How is Whac-a-mole pronounced? Same as guacamole?

Sidhartha, I think you're making much ado about nothing. This is an editorial piece, a work of her own opinion. Not a news story. So she called Indians a "model minority" - is that so serious of an offense that it detracts from the whole premise of her editorial?

I'm really struggling to understand your frustration. And what matter does her former job as deputy press secretary for Steve Forbes mean? Does this make her opinion any less valid?

excellent observation, Siddartha. "playing Whac-A-Mole" was bang on target. :) Kripalani is spelling out the criteria for assimilation.

this is kind of similar to what Amartya Sen says in his Identity and Violence - "the frantic Western search for the moderate Muslim".

Steve Forbes is not a bad man at all. That's all I can say.

uh, i read the article. what's so objectionable? ethnic activists and promoters always publish embarrassing shit like this (think hadassah). that being said, there were facts in there (e.g., median income of $70,000). the idea that brown americans are all successful professionals is clearly fallacious, but so is the idea we are in the same situation as other non-white and/or immigrant groups. too often the narrative polarizes between those who wish to praise and promote, and highlight only the good, and those who want to emphasize the negatives in the interests of motivating for social justice (e.g., consider the dumb individual who stated last fall that "i don't have the numbers on me, but indian amerians are underrepresented in higher education." the reflex toward victimization and the narrative of oppression is powerful enough warrant attention even in the face of the preponderance of empirical data). it is a fact that south asians are diverse, but, the indian american community, which is 90% of the south asian pop. in the USA, is doing well by a great many metrics. that being said, i will agree with the sentiment that these sorts of articles are tiresome.

This article particular pisses me off because it's the LA Times - they are usually good about working tightly with the Asian American community. This summer I was part of a group of researchers that met with the LA Times editors to strenghthen ties and make sure that they had accurate demographic information on the community. So it's not like the LA Times editors didn't have a report [the same one I blogged about on SM] or haven't been told that model minority is a myth.

I almost feel like they let the article slide by because it was written by a South Asian. And/or because she was a part of SAJA.

It seems that even, as an Asian American community, meeting with LA Times journalists regularly and developing that communication pathway isn't enough for an accurate portrayal. What else can we do?

razib, Model Minority implies two things, one that the the Indian-American way to success is a "model" to be followed. I sorta agree with this, Indians are pretty good at making something out of just about nothing. However, then they should be a model everybody not just minorities. That's the second part, the second part, model minority implies something like "Know your role, you're still a minority." I think its a subtle attack on blacks for example who often have to forcefully fight for their rights in contrast to the more subservient image of Asians.

Umm, what is the problem again?

I continue to be fascinated by SM bloggers who don't want to read any good thing on India/Indians/American Indians but don't hesitate in dragging everyone under "South Asian" bucket.

Perhaps you will be happy when they survey all Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Nepalis, Maldivians, Srilankans in US and then conclude "Ummm..South Asians are not model minority afterall" than "Indian Americans are model minority"?

Or do I detect a frustration that one did not become a doctor, engineer and is now stuck writing pithy blog posts?

Is this your "South Asian" radar detector getting pissed off simply because writer mentioned "Indian Americans" instead of "South Asians"?

dear gaunwalla - ease up on the attackery just a smidgen. your point may get lost in the interpretation.

So she called Indians a "model minority" - is that so serious of an offense that it detracts from the whole premise of her editorial?

runnerwallah, if your comment wasn't just the condensed version of razib's and you really don't understand what the big deal about using the "model minority" label is, you should start here and read on (I promise it's well worth your time to read that whole post and thread if you haven't yet).

I continue to be fascinated by SM bloggers who don't want to read any good thing on India/Indians/American Indians but don't hesitate in dragging everyone under "South Asian" bucket.

WTF? Siddhartha just posted this last night. Even if he hadn't, and even if the other bloggers didn't blog on the good AND the bad (and everything in between), your complaint about the term "South Asian" totally from left field, dude. Why don't you start a blog and post on sugar and spice and everything nice about South Asians [insert people from subcontinental country of choice]?

I don't know. The article was sort of lame, especially the quality of the writing. Like Taz say, it seems like LAT/NYT have a quota system that requires a certain number of articles written by minorities to be published, no matter what. But given there are so many good Indian writers and bloggers, perhaps they should the editors should cast a wider net. The article itself was pretty harmless, nothing untruthful for the most part. But given the readership of that section of a newspaper, a little depth would be soooooooo welcome.

"South Asian" is a term used by those who choose to use it because it reflects geopolitical reality. it's only as loaded as you want it to be. We Indians need to get over ourselves and stop pretending like there's some massive cultural chasm (bigger than the ones that exist between Indians) separating us from the rest of the region. I admit all of this is imprecise but we work with what we have. Stop crying.

I would like to see some better statistics on the Indian community. Yes, razib, we do appear highly represented in higher education and our median incomes are above those of whites. However, I have trouble finding comparisons by education level, or region. The "model minority" statistics are often confounded by the fact that Asians generally live in areas with higher median incomes and higher costs of living (eg New York or LA). I think we all know that a very particular group of Indians was recruited (actively or by push-pull factors) to come to the United States particularly between '65 and '80. We also know that the fastest growing group of undocumented immigrants is, in fact, Indian. Do they represent a "model" for undocumented immigrant success? Are they outperforming other groups?

I think we easily get hard-ons for these statistics but they seem incredibly shallow to me given the specific factors affecting Indians in the United States. Also, it's impossible for me to believe that Pakistanis and Bangladeshis are somehow more affected by racism than Indians are. Contrary to those who shit bricks when confronted with the word "South Asian", we actually do all look the same, and that matters in the irrational oppressive sociopolitical construction that is race. Yet clearly Pakistanis and Bangladeshis in America on average show different statistics. The nationalist morons will no doubt chime in that it is the innate cultural superiority of Indians that has created this rift, but I think it's more about how much education and capital Indians came here with, which is more complicated than Indian superiority.

Runnerwallah, I refer you to Shruti's and Razib's responses above. Taken together they do a great job answering your question.

iFob, I'm very happy with my career, but thank you for caring. As for the whole "south asian" thing, where does that come up in the post? She's talking about Indian-Americans, I'm talking about Indian-Americans. You want to bring in extraneous issues and/or start a flame war over something that is not the point here, that's on you, baby.

The person who was resorting to personal insults and statements about "other undesirables" has been banned.

what a pathetic op-ed. here's another data free, over-generalizing gem:

But the bill's biggest backer was the Indian American community

Um, no. The bill's "biggest backer[s]" were a relatively small handful of wealthy, plugged-in first-generation Indian elites.

Love how someone like Kripalani can just parachute back into the New York City after 10 years abroad and suddenly be deemed a free-ranging, insta-expert on "the Indian American community," writ large.

Oh, and Siddhartha, interesting side note -- not noted in any of the versions of her bio that you posted is that she also was Deputy Press Secretary for the Steve Forbes for President campaign in 1995-96.

Oh, and Siddhartha, interesting side note -- not noted in any of the versions of her bio that you posted is that she also was Deputy Press Secretary for the Steve Forbes for President campaign in 1995-96.

