KABC will definitely be hearing from me.

Still, there's a secondary point. I think you can be brown, or Sikh, and support a variety of political perspectives.

But I have to wonder how Navraj Singh is able to accommodate his party membership with the fact that others of the same party are the ones who clearly support and agree with Rantel. This rhetoric is coming from one side only, and that side is sending people like Navraj Singh a very clear message - we think you're inferior. How does one stay a member of a party or movement whose members have no problem demeaning you?

It's not like Rantel is the only one, or like this is the first time. Xenophobia is the bread and butter of right wing figures, and anti-brown xenophobia regularly comes from very high places in the party. How does one live with that? How much does it take?

Ah, this is nothing new for Al Rantel, as he is a bigot to the extreme, along with just about anyone else on AM "Hate Radio" in the Los Angeles/Southern California area.

You can contact the station, but in my experience, they won't give a damn. They know who there demographic audience is, and what that audience wants to hear, i.e white middle-class republican males(and an growing number of said females) between the ages of 35 and 60. South Asian Americans just don't fit into their viewer concern.

I will contact them also, but I expect little positive response on their part.

I once heard a Iranian-American call into AM 760 on a Sunday afternoon, I believe on the "Tammy Bruce" show. The conversation was about religion, and namely Islam. This Iranian-American fellow explained that his Mother is a Persian Jew, and his Father a Persian Shia Moslem. He explained that he chose Islam as he personal religious identity for various reasons, though he respected his Mother's background very much.

He was summarily accused of choosing "TERRORISM" by the host of the show...Go figure.

ignorant bloody Americans : p. Rantel is a battyboi wanker : )

Ann Coulter loves talking about ragheads and that is usually cheered wildly by hard core young conservatives.

Al_Chutiya_for_Debauchery Wrote:

"Ann Coulter loves talking about ragheads and that is usually cheered wildly by hard core young conservatives."

Very true.

I actually have had people try and tell me that the term "raghead" is not even a disparaging remark.

The logic behind that just alludes me.

Let me put it another way - who pays for Rantel? Rantel's bigotry makes him money. It makes him money because his listeners like it or tolerate it. Who are his listeners? Xenophobic republicans and non-xenophobic republicans who tolerate bigotry.

Multiply that across the range of talk show hosts, and that tells you something about xenophobia and the party base.

But I have to wonder how Navraj Singh is able to accommodate his party membership with the fact that others of the same party are the ones who clearly support and agree with Rantel. This rhetoric is coming from one side only, and that side is sending people like Navraj Singh a very clear message - we think you're inferior. How does one stay a member of a party or movement whose members have no problem demeaning you?

Republican Party is becoming scary. The xenophobia is out of control. Muslims and Mexicans and anybody who can be confused for them of course being top enemies. Here is a scary report of a National Review cruise.

Ennis and Al Chutiya for Debauchery...You two just hit the nail on the head.

Its what the listeners WANT to hear.

Its just that simple.

Let me put it another way - who pays for Rantel? Rantel's bigotry makes him money. It makes him money because his listeners like it or tolerate it. Who are his listeners? Xenophobic republicans and non-xenophobic republicans who tolerate bigotry.

You forgot a step: It makes him money because his advertisers see that the listeners will tolerate it. If there's enough of a public outcry, if there's talk of boycotts, those advertisers will get worried, and that's when the radio station will start pressuring Rantel. That's what happened with the Don Imus "nappy-headed ho" incident.

Multiply that across the range of talk show hosts, and that tells you something about xenophobia and the party base.

Excellent point. Why are talk show hosts like Medved and Michael Savage so popular?

Sarah Wrote:

"You forgot a step: It makes him money because his advertisers see that the listeners will tolerate it. If there's enough of a public outcry, if there's talk of boycotts, those advertisers will get worried, and that's when the radio station will start pressuring Rantel. That's what happened with the Don Imus "nappy-headed ho" incident."

In theory, I agree with you.

In reality though, I think the Don Imus situation in relation to African-Americans and the situation of South Asians, Middle Easterners, Asians in general, Muslims, Sikhs, Mexicans, etc, is very different.

It is fashionable to hate those demographics right now, for various reasons. There is no "white guilt" in relation to those groups. They are not seen as American by many, and the consequences of hating them not only lack negative blow back, but are even encouraged in the media to a large extent.

Showing hatred towards black Americans has consequences, while showing hatred the brown Americans has reward.

Rantel the ignorant (I shall bestow this title upon him, yes), is gay and the grandson of Italian immigrants. I know that the latter detail is irrelevant, because this country is fine with Europeans choosing to settle here

a minor point, but the immigration act of 1924 discriminated against southern and eastern europeans. and to a great extent that was the intent of those passing the legislation, who wanted to maintain the northwest european ("nordic") character of the united states.

Isn't this classic? Use one minority to hate on another? That way its easy to play the "See, we support diversity, how can we be bad?" card. Rantel seems like the lowest form of mercenary.

what i don't understand about these people using the term"raghead" to denigrate sikhs/muslims: wouldn't all those biblical people be "ragheads"? isn't that how they dressed? are they assuming that if jesus appeared today he would come back in a three-piece suit and tie?

It is fashionable to hate those demographics right now, for various reasons. There is no "white guilt" in relation to those groups. They are not seen as American by many, and the consequences of hating them not only lack negative blow back, but are even encouraged in the media to a large extent.

Showing hatred towards black Americans has consequences, while showing hatred the brown Americans has reward.

That's a really good point. Sickening, but true. I guess the question, then, is how to make it so that hatred toward brown Americans also has consequences. The Day Without An Immigrant protest was a start... multiply that by a major civil rights movement and then, maybe.

I was thinking today about the processes by which immigrant groups become accepted. I was waking up this morning, and through my bedroom window I heard a guy in the street talking about the drug culture in South Philly. He said, "Those Italians are no more than n**gers turned inside out." It was shocking not only for its racism and total lack of logic, but also because who hears anti-Italian racism these days? Italians weren't considered white 75 years ago, and my husband's older relatives have some hair-raising stories about the racism they faced back then. But now Italians are white Americans who can turn around and hate Mexicans and Indians and Iranians without a second thought, and the comment I heard is just anachronistic. I mean, sure, there are complaints about the Sopranos, but compared to the Jena Six or the consistent profiling of Muslims and Sikhs... come on. How does that happen? In another 50 years, will Indians be accepted as Americans and be busy hating on the next wave of immigrants?

Rantel is a jerk, but Ennis--the left has some pretty distasteful characters too.
E.g., the Obama staffer who called Hillary "(D-Punjab)".

In another 50 years, will Indians be accepted as Americans and be busy hating on the next wave of immigrants?

they're human, aren't they?

How does one stay a member of a party or movement whose members have no problem demeaning you?

the world isn't black & white. people have various priorities and various reasons to vote the way they do. we can't go inside the minds of individuals and know the exact details of their circumstances. we can look at groups and wonder why they vote the way they do because the numbers should even out random fluctuations. you look at one super wealthy person and wonder why they vote for the green party...well, i think the operative assumption is that though they have money, that isn't everything. on the other hand, why do jews vote democratic despite their affluence? that's a real question, and there have been various answers to it.

this is like the whole "self hate" question. is it really self hate, or do you simply not understand the totality of the values, motives and interests of a particular person?

Rantel is a jerk, but Ennis--the left has some pretty distasteful characters too. E.g., the Obama staffer who called Hillary "(D-Punjab)".

That's messed up, no doubt, but the right wing actually bases its ideology on this stuff.

Unfortunately, in its attempts to show how 'tough on terrorism' it is, the Democratic party buys into the racist right's rhetoric WAY too often. I don't really even consider the Democrats to be 'the left', personally.

but the right wing actually bases its ideology on this stuff.

are you right wing? is that why you know the basis of right wing ideology? or are you a right wingologist?

i can grant that the american right is gifted with more nativism and racism than the american left. but that doesn't mean essential assertions which reduce a whole political orientation toward one tendency really push the discussion forward.

Whose God is it anyways? Wrote:

- "what i don't understand about these people using the term"raghead" to denigrate sikhs/muslims: wouldn't all those biblical people be "ragheads"? isn't that how they dressed? are they assuming that if jesus appeared today he would come back in a three-piece suit and tie?"

You make an excellent point. I think that most Americans see Jesus Christ, and the majority of those characters and various peoples in the Bible, as ancient incarnations of their modern day selves. This should not be surprising, when one factors in the realization that Christianity has been the religious "cornerstone" of Western civilization, for better or for worse, and that America is regularly viewed and self-labeled as a "Judeo-Christian" society. Add in the fact that people are inherently tribal, selfish, and ethnocentric...

In other words, the term "raghead" or "diaper-head" is a means of labeling the "other", while ironically the religious backbone of American society, which originated in the lands and peoples of that notion of the "other", is conveniently seen as a separate entity with a separate origin.

I would love to hear everyone's input into this matter.

E.g., the Obama staffer who called Hillary "(D-Punjab)".

this is true, but contemporary lefties tend to use racism in a situational/instrumental manner, it is a means toward an end. e.g., consistently referring to bobby jindal as pyush jindal, the democrats know what they're doing and to what element they're appealing. that being said, it's all in the name of the cause. to use a biological distinction most lefty racism in the USA on the political level is proximate, while some righty racism is ultimate (that is, it is embedded in the set of values).

p.s. implicit psychological tests do confirm that conservatives tend to be more racist than liberals. but i said tend, liberals aren't immune from the problem so let's take a step back from the black and white generalizations.

I would love to hear everyone's input into this matter.

i know of people who have turned this around on people. implicitly people turn their gods into projections of themselves, but most american christians know as a matter of fact that jesus was a jew from the middle east. i had a lebanese american friend who was often called "sand n*gger", and she would respond to some of her taunters "like jesus." that usually shut them up because the more religiously devout ones pulled back and looked really confused often.

are you right wing? is that why you know the basis of right wing ideology? or are you a right wingologist?

i can grant that the american right is gifted with more nativism and racism than the american left. but that doesn't mean essential assertions which reduce a whole political orientation toward one tendency really push the discussion forward.

LOL, Razib, I'm certainly not right wing but I've been fighting them long enough that I might be a right wingologist.

I should clarify my statement; that came off as much more general than it was intended. I'm not saying that all right-wingers are racists. They're not. And there's no one basis to right-wing ideology any more than there is to left-wing ideology. But the ideological Republicans (as opposed to the more libertarian-leaning, economics-first Republicans), particularly the Christian right, use racism freely. The Willie Horton incident is a famous example; more recently, the locus of that racism has shifted toward demonizing Arabs and Muslims (while leaving African Americans to die on rooftops in New Orleans). The talk-radio right, the ones who freely compare Sikhs' turbans to diapers and demean black female athletes, are ideological warriors for the Republican party, and the ideology they spout is racist to the core.

I'm aware that there are plenty of conservatives who are into right-wing economic theories, etc., who view talk-radio Republicanism as a cheapening of their philosoph; some of them are people of color, certainly.

So it's ok for people here to sterotype everybody on the right, yet they start crying when they get sterotyped. It kind of funny if you think about it.

Xenophobic republicans and non-xenophobic republicans who tolerate bigotry.

even the very populist dems are pretty xenophobic in their ideas (especially when it comes to outsourcing). probably not racist in the same sense the republican base is, but some of the blue-dogs are no paragons either.

@Sarah:

- "That's a really good point. Sickening, but true. I guess the question, then, is how to make it so that hatred toward brown Americans also has consequences. The Day Without An Immigrant protest was a start... multiply that by a major civil rights movement and then, maybe."

Hey, if you got any ideas, I'm all ears!

- "I was thinking today about the processes by which immigrant groups become accepted. I was waking up this morning, and through my bedroom window I heard a guy in the street talking about the drug culture in South Philly. He said, "Those Italians are no more than n**gers turned inside out." It was shocking not only for its racism and total lack of logic, but also because who hears anti-Italian racism these days? Italians weren't considered white 75 years ago, and my husband's older relatives have some hair-raising stories about the racism they faced back then. But now Italians are white Americans who can turn around and hate Mexicans and Indians and Iranians without a second thought, and the comment I heard is just anachronistic. I mean, sure, there are complaints about the Sopranos, but compared to the Jena Six or the consistent profiling of Muslims and Sikhs... come on. How does that happen? In another 50 years, will Indians be accepted as Americans and be busy hating on the next wave of immigrants?"

You raise some interesting points here, especially how as time changes, the notion of what "whiteness" really is changes as well. Who knows what time will bring? If I had to guess, Indians will assimilate very quickly into this society within a generation or two, and their decedents will be no different than groups before them, through intermarriage and culture assimilation.

I grew up around a lot of Italians, and saw exactly what you were talking about. They were adamant about their classification of "whiteness" in the modern sense of the term in America, regardless of how proud they were of being "Italian", or how "ethnic" or "swarthy" mainstream "white" America may have viewed. Hell, I know plenty of Greeks, Arabs, Iranians and Armenians that follow this pattern as well.

Any thoughts on this? I am actually very curious as to how some South Asian Americans view the notion and consequences of assimilation into the America fold.

Not all Republicans hate browns or Muslims. The surreal love-fest starts around the 5-minute mark. I guess it depends on a person's status, $$, and how much one can donate to the party coffers. :)

It's not like Rantel is the only one, or like this is the first time. Xenophobia is the bread and butter of right wing figures,

Singh describes himself as a semi-regular listener to the show, and says he himself is a conservative Republican.

And this is why these people are amongst the most misguided and confused people around, here they are trotting along thinking their conservative white brethren are with them lock stock and barrel and would do them no wrong, yet at some point mr white conservative reminds mr. non white conservative that he's different, and unwelcome no matter how hard he tows the line.

