Here’s one blogger’s reaction to desi American star Indra Nooyi criticizing Dubya’s foreign policy:
America’s Parasites: Parasites feed on their hosts while providing no discernible good in most cases. I can’t think of any other name for folks who enjoy freedom and self-acualization in the United States then turn their back on us — befuddingly, after significant but remunerative sacrifice and challenge that they were FREE not to take.
Translation: there’s ‘them’ and then there’s ‘us.’ Immigrants are ‘them,’ no matter how long they’ve been in the U.S. (nearly 30 years), no matter how educated (Yale), no matter whether they’re U.S. citizens (yes). Never mind that we need them to plug our skilled labor shortage: we’re doing them a favor by letting them in.
This East Indian-American woman is at the top of her game professionally in a country that celebrates women achievers much UNLIKE her country of origin. BUT she is not satisfied! She must disparage the United States for not doing enough to coddle the corrupt, morally and financially bankrupt ‘international community’. Priceless!!!
Archaic usage of ‘East Indian,’ check. Ignorance of India’s female achievers, check. Multiple exclamation points, check. Assumption that she’s a parasitic economic refugee, check. (Nooyi graduated from IIM-Calcutta and worked at Johnson & Johnson India before ascending to CFO of Pepsi.)
Ignoring the substance of her argument to unleash a personal attack on her nationality and gender, check. Translation: uppity immigrant bitch needs to go back to where she came from.
Would he make the same points if Nooyi were an Englishman in New York? Would he make the same points of fellow conservative Arnold Schwarzenegger?
Elsewhere he writes:
Curse of the Black Voter: “… black voters reportedly faced long lines and voting machines that failed to work…” Why do Democrats like Black voters then? It’s obvious that it’s a constituency that can not get it’s act together!
And yet he’s black. Doesn’t sound like he’s too happy about it.
Kevin Leo sounds like the Jersey Guys. I can only assume his blog, whose name begins with ‘Reason,’ is ironically named. Sadly, he’s hardly the only American so xenophobically feeble-minded that the first thing he seizes upon in a debate is the way someone looks. And it’s highly ironic for someone who’s black in America.
What he’s really saying is this: immigrants are un-American forever. Don’t you dare dissent unless you’re native-born.
People with that view end up bug juice on the windshield of history.
Update: Leo typifies the conservative wingnut tactic of impugning the patriotism of dissenters and their right to dissent instead of arguing the actual issue. And he evokes the anti-immigrant rhetoric of Pat Buchanan. He’s like the guys screeching by in trucks during the first Iraq war yelling at us ‘Arabs’ to ‘go back to Iraq.’ The wingnuts are out in force, and their reaction resembles nothing more than the tempest in a toilet raised over claims that a Koran was mistreated at Guantánamo Bay:
These “Hate America First (and last and always)” types really anger me… You don’t respect this country, you ingrate? Then LEAVE–go back home!Ms. Nooyi should go back to the gutter that is India before she starts lamenting the role of the US in the world… Why do those who have built their fortunes, used American capitalism for all it’s beauty, and basked in the freedom’s provided by better people than they… continue to abuse those freedoms by denigrating the very thing that made them what they are…
‘you just can’t puke out some U.S.-bashing diatribe with impunity’
‘America-insulting remarks… I am inclined to boycott Pepsi products.’
Ms. Nooyi ? Go fuck yourself – with a Coke bottle… Coming from India, she has risen to a high level in corporate America, which she then uses to insult us with her kindergarten analogies… she’s most likely one of those affirmative action mistakes so many corporations are forced into these days… I am fed the fuck up with these ungrateful shitheads that can’t give their adopted country the respect it’s owed…
Here’s a transcript of the speech (via Arma Virumque), excerpts below:
This analogy of the five fingers as the five major continents leaves the long, middle finger for North America, and, in particular, The United States. As the longest of the fingers, it really stands out. The middle finger anchors every function that the hand performs and is the key to all of the fingers working together efficiently and effectively. This is a really good thing, and has given the U.S. a leg-up in global business since the end of World War I.
