Manish - an interesting piece you wrote there. Have you read Ronald Inden's "Imagining India"? - brilliantly expounds on some of the points you make earlier in your essay about the obsessive Orientalist perceptions of India. He published a shorter form of the book as an essay in the journal Modern Asian Studies in 1986 - well worth a read.

Would like your opinion on this - despite significant progress on the economic front, it really doesn't appear as though Indian professionals, whether here in N America, or in India, have gained the respect of the mainstream in N America. Even in cheer-leader Thomas Friedman's columns, they are patronized as cho-chweet infantalized capitalists. Why do you think that this is the case?

My favorite lines in the Doonesbury comic that you linked to:

Mike: And his boss hasn't caught on? Bernie: No. Every few weeks Zig has his engineer screw up

yes, I do find it annoying. Especially coming from India.

2 things which drive me up the wall:

1) When random american (usually white) guy/gal talks to me for a while and then finds out I'm a 1-gen: "Oh you don't look/sound Indian at all, that's so amazing!"

That's supposed to be a compliment?

I usually retort with "Oh, you don't look/sound American either".

2) When they see pics of some gorgeous desi actress (think Ash etc) and go "OMG, she's hot! Are you sure she's completely Indian?"

I still have to find a good comeback to that...any suggestions, gals?

Sorry for the rant...just wanted to vent :)

you know what i love? i love how sometimes i read comments on this site... and they are so profound...that i honestly have no idea what they are talking about..
it's all very humbling.

some of you guys make all these points... and i just sit there mouth slack... rereading the comment multiple times trying to figure out what you're saying and looking up all the long words.

=)

I agree with 1) - people would say "oh your english is so good" (this is usually after I tell them I am from India). The retort that I supress with much difficulty is "my english is better than most Americans I come across"

2) One of my Chinese co-students goes ga ga over Indian women. She sees Hindi movies from time to time and thinks that Indian women are the hottest ever - they have the right curves, gorgeous hair and can dance so well :)

At least I can attribute the "your english is so good" comments to ignorance. But what I cannot take is the "you don't look/sound Indian" thing...as if being Indian was something really horrible. WTF???

Well, I guess ultimately it's our fault. The elite within India which makes it an ideal for kids to achieve Western-ness in speech and mannerisms. Someday in India, we will develop the confidence to be Indian and proud of it.

Ok, that was yet another rant :) oops...

One of my Chinese co-students goes ga ga over Indian women. She sees Hindi movies from time to time...

Mr/Ms Piqyyy,

A chinese woman goes ga ga over Indian women???

Mr/Ms Piqyyy

Sorry to burst your balloon, but I think your Chinese friend is only being nice to you. Even an average Indian woman would be outrageously fat by the ridiculous slimness standards that the chinese seem to place on their women.

"OMG, she's hot! Are you sure she's completely Indian?"

I still have to find a good comeback to that...any suggestions, gals?

"I think they genetically engineered her to comply with Western hott-ness standards, but besides that, 100% indian! We indians are very good at science, as you might have heard."

or

"Yes, strange isn't it? Our mothers usually try to give birth to us in ugly trees and make sure we hit every branch on the way down."

or

"I think she's got the same disease Michael Jackson got. But if you mean Indian parents, oh yes, completely."

or

"No, actually. The British colonialist oppressors made sure to breed a super race of paler Indians who would take the reins once the counrty became Independant. They've enslaved the rest of us darkies, but yes, they are hott."

Do your parents own a car?

Actually my father was totally undecided between an elephant and a Maruti 800. He eventually chose the Maruti because it came out in flying colors in emission tests.

True story.

"OMG, she's hot! Are you sure she's completely Indian?"

That's very ignorant and extremely insulting. Like I said before, there is no one indian look (which I luv), no matter how the american media tries to establish one via stereotyping, etc etc. aargh! Indian make good models because of the global ambiguity - can fit so many different global looks, and this has little to do with skin tone/colour.

One guy told me I don't look Indian because quote, "I work with a husband/wife couple and they don't look like you; They have dark under-eye circles". Idiot. And this was a dude who people considered intelligent. He wondered why I never returned his calls - dumbass. All he could really do is regurgitate Hemingway, anyways.

Basically, there are tons and tons of indian hotties, both male and female. But they are rarely perceived as indian (mistaken for everything else, spanish, brazilian, cuban, persian etc) because people don't assume they're indian due to their inane media-generated idea that indians are not attractive. And the fact that they are not recognized as such, further perpetuates this myth, and on and on and on!

....So, all you indian hotties, wear a bindi or kurta next time you go out in all your hot glory. J/K, just give the next person who questions your indianness a swift karate chop to the head. Do it.

Stereotypes exist in every society. Even in India, we have pretty hardcore pre-conceived notions about white people (esp. white women). So it is not surprising that the reverse is also true. The fact that the desi stereotype is appearing more often in mainstream media is an indication that the Indian diaspora is getting more accepted as part of the American society. Chinese and oriental jokes abound in Hollywood movies, cartoon strips and sitcoms. Did anybody see the old South Park episode where they ask the owner of a chinese fast food restaurant is asked to build a wall around south park (since chinese built the Great Wall so they must be good at building walls). The Chinese guy tried hard to build "shitty walls" (in pakka Chinese accent) which were repeatedly brought down by Mongolian warriors. Indian migrants are yet to face that kind of ridiculous stereotypical depiction. But I guess, that is just the American way of saying -"Come on in guys, you are now one of us".

Another good paper, Manish. Just one thing to add:

In some ways, I think stereotyping of Indians is somewhat more difficult to fight than stereotyping of other minorities. While there are plenty of examples to refute the obvious stereotypes, (ie. 1st and 2nd genners are musicians, artists, lawyers, etc. etc. with and without accents), I don't think people automatically look at these examples and say, "INDIAN". This is partly due to the global looks, I mentioned in previous comment; but, also due to the fact that such professions don't fit the indian career stereotype.

Example: If a person walks into a convenience store and sees a person with brown skin working the counter, they automatically assume Indian because that's the stereotype. If same person walks into law office and sees the brown skinned person's twin brother, may not automatically assume indian, because an indian lawyer stereotype doesn't exist... and who knows Jaggi may just be hispanic, right? LOL. Result: stereotype regenerates itself.

A lot of the bad Indian stereotypes are perpetuated by Indians themselves. In contrast, the chinese for example are much more sensitive about stereotypes.

From my limited experience, chinese/asians in general steer clear of conversations about stereotypes. Indians tend to join in the discussions - typically they badmouth other Indians who have lived in the country for a lesser period of time than they have.

But South Park mocks knowingly.

It mocks Americans for having such limited knowledge of other ethnicities and being so bigoted that some don't even realize the insulting implication: "she's really hot. Can she really be from the same part of the world as you, and not perhaps be partly Western?"

Speaking as a whatever gen desi....

Why do straight Indians still get their cheddis in a knot trying to figure out how they should "present" themselves to mainstream America? Just be yourselves.

Camp it up folks. Invite your American friends over for a meal. Kill them with intrinsic Indian curiosity and inclusiveness. They will see beyond the bad haircut.

Check out the gay community. Indians are very welcome...viva diversity....and oh so charming but enigmatic body language.

Neale

thus spake argus

A lot of the bad Indian stereotypes are perpetuated by Indians themselves... Indians tend to join in the discussions - typically they badmouth other Indians ...

I have told you guys that part of my family is Chinese through my brother.>

Indians are their own worst enemies

I never ever seen a Chinese make fun of another Chinese in America, even ABC (American Born Chinese). The Chinese graduate students who were quite westernized would keep quiet (when made fun) or even help/ support FOBs when I was @ grad school.

Same is the case is with French. Try making fun of france in front of someone who has little french blood in them - you will come out with bloodied nose. The office next to mine is a American-French Professor (born and lives in USA and with mother American) - I never seen anyone who more proudly defend France than her. But she likes Peter Sellers - that is a different story.

Neale, it's nice you're so happy-go and all, but did you even read Manish's essay? Stereotyping and discrimination are big problems, and you can hardly make enough sabzi and chapatis for everyone! You may win over an indophile, or two, but for the most part, the masses are ill-informed. The two comic strips in question, are much kinder that what I normally see. So no, these don't enrage me in the least, but they are examples of what people believe browns are. Very tame examples. Read the paper for goodness sake.

(Also, hate to break it to you Neale, but indians are not always so welcome in the gay community, even when they're gay. That's a separate issue itself, but problematic for alot of gay/lesbian/bi visible minorities. End.)

It mocks Americans for having such limited knowledge of other ethnicities and being so bigoted that some don't even realize the insulting implication: "she's really hot. Can she really be from the same part of the world as you, and not perhaps be partly Western?"

Its a sign that Indians are being accepted in American culture yaar..its all good..

Asok reprazents da FOBs yo..hardworking genius Indian IT guy..
Then you have Apu for the convenience store crowd...
and of course Kumar the pot smoking ABCD...from H&K
nice spectrum summing up ... 98% of desis in this country..
now if only we could find a 1 track uncle...

