same situation in Australia.
Hardly any non-white characters on TV including newscasters. Except SBS which is a publicly funded multicultural station.

It tells me that the dominant culture in Australia is the Anglo Saxon one.

I guess it is the same in USA. Although I did love the Hispanic channels for their beautiful men & women.

How many times have you heard a doctor say that nobody can understand what they go through unless they’re a doctor themselves? It’s as if they think that being a doctor is distinct from other professions, on a plane of its own, completely inaccessible to people who do other things for a living. They also love to boast about the hours they work, even though (post-residency) my doctor friends work both shorter and more predictable hours than friends who are lawyers, iBankers or programmers.

I don’t understand why they feel this way though - I’ve never heard anything similar from engineers. Is it the combination of the long training and the high salaries? What’s at the root of this medical exceptionalism?

That is true, and I believe the reason for this is precisely both. 1) Longer training compared to the usual jobs AND 2) the good salaries.

A profession that requires longer training generally also correlates to more intelligence on average. And secondly doctors can also consider themselves significantly better off than the average profession in terms of money. Its this nice combination that gives the glamor to this job. There are other professions too that can have both these characteristics but this does not happen as uniformly as it happens for doctors across all the members of other typical professions. For instance, academia(professors) does have a higher intelligence/smartness appeal than doctors but they don't usually have the same wealth appeal (on an average, obviously). Similarly you have other professions with a higher wealth appeal than doctors but not as much smartness appeal. I think the doctor profession does a good balancing job between both the appeals and hence the the 'clannishness' you attribute to the people doing this job.

In other words as an example, just the fact that Susan is a doctor implies Susan must be reasonably rich(at least upper middle class) AND also that Susan must be a fairly smart woman. I can't think of another profession that very likely ensures both. You can be sure that if Tom is a professor of XYZ then TOM must be real smart but you couldnt keep a bet that TOM is rich without a little more info on Tom. Similarly you can find other rich people, but you couldn't bet that they are also smart without some more info at least...

oh, and as for the statement of how you have to be a doctor to understand their lives, I agree that does reek of condescencion. I dont think its any more true than saying you have to be a clerk to understand what a clerk goes through.

Fair critique good sir but what's the percentage of South Asian Americans who become actors? Lord knows that we have considerable walls to climb before an audition (ahem, parents!). Does the Screen Actors Guild collect and make public the ethnicity of its members?

What's at the root of this medical exceptionalism?

Mistakes hurt you, me and Dupree Deepak. Under every white lab coat you'll find unisex red knickers worn over blue tights and a cape.

I also wondered about the "clannish" aspect of the Indian physicians. They form their own professional organizations and tend to hang out exclusively with their own kind. They have every right to do this, too.

But Indian engineers and other professionals don't seem to have the same unity. Or I might be unaware of any groups dedicated only for engineers, nurses or business people, etc. I know NetIP includes all Indian professionals. But if I am wrong, enlighten me.

One of my cousins is an oncology nurse who is married to a hardware engineer. She mentioned her engineer husband works many more hours than the physicians she works with. Is this true elsewhere? Or is it an isolated case?

I guess initially in the physicians' training, their work hours are significantly longer. ER physicians and nurses work inhumanely long hours and should be compensated the most if there was any justice. I also think the medical residents/fellows/etc are also treated to inhumane treatment with non stop work for days at a time with no breaks, no salary, etc. No wonder most young physicians I have seen are cranky and bitter about life and humanity - they are constantly dead tired! Something is wrong with the whole system and Medical malpractice/Insurance companies are adding fuel to the fire.

(Doctors Without Borders, St. Judes Hospital for kids and other volunteer groups like them are awesome. I always support them yearly and their work gives me hope for humanity!)

My parents were super-liberal and allowed me the freedom to make choices. For instance, I had the freedom to be any kind of Engineer or Doctor I chose to be.

My sister was involved in a study on Asian Americans and screen time during primetime television shows. See below:

http://www.dailybruin.com/news/2005/may/12/off-the-airwaves/

According to the report, except for NBC, all of the networks’ (ABC, UPN, WB, Fox and CBS) depictions of regular APIA actors were less than half of the U.S. percentage of the APIA population.

“Television networks will claim that there is less of a pool of APIA actors, or that they have less talent and experience,” said Chin. “But it’s a catch-22, because if they aren’t given a chance, then they won’t gain any experience.”

The study also found that of the six identifiable multiracial APIA actors found in prime-time television, only one is identified as an APIA. Out of the other five, three portray white characters, and two are ethnically ambiguous. One of these actors, Mark-Paul Gosselaar (the former bleach-blond “Zach” from “Saved by the Bell”), who is Dutch and Indonesian in real life, stars on “NYPD Blue” as John Clark Jr., a character of European decent.

We were never forced into medicine …in the Indian community in Chicago, everyone was a professional. Everyone was a doctor or an engineer…

What a shameless, brazen liar!

What Indian-American characters in Grey's Anatomy? How gross!

There could be another reason why these shows are popular among IA teens, even those on the path to med school. There are elements of the lifestyle that they are in agreement with - independent, working on large public health projects etc., And yeah, breaking ou of the family business.

@ #7:

I knew there'd be some inspection into screen time and you could see the networks rebuttal from a mile away. But how many are in the talent pool to begin with? And what projects are they getting auditions for and what projects are shutting them out?

What Indian-American characters in Grey's Anatomy? How gross!

There is a brown connection in Grey's Anatomy- the show was inspired by and loosely based on Atul Gawande's Complications.

my dream? to represent the indians on 'scrubs'... the most real medico show out there.

It's not quite "finally" for ER -- Parminder Nagra's been on the show since 2003. She started the fall after Bend it Like Beckham premiered.

Sad that I know this.

Does anyone personally know desis who were "pressured" to become doctors but ended up doing something else AFTER becoming full fledged doctors? I've met 4 now, all my generation who absolutely abhor the profession and wouldn't want anything to do with it and have gone onto to other equally lucrative and successful professions but simply didn't want to be doctors. This is something I'd unheard of growing up but seems like it's become quite common now.

My elder brother is a Radiologist. He tells me he does surgical procedures too. He also went to IMSA -- the best high school in Illinois..

There should be more desi doctors on medical shows but I see a lot of desi doctors on the news and on talk shows.

And yeah of all the medical shows I have seen I have learned the most about what being a doctor is like from Scrubs.

1 out of 20? That doesn't correlate with the number of times I've heard: "Oh, you're Indian? My doctor's Indian!" Often followed by: "Do you know him?"

Oh but we've made progress on tv! Who saw the Indian guy featured on all those MTV Award commercials last night? :)

Does anyone personally know desis who were "pressured" to become doctors but ended up doing something else AFTER becoming full fledged doctors? I've met 4 now, all my generation who absolutely abhor the profession and wouldn't want anything to do with it and have gone onto to other equally lucrative and successful professions but simply didn't want to be doctors. This is something I'd unheard of growing up but seems like it's become quite common now.

i wasn't pressured into becoming a doctor, but it's not the end all for me.. i love what i do, but it's also a springboard into other fields... which is fantastic.. it opens tons of avenues, whether it be in the business, financial, pharmaceutical, media fields of interest.. i think nowadays, people realize that you don't have to let the degree define your career, but can use it to your benefit for anything you'd like to pursue..

i know of a few desis who dropped out of medical school and became something else, and are happy.. and i know others who were pressured into becoming a doc, and are misterable.. it's like that with everything (law, engineering, etc).. not just medicine per se.

i think nowadays, people realize that you don't have to let the degree define your career, but can use it to your benefit for anything you'd like to pursue..

This is a good outlook, and in fact many times, doing what you love as a job can sometimes kill the very attraction you had for it in the first place.

Oh but we've made progress on tv! Who saw the Indian guy featured on all those MTV Award commercials last night? :)

I don't have a TV, but I'd guess that was probably Aziz Ansari, from the sketch comedy show Human Giant. Nirali Magazine profiled him here.

1 out of 20? That doesn't correlate with the number of times I've heard: "Oh, you're Indian? My doctor's Indian!" Often followed by: "Do you know him?"

funny as shit. that is so true.

ennis, that was fun as shit to read. you are the man when it comes doing research and showing statistics.

Perhaps this explains why doctors feel the way they feel: Doctor vs. Mechanic

1 out of 20? That doesn't correlate with the number of times I've heard: "Oh, you're Indian? My doctor's Indian!" Often followed by: "Do you know him?"

LMAO. And so true...

NetIP is the pits, atleast the one event I went to was a bunch of desi stags (trying)chasing skirts to Bhangra, well nothing wrong with it but not exactly entrepreneurial

This is part of a larger problem, namely that the America you see on the small screen is significantly whiter than reality.

Really? I don't think this is true with the medical shows on tv --- there's a ton of black doctors. I'm thinking the black doctors are representing all the minorities out there to corporate America.

I grew up in a family of all doctors...and I mean everyone...my mom, dad, sister, uncles...well you get the point.
I *gasp* became an attorney, and it really is frustrating how every social conversation somehow turns to medicine.
Even more frustrating is how some of my family members see medicine as the be-all, end-all field and some even see my work as dispensible - though I have even worked for the public defender. Or maybe they just don't "get" what I do.
Anyways, I digress. It's good to see more desis branch out into "untraditional" fields, even if it be as "untraditional" as the law!
Kudos to all you rebels out there ;)

The people who come up with these shows exist in a demographic that is well over 80% white, ie older Americans. I'm sure you'd find way more black people on TV than Hispanics, and yet Hispanics are now a bigger segment of the population. These things take a while to be reflected in the wider culture - also, most people who watch these shows are white, and besides, a large amount of the patients are black.

"If the absence of minority characters represents the fantasy world of white viewers, then what does that tell us about them?"

God Ennis you can be a resentful whiner at times, it tells us absolutely nothing about them.

and yet Hispanics are now a bigger segment of the population.

That's interesting b/c mostly on tv I see black and white characters. It probably also depends on which group has a more influential lobby on media representation

Yes, then there is the gigantic hispanic population.. That is the new trend in marketing now, to create ads that target hispanics.. Also I notice that quite a few of the news people in chicago are hispanic..

"If the absence of minority characters represents the fantasy world of white viewers, then what does that tell us about them?"

God Ennis you can be a resentful whiner at times, it tells us absolutely nothing about them.

Actually it does, it ratifies the 'potency of color' argument, which is why in the white world, a jury with 11 blacks and 1 whites is a 'black jury', and a jury with 11 whites and 1 black is 'diverse'

NetIP is the pits, atleast the one event I went to was a bunch of desi stags (trying)chasing skirts to Bhangra, well nothing wrong with it but not exactly entrepreneurial

Which city?

"If the absence of minority characters represents the fantasy world of white viewers, then what does that tell us about them?"

God Ennis you can be a resentful whiner at times, it tells us absolutely nothing about them.

Let me break this down for you sloooooowly. Imagine this dialogue:

Q: Why is TV so white?
A: There are non-white actors on it (names a few)
Q: Think about a show like Friends which was set in NYC. NYC has only 44% white people. I'm pretty sure that show was at least 95% white.
A: That show wasn't real. Real 20 somethings don't own apartments that size in New York City, they don't subsist on meager salaries, and they don't run around sleeping with their friends. Get it - it's fantasy.
Q: So it's your average white person's fantasy to live in New York City, be able to afford a huge apartment with no salary, sleep with all their friends ...
A: Exactly!
Q: ... and be surrounded by only white people?
A: You are a resentful whiner!

Great post! I have been saying the same thing for awhile now. I have seen a slow shift on television. I haven't seen ER in ages! It has been on the air forever, but I don't know why.

Thanks for this, Ennis! I'm reading through the media advertising link you posted - crazy! (and yet not surprising)

That's interesting b/c mostly on tv I see black and white characters. It probably also depends on which group has a more influential lobby on media representation

NVM, I'm with the previous commentator. Is there a dearth of desi actors? Yes and no. There are more out there than folks think, but they don't get cast, and part of it is because people cast with specific races/ethnicities in mind. If there are no parts for which you are recruited, then it's kind of hard to get your foot in the door.

Also, Scrubs had a desi guy! (p.s. best show eeeeever) He wasn't a huge character (although he was kind of physically huge), but he was in the same class of residents as JD, Turk and Elliott :) Funny that Grey's, which is relatively concerned with having a diversity of ethnicities portrayed, does not have a desi character.

Ennis,

I'm with you on that. Although, (and I can't be completely sure about it, because I haven't seen the show enough times) but the show friends focused more on these people, rather than where they lived. Sure, it was set in NYC, but was NYC a really big 'character' in the show? (As it was in say, Seinfeld, which I think is more likely target for NYC From the look of the show, it could have been western montana (and maybe that's the point you're making?) But, the majority of white people don't have non-white friends, and in that sense, the show Friends is quite realistic

TV is white because the people who make tv are white...Then again I would rather see a white actor than shyamalan cast himself in another role uggg!

Although, (and I can't be completely sure about it, because I haven't seen the show enough times) but the show friends focused more on these people, rather than where they lived. Sure, it was set in NYC, but was NYC a really big 'character' in the show? (As it was in say, Seinfeld, which I think is more likely target for NYC From the look of the show, it could have been western montana (and maybe that's the point you're making?) But, the majority of white people don't have non-white friends, and in that sense, the show Friends is quite realistic

I'm not really that familiar with the show, but I do recall seeing their workplaces and a lot of scenes in the whitest coffee shop in Manhattan.

As for white people and non-white friends, New York is less socially segregated than the rest of America, another reason why the show felt more like Montana to me.

I don't know, HMF. Friends would've been more realistic, if they lived in say, Iowa, rather than NYC. In ten years, these six white characters only ran into basically an average of a minority character per season, per 1 to 2 episodes.

Ah, my fav topic!

My wife is a doc and she suffers from a mild form of physician-related snobbishness too. While the AMA has a lot to do with how many doctors are certified each year, the exams, material and residency requirements are also quite high. Small club = more clannishness. That said, such clannishness is also a result of early hazing during residency programs. I have talked to several doctor friends and they all have tales of being treated like sh!t by supervising docs during the early years of residency - a form of initiation ritual, if you will.

Econ theory time. The medical profession in the US has done a stellar job of restricting the number of graduating doctors, thereby keeping prices high and ensuring the wealth others have discussed on this thread. Any opinions?

I don’t understand why they feel this way though - I’ve never heard anything similar from engineers. Is it the combination of the long training and the high salaries? What’s at the root of this medical exceptionalism?

it's pure and simple elitism, is what it is. and, imho, there are two reasons for it:

first, doctors are more qualified, so there is a certain rationale to it. but there are several other professions which require as much qualification, so what makes doctors different? they also deal with people's lives, so there's a "god-complex" aspect to what they do.

secondly, desis have this subconscious reverence for doctors which is drummed into their heads from a very young age. doctors are at the receiving end of it, and especially desi doctors. in india, there's this whole superstition thing, and the doctor who saves your life is analogous to god, in some sense.

so basically, it's a feedback loop - i am god because i saved your life, thinks the doctor. you are god because you saved my life, says the patient. hence, the doctor ends up thinking they are "special". and since doctors mostly hang out with other doctors, they come to believe that even more.

well, that's my theory, anyhow...

As for #13:

Does anyone personally know desis who were "pressured" to become doctors but ended up doing something else AFTER becoming full fledged doctors? I've met 4 now, all my generation who absolutely abhor the profession and wouldn't want anything to do with it and have gone onto to other equally lucrative and successful professions but simply didn't want to be doctors. This is something I'd unheard of growing up but seems like it's become quite common now.

i am one of those somewhat-pressured ones. my entire family is a doctor family (i feel your pain, BarristerBetty) parents, grandparents, grandparent's siblings, first cousins, second cousins, etc. etc. but after i slaved and got a much-coveted medical school seat in india after my 12th (as it works in india), i didn't bother to go through the motions after some serious conversations with the fairly liberal parents.

i ran to the us for my undergrad, and have recently got a doctorate in quantitative finance. and, i should add, the salaries are higher than the average doctor's, and you work a fairly regular workday (not i-banking hours).

i constantly keep my eye out for doctors-turned-something else and have met several of them including a family friend who dropped a rhodes scholarship in sports medicine at oxford to become a consultant at mckinsey. let me tell you, they are much more interesting to talk to, considering they are aware of the world outside medicine.

We were never forced into medicine …in the Indian community in Chicago, everyone was a professional. Everyone was a doctor or an engineer…

What a shameless, brazen liar!

prema, thanks for pointing this out. it's a ridiculous statement to make, and one that is commonly made. it upsets me when people make their small indian circle to represent the entire indian american population in the area.

Ennis,
I wish you had explored the reasons for CNN hiring Sanjay Gupta as the face of medicine. I beleieve it constitutes more valuable screen time than ER. A lot of baby boomer America (CNN's audience) is very comfortable with a desi doctor. ABout the rest, time will tell - not TV.

Just as an aside, can people stop bringing up places like Iowa as the example of a place that is lily white and/or socially segregated? Granted, Des Moines is not New York City, but it (and other Midwestern cities/states) are nowhere near as bad as folks on SM seem to think. Iowa is not Idaho, after all...

With respect to Friends, I noticed a smattering of non-white characters towards the end of the show's run, which makes me wonder if these complaints were made to the producers as well.

If the absence of minority characters represents the fantasy world of white viewers, then what does that tell us about them?

Good question. Takes courage to ask it. Dont agree with the poster who thinks its whining....

Its a good question, cut anyways.

I dont see any clear answers though. However, for the reality to change to reflect American demographic reality, does this question need to be asked by people people of all hues?

If I were white and I saw myself as a fairminded person, which many of them are, I would defnitely ask this question. For a non-white person to ask this question aggressively opens him/her to the risk of being a "whiner."

A white friend of mine remarked about the very white audience and performing crew at the ballet and the opera and said it makes him feel strange. He said he is not sure why this is so, even though so many Asians study music and dance, and other arts, and are very accomplished in it.

People are asking this question..and rightfully so...

HAte to tandem post ...but

I do not think we need to worry about minorities not being represented...check out the most popular radio stations in L. A. - all Spanish. I think we are hung up on watching shows in English. There's a ton of stuff out there in Spanish. And , i will say it again, will someone please spruce up Namaste India?

Much of the reason, I believe, that desi kids go into medicine is because of the stability factor, which has now turned into a prestige factor. Back in the desh, being a doctor or engineer meant not having to worry about where your next meal came from.

Also, speaking of the AMA SkepMod, I think it's bullshit how the AMA limits the # of MDs in order to increase their salaries etc. The United States NEEDS more doctors, as today, healthcare is a privilege, not a right. With a society as advanced as ours, we all should have access to healthcare.

I'm not really that familiar with the show, but I do recall seeing their workplaces and a lot of scenes in the whitest coffee shop in Manhattan.

As for white people and non-white friends, New York is less socially segregated than the rest of America, another reason why the show felt more like Montana to me.

Yes, the world of Seinfeld was pretty white bread but they still did a better job with diversity than Friends. Great minority characters that spring to mind are: Rebecca DeMornay, the Exterminator, the gay, hispanic tough guys that torture Kramer about the AIDS ribbon, Poppy, and since this is SM - BABU (played by a possibly Jewish actor but that's a story for another day...)

secondly, desis have this subconscious reverence for doctors which is drummed into their heads from a very young age. doctors are at the receiving end of it, and especially desi doctors. in india, there's this whole superstition thing, and the doctor who saves your life is analogous to god, in some sense.

Yes but I think in the US too doctors are like gods. My father is a doctor and when we immigrated to the US, most of our friends were doctors. I was continuously surrounded by doctor aunty and uncles and it wasn't something I gave much thought to in elementary school until...when my young friends or teachers asked me what my parents did, and I said my father is a doctor, these kids were all wide-eyed and expressed that I must be so rich. It's a very, very difficult school to get into to in the US, so to a certain extent I can understand why people are so in awe of them, especially also its a profession that deals with life and death.

We were never forced into medicine …in the Indian community in Chicago, everyone was a professional. Everyone was a doctor or an engineer…
What a shameless, brazen liar!

prema, thanks for pointing this out. it's a ridiculous statement to make, and one that is commonly made. it upsets me when people make their small indian circle to represent the entire indian american population in the area.

I don't think she was lying for god's sake - I think this is just what she experienced and probably not being a sociologist didn't qualify her statement.

For those complaining about the unrealistic whiteness of Friends, I sort of agree, BUT - my ex had a rent-controlled inherited place in the West Village too, when he was right out of college - there ARE such cases; and if you go around the hip parts of Manhattan, the crowd IS more white than the City generally speaking. It's still not as vanilla as the show depicted it, but hey. Also, I don't understand why Americans expect television to serve as a sort of sociologically-correct census-based reality. Most people's lives, in the US, consist of driving around a lot, working, and watching television, and not a whole lot of witty dialogue in between - you want a watch a show like that?

I get the impression sometimes that folks like to complain when TV shows don't reflect THEIR particular experience, or show people living in prettier places or wearing nicer clothes or having more spare time than their characters realistically should. Now that, to me, is an unrealistic expectation. TV is about verisimilitude, not veracity, and one has to be able to relate with part of it to get into the story, but if you want to just watch your life, you'd turn off the TV.

I'm sure if you crunched the numbers you'd find that an insanely disproportionate number of characters in TV shows are Jewish, but you can't say that now can you?. What, a meagre 2% of the US population, but it's difficult to think of a show that doesn't have a prominent Jewish character. Is that fair? Is Ennis going to whine about that statistical anomaly?

I graduated from high school in 1992 and my folks pressured me into the pre-med thing. My dad is a doc and all of my parents friends in our town in the middle of f'ing nowhere in Ohio were Indians. So they did not know anyone in the US who wasn't a doc or an engineer. My parents always stressed the "medicine is the only secure job where you can earn a lot of money and other jobs like law are controlled by racist white folk" angle. Back then they (and I) wasn't even aware of fields like investment banking. I ended up quitting pre-med because I hated it so much and eventually went to law school . Now at least kids growing up see Indians in diverse other fields; a whole new world of opportunity has unfolded. They don't have to just go into medicine and engineering, now they can also look into investment banking and corporate law...

Yes but I think in the US too doctors are like gods. My father is a doctor and when we immigrated to the US, most of our friends were doctors. I was continuously surrounded by doctor aunty and uncles and it wasn't something I gave much thought to in elementary school until...when my young friends or teachers asked me what my parents did, and I said my father is a doctor, these kids were all wide-eyed and expressed that I must be so rich. It's a very, very difficult school to get into to in the US, so to a certain extent I can understand why people are so in awe of them, especially also its a profession that deals with life and death.

ps - i agree with you, to some extent. but in the us (capitalist country), i think the admiration comes more from a "you're so rich, therefore, you're cool" thing. in india (socialist, until recently), i feel it's more cultural and has less to do with the financial aspect of things. if i am not mistaken, most doctors in india were not very well-off at all, prior to the "neo-liberal" reforms in the early nineties.

nonetheless, i also agree that there is a justification to the admiration. but not to the extent that i have seen it taken by some of my doctor friends and relatives (and i have many - by virtue of my family).

