[UPDATE: See a fuller copy of Knott’s remarks where she alleges Haley is a secret Sikh who is being elected by a cabal of Indian interests [link]]
One of the interesting differences between Jindal and Haley, two politicians with so much in common down to their Punjabi parents, is that Jindal makes his conversion central to his political identity whereas Haley does not.
1 One reason for this is color. Bobby Jindal is very clearly brown, he is married to a brown woman with a “foreign” name. He couldn’t hide his ancestry if he tried, so instead he emphasizes his conversion from the alien Hindu faith to the more familiar Catholic one.
Haley doesn’t have that burden, she’s a light skinned woman married to a white man, with a familiar sounding name. Heck, I got a number of emails last week from friends (desi and non-desi) all saying “Nicky Haley’s desi?” For her, talking about her conversion is not just unecessary, it would remind people of what’s alien about her and so it would be counter-productive.
I think this is why the attacks on her religion have been fairly tame in the past (in 2004 anonymous fliers claimed she was a Hindu but she still went on to beat the most senior member of the State House [link]) and present [link], they just have a hard time sticking, even though this is a state where anti-Catholic and anti-Mormon attacks have worked in the past [link].
2 The other reason why she doesn’t stress her conversion as much is that it doesn’t seem to have been as abrupt. Her campaign strongly stresses her Christianity today, but this was not true in 2004 and reflects a strong increase in Christian language in her campaign materials [link].
In 2004, seven years after her conversion, she was quoted as saying she attended both Methodist and Sikh services [link] and even now her spokesman will admit that “She attends Sikh services once or twice a year in respect for her family… Like millions of others, she honors her mother and her father” [link].
At the same time, her current campaign material is much more unequivocal:
Question: Is Nikki a Christian?Truth: In Nikki’s words: “My faith in Christ has a profound impact on my daily life and I look to Him for guidance with every decision I make. God has blessed my family in so many ways and my faith in the Lord gives me great strength on a daily basis. Being a Christian is not about words, but about living for Christ every day.” [link]
See? No reference to conversion in 1997, no sense of transition from a pagan past. She doesn’t have to, and in fact is secure enough that she can go to Gurdwara on ocassion to keep her parents happy and perhaps drum up some donations. At the same time, religion is enough of a vulnerability in SC that she’s fairly defensive about it. But she’s positioned herself differently from the way Jindal does.
Related links: The Brody File (CBN): Nikki Haley Reflects More Christian Tone
As I have pointed out in the earlier thread on Nikki, the need for power drove both Piyush and her to run well to the right of even the wingnuts, seeing little potential in hewing to the desi Democratic line in weak Dem states like SC and La. It is another matter that limo lib Dems can be as bad as wingnuts, because they love to patronize. While I can understand why Piyush abandoned Hinduism, I am surprised Nikki abandoned Sikhism. Because Hinduism as it exists in officially sanctioned public imagination in the US is a punching bag and trash can. Sikhism receives very positive press. But what a terrible thing it is to tear oneself away from tradition just for the sake of power and pelf.
I agree with Ennis’ analysis.
There is another factor at play here as well on why Jindal plays up his Christian faith. Jindal is also clearly more Christian than Haley. Jindal committed exorcisms in College and was clearly a devout Christian even in College.
I think Haley is a lot like many second generation desis (non-Muslim ones) who are not particularly religious and as she is married to a Christian dude she probably started showing up to his Church as well just like she goes to the gurudwara for her parents. When she started running for office, she wisely started trumping up her husband’s religion. Now if her husband is non-religious, then that might be a cause for suspicion.
jyotsana stated : “Because Hinduism as it exists in officially sanctioned public imagination in the US is a punching bag and trash can. Sikhism receives very positive press. But what a terrible thing it is to tear oneself away from tradition just for the sake of power and pelf”.