Indians are their own worst enemies

I don't agree. I help out immigrants all the time and will defend to the end. One of many examples: at the airport, the stupid trashy attendant was really giving terrible service (rolling her eyes) at this elderly sikh man; he couldn't understand her, and it didn't help that she was a meanie and thought she could get away with her crappy service and impatient, bitchy voice because she knew that there was little he could do about it. You see, she had a superiority complex. Enter Ang - needless to say trashy, ooglie chick shut up pretty quickly.

I also tried to help out female immigrants from India (and other countries as well) when I was in school. They rarely needed any help with their english skills, but I did teach them how to stick up for themselves, the "system" and karate, etc.

Also, it's not Indians that are writing these lame parts for south asians in movies, comic strips etc. So, blaming it on a few inside jokes, which these writers don't have access to anyways, isn't cool.

i agree with manish.

i had read this piece on his blog when I visited sepia mutiny first few times.

my comment on Chinese/ French was more a general observation.

Ang,

I salute you for your efforts. Very good. However, you are a minority in your behavior.

Kush

Ang,
Beware of analysis paralysis....reading essays and writing about Indianness...jeez...sorry but Indianness cannot be explained in essays...it has to be experienced...that is all i am saying.

Go out and flaunt it.

This sister hates to swing her scissors , unlike her hips :-)

Neale
Neale

I never ever seen a Chinese make fun of another Chinese in America,

You must not know alot of Chinese people then. It happens all the time.

I've observed that people often view members of their own ethnicity as being divided and percieve of people of other ethnicities as being monolitic blocks.

"You must not know alot of Chinese people then. It happens all the time."

Dude, my sister-in-law is Chinese-American. My family friends are Chinese-American professors. I am not talking about stand-up comics. Real people in real houses and am talking in generalities, not nit-picking details and statistics. A lot to do with Confucian culture.

Yeesh.

Lighten up, people. To those of you who think mocking desis in public is a bad thing, you're wrong. Laughing at ourselves is a very important skill.

Never look to the French for behavior role models, by the way.

You may never see a Chinese person make fun of another Chinese person, but I have. And I've seen Koreans, Vietnamese, Nigerians, Lithuanians, Serbs, Croats, Brits, Italians, and all the rest make fun of their own cultures. It's not shocking. It's great fun. As often as not, it shows us our own foibles, and even the common idiotic ground that underlies all humanity.

Making fun of an accent or a trait is not the huge cause for alarm people seem to think it is. We're a stronger set of communities than that.

i have had several friends who are taiwanese or from northern china demand that we leave a public place when a group of cantonese speakers show up. they claim that it is too hard on their ears because the cacophany is too twangy and harsh on their ears....

Salil,

You misunderstood me. I also did not present myself clearly.

I am all up for having fun though ourselves and by others too. Ask Manish, I even support Peter Sellers and Rudyard Kipling. We openly disagreed a few months ago. I do not whether you visited Sepia Mutiny back then. Yet, I respect Manish's viewpoint.

I was more commenting on something more sublime - I was looking for empathy with a fellow men. It doesn't have to be Indian- it could be Korean, European et al.

Even in India, upper class/ caste have very little empathy for ones below. Don't you agree. People in India die on streets and others walk by nonchalantly.

Beware of analysis paralysis....reading essays and writing about Indianness...jeez...sorry but Indianness cannot be explained in essays...it has to be experienced...that is all i am saying.

First of all, if it wasn't obvious already from my various musings, I'm not white, so yes, I have experience as a brown. Furthermore, I don't read essays and take them as true: I read them, then ask questions, add/compare my own experience, or other similar data. That's called critical thinking, not over-analysis. Finally, I read the essay before knocking it or what others have to say.

On that note, I do have a question for Manish. Where did you get that data about more racism in Canada/UK than the U.S.?
--------

Kush,

I'm sorry you've had bad experiences with other Indians, but really, I have seen people come together in times of need. I understand my unique position of having some cultural background and understanding for fellow indians, whether of indian background or indian-born; thus it makes sense for me to help such a person if required. Now, I probably won't go out of my way to just converse with a person, just because they are of the same background (especially if they are of the opposite sex), but if my help is needed, I'll be there. I think alot of people, here, feel the same.

I'm not sure if you are referring to the judgemental stance that alot of Indian parents have (but not all) that Bong Breaker pointed out in a previous posting? But maybe that has something to do with why some indians may ignore other indians???? Maybe there is just too much pressure with judging lest you be judged, so it's easier to ignore others??? That would be a stressful lifestyle.

Or, maybe you are referring to social issues??? I don't know, just speculating. Like I said, I really don't go out of my way to talk to someone who is brown: there has to be more than that. This forum is unique, in that respect.

Even in India, upper class/ caste have very little empathy for ones below. Don't you agree. People in India die on streets and others walk by nonchalantly.

I hardly doubt this is unique to India. In Canada, people ignore the deplorable living conditions on alot of aboriginal reserves. I'm not saying that huge improvements don't have to be made (I hate the argument of well things are worse elsewhere, or the lesser of two evil arguments) but that attitude is not unique to India.
----------

Now back to my original point: It's not Indians that are writing these lame parts for south asians in movies, comic strips etc. So, blaming it on a few inside jokes, which these writers don't have access to anyways, isn't cool.
---

ahaha - just read the vij's essay and the pledge of dual allegiance -
there's another doc out there you might find interesting. Here's an excerpt

(1) It is hereby declared to be the policy of the Government of Canada to

(a) recognize and promote the understanding that multiculturalism reflects the cultural and racial diversity of Canadian society and acknowledges the freedom of all members of Canadian society to preserve, enhance and share their cultural heritage;

(b) recognize and promote the understanding that multiculturalism is a fundamental characteristic of the Canadian heritage and identity and that it provides an invaluable resource in the shaping of Canada's future;

(c) promote the full and equitable participation of individuals and communities of all origins in the continuing evolution and shaping of all aspects of Canadian society and assist them in the elimination of any barrier to that participation;

(d) recognize the existence of communities whose members share a common origin and their historic contribution to Canadian society, and enhance their development;

(e) ensure that all individuals receive equal treatment and equal protection under the law, while respecting and valuing their diversity;

(f) encourage and assist the social, cultural, economic and political institutions of Canada to be both respectful and inclusive of Canada's multicultural character;

(g) promote the understanding and creativity that arise from the interaction between individuals and communities of different origins;

(h) foster the recognition and appreciation of the diverse cultures of Canadian society and promote the reflection and the evolving expressions of those cultures;

(i) preserve and enhance the use of languages other than English and French, while strengthening the status and use of the official languages of Canada; and

(j) advance multiculturalism throughout Canada in harmony with the national commitment to the official languages of Canada.

I agree with 1) - people would say "oh your english is so good" (this is usually after I tell them I am from India). The retort that I supress with much difficulty is "my english is better than most Americans I come across"

This happened to me once, at a job interview. The HR person who was interviewing me said "Your English is very good" and I couldn't hold it back, I ended up saying "Thank you, so is yours”..lol.. didn’t go down too well. Didn’t get the job, but hey I still have my gonads.

I may be stating the obvious here, but I don’t think making fun of your own community is a bad thing. It’s not just something that happens here in the Sates, with regard to FOBs and ABCDs. It happens in India too, among the cool kids and the geeks, even on main stream TV. I remember seeing Ads on MTV India with a character called Quick Gun Murugun (they were hilarious). Anyway, as long as it’s in good fun, I think its all good. However, people who try do distance themselves from people who they perceive are beneath them with regard to coolnes, because they derive a lot from a culture that may not be perceived as cool in America..thats bullshit.

It happens in India too, among the cool kids and the geeks, even on main stream TV

it's the entire premise behind "Jassi Jaise Koi Nahin"...

the basic point about "is she/he indian" is colorism

colorism has got to go. not to lambast anyone because we'd all do it. we're not even the only ethnicity to do it. but the basic thing is, colorism has got to be examined, discussed, and then, its got to go

there's another world out there where we're not all trying to be something we are not. a world without colorism

people would say "oh your english is so good" (this is usually after I tell them I am from India)

For this sometimes I say,

"You know what, When I was in Mars people there said the same thing, I am very glad that you have the same opinion".

Some people do laugh at it.

it's the entire premise behind "Jassi Jaise Koi Nahin"...

There's also a gender thing there, methinks. If there was a guy who was a total nerd/dork like Jassi, that might not be considered that bad.

I grew up being a complete geek/nerd/dork in India, and the reason I did not feel the need to be otherwise was that it got me all the attention and adulation from everyone. Among kids, I guess the stigma against being a nerd is not that strong in many Indian middle-class schools as it is in the US. And that was probably the biggest shock for me when I came to the US, that just being smart/educated don't mean much here, it's all about social skills.

That was a digression. My point was that a female nerd like Jassi probably does not earn that much respect as her male equivalent in India so Jassi might not be the right example.

I think almost every desi on an F-1 visa can relate to the whole ' your english is sooo good' thing'.

I experienced it at the airport itself, being asked the question by two sweet old british ladies who were standing in line with me. It being the first time, I launched into a long winded explanation of the legacies of colonialism and the Raj, but have hence learnt to shrug it off with a smirk.

people would say "oh your english is so good" (this is usually after I tell them I am from India)

I dont think its that unreasonable or weird or condescending to compliment foreigners on their command of English especially when English is not their mother tongue.
It is of course problematic when kids born and raised in the US are complimented on their english skills.

people would say "oh your english is so good" (this is usually after I tell them I am from India)

I dont think its that unreasonable or weird or condescending to compliment foreigners on their command of English especially when English is not their mother tongue.