Incorrect. Noted in both the CFR bio tha I linked to, as indeed in my post itself.

whoops -- her bio doesn't note it, but you do. interesting....

or haven't been told that model minority is a myth.

you know, stuff like this pisses me off. on the one hand people on the Left emphasize the importance of subtle narratives when it comes to something like "the war on terror" or "the islamic threat," but when it comes to "the model minority" it is just a myth. i hung with friends who were asian pacific american activists, and almost got a sense that they were pissed that they had to dig for examples of how shabby the asian pacific community was in the united states (several chinese american friends really loved the hmong, an example of an asian pacific american group with enough social pathology to fit into any victimological narrative). it is true that there are serious problem with the model minority paradigm, but it doesn't come out of a vacuum. there is variation within the asian pacific american community, just as there is variation among south asians, and yes, even among indian americans. but simply dismissing the "myth" also tends to homogenize the narrative as if there isn't a lot of things to be proud of (if you make ethnic pride a big issue). the reality is that the average brown american (which means indian american numerically) is doing relatively well by convential metrics (e.g., income, education, etc.).

That's the second part, the second part, model minority implies something like "Know your role, you're still a minority." I think its a subtle attack on blacks for example who often have to forcefully fight for their rights in contrast to the more subservient image of Asians.

it's not that subtle. and i tend to agree with the critics of 'the model minority' insofar as brown americans who come to the USofA come with a lot of social capital and so it is no surprise they succeed, it doesn't have to do with something intrinsic in brown culture. but just because the MM narrative is obnoxious (i tend to tire of it) doesn't mean that there isn't empirical data out there which shows that different groups are attaining varying levels of success in the united states. after all, the MM narrative arose in part because chinese & japanese immigrants in the 1960s did shockingly well (education, income) despite the fact that there was a century long legacy of racism and bigotry against east asians on the west coast.

I think the link to Kobayashi that Shruti posted was quite appropriate. The problem with the model minority thing is not its mythic nature - or at least, I think we get tripped up when we try to claim that. You can't ignore the large number of wealthy people in some of these communities. The problem is that it obscures poverty within those communities (despite the wealth of some) and implies that racism has been "overcome", which is not a good way of going about dealing with what racism actually is and how it manifests itself. and of course it tells Blacks and Native Americans and Latinos that they have intrinsically "failed", almost like comparing a successful sibling to a derelict one. not good. highly divisive. and it's a great distraction from the real problem.

Yet clearly Pakistanis and Bangladeshis in America on average show different statistics. The nationalist morons will no doubt chime in that it is the innate cultural superiority of Indians that has created this rift, but I think it's more about how much education and capital Indians came here with, which is more complicated than Indian superiority.

the nationalist narrative makes the 'fundamental attribution error,' imputing an outcome upon essential characteristics instead of the context. obviously indian culture isn't superior if superiority is measured by economic output or quality of life indicators, seeing as how south asia has the greatest number of abjectly poor and destitute individuals in the world. and of course it is about education and capital, that explains the difference between bangladeshis and indians to a great extent i'm sure (e.g., many bangladeshis come here because of the "diversity lottery", and they're often quite dumb and mediocre in terms of human capital).

It appears that some "south asians" have a love-hate relationship with their ownselves.

raz, I think you're Bangladeshi (I don't know why I think that, maybe I'm wrong) but this:

(e.g., many bangladeshis come here because of the "diversity lottery", and they're often quite dumb and mediocre in terms of human capital).

is really just not nice.

The problem is that it obscures poverty within those communities (despite the wealth of some) and implies that racism has been "overcome", which is not a good way of going about dealing with what racism actually is and how it manifests itself. and of course it tells Blacks and Native Americans and Latinos that they have intrinsically "failed", almost like comparing a successful sibling to a derelict one

assuming racism as a given background condition though it shows that racism is not sufficient to explain the lack of success of particular groups (even if it is necessary). in fact, if you look at the south asian community, the lighter skinned pakistanis (sometimes near white) have less impressive SES metrics than darker skinned south indians.

is really just not nice.

so? it's true. i have cousins who came because of the diversity lottery. much dumber and less a credit to this nation than those who didn't come because of the diversity lottery. bangladeshis in the USA more "diverse" in intelligence than indian americans :-)

assuming racism as a given background condition though it shows that racism is not sufficient to explain the lack of success of particular groups (even if it is necessary). in fact, if you look at the south asian community, the lighter skinned pakistanis (sometimes near white) have less impressive SES metrics than darker skinned south indians.

the pakistanis' lighter skins may privilege them in some ways but it does not really make them more or less affected by racism. I also think that saying racism is not sufficient to explain the lack of access is problematic, because racism has very complicated effects which are both internalized and environmental. I think that one shouldn't assume that when racism is invoked as a cause of social problems, all other potential causes are being ignored.

p.s. i have a cousin who has a master's degree in physics who ended up immigrating to canada because it was easier to get to that country than the USA. she didn't win in the lottery, which my idiot cousin did win and so came to the USA. just and idiotic immigration policy.

the pakistanis' lighter skins may privilege them in some ways but it does not really make them more or less affected by racism.

you're just asserting. there is a literature which suggests that lighter-skinned blacks tend to be seen as less threatening then darker-skinned blacks, and they've parlayed this into greater SES outcomes. i am pretty sure that the same, all things equal, would apply to south asians. some of us look near black (or as a black friend ones said, "brothers with straight hair" and some of us look near white (again, the black friend, "white people with a tan").

I also think that saying racism is not sufficient to explain the lack of access is problematic, because racism has very complicated effects which are both internalized and environmental. I think that one shouldn't assume that when racism is invoked as a cause of social problems, all other potential causes are being ignored.

i take this to mean that you'll be happy to use racism as a simple explanation for a whole host of societal ills which minorities are subject too, but when someone wants to analyze and quantify its impact you'll balk because it removes your catchall explanation from the realm of mysterious deux ex machina?

Immigrants and the Whiter-Shade-of-Pale Bonus

(the main criticism of this paper i've seen is that it is problematic because within group variation in skin color is often determined by occupation, so those who end up in blue collar jobs outdoors will be darker than they otherwise would have been, generating this outcome. but those who wish to emphasize the salience of racism in american society generally took this article's conclusions)

Razib,
I will also add my criticism to the paper you link in #27. Apparently the author of that paper has no problem with the discimination against short people. So why is skin tone so important and not height? I thought they were both physical characteristics.

I'm trying to understand the critique of the model minority theory. Is this it?

1. Not every Indian is doing well. In fact, some sub-groups of south Asians are doing pretty poorly.

2. It's offensive to ask other minorities to miminck Indians when they are coming from a very differnent historical and socio economic background.

3. Selective immigration. Indians are arriving to the US better educated and with more financial resources so it is unfair to compare them to poorer less educated immigrants.

4. It underestimates the amount of racism in American society. The REAL myth is America is a place where all you have to do is work hard to suceed. Racism is likely to hold you back and the model minority myth covers this fact.

