Well written Abhi-Let's see what wisecrack comeback he has to your letter without oozing xenophobia! A herculean task if any for this 'columnist'

As if there weren't any South Asian Americans living in Orange County in the "the good ol’ pre-blogosphere days" way back in the '90s!

What a jackass!

Yeah. How dare these unwashed macacas dare to voice their own opinion? Worse, how dare they voice their opinion in a place where everyone can read it and I'm forced to respond to it. Don't these idiots know there are proper ways to do this, like writing letters or emails so they can be ignored? Judging by their names, they're obviously not part of my exclusive club, so who cares what they have to say on a topic that is relevant to them?

funny thing is Naina's complaints about the LATimes were not too diffent from parson's complaints about Naina. so easy to see xenophobia in others, so hard to see it in ourselves.

Is this guy for real? I mean just the delination between "Orange County" and "South Asian" audiences is mind blowing. As if the mere thought of those two audiences being anything but mutual exclusive is unfathomable. I mean sure, the OC ain't no Jackson Heights, Queens--but if you are writing for a major national paper you should pass a standard "ignorance test" (kind of like the written part of the driver's test...if you fail that, you should never drive a car!).

The India and Nepal comment is also amusing despite the obvious "foreigners" connotation. As if anyone from Nepal would really care about Dana Parsons and his impression of Mumbai, a city that is at least a thousand miles away from any section of the country. It's not like they have their own problems or anything. Ya know, I heard Orange County news is what runs on the tickers all around Katmandhu these days...it must be all those damn MTV reality shows corrupting their way into sub continent. (next column topic Mr. Parsons?)

Lastly, if he actually visited the site and looked at the article and all the comments--did he not take notice of all the UCLA/college b-ball references?

so easy to see xenophobia in others, so hard to see it in ourselves.

What's even funnier is that I predicted you'd leave a contrarian comment within the first five. On posts like this you always do. I guess you've been commenting for so long now that I have become attuned to your agenda viewpoint.

I have to agree with what Manju has to say in post #4

Lastly, if he actually visited the site and looked at the article and all the comments--did he not take notice of all the UCLA/college b-ball references?

My thoughts EXACTLY. I doubt that Mr. Parsons is so small-minded as to think that 1) having ethnic heritage and 2) being American are mutually exclusive, which leads me to the sad conclusion that he probably knew this was an American site but decided to poke some fun at "those touchy foreigners" to garner a laugh from his local readers (whose intelligence he probably underestimates).

funny thing is Naina's complaints about the LATimes were not too diffent from parson's complaints about Naina. so easy to see xenophobia in others, so hard to see it in ourselves.

How can Naina be xenophobic against Dana?

Every one's got one and everyone's stinks, but here's my 2 cents - I can see why Dana might be less than impressed with Naina's criticisms. After all, Dana's column wasn't criticizing American-based Desis. If American Desies are truly the audience and community "of by and for" SM, then it is not completely reasonable to get bent out of shape when a journalist relays less-than-flattering but nonetheless truthful observations about a country that you have presumably left behind. Remember, this is America. Immigrants are "expected" to leave their allegiance to their countries of origin at the door. After all, do Blacks get bent out of shape when journalists allude to the obvious poverty in Africa? Do American-born Hispanics get defensive and spin apologies for poverty in Latin America? In many countries, poverty is real, it is in your face, and it must be accepted first in order to be dealt with. Denial is after all not just a river in Egypt . . .

I hope Dana gets canned by his new boss.

Loved your email to Parsons, Abhi (and congrats on the Ph.D.). He DID make it seem like all SM readers are in South Asia.

I can't believe a columnist at a major paper would use up an entire column to defend himself. I guess ANNA isn't the only sensitive one. :-)

Oh, and Naina, good work! You hit him where it hurts.

I was so friggin' shocked when I read this in the LA times this morning. Abhi, I'm glad you gave your e-mailed rebuttal (and then followed up with a second nani-boo-boo e-mail a minute later [is that how you defended your dissertation Monday? {ducking}]). As they say in PR, any media is good media. I am so proud that Sepia Mutiny has been mentioned in the LA Times, and that Naina's post was articulate enough that it was able to psyche Parson out.

As Sid would say, Big Ups to Naina, Abhi, and SM!

And Mr. Parson? I too am an Angeleno, born and bred in Los Angeles, currently attending UCLA. Orange County is my backyard, and according to census.gov, it's home to a quite a few South Asian Americans too.

The issue was not that Parson's articles offended the "allegiance" or sensibilities of South Asian Americans, who, because they offered a nuanced critique, must clearly be more "South Asian" than "American." That is neither here nor there and is frankly yet another offensive argument. The issue was that his manner of coverage devalued the local contributions of individuals in South Asia in improving their own communities or tackling taboo issues. Further, it looked at what was an essentially American-centric view of local stories, and it looked at the Orientalist language used to describe the "barbaric" and "backwards" India and Nepal. Parons was basically being called out for sloppy journalism.

Given that South Asian Americans have been in California for over 100 years, and definitely in Orange County/Los Angeles, it is ridiculous to assume that an issue-oriented blog has no bearing on your readership. Not only because a great number of the bloggers/readers here are U.S. citizens, but also because the LA Times does reflect a distinctly [Southern] Californian voice in international news readership.