In the pre 9-11 world, maybe. These days Sikhism = Turbans = Taliban
It just amazes me how several people on this blog “know” the “real” reasons why Jindal, Haley, and any other “brown” politician/public figure embraces Christianity. The constant harping and comparison on their color and conversion to a different faith tradition (especially Christianity) got old a long time ago. I gotta wonder if there’s not some deep-seated issues going on that it keeps on being dissected from every angle ad nauseam, esp. for those who claim to come from one the most “tolerant” religious traditions that ever existed. If it’s not their conversion one day, it’s their color the other. When you boil away the pseudo-intellectualism, it’s easily exposed for what it is.
Nikki is one sonia kudi. She’s so light-skinned. I seriously was surprised that she was Desi.
I must say, however, that I’m so not-impressed with these opportunistic Desis converting to Christianity in the USA for social gains. I have no problem with Desis converting to Christianity in India, or a Desi converting toany other non-Judeo-Christian religion in the USA/Europe. It would make for interesting conversation between Nikke and a fellow South Carolinian Aziz Ansari.
PAFD,
Without in any way trivializing the horrific attacks on several Sikhs since 9/11 (that even caused some of my Sikh friends to go clean shaven – not good – never) we are talking of two different attitudes. The post-9/11 Turban=Taliban attitude is more akin the Dot-Busters violence of 20 years ago. The Hinduphobic commentary is an academically inspired if not driven mode of depiction. It peaked during the California textbook scandal when Indian-American jihadophiles (the likes of Anuradha Raman, Sunaina Maira, Angana Chatterji, Raja Ramasamy, Girish Agarwal etc) teamed up with a Harvard prof to derail the entire process. Or the hate campaign that the likes of Vijay Prashad and Biju Matthew (and even Pass the Roti) ran against the Hindu Students Council, or articles from the likes of Shankar Vedantam that dubbed Rajiv Malhotra a fundamentalist terrorist sympathiser (yeah a guy who endows a chair at Harvard) So while a Harvard grad gave a class speech “My American Jihad”, about Jihad is a struggle etc. India Development Relief Fund was busy defending itself from a smear campaign launched in India and generously hosted by universities and academics here. Even Bush for his much vaunted support of Indian-Americans never once attended a Diwali at WH, did not invite a single Hindu-American group for the official dinner hosted for Manmohan Singh at the WH.
I am sure that very soon the contradiction will break down – between the academic depiction of Hinduism and Hindus as a lost tradition in a dank cellar, and the Hindus’ own vibrant lived tradition here. As Prof. Nathan Katz put it, just as we have found a way to teach about other traditions from an academic point of view yet respectfully, so can we in the case of Hinduism.
have some respect. his name is bobby, not piyush and your snide insinuations are unnecessary.
Just to clarify, in neither Bobby nor Nikki’s cases (that is Piyush and Nimrata to use their legal names) do I speculate about why they converted. I don’t and cannot know what goes on inside their heads. Nor do I really care, as somebody who believes in the separation of Church and State.
However, I do think it’s not just legitimate but important to talk about presentation of race and religion. These played a large role in both Obama and Romney’s campaigns, and they’re playing an increasing role in Haley’s.
respect,
His official name continues to be Piyush and I take great delight in calling him out for his lack of self-esteem and his very smarmy sanctimony,
“Seeing Christ’s sacrifice convicted me of my sinfulness and my need for a savior… I asked seriously who was I that my Lord should suffer for my sake.” Because he feared the “inevitable confrontation with my very unsympathetic Hindu parents,” Bobby simply didn’t tell them. He found refuge in his closet, where he studied the Bible by flashlight. In his writings, he would later compare his situation to that of the earliest Christians, worshipping in caves, “hiding from government persecution.” Read more: http://www.esquire.com/features/bobby-jindal-all-american-1008-2?src=del#ixzz0puS6f2mW
This is what Hindus get to face – the frenzy of a convert – a convert to a faith whose leader says without apology that Hindus – Piyush’s ancestral tradition – are lost etc., It requires a total suspension of all critical faculties to behave like Piyush – this is what Dawkins dubs the God Delusion.
Jyotsana: Here you appear to suggest Jindal’s conversion was genuine, going against the jist of the uncle tom argument that he sold out his heritage for political necessity, which appears to be your position in #1.
So Bobby is scarier because he’s truly deluded, whereas Nikki’s just Machiavellian. Do I have you correctly?
