excellent - good to hear someone's breaking stereotypes! now perhaps the heterosexual crew could join in on the same sort of mould-breaking activity.

Did you mean Queer as Desi?

Fine, you know you guys watch Bravo too :)

but i dont think they shud b a part of the mainstream... why? you call me narrowminded? conservative? well.. i just dont want my kids growing up watching fags making out on TV..

maybe your kids will decide they'd rather participate than watch on TV.

well fuk you and scroo you too. it's folks like you that i don't want as a part of my mainstream, that i don't want my family and friends to associate with.

+++

Great post, Siddhartha, I've been waiting for Pride since it ended last year and the party keeps getting bigger and better here in TO. I'll be waving my rainbow junda along with my Brazilian one this year, wooooo!

some of these posts are extremely disturbing, i hope its clear which ones. thousands before us have given their lives & livelihoods to make way for just a semblance of equality; millions continue to do the same today. still, intolerance runs so deep. makes me so, so sad. thanks for the awesome post, siddhartha.

Neha

well fuk you and scroo you too.

I was trying to be sarcastic and not offensive. Note that it was a word substitution of whatshisname's postm to reflect the irony of a member of one minority calling out another. It was supposed to be wry, gallows humor even. Apologies.

Scroo That - That was a good one.. :)

Oh..looks like some people didn't get the humor.
Better luck next time.

Pride. Gay Pride, Black Pride, Desi Pride. It's an intersting "civil rights" formulation, in great contrast to MLK's formulation where "the colour of a man's skin is of no more significance than the colour of his eyes;" as Bob Marley put it.

It's obviously contrived, a sort of affimative action like reasoning meant to correct historical injustices by ovecompensating on the other side. But if we take it too seriously we're forced to adobt the foundation of bigoted/racist thinking...that such things are important and do determine character.

The day all people no longer have pride in mere insignificant accidents of birth is the day we as a society have truely evolved.

The offensive comments above will be deleted and the poster banned; some technical difficulties are causing a bit of a delay on that front.

Be patient, and please ignore the trolls.

Sonia writes: >>now perhaps the heterosexual crew could join in on the same sort of mould-breaking activity

What do you need us for? What's in it for me?

M. Nam

Idiotic comments have been summarily deleted and users banned without notice. This will continue as needed. If such comments are from desis they are a disgrace to the community.

Please continue the conversation, nevermind the trolls.

Siddhartha, great post. I'll be missing many of the (desi and non-desi) Pride events in NYC, as I will be out of town, but if you do check them out, please post report(s) here.

(And isn't it sad that there were/will be more "idiotic comments" on this post?)

P.

To commenter #6 -- I summarily banned you. The humor was lost on me. Please contact Abhi for un-banning. Sorry I didn't get it. Peace...

Siddhartha:

I would have kept the offensive comments. Why whitewash reality? Those comments, in a way, are at the heart of matter.

BTW, I doubt one would read such blatant comments had this been a post on some type of racial pride. It just goes to show which group is truely the global outcast.

manju, there's a difference between civil disagreement, such as yours, and the kind of drivel we just got rid of. sure, it's part of reality, but folks know that all too well. we want SM to be a positive and hospitable place to everyone and bigotry and hate, whilst all too real, have no place here.

peace
siddhartha

Manju:

The day all people no longer have pride in mere insignificant accidents of birth is the day we as a society have truely evolved.

Thanks for putting it so eloquently. I totally agree with you. Hopefully, this will happen some day.

BTW, I doubt one would read such blatant comments had this been a post on some type of racial pride. It just goes to show which group is truely the global outcast.

It's true that homophobia isn't as widely condemned as racism. However, it shouldn't really be looked upon as 'who is more oppressed than who?" ...because it depends. Gay men who live middle class lifestyles in western societies may not be openly recognized and accepted for their sexual orientation and yet, they do live privileged lives, materially speaking. Racial politics isn't exactly about 'recognition' anymore. That fight was won ....to a large extent. I would argue that it is more about re-distribution. So really, it's that the terrain is different for both groups, one fights for recognition, while the other for redistribution.

And of course, the reason why it's more complicated than what I just said above is because an individual have an identity that intersects in terms of race, class, sexuality, gender.

I am really disturbed by the widespread homophobia in the desi community, esp even among second generation desis. It really saddens me. I mean, we live in a homophobic society, but is there something peculiar about certain ethnic groups that makes them especially prone? *sigh*

Thanks for this post.

The day all people no longer have pride in mere insignificant accidents of birth is the day we as a society have truely evolved.

Seeing as how this hasn't happened in the last few thousand years of the human race's history, I'm not going to hold my breath. In the meantime, I think taking the symbols of opression (the baggage of racial/sexual labels) and inverting them to empower rather diminish is a powerful way of fighting back.

Racial politics isn't exactly about 'recognition' anymore. That fight was won ....to a large extent. I would argue that it is more about re-distribution. So really, it's that the terrain is different for both groups, one fights for recognition, while the other for redistribution.

Redistribution of what?

I used to be somewhat homophobic, I'm not anymore. I changed -- and hopefully most people can. If one of my kids is gay, I will support him/her fully (I hope.).

Badmash:

You're too pessimistic. The evolution of the Human race on this front has been extraordinary. Slavery has been abolished (with some notable exceptions) and colonialism has been reduced to “neo-colonialism,” which is devoid of the racism of it’s predecessor (though I’m sure many will disagree.)

To use American racial politics as an analogy, we’ve seen the abolitionist movement evolve into the civil rights movement but then devolve (IMO) into the black power/pride movement. Though the latter may be “taking the symbols of oppression (the baggage of racial/sexual labels) and inverting them to empower” it is nonetheless philosophically untenable, ie it is inherently separatist. It is no coincidence that hate, or even terrorist, groups have emerged from the movement.

Yeah, I understand the logic behind taking the N-word or the word “Queer” and turning it around by using it as a badge of honor, but there is still something very sad, undignified, contradictory, or even dangerous, about it.

Slavery has been abolished (with some notable exceptions) and colonialism has been reduced to “neo-colonialism,” which is devoid of the racism of it’s predecessor (though I’m sure many will disagree.)

I think that this is a very select view of human history. After all "slavery" in its various modes still exists in many parts of the world. In N America it's called the prison industrial complex with its disproportionate number of black and brown inmates providing (almost) free labour. True, it is not a reality for most suburban people - I guess it the perspective really depends on where you live. Also, neo-colonialism is every bit as vicious as its predecessor - they didn't have aircraft carriers and the IMF back then!