Ofcourse its not condescending. What is ridiculous is that in India, Indians feel ashamed at not knowing English. It will extremely rare for a FOB to admit that English is his/her second language and they may not be as comfortable in it as native people of US. Its the effing slave mentality that just wont go ... (IMO, of course)

When they see pics of some gorgeous desi actress (think Ash etc) and go "OMG, she's hot! Are you sure she's completely Indian?"

Over the years, I have heard the same crap about Koreans, Blacks and the Chinese from sometimes very liberal and 'wordly' white americans.

Unfortunately, I have even seen/heard fellow desis also pull the same crap when speaking about Sri Lankans, Tamils, Keralites and Bangladeshis.

it's the entire premise behind "Jassi Jaise Koi Nahin"...

If there was a guy who was a total nerd/dork like Jassi, that might not be considered that bad.

Yes, but Jassi has now been turned into a "cool" character, with different reactions from people in comparison to her previous persona. Same situation as with Dwayne Wayne in A Different World all those years ago.

Unless Sony TV is behind in its episodes of Jassi compared to the UK and India, and you haven't seen her transformation yet.....

Ofcourse its not condescending. What is ridiculous is that in India, Indians feel ashamed at not knowing English. It will extremely rare for a FOB to admit that English is his/her second language and they may not be as comfortable in it as native people of US.

Yet again, RC speaks truth to power!
RC, I agree with you. I have noticed the same trend.

It is of course problematic when kids born and raised in the US are complimented on their english skills.

What?!! You mean if you're not the default (white) you can't speak perfect English? Or, if you are not the default, you can't have been born here? Amazing!

LOL. "What country are you from? Seriously, what country are you from? I mean where are your parents from? No, where are your grandparents from?"

Not white = can't possibly be American, Canadian, etc. My parents are brown - how did you think I'd pop out? White? Just cuz I'm born in the west?

Are these questions really asked to advance the person's, who is asking them understanding? No, because there are never any follow-up questions - a dead giveaway regarding their motives. The question is asked so that person can systematically identify and group you in a comfortable schema (err... stereotype) in his/her head. Alot of people do this, but this is just plain lazy. I can smell this a mile away and I refuse to answer such questions on a case by case basis, of course.

I am not confused about my identity whatseover, but everyone else is.

What is ridiculous is that in India, Indians feel ashamed at not knowing English. It will extremely rare for a FOB to admit that English is his/her second language

I think you ARE making a big mistake here. A lot of 'FOBs' do grow up with English as some sort of "first language", mayble not the native tongue.

For me (a 'FOB'), I grew up speaking Bengali with my parents, but using English liberally in it. I learnt English almost simultaneously with Bengali. I dunno how you'd define 2nd language. I think of English as one of my 'native' languages. I can express myself much better and comfortably in English than in any other language.

I am not always comfortable with American slang, which doesn't mean I am not comfortable with English.

Yes I agree that English is considered a sign of education and upper-classness in India, it is also treated as an "Indian" and not a "foreign" language by many people.

So no, I am a 'FOB' and I WILL NOT "admit" that I am not comfortable with English. Take that however you want...

I dont think its that unreasonable or weird or condescending to compliment foreigners

Not when that foreigner has been using English all of his/her life.

I seriously doubt those very same people would compliment someone from France for their English.

Wrap your head around this, my friends (RC and AM). Many people do grow up in Indian cities with English as a "first" language.

And I don't agree with fellow desis who make similar statements about other nationalities.

Sorry if my posts sound a bit virulent, I think this topic hits a raw nerve. And listening to M.I.A while posting this isn't really helping my composure:)

I seriously doubt those very same people would compliment someone from France for their English.

I have seen White Americans compliment Europeans for their english skills numerous times. I am not sure why do you believe that a French or a German person who speaks fluent albeit accented english would not get compliments for their english skills. I have seen it too many times to know that it happens quite frequently.

Wrap your head around this, my friends (RC and AM). Many people do grow up in Indian cities with English as a "first" language.

I am not necessarily disputing your assertion. But we all know that an overwhelming majority of Indians do not speak English as a first languae so its perfectly reasonable for an American to compliment the very tiny minority of Indians who do in fact speak good english.

Those of us from the 2nd-Generation in the UK don't get so much hassle about our ability to speak English, but our parents certainly do. Maybe a little less these days, but definitely until about 10 years ago many of the locals would either speak to them excessively slowly & loudly or would ask them openly "Do you speak English ?".

It was particularly bad in the case of Indian mothers who happened to prefer wearing saris or salwaar-kameezes, although some of the fathers would also end up being on the receiving end of such treatment (which would be particularly ironic if your father happened to be a highly-educated professional such as a doctor, chartered accountant etc).

With regards to the "you don't look Indian" issue, I think it's because there's a lot of assumptions made about what the "average" Indian actually looks like, and the amount of information the Western media would project in these areas was fairly limited until the recent increasingly-high profile of Bollywood (at least here in the UK). The dominant images people would see would be a) poverty and b) the fact that most of the Indians concerned would look more "black" than Caucasian. The fact that there is a huge amount of racial diversity within the Indian population isn't something people were exposed to, despite the fact that a Hispanic/Persian-looking person from north India is actually as "Indian" as his/her darker counterparts.

Wrap your head around this, my friends (RC and AM). Many people do grow up in Indian cities with English as a "first" language.

I grew up in Indian city (several cities) too. None of the cities had English as its main language. I dont have actual numbers but less than 10% people in India are comfortable in English. So It would be a DEVIATION from norm if some Indian FOB has English as his/her native language.

Unfortunately, I have even seen/heard fellow desis also pull the same crap when speaking about Sri Lankans, Tamils, Keralites and Bangladeshis.

Or speaking TO Sri Lankans...This Indian guy assumed I was Indian too (which is fine in itself, btw. Close enough, yaar?) and when I said "Sri Lankan" he not only looked shocked, he kept insisting that I couldn't be. (not so fine, btw.)

He had met other Sri Lankans, he said. And I didn't look like them, he said. I looked more "Indian," he said. I couldn't be SL, he said, because "You're not as dar...I mean, your feautures are sharper.. I mean, more North Ind.."

nice.

He started off thinking he was complimenting me, but faltered when he saw my eyebrows climb up into my hairline.

Some of us Southies are very happy being not-sharp featured darkies. Thank you, come again!

"You're not as dar...I mean, your feautures are sharper.. I mean, more North Ind.."

Maybe Razib can enlighten us on whether there is a preference for 'sharper features' in different cultures along with some data on that.

Manish,

Just finished reading your rather excellent essay that you provided a link to. Not sure if you have read Rajiv Malhotra's, Ramesh Rao's or Sankrant Sanu's essays on Sulekha and Infinity Foundation, but if you have not, you should. They have taken the debate to the next level.

My take on this issue is that we should fight this stereotyping not because it hurts us, but because it will hurt them in the long run. As Americans (or Brits as the case may be), we need to get the point across that they should view India and Indians not through the eyes of ossified professors of South-Asian departments, but through the actions of common Indians everywhere. We need to tell them that they should do this for their own benefit, because India is becoming increasingly important in the global marketplace, they or someone close to them will eventually have to deal with Indians on a personal/business level. If they fall back the caste-cow-curry theory from south-asian departments, they will definitely screw up in their interaction with Indians. On the other hand, if they broaden their horizons, both will come out ahead. Co-operation is the key, and accurate, up-to-date knowledge is necessary for co-operation.

I am about to start a debate with the folks who prescribe history text books in my school district. I plan to challenge them on the oft-repeated drivel around the (mythical) Aryan-Invasion theory and the Dravidian-Aryan artificial divide that was introduced by Max Mueller. Americans are very amenable to debate, and I plan to convince them to eventually remove this from the school district's text books. Hindus from Maryland have already started this process.

M. Nam

I grew up in Indian city (several cities) too. None of the cities had English as its main language. I dont have actual numbers but less than 10% people in India are comfortable in English

True...but 10% is a pretty big number of people (I know, I know, any % is a big number wrt India).

Yes, it's not a "native" language, but it's not a second language in the sense that most people imply in the US. I did not start studying English in school, but pretty much about the same time that I started with Bengali. Of course, my parents are not native speakers of English, so that makes a difference. But I consider my upbringing to be bilingual. It's not that uncommon, especially in big cities like Bombay.

Again, I do not intend this to be any sort of class-war judgement ("uppity" vs "vernacular" or that sorta stuff). Just wanted to point out that there are many people (a minority for sure) who do grow up with English as a "native" tongue, or close.

It is unfortunate that English is a source of class-warfare in India, but I see it as just another "Indian" language.

So It would be a DEVIATION from norm if some Indian FOB has English as his/her native language.

Not native, but first language.

1st genners in the US/UK/Canada typically arrive as students/researchers. English is the lingua franca of the academic world. Hence it follows they speak/write good English; not a deviation from the norm.

And we haven't even begun to discuss the 4000 word GRE wordlist that everyone has to cram for grad school.

