May 18, 2005
Witless in Seattle (updated)Issues
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.
manish on May 18, 2005 12:52 AM in Issues, Politics · T·r·a·c·k·b·a·c·k address · Direct link · Email post
Finally - a real racist incidient sighted at Sepia!
Of course, on one side is a multi-millionaire CFO at a powerful Fortune500 multinational. On the other side is a pathetic loser blogger. Its clear we of the model minority face an uphill and unequal struggle to reclaim our rights in this racist backwater!
I think Mr. Leo's 15 minutes are up - and ironically on a great blog that he would never read.
Ummmm.... why does Sonia Gandhi get listed as an example of an Indian woman achiever?
a) She's not Indian
b) Her achievements are hardly credit to her (or to womanhood generally)
c) Why are only politicians listed here?
After 37 years and deep familiarity with Indian politics, Sonia Gandhi fully deserves to call herself Indian. Did you mean to agree with Kevin Leo, that nations are defined by ethnicity?
Did you miss the Indian Air Force link?
After 37 years and deep familiarity with Indian politics, Sonia Gandhi fully deserves to call herself Indian. Did you mean to agree with Kevin Leo, that nations are defined by ethnicity?
*herewith a brief but well-defined smattering of applause*
Another case of Arab vs Indian confusion ?
Also I think its somewhat hypocritical for right wing bloggers to champion women's rights in India and complain about feminism closer to home at the same time.
See this for example
All that aside Indra Nooyi's speech was pretty shortsighted, but I dont think that had much to do with race.
Why does this idiot (which is what he is, judging from Manish's post, above and being racist, sexist, backwards in his cultural understanding, etc.) get a post? There are random racists all over the net.
Anyway, can we not glorify Indra Nooyi as an American star just because she's being subjected to racism here? There are other measures of success than your credentials and how high you move up the corporate ladder (even if you donate money to some admirable causes with your disposable income). I would hope that those of us who are creative ABCDs would appreciate that, especially when her company is not necessarily playing the most productive role in desiland (and thereby may be contributing to the very trends that she was pointing to). See here and here.
Jayalalitha is an example of women achievers?. Please. What has Sonia Gandhi achieved, by the way?. I don't think too many women aspire to Indira Gandhi's legacy of almost destroying democracy in India.
I don't agree with the guy you are talking about (he has lots of issues). He sees things that are not there. However Nooyi's speech was bad, not for its attack on Dubya's foreign policy, but for the stupid five fingers analogy and condescencion.
Hye Manish, you say "native-born" but many Americans of Indian origin are also 'native' born. Other than native Americans, who is not an immigrant? It is a sad fact in this great country. And as part of my regular shameless self-promotion, here is more on India's Women Achievers - My Blog
TTG --
Not feed into racist rhetoric, here, but in response to your question (" Other than native Americans, who is not an immigrant?"), I would have to say, me! I was born and raised here, ergo I'm not an immigrant.
Would you consider a north Indian with non-Dravidian ancestors to be an immigrant to India? Would you consider Khans like Shahrukh, Aamir, etc. to be immigrants to India?
Yeah, I thought not.
This reductionist argument about everyone being an immigrant is a really poor way to combat anti-immigrant rhetoric, mostly because it's bakwaas: you're an immigrant if YOU have immigrated -- period.
I used to take this tack also right after the election, but I think it's unfair because of a conversation I had (with a 1st gen desi woman friend of mine) and my thoughts afterwards. To really oversimplify, if you think desis emigrating to the United States ought to have the right to call themselves American even though they're not White, then you should probably accord the same treatment to Sonia Gandhi in India even though she's not Brown.
As for what she's done, I don't know a lot about her. But she transcended the politically motivated murder of her husband, asked for clemency for one of the people convicted of playing a part in that murder, took the moribund Congress Party and turning out the BJP, and had the good pr sense and political instincts to recognize that she ought to step aside and not be prime minister. And the person that was appointed is probably among the best choices one could have come up with. All that by itself adds up to more than almost any American politician I can think of.
Slaves and their descendents.
>>Ignorance of Indias female achievers.
I did not find anywhere where they ignored Indian female achievers. Its more on how much they are allowed to achieve. And anyway, how many female achievers are there in India anyway? Perhaps you know those thousands of them I dont know.
Also, in some other news item, you have mentioned "Female instructors in the Indian city of Bhubaneswar have been ordered to stop dressing like sexy teachers, and start looking more like naughty housewives"!! Bingo!!