People want to see more of those who look like themselves on tv, but only in positive roles. Law and Order routinely takes real cases and changes the race of the defendents to white, regardless of actual race. However, I haven't heard hue and cry about that. I guess if whites wanted to make a fuss, they could complain about being greatly over-represented on tv as rapists, murderers, etc. in places like New York. People don't want tv to "reflect reality." Reality is scary and uncompromising. They want it to reflect their fantasies about themselves, and those who make the most noise eventually get what they want as long as it makes a profit. TV ignores statistics--it looks at what will sell and make the loudest people least angry. Maybe Asians are too quiet and polite?
Whites are watching less television. Blacks are watching more. Commercials appear to be 50% black, and usually feature black/white mixes more often than they occur in any reality I seen.
I have not read studies about East Indian viewing practices, but from my observation they seem to follow socio-economic class. That is, higher education, less tv viewing.
Since I rarely watch regular shows--i stick to a few cable channels and PBS--I am not able to give personal impressions. However, I have read the studies. Blacks are over-represented when it comes to certain professional characters. East Asians--as under-represented as South Asians. The average age of females on the big screen is about 25, and on the little one, maybe 30. Beautiful female lawyers are absurdly over-represented from my experience. Plain ones, of any race, under-represented. Males average considerably older than reality as romantic leads. Anyone looking in from another planet would make interesting assumptions about our demographics. It seems to be a rule that any given show will feature black and/or female judges (a favorite irony I guess), doctors and authority figures, way out of proportion to reality even in a place like D.C. Meanwhile, desis are vastly under-represented in medical shows. I don't know of any shows featuring engineers.
But when you are talking about "accurate" portrayal on the little screen, you really do have to look at all the aspects--there's more than a little hypocracy in all this. Desis want more desi doctors on tv, but not more motel owners, convenience store clerks or, perhaps, geologists and teachers. If we keep beating the drum, we'll see more brown faces on tv. But be prepared for the "reality" drum. My granma always said, be careful of what you ask for, because you might just get it.

Yes luna, most crimes in NY are committed by blacks and hispanics, and yet on Law & Order most criminals seem to bee rich Manhattanites.

How many times have you heard a doctor say that nobody can understand what they go through unless they’re a doctor themselves? It’s as if they think that being a doctor is distinct from other professions, on a plane of its own, completely inaccessible to people who do other things for a living. They also love to boast about the hours they work, even though (post-residency) my doctor friends work both shorter and more predictable hours than friends who are lawyers, iBankers or programmers.

Umm...maybe because it is distinct from other professions in that most doctors deal with life and death issues on a daily basis, and nearly every decision they make can impact whether someone lives or dies? So yes, from that perspective no one really gets what we go through. That doesn't make us "special", but it does have a huge impact on our lives. I generally don't say this to other people, so I'm sorry your friends boast about it; perhaps you should find new friends. But they are right. You have to either be a doctor, work closely with one, or be married to one to really get what it's all about. There are other professions that this is probably true of--the military or firefighters for example. I love how any post about medicine turns into an excuse to bash desi doctors and suggest that we all did it for the money/stability and that we are boring and ill-informed about the world in general.

Oh come on, we had a brown Oompa Loompa, that's gotta count for something!

*cringe*

Great post Ennis, a few comments:

Have any of you seen Grey's Anatomy? 3 of the head doctors on that show are Black, so that stat flies a bit in the face of the statistic you raised.

With regards to doctors, I think it's natural for people to congregate together who are in the same fields. When I meet someone in public health like myself, I naturally find myself gravitating towards them, asking them what they do, where they went to school, so on and so forth. Admittedly I don't exclusively hang out with people who are just in public health, but there is going to be a bond there because we both chose to go into the same field.

Of course if the makers of Law and Order were to actually reflect the criminal population of NY in a realistic manner, then they'd be called racists, Ennis-the-resentful would probably be first in line. So it's a straight question Ennis - do you think Law and Order should reflect demographic fact as well?

Ennis: "how little the multicultural nature of the medical profession is reflected on TV."

TV is lagging behind reality. What about the South Indian and Filipino nurses? Between the nurses and doctors, an average US hospital has a healthy dollop of brown.

Ennis: "It's as if they think that being a doctor is distinct from other professions, on a plane of its own, completely inaccessible to people who do other things for a living. They also love to boast about the hours they work, "

Given my advanced age (54), my physician friends are usually not the bragging upstarts of the medical profession but the seasoned pros who, after decades of losing patients, have accepted the reality that they have little power over human life. They are now resigned to the fact that they are not omnipotent. On the financial front, they are painfully aware that they are still hourly workers, with incomes directly tied to labor input, as compared to successful entrepreneurs or business executives whose earnings depend on creating outcomes through aggregating other people and resources. This harsh reality of medicine may be a non-issue among the younger set, but a 60-year old surgeon standing on his or her feet for six hours straight is understandly modest about the working conditions of medicine. My physician friends do not boast about the physicality of their job, the hours they work and their ridiculously long weeks and short vacations.

However, there is one quality that physicians seem to enjoy even in their later years and that is a love for their profession. I don't know any 50-plus burnt-out doctors. I know many 50-plus burnt-out business executives and professors.

a few points.

http://www.im.org/AAIM/PublicPolicy/Docs/AAMCMIM05.pdf

20% of med students are Asian American. 36% of applicants who are Asian are Indian or Pakistani. Assuming similar acceptance rates that means 7% of medical students in the United States are brown. so 7% is probably a good lowbound (i think that is more realistic for all medical schools).

also, browns immigrant doctors have disproportionately been concentrated where native born doctors did not want to practice. for example, chicago (too cold), other declining midwestern cities (they're declining remember) and rural areas. so the 5% who are immigrant brown doctors are not distributed equally across america. in fact, one of the reasons the USA recruited brown doctors was to fill spots in rural areas that natives were abandoning.

in regards to the doctors. the average doctor makes a lot of money, look here:

http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos074.htm

130-250 K for median income depending on specialization is pretty phat (though malpractice for some specialties, like obstretics, means you have to discount tens of thousands off it before taxes). engineers don't make that much. they also don't go to 4 years of professional school (yes, one can become a ph.d. engineer, but most engineers don't have ph.d.s, look the rates who go to graduate the year after getting a undergrad from MIT, a minority, and this is a school where everyone could go to grad school if they wanted). and ennis is right that doctors get where they are based on hard work and and brain skills. now, most of my academic friends complain that doctors tend to have a self-inflated image of their own intelligence because they spend their days ministering to "normal" people, but part of this is jealously because of the disparate compensation.

I don't know, HMF. Friends would've been more realistic, if they lived in say, Iowa, rather than NYC. In ten years, these six white characters only ran into basically an average of a minority character per season, per 1 to 2 episodes.

That's kinda my point, I was saying although the show was set in NYC, they rarely acknowledged that in the show. NYC wasn't really a 'character', certainly not as much as say Seinfeld (episodes about Chinese Food Delivery, Handsome Cab Rides in Central Park, owning cars in New York City, Puerto Rican Day Parade, George working for NY Yankees, etc..) So it might as well have been in Iowa. But I don't know the show that well. i'd say Seinfeld is more indictable for misrepresenting NYC.

Just as an aside, can people stop bringing up places like Iowa as the example of a place that is lily white and/or socially segregated?

Hema, What places should people bring up then? Are you saying taken as an aggregate the midwest is as socially aware, and as multiculturaled as the coasts (in particular, NY, LA, SF?) No, this doesn't make the coasts perfect... but when I was in the midwest and had a 80 yr old woman ask me, "Are you going away for Easter?" assuming I was Christian, I knew that was more likely to happen in the midwest rather than not.

a few points.

http://www.im.org/AAIM/PublicPolicy/Docs/AAMCMIM05.pdf

20% of med students are Asian American. 36% of applicants who are Asian are Indian or Pakistani. Assuming similar acceptance rates that means 7% of medical students in the United States are brown. so 7% is probably a good lowbound (i think that is more realistic for all medical schools).

also, browns immigrant doctors have disproportionately been concentrated where native born doctors did not want to practice. for example, chicago (too cold), other declining midwestern cities (they're declining remember) and rural areas. so the 5% who are immigrant brown doctors are not distributed equally across america. in fact, one of the reasons the USA recruited brown doctors was to fill spots in rural areas that natives were abandoning.

in regards to the doctors. the average doctor makes a lot of money, look here:

http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos074.htm

130-250 K for median income depending on specialization is pretty phat (though malpractice for some specialties, like obstretics, means you have to discount tens of thousands off it before taxes). engineers don't make that much. they also don't go to 4 years of professional school (yes, one can become a ph.d. engineer, but most engineers don't have ph.d.s, look the rates who go to graduate the year after getting a undergrad from MIT, a minority, and this is a school where everyone could go to grad school if they wanted). and ennis is right that doctors get where they are based on hard work and and brain skills. now, most of my academic friends complain that doctors tend to have a self-inflated image of their own intelligence because they spend their days ministering to "normal" people, but part of this is jealously because of the disparate compensation.

medicine is a fine profession. no problem with doctors. i did pre-med for my undergrad. didnt want to go to med school for purely financial reasons. didnt seem like a positive npv decision. seemed like the money was lame.

You have to either be a doctor, work closely with one, or be married to one to really get what it's all about.

I think this is true, and generally speaking, I agree with you. I think physicians do have it tough, and if it's not a question of life or death, there's always the threat of a lawsuit lurking somewhere in the background.

However, even being married to a physician, I still get the sense that at least some physicians have a fairly healty "god" complex, or at least sincerely believe that what they do is more important than what anybody else does. This may be true in some instances, but it's not true for every doctor all the time.

Hema, I agree with you that some physicians have a "god" complex, but so do some other successful males (and sometimes females)--ibankers and MBAs for instance. It may very well be worse in medicine, though.

Agreed that its difficult for non-medicos to understand what Doctors go through.However that is no excuse for the "God complex" that some doctors develop.

It’s as if they think that being a doctor is distinct from other professions, on a plane of its own, completely inaccessible to people who do other things for a living. They also love to boast about the hours they work,

Ennis kind of nailed it - but this is true of doctors in India too.

My brother-in-law and sister-in-law are doctors and for the first few months after I got married I had to grit my teeth as every dinner table conversation was about how hard they worked ( as if the rest of us were sitting in hammocks, lazing away the days !!) and how no other profession comes close to medicine.Granted that medicine is a noble profession but everyone's contribution to society is important.

Looking back, its amusing how much this bothered me then:-)

Are you saying taken as an aggregate the midwest is as socially aware, and as multiculturaled as the coasts (in particular, NY, LA, SF?)

No, I'm not really saying that, although I do think this notion that the Midwest is filled with a bunch of racist hicks who don't know the difference between an Arab and an Indian is seriously overstated...as is the view that you can't find any semblance of cosmopolitan behavior, social awareness or racial acceptance anywhere outside of the East and West coasts.

I think my view is that there's no doubt that places like NYC or LA are more diverse than the Midwest, on the average. But I think diversity and social awareness are distinct issues. For example, my own anecdotal experience is that while New York is much more diverse than, say, Minneapolis, New Yorkers are also more "color conscious" than the vast majority of people in Minneapolis. (This is just an anecdotal example, of course...it may be that the statistics indicate exactly the opposite).

That is, it is possible to just become another average Joe in Iowa or Wisconsin over time even whether a person is brown or black, but in New York, a person is much more closely identified with their ethnic or racial background. In one sense, it's a case of diversity working against people, I guess.

i am a lawyer, and i concur to some extent with how doctors feel. though, i will say i felt this much more when i was in law school than now as a practising lawyer. the training itself, particularly in the first year, was both intellectually and emotionally challenging in a way that none of us were prepared for. and whenever i tried to explain it to my friends, nobody understood, except other lawyers/law students. so i just stopped talking about it. now, however, i think people relate more easily to being a lawyer because of media exposure, whereas what is taught in law school is not at all discussed in general public fora. but even though law school was grueling, i still think medical school, residency etc is far harder. so i completely understand when doctors say such a thing - how can others understand something that requires almost 10 years of training? i don't hold doctors on a pedestal, but i do think you have to acknowledge the more complicated nature of a profession that requires so much training before you can even begin to practise. though in no way does that mean non-doctors do not work harder - e.g. entrepreneurs. and often doctors make up with their initial long hours by having much more relaxed schedules later on. it's just different, i suppose, though no better or worse.

Back in the desh, being a doctor or engineer meant not having to worry about where your next meal came from.

But BarristerBetty, wouldn't having the [congenital] financial means and cultural capital to one day become a doctor or engineer buffer you from that in the first place? I don't know many doctors or engineers in India who came from truly hardscrabble beginnings. Let me qualify that a little: My father was an engineering professor who grew up in a tiny one-room shack [thatched roof and all], which certainly didn't match the middle-class or richer backgrounds of his American colleagues later in life. Yet the neighborhood in which he grew up, shacks and all, was considered upper middle class in 50s-era Madras [poverty can be comparative, after all]. He had parents who were educated, who bought him books and could afford school fees, and he never had to worry about where his next meal came from. Most [if not all] of his peers at school, who later became doctors and engineers in India and abroad, were in the same boat.

This is just conjecture on my part, but I think the practice of South Asian parents in the States pushing their kids to be doctors and engineers reflects the fact that most South Asians who come over here are wealthier or better connected in the first place than most of their fellow citizens. Wealthy parents all over the world push their kids towards careers that guarantee wealth and the "stability" that you mentioned.

[More conjecture] As for South Asian immigrants who weren't as well off back home as they are here, who might push their kids in a similar fashion, I think it's that they recognize that the social infrastructure in the States is more conducive to careers gained through meritocracy, and this more conducive to upward social mobility--pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, and all that jazz.

but not to the extent that i have seen it taken by some of my doctor friends and relatives

Yes, I know what you mean...Sometimes there are docs I meet who do think they're god...and it's sad b/c the medical profession should work hand-in-hand with social workers and others and I feel a lot of time, doctors don't heed the advice of social scientists and this only hurts the patient.

And then there are those docs, who treat a child who doesn't want to be a doc, like they are nothing...I speak from experience. My sis is a doc and no one ever wanted to hear about what I was doing in my work or what I was studying in college, but to my sister they gave her such acclaim. The aunties and uncles gave my sister and any other of the "youngsters" that were in med school, all the attention.

Nothing was respected except medicine - engineering was looked down on and don't let me get into law.

Maybe cause I wasn't a strong enuff person when I was younger, it made me go into some sort of depression, where I felt the only thing I could do would be to get married. It's amazing to me now, to think that is how i felt. There's just so many other things out there to do. You have to go with what works for you and have pride in it. Medicine is a great profession but it isn't for everyone and I wish more desi parents wouldn't disregard other ambitions their children may have.

there used to be a desi guy on grey's - but even though they showed him frequently in the first season, i don't recall seeing him at any point after that. re the 3 african american doctors - the creator of the show is african-american - so perhaps it is from her point of view - i.e. even non-white people can fail to be diverse vis-a-vis other minorities.

But I think diversity and social awareness are distinct issues.

They can't be completely distinct, for a certain degree of diversity is needed to become socially aware.

That is, it is possible to just become another average Joe in Iowa or Wisconsin over time even whether a person is brown or black, but in New York, a person is much more closely identified with their ethnic or racial background. In one sense, it's a case of diversity working against people, I guess.

Sure, but this doesn't mean the "brownness" is accepted, it just means it's ignored. Whitefolks in the midwest (predominantly) might accept a "brown" person, but just classify them as another white person with a really good tan (the thought process is : "they watch American Idol, they eat pizza, they go to the mall, they're 'normal', just like us"). And that's not social awareness.

I think what you should be saying is, social acceptance and social awareness are two distinct issues.

Either way, I see nothing wrong with pointing to places like montana, iowa, indiana, etc... as examples of homogenous places, that lack any kind of real social awareness.

Sure, but this doesn't mean the "brownness" is accepted, it just means it's ignored

But isn't that ultimately a good thing? If someone can look at a brown person, and see no difference that really matters, it is a form of social acceptance.

Either way, I see nothing wrong with pointing to places like montana, iowa, indiana, etc... as examples of homogenous places, that lack any kind of real social awareness.

Well, I think you have to distinguish between the Indianas and the Montanas. Montana is a sparsely populated state with a very low immigrant population. That's not really true for Indiana. The Midwest has a different cultural and social structure than the West does.

Also, I'm not really sure what you mean by "social awareness." Folks in the Midwest aren't blind to racism, nor are they more accepting of racism than people on either coast. In fact, given that immigrants make up a significantly smaller percentage of state populations in the Midwest, I'd say people in these states are actually more socially aware than on the coasts (again, depending on what you mean by "social awareness").

Of course if the makers of Law and Order were to actually reflect the criminal population of NY in a realistic manner, then they'd be called racists, Ennis-the-resentful would probably be first in line. So it's a straight question Ennis - do you think Law and Order should reflect demographic fact as well?

Sean Hannity! I never thought we'd see you here at SM. Vanakkam.

If Law and Order reflected reality, there would be one female criminal every 1000 shows, or something. The overwhelming majority of convicts are male. And also, if we stuck to the reality tip, SVU would have episodes in the single digits every year. Sex crimes have been declining sharply in NYC for years now.

You appear only to want everyone's favorite tabloid-ripoff cop drama to "reflect" whatever twisty, unpleasant views of racial hierarchy you have.

But isn't that ultimately a good thing? If someone can look at a brown person, and see no difference that really matters, it is a form of social acceptance.

Oh no, I have to disagree on that. I believe differences should be acknowledged, for any kind of true understanding. Any notions of equality without understanding are meaningless. in particular for groups of people who have widely different histories and legacies in this country. For example, a white person cannot look at a black person and "see no difference", they need to acknolwedge their history is vastly different from their own, and has reprecussions on the present day. Same with latino, hispanic, indian, etc...

It's acknowledging and accepting the difference that's key.

Also, I'm not really sure what you mean by "social awareness." Folks in the Midwest aren't blind to racism, nor are they more accepting of racism than people on either coast. In fact, given that immigrants make up a significantly smaller percentage of state populations in the Midwest, I'd say people in these states are actually more socially aware than on the coasts (again, depending on what you mean by "social awareness").

I mean acknowledging that there are different cultures in the world, that white Christian lifestyle is not unilateraly more "normal" or "better" I don't see how you can make the case that, that sentiment is stronger in the midwest? I lived in Indiana, for two years, the college newspaper ran an article about "minority growth" and only commented on the black population. No mention of hispanic, latino, asian, native american, etc... I seriously cannot imagine such a thing happening in new york city or los angeles.

In fact, given that immigrants make up a significantly smaller percentage of state populations in the Midwest, I'd say people in these states are actually more socially aware than on the coasts

This makes no sense, given any definition of social awareness. How can you be aware of something you don't even know exists - or only know through television?

"You appear only to want everyone's favorite tabloid-ripoff cop drama to "reflect" whatever twisty, unpleasant views of racial hierarchy you have."

No, I'm saying that Ennis is whining about fiction not mirroring reality when it comes to desi representation on ER, so why isn't he complaining about the fact that Law & Order doesn't mirror demographic reality as well? There is a greater percentage of desi doctors in the US population than is portrayed on television. Likewise there is a far, FAR greater percentage of black criminals in NY than TV portrays. I don't care either way, but Ennis has a fixation on fiction mirroring reality when it comes to minorities, so lets take it to its logical conclusion:

- Way less Jews on TV.
- Way more black and hispanic criminals on TV.
- Every TV show set in Cali should have precisely 57% of its characters as minorities.

And on, and on, and onnnnnnnnn.
-

Oh no, I have to disagree on that. I believe differences should be acknowledged, for any kind of true understanding.

and how are they supposed to acknowledge differences when they can't tell by the color of your skin and the mien of your face??? i mean, basically you're suggesting that people shouldn't talk to you and making polite assumptions unless you are wearing a "i am non-christian" shirt, because there are brown christians, and they are overrepresented in the american brown community. myself, i regular am assumed to be hindu, and people are polite to me on that account (one time someone offered me a vegetarian platter at a party). i know decruz (a christian) has been assumed to be a vegetarian because he looks like a hindu (that is, he's brown). the kind of fine grained awareness you're looking for is predicated on either two things

a) knowing someone really well as a necessary precondition toward conversation, which will lead to a total banishment of casual contact and banter in public places where you encounter the unfamiliar

b) a perfect correlation between outward markers and other aspects of their character. e.g., if you see a sikh dressed "like a sikh" you can make a good guess that they are sikh and to greet them in a sensitive fashion. but what about sikhs who dress in a manner totally indifferent from their hindu punjabi compatriots?

TV ignores statistics--it looks at what will sell and make the loudest people least angry.

Summarizes why to Hollywood, Neo Nazis are the still most realistic villians...

because there are brown christians, and they are overrepresented in the american brown community

This is a special case, and I still contend "brown christians" are have more cultural similarity with the 2nd generation Indian population (regardless of religion) rather than their white christian counterparts. From what little I know, Christianity as practiced in India is distinctly separate from how it's practiced here in the States. but I may be wrong.

the kind of fine grained awareness you're looking for is predicated on either two things

I wouldn't consider the awareness as fine-grained at all. I'm not saying they should know what village I came from, that we as south indians, fast on the 3rd lunar month, where as north indians fast on the 3nd thursday, etc. Just a general acknowledgement of a salient difference. It's not a question of people mistaking you for a Hindu, it's people looking at you and not saying because you eat pizza, hang out at the mall, that you're "just like them."

Oh no, I have to disagree on that. I believe differences should be acknowledged, for any kind of true understanding

You can understand that someone is different, and still find it insignificant in your interactions with that someone. I think this is what I mean by the Midwest being "color blind" while the more diverse, more cosmopolitan coasts are so caught up in being socially aware, they can't really dissociate the cultural differences from their social interactions.

I mean acknowledging that there are different cultures in the world, that white Christian lifestyle is not unilateraly more "normal" or "better"

I've lived in the Midwest for more than 15 years now (yes, I really am old), having lived in Canada and on the east coast before that, and I don't get the feeling that most Midwesterners are either ignorant of other cultures, or believe that the "white Christian lifestyle" is more normal or better. Of course, my experiences are anecdotal (and limited to college towns and urban areas), but the attitude reflected in your statement above is exactly the sort of thing I'm complaining about on SM. This view just does not ring true to me, both as an Indian and a longtime Midwest resident.

ps:

You have to go with what works for you and have pride in it.

hear, hear.

and deshishiksa:

...and that we are boring and ill-informed about the world in general

you have to be a non-doctor, work closely with one or be married to one to fully understand how boring and ill-informed doctors can be... ;)

i'm saying that completely tongue-in-cheek, of course. so please take it with a grain of salt. there are a few doctors that i know who are extremely interesting to talk to. on the other hand, there are several academics i know that are elitist, boring and ill-informed about the rest of the world...

NA-

I agree with your sentiments. I've heard the stories of living in snake-infected shacks in med school etc. While my parents were not wealthy, and the first in their family to go to college, you are right, everything is relative. I suppose they were better off than others, though not glamorous by any means.

And on a more snarky note, I'm surprised that Chick Pea, aka "I'm a super cancer doctor hear me roar" has been relatively silent when it comes to her favorite subject to gloat/judge about!

How many times have you heard a doctor say that nobody can understand what they go through unless they’re a doctor themselves?

Well, Ennis, how can you expect doctors to understand a non-doctor's point of view? After all, doctors are not non-doctors, right?

Think about that.

Of course, my experiences are anecdotal (and limited to college towns and urban areas), but the attitude reflected in your statement above is exactly the sort of thing I'm complaining about on SM.

Well, then I guess we are at an anecdotal impasse. Because I have lived in West Lafayette Indiana, and have found that most white attitudes range from outright derision to the "you're just like us" form of acceptance. Both of which don't sit well with me. This was 5 years ago, so some miniscule change might have occurred, but truthfully, the people there haven't even warmed up to the concept of a "brown" person that has lived, and grown up in the USA.

If you're honestly going to tell me that whites in the midwest do not have a "our way is the 'normal' way" attitude, moreso than the coasts, where exposure to "other ways" is clearly higher.. then I don't know what else to say.