I don't really think there is a huge difference between most browns. Sure, regional differences, exist, but where don't they? Some people are so sure that they can tell who's who, but I for one, am completely confused and have decided that I don't care; so many people defy what they are supposed to look like according to the stereotypes. Isn't Ash Tamil? Doesn't she have sharp features? Yes, so you see, the ideas that people have, when tested, aren't valid. There is no hard and fast line or divide. And when you come over here, you're all brown anyhoo. I realize there are superiority ideas in India about north and south, but I think those are ill-founded ideas. I've met white people who have known indian people who have fed said white people with stupid ideas like northies have more caucasian features. There may be a superiority complex here.

BTW, why are less-sharp features considered less caucasian? That's dumb. So cute little french girls with "soft, un-sharp" flatter noses aren't caucasian? Please, let's not care about this.

Manish and MN

I agree completely that there cannot be South Asian studies without South Asians involved. Also, that US academia seems to have more than its fair share of "ossified" professors and hippie-turned academics who love to dwell on "oedipal instincts of Rama".

But I have to point out that this kind of psychoanalysis of religious texts is pretty standard in the field of religious studies in general. And not all modern academics (white or brown) are doing it out of some wierd sense of tiltillation or the colonial 19th century mindset.

Contemporary critical and academic study of Indian religions is definitely not that prevalent in India (please correct me if I'm mistaken), and we Indians have a tendency to bowdlerize our own religious texts to ridiculous limits, denying the existence of sexual and other "prohibited" themes in our culture. This is a cause or effect of our own cultural denial of various sexual and social phenomena.

Anyway, my point is that both sides of this study are important in the interest of academic study and culture preservation, so that some of the most interesting aspects of Indian and Hindu culture are not lost to the shredders of nationalistic censorship.

Why am I talking so much about this? I recently interviewed Dr. Jeff Kripal for a Houston public radio show on South Asian issues. This is a "white" hindu scholar who is often targeted by Indian scholars (like Rajiv Malhotra on Sulekha, who calls Jeff "Wendy's Child") for his sexually-charged interpretations of mystic phenomena. Here's the link, if anyone wishes to listen. Preparing for this interview, and reading a lot of the literature in these fields proved to be eye-opening for me.

Ok, this comment is too long now...

Isn't Ash Tamil?

She's Konkani.

technophobicgeek,

>>who calls Jeff "Wendy's Child") for his sexually-charged interpretations of mystic phenomena

Jeff and Wendy are not at the receiving end because they have come up with sexually-charged interpretations of Hinduism's various facets. They have every right to interpret Hinduism as they see fit.

They have been challenged because they refuse to entertain any other interpretation of Hinduism, especially in South-Asian studies. They invalidate the experiences and beliefs of common Hindus, and demand that only their view of Hinduism be taught everywhere. They want to Monotheise Hinduism.

For eg:

Can Ganesha's trunk be interpreted as a limp-phallus? Sure. Anything can be interpreted as anything else.

Do 99.99% of Hindus think of Ganesha in this manner? No. They think of Ganesha as a cute son of Shiva-Parvati who removes obstacles in their lives.

When Ganesha is introduced to impressionable school kids in the West, which is the version that should be taught? The version that's been the predominant one for millenia, or the version that's been concocted a couple of decades ago which has not withstood any debate(RISA is a closed list, unlike SM or Sulekha)?

Which American will be more competent, and less hostile when dealing with Indians in terms of outsourcing, BPO's, biotechnology etc? One who is taught that Hindus worship a god who has a limp phallus for a nose, or one who worships Ganesha as a god of good luck?

Isn't it more beneficial for Americans to see these things from a common Indian's perspective, rather than Jeff/Wendy's?

M. Nam

This is a little mean but funny.

::Isn't Ash Tamil?
:She's Konkani.

Not quite. She's Tuluva.

M. Nam

She's Konkani.

Konkan is a region in Karnataka, which can include Mangalore (a port city), when you say someone is Konkani, you're saying the person's mother tongue is Konkani.

Ash's mother tongue is Tulu, the language of the Mangalorean Bunts, M. Catholics, and M. Muslims. Many Bunts have been migrated to Bombay generations ago.

Thanks for the corrections. We are all surprisingly painstaking ethnographers when it comes to the Rai.

Dude, my sister-in-law is Chinese-American. My family friends are Chinese-American professors. I am not talking about stand-up comics. Real people in real houses and am talking in generalities, not nit-picking details and statistics.

You said you had 'never' seen a Chinese American badmouth a fellow Chinese, if you meant in general Indians are more likely to do it than the Chinese then I might have agreed with you.

Also I was talking about 'real' working class people, not academics, and again it does happen all the time (possibly not as much as with Indians).

1st genners in the US/UK/Canada typically arrive as students/researchers. English is the lingua franca of the academic world. Hence it follows they speak/write good English; not a deviation from the norm.

This is a popular MYTH that everyone who comes to America to study is fluent in English. I have quite a few very bright Chinese co-workers that dont fit in that characterization. My Professors in Grad school, who were non-Indians were also those who probably didnt get "your english is so good" compliment.

Because "Your English is so good" means your spoken English not the ability to write in it.

Not really, couldn't care less about The Rai. Only know it cuz she's from my tiny community. My own personal obsession is Vidya Balan.

But yer onto something. There is something peculiar in finding succor in the accomplishments (or physical beauty) in someone who happens to share your (sub)ethnicity.

There is something peculiar in finding succor in the accomplishments (or physical beauty) in someone who happens to share your (sub)ethnicity.

Very true. An example: when news of Arun Nayar dating Liz Hurley broke, feverish discussions ensued on a desi message board. Then some poster pointed out that it was Nayar (probably Punjaby) and not "Nair". The discussions died in no time.

I dont think we should ever complain about being "stereotypical"ized. I think we Indians are the leaders in such a field. Ex. When I did show a few of my desi friends a snap of my girl friend, they went "She doesnt look Madrasi". We are by nature a community which laughs and mocks at other regions/castes/communities-Ex. we tend to associate that all African-Americans are dangerous.

We are by nature a community which laughs and mocks at other regions/castes/communities...

You're stereotyping.

I have quite a few very bright Chinese co-workers that dont fit in that characterization. My Professors in Grad school, who were non-Indians were also those who probably didnt get "your english is so good" compliment.

Absolutely. But we are talking about Indians in the US in the context of the post above.

Because "Your English is so good" means your spoken English not the ability to write in it.

Note that I talked about English in general. The 'your English is good' comment also applies to writing.

Ex. we tend to associate that all African-Americans are dangerous.

Yeah. That Halle Berry is one dangerous sista.

I am...because...

"We are by nature a community which laughs and mocks at other regions/castes/communities..."

:)

Nice post though..

Isn't it more beneficial for Americans to see these things from a common Indian's perspective, rather than Jeff/Wendy's?

Common practice and academic study of religion are vastly different things. the problem is that they tend to get conflated, especially while discussing "foreign" religions.

Again, a view that is "prevelant for millenia" in common practice of a religion does not necessarily render it immune to critical analysis, no matter what religion it might be.

Rather than tending to censor and suppress academic analysis (whether it's palatable or not) it is important to emphasize the popular practice of the religion and make sure that gets conveyed equally. Hence the need for South Asian scholars.

That being said, I did not get the sense of "monotheising" Hinduism from any of Kripal's books that I read. I've not read any of Wendy's work. I get the impression that you, like myself before the reading, are drawing your impressions from the Sulekha discussions.

re: english is good.

as some note, we need to decompose this into indian brown vs. non-indian brown by upbringing (indian as nationality, not race/ethnicity).

i have lived in 90-99% white areas for the last 15 years, and an 85% white area for the 8 years prior to that. my experience is that

1) the number of times people tell me "my english is good" or "you have no accent!" has dropped a lot as a function of time. i.e., circa 1985, i probably got this at least once every few weeks somewhere. circa 2005 i get this about once every year.

2) over time the type of person who comments on my english fluency has changed. in 1985, it would have been everyone, my age and up (i was in elementary school). today, it is almost always older people, 40-50 and up, and, quite often people who likely have less education.

3) so, as awareness of browns has grown, and our frequency has grown, this has become less of an issue.

4) i am curious if anyone else has noticed this tendency.

p.s. the same trend is noticeable for the "where are you from?" question. and usually, the question is now phrased as, "what part of india is your family from?" or, "ah, by your name your family is from pakistan, right?" (actually, bangladesh, but anyhow....)

tpg:

>>Common practice and academic study of religion are vastly different things. ...especially while discussing "foreign" religions.

Interesting that you brought this up. One of the objections that were brought against Wendy and others was that all other South Asian religions were portrayed as the common practitioners saw their own religion, except for Hinduism! SA scholars dealt sub-continental Islam with kid-gloves (even after 911),Buddhism was portrayed exactly as common Buddhists in Bhutan/SL practised it, Jainism was discussed with reverence, Sikhism was taught as the Sikh gurus meant it to be. All, except Hinduism which was trashed left, right and centre.

>>a view that is "prevelant for millenia" in common practice of a religion does not necessarily render it immune to critical analysis...

