There's also state representativeSwati Dandekar from Iowa.

She looks very lightskinned in this photo compared to some of the others on her site. I noticed the same thing about Toral Mehta as well. Her publicity pic as well as her photos on her website show her as quite lightskinned, although she appears quite dark on her TV footage.

Overheard at a recent SM meetup that Raj Bhakta...of "The Apprentice" fame is also running for public office.

A N N A....can elaborate ;)

argus- same thing with every desi girl on friendster, facebook, etc

Typical Indian politician. etc.

so that the public doesnt confuse her for one of those dirty brown people America is at war with. Got to love her strategy though.

What is wrong with stating her credentials? She isn't making up stuff, or claiming some obscure fact. She served and has every right to put that forward on her resume. And guess what, she is part of a warrior clan. Her husband IS a pilot and the demands put on military families is pretty high.

So, brown folks can't be right wing? Every brown person with a conservative agenda is out to 'wash' themselves of their brown skin to get votes? There is more depth to the issue than that.

she's representing her constituency's concerns

Exactly. The BRAC has far reaching consequences and I could write pages on it. There are jobs, lives, and families at stake and that's her issue.

I don't get the sense she's trying to 'whitewash' herself. She has plenty of pics on her site of herself dressed in a sari and mingling with Indian and other minority groups.

I think she's proud of her family's military legacy and rightfully so. I never got the sense she was trying to distance herself from the 'bad' brown. Besides, she served years ago, way before WOT.

who the hell deleted dilweed's post? not that it was particularly profound, but it was kind of funny...damn...

argus- same thing with every desi girl on friendster, facebook, etc

get ready, because here it comes:

bullshit.

She looks very lightskinned in this photo compared to some of the others on her site. I noticed the same thing about Toral Mehta as well. Her publicity pic as well as her photos on her website show her as quite lightskinned, although she appears quite dark on her TV footage.

argus- same thing with every desi girl on friendster, facebook, etc

Yesss. of course. When a brown woman is running for public office, on top of raising children and serving in the military, what could possibly be more important than to observe her suspiciously lighter-skin tone in a photo?!!?

What with the Toral=AllDesiChixBeStuckupBitches comments rampant on the Toral threads, and now this, it really has been a fucking stellar week for brown women on Sepia.

Where's the criticism for Dilip Paliath? What's the matter? His appearance isn't worthy of comment? No generalizations about how Indian men tend to be paunchy? His faith-based platform isn't that of a "typical Indian politician"?

/sarcasm

I appreciate the commenters who've tried to staunch the mysogynistic flow. But undermining women in this manner is really pathetic, and rather horrifying for the women readers of SepiaMutiny.

There's also state representativeSwati Dandekar from Iowa.

Iowa in the heezy!!

Um. Sorry to clog up the comments. There's just not that much to get excited about here in Iowa, so I was stoked to see that.

Isn't that pretty common, for women in the public eye to be judged by their appearance, no matter what their accomplishments?

Just this morning on the radio I was listening to the DJs blather on about some new evidence about Amelia Earhardt discovered in Japan or somewhere, and one of the DJs goes, "Yeah, but what about her ass?" SO HILARIOUS.

I've also heard 'comedians' make fun of Harriet Meiers' eyeliner, for craps sake. She's not exactly a sex symbol.

This is something pretty pervasive in our culture (Midwest, if not entirely American) and I'm not surprised the desis succumbed to it. I am surprised to see it hear though.

What the heck? This isn't done to men to nearly the same degree it's done to women. It sucks coming face to face with the bigotry inside.

Ms Cicatrix:

Where's the criticism for Dilip Paliath? What's the matter? His appearance isn't worthy of comment?

I did not see any topic on that person. If he is paunchy and is trying to pull his belly in while being photographed, he will invite some comments from me as well.

Ms. A N N A,

bullshit.