Incidentally, I left Indiana 2 months before 9/11. To this day I thank Krishna, Jesus, Mohammed, Jehova, Buddha and every other god out there that I wasn't there during that horrible event. Sure - was it perfect for me out in NYC? No, a whole lot of fat Italian pizzeria owners yelled "va fangool" in NYC, but you takes what you can gets.

This is a special case, and I still contend "brown christians" are have more cultural similarity with the 2nd generation Indian population (regardless of religion) rather than their white christian counterparts. From what little I know, Christianity as practiced in India is distinctly separate from how it's practiced here in the States. but I may be wrong.

of course it is distinctly separate, but anna (a jacobite syrian christian by background) attended a greek eastern orthodox church as a child. so that should tell you that there are similarities. and my response was predicated on your offense to easter, as christians in india do celebrate that most central of christian holidays. but in any case, the general problem is still there: in a diverse society how do you establish a common ground of discourse with people in public places? you make assumptions about them. as an atheist of muslim familial background people commonly try to forge a tie with me by reference to hinduism (many in the local area have been over there). generally i'm just embarrassed because they get embarrassed when they find out my background, but honestly, the numbers would suggest that i would be hindu (85% of american browns are from what i can tell). so i don't get irritated because people are trying to do their best (i do get irritated if they continue to assume i'm hindu, which has happened. or, if someone explains me why i should be hindu because i'm brown).

I humbly request you unitalicise that and repost it, with some line breaks. I made it to the 3rd line and got a headache.

If you're honestly going to tell me that whites in the midwest do not have a "our way is the 'normal' way" attitude, moreso than the coasts, where exposure to "other ways" is clearly higher.. then I don't know what else to say.

I'm not saying every single white person in the Midwest is socially aware. I'm saying that the generalization that most Midwesterners are not socially aware is not correct either. I lived in the Midwest before, during and after 9/11, in a college town, and I never experienced a single instance of discrimination, and neither did my husband. I'm not saying that's true for everyone, but that's my experience...and it's the broad "all Midwesterners are racist hicks" generalization that I'm objecting to anyway.

Also, NYC is not all of New York. I'm fairly certain that the level of social awareness in Troy and Albany is much less than in NYC. Similarly, LA, SF and San Diego are not all of California, and I'm pretty sure that folks in small town CA are about as "socially aware" as people in small town Michigan.

I lived in the Midwest before, during and after 9/11, in a college town, and I never experienced a single instance of discrimination,

Well, I have. Like I said, anecdotal impasse.

Also, NYC is not all of New York. I'm fairly certain that the level of social awareness in Troy and Albany is much less than in NYC. Similarly, LA, SF and San Diego are not all of California,

Where did I imply that they were?

it is distinct from other professions in that most doctors deal with life and death issues on a daily basis, and nearly every decision they make can impact whether someone lives or dies? So yes, from that perspective no one really gets what we go through. That doesn't make us "special", but it does have a huge impact on our lives. I generally don't say this to other people, so I'm sorry your friends boast about it; perhaps you should find new friends. But they are right. You have to either be a doctor, work closely with one, or be married to one to really get what it's all about. There are other professions that this is probably true of--the military or firefighters for example.

Desishiksa - this is a very interesting comment. I did seriously date an ER doctor, and remember clearly when her first patient coded. On the other hand, I also got the impression that such life and death issues were far from daily. Even the patient who died was on death's doorstep before he showed up, there was little she could do, either to help or to hurt him. I see your argument as it pertains to trauma surgeons (or surgeons in general) and oncologists and fertility specialists. But I never adequately felt like it described the daily experiences of most doctors, and certainly not eye or skin folks, those in the lifestyle specialties.

Further, I never hear such rhetoric from my military friends, in part because most of the time they're not dealing with life-or-death situations, most of the time they're running a very large business.

So I'm still looking for insight on this issue.

Where did I imply that they were?

Not that you implied this, but unless "East Coast" is just a euphemism for NYC, New Jersey and DC, saying the East Coast is more "socially aware" necessarily extends to all places on the east coast...whether NYC or Charleston, South Carolina.

In other words, if you mean NYC, then say NYC...and if you mean BFE, Idaho, say that instead of "Midwest."

most white attitudes range from outright derision to the "you're just like us" form of acceptance

I've gotten this from black people as well. I recently had a conversation with a friend/acquaintance of mine who is black and I was disturbed by it b/c of the "you're just like us" attitude.

Sure, we're all humans and I have a lot in common with many of the minorities in the US and I have a lot not in common with them. The conversation with my friend went like this -

- We both live in DC now, but grew up in rural areas of NC
- We were talking about our experiences growing up in rural NC
- I said, being one of the few nonwhite and nonblack folks in my town I was amazed how people didn't realize there were other types of people, or other countries, etc.

- She said that she viewed all the minorities in her rural town, apparently there were a few East Asians and South Asians, as just like herself.

- I said, really,..."but weren't there cultural differences that you noticed?"

- She was adament that she didn't see cultural difference, but she saw them as just part of the black minority.

- I told her that I often felt my own experience growing up in NC were invisible --- b/c white or black people just subsumed a small minorities' experience with their own.

For me it is a constant struggle to want to be seen as American, but that I may have different American experiences than my friends who happen to be white or black. This doesn't mean I want to be stared at, as I often was and am, - that's just rude. I didn't understand my black friend's viewpoint and I don't think she was being honest with herself. I just went to my Vietnamese-American friend's family's home and yes, I view her as American but it's also interesting to understand her outlook as shaped or not shaped by her Vietnamese-American culture. And when I was at her family's home I took an interest in their family's history and also was aware that there are things that I should or shouldn't do.

I think to my black friend, she felt very touchy that other minorities don't identify with African-Americans all the time and by me not feeling I was "black" (how could I?) that I was bigoted in some way to African-Americans.

Does this make any sense?

razib, why assume anything? if people knew enough about any culture - desi or not - they would realise that it is nearly impossible to make any sort of generalization. except maybe language, but in the case of india, that also does not stand. when people meet me, i expect people to not assume anything about me - because if they assumed, how would they know that i don't practise hinduism (even though my family does)? that my parents don't eat tandoori chicken and naan every night? that we don't speak hindi in our house? that my parents have spent the bulk of their lives here? why not ask questions instead - to actually inform oneself. the issue is not about awareness - it is about respect for our differences - whether those may or may not be based on ethnicity.

Oh c'mon, i think its obvious given the context, "coasts" refers to major urban areas, and "midwest" refers to small bible belt cities, not Chicago or even Indianapolis.

And given you haven't experienced any kind of racism or discrimination out there, I'd encourage you to play the lottery!

Oh c'mon, i think its obvious given the context, "coasts" refers to major urban areas, and "midwest" refers to small bible belt cities, not Chicago or even Indianapolis.

Well, that's exactly what I'm objecting to. Why not just say "small bible belt city" rather than Midwest (considering it's a fairly large region of the US, and encompasses three different geographic areas)?

In fact, given current population distributions, most Midwesterners live in urban areas, not in small bible belt cities. And just FYI, the vast majority of the Midwest is the Rust/Corn belt and not the Bible Belt. People from Missouri and Kansas have almost nothing in common with people from Ohio and Michigan.

why not ask questions instead - to actually inform oneself.

is it normal where you come from to ask strangers in public places what their religion is? what their dietary habits are?

my point is this: as americans (or whatever nationality) we have a lot of subconscious assumptions we make about people that scaffolded the path of discourse. that is a fact of human cognition, most mental processes are not reflective and the reflective conscious elements are strongly shaped by the non-conscious parts. when you meet someone you make assumptions and get information based on what they look like, how they dress, their accent, the part of the locality they are from. this is normal and human. the issue isn't do we do it, it is the fine line we attempt to negotiate when we consciously use the data we intuit in our everyday conversation. for example, i had a friend who was poor who ended up living in a notoriously rich suburb. the reality is that her town had been administratively absorbed a few years ago and there was nothing rich about it, and they were pretty much outcasts. but anyway, she went to a ritzy high school and when people found out what high school she went to they would assume she was well off. they didn't say "oh, you're rich." rather, things would happen which implied people assumed she was well off when making decisions (e.g., she was invited to an expensive sky diving trip by some people in her dorm, who never considered she couldn't afford it).

as for not being able to generalize, of course we can generalize. there's a central tendency, a mean, a median, a variance, a skewness. we can characterize the errors which bound our generalizations. people say we don't want to generalize a lot, but they only apply it to certain areas. for example, if you want to go down this route i better not hear any more generalizations of republicans. after all, they're all different.... (yeah)

If it makes you feel better, sure, I won't use the word "midwest" anymore. However, I just prefer Jesusland. Makes life a bit easier.

Good points, ennis. I suppose it's the narrative that people tell themselves about the profession they have chosen that's more important than the daily practice of it, much of the time. And the identity they develop of themselves as members of that profession - or ways in which they respond to and make sense of the social position of their professions. Just as it's more reassuring to think that teaching shapes impressionable minds and being an academic means you're producing original research (and isn't about teaching the same boring thing year after year, or publishing slight variations on existing research), or that being in the army is about going out there to defend your nation (and not to have a good pension and because you couldn't get a better job with your skills), it's reassuring for doctors to think that the stressful long hours they put in, particularly in training, are meant to prepare them for emergencies, rather than simply being a sign that they are low on the totem pole and no-one else wanted that shift, or a reflection of the artificial shortage of doctors in the US. Similarly, doctors express anxiety about and justify high pay in terms of the possibility of lawsuits, whereas in reality only a tiny percentage have to face that possibility.

that we don't speak hindi in our house?

Heh. This reminds me that Indians often generalize about other Indians as well. In college, one of my roommates was an IBD graduate student, and she signed up for one of those international calling plans with AT&T. One day, as part of a promotional deal, she got a call from someone at AT&T who began the conversation with "Hello, main AT&T ke taraf se Iqbal bol raha hoon." She was so offended that AT&T assumed she knew Hindi just because she was Indian that she promptly hung up, canceled her AT&T service and switched to MCI!

?Clannishness? Hey multicultis, I thought that was called solidarity? Never can keep up with the progressive mindset....

I've never noticed this clannishness, but I suppose it is my age (late thirties, really late thirties, and you can just shut it Ennis and razib :) ) and the fact that I grew up in, and work in areas, without too many desi docs. Well, that's not true. Grew up in Iowa, trained/worked in California, Illinois, New Mexico, and Massachusetts. So, you know, I've been around. And, hey, I don't mean it that way!

Desi docs are not a heterogenous group; there are people who grew up here and trained here, people who grew up in India and trained there, and various combinations of the two. Medicine is in a pretty weird state right now and there is a lot of bitterness in the profession, whether desi or not, so I think it comes out in different ways. Complaining is my personal favorite.

Forming desi physician groups probably started for those who trained abroad and felt abused, or confused, or whatever, by the system, and now the younger types are just continuing it as a multicultural or solidarity excercise? Or, cause, it seems like the right thing to do? I am just surmising, I'm an outlier by virtue of having grown up in Iowa, quite happily, and without too much angst in later years, although plenty as a teen. Oh, why or why can't I go to the prom and date? Anyway, being a teen pretty much sucks for white kids, desi kids, whatever kids. That was one advantage of growing up the way I did, out in flyover in the 70s and 80s; I never did idolize the majority, meaning, I didn't assume that life would automatically be prettier if I grew up in a place where I was like everyone else. It might be, but it might not. Whatever.

Desi docs can be full of themselves and it's a pain in the you know what. But, from my vantage point in this particular East Coast Medical Industrial complex, lots of docs can be full of themselves. I wonder if the profession attracts people who need the kind of stoking of the ego a profession like medicine can provide? And, then, after admission to med school, become frustrated, when, hey! It's hard, guys. It's hard and you have a lot of responsibility and it's not all about you and your CV and your Lexus, kiddo. You will make mistakes, you will get sued, you will have to think about things most people would rather just forget. Think I give many lectures to the 'kids'?

Well, most of the docs I know are pretty nice, actually the 'full of themselves' types are just the loudest and so get the most attention. Too bad.

One day, as part of a promotional deal, she got a call from someone at AT&T who began the conversation with "Hello, main AT&T ke taraf se Iqbal bol raha hoon." She was so offended that AT&T assumed she knew Hindi just because she was Indian that she promptly hung up, canceled her AT&T service and switched to MCI!

a vietnamese american friend had the same experience (he hung up). i did too, though i didn't hang up on the person. he was a nice enough indian immigrant who i chatted with for a while, and he felt really crappy about what he was doing. a large number of american brownz he was calling had no idea what he was saying because so many were from non-hindi speaking families. now, one thing that happens to me in large cities is that sometimes brown service personnel tentatively say things in hindi (or urdu for cabbies) to me to see if i know what they're saying. obviously they aren't sure i'll understand, but they figure they'd try anyhow. it's not usually a big deal, people are trying, not assuming.

there's a difference.

p.s. i recall once in NYC a bangladeshi cab driver picking me up and talking loudly about all sorts of serious personal issues in bengali which i could hear and understand. that was awkward!

also, ER has always had a fair black representation. either 1 or 2 of the main characters.

As for the whole: who is more racist, thing, which we've been over ad nauseum, I think it's a mistake to assume small town midwestern life will automatically be worse. I can't see that living in New Jersey necessarily protects you from racism, whereas, if you are just one outlier, you may not be 'threating' in the way a slightly larger group is to the majority.

I think people are more comfortable with the areas of the country they grow up in, and project a little. I've heard white midwesterners complain about their treatment here on the East Coast. Can't say I've noticed that people are any nicer than back in Iowa; more sophisticated and slick in some ways, but not any more or less nice.

Ennis: I'm working longer hours now than in residency, so I obviously did something wrong :)

*How much you care about the quality of your work, and how efficient you are, and what type of practice you have, all affect your work. Ahem.
**I tend to take longer, but then I am really, really, particular about the quality of my work, for which I think patients would be happy. Of course, someone who is more efficient will say this is just an excuse.
***Dear parents of desi children; let your children become PAs or pharmacists or dentists. Trust me on this one :)
****Okay, push them they way you would anyway, just support them if they stumble a bit, and if they seem to get a bit too big for their britches, remind them of the best quality for a physician: humility. Just a little unsolicited advice.

I can't see that living in New Jersey necessarily protects you from racism, whereas, if you are just one outlier, you may not be 'threating' in the way a slightly slightly larger group is to the majority.

Standard technique. Assume that castigation of one place, is complete approval of all others. As for the "if you're the only one then people won't perceive you as a threat" logic, that goes to the heart of my point. They won't perceive you period, you're the invisible man, or the white man with a really good tan. In many ways, you can say it's better to be acknowledged rather than treated with an attitude of indifference.

No HMF, just a reminder that quality of life is not so bad in small midwestern towns for some desis. BTW, the many kids I knew who grew up in small towns in the midwest (lets say the N = 20), were quite happy. Not invisible; well treated, well adjusted, and happy. It's not a myth, even if it doesn't match your experience or expectation. Besides, why is it so important for you to put down jesusland? Did you grow up in a small town and have a bad experience? I'm sorry if you did.

it's not usually a big deal, people are trying, not assuming.

razib, sometimes it is not so tentative. i took hindi in school (big family opposition to that one) so even though i can understand it well and speak decently, i hate it when people are completely confident that i speak hindi because i am brown/desi. i understand that people want to make connections - and it's fine with me. if i see a taxi driver's name that looks desi, i ask where they are from, and if it's a hindi-speaking area, i do like to converse in hindi (the IBD friends make fun of my hindi, so i have to rely unsuspecting strangers). but when people strike up a conversation in hindi, without knowing anything else about me, i sometimes pretend i do not know it. even worse is that pity/condescension - 'you don't know hindi?' - i.e. 'you're not really desi.'

Standard technique. Assume that castigation of one place, is complete approval of all others. As for the "if you're the only one then people won't perceive you as a threat" logic, that goes to the heart of my point. They won't perceive you period, you're the invisible man, or the white man with a really good tan. In many ways, you can say it's better to be acknowledged rather than treated with an attitude of indifference.

I just want to be left alone. i dont care about ackknowledgement. i just want to live my life without people yelling "yu stupid terrorist" at me.

***Dear parents of desi children; let your children become PAs or pharmacists or dentists. Trust me on this one :)

I am currently driving my son nuts by asking him what he wants to do in life and as he has expressed an interest in health sciences am subtly suggesting that medicine is a good option. He says that I am the "asian parent stereotype" :-)

I can't actually figure out what it is that you want, HMF? What is your idea of being treated appropriately in the US? What does it mean to be acknowledged? I am seriously at a loss; you seem, basically, to want to make sure that every desi experience is seen through a negative lens. As if any happy experience in the US is an abberation.

Not invisible; well treated, well adjusted, and happy. It's not a myth, even if it doesn't match your experience or expectation

I would never say my experience is indicative of anything other than my own experience. And I have only drawn upon logical, factual observations (whites in the small rural communities disperesed in the central part of the US, have less exposure to other cultures, and hence will be less aware of them) to draw my conclusions. As for the desi's that were raised in such places, I do not know many, and yes they are happy and well-adjusted, but most know jack sh*t about Indian history, culture, religion, etc... Not that that's a huge problem, but it just reinforces my claim of acceptance of the "you're one of us" kind that many people themselves play into.

I'm not kidding and I don't have kids so I am probably the wrong person to give advice. Any advice from desi parents for Runa?

I guess it's fine to steer your kid into medicine, but what if they don't make it? That's the issue; how you treat them when the stumble, I guess. Every kid is different

PS: I had a funny experience the other day: someone e-mailed me because they saw my last name on a website and thought I was desi, and from a similar background, and could give them advice about admission to a certain place. I said, sorry, I don't have any knowledge of the process, good luck to your child and best of luck. Never heard back. Might have been nice to have a e-mail acknowledgement of my reply.

I know we are supposed to wave the flag and eat freedom fries but the Mid-West beyond big cities doesnt really have a lot of furrein-looking people and that causes a whole set of problems. Try a case in a small Mid-Western town in Southern Ohio or rural Illinois. Reality will bite you faster than you can say apple pie.

runa, as a child of parents who own their own business, finance, finance, finance was all i heard. it's only lately that my dad has even shown some appreciation for my being a lawyer, and that, too, because i deal with, yes, finance-related matters. but i cannot tell you how emotionally harrowing it is to have parents who not only expect something of you in which you have no interest, but disapprove - implicitly or explicitly - with the career path you have chosen. obviously, i do not know what sort of parent you are, so i don't know how you would treat this situation. but informing your son of all the options related to health sciences, rather than cheering for just one those options, is probably the best thing to do.

Al C, I just gave you my personal experience and the experience of my family members/friends. It was fine as an experience. Was yours different? I don't understand the hostility toward certain people. If it were reversed, white people saying they felt uncomfortable with this or that part of the US because of the people there, you would be the first to make fun.

I still don't understand you, HMF. If people are happy, what difference does it make? Whether they know jacks*t about India or whatever. I know browns who grew up in big city Indian communities who don't know jacks*t about a lot of things, including other ethnic or white communities; I don't look down on them. What is your point?

I did seriously date an ER doctor, and remember clearly when her first patient coded. On the other hand, I also got the impression that such life and death issues were far from daily. Even the patient who died was on death's doorstep before he showed up, there was little she could do, either to help or to hurt him. I see your argument as it pertains to trauma surgeons (or surgeons in general) and oncologists and fertility specialists. But I never adequately felt like it described the daily experiences of most doctors, and certainly not eye or skin folks, those in the lifestyle specialties.

It's not that we save or lose lives in a dramatic way every day. Every time I send a patient home, having told them they are "okay", not having a heart attack, not about to rupture their appendix, not coughing up blood because they have lung cancer, I run the risk that they really are not okay, and they might die because I missed something. And that does happen. Similarly, it often happens that we catch something that results in the person's life being saved--a medication that's making them sick, an allergic reaction, a subtle presentation of a disease. Those issues do come up daily. And there are enough codes that they make up a large if not daily part of what we do, and yes, there are some patients who will die no matter what, but there are others that live after a code and others that we lose because we didn't get to them soon enough. Even patients who are sick to begin with have a chance at being saved by an ER doctor. It's not just surgeons that save lives. As an ER doc, I believe I make life and death decisions on a daily basis. So do many other doctors in ways that might not be apparent. Even my husband, an orthopedic resident does--people might not die directly from a broken hip, but they do die from the complications of being unable to walk. The reason you may have not got this impression from the doctor you dated is, when I talk about work, I don't talk about it like I made any life or death decisions, but that's what being a doctor is often all about. Not so much for an eye or skin doctor, sure, but sometimes for them too.

And because I can't stand it when surgeons get all the credit: often when they operate to save a life, who do you think made the diagnosis of the life threatening condition in the first place? An ER doctor, or a family physician, or an internist.

Ak # 113,

Before I had kids I swore I would never ever pressure them to be anything except themselves.
Now that I am a mom of a high-schooler I waver between wanting to "guide" the kid and wanting to just let him make his way in the world.Every time we discuss the future ,I end with " do what you love but do it well" to make up for any imagined pressure.

In case you are feeling too sorry for the kid -the husband is much more relaxed than I am and thinks that I am nuts :-) andmakes ure he balances things out.

I think the suggestion of discussing all options is a good one .Thanks

Better not forget the pathologist, either, desishiksa :)

I am seriously at a loss; you seem, basically, to want to make sure that every desi experience is seen through a negative lens. As if any happy experience in the US is an abberation

This is a serious exaggeration. You're conflating two of my main talking points, one of general white privelage and racism's transformation from a virulent, unabashed form into a more socially internalized and institutionalized process (which I haven't really talked about here, but I think you're drawing upon from previous comments) and the one where I've spoken specifically of my experiences in the midwest.

Now, even though your question is hostile and combative, I'll answer it. Acknowledgement means, a large scale shift is made to process cultural differences without any kind of heirarchical superposition. It's brazen arrogance for whites to believe their culture is "more native" to this land than anyone else. It's also brazen arrogance to think that white America itself is a monolithic machine, when the truth is, European immigrants had to wait in line before they got "into the club"

What I'm saying is, I don't want to be "in the club", I want the club to expand. Instead of a midwestern lady giving me a funny look when I say I don't celebrate Easter, I want her to say, "What religion are you?" Instead of a Christian saying, "you'll go to hell if you dont...." I want them to say "Wow, your religion belives X, Y, Z, but mine believes H,J,K- that's an interesting difference, and neither one is better or more native to this land."

As whites go from becoming a majority to a plurality, this is a change they should collectively make in their own interest.

As whites go from becoming a majority to a plurality, this is a change they should collectively make in their own interest.

I thought they were already a plurality..any stats to back this up? any demographics geeks out there?

MD, of course :) Ennis, pathologists make life and death decisions with every slide they look at, but don't get any of the glory of surgeons. You probably have to be a pathologist to know what that feels like.

I still don't understand you, HMF. If people are happy, what difference does it make? Whether they know jacks*t about India or whatever.

Well, I personally find something wrong, at a visceral level, with people not knowing something about their background and history. Man black people in this country strive so hard to reclaim even an iota of their history that was stolen from them, and yet we with such a rich history carelessly throw it away. Sure, it's not the red white and blue way, but it's sad none the less. And that's a different issue anyhow.

Well, I personally find something wrong, at a visceral level, with people not knowing something about their background and history. Man black people in this country strive so hard to reclaim even an iota of their history that was stolen from them, and yet we with such a rich history carelessly throw it away. Sure, it's not the red white and blue way, but it's sad none the less. And that's a different issue anyhow.

then you run into what the definition of "your history" is. maybe you view your history as american history.

My response to you HMF wasn't meant to be hostile or combative.