While conservatism has many flavors, one cannot completely align themselves with them, without themselves possessing a modicum of self hatred.

even the very populist dems are pretty xenophobic in their ideas (especially when it comes to outsourcing). probably not racist in the same sense the republican base is, but some of the blue-dogs are no paragons either.

this is an interesting point re: outsourcing. some people here on SM were concerned in 2004 when john kerry started banging the drums about benedict arnold CEOs. what if in 2008 the democrats swing toward economic populism and favor throwing up trade barriers with india? how much economic damage and suffering would it cause? what is the "right" thing to do for a brown person?

that depends on what your values are as a brown person. i didn't really care that the democrats were going populist on trade because it was a brown issue, i cared because i think free trade makes us all more prosperous. that being said, i voted for kerry for other reasons because trade isn't THAT important to me. if on the other hand i had many cousins employed in IT in bangalore perhaps it would make a difference. that being said, what if a republican victory is bad for you as a brown person in the USA but good for brown people in india because of the trade implications? well, your values determine how the utilitarian calculation plays out, and no one should assume that they know the details of another individual's weighted parameters.

p.s. implicit psychological tests do confirm that conservatives tend to be more racist than liberals. but i said tend, liberals aren't immune from the problem so let's take a step back from the black and white generalizations.

100% agreed. ...no one else has met racist (either overtly or subtly) liberals? i mean, i live in new york city and racism definitely is not extinct here, no matter how much rich white 'progressive' residents of park slope want to convince themselves that they're so multicultural and accepting, blah blah bullshit.

So it's ok for people here to sterotype everybody on the right, yet they start crying when they get sterotyped. It kind of funny if you think about it.

Why is it a stereotype to point out that major figures on the right regularly make these sorts of remarks in a gratuitous way, and they're never called out for it by other right wing folks, and they never apologize. Look at my comments, I review the evidence pretty clearly.

Hell, I know plenty of Greeks, Arabs, Iranians and Armenians that follow this pattern as well.

muslim immigrants to south asia from west asia perceived themselves as white as compared to the native blacks, so some perception of whiteness predates immigration. and the fact is that armenians, arabs and iranians can often "pass" pretty easily. if you changed the names of most american lebanese to those of italians most people wouldn't be able to tell (which explains why tony shaloub has played so many italians in his film career). additionally, people from the middle east are classified as white on the census.

whiteness on the margins is often contextual. if someone has a spanish last name they're not white, but if you switched it to a french or italian one they'd be white. and within their own communities many latinos do make color distinctions between white and non-white, even if they play the game of being colored for anglo consumption (many white cubans are quite racist against non-white cubans in my experience). and of course, 1/2 of american hispanics still put their race as white on the census.

and they're never called out for it by other right wing folks

that's false. grover norquist, who is a major right-wing power broker, has married to a palestinian american muslim, and he's gotten a lot of crap for being "pro-muslim." the general trend is true, but can we chill on unqualified assertion like "never."

razib, i wasn't upset about the outsourcing debate because it was an issue that affected indians in india. i found it distasteful because free trade is the right thing to do in the long term, the protectionist position is morally inconsistent given how much the u.s. has benefited from open markets in a large part of the world, and because a lot of the rhetoric involved pandering to xenophobic tendencies.

independent of this issue, there was very little kerry could have done to make himself less attractive as a candidate to me than bush (unfortunately, that wasn't what a relevant majority of the u.s. felt). i was just making my point in the context of some of the earlier comments.

as for all the victory beat about imus, well, he might have sat out his time in the penalty box, but looks like he will be back soon in some way, shape, or form. bigotry sells. be it in the explicit form that rantel and his cohorts push it, or the soft-focus euphemisms of fox.

razib, i wasn't upset about the outsourcing debate because it was an issue that affected indians in india.

i wasn't pointing to you specifically. but i do recall debates here on SM where on occasion american brown IT workers worried about their jobs got into it with other american brown folk who couched their support for trade specifically in "but is it good for india?" terms. i don't think either camp was "self hating" or working "against their interests." the interests and values just differed.

LOL Anna I just noticed the picture. so cute! whose baby?

and they're never called out for it by other right wing folks

that's false. grover norquist, who is a major right-wing power broker, has married to a palestinian american muslim, and he's gotten a lot of crap for being "pro-muslim." the general trend is true, but can we chill on unqualified assertion like "never."

Coulter is a popular figure, one recognizable to all conservatives. OTOH, I doubt more than 1/20 local republicans could recognize Norquist. He operates at a different level. Still, if I grant your point, I've still never seen him call out Coulter or any other bigot in the party. I keep an eye out for such statements, and I haven't noticed them.

Obama quickly disavowed the D-Punjab crack. I've never heard any right wing figure back away from even a similarly mild statement.

@ Razib:

"i know of people who have turned this around on people. implicitly people turn their gods into projections of themselves, but most american christians know as a matter of fact that jesus was a jew from the middle east. i had a lebanese american friend who was often called "sand n*gger", and she would respond to some of her taunters "like jesus." that usually shut them up because the more religiously devout ones pulled back and looked really confused often."

OH MAN!!! THAT IS A DAMN GOOD COMEBACK!

All I have to say is...You mean like Jesus? It is so simple and to the point. I think I'm going to use that next time I find myself in that situation. It is especially fun, because I bet you get to see "religious types" cringe in shock.

If you or your friend don't mind me stealing that tactic, of course.

P.S...I once played a trick on a bigoted co-worker who insisted on hanging up Evangelical "born again" Christian stuff all over the company bulletin board. It really gave me indigestion having to look at all this prayer stuff everyday. She also HATED anything Arabic/Islamic, which was one and the same to her(An Arab who is not a Muslim, how is that possible???). So, I simply went on-line and printed out the name of Jesus in Arabic(Yeshua), and I even pulled it off of an Arabic Christian website. I posted it on that same bulletin board the next say, and she sure enough tore it down upon seeing it. After which, I naturally told her what it translated into...The look on her face was one of denial and disbelief. :)

Still, if I grant your point, I've still never seen him call out Coulter or any other bigot in the party. I keep an eye out for such statements, and I haven't noticed them.

norquist called in cautioned against the "racism" implicit against the anti-immigrant sentiment in the republican party many a time during the recent debates about immigration reform (he used the precedent of anti-catholicism during the early 20th century and how it lost republicans the white ethnics for 2 generations for make a utilitarian case). in any case, even if coulter is more well known than norquist you must have friends on DC and know that he has orders of magnitude more policy MoJo than coulter. he's not a minor player, he is a major one.

Still, if I grant your point, I've still never seen him call out Coulter or any other bigot in the party. I keep an eye out for such statements, and I haven't noticed them.

norquist called in cautioned against the "racism" implicit against the anti-immigrant sentiment in the republican party many a time during the recent debates about immigration reform (he used the precedent of anti-catholicism during the early 20th century and how it lost republicans the white ethnics for 2 generations for make a utilitarian case). in any case, even if coulter is more well known than norquist you must have friends on DC and know that he has orders of magnitude more policy MoJo than coulter. he's not a minor player, he is a major one.

Coulter has repeatedly made extremely bigoted statements and the best he's done is to "caution"? Heck, Rove has done that much about anti-Latino statements.

The fact that Coulter is a popular figure is important because her remarks show you what the rank and file can tolerate. Norquist's attitudes don't do the same thing, because he doesn't have to maintain a broad base. As a matter of fact, he is reviled by some parts of the base precisely because he is seen as a lackey for "Islamofascism". So he's good evidence of widespread bigotry in the base, and his own tepid reactions to this bigotry do not reject the null that nobody is standing up to the racist element in the republican party.

When you've got a loud racist chunk and no open opposition, that's a recipe for bad things.

@Razib:

- "muslim immigrants to south asia from west asia perceived themselves as white as compared to the native blacks, so some perception of whiteness predates immigration."

That is interesting, as I was not aware of that, but it certain does give a historical context to the notion of "whiteness".

- "and the fact is that armenians, arabs and iranians can often "pass" pretty easily. if you changed the names of most american lebanese to those of italians most people wouldn't be able to tell (which explains why tony shaloub has played so many italians in his film career). additionally, people from the middle east are classified as white on the census."

You also raise two very good points here. Most Americans in fact in the post 9/11 madness, did not really know how or where to find "Middle Easterners" in the U.S, especially if they had no special form of clothing to identify themselves, and they usually did not. Hence, and in part thanks to Hollywood's take on characteristically Arabic/Middle Eastern looks(i.e rather brown), South Asians became the favored targets.

(In my own personal case, my family on my Mother's side really got the "Brown/Asiatic" end of the stick, and as a result, most Americans seem to think they are Hispanic/Mexican. It is rather amusing to see people try an speak Spanish to them.)

- "whiteness on the margins is often contextual. if someone has a spanish last name they're not white, but if you switched it to a french or italian one they'd be white. and within their own communities many latinos do make color distinctions between white and non-white, even if they play the game of being colored for anglo consumption (many white cubans are quite racist against non-white cubans in my experience). and of course, 1/2 of american hispanics still put their race as white on the census."

Good example about the Spanish surname and its relation to being suddenly non-white, and how many Hispanics classify themselves on census returns. How ironic that a name can suddenly denote race, without any other factor or pretext taken into account in the American social landscape. Doubly ironic when one contrasts the notion of "whiteness" in Latin American countries, where many modern day immigrants are originating from.

Logic seems to play little with these various social constructs.

Logic seems to play little with these various social constructs.

the social constructs map onto, and are bounded by, empirical realities. there is non-trivial phenotypic overlap between southern, eastern and marginalized europeans (irish is what i'm thinking here) and the "core" white northwest euro stock. there are italians and jews who can "pass" by changing their name. in contrast, can you imagine the typical south asian "americanizing" their name and playing the white? 99% of the time it is not physically possible (there are a small minority of scythians who can pass as dark europeans). if south asians remain a distinct race and maintain a model minority SES profile then they'll become like japanese or chinese, who have a presence over 150 years in large numbers in the USA but remain non-white. in contrast, arab americans can pass, and have done so. most people don't know that ralph nader is arab american (he is even rather swarthy for a lebanese in my experience). or that the actress marlow thomas is arab american, or that the singer tiffany is of part-arab origin. the salient distinction of arab amerians is when they are muslim and dress differently. but to paraphrase, shave an arab american and put them on a suit and they wouldn't stand out that much from jo-schmo (this is biased by the levantine skew in arab americans, as they are "whiter" than gulf arabs or egyptians on average).

So he's good evidence of widespread bigotry in the base, and his own tepid reactions to this bigotry do not reject the null that nobody is standing up to the racist element in the republican party.

what about the president of the united states? he accused them of being racist at one point if they opposed his immigration legislation!

Coulter has repeatedly made extremely bigoted statements and the best he's done is to "caution"? Heck, Rove has done that much about anti-Latino statements. The fact that Coulter is a popular figure

I've seen it written that she was once engaged to Dinesh D'Souza, clearly she became unhinged when the supply of Ibero-Lemurian love ran dry. She needs to get a membership on one of those Indian matrimony sites

I think bringing up Grover Norquist doesnt really prove anything. I would in fact suggest that Grover is in fact an example of whats wrong with the Republicans as evidenced by their attacks on him for being married to a NOMINALLY Muslim Palestinian woman. Its common knowledge in DC that his wife is not particularly religious.

No one is suggesting that there are no non-racist Republicans. The point I was making (and I believe Ennis was as well) is that the reason right wing talk radio peddles in xenophobia and bigotry is because there is a large segment of the talk radio listening Republican population which agrees with the xenophobia and bigotry. That point has not been refuted on here yet.

The fact that the President is accusing his amnesty opponents of racism is more evidence of the racism in the Republican base.

acd, of course there is more racism in the republican base than in the democratic one, i've admitted that. this is what i object to in ennis' comments:
But I have to wonder how Navraj Singh is able to accommodate his party membership with the fact that others of the same party are the ones who clearly support and agree with Rantel. This rhetoric is coming from one side only, and that side is sending people like Navraj Singh a very clear message - we think you're inferior. How does one stay a member of a party or movement whose members have no problem demeaning you?

it would be strange if most indian americans were republicans. as a point of fact that isn't the case. but what's the point of asking why navraj singh is still a republican? he's probably not a dumb guy, so he knows how most republicans, or at least the social conservative segment, feel about toward heathens such as he. so what? how do you know he doesn't have other concerns? i pointed out earlier on another post that some shia in north india (in UP) have supposedly aligned locally with the BJP against congress because the sunnis dominate that party and there is local rivalry and identity politics at stake. how could a muslim align with the BJP? you know very well what most BJP supporters think of muslims! is it strange that navraj singh is a conservative republican despite the normative bigotry that is not unacceptable in that camp? perhaps not so strange if you asked him his rational, it isn't like democrats are the only ones who have the ability to think straight based on their axioms and make inferences modulated by the weights they assign to each of their values.

we keep bitching about the ignorance of Americans about sikh/iraq, turban/diaper, swastika/hindu-swastika etc etc.
why dont we all try to educate the people around us instead of grouping among ourselves and having a bitch fest ?
How about take a folding chair/table down to the closest commercial street in your neighborhood on saturday morning and having a sign saying "if you want to know about India, ask here"
or something catchy/clear.
I'm sure people will appreciate it and come ask questions and have discussions. It really helps.
Maybe we will learn a thing or two ourselves.

Because this isn't about ignorance, it's about bigotry and bigots have no interest in learning.

Sarah, you said: Italians weren't considered white 75 years ago, and my husband's older relatives have some hair-raising stories about the racism they faced back then. But now Italians are white Americans who can turn around and hate Mexicans and Indians and Iranians without a second thought, and the comment I heard is just anachronistic. I mean, sure, there are complaints about the Sopranos, but compared to the Jena Six or the consistent profiling of Muslims and Sikhs... come on. How does that happen? In another 50 years, will Indians be accepted as Americans and be busy hating on the next wave of immigrants?
All except African Americans, though! They've been in North America for hundreds of years, and yet they are always the lowest part of any racial hierarchy. Once you've been black, you just never come back...

Louiecypher, I heard from someone who talked to Laura Ingraham in a D.C. resteraunt recently and in that conversation, Ingraham apparently said that she used to date Dinesh D'Souza in college. Are you sure you haven't confused her with Coulter? If not, that boy gets around.

but what's the point of asking why navraj singh is still a republican?

because it's a legitamite question.

how do you know he doesn't have other concerns?