Now I see a contradiction here!! Do you see it?
This is part of a wider picture.
In this blogger's mind, NO ONE is allowed to criticize our Great Nation and Fearless Leader. If they are, they are treasonous. Immigrants doubly so: they're the reason for 9/11, right? So of course he is going to attack her on those grounds.
He would attack me for being a woman born and brought up here - shouldn't I be loyal to the country that raised me? I could be living in Saudi Arabia (talk about a country that doesn't allow women achievers...) I should NEVER be ungrateful to The United States Of America by pointing out things it does WRONG.
But the racism and sexism was a super cheap shot. This is the kind of argument you posit when you don't really have an argument. I wouldn't worry about this blogger on his own. What I worry about is that there might be legions of people out there who think the same way.
A lot of women aspire to have these women's jobs. Oh, and as a woman, I reserve the right to serve in a post which I've earned and, should it come to that, screw up in it as well. We can't be fabulous all of the time, you know.
manish: At first, I thought you were giving this near-sighted jackass unnecessary promo, but now, I'm glad you brought it to our attention. It's a fine example of some realities to keep in sight.
What Maitri said. I still hold to my criticism of generically bad graduation speeches, though maybe this one wasn't one such, but she definitely doesn't deserve this kind of crap. A little perspective is useful.
For once, I sorta agree w/ Saurav. I'm reading this Sepia Mutiny post & scratching my head.
I don't entirely see the point of writing about this particular little piece of blogosphere reaction to the Nooyi speech. There are a few others, for ex., some better, some worse.
In particular, it's odd to expend so much energy divining racial self-hatred, a repressed desire to use the word "bitch", assimilation angst, immigrant bashing, "us vs. them" politics, econ class assumptions, language harkening back to KKK "uppity negro" fearmongering, etc. given that the writer's original screed was only ~150 words! (not including his quote of Nooyi's speech).
I don't deny that Mr. Leon's post could have been better written (as is the case of 95% of the blog material out there... but c'mon, this is one dude's personal blog). It's just weird to have such an outsized reaction to a small post on a relatively low profile blog.
(on the flip side, I guess you did get Dubya, Schwarzenegger, and "fellow conservative" associations in so perhaps the post advanced a different argument? :-)
Maitri: A lot of women may aspire to have those women's jobs. So what?. Everyone has the right to serve in the post they earn and screw it up. But that was not my point. I didn't think these three women were shining examples of women achieving a lot in life. I definitely know we can't all be fabulous all the time. Hell,I have never ever been fabulous.
Sorry to be so flip, but are you some sort of idiot?
~rewind~
See the update.
The quotes are from multiple posts. And length is irrelevant. Look at what the phrase 'activist judges' means to conservatives.
I suppose what Leo really meant is he loves immigrants and wants to hand out cotton candy and gummy bears. Damn you, poor wording!
The problem with being a minority speaking your mind is that people tend to attack your gender/ethnicity instead of attacking your ideas. When Nooyi was speaking, I am not sure if she fully considered the implications of being seen as a representative for Indian women. Or maybe she didn't care . . .
You say "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" and then the first quote is from my post.
First, thanks for the link and the traffic.
While I proudly wear the appelation of "Wingnut" in the spirit of fun with which you give it, I do believe that free and open discussion is important. We should be able to TALK, not just shout at each other.
But, now, to my defense! You compare me to violent rioters? I use speech to decry speech. You are doing the same in discussing my post. Are you, too, equal to the members of a brainless mob? I think not, your writing is too well done. (I may disagree with you, but you do write well.) Neither of us is burning things in the street or throwing rocks at the police.
The *tone* I get, even from the extended portions of her speech now available, is one of ingratitude. I may be wrong in my suspicion that she is one of the "hate America first" crowd, but I am not convinced she isn't in that camp, either. For those who ARE in that group, and there really are such people, my disain stands: You don't love America? Fine--Please leave! I have friends on many sides of politics, and that's all fine, because they all love America. Having friends with whom you can argue makes life more interesting and keeps you honest. I'm sure you'd like Rhetoric & Rhythm, for instance. America is not always right, but God bless America--we need it!
(Now, was that too long and obscure a comment, or was it funny?)
Haha. This is awesome, vurdlife :)
Raven: Your grace, and compliment, are appreciated. The middle finger is a terrible analogy. If I were Nooyi's speechwriter, I would've raised an eyebrow.
