you made a whole list! i didn't even hear of 'Bindis for Biden' or 'Katha for Kucinich'. you have to admit though, Obhangra is the most ludicrous sounding of them all! it makes absolutely no sense!

So what would be T for Republican candidate Tom Tancredo.

I wonder if there will be any cute, politically active, single women at the Obhangra.

having attended the SAFO event in NYC, i can say that there were some definitely cute and politically active desi women there. i'm sure the same would happen in DC.

So what would be T for Republican candidate Tom Tancredo

Tandoori

i'm sure the same would happen in DC.

Yes, but would it happen in Houston, TX? That is the real question. :)

Too bad it's in D.C. If it's in Atlanta, then I'll definitely will be there.

my god this site is funny. abhi for 2012

There is a fascinating article on the actual Obama in this week's New Yorker. Highly recommended.

Fabulous, just fabulous. I can't tell you how many "meetings" I've had thinking of desi kitsch phrases as it relates to elections...

So what would be T for Republican candidate Tom Tancredo

Tassa for Tom

Too bad it's in D.C. If it's in Atlanta, then I'll definitely will be there.

atlanta happaned a month ago.

Alu Gobi for Abhi: A comment on Abhi's post created by a brown insomniac

too bad obama has to now bhangra with the secret service--don't know if they have the right moves.. maybe someone should volunteer to teach them the 'screw the lightbulb in' dance.

too bad obama has to now bhangra with the secret service--don't know if they have the right moves.. maybe someone should volunteer to teach them the 'screw the lightbulb in' dance.

They can't be any worse than those damn Gujarati's, right?

And before some zealot jumps all over my comment (as if anyone ever acknowledges my comments, haha), I am Gujarati.

There is a fascinating article on the actual Obama in this week's New Yorker. Highly recommended.

What a read! He's all cadence! He triangulates triangulation and the result isn't disjointed, polled, or platformed. He's the space between the bullet points, a rich artistic performance, and there ain't nobody like him in politics.

>>too bad obama has to now bhangra with the secret service

I can picture the Secret Service chanting to Obama: Mundeya too bach ke rahi...

M. Nam

abhi: you have the perfect light touch for this kind of thing. Very funny.

Or if you want to make it really up-scale, Alphonsos for Abhi!

here i was thinking that president bush is the only public servant who can dance...

Abhi - you're CRAAAAAZY! :)

Yes, but would it happen in Houston, TX? That is the real question. :)

There are a lot of hotties in Houston... for sure they will be there.

I have no problem typically with the "South Asian" moniker in its cultural use, but its use in this case, and the whole event in general, is more than a little disturbing and hopefully not reflective of Mr. Obama's broader approach. This is problematic on many levels including:

1. The broad assumption that South Asian (democrats) have a common political agenda. This may be the case on a domestic policy level, but is certainly not the case on an international policy level. To the extent that the U.S./India relationship is important to a voter, and/or to the extent that this voter cares for India's overall standing in the world, they might have a very different policy perspective than someone who might feel similarly about Pakistan, or Sri Lanka (and yes, in certain matters, support for India and Pakistan is mutually exclusive). This extends broadly to "headline" issues such as military coalitions and approach to Aghanistan, as well as matters as mundane as mango subsidies.

2. Given the efforts that India has made to build its lobby in Washington, it seems like this grouping with its neighbours and adversaries is something of a slap in the face. It makes it feel as if India will not be treated as an emerging power in its own right by Mr. Obama.

3. The whole "bhangra" team is infantilizing. Could you see a Hispanic-American event themed around merengue, or a Caribbean-American event themed around reggae? When we act seriously, we will be taken seriously. I would imagine that Sri Lankan Americans, for example, would find it even more patronizing.

I have great respect for Mr. Obama, and I hope this is the effort of his misguided supporters, and not a broader policy statement with respect to the Indian subcontinent and those of that origin that are U.S. citizens. If the latter, I would imagine that would be very disappointing to many of his well heeled Indian, Pakistani, Sri Lankan, etc. supporters that would make up a reasonable amount of his campaign war chest.

hmmm... there is apparently a whole mess of votes and $$$ amongst the bhangra loving audience. who knew!
god help them.
i am all for obama, but this is too much.
fabulously funny though! henna for hillary, to make up for her horrible ghandi joke? ew.

3. The whole "bhangra" team is infantilizing. Could you see a Hispanic-American event themed around merengue, or a Caribbean-American event themed around reggae? When we act seriously, we will be taken seriously.

Yes this was almost as bad as a Caribbean event being called Obama-Mama's.

For anyone interested in attending "OBhangra", RSVP here!

abhi: you have the perfect light touch for this kind of thing.

Tamasha ?