However, if used inappropriately -just like the U.S. itself — the middle finger can convey a negative message and get us in trouble. You know what I’m talking about. In fact, I suspect you’re hoping that I’ll demonstrate what I mean. And trust me, I’m not looking for volunteers to model.
Discretion being the better part of valor … I think I’ll pass.
What is most crucial to my analogy of the five fingers as the five major continents, is that each of us in the U.S. – the long middle finger – must be careful that when we extend our arm in either a business or political sense, we take pains to assure we are giving a hand … not the finger. Sometimes this is very difficult. Because the U.S. – the middle finger – sticks out so much, we can send the wrong message unintentionally.
Unfortunately, I think this is how the rest of the world looks at the U.S. right now. Not as part of the hand – giving strength and purpose to the rest of the fingers – but, instead, scratching our nose and sending a far different signal.
I’d challenge each of you to think about how critically important it is for every finger on your hand to rise and bend together. You cannot simply “allow” the other four fingers to rise only when you want them to. If you’ve ever even tried to do that, you know how clumsy and uncoordinated it is.
My point here is that it’s not enough just to understand that the other fingers co-exist. We’ve got to consciously and actively ensure that every one of them stands tall together, or that they bend together when needed.
Today, as each of you ends one chapter in your young lives and begins another, I want you to consider how you will conduct your business careers so that the other continents see you extending a hand … not the finger…
Graduates, it pains me greatly that this view of America persists. Although I’m a daughter of India, I’m an American businesswoman. My family and I are citizens of this great country.
This land we call home is a most-loving, and ever-giving nation – a “promised land” that we love dearly in return. And it represents a true force that – if used for good — can steady the hand – along with global economies and cultures…
Remember that the middle finger – The United States – always stands out. If you’re smart, if you exhibit emotional intelligence as well as academic intelligence – if you ascribe positive intent to all your actions on the international business stage – this can be a great advantage. But, if you aren’t careful -if you stomp around in a tone-deaf fog like the ignoramus in Beijing — it will also get you in trouble. And when it does, you will have only yourself to blame.
It’s a cheeky analogy. Speaking of culturally tone-deaf — oh, the irony!
Vinod’s previous post here.
Please, let’s desist from ad hominem attacks.
You prefer to understand a “corporation” as described by a religious cult in the 19th century.. that’s your choice. I personally prefer the Theory of the Firm, as explained by Ronald Coase. To each his own.
My friend, we are at an impasse. You seem to whiz right past the implications of what I’m trying to say.
An “Executive” does not simply “work” in a company in a “professional” capacity. That is the whole point of “fiduciary” responsibility. The executive may have started off as a profesional, but I don’t think “management” is a profession. Especially at the Executive level.
A non-Executive employee can be prescribed certain rules of behaviour or a code of conduct, and if the employee falls short, the company can initiate action. Conversely, the employee can act and talk in public as his / her conscience sees fit. This is because, rarely does the marketplace take this person’s talk or actions to represent the corporation in any significant way. The impact such an employee has is small, in public visibility, financial impact or influence within the company.
On the other hand, an Executive does not have detailed rules of behavior. Among the reasons are that the feedback loop from Executive action to market reaction is so tight that it makes no sense to take action against the executive after bad things have happened… It is expected that the executive has enough maturity to separate their feelings from their view of shareholder interest. Anything less is megalomania. And let me point out that Enron, Worldcom, etc were the result of megalomania – when executives gave themselves the power to behave as they desired, with no thought for shareholder value. And mind you – it was the marketplace that brought them all down.. not some regulatory authority.
The executive has enormous visibility, inside and outside. In the marketplace – customers, rival companies, shareholders, suppliers, regulators etc. – the Executive team is the company. Their speech and actions are combed through, words picked apart, and analyzed in agonizing detail. The system depends on the assumption that in public appearances Executives will act and talk in a manner that furthers their shareholders value.
Given the above assumptions – when a CFO (who knows all these facts) stirs up controversy – then she is most certainly acting without a thought to her shareholders value. That is definitely unethical. Alternately, she has lost the ability parse her speech to measure its impact accurately. Both of these imply that she might be unfit to hold her position.