But what would a person who's been here almost 30 years and raised a family here, have to do to be American enough for you, tattoo the flag across her back? When you criticized Dubya's foreign policy, did people leap to suggest that you were insufficiently grateful, that you should leave the country? That sentiment's a sucker punch.
Did you notice this part of her speech:
Must immigrants from a generation ago always start speeches by thanking America to be considered legitimate?
Strange phenomenon: All over america, little known, hardly read, nutcase bloggers are waking up to find that there are comments on their blogs! Someone is actually, they still cannot believe this, reading their blogs. But... oh wait, they are all erudite comments from...brown people!!! (They can read english, let alone write?? he exclaims to himself).
The traffic is driving his ad-revenue, which is paying for the trailer-park rent. The hand he shuns and denigrates now feeds him. A moral quandary that boggles him. All this recursive thinking makes his head spin... [remainder deleted by Admin]
hey! you backspaced the punchline!
I wish you would at least rephrase
The greatest form of gratitude to America is patriotism. The greatest form of patriotism is dissent. If you don't have that, there is nothing much to be thankful for.
Mannish Vij: Thank you for the kind words and the sucker punch. My rant on Bush was more based on domestic policy, though, than on his foreign policy. I did end up surprising myself and voting for the dude, based on the #1 priority: he's seeking to defend America (however ineptly) and I don't believe his opposition would continue to do so. I am a member of the "take the war on terro to the enemy" camp. No, I had not seen that portion of her speech yet. When I wrote my original rant, only the portions I had originally quoted were available. Does it change my view of her? Maybe. I'd really like to see & hear the whole speech. Sometimes, one can wrap the desired message ("you're WRONG!") inside a pretty package. There are accusations that this is what she did.
Am I anti-immigrant? No. Heck, with the exception of those with the right to live on certain reservations, we're all immigrants or descendants of same. (Them, too. They were just first!) I do ask that immigrants love and appreciate the amazing country the blood of our forefathers bought for us. I am *very* big on freedom. With the exception of the guns, I bet many reading this agree with much of the "sucker punch" link's rant.
Maiti: "The greatest form of patriotism is dissent?" I disagree. The greatest form of patriotism is to stand between your country and war's desolation. Those who put their lives on the line so that we can enjoy ours as we see fit are the greatest patriots. Dissent is a duty when the country is wrong, but it is no reason to love it less. I am old enough to have disliked Cassius Clay, at around the time he became Muhammed Ali. But I respect the way he dissented. He didn't run off to Canada. He just said, "This is wrong! I will not do it." and then accepted thew consequences of his stand. That was quite admirable, even though I disagree with his conclusion. There are those who opine that America should *lose* this war against terror--it'd teach us a lesson! For those, I have no respect. They would rather see the *REAL* "wingnuts" of the Islamic world win than the US--the guys who cut off heads? Sheesh!
As some progressive are hyper sensitive on issues of race and gender, some right-wing-nuts are hypersensitive to that. Guilty.
Oh, and of the original post in question quoted above, a bit is left out. The "..." above replaced my "America is not the font on evil in this world." If you believe it is, then you and me, well, we got issues!
Hi y'all! Thanks for the many anonymous postings on my blog per Indra Nooyi's inaugural political speech that has launched her into the world of the blogosphere. I appreciate all the comments and love the tough language. I do have one more thing to convey:
Ms. Nooyi should not use the hand analogy again. She's not biomechanically correct in asserting that the middle finger is the anchor. It's the thumb---try not using it when giving the 'bird' to someone who's views you disagree with. You can't do it with any degree of facility and clarity. Enjoy!
>>Sorry to be so flip, but are you some sort of idiot?
Well, I am an idiot. But still I am waiting for anybody to provide me a very long list of Indian women achievers? Keep in mind that we are comparing them with their global counterparts. Just giving a handful names would not suffice. And if Sonia and Jaylalitha are the examples, I would rather be an idiot and not know them then to be a smart-ass and talk about anybody and everybody.