How'd I do? Is that it?

the pakistanis' lighter skins may privilege them in some ways but it does not really make them more or less affected by racism.

you're just asserting. there is a literature which suggests that lighter-skinned blacks tend to be seen as less threatening then darker-skinned blacks, and they've parlayed this into greater SES outcomes. i am pretty sure that the same, all things equal, would apply to south asians. some of us look near black (or as a black friend ones said, "brothers with straight hair" and some of us look near white (again, the black friend, "white people with a tan").

Yes, I understand this, but does that mean that lighter-skinned blacks are quantifiably less affected by racism? As an Indian I certainly understand what light skin privilege is about and also have seen various measures of the relationship between light-skin privilege and SES, self-esteem, etcetera. However, I don't think it's right to then make the bold assertion that light-skinned people of color are less affected by racism. Now, they may be less affected by a host of things, but racism is a broad system that we're really only beginning to unravel, deconstruct, and comprehend.

I also think that saying racism is not sufficient to explain the lack of access is problematic, because racism has very complicated effects which are both internalized and environmental. I think that one shouldn't assume that when racism is invoked as a cause of social problems, all other potential causes are being ignored.

i take this to mean that you'll be happy to use racism as a simple explanation for a whole host of societal ills which minorities are subject too, but when someone wants to analyze and quantify its impact you'll balk because it removes your catchall explanation from the realm of mysterious deux ex machina?

give me a f***ing break, razib. I'm fully in favor of analyzing and quantifying the impact and nature of racism. my point is not to create a catchall explanation, my point is that responding to someone's invocation of racism as a cause with "it's necessary but not sufficient" implies that you assume that person is using racism as a catchall explanation when in fact they did not say that.

Apparently the author of that paper has no problem with the discimination against short people. So why is skin tone so important and not height?

there is also discrimination against the ugly and the fat. but people tend to coalesce around ethnic markers which exhibit more intergroup varation as opposed to intragroup variation, and skin color tends to fall within that class (e.g., most of the varation in skin color between africans and europeans is between groups, not so with height where most of the varation is found within the groups).

but racism is a broad system that we're really only beginning to unravel, deconstruct, and comprehend.

racism is like god then. everyone talks about it, and they care about it, but you're basically saying we can't really comprehend or understand it. so where does that leave us?

racism is like god then. everyone talks about it, and they care about it, but you're basically saying we can't really comprehend or understand it. so where does that leave us?

I really wish you would actually read the words I wrote. This really helps facilitate conversation.

I never said we can't comprehend or understand it, I said we are now learning to do so. Why is that so hard to swallow? I think only now are people beginning to really unravel racism and understand what it is, define it, quantify it, deconstruct it, etcetera. And because of that you shouldn't make broad statements like "light skinned X is less affected by racism than is dark skinned Y". I understand that there are differing levels of privilege and power within communities, my point is that the literature you cite does not imply something as general as being more or less affected by racism. jeezus!

people of color certainly experience racism in a million different ways, and I don't want to discount that. I wonder if what I'm saying is really that unclear.

yeti, i don't know what you are talking about.

fine, dodge it completely. congratulations.

To lighten things up a bit... they cover all the stereotypes here

The Meaning of Being Desi

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8286679619611936760&q=show+me+meaning+desi

to be clear, i can say with certitude that my friend from mississipi, who is very dark skinned and mocked as a "skillet blonde midnighter" by "red bone" light skinned blacks experienced more racism than those who mocked him, who were also black, because he experienced racism from both whites and blacks, while they might have experienced racism from just whites (also, some of them were close enough to white that they could "pass" when they wanted too).

statistics when it's convenient, anecdotes when it's not.

Before Razib and his critics take us in a very obscure (pun not intended) direction: I also don't find the term "myth of the model minority" useful. It's not a myth, it's a narrative and an argument. A myth is Theseus fighting the Minotaur, or Hanuman organizing the bridge of monkeys. "Model minority" is a narrative about society and should be engaged as such.

Now, to the celebrants of Indian (or any other) culture, listen up:

If you think your ethnic group is fabulous, that's great. I got no problem with that.

If you think your ethnic group is brilliant, accomplished, powerful, beautiful, sophisticated, cultured, and generally the best thing to walk the Earth since Homo got Erectus, I got no problem with that.

If you call your ethnic group a model minority, then I got a problem.

Why?

First, because you refer to yourself as a minority. Minority is, in part, a state of mind.

Second, because the term implies there are more than one minority (since yours is a model), as well as a majority. In other words, you define yourself by reference to a majority, and you define others the same way. You fold them into your psychological disposition.

Third, you suggest that there is a right and wrong way for these purported minorities to conduct themselves.

My suggestion to you is to conduct yourself whatever way you see fit, and let people from other communities do the same.

I might add that speaking of a "model minority" betrays a pie-chart way of looking at our society that makes you very close in outlook to the PC/multicultural identity politics types you so frequently deride.

I might add that speaking of a "model minority" betrays a pie-chart way of looking at our society that makes you very close in outlook to the PC/multicultural identity politics types you so frequently deride.

aren't most of the types proud about the attainments of their groups, whether they be brown, chinese or jewish, basically into right-wing identity politics?

i.e., nationalism = conservative X identity politics

All I'm trying to say is this:

1) Asserting "racism doesn't account for everything" every time someone brings it up assumes that the person bringing it up believes that it does account for everything. Don't make reactionary counterarguments to things that haven't even been argued yet. It diverts the conversation and re-frames it deceptively.

2) Racism is complicated, and let's treat it as such. And that INCLUDES analyzing and quantifying different aspects of it, but it also includes being cautious about what we do with those results.

My take on the issue of Indian-American model minority is double; one, its used as a foil to blast so-called non-model minorities, and thus is unfair. And two, within the Indian-American community, it creates a mirage of affluence that people have to live up to, and simply inculcates a sense that the more well-off you are, the more virtous. To me of the two, the more substantial one to address is the intra-community dynamic. Its simply not true that people with more money are better people; cleaner, more respectful, having sweeter smelling b.o et alia

Finally; Punjabi! braaaaaaah.

nationalism = conservative X identity politics

nationalism / identity politics = conservative

nationalism / (identity politics X conservative) = 1

Its simply not true that people with more money are better people; cleaner, more respectful, having sweeter smelling b.o et alia

of course, but this is a human problem.

Siddhartha:

>Hanuman organizing the bridge of monkeys

That ain't no myth yo. You have no idea what monkeys could do back in the day. The model macacas of today just can't compare, whatever their "median income".

If it makes anyone feel any better, the indo-canadian community has not been called the model minority, esoecially in the Vancouver area.

True, and I doubt it will go away. Its simply that, it feels appropriate to point out the prevailing assumption here. Clarity is the enemy of injustice

Also; Oye Chuk Dey! Punjabia da shaan vakarhi!

the indo-canadian community has not been called the model minority, esoecially in the Vancouver area.

how dare you lump non-punjabi indo-canadians with punjabi indo-canadians!

That's right! Oh sala panchod harami soor da bacha! ja duffa ho sorr kisetho da!

harami = devil?
soor = pig?
bacha = kid?