What a tool.

wow. again, I am amazed by SM's influence. Naina, Abhi -- awesome.

quick response to Parson defenders: it doesn't take personal allegiances to be offended by shallow, sensationalist observations, nor are such allegiances always enough to offend, nor does skin color or place of birth determine allegiance. but when shallow, sensationalist, offensive rubbish is put out there -- we, the offended, have full right to call it out. Naina's complaints were not centered on who wrote what for whom but on how it was written.

btw: congrats on the PhD!

@4 and 7,
and how is that?

There is lots of hatred aginst me by these Indians and Nepalis. Things like " wanted to end that last email with “bitch,” but I decided to be professional.", "I hope Dana gets canned by his new boss." etc. Oh my God, why do they hate me so much? I will write another full column focusing on all this and conveniently ignore the core point, ie criticism of my sloppy journalism. after all, they are just bloggers, who we all know are nothin more than pretend journalists. I only need to humor them.

did he not take notice of all the UCLA/college b-ball references?

he doesn't know how to scroll down to read comments.
blech.

this is coming from a person who grew up around the OC and is moving back to the OC..
oh dana parson, we're going to have a grand old time.
bring it.

After all, the local Orange County residents are quite proper

HAHA..
yeah right..

all we need to do now folks... is 'hug it out bitches!'

wow...it's like he didn't read naina's post at all...it like he just saw the brown website, the word "sepia," and just assumed we're all indians from india. i would've thought that even a cursory persual, it would've been obvious this an american run site. that whole knee jerk they're-not-white-so-obviously-they're-not-american is disconcerting. how old is this guy? why would he automatically assume that a brown person reading the L.A. times couldn't possibly be an american?

that said...i agree with #18.

but most sepia mutiny readers are indeed in south asia. south asia is in the us, is it not?

I can't believe a columnist at a major paper would use up an entire column to defend himself. I guess ANNA isn't the only sensitive one. :-)

That is EXACTLY what I want to see first thing in the morning. Awesome. I know, I know...the emoticon makes it all better. And I just proved your point. Still, as soon as I saw it, I cringed and had my now-daily micro-crisis about "Why the FUCK do I put myself out there again?" I assure you that once I have my third coffee, I'll model your emoticon instead of Morrissey's angst.

Abhi, I hope he has enough testicular fortitude to respond to your correction.

And as for the devil's advocate...yes, we are all Americans here, but until OTHER Americans see us that way, articles like Parsons' directly affect our fellow citizens perceptions of us, even if we were born, raised and will always be here.

This is awful. Naina's original post was a thoughful and thought provoking scan of race roles and cultural criticism. It was a wide open debate with differing viewpoints on the legitimacy and underlying meanings of Parson's original statements. Parsons has turned this into a pity party for himself, and quite honestly abhi, I don't believe you did anything to really change that.

Congratulations on your PhD, but it sounded to me like degree dropping was higher on your agenda than defending the honest intentions of Naina's original post and the diverse opinions of commenters on this blog. (That isn't mean to sound as harsh as it does - sorry.)

You made all the legitmate points, and its obvious Parsons ignores them for the benefit of his own persecution. But I think this really is about being Desi in America then criticisms of poverty and injustice "over there" shouldn't be something we get our backs up about, but should be embracing and working to change. I am glad a number of other commenters on this board get that.

Congratulations on your PhD, but it sounded to me like degree dropping was higher on your agenda than defending the honest intentions of Naina's original post and the diverse opinions of commenters on this blog.

Ummm, yeah that must be it. Cuz, you know, we all have selfish agendas right? Like Mr. T would say, I drop suckas, not degrees. Don't worry, unlike Parsons I am not so sensitive that I am going to waste more than 3 lines on your comment. Now I am going to go get some coffee with Anna :)

Well, congratulations anyway. What is like 5:30 in the AM there?

In all honesty, there is some selfishness to complaining about Parson's original piece because it seems like we're more interested in our own sense of image than about the actual poverty and victimization that is happening in S. Asian countries. I know it is difficult when ignorant people look down on an entire culture because of anecdotal stories, but our responsibility should be geared towards ending that poverty and eradicating the crime that happens because of it. Stories about the professor help do that, so before complaining about pissants like Parsons, it may be better to consider how to work with him, rather than excoriating him for his ignorance.

First of all, kudos to Naina. You made some excellent observations. So excellent, that they triggered a rapid foot-in-mouth response. Apparently, the truth hurts.

Like I said earlier, I was actually more annoyed than offended by Parsons article. I thought he pointed out a few things (all of which were superficial, of course), that do in fact exist in India (and elsewhere in the world!). However, I did find the tone of his column to be condescending, superficial, and juvenile. Yes, there is poverty in India. We get it.

The point of this comment was not to re-hash everything that irritated me about the post. I just wanted to say that his response to Naina's post (and likely to Abhi's email) unleashed a whole new dimension to the situation. If he didn't get so far as making broad, sweeping, unfounded generalizations in the original article, he sure did with his response. Parsons: your original article merely made you seem like an ignorant ass whining about the realities of poverty when you encountered them. That article just gave me the impression that you were a first-time tourist to India and were "shocked" by some of what you saw, peering down from your balcony at the Taj Lands End.