I guess what I meant is that he can do funny political posts with a light touch, which is actually quite difficult to do. Oh, nevermind.....:)

The whole "bhangra" team is infantilizing. Could you see a Hispanic-American event themed around merengue, or a Caribbean-American event themed around reggae? When we act seriously, we will be taken seriously. I would imagine that Sri Lankan Americans, for example, would find it even more patronizing.

I have great respect for Mr. Obama, and I hope this is the effort of his misguided supporters, and not a broader policy statement with respect to the Indian subcontinent and those of that origin that are U.S. citizens.

As one of Obama's "misguided supporters," please allow me to respond. First, to be clear, South Asians for Obama is an independent organization that is not part of the Obama campaign. We are an organization whose goal is to unite the South Asian community behind Senator Obama's campaign, but nothing we do should be thought of as being organized by or even endorsed by the campaign. For example, if this wasn't clear, the Senator will most definitely NOT be at "OBhangra" on the 18th unless he happens to be in the neighborhood and pops in to see what all the commotion is about. (Given his new secret service detail, I'd say that is unlikely.)

So, not surprisingly, the Bhangra theme is ours, not his. Please don't overthink this -- this is just a party, a low-dollar fundraiser aimed at "young professionals." SAFO has held kick-off events in several cities across the country (DC, NYC, Atlanta, LA, Chicago, and, last night, SF). The kick-off event in DC was more substantive (we showed this video). We've had other events -- meeting to watch a webcast of one of Obama's speeches, for example, and the people of SAFO-NY are planning to be part of a larger march and concert coming up soon. We're doing policy outreach/focus group type things. But we also like having fun, and OBhangra is just a way for us to have a party and raise money for what we think is a good cause while having said party. Oh, and FWIW, I'm of South Indian origin and have no real clue how to bhangra, and one of the people who did the most planning for this event is Sri Lankan-American. I for one would be better off dancing to Prince, but I certainly don't find the bhangra theme patronizing.

The broad assumption that South Asian (democrats) have a common political agenda. This may be the case on a domestic policy level, but is certainly not the case on an international policy level. To the extent that the U.S./India relationship is important to a voter, and/or to the extent that this voter cares for India's overall standing in the world, they might have a very different policy perspective than someone who might feel similarly about Pakistan, or Sri Lanka (and yes, in certain matters, support for India and Pakistan is mutually exclusive). This extends broadly to "headline" issues such as military coalitions and approach to Aghanistan, as well as matters as mundane as mango subsidies.

Again, to be clear, it was OUR decision to be a "South Asian" organization, not the campaign's, not that we see anything wrong with such a grouping of course. I don't want to get into a whole "South Asian" vs. "Indian" debate -- this site has seen such debates time and again. But as you recognized, we do have commonality on many domestic issues, which we think is enough of a reason for us to be a South Asian organization. And while we may not all agree on foreign policy questions, so what? There are disagreements on foreign policy questions both within the Indian American community and within the Democratic party, but that doesn't mean there isn't common ground -- and the same applies to the broader South Asian community. In fact, a significant theme in Senator Obama's campaign and his track record as a public servant is drawing in people of different backgrounds and views and finding the commonality rather than focusing solely on the issues on which people disagree. And it is in that spirit that SAFO includes people from all South Asian countries (well, most countries at any rate -- I'm not aware of any Bhutanese members, although they are certainly welcome), to focus on the issues on which we agree and to see if we cannot come closer to agreeing on issues in which our national origina may suggest that we disagree.

DTK-

So to clarify, does Obama support India or Pakistan?

DTK-

So to clarify, does Obama support India or Pakistan?

Ha! I know the answer, but SAFO doesn't speak for the campaign, remember? :-)

So to clarify, does Obama support India or Pakistan?

Yeah DTK, out with it already! Who needs long winded explanations in a binary world? And when you're done answering Gautham's incredibly profound question, perhaps you can also tell us whether Obama supports God or the Devil? Apples or oranges? Shaq or Kobe? WTF.

Yeah DTK, out with it already! Who needs long winded explanations in a binary world? And when you're done answering Gautham's incredibly profound question, perhaps you can also tell us whether Obama supports God or the Devil? Apples of oranges? Shaq or Kobe? WTF.

Mangoes. He supports mangoes. Not sure about Shaq vs Kobe though ....

Shaq or Kobe??? I'm not sure about that, but I'm sure after last night it's not Dirk Nowitzki.

DTK,

As a person who was encouraged by Obama's entry into the fray since he brings a fresh perspective to issues, I was dismayed by how quickly the loony left of the party has got to him.

When asked who the best three allies of America are (and have been for 50+ years), he vacillated and wavered and hesitatingly answered "The European Union". The answer is not only incorrect because the EU member countries go against almost every move the US makes on international forums, but also because the EU is not a country!