I'm sure he does, but when this issue arises (and it seems to arise, all too often, but not exclusively in the conservative camp) it makes for a very conflicted internal position. It's the way the statement in the original post was put, "he was a conservative republican" that is an unqualified statement, he didn't say, "he's a social conservative, or he's against abortion" or something more qualified than that. And it's not a matter of simply 'being racist' its a matter of these racists comments being self-policed by their own group, and that clearly isn't going on in the republican conservative camp. To call yourself a "conservative republican" in an unqualified way is to say "in most points I stand ideologically with this group of people" and yeah, maybe you're response is, "well this is one deviation" but it's a pretty frockin big deviation. Just makes it for a tough membership , thats all.

This incident just goes to show how "persecuted minorities" are not above practicing discrimination themselves. Al Rantel is a gay who according the rainbow-coalition moonbats should know persecution and therefore should not do it to others. Yet this is a stunning rebuttal to this BS theory. And this is not the first time that a gay has been racist. There was a post on SM called Homophobia trumps Racism.
Bottom line: Every race and group looks out for their own. That is why we desis should not care if Mexicans or blacks are discriminated against. Does Al Sharpton or La Reza come to our rescue? No.

Coulter has even dated a Muslim. She has never been married, loves NYC and has no children - such a mirror image of her family values minions;)

Louiecypher, I heard from someone who talked to Laura Ingraham in a D.C. resteraunt recently and in that conversation, Ingraham apparently said that she used to date Dinesh D'Souza in college. Are you sure you haven't confused her with Coulter? If not, that boy gets around.

yes, he dated both of them.

Sharpton has commendably supported a long path to citizenship ( it is not amnesty ) for hardworking undocumented Hispanic immigrants. The Sharpton of today is a very different animal than the Sharpton of many years ago. He has evolved and in a good way. He comes across so much smarter than the O'Reillys and Hannitys when he debates them.

He comes across so much smarter than the O'Reillys and Hannitys when he debates them.

you sir have some standards indeed!

54 · Posterity The Sharpton of today is a very different animal than the Sharpton of many years ago. He has evolved and in a good way. He comes across so much smarter than the O'Reillys and Hannitys when

Posterity--let's get those baseline standards up, on both sides--yeah, you're right in a way, but, boy, are you bottom-fishing!

53 · razib_the_atheist on September 22, 2007 01:36 AM · Direct link

Louiecypher, I heard from someone who talked to Laura Ingraham in a D.C. resteraunt recently and in that conversation, Ingraham apparently said that she used to date Dinesh D'Souza in college. Are you sure you haven't confused her with Coulter? If not, that boy gets around.

yes, he dated both of them.

True that!

coulter commented on the attractiveness of her brown heckler a few years ago, remember? she likes it cinnamon. too bad she looks like a man baby!

Care to elaborate Razib? I mentioned those names because they represent the right wing that frequently ridicules, trivializes and demonizes Sharpton.

both D'Souza & Coulter have gone crazy since the "glory days," when D'Souza was the DbD scourge of pro-Soviet Third-Worldism--now he's a crank pushing for the right to make common cause with the Islamic world on social issues (ugghhh!--about 180 degrees from my conception of "right") & Coulter is just downright an offensive clown.
How the mighty have fallen....

That is why we desis should not care if Mexicans or blacks are discriminated against. Does Al Sharpton or La Reza come to our rescue? No.

Oi, oi, oi.. haven't you ever heard of divide and conquer? Has the fall of India to the British taught us nothing? While we're at it, why don't the Sikhs refuse to help the Hindus who should refuse to help the Brahmins who should refuse to help Marathis who should run screaming from Punjabis and while thus traversing through crazy-land, they should all stand at the border and level gunz at the Pakis.

I once called the NAACP to find out whether they'll help other people of colour. The lady on the phone didn't hesitate. I got an unreserved YES.

All this when Indians have some of the greatest colour prejiduce known to man in their society, and the word "calla" is a stinging insult.

Even if I was white I would stand with black civil rights activists, anyway. Its unfortunate that the principle of the thing means nothing to certain people.

Care to elaborate Razib?

o'reilly and hannity are tards. so yeah, i can believe that sharpton is more intelligent; but that's like being the class valedictorian in a special school for kids with down syndrome

Ennis et al,

The hope of (some of us) Desis on the right is that these crazies like Rantel are just "useful idiots" that are distastefully necessary to putting together a winning coalition that can get a lot of good done, like the free trade and growth that continue to make the US impressive and is really starting to lift Desh out of economic misery--maybe won't work, but (1) we're certainly not deluded, (2) Dems are scary on these issues (e.g., catering to protectionism, high taxes, anti-meritocracy(which seems really anti-Desi), & (3) the "useful idiots" don't really "get" anything they want--e.g., immigration continues, Roe remains valid, etc.

Coulter has repeatedly made extremely bigoted statements and the best he's done is to "caution"? Heck, Rove has done that much about anti-Latino statements.

The fact that Coulter is a popular figure is important because her remarks show you what the rank and file can tolerate.

Exactly!!! People like Norquist might "caution" Ann Coulter, but she is still regularly invited to GOP speaking events. When she infamously called John Edwards a "faggot" she was speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference, a fairly major gathering of 5000+ conservative activists.

A lot of people asked "Why didn't Republicans/conservatives denounce her more strongly after she said that?" I think the real question should be, "Why exactly did they invite her to speak in the first place?" It's not like they don't know what her schtick is.

I am leery of painting with too broad a brush... I don't mean to suggest that all conservatives embrace Coulter, but the fact that she's still gainfully employed as a public speaker suggets many of them apparently don't have a problem with her.

63 · Mary I don't mean to suggest that all conservatives embrace Coulter, but the fact that she's still gainfully employed as a public speaker suggets many of them apparently don't have a problem with her

Yeah, fair enough-- and a lot of Dem's don't have a problem with Jesse post-"Hymietown" comment.
neither party is pure, you have to hold your nose & go with what has the best overall predicted consequences. I'm no GOP stalwart, but these (true) anecdotes about the seamy side of the GOP hardly impel me to be a Dem--my bottom line is just that party affiliation has little to do with the topics we're interested in here on SM.

o'reilly and hannity are tards.

o'reilly is an extremely loud mouthed tard...

Look at how he talks to dawkins

And in contrast, here is a perfect illustration of how to effectively talk to such unusually loud mouthed tards, who do keep showing up in real life too, every now and then...

to be clear, i think hannity is a born tard, he's just not that bright. o'reilly is so narcissistic that he is devolved to tardishness though he has basic raw material to work with (spent some time at JFK school of gov @ harvard).

@ Razib:

- "if south asians remain a distinct race and maintain a model minority SES profile then they'll become like japanese or chinese, who have a presence over 150 years in large numbers in the USA but remain non-white."

Interesting point that you make, and it leaves me with a question. Do you see the South Asian community as a whole ever completely settling into mainstream America, or do you fully expect South Asians to continue into the remainder of this century as a physically and culturally distinct and somewhat "closed" group with a very high SES, as your examples with the pattern of prior Japanese and Chinese immigration. Also, do you see any difference between Pakistanis and Indians in this stated pattern, or would both groups follow a similar course?

Oh, and I agree with your assertion that Arabs have had a really easy time of it "blending in". My finance's parents are Arabic Christians(Catholics) of Palestinian and Jordanian origin, and her father never had trouble passing as just another "ethnic/swarthy" white American from the Northeast of the U.S, with most people thinking him Italian or Greek. It helped that he also had a very "Christian" sounding first name. This seems to have been the pattern with Levantine Arabs as a whole over the last century, and it benefited them rather well it would appear. As you alluded to, it seems to me that if the majority of Arabs had been Egyptians, Gulf Arabs or Moroccans, and Muslim at that, things may have been a little more difficult in the area of fitting in.

Do you see the South Asian community as a whole ever completely settling into mainstream America, or do you fully expect South Asians to continue into the remainder of this century as a physically and culturally distinct and somewhat "closed" group with a very high SES, as your examples with the pattern of prior Japanese and Chinese immigration. Also, do you see any difference between Pakistanis and Indians in this stated pattern, or would both groups follow a similar course?

the model which i have offered on SM for several years is this

1) one group of south asians preserves 'old world' cultures. e.g., kashmiri brahmins who don't know any indian language still marrying amongst themselves, ismaili gujaratis marrying amongst themselves. to use a jewish analogy this might be the 'modern orthodoxy' option, a people apart in private life but integrated in work life.

2) another group will generate a new pan-south asian (predominantly indian) identity. this will be racially based. the chinese and japanese model works here. i think SM community illustrates some of the basic outlines, e.g., even if ethnically predominantly heterogenous some common touchstones of particular regional cultures become normative, like punjabi bhangra music or the use of hindi slang and idiom. the main issue i see there is religious division, but most american brownz are hindu nominally at least anyway, and i think a secularization process is pretty here too. chinese or japanese have predominantly converted to christianity and generated a racial identified culture. interesting bobby jindal and his wife fit this model, manish told me she was malayali and jindal is punjabi, but they are both assimilated to the mainstream religion of their region (catholicism).

3) and the last group will be part-browns and intermarried people who serve as the nexus point with the rest of american culture. i doubt that in 20-30 years many brown people whose families arrived between 1965-1980 won't have someone in their extended family who is married to a non-brown, or is part non-brown.

of course you will have families where options 1, 2 and 3 play out because of choices by different 2nd generation kids born in the 70s. the proportions of the three groups is, i think, pretty strongly determined by the size and character of the immigrant stream. a large population size makes options 1 more viable. additionally, a large immigrant population will probably reinforce communal norms. option 3 would be at the other end, while 2 would lay at a balance. right now the outmarriage rate for 1.5 and 2nd generation is around 30%. if the immigration stream remains large, increases, or skews lower in the SES scale the rate may drop in the future, though i wouldn't bet against an equilibration. the pattern you saw in the german jewry between 1800 to 1900 was that high rates of outmarriage & conversion by the middle and upper classes was compensated by immigration from eastern europe. in other words, the german jews who were outmarrying at high rates in the 1920s were the offspring of later immigrants, not the original jews of moses mendelsshon's time (his last jewish descendent lived in the late 1800s).

Also, do you see any difference between Pakistanis and Indians in this stated pattern, or would both groups follow a similar course?

oh. well, indians are still 80-90% of american south asians, but it seems many religious pakistanis are identifying as "muslim americans." the white ethnic pattern was for interreligious intermarriage, that is, irish catholic + italian catholic, or german jew + russian jew, and so on. later on (after world war ii) this broke down so that interreligious marriage became prominent, but i think the emergence of a religious identity is probably a 'first step.' in fact, this option is i think for muslim south asians their equivalent of 2 above, that is, while non-muslim south asians (and i'm talking mostly hindus here) who have a community identity tend to marry within race but often outside of customary ethnic group, muslim south asians may marry arabs or southeast asians or white converts (racism will probably limit black-brown marriages). some of them, like the ismailis i alluded too above though would remain separate for various reasons and generate a form of 1. and others will go 3 (from the information i have now at this point i am willing to bet that none of my siblings nor myself will be marrying brown people or muslims).

@Razib:

- "a large population size makes options 1 more viable. additionally, a large immigrant population will probably reinforce communal norms. option 3 would be at the other end, while 2 would lay at a balance. right now the outmarriage rate for 1.5 and 2nd generation is around 30%. if the immigration stream remains large, increases, or skews lower in the SES scale the rate may drop in the future, though i wouldn't bet against an equilibration."

Thanks for the very quick, and I must say incredibly detailed response to my question. After reading it, I think I need a good nights sleep just to think about it. My first thoughts on your assertion that the nature of South Asians as a distinct group in the United States will be heavily effected by the level of continued immigration, seems completely plausible. What throws me for a curve as a "non-Desi" outsider looking in, who grew up around plenty of Indian-Americans, is that various elements within the South Asian community can already been seen taking each one of the three courses you mentioned. Thats is certainly my own personal subjective view, and one open to plenty of misinterpretation on my part(I am no expert in any way, shape or form). Either way, this topic seems just ripe for an analytically based sociological study over the next decade or so.

Thanks for the very quick, and I must say incredibly detailed response to my question.

i'm just repeating what i thought up in my email conversations with manish, v-man and another friend back in 2003. so no wonder the response was quick, i just had to retrieve the structure of my thoughts ;-) in any case, one of the reasons i read SM is to observe the contours of 2, because that is the most fluid and unspecified of the options (i.e., what exact bounds will exist in the new identity? ethnographic research tends to suggest that 2nd and 3rd gen asian americans of chinese, korean and japanese origin most def. see themselves as a coherent cluster at a distance from southeast asians, and most certainly south asians).

@Razib:

- "oh. well, indians are still 80-90% of american south asians, but it seems many religious pakistanis are identifying as "muslim americans."

Razib, I also have noticed this pattern of Pakistani-Americans leaning towards a more "Muslim American" identity over one of a greater South Asian ethnic view to be very much the case. Assuming of course, as you pointed out, they are not a rather isolated ethno-religious group like the Ishmalis. I also can see how it is very much their version of a option #2, i.e a "Pan identity" of sorts.

Again, thanks for answering my rather pestering questions. No offense, but it sure beats annoying the hell out of a Desi buddy of mine with these inquests. He would insist I buy him a shot at the bar for each one asked, and that can get expensive. :)

Razib, I also have noticed this pattern of Pakistani-Americans leaning towards a more "Muslim American" identity over one of a greater South Asian ethnic view to be very much the case.

i used to go to intervarsity meetings to meet chicks in college. there were some brown girls there who were evangelical. i think they were a bit like the pakistani muslims in seeing more commonalities with their brothers and sisters in christ than with other brown people who were after all going to hell (this doesn't seem to be as operative a dynamic among brownz who are from the more localized christian denominations out of the syrian tradition, but i'm going on what v-man and anna have communicated to me).

maybe we should be more sympathetic to rantel. if your life's work involves uncontrolled brain farts and more, headgear does begin to look like diapers.

i used to go to intervarsity meetings to meet chicks in college.

i attended a couple of campus crusades for christ because they had great ice cream. made me a believer in sundae school, for sure.

i attended a couple of campus crusades for christ because they had great ice cream.

the utility of these groups differs from campus to campus. at my university intervasity had become thoroughly parasitized by free riders, but crusade was still hard core and would cramp your style with too much demand for reciprocated jesus talk. of course, when an organization like intervarsity is swamped with other parasites it's pretty worthless ;-) too much competition for low hanging fruit.