Thank you for your response; basically, I think many of the coastal cities I've been in are just more subtle in the way the way that racism is expressed. I don't see a group of people that are, overall, nicer or less racist. That was my point. They've learned to say the right thing, but it doesn't mean that's what they are thinking. If anything, I see priviledge and class and race more stratified here on the East Coast than in small towns, but of course, that's because there are more groups to split out. People really seem to be into what school you went to, what neighborhood you lived in, etc. It's a very class conscious place.

You mentioned that you lived in Indiana for two years, but I lived in Iowa for over twenty, and my parents and their relatives for 20-30. So, in the end, these anecdotal experiences are just that. Anecdotal. Interesting that we are both sure our anecdotal experiences are the more, er, accurate representation of the whole.

MD: I do not agree with your assessment that the Mid-West is like the East Coast when it comes to race relations. I am not bashing the Mid-Westerners. I think the Mid-Westerners and Americans in general are very tolerant people. However not all areas in the US are equally comfortable with minorities. To suggest otherwise does not make sense.
The East Coast happens to have a lot of different looking people than Southern Kentucky. That’s a fact. That leads to a different dynamic in race relations.

I was once (actually a few months back) asked to help this Arab American immigrant who stopped to get a soda at a gas station off I-65 in Southern Kentucky and he ended up spending the next one month in jail. When I went down to get the guy off, I don’t think they had ever seen a non-white/black guy there period. The cops were not only openly racist but had no problems publicly using terms like 'nigger' etc. The Court assigned public defender missed the arraignment date and the public defender's office told me that they didn’t have time for 'them people'. The Court itself was a circus. From the clerk to the bailiff to the Judge, racism was not only in your face, they were engaging in it with impunity and scarce disregard for anything. I am not exaggerating the insanity of that place.

I can assure you that a remote rural town in Southern Kentucky is not like New York City. Maybe they had one or two desi families there owning a gas station or whatever and maybe their children had fine experiences growing up there. But the fact of the matter is that not all areas in the US are equally comfortable with minorities.

I think we are arguing against each other, Al C. New York City cannot be like a small town in rural Kentucky and vice versa. Also, have you ever represented someone from a city who was treated badly because of their race? Is New York racially harmonious? Of course not. And, yes, you will find people who know more about the world because of their interaction with a wider range of people. I'm just not so sure cities are as enlightened about race as you might like to think.

do you think part of this coast vs midwest difference has not only to do with the ethnic/racial makeup of the local populations, but also with international travel? despite the fact that o'hare has the largest international traffic, looking at my friends as a whole, those from the coasts are more well-traveled outside the US. however, i would say the differential probably has a lot more to do with large city vs. smaller towns, than anything else.

Oh, btw way, I am disgusted by that story, Al C. How horrible.

I would never say my experience is indicative of anything other than my own experience.

you make plenty of broad declarative assertions from what i have seen.

I can assure you that a remote rural town in Southern Kentucky is not like New York City. Maybe they had one or two desi families there owning a gas station or whatever and maybe their children had fine experiences growing up there. But the fact of the matter is that not all areas in the US are equally comfortable with minorities.

well, the original discussion had to do with the midwest. what about small towns in new hampshire or maine? (maine is the whitest state from what i recall) i think part of it has to do urban vs. rural. in any case

a) yes, there is variation in how people treat minorities, but

b) there is a difference how they treat different minorities as well, this is not an unimportant fact

c) so the debate is how we characterized racial attitudes

It seems to be that ak is right: we are discussing urban versus rural. But, I don't know. You hear terrible stories about racism and urban cops, too. A conundrum. I guess, the main thing is, it's important to make sure people are treated well, regardless of their color, class, etc.

btw, someone asked about data. please bookmark this page
http://www.census.gov/

Somebody already said this, but I don't think I wanna see mandatory brown/black/latino characters in shows such as Friends/Seinfeld, just to fulfill quotas. They would end up being mostly bad stereotypes. The plots never really accommodate them well. It would put me off my food. When I'm watching these shows, I'm not really aware while watching that they are all white. They are all just funny people, and I understand the humor perfectly well, its not like I'm missing something. It's not like I'm thinking, if only a brown man would appear in this scene, it would be so much funnier.

It's only when they add these minorities in awkward roles that we become aware of the characters being white/black/brown.

The same goes for when I'm watching all-black comedies.

I care more about how funny, much much less how color-correct these shows are. Maybe coz I'm not an unemployed brown actor, I'm in the audience. My experience is no different from a white male watching TV.

Apu

I'm just not so sure cities are as enlightened about race as you might like to think.

in many ways, i feel like there is a multi-cultural backlash - and people in larger cities, having larger numbers of minorities, will probably bear a bigger brunt of this. and i have noticed that after the PC revolution, there is a tendency to get back to what people really think - which is often not the same as their PC words. the fact that we even call it politically correct, rather than correct, just implies that a lot of people will say the words just so as not to offend - but not for any real acceptance or enlightenment purposes.

MD: I am not suggesting that a big city has more racial harmony. However, what I am suggesting is that big city people are more used to dealing with minorities. When I walk into a rural small city courtroom (which is rare because I dont do criminal work but I have done it a few times) they have NEVER seen a non-white lawyer period. Its a good ol'boys system on steroids. The prosecutor will not even talk to me while he would be swapping stories with other lawyers. It also has something to do with the outsider versus local attorney dynamic and I understand that.

I guess your professional experience is completely different than mine. There are lots of desis practicing as doctors in rural areas across the country. It might be different for doctors. But if you are a desi lawyer and you have to go to Court, almost no desi lawyer in his right mind would choose a podunk rural courtroom over a big city courtroom.

then you run into what the definition of "your history" is. maybe you view your history as american history.

Then that my friend, is a disingenuous and simply erroneous view. We didn't come over on the nina, pinta, and santa maria. Some of us came as part of a tech migration, some came as indentured servants, some came as refugees from conflicts....

Interesting that we are both sure our anecdotal experiences are the more, er, accurate representation of the whole.

I'm sure you're experiences are representative of the whole. But here's the thing, yours and my experiences aren't necessarily in conflict. Sometimes spending 20-30 years in a location will earn you rapport, to overcome some of the more superficial racial barriers. So the white neighbors will think, "Oh we know so and so, they're brown skinned, but they're so nice and good natured... not like the rest of them" So they are still imbibed with their misconceptions of "normality" and "superiority" even though you and your kin have "experienced no racism"

Oh, btw way, I am disgusted by that story, Al C. How horrible.

As am I. but I'm not surprised, in the least.

No,your experience isn't really different to mine. I do have relatives that get annoyed at small towners, but it's annoyance rather than the horrible experience you described. Poor guy, I'm glad you helped him. There are places where people are so surprised to see someone different, they have no idea how to handle it, and it does irritate. My definition of small is probably different from others, though; Des Moines is a big city to me, given my upbringing, and I am skewed by being raised in a college town, albeit a conservative one. I guess my midwestern hackles just got brought up; I love the town I grew up in and get personally offended, when I shouldn't.

When I'm watching these shows, I'm not really aware while watching that they are all white. They are all just funny people, and I understand the humor perfectly well, its not like I'm missing something. It's not like I'm thinking, if only a brown man would appear in this scene, it would be so much funnier

It's not that. I was born and raised in NYC and still spend a lot of time there. For me, it's something visceral - I know what NYC looks like, and those shows don't look anything like it at all. They look like Milwaukee or something.

ACfd:

I can assure you that a remote rural town in Southern Kentucky is not like New York City.

Point taken, and I have no doubt that it's quite true as well. A friend of mine used to be a public defender in small time Oklahoma, and apparently, the story you just recounted was typical of a few cases she saw down there, particularly cases involving minorities.

That said, IMO, the appropriate comparison should be whether a small town in upstate New York is all that different from a small town in Southern Kentucky, if we're just comparing different regions of the country in terms of racial/social awareness. I mean, is living in Chicago or Detroit really all that different than living in DC or NY/NJ?

HMF:

I've seen the Jesusland map before, and I find it interesting that of the 8 states typically considered "midwest", 4 are not part of Jesusland. So "midwest" as a euphemism for "small, Bible Belt city" is only half right. ;)

back to the initial topic, sort of, there is one thing that is important when talking about proportional representation: TV is not proportional in the first place. i.e., a disproportionate number of shows are set in LA/NYC, and even when not they are mostly urban. only niche shows seem to have a rural setting, though around 1/4 of america is rural. the weird thing about shows like friends is that they are set in urban areas which have MANY minorities but their demo is like that of a rural area, except that jews are generally well represented (the ross & monica were explicitly jewish on friends, and there were some implications that rachel is also jewish).

I think there are different degrees and types of racial animus:

Getting stared at is completely different from being shot by trigger happy police. Small towns, rural towns, big cities have all different dynamics of race relations.

No, HMF, my community was pretty cool. I don't know anyone who thinks like that. If anything, the browns I grew up with were more reactionary, like, oooh, let's not let our kids play with those white people, we want them to marry their own kind some day. No all the browns, but some. Huh. I guess I am an outlier.

I know what NYC looks like, and those shows don't look anything like it at all

how funny that you said that. lately, i've been noticing an absurd amount of 'subway steam' in all those shows based in nyc. i rarely, if ever, see this in the real city. i don't even know why they associate it with nyc.

you make plenty of broad declarative assertions from what i have seen.

Then present them. What I have done, and will continue to do, is observe facts and draw conclusions based on those facts, and use my experience as supporting information. You know.. as most of humanity does.

But I caution myself against drawing conclusions based solely on experience.

I'm not sure if the clannishness is really that widespread but I have met a few doctors who do make it a point to talk about how special and exclusive their work is. It does transfer into how they treat patients and I think it ends up hurting the relationship. Patients aren't doctors so they won't understand what's really up, that sorta thing. A doctor could end up talking down to their patients and that's definately not good for patient compliance or community care. It also kinda shows in teaching. I know that I have trouble taking someone seriously when they've just spent ten minutes of the lecture subtly going over how great they are. A little more humility might be good.

I don't really know where it comes from so I'm gonna go ahead and blame it on TV :) One of my professors blames ER for ruining medicine, and now there's House, even more downhill and so very predictable :)

Well, the biggest way in which television is not representational is the physical beauty of the actors and actresses :) Seriously, you barely have women that look real on most shows. Scattered men (ala those cop shows with the more bald and rotund types), but not women. The lack of Indian docs on ER is amusing, as my ex used to be a resident at the old Cook County and said some rounds used to be conducted in Hindi.

Television isn't reality.

By lack, I mean just the one or two. Which would be a lot more in reality.

Television isn't reality.

Yup - and being younger and more attractive and having sex all over the place, those are clear elements of fantasy that are pretty much universal. However, what disturbs me is that a whiter world also seems to be part of that fantasy.

I'm so glad someone pointed out how white-centric Friends was as a show (Ennis on # 31). The few episodes that I watched when they were on reruns struck me as extremely insular and provincial. This was not just directed at people of color but also at other "whites" whose ethnicity was more pronounced - such as that wacky loud-mouth Italian-American woman who was Joey's girlfriend or whatever. The "norm" in that show was the all-American WASP. The English girlfriend was too humorless, the Asian girlfriend was also not good enough for reasons I don't recall, the hot Latino guy Monica has a crush on is just a misogynist pig, the hairy Italian guy (from Italy) is a total letch and womanizer. I mean you could just see how the plot kept sabotaging the possibility of a serious relationship between any of the principal characters and cultural or geographical outsiders.

It's easy to see why it ran for so long given its generic characters. But it's also difficult to see why it ran so long when you compare the shoddy quality of the humor and writing in the show to other shows like Frasier, or Arrested Development, or even Seinfeld or Freaks and Geeks.

now there's House, even more downhill and so very predictable

Hey now! Don't be picking on House. The show may be completely unrealistic, but I love Hugh Laurie...and it amuses me that an English actor has a better generic American accent than some Americans even. :)

P.S I also agree that for anyone living in NYC - as I did for 10 years- the show was weird. It wasn't just inaccurate - it was a discomfiting fantasy of the city and city life from someone else's head, perhaps to cater to those living in Montana.

No, HMF, my community was pretty cool. I don't know anyone who thinks like that.

I'm sorry, but I have to chalk this up to a certain degree of naivete. Unless you lived in some underground community that didn't take part in this countries 200+ year collective history, most of white America's perception of the non-white draws from imagery and media - the personal sample points they have are classified as outliers.

I can all but guarantee if I walked down your street in Iowa, not having known anyone there, I'd immediately be classified as "one of the rest" until I was able to show some kind of social proof.

The attitude of "You're such a nice so-and-so, not like the rest" is more or less prevalent everywhere. Ask any one of these people how they'd react to living in a majority black or "brown" neighborhood, and see how they react. Wear a raincoat so the vomit doesn't ruin your clothes.

"jews are generally well represented"

Insanely overrepresented more like, 2% of the population, and yet prominent characters in so many movies and TV shows. Compare their representation to Hispanics, who you rarely see on TV, despite having 8 times their numbers.

Sorry, HMF, I was talking about the people I know, not all comers, so let me clarify that. They are the most open-minded people I know and I've known them for years. I can vouch for their characters; they are phenomenal. It's a very progressive, Democratic city, one of my neighbors growing up had a relative run as a democrat for governor, if that should change your thinking and a place where all the presidential candidates congregate at one time or another. So, maybe it's a left versus right thing :)

You would do great in my town and no one would think twice about you. Some of the kids would be provincial, but, seriously. The whole Yankees-Red Sox thing is massively provinicial, isn't it? They'd think you were a student or professor and not even bat an eye; they'd ask which department you were in. If they'd stereotype, it would be that they would assume you were in the engineering or math department, which I admit, would be annoying. Real politicos know which town I am talking about; if Obama or Hillary came, there would be a run for rally, it would be so overwhelming. The student body is conservative, but the faculty is liberal :)

I think to my black friend, she felt very touchy that other minorities don't identify with African-Americans all the time and by me not feeling I was "black" (how could I?) that I was bigoted in some way to African-Americans

PS-- Perhaps it was the age demographic you/r black friend is? As you know 'historically' there were only two races in the US; the one in power, and the 'other' one. Many [older]? b and w people still maintain that view- in fact you seem to subscribe/recognize it yourself here.

Not to belabour the point;AfAm's- do not have another'mother'tongue,another Nationality [Africa being a Continent] and and some 'other' religion/identity that 'browns' have. I'm American- that's all I know. Having said that- I would think your experiences of being 'brown' in a largely white area would give you some **commonality to me-- but I would not expect you to identify your self as 'black'.

From the Nat'l Black Police Association in the UK:The emphasis is on the common experience and determination of the people of African, African-Caribbean and Asian origin to oppose the effects of racism.

**Its interesting in the US-because of my profession-[Finance] most of my non white co-workers were Desi, and to a degree we bonded a over that,being 'different'. I don't get that vibe at all in the UK, but here of course Desi's are the #1 minority.

Hema:
"But isn't that ultimately a good thing? If someone can look at a brown person, and see no difference that really matters, it is a form of social acceptance."

HMF: Any notions of equality without understanding are meaningless. I'm sure you get tired at times of the WAYF question?]

I agree with Hema. Some times ,most of the time in the quick 'anonymous' interactions/transactions that I am going to have with someone I only know superfically, I'm not looking for 'understanding' just civility.

Hmm, how can it be both a conservative and a progressive city. I thought it was conservative, but now that I think about it, it always voted democratic? I guess I meant conservative in that it was straight-forward and down to earth. I think I just learned a little something about my community by this exchange....I grew up purple! Wow. Who knew?

Okay, I'll stop now, Ennis.

if Obama or Hillary came, there would be a run for rally, it would be so overwhelming.

I got you beat. They're organizing a 30-50K "protest march" here, for when the GOP convention comes to town next year. :)

I don't know what century you guys live in, but my TV does shows in all colors, not just black and white.

The "norm" in that show was the all-American WASP.

if you are talking about Friends, that seems false. chandler bing was the only real all-american WASP. of the 6 characters:

chandler - upper class WASP
phoebe - ex-homless girl with a messed up family of undetermined white ethnicity (actress is jewish)
monica - former fat girl from a jewish family (actress is actually upper-class southern WASP)
ross - former nerd from jewish family (actor is actually jewish)
joey - working class italian american (actor is mixed white ethnic & WASP)
rachel - upper class "doctor's daughter," some suggestion that she is jewish from what i recall, but generally left an open question (actress is half-greek american)

friends is white, but definitely not WASP.

jews are generally well represented

Insanely overrepresented more like, 2% of the population

Few reasons I can think of,

- They fit in more easily well with a predominently white show since a lot of them are white.

- The west may have a guilt conscience when it comes to Jews due to the Holocaust and historic discrimination and thus feels an obligation to represent them

- A lot of talented Jewish people in show business and in corridors of wealth and power who influence things

- Christians are more comfortable with Jews than with other religions like Islam which means easier/better for TV to show a Jewish character than a Muslim.

Then present them. What I have done, and will continue to do, is observe facts and draw conclusions based on those facts, and use my experience as supporting information. You know.. as most of humanity does.

http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/004459.html#comment138499
"To white people, we're all FOBs."

you aren't talking about just yourself here, you are making a claim for all browns. you do this all the time. and you generally don't use facts aside from your own personal experience.

1. The Midwest

Thank you for your response; basically, I think many of the coastal cities I've been in are just more subtle in the way the way that racism is expressed. I don't see a group of people that are, overall, nicer or less racist.

Also, for the NYC vs. Southern Kentucky example. Folks, Southern Kentucky is NOT the Midwest! If we're going to make generalizations about entire regions of the country, let us please classify those regions correctly.

hema, I hear you. The argument is not that the midwest is undiverse or non-racist. The argument is that it is misattributed the status of being "uber racist" and "uber white." A better example of states that are super racist, in my opinion, are Montana, Idaho, and Arizona. I propose that instead of saying "some person out in Iowa" we say, "someone from Bumblefuck, Montana" or something roughly equivalent. That way we can all be somewhat accurate and get our point across without a huge debate over who is more racist/diverse - the coasts or the insides?

2. Grey's Anatomy
A. Grey's has a lot of diversity because the producer refused to specify the race of her characters. There's a whole interview on Oprah about this, but it is one of the only shows that had "open race" casting for all characters. At the end of the day, they picked the folks who fit the personalities they were looking for. Shocking, yes?

B. With respect to the "high number of Black doctors in power positions," it's totally true that this is HIGHLY unlikely in most places in the country. Not because they aren't qualified or anything like that, but because medicine remains, in many places, an old white man club. Even in California. Even in the Bay Area.

I think we should talk about Neale's question because it is interesting:
I think Neale's question is a good one -- why are audiences more comfortable with Sanjay Gupta giving them their advice than with a Latino or Black doctor?

Please stop whining about the "under-representation" in Law & Order
And finally, to the people railing about the representation of "black criminals" in NYC on Law & Order, please exercise a modicum of common sense before spewing all your crap. Blacks and Latinos are arrested more often, and are often subjected to harsher sentencing, than white offenders. That does not mean that there are more Black/Latino folks committing crimes. This is especially not true when it comes to embezzlement, laundering, DV, sexual abuse, pedophilia, etc. The crimes that are covered in Law & Order are often NOT about assault and possession, for which people of color are overrepesented in arrests and imprisonment. They are exactly about the kind of crimes for which people of almost all races are, at the minimum, equal opportunity offenders.

re: jewish characters, not be off topic, but it important to note that there is a tendency for jewish male characters to be far more explicit in their jewishness than female characters (and female jewish characters, like the nanny, are often less than flattering).

Diletante - what do you mean by but here of course Desi's are the #1 minority.

That does not mean that there are more Black/Latino folks committing crimes.

well, some of the statistics can be derived from reports who assaulted and raped. now, one could say that there is a bias here against reporting fellow whites i guess, but one assumes that the victim would have some incentive in reporting the race of the perpetrator accurately.

You would do great in my town and no one would think twice about you.

Sorry, more naivete. You know them, they know you, they don't see you as "a brown" or if they do, they see you as "unlike the rest" I've walked on many a Indiana street only to have people say to me, "Do you speak english" which isn't in and of itself bad - only it was asked in a hostile, pejorative way, as in, "if you don't, then get out"

The whole Yankees-Red Sox thing is massively provinicial, isn't it?

Please. Did yankee fans enslave redsox fans for 300 years before gradually freeing them in a staircase fashion? A lateral sports rivalry is no where near in the same ballpark (pun intended) as racial assumptions socialized over centuries.

Real politicos know which town I am talking about; if Obama or Hillary came, there would be a run for rally, it would be so overwhelming.

This isn't an electoral politics issue. Obama is again, a 'well known' african american, in the public eye, so he transcends normally made negative assumptions.

For a clear illustration, there's an excellent scene in Do the Right thing (Spike Lee film, quite possibly one of the best commentaries on race relations) where Pino (John Turturro) is explaining to Mookie (Spike Lee) why he hates "nigg*rs" but still adores Prince, Michael Jackson (he was black back then), Magic Johnson, and Eddie Murphy.

"Prince, Eddie and Magic, they're black but not really black. They're bigger than black. It's different to me, to me it's different"

I think Neale's question is a good one -- why are audiences more comfortable with Sanjay Gupta giving them their advice than with a Latino or Black doctor?

i think it has to do with socio-economics. desis are predominantly well-educated, professionals, and wealthy. and in the medical field, people are more likely to have had one or more desi doctors than a latino one (though i cannot say the same re black doctors). also, a lot of desis tend to 'fit in' - maybe non-desis find that less 'threatening,' which also might have to do with the stereotype thay blacks and latinos make up the large amount of criminals.

>>desis are predominantly well-educated, professionals, and wealthy.

Uh oh...

M. Nam

Adding to #65 - the hype over the last few years of how India is a country of really smart people, lots of smart Software engineers and so many desi doctors everywhere adds to the perception that if the doc is Indian, he must be good. Thus allowing Dr Gupta to ride the wave.

you aren't talking about just yourself here, you are making a claim for all browns. you do this all the time. and you generally don't use facts aside from your own personal experience.

We'll I think it's a uncontested fact that the majority of white people would regard themselves as more native to this land than non-whites, in particular those that you repeatedly call "brown" And that especially in the context of the 2nd gen folks that call DBD's "fobs" to indicate they are more American. Do I have a table or Z-test to back this up, no. But when you read about white cops arresting "brown" people and following up those arrests with "go back to where you came from" it's an inductive conclusion I am making that white folks would more so use skin color as a determining factor of "foreign-ness" rather than how high your pants are on your waist.

In that particular quote, I'm not drawing from my personal experience at all actually, as I didn't quote any personal experience or anecdote.

So ak, we're basically the model minority and that is why folks love Mr. Gupta? What does THAT say about TV viewership?

well, some of the statistics can be derived from reports who assaulted and raped. now, one could say that there is a bias here against reporting fellow whites i guess, but one assumes that the victim would have some incentive in reporting the race of the perpetrator accurately.

>>desis are predominantly well-educated, professionals, and wealthy.

Uh oh...

M. Nam

i think this is both the perception and to some extent, a reality, even though that is changing. but think about it - the first big immigration of desis to this country was in 1965 - and was strictly to professionals - engineers and doctors, mainly, and for quite some time, probably about the next 20 years, that did not change much. after that, things did begin to change. but even now, even though many non-wealthy, non-professionals are coming over, aren't IT people substantially represented? i don't think this is the case for everybody, obviously, but it is a the case for a vast number of desis here.

Friends was some sort on Anglo-Jewish fantasyland, but Seinfeld was fantastic. Babu Bhatt was the best Desi character a US television sitcom has ever produced.