As I keep repeating, she has every right to her free speech – when she no longer bears a fiduciary responsibility to someone else. It’s part of the Faustian bargain of becoming an executive in a public corporation.
Does that make me a corporatist? So be it. I prefer to believe that I see the world as it truly is, not how I wish it to be, based on some utopian ideas and rhetoric.
Coming to your business strategy advice, your prescribed method to increase sales in a country is to appeal to prejudices held by the public against another country? So, if Pepsi decided to demonise, or insult, Pakistanis in it’s advertisement campaign in India, would you approve?
Okay, 34% of revenues are from overseas operations.. how about operating margins? And which one should shareholders care about?
Again – 34% is the total of Europe, Middle East, Asia, Africa, and all other countries. So, it’s 300 Million people providing 66% of revenues, and the rest 5700 million people providing 34%. On a per capita basis, I guess Americans are worth a lot more to Pepsi… (I mean this purely as someone looking at doing business. Please don’t read any moral overtones into my statements. I’m a foreigner myself.)
Sorry, I was born with a very weak sense of humor. Since then I’ve systematically starved it and it survives, if at all, feebly… In any case, flippant does not equal tongue-in-cheek.
Sri, this is going to be my last response, because I don’t think this is going anywhere. As you said, we have very different perspectives on this. I respect your right to respond; I just wanted to let you know why I probably won’t be doing the same:
I don’t particlarly care if a behemoth multinational corporation’s rules (or the system of rules that govern behemoth multinational corporations) are broken in ways that don’t really harm the public, like by promoting civic discourse or reinforcing the freedom to express one’s emotions, as opposed to manipulating the energy supply to California, causing rolling blackouts, and thereby a few people’s deaths.
Even if she did it in not-the-brightest or most tactful of ways, what do you expect? She’s the President and CFO of a behemoth multinational corporation 😉 (that was more bad black commentary, not literal)
No matter how much jargon or nuance you throw at me about how corporations like to see themselves as defined by people who choose to live in their framework of looking at the world or the legal aspects of working in a corporation as someone with a substantial amount of power within the institution, I’m going to continue to consider her as someone who receives economic compensation for work rendered to the institution, since i think that’s the salient point in understanding the ways in which people interact with the social forms they work for (whether corporations, non-profits, etc.).
If you want to talk about the distinction between “the real world” and “utopia”, then you should say she has may have ceded her right to speak without due to legal or financial penalties because of contractual obligations, but still retains the right to speak her mind in a general sense. I would hope you would agree that potentially hurting Pepsi’s marketshare doesn’t exactly weigh against the interests of the general public in protecting free speech in the same way that crying “fire!” in a crowded theater does, but to be honest, I’m not sure if you would. That’s why I found your initial comments (and some/a lot of your subsequent defenses) to be not just corporatist, but frighteningly corporatist. I don’t think you make enough of a distinction bewteen the best interests of people in society and the best interests of Pepsico, corporations, and the system of corporate rights as a whole. If you’re going to take the approach that you do to her actions, I think you need to stop talking in moral terms like “ethics” and “rights” and just start talking in legalisms and power (and possibly economics and utilitarianism) because that’s what you’re really referencing. As I mentioned above, in the scheme of things, her actions aren’t really immoral or unethical in the same way that the actions of many, many other corporate and political leaders and other poeple with power.
If you want to cite her for ethics violations, try looking into this, which, I wouldn’t be surprised if it involved some unethical behavior by Pepsi and Coke.
If you read what I said carefully, I said “My opinions on the size of markets speaks fairly accurately to the larger picture and the future.” I have a very low opinion of the future economic prospects of the United States compared to where it is at the present and the prospects of other countries and economic units, but I’m well aware of how much economic power Americans have today. Although to be fair to you (finally :), yes, I was being somewhat flippant about that point. The profit margin difference was 22% if you’re interested (just click on their hideously designed annual report that i gave you a link to and you can learn all kinds of fascinating things about Pepsico and its place in the world).