Just sent in an e-mail to the station manager complaining about this dude. In the e-mail, I asked the manager how quickly AR would have been fired if he had equated the yarmulke to something offensive.

In any case, how does one find out who advertises on his show?

not sure if the e-mail was delivered. I got two responses, one thanking me for the e-mail and the other saying that the mail was undelivered because "User mailbox exceeds allowed size: alr@kabc.com"

how do you know he doesn't have other concerns?

Here is a similar argument from the perspective of Latinos:

all the Republican presidential candidates, except Sen. John McCain, declined to participate in a debate on the Spanish-language channel Univision, possibly to avoid hostile immigration questioning (the network says it's trying to reschedule). They also ditched conventions earlier this year held by high-profile groups like the National Council of La Raza and NALEO. The Republican National Committee has yet to fill a Hispanic-outreach job vacated last November. "The RNC seems to have just given up," says Samuel Bettencourt, a Hispanic Republican who has handled outreach for nonprofits. (An RNC spokesperson says Sen. Mel Martinez, the committee's Latino chair, is committed to courting Hispanics. Martinez was unavailable for comment.) Recently, Bettencourt found further cause for gloom: a job he'd been offered this summer as executive director of the Republican National Hispanic Assembly, a prominent grass-roots group, fell through when the incoming board told him it lacked sufficient funds to pay him. "They have no staff, no office ... [and] were even talking about closing," says Bettencourt. (The RNHA's new chairman, Danny Vargas, says the group will remain operative and is developing fund-raising plans.) Among Latino evangelicals, the portrait's just as bleak. ... "right now, the nativist and xenophobic constituency is in charge of the Republican Party," says the Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, president of the evangelical National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference. "That's a party the Hispanic-American voter cannot support." [Link]

Before the 2000 elections, I knew a coaltion of conservative non-Christian groups that supported Bush. Muslims, Hindus, even followers of Santeria (believe it or not), all united in their opposition towards gays and opportion and in their suport of school prayer. We know how well that worked out.

Yes, people have multiple goals and weight them differently. But when your political party is personally antagonistic towards your identity, when this antagonism is widespread in the base and stoked by the leadership, you really have to wonder how long you can stay. This was true for a friend, a long time Republican activist in CA, who was Latino. For a decade he said he was willing to live with the xenophobia because he believed the party was right, not just for his sub-group, but for the country. But recently he quit because he said it got overwhelming.

I'm sure some people will stay forever. To take extreme case, there are neo-Nazi groups in both Russia and Israel, which is incomprehensible to me. So if that can happen, then clearly other people are willing to maintain their allegience in inhospitable groups for a while. But still ... you gotta wonder.

The hope of (some of us) Desis on the right is that these crazies like Rantel are just "useful idiots" that are distastefully necessary to putting together a winning coalition that can get a lot of good done, like the free trade and growth that continue to make the US impressive and is really starting to lift Desh out of economic misery--maybe won't work, but (1) we're certainly not deluded, (2) Dems are scary on these issues (e.g., catering to protectionism, high taxes, anti-meritocracy(which seems really anti-Desi), & (3) the "useful idiots" don't really "get" anything they want--e.g., immigration continues, Roe remains valid, etc.

(1) Fair enough, but what do you do when Coulter gets up in front of a room full of the conservative leaders of tomorrow, spews bigotry, and gets applauded?
(2) Except that, according to Alan Greenspan, the Dems were better on these issues. As a matter of fact, if you look over the last few decades, democratic presidents have been considerably more fiscally conservative than Republicans.
(3) They scuttled an immigration bill, and look at the new Supremes w.r.t. Roe.

There are plenty of fiscally conservative democrats, but if you look at the quote above, even Latino evangelical leaders are saying that they are not welcome in the Republican party.

I guess this is somewhat personal for me as a Sikh, because I think this administration handled things far better post 9/11, but since then has really milked xenophobia and thrown away human rights in ways that (a) I really oppose as an American and (b) affect me personally. So I wonder how long guys like Singh will identify proudly as conservative Republicans. For that matter, it bothers me that he used to listen to Rantel. He should have known what Rantel was about long before he criticized Sikhs. You can't be surprised when a guy like that turns on you.

Razib, I also have noticed this pattern of Pakistani-Americans leaning towards a more "Muslim American" identity over one of a greater South Asian ethnic view to be very much the case.

religious identities often get stronger in the diaspora. even abd hindus often acquire a more doctrinal form of their religion than their peers in india. one thing about pakistani-americans ive noticed however is that they tend to speak far better hindustani than their indo-american counterparts. because of this they are actually much more tapped into indian mass media. this is probably because most abds are not of up, bihar, mp, or rajasthan heritage... typically the only other indo-american households using hindustani as the home language are punjabis, sindhis, and dakhni muslims. for the most part all the bong, gujju, telugu ect. -american kids WOULD have known hindi as a second or third language had they grown up in india, but its hard enough retaining the mother tongue in the US for many. point is, language is important to culture and the pak-american kids are in a lot of ways more "desi" than ind-americans even if it is unintentional. i've also noticed more understanding between adb and dbd pakistanis unlike the indian crowd wherein there is often mutual scorn

So it's ok for people here to sterotype everybody on the right, yet they start crying when they get sterotyped. It kind of funny if you think about it.

So criticising racists and their political affiliations is the same as making racist and racially derogatory comments about an entire group of people? Your moniker is perfect --- you're the most clueless halfwit alive.

This guy Al Rantel does a link up show every Saturday morning at 3am GMT across the UK with Mike Mendoza on Talksport Radio . He comes across as an extreme right wing prick, and shits his pants when someone comes on the line to be critical of the American foreign policy he rhapsodises over, or takes issue with the crap he comes out with on a range of subjects. He's always going on about Mexicans and how they're ruining America and grumbles with Mendoza about multicultural Britain (he always talks about how he loves England). I didn't know he was gay, and it's interesting because he and his listeners were outraged when a discussion about gay marriage, which is legal in Britain came up, and he thought that civil marriages for gays would lead to the end of civilisation in America. Weird self loathing gay, but that's always interesting in all circumstances -- -just look at the number of self loathing Uncle Tom house sand-niggers who post on internet message boards. I might call up some time on a future show and cuss the racist prick down.

Interesting that Rantel is gay. His co-host on the international broadcast, Mike Mendoza, was recently reprimanded and suspended by his station for linking homosexuality with paedophilia. They get on like bum-chums on the air.

I might call up some time on a future show and cuss the racist prick down.

And he'll coolly turn the volume slider down on the external audio input while you do it. That's the power he has by having the show and you calling in, this isn't a statement against you, rather more for the person who claimed "we give the media" their power.

Well HMF, he actually does get some eloquent abuse from British callers, on the times I've listened.

point is, language is important to culture and the pak-american kids are in a lot of ways more "desi" than ind-americans even if it is unintentional.

can you elaborate on this? the only example you gave is that they can speak hindustani...and it doesn't seem to me that tamil, gujarati or bengali are "less desi."

then clearly other people are willing to maintain their allegience in inhospitable groups for a while. But still ... you gotta wonder.

but like i said, it isn't necessary a function of ideological nimbleness. sometimes it is simply personal circumstance. singh is a business person, and perhaps he is more on the margins than you might think. so he might simply identify as a republican primarily for local political reasons (sometimes the policies on the local level can determine whether your business profits or not. e.g., in my town there are many service sector jobs with low pay where workers come from the next town over, 2 miles away. activists were pushing for a 'living wage' so these people could live in town, but some of the business people blocked it based on the argument that they simply wouldn't be able to hire help in some cases if the wage increased by 50%).

The whole left-right paradigm is so arbitary and amounts to what I feel is a personal imposition. Its never made any sense to me. Ethnic minorities end up being left wingers, although more often than not they are fiscal conservatives (living in a developing economy will do that to you) and so they are forced to accept all of these hokey financial schemes just so that they can get their dose of diversity. Why is it that you have subscribe to all of these completely disparate issues in one fell package? Why do the left and right valuations even exist? They're so predictable and they prevent new parties from busting through with a mish-mash of attributions.. (although in the US the two party system has also got to go, but I'm speaking from a Canadian perspective.) The scary thing is that this stupid boxed in limitation is now being used to describe politics all over the world, from India and Africa to the elections for your local cricket club. Really, its got nothin'.

Well HMF, he actually does get some eloquent abuse from British callers, on the times I've listened.

Oh, I'm sure he gets abuse, abuse is drama, drama sells the show, but ultimately he's holding all the cards, you're in his universe.

if i ever wanted to torture someone, i would sit them clockwork-orange style in a room and make them listen to the inanity that is talk radio (right and left) or watch those politics shows on cnn/fox etc. (at least they got rid of crossfire) for hours on end. it surely must destroy a significant number of brain cells.

Ethnic minorities end up being left wingers, although more often than not they are fiscal conservatives (living in a developing economy will do that to you) and so they are forced to accept all of these hokey financial schemes just so that they can get their dose of diversity.

do you have survey data on this? i have seen results which suggest that muslim ameicans are socially conservative and fiscally liberal. i can believe that immigrants, many of whom are small business owners, are opposed to onerous legislation. but it seems to me that generally they support a 'safety,' especially when many members of the extended family make use of them.

and of course the socially conservative & fiscally liberal characterization is probably relatively true for blacks and latinos as well (though many people tend to play up the social conservatism of these groups too much, both groups are more socially conservative than their economic views would predict in the case of whites).

You can't be surprised when a guy like that turns on you.

And for those of you who think the anti-immigration brigade is really only upset about illegal Hispanic immigration and is perfectly fine with legal Indian immigration, just read the comments following Michelle Malkin's latest post. Now I know that Malkin and her flock are hateful idiots but they can't be dismissed because they have the ear of the Republican Party and those Republicans ( numerous ) who find for example Malkin repulsive are afraid to upbraid her in public.

http://michellemalkin.com/2007/09/21/shamnesty-watch/#comments

Here's a boldfaced excerpt from a comment:

If we do not stop this ( H1 Bs ) we will not have a middle class any longer.

The post itself is about denying ( without an argument ) a long path to citizenship to US born Hispanic kids who enlist to fight for America. Could one get more villainous than that? Btw yesterday's WSJ noted that Hispanics have the highest rate of enlistment of all ethnicities.

Here's another excerpt from a comment :

I have a dream….I dream about a Congress that takes our borders, culture, language and security seriously…I dream about two political parties that argue on the merits of an issue, and not because some fat cat Chinese lobbyist gave them money,.............

The 'Chinese' lobbyist being referred to obviously is Norman Hsu, an American. I think that some of these people won't hesitate to call Michelle Malkin a Filipino bitch if she were to wake up and do an about face in her opinions.

Oh and by the way I was a hardcore Republican until not too long ago. Someday I'll tell my long story.

Razib,
I really shouldn't have said 'ethnic minorities'.. where did that come from ? ;)In using a blanket statement that seemed to cover all people of colour, I was guilty of extreme reductionism. Man, its Saturday morning and I still haven't drunk down my home fermented kefir.. You see the problem.

I meant the average Indian. The vast majority of middle class Indians tend to not borrow on credit. There are few mortgages in India- (this link refers wholesale to "India's relatively underdeveloped credit markets" http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2006/07/20/hdfc-banks-on-indias-growth.aspx.) You save up all your money, THEN you buy the house. And with the exception of the black money high society elite or the extremely poor harried into usury, most Indians are notoriously tight fisted.

In India, YOU are your family's social security net, so the idea of louche and liberal spending (a working deficit, not using surpluses to pay down the debt) doesn't sit easy with almost all of the Indians I grew up among. Somewhere in their heads, most people from the subcontinent seem to harbour a genuine fear that if they purchase toilet paper at full price, they'll be on an urban city street with their suitcases in the aftermath of an atomic bomb, forced to call relatives from a pay-as-you-go cellphone to come and bail them out.

(I did look for more formal research per se, but could not find any studies for or against, meaning that as usual there is another exciting opportunity for academics to contribute to the paucity of knowledge about the South Asian diaspora.)

Also, is it normal for S-M to take twenty minutes to post each comment? ;P

My sentence above should read:..most Indians are notoriously tight fisted and reluctant to borrow.

Somewhere in their heads, most people from the subcontinent seem to harbour a genuine fear that if they purchase toilet paper at full price, they'll be on an urban city street with their suitcases in the aftermath of an atomic bomb, forced to call relatives from a pay-as-you-go cellphone to come and bail them out.

sure, i agree with this. but i do think one has to make a distinction between personal and public fiscal attitudes. there are many small business people who believe in small gov. and fiscal responsibility who have no problem in taking government loans which are subsidized. people tend to oppose gov. programs which they think result in a transfer of funds to people who they feel aren't worthy and so on.

Michelle Malkin will one day wake up and think, "holy shit I'm not really white"

My above matchup is just one example. But you can also, be, say, morally conservative but believe in gay marriage- because gays should be allowed to have no sex before marriage, too! Just look at Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter, who stuffs envelopes for him with her partner come election time. The poor creature doesn't fit in anywhere.

socially conservative and fiscally liberal. anecdotally, it seem like most browns and blacks in america fall into this camp (with asians probably being a tad more fiscally conservative).

it like we are the worst of both worlds.

dude, you don't need anecdotes. google is your friend.

a survey from pew hispanic center: "Latinos' Support for Larger Government Contrasts with More Conservative Social Views."

a survey of muslim americans: "It revealed a Muslim American population that is religious, diverse, socially conservative and politically liberal."

a common story: Democrat, but socially conservative (blacks in south carolina).

as for asian americans, they've been trending to the democrats since bush won them in '92. i'll leave someone else to find a survey.

btw, social conservative & fiscally liberal is a stereotypical 'white ethnic' stance. to some extent one could say this about southern democrats before that region industrialized, the new deal pumped a lot of 'make work' into that region (e.g., TVA), and i recall reading that the socialist party had a big following in 1930s texas.

oppose programs which they think result in a transfer of funds to people who they feel aren't worthy and so on.

