this world has gone MAD

This is sad stuff. Goes back to what Abhi was talking about yesterday - all the copycat multi-explosions, suicide bombings , brainwashed speech about iraq, ummah etc.

It is just a matter of time for attacks like these to happen in Indian cities. The underworld network/Islamic fundamentalism (violent one) runs rampant in Indian cities too - not just Bangladesh and Pakistan. Moreover, they have assistance from some Bangladeshi fundamentalists who crossover to India for daytime jobs and "other stuff".

WHERE is the news coverage on this?? I was just on the WashPost site....nothing. 'Car bombs rock Baghdad' - and what else is new?

After a quick flip through my news sites, I can't believe this isn't "bigger" news.

maisnon,
NY TIMES HAS IT

this world has gone MAD

Silly :) they world has always been MAD

After a quick flip through my news sites, I can't believe this isn't "bigger" news.

Yes, you would think since it's brown+muslim that it would get the attention of everyone, and used for political purposes. But don't forget no one white was killed, so it doesn't really matter all that much...

My mom heard about it online this AM, but she didn't have much details on it. We have a few relatives who work for the govt over there...

It is just a matter of time for attacks like these to happen in Indian cities.

Worse attacks (Bombay Stock Exchange Bombings) have taken place in Indian cities before. Something like this with very few casualties wouldn't be too bad.

Yep, it is a tragedy only if there are white lives at stake.

Yep, it is a tragedy only if there are white lives at stake.

there is some truth to this, though i think the racial angle has to be supplemented by the first world/nationality angle (and i think the racial angle is less important than in the past). but why is that a big deal? here at SM brown lives get a big deal of play. the casualty count was low. more people probably die in niger in 10 minutes than will die of this bombing.

more people probably die in Niger in 10 minutes than will die of this bombing

Excellent point Razib. I'd even take it further. Perhaps more people will die in places like Niger just this week of non-terrorism related causes, than will die in all the terrorist attacks we at SM will write about in the whole next year. It is fascinating to me how television and media can alter the perceptions of people, myself included, to not always see this fact.

More than the number of lives that were taken, I find the number of bombs, that were timed close to each other, to be chilling.

Can you imagine what 350 bombs could mean if those weren't amateur bombs?

abhi writes:Perhaps more people will die in places like Niger just this week of non-terrorism related causes, than will die in all the terrorist attacks we at SM will write about in the whole next year.

And more people will die of Cancer than in places like Niger. And more people will die of AIDS than due to Cancer. And more people will die of traffic accidents than due to Caner. And more people will die of boredom listening to Michael Moore's raves and rants.

So, let's tackle MM first.
//sarcasm off

AIDS, Cancer, Niger, Poverty, traffic accidents etc are not caused intentionally by a set of people to kill another set of people.

Terrorism, on the other hand, is willfully caused by a set of people with an intention to kill. Hence, that's more dangerous and needs to be tackled first, even though the number of people killed is smaller.

M. Nam

Excellent rebuttal, Moornam. If we are going to play the comparison game, we might as well give up. Why do we have to compare them? What does that rhetorical flourish accomplish? Cynically saying, "X people have it worse..." may be true but it's irrelevant.

Stop and think about it. Can you even imagine several hundred bombs going off around you? If that had happened in London, we wouldn't hear the end of it. I'm very disturbed by some of the comments like

Something like this with very few casualties wouldn't be too bad.

Hence, that's more dangerous and needs to be tackled first, even though the number of people killed is smaller.

Explain to me why that isn't a subjective statement? I don't see it. I think number of people killed is as good a metric as any, no?

I'm not saying terrorism isn't an important issue. All I was saying is that Razib made a good point about how perception=importance.

If we are going to play the comparison game, we might as well give up.

Give what up?

If that had happened in London, we wouldn't hear the end of it. I'm very disturbed by some of the comments like

let's hope we wouldn't hear the end of it. look, i was visiting family in bangladesh in june of 2004. it's a messed up country. there was a general strike by one of the major political parties, and when some people went to work, the political goons decided to burn a bus filled with people (my uncle is a gov. functionary and in a supervisory position, so he had to go to work, so we were concerned about this issue). you didn't see that in the news. now, if bangladeshi islamists were going to build 350 shitty bombs in london, or new york, or fill in the blank, i'd be pretty fucking concerned. as it is, it's bangladesh, who cares? bangladeshis do, and it is certainly in their media, but in the grand scheme of things, it's not an important country. the GIA has been slaughtering people (now less) for 15 years now in algeria. wackjobs wander egypt killing people. in thailand malay separatists are beheading buddhist kufirs. happens everyday everyway.

my response was motivated by the calls of "hey, whitey isn't paying attention because whitey isn't being killed." of course not, why should westerners weight terrorism in the third world when it is half way toward banality there? the only relevance is a connection to terrorism in the west, and as it is, bangladeshi terrorists are, i suspect, a minimal threat right now to the west (the bangladeshis in britain aren't as assimilated so they haven't become as alienated, if you get what i mean-i suspect some of do know what i mean, and on a personal level from what i can gather).

so cut the knee jerk cries of racism out i say, it's hypocritical, especially on a blog devoted to south asiancentric concerns. if you want 'white people' to pay attention to brown people, well, go comment on 'white weblogs' about this topic and stop bitching a weblog self consciously focused on browns about how white people consciously focus on their own concerns.

AIDS, Cancer, Niger, Poverty, traffic accidents etc are not caused intentionally by a set of people to kill another set of people.

Terrorism, on the other hand, is willfully caused by a set of people with an intention to kill. Hence, that's more dangerous and needs to be tackled first, even though the number of people killed is smaller.

Setting aside for a moment that this is an "I'm right because I'm right" argument, even the premises don't stand up. A lot of these so-called "natural" disasters have a human element to them too. There's an international system that has some countries that are extremely wealthy and powerful and others that aren't and this is built on many things, including racism, colonialism, meddling, military intervention, and other things that impeded societies from really being free. Wealthy and powerful countries tend to act in their own interests and do things like installing shahs, killing Allendes, maintaining Eastern European satellite states, having proxy wars, selling arms, imposing economic ideologies on them, and otherwise creating circumstances that make it harder for society to deal with eventual "natural disasters". Where the money goes always tells the real story.

so cut the knee jerk cries of racism out i say, it's hypocritical, especially on a blog devoted to south asiancentric concerns. if you want 'white people' to pay attention to brown people, well, go comment on 'white weblogs' about this topic and stop bitching a weblog self consciously focused on browns about how white people consciously focus on their own concerns.

So we're not allowed to talk about possible racism/nationality/"importance" bias in the media? We're not allowed to question why a missing teenager in Aruba got a million times more coverage than the famine in Niger, why coverage on the tsunami was slow to pick up, simply because we're on a space that caters to brown people?