Oh wait, maybe you want to know about women who are a success in the corporate world. How about this list
1. Akhila Srinivasan, Managing Director, Shriram Investments Ltd
2. Chanda Kocchar, Executive Director, ICICI Bank
3. Ekta Kapoor, Creative Director, Balaji Telefilms
4. Jyoit Naik, President, Lijjat Papad
5. Kiran Mazumdar-Shaw, Chairman and Managing Director, Biocon
6. Lalita D Gupte, Joint Managing Director, ICICI Bank
7. Naina Lal Kidwai, Deputy CEO, HSBC
8. Preetha Reddy, Managing Director, Apollo Hospitals
9. Priya Paul, Chairman, Apeejay Park Hotels
10. Rajshree Pathy, Chairman, Rajshree Sugars and Chemicals Ltd
11. Ranjana Kumar, Chairman, NABARD
12. Ravina Raj Kohli, Media personality and ex-President, STAR News
13. Renuka Ramnath, CEO, ICICI Ventures
14. Ritu Kumar, Fashion Designer
15. Ritu Nanda, CEO, Escolife
16. Shahnaz Hussain, CEO, Shahnaz Herbals
17. Sharan Apparao, Proprietor, Apparao Galleries
18. Simone Tata, Chairman, Trent Ltd
19. Sulajja Firodia Motwani, Joint MD, Kinetic Engineering
20. Tarjani Vakil, former Chairman and Managing Director, EXIM Bank
21. Zia Mody, Senior Partner, AZB & Partners
Eat that and come back for more..
This pretty much says it all. Who wants to join me in Canada?
I went to some hate-posts in the blogs you mentioned.
It is scary to think that apes have access to the Internets and to voting machines of a rich country.
Saurav: I chose what I saw as the lesser of two evils, and you say "This pretty much says it all. Who wants to join me in Canada?" I was serious in saying that if you don't respect America you should leave.
If you don't believe America is worth defending, then it sounds like you and I may "have issues." If you really do feel that way, then perhaps you should go to Canada. Why stay here if you don't feel America is worth defending? If you really believe Cananda is better--and is worth defending, even if from the Ugly Americans to her South--why not pledge thy troth there? You'd be happier and us wing-nuts would be happier. Where's the downside?
The Pepsico website now has a clarification by Indira Nooyi.
I read the full text of Ms. Nooyi's speech today. I read elsewhere that speakers try to make these graduations speeches humorous. Was Indra Nooyi's speech just a sad, bad attempt at being humourous?
No other explation fits. Why would someone as accomplished as Indra deliver an overtly negative, uninspiring speech to a graduating class? And all that talk about toilets and commodes - in very poor taste really. Fitting if you are guzzling beer with your buddies; simply not appropriate in front of a graduating class.
In her clarifying statement, Ms. Nooyi says that she was trying to "provide some advice as they embark on their careers". Being a CFO herself, a "be honest" kind of advice, with references to the corporate scandals would have been much more appropriate than "be sensitive". Guess she was simply having a bad speech day.
Who are you defending it from?
Why do you think you're qualified to suggest to other people to leave?
Your attitude is crap
Not everyone thinks of the situation as you do. You seem to know what you think and assume everyone thinks the same. Which gets into trouble because you get worked up over things other people wouldn't. You're basically misunderstanding entire conversations and then "Rantin and Raven" about them.
Dissent is a duty when the government is wrong, and it usually follows from loving your country a lot. Go in peace.
Raju: You certainly cannot deny that there are many who wish to enslave or kill Americans. Can you? There is a whole organization called al Quida (spelling?) that has very publicy stated that's their goal--replacing our government with *their version* of an Islamic state. They have attacked us and killed our people, both before and after making such declarations. They *tried* to kill about 30,000 people. Only the fact they didn't do the timing right allowed evacuations to save many before the second plane hit, and to save D.C. a plane hitting the Whitehouse or capital building.
Who am I to suggest they leave? I'm just the guy who read *what they said* and challenged that with an "if you're serious, why not do so?" response. And seriously--if you don't love America, why are you here? To attack it from within? That's why Atta was here, but I thank God that such an attitude is not truly in the hearts of many progressives. Most of them disagree with me on how to better it, but we both love it. But, if you're not under that big, big tent (with many rooms and some thick internal walls, but still one tent), then I don't see the point. Some come here to seek a better life. Mayhaps some would find their version of a better life where I am not likely to life next door. I am not saying "Throw the bums out!" Now, THAT would be "crap."
Not everyone thinks of the situation as I do? No kidding! But, we as Americans need to be willing to TALK to one another, not just yell. You do not think as do I, but I acknowledge you have that right. I seek to understand what you believe, even if we don't agree. Friends can disagree and still be friends. Have we lost that precious gift? It seems so in too many discussions.