Manju, whether the frenzy is earnest or calculated is immaterial. The point is that it’s there. If you stab me in the eye I don’t much care whether you sincerely wanted to do it or not.
I think people should stop blaming Jindal and start blaming the Hindu community. Obviously, they didn’t provide the support he needed when he needed it most.
LA and SC are weak dem states??!! Every SC Governor from 1879-1975 was a Dem. After that, it went: R, D, D, R, R, R, D, R. LA was monolithically democratic from 1877-1980. Then it went R,. D, D, R, D. R. D. R.
On the local level, I understand it was far more difficult for a repub, as remnants of Jim Crow remained and continued to benefit the Dem party generally up till 1994, when things started to even out. That doofus who denied a couple an marriage licnse in LA was a dem until Obama got elected and he decided to piss on my party, probably due to a principled belief in federalism no doubt.
Manju,
let’s just there are degrees – and no there aren’t any genuine or machiavellian conversions – although I wish you would had quoted Chanakya who would ruthlessly subdue the interests of belief to the interests of the state. I am saddened that Piyush shows less regard for his parents than the children of a deadbeat dad and crackhead mom would.
Here’s the former Yousuf Yohanna’s friends and family on his conversion to Islam,
The Christians of Pakistan may be a minority but with a presence. Their churches are grand and prominent, their schools and colleges continue to operate unimpeded and have trained generations of the countries Muslim elite. There is almost none of the officially sponsored visceral hatred that Hinduism and Hindus have had to face or their mandirs being built over. Yet Yousuf turned away from Christianity. Questioning whether it is genuine or calculated does not lead us anywhere.
i think there’s a difference. look at it this way. I always assumed obama’s opposition to gay marriage–not unrelated to religion–was a lie, making him noble, while Palin’s opposition is genuine, making her evil.
obama’s saying what he saying just to get the savages to vote for him, after which he’ll then turn around and stab them in the back…which he’s beginning to do now though he’ll wait for his 2nd term to go full throttle. Liars are often morally superior to the earnest.
Jindals problem, if i get jyotsana correctly, is that he actually is one of the savages; as opposed to merely pretending to be one in order to gain the “goodwill of the people” as Machiavelli put it.
i’ll have to check it out. I’ve been over-using machiavelli. i was thinking of swithing to sun tzu but he’s like merlot too.
Manju,
Nice try, it’s fun to see you spinning your wheels, stuck in the mire. By the time Piyush started sneaking into his cave to get away from his heathen demonaical tradition, Reagan’s milkbone for the kooks – “I’m for states’ rights,” delivered a few miles away from where Schwener, Goodman and Chaney had been murdered, in Philly, MS, was already about 10 years old. Tricky Dick’s Southern Strategy was even older, and the Dixiecrat rollup into the GOP older still. The parties simply changed nameplates that is all. Or else why would Piyush blow that dog whistle about that high school in N.Louisiana where black students protested the display of nooses etc. as being lead by “outsiders”? I also see that you think that a Dem in Louisiana = a Dem in NY. That’s way more 101 you need than I have.
Obama’s “no comments” on gay marriage (which is how it should be, my opinions on what gays shd do is just that, my opinion, and irrelevant to the law) is noble, his inability to follow it through in policy is a weakness, our willingness to cut him some slack on that is a compromise. Sarah Palin’s opposition to gay marriage is understandable for a sub-100 IQ kook, and if she lied about it we would know because we are much smarter than she is. Interesting you think that Obama will win a 2nd term, because given the mess the GOPers have made of this country it would require at least another 4 Obama terms to set things right and reduce the Palins, Limbaughs and Gingriches to being clown acts. But again yes, a good liar is better than an ernest kook. As for the savages who vote for Obama, I couldn’t care less. This is America not Somalia or Afghanistan. GOPers are bad any which way.
i have no idea where you figured that he has no lack of self esteem just because he doesn’t choose to live the life that you think a real authentic indian person should. indians and hindus can do without arbiters of authenticity like you.
your calling bobby piyush is as disgusting as people calling obama “husein” because that is his middle name.