The correct answer is: Britain, Australia and Israel. Do we want a candidate who cannot correctly answer this to have his fingers on the nuclear button?

M. Nam

to focus on the issues on which we agree and to see if we cannot come closer to agreeing on issues in which our national origina may suggest that we disagree.

BINGO BINGO BINGO.

The correct answer is: Britain, Australia and Israel. Do we want a candidate who cannot correctly answer this to have his fingers on the nuclear button?

Disagree. Look under the hood and I think you'll find it to be Britain, Japan, and.....China, for not going apeshit with their surplus and keeping a stable yuan.

The correct answer is: Britain, Australia and Israel.

MoorNam,

In my mind, I think the answer is Britan, Japan, and Israel.

Also, Germany comes close fourth. During the entire cold war, Germany was United States frontline ally. To this day, any major military operation planned by US for certain parts of the world, they are coordinated out of Germany.

When asked who the best three allies of America are (and have been for 50+ years), he vacillated and wavered

Of course he did. The question was idiotic! See the conversation on the other thread about the obsolescence of the nation-state.

Of course he did. The question was idiotic! See the conversation on the other thread about the obsolescence of the nation-state.

That's why I chose Britain and Japan, only because of the importance of London and Tokyo has financial epicenters. And China for absorbing the worlds risk premium vis-a-vis their spectacular growth for decades.

Again, to be clear, it was OUR decision to be a "South Asian" organization, not the campaign's, not that we see anything wrong with such a grouping of course. I don't want to get into a whole "South Asian" vs. "Indian" debate -- this site has seen such debates time and again. But as you recognized, we do have commonality on many domestic issues, which we think is enough of a reason for us to be a South Asian organization.

But what percentage of your members are Indian-American? Not trying to flame you at all, just curious.

Jalebis for Giuliani

Hell no!

DTK -

My misunderstanding. Good luck with the event. Sounds fun.

MoorNam -

Its not that easy a question, or that easy an answer. Britan and Australia are allies no doubt, but Israel has often (and I dare so, justifiably) acted in antagonism to the United States. I could argue that, notwithstanding, our differences, no nations have as complex or profound a bond with the United States as France and Germany. And its not particularly black and white. My ally on one matter could be an opponent on another.

CSM carried this article about Obama's attempts to woo the Jews.

The correct answer is: Britain, Australia and Israel

These are some of the silliest questions. Why are we so obsessed with lists. If the current adminsitration has proven anything it is that the world is a little more complex, we cannot list the 3 most evil countries or the 3 best friends.

When asked who the best three allies of America are (and have been for 50+ years), he vacillated and wavered

I hate to sound pedantic (which is how Kerry, not Obama would sound) but what exactly do you mean by best? Economically? Strategically? With respect to the UN? With respect to the US policy regarding NATO? With respect to the Middle East? How far back in time?

No, why don't we make a US World News and Report chart and rank US allies on a 5 point scale with Harvard the UK topping the list. Then we can watch these countries inflate indicators to climb up the list and bargain for better trade deals. Or seats in the Oscars. It's the same thing.

I dunno Nara, I think North Korea would pretty much end up on any evil list and be well placed. Anyone see the Lisa Ling documentary With the Nepalese, I think, eye surgeon, who visited North Korea to do cataract surgeries? Chilling.

I agree, though, debate questions for politicians are often very silly.

When asked who the best three allies of America are (and have been for 50+ years), he vacillated and wavered and hesitatingly answered "The European Union". The answer is not only incorrect because the EU member countries go against almost every move the US makes on international forums, but also because the EU is not a country!

The correct answer is: Britain, Australia and Israel.

I don't really have the time to defend/explain everything Obama says, not do I want to. Everyone has their own reasons for deciding who he or she is going to support. That having been said, in case people did not get a chance to watch the debate, let's look at what he actually said:

Senator Obama, what are America's three most important allies around the world?

Obama: Well, I think the European Union as a whole has been a long-standing ally of ours, and through NATO we've been able to make some significant progress. Afghanistan, in particular, is an area where we should be focusing. NATO has made real contributions there.

Unfortunately, because of the distraction of Iraq, we have not finished the job in terms of making certain that we are driving back the Taliban, stabilizing the Karzai government, capturing bin Laden and making sure that we've rooted out terrorism in that region.

We also have to look east, because increasingly, the center of gravity in this world is shifting to Asia. Japan has been an outstanding ally of ours for many years.

But, obviously, China is rising and it's not going away.

They're neither our enemy nor our friend. They're competitors. But we have to make sure that we have enough military-to-military contact, and forge enough of a relationship with them that we can stabilize the region.

That's something I'd like to do as president.