Am I here RANTING and YELLING? No. I learned the bad side of flame wars in the 1980s (I'm old.) I could flame you, you could flame me. Our host could get peeved and kick our posts off. What good would that do? But, if we can reasonably examine our differences, perhaps in the end we can each say: "He's *DEAD* wrong on that, but he's not too bad a chap otherwise."
If Kos, Wonkette, and a Powerline guy can all have a beer together in peace, we should be able to, too.
So, I misunderstood a conversation. In looking over the text of her speech, I still don't like it. While it's not an "I hate America " screed, it still paints Americans in a bad light. I am TIRED of being told how awful I am. So I get bitchy. We all have our touchy subjects, eh?
Maitri: Well stated. Go thee in peace, also, my honorable opponent!
Oh yeah -- anybody in the San Antonio, TX area? We're having a Blogger's BBQ! (Formally titled "Alamo City Blogfest 2005"). Bloggers from BOTH sides welcome and already indicating they are attending. If you're here, be there on 25 Jun. Details HERE! So, what's the only reason we can't have a beer together? No beer allowed in the park!
See: I am SERIOUS about the need to not just call each other names. Now, if you're NOT here, why are you not organizing a get-togther in your town?
Indeed we do :) Your understanding of the election and what "the lesser of two evils is" is so fundamentally off that it's disturbing. Setting narrow political differences aside to the extent that I can, to claim that John Kerry or the Democrats were not interested in defending national security interests is ludicrous; foreign policy tends to be fairly uniform across political party (more or less) because they're all part of the same elite and not accountable to foreign citizens. It's strategy that differs. Clinton sent American troops to numerous countries to protect American interests. As a sidenote, maintained a highly effective, if inhumane, containment of Iraq for 8 years, in which Saddam Hussein didn't have control over 2/3 of "his" country and the US and British (and others?) patrolled the skies with impunity and international approval...before Bush f@#ked it all up, leading to the deaths of tens of thousands already, and the prospect of civil war, increased recruiting prospects for terrorists like Al Qaeda members and others who share their approach to politics, and long term regional and international instability. Feel safer?
Further, as you point out, Bush has pursued his "defense" of U.S. interests extremely ineptly. It's not just the conduct of the War in Iraq--it's using a national security crisis for partisan political ends (like promoting tax cuts and social security "reform")--shifting resources away from efforts to find and destroy the network of violent political activists that are trying to attack the United States, failing to focus on the threat to United States national security interests posed by emerging geopolitical powers like China, India, (and to a lesser extent Brazil), and creating a poorly formulated perpetual war that will continue to allow the extremists in his political party to act completely unaccountably and closemindedly (and hence without the feedback mechanism that would help them make good policy). In short, read this and this, and tell me again that you the process by which you came to decide who to vote for was informed, intelligent, or had the least connection to reality (note, I'm not talking about who you voted for here...more the reasoning you presented for it).
You also pose some sort of "America" (by which I assume you mean American society) as if it has uniform interests, as opposed to being a highly complex thing that needs to understood as such. Different groups have different interests and priorities. I'm probably at least as likely to be killed by a gay-bashing idiot as by Al Qaeda, although I don't deny that that threat exists.
You should be thankful that I don't leave "America", because if I and others like me (and by this I mean skeptical and or critical people interested in politics...not people who agree with my narrow political views or values) did do so (which I may do, shortly, for sake of health care and to escape the unmitigatedly depressing environment and news that accompanies a society/culture in cultural decline), your beloved country would be the worse off for lacking an open society with a strong political discourse and debate. It's already deteriorated so much in my lifetime that I can't imagine what it might be like without our contribtuions. Maybe what Kansas is coming to symbolize?
As for why I don't just "leave" and pledge my alliegiance to Canada--well, like I half-jokingly said, I may (or somewhere warmer, with more sunshine, probably). But, as most "love it or leave it" people don't understand, many of us have loyalties to family and community, civic or regional pride, an interest in seeing things in our country not deteriorate, and, most generally, a sense of obligation to right what we see as wrong. In other words, we are complex.
In any case, since things are so much simpler for you, I strongly urge you to join the military and engage what you've decided is the most incredibly pressing issue--Islamist terrorism--and that military means are the best solution to this. If you go, I respect you. If you don't, well, then, maybe it's time to reevaluate your own perspecties on all this.