Well, first you said LA and SC “weak Dem states” therefore Bob and Nik went repub. I demonstrated that they indeed are not weak dem states, rather formerly monoliticially dem (due to Jim Crow) which have since evened out due to its demise.
Are you claiming the once monolithically dem LA and SC are now monolithically repub, presumably due to the “dixiecrat rollup into the GOP?” Well, the gubernatorial stats i cited disprove this. Need more? take a look at LA senators for example. there is one D and one R. In fact, since 1876 and 1883 respectively (considering there are 2 senators per state) to present, every single damn senator from LA has been a democrat, except one. This incude such famous dixiecrats as russel long, who voted against the 57 and 64 civl rights acts while supporting liberal policies and prez LBJ (who effectively killed ike’s civil rights act) was the majoity whip, and stayed in the senate untill 1987, and, like virtually all dixiecrats, remained a faithful dem till the end.
So–even before I bunk your “dixie roll up into the GOP theory” (which I’ll be happy to do if you inisit–in reagrds bab and nk going GOP b/c dems are weak in those states, may i ask what what the hell are you talking about?
Oh Manju. So nice to see you defending a party that so obviously wants nothing to do with you. You’re like that kid who gets picked on on the playground and then, instead of defending himself, tries to make the bullies his friend by giving them lunch money every day.
respect,
That’s right, you have no idea. And yes, Piyush is his official name. If you don’t like it, ask Bobby to become Bobby.
Manju,
When you are wrong, it doesn’t help to scream. I said something very simple – you assume Dem in LA = Dem in NY. That’s too much of 101 for me to deal with. You must be the only one who is more concerned with what LBJ did in the fifties with what he did later as Prezdet. GOPers anyway aren’t known for their sense of history. If you know anything you would know that as far as Dems are concerned Blanche Lincoln or Mary Landrieu are worse than Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. When the Civil Rights Act passed in 1964 an overwhelming majority of Northern Dems and GOPers voted with it, while an overwhelming majority of Southern Dems and GOPers voted against it, and there was only one Southern GOP senator those days, but then it did not matter as he was ably supported by stalwart Southern Dems like Strom Thurmond! In the days gone by Southern Dems opposed civil rights, now some of them vie with GOPers to shill for corporations, some even switch parties!
i am sure you feel the same way about President Husein of America. you are a bigot, plain and simple. and misdirection and hysteria doesn’t make you right or even make it seem like you’re winning the argument.
Jyotsana,
one quibble–you fail to note that once Youhanna became Yousuf, his test and ODI averages went up, he had his best year statistically, and first registered in many minds as a pure strokeplayer. He also was playing on a team that was among the most outwardly pious in history. Although that data point may just be part of a trend of players in the subcontinent converting to the majority religion and getting more playing time and seeing more success.
uncertainty in general is bad for the ethnic pol in LA but not in SC. why is that?
Although that data point may just be part of a trend of players in the subcontinent converting to the majority religion…
Yousuf became a star in 2005 when he led the fielding and and batted v.well to help his team win the test and ODI series, touring India. We have two cricketers (maybe just one?) in Sri Lanka and one from Pakistan, and none from the rest of the subcontinent. So there’s not much data to work with.
you are a bigot, plain and simple. fighting words. funny though. a bigot doesn’t change his mind and doesn’t change the topic. respect – at least try to change your name.
Where in the world did i assume that and how is that realvant to this discussion? I thought your central claim wa LA and SC are weak dem states (therefore Nik anf Bob went GOP). Youappear to have abandoned that caim with out conceeding it is wrong. If you now claim LA dems are differnt, presumably becasue they arfe more racist, then haven’t you destroyed your own theory s to why Bob and Nik are repubs? after all, they could just as well be dems.
as you seem to be aware ( because you mention ” there was only one Southern GOP senator those days”) the regional angle doesn’t exonerate dems (anymore than it would exonerate the founders, like jefferson, for slavery). Indeed, the irony that jim crow found a home in the more progrssive party //s the founding, so as an american i feel your pain, except you haven’t owned the failings of your party yet, indeed, you’ve barely acknowledged it. .