Maybe racism isn't the right lens to look at this through (although it is a component, I think), but there's a situation with the media in the US and it's 1) a problem in and of itself and 2) has damaging effects on American society by encouraging parochialism--which we can see reflected anytime foreign issues have an effect here.

btw, i think it's fair game to direct the same criticism at identity spaces like SM.

why should westerners weight terrorism in the third world when it is half way toward banality there?

Exactly. Brutality, starvation, murder, famine, and disease in the undeveloped world is just a lot less unusual than in the first world. And the news is about what's unusual and newsworthy, not what's unsurprising.

In a very real sense, Muslims blowing stuff up in South Asian is less surprising than them blowing stuff up in North American or Europe. They've been doing it in the former place for longer, so only real "spectaculars" -- like 350 simultaneous bombings -- make the Western media.

The penny ante wages of Islam in Islamic countries -- a beheading here, an honor killing there -- don't make the news because they *aren't news*.

And as for Africa -- well, jeez, the number of countries on that continent that *aren't* failed states is less than those that are. Again, not newsworthy. A country in sub-Saharan Africa that *wasn't* a disaster area would be newsworthy, but odds are we'll be waiting a long time for that headline...

in South Asian...North American

aagh, should be "South Asia" and "North America" above.

btw, i think it's fair game to direct the same criticism at identity spaces like SM.

you aren't the object of my criticism because you moot this last issue all the time. there are people on these boards who have a sharp focus on brown issues, and verge on brown (often hindu) chauvinism. i don't particularly mind their brownocentric attitude, some of them are FOBs so they have a bigger stake that normal (though i feel entitled to point out that many american browns don't subscribe to this viewpoint and those who do shouldn't be surprised that there are people out there like us). but, i get really tired of them acting all shocked that westerners, and whites, might be guilty of the same chauvinism. i'm a american chauvinist to some extent, i admit it. i'm not going to bitch and cry that indians, or nigerians, or etc. etc. have a concern about their own people.

there is a certain type who apologizes for shariah (and dhimmititude) in the muslim world while arguing strenuously for civil liberties in the west. there is a type that pushes foward apologia for the RSS and hindu nationalism in brownland but bitches and moans about how racist and stereotyping americans are. i can't brook that crap.

because we're on a space that caters to brown people?

It's not just a space that caters to brown people, it's a place that believes the lives and deaths of browns are more notable -- and tacitly more important -- than those of whites, blacks, or other groups. That's reflected in the coverage, which doesn't cover Columbian narco-terrorism or the latest Liberian massacre, but *does* cover Islamic terrorism, outsourcing, and the terrible indignities suffered by "Turbanhead" :)

The focus is "South Asian" -- not Indian/American/Pakistani, not Hindu/Muslim, and not English/Hindi/Punjabi. That is, the focus here is race, not nationality, religion, culture, or language...except insofar as they intersect with race.

Given this avowedly racialist focus, it's unseemly to complain about the *nationalistic* biases of the mainstream media and conflate them with the racialistic biases in coverage that are overtly on display here. You know, mote in thine eye and all that jazz.

p.s. of course, that does not imply that civil liberties are bad or that stereotyping and racism is good. i am less concerned about the issues that some types concern themselves with (ie; in the case of some muslim radicals, campaigning for the freedom to destroy freedom to all intents) as i am with the hypocrisy. hypocrisy is human, but so is pointing out its odiousness.

That is, the focus here is race, not nationality, religion, culture, or language...

It's actually shared culture.

Given this avowedly racialist focus, it's unseemly to complain about the *nationalistic* biases of the mainstream media and conflate them with the racialistic biases in coverage that are overtly on display here.

Your argument is inside-out. The raison d'etre of a desi site is that the mainstream media doesn't cover these things. It's almost tautological-- complaining about media bias flows naturally into providing a different view.

It's actually shared culture.

What culture do Raj Bhakta and the Bangladeshi bombers share?

Culture defined so broadly is operationally equivalent to race. I mean, don't get me wrong...given GNXP I'm hardly one to say that race isn't worthy of attention. I'm just saying that chastising the newsmedia's ostensible parochialism from the confines of a brown-centered blog is much like La Raza criticizing *others* for racism.

and for the record, i'm not pointing fingers at everyone here, otherwise i'd point fingers at myself. i appreciate SM for the window it gives me on what some brown people, who tend to live not in brownload, are computer literate, literate, etc. etc. think.

but, that being said

1) i don't think this event, ipso facto, is necessarily newsworthy. the 350 bombs is noteworthy, but, they seem to have been rather shitty. the death count seems pretty low (this in a country where 120,000 have died in natural disasters in the past generation). the coordination was impressive, but i think that is relevant only in the case of bangladesh since i don't think a cognate network of islamists exists in the west.

2) so, i think that the charge that 'whites weren't killed so no one cares' is knee jerk. obviously white bodies do count more, as do rich bodies, western bodies, american bodies, etc. in the western media. but i've seen intense narrow-focus arguments blow-up on these message boards which indicate no one here is (aside from perhaps saurav) is really committed to the mohist project of universal love and concern.

let me end with a 'big picture' concern that i always have. i have heard the argument from many non-whites, black, brown yellow, etc. that they feel excluded and alienated from the majority white culture. they share cultural similarities and affinities with people 'like them' (there isn't a check list definition of 'like us' as the disputes about south asian vs. non-south asian, etc. etc. indicate). but the flip side of this is that withdrawl because of perceptions and experiences of exclusion will result in a homogenization of social circles, white and non-white, which will perpetuation alienation and stereotypes (in my opinion). there isn't an easy answer to this. but i think it's out there, i am willing to give whites more slack about being whitocentric because is see how many non-whites (not me, but i live in a world where my own concerns, and secondarily my girlfriends, are basically all that exists) get comfort from being 'around their own kind' (and no, i don't think it is solely a function of 'push' factors, there is a lot of 'pull' too).

Culture defined so broadly is operationally equivalent to race.

gc, I think you're being unfair here. I agree that there's a conflation often made between sharing a cultural and racial identity by some here, but there's clearly an educated, American desi, middle class or uppwardly mobile, professional, identity-focused vibe to the blogging that happens here--at least in the posts (and I argue that the posts frame the space although they're not hte only thing). Part of this perspective, in my opinion, is omission of exactly how narrow the identity I described above is and that leads to a kind of hegemonization--in which that identity is never articulated and "brown" or "desi" or "South Asian" is substituted instead. What Raj Bhakta and Bangladeshi bombings have in common is that they may be thought to be of interest to people who fit the description I described.