True. Relgions should be questioned constantly. Hinduism has been subjected to critical analysis both from within and without for millennia. Hindus welcome criticism. Now, please point me to any critical analysis that SA depts have subjected Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, Islam, Christianity or Judaism.

>>Rather than tending to censor and suppress academic analysis

Ulta chor kotwal ko Dante...

It is Wendy and her children who have been suppressing alternate viewpoints!! Not the other way around!!

M. Nam

i've been reading this post all morning, and everyone seems to just be arguing about which points are more true. I think we all agree that sterotyping sucks, but its human nature, and will always be a conflict within society. All i'm saying is that instead of arguing about if aishwarya rai has non sharp features, why don't people come up with positive things that can be done to reduce the stereotyping of desis. I for one have no clue, indians and non-indians alike always say to me, wow you're not like the other indians i know, and then come up with reasons why i don't fit their stereotype. I think the biggest reason is simply ignorance and that they really haven't been around enough desis.

Anyone have solutions? Cause these days i just say i'm Brazilian, so instead of questions about eating snakes and outsourcing, they ask me about surfing, Carnivale, and futbol.

Razib

Totoally agree with all your observations.

Mine are very similar.

Sumita

1st genners in the US/UK/Canada typically arrive as students/researchers. English is the lingua franca of the academic world. Hence it follows they speak/write good English; not a deviation from the norm.

Absolutely. But we are talking about Indians in the US in the context of the post above.

You never mentioned, that your sweeping statement was only meant for Indians. Why should an American talking to someone who has an accent know the culture and other details of the country that person comes from ??

How many Indians would know which language they speak in Eastern Tajikistan ??

Besides any of the exuses given so far doesnt explain the "shame" factor in Indians about not knowing English. But I dont think that will ever be addressed, unfortunately.

re: english as a brown language. in particular, piqued by the reference to a "slave mentality." my understanding from the literature is that in parts of southern india english is preferred as the elite lingua franca specifically as a way to block the rise of standard hindi with the perception that it is a more "neutral" language for elite discourse. this brings me to my point that generalizations about 1.25 billion people (all brown countries) can be dicey. as someone of muslim background (i.e., name, family, etc.) but brown phenotype i have had to deal with the "do you worship cows?" a lot more than i am comfortable with, partly because i am not affiliated with that tradition, but usually because they then go on to make fun of hindus at which point i have to make a decision whether to "defend" the beliefs of other browns (usually my tactic, as i have noted before, is to simply ridicule religion in the generality because i don't think "worshipping cows" is less rational than worshipping a dead man on a cross, and that turns the discussion in another direction where i am on 'home ground'). but in relation to british imperialism, and some of the impressions of commenters here, it makes me wonder: do we have a model where we simply related to the british as unbracketed brown, or do you have a model where we relate the british to multiple partly independent brown cultures and subgroups? clearly on some level the british did view the browns as one, yet on other levels not necessarily (i.e., martial races vs. non-martial races). i am wondering about this because obviously there is a general consensus that the british screwed the browns, but, would anyone be willing to entertain the possibility that some groups benefited vis-a-vi other browns because of british patronage? i am thinking of, for example, dalit soldiers who attained higher status because of their service in the british army, and who boldly walked into "high caste" areas of madras/chennai with their weapons and dared to the brahmins to kick them out. also, as someone of muslim background i am aware that many muslims were skeptical about transferring british christian rule for the rule of indian elites who would predominantly be hindu (ergo, pakistan).

my overall point is that obviously a weblog is not a good forum for nuance, and i don't consider myself a participant in brown culture (my interest here is more personal and intellectual, not cultural, so to speak), but it seems to be that in the generation of a common identity differences get elided over which might diminish the ability to form a coherent stance on a given issue (i.e., brown rule is preferable to british rule, which might hold for the majority, but perhaps not muslims or dalits, depending on how you looked at it). as a matter of course i think that the creation of a "pan-desi" identity is going to result in the erasing of differences and a compressing of the narrative, but, i hope that people acknowledge that dissenters who wish to maintain their differences, and still be accepted as authentically brown (i don't make any pretense to being brown in anything but genetics, though i have plenty of cultural residuals), are not necessarily "self-hating" for espousing a position, x, y, z.... rather, they are different?

Now, please point me to any critical analysis that SA depts have subjected Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, Islam, Christianity or Judaism.

I'm not a religious studies student, far from it, so I'd have to do some research.

Of the top of my head: I'd recommend Kripal's book "Roads of excess: palaces of wisdom", in which he discusses five different mystics from five religions (Hinduism, Islam, Catholicism etc) plus his own mystical experiences, in order to make certain points about mysticism and sexuality in general.

That's another point I think I should mention: many of these scholars deal with mystical traditions (eg: tantra in Hinduism/Buddhism, Sufism in Islam) which are inherently intertwined with sexuality. Mystic traditions typically are counter to common practice of a religion.

I'd be glad to ask friends in that field for more references with regd to Islam and other religions for you. They assure me that there are tons and tons of such literature.

Most reputed Universities would have religious studies (not theology) departments which carry out precisely the same function. I recommend a web lookup.

In fact, I'd be interested to see instances of critical analysis of Hinduism from within too, particularly in contemporary times. Could you supply me with any references?

Interesting discussion. The desi community is just beginning to flower in the US; before it was small and a bit of a curiosity. Perceptions change as the community gains prominence. I mean, if one of you met someone from, say, Tonga, would you be able to say anything intelligent about it? A person can't know everything.

*No one non-desi ever gets that I'm desi. It's to the point that as a kid I felt uncomfortable with desis - I didn't think I looked 'right', I didn't have the 'right' hair, I didn't fit, I so desperately wanted to look like the other kids of Indian heritage I knew. Sometimes the minority community can create the feeling of 'other'. Even today, at the dentist, the woman said, "Oh, you're Indian? You don't look Indian. Your color and features don't look Indian." This is a Russian immigrant living in Boston, who has formed an idea of what a person born in India should look like. It used to kind of bother me, and now I just let it go.

love the Sepia Martini banner today :D
/interruption>

my overall point is that obviously a weblog is not a good forum for nuance

>>I'd be interested to see instances of critical analysis of Hinduism from within too, particularly in contemporary times...

Some names come to mind: Jiddu Krishnamurthy, UR Ananta Murthy, Kanchi Shankaracharya(the one who was arrested), SriSri Ravi Shankar etc etc

All of these have spoken out against casteism, blind worship, lack of philosophical interest among contemporary Hindus etc. Some of them have spoken against specific instances of epics where Rama/Krishna etc erred in their ways, and how those behaviours are irrelevant in modern times.

M. Nam

oh, and cocoapuffs, I think one way to combat stereotypes is to be vigorously involved in the larger culture; not to self-ghettoize or turn-inward.

I think one way to combat stereotypes is to be vigorously involved in the larger culture; not to self-ghettoize or turn-inward.

Amen to that!

ITA Razib. Yet people seem to hash out the same damn boring arguments.

...in response to the same boring topics over and over again :-)

And cicatrix, thanks for the suggested comebacks at the beginning of this discussion...might even try them out.

I would limply quibble with the phrase "way to block the rise of standard hindi". I think the four southern states with their four (major) languages would take just as much umbrage the imposition of another southern states' language. The Tamilians certainly are legendary in their own (justified) linguistic chauvinism.

no need to be such an anti-Semantite...

Maybe Razib can enlighten us on whether there is a preference for 'sharper features' in different cultures along with some data on that.

for the sake of time, i will not offer references, but, you can find much of the information i present in survival of the prettiest, or why sex matters, and for the more evolutionary genetic topics, please see the books listed first on my weblog book list.

many topics have been hit on this thread relating to looks. so, a few comments.

preface: these will be statistical assertions with a range of variance, not deterministic projections.

skin color

1) with a given population, controlling for environment, males tend to be about 10% darker, i.e., their untanned skin reflectance is about 10% lower than females.

2) as a function of time, women tend to be palest after puberty, but before their first pregnancy, or before their mid-20s (which ever comes first). women also tend to darken more with menopause.

3) 80% of cultures surveyed seem to have a preference for light skin in the female gender (see david buss). additionally, this preference in the americas predates european hegemony. in places like east asia, it predates european contact, and, is not correlated with other "european" traits (i.e., before westernization there was an aversion to non-black hair, non-epicanthic eyelids, european features, etc., as typified by the indo-european peoples of what is today northern xinjiang).

4) there seems to be some correlation between testosterone and melanocytes, and some negative correlation between estrogen and melanocytes. that is, the hormonal pathways have a networked cascade where they seem to modulate the paths downstream melanocortin 1 receptor. roughly, within a population, not only are males darker and females lighter, but extremely masculine males (strong jaws, robust bone structure) will be darker, while extreme pale females may be paler (this second contention is more tentative, though there has been research which suggests frequency of fertilization and estrogen levels are strongly correlated).