obviously since virtuall all the reps in that region where dems, jim crow is ineed a dem faioling. lets say in theory that all the epeople who vote against marriage equality are chritstian conservatives. would that exonerate repubs if 90% of the christian conservatives belonged to that party?
now as to why the south was dem, i’ll leave for another post.
in part b/c JFK and LBJ fought to effectively kill Ike’s long-forgotten 1957 civil right act. they sent it to segregationist James Eastland (Democrat from Mississippi and early supporters of Kennedy’s presidential campaign) notorious Senate Judiciary Committee where they hoped it would die. Republicans tried to use a parliamentary procedure to bypass the racist committee and save the bill from death but LBJ and JFK were having none of it.
Once in committee the jury trial amendment appeared. Ike wanted judges to be able to issue a contempt citation when whites, after being found guilty of violating voting rights (of black and republicans usually), violated a court injunction to stop. But knowing damn well all-white juries would never convict a white for refusing to allow blacks to register to vote, democrats, including 2 future presidents, inserted this amendment.
LBJ went even furhter, removing the core of Ike’s bill: titile III. That provision would’ve given the Justice Department authority to file civil suits on behalf of persons whose civil rights had been violated. so., as for this:
I think some folks who wer denied the right to vote would care. Or perhaps, since you appear to believe “The parties simply changed nameplates that is all” were lbj and jfk actually to the right of ike and nixon?
i didn’t change either my mind or the topic. your obsession with bobby’s supposed inauthenticity because he converted from an indian religion and does not like to go by his given name is truly frightening.
this is a very bizarre remark.i don’t know if this is some revisionism to tar johnson’s 64 achievement, but lbj passed the bill which would get passed by the 1957 congress. even the 1960 bill was passed over a 3 day long filibuster run by southern dems. caro writes in great detail about 57 in his masterful bio of johnson
“effectively” killed means he deranged it not that it didn’t get passed. he got rid of the meat (title III) and inserted the trial-by-jury provision. i assure you this is mainstream history not some right-wing revisionism. it is amazing how many people are unaware of this history though. there’s a reason the jfk / lbj ticket took the south.
i’d provide a cite but its sort of like citing “the Japaneses bombed pearl harbor”. to the extent there is debate, lbj and jfk may have been genuinely more concerned with senate procedure (sending it to the racist committee) as the republican idea to bypass was novel and trial by jury is a right (though not for contempt) so maybe they were genuinely concerned there, but you’d really have to want to bend over backwards for them to use those arguments.
american racism is indeed fought with irony. begins with thomas jefferson, imo. the original rand paul.
“defanged”
Interestingly, your comment comes in response to me attacking the dem party for jim crow and its effects, ie their domination of the electorate, which can be interpreted to be fair, as a sly way of excusing the racism of the repbus, but thats argument-by-motive, ie hyperbole. so perhaps whats really got your panties in a twist is exposing the racism of your party, uncle.
res, nice to see you are changing although slowly – not bad keep it up.
Manju, as I said before it’s not good to scream when you are wrong, it looks funny. You shouldn’t talk about concession, considering you have decided not to deal with “States Rights in Philly, Miss.” Reagan. Good, you choose your battles with care, you should considering you are arguing for the GOPers and the Dixiecrats – Strom Thurmond no less (but why would I want to remind you of your concessions). You are also not very familiar with law making it seems. Manju when you talk of GOPers in the House you are talking of Northern GOPers who were as pro-civil rights as the Dems. As for the Senate, there too the Northerns were in agreement. It is the South where Dems joined by the sole GOPer went after the bill. And this is the segment we are talking about. You want to tell me Strom Thurmond D (SC) was a nasty guy? Sure! But then he did redeem himself when he voted to override Regan’s veto of a Congress resolution demanding freedom for Mandela in S.Africa. You want to learn about Lincoln? Read Leroy Burnett’s “Forced into Glory”.
LBJ went even furhter, removing the core of Ike’s bill: titile III. And then guess what LBJ went further still, he piloted Civil Rights 1964 and appointed Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court!