American desi, middle class or uppwardly mobile, professional, identity

well, without a poll or anything to back it up all you have are your impressions. right? :)

i think a better analogy than white nationalism for what goes on here is probably being italian american. by definition (usually) being italian means being white (and of italian descent), but it is fundamentally defined by cultural and historical parameters, race is just a prior conditional.

i also think the italian american identity is apropos because most italian americans have origins in the southern part of the peninsula, and a large number are sicilian, and they are likely not aware of the importance of regionalism in their ancestral "homeland" (past the 2nd generation). the hostility of northern italians (which, by some measures, is the wealthiest part of europe) to those from the south, and especially sicily, is in my experience far greater than that between southerners and yankees. a close friend who lives in the milan area has a father who was born in sicily, but she's never been to sicily and has never visited her relatives there (she's 40). my girlfriend told me not to mention that i know about her sicilian heritage to her since i was almost about to ask about the pesto vs. tomato sauce issue relating to north-south and where she stood.

anyway, that was a long-winded way to say that italian american identity is something new worldish, without old world cognates, though it derives from old world antecedants. the people here remind me of the same sort of thing, though i also do sense the 'hegemonization' that saurav is talking about. the occasional tifs between FOBs (and FOB-lites who seem to identify more with brownland than amerika) and the more manishesh (for lack of a better word) types over 'south asian' is i think simply evidence of the distance developing between the new world south asian identity and the old world regional-religious sensibilities. the assimilation of muslim browns into a muslim, as opposed to south asian, identity is i think another part of the puzzle.

This is off track but I remembered talk over lack of UCC in India sometime back when I read about this ban

American desi, middle class or uppwardly mobile, professional, identity

well, without a poll or anything to back it up all you have are your impressions. right? :)

Sorry...I should have been more precise--I was referring to the perspectives I feel are coming from the bloggers themselves, not the overall space. But yes, I haven't conducted a poll on the demographics of Manish, Abhi, Ennis, Anna, Amardeep, et. al.--just impressions, conversations, (and some deductions based on who generally has time to blog :)

What culture do Raj Bhakta and the Bangladeshi bombers share?

If you have to ask, what was the point of reading SM for the last year?

... chastising the newsmedia's ostensible parochialism from the confines of a brown-centered blog is much like La Raza criticizing *others* for racism.

You might as well diss Consumer Reports for critiquing bad automakers. SM exists because the MSM does a shitty job covering the things that interest us. It's SM's reason for being, its differentiator, its inspiration. In a land of Andrew Sullivan and DailyKos, there's no need for yet another mainstream political blog-- and in contrast, some of the things we write about are burning to be written.

there's clearly an educated, American desi, middle class or uppwardly mobile, professional, identity-focused vibe to the blogging that happens here

Saurav, you're under some illusion that this blog is a monopoly and/or has the duty to be representative. We're not the government. Nobody wants to read corporatespeak riddled with a thousand disclaimers. We have distinct points of view. Part of that tone (literate, American) is by design, part of it is intrinsic to who we are. Nobody on this blog is trying to appropriate the authenticity that you don't have.

Nobody on this blog is trying to appropriate the authenticity that you don't have.

*cringe* man, that was a real good one liner. props.

i don't think this event, ipso facto, is necessarily newsworthy.

400 bombs, on one day, in one country, by Muslim extremists preaching neo-Talibanism is newsworthy no matter where you are . Even in terms of strict self-interest, it behooves counterterrorism people to investigate the new tactics. That this barely made a ripple on U.S. news sites is ridiculously bad judgment.

400 bombs, on one day, in one country, by Muslim extremists preaching neo-Talibanism is newsworthy no matter where you are . Even in terms of strict self-interest, it behooves counterterrorism people to investigate the new tactics. That this barely made a ripple on U.S. news sites is ridiculously bad judgment.

funny, just talked to my mom. she had no idea what i was talking about when i mentioned it :) anyway, the deaths are 10 last i checked. i think you need to break into triple digits in a non-iraq third world story to get play.

what was the point of reading SM for the last year?

the point of reading sm? simply that there are plenty of left wing south asians in the US who would purport to speak for me. I want to keep tabs on what they're saying in my name, and from time to time register my dissent.

If you have to ask,

Humor me. I do have to ask. What culture do Bhakta and the bombers share?

Covering the people with genetic ancestry from the Subcontinent all over the world is a worthy task for a blog. But let's not pretend that Bobby Jindal, Raj Bhakta, MIA, Shezad Tanweer, Daler Mehndi, and a pack of Bangladeshi Islamic fundamentalists have anything in common besides their continental-scale race. They certainly don't share the same language, nationality, ethnicity, political leanings, religious beliefs... or culture.

400 bombs, on one day, in one country, by Muslim extremists preaching neo-Talibanism is newsworthy no matter where you are . Even in terms of strict self-interest, it behooves counterterrorism people to investigate the new tactics. That this barely made a ripple on U.S. news sites is ridiculously bad judgment.

I actually concur 100% with this assessment, but I think the lack of a ripple is for a different reason -- in addition to the newsworthiness filters mentioned above, the newsmedia tends to suppress stories of Islam-behaving-badly unless it *really can't avoid it*.

That is, I don't think the relative lack of coverage in Western media (though the NYT did cover it) is due to a lack of sympathy for brown lives, but rather due to a misguided equivalence between "fundamentalist Muslim" and "brown"...an equivalence that the "South Asian" label, AALDEF, and plenty of left of center Indian Americans all (unfortunately) tend to propagate.

What Raj Bhakta and Bangladeshi bombings have in common is that they may be thought to be of interest to people who fit the description I described.

Granted, but why? I submit it is because these are the deeds of people who look like us, and society's perception of us is partially predicated on their actions...and our response to their actions.

you're under some illusion that this blog...has the duty to be representative

"South Asian" "mutiny" "desi" "brown" "punk." If you don't want to live up to your own self-definition, pick better words or stop replicating all the power dynamics already plaguing desi communities.

You could stay by adding an entertaining disclaimer to your FAQ!

"We are a desi blog; however, we feel no obligation to even attempt to represent the following perspectives:

working class people;
LGBT people;
people in South Asia;
Indo-Caribbeans;
British Asians or members of other diasporas;
1st generation South Asian immigrants; noncitizens;
people who believe in mutinies;
people who are actually punk;
people who we decided are South Asian but don't identify as such;
people who are mixed race; and non-Indian-Americans.

But really, we swear, we are a desi blog."

Looking forward to your next witty potshot.

stop replicating all the power dynamics already plaguing desi communities.

Saurav, please see the promo poster for this new movie. I think it hits every one of the quotas targets on your list...

stop replicating all the power dynamics already plaguing desi communities.

Those pesky little power dynamics! What with their ridiculous resilience, one would think they were an ineradicable part of human nature or something...

Those pesky little power dynamics!...one would think they were an ineradicable part of human nature or something

hence the need to try to actively mitigate their effects...

More seriously...

Saurav, Manish and I have our differences. Boy, do we have our differences.

But one thing I'd like to think we have in common is that we don't front. We're not concerned about how "authentic" our various overlapping identities are. I'm not ashamed to be an upper middle class college educated Indian American, and I doubt Manish is either. We earned this shit.