My opinion is drastically changed by this response of your's. You have clearly demonstrated your ignorance about South Asians, and apparently journalism in general. Everything that might have been implicit in your original article, has been screamed in your response. You felt compelled to "clarify" to us South Asians who is and is not your "target audience" because apparently you learned in journalism school that your articles are not ignorant and off-base when targeted to one "homogeneous" population. News flash: there are South Asians in OC ... and everywhere else in the U.S. for that matter. If your original article wasn't entirely so, your response was definitely one sweeping, incorrect generalization that truly paints an ugly picture of the shallow background that informs your "journalism".

As a long-time reader but first-time commenter to this blog, I wanted to say, "Welcome to the real world of Virginia Orange County, SM..."

Camille @14. I hope Dana gets it as cearly as you have stated.

It is okay to counter Naina’s points..

Absolutely... but he just went wit the flow and took a completely wrong track. I dont think he understands who he is really messing with

I just don't get it. I know desis who've lived in Orange County since the 1950s. I have desi friends who are US citizens and grew up in Orange County in the 60s, 70s, 80s; who went to UC-Irvine in the early 1980s long before the big wave of American desis came of age. Orange County has been one of the early landing places for desis for several generations now. There are towns in Orange County that are heavily desi, and the desi-est place in California, Artesia, is in southeastern LA County about two hops and a skip away from OC. Unless there's some kind of thirty foot barbed wire topped wall surrounded by a barrier of white noise between LA County and OC that I hadn't heard about, you'd think a little bit of Parsons' readership would bleed over.

As a working journalist all I can say about this is that the assumption that writing locally for a local audience somehow absolves you from responsibility or the possibility of dialogue and criticism beyond that local arena, is absurd to begin with and patently more so in the age of globalization and mass information technology. The ensuing fallacies, such as Parsons' apparent assumption that SM readers are in India and Nepal, or the argument his self-styled "defender" (#10 -- with friends like that...) makes on this thread that immigrants are expected to leave their original country behind, cut ties, etc. -- what is this, 1895? -- only result from this same blindered frame of mind.

I agree with the person on this thread (#27) who said that the original Parsons column was no big deal -- just a trifle in which he pulled together bits and pieces of flotsam to make deadline. Writing a column two or three times a week is quite difficult and folks do have off days. The "offenses" to South Asia in that first piece were really quite microscopic and it's a lot of wasted time and negative energy to get one's back up about that sort of thing. However as the commenter pointed out, Parsons' second column, the response to Naina, was over the top and deserves all the flaming it gets. It exposes a frame of mind that -- whether it is actually Parsons' or that of his column writing persona or that which he attributes to his average reader -- isn't so much offensive or disrespectful as it is hopelessly and fatally behind the times.

i grew up in the orange county area.. am familar with newport beach.. lots of indians do live there...and in artesia, diamond bar, etc...

The blogosphere has made worldwide issues of Orange County news. But it's hard to click with a global audience.

hard to click with a a global audience? come on now.. it's hard to click with anything you write parsons...for me anyways..

Abhi, I understand your rebuttal, as some of these ersatz journalists ought to be schooled that "Hello! People of South Asian descent were born and live in the States, one of them may be your next-door neighbor (horrors) and they are aware of and interested in things that go beyond the bounds of Los Angeles.

The following is to Dana Parsons, who obviously just tripped upon the internet:

But I at least can try to soothe the ruffled feathers of a miffed Stanton city councilman, as opposed to a reader I can’t reach in India.

Then don't write about topics involving people whose feathers you can ruffle or unruffle as the winds change, i.e. Nepalese socioeconomics or naked children relieving themselves on the streets of India. Stick to a crack deal going down in Stanton, Cardinal Mahony's comments on Fabian Nunez or the latest Whitney Houston - Bobby Brown cour imbroglio. Follow that old writer's credo, you know, the one that goes "Write what you know and can unruffle."

That was meant to read, "Then don't write about topics involving people whose feathers you cannot ruffle or unruffle as the winds change." Hey, Abhi and ANNA, can I join you for coffee?

Remember, this is America. Immigrants are "expected" to leave their allegiance to their countries of origin at the door.

I think that's a national myth taken as self evident. There are many types of allegiances - religious and cultural, ethnic, purely emotional - and not everyone "leaves them at the door."

As a working journalist all I can say about this is that the assumption that writing locally for a local audience somehow absolves you from responsibility or the possibility of dialogue and criticism beyond that local arena, is absurd to begin with and patently more so in the age of globalization and mass information technology.

Small American papers that write about India in a putatively distorting way are likely to get responses not just from its townspeople but from Ashok in Bengaluru. Thank google for that.

Hey, Abhi and ANNA, can I join you for coffee?

i wanna come too!

The dude does not seem very smart going by this, since he says he is writing for Orange county which has a large number of desis and then tactlessly hints at generalizations which will probably alienate even more of his desi readers. He could have easily let this go.

Abhi,

Well written e-mail to Mr. Parsons but I think you took too much offense with Zoroastrian. What if you weren't a Ph.D from UCLA? What if you were a clerk or a fast food restaurant worker? Does the weight of your argument (that we are as American as he is even though we are brown) depend on your stature as a highly educated (i.e. respectable) person? We (Americans of South Asian decent) seem to think that we have to legitimize our place in this country by reciting our degrees, our professions, our incomes, etc. Maybe this is an insecurity common to all non-white Americans.

Zoroastrian, the point you make in your second paragraph in #26 is absolutely correct. Nethertheless, we can't help getting our feelings hurt by numbskulls like Parsons who only show one aspect of India to people who are generally ignorant about the rest of the world.