Razib sorry about lumping non-punjabi indians with punjabi indians in Canada. But Punjabi Canadians make up alot higher % of the Indo-Canadian population almost half and over 80% in the Vancouver. Compare to States where they make up about 20% of the population.

So in Canada Punjabi are the most powerful Indian group, where in the States I think it the the Gurjati community.

Once again Razib I am sorry.

harami is bastard, the rest are right. ja duffa ho means go get buried

Once again Razib I am sorry.

apology accepted!

So in Canada Punjabi are the most powerful Indian group, where in the States I think it the the Gurjati community.

No way! Southie POWER!

Deepa,

little known fact, Punjabis love, love, love idli and sambar

little known fact, Punjabis love, love, love idli and sambar

:) And Punjabi food is all the rage in Bangalore. When I visited last time, they took me out specially for that cuisine.

Is it really? Well, that's good, make sure there's enough ghee to go around

Someone above got it right on 1960s-80s selective immigration.

On Canada, that country literally allowed thousands of fake asylum seekers (and even today welcomes Khalistani asylum seekers) so comparision to US not fair IMO. How can you expect a model minority when you are building a community from some farmer from Punjab who paid a asylum pimp to get into Canada and tear passport and flush passport on board plane toilet? Let us not forget Kanishka and Khalistan movement still alive in Canada (and to some extent in US - asylum lawyer funded movement)

This article has two major shortcomings. One is that it should have dealt with only its core theme - that of Indian Americans becoming more involved politically (it title should have been "Indian Americans come out politically"). Another is that in trying to list evidence of being a model-minority, the author makes exaggerating statments and views with disturbing implications.

The "News" portion of the article is about the involvement of the Indian American community in lobbying for the nuclear deal. The author should have stuck to this theme. In such a small article, it's not possible to take on a subject of Indian Americans (IA) "coming out". The author should have stuck to mentioning about increasing numbers of IA candidates holding public office and increasing influence of the IA lobby. The implication in this article is that the IA lobby was essential in getting the nuclear deal passed. Lobbying can only present some view in a favorable way; it cannot affect the substance of well-formulated public policy in America. I recall reading in the news that it was the Bush administration who initiated the nuclear deal because it felt that it was in America's interests too, not necessarily for financial gains. The author's concluding sentence "Watch their moves -- they've only just started." seeks to convince that there is something more than what meets the eye, without any evidence of previous accomplishments or potential.

The rest of the article is off-topic and is flawed with many inaccurate statements and implications. But I think that the reason is the shortcoming in the author's writing ability more than a mindset with obvious flaws, that causes her to make sweeping generalizations about the whole IA community. The author mentions that the IA community "loves its adopted land", that it is "law-abiding", that its high median income is a "PRIME source of human and financial capital for Washington", and that it ensured "Ivy League educations for [its] children" during its early years in America. The author also states that "ALL these native-born Indians ... came together to help the passage of the nuclear deal." The author should have commented on the specific IA lobby invovled in the nuclear deal if that was her main objective, instead of trying to make generalizations about a diverse IA community. All of these generalization arise because the author goes on to list some reasons for labeling the community as a model-minority in just two paragraphs. If these accomplishments are the criteria by which the IA community will be judged, then the community doesn't serve up anything notable. For all the talk about technological might, there's only one major tech company (Sun) founded by a person of Indian origin, for example.

Assigning the IA community a label of a model-minority in the context of this article raises doubts about disturbing implications even if the author didn't intend to. If author mentions that the community "loves its adopted land" or that it is law-abiding, is the honor of the community at stake that these statements need to be made? Otherwise, is it the case that other minories do not fit this bill and that a distinction needs to be made between them and the IA community? If that's not the case either, is it that the IA community needs to "suck up" to mainstream America by attempting to prove its usefulness? The tag of model-minority brings up many such connotations in my mind; unfortunately, the author's reasons for using this tag is not convincing.

This article belong in the op-ed section by the way. It reflects poorly on the LA Times for printing this article in the News section.

I was wrong in my last paragraph. The article is indeed in the Opinion section and not the News section.

The problem with the "Model Minority" characterization as it's usually construed isn't that it's untrue. Of course it's true. Indian (and in fact, most Asian) immigrants have done better in this country than the intense racism would predict. The problem is when that fact is bent around to fit into some completely ridiculous ideological model of rugged American individuality. The reason that Asians have done well in this country is that it has historically been possible to erect a whole structure of social capital outside of the traditional system in the US. First gens were able to parachute into this racist system with the bulk of their qualifications either intact or already ensured. They've been able to amass the wealth that can counteract that bias in the US for their children because of that. None of that fits into the historical American myth of immigration, in which people reinvent themselves and throw off the iron chains of their old culture. Yet that is too often the subtext of these characterizations: we are minorities who simply do not threaten the status quo, since our existence is neither costly nor threatening. It is not a positive thing.

First, because you refer to yourself as a minority. Minority is, in part, a state of mind. ...that makes you very close in outlook to the PC/multicultural identity politics types you so frequently deride.

kripalani comes across a little too anxious to please. but her writing probably reflects the constituency she (feels she) represents. is that ever so wrong? my knowledge of Californian geography is weak, but my guess is that the bourgeoisie whose attributes kripalani is lauding forms a large component of the newspaper reading desi demographic.

siddharth's pov is formulated so as reflect the angst of the sm readership - those who squirm at the thought that they are related in perception or by accident of birth to the folks being applauded by kripalani, folks who've assimilated well by seemingly bending over for the man.

so - to me they're both catering to their respective audience - points of view. i hope y'all can see both sides of the coinage.

The Khalistan movenment has died down some since the 80's in Canada. However there is a major divide in the Sikh Community in Vancouver area. On one side is the moderates and on the other side is the conservatives sikh's. The moderates are the one with tables and chairs in the temples and the conservatives are the ones where none.

In the late 90's Sikh temple would have fights over tables and chairs in which the police would have to be called. I have only live area for a couple of years and I think things are better now, but since I never go to Gurdwara, I could be wrong.

If I have any facts wrong, I meant no harm.

If these accomplishments are the criteria by which the IA community will be judged, then the community doesn't serve up anything notable. For all the talk about technological might, there's only one major tech company (Sun) founded by a person of Indian origin, for example.

much of your critique is well founded, but this part is just as subjective as the author's criteria, because you are not stipulating how you define 'major tech company.' Sun is (at least now) top-tier, but to be a top-tier company you also have to be a particular age (google is an exception, turning into a mega-corporation so quickly). there weren't as many brownz in silicon valley during the 70s and 80s because the initial waves were professionals, so one would not expect as many brownz being involved in founding these older established corporations of note, just like few brownz founded fortune 500 corps in general because most of them are older and many are even rooted in the pre-1965 era.

i tend to agree that the boosterism among amerian brownz exceeds real attainment, but if you offer a specific example (Sun) i think it is incumbent on you lay out the thresholds you are using to define 'major tech company' (e.g., youtube is probably not a major tech company and jawed karim's involvement was distant and somewhat marginal, but these are the boundaries conditions that are probably approriate to define to establish a precise measurement).