As to the philosophical problems with turning around the use of words, while it may be sad or undignified, it is the only response with which the even sadder and more vulgar persistence of the ideas that inform these words can be challenged!

The day all people no longer have pride in mere insignificant accidents of birth is the day we as a society have truely evolved.

Fine, as long as "society" has truly evolved itself as well. It's evolving, but reluctantly. The problem is, for some, their "insignificant accidents of birth" unfortunately entail all sorts of significant implications. It's not as if we are all born on equal footing (humanistically, yes; politically and socio-economically, no). So in the meantime, people should be able to seeks ways to empower themselves-- politically and socially.

To use American racial politics as an analogy, we’ve seen the abolitionist movement evolve into the civil rights movement but then devolve (IMO) into the black power/pride movement. Though the latter may be “taking the symbols of oppression (the baggage of racial/sexual labels) and inverting them to empower” it is nonetheless philosophically untenable, ie it is inherently separatist. It is no coincidence that hate, or even terrorist, groups have emerged from the movement.

1. Why do you refer to the black power movement as "devolving"?
2. What "hate or even terrorists groups, have emerged from the movement"?

1. Why do you refer to the black power movement as "devolving"? 2. What "hate or even terrorists groups, have emerged from the movement"?

1. MLK charged whites with contradicting their own principles. He demanded equality on the basis of the constiution, while Black Power rejectied this tradion all out and embraced more radical systems of government that have since proved to be inconsistent with traditional notions of freedom. I agree with the black nationalists refusel to beg for acceptance (and gays should follow that path) but at their core thay are demanding black identity, not universal rights. They insist on respect for blacks as blacks, not as human being simply...and by doing this they lost their humanity.

2. The Black Panters and Nation of Islam come to mind.

Manju,
"You're too pessimistic. The evolution of the Human race on this front has been extraordinary. Slavery has been abolished (with some notable exceptions) and colonialism has been reduced to “neo-colonialism,” which is devoid of the racism of it’s predecessor (though I’m sure many will disagree.) "

Maybe not pessimism, just pragmatism? This belief in the moral evolution of humans may just give us a reason to rest on our laurels and not really work towards social change. Slavery, as it is defined in one, very specific, way has been abolished in this country. There are plenty of countries where it still exists in the "one person owning another person" definition. In the states, perhaps it has been replaced by the idea that African Americans have been given everything they could possibly desire by society and now the problems they face are created by their own community. Just compare an inner city grocery store to whole foods. Or public schools in the heart of New York City to those in Suburbia. Clearly, the problems with the idea of "separate but equal" are still in play. They're given less recognition though because we've decided that the civil rights movement succeeded fully and need not be taken further.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume you're speaking of the Black Panthers when you talked about the black power movement devolving into terrorism? The violence associated with that organization could also be considered a response to the terrorism first perpetrated by the FBI. An opinion yes, but the fact that we can have different opinions on the same issue suggests that our society has a long dialogue still left.

For better or for worse, the U.S. is a society driven by capitalism. I don't think an economic system can really encompass moral issues so that's why I believe that we have to continue discussing these issues and dissenting with the status quo.

Thanks for this post, sid.

What do you need us for? What's in it for me?

This is a really interesting question, Moornam. At the Banga Sammelan (North American Bengali Conference) last year, I and a couple other folks from the desi queer community in New York did a panel on being queer in desi spaces. This was a real accomplishment for me on a personal level because it was confronting homophobia and finding allies in the heart of my community in a space that had done a fair amount to traumatize me emotionally.

What was interesting to me, though, is that many of the people in the audience (who were all desi) were dealing with similar issues in terms of parental approval of sexual choices (e.g. marriages outside "the community"). To extend the argument further, there's obviously a whole range of issues in which an ABD (I only use that term here because I'm familiar with my experience...perhaps it applies more broadly to desis and others) is confronted with a distinctly difficult experience of negotiating individual freedom and choice to live as they want with the expectations of society, but in this case, more particularly, family.

Sound familiar?

I have a friend from college (not desi) who said that in some ways, people like me are lucky because we're forced to have a "coming out" that forces us to confront some issues that help us define clearer boundaries from our parents and the collective weight of several decades or hundreds years of social obligations that have been placed on our backs. This is a problem for all people, I would imagine--we just have to confront it a little more overtly and as a result, not to be obnoxious, are probably somewhat better at it as a result.

It's obviously contrived, a sort of affimative action like reasoning meant to correct historical injustices by ovecompensating on the other side. But if we take it too seriously we're forced to adobt the foundation of bigoted/racist thinking...that such things are important and do determine character.

The day all people no longer have pride in mere insignificant accidents of birth is the day we as a society have truely evolved.

Manju, I think what others have termed a "civil disagreement" is just sophistry on your part that's masking unsympathetic statements--which is probably the most dangerous kind of lying. You may phrase it in a more eloquent way than others, but these ideas--that being lgbt (notice the B!) ultimately is only an "insignificant accident of birth", that "pride" is "contrived" and "overcompensating" and that it amounts to "bigoted/racist thinking" are fundamentally absurd and betrays a total lack of familiarity with people in the lgbt communities that actually exist. You're reducing enormously complex things (like "choice" vs. "birth") and the lgbt human rights struggle to platitudes intended to reinforce your own preexisting beliefs about god knows what (presumably the evolution of human society towards a neoliberal utopia).

There are many critiques I have of "pride celebrations" and "identities" b/c they are devoid of--or perhaps controleld by a certain brand of corporate politics--but that has little do with superimposing my ideas on how lgbt people and particularly intersectional lgbt people who are lgbt AND desi or lgbt AND poor or lgbt AND biofemales havce to deal with the world. I suggest you talk to some of us before issuing pronouncements about what we are all about and why.

Yeah, I understand the logic behind taking the N-word or the word “Queer” and turning it around by using it as a badge of honor, but there is still something very sad, undignified, contradictory, or even dangerous, about it.

I think its useful to look at some ideas regarding racial oppression that Franz Fanon had to understand identity politics. He suggested, that those who experience racism and seek to challenge it, go through 3 stages;

(1) You internalize and agree with the racism given by the dominant group. I.e. Dark skinned brown people buying skin lightning creams.

(2) You reject the racism given by the dominant group, and place great value in that which was once seen as negative. I.e. Black is beautiful slogans during the civil rights movement.

(3) You realize that the logic in stage 2, is closed minded, and see race as a construct, and move away from race being a prime focus in your politic. I.e. Malcolm X changing his stance regarding white people after his Pilgrimage in Mecca.