Manju, 101-Lesson 1 – Weak Dem=Dino or Dems who vie with GOPers. Like the recent defector to the GOPers in Miss who was trounced in the primaries (we will vote for the real guy) or the Alabama Dem candidate who was trounced in the primary because he ran against healthcare. Seriously, where are you getting your lessons from? karl Rove, Glenn Beck? O’Liellley? Or Mrs. Palin? Read up quickly. Your finals are round the corner.
I’ve acknowledged the reality of Neshoba. You can see me refernce it here. Have you conceeded the Clinton’s southern strategy? If not, why?
Stroms name comes up b/c he’s the only Dixiecrat (of the orignal states rights party) to become repub. all the rest stayed. Obviously, as a dem, you have to answer for many more, like Dixiecrat leader richard russell, John C. Stennis, or fritz hollings who retired in 2005 since we are talking SC.
yes, jim crow, the kkk, lynching represented a faction within the Dem party. pro-slavery represented a faction within America. and the founders. but that doesn’t mean its not an American problem, does it?
well, then you’ve undermined your case against nixon’s southern strat. Nixon wanted a minimum income guarantee. He also simply wanted to give poor people money to buy health insurance, which he tied int Americas race problem (ironiclly using racist language) . ted kennedy objected–he thought that was a giveaway to insurance companies–, which he later called the greatest regret of his life. nixone got neither What nixon did accomplish was the first federal affirmative action program, the Equal Employment Opportunity Act, and the the Comprehensive Child Development Act. oh, he also supported the ERA, title X, and gave us wage and price controls, created the environmental protection agency and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
ok, it appears you’re saying now that weak dem=dino not that SC and LA don’t elect dems (weak dem state). but how does that mean nik and bob needed to go gop? aren’t you now saying that conservative Dem would be an option? like bill Clinton.
or they could mimic the dixiecrats, be racist but economically more liberal (ie authoritarian). you appear to have undermined your whole original argument as to shy they needed the gop, as you conceed the power of dems in those states.
Nixon sounds like a socialist.
I bet he was born in Kenya too.
i believe chomsky or somebody called him the last progressive president. i think it is indeed fair to say, if we throw aside the “relative to peers fo his time” criteria, nixon was to the left of obama and clinton. Reagan was transforamtive, as Bam often says.
So were Decepticons. That doesn’t make them good.
Manju,
Spinning your wheels, forgetting 101 – nothing changes. The dixiecrats are not just Strom it is the Southern GOP of today. It is the result of a nameplate change. Stennis, Russell etc., weren’t arguing over civil rights in 2005. That vote was over and they bought into it and what it implies for our times. But you would remember by the time civil rights law passed other issues become prominent. King wasn’t fighting about discrimination when he was assassinated, he was arguing against Vietnam, marching for jobs and justice and several other things. Today the GOPers stand firmly against all that and a considerable number of them would have have dixiecrats in those days, today they are GOPers. Nixon would have been left of Obama and Clinton? Baloney. That’s an argument even a punk like Karl Roive would make. Nixon was simply carrying forward the New Deal consensus that everyone bought into about 25 years earlier. It was a different time then, that’s all. The Southern Strategy as his advisor Kevin Phillips detailed was to push Af-Ams into the Democratic Party and bleed it of majority voters who would then migrate to the GOP. It worked exactly as it should have. Reagan transformative? That’s a joke all caps. His legacy (if you can call it that) is in tatters. It was a faux legacy just as Miltonism is faux economics. But let’s give the guy credit, he didn’t know what he was talking most of the time and was senile by the early 2nd term. As for foreign policy, today Ukraine announced it will not seek NATO membership. Reagan’s gutting of US manufacturing created the job sucker China – how smart was Reagan? About as smart as a 1-dimensional robot.
How does it mean Nikki and Piyush need to go… Manju, one piece of advice, never become a political strategist on your own dime, you will go bankrupt. Weak Dem/Dino will always be rejected by the GOPer base because if I can have the real thing why go ersatz? Please, this is embarrassing, I can’t be teaching you such basic stuff!