I have always wonder what is so wrong with assimilated when you move to a western country. I have taken alot of critism since moving to Vancouver from other desi's mostly punjabi for being so assimilated, even far as being called a sell out. I guess if you brown you have to be a certain way? Whatever!!

siddharth's pov is formulated so as reflect the angst of the sm readership - those who squirm at the thought that they are related in perception or by accident of birth to the folks being applauded by kripalani, folks who've assimilated well by seemingly bending over for the man.

so - to me they're both catering to their respective audience - points of view. i hope y'all can see both sides of the coinage.

Wise words, hairy_d.

Although I think there are many on SM who would like the model minority image too. It's nice and convenient and looks good on paper.

As Neal hinted at before, I think the model minority thing kills off any activism within our community, or at least dampens it down.Even where I live to see Polynesians and indigenous people forming political pressure groups or even going on protests is seen as normal. If Indians and Asians started doing the same thing some people would be like 'wtf? You've got nothing to protest about.'

There's a goepolitical aspect to this as well - as the article demonstrateed. Once the oil fields in the Middle East are privatized, the great geopolitical dance of the 2ist century will involve China the US and India. China and India will continue to be per capita poor, but in absolute terms will be wealthy, and will alter fundamentally the balance of power in global markets. China's nomenklatura will eventually frame China as a competitor to the US; India's likely will not, and thus its usefulness in the scheme of things. The model minority rhetoric may have less to do with local conditions (with its identity politics, its rhetoric of race, etcc.) than with the importance of the India-US relationship, especially for American business; the proseprous "global Indian" being a pawn (though he may think himself a playa) in the greater game. Its not for nothing the lobbies funded largely by American businesses recruited Indian-Americans in the nuclear lobbying effort.

much of your critique is well founded, but this part is just as subjective as the author's criteria, because you are not stipulating how you define 'major tech company.'

You are right; I should have defined what constitutes a major tech company. My criteria for being major was that the company should have done something notable that professionals in atleast the tech field know about.

If you look at a lot of the innovative products coming up in the open-source community, such as projects on sourceforge.net or on apache.org, I don't know of any major product started by a person of Indian origin. Many in the community occupy top tier jobs on teams providing well-known products. As far as innovation goes, however, we haven't been as successful yet. I am not pointing out our shortcomings. I am merely saying that we are fooling ourselves if we let the media, the article in this case, to exaggerate our accomplishments in the tech sector.

siddharth's pov is formulated so as reflect the angst of the sm readership - those who squirm at the thought that they are related in perception or by accident of birth to the folks being applauded by kripalani, folks who've assimilated well by seemingly bending over for the man.

Yeah? Well here's another pov - this is a crappy little puff piece on a few wealthy and well-connected Indian-Americans.

Led by businessman Swadesh Chatterjee of the U.S.-India Friendship Council,
Tech gurus such as Vinod Khosla, a co-founder of Sun Microsystems,
Professionals such as Rajat Gupta of McKinsey & Co.

I wouldn't care or complain if she wrote this clearly as a short profile of these men. That's fair, that's fine.

But she quite diingeniously covers the flattery with lame generalizations about all Indians. Even her "facts" aren't sourced and look qutie fishy to me:

(More than 60% of Indian Americans have college degrees.) Now they are established, law-abiding and wealthy — median family income is nearly $70,000

She also seems to be courting Republican attention:

Though historically Indians are overwhelmingly Democrats, they are starting to lean Republican too, especially after this bill. Watch their moves — they've only just started.

And lastly, to support Siddhartha's problem with "model minority" rhetoric - it makes any Indian who isn't wealthy appear to be an abject and utter failure. You're a cab driver ? LOSER! (You're Indian! Y'all supposed to be doctors right? What's wrong with you?) You run a grocery store/ operate heavy machinery/work for the sanitation dept? You must have really effd up, since you come from an 'established, law-abiding and wealthy" family, right?

In college, I was explaining to a acqaintance that her ideas for a party seemed quite lavish and many people might not be able to make the expected contribution. She scoffed until I flat out said I couldn't afford it. She then told me to stop being coy since, what, my dad was a doctor right? Tacken aback, I said "no" and her immediate response was, " fine, so then your mom is, whatever!" and proceeded to give me shit for being "cheap."

In college, I was explaining to a acqaintance that her ideas for a party seemed quite lavish and many people might not be able to make the expected contribution. She scoffed until I flat out said I couldn't afford it. She then told me to stop being coy since, what, my dad was a doctor right? Tacken aback, I said "no" and her immediate response was, " fine, so then your mom is, whatever!" and proceeded to give me shit for being "cheap."

Ay, ay, ay! Cica, it's good to have you back.

In college, I was explaining to a acqaintance that her ideas for a party seemed quite lavish and many people might not be able to make the expected contribution. She scoffed until I flat out said I couldn't afford it. She then told me to stop being coy since, what, my dad was a doctor right? Tacken aback, I said "no" and her immediate response was, " fine, so then your mom is, whatever!" and proceeded to give me shit for being "cheap."

LOL. Cicatrix, I feel for you.

And lastly, to support Siddhartha's problem with "model minority" rhetoric - it makes any Indian who isn't wealthy appear to be an abject and utter failure. You're a cab driver ? LOSER! (You're Indian! Y'all supposed to be doctors right? What's wrong with you?) You run a grocery store/ operate heavy machinery/work for the sanitation dept? You must have really effd up, since you come from an 'established, law-abiding and wealthy" family, right?

YES!! Yes.

It also has terrible implications for career choice, intellectual development, and self-fulfillment. If you're not striving like hell to throw yourself into a lavish career regardless of its fit for you, you're failing the stereotype. Where does that leave the people who don't long to be corporate lawyers, head surgeons, or investment bankers?

It also short-circuits any attempt to respond to the very real issues of discrimination and bias that South Asians DO face. For those individauls who have NOT been able to parachute in with their careers intact, the same barriers that other minorities face are still very relevant. But how could a "model minority" EVER have a problem with race?

I don't know of any major product started by a person of Indian origin.

Enough with this BS!! Have you heard the name Jagdeep Singh ??

Where did she get these statistics?

probably something called the US Census:
Asian Indians had the highest percentage with a bachelor’s degree, about 64 percent, whereas about 60 percent of Hmong, and about half of Cambodians and Laotians, had less than a high school education.

(page 14)

also, i know that 'positive' stereotypes can be annoying (e.g., brownz are smart and wealthy), but it is a step up from the brown-bomber model. chris rock had a funny skit on SNL years ago how he wishes that black people were stereotyped as wealthy (jews) or smart (asians).

Ok, let me go ahead and answer that question, he has started Infinera, a cutting edge company in Optical networking space. I should have mentioned Pardeep Sandhu, who started JUNIPER networks. Anyone who is in the Telecom industry knows what JUNPIER networks means.

Where does that leave the people who don't long to be corporate lawyers, head surgeons, or investment bankers?

it leaves them to pursue their life's dreams and in a position to tell people who want to define them by a stereotype to f**k off (speaking as a non-corporate laywer/surgeon/banker). it's the american way, we're individuals.