You're assuming that these people aren't going to be politically involved enough to form the government- they'll be receiving benefits as opposed to being the ones doling out what the government refers to as "their" budget. If they become loyal enough citizens, the country's kitty might well be looked at as their own. But that may require a sea change as it does refer to civic pride, which the British have in excess but the Indians and Italians seem to lack. The British drive crapped out vehicles on gorgeous roads. The Italian's roads are disintegrating, but their car is a freshly waxed Ferrari ;) Still, look at the way that a typical Gurudwara is run. Before you start laughing, I invite you ignore the odd but endemic scandals and consider this: they never go into debt, rarely spend more than they can afford, offer social programs for the community and maintain a portfolio of investments for rainy days. Our Gurudwara has stocks! I've worked for a number of nonprofits with a similar amount of money to come in and an equally demanding mandate, and peoples' mindsets are really different around how they manage their money. Gurudwaras are almost always run by people who practice fiscal probity (they know that they are accountable to a very prudent membership). I studied five gurudwara's finances in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia for a project with my father, who is, among other things, an economist, and we were impressed and quite surprised by this state of affairs.

a survey of muslim americans: "It revealed a Muslim American population that is religious, diverse, socially conservative and politically liberal."

Yeah, Razib, but WHY are they political liberals? Because some aspect of that ideology works for them, while a lot of it doesn't! Its not a natural fit- to get what they want on immigration or employment equity or whatever social programs they need, the minority populace is forced to concede in other important areas. While it may contradict my initial observations, you're still arguing my point. There's a stultifying lack of diversity in the right-left dichotomy.

Here's another very revealing quote in which an evangelist who reaches out to people of other races and cultures is quick to assure people that he's no liberal:

While an outspoken advocate for diversity within his church, Mr. Perrin is quick to point out that he is no liberal. He voted twice for President Bush. [NYT]

He's saying:
1. I know liberals are inclusive
2. I know that conservatives are usually exclusionary
3. BUT one can be a conservative and still want to have church services with Christians who are not white and not even Americans.

That tells you a lot about the discourse and frame of reference of American conservatives, even Christian Evangelicals, who tend to be more integrated than almost any other part of society.

a survey of muslim americans:

Also, you do realize that Muslims are in the minority in India? They tend to be far more socially conservative than mainstream Indians, so they aren't a good foil for this debate, IMO.

settled. socially conservative and fiscally liberal is the authentic brown perspective. (thank god for uncle toms)

That tells you a lot about the discourse and frame of reference of American conservatives, even Christian Evangelicals, who tend to be more integrated than almost any other part of society.

the military is the most integrated, and military heavy towns are also generally the most integrated.

Also, you do realize that Muslims are in the minority in India? They tend to be far more socially conservative than mainstream Indians, so they aren't a good foil for this debate, IMO.

uh, yeah, i do realize they're a minority. muslim americans aren't mostly brown anyway, i was just using them as an example of a socially conservative and fiscally liberal minority. we do know that indian americans tend to vote democrat. would be interesting to see what the typical indian american (who is a first generation immigrant) thinks on major social issues.

we do know that indian americans tend to vote democrat. would be interesting to see what the typical indian american (who is a first generation immigrant) thinks on major social issues

I agree. I mean, this is a place where the lower castes are still referred to as OBCs (other backward castes) on all formal government correspondence. This year, the All- India medical school was busy starving itself in protest at the excess of love directed toward those dalits who had been fortunate enough to benefit from affirmative action. At the same time, many American desis have no doubt mellowed somewhat through the new positionality they've acquired, but the whole thing is confused by the fact that there are an array of voices like Shonali Bose, Deepa Mehta et al. who genuinely followed a subversive politics in the belly of the beast. And what about the lower castes that have also immigrated? And the fact that there is a huge sexual revolution sweeping across India?
But its definitely not going to be cookie cutter Democrat, I can tell you that.

But I have to wonder how Navraj Singh is able to accommodate his party membership with the fact that others of the same party are the ones who clearly support and agree with Rantel. This rhetoric is coming from one side only, and that side is sending people like Navraj Singh a very clear message - we think you're inferior. How does one stay a member of a party or movement whose members have no problem demeaning you?

It's not like Rantel is the only one, or like this is the first time. Xenophobia is the bread and butter of right wing figures, and anti-brown xenophobia regularly comes from very high places in the party. How does one live with that? How much does it take?

what do gay muslims do?

what do gay muslims do?

Escape to the west, and get paid mass dollars to write pedantic op-eds on reforming Islam.

what do gay muslims do?

Seduce Hindu Republican Uncle Toms who thought they were straight, making them even more confused.

Please don't use the phrase "Uncle Tom". We usually delete comments which contain it. Thank you.

Escape to the west, and get paid mass dollars to write pedantic op-eds on reforming Islam.

you sure you mean pedantic? mebee "pandering"?

OK, sorry.

They seduce Hindu Republican right wingers who think about gay Muslims in their spare time, making them even more confused than they were before.

you sure you mean pedantic? mebee "pandering"?

I think that both would apply. Pedantic in the sense that they are labouriously crafted in a stasis of verbal tedium and endlessly nitpick about the finer points of Islam and the west- this, that, and the other until your spinal fluid wants to evaporate from your brain cavity in sheer boredom. I mean, really, who actually reads those things? The conservatives don't really care; they just put this drizzle on their pages to show that they can be inclusive, too. Honest Injun! If it were truly engaging or interesting, they'd kick it off the page. But I should have described it all as "bought-and-sold" commentary.

Have you ever heard of Irshad Manji- the "Muslim Refusenik"? She occupies a permanent and unreadable berth once a month in our supposedly centrist Globe and Mail. Gah.

yes, she is well known. that is who i assumed you were talking about.

why do people keep on making mistakes like this. this is reminiscent of a previous post pointing out that michael moore emaphasized gupta in a way that takes power away from someone by ridiculing or mocking something linked to race. unacceptable, why does it keep on happening.

While an outspoken advocate for diversity within his church, Mr. Perrin is quick to point out that he is no liberal. He voted twice for President Bush

This could be read in multiple ways, "advocate for diversity" is pretty vague. Does this means he appreciates different cultures and ethnicities as they are? or does he see them as ripe for Christian conversion? The pope is an advocate for diversity also, from a point of view.

This could be read in multiple ways, "advocate for diversity" is pretty vague. Does this means he appreciates different cultures and ethnicities as they are? or does he see them as ripe for Christian conversion? The pope is an advocate for diversity also, from a point of view.

you could read the article if you're really interested. it's pretty short (and it makes it pretty clear i think what he means, at least in terms of what you're asking about).

oh, cute baby btw.

This could be read in multiple ways, "advocate for diversity" is pretty vague. Does this means he appreciates different cultures and ethnicities as they are? or does he see them as ripe for Christian conversion? The pope is an advocate for diversity also, from a point of view.

The article is about one church that was running out of white congregants until it opened up its doors to non-white Christians from other parts of the world. "Advocate for diversity" means argue that they should have African and Asian Christians worshiping together in the same church, they had white congregants leave over the changes because they didn't recognize their old Southern Baptist Church, a church which had been lily white until then.

It's not about converting others, it's about sharing a church after conversion. This is my point about the base of the conservative movement, that they aren't comfortable with immigrants, even when they share the same values.

It's not about converting others,

I see your point, however, statements like this scream conversion to me:

“I’m a believer in Jesus Christ, and I am commanded by him to go and tell everybody who he is,� he said. “And because we’re in a free country you have the freedom to choose."

or this:

"We realized that what the Lord had in store for that old Clarkston Baptist Church was to transition into a truly international church and to help minister to all these ethnic groups moving into the county"

But I agree with your point, the implication of different races meaning wildly different value systems is ingrained in SO many minds, they feel they "have" to be different.

HMF, I'm not making myself clear. Yes, they wanted to convert but then they didn't want the converts to worship with them. That statement was from a preacher defending the idea of inviting immigrant christians to worship in the same congregation, something he did only when there were too few white people, and he's defensive about it, saying just because I invited a whole bunch of foreign christians into my church doesn't make me a liberal.

That shows the depth of anti-immigrant sentiment that he has to defend that idea, even when the white congregation was too poor to survive on its own.

It's not about converting others, it's about sharing a church after conversion. This is my point about the base of the conservative movement, that they aren't comfortable with immigrants, even when they share the same values.

Southern Baptists and evangelicals form a part of the conservative movement's base. They aren't THE base, although they are well organized and extremely vocal.

the article notes that muslims have complained about proselytizing to muslim refugees. and the problem didn't seem to be "value systems," the problem was the differences in packaging and style. the issues mentioned in that article aren't necessarily really race based, there have been evangelical christians who converted to eastern orthodoxy because they were turned off the "marketing driven" populist style of their denominations. there are roman catholics who will only attend latin mass.

That shows the depth of anti-immigrant sentiment that he has to defend that idea, even when the white congregation was too poor to survive on its own.

I understand and agree with your point. But based on the article, I'd question the authors claim that 'he's for diversity' in a 'we respect all different cultures and faiths' when it's clear he doesn't.

Anna's post: "Rantel the ignorant (I shall bestow this title upon him, yes), is gay and the grandson of Italian immigrants... but I am naive enough to be disappointed that his sexual preference didn’t gift him with any compassion. I guess no one ever gave him a hard time. Heh."

3: "ignorant bloody Americans : p. Rantel is a battyboi wanker : )"

113: "Please don't use the phrase "Uncle Tom""...

I understand the need to filter out certain phrases for their historically racist connotations, but it's disappointing to not see the same regard against homophobic terms.

Anna, I know it may have seemed innocuous, but the joke was more insulting than funny and reminds me of a typical male attack on female opponents, who are seemingly rigid in their beliefs, that they have simply haven't "got any" or "gotten it well enough." Whether Rantel is penetrated satisfactorily is neither the issue nor the solution; his convictions seem to come from a deeper place than his prostate, and that is where any moral probing should take place.

I understand and agree with your point. But based on the article, I'd question the authors claim that 'he's for diversity' in a 'we respect all different cultures and faiths' when it's clear he doesn't.

This comes back to the earlier point, which is how does one stay in a movement where they reject you based on ascriptive identity, even if you share the same values.

and the problem didn't seem to be "value systems," the problem was the differences in packaging and style.

The process of conversion combines the value system with packaging. They really aren't that separable, thats why Christian's many times on the street hand you a business card stabled to a pack of gum that reads, "let this small gift remind you of Jesus Christ" They're trying to buy you.

the problem didn't seem to be "value systems," the problem was the differences in packaging and style. the issues mentioned in that article aren't necessarily really race based

Of course it wasn't value systems, they were Christians with similar beliefs. That's what makes the resistance interesting.

It's not clear they weren't really race based. Even Southern Baptists know better than to complain about sharing pews with African Christians because they are back, instead they complain about the fact that they sing different hymns.

Think about the fact that they were too small to survive, and they're still complaining about the newcomers. That's classic xenophobia - same values as the new folks, you need them, and you still complain and threaten to leave.

The process of conversion combines the value system with packaging. They really aren't that separable

yes they are.

This comes back to the earlier point, which is how does one stay in a movement where they reject you based on ascriptive identity, even if you share the same values.

they manage to elect interracially married republicans. mitch mcconnell, phil gramm and jeb bush. and wouldn't malkin falsify your point that values don't matter?

Jeb Bush gets elected in Florida. Ever wonder why George ran when Jeb was the more successful politician?

Ever wonder why George ran when Jeb was the more successful politician?

because he lost in '94 to lawton chiles while bush won in '94. so in 1999 jeb was in year 1 and george was in year 5. that's the standard explanation.

now, how do we explain mitch mconnel winning in kentucky with an asian wife? or speaking of texas, phil gramm with his korean american wife?

yes they are.

No they arent. When a Christian (or any other religious converting person) packages something in a potentially 'devious' way (as the muslim imam was claiming) he's doing so because he values his system as higher.

they manage to elect interracially married republicans. mitch mcconnell, phil gramm and jeb bush. and wouldn't malkin falsify your point that values don't matter?

What does interracial electabls have to do with Christian conversion mentality?

some data

would vote for presidential candidate...
liberal/moderate/conservative

black 95 94 92
hispanice 92 87 84
homosexual 81 57 36

more here http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=26611

now, how do we explain mitch mconnel winning in kentucky with an asian wife? or speaking of texas, phil gramm with his korean american wife?

Elaine Chao was McConnel's second wife, they didn't marry until 1993, he was already in office by then. Wendy Gramm is also Phil Gramm's second wife - the significance is in both cases there are white children and a white candidate. It's not a strong case for tolerance.

p.s. You know what happened to McCain's brown daughter during the Presidential election, right?

would vote for presidential candidate...

People commonly self report considerably more tolerance than they actually display, which makes studying tolerance in America tricky (in some other countries they are happy to display bigotry to pollsters).

p.s. You know what happened to McCain's brown daughter during the Presidential election, right?

sure. i keep admitting that there's a lot of racism out there in the conservative movement. should i add it as a signature for the purposes of this thread?

People commonly self report considerably more tolerance than they actually display, which makes studying tolerance in America tricky (in some other countries they are happy to display bigotry to pollsters).

of course. but you're making pretty strong statements. you used the analogy of neo-nazis in israel and russia for conservative non-whites, admittedly it was a reductio ad absurdum, but i think that the magnitude is far weaker.

p.s. http://www.nndb.com/people/407/000024335/ gramm's sons seem to be from the second wife (you can confirm that with pictures, i've seen them), not the first. no listing of offspring from that.

i once saw phil graham and his wife in a upper e. side bar. my "favorite" political smear was mario cuomo's vs. ed koch: "vote for cuomo, not the homo." not sure if any of this is relevant, but figured i'd throw it in.

p.s. re: racism, why are we ignoring bobby jindal??? he probably lost in 2003 because of racism (the flipping from repub to dem was exactly in areas where duke was strong), but the fact that he comes close pretty confirms that many republicans can look past values.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana's_1st_congressional_district

that's jindal's district. it is 83% white, and has voted 78 and 88 percent in favor of him in 2004 and 2006.