What's more, we're the mainstream. The marginal subgroups you had to hunt and peck to assemble are clearly just totems to you. You don't actually care about them; you don't actually *know* anything about them. You're just using them as hastily gathered objects of conspicuous compassion, ways to push off on the rest of us to show how decent and moral you are relative to us unfeeling brutes.

But the jig's up. Fact is -- contra what your sociology teacher told you -- moral status is not a function of identity. The fact that a working class household has one less TV on average than a middle class household does not make them worse people...but it certainly doesn't make them better people either! There is absolutely no moral compunction -- *none* -- to devote coverage to people just because they're "marginal" by some tendentious definition.

PS: an offhand reference to "punk" in the faq does not represent a committment to cover the miniscule SA punk culture...next we'll hear about how Abhi's reneging on his promise to cover the bumping bhangra scene of North Dakota...

Saurav's last amusing comment aside -- taking this back to the main topic here -- there hasn't been very much media coverage of the bombs in Bangladesh here in the UK either. I expected to see "Breaking News" on the Sky News channel, along with BBC News, and of course CNN etc, but there was nothing at all (apart from teletext news on CNN).

Various arguments have already been bounced back and forth here on SM, but I wonder if one of the main reasons is actually the relatively small number of fatalities. Either way, the lack of coverage is still surprising, considering the huge number of bombs that were detonated.

Kind regards,
Jai,
London

well, rezwanul in dhaka is trying to talk about it. he says that bombs exploded in 63 out of 64 sites. the death toll is not bad, 10ish from what i've read. not to trivialize it, but this kind of seems like a publicity stunt on the part of islamists. i mean, their bombs were shit, but they showed the world their organizational capabilities, if not their technical chops.

Ok now lets get back to the Natalie Hollaway story. Any new leads ?
(Sarcasm overload)

Speaking of Natalie did anybody else notice those two dudes with Indian names ? Are they Arubans of Indian origin or actually Indians in Aruba ?

The only way the mainstream media will cover the BDesh story is if some european looking super model twisted her ankle because of the bomb blasts in BDesh.

All speculations true - Islamic fundamentalism finally arrives in Kolkata.

Speaking of Natalie did anybody else notice those two dudes with Indian names ? Are they Arubans of Indian origin or actually Indians in Aruba ?

The dudes are from Suriname . 37% of the population has Indian origins. It is interesting to hear their mother back them up with "They are good Indian (hindu?) boys they would never do such a thing"

anyway, that was a long-winded way to say that italian american identity is something new worldish, without old world cognates, though it derives from old world antecedants. the people here remind me of the same sort of thing, though i also do sense the 'hegemonization' that saurav is talking about. the occasional tifs between FOBs (and FOB-lites who seem to identify more with brownland than amerika) and the more manishesh (for lack of a better word) types over 'south asian' is i think simply evidence of the distance developing between the new world south asian identity and the old world regional-religious sensibilities. the assimilation of muslim browns into a muslim, as opposed to south asian, identity is i think another part of the puzzle.

OK fair enough, but how do you think the dynamics (ossification of a new world identity) change when there is near frictionless flow of information, people, money, relationships across the 'old' world and the 'new world'. Esp for a lot of people on this blog who tend to be mobile (in a real or virtual sense). The sicilian example you have given is pretty much one way, people cross the ocean and are done. Nobody wants to go back. Time passes distance develops, italian american vs sicilians etc. But now, you see korean second gen kids go over to Seoul to create the 'new' old world. Mumbai kids who are soaked deeply in the US culture represent the 'old' new world. Second gen indians who relocate and work in Bangalore for a few years. Indians who work in the US for ten years and go back etc. etc. People soak up information on the "contra" identity all the time.

I don't see the fuss in ther NYTimes not covering BDesh. SepiaMutiny isn't writing about the popular revolt in the Maldives (despite its 'south asian' status.) People write about what interests them and newspaper publish things that interest their readers.

Look at the Gaza withdrawal. 8,500 people forced to move -- more people live on a single Manhattan block. It's a pittance. But the NYT covers it like D-Day, and has a feature where you can look at individual houses in Gaza (Real estate, Cheap!).

Abhi,

>> I think number of people killed is as good a metric as any, no?

No. The number of people that could be killed is the best metric.

If one of these days these terrorists get hold of nuclear/biological weapons, it's all over for the world as we know it. They will use it with devastating consequences, killing probably tens of millions. Economies will go bust. Hunger, starvation, disease will be rampant. Hundreds of millions, if not more, will be affected. Far more than AIDS, Cancer, traffic accidents etc put together.

Hence, pay more importance to curb terrorism, even if means taking away funds from Niger, AIDS etc.

Now, if there emerges a bigger threat than islamic terrorism, I would tackle that first. If say, astronomers detect an asteroid that would hit earth in a few years, killing off all life, then I would say, forget islamic terrorism, let's tackle the asteroid first.

Saurav,

>>Setting aside for a moment that this is an "I'm right because I'm right" argument

Saurav, Saurav, Saurav... was that really necessary?

>>A lot of these so-called "natural" disasters have a human element to them too. There's an international system ...including racism, colonialism, meddling, military intervention, ...that impeded societies from really being free.

I certainly agree. Niger is that way not only because of decades of colonial looting, but also because their tribal belief systems from forcibly supplanted with alien faiths like Islam and Christianity. Their tribal beliefs had helped them live of the land without affecting their environment since the begining of time. When that was obliterated, the knowledge of how to live in harmony with nature was also obliterated. Hence the present predicament...

>>Wealthy and powerful countries tend to act in their own interests

You have the cause and effect backwards. Countries that act in their own interests become wealthy and powerful. So do individuals.

>>search of Halloway in Aruba....

I was really pissed about this. There were 20+ searchers for more than two weeks, in a foreign country, looking for a lost girl. Me thinks it was only because she was white and middle-class. If she were a non-white, it would not have been on the CNN front page for a week. Come to think of it, it would not have been on CNN at all.

M. Nam

(cont from above)

You can't blame the Times -- New Yorkers are interested in Gaza. They don't care about skinny-assed Bangladeshis.

SepiaMutiny is actually slightly more misrepresentative -- it gives the impression of being a South Asian diaspora blog (according to the FAQ). But there's not much on Vancouver, Toronto, Guyana, Trinidad, Fiji. PK, BDesh, etc are discussed from an Indian perspective. (It isn't terribly punk either, despite the photo in the FAQ). As Manish says,

SM exists because the MSM does a shitty job covering the things that interest us.

The tag-line should, more honestly be 'The world, mostly from an Indian-American perspective'. Absolutely nothing wrong with that. A few fix-ups to the FAQ, and you'll have truth in advertising. And a lot fewer whinging commentors.