In fact, Babu Bhatt may be the greatest Desi (US) television character of all time.

camille, i don't think it speaks very highly of the TV viewership. but i also do not think the US is the ideal for race relations. oftentimes, people see what they want to see, and it hasn't helped that our parents' generation often played their own part in creating the model minority image.

No offense, ak, but you're forgetting the wave before that. That is, the wave of folks who came in the late 1800s/early 1900s. They were not strictly professionals, and their kids are like 4th/5th gen and live in places like Yuba Duba and Fresno. Funny who gets represented and who doesn't, right? :)

From the Nat'l Black Police Association in the UK:The emphasis is on the common experience and determination of the people of African, African-Caribbean and Asian origin to oppose the effects of racism.

Rahul, I just saw your quote and nearly spit out my coffee. Thanks for the laugh.

HMF: I give up. Apparently, your personal experiences count, but mine don't. My personal experiences are nothing; your experiences are emblematic. And then, you discount my over twenty years personal experience with one town with a dialogue from a movie? Please tell me you are an academic; it's the only thing that can explain your , er, naivete.

Isn't the most affluent model minority African African Americans. Seriously. Did I read that on Arts and Letters Daily or something?

camille, i didn't forget it - i am just talking about numbers. and, yes, also notoriety - the 1965 wave of immigration was nationwide, whereas the earlier wave was largely limited to the west coast - if my memory serves me correctly, it was to work on the pacific railroad? since you spoke about sanjaya gupta on CNN, a national network, i was looking to the larger, nationwide perspective.

Camille yes there was a immigrant wave that came in the late 1800's and early 1900's and there great-grandkids live in places like Yuba City and Fresno[home of most of my mom's family]. But there were only a few thousand that came. So before the 1960's the desi number in the states was very small compare to now.

In fact, Babu Bhatt may be the greatest Desi (US) television character of all time.

Close second. Greatest is his namesake. He was quite a character especially on daily doubles.

i meant sanjay, not sanjaya, gupta

Hey ak and clueless,

I wasn't trying to nitpick, just pointing out a difference. I know the post 1960s migration was much huger (and absolutely biased towards professionals), just saying it is interesting what is "remembered" and isn't when folks (desi or otherwise) think of desis in the U.S. I bring it up because I'm in California, and the stereotypes about South Asians vary a LOT based on where a migrant community settled. E.g. the stereotypes about the Yuba folks =! stereotypes about Bay folk != stereotypes about LA folk, etc., etc.

Also wasn't trying to bait you - sorry if it came off that way! I think you're right. The U.S. is not a great model. Not sure anyone really is a model for multiculturalism. I wonder if the next step in representation is that more shows ought follow the "Grey's" model in that they open scripts to allow for greater ethnic representation among characters?

Yes, Jews are "insanely" over represented. My favorite commercial tv show (in fact about the only commercial tv show I watched) is Seinfeld, and three quarters of the main cast was Jewish. Jerry may have seemed secular enough, but I understand he wanted to marry only a Jewish woman, which he did in reality. So in my favorite show, Jewish folks were about 750 times over-represented. Feel free to correct my math, but it's something like that. Thing is--the original writers were Jewish. The actors were mostly Jewish. So I don't bitch about the Jews being "over-represented" in this show because I like the damn thing so much and Jews created it, and they write best for people like themselves. Most us would. That show managed to make the personal, universal. Not the most profound and meaningful universal, but quite a tickler.
My advice: if we want to be "represented", we have to write and produce things. Hey--they do it in Bollywood. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson demand that Hollywood make 40% (or something like that) of its actors, black, but Al and Jesse don't offer up the blacks to write the screenplays or produce the goods. If you demand entrance into a "club" you come with your own script or take the one they give. You don't just tell people to write you in. You don't count on the old members to make you a star. Certainly blacks entered the music world doing and producing their own thing. That's how it works with other media. The same is true for everyone.

Jews make up 2 or 3 percent of the population, but they put their noses to the grindstone when it came to movie making. Hollywood and television don't just reflect majority "fantasies". They reflect the reality of those who are writing, directing and producing the goods.

luna, what does "they do it in Bollywood" mean? Not sure if it counts when the dominant population is desi.

I thought the "overrepresentation" or whatnot on Seinfeld made sense because wasn't the Jewishness of it kind of a big part of the show? Kind of like how in "The Nanny" the nanny being Jewish is a big part of the humor and story? Feel free to correct me, I am not a Seinfeld fan and was too young to get into it in its pre-syndication days. :)

>>If you demand entrance into a "club" you come with your own script or take the one they give.

To the point. Writers (story writers, script writers, screenplay writers, song writers) are the keymasters of media. Money and connections are Gatekeepers. Without both of these, desis cannot make it to the big league.

Anybody know of good desi writers in Hollywood?

M. Nam

i meant sanjay, not sanjaya, gupta

See how Sanjaya has wormed his way into the public consciousness? He's everywhere. ;)

hema - i know! if i had made that same typo a few months ago, it would have meant nothing. but now sanjaya is so deeply buried in my heart that what appears to be a typo is really an expression of my love. sigh.

Rahul, I just saw your quote and nearly spit out my coffee.

Glad to be of help :)

Diletante - what do you mean by but here of course Desi's are the #1 minority.

From here:
white (of which English 83.6%, Scottish 8.6%, Welsh 4.9%, Northern Irish 2.9%) 92.1%, black 2%, Indian 1.8%, Pakistani 1.3%, mixed 1.2%, other 1.6% (2001 census) I don't know why Bangladeshi ,Sri Lankans etc aren't broken out-- Large number of the former in London.

My larger point was- because of the sheer size of their population vis a vis 'other' communities- there is really no need for them to feel any 'common cause' with others. Prehaps in the past, its not the case now. From the outside looking in, there seems to be a strong desire to reject the generic label of 'Asian' to differentiate amongst themselves more so than in the US - again based on the size/diversity of the population.

For my FOB experience the whole place in some areas is almost 'tribal'. No one is "British" unless they just got leave to remain from E. Europe. Instead people are Welsh, English,Scottish, Punjabi, Guju, 'Arab' Sudanese etc.

My favorite commercial tv show (in fact about the only commercial tv show I watched) is Seinfeld, and three quarters of the main cast was Jewish

just to be empirically accurate, of the main characters only jerry was explicitly jewish. kramer was vague. george and elaine were suggested as being non-jewish (e.g., george's surname, elaine's "WASP" sociocultural backgroud). all four actors though are jewish in real life.

We'll I think it's a uncontested fact that the majority of white people would regard themselves as more native to this land than non-whites, in particular those that you repeatedly call "brown" And that especially in the context of the 2nd gen folks that call DBD's "fobs" to indicate they are more American. Do I have a table or Z-test to back this up, no. But when you read about white cops arresting "brown" people and following up those arrests with "go back to where you came from" it's an inductive conclusion I am making that white folks would more so use skin color as a determining factor of "foreign-ness" rather than how high your pants are on your waist.

you really have a tendency of throwing together a mismash and combing lots of small things into a big quantitative effect. let me be clear, yes, the average white american naturally perceives the average brown american as being foreign. empirically this makes sense: contra SM, most brown americans are still foreign born. there are some white americans who see all brown americans as an amorphous alien mass. there are some who make distinctions (often younger, better educated). there are some who use their assumption of nativity to buttress racialist sentiments. for some the assumption of nativity simply leads to exoticification. and so on.

there is saying that race is a reality. but from that does not entail the various gross and unflattering generalizations you tend to make of white people as a whole (as opposed to instances to tendencies).

In that particular quote, I'm not drawing from my personal experience at all actually, as I didn't quote any personal experience or anecdote.

yeah, that's even worse. just flat out assumption that everyone will share you priors and so make the same inferences.

in the Indian community in Chicago, everyone was a professional. Everyone was a doctor or an engineer

What a shameless, brazen liar!

thanks for pointing this out. it's a ridiculous statement to make, and one that is commonly made. it upsets me when people make their small indian circle to represent the entire indian american population in the area.

I don't think she was lying for god's sake - I think this is just what she experienced and probably not being a sociologist didn't qualify her statement.

Thats a ridiculous argument. You dont need to be a sociologist to notice that there are far more indians working in convenience stores, cheap motels etc than in hospitals. She is lying plain and simple. This sort of brazen dishonesty among desis regarding desi achievements is too widespread, almost universal it seems. Its akin to the notorious jive-talking among african-american of some time back. Heres a well-known example of this stupid desi propensity for wild exaggerations:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=indian

"There are 3.22 million Indians in the US (1.5% of the population)

12% of scientists in the US are Indians
38% of doctors(physicians, dentists, PhDs, etc) in America are Indian.
36% of NASA scientists are Indians.
34% of Microsoft employees are Indians.
28% of IBM employees are Indians.
17% of INTEL scientists are Indians.
13% of XEROX employees are Indians."

Whats so amazing is that few indians questioned these outrageously false numbers. This is a serious cultural problem and is probably one of the reasons why India remains so backward.

Which is why the following should be taken with a grain of salt:

S. Balasubramaniam … recently queried 50 medical schools and calculated that 12 percent of the class that entered in 2006 is of Indian heritage.

The following calculation is probably closer to reality:

Assuming similar acceptance rates that means 7% of medical students in the United States are brown. so 7% is probably a good lowbound

I saw an interesting interchange between HMF and razib about generalizing from life/anecdotal experiences. The latter is actually not completely illegitimate....provided the experience you are recounting is a 'natural' experiment, and you can correctly describe the values of the relevant variables and their arrangement in time and space (a surprisingly heavy burden to bear; even harder than doing large "n" studies).

Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson demand that Hollywood make 40% (or something like that) of its actors, black

Yeah I'm sure it was something like that. I'm not a fan of either- but some of the BS that is attributed to them is just ridiculous. By the by did you READ the links Ennis posted?

There are 3.22 millions Indians in the U.S

I think that number is off by a million.

Thats a ridiculous argument. You dont need to be a sociologist to notice that there are far more indians working in convenience stores, cheap motels etc than in hospitals. She is lying plain and simple.

if she is talking about her social circle in the early 1980s she isn't lying, "plain and simple."

Oh, I understand what you are saying now --- I didn't realize you were writing from UK perspective when I initially read what you wrote.

Thanks for answering me back. Here's some thoughts:

PS-- Perhaps it was the age demographic you/r black friend is? As you know 'historically' there were only two races in the US; the one in power, and the 'other' one. Many [older]? b and w people still maintain that view-

No, my friend is 30 and I'm 33. And mostly I have found older black Americans I meet, are very interested in my background - very different from my friend.

in fact you seem to subscribe/recognize it yourself here.

No, I don't really subscribe to it - that is what I was sort of complaining about - In America, I often feel if your experience is neither black or white, than your experience is almost invisible in the mainstream. I was saying that corporate America, representing mainstream American, also subscribed to this view.

Sure as a dark person I have similarities with black people, but not anymore than a lot other types of minorities or even with white people. I hardly had any contact with African-Americans in my small town, although there is a large population. But most were not wealthy, so since my parents lived in more wealthy neighborhoods, I mostly had contact with white people. My best friends were white. I would hear white people say derogatory things about black people to me, and I recognized very early on that any prejudice against anyone is just destructive for everyone. So I would say, "hey, I'm black too" in those instances. These were instances when white people would try and subsume me into their culture ---

I love finding similarities of course in cultural experiences, but I don't want a majority's culture to subsume my own unique experiences - unique experiences that led to certain struggles, that weren't part of white and black America.

I like this particular girl a lot (the girl that I felt subsumed me in her black identity and culture), although I don't see her often. We have a lot in common as women, who remember the '80s, as people who are interested in social justice, as people who understand white privilege in America....but there's a lot I don't know about her cultureal experiences and a lot she wouldn't know about me.

I just find it odd, looking at my own experience in my town, where I had black children stare at me continuously and feel my hair that she just felt the other nonblack minorities in her community were just black like herself.

People want to see more of those who look like themselves on tv, but only in positive roles.

Except perhaps people in India (and Mexico, the Phillipines etc)? Do Bollywood and Indian TV accurately represent the
people of India?

I think that number is off by a million.

2000 census says 1.6 some million indian americans.

Dont feel bad for doctors, as someone who comes from a family of them, and has been unfortunate to have to be around more doctors than i would like, alot of them go into the profession for money and prestige. Its a job where you get both love and money. What other job do you know of that has that? Do lawyers get love..hardly they get lawyer jokes. Do I-bankers get love...no they are called crooks. Do CEO's get love no..they are villanized. What about teachers, who provide the most important service to the community? Most live paycheck to paycheck. What about firemen who willingly risk their lives to save people they dont know..yeah, try living on a fireman's salary.

Doctors also complain about how the industry is changing and how they arent able to have the freedom (read money) that they used to. Maybe the reason doctors have such a high opinion of themselves is that we give them our money and our time and kiss their asses too. Wouldnt you feel like god if your job gave you that?

Prema, she is not necessarily lying. Not only re: her social circle, but the fact is that the first group of desis in the Chi-town area WERE professionals - doctors, engineers, etc. It is not the case today, or even in the last 10 years, but that doesn't make a person's anecdotal experience a "brazen lie."

PS, I've noticed this too, but much more on the east coast (not in NYC). I personally identify as super-Californian, but it wasn't until I spent time in DC and other areas where diversity was really seen as "black and white" that I realized that other people of color are often either a) ignored/invisibilized or b) subsumed. It's hard because while I definitely feel solidarity, I don't think that always implies a commonality in individual or community-level experiences.

Dear statmaster razib, how many desis are foreign born? (I'm just curious, not trying to be an ass) :)

some statistics before the thread becomes riven by rival unsupported assertions:
http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/acs-05.pdf

page 18, for asian indians alone (that is, unmixed race):
Management, professional, and related occupations - 60.6%
Service occupations - 7.3%
Sales and office occupations - 21.8%
Farming, fishing, and forestry occupations - 0.2%
Construction,extraction, and maintenance - 2.9%
Production, transportation, and material moving - 7.2%

for white alone, not hispanice:
Management, professional, and related occupations - 37.6%
Service occupations - 13.7%
Sales and office occupations - 26.9%
Farming, fishing, and forestry occupations - 0.5%
Construction,extraction, and maintenance - 9.6%
Production, transportation, and material moving - 11.7

I hardly had any contact with African-Americans in my small town, although there is a large population. But most were not wealthy, so since my parents lived in more wealthy neighborhoods, I mostly had contact with white people

It's cool, this blog has covered this before race=class, most recently here. As my own AfAm community expands its possibilities- we become free to let other's exist outside of the old b-w paradigm

Except perhaps people in India (and Mexico, the Phillipines etc)? Do Bollywood and Indian TV accurately represent the people of India?

I just know I will regret this but:
Care to explain what relevance this remark has on this discussion?

I meant "in " not "on"

if she is talking about her social circle in the early 1980s she isn't lying, "plain and simple."

She is talking about the "indian community" not her "social circle":

in the Indian community in Chicago, everyone was a professional.

You can see a number of posters regularly boasting about the same thing right here. As if all indians are doctors, lawyers or engineers.

Whats so amazing is that few indians questioned these outrageously false numbers. This is a serious cultural problem and is probably one of the reasons why India remains so backward.

nativity and citizenship status:
native: 26.7%
foreign born naturalized - 32%
foreign born not citizen - 41.3%

increase the foreign % a bit for brownz as a while, this is only indians (though these are 90% of brownz).

(page 13 of the above URL)

camille, i wouldn't take prema seriously. he/she/it has a long record of attesting to the poverty, primitivity, low IQ nature, small penis reality, hated-by-others and pathetic generality of brown people. i assume this is an attempt to serve as a counterpoint to the childish ethnic-boosterism which many brown americans exhibit (on pan-brown, caste, skin color, etc. dimensions), but of course it just antagonizes people.

Anybody know of good desi writers in Hollywood?

Naren Shankar

Prema,

everyone was a doctor or engineer [emphasis mine]

The operative word is "WAS." And she was talking about the Indian community in Chicago, and she is currently a senior physician, which would indicate that she went into medicine at least 10 years ago. It is not unfathomable that her quote is relatively accurate for her time and her region. As someone who has family who were among the OG desis in Chicago, I'm telling you, when they moved there in the 1960s/70s, the Indian community in Chicago WAS composed solely of professionals. This was because of the U.S.'s immigration system at the time. I'm not saying its natural or organic or that Indians are the bomb dot com. I'm just saying she may be reflecting an accurate viewpoint re: her childhood.

I'm not saying that all desis are professionals. I'm just saying that people are not necessarily ignorant liars for voicing that in the area they lived this was what they observed.

foreign born naturalized - 32%
foreign born not citizen - 41.3%

That's very interesting. I sort of expected the foreign born not citizen number to be much more than 10% greater than the foreign born naturalized number. The numbers for all three categories are pretty close, actually.

I sort of expected the foreign born not citizen number to be much more than 10% greater than the foreign born naturalized number.

foreign born groups like canadians, latin americans (mexicans especially) and many europeans actually have the lowest naturalization rates from what i remember. the rationale is that they might want to go back or do business in their countries of origin. this is less true of asian immigrants.

The 2000 cenus said that 27.07 Indo-Americans were born in the United States another 29.04 became naturalized citizens.

camille, i wouldn't take prema seriously. he/she/it has a long record of attesting to the poverty, primitivity, low IQ nature, small penis reality, hated-by-others and pathetic generality of brown people. i assume this is an attempt to serve as a counterpoint to the childish ethnic-boosterism which many brown americans exhibit (on pan-brown, caste, skin color, etc. dimensions), but of course it just antagonizes people.

I know, I'm sorry, I should know better. Bad Camille, bad self control. Thank you, though, for the stats, razib! Super interesting -- I didn't think the native born population was so small in comparison to the foreign born pop! I mean, I didn't think we were an overwhelming majority, but also didn't think we were such a small %. I'm going to go have fun on the census page now, I think.

This is a serious cultural problem and is probably one of the reasons why India remains so backward.

Prema in #190 - you forgot to mention caste in your rant.

didn't think the native born population was so small in comparison to the foreign born pop!

perhaps it is just your social circle ;-)

I wonder how HMF will deal with the facts that only 27% of desi americans were born in the United States.

perhaps it is just your social circle ;-)
Of course ;) You know us ABDs -- all we do is get together in ABD-only groups and bash DBDs (but of course, we use more derogatory acronyms). That is, when we're not making fun of shaadi.com, contributing to India's backwardness, or killing small children.

didn't think the native born population was so small in comparison to the foreign born pop!

It's not very clear if the foreign born non naturalized includes only GC holders (PRs) or it also includes various Visa holders - maybe I need to dig more. I searched a little and it seems that the numbers are totally dependent on respondents and any respondent who does not answer himself/herself to be a citizen gets included in the non citizen category and so it does not seem to take data from INS records etc. My guess would be that most Visa holders would not bother taking part in the census and thus a lot of the VISA holders are not included in these numbers and would explain why there seem to be more DBDs around than what is reflected in the numbers.

I used the wrong text to quote in #218, that post would be more to imply that there are even more DBDs than you see in the numbers.

As a 2nd/3rd gen ABD, I personally DO NOT feel liable for the "lack of factchecking" among Indians or that "backwardness" of India itself.

Actually you are a good example of this almost universal desi propensity of ignoring facts, as I showed in the other thread. Someone who thinks that a Nobel Laureate, with an international reputation to maintain, has pulled numbers out his arse when those numbers contradict her delusions, isnt exactly a rational person.

The operative word is "WAS." And she was talking about the Indian community in Chicago

No, the operative word is EVERYONE. Show us how her claim that "Everyone was a doctor or an engineer" was true at any time in Chicago. Using your personal anecdotes to show that it was so does not cut mustard.

You know us ABDs -- all we do is get together in ABD-only groups and bash DBDs (but of course, we use more derogatory acronyms). That is, when we're not making fun of shaadi.com, contributing to India's backwardness, or killing small children.

As a proud DBD, I say 'Truer words have never been spoken' ;-)

Camille,
Big shout out and kudos for not using you -know-what in place of DBD :-)

page 18, for asian indians alone (that is, unmixed race): Management, professional, and related occupations - 60.6%

Management includes managing motels, convenience stores etc. You will find more indians behind the counters of small convenience stores and low end motels than in a doctor's office. Far more.

I am not going to continue to parse words with you. My point is your statement was extreme. You never fail to disappoint on that level.

Actually you are a good example of this almost universal desi propensity of ignoring facts, as I showed in the other thread. Someone who thinks that a Nobel Laureate, with an international reputation to maintain, has pulled numbers out his arse when those numbers contradict her delusions, isnt exactly a rational person.

"I was once (actually a few months back) asked to help this Arab American immigrant who stopped to get a soda at a gas station off I-65 in Southern Kentucky and he ended up spending the next one month in jail. When I went down to get the guy off, I don’t think they had ever seen a non-white/black guy there period. The cops were not only openly racist but had no problems publicly using terms like 'nigger' etc. The Court assigned public defender missed the arraignment date and the public defender's office told me that they didn’t have time for 'them people'. The Court itself was a circus. From the clerk to the bailiff to the Judge, racism was not only in your face, they were engaging in it with impunity and scarce disregard for anything. I am not exaggerating the insanity of that place.

I can assure you that a remote rural town in Southern Kentucky is not like New York City. Maybe they had one or two desi families there owning a gas station or whatever and maybe their children had fine experiences growing up there. But the fact of the matter is that not all areas in the US are equally comfortable with minorities."

Where in Kentucky was this? I am curious because I live in Kentucky.

You can kiss my ass.

amen!

And then, you discount my over twenty years personal experience with one town with a dialogue from a movie?

Uhh. hello, I didn't quote from "white chicks" I quoted from a movie that most film critics and cinema watchers as an accurate portrayal of race relations in america. A movie that nearly 20 years after its release still engenders debate. Don't trivialize it the way you trivialized the socialized conceptualizations of race into yankees vs. redsox. And I didn't discount your experience, I acknowledged it, but put it into a larger social context. I also said it could easily coexist with mine.

And I'm curious as to your answer to my question... Would these lovey dovey white neighbors of yours be completely comfortable living amongst a majority brown neighborhood? And of course the answer is no. Because chances are they feel more personally comfortable as they consider you as "one of them."

there is saying that race is a reality. but from that does not entail the various gross and unflattering generalizations you tend to make of white people as a whole (as opposed to instances to tendencies).

Alright, then please do tell me, can a collective statement be made about any group ? I can easily flip this line of reasoning around on you. I base my statements on data from studies, readings, and personal anecdote. My language is replete with "majority, predominantly, tendency, are more likely..." etc.. The only case where I make absolutely statements is where it's clearly hyperbole, where I use lots of swear words and other humorous devices.

You know full well that is not what I said, but you are enamored with reinterpreting reality to fit your self-righteous, offensive, and condescending seat on your high horse.

You know full well that that is just what you were implying when you dismissed the numbers Amartya Sen gave for hunger in India:

you're not the only person who reads Sen. As much as I respect him and his writings, his interviews are not the Word of the (Economic) Gods. Just because he thinks women are more empowered or that people are better fed/nourished in sub-Saharan Africa doesn't make it fact.

You can kiss my ass.

Kiss your own ass, or get Razib to do the dirty deed :)

I was speaking, HMF, specifically about my town and the people in it that I know. I wasn't generalizing, or shouldn't have if I did. For you to tell me I'm wrong about people that I know and you don't is bizarre. Seriously, it's completely bizarre.

Also, you misread me. I was talking about provincialism as regards the yankees-red sox point. Provincialism is different from racism, okay? What I meant is that people in larger cities can be provincial, too.