So, I don't think there is "something very sad, undignified, contradictory, or even dangerous" about being proud of your difference, especially when that difference is derided. Yes, some people may espouse a view that may seem unproductive, but really it needs to been seen in a larger context, and as part of a dialectic.

And Siddhartha, big-up for the great post!

Saurev

I suggest you talk to some of us before issuing pronouncements about what we are all about and why.

I speak to individuals, not representatives of a race or sexual orientation (or really, ideology). That's my whole point.

You're making a lot of assumptions. Basically, I'm a homophobe is your point, lets be blunt. One can't prove a negative but let me just say I simply don't feel that way and never have, even as a child. As far as not knowing LGBT people, again not true. FYI, there is a lot of diversity out there and many LGBTs don't adhere to your orthodoxy (and it doesn't mean they hate themselves anymore than a jew that criticizes Israel does.) Now do you see the danger of racial identity?

dutty brown boi:

Fanon is an example of what I'm talking about. He starts out as part of a liberation movement then embraces racial identity as a means to counter the colonial psychology. But in it he lays the foundation for a new repression and his flirtations with totalitarianism is quite predictable.

Saurav,

>>there's obviously a whole range of issues in which an ABD.. is confronted with a distinctly difficult experience of negotiating individual freedom and choice to live as they want with the expectations of society, but in this case, more particularly, family.

Translation: You want others' acceptance.

This is what I find difficult to fathom - Why do you care what we think about you, as long as your civil rights are not violated? Why do you need acceptance from family/friends?

When a relative of mine fell in love with someone whom she knew the family/friends would not approve of, she came to me for advice. I told her : "Where was your brain when you started seeing this person? If you crave for family acceptance, should you not have immediately stopped yourself? Now that you are in love, it's too late. Forget everyone and start a new life. Don't ask others to accept your choices."

M. Nam

Basically, I'm a homophobe is your point, lets be blunt.

Not really, though I wasn't sure. Anyway, thanks for the reassurance, but it's almost irrelevant here. The ideas that you're propagating are divisive. I'm not asking you to adhere to anything other than the idea that when you shoot off your mouth about identity politics, you look into the social realities behind it. That's all.

Of course there's a lot of diversity--that's why I was asking you to take a look at it, rather than speaking from an ideologically dogmatic soapbox. Anyway, my point's been made and other people can decide whether I was right or not. I have no interest in a discussion on the "dangers of racial identity" or any other kind of identity--not because I disagree with you as much as because your take on it is such a vast oversimplification of the things that are happening outside.

Which is now where I will go. :)

*closing eyes really tight and wishing for Spoor Lam*

If only we had a Spoor sign, like a bat sign.

It's obviously contrived, a sort of affimative action like reasoning meant to correct historical injustices by ovecompensating on the other side. But if we take it too seriously we're forced to adobt the foundation of bigoted/racist thinking...that such things are important and do determine character.

If is contrived, you must implicitly agree with this affirmitave action of sorts, as you visit this site. This site is a celebration of being desi. Why does it exist? Well, because desi-love is kinda lacking out there, in the wild western media. So, it would appear, the people who started this blog filled that void, and it obviously filled a necessary need, as evidenced by the popularity of the blog. You must feel it, as you want your curry flavoured news/info and visit the site. If we were to take your arguments to there logical conclusion, then this site, and other such forums, and celebrations of difference would have no place, and that to me would be a boring world.

Translation: You want others' acceptance.

Yes, we like our parents to like us. This seems to be a fairly common trait among human beings I've met.

This is what I find difficult to fathom - Why do you care what we think about you, as long as your civil rights are not violated?

I don't know what this is in reference to. Are you talking about queers? ABDs? Desis? Clarification is welcome, but regardless, I find it bizarre that you don't care what your family/friends think about you at all. Why do you even stay in touch then?

Forgot to mention, in response to three recent attacks on lgbt people in New York this month, there's a vigil being organized for this coming Sunday by anti-violence project. You can find more info here if you're interested.

>>I find it bizarre that you don't care what your family/friends think about you at all.

I don't understand why you came to this conclusion. Of course I want to be liked by them. Which is why, when I make choices, I make sure that it's palatable to them. Indeed, even while making small purchases I ask for their opinion and approval.

On the other hand, you seem to want to be free to make your own lifestyle choices, without getting their approval first, and yet still want them to accept your lifestyle. Isn't that self-centeredness?

>>I don't know what this is in reference to.

It's with the reference to LGBT folks wanting to be accepted and loved by everyone. The come across as people with weakness of resolve. People with conviction in their choices will not give a damn about other's opinion.

M. Nam

dutty brown boi:

Very clever. I admire a good turnaround.

Truth is I like visiting a lot of differnt "cultures". I eat sushi everyday and find myself on debating on feminist websites too. I read Noam Chomsky while admiring Ronald Reagan. I especially like to read the Black press which is meant for black eyes only.

But yeah, this website is about desi identity, which philosphically I'm oppossed to, so maybe you got me there.

MoorNam's advice to his relative, like many of his comments, is idiosyncratic and blunt. But if you think about it, it must have been very empowering to his relative, assuming she took the advice.

He's positing another way to deal with disenfranchisement.

But instead of thinking out of the box, we're all just going to channel SpoorLam.

you seem to want to be free to make your own lifestyle choices, without getting their approval first, and yet still want them to accept your lifestyle. Isn't that self-centeredness?

No. It's independence, and less a desire for "approval" than one for "don't hate us". Your argument is tautological, but quite frankly, I don't have the time to dissect it in depth, so please make do with the following. It's no more self-centered than wanting to pick your own career path, and choosing to live your own life rather than a life prescribed (and proscribed) by others. I won't speak for all GLBTQ desis, but for me, being gay was never a "choice", no more than being heterosexual (presumably?) was for you.

It's with the reference to LGBT folks wanting to be accepted and loved by everyone. The come across as people with weakness of resolve. People with conviction in their choices will not give a damn about other's opinion.

So if you've got "conviction" in your heterosexuality, which I assume you do, then why do you run every angle of your lifestyle past other people for their approval? I'm not trying to attack you personally, but you seem to be under the distinct misapprehension that GLBTQ persons want passionately to be integrated into society. That's not the case--and again, speaking just for me--I don't really care who loves me as long as they accept me. I don't care about other people's opinions except for when they're blatantly impacting my life. I don't want approval and vindication, but I want my family and my friends to realise that my identity as a homosexual man is rooted in my sense of self, not in the popular misconceptions that seem to permeate the universe (particularly the desi one) at large. I'm not a paedophile. I'm not a eunuch. I wasn't molested reapeatedly, nor am I mentally indisposed.