And finally, for the record, the most morally egregious thing you continue to do is ignore that Black people were not immigrant to the United States, but enslaved and forcibly brought here.
I think that the speech was unfunny and inapppropriate. Oy vey, Bubbly! However, the way I see it, this SM post is more about the equally inappropriate reactions of various people. How they attacked her with the "go home to the gutters" line. My sense is that if she was white, this would probably have been dismissed as a Gawker-worthy extended faux pas by the same people (links provided in this post) who have attacked her on ethinic grounds. There is no one "America" to defend or offend. The outrage is strongly related to her ethnicity.
Ranten,
I just do not think Indra Nooryani (spelling?) is at all related to them people you're talking about who want to do harm to the country.
We can be friends, but you'd have to admit that if you think its your country to invite or disinvite people from it, thats annoying. There is a far, far cry from what you are talking about as a danger and what you're telling people here to "go home" about. They are not the same things at all, and you're confusing the two
One should really read the full text of the speech, and consider the venue in which it was delivered.
This was a commencement speech to well educated and future business leaders who will by necessity work in a global environment and the attendees had the benefit of hearing about cultural and political sensitivity from an accomplished leader with a sophisticated world view. The low brow reactions focusing on her ethnicity or the duration of her citizenship is about as un-American a position as I can imagine.
America is a melting pot, remember? We all are immigrants (all of us), and supposedly cherish free speech, individual accomplishment and achievement beyond birthright. Those are American values.
The middle finger analogy works. Perhaps, a more direct and less entertaining turn of the phrase is, with privilege comes responsibility. There are many instances that we could collectively enumerate where American business has not acted responsibly in the world. To avoid an unintended fire storm, I won't list them.
What is clear in reading the full text of the speech is the attempt of Ms. Nooyi to convey a sense of awareness, sensitivity and responsibility in minds of the graduates. All claims of America blashing, Bush condemnations, and other what-have-yous merely demonstrates either an unwillingness to read or an inability to understand. Those characteristics are far more dangerous that a one finger wave.
peace,
don't be still!
Raven has no credibility re: tolerance-- his very next post uses an ethnic slur.
As a fiduciary of PepsiCo's shareholders, Indra Nooyi demonstrates a severe 'lack of application of mind'.. She could potentially turn off the significant chunk of the Pepsi's consumers who agree with Mr. Bush's strategy.. And that is simply unethical on her part, if not a downright abuse of her power.
Does she not have the right to free speech? Sure she does - when she is a private citizen.
The only reason Columbia gave her a lectern was because of her association with Pepsi - she is not a private citizen while she represents Pepsi.
Sri, aside from that your comment is almost fascistic (a monetary relationship implies that you can no longer voice your opinion on issues of pressing concern to you in a public fashion? pepsi can discipline her if they want for betraying corporate discipline.), you sort of forget that the U.S. has about 300 million potential Pepsi consumers, whereas the non-US has about 6 billion (many of whom likely harbor similar opinions to her right now). If anything, she was engaging in a brilliant strategy of coopting anti-Americanism to boost pepsi sales ;)
First, let me point out a few specific words in my comment:
"fiduciary" : Having a financial responsibility..
Because of private information Ms. Nooyi has, and her influence in PepsiCo, she is not an agent or "employee". She is a principal..
If you've noticed very, very few top executives voice their opinions out aloud... That is because their statements can move markets. When George Soros does it, that's because he is not accountable to shareholders.
An executive does not just have a simple "monetary" salaried relationship. When a company's board trusts you and places you in a position to earn tens of millions of dollars, the implied (and contractual) price you pay is that you are no longer a "private citizen". Your life is tied to the fortunes of that company, and the company's fortunes to your every move.
"Private Citizen" : Someone whose life is her/his own. Indra Nooyi's life currently is not that of a private citizen. I made that clear in my post. She regains her right to unfettered free speech when she is a private citizen again. Witness Jack Welch before and after retirement.
Your comments sizing up markets show .. how do I put this... 'lack of application of mind'.
The US is, by a huge margin, the anchor of Pepsi's business. You think Pepsi is going to take that market for granted? And the starving peasants of the rest of the world will start drinking Pepsi because it's CFO bad-mouthed the US?
Also, if you don't mind, please explain to me why my statement is Fascist. That word has a specific meaning, according to my understanding. So, help me out here..