Why are you so sure the white people I knew growing up were secretly racist? By your standards, so were all the desis I knew growing given their extreme concern their children marry other desis, preferably of a certain profession. You don't know these people, I do. Who exactly is trivializing, here? Seriously, why do think you know more about people I do than you do? And, why don't you ever link these studies you read?

in the Indian community in Chicago, everyone was a professional. Everyone was a doctor or an engineer
What a shameless, brazen liar!

thanks for pointing this out. it's a ridiculous statement to make, and one that is commonly made. it upsets me when people make their small indian circle to represent the entire indian american population in the area.

I don't think she was lying for god's sake - I think this is just what she experienced and probably not being a sociologist didn't qualify her statement.

Thats a ridiculous argument. You dont need to be a sociologist to notice that there are far more indians working in convenience stores, cheap motels etc than in hospitals.

I disagree with you Prema; I see no reason why this couldn't be the girl's experience. I'm sure it's more that than a diabolical lie to make Indian-Ams look good. I do think she's probably led a sheltered life.

Also, isn't it good they considered me one of them? Isn't that what we want? In a color blind society (which we don't have) wouldn't we all think we are all one? This is the trouble I have with your comments; it's all shifting sands. I point out people I know who are wonderful and, as far as I know, with as little predjudice as a person can have (it's hard, we all have them) and you belittle them as lovey-dovey. Why? In your shifting sands world, are there any good white people?

a color blind society (which we don't have) wouldn't we all think we are all one?

God no, this is not what I want. I think we should be aware that people have differences and similarities. More than likely a color-blind society will be won, in which everyone is made to look like the majority.

"This is a special case, and I still contend "brown christians" are have more cultural similarity with the 2nd generation Indian population (regardless of religion) rather than their white christian counterparts. From what little I know, Christianity as practiced in India is distinctly separate from how it's practiced here in the States. but I may be wrong".

As a former practising Catholic (my ancestry comes from ye olde portuguese days in goa), I can say, most of the catholics (christians are grouped into protestants and catholics in my circle of family and friends!) especially in Bombay/ Goa where I grew up, have a cultural similarity to the Latin American/ Hispanic culture than the "white" christian ideology. When I was in Miami, I felt like every Tia/ Abuela could be related to me; in terms of dress, attitude, greetings (kisses on cheeks), food and many thought I was hispanic because of my last name.

Also, most Goan Catholics are Indian in the most western sense, and yes may identify readily to a second or third gen. Indian American. From my experience, I can say my grandparents and great grandparents etc. considered themselves goans first (with a portuguese lifestyle) and Indians last. They made no attempt to assimilate into mainstream Indian (Hindu) culture, preferring to stay among their own catholic enclave of family and friends.
By the way, mainstream India (bollywood) wholly misrepresents Goans and other minorities in movies as well as on television.

Why are you so sure the white people I knew growing up were secretly racist?

Again, nice characterization, you somehow contort my statement into me claiming your neighbors secretly had swastika flags and would break into your house at night and poison your food. What I am saying is, there is a perception that many white people have that white=normal, that their reality is the. As for provincialism, when it's used against someone who is nonwhite, it cannot be separate from racism. The idea of "look at that brown skinned person there, he's foreign, I'm native, this is my town, my country, etc..." is no way equatable to yankees vs redsox. That was the context I read it in.

I've noticed something in your posts, contextually, you think of white people as just another ethnicity, this is a false view. They are a socially constructed race. A race loosely based on melanin but moreso based on social class, ie a "club that either you're in" by having someone else to "other" And entry into that club meant you gave up you're true ethnicity. Irish people discarded their irishness, and became white, same with Italians, and greeks. All of these groups at one point were considered "foreigners who'd mess up the country", now they're all 'white'. How do you explain that?

So in a sense, racial privelage and racial "normalcy" is inextricable from this concept of 'white' And this is true, whether you know them or I know them, or neither of us know them. Now there are a small percentage of whites that have confronted this, and analyzed it and spent a great deal of time combating their own socializations, but if you'd have me believe that all of them just happened to live next to you.. kudos to you, you're very lucky.

And the fact of the matter is, whites in general can afford this level of indifference and insulation. in 1996, 6% of white people thought racism was still a problem, 12% of white people thought elvis was still alive. If whites are twice as more likely to think elvis is alive rather than race having a place in our national discourse, doesn't it suggest a level of denial? Even the ones that live by you?

I'm still waiting for an answer to my question....

Alright, then please do tell me, can a collective statement be made about any group ?

yes.

I was implying that, with respect to the interview you cited, occasionally Amartya Sen lumps together regions to make a (more) dramatic point. If you read anything else into it, that is your problem, not mine. If you disaggregate SSA, the statistics do not necessarily bode as well, particularly when you exclude South Africa, which in my opinion should not be lumped in with the rest when measuring HDI or other development indicators. Additionally, the difference (regionally) between India and SSA is NOT huge along most indicators, they sit solidly at the bottom together most of the time, with the exception of female literacy. I was not arguing that his statistics were not correct, but that they had been subtly manipulated to provide more "shock value." My full quote reads:

Just because he thinks women are more empowered or that people are better fed/nourished in sub-Saharan Africa doesn't make it fact. I think his analyses are interesting and generally spot on, but sometimes I think he overgeneralizes to get in a little "shock factor." [emphasis mine]>

Also, with respect to Chicago, there is little to no empirical evidence (government-wise) of how many desis were employed in "non professional" fields in 1970 because they weren't tracked. I checked. The 1970 census in Illinois only tracked the age and sex of "persons not white or Negro" in the 1970 census at the city level. For the state, there were 9,756 "Indians" (unclear if this means "indigenous" or desi), and 610 were foreign born. There is little to no information available online re: employment/economics or demographics therein. [cite]

Also, isn't it good they considered me one of them? Isn't that what we want? In a color blind society (which we don't have) wouldn't we all think we are all one?

What PS said, I also answered this earlier, in #74. Because in all honesty, when I push comes to shove, I know that even though they "see me" as equal, they're more equal. This is a personal anecdote I know, but I'm not speaking about a state I wasn't in myself. I wanted to believe "I was one of them" for so long, I also thought it was a good thing.. I uncle tom'd so hard I made clueless look like Louis Farakhan.

But very small little things, subtle things happened that all culminated in what I (and Sam Jackson from pulp fiction) call... a moment of clarity. Mind you I'm not saying any of this applies to you, your friends may be genuine, but they're still products of the USA national consciousness..

yes.

Im glad you cleared that up.

Okay, I will just have to stop because you and I are so opposite in our beliefs, I don't think we can talk to each other. I don't mean that in a pejorative way; I just don't understand what you are saying which I guess is pejorative to me. You basically are saying white is a social construct. Okay. But, then, you say some people have 'true' identities. So how do you tell true from the construct? People didn't lose their Italianess or Irishness; they came here, had kids, and those kids became socialized to the country and culture they live in and as time went on, that became the new norm. Culture is not static. What I don't get is why having grandparents born in Italy, but being American because you grew up here and your friend are here and you are socialized here, means you've lost something? Why isn't your true identity the one based on your childhood experiences and travels? Why should my true identity be my parents identity? We didn't have the same experiences.

The answer to your question is that they would do fine, but I bet class makes a difference, and you know that. If they moved to West Chicago, they'd have a problem, but so do the people living there. It's a rough part of town. If they moved to a middle class brown neigbhorhood in Atlanta, they'd have adjustments to make, but they'd do it, and be fine with it. That's my hypothetical answer to your hypothetical question.

People didn't lose their Italianess or Irishness; they came here, had kids, and those kids became socialized to the country and culture they live in and as time went on, that became the new norm.

I disagree my friend, white immigrants made special efforts not to teach their children their language and customes, because they felt immense pressure to "fit in" to anglo-american culture. Its clearaly laid out here: http://www.amazon.com/Irish-Became-White-Noel-Ignatiev/dp/0415918251, written by a white man, not the ooga booga reverse racist HMF!!

t's a rough part of town. If they moved to a middle class brown neigbhorhood in Atlanta, they'd have adjustments to make, but they'd do it, and be fine with it.

Well embedded in your answer is clear racial stratification, it's no coincidence that colored folks happen to live in "rough parts of town" but if you honestly believe that white folks would be completely comfortable living in a neighborhood dominated by non-whites, when in fact 80% of white people in this country live in places where there are next to no minoritiess, you're correct, we can't talk with each other.

the 80% stat is here:

http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2003-12/19wise.cfm, the hyper link didnt take.

I don't get that white is socially constructed but every other race isn't. All race is socially constructed. There's no biological foundation for race...just something we created in our head, most likely b/c of political socioeconomic conditions. Humans are humans. And your race can change depending on where you live and the political socio-economic conditions you are in. RAce really is nothing more than culture....yes, people who have lived in certain areas for a long time, will begin to have noticeable distinct phenotypes --- it's funny how certain phenotypes are the demarcations for distinct races.

Wouldn't it be interesting if all the red heads in the world were considered a separate race to the black-haired people of the world. Or everyone with a flat nose was a considered a separate race as opposed to people with pointy noses?

When I say "race", I am using what is our political identity in the US, what I mark in the census box, and also what similarities I have culturally with other people.

Early immigrants were required to anglicize their names when coming to USA. With few to no mosques, muslim immigrants such as those in my family, quickly lost contact with their original cultures/languages. They assimilated and learned english really, really fast, which had it's benefits (probably some drawbacks too, though I never anyone complain).

Things are different nowadays coz this country is so multi-culti, which also has it's benefits.

Probably my grandfather, if he were to immigrate now instead of when he did, would have a mosque to attend and people of his faith/culture to hang and speak in his mother tongue with. He probably would've assimlated and learned english at a much slower rate.

noel ignatiev is not an uncontroversial scholar. here is the subheading for the journal he founded, "race traitor."

http://www.racetraitor.org/

"treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity"

i think it is going to be hard to be taken seriously when whatever solid ideas he might have or promotes his wrapped up in such inflammatory rhetoric.

I don't get that white is socially constructed but every other race isn't. All race is socially constructed. There's no biological foundation for race

http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/01/race-current-consensus.php

anyway. the whole issue with white ethnics was less their race than their non-protestantism. the book Catholicism and American Freedom: A History chronicles this history. as for jews, the term 'judeo-christian' became popular only in the 1950s. until the 1960s jewish outmarriage was less than 10% (today is nearly 50%).

He's also not the only scholar to subscribe to the proposed theory of whiteness:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/002-5987836-3410420?%5Fencoding=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books&field-author=David%20R.%20Roediger

Again, nice characterization, you somehow contort my statement into me claiming your neighbors secretly had swastika flags and would break into your house at night and poison your food. What I am saying is, there is a perception that many white people have that white=normal, that their reality is the. As for provincialism, when it's used against someone who is nonwhite, it cannot be separate from racism. The idea of "look at that brown skinned person there, he's foreign, I'm native, this is my town, my country, etc..." is no way equatable to yankees vs redsox. That was the context I read it in.

Hello! Any cluster does this.

Being part of a Hindu group in which the majority is Indians, they, no matter where in the world they happen to be, think that their Indian style of the Hindu faith that is practiced by all backgrounds of people is the right way, and that we, the non-Indians, though marginally accepted, cannot really "get it" because we are afterall still "videsi log". Basically they have a cultural superiority complex and think that theirlittle Indian cultural reality is the, and that we can never fit in or really be a part of it. As non-Indians we are relegated to the "cultureless".

And they really have a thing against those of us who have divorced.

I don't get that white is socially constructed but every other race isn't. All race is socially constructed.

You're correct. it was MD's misinterpretation that you read. It's just, whiteness is constructed on the basis of privelage (the "in" club, that "we're" in, and other's aren't) Other races are not, they're constructed on genetic similarity (africans share a degree of similarity given the salient skin color feature) and shared social experiences (descendents of slaves, targetted as terrorists, etc...)

He's also not the only scholar to subscribe to the proposed theory of whiteness:

yes. there is something real in that area of research, though i think some of the scholars put too much of an emphasis on race (and the title of the area tends to lend that impression). the emergence of the 'americanist' movement in the catholic church, the stamping out of german in the american catholic church by the irish hierarchy, and the power of the reform movement in judaism, are all part of becoming 'protestant' tendency (sociological studies show that american catholics tend to exhibit the attitudes of protestants when it comes to their religion, and this trend has been a problem since the early 19th century as catholic parishes attempt to enter into a relationship with the church that is analogous to their protestant neighbors).

in any case, i don't think that whiteness is special. one could do a 'hindu studies' (for south asia in terms of out dalits and tribals are/were assimilated into hindu identity). or 'han studies' for how south chinese dialect speakers became chinese. or 'arab studies' for how aramaic and coptic speaking christian peasants become arabic speaking muslims.

theirlittle Indian cultural reality

You said it pg... as far as you're concerned, what ever us browns do is "little." maybe its this condescending attitude which makes us suspicious of you videsi log?

hey videsi ~ bideshi!

in any case, i don't think that whiteness is special. one could do a 'hindu studies' (for south asia in terms of out dalits and tribals are/were assimilated into hindu identity). or 'han studies' for how south chinese dialect speakers became chinese. or 'arab studies' for how aramaic and coptic speaking christian peasants become arabic speaking muslims.

the only problem is, those identities exist irrespective of privelage. Sure, they may parallel with majority & privelage at certain points, but they weren't defined by privelage.

I actually think a really interesting piece on "whiteness" is The Possessive Investment in Whiteness by George Lipsitz. I think it's helpful to understand how this term operates, particularly in the academy, before we all get into a huge conversation about it. Personally, I think it's important to delineate the creation of "white" as a racial category from "whiteness," which is (generally) a concept around privilege and white supremacy. Just so we all know where we're coming from, you know? :)

HMF, could you post your second book link again? My browser won't scroll left/right to copy it, and because it isn't "linked" I can't tell what it is.

Also, not sure I would agree that races are constructed on the basis of genetic similarity. I don't claim to be an expert on race in the U.S., but I'm pretty confident that the genetic explanations post-date the initial construct of race and institutions of racism. I'm with PS on this one -- all races are a social construction, and they vary by time, region, etc. I wouldn't, however, agree that race=culture. I can see how they could be related, and they're definitely both fluid and constructed, but I'm hesitant to reduce the idea of race, particularly in the U.S., to a culturalist explanation.

the only problem is, those identities exist irrespective of privelage. Sure, they may parallel with majority & privelage at certain points, but they weren't defined by privelage.

i don't really agree with this. a close reading of the history of islamic treatment of dhimmis, of the hindu attitude toward mlechas & outcastes and the chinese han attitude toward "barbarians" shows that the same dynamics are at work. similarly, native groups who earlier exhibited "uncivilized" behavior were eventually assimilated to the elite identity. the malwali became muslims in equal standing (to the point where they co-opted the state structures the arabs built in the 10th century). burman ahoms become righteous hindu defenders of the faith against the mughals. while sinicized fujianize in their turn look down upon taiwanese tribal peoples as they colonize that island after the 16th century. the very hallmark of "civilized" people since the rise of sumer has been the dynamic of privileged elites, marginalized non-elites, the emulation of the latter toward the models of the former (e.g., the transition from the neo-sumerian renaissance toward the rule of amorite nomad chiefs who eventually became the vehicles for sumerian culture and traditions in the ancient world).

Personally, I think it's important to delineate the creation of "white" as a racial category from "whiteness," which is (generally) a concept around privilege and white supremacy. Just so we all know where we're coming from, you know? :)

i would argue that supremacy is not new. the difference is that in the 19th century racial science systematized in a manner without precedent, because racial science (as opposed to folk theories) was an outgrowth of taxonomy and evolutionary biology and these fields only arose in the 18th (former) and 19th (latter) centuries.

I think American whites basically find blacks to be interesting and so are willing to watch TV shows with blacks stars. I don't think they really find any other group to be very interesting -- there are barely any Hispanics on mainstream TV, and the small sprinkling of East Asians and South Asians, they are not seen as or written as different from whites -- just whites with different skin tones and funny names. But blacks whites will watch.

Also HMF, who peed in your corn flakes?

razib,

all that is missing the point. whiteness cannot exist without a concept of race privelage, and supremecy. Hindu can.

Camille,

here you go

Also HMF, who peed in your corn flakes?

This guy.

Oops, that was me, HMF who posted that. typed nada by mistake, sorry, not trying to impersonate.

HMF, it's "privilege," not "privalege" as you keep typing. You remind me of this black nationalist guy in college who would leave quotes by "Malcom X" all over the dorms and student union.

Anyway I don't buy the whole concept of "white privilege" anyway. If browns had built the best societies you wouldn't be complaining. Just work harder to make India better.

all that is missing the point. whiteness cannot exist without a concept of race privelage, and supremecy. Hindu can.

yes, hindu, but what about hinduness???

i think that "whiteness studies" describes some real phenomenon, but they

a) picked a confusing name

b) it isn't anything that conventional history & sociology doesn't already describe

Just work harder to make India better.

how does this in any way contribute to the american dialogue on race relations? it also does not help a vast majority of people on this blog, because most have a stronger attachment - emotional, cultural, whatever it may be - to the US than to india. let's also not forget that india is not the only desi nation/culture represented by our bloggers.

The way some of you people write about whites, if I was white and reading this, I'd probably become indignant and develop racist attitudes against y'all. As a desi, if what you guys are saying is correct then I guess I'm grateful that people like you realise it...

back to the initial topic, sort of, there is one thing that is important when talking about proportional representation: TV is not proportional in the first place. i.e., a disproportionate number of shows are set in LA/NYC, and even when not they are mostly urban. only niche shows seem to have a rural setting, though around 1/4 of america is rural. the weird thing about shows like friends is that they are set in urban areas which have MANY minorities but their demo is like that of a rural area, except that jews are generally well represented (the ross & monica were explicitly jewish on friends, and there were some implications that rachel is also jewish).

Ditto.

Television is one type of medium delivering content to the masses. Till recent times, this marketplace was dominated by a few networks whose goal was to deliver whatever content their audience ate up, consistently. White people being a majority meant that most of the product was geared towards this group among the limited 'pipelines' of content delivery available. There isn't, IMHO, anything insidious about it, just a fact of what the market was and how shifting demographics and tastes, increased competition from cable television, has resulted in a far more dynamic setting catering to more diversity. Now, you still have the shows that are for white middle class families, but you also have television shows that fill voids let previously (or a show like ER that has evolved with the changing market).

Anybody know of good desi writers in Hollywood?

Vali Chandrasekaran

Rajiv Shah (Okay, so none of his scripts have been picked up yet, but he's a good friend, great guy, and deserves the plug. His next movie should be released nationwide. )

Sanjay Shah

And if Dreamworks ever adapts "Opal Mehta," we can add Kaavya to that esteemed list.

just to be empirically accurate, of the main characters only jerry was explicitly jewish. kramer was vague. george and elaine were suggested as being non-jewish (e.g., george's surname, elaine's "WASP" sociocultural backgroud). all four actors though are jewish in real life.

Michael Richards: still not a Jew. [Link]

Michael Richards: still not a Jew.

heh.

re: hollywood. while i despise them for their hate-mongering, anti-semitism , and racism, i agree with the black power movement on this one. stop begging whites for acceptance. you have bollywoood and with the internet the barrier to entry is only getting lower in the entertainment industry.

whites are just as tribal as mutineers. it's unrealistic to expect them to be as enlightened as me and paul woilfowitz. make your own films.

Speaking of unrealistically ethnic-homogenous TV shows, anyone here watch shows on BET? I used to watch several of them and was always struck by how the tables were turned, as it were - if the characters were shown going to a nice restaurant, there were a few token white people, and everyone else was black (though always on the lighter side of black). I suppose that does reflect reality to some extent in that even among wealthier folks in the US there is ethnic/racial self-segregation, and even the wealthier suburbs of DC reflect this, with PG County being a "black suburb" and the VA suburbs being more "white."

HMF, it's "privilege," not "privalege" as you keep typing. You remind me of this black nationalist guy in college who would leave quotes by "Malcom X" all over the dorms and student union.

Anyway I don't buy the whole concept of "white privilege" anyway. If browns had built the best societies you wouldn't be complaining. Just work harder to make India better.

The spelling bee just finished. And as for not buying the concept, well, that's exactly what they want. But how do you explain results like this? Where "black" soundinig names were about 30% less likely to get called back as white sounding ones, despite credentials being exactly the same.

As for "creating the best civilization" it's clear you've yet to even scratch the surface of the white-washed history that you've been repeatedly fed. And it's Malcolm X. perhaps one of the greatest men to ever live, who subsequently changed his name to El Hajj Malik El-Shabazz, not "Malcom X"

It tells me that the dominant culture in Australia is the Anglo Saxon one.

Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia is head of state. The Union Jack is in the canton of the Aussie flag. English is the official language. You don't become a citizen without knowing it at competent level.

same situation in Australia. Hardly any non-white characters on TV including newscasters. Except SBS which is a publicly funded multicultural station.

Australia is 92% European. So you are seeing the occasional non-European on TV. How many North East Indians do you see on Indian TV?

You have to get out of Melbourne or Sydney. Even Melbourne is mostly European, Sydney has much higher Asian, ie Chinese population. There are places where Asians are over represented, the universities for instance. Sectors like IT, Accounting, Banking.

The thing I like about Australia is no affirmative action, no quotas, no reservation, no special privileges to interest groups. If you are good you are In or else out.

"luna, what does "they do it in Bollywood" mean? Not sure if it counts when the dominant population is desi.

I thought the "overrepresentation" or whatnot on Seinfeld made sense because wasn't the Jewishness of it kind of a big part of the show? Kind of like how in "The Nanny" the nanny being Jewish is a big part of the humor and story? Feel free to correct me, I am not a Seinfeld fan and was too young to get into it in its pre-syndication days. :)"
Camille, what I mean is that East Indians have a precendent of making movies. They have done it frequently and intensely for decades. The Indian style is different from this country's but still, it seems to be in the blood.
There is already Shylaman (did I spell that right?) so it's happening.
If you're too young to get into Seinfeld, you're way, way too young to understand "Jewishness" as it was expressed in tv comedy, movies and etc., years ago. I just barely recall it myself, in young middle age, and know it more from just soaking up information than from experience. Around 1970, something happened in this country. Boundaries melted. Jewish outmarriage was under 2% in 1960. By 1980 it was something like 30%. Now it's supposedly 50%. Sorry about the semite-centered commentary, but I happened to have a lot Jewish acquaintances and friends and studied a lot about media.
And yes, "Jewishness" was a big part of it, but speaking as one familiar with comedy routines, movies and tv of earlier days, "Jewishness" was a lot more self-conscious and, well, less "universal" then they managed to make it on Seinfeld. Which is to be expected--the 1990s were several generations removed from the immigrant experience.
When Emma Thompson was on Charlie Rose, she said that if older women want more varied role, they will have to write and produce them themselves. That stuck with me. It really goes for any category that feels itself underrepresented while staring at "that hopeless little screen) (a la Leonard Cohen).

The thing I like about Australia is no affirmative action, no quotas, no reservation, no special privileges to interest groups. If you are good you are In or else out.

and if your an aboriginal, your f-cked.

"just to be empirically accurate, of the main characters only jerry was explicitly jewish. kramer was vague. george and elaine were suggested as being non-jewish (e.g., george's surname, elaine's "WASP" sociocultural backgroud). all four actors though are jewish in real life."

Yes, of course. Which goes to show the "universal" element. Actually the actress who played George's mother wanted to know if the character was Jewish as that would affect how she did the role. Ditte Stiller (Jewish) who played the father. Despite the Italian last name, according to one commentator, the Castanzas come off as appearing to be in a witness protection program.

Or everyone with a flat nose was a considered a separate race as opposed to people with pointy noses?

Ever heard of Hutus and Tutsis?

"Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson demand that Hollywood make 40% (or something like that) of its actors, black
Yeah I'm sure it was something like that. I'm not a fan of either- but some of the BS that is attributed to them is just ridiculous. By the by did you READ the links Ennis posted?"
dilletante,
You know, I can't find the quote source just now, but I did read it in a mainstream rag. The percentage they were demanding amazed me as it was way over the black percentage of total population. I guess I do need to read Ennis' links more carefully, if I have missed vital information. I brought up Sharpton as an example of loudly demanding the seemingly impossible and getting the seemingly impossible. This is not recommended as a tactic for greater desi representation, but the media tends to think it is sufficiently diverse if blacks are represented. Other people of color can be ignored. It is a matter of record (Chicago Tribune, April 11) that two of Jesse Jackson's sons got prime Budweiser franchises ($33million) when their dad agreed not to urge a boycott Budweiser's racist-stereotyped commercials.
Whatever works.

HMF,

I know it's "Malcolm" and not "Malcom" but my point was that you keep talking about "white privalege" instead of "privilege," just like the guy at my school who would copy sheets of paper of Malcolm X quotes and spell it "Malcom." It looked ridiculous.

As for best societies, well, just watch the direction the feet shuffle. But HMF's microscope only works on white people it seems.

Oh well, off to be oppressed by the man. How I do suffer.

One opinion on browns not being represented on medico TV shows and 277 comments later we have :

India branded as racist , backward , Indian culture is "little",DBDs are discriminatory

One brain-dead action by an almost has been on a pop culture TV show in India and many comments later we have:

India branded as racist , backward ,DBDs as discriminatory , an article on the Indian national anthem referred to as "stupid shit"

Is everything on SM going to degenerate into an opportunity for the PGs and Premas and others of their ilk to spew ignorance and vituperation at India and Indians ?

Speaking of unrealistically ethnic-homogenous TV shows, anyone here watch shows on BET? ... if the characters were shown going to a nice restaurant, there were a few token white people, and everyone else was black (though always on the lighter side of black).

Kinda like Bollywood or Spanish Telenovelas right? we've been there before. I suspect that housewives of all colors in the US would resemble Rosanne ($$/weight) more than the desperate ladies on Wisteria Lane. Though that's the verisimilitude you mentioned earlier.

#173.Let's not conflate our understanding of "black" in the U.S. with "Black" in the UK - they are politically and practically two different things.

Thankfully I have never been confused* about my race- or wanted to conflate my identity to any desi person. My point was IN SPITE of the unity sounding bit from the 'black' police in the UK-- which surprised the heck out of me. I would have never suspected any sort of coalition btw the two groups from my own observations. *I have been reminded, in oblique ways, about my race-- whenever some 'other' person felt I wasn't keeping it real enough.

it's unrealistic to expect them to be as enlightened as me and paul woilfowitz.

"As for best societies, well, just watch the direction the feet shuffle. But HMF's microscope only works on white people it seems. "

Oh yes, and colonialism, slavery, and native american genocide had nothing to do with that? Unless of course, those are elements you applaud.

"Oh well, off to be oppressed by the man. How I do suffer. "

I love it when it turns to this kind of sarcasm, because it's really the only avenue available, instead of answering my question about the obvious disparity in employment selection, which obviously doesn't compute with your [mis]conception that "we're all equal!"

Ever heard of Hutus and Tutsis?

I'm from 'Jesus land' as you call it. living in London has been the fist time for me to see such a diversity of African Nationals- In my Midwest friendliness/ignorance- just plain interest and not just a little 'racial' pride. I remember asking a waitress where she was from. She proudly told me Rwanda, but she went on to ask me if I'd thought she was from Ethiopia [I'm guessing she was Tutsi]. Actually I'm familiar with 'those' people, and had not thought that at all. I suppose its all relative on where you are who the modal minority is. (Its not a simple as 'desi' =doctor here.)

Luna- I hear you. I also don't want to conflate my identity on you, but I feel subsumed when Jesse and Al are taken as 'the voice/hairstyle' etc. of all AfAm's. The point about the links Ennis provided was the double speak when it came to advertsing dollars. Even when 'ethnic' outlets provided evidence that their demo's matched the target mkt-- some where not interested. Because Urban/Spanish is not the image they had in mind- sort of like values before hunger or something to that effect I 'think' you wrote elsewhere? Which comes back to Ennis question about 'what the fantasy is'

It's not really something for 'brown' people to worry about since as has been discussed for the most part- you are not burdened with the negative stereotypes other groups are.

But that leaves capatilist of some colors in a funny place. Well it leaves me in the 'proud' to be American even with its fcuked up history as regards me.

I'll be happier when I see a desi cast in a non-traditional role (i.e. NOT a doctor) versus as the tried and true. That's when we see real representation - when roles are written with no ethnicity in mind.

Battlestar Gallactica is a GREAT example - Korean, Indian, African, African-American, American Indian...they've got it all and it's never about the ethnicity!

vituperation

the word of the day...

"but I feel subsumed when Jesse and Al are taken as 'the voice/hairstyle' etc. of all AfAm's."

yes dilletante, point taken. It is indeed annoying to be identified with someone with whom you feel limited agreement. Sorry. Using those two as examples was a bit too lazy and easy of me; probably also Law&Order and Seinfeld were dog-eared examples for my case. But let's face it--some people make an awful lot of noise and the media gives them megaphones, for a multitude of reasons. The Christians didn't deserve to have Fallwell is their mascot, poor things. Some of them are quite nice, thinking individuals. It's the bully pulpit thing, and many groups (define "group" as you will) have been guilty of this. They drown out alternative and often wiser voices and make those outside their "group" draw incompletely informed assumptions. I could have taken the trouble to cast about for less egregious examples to illustrate my points, but it wouldn't much alter the case as far as tv and movies go.

Isn't the most affluent model minority African African Americans. Seriously. Did I read that on Arts and Letters Daily or something?

I once read something that said African's make up the highest post graduate immigrants to the US. Makes sense, if you don't have educational credentials, you're treated like sh*t. Whereas European immigrants can come with severly less educational credentials and still make it via "non-existent" white privilege.

A quick look here, at the percentage of African immigrants with college degrees, and here at the percentage of European immigrants with college degrees, shows a pretty stark difference, nearly 43% vs 30%

Whereas European immigrants can come with severly less educational credentials and still make it via "non-existent" white privilege

indians too. gas station owners, convienice stores, hotels, etc. must be brown privilege.

Actually, Indian immigrants come over with significantly higher level of educational qualification as their African counterparts, nearly 70% have a bachelor degree or higher. Then again it's not a fair comparison because it's a country vs an entire continent, Asia in general is about the same, as Africa, 43%.

You can't imagine how giddy I am, my personal opinion and experience just happens to match the US Census data.

HMF,

In nearly every post you bust on the US. I know it's an old question, but really man: if you hate it so much here why not move to the desh?? Or somewhere? You post almost nothing positive here about the US and all kinds of white people this, white people that. Way out of proportion to reality. I bet 99%+ of the white people you come into contact with mean you nothing but good will. Can you reciprocate? Can you try?

You post almost nothing positive here about the US and all kinds of white people this, white people that. Way out of proportion to reality. I bet 99%+ of the white people you come into contact with mean you nothing but good will.

See, this is my point. Where did you pull 99% from? your ass? A statement like that is just as absurd as saying all whites are inherently evil (which I've never claimed, and never will). When study after study has shown clear disparity in housing, employment (as the one I quoted to you), criminal justice all you can come back with is "go back to where you came from?"

indians too. gas station owners, convienice stores, hotels, etc. must be brown privilege.

While it may be a hard pill to swallow, HMF is right in asserting that it is much easier to migrate here if you are (white) from Europe. It's getting a bit harder if you're a "visible ethnic minority" from Europe. And, while it is impossible to have firm estimates, many immigration researchers posit that one of the largest proportions of "undocumented" immigrants are often foreign exchange students from Europe who have let their papers lapse. Surprising given the popular rhetoric, no?

While it may be a hard pill to swallow, HMF is right in asserting that it is much easier to migrate here if you are (white) from Europe.

Assuming you swallow and don't spit.

Wasn't trying to hate :) Just saying that whether or not folks accept it, it is factually true that it is easier to immigrate from Europe (and other "European settled") countries to the U.S. than from the rest of the world, especially relative to % of global population.

Camille, it wasn't directed at you.

Actually, Indian immigrants come over with significantly higher level of educational qualification as their African counterparts, nearly 70% have a bachelor degree or higher. Then again it's not a fair comparison because it's a country vs an entire continent, Asia in general is about the same, as Africa, 43%.

but if we control for education, how do indian immigrants compare to whites? i gather form your statement about uneducated whites still making it due to white priviledge, that stats show they are doing better than non-white immigrants with similar lack of education. is this true?

HMF,

OK, tell me the five worst things white people have done to you in the past five years. Really. Let's have it. I want to hear whence comes this ability of yours to feel the oppression of one pea under ten mattresses.

And not what's been done to people you've never met who aren't even brown, but what's happened to YOU, dear HMF. Go.

From a logical standpoint, I would say so, they wouldn't emigrate otherwise. Bad news travels fast.

OK, tell me the five worst things white people have done to you in the past five years. Really. Let's have it. I want to hear whence comes this ability of yours to feel the oppression of one pea under ten mattresses.

Wait a minute, first my personal experience shouldn't be used in drawing conclusions, then when I produce actual data that supports disparity, that's thrown out and replaced with "99% of white people you meet have nothing but goodwill", then when that's challenged as being absurd, you come back to personal experience?

camille:

i hear what you're saying. my family left the uk. but usa is not uk and the level of discrimination and oppourtunity is much differnt here...though my family was in the uk during the 60's and 70's.

i doubt the scenario you paint professionals starting small businees is really relevent here. it's been a few years, but i was in retail financial sales and i can't recall coming accross that scenario in all the meetings i had with small biz owners.

I never said your personal experiences shouldn't be used in drawing conclusions, someone else did. I'm asking for your personal experiences. Will you give them?

I'm asking for your personal experiences. Will you give them?

I don't see the point you're getting at. Do you plan to challenge my experience? Do you plan to explain to me how I misinterpreted the situation and missed the true "goodwill"? Or do you plan to say "well that's just one isolated incident" - ie discounting the validity of personal experience to draw conclusions.

I think my personal experience is more or less irrelevant here.

HMF is right in asserting that it is much easier to migrate here if you are (white) from Europe.

wait. hmf isn't saying it's easier to emigrate from europe to the us, but rather whites lacking professional degress succeed at a higher rate than non-white counterparts due to white privilige.

i'm inclined to believe there must be some differnce, but i'd be curious to see the actual stats, if there are any.

Re: White "good will," there is a study and book that argues white supremacist attitudes, even among "liberal" college students, are still widely prevalent, though they have gone underground:

A researcher at the University of Dayton who surveyed hundreds of white college students nationwide found that harsh racist language, the use of the “n-word” and the ugliest of racial stereotypes are common, everyday occurrences when white students are alone.

“What I found was there is a profound difference between the frontstage – when whites are with people of color – and the backstage – when they are with other whites,” said Leslie H. Picca, assistant professor of sociology.

In what is perceived to be the safe backstage among whites, Picca said she found that “racist comments and jokes are not only ordinary, but are often tolerated, encouraged and even expected.” link

Here is the book that emerged from the study: Two-Faced Racism

Well, it's clear you don't want to share your personal experiences which is fine. But I suspect that my experiences growing up here (and born here), namely that I found whites basically welcoming and positive towards me, may have been your experience, too, since my guess is that if you'd had some bad experiences you'd have told us by now.

So I am trying to figure out, basically, where the anti-white animus you have comes from. You quote Noel Ignatiev a lot, so maybe it came from books you read and not your own experiences.

wait. hmf isn't saying it's easier to emigrate from europe to the us, but rather whites lacking professional degress succeed at a higher rate than non-white counterparts due to white privilige.

I'm saying the former point follows from the latter.

A researcher at the University of Dayton who surveyed hundreds of white college students nationwide found that harsh racist language, the use of the “n-word” and the ugliest of racial stereotypes are common, everyday occurrences when white students are alone

Risible, this is a very interesting point. Anti-racist Tim Wise talks about this in his excellent book, "White like Me", when he's with a group of whites and one of them invariably makes a racist joke, Mr. Wise responds with, "I'm half black" The nice liberal white all of a sudden becomes severly apologetic, not meaning any harm, essentially all the goodwill our friend Mr. nada is used to... Tim then says, "I'm not half black, but why should that make a difference?"

And this is what I mean about whites challenging their own socializations.

HMF tells us this is a "white privilege" country because it was set up by white people for white people. 225 years have gone since it was formally established, and times do change. The first major European discoverers (first major, because vikings, possibly Irish monks, probably Chinese navigators and Filipino shrimpers, preceded Columbus) originally considered the indigenous people to be "Indians" in "India". Can such a place be too surprised that real Indians should eventually wend their way into the warp and woof of the ethnic landscape?
Not to pick on China, but is there "yellow" privilege there? They probably don't call it "yellow." In China, the Chinese are just The People, just the "normal" people, who have never welcomed outsiders. That is a major difference between the two biggest emerging economies. India has absorbed an endless stream of different peoples through the centuries, while the Chinese deliberately kept the Han to the Han.
I have no idea what percentage of people have inner good will towards non-whites, non-browns, non-whatever. It is that sort of stressful, subjective question that enforcement of just civil law, etiquette and common civility are supposed to take care of. The rest is your own business. The east coast is an ok place for desis. If anybody tries any funny stuff, we can always sic the ACLU on them.

I'm saying the former point follows from the latter.

oh i see what you're saying. a bit of a leap though since europe is wealthier to begin with than africa. plus, i recall on another thread someone trotting out some rather amazing stats on mexican upward mobility (like 1/2 are middle class by 2nd gen). i wonder if vijay prashad has the stats since controlling for education is key to understanding the model minority myth.

HMF, I'm from a punjabi background. And everytime my wife makes me go to a punjabi wedding or a large punjabi social event in the Vancouver area, the same thing happens every time. The Punjabi Aunties and Uncles have same conversation over and over.

All they say is Gora{white} something negative, black something negative, Native people something negative, Chinese people something negative, Desi's of other back ground something negative and how punjabi culture and being a jatt makes them better then everybody else.

I have no idea what percentage of people have inner good will towards non-whites, non-browns, non-whatever.

There is an emerging category in whiteness studies called implicit bias, the overall effect of which can lead to both stratification and discrimination. This must be rigorously and empirically studied, in other words, we must not cede to our feelings or "personal experiences" either way. As an example, there was a recent study publicized in the New York Times on racially biased referees in the NBA. Alas, the NYT locks its archives after 30 days, but here is a brief summary from Marginal Revolution link

Are NBA referees racist?

I wouldn't have thought so, but Justin Wolfers, writing with Joseph Price, says maybe yes:

...during the 13 seasons from 1991 through 2004, white referees called fouls at a greater rate against black players than against white players...[the authors] found a corresponding bias in which black officials called fouls more frequently against white players, though that tendency was not as strong.

Here is the paper. The effect is big enough that an all-white team would, all other things equal, win two extra games over the course of an 82-game season.

All they say is Gora{white} something negative, black something negative, Native people something negative, Chinese people something negative, Desi's of other back ground something negative and how punjabi culture and being a jatt makes them better then everybody else.

Well, A-salaam-alaikum my brother.

risbile that study was found to be stupid by many black players in the NBA, who said that they have never seen any bias due to race.

Black journalists like Steven A.Smith and Micheal Wilborn said there is no bias by NBA refs against black players. Charles Barkley said that study was beyond stupid.

Also that study was done by looking at box scores and not game footage.

And if you take out the fouls against Rasheed Wallace then there would be no bias at all.

Unflattering commentary about other "races" is traded among all "races" when they are alone. Blacks can be just as nasty about whites, when there are no whites around--I've heard them. Sometimes even when there whites around. Not all individuals indulge, but enough do that it is a salient human characteristic. Sometimes the nasty talk springs from resentment at the way they were treated by persons of the "other race."
Continuing on the Chinese theme of a previous commentator, writer Maxine Hong Kingston was traumatized by the insulting terms her father muttered to himself about women. They are just old Chinese curses, she told herself, he doesn't mean me or my mother. There may be more nasty epithets about females than about males of any race, so I'm cynical about racial epithets, loathsome though they may be. What the f@#! can you do about people talking behind your back? It is not something you have any control over, so just respect yourself. If you respect yourself and others, non-sociopaths become ashamed of negative speech.
Misogynistic commentary is common among men when women aren't around. Women can be very belittling of men, when men aren't around. That's why backbiting is so horrendous in its effects.

HMF, if I may ask what is your desi background. Are you south indian, bengali, gurjarti or something else.

And whatever Charles Barkley says may as well be from God on the mountaintop ;-) Yes, there is controversy surrounding the study, much of which came from the NBA itself, which published its own "study."

that study was found to be stupid by many black players in the NBA, who said that they have never seen any bias due to race

But implicit bias is attempting to look beyond impressionistic personal experiences to see if racial bias, looked at collectively, alters outcomes.

Also that study was done by looking at box scores and not game footage.

The NBA study was not based on game footage either, but on its own data sets. For a long time, they refused to let the authors of this study see their data. Recently they did, and the study author claims that it vindicates his position. Here's what ESPN said recently:

An independent analysis of the two conflicting studies requested by ESPN.com confirms Wolfers' findings that referees favor their own race when they blow their whistles. Thomas Miles, who has a Ph. D. in economics from the University of Chicago and is a graduate of Harvard Law School, dissected the massive study completed by Wolfers, and compared it with the smaller study by an NBA consultant.

"I believe [Wolfers] has the better points," said Miles, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School. "His study focused on the interactions of the race of the referee and the race of the player. The NBA was more concerned with the number of fouls called on black players and comparisons with the number of fouls called on white players." link

Unflattering commentary about other "races" is traded among all "races" when they are alone. Blacks can be just as nasty about whites, when there are no whites around--I've heard them

but it doesnt translate into large scale discrimination from employment, criminal justice, housing, etc...

What the f@#! can you do about people talking behind your back? It is not something you have any control over, so just respect yourself. If you respect yourself and others, non-sociopaths become ashamed of negative speech.

Nothing, but that's not the point, I could care less what whites talk about amongst themselves, but when it snowballs into large scale societal inequities, then it's a problem.

i doubt the scenario you paint professionals starting small businees is really relevent here. it's been a few years, but i was in retail financial sales and i can't recall coming accross that scenario in all the meetings i had with small biz owners.

clueless, please! The study is irrelevant because some folks didn't feel that way? I'm sorry, but that is not enough to completely up-end a study. If there is an academic/methodology based critique, I'd like to hear it.

I think razib's underlying point was interesting - that we all hold implicit biases. This isn't because we're all awful racists, it's because we live in societies with clear hierarchies, and despite our best efforts, some of those are going to get plugged into our subconscious. We get used to racism or ideas rooted in racist assumptions, particularly when these are the norm. This includes EVERYONE of all colors! I think Malcolm Gladwell does a good job of breaking this down a bit in Blink.

Look folks, at the end of the day, there are a lot of things that we accept as "normal" that stand to benefit a white majority. I'm not saying this as a condemnation of white people in the U.S. or anything to that effect. I mention it because I think it would be silly to think that racism doesn't exist as an institutional barrier in the U.S.

This is not the same as saying that "everyone trades racist comments about everyone." The fact is we live in a society governed by power hierarchies that are cut across a lot of lines - class, gender, race/ethnicity, national origin, citizenship, sexual orientation, religion, etc., etc., etc. It's not so much hateful comments in isolation that make a difference, it is how those comments then feed back into power hierarchies. At least that is (part of) the theory and the concepts underpinning critical race studies and ethnic studies. You don't have to "buy" HMF's argument. There is a lot of interesting reading out there, and I would encourage folks to at least flip through it before dismissing outright that your skin color can disproportionately help or harm you in the U.S.

It's not so much hateful comments in isolation that make a difference, it is how those comments then feed back into power hierarchies.

I made the exact same point, #316.

I think razib's underlying point was interesting - that we all hold implicit biases.

Sure, but couple this statement with your claim that "normalcy" benefits a white majority, and you reach a conclusion that our implicit biases will tend to benefit a white majority. For example, white's fear blacks, see them on TV something like 300% more time committing crimes than they do in real life. So, our implicit bias will be to fear them.

These implicit biases must after all, come from someplace. They don't just pop out of thin air.

I think razib's underlying point was interesting - that we all hold implicit biases. This isn't because we're all awful racists, it's because we live in societies with clear hierarchies, and despite our best efforts, some of those are going to get plugged into our subconscious.

Yes this is true. That's why Han Chinese hegemony is relevant in China and Whiteness hegemony in America. Clueless's family is not particularly relevant to America or Canadian understandings of race dominance because Punjabis don't control financial resources, adminstrative bureacracy, law enforcement agencies, political representation, etc., in North America.

Look folks, at the end of the day, there are a lot of things that we accept as "normal" that stand to benefit a white majority. I'm not saying this as a condemnation of white people in the U.S. or anything to that effect. I mention it because I think it would be silly to think that racism doesn't exist as an institutional barrier in the U.S.

Minorities themselves enable the bias that White=American, which leads to altered outcomes at odds with America's own 21st century "egalitarian" understanding of itself. Check out a poster of this study:

The present research provides direct evidence for the idea that Latino Americans are unconsciously or
automatically conceived of as being less American than White Americans. This implicit American =
White association is displayed by White American participants and, to a lesser extent, by Latino
American participants. Thus, even members of an ethnic minority are more prone to implicitly grant the
attribute “American” to White Americans than to their own group. The impact of participants’ ethnicity
on this measure is consistent with the idea that implicit associations are rooted in experiences and
bear the mark of cultural socialization.

The way some of you people write about whites, if I was white and reading this, I'd probably become indignant and develop racist attitudes against y'all. As a desi, if what you guys are saying is correct then I guess I'm grateful that people like you realise it...

I'm not offended. Having travelled all over the world and mixed and mingled with all sorts of people, I can honestly say, same shit - different toilet, is going on everywhere.

HMF, sorry if I was unclear. When I say "normalcy" (in the U.S.) inherently benefits whites (in the U.S.), I mean that what we are TAUGHT is normal is constructed within a racist society and reflects the racial hierarchies and priorities of that society. I think we basically agree here, I am just less specific and more wordy :)

I feel you in #316 - I had written my comment (317) back when the comments were only at 315 and didn't see the update until after my browser refreshed post-comment :)

Risible, I feel you, also. The "race" hegemony varies by region/place, bringing us back full circle to the "race is a social construct" conversation. :)

HMF, sorry if I was unclear. When I say "normalcy" (in the U.S.) inherently benefits whites (in the U.S.), I mean that what we are TAUGHT is normal is constructed within a racist society and reflects the racial hierarchies and priorities of that society.

Maybe it reflects the cultural hierarchies and priorities of that society.

In many parts of India, my behaviour (that is completely normal for a grown woman in America) is considered completely scandalous, low-class and abuse-worthy there.

PG:
Grandfather: Muslim
Boyfriend: Rastafarian
Husband: Emaciated Indian
Fiancé: India of a different flavor
Husband: Black
Self: White was the last claim
Religion: Hindu
Outward Religious Symbols: Tilak
Erstwhile Religious Affiliation:ISCKON
Time in India: Ten years
Location in India: Unknown
No. of time harassed in India: 365*10*x
This is a work in progress, please someone volunteer to keep this updated.

HMF, sorry if I was unclear. When I say "normalcy" (in the U.S.) inherently benefits whites (in the U.S.), I mean that what we are TAUGHT is normal is constructed within a racist society and reflects the racial hierarchies and priorities of that society. I think we basically agree here, I am just less specific and more wordy :)

Camille, can you give a few examples of that which you were taught as "normal" in a racist society?