As for whether I would actively encourage people with power to play on divisions among people in order to boost sales: No, obviously not. But, I repeat, I was being tongue in cheek about her intentions. Not flippant. 😉 means, among other things “I’m not being entirely literal when I say this.”
Or she could turn on the significant chunk of the Pepsi’s consumers who disagree with Mr. Bush’s strategy. Given Pepsi’s global reach, chances are the majority of shareholders are against it. It can be argued by speaking against Bush’s highly unpopular unilateralism, she has improved Pepsi’s perceived goodwill and marketability (as opposed to other corporations that sit by and do nothing). Therefore, under your theory, she did the most ethical thing. In fact, not making her speech would be unethical.
You pseudo-intellectual grasp of corporate governance is annoying. If you really think she has breached her fiduciary responsibility to pepsico, I challenge you to bring a shareholder derivative lawsuit against her. You will get laughed out of court if you even get that far (which you won’t). Nowhere in the law does it say that fiduciaries must avoid making the kind of speech she made. In any case a number of courts have held that a fiduciary has responsibility not just to shareholders but to stakeholders….meaning anyone impacted by the corporation’s actions and policies. Pepsis stakeholders are basically the world, it is a global company. It can be successfully argued that her speech was in their best interest too.
I appreciate the link to my blog, even though it was no doubt another attempt to point out just another American xenophobe right?
I read with interest your entire post because it accuses others of doing exactly what the post writer is doing here. In the above post you write:
And lastly, and most egregiously,
Ad hominum attacks based on insinuation and not on the actual words. For my part, and I am not Leo, nor do I know who that is…my references to her nation of birth were done to compare the substance of her argument. Her argument mainly being that the world looks with disdain upon the United States. Whether this is true or not, and assuming it is, I am wondering how she can single out the US for her derision when her nation of birth and its neighbors are by no means paragons of virtue? She is intelligent enough to know that while it may play well on the streets of the world to be anti-America…the reasons behind anti-Americanism are hardly based on reason, and have more to do with the political realities within another nation…scapegoating, to put it another way.
Also, as a “conservative wingnut,” I also do NOT believe that dissent is per se unpatriotic. George Washington was the great dissenter! But I also do not think that dissent is PER SE patriotic.
I showed this blog to two of my friends…one a girl from Karachi, and another, a girl from Delhi. They got a hearty laugh. They commented that it is common to hear the language of “victimhood” arising in incidents like this. This storm of controversy is not BECAUSE the lady in question is Indian. Michael Moore is an object of far greater hatred (10000000 times more) and he is a fat, lazy, white useless piece of flesh…I have no special love for him because he is white. But it is this sense of “brown people” (as my indian friend calls herself) vs. “white people” that bothers me. Racism is alive and well all over the world (In the US and India to an even greater extent)…but sometimes, just sometimes, people see color in a situation where it has no place…and this is one of those times. I disagree with her on substance and I also believe she is a smart enough woman to know that the “hotel” example she used, is committed everyday, everywhere around the world, by people of every race, color, and nationality. She needs to come down from her high horse is my point.
Here are your actual words:
Then you say:
I agree entirely, so I’m interested to see how you square that colorblind view with immediately seeing Nooyi, a naturalized citizen and nearly 30 year resident, as a foreigner who’s ‘used American capitalism’ and ‘should go back to the gutter that is India.’ I can’t imagine that ‘go home to your own country’ would be your first response if Nooyi were U.S.-born and white. This is her country. It’s the country she’s chosen to raise her family in:
I stand by my words.
I’m not racist, I have two Indian friends….
Indra herself would not have thought that she would become (in)famous over night in US! If she chooses to live in India, I am telling you she would be enjoying more privileges than she is currently in US. Women like her can live anywhere in this world with their talent, hard-work and open-minded approach. After all these things happened, a person with self-esteem will not live with those people who are hating you because of your color. As such I do not hate the place called America because it is a beautiful country in this world and any thing that is bad in this place can be the racist people in this country. I am really sorry for the red-indians who were butchered like anything by the so-called genuine Americans.
vurdlife: That is old man…very very old. I simply pointed that out because they happened to agree with me and were pretty tired of hearing the “victim” being played. But if that is the best you have to my comment, then I am pretty happy.