Dude, why all these heated arguments about what individuals SHOULD blog about? Why all the identity politics? For heaven's sake, if you're not interested in a particular story, DON'T FREAKING CLICK ON IT! Why spend your energy whining about how you don't think Indian Hindus are like Bangladeshi extremists or like left-wing American desis?

What do a British Sri Lankan raised in a white neighborhood and a British Punjabi raised in brown Hounslow have in common? I dunno, but Bobby and Nihal have a popular radio show, and make jokes about ALL South Asian cultures while promoting Asian music no matter where it's from. The Asian Underground music scene in the 90s was populated by British representatives of ALL of the subcontinent and diaspora (State of Bengal=Bangladeshi, Equal-i=Indo-Caribbean, Talvin=Sikh Indian, Fun-Da-Mental=Pakistani, etc etc), and I guess they were too busy making music and art to be as focused on identity politics as today's blogerati. For some people, perhaps being brown in a white-majority country is enough to find common ground to build on. Maybe for some of you guys it's not.

I read this blog because my partner is brown, my boss is brown, my friends are brown, and I couldn't avoid brown people in London even if I tried, so I've developed an interest in brown issues. What country their parents were from doesn't seem to be so much of an issue between them.

There's LOADS of stuff to read on the web. You have the freedom to click on only the things you want to know more about, you know. ;)

SepiaMutiny is actually slightly more misrepresentative -- it gives the impression of being a South Asian diaspora blog (according to the FAQ). But there's not much on Vancouver, Toronto, Guyana, Trinidad, Fiji. PK, BDesh, etc are discussed from an Indian perspective. (It isn't terribly punk either, despite the photo in the FAQ). As Manish says,

SM exists because the MSM does a shitty job covering the things that interest us.

The tag-line should, more honestly be 'The world, mostly from an Indian-American perspective'. Absolutely nothing wrong with that. A few fix-ups to the FAQ, and you'll have truth in advertising. And a lot fewer whinging commentors.

Ask the Mutinous hosts if you can guestblog. If you're feeling underrepresented in another locale, speak up... It's a blog, not a network-- there is no obligation on SM's part to be 'fair and balanced'... blogs are opinions and brain spew.

(not directed at you, personally, Ikram. Directed at the collective You)

No. The number of people that could be killed is the best metric.

Moornam, if by your own words this is the best metric than I could care less about terrorism. I would be much more worried about global warming and a host of other problems. How do you figure "tens of millions" killed in a nuclear attack?

Hence, pay more importance to curb terrorism, even if means taking away funds from Niger, AIDS etc.

I just read your whole comment again. No offense but I hope you never become a policy maker.

there is no obligation on SM's part to be 'fair and balanced'...

Yeah, but if that's the case, don't you think we all have an obligation to stop fronting as much? I think the alternative is what Ikram posed: "The tag-line should, more honestly be 'The world, mostly from an Indian-American perspective'...A few fix-ups to the FAQ, and you'll have truth in advertising. And a lot fewer whinging commentors."

I'd know I'd stop whining as much, although I'd be disappointed in the decision to choose to have a narrow vision and articulate it honestly rather than to take a more encompassing articulation of what it means to be South Asian and work towards making it a reality.

I do think, as the only and largest desi american group blog out there that I know of, SM would benefit from more holistically represnting the various perspectives of its community).

fair enough, Saurav.

I'm just here for the chai and samose. ;)

What's more, we're the mainstream. The marginal subgroups you had to hunt and peck to assemble are clearly just totems to you. You don't actually care about them; you don't actually *know* anything about them. You're just using them as hastily gathered objects of conspicuous compassion, ways to push off on the rest of us to show how decent and moral you are relative to us unfeeling brutes.

gc, you're not the mainstream; you represent the mainstream perspective that comes from the perspective of a small group of people that have dominance among South Asians. With the exception of my sexuality and perhaps my politics (although I doubt it), I'm part of the same group. I just think it's wrong to try to universalize it as you're doing because you obliterate other people's voices.

Your point about what we know and don't know is the relevant one; if those perspectives were included more here, perhaps you would know more about what they care about. I agree with Manish that it doesn't have to be here and am trying to figure out how I think this can be accomplished in the desi blogosphere, but given that SM is out there and heavily visited, I'm going to contest the space.

The various subsets I picked were the ones that I came up with in a list at 5 in the morning -- I didn't include women but I respect SM for at least taking minimal strides in that direction; I didn't include South Indians because there is (or was, at least), a lot of mallu pride; I didn't even include religion (although you could make the argument that it wouldn't kill us to have someone coming from a Muslim background). But I'm open to being critiqued for not being inclusive enough.

And as for what I know--well there's some truth to your argument about self-righteousness on my part and I apologize for that; but please don't ever f#Wking assume again about what my life experience is without asking first. I've had developed relationships with people who are and were being deported; I've talked to countless working class desis on the street, at work, in their homes; I'm queer myself and have organized with other queer people--coordinating discussions about whether it makes sense to march in the India Day parade and blah blah blah; I have mixed race friends who have confessed to me their issues with authenticity and the fact that I was their only desi friend; etc. When you grow up queer in a homophobic desi home, when you think you're an atheist at age 7, when you try to get your mother to buy you puja clothes in the women's section on gender identity grounds, when you make choices to get outside your so-called "mainstream"--well then you can come back to me and talk to me about what I know and don't know.

I'm not perfect, but when I say that there are people whose voices are marginalized in desi spaces, I know what the f@#k I'm talking about. And my suspicion here is that most everyone else here does too, even if they don't care to admit it or deal with it.

fair enough, Saurav.

I'm just here for the chai and samose. ;)

Well this is ironic; I've managed to stifle your voice. I guess it's time for me to shut up now.

oh no, not at all! You know it's not that easy to shut me up :) I'm just taking the quiet observer role today. (ok, for once... I'm trying it out!)Lots of interesting comments to think about, and I am preoccupied entirely with something IRL

as for the chai and samose, I was carrying out your directive not to front-- I'm just all about the food.

I've come a little late to this party.

First off - about how many people die from AIDS vs bombs, I think you're wearing blinkers if you think there are no manmade elements to things like AIDS pandemics. You've heard of the 90:10 split?

Terrorism, on the other hand, is willfully caused by a set of people with an intention to kill. Hence, that's more dangerous and needs to be tackled first, even though the number of people killed is smaller.

People in the developing world die of disease every day due to the rest of the world's intention to not do anything about it. I'm not talking about millions of dollars in aid, I'm talking about reducing drug profits nominally.

About South Asian/Desi/Indian etc debate. I kind of echo DesiDancer's sentiments, I'm at least 4 of the things in your list Saurav, but I still enjoy reading bits and bobs on here - as well getting bored by other bits. I'm not overly fussed by the similarity of the SM staff, or how they define this blog. Sure I see your point and I agree that the scope of posts could be wider, but the comments facility exists so anyone can write up their views.