We (Americans of South Asian decent) seem to think that we have to legitimize our place in this country by reciting our degrees, our professions, our incomes, etc. Maybe this is an insecurity common to all non-white Americans.

Isn't this an insecurity common to everyone?

before complaining about pissants like Parsons, it may be better to consider how to work with him, rather than excoriating him for his ignorance.

No. I've checked. And it actually is better to excoriate him. It's not time for kumbaya yet.

We (Americans of South Asian decent) seem to think that we have to legitimize our place in this country by reciting our degrees, our professions, our incomes, etc. Maybe this is an insecurity common to all non-white Americans.

Well, applepie, for those who are not yet as American as you are, there are multiple techniques for getting there. It's nothing to do with insecurity--it's to do with not being ashamed of your accomplishments, whatever they might be. Of course in general terms Abhi's UCLA PhD doesn't matter, but in the specific terms of this argument--who's American, who belongs, who has a voice in the argument, who's "us"--it matters exquisitely.

Congratulations on a fine smackdown, Abhi, and on your doctorate. (Say, when are you returning to your country?)

The point isn't that Abhi has a Ph.D. from UCLA, but rather that he has a Ph.D. from UCLA. That is, he is very much the local audience, and not some foreign dude. Why bring it up at all? Simple - reading comprehension. If Abhi was a high school dropout, Parsons could say more easily that you didn't understand my article at all. The Ph.D. serves to certify that Abhi can competently read the newspaper.

p.s. it's hilarious to me that Abhi's diploma will be signed by Ahnold!

i read dana's column when a tipster posted it. i wonder if he will reply to your email by another email, or waste more space on the LA Times. but nice touch by adding naina graduated from UCLA.

and the desi-est place in California, Artesia, is in southeastern LA County

Can't be desier than Yuba City! No way man!

Can't be desier than Yuba City! No way man!

You know, this Parsons fellow had a good point. I too thought that Naina overreacted. He was on a good track, until he insinuated that Naina is a foreigner, and that SM is based in India. D'oh! Hopefully he sets the record straight after he reads abhi's email

Mr K
You disappoint me. By implying that a Phd from an Amreekan school like UCLA somehow makes you more qualified to challenge Dana, more part of "us", you betray your own outdated brown sahib/uncle tom mentality. So, if Abhi was an IIT graduate, he would not be eligible to voice his opinion right?

Can't be desier than Yuba City! No way man!

yes way.. or is it fremont? :)

Yuba city is desier than Freemont (or used to be). Desis have been there for around a century now.

Maitri @ 34 and Chick Pea @ 36: I could join Abhi and Anna for coffee. I hope Abhi will exccccccccccccccuuuuuuuuuuuuuueeeeeeeeeeee me. Fly to the most powerful city in the world, and we can all (pour) have coffee over Dana Parson's arrogance!!

"... it's to do with not being ashamed of your accomplishments, whatever they might be. Of course in general terms Abhi's UCLA PhD doesn't matter, but in the specific terms of this argument--who's American, who belongs, who has a voice in the argument, who's "us"--it matters exquisitely."

I'm ashamed to admit that I don't get your point completely. My point, however, is that in this particular argument it only matters that Abhi is an American and a Los Angeles local.

Congratulations Dr. Abhi! :)

Dr. Abhi! :)

Just wait til we roll out our new feature, y'all: "Ask Dr. Abhi!" No question too embarrassing to ask!

47 · Ennis on April 5, 2007 12:04 PM · Direct link Yuba city is desier than Freemont

hey now - at least spell the name of my birth-city correctly.

Hey guys, sorry I'm late to the party -- my big excuse is that my parents are in town (and y'all know how that goes).

Anyway, a few points:
1. THANK YOU, Abhi -- I couldn't have said it better myself.
2. I'm kind of scratching my head as to why Parsons chose to devote an entire column responding to my posts -- considering that I'm not the first person who has openly criticized his work. So I guess I'm kind of flattered. And to those of you have emailed me or posted congratulations here, thank you. In all honesty, however, the bulk of the credit really goes to the mutineers and everyone in the bunker. If I had written those posts on my personal blog, there is no way that it would have provoked the same reaction, so if anything, his defensive column is a testament to the influence of SM.
3. I felt that his column was also fairly self-congratulatory, as in, "I only write for a local paper, but it looks like I have a global audience -- clearly, I'm more important than I previously thought!" He's writing as though he's never heard of google. Thanks to the internets, everyone who posts anything on the web now has a global audience, not just him.

Mr K, You disappoint me...you betray your own outdated brown sahib/uncle tom mentality

essactly!

Devil's Advocate said:

Denial is after all not just a river in Egypt

HOLY SHI#, Dr. Phil just left a comment on Sepia Mutiny.

That is EXACTLY what I want to see first thing in the morning. Awesome. I know, I know...the emoticon makes it all better. And I just proved your point. Still, as soon as I saw it, I cringed and had my now-daily micro-crisis about "Why the FUCK do I put myself out there again?"

The reason you put yourself out there again is: you're talented, you're smart and we love you. (The emoticon was supposed to mean that I was just teasing. Perhaps I need to take Emoticons 101 again.)

I took a moment to write to Mr. Parsons...

Hi Mr. Parsons, My name's Maurice Reeves. I'm not Indian or Nepalese, and I live on the East Coast, but I'm a reader of Sepia Mutiny.