Manish Vij: I thank you for your more level headed response than most. She identified herself as a ” daughter of India.” If she wants us all to know she is an American, then that is what she is. Perhaps my words were poorly chosen…but I don’t step back from the assertion that her words were troubling. Why? Because she…more so than people born here (white, black, brown, red, green, etc)…knows the blessings of the United States more than anyone and should be in the world trying to convince the rest of the world that the US is an amazing place…which it is…not the other way around. That is what I meant by “using American capitalism.” She has made her home here, made a fortune here, then instead of celebrating everything that is America, she adds to the ignorant view that most of the world holds of the US. I am just tired of the “us” vs. “them” mentality that many have within the US…and I still think that people see color and INVOKE color and heritage…where it doesnt belong.
If she were US born and White, and she referred to herself as a “daughter of Italy” or a “daughter of Ireland”…I would say the same thing…if y ou want to be that, focus on the problems there and stop contributing to an utterly ignorant worldview of the US. Absolutely!
Calling someone a racist is a serious charge. I am by no means a racist..but I will defend the opportunity of this nation at every turn…that means if it comes from Indra or the white man down the street.
T_Hawk, that’s from your blog, in response to one of your readers. Can you explain why you don’t apply your own advice to your response to Indra Nooyi’s comments? Her remarks about the United States were far less offensive (in fact, they were a fairly innocuous joke) than labeling India a “gutter” and not even close to an “abuse” of her “freedoms.” You obviously didn’t understand what she was saying, which is that if you act like a buffoon, people won’t like you, whereas if you don’t, people will work with you, and everyone will be better off.
Then again, you seriously argue on your blog that “the British hardly controlled all of India, or even 5% of modern India,” so I suppose I shouldn’t expect much more from you. You might not be a racist/xenophobe (or you might), but you fail to understand the current state of affairs to the point where it makes you come off as one (despite your degrees).
I find it funny that many people continue to propagate the argument that the British actually controlled all of the Indian subcontinent (including Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh, etc.) As I explained on my blog, the British first began arrving in India during the reign of Queen Elizabeth and even until the mid 1700s barely controlled anything but port cities and a few strongholds and were in other places at the invitation of the rulers of the area. I mean, it is nice and rosy to argue that it is because of the complete and total British hegemony of the Indian subcontinent that India is in the economic, social, and political situation it is. Now, there is no arguing that the British partitioning of India and Pakistan contributed to the political deterioration of the the subcontinent over the last 50+ years. Of course it did, probably more than anything else. But to argue that the British controlled that entire terrority is absurd. The British could not control all of ireland, let alone an area the size of India.
So please, I beg all of you here and the ones who have commented on my blog, please stop trying to argue this point. It is not only politically impossible, but it was physically impossible to control an area that size. The US has over 170,000 troops in Iraq of far greater power and technological sophistication than the Brits ever had in India, and we cannot control all of Iraq!
As to your comment about the “turth, deal with it”, if you think that Nooyi’s comments were a “fairly innocuous joke” then I would suggest you re-read her speech. She was being serious. It is the same things as Amnesty Intl calling the US the worst human rights offender…there is a thing called perspective. AI and Nooyi both need to look into that term. America has it’s problems…but we are damned if we do and damned if we don’t…and Nooyi is and has done NOTHING to help that.
Hawk are you for real ? Every little town in India has a ‘circuit house’ and a ‘collector’s bungalow’ – vestiges of the colonial administration. Do you know about Champaran, Dandi, Chauri Chaura ? These are barely even towns. The British rule, to India’s eternal shame was pervasive. Please don’t presume to teach the ‘natives’ their history. A lot of seemingly physically impossible things have happened in this world. Annihilation of millions of Jews. C’mon you can’t seriously argue that actually took place – its politically and physically impossible. How about the extermination of native Americans ? Who can wipe out a race – its got to be a lie ! Or slavery ? You really think someone would go through the trouble of abducting thousands of people from another continent hold them in bondage and force them to work for free ?? Its IMPOSSIBLE !