5) these correlations might not correlate themselves, so you can't make definitive assertions. more research needs to be done, and the possible correlation structure needs to be eludicated (because we know some of the details of hormonal networks and the effect of given hormones it seems plausible that there will be correlation between some of these trends). but, let us assume correlations....

that implies that within a given population males should attempt to target the palest females (all things being equal) and that females should target the darker males (all things being equal) to maximize fitness. if you like old women, you are less likely to have children since they are less fertile. so, "avoid old women" should over time be selected for (this is one that i have a hard time imagining not being selected for, since i know of no old-women-are-hot-sex-bomb-cultures, or record of any). older women are darker than nubile young women, so darkness, along with skin texture, gray hair or not, etc. are indicates of age. with men, things are reversed, if, for example mating with a 12 or 13 year old means your children will have lower survivorship as a woman because your "man" can't help around the camp, you might want to avoid those, and, it is known that boys are paler (for example, blonder), than older, more mature, males. this would imply that there would be an equilibrium, though over time might assume that hormone dependent modifier genes would show up which turn on "get dark" if the fetus is a male and turn on "get light" if the fetus is a female. modifier genes take a long time to develop under directional selection pressure, which i doubt has happened. so it is all too messy to make a straight line generalizations.

additionally, 6) there are environmental constraints on the range of color within a population. dark skinned peoples, with africans being the most extreme, but indians, etc. also falling under still, are still under constraint so that only one or two alleles (gene variants) are exhibited that control color variation. in other words, most of the variation isn't due to the gene that controls color itself, but buffering during development via environment and other genetic factors. this is why intrapopulation color differences are important: they cue you into other aspects of the person's health and vigor. but interpopulation differences are not very relevant, because most of that is controlled by the color gene in question (there are many, though MC1R is the main locus of interest right now). europeans are what is called a "relaxed selection" population, there are about 30 variants floating around, suggesting that mutation has random walked many europeans to loss-of-function. this makes sense because dark skin protects against harsh sun, but if there isn't harsh sun, the gene is likely to degrade. also, you are aware of issues relating to folic acid and vitamin D synthesis which might benefit the loss of function for dark skin. east asians seem to have light skin because one variant is being selected, i.e., same feature (pale skin), different mode.

7) but in many cultures (japan, india, china) light skin is preferred in males. why? the answers here are probably higher order cultural issues. in china the ideal male is a scholar who doesn't work outside. having dark skin in many post-neolithic cultures with social stratification is a sign of lower status, so there was a premium on lighter skin. in genealogical records in tokugawa japan some effort was made to ascertain the character of women who "married" up the nobility, and one thing they found was they tended to be light skinned. so their feature which made them naturally more elite allowed them to move up easier. over time, this likely resulted in the probability that the elite became genetically lighter skinned because those women passed the genes to their sons. this amplified the tendency to associate light skin with the non-farming aristocracy.

8) and yet today people in the west tan. what gives? first, the tendency to prefer light skin in males was far more mitigated than in the west. the male ideal was not always the scholar, but often the hard-charging warrior (knight, etc.). herakles was blackened by his time in the sun, the apotheosis of greek heroes. the 'tall dark and handsome' sterotype doesn't come out of a vacuum. prior to racialist interpretations of neitszche's 'blonde beast,' fair haired men were stereotyped as somewhat effeminate dreamers (beautiful adonises so to speak). with the rise of factory culture in the 19th century and the increased frequency of the upper and upper middle class in taking vacations to semi-tropical climes, the natural association with peasantry and "farmers' tans" was slowly mitigated further. a dark tan on a blonde woman in the USA doesn't mean she is a lower class farmer, more likely she either invests in tanning beds, or she takes trips to mexico, etc. around where i live, in the pacific northwest, "pastiness" is the modal state of the "white trash," while a good tan indicates you are athletic, or, take trips to california or the baja.

9) the moral is that one principle component can't explain skin color preference across all individuals and cultures, you need to take into account like evolutionary/physiological basics, and the latter sociological accretions that have been layered on top of it. some of these accretions are functional, that is, they are adaptive in some way. i.e., they delineate the class structure in a society. or, they are random. in restoration england, during the reign of charles II, dark hair was the rage among the elite. blondeness was associated with sluttish lower class women. part of this was likely the preference of charles II for dark women, for example, his famous mistress barbara de villiers. so this is an instance of a fad that would generate variation over time.

"sharp features"

1) how do you define this? i assume you mean facial relief, i'm sure you can find a topological metric, but let's take it as "understood" as what you mean.

2) my reading of ethnography does not suggest any preference for "sharp features" that can't be explained by sociologically. until the 19th century japanese women with brown hair dyed it black, those with epicanthic folds were prized more, and those who had "large ainu noses" were considered course. today, japanese women have brown hair (via dyes), get nose jobs to create more "caucasian" features and get eyelid surgery.

3) even today the idea of a "big nose" or sharp features differs. if "sharp features" was the summum bonum of beauty, than mediterraneans would be at a premium. certainly people's perception of beauty is a function of cultural inputs around the basic core (i.e., symmetry, sex-specific neoteny or lack of, etc. seem to be universals, take away make up and adornments, papuans dudes can pick out a butt ugly swede vs. vendala kirsebom).

4) i have read of references in the vedas to "snub nosed dasas." i don't know if this is correct, but stipulating that it is, one assumes that exogenous elite prized their own features above the subjegated substrate. the same pattern is historically attested to during the muslim period, when "white" ashraf muslims were keen to distinguish themselves from the "black" converts. because of a quirk of geography it seems that the vast majority of india's population movements into the subcontinent after 10,000 years BP have come in via the northwest, and quite often they have set the standards for elite phyisque and beauty.

notes:

1) sexual selection can be capricious. please google "runaway sexual selection" if you are curious, but the basic issue is that random preferences and characters become coupled and explode in frequency until constrained by selection or other stochastic forces.

2) sexual selection can be adaptive. i.e., the "handicap principle" suggests that showy males or females will tend to be advertising to the opposite sex how fit they are, sometimes using "expensive" signallers. for example, high testosterone males with powerful jaws also tend to be susceptible to more infection. if a male can survive and develop properly all "roided" up, than that indicates his genes are good. the logic is far stronger in the case of symmetry, because developmental stability is buffered by infections and pathogen load, so less symmetry is a good sign that development was fucked and they didn't have good immunity conferring genes to protect themselves.

3) getting a good grip on many forms of sexual selection is difficult, in particular assaying fitness in long-lived species. and with humans, well, it is hard to control variables, at least now that chattel slavery has been banned in the civilized world.

my conclusion: all things aren't equal, so the basic "innate" signals are swamped out by a lot of cultural-social noise. but, signals are still important because that's the base we start out at. i suspect that the strongest case for a "natural" bias is for females whose complexions are somewhat deviated from the population median. but, this could be strongly controlled by environmental priming, that is, the "population mean" isn't something you know genetically, but a statistical average to what you are exposed to over your lifetime. i could say more, but i'll leave it at that.

p.s. i like blondes. they never have mustaches you can see :)

by the way, speaking of language issues, i have often had the experience of hindi or urdu speakers "checking" if i speak their language (i assume some of these must be gujarati or punjabi too, seeing as over half of american browns are these two groups). i never know what they just said, but i'm always like, "uh, i speak bengali." then they will speak to me in english. now, should i be offended by this presumption? :) also, a few years back i traveled around the country a lot, and when i was staying at a brown run hotel, i'd get 'the eye' (you know what i mean) from the owner/clerk when i signed in if they were brown. when i spoke without an accent 'the eye' would go a notch down. when i wrote my name down, and it was invariably muslim looking, 'the eye' would disappear. but hey, perhaps i shouldn't be so sensitive :) (i didn't care actually, just suggesting that there are different classes of brownhood in my personal experience)

Razib, cheeky mustache comments may get you in trouble......

PS. Grooming can help with such issues, my good man. I grew up in the world of blonde and semi-blonde Iowans: you could see plenty of blonde down on female upper lips!

So is comment No.86 in the Sepia Mutiny book of records?
Congratulations Razib !

minor note: when i said that signals are swamped out by cultural noise, i mean the color and feature signals we are referring to on the thread. i think there are particular "signals" who have strong innate genetic components, i.e., preference for neoteny in females (large eyes, small jaw, etc.) or larger size in males as opposed to the female median. also, remember the point about environmental priming of biases, in bangladesh i'm a tall dude, here, i ain't so tall. doesn't mean that the ladies in bangladesh have an 'innate' idea of what is tall that is different than ladies in the northwest, rather, environmental inputs get slotted into a general heuristic ('short-dudes-relative-to-the-population-mean got nothing to live for').

Razib, cheeky mustache comments may get you in trouble......

PS. Grooming can help with such issues, my good man. I grew up in the world of blonde and semi-blonde Iowans: you could see plenty of blonde down on female upper lips!

she isn't reading the blog today, i know, cuz she be travelin' :) and yeah, i agree, there are blonde chix with staches, but i think the worst-case-scenario for female stache prominence is very light skin with very dark hair.

Congratulations Razib !

this comment didn't come out 'on-the-fly,' i have thought and researched this topic in various aspects a lot over the years. i just slapped together the appropriate chunks and modules to this thread. and dudes talk about chix all the time in terms of hot-or-not, so it is of deep personal interest...though i'm not on the market, so no real relevance aside from "intellectual curiosity" (you know, like porn).

this comment didn't come out 'on-the-fly,' i have thought and researched this topic in various aspects a lot over the years. i just slapped together the appropriate chunks and modules to this thread.