Bravo. By the way, I checked out your w e b s i t e. A Japanese expression comes to my mind, Baku-Shan.

argus:

i don't really care what you think of me, so your attempt to prove that you are hip/sly/funny/whatever by dropping japanese in your comment was meaningless. toral was many things on "the apprentice", dark-skinned wasn't one of them. also, unless you're a child from the south, kindly stop referring to me as "MS." judging by your comments, i'm almost certain it's not coming from a place of respect.

patel:

i'm not going to tolerate massive, blanket-y statements like "EVERY desi girl..."

you don't know every desi girl. cease with the sloppy stupidity please.

From Supriya's website:

We live in the Christopher Farms subdivision and attend St. Nicholas Catholic Church.

Thank god for that bit of information. Now I know she is a good god fearing catholic lady who does not worship some heathen god.

argus_nj

You "did not see any topic on that person"? Umm..the topic on that person would the this post. The one we're writing about now. I know it's hard, but if you read the whole post again, about halfway down, you'll see:

Just across the border in Maryland, Republican Dilip Paliath is running for the Maryland General Assembly.

From Supriya's website:

We live in the Christopher Farms subdivision and attend St. Nicholas Catholic Church.

Thank god for that bit of information. Now I know she is a good god fearing catholic lady who does not worship some heathen god.

I did not see any topic on that person. If he is paunchy and is trying to pull his belly in while being photographed, he will invite some comments from me as well.

cica, what's brilliant is he seems to have forgotten that HE was the one who started the "appearance" topic. he didn't see any topic on the male candidate b/c he didn't start one. and why should he? Commenters prefer to criticize female public figures at SM.

there's no difference (IMO) between picking on supriya's skin vs. paliath's paunch. yet there was no comment from argus on the latter...hmmm.

What fault is there in mentioning how Catholicism ties into her spirituality? She didn't disparage anyone else's religion on her website - then why do you disparage hers?

I am mocking her for publicizing her faith, which is irrelevent to how she will vote akin to the mocking HarryClueless Miers has received for publicizing her evangelicalism.

My bad, I just glossed over the post, didn't read it in detail.

You see, a paunch is not by itself a bad thing, if the person tries to hide the paunch, he becomes a hypocrite. I find dusky complexion in women adorable. It is a pity that they have to window-dress what could be very attractive to some men.

i don't really care what you think of me

Sigh.

Argus offers olive branch to Ms A N N A and Ms Cicatrix.

there's no difference (IMO) between picking on supriya's skin vs. paliath's paunch. yet there was no comment from argus on the latter...hmmm.

Ohh, but ANNA dear, that's the natural Indian male Physique, and of course it would be white-washed, stuckup, arrogant desi bitches like us who like to emasculate desi men by pointing out such things.

:D

What fault is there in mentioning how Catholicism ties into her spirituality? She didn't disparage anyone else's religion on her website - then why do you disparage hers?

I have to disagree on this. A person who runs for a public office is open to scrutiny and one of the most important point is his/her ideology. If a person publicly flaunts her beliefs, a practice which I daresay is quite at odds with the philosophy of this country, it would be a cause for concern indeed.

I wouldn't disparage her beliefs, as long as she practices them in private. But as soon as she puts them up on her publicity website, she is opening the field up wide open.

cicatrix: "Where's the criticism for Dilip Paliath? What's the matter? His appearance isn't worthy of comment?"

I made my comments about him, but since this web site doesnt allow criticism of indian people, it was deleted. And the guy who runs this web site teaches a journalism class? God help those students.

I made comments about his lobbying for slot machines and how this is politician talk for stealing from poor people and giving back to the rich. Thats all gambaling is in states with large poor communites, i.e. maryland, play to the fact that poor people are desperate and take what little they already have.

I made my comments about him, but since this web site doesnt allow criticism of indian people,

unless you've been unconscious for the last week, you'd know that there is an abundance of [occaionally vicious] criticism of indian people on this site. "toral mehta" mean anything to you?

it was deleted. And the guy who runs this web site teaches a journalism class? God help those students.

if your comment was deleted, we had damned good reason for it. now tell me, who is this professor you speak of? i know all the mutineers personally and none of us teach journalism. where ARE you getting this information? i'm waiting with bated breath to know...