In short, the question was who are our most important allies, not the "best." I love Australia, and was probably one of the few readers of this blog who was actually cheering for them in the world cup after India's exit, but they are not among our top 3 most "important" allies. The question also did not limit the answer to countries, and I think his reference to NATO is a very good response and his reference to the EU simply recognizes the growing significance of the EU and our need to partner with them to address issues such as terrorism and climate change. There was also no reference anywhere to who have been our allies for the last 50 years.

Rather than judging him on quick snapshots you get in the media or blogs, I encourage people to read the New Yorker article linked to above, and to read his more recent book, in which he goes into some detail on his political views. For more on his foreign policy, read his recent speech given to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs or his speech to AIPAC. You may very well not agree with him on everything, but I'd like to think that you will come away with the sense that he understands the complexity of these problems and the need for the US to balance idealism with realism, soft power with hard power.

Sid/Nara,

>>The question was idiotic! See the conversation on the other thread about the obsolescence of the nation-state.

While I agree that the nation-state is becoming slowly obsolescent, the process may take more than a century or two to complete. In the meanwhile, for the next four years, the question is neither silly or impertinent, and a would-be president better answer the question correctly.

When I say allies - I mean it from a US foreign policy perspective only. Britain and US may haggle over beef prices, Australia and US may quibble over poultry protectionism, Israel and US may haggle over technology transfers, but when it comes to foreign policy issues on world forums, be it the Iraq war, global warming/Kyoto, Mid-east policy etc, these three countries have consistently supported the US stand (right or wrong) for as long as anyone can remember. I don't think Japan or Germany or any other country can make that claim.

M. Nam

oooh..i have it, i have it. The US should have a MySpace and list it's best friends and fav rock bands too. Then the diplomats could send awesome friend comments!

Just like Alexyss K Tylor, but with less mention of the vajayjay.

Sorry, the formatting was messed up in #48 above. Obama's response, up to the word "president," should have been block quoted.

I dunno Nara, I think North Korea would pretty much end up on any evil list and be well placed.

Personally, I agree with you. I did see the documentary and do think that regime is pretty awful.

But if you ask the same question in Venezuela, USA might be on the evil list. (Before anyone jumps all over me, I disagree with placing US on the list.) I think you and I agree that these kind of questions are really silly.Do you remember the journalist who asked George W.Bush to name the leaders of some 5 countries ? How silly was that ?

If I had my say I would scrap all debates and make the candidates debate (in long form) in some of the national newspapers. Each newspaper would be given one critical area (healthcare, foreign policy etc.) and the two sides would lay put their positions . No editing should be allowed by the newspaper's staff.

Hari:

My misunderstanding. Good luck with the event. Sounds fun.

Thanks for the response and the good wishes -- much appreciated.

My understanding is that all of DC's cute brown girls will be jamming out to LIVE Bollywood tunes at the below event on 5/18 (note: shameless promotion of a friend's band to follow):

The-yet-to-be-named Bollywood band @ Sabang, 2504 Ennalls Avenue, Wheaton, MD 20902 , 9 pm, no cover

But what percentage of your members are Indian-American? Not trying to flame you at all, just curious.

I have no idea, nor do we keep track. But my sense is that as with all similar "South Asian" organizations (like SABA, of which I'm on the board in DC, or NETSAP), the majority of people involved with SAFO are Indian Americans, but people who trace their origins to other South Asian countries are well represented too.

While I agree that the nation-state is becoming slowly obsolescent, the process may take more than a century or two to complete.

I agree. slowly is the operative word there.

My point is it is extremely difficult to seperate foreign policy from let us say trade policy. i am sure you have heard how China is giving out foreign aid to Africa because they want to dig for oil in Nigeria, trade with Ghana. India has recently started doing major business with Iran while trying to get a nuclear deal with the US. Increasingly, this is going to be true with all countries.

Great Britain, one of oour good allies, thinks that Kyoto protocol is the way to go but I don't think that even a democratic congress is going to agree. India might be closer to US than the UK in this matter.

MoorNam,

You are missing an important point - It is not about Kyoto treaty.

Nation states becoming obsolete or not is a coffee house discussion. Well, back to the point.

There are very few countries US has counted on - economically, militarily than Britain, Japan, and Israel.

Regarding Britain, it goes 100s of years, with majority of Americans being Protestants, and WASPS being the core of power structure, and the WWs, post 9/ 11 et al. There is a common culture, and heritage that binds them. To some degree, Canada is in the same category.

If you look at the map, Japan and USSR (now Russia) very close geographically, with the cold war, and Japan's past history with Russia, US made a very strong effort (with General MacArthur leading the charge) to create long lasting bonds with Japan even culturally, drafting their current constitution and what not. They are three outside US major military-wise staging areas (from where they launch operations) in the world: Okinawa (Japan), Germany, and Qatar. To some degree Subic Bay (Philippines) during Vietnam War.