What seems to me of broader relevance than anything else is that the racist attacks on Jindal’s or Haley’s or Obama’s ‘nonWhite unamericanness’ (that’s basically what the ‘sekrit muslim) allow these politicians to escape any analysis of their policies with the exception of Jindal, possibly. As we are emotionally manipulated by the racists or the politicians’ themselves into focusing on their identities rather than their politics, we will lose sight of why we might want to support them or criticize them.
For me, as an Indian American socialist (more or less) this is worrisome because Indian Americans have traditionally voted Democratic, for better or worse. One could view what is happening now as a continuation of what used to happen in always voting Democratic / anyone who made any acknowledgement of India (‘just support him/her (usually him), he’s made minimal mention of India or appeared at an event in slightly new guise) or one could see it as a new incarnation of that – in which opportunistic conservative 2nd gen desis themselves are manipulating desis on shared experience of racism, while at the same time, contributing to a broader politics that actually feeds that racism, one way or another.
A good example of this is that while Obama’s administration has offered a tepid response to Israel, undermined UN Security Council perspectives, and engaged in two wars on three continents against Muslims, we are here talking about how he was called a raghead, rather than how he is feeding Islamophobia itself.
This is the difficulty with having a political debate presented to us between a set of problematic politicians like Obama, Jindal, and Haley on the one hand and a set of crazy but somewhat powerful fascists on the other hand – Glenn Beck, this guy, seemingly the entire legislature of Virginia, Sarah Palin, Anne Coulter, etc.
Which brings me to this:
This is not the right way to approach this. This just makes Bobby a sympathetic figure and it really is a lack of respect. How many people have mangled your name. What is more problematic about Bobby Jindal than whether or not he is Christian or whether or not he changed his name for political benefit (he would be a poor politician if he didn’t, but it doesn’t fundamentally matter to me..that’s par for the course) is what he believes. Does he bring religious fundamentalism into policy? Does he advocate an anti-government market fundamentalist rhetoric at a time when the debate should really be about whether to restore Keynsian policies (for the stability of capitalism and political society) or whether to consider our options more broadly? Most importantly, does he contribute to the oppression of others, take stupid and immoral stances on the War in Iraq, and other matters?
Those are the kinds of questions we should be asking of Bobby Jindal or Nikki Haley and Barack Obama – not whether they are living up to our arbitrary standards of authenticity. The way to deal with that battle, from my standpoint, is to not just acknowledge, but celebrate, that we ALL have our own understandings of our PERSONAL authenticity, that it doesn’t matter what we do as a person, whether we speak the language, whether we eat the food, whether we are heterosexual or whether we are something else, whether we are working class, middle class or upper class – if our cry to the outside world is ‘just leave us alone – let us be’ then surely we can apply that standard – PURELY ON A PERSONAL LEVEL – to even those desis we dislike rather than disacknowledging the aspects of their personal identities that they tell us are genuine.
let the racists pick apart the souls of bobby jindal and nikki haley and barack obama for not being ‘american enough’ – we don’t have to do it for them, let alone contribute to their efforts to do so. There’s enough to criticize abuot all of them without doing so 🙂
thank you for calling jyotsana out on his disgusting bigotry. jyotsana is just the indian version of the racists you talk about
Barack Obama when he was younger used to go by “Barry.” As he grew older, he dropped the less “funny” sounding name “Barry” and went by his given name Barack.
Piyush Jindal when he was younger started to go by the less funny sounding name “Bobby” after a fictional character in the ’70s TV show “The Bradys.” And as an adult he – unlike President Obama – still went by the less funny sounding name Bobby.
I find Barack Obama’s rejecting “Barry” for his real given name Barack, the one his parents gave him, when he ran for ALL levels of political office far more inspiring than a man who as an adult still calls himself after a white fictional TV character.
Not only is President Obama proud of his first name Barack, he is also proud of his middle name Hussein, as he showed when he recited the oath of office for President he said his full name in full. A man with a “funny” name who is proud of his “funny” name and would not change it even if it could be something that could cost him in his pursuit of the Presidency is someone that I would point to as an inspiration to younger generations.