Oh Gori Observer - I don't buy your argument about B&N though. But I'll explain that to you in person or via email, long story. However I agree with you that there's plenty out there on the web, it doesn't all have to come from one site.

there's just no pleasing some of you, is there?

saurav, if they do what ikram suggested, you're disappointed. if they do what they are trying to already do and move beyond "indian-american" etc, you slam them for not hitting every item on your checklist.

what about this specific post was from an indian-american perspective, aside from the fact that it was written by one? i'm curious, in your opinion, can any of these SM bloggers write from anything BUT an "indian-american" perspective?

if they added a queer pakistani or a working-class illegal (assuming that this person even has the time and resources to blog. but who gets to blog/read blogs is a different issue), do you really think that the blog would read THAT much differently? i think desidancer is right-- YOU want to blog here and until you do, SM isn't going to be representative enough.

as for the chai and samose, I was carrying out your directive not to front-- I'm just all about the food.

Here here. I left out "gourmand" from the list :)

I kind of echo DesiDancer's sentiments, I'm at least 4 of the things in your list Saurav, but I still enjoy reading bits and bobs on here - as well getting bored by other bits. I'm not overly fussed by the similarity of the SM staff, or how they define this blog. Sure I see your point and I agree that the scope of posts could be wider, but the comments facility exists so anyone can write up their views.

Fair enough. Lack of honesty about identity descriptions in a political context are a pet peeve of mine (obviously) and in some sense my line of work, but it's more than fair for other people who are potentially affected by the same things not to feel the same way as me or to not view this space through a political lens.

(1) As I understand it, SM works largely off of tips and what the mutineers see in the media, etc. SO - if you're feeding them 10 tips a day on Fiji, or topics featuring Indo-Caribbeans, and not seeing it on SM - ya got beef. (No pun intended.)

If you're not feeding the tips on the topics you want to see covered, well - get to it.

(2) The reason I was so shocked the bombings in Bangladesh didn't get more coverage is not "because The Man doesn't care" blah blah blah - as someone else commented, I'd expect that 350 bombs detonated in a country containing "Taliban-tendency terrorists" would mark more press.

Now to be fair to Saurav, I think all he's objecting to is how they define SM in their description, he's not claiming every post is from an Indian American perspective.

How about this:

SAVEMA (SM's staff) are all brown.
They are all of South Asian origin.
They are all members of the South Asian diapora.

Hence they have every right to call this a brown, South Asian diaspora blog, right? Just like I could make a blog described as a British blog - I certainly wouldn't be representing all Brits would I?

It does say 'Come one, come all' in the FAQ too, so I guess you could say they're encouraging anyone to comment.

Clearly we all find something interesting about SM, which is why we're here. The only criticism I'll wholeheartedly agree with is that there's nothing PUNK about SM! ;)

Otherwise, it's all cool wit me yo.

saurav, if they do what ikram suggested, you're disappointed. if they do what they are trying to already do and move beyond "indian-american" etc, you slam them for not hitting every item on your checklist.

No, I critique them for not trying.

And oh:

YOU want to blog here and until you do, SM isn't going to be representative enough.

I think I want a platform like this but not quite this one--but, more to the point, yes, there's truth to your accusation of ego.

The underlying issues I'm bringing up, though, would largely still be relevant, even if I chose to be coopted :) Aside from being queer and some life choices I've made, a lot of my worldview is informed by the same background as the folks who blog here and hence I wouldn't really expand the range of perspectives all that much.

Anyway, it seems like a lot of people are getting annoyed with this discussion, so I'll just stop here--barring the unforeseen.

Saurav,

I shouldn't even respond to your self-contradictory complaints. But at least I can take care of that annoying and inaccurate list:

working class people; Biju Mathew, taxi workers alliance

LGBT people; Queer India

people in South Asia; About 1/3 of all recent posts at Sepia Mutiny, including 17 on the front page (current posts) alone

Indo-Caribbeans; Guyanese Independence day

British Asians or members of other diasporas; You're kidding, right? Did you miss the 300 posts on MIA, Jay Sean, Raghav, Bobby & Nihal, etc etc.? Hanif Kureishi and British Multiculturalism?

1st generation South Asian immigrants; 149 posts have had the word 'immigrant' mentioned

noncitizens; All of the recent posts dealing with profiling, unfair detentions and deportations have addressed the noncitizen issue. The posts on the disappeared Bangladeshi girls dealt with this in depth.

people who believe in mutinies; ???

people who are actually punk; I am way more punk than you, mofo

people who we decided are South Asian but don't identify as such; ????

people who are mixed race; Katrina Kaif

non-Indian-Americans. this last is redundant with several of the previous

saurav,

thank you for responding. i went to your link and what i was struck by is how your "alternadesi" would essentially be as much of a "thought ghetto" as you accuse SM of being. i didn't see any mention of including some of the viewpoints that are represented here, so how would that alternate space be anymore of a solution than this?

bongbreaker,

what, if any "punk" coverage would you like to see? :)

Abhi writes:I hope you never become a policy maker

For now, I'm content with electing policy makers of my persuasion. My man's in the White House. The birds are a-chirping. The sky's blue. The civilisational war is progressing exactly as it should. What more could I ask for?

BongBreaker:

>>I've come a little late to this party.

We're out of Kingfisher, but there's plenty of Hieneken left!

>> I think you're wearing blinkers if you think there are no manmade elements to things like AIDS pandemics. You've heard of the 90:10 split?

Yes and No.

Yes, I know that AIDS is a manmade pandemic. Made and spread by men and women who share way too many needles and partners. Unfortunately, their children contract it by virtue of being born to morally loose parents. And some innocent people also contract it due to contaminated blood, unfaithful partners etc. It's man-made allright.

No - I don't know the 90:10 ratio. Something tells me you're not talking about the ratio of liberals to non-liberals on this forum!

>>I'm not talking about millions of dollars in aid, I'm talking about reducing drug profits nominally.

My humble request to you to let us know when you take up the job of a policy maker - I'll have to sell all my drug stocks right away. A pity - they've given me consistent 20%+ returns.

What's a "nominal" amount by which you will reduce drug profits to fit your agenda on how the world should work and how wealth should be distributed?

M. Nam

For now, I'm content with electing policy makers of my persuasion. My man's in the White House. The birds are a-chirping.

Now see. If you had simply stated that at the begining this discussion would have been more productive as we would have understood each other better. I am working on a system by which comment leavers such as yourself would get a red font, and comment leavers like me would get assigned a blue font. :)

people who are actually punk; I am way more punk than you, mofo

Haha! That cracked me right up.