Israel. What can I say? From late sixties (1967 onwards), they receive the largest economic and military aid from US. They are the rock of Gibraltar for American interests in middle east (where most of oil and gas is even though Israel is bone dry), even against USSR during height of cold war. A significant % of American Jews hold dual citizenship. Once Gold Meir (Israel's PM, and once a Wisconsin native) said that only friend Israel had was America. Even pre-1967, US and Israel always has been very close, especially after the Suez Canal crisis.

Nation states becoming obsolete or not is a coffee house discussion.

Not that there's anything wrong with that!

Unfortunately, because of the distraction of Iraq, we have not finished the job in terms of making certain that we are driving back the Taliban, stabilizing the Karzai government, capturing bin Laden and making sure that we've rooted out terrorism in that region.

I'm fascinated by the "we" of this sentence from Obama, which is also unconsciously being repeated through the discussion. Who needs Kipling when a Black man gives us the "white man's burden"?

It presupposes that Iraq was a "distraction" for some noble "we" who was interrupted while making the world better. The fact is that Bush and the government were so focused on Iraq after 9/11 because of a decade of sanctions and bombings under Clinton, during which, among other things, the official policy of the US government became the overthrow of Saddam Hussein (Iraq Liberation Act of 1998). This is "stability" for them.

There is no "balance" of realism and idealism here. It's just different strategies for "us" to continue dominating the Middle East despite Iraq. Bush has run the imperial project into the ground and the Democrats and Republicans are vying to see who can best distance themselves from the president, appease the antiwar crowd, and "get the job done." This was also the Democrats' role in Viet Nam until the rebellions of 1968 exposed the "antiwar" LBJ for being nothing but.

This is a question for libertarian Moor Nam (you are a libertarian, correct?). Who protects the individual when there are no longer nation states. Some supranational organization, like a world government? How are human rights preserved or enshrined in this nationless system? Are you talking about organizations like the EU? Serious question. I prefer "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" to be protected by something that has accountability to it, like, say a republic? Not perfect, of course, but perfection is impossible.

Once again, the JLF has proven it only represents red (communist) Jalebis. We Yellow Jalebis would like to distance ourselfs from the JLF and their attack on Mayor Guilliani.

MD asks:

>>Who protects the individual when there are no longer nation states.

No longer? You have incorrectly assumed that the nation-state has existed since time immemorial. You only have to look at the history of India to see that the nation-state is a recent Eurocentric construct that has existed since only 3-4 centuries.

When ChandraGupta or Ashoka or Krishnadevaraya etc ruled India, they did not preside over nations. There were no immigration laws, borders, complex tax codes, volumes of laws etc etc. The king loosely adminstered the region under him by collecting a flat-tax from the people, and doing bare-minimum: Keep foreign invaders at bay, protect the common man from robber-gangs, build roads etc. The rest was left to the individual: protecting oneself from thieves and the odd robber, protecting oneself in a violent dispute, earning and saving money, health, water, waste disposal, education, preserving culture etc etc.

The reason the nation-state has become a giant is that it has started doing too much for the individual: 911 facilities, schooling, social security, medicare, waste disposal, pollution control, nanny-care, medicaid, welfare, vocational training, "culture protection", group rights (minority/orientation/gender), etc etc etc.

Indeed, there is a false impression that the nation-state is protecting the individual. That is simply not true. How many cops did you encounter on the way to work today? What if someone had attacked you? What if twenty similiar attacks happened at the same time in the same town, would the state be able do anything?

The individual needs very little protection. When left alone, society largely governs itself. What has happened is that the nation-state has subverted civic-society in order to expand itself.

You'll have to do some reading to get details

M. Nam

Moor Nam: Slavery existed quite widely before the rise of the nation-state. The caste-system existed. What was the treatment of women in these ancient times you admire?

Actually, I think I addressed the wrong person. I guess I am more worried about the transnationalism of the left: what they see in terms of alternatives to the nation state.

How are human rights preserved or enshrined in this nationless system? Are you talking about organizations like the EU? Serious question. I prefer "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" to be protected by something that has accountability to it, like, say a republic? Not perfect, of course, but perfection is impossible.

Exactly. World governments presume that we have one universal set of values or epistemologies, eg. the supremacy of individual rights. But there are of course many ways of looking at things -- Muslim countries have their own ways, China yet another, America yet another. Imposing any one particular "truth" usually leads to disaster, eg. marxism.

MD: don't you mean the caste non-system?

DJDP with the assist!

The correct answer is: Britain, Australia and Israel. Do we want a candidate who cannot correctly answer this to have his fingers on the nuclear button?

Germany and Japan could be categorised as allies.

Hmm...then the caste culture or caste non-system, then. Caste-culture probably is a better term. Still. That article made my eyes bleed, although I appreciate the point they are trying to make, that using the term caste-system paints the cultural issues through Western eyes.