I imagine you're getting flamed for your article about "insulting globally", and I think some of it's probably deserved. I don't believe that Naina needed to take as much umbrage as she did at the observations of Mumbai that you passed along. In the original article about Mumbai, you speak about liberal guilt and inaction. I understand those feelings. I look at the amount my family consumes, and wonder if it's moral for me to have so much while others have so little. But this last article just comes across as arrogant, self-righteous, and kind of jingoistic. It's positively cringe-worthy.

When you speak with such smug insincere magninimity you make me feel ashamed for being white. I hate feeling like I have to defend who I am because of things you said; because of the way you said those things. I wish I could respond to my friends at Sepia Mutiny "On behalf of the decent white people I apologize. We are not all asshats, at least not all the time." Sure I have my moments just like everybody else. I try and keep them to myself. You, however, took your moment of supreme asshattery and tried to memorialize it for all time.

Awesome.

Sincerely,
Maurice Reeves

And, FWIW, I hear Edison, NJ is the most desi city on the East Coast, if not in the US.

Maurice Reeves, why on earth should you feel ashamed of being white just because of what Dana Parson's said? Am I supposed to feel ashamed because of what some other desi says? Sorry, I just don't get this attitude.

Maurice Reeves, why on earth should you feel ashamed of being white just because of what Dana Parson's said? Am I supposed to feel ashamed because of what some other desi says? Sorry, I just don't get this attitude.

You don't get it, do you? This is exactly the attitude that Naina and other "shamers" on the left are trying to cultivate among Americans of european descent: "You, heirs to the perpetrators of colonial brutality, should feel very very very bad about what other people with the same skin color as you have done at other places in other times to colonized peoples. How dare you say anything critical or even comment ever so blithely upon the circumstances of the millions of brown people whose lives you have destroyed! Instead, you should be continually apologizing and show contrition, and assume it as your solemn responsibility to pay (mental, moral, economic, etc.) restitution to the downtrodden brown people of India whose children you eat for breakfast, etc, etc, etc. . . "

Dieter you last comment was the best comment on this topic. As a non-white person, I have alot of liberal white friends who done the stupid white guilt thing, and it drives me crazy.

Americans of European descent should stop blaming themselves for everything that some one who looks like them as done in the past.

Americans of European descent should stop blaming themselves for everything that some one who looks like them as done in the past.

Would that apply to all societies?

Thanks, Abhi, for doing that. My thoughts exactly when I read the piece. It just goes to show how many people still assume--just because our names are Abhi instead of Alan or Priya instead of Patricia--that we don't belong. His "rebuttal" cemented my opinion of him. I'll assume you know what it is.

KarmaByte

It is kind of funny how over and over the last 6 years we have heard that all brown people should not be blamed for the action of few on that one sad day in september of 2001. Yet at the same point some who say that, have no problem blaming whitey X for the actions of whitey Y.

As a working journalist all I can say about this is that the assumption that writing locally for a local audience somehow absolves you from responsibility or the possibility of dialogue and criticism beyond that local arena, is absurd to begin with and patently more so in the age of globalization and mass information technology. The ensuing fallacies, such as Parsons' apparent assumption that SM readers are in India and Nepal, or the argument his self-styled "defender" (#10 -- with friends like that...) makes on this thread that immigrants are expected to leave their original country behind, cut ties, etc. -- what is this, 1895? -- only result from this same blindered frame of mind.

Double werd. Sloppy journalism on Parsons' part. That's what shocked me the most.

i don't feel any guilt for the harm wrought upon Dalits and my ancestors, even in bizarro-world Sri-Lanka, certainly had something to do with the perpetuation and settling of the caste system into Indian and Sri-Lankan life (across religions). This is because i can admit their complicity in the centuries-old process. There is no need to feel guilty--indeed no one in their right mind would call for the descendents of slave owners to find their former property and prostrate at their feet--but it IS necessary to react to the historical argument of complicity with a refutation, modification etc...and not a rejection of historical inquiry with, "i ain't into liberal guilt."

Yet at the same point some who say that, have no problem blaming whitey X for the actions of whitey Y.

huh? yeah, that stuff happened years ago, but it's like...there's a racial hierarchy now because of it, and it's being maintained because of various structural injustices in our world. what's wrong with being opposed to that? the comparison to 9/11 doesn't make sense.

Yet at the same point some who say that, have no problem blaming whitey X for the actions of whitey Y

Abhi:

Am late to this party but wanted to say -- great job! I am glad to see Parsons finally getting his comeuppance.

There is no need to feel guilty--indeed no one in their right mind would call for the descendents of slave owners to find their former property and prostrate at their feet

No, that is not the essence of affirmative action. It's not about guilt, it's about righting structual and cultural institutions which impede the progress of blacks, etc. It was intended to be a short term 'fix' for a changing society until some of the structural and cultural institutions righted themselves, so to speak. Hence, the friction today. At what point on the continuum are we?

Anway, my original comment about Maurice Reeves was why feel ashamed of being white? No one should feel ashamed of who they are: Black, white or brown. Abhor racism, but don't hate yourself.

"yes, we are all Americans here, but until OTHER Americans see us that way,"

Well Anna we gots a ways to go yet....still in the meantime desis will stay paid in full and we will buy out this mofo :) ..