I'm a person. End of story. That's all I want them to accept. I'm a person, just like every other person they know, who will undoubtedly one day be an "aunty" or an "uncle" (the former seem to have more fun, hence the option). I have my own (host of) issues with Pride and the queer community, but I don't see that I've done anything "wrong" or "weak" in asking for my family and friends to love me the same way they would if I were heterosexual.

It's not a choice. Life would be a lot easier if it had been.

All you fags and homos and Indian women having the sex with negroes, Muslims, Americans and cobras, do you think you deserve the acceptance of decent normal model minority and upstanding Hindu citizens of the USA? What is the matter with you? Are you stupid? You deserve the castigation of your community for falling in love with someone outside your acceptable list of partners, and you were warned of that from when you were children! So why did you disobey? And now you expect sympathy? Only anti Hindu bigots like Shashi Tharoor will give you sympathy.

Now another message to all the queer Hindus. I want to know what is wrong with your manhood. When you do the gay, you diminish Saffron Balls and make Saffron Balls into Pink Balls. Pink Balls are no good for fighting against the evil masses who plot to destroy Assertive Hindu Nation. Don't dilute the color of my balls. If you do, there will be trouble, and you will be forced to paint my balls in recompense.

I would like to invite all Hindu Homos to a SpoorLam youth camp. Together we do things to teach you about the GLORY of HINDU civilization and do healthy things to cure you of the gay. We wear tight khaki shorts and get Masters like Shri MoorNam to show us anal breathing techniques. We also do wrestling in almond oil wearing nothing but khakhi shorts. Of course we shower together and bow down before picture of Shri Narendra Modi Sahib, and we do body building, weight lifting, squat thrusts, dancing to Bollywood songs, then we drool over big twelve inch models of Indian Army missiles. As you can see, there is nothing homosexual in the culture of our ethos at all, no siree, nothing gay or macho in this at all.

Come back to Hindu Assertive Nation you Homos and Sluts who live with white men! Stop destroying Hinduism and giving ammunition to anti-Hindu bigots! For falling in love and wanting to remain in touch with Assertive Hindus, you are bigger scum than Shashi Tandoor!

Hail MasturbationMogambo!

I am, however, apparently capable of misspelling the word "repeatedly". Forgive me. I have to go beat myself over the head with something now.

But instead of thinking out of the box, we're all just going to channel SpoorLam.

Too many anti Hindu Assertiveness Bigots try and mock, but they shall not succeed, because they do not realise the box is already empty, and we must worship the lingam of the out of box thinkers.

Hail Manju!

He's positing another way to deal with disenfranchisement.

Touche, SpoorLam. Nicely done, esp. #41.

Re: SpoorLam

I give the Pink Balls segment "A".

Sin,

Good points all.

>>then why do you run every angle of your lifestyle past other people for their approval?

Because their opinion matters to me. And if they disagree, I don't go against their wishes. I expect the same from them - they don't get to make choices without my approval either.Freedom is what you define it to be. I have made a choice to run all my choices past those who mean deeply to me.

Enough about me...

>>I don't care about other people's opinions except for when they're blatantly impacting my life.

Assuming you are financially independent, can't you just tell those who are "blantantly" impacting your life to jump off a cliff? If you are financially dependant, don't you think they have every right to impact your life?

>>I want my family and my friends to realise...That's all I want them to accept...It's not a choice.

I understand. But I learnt a long time ago that asking others to accept your point of view is an exercise in futility. This is something that happens over time, and it's a never-ending process. You must simply continue to do your thing, and if you are correct, the truth will manifest itself. Asking others to accept you, believe you, treat you as equal etc is a violation of their morality. You don't want to accept their morality - so you should not expect them to accept yours. If you are correct, they will come around. If they are correct, you will come around. If both are correct, then both of you will come around. There is no need to make a song and dance about it with "pride months" etc.

M. Nam

Telling someone to buck up and leave because it's their fault their own families don't support them isn't revolutionary thought. Isn't leaving the only choice often given to someone who chooses a path that diverts from tradition?

You are a typical example of the weak willed, pathetic specimen of Hindu untermenschen. The Assertive Hindu Nation is better off without your kind.

All should worship the lingam of revolutionary out-of-the box thinkers who tell you to shut the fukk up and stop whining. This is genius compared to you whining homos and sluts who want to maintain your family ties and still have sex with unsuitables and in unsuitable entrances. For that crime you deserve all bad things.

This is revolutionary advice!

Nobody ever thought it before!

It's out of the box!

Hail Mogambooooooooo!

What do you need us for? What's in it for me?

Should all moral support, help and compassion be only for selfish reasons? I don't see why we should first see what is in it for us when it comes to taking on any kind of discrimination and prejudice.

>>Telling someone to buck up and leave because it's their fault their own families don't support them isn't revolutionary thought. Isn't leaving the only choice often given to someone who chooses a path that diverts from tradition?

They chose a path that they knew their family would not approve of, but now they are at the point of no return, so they want their families to adopt their morality, but they don't want to accept their family's morality.

This is a psychotic in the making. "I want you to change because of me, but I will not change because of you." Lives have been ruined, wars have been fought, civilizations have ended because of this line of thinking.

If you want people to accept you, you have to do what they approve of. You don't call a bunch of religious Hindus/Muslims over to dinner and serve Beef/Pork, do you?

M. Nam

Moornam,
"This is something that happens over time, and it's a never-ending process."
I agree but how is this process to happen if someone doesn't start it? You don't grovel for acceptance, but you do have to express a need for for the support of the people closest to you. Otherwise you're stuck hiding your own identity because of the fear of being rejected. Or you assert yourself and don't give a damn for the other person's opinion and lose those relationships. I've tried both, not in the context of sexuality, but neither worked very well. That's why I think pride months work; any thoughtful debate they foster is much better than ultimatums. Unfortunately, at least in the Desi community, sexuality hardly ever fosters anything thoughtful.

This thread reminds me of a comment one talking head, I think it was Andrew Sullivan, made. The gay rights/gay marriage debate is over...in one generation. In other words, young people have embraced gays as equals to such an extent that it is the majority opinion. Gay marriage is inevitiable. And this thread adds proof.

I mean even I--and I've been called a homophobe, fascist, racist, McCarthyist, etc. I support Bush, believe in neo-colonialism, am glad the US dethroned Allende and installed Pinochet, think affirmative action is wrong, unconstitutional, and violates the '64 civil rights act,etc--even I support gay marriage.