Actually MD, the transatlantic slave trade came about after the nation-state, and was carried out by nation-states. In fact, colonialism is a project of the nation-state. Institutions that we call slavery did exist in prior times in various places, but they were more flexible and adaptive than the slavery that came about as a result of the trans-atlantic trade.

As for alternatives to the nation-state, I can't speak for the "Left," whatever that is, but I would caution you that simply observing the increasing obsolescence of the nation-state in no way constitutes an endorsement of same, let alone a prescription as to what should come in its place. Speaking for myself, I observe that the nation-state is doing a terrible job adapting to the reality of human lives in the world today. I have no idea whether it will adapt, or whether something else will arise in its place, let alone what that something else would be. In fact, I suspect that we are in for a long period of flux and uncertainty that will last longer than our lifetimes.

Siddhartha: What about the non-transatlantic slaves, like, say the Helots of Sparta? Are city states considered nation states?

They weren't slaves in the traditional sense, they were more like indentured servants. Tied to the land.

Okay, last comment since I have taken this thread on a weird direction, but were the Helots any less enslaved than African slaves in the southern US? It seems like the slaves in antiquity could get it pretty bad too. What I mean is, in answer to Moor Nam, is that the civil structure didn't make their lives any better. Really, their lives were awful. The males of Sparta used to sort of, ritually, hunt and kill random Helots to terrorize them and keep them from revolting. And, not, I have not seen 300. I just like Classics. It's my new thing.

Not last comment after all: They did ritually hunt and kill helots, not 'sort of'.

Okay, last comment since I have taken this thread on a weird direction, but were the Helots any less enslaved than African slaves in the southern US?

Actually, yes. The helots had legal sanction to unions amongst themselves, marriages, debt and so forth. The transatlantic/African slave trade as practiced in the US, and the subsequent ghettoization of the population is more or less unique in human history.

2nd not last comment: that is a good point, HMF. Still, my point against Moor Nam's point stands, I think. Civil society didn't protect them, really, it afforded them less rights than full citizens, so his radical libertarian take is incorrect, isn't it? They could have marriages, but they were also randomly hunted and killed. Sounds pretty awful to me. Sounds like enslavement to me. What kind of slaves did they have in Africa and the middle east before the transnational slave trade? Indentured servants, too, or were people owned out-right?

I want to know this: if the nation-state is so horrible, what is the alternative? What does evolution mean, for those that advocate non-liberation futures. Nnations states subject to transnational organizations? Aren't there inherent dangers in this approach, as well?

What kind of slaves did they have in Africa and the middle east before the transnational slave trade? Indentured servants, too, or were people owned out-right?

I'm not entirely sure, however since those populations weren't ghettoized, and were more or less assimilated into the general population, one would think their attitude towards slavery wasn't based on a belief in inherent inferiority, based on features as salient as race. The US takes the cake on that one.

Hmmm, I don't know (I should never put in disclaimers that I won't comment on something, when I'm in the mood to comment).

HMF: I would look up Mauritania on the United Nations web site; if the allegations there are true (and I have no idea), then what you're saying isn't quite accurate.

I never agree with Abhi and on the whole think he writes like a douche, but I actually agree with him here. Where do we go from here?

What kind of slaves did they have in Africa and the middle east before the transnational slave trade? Indentured servants, too, or were people owned out-right?

HMF: I would look up Mauritania on the United Nations web site; if the allegations there are true (and I have no idea), then what you're saying isn't quite accurate

The arab slave trade didn't leave the ghetto legacy as the american version, and didn't discriminate exclusively on race. Black Arabs participated.

RE: Israel being a close friend

USS Liberty
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident

UPS:

Motive?

When asked who the best three allies of America are (and have been for 50+ years), he vacillated and wavered and hesitatingly answered "The European Union". The answer is not only incorrect because the EU member countries go against almost every move the US makes on international forums, but also because the EU is not a country!

The correct answer is: Britain, Australia and Israel. Do we want a candidate who cannot correctly answer this to have his fingers on the nuclear button?

M. Nam

You should feel silly for having written the above now that someone has posted Obama's actual response to the question:

"Obama: Well, I think the European Union as a whole has been a long-standing ally of ours, and through NATO we've been able to make some significant progress. Afghanistan, in particular, is an area where we should be focusing. NATO has made real contributions there.

Unfortunately, because of the distraction of Iraq, we have not finished the job in terms of making certain that we are driving back the Taliban, stabilizing the Karzai government, capturing bin Laden and making sure that we've rooted out terrorism in that region.

We also have to look east, because increasingly, the center of gravity in this world is shifting to Asia. Japan has been an outstanding ally of ours for many years."