Well Anna we gots a ways to go yet....still in the meantime desis will stay paid in full and we will buy out this mofo :) ..

:)

And Seahawks fan, thank you. Too kind (and I would've said that even if I hadn't had that fourth latte)

;)

This is crazy, I've been a OC resident most of my life and have relatives there since the late 60s. The whole you if you are desi you don't have an interest in OC issues angle is ridiculous. Then again I remember once when I got on a school bus when I was kid and someone making the comment that I had got way too much sun. Maybe dana parsons explains brown people he sees in OC the same way.

I just don't get it. I know desis who've lived in Orange County since the 1950s. I have desi friends who are US citizens and grew up in Orange County in the 60s, 70s, 80s; who went to UC-Irvine in the early 1980s long before the big wave of American desis came of age. Orange County has been one of the early landing places for desis for several generations now. There are towns in Orange County that are heavily desi, and the desi-est place in California, Artesia, is in southeastern LA County about two hops and a skip away from OC. Unless there's some kind of thirty foot barbed wire topped wall surrounded by a barrier of white noise between LA County and OC that I hadn't heard about, you'd think a little bit of Parsons' readership would bleed over.

I'm not trying to defend Parsons. And I too have relatives in Orange County that have been there since the 1960's. There are indeed a fair number of desis. And I think everything you said is correct Siddhartha. But the thing is...all the above, while being true, could have happened (and did happen) without Dana Parsons ever being aware of any of it. And by extension, without us ever registering on the radar of most of the people in Orange County. At the end of the day we are still a low-profile community in all but a handful of locations in this country.

And, in those handful of locations, like Edison/Iselin (New Jersey), when the others finally notice us in their midst, it ain't exactly pretty. That's when they come out to protest OUR protest against police brutality.

This is exactly the attitude that Naina and other "shamers" on the left are trying to cultivate among Americans of european descent: "You, heirs to the perpetrators of colonial brutality, should feel very very very bad about what other people with the same skin color as you have done at other places in other times to colonized peoples.

Americans of European descent should stop blaming themselves for everything that some one who looks like them as done in the past.

It is kind of funny how over and over the last 6 years we have heard that all brown people should not be blamed for the action of few on that one sad day in september of 2001. Yet at the same point some who say that, have no problem blaming whitey X for the actions of whitey Y.

To Dieter, Clueless, etc.:

The funny thing about your statements is that they are the ones which end up sensationalizing the racial aspect of Dana Parson's identity. I don't know if Naina or anyone else on here is a regular reader of DP's column - I'm guessing not, but correct me if I'm wrong - but I'm sure Naina and others would have criticized his work even if he wasn't white. In fact, by just reading the article, you can't assume he's white. And in fact, just because someone "looks white" does not mean they identify as such. And the thing is, the critique would have still stood its ground.

Because the critique was more about bad journalism and the politics of representation -- not about denying the right of a white person to speak about South Asia. I just wonder, why do these sorts of discussions always end up becoming about rights and not rationale? It always becomes about the gut emotional reaction of "How dare he/she tell me I have no right to do that! They have NO idea who I am or what I've been through or what I know!" instead of "Hmmm, I wonder what this critique is all about and what my role in all of this is." But that would require introspection, which, well...yeah.

Anyway, I guess all it takes is one crazy ass activist who told you that you have no right to write/speak/draw about this or that or that you have to pay for the sins of all your ancestors with your life, etc. to turn you into an unreasonable thinker who screams "reverse racism!" anytime anyone brings up whiteness or privilege or blah blah blah.

And to all those types of people, I ask: what draws you to this board? It's obviously a South Asian-American centered blog borne from the multicultural/identity politics idea of speaking for and about yourself. Assuming you are people of color (and there's a high chance you aren't) - doesn't this blog go against your code of de-emphasizing your ethnicity and proclaiming that you are "an American first and foremost"? I'm sincerely curious as to why you seem to consistently post on a board which obviously celebrates ethnic identity in addition to national identity?*** And also, tell me how are we supposed to speak about racism without sometimes bringing up whiteness? It's like speaking about sexism but pretending that men don't exist.

Or maybe you all just think that every -ism is bullshit...

***These are just my views about Sepia Mutiny. Also, I'm sure many SM bloggers and readers disagree with my views on whitness and privilege and whatever; I wouldn't be surprised if I'm in the minority on this. So I'm just speaking for myself, not this board or a collective "us" or whatever.

Neale - thanks.

pea, Ennis - dude, Yuba Duba is by far the desi'est city in California, although Fremont is definitely a close second. Yuba is historic, though!

Dieter - Your point is ridiculous and misplaced. You have no idea what Naina's intentions are vis-a-vis race or white guilt or whatever you want to call it. Naina was criticizing sloppy journalism and discussed the politics of representation. Not once was the "legitimacy" of someone's voice, with respect to their race, an issue in the conversation.

P.G. Wodehouse - No, white guilt and the legacy of slavery is not the basis for affirmative action. I am personally astounded by such a ridiculous attempt to characterize a policy that seeks proactive interim solutions to systemic racism.

Sigh - right on!

Since when are columnists bound to the same standards as reporters? There is a big difference between straight-up factual reporting and doing a POV piece, the genre that Parsons' columns definitely belong to.