And since gays aren't economically disenfranchised, as Anuja points out, they'll find themselves--in one generation--in a much better place than blacks in the US find themselves now.

I know it still hard now, especially being desi, but in the long run, you've already won.

>>you do have to express a need for for the support of the people closest to you.

This is what I cannot understand. Why do you need to use others' support as a crutch? You're an adult, presumably financially independent. Stand up on your own. Make your own choices, the world be damned.

If there is any illegal hindrance from others or from the State - I would be the first to stand up and fight on your behalf. But when it comes to mushy stuff like "acceptance" and "understanding" - I have no time or patience.

M. Nam

You don't call a bunch of religious Hindus/Muslims over to dinner and serve Beef/Pork, do you?

Manju writes: >>even I support gay marriage

I think I know what you mean, but allow me to elaborate my thoughts on this...

Gay marriage does not need support, just as the sky does not need support to be blue. Gay marriage is. It's as simple as that. Marriage, according to me, is a societal institution - not a state institution. The Government has neither the right nor the obligation to approve/reject any marriage. Marriage is what people dear to you consider to be. You can marry two women and three donkeys, and if everyone around you accepts it - it's marriage. On the other hand, if you marry a person within your caste and religion, with horoscope matching, but the person does not suit your near and dear ones - then it's not marriage. A man and woman exchanging garlands alone in the middle of a forest/desert is not marriage.

In short - your marriage is not enough if it is accepted by you. It's only complete when accepted by folks around you.

M. Nam

"In short - your marriage is not enough if it is accepted by you. It's only complete when accepted by folks around you."

doesn't that contradict what you said earlier about not needing people's acceptance or am i misinterpreting what you said? why shouldn't marriage also be exempt from societal approval?

Gay marriage is inevitiable.

I mean even I--and I've been called a homophobe, fascist, racist, McCarthyist, etc. I support Bush, believe in neo-colonialism, am glad the US dethroned Allende and installed Pinochet, think affirmative action is wrong, unconstitutional, and violates the '64 civil rights act,etc--even I support gay marriage.

Lives have been ruined, wars have been fought, civilizations have ended because of this line of thinking.

Really? I thought more lives, wars, civilizations etc were ruined over the inability of two or more parties unwilling to reconcile despite historical grievances.

Whoa Neha, I didn't realise the future is here. Next up, Jesusland.

You are a typical example of the weak willed, pathetic specimen of Hindu untermenschen. The Assertive Hindu Nation is better off without your kind.

Sin, I'm glad you showed up. I always have enjoyed your intelligent, concise, and mature discussion.

Neha-- please make a batch of those tees, and sell them to pay for the SM server move :)

I think there should be t-shirts that say "Ask Me About My Assertive Saffron Balls."

But I have no problem picking meat out of the curries I eat when I'm dining in a non-veg household. And I don't think any less of them either.

*cringe*

I can't even deal with getting a slice of plain if they've "consolidated" and put several varieties on one pan, if one of said varieties is non-veg. Oy.

:+:

Anyone who is excessively preoccupied with what others do with their assholes should remove the stick from their own, since that usually remedies their problem. Also, we've been "othered" our whole lives, we have no right to "other" anyone else because of something as innate as sexuality; if we do, especially when they look like us and have thus suffered similar trials? For shame.

Hi everyone,

I started reading this thread after there were already a number of posts, and I'm trying to catch up. I have a request: please please please attribute your blockquotes! At least a number, if not the author and number!

tankoo

Live and let live - I was also freaked out by homosexuality in my younger years, thanks to a strict Hindu/Jain upbringing. But years of living in NYC and SF (ie exposure to some real people) took care of that. People are born the way they are. We of the darker complexions have enough to deal with - let's not create more discrimination.

"Beta, this is a western thing, there were no such people when i grew up in Ahmedabad", etc.

OK, dad. They were there, you just did not know it! What are "hijdas" after all??

Neha (off the main point), picking meat out of curries, as well-founded as that may be, does not qualify as veg (speaking as one former serious lover of the pork/beef/etc). The juices still seep in. Just say no next time - tis' OK!

Peace.

Manju:

And since gays aren't economically disenfranchised, as Anuja points out, they'll find themselves--in one generation--in a much better place than blacks in the US find themselves now.

I know it still hard now, especially being desi, but in the long run, you've already won.

Just to clarify, identities are complicated. Many lgbt people are also economically disenfranchised. The reason why I wanted to make the 'recognition' versus 'redistribution' distinction was because you seemed to be suggesting (contrary to what ur saying above)that lgbt are the 'true global outcasts'. I was arguing that being an 'outcast' in this world isn't just about lack of recognition, but also lack of socio-economic mobility/advancement.

Also, I think it's way too early for the kind of optimism ur exhibiting. Civil unions, or equal marriage, between same-sex couples are just beginning to be recognized. In some cases, there are indications of regression, eg. Canada, which is why there is nothing 'sad, undignified, contradictory, or even dangerous' about embracing affirmative identities.

But ultimately, I do agree with you in some part. As humans, we should one day be able to get a place where we don't need to positively affirm marginalized identities.Also, I think you're misreading Fanon, he's an existential humanist, and you might actually agree with him more than you think, philosophically anyway, whatever ur disagreements about his advocation for violence in Algeria.

MoorNam,

On the other hand, if you marry a person within your caste and religion, with horoscope matching, but the person does not suit your near and dear ones - then it's not marriage. A man and woman exchanging garlands alone in the middle of a forest/desert is not marriage......In short - your marriage is not enough if it is accepted by you. It's only complete when accepted by folks around you.

I must disagree. A marriage is only "real" if one marries the right person for the right reasons. Anything else is fake, a "compromise", or a cynical "business arrangement".

And I second post #56 in that your views here apparently contradict your earlier comments about "the rest of the world be damned".

an aside but the record must be corrected on frantz fanon. earlier, in a response to dutty brown boi, manju said:

Fanon is an example of what I'm talking about. He starts out as part of a liberation movement then embraces racial identity as a means to counter the colonial psychology. But in it he lays the foundation for a new repression and his flirtations with totalitarianism is quite predictable.

you are incorrect; it's the reverse. fanon was a clinician and an analyst of colonial psychology first (Black Skin White Masks, 1955), then became part of a liberation movement.

second, fanon never "embraced racial identity" in the first place, whether early or late in his career. what he did was to take seriously the psychological part of the colonial relationship and the way that colonialism exploited race to affect the psychologies of the colonizer and the colonized. he understood how the psychology of race helped prolong colonialism. but his answer to that wasn't to call for race-based liberation, but to encourage national political liberation.

peace

Neha (off the main point), picking meat out of curries, as well-founded as that may be, does not qualify as veg (speaking as one former serious lover of the pork/beef/etc). The juices still seep in. Just say no next time - tis' OK!