Where did you get the "vacillated and wavered and hesitatingly answered" from? Rush Limbaugh? And how did you manage to deduce from "the European Union as a whole has been a long-standing ally of ours, and through NATO we've been able to make some significant progress", that Obama is dumb enough to think that the EU is a country? Whats really dumb here is you thinking he could be so incredibly ignorant and still be considered a serious candidate for president.

As for Britain and Australia they are America's partners in the Anglosphere. This relationship goes beyond simple allying of nation-states or regional groupings. The Anglosphere can itself be seen as a grouping. Israel's relationship with the Anglosphere is more complex. Perhaps it was diplomatic of Obama to not mention it.

the individual needs very little protection. When left alone, society largely governs itself. What has happened is that the nation-state has subverted civic-society in order to expand itself.

Libertarian hogwash. The notion that "when left alone, society largely governs itself", or that the "invisible hand" of the free market is the best governor of economic activity, is as asinine as the notion that you dont need umpires or referees in cricket, football and other games.

Every civilized human society needs Laws and a governing entity that enforces these laws.

Whats interesting about this election is how very diverse the front runners from both parties are: a woman, a half-white son of a muslim student from Africa, a Mormon, an Italian catholic who supports abortion and gay marriage etc. Looks like America is finally getting tired of the borderline-ret@rded bible-thumping southern evangelicals, and their religio-cultural crusades.

HMF: You are missing my point. My point is that before the nation state, there was slavery. That's my point. Slavery, usually of women for domestic labor/concubines, existed for millenia according to some documented (usually by outsiders) in the mideast and parts of Africa. The documentation of the numbers is almost impossible, because we don't have a census of that time and place. As for a ghetto forming, yes, they have it in Mauritania today. There are differences in the way groups are treated based on this history, although slavery was officially outlawed. Anyway, I don't like apologia implicit in the right pointing out slavery in Africa (look they do it too) or the apologia on the left (oh, it was worse in America; it takes the cake. What about the British slave trade? Abolished earlier, but established earlier. And it was chattel-slavery, too). What is the point you are trying to make? That only the West was uniquely evil?

the transatlantic slave trade came about after the nation-state, and was carried out by nation-states. In fact, colonialism is a project of the nation-state. Institutions that we call slavery did exist in prior times in various places, but they were more flexible and adaptive than the slavery that came about as a result of the trans-atlantic trade.

Do you really think that the Spanish, Portuguese and British Empires, who initiated the transatlantic slave trade were nation-states?

Fact is, slavery, serfdom, casteism, dhimmitude etc all existed before the nation-state. I dont know of any modern nation-state that has laws sanctioning any of these abominations. That casteism (and child slave labor etc) continues to be an issue in India is because India is a failed nation-state that is too weak to enforce its laws.

what is the alternative? What does evolution mean, for those that advocate non-liberation futures. Nnations states subject to transnational organizations?

MD:

1. "The key message...is that the nation-state system, deep economic integration, and democracy are mutually incompatible. We can have at most two out of these three." [link]

2. "Under global federalism national governments would not necessarily disappear but their powers would be severely circumscribed by supranational legislative, executive and judicial authorities." [link]

3. Badonkadonk.

Motive?

Frame some other country.

I never agree with Abhi and on the whole think he writes like a douche, but I actually agree with him here.

Captain Umrica,
You better quit hatin on my babys daddy

Again, to be clear, it was OUR decision to be a "South Asian" organization, not the campaign's, not that we see anything wrong with such a grouping of course. I don't want to get into a whole "South Asian" vs. "Indian" debate -- this site has seen such debates time and again. But as you recognized, we do have commonality on many domestic issues, which we think is enough of a reason for us to be a South Asian organization

Just curious. What are those commonalities on domestic issues and how those issues differ with other groups such as "Asians"/"Hispanics" etc..?.

I think a better way to answer the "South Asian vs Indian" debate for "1.5 - 2nd gen folks" is to say that
"We all look brown skinned (with varying shades), hence treated the same by the 'rest' (non-brown skinned) in America. We wanted to come together and used "South Asian" as a common identity. "

Interesting viewpoint.
Moral of the story: laugh all you can. Desis are a political force to recon with.

That only the West was uniquely evil?

As it concerns slavery based on race, as a pure economic system (and thats the point here, slavery as an economic system really only makes sense if a nation-state exists to benefit from those practices), resulting in ghettoized populations in large #'s (blacks make up 12% of the population, but concentrated in say 10 major cities) - The US simply knocks everyone else out the box.

Captain Umrica, You better quit hatin on my babys daddy

It's okay Coach. With your body and brains and my ability to write in a "so fresh and so clean" manner, our baby will grow up to kick his ass.

Wont your baby inherit your "light touch"? If so, he'd be a lover, like his father, not a fighter, like his momma ;)

MD, Prema, HMF, MoorNam, No von Mises: There are several debates here, and they are getting tangled up with each other in unproductive ways.