Galatea, I shouldn't have said not being punk is a criticism, it's not at all. To me SM is like a broadsheet. Let me explain. I have a fantastically over-inflated ego. I generally think I'm the world's smartest man, with the exception of the chap who invented bubble wrap, but then I happened upon this wee blog and realised there are people out there who are smarter than me. I have got lots of gems from here which I later recount to my girlfriend or friends, it's erudite, it's thought-provoking and it's a chance for me to hear views of people I generally don't know much about - by that I mean South Asians in America.

However punk it ain't. I take punk to mean young and rebellious, and having just checked, so does answers.com. Young - yep most people here are(ish!). Rebellious - nah. Sure that's a massive generalisation and I don't know the first thing about most of the SM chaps and chapesses, but from the posts the general topics are not tremendously out of the ordinary. This is NOT a criticism at all, please don't take it that way. The vast majority of readers are regular folk too - in normal jobs doing normal things - and it would be silly to start pursuing off-beat topics or causes.

When I finally do get round to putting something up on the Internet, it will most likely be nowhere near as intelligent as the posts on here (especially Amardeep, way over my head!) but it may be a little bit more alternative; less mainstream. You'll see!

Abhi writes:

>>comment leavers such as yourself would get a red font

I prefer saffron!!

Republicans would get a red font. Envornmentalists/PETA activists/Muslims - green. Feminists - pink. Democrats - blue. Gays - purple. SouthAsians - brown. Liberteranians, Hindutvadis - saffron. Blacks - black.

M. Nam

Now see. If you had simply stated that at the begining this discussion would have been more productive as we would have understood each other better.

Agreed Abhi, when I read that it all fell into place!

MoorNam, the split refers to the fact that 10% of the world's medical research money is allocated for 90% of the world's population. Malaria is in fact the biggest killer in the world (some say HIV/AIDS - both are around 3-5 million/yr, estimated) and again this is massively underfunded. Now you're argument is that we should spend more effort on countering terrorism than disease. Well OK, but then out of the money that is allocated to fighting disease, should we not prioratise spending on diseases that account for the most lives, or are lives in Africa worth less than Americans'?

This is an article from a magazine I occasionally write for, the student version of the British Medical Journal, which explains a bit more. An article from my newspaper details more about Big Pharma (page 9). Check out point number 9 - if profits fall, research won't suffer.

I'm genuinely happy you've done well with you stocks, I'm not one of these people who begrudges someone for making money instead of giving it all away. But perhaps you should consider the ethics involved in just about every American pharmaceutical company's progress and success. Like worldwide patents preventing India's huge generic pharmaceutical market from manufacturing life-saving drugs for the needy in Asia, Africa and South America, for a fraction of the price.

Sorry, forgot the link. Page 9.

And Heineken sucks!

Not sure I agree with your colour-coding, don't think we need to know everyone's race or sexuality. Just the important thing - political allegiance!

Saurav, I shouldn't even respond to your self-contradictory complaints.

Amardeep, let me try to be clearer and maybe this will resolve some of what i said which either was or appeared self-contradictory. SM can argue it's a pan-South Asian space and make stronger efforts to move towards that, or it can do what Ikram suggested and label itself more honestly. I also think it's dishonest to say "it's just a blog" when this is a form of social capital and its bloggers have already been approached to speak on behalf of South Asians.

I'm muddled, not oblivious; when I talk about "voicese", and "perspectives", I'm referring to the structure of the blog and how that informs the language it brings forth in the writing as well as, but not exclusively, the selection of the posts. For example, to take this into somewhat less contentious territory: before you started guestblogging, there were not as many posts on literary topics from an academic perspective; before Turbanhead started guestblogging, that were imbued with references to married life). Similarly, when SM posts about London bombings and backlash, it might help to have someone from London present the perspective that comes there. Or if it posts on queer issues, it might help to have someone whose writing is imbued with a queer perspective--like Venial Sin.

Obviously, no space can encompass all of that, but I think that SM could do a little more than it does and have more of a commitment to the idea of being as inclusive as possible not just in obvious ways, but in a way that integrates the idea of inclusiveness into the values of the blog. If I had been more constructive and wiser, I would have stated up front that I think this is part of a broader conversation about the American desi subset of the blogosphere and how we can all work together to make sure that as comprehensive a vision of real-world desis as possible gets brought into what we do collectively while individually still being honest about who we are and being able to say what we want. And further that this is part of a larger project that 1.5/2nd gen americans who understand themselves as South Asian need to work towards. The same dynamics that I think play out in SM are dynamics that I see in other places--like the non-profit world.

... it gives the impression of being a South Asian diaspora blog (according to the FAQ). But there's not much on Vancouver, Toronto, Guyana, Trinidad, Fiji. PK, BDesh, etc are discussed from an Indian perspective... The tag-line should, more honestly be 'The world, mostly from an Indian-American perspective'...

~and~

We are a desi blog; however, we feel no obligation to even attempt to represent the following perspectives...

1. There is no tagline: The FAQ is a glossary of terms. There is no tagline, there are no claims about what the blog is about or by whom it's written. The closest thing to a tagline we've got is the blog description in the RSS feed, 'All that savory brownness in one flavorful packet.'

2. Exclusivity bad: The tagline you suggest is pointlessly exclusive. The minute you put 'Indian-American' in the FAQ description, you turn off Pakistanis, Sri Lankans, Brit Asians and so on.

3. about vs. by confusion: It's not by a demographically representative sample of the diaspora (and what boring reading that would be), it's about the diaspora.

4. about vs. for confusion: It's not for 'middle-class Indian-Americans,' it's about the diaspora. At a minimum, every non-desi reader understands that implicitly.

5. Describing vs. representing: Every blogger here is accurately described as a member of the South Asian diaspora. That doesn't mean the blog's mission is to fully represent.

6. No duty to represent: With a government or an ISA, there's a situation of scarcity, exclusivity or monopoly. There's no such situation here, and there's no duty to be representative. There's only the basic human courtesy of being interesting. And the best writing is by those who write what interests them. That's that we do.

Saurav's rant about including the Pakistani flag is perfectly legit as a personal sentiment. But it's a steaming pile of horseshit as an attempt to force the bloggers to write about something and in a certain style.

In fact, his demands are contradictory: both to represent others, and to not claim to represent others.

7. Detailed profiles bad: You want A/S/L-type info about the bloggers (ethnicity/class), but there are many good reasons not to do so (privacy, labeling), which is why even Saurav doesn't post a profile page in the sidebar of his own blog.

if there's one thing that really peeves bloggers, i think it's telling them what they should write about, or should be about. 99% give their time and money gratis. i understand some of saurav's complaint, and one reason i was interested in a poll is that i was curious as to the exact (or at least exacter) unrepresentativeness of SM. but that being said, sometimes you have to tack rather than head straight into the wind....

as for representing themselves as 'south asian' or 'desi,' even if the terms have a broad original connotation i think it is likely plausible that in the USA (for example) they will empirically tend to be characterize a narrowerer set. like i said, a far smaller number of 'south asians' are likely to be muslim than in south asia. if this blog is an example, punjabis, malayalees and bengalis are also way more overrepresented than their numbers in brownland. etc. etc. i've had my disputes with manish over being brown, and what that means, but ultimately, all this shitting about and commenting on the message boards is part of the process of brown (or south asian, or whatever).

isn't a blog somewhat like an open diary? If a few people choose to get together and write in the same one, then all the more juicy for the voyeurs oh, I mean commenters... It's not a real mutiny, there's no need for hand-to-hand combat. It's a party, Linda Richmond style. Talk amongst yourselves...