"If a person publicly flaunts her beliefs, a practice which I daresay is quite at odds with the philosophy of this country..."

That must be news to the President, and scores of other (not-only Republican; e.g. Senator Lieberman) candidates over the last two decades.

cicatrix writes: >>undermining women in this manner is really pathetic, and rather horrifying for the women readers of SepiaMutiny.

This man on SM is horrified as well by undermining women in this manner. As do other SM men, I'm sure.

AMFD:

She makes her faith public because the ideology of the faith does not teach to keep religion in private. More on this on the Washington Post topic...

M. Nam

I have to disagree on this. A person who runs for a public office is open to scrutiny and one of the most important point is his/her ideology. If a person publicly flaunts her beliefs, a practice which I daresay is quite at odds with the philosophy of this country, it would be a cause for concern indeed.

I wouldn't disparage her beliefs, as long as she practices them in private. But as soon as she puts them up on her publicity website, she is opening the field up wide open.

Yes, a person's ideology is fair game to be scrutinized. But I took offense in AM's comment where he implies that she was flaunting her Catholic faith for votes - as if her faith wasn't genuine.

*begin rant* It's like nobody can genuinely accept an Indian being a Christian if s/he isn't a Malayalee. *end rant*

*begin rant* It's like nobody can genuinely accept an Indian being a Christian if s/he isn't a Malayalee. *end rant*

The fact that she is a Christian/Catholic of Indian origin has nothing to do with what I said. I am not casting aspersions on her because she is Indian.
I was lamenting the flaunting of religion by American politicians in an attempt to curry favor with the voters.
As a militantly secular person, it offends my sensibilities when people flaunt their religion to get elected. This shuts down the door on atheists/agnostics running for election. A person like Schroder will never get elected in America where politicians from the liberal left to the religious right have to flaunt their faith to get elected.

"As a militantly secular person, it offends my sensibilities when people flaunt their religion to get elected.

The option of moving to France is open.

there is a de facto religious test for those running for office. you can't be even be a dog catcher unless you have judeo-christian background (someone famous said this, i don't remember who). the unoffocial the judeo-christian relious test for public office is a good thing, in my opinion. after all, it's the judeo-christian civlization that gave all the modern institutions like democracy. religions like islam and hinduism are yet to shake their feudalistic attitudes and thus are anti-modern. In the western mindset, these religions mean things like caste, honor killings, bride burning etc. so, i don't blame americans for requiring a person of judeo-christian background for public office.

In the western mindset, these religions mean things like caste, honor killings, bride burning etc.

after all, it's the judeo-christian civlization that gave all the modern institutions like democracy. religions like islam and hinduism are yet to shake their feudalistic attitudes and thus are anti-modern.

Sure, because everyone knows the Evangelical Christians live quiet lives of hi-speed modernity.

As they read the Left Behind series and wait for the Rapture.

I mean, there is JUST NOT ENOUGH DATA to prove that those godless Hindoos and crayzee Muslims virtually skipped over the Industrial age in their rush to better cable and cell service than we get in the States, right? Modern. really.

Cica, I would take you out to a lobster dinner, but then Recov Lib would be offended since shellfish are an abomination to God. How about a tuna salad sandwich?

DesiDudeinAustin,

Tuna salad sounds perfect, and I would love to join you for dinner....but do you have a Judeo-Christian background?

I mean, you can't get served in a restaurant (let alone be a dog-catcher) unless you swear fealty to Western religious traditions, you know...

RupaI grew up in Iowa, as I constantly tell anyone who will listen.....

Personally, I'd love to move back to West Des Moines, but then I've done my big city living and would appreciate a more quiet life. I'd, like, totally convert a barn into a loft and be loopy-midwestern-arty.