*end of hi-jack*

I know I'm the gazillionth person to say this but great post Siddhartha!

MANJU (although this is not all to you and I'm mainly writing this because I just had an exam on political philosophy and can't get to sleep):

Franz Fanon does NOT say that we never had some conceptualised individual sameness of identity but that what matters is how we become ourselves in the real world, through interactions with others and the images we create/export/internalise from that communication. for queer desis the assertion of their identity does not create "a new repression" but a previously invisible/misrepresented expression :-).

to use an overused lgbt image, it's kind of like adding another colour to the rainbow, so the rainbow is not diminished, only made prettier. the colour is itself/rainbow at the same time...also that way we can have better parties, cooler clothes, nicer clubs and more fabuliciousness.

i do see where your coming from but think it is v unfair to tell LGBT desis 'you've already won.'

gaining equal legal rights and representation is not winning a prize, it is claiming a long-denied right that is totally supported and required by the liberal principles you espouse.

there are different ways in which people can be disempowered which are not related to how rich they are. consider the UN's universal declaration of human rights, written after the mass genocide of european jews who were in the highest rung of their society's economic ladder.

i don't think you're a racist, bigot etc. as you obviously have a different view on how to get equality...

i just think that activism should never be replaced by complacency, and activism should mos' def' be applauded in a cold, cynical and apathetic world that works against its existence.

"we are the singers of songs, and the dreamers of dreams." (Willy Wonka, preferred political theorist of postpostmodernists).

KEEP IT LOUD AND PROUD! :-)

Trikone is a great group and much needed.

As for disenfranchised...I can't say for sure, but having to wake up in a world where the majority feels justified in calling you a pervert, a freak or mentally ill makes me think that perhaps that queer Desis, regardless of their location or their wealth, are not as "enfranchised" as it has been suggested.

Of course I want to be liked by them. Which is why, when I make choices, I make sure that it's palatable to them. Indeed, even while making small purchases I ask for their opinion and approval.

On the other hand, you seem to want to be free to make your own lifestyle choices, without getting their approval first, and yet still want them to accept your lifestyle. Isn't that self-centeredness?

No, this isn't "self centeredness" or egotism. Families should understand that each member of the familial unit is an individual, too. And as long the member is not doing anything hurtful, deceitful, or dishonest, I see no reason why families en large shouldn't accept differences within their family.

Families are important, and their support and understanding at the minimum is always desired by almost every human being. But people who are at the mercy of autocratic families are in a situation that is very frustrating.

Whenever I thing about gay rights, the old fashioned first-generation Indian in me recoils at the liberalism of giving homosexuals equal rights. Then I think of little, ole me - first-generation Indian, accented I am sure, peddling my services to mainstream Americans in the 70's and 80's and awarded every contract I pitched.

The funny thing about discrimination is you can't be surgically precise. Try discriminating against anybody and it will eventually seep into every class and type of people, including the group populated by my bright, vivacious 13-year old brown daughter growing up in a predominantly white Anglo-Saxon America.

I guess I support gay rights.

I have to point out that Desis such as Moornam are constant berated for expressing racial pride on here, and yet so many people think that "queer pride" is an acceptable concept.

Gautham's point is worth contemplating. SpoorLam routinely mocks MoorNam as some sort of proto-fascist because of his perceived Hindu Nationalist leanings. Mutineers cheer him on not only b/c he's funny, but (as good humor should) he's apparently revealing a larger truth---that MoorNam's arguments are a slippery slope that logically ends with Hindu fanaticism. But gay pride (or black pride for that matter) has no such slope. Why?

Because gays are clearly oppressed while Hindus are...well, here's where it gets complicated. Couldn't we see Hindu nationalism as post-colonial India reasserting itself after years of domination? Maybe the Gujurat riots were a response to Islamic terror, like Palestinian terrorism is a response to the Israeli occupation, or Black Panther violence a reaction to FBI terrorism (as Sleepy opines in post #25).

The victim/oppressor dichotomy is not always as clear-cut as many would have us believe. Victims who seek an exemption from the "white pride" taboo must remember that they are not always going to be a victim, and how they handle their empowerment is based largely on whether or not they realize it is the individual that is the most vulnerable minority. Too many "liberation" movements have proved to be anything but, as the history of post-colonial Africa shows.

But, of course, the above political dynamics aren't really in play regarding gay pride, which seeks personal liberation from the shame of being gay. So what if they have a little pride? What's the harm?

I was listening to an interview with Steve Perry, a Principal of a successful charter school that's been embraced by Bill Cosby (who's been harshly criticizing modern poor black culture). He tells of students who are literally afraid to correctly answer questions in class for fear of being perceived by their peers as acting white. He speaks of the use of the "N-word," which, as we know, began as an attempt to invert a symbol of oppression and has now come to it's logical conclusion as evident in rap videos and magazines; a whole generation of young blacks accepting the worst stereotypes of them as true, but now being "proud" of it. What was advertised as liberation ended up being a form of enslavement.

Which is why I'm not a cheerleader for Queer Pride. This ugly, separatist and confrontational word betrays, at the very least, a lack of the dignity that was central to MLK and Gandhi-- who knew how to make the suffering of their own people the sufferings of all humanity. I see may gays embracing the worst stereotypes about themselves (that of the hyper sexual gay man) while others have extreme vitriolic reactions toward dissenters like Andrew Sullivan and Camille Paglia. Because they seek to define an identity for a whole diverse group of people, these identity movements inevitably become rigid and often turn against their own, as evidenced by many post on this very site (brown sahib, brutha on brutha violence.) My own impression is that individualism will win out, especially since most gays are not at odds with capitalism. Nonetheless, my warning is that like political "liberation" movements, personal ones can end up to be anything but.