"many republicans can look past values."

substitute "race."

but you're making pretty strong statements. you used the analogy of neo-nazis in israel and russia for conservative non-whites, admittedly it was a reductio ad absurdum, but i think that the magnitude is far weaker.

My argument is that the conservative base and elite are significantly less tolerant than their competitors, and that intolerance seems to be central rather than peripheral, which is why it is so resistant to change, even when they need Latino votes.

p.s. I was wrong on Gramm.

My argument is that the conservative base and elite are significantly less tolerant than their competitors, and that intolerance seems to be central rather than peripheral, which is why it is so resistant to change, even when they need Latino votes.

1) i think the elite isn't that intolerant. they pander to the intolerance of the xenophobic element, but that's a lot like pandering on abortion issues.

2) yes, the right is more racists than the left. how much more racist? well, there is the data above, but there are also implicit psychological tests. there is a difference and it is quantifiable, but it isn't black or white. this is a classic case where group differences exist, and they are important, but that shouldn't let us fall into the trap of simply constructing two platonic ideals.

3) as for central vs. peripheral. i don't know, there is certainly a racialist element...but a lot of the anxiety and xenophobia has come out due to exogenous triggers. e.g., there is a reason that stuff tends to become more notable during times of economic distress, or after something like 9/11.

that's jindal's district. it is 83% white, and has voted 78 and 88 percent in favor of him in 2004 and 2006.

Yes, white catholic, cajun.

And Jindal is catholic.

Again, it is not about being brown in louisiana, particularly south louisiana - it is about white, and african americans. jindal is with the whites.

p.s. re: racism, why are we ignoring bobby jindal??? he probably lost in 2003 because of racism (the flipping from repub to dem was exactly in areas where duke was strong), but the fact that he comes close pretty confirms that many republicans can look past values.

razib, you are misleading everyone.

jindal lost because he did not any african american votes, and white working class from north louisiana switched to blanco.

david duke supporters in south louisiana and for that matter in north louisiana will vote for jindal since vis-a-vis his stance on social services and african americans.

Yes, white catholic, cajun.

And Jindal is catholic.

ennis is implying that values don't matter. i am saying they might.

razib, you are misleading everyone.

jindal lost because he did not any african american votes, and white working class from north louisiana switched to blanco.

and republicans normally get any of the black vote? is there something i don't understand about louisiana politics? (yes, i know he got some endorsements)

and white working class from north louisiana switched to blanco.

yes. duke voters.

And Jindal is catholic

Edit: Jindal is a pseudo-catholic.

Edit: Jindal is a pseudo-catholic.

are you his therapist? aren't you violating some professional obligation toward keeping quiet about that if you are?

re: jindal, this is what i mean, http://www.bepress.com/forum/vol2/iss1/art3/
The recent gubernatorial election in Louisiana suggests that racial issues remain salient in the Deep South. Pre-election polls showed Republican Bobby Jindal, an Indian-American supported by George W. Bush and Governor Mike Foster, with a comfortable lead. However, Democratic Lt. Gov. Kathleen Blanco may have benefited from white voters’ discomfort with supporting a brown-skinned Indian-American. Her performance, both absolutely and relative to normal Democratic showings, correlates strongly with the support won by David Duke, the former Ku Klux Klansman, who ran as Republican in 1991. These findings also suggest that efforts to build a more racially diverse Republican party may encounter resistance from white conservatives, especially in rural areas.

that paper might be wrong (though interesting, jena, louisiana was one of those areas where republicans swung strongly democratic in 2003).

yes. duke voters.

sure, the white working class from north louisiana are most strident about race relations, and are one of the core group of david duke supporters.

but in his heyday, david duke had lot of supporters in south louisiana as well - he made his career wearing german ss dresses at LSU, and giving his views at the free speech alley - he got the majority white vote (55% confirmed by exit polls) in his famous election against edwin edwards

yes, republicans do not get any african american votes

3: "ignorant bloody Americans : p. Rantel is a battyboi wanker : )"

113: "Please don't use the phrase "Uncle Tom""...

I understand the need to filter out certain phrases for their historically racist connotations, but it's disappointing to not see the same regard against homophobic terms.

Wanker is homophobic? We moderate to prevent racist abuse and homophobic slurs (and anything else like that). It's disappointing that it seems otherwise. I wish we had the benefit of your doubt, not everyone knows the different meanings for words. I would have deleted the comment you selected if I had known.

Wanker is homophobic?

My apologies. For the record, I'm not homophobic. It was in reference to Rantel. I have a gay Indian mate. If I offended anyone with that comment, I'm sorry.

Wanker is homophobic?

no, battyboi is. see, for example, this wiki entry. i think there was a controversy in britain about a year ago regarding a jamaican reggae singer who used this term in anti-gay songs.

the liberal blogosphere here in the states uses the term wanker to signify someone who is being too wonky and calling a foul on their own side. so i doubt that it is perceived to be homophobic on this side of the pond. perhaps people might be sensitive to differences in idiom and slang uses? as it is, i'm disappointed ;-)

The Singh guy in the article needs to go away. He can listen to hate radio until it's him who is offended? No, sorry, it doesn't work that way. He got what he deserved and everyone else can just not listen

Regarding Razib's predictions on assimilation of the desi population and how it will be affected by outmarriage, I've anecdotally seen outmarriage decreasing and increasing cultural ties to India among 1.5 and 2nd gens. The internet is going to ensure a larger percentage of Indians falling among groups 1 and 2. There might even be a group 4, people who never assimilate and keep their ties to their community in India due to the internet.

Yes dravidian lurker identified it, I was referring to "battyboi." I had also taken issue with the original post's "I guess no one ever gave him a hard time. Heh.", which tends to be both homophobic and sexist.

6-3SpicyBrownScythianMunda, I don't believe you don't have gay friends, nor do I think ANNA is, or meant to come off as, a homophobe, but I am asking for more attention to language not just when it comes to race, politics, or gender, but also sexuality and its various intersections.

Just like Asian/Desi issues tend to be pushed to the sidelines during mainstream conversations on race, rhetorical sensitivity to the queer perspective often takes a backseat.

As much as I don't like being the language police, I do think this is an oft-ignored issue that people should start learning to recognize and challenge themselves.

"I guess no one ever gave him a hard time. Heh.", which tends to be both homophobic and sexist.

no it doesn't. ???

just looked up battyboi. you learn something every day....

"I guess no one ever gave him a hard time. Heh.", which tends to be both homophobic and sexist.

no it doesn't. ???

i agree with razib.

in this context, all it means is "someone being uncomfortable". other common usage are:

Noun 1. hard time - a difficulty that can be overcome with effort; "we had a hard time getting here"; "analysts predicted rough sledding for handset makers"
rough sledding
difficulty - a condition or state of affairs almost beyond one's ability to deal with and requiring great effort to bear or overcome; "grappling with financial difficulties"
2. hard time - a term served in a maximum security prison
prison term, sentence, time - the period of time a prisoner is imprisoned; "he served a prison term of 15 months"; "his sentence was 5 to 10 years"; "he is doing time in the county jail"

Kush, since you're already looking up "hard time," look up "double entendre."

dude, you remind me of my friend who insisted that you shouldn't say "jews," you should say "jewish people."

dude, you remind me of my friend who insisted that you shouldn't say "jews," you should say "jewish people."

there's something to that. antisemites almost always say "jew" or "the jews," but rarely "jewish people." the jews themselves often refer to themselves as "the jews" but that doesn't change the fact that this is the preferred anti-semitic way of saying it. it has a certain stinging ring.

i once dated an inti-Semite, so i should know.

@Manju:

- "there's something to that. antisemites almost always say "jew" or "the jews," but rarely "jewish people." the jews themselves often refer to themselves as "the jews" but that doesn't change the fact that this is the preferred anti-semitic way of saying it. it has a certain stinging ring."

That all just sounds a little too "1984" to me...

Manju: Would it be fair to say that you are a little anti-semitic?

South Asians have long been subjected to all sorts of derogatory labels such as Paki, mudfaces, pappadoms, ragheads and now diapers (for Sikhs). It's our self-effacing and shifty manner that often invite this.
So we get hurt, we find we can't respond effectively - we don't have power in Anglo societies and more important we don't know how to respond with humour and panache.

Anglos thrive on their verbal skills and they can be highly inventive. Why can't we do the same? It's no use moaning among ourselves - they love to see us squirm. the answer is to hit back the same Anglo way -verbally. Can we?
let's invent labels of our own. The blacks came up with honkey, the Latinos with gringo. And South Asians? Blank and vacuous as usual.
I suggest we build a lexicon of jolly and punchy labels against the Anglo racists and rightwingers.
How about it?

but that doesn't change the fact that this is the preferred anti-semitic way of saying it. it has a certain stinging ring.

Why stop there. Lets outlaw 'chew-bacca' some might think you're saying 'jew bacca' or how about the word 'choose', If you say it fast, it just has that certain ring to it, I'd suggest the word 'pick' but, drat there just so different.

i once dated an inti-Semite, so i should know.

manju, is that why you stopped returning my calls? i really only meant that i dislike orange juice.

Which makes it even stronger, since he is still defensive about even that little "diversity", i.e. diversity of national origin and skin color amongst Christians. That's the conservative base.

This comes back to the earlier point, which is how does one stay in a movement where they reject you based on ascriptive identity, even if you share the same values.

this would be an interesting question for non-white Mormons prior to the watershed year of 1978, when the oh so benevolent LDS felt it necessary to mention to all its members that all male members were eligible for priesthood.

there's something to that. antisemites almost always say "jew" or "the jews," but rarely "jewish people." the jews themselves often refer to themselves as "the jews" but that doesn't change the fact that this is the preferred anti-semitic way of saying it. it has a certain stinging ring.

i once dated an inti-Semite, so i should know.

so if anti-Arab racists use the pronunciation, "Eh-Rabb," all those speaking with a particular twang are now suddenly racists? With group identifiers, they are usually acceptable in polite society discourse until all agree that they have acquired associations distasteful enough to warrant consigning these terms to the dustbin. In other words, you can apply the Rortian definition of the 'truth' when thinking about whether a particular group identifier is acceptable or not--will society let me get away with using, "xxxx"?

Forgive my wack quoting-skills.
"so if anti-Arab racists use the pronunciation, "Eh-Rabb," all those speaking with a particular twang are now suddenly racists?...In other words, you can apply the Rortian definition of the 'truth' when thinking about whether a particular group identifier is acceptable or not--will society let me get away with using, "xxxx"?"

Unlike Jews/Jewish people, Arabs never called themselves "eh-Rabb", meaning that if you are aware of that groups self-identification (knowledge inescapable to the vast majority who even know what Arab/Eh-rabb refers to) and you distort it into something new anyway, then while you may not be an overt, extreme racist, you certainly display a complete disregard for that group's self-identification and agency in that respect. There is more often than not a racial element to that, however strong or weak it may be. Same goes for the nonchalant usage of terms like "Eye-raq" and "Eye-ran" in American media, and other such terms.

While I disagree with the comment about calling people Jews, as I don't think that's inherently offensive, this Arab example isn't a proper parallel, if in fact you were attempting to use it to justify the usage of Jew as a term. "Polite society discourse" may not define such people as racists, but I would on ethical grounds.

if in fact you were attempting to use it to justify the usage of Jew as a term.

and such windbaggery to reach the first and only sentence that you really needed to write. I was making the point that using the word "Jews" to refer to any Jewish population is fairly common in mass media and that by automatically assigning the 'anti-semitic' tag to every deployment of this term, one throws too fine and too large a anti-racist net.

Jeb Bush gets elected in Florida. Ever wonder why George ran when Jeb was the more successful politician?

Ever wonder why Neil never ran for anything? Hmm, I wonder if it was because he took interracial stuff to a new level amomg the Bushies by banging two Thai hookers in his hotel room.

OK OK. That's stretching it. I just wanted an excuse to bring it up.

Even if the radio station does nothing, I think it would be useful to figure out who their sponsors are and target accordingly. I also think it's good that a "long time listener" is criticizing the show, but I do wonder if anyone would have said anything when this guy vilifies Mexican Americans and immigrants (his other favorite racial punching bag).

I'm actually a little surprised by this whole "how can a brown person vote Republican?" conversation. Most of the desis I meet are socially and fiscally moderate/conservative, and -- until this president -- vote Republican and register Republican. By fiscally "moderate" I mean they are generally opposed to government waste in spending, excessive taxation, and out of balance budgets. This is actually why my dad votes Democrat, despite the higher tax incidence.

I understand the point re: the current Republican tactic hinging on stirring up racist sentiments (perhaps its a form of pro-racist populism?), and I do wonder how people deprioritize or prioritize certain issues. I think with the current administration and the current tactics of the RNC it's hard to understand how more "moderate" Republicans can side with a strategy of racist hatred. I think a lot of folks feel like rob -- oh, let them have their rhetoric and use a victory to push policies you want, but that said, I don't think (under this President) it's done folks a lot of good. I'm too young to know, but I wonder if this has really worked in the past, for example under Nixon or Reagan? I guess the real question is, where are all the (non-xenophobic) Republicans, and why do they think that offending the more xenophobic types is a compromise worth making? Do folks really think they'll lose elections this way? I'm always amazed at how low people stoop/pander in electoral politics, and to be honest I think folks do it because it's easier.

Which is not to say the Republicans have the market cornered on racist rhetoric. I am frequently disappointed by the xenophobia and stupidity of the Dems and Democratic leadership, who, in many ways, take for granted the "minority vote" as far as I'm concerned.

it would be strange if most indian americans were republicans. as a point of fact that isn't the case.

Southern Baptists and evangelicals form a part of the conservative movement's base. They aren't THE base, although they are well organized and extremely vocal.