Mannish Vij: I had used the term, wog, because that is the mindset of the men in the bar. Is that a poor chooice on my part? Yes. My apologies. I am not hypersensitive on that term--much less very sensitive at all. Given the makeup of the folks here, that is a bad error on my part. Hold on while I update that post . . . there. Hope that is less objectionable.
Anil: Criticism can be a very good thing. I am a huge fan of Dr. Jerry Pournelle. He was very strongly against the Iraq war, from old-style conservative principles. Highly recommended reading! Anyway, as he pointed out, once we started there, we HAVE to finish. I don't believe Kerry would have wanted to do that. I thought he'd find the fastest way possible to just declare victory and get out (and many anti-Iraq war folks who supported him seem to agree). As bad as slogging it out there has been (about 1,500 of our men & women dead now), the toll in the long run if we did that would be much worse. The bad guys we rousted from Afghanistan would take over Iraq. The #1 bad-guy there asked for and received permission from bin Laden for the Iraq franchise of al Qaeda. The eventual wars that would happen in the years after that would be massive bloodlettings.
I would pose that we do have one American interest: being secure in our lives from attack, foreign or domestic. I think, too, that we are mostly joined in our love and respect for freedom of the individual.
Oh -- and I loved how you handled the list them challenge earlier.
Saurav: I am retired USAF, where I rose through the ranks from Airman Basic (E-1) to Technical Sergeant (E-5), then getting commissioned and eventually retiring as a Captain. I'm now a DOD contractor. That makes me one of the most evil in some eyes. You know the ones? They caried a sign in San Francisco rally a couple of years back that said "We support our troops when they shoot their officers," or some such. To THAT I am sensitive! 8-0
Do I feel safer than I did on 12 Sep 01? Yes, much! I see the winds of democracy blowing through the mid-East. Elections coming in a Lebanon free of Syria, elections scheduled in Egypt, elections allowing women to vote and to run for office just announced in Kuwait, and all those purple fingers proudly displayed in Iraq. It just may be that the real bad gys are going to be so busy trying to stop or subvert freedom over there that they have less ability to take their war to us. Do I *know* this is so? No. But I am begining to be very hopeful. If freedom takes hold, then the moderates have a chance to reform Islam, and take it back from those who now say it countenances the murder of infidels.
Blacks? Many are the descendents of slaves. But I remember hearing a news item saying that the total number of free immigrants from Africa has surpassed the number of slaves brought here. I am sensitized to these issues. While I was rasied a racist (my father dreamed of owning a plantation), my time in the USAF soon erased the few residuals that my acceptance of Christ had not yet cleared. The military is a strict meritocracy. And it's clear who's good (in skills and integrity) and who isn't. I met few blacks who weren't good and many who were great. It was like Malcom X's realization when he took the trip to Mecca: These men are my brothers, too.
Sri: Your statement wasn't facist. I mean, Mossolini wouldn't have agreed with it, right?
All: This is your blog, and I know I've been a pest^h^h^h^h^h guest here.
Thanks for the hospitality.
Sorry, I should have said that your comments are frighteningly corporatist.
I don't think that entering into a contractual relationship with a corporation to serve that corporation's interests in a professional capacity ought to restrict an individual from expressing their opinions on the state of the world (as opposed to insider information). For someone to do so might be annoying, not in the shareholders' interests, a breach of contract, or many, many other things, but it's certainly not immoral (which is, what I presume you meant by invoking "ethics"), much less against the public's interests at this historical juncture and given the message she was reportedly trying to convey. The board can fire her, give her a dressing down, or take her to court if they choose to. More importantly, in the ethical scheme of things, her speech doesn't really rank up there with, say, actions by corporations that lead to rape or forced conscription.
My opinions on the size of markets speaks fairly accurately to the larger picture and the future. The US has 300 million people and is currently in the process of undermining its long term finances. The EU has about 450 million people (most of whom, as far as I know, are not "starving peasants"). India and China collectively have over 2 billion people (several hundred million of whom will also be able to afford such luxuries as soft drinks and Frito Lay products in the next 10-20 years). And of course there's the rest of the world.
If I were looking out for Pepsi or any other mass consumption company's industries, I would, in the long run, spend more time and concern appealing to a global audience (that already generates 34% of Pepsico's revenues (pdf) and is growing more quickly than its other subcomponents) at the risk of alienating a segment of the American population.
But I'm sure you used your quick wits to pick up on the fact that I was being tongue in cheek about her intentions in making those comments. ;)
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 !