Manju:

Your interpretation of Moornam and Hindu nationalism seems to be right on. I don't understand why respecting and standing up for Hinduism automatically lumps you in with the BJP and Shiv Sena. In fact, they are probably the most un-Hindu people around, they just use the symbols to incite the masses. Many Christians, Muslims, etc. on this site preach their gospel and they are treated with respect, but any time anyone brings up anything about Hinduism that doesn't involve caste oppression, Sati, child marriage, eating cows, or some other stupid issue the Western Media obsesses over, they are automatically mocked and labeled fundamentalist. India's problems are mostly the result of hundreds of years of foreign occupation (by not just Europeans but also Mughals, who were many times worse), overpopulation, and extremely segmented educational and economic advancement. Though I hate her book, Arundhati Roy points out that many Christians (and Muslims) in India observe the same restrictions and prejudices in regards to caste, making it hardly a "hindu-only" problem. Point being, everything that's wrong with India is not because of the Hindus, and there is a great deal of wisdom and value in our ancient teachings, which is why they are so in vogue these days.

On a side bar, in my view, terrorism is just word used to incite people. There are a lot of myths perpetuated by the Western media that "terrorists" are some evil mutation of dark people (both on the inside and outside), when actually all terrorism really boils down to is violence against civilians. Terrible? Yes. Restricted merely to those we call "terrorists"? Absolutely not true. We are currently bombing the shit out Iraqi civilians, not to mention the fact they NEVER attacked Americans. Is that Terrorism? Israeli soldiers consistently use American-made advanced weapons on unarmed Palestinians. And yet the PLO is a "terrorist" organization. Timothy McVeigh personally killed over 200 Americans, partly because of his affiliation with radical militant groups like the Michigan Militia. But because he's American (or white) he's not a terrorist. He's just a psycho. Why are we so eager to label these people? So we can establish some artificial distance, so that we believe that somehow we are superior. The fact is, America is just like any other country. All you have to do is look at recent history (Waco, Guantanamo, Abu Graib etc) to know that here, in the home of democracy, we kill, torture, and degrade people, whether innocent or guilty. This is not intended to be some sort of anti-american rant; I'm just pointing out that we have no moral high ground to be judging the actions of others. Dropping bombs on people from planes is not morally superior to strapping the to your chest. Both are disgusting and wrong.

Manju:

you're right that sometimes people who are perceived as the 'majority' do sometimes get berated by others for their views. however i don't think that reclaiming and reshaping your own identity is a bad thing, or that it leads to situations like that of 'modern poor black culture.'

what's the basis of blaming the black pride movement for entrenching black poverty? the black pride movement does not glamourise being uneducated and poor, it worked and still works against an implicit other movement that promotes being rich and educated as being white. just because there is no movement labelled 'white pride' does not mean that there are not forces from the wider community that are internalised by kids growing up.

the pride movement was meant to work alongside economic reforms and redistribution to help reduce the problem of poverty. that never happened, except on a small scale through affirmative action which helps individuals but neglects communal problems.

people who 'own' negative stereotypes are not representative of identity politics, which is about recognising that an unfair identity is placed on minority groups by the majority, and recreating a new positive identity.

pointing to rap and hip hop music is a classic example. except for a few artists like kanye west and common, black artists who do not conform to the 'pimps and ho's don't hate the playa hate the game nigga' stereotype are left outside of a mainstream music industry that is dominated by white males. so who's perpetuating the negativity here?...

the problem with the neutral individualism you're looking for is that none exists. those who rely on this look at western liberalism which is as culture-specific as identity politics.

queer desis show that we are shpaed by many contexts. they are part of both queer culture, desi culture, western culture etc.

Maybe the Gujurat riots were a response to Islamic terror, like Palestinian terrorism is a response to the Israeli occupation, or Black Panther violence a reaction to FBI terrorism

how are unofficial movements that work on a small scale against state-terrorism comparable to state-sanctioned and funded actions against a minority religious group that just like other religions has a fundamentalist vein?

fascinating discussion. siddhartha, thanks for posting about this. i flinched when i saw the post, warily anticipating the discussion that might follow. it's been interesting reading the comments. just a few thoughts...

1) For those discussing franz fanon, yay!
2) Poor moornam, if you need to get acceptance and permission for your smallest decisions in your life, well, i don't have anything more to say.
3) Dear manju, i guess queer desis have "already won". i guess, in your world, we really should be thankful and shouldn't be making any more noise. i get it.
4) For the commenters who posted things like "what people do with their assholes shouldn't matter" just an fyi... very well intentioned but lgbt rights aren't really about what folks do in bed. lgbt issues/rights are about respect and about loving "love". To reduce lgbt issues to what people do in bed is a bit reductive.
5) And lastly, floridian, thanks from the bottom of my heart for sharing your train of thought, you made my day:

Whenever I thing about gay rights, the old fashioned first-generation Indian in me recoils at the liberalism of giving homosexuals equal rights. Then I think of little, ole me - first-generation Indian, accented I am sure, peddling my services to mainstream Americans in the 70's and 80's and awarded every contract I pitched. The funny thing about discrimination is you can't be surgically precise. Try discriminating against anybody and it will eventually seep into every class and type of people, including the group populated by my bright, vivacious 13-year old brown daughter growing up in a predominantly white Anglo-Saxon America.

I guess I support gay rights.

:>

Mutineers cheer him on not only b/c he's funny, but (as good humor should) he's apparently revealing a larger truth---that MoorNam's arguments are a slippery slope that logically ends with Hindu fanaticism. But gay pride (or black pride for that matter) has no such slope. Why?

Identity politics just is--whether or not it is "good" or "bad" depends on the context. This should be obvious from such extremely different examples as Nazism and the Black civil rights movement, both of which mobilized large numbers of people behind an ideological identity. To put all groups of identity-based communities in the same box without looking at the purpose for which those identities are used (e.g.. to fight disempowerment; to opress people; to marginalize others) or at the amount and manner of power wielded by the people making up that identity community seems completely disconnected from social reality.

Manju:

He speaks of the use of the "N-word," which, as we know, began as an attempt to invert a symbol of oppression and has now come to it's logical conclusion as evident in rap videos and magazines; a whole generation of young blacks accepting the worst stereotypes of them as true, but now being "proud" of it. What was advertised as liberation ended up being a form of enslavement.

But Manju, it sells, there's demand for this identity, so why shouldn't they be proud of it? How can it be 'enslavement' when P.Diddy is one of the wealthiest people in the entertainment industry? He's basically a media mogul and he did it by capitalizing on his identity. Now why shouldn't young black men look up to that? It's not as bad as you think man, mainstream hip hop doesn't pretend to be a victim, it's about 'Movin on Up'....about bling bling.

Anjua:

How can it be 'enslavement' when P.Diddy is one of the wealthiest people in the entertainment industry?

The sociopolitics of the hip hop industry are a lot more complicated than that. Ask any underground/semi-underground hip hop artist (or give yourself some aural pleasure and just listen to Black Star- it discusses all the elements of racial identity that we've discussed here).