Anyhoo, good for all those running for office and getting involved, right, left, and center. Much luck.

I mean, you can't get served in a restaurant (let alone be a dog-catcher) unless you swear fealty to Western religious traditions, you know...

Don't worry Cica, I'll slip the host/hostess an extra tenner thereby affirming my faith in Mammon, which is the only religion that restaurant hosts/hostesses in tony little joints understand. That way we wont get a table close to the kitchen either.

Incidentally, the candidate's affirming her faith is her personal issue (or perhaps a non-issue) and is a fair way to present herself to her constituents. God knows, democracy does not run merely on logic. Emotions and shared values are essential tools in a public-figure's sales-kit.

MD,

You're totally on the money -- IA is really underappreciated; not a bad place to settle down at all! There is enough of that arty midwestern culture that doesn't feel subordinate, and the cities are really liberal and accepting.

My family is from the cornfields of southern Illinois and we always joked that we were the first Indian rednecks -- I think you're giving us a run for the $ on that title though ;)

From Ms Christopher's website:

"I call St. Nick's our home away from home because it embodies everything that is good in a parish community. Ever since I converted to Catholicism"

Being the incorrigble cynic that I am, let me make a cynical observation. Combining this data point with Bobby Jindal's display of religiouslity, the conclusion seems inevitable that for Indian-American's seeking public office, being Hindu seems to be a bigger stumbling block than being brown.

argus_nj, i'm busy, so i have little to add of substance, but let me just offer that you are an asshole.

secularism rocks

Bongdongs - true, Bobby Jindal does come to mind.

AMFD - I disagree. Public declarations of faith/religion often work for Christians running for public office, but agnosticism/secularism is the apparent MO for people from other backgrounds who may have public office in mind (e.g. Fareed Zakaria). Perhaps we agree though that this is a problematic double-standard?

since i'm already commenting here, i'll add some nerdy points

1) the term judeo-christian only came into vogue in the late 1940s, and crystallized under will herberg's protestant-catholic-jew trichotomy in the 1950s. so back-projecting "judeo-christian" civilization is rather anachronistic, for most of the 1500 years of post-classical christian civilization jews were aliens and totally marginal to culture generation.

2) the importance of religious profession has varied over the course of US history. i think part of the problem people have is with populism, which started with the expansion to universal sufferage in the early 19th century. remember that the first 3 american presidents after washington were arguably non-christian.* both jefferson and madison were philosophical deists, and in his personal correspondence jefferson was pretty clearly a unitarian in his own opinions. john adams was a unitarian. note that unitarians at this period were considered tentativey christian because they accepted that jesus was a great prophet, but note that that would also apply to many hindus. william howard taft in the early 20th century was also a unitarian. so the emphasis on religious orthodoxy is a new thing.

3) there is geographical variation. i note that supria is running in virgina beach. go check out vote smart and note that one of our members of congress, our governor, and many of our state office holders don't offer up a religious affiliation. this could be an oversight, but part of it is that oregon is about 20% non-religious, and our previous governor, john kitzahber also did not divulge a religious affiliation. so if you want to vote for non-religious politicians, you aren't going to be doing that in the south. but in a place like san francisco or seattle i doubt that a brown hindu would be nearly as disadvantaged.

4) there are stealth ways of getting elected as a secular person. judaism is a religion and ethnicity, and my understanding is that many jews in elected office are not personally believers in god (about 20% of american jews are atheists from what i recall according to the american jewish survey). another way to be a stealth secularist is expressing a unitarian-universalist affiliation. senator bob packwood of oregon was a UU, and i knew someone whose dad was active in oregon UU congregations and knew packwood, and he told me that personally packwood was aligned with the humanist faction of the church (which is non-theistic, to use a euphamism).**

5) prominent early "jewish" politicians like judah benjamin were assimilated to christian culture (i believe benjamin converted). barry goldwater had a jewish father, but was raised episcopalian.

* washington left a far lighter paper trail than adams, jefferson and madison.