It also has terrible implications for career choice, intellectual development, and self-fulfillment. If you're not striving like hell to throw yourself into a lavish career regardless of its fit for you, you're failing the stereotype. Where does that leave the people who don't long to be corporate lawyers, head surgeons, or investment bankers?

also, may say that focusing on 'career choice,' 'intellectual development' and 'self-fulfillment' speaks to a upper-middle-class brown sensibility in terms of priorities? i am pretty sure that working-class brownz scrimping to send their kids to college are the most inclined to wanting their kids to enter the professional world. i think the people rebelling against the stereotype most strongly are the children of the professionals themselves, who see that it ain't all that.

I don't dispute that at all. But, as you've acknowledged above, the stereotype chafes. It sucks to be told that you're only behaving appropriately if you've only made the "right" choices, especially if that expectation is taken to the racial level.

sucks to be told that you're only behaving appropriately if you've only made the "right" choices, especially if that expectation is taken to the racial level.

look, i've experienced this myself. that being said, when i feel put upon due to this preconception people hold i remind myself what stereotypes might be accrued if was a black american male. i mean, women would no longer be surprised by my huge cock when i undress, but aside from that taking too much umbrage when people make assumptions about familial affluence or professional orientation seems to trivialize the far greater problems with stereotypes.

p.s. this particular problem also seems to afflict some jews i know, who feel inferior because they aren't the "jewish doctor" or "jewish lawyer."

Hey Razib, point taken about there being worse stereotypes. I'm just irritated because this is the writer is Indian, perpetuating a stereotype, and using it to ground her tongue-bath as some sort of social commentary.

. I'm just irritated because this is the writer is Indian, perpetuating a stereotype, and using it to ground her tongue-bath as some sort of social commentary.

she's obviously just a polemicist. itz an op-ed, right? i don't think this is about brown people at all, just a talking point to be slotted into a particular political platform for which she's a hired gun.

Where does that leave the people who don't long to be corporate lawyers, head surgeons, or investment bankers?

it leaves them to pursue their life's dreams and in a position to tell people who want to define them by a stereotype to f**k off (speaking as a non-corporate laywer/surgeon/banker). it's the american way, we're individuals.

Maybe that's why it chafes us so? By being stereotyped (even if in a 'good' way) we feel robbed of (or at least pushed farther away from) that ever-coveted American individuality/anonymity...?

If you look at a lot of the innovative products coming up in the open-source community, such as projects on sourceforge.net or on apache.org, I don't know of any major product started by a person of Indian origin. Many in the community occupy top tier jobs on teams providing well-known products. As far as innovation goes, however, we haven't been as successful yet. I am not pointing out our shortcomings. I am merely saying that we are fooling ourselves if we let the media, the article in this case, to exaggerate our accomplishments in the tech sector.

Just because you don't know stuff dont make a generalized statement. Here it is www.youos.com ., the most innovative Opensource Web based "OS". It rocks. Guess what one of the founder is Indian. This goes to show you are fooling yourself into believing there are no Indian with "innovative tech idea".

There are other commenters here who seem to think "well accomplishd" rich Indians immigrate, so it is easy for them. Around 90% of students who come here take loans back home. Repaying their loans is one of their top priorities as soon as they complete their studies. If they are so rich back home, they probably come here and go back to take care of their papas company. Only the guys who take loans end up staying here.

Even where I live to see Polynesians and indigenous people forming political pressure groups or even going on protests is seen as normal. If Indians and Asians started doing the same thing some people would be like 'wtf? You've got nothing to protest about.'

I guess you have not heard the name of "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi" who started mass political activism in late 1800s-early 1900s in South Africa.

He was one of the first guy to start pressure groups involving common man, and things you are talking about.

They have Indian-Americans who were even involved in Civil Rights movement.

I am not a fan of model minority neither people who have nothing else to do tear it down. They both are little dense, if you ask me.

correction: ....neither people who have nothing else to do tear it down as full-time passion...

i mean, women would no longer be surprised by my huge cock when i undress, but aside from that taking too much umbrage when people make assumptions about familial affluence or professional orientation seems to trivialize the far greater problems with stereotypes.

Sure. It's just annoying -- it doesn't impact life chances in the way that many, many other racial/ethnic stereotypes do.

And lol on the cock thing.

holeeeeee shiiiiit.

Goddamn, you people sure do love to go on and on about this. What should be a fascinating (and maybe even heated) discussion quickly turns so pedantic that I gotta scroll from comment #23 to the end. I'm sure some people had some good stuff to say in there, but Jesus wept. Who has time?

Summa y'all brownz gotta get a life. It's Saturday! Go outside, go play. Go on! Step away from the computer. That's what your momma would say.

Siddartha: totally with you on the model minority thing. One other point on the term "model minority" (and if someone else said this already, fine, whatever, consider this hammering it home): "model" sets us up for failure. As brownz become more and more mainstream, the ideal by which we are judged "model" will become less prevalent: more people will be fuck-ups. And those people will be derided for it even more than if they were just left alone. America is supposed to be the land of neverending second chances. If you're non-brown and have a troubled past, no one loads you up with "but your people are so great! How come you can't get your shit together?"

That's sort of unfair. We're a collection of individuals. If we're largely professional, largely successful, and largely affluent, that means that there are plenty of people who are NOT. And those people can face major problems directly as a result of myths like this. So yeah, sometimes you need to generalize to get a point across. And editorials are great places to generalize. But the truth is usually more interesting than the generalization, in my experience.

I don't dispute that at all. But, as you've acknowledged above, the stereotype chafes. It sucks to be told that you're only behaving appropriately if you've only made the "right" choices, especially if that expectation is taken to the racial level

Where does that leave the people who don't long to be corporate lawyers, head surgeons, or investment bankers?

it leaves them to pursue their life's dreams and in a position to tell people who want to define them by a stereotype to f**k off (speaking as a non-corporate laywer/surgeon/banker). it's the american way, we're individuals.

Maybe that's why it chafes us so? By being stereotyped (even if in a 'good' way) we feel robbed of (or at least pushed farther away from) that ever-coveted American individuality/anonymity...?

Confront your parents, aunties and uncles first before confronting the wider American populace.

They are the ones who first implanted the doctor/lawyer/engineer seeds in the gardens of your psyches.

I see this as an inner/intra-community/familial issue.

Summa y'all brownz gotta get a life. It's Saturday! Go outside, go play

And lastly, to support Siddhartha's problem with "model minority" rhetoric - it makes any Indian who isn't wealthy appear to be an abject and utter failure. You're a cab driver ? LOSER! (You're Indian! Y'all supposed to be doctors right? What's wrong with you?) You run a grocery store/ operate heavy machinery/work for the sanitation dept? You must have really effd up, since you come from an 'established, law-abiding and wealthy" family, right?

the point of my earlier comment was that kripalani's article reflects a view that is well-received in by latimes' general readership, by her editors and by her handlers. you may not agree with it, but there's a sizable population out there that does.

for all that the obscure desi achievements that are lauded on this board, consider this one - this is an immigrant woman who's done well in her own right - she influences a readership spanning millions (BWk + Latimes) - she obviously cares passionately about where she hails from - and that's a good thing - she bends the truth but well... so what?

no. i'm not related to her or anything. just a little bugged by the one-sided slamming. i'm just not sure why anyone's so deeply upset about this little fluff piece. most bwk articles are pretty fluffy anyway but that hasnt prevented the same articles (prob with krip's thumbprints on them) from being cited on this blog haha- and i'm rambling now so i'll stop now and go for a run. i hope i dont slip on ice and break my jaw. that would be so uncool.