Manju makes an interesting point:

My own impression is that individualism will win out, especially since most gays are not at odds with capitalism. Nonetheless, my warning is that like political "liberation" movements, personal ones can end up to be anything but.

While I give due acknowledgement to the fact that class privilege does afford people considerable agency, class privilege for people of color, women or queer identified folks does not mean they have achieved equality on a race, gender or sexual identity basis. It just means they have either circumvented the said issues, or they have capitalized on an image of those identities that the mainstream finds palatable. How can "bling bling" on a black guy symbolize racial liberation if it comes from child slaves in Africa stuck in a system that sublimates racism and colonization into economic imperlialism? Similarly, how good is Aishwarya's creating a global consciousness of India in the 21st century if she reverts to the same old "We are the land of kama sutra" BS? And how can Will and Grace symbolize sexual identity liberation if the show perpetuates the mainstream image of queerness being nothing but wealthy, materialistic, hypersexual and flam (Oh! and I forgot, only male homosexuality)?

It's like "You people are ok, as long as you agree to be our minstrels and buy our stuff." People, let's dance and not shuffle.

Manju:

Yeah, I understand the logic behind taking the N-word or the word “Queer” and turning it around by using it as a badge of honor, but there is still something very sad, undignified, contradictory, or even dangerous, about it.

To add to Dutty Brown Boi's response to that, I also want note that "queer" is a term that is used because it is all-encompassing.

Within today's active queer community, sexuality is seen as entirely different from gender. Sexuality refers to social intercourse, and gender is a societal construct that just happens to consist of two categories, one "male" and one "female", that are supposed to be opposites.

The categories of "gay" and "lesbian" are orientations based on a male-female gender dichotomy, and I guess saying "queer" is better than saying LGBTIQ, especially considering the enormous diversity within the queer community. I have cisgendered and transgendered (pre and post-op) friends who are firm in their gender as male or female, but queer their sexuality. Yes, it is possible to be a straight male or female, and still be flexible in your sexuality. And then I have friends who have an exclusive preference in their partner, but will not allow themselves to be called gay, straight, lesbian, etc. because they queer their whole gender ("gender-queers", "gender-fucks"), invalidating those terms altogether.

shruti,

I have cisgendered and transgendered (pre and post-op) friends who are firm in their gender as male or female, but queer their sexuality. Yes, it is possible to be a straight male or female, and still be flexible in your sexuality. And then I have friends who have an exclusive preference in their partner, but will not allow themselves to be called gay, straight, lesbian, etc. because they queer their whole gender ("gender-queers", "gender-fucks"), invalidating those terms altogether.

wow. you've taken the whole discourse to a higher level -- like argentina's play in the world cup. damn! i thought i was more or less up to speed on the distinctions and identifiers. far from it! thanks for educating a brother.

peace

You're welcome :)

I'm really happy to see this topic blogged on, and I really hope that people attend the conference (and by extension, Pride)! Reading through all these comments has been... lengthy, but a few things stuck out. Because I'm late on the boat, comments will unfortunately jump around a lot:

why do queer desis feel like they are in some unusually difficult position?

On the subject of Pride (briefly and unphilosophically):
Every day is pretty much Straight Pride Day, so if folks want to get together and rally, I am all for it. I think it's easy, as someone who identifies as hetero/straight, to brush aside issues of queer equality. People point to the popularity of gay marriage and go "oh look, equality." While gay marriage is super important, it also ignores the fact that people are murdered every day in this country, from liberal SF to (presumably) conservative Colorado for either being, or being perceived as, queer. And murder is just the most extreme example of violence. Pride is about community, safety, empowerment, love, and celebration. I think the world could use more of all of those things.

Black Power
I think there's been a huge misreading of the (US) Black Power movement on the part of the anti-pride apologists. I would recommend delving a little further than popular media imaging of the "scary" Black Panthers and instead trying some critical reading in Black thought, especially in internationalist thought. It becomes even more interesting if you throw in the UK Black Power movement, which had a super strong desi twist to it in the early 70s through 90s.

And Shruti, I'm so glad you introduced the topic of the all-encompassing'ness of "Queer" identity. I also have friends who hate locking themselves into the rhetoric of hetero gender binaries. When we throw in being gender queer I think we have to really challenge ourselves to reorient not only our views of ourselves and masculinities/femininities, but also how we view equality, justice, and acceptance.

Shruti:

The sociopolitics of the hip hop industry are a lot more complicated than that. Ask any underground/semi-underground hip hop artist (or give yourself some aural pleasure and just listen to Black Star- it discusses all the elements of racial identity that we've discussed here).

I was being sarcastic with my comment.

I guess saying "queer" is better than saying LGBTIQ, especially considering the enormous diversity within the queer community...Yes, it is possible to be a straight male or female, and still be flexible in your sexuality.

Heh...it's always interesting to talk to other queers about what "queer" means. I've gotten to the point where I use it two different ways--one is the first definition you're offering, which is basically an identity category label. The other is political in nature and about your attitude towards relationships and the ideology behind insistence on heterosexuality. I try not to blur the two, to the extent that I can avoid it, because same-sex attraction seems a slightly different thing to me than a way of thinking/living that politically challenges ideas like "marriage," "family" etc., though the two often overlap. Perhaps this means we've made progress.

Don't know if anyone else caught the Sundance docu on Charles Busch; (s)he of Die Mommie Die Fame.
Anyways, they showed this shaky video of someone Chuck B. cites as one of his earliest influences - a performer
called Bina Sharif at an East Village dive called the Limbo Lounge . Bina , a FOB with our beloved Bombay English accent, you go girl.
I wonder where you are now .....

Has anyone seen the B rate Bollywood movie, "Girlfriends"? It is about two lesbians and a guy.

Club La Zeez & SATRANG

PRESENT
Belly Bolly 4
Total Masti & Hips Shaking

The South Asian & Arabic LGBT dance event coming back for the fourth time at La Zeez and hosted by SATRANG after three successful events playing the best and hottest remixes of Indian / South Asian , Arabic ,and International world hits .
Enjoy La Zeez exotic dance shows with belly dance and bollywood flavors and meet the coolest LGBT South Asian and Middle Eastern crowd in Southern California and Los Angeles

Saturday , July 12th

10pm - 2am
$10

@

The STONE DANCE BAR - 5221 Hollywood blvd , between Western and Normandie
Hollywood , Ca 90027
visit us also at
http://www.myspace.com/la_zeez_dance