Unlike like Jindal, President Obama showed respect to both his parents religions – Christianity and Islam – though he himself follows his mother’s faith. I haven’t heard him saying anything disparaging about Islam even when he was being attacked as not really Christian. He did not prove how Christian he was by disparaging Islam.
If Jindal was from a Muslim background and converted to Christianity how would you feel if he described Islam this way – just replace Hindu with Muslim Hinduism with Islam: (from #9 Jyotsna’s link): http://www.esquire.com/features/bobby-jindal-all-american-1008-2?src=del#ixzz0puS6f2mW
No President Obama is much more the inspirational figure for everyone from a non-white background with funny names and the “other” religions. Not Jindal.
Hi jyotsana : We seem to think alike. Can you ping me at bharath DOT subramanyam AT gmail ?
Obama’s mother was an atheist FYI.
very interesting
In the sense that the armed forces he oversees are killing both Christians and Muslims?
So people are upset that she went from believing one fairy tale to another?? Really??
Political and economic opportunism is one of the best reasons I can think of for religious conversion. All other reasons are based on fantastical nonsense, at least she has the good sense to convert for a tangible reason (to become more electable).
Dr.Amnon,
I utterly detest the policies of Nikki and Piyush, their politics is retch-worthy. In the case of Piyush his economics, and his attitude to science as well is way behind the times, and it stems from whatever he has done to himself in turning from Piyush to Bobby. So in calling him Piyush I am reminding him who he truly should be, in the hope that he will find his conscience somewhere sometime. Even if Nikki wears her faith on her sleeve and has stopped visiting the Gurudwara (what does it tell us about SC?) she doesn’t diss her parents. Piyush must be the first politician in America who puts down his parents with such striking contempt, and this is a family-values conservative? And their silence during the several moments of truth – Macaca, Franklin Graham/Ravi Zacharia invective fest – is disconcerting. My Catholic friend (who has the Pope’s photo on her desk) invites me for Thanksgiving and asked me to recite a Hindu grace before our meal. Mike Ghouse Muslim-IA in Texas wll condemn Modi as well as the Malaysian government as well as Franklin Graham. Our own dear friend Anna, acknowledges some deep bond (which we may never until until we pass on from this world) between Hindu-Muslim-Christian and everyone. So then why is Piyush different? Is this what faith is about? Preying like wolves upon others, and dissing those who brought you here? Last year my daughter spent a summer interning outside home, and stayed at the graduate residence halls of a Jesuit university. I saw that the room down the corridor was occupied by a Jesuit professor who with his name plate had stuck a welcome notice, “Please feel free to talk to me, for any help you may need. I respect you whatever may be your faith, gender, sexual orientation, creed, color or nationality. Nothing would delight me more than helping you.” There are Catholics and then there are Catholics. What sort of message is Piyush sending to young IAs? Maybe it’s not his concern. But it is mine.
You cannot build a castle out of the ruins of a peasant’s home. You cannot live off the earnings of those you have cheated. You cannot ever live happily at the cost of another’s happiness.
oh good, thanks that we have the identity police to keep us honest.
Res, thanks for the upgrade – from bigot to identity police. R-E-S-P-E-C-T
sorry, i meant identity thug. you are a bigot.
Nixon was not progressive. He was merely not lunatic when it came to everyday government policy. He was bitter in some areas but when it came to routine government duties, he performed them without the baggage of dealing with right wing Republicans. About the only controversial element was his catering to the southern strategy, but even then he did not have to deal with a backlash to civil rights measures on the scale we see now from whites who forgot all the problems with race . Nixon had a much saner congress to deal with. CLinton and Obama deal with lunatics and corrupt senators from both parties. While I have no respect for right wingers, I am disappointed by the Chris Dodds who are so weak when it comes to make a stand, and corrupt at other times. People talk about Rod Blagoveich, but is he more corrupt than a guy like Lieberman whose wife gets paid far more than she is worth on the free market by some private corporation? Same with Dodd’s corruption.
Oh, and when the hell is one of those NIkki Haley’s homemade sex tapes coming out?