It's Saturday! Go outside, go play

just for that, when i down a cool one tonight - hmm.. at 11:30 p.m - i'll say.. cheers to y'all. how about that - if we all do that together - the combined good will compressed into that fraction of a second may warm up the globe by a degree or so - and the icebergs will melt - and LA will drown - and kripalani will float out to sea - and egad! what a masterful plan... you devil in a lada, you.

the second part, model minority implies something like "Know your role, you're still a minority." I think its a subtle attack on blacks for example who often have to forcefully fight for their rights in contrast to the more subservient image of Asians.

This is absolutely right, "model minority" is replete with insulting insinuations. The word "minority" is not an objective monicker, it's used in a pejorative context, as in, "We were here first, you came next and did your role well." I'd say its much more than a subtle attack, it's more or less a pointed finger at blacks and hispanics who's historical timeline exists on an entirely different wavelengths. As W.E.B DuBois asked his people, "How does it feel to be a problem?", we must turn back to the question Vijay Prashad asked, "How does it feel to be a solution?"

The term "model minority" is seen by some as condescending, the equivalent of saying "good boy"; while for most other indian-americans, such as this silly chest-thumper Kripalani, it is a source of inordinate pride. Macaulay would be proud of the latter. Indians were educated to be servants of the British Empire and educated indians, which effectively means english-educated indians, have for the most part been unable to shake off this servile, colonised mentality. It is for this same reason so many desis eagerly try to curry favor with anglos with boasts of Indian Democracy, Indian proficiency in english and so on.

There are other commenters here who seem to think "well accomplishd" rich Indians immigrate, so it is easy for them.

You are confusing "well-educated" with rich.

Asian Indians had the highest percentage with a bachelor’s degree, about 64 percent, whereas about 60 percent of Hmong, and about half of Cambodians and Laotians, had less than a high school education.

The Hmong immigrants were peasants. Indian immigrants mostly came from the english-educated class, which is the (undeserving) elite of India. Big difference. Presenting such statistics without background is misleading.

Similarly, mexican immigrants aren't the well-educated elite of their country. The educated elite of south america stays home and enjoys a good life. The elite of south asia scramble to get the hell out, by hook or by crook.

the reality is that the average brown american (which means indian american numerically) is doing relatively well by convential metrics (e.g., income, education, etc.).

Firstly it is ridiculous to claim that "brown american means indian american numerically". Check out La Raza, or this for example:

http://brownpride.com/articles/article.asp?a=219

Secondly, the reason for indian-americans doing better economically than Hmong or mexican immigrants has to do with the fact that indian immigrants came from the educated class to begin with, unlike the latter. But that still does not buy desis a "high SES" since race, skin color and national origin still play a significant role in social status in America. And in these departments desis are severely handicapped. Even uneducated "brown" mexicans can claim skin color privilege over desis, being substantially lighter.

obviously indian culture isn't superior if superiority is measured by economic output or quality of life indicators, seeing as how south asia has the greatest number of abjectly poor and destitute individuals in the world.

Exactly. In contrast east asians, the actual and original "model minority" in America, not only do better than indian-americans in America but, more significantly, they do far better than indians when both are in their native lands. Is it just culture or does innate intelligence play a role?

the indo-canadian community has not been called the model minority, esoecially in the Vancouver area.

Similarly the desi community in the UK isnt exactly seen as a model. Quite the contrary. Both in Canada and the UK it appears that it is the punjabis who are the majority of desis.

Once upon a time, a few years back, I was slacking off in my Harlem gym, watching TV and eating a milky way bar, when a program about another model minority--Caribbean Americans--suddenly came on. A small group gathered around to watch and things quickly became uncomfortable. Even to a guy like me, whose racial sensitivity knob is set close to zero, it was obvious that black Americans were getting more than just an implied scolding, especially since the models in this case were also black.

One guy got very animated in his objections, and soon another dude joined in. But then, two women countered, putting down American blacks (and American black men in particular) in terms I cannot reproduce here for fear of violating SM’s abusive language policies. But suffice to say, most of us know how people talk about there own group within the confinement of that group. Eventually, the first guy relented and admitted his primary concern was the white press reporting things that should be left to the black community.

The vibe I get is that the model minority narrative (and its values: personal responsibility, traditional families, religion, hard work, discipline, education, etc) is here to stay, whether we like it or not, because it has been catapulted out of conservative think tanks and onto the streets and churches. I mean by this that it is not the model minorities themselves wielding it, but the nonmodels, as anyone who has seen the excitement Cosby generates in the community can attest to. Don’t get me wrong, this is still an obviously controversial minority view, but there is a growing sense that the traditional civil rights approach has reached the end of the line, and one way or another a new path, which entails some form of empowerment thru blame, must take over.

I can meet Siddhartha and his disciples halfway though. There’s something very unseemly about Indians--who have come to this country by choice wielding a solid education-- lecturing those who are coming from a very different foundation. At the very least, it’s impractical, as the reaction of the first guy in my story demonstrates. But this model minority narrative has gone far beyond us, if it ever really was about us to begin with.

Just because you don't know stuff dont make a generalized statement. Here it is www.youos.com ., the most innovative Opensource Web based "OS". It rocks. Guess what one of the founder is Indian. This goes to show you are fooling yourself into believing there are no Indian with "innovative tech idea".

I wasn't saying that Indian Americans haven't done innovative work in the tech industry. What I was saying that some people were overstating the contributions of the Indian-American community. Sure, their contributions have been essential in the tech sector. But some people tend to imply a dominance of this community in the tech sector when they quote statistics like "half the the Silicon Valley startups are by people of Indian origin." This sort of thing concerns me because as a member of the community I would be ashamed if/when the shallowness of this argument is revealed.

Someone else (RC) also said something similiar to what you said by giving a name of an innovator to supposedly disprove what I was saying. My argument is that if there is really so much innovation going on, shouldn't they be present in enough numbers? I haven't come across many founders of open source software that are of Indian origin. Thanks to Mytake for pointing out YouOS.

I was considering innovation because it would be the ultimate test of the significance of the contributions of the IA community.

I haven't come across many founders of open source software that are of Indian origin.

Indian Americans are involved in the nuts and bolts or plumbing of the tech industry, because that does not require flambouyant saleseman ship, but requires expertise.

Thats why Dr. Gururaj Deshpande starts a Sycamore Networks out of his research. (This is just another one of the "names".. there are plenty of others.) Without the nuts and bolts and the plumbing there wouldnt be the wirelss Telecom revolution that happened in the last 10 years. The kind of innovation that Desis are doing is not what gets on NewsWeek or Forbes, but it runs and enable whatever gets on NewsWeek or Forbes.