I have several examples to cite for my statement in the above post regarding what is taught as normal behaviour of women in India.

#323

:-) good one

I guess it a bad time to bring up Brahmin privilege in most parts of India or even Jatt privilege in the homeland of my parent the Punjab. Or even Dalit privilege in, well nevermind.

And let forget about sunnis privilege in some part of the muslim world and shiite privilege in other parts of the muslim world.

PG: Grandfather: Muslim Boyfriend: Rastafarian Husband: Emaciated Indian Fiancé: India of a different flavor Husband: Black Self: White was the last claim Religion: Hindu Outward Religious Symbols: Tilak Erstwhile Religious Affiliation:ISCKON Time in India: Ten years Location in India: Unknown No. of time harassed in India: 365*10*x This is a work in progress, please someone volunteer to keep this updated.

Desigora,

qoute me where i said my bf was rasta.
qoute me where i said my husband was indian
qoute me where i said my fiance was indian
qoute me where i said my husband was black
qoute me where i said i was religiously affiliated with ISKCON (i believe i said i had alot of experience with that cult due to time spent in their temples amongst friends and the number of friends i have who have had marriages arranged and ruined by iskcon leaders solely for the purpose of bringing in more money)

everything else is more or less correct

"And let forget about sunnis privilege in some part of the muslim world and shiite privilege in other parts of the muslim world."

...And penguin privilege in Antarctica. Look, even if we're to believe that the European history of genocide, oppression, exclusionism and subsequent racist socialization in the United States isn't completely unique, what's the use of bringing up all these other cases when they don't effect the bulk of us (and I include white America in us, I believe that white privilege actually harms white people just as much as non-white people).

I will take a cue from you and won't back anything up with facts even though unlike you I can. You have made a habit of spewing rubbish on these forums and other people reading can substantiate the list.

BTW

Typing irrelevant gibberish on SM: infinite

Anybody know of good desi writers in Hollywood? Vali Chandrasekaran

Rajiv Shah (Okay, so none of his scripts have been picked up yet, but he's a good friend, great guy, and deserves the plug. His next movie should be released nationwide. )

Sanjay Shah

How could you forget Mindy Kaling? She's on the writing team that's instrumental in making The Office so awesome, and I believe she's directed an episode or two as well, in addition to playing Kelly Kapoor.

I think Jay Chandrasekhar, director of Supertroopers, also writes his fair share of scripts/screenplays, if I'm not mistaken.

Typing irrelevant gibberish on SM: infinite

Your opinion.

And I can back-up everthing I write with "hands-on" personal experience --- especially the gender bias and sexual molestation.

PG,
You want us to accept that your 10 year + experience in India, self -admittedly as part of a cult - is definitely more accurate than anything any of us who spent 30+ years in India can say. Especially since as desigora said , your personal experience evolves to match whatever sweeping comments you make. I know exactly which comments desigora is referring to,

You may want to ask yourself what someone who so obviously has issues with India and Indians is doing spending the better part of her day ( assuming you are female ) on a board devoted to predominantly South Asian issues.

You want us to accept that your 10 year + experience in India, self -admittedly as part of a cult - is definitely more accurate than anything any of us who spent 30+ years in India can say

No. Whatever you have experienced is your experience. And what I have experienced is mine. I've usually clarified my personal statements with a clarification that it was a personal statement.

But some (not most) of you take issue with my experiences. Have I taken issue with yours?

Especially since as desigora said , your personal experience evolves to match whatever sweeping comments you make. I know exactly which comments desigora is referring to,

OK then qoute those comments coz I'd also like to know what experiences have "evolved" (guess you mean fabricated) to match whatever sweeping comments I make.

Desigora is unable to qoute some of the claims he claims I made such as "emaciated Indian husband".

Do you really believe I would marry an emaciated Indian man afterall the other statements I've made over the months?

Bring it on!

PG,

Your reasons are suspect, you have changed your handle multiple times from Pardesi Gori to Pardesi Gauri to PG to Mistress of Spices to Mos etc. Reg 333, no one knows what to believe as most of your stories seem made up, when you had the chance to meet the good folks of SM you backed out on some made up excuse which doesn't lend you a lot of credibility. Everything that can happend to anyone in India has happened to you and you try and trump everyone's elses experience of India by your supposed encounters.

Sometime I feel you are Prema/Doordarshan's twin, I think you should both get together and write a book about what ails India, Prema can shout from the rooftops about Hungry Indian Kids and Brahmin Conspiracies and you can calm her down by telling her stories about your stay in India. I think it will be a best seller.

Do you really believe I would marry an emaciated Indian man afterall the other statements I've made over the months?

Wouldn't it really depend on whether he liked yoni munching or not? :)

PG,
If you qualified ANY of your statements then it would be okay.You make the most controversial and obnoxious statements ( All Indians experimenting sexually with their cousins? Women's rights in India bad because of the way they are portrayed on TV?>)

You want proof of your evolving personal experience:

See here and here

And please don't tell me this was not you- for someone who is here so often its amazing that you did not notice someone else posting as you on the same thread that you posted on !

Anyway,I am mindful of the fact that this forum is not the place for you and me to duke it out. I am done with the level of des- hate displayed and sick and tired of being the only one who seems to speak up,

Runa,

Thank you, I wonder why she is indulged so often, same thing with Prema why don't people collectively ignore. The des hate is a discussion for another day. I have been reading this for the last two years but only lately there have been such frequent instances, I think for the most part people here are OK and are willing to learn. Some people like Prema and PG are a different story, they don't like to educate or learn but condemn which is annoying. It will be sad to see you go and I hope you reconsider.

First link was supposed to be this

PG, You want us to accept that your 10 year + experience in India, self -admittedly as part of a cult - is definitely more accurate than anything any of us who spent 30+ years in India can say.

I do think PG makes sweeping comments that are unfounded. I do think for someone who has spent so much time there voluntarily, she makes way too many disparaging remarks about India.

PG, my question to you is: why do you voluntarily spend time in a place for which you seem to have nothing good to say about and seem to have only "bad" experiences?

and please, please can we make this thread about yoni munching and the affects of Pineapple Juice. It started with lack of diversity in American TV, it progressed to Doctor God Complex, went on to NBA refs and then to PGs delusional ranting, it is only natural that we now talk about Yonis and Lingams.

BadIndianGirl,

I personally don't have an issue with PGs experience, they may be true for all I know. My issue is with constant rambling. She had an opportunity to meet the commentars in person but backed out last minute. Like you said she went there voluntarily and 10 years is an awful time to realize that the place is not meant for you.

Anyway,I am mindful of the fact that this forum is not the place for you and me to duke it out. I am done with the level of des- hate displayed and sick and tired of being the only one who seems to speak up

Runa, i wouldn't want you to fall into the same "my experience trumps all others'" trap that PG fell into some years ago.

Look at nearly every thread in which she makes blanket statements about the "indian" experience and you'll find people contradicting her until they realize that they're banging their heads into a brick wall.

I have done it and so have many other mutineers. Extensive encouragements to write her own blog about many of the things she feels have been perpetrated upon her (or caused by a very innocent trip to the deeply mysterious sub-continent).

I've seen her insinuate things about close family members that I wouldn't even expect from my worst enemy. It's what you should expect.

Actually on the first episode of Grey's Anatomy, Sendhil Ramamurthy (From Heroes) was on there as one of the residents waging bets against George's appendectomy. It's too bad they couldn't bring him back for occasional episodes.

In general, men in India would never try doing that to a brown woman on the streets of India (the incident on NYE at India Gate being the exception = mob mentality).

BadIndianGirl - unfortunately, this is completely untrue. i read about one rape, at least, in the indian newspapers everyday. and i myself have been physically assaulted in india on more than one occasion - and i only go to india about once every two years. and yes, in looks, i am very brown-looking. i do agree that desi men's attitude towards non-desi women is different, but this has in no way saved any brown woman from her fair share of sexual derision or violation.

Seems like there's some whole PG-drama-fight going on here. I don't read these boards often enough to know what's up with this. Sorry.

But I'm writing to say, all this push to Indians into medicine (whether explicit or not by your parents & our community), is killing our culture. We are a group of medical & software robots. What happened to our art and music and writing? Its dwindling, especially here in America.

I suppose the recent popularity in Indian-themed books has sparked a bunch of 20-something chick authors. So I guess that's a plus, or maybe not? (I hope our art history isn't remembered for "How Opel Mehta..." or even just by Jhumpa Lahiri)

How come no one ever loves Anish Kapoor? Or Chitra Ramanathan?

In general, men in India would never try doing that to a brown woman on the streets of India

This is not true. There is an unconscionably large number of incidents of abuse of local women in India (not to imply that there is an acceptable threshold). What's worse is that a lot of it is tagged with the innocuous label of eveteasing. When what it is is straight-up sexual abuse.

(I hope this thread doesn't rathole into an analysis of the sociology of this behavior).

I am white and I dated and married a desi. I would say that I am reasonably attractive, 5 feet 7 and my husband is 5 foot 7 and no, he does not make 386,000$. In fact, I make more than him. He is the most warm, cuddly person I have ever met. The fact that I am a good 3 inches taller than him does not bother him in the least. Without taking too much credit, I can safely say that I have played a very significant role in his personal development and his integration into American society.

I could have married someone white and taller than me who made a million dollars a year but I did not. Studies such as this are too simplistic.

Runa -- that was NOT me who wrote the above.

I don't read every post on this site. When I travel (often, and for days on end at a time) I don't use a computer at all.

I'm on here when I return home.

no one knows what to believe as most of your stories seem made up, when you had the chance to meet the good folks of SM you backed out

While I agree with 99% of your post, I can certainly attest to trepidation at meeting a group of people who are clearly antagonistic towards you, even if that antagonism is justified. And I even know this is not completely rational as people who seem to follow your every step like some type of watchdog group would most probably not carry that into a room. but it exists anyway.

Wouldn't it really depend on whether he liked yoni munching or not? :)

PG, when I say "taught" I mean the things that we pick up from the subtle ways life is portrayed to us. Whether this is through media/TV, or from our interactions, or from political pundits, what we assume is normal is in fact all made up. That was my point. Also, I hear you on "cultural priorities/hierarchies" -- I don't think the two (racial/power hierarchies) are exclusive. Personally I think a lot of action happens at the intersections.

There's a statistical defense to the over-representation of white actors and actresses.

Firstly, at time of conception, the cast of one show is independent of the cast of another show.

Secondly, the regular cast of one show is a small integer - the consequence of this is that with 5 regular cast members, even if attempts were made to approximate the national demographic, representation below 20% of the nation translates into below 1 person of the 5-member cast, which truncates to 0 (floor, since ceil and round may require a 6th member). By itself, this rounding is innocuous, but since, as previously stated, shows are independently casted, then each show is rounding 0.999 to 0 even when, in aggregate, those 0.999 persons add up to many, many integer persons.

Thirdly, the distribution of ethnicities and race at the time the shows are deployed may be at parity with national figures, removing culpability from studios, and it may instead be that viewership is correlated with racially homogeneous cast, and through the business prudence of deleting lowly rated shows, television loses parity with national demographics when we focus on shows that survived past their premier or underwent intensive viewership studies to decide upon whether it even merits a premier.

The above defense only mitigates, but does not necessarily eliminate, statistically significant bias in casting. Any research into the severity of the bias needs to normalize for the above three business practices by (i) not aggregating statistics across shows since they are independently casted, (ii) rounding to the nearest whole persons, and (iii) separating the statistics for concept shows that may or may never have passed viewership studies from statistics for shows that clearly have high viewership.

For example, Indians constitute less than 5% under most distributions (save for employees of Silicon Valley software companies), so it's not unusual to see absolutely no Indian faces across 30 different shows with 5 cast members each. One show with 20 cast members, such as ER, would have an Indian because 5% of 20 is one integer person, and indeed we see one on ER.

Solutions?

If it turns out that no intentional bias exists but bias is instead an artifact of rounding, then rounding needs to be tackled. It's not practical to have shows coordinate with each other so that they, in aggregate, model the national demographic. Instead, I prefer how empirical sciences solves this problem. Empirical science had a huge problem with rounding 0.5 because, traditionally, 0.5 rounds up to 1. Likewise, 1.5 rounds up to 2, and so forth. Because empirical sciences are based on sigfigs, rounding to the correct sigfigs is essential, and this led to the problem that values had a 1/10 chance of being unaltered (ending with 0), 4/10 chance of being rounded down (ending with 1,2,3,4), and a 5/10 chance of being rounded up (ending with 5,6,7,8,9). This led to a net inflation in values. The solution was to round 0.5 based on something that is likely to be uncorrelated with it and have no bias - that is, round 0.5 based on whether the preceding figure was even or odd since there are 5 evens (0,2,4,6,8) and 5 odds (1,3,5,7,9) base-10, letting us round 0.5 up 50% of the time and round 0.5 down 50% of the time. A change in rounding practice for depicting America would help. The uncorrelated random variable that could facilitate unbiased rounding might be an SHA1 hash of the characters' names. Whenever a decision between 0.2 non-white and 0.8 white persons needs to be rounded into 1 integer person, the SHA1 hash mod 10 can be tested to see if it is (0,1) = non-white or (2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) = white. This would result in unbiased rounding.

If it turns out that bias beyond integer-artifacts exists, then it needs to be seen whether it's due to the studios (sample all concept shows), or due to viewership (sample surviving shows). If studios are culpable, then some sort of federally regulated measure or court mandated punitive judgment may result. If the viewership is culpable (not to the exclusion of the studios' culpability), then no real action can be taken short of affirmative action since networks will otherwise claim the right to maximize profits.

My 2.4999 cents.

The uncorrelated random variable that could facilitate unbiased rounding might be an SHA1 hash of the characters' names.

I can just imagine this conversation. "You see, Brad, we couldn't cast Ricky because the bit sequence was 0001110011110."

Great post!

The extra-white 'reality' that is portrayed in movies/sitcoms/comedies is what makes most of us back in the Des think that this is what America is about... imagine our surprise when we DBDs land here and see tons of Desis, Hispanics, Chinese, and so on... it's a bitter sweet experience really. Bitter - because you realize that a stereotype(negative most of the times) of your race has already been made by people who got here before you and it will take you time to fight it. Sweet - because diversity is always good.

For whatever this comment is worth, I'd just like to say that I'm *really* happy that there seems to be a rising trend of 'at least one desi per show' happening - Kelly Kapoor in the Office, Suresh from Heroes, and so on... I know it is not much representation, but we are definitely getting there. I'm also happy that most of these characters aren't your stereotypical desis with bad accents, etc ( except Sayeed from LOST, but he's playing an Iraqi there ) . Kelly in the Office is as American as everyone else .. and Dr.Suresh from Heroes has a very respectable role as well.

Compare this to roles Hispanics are getting - they are portrayed in most movies/sitcoms as maids ( Crash, Babel ). The Chinese and Indian representation in movie roles seems to be getting pretty good these days ... and that in my opinion is something to be happy about.

i also get a kick out of the fact that kelly kapoor knows very little about her culture, and that the show implies that this is not such a great thing - e.g. the diwali episode.

ha ha , its funny that Dwight Shrute knows the whole mythology behind Diwali and is eager to explain it when Michael cuts him short :) . The Office = best comedy ever !

I like the fact that they don't particularly make Kelly stick out because of her ethnicity... she fits in flawlessly, and now if you were to describe her you'd probably say 'that talkative, celebrity-gossip hungry lady on the Office', rather than 'the Indian'...

Even in the 'Beer Fest' movie, the desi guy has got such an AWESOME role ! :D

I think this is why I've felt of all the medical shows to be pumped out to TV, Nip/Tuck was probably the realistic, despite plot-holes, blatantly bad writing, silly serial killers, sillier clients, Rosie O'Donnell, etc. Because the others were dancing around the notion of South Asian doctors in a hospital setting like it was some kind of taboo, when they were just too lazy to do the casting. If you're going to be soapy and over-the-top and unrealistic, at least don't insult your audience.

The desi guy in Beerfest wrote and directed the movie, as well as Club Dredd and Super Troopers. That's why his role is so good. His name is Jay Chandrasekhar

I am surprised no one has mentioned Sir Ben Kingsley or M. Night Shyamalan, both Indians who have managed to have a consistent presence. As for the Indian doctor thing, I can't believe that anyone thinks that is a negative. Do I detect a few people that failed orgo?

In all seriousness, Physicians provide a valuable service to the country. You can't even begin to compare their contribution to a lawyer or I banker. They save lives, people, and sacrifice most of their youth in order to do so. They deserve every cent.

Also I haven't read all the comments, but I know Sanjay Gupta personally from the time he spent in our town as a practicing Neurosurgeon, and you'd be hardpressed to find a more genuine, likeable or talented person than himself. He's a neurosurgeon, brilliant and was writing for the WSJ while still in med school. Rather than taking pot shots, he should be held up as the role model he is; it was a conversation I had with him that first opened me to the possibility of being a writer, something he encouraged even as he admitted he wished he had pursued his own writing further. Luckily for him, he was hired by CNN less than a year after.

But since it is the professional, upper class Indians you guys are disparaging, I am responding on their behalf, of which I am a part.

here come the cavalry!

Gautam,

Good post.

I would appreciate it if you could provide any tips or direct me to a blog that's useful for budding/aspiring writers. I prefer "real world" advice - there's plenty of stuff out there giving false hopes and promises.

M. Nam

You can't even begin to compare their contribution to a lawyer, engineer or I banker

Ok, this is where I part ways with the "doctors do a wonderful service to the community" crowd. I have no disagreement with the idea that doctors provide a valuable and even noble service. But why discount the equally valuable services provided by lawyers and engineers? For what it's worth, lawyers do save lives, and not just if for the criminal defendant. Toxic/mass tort suit saves lives, at least indirectly. The drug-eluting stent a surgeon puts in to a patient was probably developed and designed by an engineer.

So while I agree that a physician's services shouldn't be discounted, I don't particularly think their services should be put so far above the services provided by other professionals who work just as hard.

@364, the lawyer hema :).

In all seriousness, Physicians provide a valuable service to the country. You can't even begin to compare their contribution to a lawyer, engineer or I banker. They save lives, people, and sacrifice most of their youth in order to do so. They deserve every cent.

And these desi's choose the medical profession for these very noble reasons you speak of, right? If anything I think the medical profession has actually declined, though not necessarily the doctors fault, but the HMOs and pharma companies companies have simply made it impossible to treat people on an individual basis. Each doctor, it seems follows some rote "if then" logic like "if between 25 and 30 then prescribe antibiotic oxygloburlin" I'm sure Michael Moore's SICKo will shed more light on this.

By the way. Without engineers to develop TCP/IP, you and I wouldn't be having this discussion right now.

In all seriousness, Physicians provide a valuable service to the country. You can't even begin to compare their contribution to a lawyer, engineer or I banker. They save lives, people, and sacrifice most of their youth in order to do so. They deserve every cent.

And these desi's choose the medical profession for these very noble reasons you speak of, right?

I think the above is an important point.

To me, my "family" doctors (a couple who lived at the end of the street) back home in India, who still treat patients asking them to pay "as much as they can afford" are noble. They have this weird religious thing (starts with Tirupathi and I never really got the rest of the story) which makes them do that. But I really like that couple, I will call them noble. They are not alone, there are many like them---but none of them call themselves "noble".

I also like doctors who see patients as puzzles to be solved---they like the job if not the people. I understand that and I always appreciate people who like what they do. They are the ones I trust the most. For their ego (not exactly ego, but those of you who are in jobs not because it pays the bills will get it), they will try their best.

The ones I can't stand are the ones who think themselves noble---more often than not they are mediocre and mercenaries trying to convince themselves otherwise. Usually plastic surgeons as well. The truly noble, or the ones who like what they do and are good at it don't speak of nobility.

Folks, every little job (and sperm) is precious. I-bankers need to make a lot of money so they can afford good doctors. And if you didn't have engineers to build ambulances, what would lawyers chase?

Ok, this is where I part ways with the "doctors do a wonderful service to the community" crowd. I have no disagreement with the idea that doctors provide a valuable and even noble service. But why discount the equally valuable services provided by lawyers and engineers? For what it's worth, lawyers do save lives, and not just if for the criminal defendant. Toxic/mass tort suit saves lives, at least indirectly. The drug-eluting stent a surgeon puts in to a patient was probably developed and designed by an engineer.

Just for the record, I agree with Hema. But it was so nice to finally read something good about doctors on this site I disregarded that part.

moornam, i don't know about writing blogging fora in general, but there are a few publications that are open to submissions from fledgling writers. i have a friend who submitted quite a good amount of articles on slate, aurora review, switchback, and somalit, as well as to local newspapers. for a desi journal, desilit also accepts submissions.

My implication was that Doctors deserved their compensation,

in a way that perhaps corporate lawyers and I bankers do not.

I haven't read the entire comment thread, but I would like to comment on the clannish nature that seems to dominate the medical profession. Specifically, I would like to expand on the comparison between docs and academics. I've had the chance to experience the training for both.....a PhD + postdoc and then I went to medical school. The training for a prof these days can be longer than the training for a post residency doc, but there is a difference in the character of that training. When I was in grad school and in my post doc, I was all on my own. I had my projects and I did my best to get some hot results and become famous in my chosen field (with some success). In the medical community, there is a common goal (to some extent).....let's get this guy better, or at least off my service. More important than that is the way the people involved are organized. There is a very strong motivation to look out for the people on your team....as a med student I did my best to cover as many asses as I could (first priority given to other med students). What I mean by covering asses is catching mistakes, backing up the people I cared about (first patitnts, second med students). This team environment is one of the aspects of medicine that I love...and prolly leads to the clannish (or TEAM!!!!!!!) nature of docs.

My 2 cents

btw, I prolly won't visit again. If you would like to comment, pls email.

I was not arguing that his statistics were not correct, but that they had been subtly manipulated to provide more "shock value." My full quote reads: Just because he thinks women are more empowered or that people are better fed/nourished in sub-Saharan Africa doesn't make it fact. I think his analyses are interesting and generally spot on, but sometimes I think he overgeneralizes to get in a little "shock factor." [emphasis mine]>

How does the rest of your quote change the fact that you were questioning his statement that "people are better fed/nourished in sub-Saharan Africa" which he based on reliable figures that he quoted?

And how the heck does your personal experience in Africa change the data that shows that there is significantly more hunger and malnourishment in India? Thats the usual desi irrational reasoning in which anecdotes trump statistics. There are parts of India that do better than others: the northeastern states and Kerala have significantly lower malnutrition rates than Gujarat and Maharashtra for example. The generalized point remains: India as a whole does worse than subsaharan Africa in feeding its children.

I must have completely imagined the sociopolitical hierarchy of the regions I worked in as well. Oh, silly me -- because Amartya Sen has said it is worse in India, it must not be bad anywhere else. The last sentence was sarcasm, by the way. Would hate to have someone think I was "implying" anything different from that.

You cant seem to think rationally. Sen does not say that things arent bad in Africa or denies that it has occasional cases of famines etc in some regions. But when it comes to endemic hunger India's record is far worse. Even within the subcontinent only Bangladesh compares to India's abysmal record. Yet you keep callously insisting that the poor in India arent any worse off than the poor in China!

Also, with respect to Chicago, there is little to no empirical evidence (government-wise) of how many desis were employed in "non professional" fields in 1970 because they weren't tracked. I checked.

That does not stop you from claiming that every desi in Chicago was a doctor or engineer. You have no evidence for claiming that.

Prema, what's your deal? Did your desi husband leave you for a white chick or something? Why do you hate your own race so much?