As long as you're not being egregiously, explicitly abusive or inciting people to commit violence, you can pretty much muse all you want to about your view of things in an Op-Ed piece. If a reader disagrees, Op-Eds should be refuted on the merits of the arguments put forward, not by invoking identity politics or by pontificating on who can say what about whom based on their nationality or their economic/racial/political/social background. I believe that's called an ad-hominen argument.

The funny thing about your statements is that they are the ones which end up sensationalizing the racial aspect of Dana Parson's identity. I don't know if Naina or anyone else on here is a regular reader of DP's column - I'm guessing not, but correct me if I'm wrong - but I'm sure Naina and others would have criticized his work even if he wasn't white. In fact, by just reading the article, you can't assume he's white. And in fact, just because someone "looks white" does not mean they identify as such. And the thing is, the critique would have still stood its ground.

What was Dana Parson's errror? Can you state you critique succinctly? Was to "using his writing to hold himself aloft from the wretched masses of the 3rd world?" Or "primitivizing Mumbaikars by mentioning their less than stellar hygiene habits?" Isn't this what VS Naipaul did? Why is "A Wounded Civilization" (which by the way is much more mean-spirited and arrogant in tone) considered a penetrating critique of Indian society while Dana Parson's rather innocuous remarks by comparison elicit shrill, nay, hysterical rebuke? Again, one is led to believe that it is because of the identities of the narrators rather than the content of their observations.

Sigh - Awesome points! Well said.

As I resurrected the specter of white guilt, I don't feel that way very often, and I certainly don't feel personally responsible for the actions of slave owners in the South, or even the fact that my grandfather fought for the Nazis in WWII. Those are historical facts that I had nothing to do with.

My sense of shame reading Dana Parsons was more one of "Dammit, shouldn't educated people like him know better? And hey, he's a loud-mouthed white American. Look how he's stooping down to paternalistically pat the heads of the people he imagines he offended."

Yes yes, I know loud-mouthed idiots exist in every place and every color, it's just we're currently talking about this dumb idiot.

Isn't this what VS Naipaul did?

If I remember right, there some severe detractors of Naipaul on this board.

Wow, I think I'm one of the few Desi individuals on here that sort of sides with Dana Parsons. Here's my view (with all due respect to Naina and other bloggers here):

(1) I felt Naina totally overreacted to Parsons piece. He was simply observing that in his everyday life he takes a lot for granted (as so many of us do), and hearing from his cousin helped ground him. It was a U.S. vs. India comment, nor was it a white vs. brown comment--it was one of perspective being shed on how different lives are around the world.

(2) Parsons rebuttal wasn't at all anti-brown or xenophobic in any way. Abhi you wrote:

It is okay to counter Naina’s points but the insinuation he makes here is clear. Parsons is attempting to get his local audience to sympathize with his plight. How dare these foreigners offer their opinion on a local OC matter.

(3) After reading so many of these comments here--it's just reinforced something I've believed for a long time. Indians can be so super sensitive and see a cultural angle to every supposed comment made. I saw NOTHING in Parsons article that indicated that he was singling us out as foreign as a way of deriding us. I mean hell, this *is* a blog who's readership is majority South Asian--and the article in question spoke of India--it was all in context.

I just feel like Sepia Mutiny was too quick to jump on this guy. Had folks been more open minded in the intent of the original article (instead of bristling when they read the truth about India being dirty) it would help tremendously.

This is a pet peeve of mind to a grand scale. I have a mother who can't stand to watch anything on the news or in a documentary that shows India is a negative light and it drives me bonkers.

Abhi you wrote:

A minute later I felt compelled to send a follow-up responding to his crack about “hurt feelings in India and Nepal:”

"Yes, we must be from India and Nepal. That would make it all so much simpler wouldn’t it. Naina graduated from UCLA also just so you know."blockquote>

I simply don't understand how Parsons comment about "hurt feelings in India and Nepal" was a crack. The dude genuinely thinks the folks on here are from overseas...so he made the comment as such. There *were* hurt feelings... but his only mistake was assuming those who were hurt were geographically located elsewhere. No where did he insinuate those folks were less for it.

Again, way to over-sensitive.

Well, congratulations anyway. What is like 5:30 in the AM there?

In all honesty, there is some selfishness to complaining about Parson's original piece because it seems like we're more interested in our own sense of image than about the actual poverty and victimization that is happening in S. Asian countries. I know it is difficult when ignorant people look down on an entire culture because of anecdotal stories, but our responsibility should be geared towards ending that poverty and eradicating the crime that happens because of it. Stories about the professor help do that, so before complaining about pissants like Parsons, it may be better to consider how to work with him, rather than excoriating him for his ignorance.

dang, zoroastrian said it wonderfully.

Ennis wrote:

Yuba city is desier than Freemont (or used to be). Desis have been there for around a century now.

I saw NOTHING in Parsons article that indicated that he was singling us out as foreign as a way of deriding us. I mean hell, this *is* a blog who's readership is majority South Asian--and the article in question spoke of India--it was all in context.

Oh, and Dieter, being an op-ed columnist does not give a person free range to be an asshat. While op-eds are not held to the same standards as news articles, they still have to comply with journalistic requirements, and I personally expect better from columnists from major newspapers. Maybe that is my bias, but if you are representing a view on the LATimes, then maybe you should take yourself and your writing as seriously as your readers do.