And here i had stereotyped you and thought you were displaying your 110 wpm skill set. What a KLPD :)

it's the entire premise behind "Jassi Jaise Koi Nahin".

oh, and cocoapuffs, I think one way to combat stereotypes is to be vigorously involved in the larger culture; not to self-ghettoize or turn-inward.

Actually, cocopuffs, the other way around. I like the way some desis are running for office and getting politically involved. the Indian American Political Action Committee (I think I got that right) recently did a fundraiser for Hurricane Katrina. It's fine to get non-desis involved in cultural programs, but I think it's just as good to look around and see if you have an interest in something, and then, jump in. My parents were always involved in the community around them; my father was (is) very into sports and they always interacted in the larger community. I think my Dad still goes to town meetings. I'd like to do the same, if I get some time.

I think one way to combat stereotypes

I find this a little disturbing. You know for the most part sterotypes are true to a degree. I will use the example given by a lot of you here wherein you have been told that you dont look Indian. You know that maybe true. The average Indian looks a certain way. Drive through the dusty roads of India and you will see how the most of us look like. We have a certain look for the most part. And yes there is a small minortiy of you who look different. But that is a small minority. To combat stereotypes in this case is to dis out at the rest of the majority - the true look of a country. Yes, the minority need to be represented, but along with the majority.

Move beyond the desi world and its the same. I just happen to be in Sao Paulo as I write this. And that whole stereotype about Brazilians looking a certain way is so TRUE. I have been here numerous times, and each time they never cease to amaze me. Drive down south and every girl looks like shes out of a magazine. They just look a certain way.

You never mentioned, that your sweeping statement was only meant for Indians.

Note my use of the word context. Here the context is 'perception of Indians'. Refer to the comic strips above.

Why should an American talking to someone who has an accent know the culture and other details of the country that person comes from ?? How many Indians would know which language they speak in Eastern Tajikistan ??

They ask me where I was from before determining I was from India. Or in the case of more perceptive interlocutors, they guess I am from India and ask me 'Where in India are you from'.

Um, they know that English is not a native Indian language. Much like English is not a native Tajik language. Even Indians know that.

i liked the dilbert strip FYI.

oh, and i knew a guy from zimbabwe, and people (this was at a university) would ask him if he wore skins and hunted lions when he was back home. so there are worse stereotypes one could be saddled with....

Why is it disturbing to combat stereotypes, if we are talking about false representations based on lack of knowledge? I'm not saying that all of these incidents are in and of themselves bad or that the people stereotyping are racists, or bad people. I'm just saying, that the more involved you are in your community, then the more likely the attitudes are based on a broader base of knowledge. What's wrong with that? Oh, and as a woman, I don't want to hear how beautiful all those South American women, are, ok? :)

They just look a certain way.

iz a rump thang, right?

Why is it disturbing to combat stereotypes, if we are talking about false representations based on lack of knowledge? I'm not saying that all of these incidents are in and of themselves bad or that the people stereotyping are racists, or bad people. I'm just saying, that the more involved you are in your community, then the more likely the attitudes are based on a broader base of knowledge. What's wrong with that?

Absolutely nothing. But, apparently, people here are content to point out worse scenarios. If that's the way you want to live your life, fine, but I'm looking to improve understanding and my community.

Ang,

you gotz to look at the big picture. if you see the sum total of "MD"'s posts you'll not be seeing a "bitter&brown" perspective. careful about seein' what you want to see bro.

careful about seein' what you want to see bro.

Razib, sis, I'll be careful. Thanks.

I don't usually remember who wrote what in previous posts, but it's not unusual to agree with a person on some topics and disagree with them on others. There's no universal line of thinking, but hopefully, we each have some sort of systematic critical thought process.

no, itz cool, my reaction is not too dissimilar from yours in regards to the behaviors and phenomena you point to. but, i also know that MD doesn't have a bias toward (at least expressed on this weblog over the past year) the attitudes which generate the behaviors that you are concerned about. short blog comments can't usually flesh out the real details and context of a person's comments, but i am willing to bet that you and MD don't disagree on jack if i read you right.

but i am willing to bet that you and MD don't disagree on jack if i read you right.

Huh? Did you mean, you are willing to bet that MD and I don't agree on jack?

I was agreeing with MD, that yes, we can educate, combat stereotyping. Just in case, you think I was being sarcastic or something???

naw, i think i was confused :)

I agree with MD completely. It is important that desis (especially 2-gens) get involved in serious aspects of American life (like politics and stuff, even local matters). This also involves Manish' thing about having more SA profs in SA depts. Maybe some of us could take some time off being docs/lawyers/computer geeks and study some of that stuff instead :)

Already there is a lot more awareness among people about SAs, simply because more and more of SAs are interacting on a daily basis with Americans. We should definitely avoid getting ghetto-ized, I especially dislike the idea of living in an "Indian" suburb or something. I think that the US gives me a rare opportunity to explore different cultures in one place, so why shouldn't I use it, and contribute my own to the mix?

I appreciate the data that must be behind razib's observations and also, he's just damn good with his arguements

but i'm just not going to love someone because their skin color is evolutionarily perfect for me

no arguement please

also i know a bit about light-skinned desis and i'm really reticient to let the light-skinned priviledge among desis just go by the way-side. i'm not trying to dog anybody, but come on now

Razib,

naw, i think i was confused :)

MD,
I agreed with your comment about combatting stereotyping, in case there was any confusiion... or you perform surgery on me at anytime in the future. :D

but i'm just not going to love someone because their skin color is evolutionarily perfect for me

is does not imply aught (see naturalistic fallacy). biases due to biology, sociology or culture are not, in my opinion, "perfect" or "not perfect." they need to be judged in light of one's values. if you aren't just restating the obvious, that is, you thought i was actually implying that people should be attracted to someone because of x, y, z, etc., then you read me wrong. additionally, the whole point of a lot of this stuff is you can't help who you love, within certain bounds and biases.

"would anyone be willing to entertain the possibility that some groups benefited vis-a-vi other browns because of british patronage? i am thinking of, for example, dalit soldiers who attained higher status because of their service in the british army, and who boldly walked into "high caste" areas of madras/chennai with their weapons and dared to the brahmins to kick them out. also, as someone of muslim background i am aware that many muslims were skeptical about transferring british christian rule for the rule of indian elites who would predominantly be hindu (ergo, pakistan)."

Razib, that may well be so, but the problem is that the above view takes the colonial subject (I mean the subject of the colonial regime) as a given, and does not recognize that colonialism itself might have played a role in manufacturing such a subject and such a consciousness. Take the Muslim example. It is undoubtedly true that large numbers of Muslims might have, by the third and fourth decades of the twentieth century, preferred British rule to "Hindu rule." But as vast amounts of research have powerfully shown, it is precisely in a post-colonial India that the question of the two-nation theory arises. To put it another way, the Western-style nationalist, for whom all nationalism is modeled on European models, and for whom "one people", "one nation", "one religion" are the signs uber alles of nationhood, is a product of nationhood. Colonialism's own complicity in the manufacture of identities who were "protected" by colonialism cannot be ignored. I take just one example, but one the destructive impact of which was remarkable: separate electorates on a communal basis, instituted by the British in the early twentieth century. Under the scheme (in place till independence, and re-instituted in Pakistan in the 1980s) Hindus could ONLY vote for Hindus, and Muslims ONLY for Muslims; moreover, there were no seats reserved on the basis of any cross-communal categories (e.g. no seat reservation on the basis of Gujarati-speakers, or Marathi or Bengali-speakers, etc.; no seat reservation based on occupation). Can there be any doubt that such a system incentivized the manufacture of communal sentiment? If the politicians, voters, the very political reality that is produced by this system is skewed a certain way, I for one cannot accept the resulting preferences at face value. Specifically, while one can (and should) always interrogate foundational assumptions, the choice (where Muslims are concerned) between "British" and "Hindu" rule is itself a choice presented by the colonial prism.

The Dalit example is also an interesting one. In particular, while there can be little doubt that Dalits fared far better in the armies of the East India Company than, say, in the realm of the Peshwas, a fascinating realm of study is the ways in which the British used the census, as well as disciplines such as anthropology, to standardize the caste system. As you note perhaps a weblog is no place for a detailed discussion, but I HIGHLY recommend the book "Castes of Mind" by Nicholas Dirks, which is in large part addressed to precisely this issue. One point Dirks highlights is how British administrators were very focused on classifying Hindus into the four-fold varna scheme of Manu even though, as their writings and records themselves testify, Hindu reality stubbornly refused to accord with the Dharmashastra (the exceptions were the groups the British could most easily place in the varna system: Brahmins and untouchables, both of whom had some sort of pan-Indian presence). The tensions came to a head with the first colonial census, with forcible British characterization of various jatis and groups as belonging to one or another varna. The result was the institutionalisation of a system where the varna system became the measure of social classification-- anything else was just not recognized by the state. Thus if you were a Reddy or a Naicker or whatever, it was no longer enough to just be a Reddy or a Yadav or a Naicker etc., but one had to be situated in the varna scheme in order to count when it came time for giving out jobs, political representation, etc. The point is not that the caste system was created by the British (and as noted two ends of the varna system were rather recognizable in a pan-Indian context, namely Brahmins and untouchables), but that under the British caste became the primary organizing political and social principle of Indian society (just as religion became the organizing principle of a broader Muslim and Hindu division). Finally, there has also been much scholarship on the fact that what constituted untouchability (and more generally "low" status) varied from region to region, and even within regions. The Dalits of the regions of the later Marattha confederacy were among the most oppressed in Indian history; but the same may not be said of the "low" millions of Bengal. That "untouchability" is always unacceptable no matter what I accept as a sine qua non; but it is hard for me to accept uncritically the (self-interested) notion that acceptance of the colonial imperium was the only way out from the "dead end" of "native" tradition. I do not blame Dalits who accepted this choice, perhaps in their situation more could not be accepted; but the choice remains a false one.

are the signs uber alles of nationhood, is a product of nationhood.

