Slumdog Comment Generator.
From : http://itgrunt.com/ (emphasis mine)
CC you made the same false accusation against me and didn’t hear me in my response. People in the past discussion said the word was not made up by him. That is why I said “said himself.” I confused Boyle with Beaufoy. That is all. So the sentence should have been Beaufoy said himself he made up the name “slumdog.” Stop making it more than that. Stop making your response a personal attack. Maybe you live in a world where people are shady, but I don’t so don’t project on me. You spent more time talking about how it is not possible to change the movie, but did not say anything about the questions that I asked about when a liberal makes up a derogatory word versus a conservative. Which is fine. Quite frankly I don’t understand your belligerence. What I mean by that is you seem to be very emotionally invested in the movie for some reason as if you were either Boyle or Beufoy (though I can’t say if they would be as uncivil as you, who knows). You could have simply said that by the time the slum dwellers protested there was too much money spent and just not possible to change, and left it at that. You seem to me to have taken a personal affront to a general discussion and started attacking me. Me if I had the power I would have spent the money (yes even if it were millions, and yes I really would do that if I had the power) and effort to change the title in order to be consistent if I were a person in films who cares about people in the slums. They are so little heard in society. That to me would have been the ethical thing to do. I don’t work in the film industry so I cannot give you a line by line detailed description of how. And since this is just a discussion board, I don’t think anyone expects that other than you. If it weren’t time wise possible to change the title by Oscars, if I had the power I would have made sure it was changed after the Oscars and I would have let everyone know why in the news – the people living in the slums deserve to be heard and respected. Their dignity matters, their voice matters, and if I do something wrong against them, even unknowingly, I correct it. That is me and maybe it doesn’t make sense financially to people only looking at the business aspect, but it does to me ethically, and therefore the benefit to me is worth the financial cost. These are my thoughts. If you cannot address me without personally attacking me then I do not want to have a discussion with you any further.