More Inclusive, I understand where you're coming from and generally agree (I also found the "Filipino..." comment offensive), and I can't speak for ANNA, but I seriously doubt that she meant any double entendre. I read it as "surprising that someone who (presumably) has been ridiculed for their identity would then ridicule others."

"I was making the point that using the word "Jews" to refer to any Jewish population is fairly common in mass media and that by automatically assigning the 'anti-semitic' tag to every deployment of this term, one throws too fine and too large a anti-racist net."

I agreed completely with you there. I was just clarifying a difference between your usage of the Arab example and the example of the Jew. Let me condense my windbaggery here, then: While it's true that not all people who do are racist, there is no justification for most anyone who uses the term "Eh-rab", whether it's socially acceptable or not. Most anyone who uses the term "Jew" isn't saying anything offensive. My apologies if I've misconstrued your post. Consider my post a footnote to yours, as again, I am in agreement with your point.

"I suggest we build a lexicon of jolly and punchy labels against the Anglo racists and rightwingers.
"How about it?"

Mencken once said the blacks could have field day disparaging whites should they ever get the chance, and I think they have fulfilled that prophecy.
anyway, desis should be more creative with epithet invention, as long as it's just "Anglo racists and rightwingers" and innocent white liberals never feel the sting of epithets.
Red-neck is the scientific term--and they are vilified by all and sundry with few repercussions I've heard of, so you don't really need to worry. There was even a white trash cookbook (featured dishes using margarine and possum).
Other possibilities: How about "pasties" -- I always thought of that word as those little stick'ums they used to use over nipples in films featuring topless natives--so the film would get a pass. But here in this forum I've seen that word applied to pale people. Not exactly flattering, but sort of descriptive.

However, we must all choose our symbols of oppression carefully. OK--diaper head is nasty, baby poo and all, and that guy is wing-nut bigot who deserved to have his knuckes rapped...but if the best you can do to illustrate white racism is to site 6 blacks who beat up a white, i think you have just redefined the word "victim". It means a person of color who is undergoing adverse circumstances of any kind for any reason.
Perhaps the sentencing is arguable, but weirdly inappropriate criminal sentencing is everywhere, regardless of race. The race element is controversial in the judicial system and deserves scrutiny, but the "Jena 6" are not innocent victims.
There are people who have gotten 2 years for killing their spouses with self-defense not an issue. I do think sentencing for drug possession needs to be looked at deeply, for example, including the race element (but then I'm for legalization.)

As for the observation that "blacks [were] being left on roofs to drown" in Katrina. I recall seeing quite a few blacks being hauled up in the helicopters--
was that just for good publicity? Maybe.

unless more information has come to light, these are the stats:
"The state's demographic information suggests that whites in New Orleans died at a higher rate than minorities. According to the 2000 census, whites make up 28 percent of the city's population, but the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals indicates that whites constitute 36.6 percent of the storm's fatalities in the city.

African-Americans make up 67.25 percent of the population and 59.1 percent of the deceased. Other minorities constitute approximately 5 percent of the population and represented 4.3 percent of the storm's fatalities.

Overall for the state, 658 bodies have been identified. Forty-seven percent were African-American and 42 percent were Caucasian. The remaining bodies were either non-black minorities or undetermined.

An additional 247 victims have not been identified, so their demographic information has not been released."

I think a lot of folks feel like rob -- oh, let them have their rhetoric and use a victory to push policies you want, but that said, I don't think (under this President) it's done folks a lot of good.

Yes I have felt like that way too until such rhetoric upended my own life. But my woes are nothing compared to those of undocumented Hispanic immigrants whose long overdue chances of reuniting with their loved ones have been postponed by several years. As if that's not enough they now have to face humiliating raids and subsequent detention/deportation. I know these people - They work at the most back breaking jobs without a hint of class envy. I don't think though that Bush himself is either xenophobic or racist.

Are you referring to my ' Filipino ... ' comment? That's not what I am saying. It should be clear.

Posterity, I was referring to your comment, but I know you didn't mean it that way. Just saying we should not use racist or sexist language in critiquing someone else's racist language. (not sure if that last sentence was convoluted?)

pastie, not sure why you've deviated so far off the point? Is it to purposefully draw the thread off topic and instigate? If not, then it would probably help to stick to the issues presented. For the record, "redneck" is not an appropriate way to characterize white racists -- it's a way of demeaning and dehumanizing poor working class white people. I really don't think a shouting match full of racial slurs is going to help build any sense of community or foster the feeling that bigotry is inappropriate.

I don't know if the mutineers will actually go through every comment here, but it seems to me that whatever talk-show guy you're dissing has got a point. Maybe it wasn't stated nicely, maybe he a total loser asshole, but he's still got a point.

If a security check requires 80-year old infirm women to take off their footwear as part of the process, a young, well built Sikh male should certainly not be exempt from taking off his turban.

(But what about the religious sentiments, you say?)

Airport security needs to make sure that there are no weapons on board. Anything that can be smuggled in with grandma's slippers can certainly be smuggled in with a Sikh turban. If it were Indian airplanes that extremists were targeting, and some random religion said that its adherents needs to carry around locked briefcases handcuffed to their wrist 24/7, I'm sure as hell not going to "respect" their religion. As far as I'm concerned, unless you open that briefcase, you can't fly, and I don't care what your great Lord Quilidofroophis says, or which level of hell I'm going to go to after I die.

It's not just that a Sikh might sneak aboard some plastic explosive or a pistol. Let's for a moment consider that no Sikh would do that, though you'd have to mangle history pretty thoroughly to claim that Sikhs aren't capable of terrorism. That still leaves the problem of a non-Sikh disguising himself as a Sikh to smuggle weapons onto an airplane. How exactly do you verify that the fellow is a Sikh?

As for turbans looking like diapers... hey, you don't like his show, don't listen to it. And send him all the hate mail you can afford. You're free to hate him, he's free to hate you. Isn't America all about freedom after all?

Well Anukool, you'll notice that nobody objected to or took issue with his general position on the issue of security checks, as that is something that can be debated. They are talking about his using a racist epithet to describe Sikhs. And if it's not acceptable to use racist terminology to describe black, Jewish or East Asian people whilst discussing issues related to members of those communities, why should people not register their disgust at his racist terminology, without it irking you? I mean, why does that bring you out in a rash? You are after all free to ignore all this thread, and its confronting of racism, if it upsets you so much too.

That still leaves the problem of a non-Sikh disguising himself as a Sikh to smuggle weapons onto an airplane. How exactly do you verify that the fellow is a Sikh?

This example is practically incomprehensible on so many levels. First of all, weapons would be detectable if hidden in a turban. Secondly, if anyone is going to decide to "disguise" themselves as another to avoid suspicion, they sure as hell aren't going to choose wearing a turban! How exactly does that thought process go? "Hmmm. let me see how to duck under the radar, I'll grow a beard and put on a turban!"

I'd imagine if a sikh or anyone else even touches his turban during a flight, big joe and mark mcgilligidy will be right on top of them with in .25 milliseconds.

In terms of religious practices being compromised in the interest of safety, I'm with you there. There was a case in florida where a muslim woman wanted to get a drivers license without taking off her burka for the picture, claiming that everone wanted to "unveil" her. I'm with you, you don't unveil, you don't get the license. in the case of turban removal, it should be done with taste, in my view. so take them to a private area, if there's more suspicion rather than "he's got a turban ooogity booogity boo!"

but this guys demeanor is, "fuck you, fuck your religion, and oh yea, its all for safety."

"Hmmm. let me see how to duck under the radar, I'll grow a beard and put on a turban!"

There is lot of published literature, and experts on terrorism who have discussed this point. First, the rule of terrorism is do not try too hard to go under the radar. Going too much under the radar is the first sign of trouble that will get you detected - like being dressed too nice at the airport, clothes too well arranged in the suitcase, being looking too hippieish, even too shabby. Anything too perfect or beyond the norm is the first warning sign. Also, it defeats the purpose of terrorism - publicity and propaganda.

All the 9/11 terrorists did almost nothing to go under the cover. Just act, and look average.

However, growing a beard, and putting a turban might not a bad idea (especially if you want all the focus on you and let your accomplices pass unnoticed)

Or since you will get vetted at the airport, and if you pass the muster, you can do what you want, once inside. You might even act as a decoy, or diversionary for your group of accomplices to do the act (and they might look like average Joes). There are thousands of possibilities. I do not think arm-chair SM commenters can even exhaust all the permutations and combinations.

Also, if you know that the turban, or for that matter jewish skull cap is no touch item, then you can easily put a part of your bomb or something really small in that could be reassembled later - in the bathroom, etc. Often, acts of terror are done in tandem, with no one single being carrying the whole operation.

Remember, 9/11 was done with lowest of the lowest tech item - box cutters, with all of them nonchalantly boarding the plane at the Boston, after a night of partying.

PS: My comment has no bearing or is in relation to the racist comment made by the shock jock.

A similar incident took place in Vancouver (Canada) last week. Another loudmouth upset the Sikh (and Islamic) community in this region with his remarks on Sikhs wearing turbans and Muslim women wearing the veil. AND, get this..he's the manager of Brian Adams and Michael Buble!!
Here is some of what he said: "If you're immigrating to this country and you don't like the rules that are in place, then you have the right to choose not to live here.''
He goes on to say, "But if you choose to come to a place like Canada, then shut up and fit in … these are the rules. There's the door. If you don't like the rules, hit it. We don't need you here. You have another place to go: It's called home. See ya!"
HERE IS A LINK TO HIS RANT (It's only a couple of minutes long):
http://www.cknw.com/shows/realitycheck.cfm?REM=42341&fld=2007&fle=Immigrant_Bashing.wma&wids=300

All the 9/11 terrorists did almost nothing to go under the cover. Just act, and look average.

I'm talking about the atmosphere post 9-11, on 9-11, it was pre9-11 rules.

especially if you want all the focus on you and let your accomplices pass unnoticed

Thats different, you have accomplices, it's clear from the example, he meant it in the sense of the turbaned person actually committing the act.

Or since you will get vetted at the airport, and if you pass the muster, you can do what you want, once inside.

That's bs, ask any person wearing a turban how "whatever he wants he can do" he feels after passing security, if you're talking decoys, etc.. it's different, then hiding weapons in the turban is a moot point.

Also, if you know that the turban, or for that matter jewish skull cap is no touch item, then you can easily put a part of your bomb or something really small in that could be reassembled later -

I'm not against searching it, as long as it's done with a sense of respect towards it being a religious practice.

with this discussion, you are aiding the terrorists.

also, please tell me if i should use fair and lovely to look whiter before i board a plane or not. i await your memo.

I'm talking about the atmosphere post 9-11, on 9-11, it was pre9-11 rules.

9-11 is no benchmark, maybe, in your young mind as an american.

1970-80s had a series of airport terrorism - at one point there were 2-3 hijackings, planes being blown every year - done by Al Fatah/ PLO, Red Brigade, Libyan terrorists, Khalistani terrorists, and every other outfit, and their mother. Some examples - Entebbe, Mogadishu, Kanishka, Lockerbie.

That is why I said, airport terrorism is very well studied topic, yet every time, there is a new combination, and surprise. Successful terrorists never repeat a technique.

One could be a decoy, or one could be diversionary or one could be carrier of small pieces - maybe trigger chip for the bomb only, and others carrying other parts. Parts in itself so innocent that they pass the security muster, and yet the sensitive part is hidden in the head gear. Thousands of permutations, and combinations.

Once inside, you have bathrooms to do what you want.

PPS: I was boarding a plane from Spain in 1990s, a day after a Spanish plane was blown up. The airport authority asked me all about my stay in Spain. She quietly listened to me - then she calmly asked me, can I show her some receipts (hotels, etc.), and IDs (Graduate School, driver's license) to collaborate my story. Since I had all my receipts for reimbursement, all made sense, it was OK. I guess she was looking for any inconsistencies, because even a terrorist would have receipts, IDs, and all, but might try to hide a part of their story.


I'm not against searching it, as long as it's done with a sense of respect towards it being a religious practice.

I fully agree.

9-11 is no benchmark, maybe, in your young mind as an american.

err.. I thought this discussion was about sikhs in America. And 9-11 is certainly a benchmark interms of defining what became "eye-catching" at the airport.

Anukool, first of all your comparisons (removing shoes vs. removing a religious article, spewing racist epithets vs. responding with an admonishing letter of critque) aren't even comparable. At any rate, I don't want to really debate the security aspect of this topic again -- there is already a conversation on this thread.

dravidian lurker, thanks :) Your comment made me smile -- I miss Rahul.

also, please tell me if i should use fair and lovely to look whiter before i board a plane or not.

why ask me? ask him.

Re: the comment about more whites dying than blacks in Katrina, that was because many of the whites who stayed did so voluntarily, didn't want to leave, protecting their stuff from vandals, never left before, rode out lots of storms (my father is from Fla. and I've heard this stuff before). On the other hand many of the black people who stayed were STUCK (no transportation out of the city), and went to the stadium, which while bad was not the death trap, Lord of the Flies environment it was made out to be.

By the way, regarding the post on the NAACP, the attorney for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund who represented the wrongfully accused African Americans in Tulia, Texas was brown, her name is Vanita Gupta. Ya'll should be proud, that was a hell of a case and she was a rookie attorney at the time!

why ask me? ask him.

he is no authority, maybe, in your young mind as an american.

Manju: Would it be fair to say that you are a little anti-semitic?

coz i dated an anti-semite? she was hot.

coz i dated an anti-semite? she was hot.

on one hand, you h@te j*ws. on the other hand, you have a great r*ck...

on one hand, you h@te j*ws. on the other hand, you have a great r*ck...

Wait, whaaa?

nothing. just walking through the internal dialogue of dating an anti semite because shes hot.

so on our 1st date she was telling me about some VCs, who happen to be indian, that financed her start-up company (she's a clothing designer). my mind must've wandered b/c the next thing i heard her say was "they like to keep to themselves" and i'm thinking she's talking about indians, which was a little disconcerting since she's white and i guess the "you can only badmouth your own" rule makes some sense.

so i ask "who?"

she says; "the jews." then pauses. then says, "oh, i shouldn't say 'the jews,' that sounds bad"

and i'm thinking, why the hell would an anti-semite go on an interracial date? but i guess i stereotyped anti-semites as being racists too. so i'm just as bad as her.