** UU is non-creedal. about 40% are athiests last i checked, while others are pagans, and some are christians, etc. american unitarianism is genetically descended from congregational calvinism so it is a nice way to cloak yourself in legit. christian clothes without being christian at heart. it was often a choice for jews in past generations when they wanted to be accepted.

but agnosticism/secularism is the apparent MO for people from other backgrounds who may have public office in mind (e.g. Fareed Zakaria).

can we keep it real? WHILE LIEBERMAN BREAKS "JEWISH BARRIER," POLL REPORTS NEARLY HALF OF AMERICANS WOULD NOT SUPPORT ATHEIST:
The August 8 survey results show that 92% of respondents said they would vote for a "generally well qualified person for president" who happened to be Jewish, with only 6% saying they would oppose such a candidate. Similar percentages are reported when asked how they feel about a Roman Catholic or Baptist candidate as well.

A Mormon candidate generates a 79% approval rating, with 17% saying they would not vote for an LDS member.

Atheists do not fare as well, though, according to the Gallup survey, which finds "close to half of Americans, 48%, unwilling to support an atheist for president while 49% say they would."

also, see this graph, muslims get a 55% fav., atheists get a 35%, from the american public. iz it too mean to point out that aside from tim mcveigh atheists haven't killed as many americans as muslims in terrorist attacks in the past 10 years????

argus_nj, i'm busy, so i have little to add of substance, but let me just offer you my asshole.

Thanks but no thanks. I don't play that game.

Razib - maybe I miscommunicated. What I meant to say is that people from "other" (Islamic, Hindu etc) backgrounds tend to play down their religious affiliations in the public eye.

Also -

1) Excellent point - Arthur A Cohen comments on the same irony! I'd add that the notion of Judeo-Christian civilization ala Alan Bloom and Francis Schaeffer then comes into its own as a fullblown ethnocentrism in the seventies and eighties with the rise of the contemporary evangelical movement.

2) I suspect that a president's religious faith was an object of public scrutiny during the latter Great Awakenings.

"public eye" should read "public political eye"

I mean, you can't get served in a restaurant (let alone be a dog-catcher) unless you swear fealty to Western religious traditions, you know...

You cant get elected dog-catcher in the United States if you are an atheist.

In case anyone is interested, the guy who said this is Harold Bloom, the famous American literary critic (author of the Western Canon). He recently said that the whole idea of a Judeo-Christian "tradition" is a myth, the product of American theologians and political thinkers.

2) I suspect that a president's religious faith was an object of public scrutiny during the latter Great Awakenings.

sure. in fact, jefferson was criticized for his religious tolerance in 1800*. there were speculations about lincoln. i am suggesting that organized evangelicalism simply didn't have veto power. otherwise, you wouldn't have had unitarians like millard filmore or william howard taft be plausible presidents, and lincoln's somewhoat heterodox views and activities were well known (these post-date the second great awakening).

* "It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
-Thomas Jefferson

2) I suspect that a president's religious faith was an object of public scrutiny during the latter Great Awakenings.

sure. in fact, jefferson was criticized for his religious tolerance in 1800*.

I was read in Christopher Hitchen's biography of Jefferson that he strongly opposed the substituting (through an amendment) of "Jesus Christ" for "Almighty God" in the Virginia Constitution. When his side won, he said that the legislators vote was "proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mahommedan, the Hindoo, and the Infidel of every denomination."

mark, jefferson and madison left a big footprint as regards religious freedom in this country, even back from their virginia days. patrick henry and others actually tried to get an explicit reference to christianity as the national religion, and jefferson and madison, along with smaller denominations, blocked that attempt.* and recall that a jewish rabbi was invited to washington's inaguration. see the godless constitution for more of the details of the early years. this is not to say that jefferson and madison would recognize church-state separation as it is today, but, it is to emphasize that the founders were products, by and large, of the anti-clerical enlightenment establishment, and so the federal constitution tends to reflect that, even though today our populace is enthusiastically christian.