And further, no one was saying, "Don't cover issues of poverty in India and Nepal." We often have really animated and intense discussions around caste, poverty, and a number of other issues in the subcontinent. I don't think anyone could say SepiaMutiny entirely avoids any negative representation of the desh, and in fact, I think there are often really intelligent, interesting, and nuanced explorations of many of the key issues facing the subcontinent. Again, the concern in Naina's critique was NOT that Parsons is bringing attention to key issues in Mumbai/Nepal, the issue was that his representation of the situation was ignorant, sloppy, and Orientalist.

Yuba City rocks my world with it's history. I did part of my masters thesis there and was fascinated with engrained/yet not engrained with the community-at-large the Sikh society is there. What's most fascinating is their dialect--a mix of Spanish and Punjabi that resulted in intermarriages with the local Hispanic population (because the Sikh men couldn't afford to go back to India for brides).

I have tried to wrap my brain around this, and I still fail to understand how accusations of journalistic sloppiness can be justified in this case. How was he sloppy? The article flows well, granted it is not Shakespeare. It is more of an introspective piece, rather than an informative piece. Also note that he is relaying another persons views about Mumbai, not his own first hand account. If one assumes that he is faithfully relaying passages from his cousin's letter, how is this being sloppy? Again, remember, this is not an investigative reporting piece, but a personal reflection.

camille...

Not once was the "legitimacy" of someone's voice, with respect to their race, an issue in the conversation.

naina...

Or are they more interested in asserting their racial, cultural, and economic superiority?

maybe camille, but parsons didn't come out and say indians are inferior either. It's the tone. which is subtle and debatable. those who live by the tone must die by it.

Dieter, I feel your pain. The whole Dana Parsons column fallout is a weird PC thing I still don't get. Especially here on Sepia Mutiny, where there are frequent and appropriate threads about the conditions in the Dharavi slum, female infanticide and sex selection in Punjab, domestic violence, and other social woes that plague India. Parsons didn't say anything wrong or inaccurate; he wasn't even sloppy; he just apparently reinforced a stereotype--which white people aren't allowed to do. That would be colonialism, don't you know . . .

You astutely pointed to Naipaul, who hated Indian defecatory habits even more than Gandhi did (the Mahatma was a fastidious installer and cleaner of latrines). But all of that stuff has been forgotten.

he just apparently reinforced a stereotype--which white people aren't allowed to do.

Yes. That's what it is. And that's the problem...all bigots use stereotypes but not all stereotypers are bigots. It can be hard to decipher. Thank you, you colonialist prick.

Did anyone notice Abhi's subtle sexism? The Patriach protecting his woman, which of course is a form of seduction, thus the gratuitous Ph.D reference which sits well with the auntijis and of course the context...a single, brown, clintonite on the verge of blast off.

It all adds up.

Did anyone notice Abhi's subtle sexism?

You are right that was subtle. If I made a statement like "Manju is a girl's name," that would be blatant sexism. Keep us honest by pointing out the difference for our readers.

You astutely pointed to Naipaul, who hated Indian defecatory habits even more than Gandhi did (the Mahatma was a fastidious installer and cleaner of latrines). But all of that stuff has been forgotten.

Preston, your comment might be valid, but perhaps it is on the wrong thread. This particular thread was about his ill-conceived response, not Naina's original argument.

Did anyone notice Abhi's subtle sexism? The Patriach protecting his woman, which of course is a form of seduction

Attack the messenger! Manju watching too much Fox News there?

Preston et al,

It's becoming increasingly obvious that regardless of how many times I try to flesh out my critique of Parsons, it's going to fall on deaf ears. For the last time, let me state: I never once said that Dana Parsons is not allowed to write what he writes because he is white. If he was brown, black, or of any ethnicity -- heck, even if he was a second-gen like me -- I still would have blogged about it.

Don't believe me? Fine, I really don't care. I'm not going to keep reiterating myself just so you and other commenters can reduce everything to being a conspiracy against white people. You're right in that you don't get it. You don't get it because you think that my two posts criticizing Parsons' writings are all about you. Whatever issues you have about not being able to say what you want to say because you're afraid of backlash from supposed "militants" like me is your own problem. You need to deal with that on your own terms instead of projecting it onto me.

If you don't understand something, try researching it. If you don't get libertarianism, read Ayn Rand. If you don't get orientalism or primitivism, try researching it. It's a lot more productive than sitting there and sharing your "pain" with other commenters who insist on reducing everything to a conspiracy. I'm sorry my critique wasn't literal enough for you. Let me give you an example, Preston - much of your photography deals with the South Asian diaspora. The comments you, Manju, Dieter, etc. continue to make are the equivalent of me coming up to you and saying, "Yeah, all your work is about Indians in India." You'd say, "No, that's not exactly it." Me: "Nope, it is. I don't get it. It's all about India. India India India."

And finally: don't patronize me with statements about what's "appropriate" for Sepia Mutiny. The goal of SM is broadly defined for a reason. We all have different issues and topics that we are particularly attuned to; that's what makes this blog interesting. Not everyone is going to like everything, not everyone is going to "get" everything. Heck, you were a guest blogger on SM too!

This isn't meant as a personal attack, but I'm getting really tired of this pointless back and forth. Sorry, I'm not a fan of circular discussions.

P.S. Also, guys, the "Oh no no no, I'm a big bad colonialist!" type of humor is getting really old and cliched. Humor is great, but using it as a crutch because you can't think of a logical counter-argument is played out.