In fact, his demands are contradictory: both to represent others, and to not claim to represent others.

It's not and--it's or--in my mind I'm trying to be undersatnding that it's possible that you collectively simply don't want to make this a more interesting, more full, more comprehensive South Asian diaspora blog that's part of a South Asian diaspora community. That doesn't mean Abhi or Manish or anyone else martyrs themselves to their readership by constantly and out of obligation writing things that they don't want to; it means that you go out and find other people who will write about things because you think that they're important to present from a particular standpoint but you know that you can't or don't want to do it yourself. But perhaps you're not interested in that at all, so I give you an out and ask you just to be honest about who you are like Ikram did so you're not pretending that you actually substantially give a $hit whether Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, queers, women, and others continue to visit.

What i think I'm more guilty of than self-contradiction is dichotomizing a spectrum of different standpoints ranging from "Indian-American blog" to "South Asian diaspora blog encompassing many different types of South Asian diaspora voices and accountable to the South Asian communities of the world" impatience with a process of identity formation, and more than my share of rudeness (and I apologize for that last one). And of course my own personal agenda.

As for "what this blog is" "taglines" and whatever else--if you think that social spaces are what the people in control of them say they are regardless of empirical realities--well, that's your prerogative, but I think that's a steaming pile of horseshit. The crux of the matter is: why are you willing to change your language to meet the perceived needs of Pakistanis, Sri Lankans, Brit Asians, etc. but not change your blog lineup to draw them in? Why are you willing to present yourselves as South Asian but when you write a post about Indian independence, you're not concerned with what Pakistanis will think then? Why are you willing to use the device of rebellion but not be truly rebellious? Why do some people feel comfortable commenting on particular topics but not others? Who lurks and why?

If this is just a blog, then let it be just a blog; and I will respond nicely like an obedient, complacent, reader. If this is a collective space, then let it be a space, and we'll express our disagreements and have give and take, and you'll cede some power to your readership and potential readership (the Times has a public editor). If this is a mutiny on the other hand (or rather, part of a mutiny), then let's have a mutiny.

Manish wrote

2. Exclusivity bad: The tagline you suggest is pointlessly exclusive

No. The tag-line I wrote is accurate. The blog, like all blogs, is exclusive. It's pointless to be inclusive of all the south asian diaspora -- you'll never succeed.

Better to be clear about what perspective you write from. The blog is well-written and interesting on it's own. It's doesn't need pretentions of universality to succeed.

(And, as an aside, didn't Saurav's rant about the PK flag work?)

razib wrote:

all this shitting about and commenting on the message boards is part of the process of brown

Can I hear an Amen, my East-Pakistani friend.

Saurav writes:>>That doesn't mean Abhi or Manish or anyone else martyrs themselves to their readership by constantly and out of obligation writing things that they don't want to; it means that you go out and find other people who will write about things because you think that they're important to present from a particular standpoint but you know that you can't or don't want to do it yourself.

Very well put.

Now let me rephrase this to Abhi and BongBreaker for our earlier discussion...

That doesn't mean Pfizer or Merck or anyone else martyrs themselves to bleeding hearts by constantly and out of obligation producing drugs that they don't want to; it means that bleeding hearts go out and find other drugmakers who will make drugs for Malaria etc because they think that they're important to present from a particular standpoint but they know that they can't or don't want to do it themselves.

Standard scene I'm seeing in America since I set foot here: Conservatives demand control on speech/art. Liberal demand control on production and economy.

While your resident Liberteranian-Hindutvadi watches along amused...

M. Nam

I'm a lurker here and have been reading comments related to identity, and to SM's role in the South Asian American space for awhile now.

I [maybe like saurav and desi dancer?] understood SM to be a collective space which is inclusive and open - and which could even be part of a larger "movement" that is identity-based and also values-based. But it kinda seems like, as Manish said, it's a place where people post what is "interesting" to them. If that's the case, then yeah - there's no real need to be representative or comprehensive.

But what I've also seen is SM speaking on the community's behalf and positioning itself as a space for all South Asians - and that justifies the questioning of whether it is truly open, and representative.

you see what you see lurker. i don't see that at all. i mean, if this place was as serious as you depict, what do you say to the ubiquity of photos like this???

i think saurav has a point, but that's why there are comment boards. i consider myself a dissenter from SM's dominant zeitgeist, with the punjabi-mallu kuffur mafia ascendent.

in other words, only you can silence your own voice, we all have liberty to be arrogant assholes. this is amerika after all :)

All,

We should all have understood Saurav's grudges about SM by now... He (assumption by name) wants to guest blog on SM like Amardeep and invade it with his extreme political eulogies.

Saurav,

The crux of the matter is: why are you willing to change your language to meet the perceived needs of Pakistanis, Sri Lankans, Brit Asians, etc. but not change your blog lineup to draw them in?

You're still arguing as if SM were some kind of international agency. It's not.

Identitarian thinking is bad thinking for at least two reasons: 1) It's never enough. If they invite a Sri Lankan to join them, the next question is of course -- Tamil or Sinhala or Muslim or Burgher? Male or female? etc

And 2) Good blogging, like good journalism or good teaching, is more about what you know and how you think than about your background per se. Your background helps a little, but the actual line between a Punjabi Pakistani and a Punjabi Indian isn't that great (that's the whole idea of 'desi' to begin with).

I'm sure SM would value the voices & perspectives of bloggers from different backgrounds from themselves, but it's their prerogative to decide whether the chemistry is right. It's a surprisingly difficult balance to get right...

I would actually advocate going in the opposite direction from the one you propose -- less 'identity' rather than more. For instance, I personally think it might be interesting to have non-desi bloggers at SM occasionally, blogging, as Manish puts it about desi issues -- people like Andrea/Trilia or Ms. World. They are really good bloggers and they have strong interest in South Asian stuff. Those are the two most important criteria, IMO.

hammer_sickel, you are my favorite crazy ever for linking to the telemarketer calls from India to London on the day of the bombing. They were compelling (and funny) enough to begin with, but the fact that you feel that they're an example of an "extreme political eulogies" on my part removes it to the realm of the lovably absurd. In all sincerity, thank you for unintentionally highlighting humanity in what has been an ugly, ugly conversation :)

Here's the original post on CSF with links to the three audio calls.