* they were scared that "christianity" was just going to be interpreted as the anglican church, which until recently had been the established church of much of the south.

"In case anyone is interested, the guy who said this is Harold Bloom..."

Ha, I just saw this, who'da thunk it, TWICE in one evening, the man gets an appearance on Sepia...

Anna: is thatenough English minor-y goodness for you? (though alas the great Bloom has strayed far from his marriage-of-deconstruction-and-Kabbalah roots over the last decade or two)...

... he implies that she was flaunting her Catholic faith for votes - as if her faith wasn't genuine.

Don't be silly-- of course she's flaunting her faith. That's the M.O. of American politics right now, and that's why it's on her campaign site.

That doesn't mean it's not genuine. She also mentions her family-- you can love your kids and at the same time, trot them out for photo ops.

religions like islam and hinduism are yet to shake their feudalistic attitudes and thus are anti-modern... so, i don't blame americans for requiring a person of judeo-christian background for public office.

Religions like Christianity are yet to shake their anti-science attitudes and are thus anti-modern. So, I don't blame Americans for requiring a person of atheist background for public office.

Does anybody know to which community Supriya belongs? Google was not helpful.

Its funny seeing all this judeo-christian bashing. This similar attitude, rhetoric and language can only be gotten away with in a majority christian country as are most of the democractic, least corrupt countries of the world. People who say they are christian might do stupid things and say stupid things regularly (there the only ones really scrutinized today for what they say) but their christian values protect any non-christian as all people deserve justice not just the religiously privileged sections as in other religions (In Islam the non-muslim, In Hinduism, the non-aryan descended low castes and untouchables). To be fair though, buddhism, sikhism, and possibly jainism are non-judeo christian religion coming up with similar concepts of equality and justice. India regularly has christian bashing (those missionaries forcing everyone to become christian, though no proof for that is every presented and are still barely 2 percent of the population) where non-proveable accusations and insults are regularly paraded in the media.

And using non-typical christians (unitarian, deists, etc.) that were involved in the history of this country to propagate how less christian this country is has a flipside as it could infer that christian majority is more tolerant that portrayed when dealing with non-typical canidates whose values all ultimately come from a christian background.
To answer a couple of things said,
"Thomas Jefferson was critized for his religious tolerance", strange enough it was the Baptist denomination that asked him to ensure separation of church and state, yes those same baptists involved in the evangelical movements that seem so vilified by the "tolerant" people in this group.
Bernard Lewis in his books on Islam states that this idea of separation between Church and State is a uniquely christian quality as was seen as such by islamic civilizations.
A couple of fallacies were mentioned in the anti-christian discussions:
Judah Benjamin did not convert but remained Jewish while in the employ of the Confederacy as the secretary of state and was the highest ranking government official till recently of Jewish descent, ironically in the slave owning racist CSA, go figure. Race might of been more important to them than religious affiliation.

Btw christian abolitionists fought and abolished the race based slave trade ending its few hundred year history, juxtapose that against the 5000 year old caste system, which despite the valiant attempts of numerous movements such as the caste rejecting buddhists, and the syncretic faith Sikhs, ending (officially at least) only after the enligtenment of the christian values of a colonizing country.

A lot of wrongs happened in the west, but no religious grounds could be found for any of the wrongs (Jesus said turn the other cheek, not hang your neighbor, Jesus said there is no Jew or Gentile no Man or Woman, all are one, ala spiritually equal) All the great advancements of human freedom were through judeo christian values directly or indirectly as even Gandhi found his inspiration from christianity, influenced particularly by christian anarchist Tolstoy and later applied jain (not hindu as mistakenly portrary) concepts to interpert them (turn the other cheek, non-violence found its expression in the Jain philosophy of Ahisma)

Christianity unfortunately is too easy of a target as its true followers are very sensitive to any wrong against others, but unfortunately others who enjoy the freedoms of a christian values country, frequently feel they can get away with bashing the faith behind those values.