The last word should have read "colonialism".

aaaargh, the perils of typing in haste at midnight...ignore my previous post, "nationhood" should stay.

Sorry for the comment clutter, guys!

Mr Razib,

How are you? Thank you for your very enlightening post about skin color.

p.s. i like blondes. they never have mustaches you can see :)

I don't know but for some reason I do not find the shape of most blondes very appealing. There is something about the structure of Indian women, specifically their derriers, make them stand out. Blondes have a relatively flat frontal profile in general, although their lateral profile tend to have more depth compared to Indian women.

Could you please enlighten us about this aspect?

Could you please enlighten us about this aspect?

i have no first hand brown point of comparison, so to speak. gentlemen who have sampled a wider variety than i need to comment.

UM, i have a copy of "castes of mind" and have read it, in addition to other monographs on the topic. my interest in this area was piqued by the fact that indian "castes" do show substantial between-group variance in genetic structure. that is, the details of how varna-caste-jati might have crystallized during the british period, and the 1871 census, but the general framework was in place if you simply start from the data yielded from a genetic angle (with big caveats in a subcontinent the size of western europe). the reality is that if i go by the historical ethnographies i would have assumed that the genetic substructure within a particular region should be rather low (as is common in much of europe). the lack of quantitation of historical ethnography is problematic. i won't bitch anymore about it because i'm not interested in solving the problem of quantitation in that field.

as for "false choices," i reject that contention in the final evaluation. the path of history was what it was. there were certainly interactional variables where the british model of colonialism generated many south asian identities in situ, but we have many examples of muslims "reforming" themselves across the world between the 17th to 20th centuries when they lost their positions of power or encountered expanding kufir polities (i.e., the manchu empire, for a non-european example, or the balinese kingdom during the 19th century for an obscure one). from those case studies i conclude that the british experience altered the magnitude of the vector, but not its general direction. the case with caste divisions is i think more amenable to alternative paths, but i don't know what that would be. but be as that maybe, what would your counterfactual paths offer? i.e., imagine that india liberated itself in 1857, just as latin american did against the spaniards in the early 19th century. let me get a sense of what you have it mind so i can implicitly evaluate some utility functions. otherwise, you claim i make a false choice, but your keep to your bosom the infinitude of possibilities so that i can't engage what you are implying.

On the genetic data you cite: Perhaps I am misreading you: is the point that the lack of uniformity in caste practices (e.g. what untouchability meant as a practical matter in different parts of India) is determined by between-group genetic variance? Personally I think the relevant ideologies have a crucial role to play: for instance, between-group genetic variance would not explain why the position of Sudras (and in a most extreme way, Dalits) declined over the course of the Marattha kingdom (founded, it must be noted, by a Sudra). In the context of British colonialsm, the difference that made a difference was a political system that impressed the data into the service of a certain socio-political meaning.

Re: Muslims "reforming" themselves: First, the plethora of "reformist" Islamic movements cannot be de-linked from the general encounter between "Islam" and "the West", an encounter whereby virtually all "Islamic" lands in the Middle East and North Africa came under the sway of colonizing powers. Second, and more significantly, the two-nation theory is not in my view reducible to Islamic "reformist" movements (such as the Deoband school in India, most of the leading lights of which REJECTED the two-nation theory), but is heir to a different political trajectory, namely that of English liberalism (and also European nationalism more generally). The crucial figure here is Sir Sayyid Ahmed Khan, founder of Aligarh Muslim University and a noted social reformer vis-a-vis Muslims (though not an Islamic reformer). Khan recognized that the logic of liberalism legitimated representative democracy, but invoked the other pole of liberalism--minority protections-- to argue for the indefinite continuance of British rule. The logic of Khan's position was fully worked out in ensuing decades, as the argument ultimately became that Muslims were in fact not a minority but a separate nation (an argument endorsed, by the way, by Hindu nationalists like Savarkar, Bhai Parmanand). The Pakistan movement falls squarely in the history of modern nationalism, not the sort of religious reformism one sees in Deoband, the Qadianis, or earlier in Wahhabism in Arabia. Nostalgia for the imagined halcyon days of glorious empires certainly played a role in cultivating support for the notion, but in the final analysis Locke, Mill, and the Raj go a much longer way toward explaining this mindset than notions of "kufr".

As for alternative futures: a utility function keyed to a counterfactual path seems suspect to me, but we come from different perspectives on that one. One alternative view (not really counterfactual), is suggested in the final paragraph of the link below:
http://qalandari.blogspot.com/2005/11/entertaining-possibilities.html

"i.e., imagine that india liberated itself in 1857, just as latin american did against the spaniards in the early 19th century."

PS-- 1857 might already be on the way to too late. A better question to my mind is: what would India have looked like if the disintegration of the Mughal empire had not been followed by the Company raj? Would there be no untouchability in India? That notion is obviously absurd. But what one WOULDN'T have would be the overarching standardizing structure instituted by the Raj (I might note that not all empires operate in the same way; the Mughal Empire was in many ways far more oppressive than the Raj, but the former was not engaged in the sorts of standardizing practices, anthropology, and the re-constitution of subjects that so characterized British rule (and the rule of other modern colonizers like the French, Dutch, Belgians, etc.)). And certainly varna would have no means by which to become the organizing principle of Hindu social reality.

re: inter-group variance. please note, i was not referring to functionally relevant alleles. i.e., i wasn't explaining any social phenomenon based on the variance. rather, the substructure implies deep time endogamy within various groups. also, groups that are "high caste," "middle caste" and "low caste" tend to cluster together. also, there is a lot of overlap. what i was trying to say is that if you read the historical literature (at least what i've read), i simply wouldn't have expected that there would have been as much population substructure as there was. you get the impression of a lot of movement up and down the "varna" chain (if you want to back-project the concept as salient in past ages). substructure can't just pop up within a few centuries....

Re: Muslims "reforming" themselves: First, the plethora of "reformist" Islamic movements cannot be de-linked from the general encounter between "Islam" and "the West", an encounter whereby virtually all "Islamic" lands in the Middle East and North Africa came under the sway of colonizing powers. Second, and more significantly, the two-nation theory is not in my view reducible to Islamic "reformist" movements (such as the Deoband school in India, most of the leading lights of which REJECTED the two-nation theory), but is heir to a different political trajectory, namely that of English liberalism (and also European nationalism more generally).

look, tendencies like putting "islamic" in "quotes" in reference to north africa and the middle east is a bit much, isn't it? in any case, i gave you the explicit examples of indonesia and manchu china for a reason. i won't address the rest of your comment, a lot of it is correct, and i don't really have a horse in this race. rather, i'll just end by saying that i think the "false choices" contention rings hallow to a great extent. the world is as it is, not how it could be.

MD Dear, first order of business – we both know that you’ll give em South Americans a running for their beauty :)
On assimilation, its great and I strongly believe in that. Stereotypes exist simply because there is some truth to it, and the point I was trying to make is – get your point across, but don’t kill the truth even if it isn’t exactly you.

and razib, its more than the rump thang :)

South American & Eastern European beauties seem to be the flavour of the month these days.....

Cocopuffs,

I'm not sure if you've been following some of the other topics, but buddy you've got an offer of a date from a hot babe on the "East is East, West is West" thread ;)

Apparently she's waiting for your reply.....*wink*

look, tendencies like putting "islamic" in "quotes" in reference to north africa and the middle east is a bit much, isn't it?

Not sure what this crack is getting at. The "quotes" were there because that is how a lot of Muslims (especially a lot of religiously devout Muslims) view those lands/countries, but that is not how I view them (I was thinking in particular of Egypt, Lebanon, and perhaps Syria and Iraq).

the world is as it is, not how it could be.

I do not disagree. But one will never appreciate just why the world is as it is, or what made it the way it is, if one never considers how the world might have been, or could be.

the world is as it is, not how it could be.

Well than why read or learn about history at all??

Razib wrote:

I don't think "worshipping cows" is less rational than worshipping a dead man on a cross

I could never imagin it !!! lol. I heard someone sniggering about Shivalingam. How amzing people forget the outer form and sceptics notice the outer form only. Lol

South American & Eastern European beauties seem to be the flavour of the month these days.....

you did a taste test? how wuz it?

Razib buddy,

you did a taste test? how wuz it?

Fire & Ice, I expect ;) Just kidding.....

Anyway, I thought you were in a better position to comment on such matters -- "Girl (or at least ex-girlfriend) in every port", and so on ;)