One is a normative debate about what constitutes the best system of government and social organization. Inside this is a series of value-laden disputes about such matters as which form of human subjugation was worse, etc. Thus we get back to the question of whose slavery was worse than whose, and looking forward, we get categorical statements about the evil of the modern state and the need for a libertarian order, or transnational federalism, or whatever, and ripostes about the merits of the modern state. These are the debates that fall into Kush Tandon's category of coffeehouse discussions. They are riven with ideology, sloppy with definitions, and the tone falls quickly into people baiting each other, like when MD baited HMF to say that the "West is uniquely evil" and HMF pretty much took the bait.

The other is a more detached discussion about whether or not the modern state is succeeding in accomplishing its basic goals under the present condition of globalization. Of course there is still a normative element here to the extent that different people have different views of what the basic goals of the state should be. But still, I think most people would agree that we expect of the state that it protect its citizens from threats; that it guarantee the orderly functioning of the (market) economy; that it provide a minimum package of public services (no need to debate the exact list); and that it run itself and its institutions in a sustainable manner.

How's it doing? Poorly. It's doing poorly at protecting its population from threats ranging from international terrorism to domestic terrorism to global warming. Its regulatory oversight of the economy is slipping in the face of illicit trade in goods, services, and intellectual property. Its provision of public services is shaky and increasingly delegated to private actors such as private security companies, insurance companies, etc., sometimes with oversight and intent, but often not. And its own institutional sustainability is at risk from corruption, ethical decay, and infiltration by non-state interests.

Is the condition terminal? Who knows! The world is in flux and there are many possibilities. Is there an alternative? I think that's a premature question and one that can only be answered through ideology. Some people here will do that but I won't. Is there a point to reformism, to working to improve and fortify the nation-state and adapt it to new reality? Absolutely! If you check your ideology at the door and just look at the world, live in the world, you'll see that these are interesting times in which there are far more questions than answers. We can live with that, can't we?

I'll acquiesce I entered the discusion much after, and really wasn't making a statement on validity or usefulness of nationstates, rather responding to an often made claim that "Africa had slavery too!" when in fact, they are two different beasts, with different goals. One was to subjugate with absolutely no intention of freedom ever, it was acknowledgement of sub-human status, with the implication that human status would and could never be reached. This is the backdrop. I'm not sure if the Arabic slave trade falls meticulously in the same category.

True, HMF, and I think I largely agree with you on that particular point. I'm just pointing out more broadly how easily discussions get twisted by ideology and diverted into sideshows. Sometimes it's OK to admit that we are facing the unknown.

when in fact, they are two different beasts, with different goals. One was to subjugate with absolutely no intention of freedom ever, it was acknowledgement of sub-human status, with the implication that human status would and could never be reached. This is the backdrop. I'm not sure if the Arabic slave trade falls meticulously in the same category.

The goals were the same...free labor...but yes there were philosophical, ideologic differences too and possibly that led to differences in day to day experience (I don't know).

And, if not for those pesky term limits, we would have had:

Chokris for Clinton
Jhaadoos for George (you know to sweep all the brush he's cleared)

And, for the first non-candidate who shall be elected as president, we present:

Phillums for Fred

Didn't anna call him "Bharat O'Bama" in another post? All those B's make him dangerously pun-adelic.

The goals were the same...free labor...but yes there were philosophical, ideologic differences too and possibly that led to differences in day to day experience (I don't know).

I disagree somewhat. One had assigned a temporary nature towards it, the other did not. The US slave system never acknowledged the humanity of the slave, in any form. But, in the short term, yes, free labor was the goal.

That casteism (and child slave labor etc) continues to be an issue in India is because India is a failed nation-state that is too weak to enforce its laws.

Pathetic. Break India up into egalitarian shudra republics! Reviving Dravdastan I suppose? :-) The fact is that since Mandal it is OBC dullards who have been running the Indian state apparatus. This is why India has made negligible progress on the Human Development Index while demonstrating outstanding private-sector growth. The OBC shudras don't care for literacy or for the Dalits, its all about filling up their suitcases with as much loot as possible.

Kalavai, do not take the anti-hindu bait.

Just look at all the upper caste fuktards who populate SM. \"Upper caste\" scum such as Nehru, Basu, Buddhadeb, all fall in the same category of looters. In contrast the performance of \"lower castes\" such as Modi and Bharati has been more than exemplary.

The site also serves to address current trends in American politics, for example with articles focusing on Bobby Jindal, the Republican senator from Louisiana, Bharat O'Bama(sic) as well as other prominent politicians in the Western world.

In the Wikipedia entry for Sepia Mutiny.

"Hmmmm. I wonder if there will be any cute, politically active, single women at the Obhangra. Balle Balle."
soo cute