In short "tech" is bigger than "Google" (which is really a good business plan and OK innovation) and bigger than OpenSource (very few serious business man would considere developing something for everyoone to get FREE), at the same times TOI type claims that IIT started the sillicon valley boom are stupid and ridiculous also.

Also dont expect Desis to start a consumer product.

I heard a Desi named Amar Bose started a consumer product company called Bose Audio systems which sets the Gold standard for all Noise cancellation techniques.

siddharth's pov is formulated so as reflect the angst of the sm readership - those who squirm at the thought that they are related in perception or by accident of birth to the folks being applauded by kripalani, folks who've assimilated well by seemingly bending over for the man.

Not at all. My POV is formulated by its own devices, not to "reflect" some other group of people. I speak for myself. I'm not trying to reflect the alleged angst of the SM readership. I don't even know who our readers are -- just the commenters, who are a small though valued portion -- and the fact there are so many people out there reading us whom I know absolutely nothing about is a big part of what makes me enjoy doing this.

On the topic at hand, I refer you back to my comment #39, which no one seems to have responded to. That's my best encapsulation of my POV on this topic so far.

My suggestion to you is to conduct yourself whatever way you see fit, and let people from other communities do the same.

I can understand the various viewpoints about model minorities, but I'm troubled by the POV in your post, Siddhartha. It suggests that people take a Darwinina approach to relationships between people and communities. In a foreign policy context, this correlates to a Realist way of thinking, and in India for example, this sort of approach results in the increasing divisions along communal, caste, and religious lines that you see in Indian politics today. It may be that democracies are capable of managing this sort of thing, but not easily, and too often with violence playing a role. I'd rather see an approach that encourages cooperation and communal values; an approach that also understands that these beliefs, values, and traditions will necessarily be in flux. Acting in "whatever way you see fit" seems to me selfish, short-sighted, and ultimately self-defeating. Thanks

Not at all. My POV is formulated by its own devices, not to "reflect" some other group of people.

I speak for myself. I'm not trying to reflect the alleged angst of the SM readership.

I refer you back to my comment #39,

regarding my comment on appealing to a readership - we dont really live in a bubble - would you still blog if noone responded, or there were no refreshes? clearly you feel you have a point to make and need to make yourself heard. if there is a need that's being assuaged here, then you're going to post more and more often on topics to build on that readership. the relationship is symbiotic. thus - though your thoughts are your own - they are chained to your identity and the people who know and interact to you. anonymity shall set you free.

my point. not sure any more. besides i'm hungry and have to make an omelet - mushrooms, feta and sweet yellow peppers - on a montreal bagel - mmm mmm mmm ... i can taste it now.

would you still blog if noone responded, or there were no refreshes? clearly you feel you have a point to make and need to make yourself heard. if there is a need that's being assuaged here, then you're going to post more and more often on topics to build on that readership. the relationship is symbiotic. thus - though your thoughts are your own - they are chained to your identity and the people who know and interact to you. anonymity shall set you free.

I appreciate you clarifying your point, hairy, but I still disagree. The only "need" that I perceive here (and let me clear that I am speaking only for myself and not for any of the other contributors here) is to keep a conversation going by posting frequently and offering angles that have a good chance of provoking an interesting conversation...

I heard a Desi named Amar Bose started a consumer product company called Bose Audio systems which sets the Gold standard for all Noise cancellation techniques.

Totally Random,
Agreed about Bose. Its definately a consumer product (although with highly niche market. count me as a customer too :-) ) But I was talking about the "tech" that I am familiar with, and that is on the Telecom or the internet technology.

Wow, I think I missed most of this conversation.. No offense, but most of the comments challenging the model minority myth are a little patronizing, y'all. This is not just about folks with affluent/educated parents not being able to deviate from the "model" and consequently feeling bad (I understand there were other arguments, also), this "myth" totally obfuscates not only the SES diversity of the community, but also ignores that these skewed statistics are the direct result of U.S. immigration policies. [and of course, as was mentioned, actively propagates anti-Black, and in California, anti-Latino, racism] I don't want to belabor this a bit, but for those who would identify with the 2nd gen, "parents came on 1960s/70s tech visas," educated & relatively affluent background, I think Vijay Prashad does a fairly good job of breaking the "myth" down in The Karma of Brown Folk.

As someone with a more mixed up SES upbringing, by the time I got to college I was wildly disappointed with the community consciousness of my desi peers. Like Cicatrix mentioned, everyone assumed anyone desi was affluent with doctor/engineer parents. I had grown up in a really poor, ethnically diverse, city in the Bay Area, and all my friends who had immigrated in the 80s/90s or had parents who were truckers, taxi-wallahs, farmworkers, etc., didn't go to college. The idea of someone having to work to pay their way through school, or having grown up with family members who were undocumented, or living with 10 people in a small space was something my college peers associated with [poor] Latino families. Just because they didn't grow up with this experience - and generally grew up in really affluent "white" neighborhoods -, they assumed that this reality didn't exist. I was pretty shocked and disaffected.

And unrelated:

On one side is the moderates and on the other side is the conservatives sikh's. The moderates are the one with tables and chairs in the temples and the conservatives are the ones where none.

WTF? Outside? It's 60 degrees on the left coast and i cannot find my Prada scarf.

siddhartha #39:

>>I got a problem.Why? First, because you refer to yourself as a minority. Minority is, in part, a state of mind.

I define myself as a minority of one. And I consider myself to be a model citizen (education/money/social standing etc).

>>you define yourself by reference to a majority.

I consider America to be a collection of minorities of one.

>>If you call your ethnic group a model minority, then I got a problem

I don't have a problem with individuals of any group calling themselves anything. Just as I consider myself a unit of one, I considers others' right to surrender their individuality to an ethnic/caste/race/linguistic group identity. None of my business. Does not affect me in any way.

Do you have a problem with Jews calling themselves "The chosen people"? I don't. Similiarly I don't care if desis call themselves a model minority.

However, if anyone wants me to fit into their mold of how a model minority should be (because I'm desi), he/she will get a bloody nose.

M. Nam

he/she will get a bloody nose.

Is that so?

he/she will get a bloody nose.

Is that so?

Fight..Fight...Fight

BidiSmoker,

Very well said! I could not have put it down in a better fashion.

Thanks!

Regards,

the author is talking about a specific subset of the Indian-American population, not Asian Americans or South Asians in general, so unless you have data to prove her wrong in her assertion that Indian-Americans on average are wealthier and more educated than the general population, I would day your criticism sounds like nothing more than sour grapes.

Dumb and dishonest bullcrap. RTFA:

"THE 2.2 MILLION Indian Americans in the U.S. constitute a model minority, highly educated and well paid."

What part of that led you to the conclusion that she "is talking about a specific subset of the Indian-American population"??

BidiSmoker #110: nice post.

MoorNam #107: "model citizen" clever counterpoint.

If Indians and Asians started doing the same thing some people would be like 'wtf? You've got nothing to protest about.

This is gonna huge, i just cant belive it that i am standing at a great blog of my life, i am really glad to have my comment here in very decent topic. thanks to webmaster.

Penis Enlargement ; The top-rated penis enlargement device. Penis enlargement science easy fast and safe penis enlargement at www.penissizeenlargement.net