Manju, what your friend said does not strike me as being terribly "anti-semitic". Maybe she is, maybe she isn't. If that is what passes for anti-semitic hate speech now days though,, well I am not very impressed to say the least. The stuff that is tossed at South Asians, Middle Easterners, Hispanics, and even East Asians on daily basis is much, much worse, and with far greater consequences.

Manju, what your friend said does not strike me as being terribly "anti-semitic". Maybe she is, maybe she isn't. If that is what passes for anti-semitic hate speech now days though,, well I am not very impressed to say the least. The stuff that is tossed at South Asians, Middle Easterners, Hispanics, and even East Asians on daily basis is much, much worse, and with far greater consequences.

there was other stuff. what was interesting is that she come from an old-line wasp family. her dad was a 3rd generation yale ibanker. so, i met her family and the topic of "the jews" came up now and then, and i could sense the resentment, especially in regards to wall steet, where the wasps once ruled but now play 2nd fiddle to goldman and lehman. i'm not sure why they felt so comfortable discussing this in front of me, but they did know a lot of indians, having lived there for a few years, (she had an indian first name) so i surmise they probably heard a lot of indians say racist and anti-semitic stuff in india so they figured i was like that. she told an odd story of being "kdnapped" in india by a poor family that treated her like a princess because she was blonde.

i think one of the great unwritten stories of our time is the decline of wasp power and culture. too much money will do that.i once had a headache and her mom gave me a percocet, so i sense alcohol and drug abuse has hit this community. it was very interesting observing the natives in their natural habitat (the upper east side of Manhattan.) later, i regaled my business partner, whose father is a prominent rabbi, with stories of my time spent in wasp high-society. he said he never experienced any antisemitism, but always suspected it existed and thus would've never considered working for morgan stanley or JP Morgan when he started out on wall st. he found it very interesting that i could confirm his suspicions. now, if one of us could just infiltrate british high-society it would be interesting to hear what they say about indians...since we are the new jews.

so i surmise they probably heard a lot of indians say racist and anti-semitic stuff in india so they figured i was like that

Throwaway remarks like this one irk me.They underscore the fact that even here there are so many stereotypes about Indians and India

Well said Runa, I mean't to comment on it but got pulled into something else. I think what is comical the flow of logic anti semitic in front of a person of Indian origin=time in India=daughter with Indian first name=they probably heard Indians say racist and anti semitic things. I think the problem here is that even some old time commenters don't think before typing.

Manju,

Not only Runa is correct.

Historically, the chief war strategist for 1971 was a Jew, the chief of staff was a Parsee, and the General who took the surrender on the eastern front was a Sikh.

Hindu Nationalist in fact, see Jews as their natural ally. Should I expound more.....or you get the hint.

and the irony is that all this anti semitism was exhibited to man-jew. stinging!

Also, I am not sure how giving you a percocet for headache logically flows to Drug and Alcohol abuse in the Wasp community.

Also, I am not sure how giving you a percocet for headache logically flows to Drug and Alcohol abuse in the Wasp community.

because she gave him a johnny walker blue label to down it with.

Dravidian,

That will sure make sense, btw your comments here are some of the funniest.

because she gave him a johnny walker blue label to down it with.

Manju, Can you back up your assertion with experience?

yes, i've heard it. granted anti-black statements are the most common, followed by anti-muslim. while anti-semitic statements are much rarer, i guess it just falls into the general social acceptance of such statements in Indian society, which of course itself is a stereotype, and maybe you'd take offense to that but its not too differnet from saying there's a lot of racism in Jena, LA.

blockquote>yes, i've heard it. granted anti-black statements are the most common, followed by anti-muslim. while anti-semitic statements are much rarer

So you admit that anti-semitic statements are rare in India yet you have no qualms in surmising that anti-semtitism is so widely acceptable in India that your ex's parents definitely spoke the way they did in front of you because they definitely heard people in India being anti-semitic? Puh-leeze!

Saying "there is racism in Jena" is different than saying that "anti-semitism is widely accepted in India". Don't play games. The parallel would be if I took the example of Jena and said that all Americans are racist -which is ridiculous.
I am calling you out on this one because of the casual way you slipped it into a comment here.Yeah, damn right I take offence.

I've heard plenty of Jewish conspiracy kind of anti-semitism from dbds. Plenty.

Camille said:

I must live in an alternate universe, because the vast majority of desis I meet (especially among my parents' generation) are Republican.

Wow, that's really surprising to me. I know that Pakistanis were voting Republican pretty recently because Bush was sending aid their way, and I know some Sikhs who went Republican in the 80s on account of Dan Burton and a few other Republicans were the only ones in Congress talking about the genocide in Punjab (thanks to lobbying by Dr. Gurmeet Singh Aulukh), but desi Republicans are pretty rare in my world, PARTICULARLY among my parents' generation. I always attributed desi support for Democrats to their willingness to help take care of the weak and infirm, i.e. their social conscience.

Full disclosure: I was a misguided youth, myself. I took Ayn Rand way too seriously and, instigated by some lobbying-kind of activists (and sensing a great item for my college applications) I volunteered at the 1992 GOP convention. I was the 16 year old token in the orange turban cheering during Pat Buchanan's speech--there's prolly footage of my somewhere.

Thank you, Mr. Vonnegut, for saving my soul.

I've heard plenty of Jewish conspiracy kind of anti-semitism from dbds. Plenty.

And I - a DBD - have had Jewish friends in the des all my life- classmates and colleagues, my parents had Jewish friends in the des and not ONCE have I ever heard them complain of anti -semitism.

I wonder if the DBDs you and Manju seem to meet are the fringe nutcases/conspiracy theorists?
I mean if my American friends were all members of the KKK ,I am sure I would also have this idea that all Americans are white supremacists

To get back on topic here, I think it is safe to say that Al Rantel has never had a qualm in relation to belittling and insulting the likes of anything even remotely seen as "Islamic/Middle Eastern" on his radio show, and that unfortunately means Sikhs, and South Asians in general, will get to bare the likes of his ratings grabbing wrath. His listening audience is probably not much into the concept of "nuance", anyways.

Of course, you will never here Mr.Rantel say anything that could even be remotely viewed as "anti-Semitic" by even the most fringe of the fringe in the department of "victimhood". Is that a double standard? I would day so...

Runa, Brown, Kush,

Will you forgive me for asking this, though I SWEAR I have a point-- are you all DBDs? I think Runa and Brown are, but am not sure about Kush. How long have you been here/when did you leave India? I think I know where the disconnect between you Manju/Harbeer is coming from, but I don't want to assume anything, which is why I'm asking kinda dumb, potentially offensive questions...

I think it is one thing that you qualify your statements with your personal experince but lable the whole country anti semite is pretty far fetched. I think Runa says it much better than I can.

Hi Anna,

I have no problem with you asking, I lived in India till I was 27 and moved here 6 years back. I lived in Delhi and Bombay and travelled extensively throughout the country. I hope this place stays a respectful forum and few sweeping generaliztions like these don't cloud everyone's judgements about people from India. In my mind this is as bad as Prema calling the whole Korean male communite emasculated after the Virginia Tech incident.

I hope this place stays a respectful forum and few sweeping generaliztions like these don't cloud everyone's judgements about people from India.

I hope so, too! Though as we get larger, it's def. more of a challenge to keep the chaos contained. :) I don't want anyone to make incorrect or demeaning statements about people from India, in fact, that's exactly why I'm stepping in now. :)

In my mind this is as bad as Prema calling the whole Korean male communite emasculated after the Virginia Tech incident

Oh, my. Well, this shall be sorted and soon. :)

Anna,

I appreciate the sanity you and your co authors bring to this site and that is precisely why I have been reading SM since 2005, I learn so many things I had no idea about and I think you guys do a great job in containing the noise.

they did know a lot of indians, having lived there for a few years, (she had an indian first name) so i surmise they probably heard a lot of indians say racist and anti-semitic stuff in india so they figured i was like that. she told an odd story of being "kdnapped" in india by a poor family that treated her like a princess because she was blonde.

wow, and Indian captivity narrative with a dot-not-feather twist. The things you hear on SM.
I am sure her anti-semitism was just a manifestation of the Stockholm syndrome.

I think Runa and Brown are, but am not sure about Kush. How long have you been here/when did you leave India?

Answer to your questions:

I was born in India.

I spent my childhood in USA.

I spent my formative, teenage, and youthful years in India.

I got my 2 graduate degrees in USA.

I have spent more total years in USA than in India.

However, I visit India almost every year. I was there last year, and probably will be in December-January again. In India, I have lived in campus towns that happen to be national universities in India (Kalyanpur (technically IIT is in Kalyanpur, not Kanpur City proper), and Roorkee***) so I do sample a wide variety of people from India through neighbors, friends, class mates, etc during my stay in India. During chai time (which is almost the whole day) in a Department @ IIT, Roorkee, you will see South Indians, North Indians, Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Muslims - as faculty members in animated discussions, and you learn from them.

Therefore, a lot of comments here on SM on generalities about India sound to me idiotic, nutty, uninformed, full of their own prejudices, tainted glasses, fringe cases, not uniformly sampled about Indians. More than often, I let them pass because I need to get work done. No doubt, you have people here at SM comments with intelligent observations too - they are breath of fresh air.

I think Runa is more vigilant. She is not the only DBD on SM but maybe, the most committed to fight blanket utterances. Technically 60% of Indian American citizens are DBDs. Then you have H-1Bs,H-4s, F-1s, O-1s, Green cards and the whole nine yard lurking SM during daytime. Most of the time, I find people making over-the-top generalities without much sampling amusing.

*** Roorkee does not only have an IIT but the oldest military engineering garrison in India - Bengal Sappers, and quite a few national labs (CBRI, NIH, World Bank Irrigation Project HQ), so in Roorkee, you will find people from all the over India, and eventually you get a better idea about them.

Now you know, where I come from.

runa:

i don't think there is a lot of anti-semitism in india. i do think there is a lot less sensitivity to thnic stereotypes in india, and not much of a taboo to making such statements in public...which is not necessarily a bad thing, as some stereotypes are accurate. i myself am rather tolerant toward stereotypes and don't easily dismiss someone as a bigot, as my long debates with HMF regarding malcolm x prove.

of course, all stereotypes are absurd if one insists in assigning this stereotype to every individual in the stereotyped group. but to say indian society is very tolerant of bigoted comments is very different from saying all indians are bigots.

as my long debates with HMF regarding malcolm x prove.

i meant by this that malcolm x had some issues with racism but i still take hem very seriously.

Therefore, a lot of comments here on SM on generalities about India sound to me idiotic, nutty, uninformed, full of their own prejudices, tainted glasses, fringe cases, not uniformly sampled about Indians.

kush: r us saying you honestly haven't heard indians, especially of your parents generation, making sweeping statements about other ethnicites at a higher rate than say americans? are you telling me, after 9-11, you never went to an indian party and heard a scotch wielding uncleji say "we must kill all the Muslims!"

now i realize i'm engaging in stereotyping as well, but is anyone else familiar with my scotch wielding uncleji, or am i living in a alternate reality?

Therefore, a lot of comments here on SM on generalities about India sound to me idiotic, nutty, uninformed, full of their own prejudices, tainted glasses, fringe cases, not uniformly sampled about Indians

And that's why I asked what I did-- I think it's foolish to lump ALL DBDs together. You, Brown and Runa all have much more recent and therefore, in my opinion, more accurate views/experiences with India. You're not frozen in time, like certain aunts and uncles-- the ONE time I heard something anti-Semitic from an Uncle...he was someone who had come here in the 60s. Yes, those people visit home, but even then, they are frozen...they limit their interactions to family and rush to whatever wedding they went to India for and then come back to a job that doesn't allow for THAT many vacation days. Not the greatest opportunity for seeing the real, modern India, IMO. :)

I'm not saying that all of the "post '65" gen parents who populate my fathers peer group are anti-semites, not at all. But I think the attitudes do exist, especially if you are from a part of India that does not have many Jewish people or if you didn't go to one of India's top educational institutions/live in a city which had one. :) My dad never said anything negative about Jewish people, but that is because we are from central Kerala; similarly, my uncles and aunties who grew up in Bombay were more like Runakka. :) Out of all the people on SM, when it comes to things Indian, or getting a sense of what Indian people think or do, you are one of the people I trust most, because over the years you have mentioned all the places you've lived and your comments are superior for it. But not every DBD is like you, right? I knew a DBD H1-B at my last job, who, before leaving for Virginia three years ago, had never left AP. His experience (and therefore, his opinions) varied vastly from yours. Suffice to say, I wish I was sitting across from YOU at our weekly Chipotle lunches, instead of poor old Pravin. ;)

I'm not trying to front like I have the answers, I was just struck how in a weird way, both you and Manju were right (though sweeping generalizations never are); there are dumb Indian people, who are negative towards Blacks, Jewish people, "chaptas" (hey, why do I even know that word?) et al. But there are dumb people everywhere. India doesn't have a monopoly on either idiots or assholes. :D

kush: r us saying you honestly haven't heard indians, especially of your parents generation, making sweeping statements about other ethnicites at a higher rate than say americans? are you telling me, after 9-11, you never went to an indian party and heard a scotch wielding uncleji say "we must kill all the Muslims!"

Manju,

I have heard hazaar (thousand) prejudices filled statements in India - most of them are anti-Muslim from all the generations (yours, mine, older, younger). Nobody called them clean but you made a statement that goes against the Indian general mindset.

I have yet to hear an anti-semitic statement in India - even from Muslims - I know lot of Muslims as friends since Roorkee probably has 25% Muslims as native Roorkeeans - probably if I went to a working class Muslim neighborhood - maybe, maybe, in response to Palestine, etc. maybe.

I am telling you guys - an average Hindutva guys (or even nationalist Indians who are not Hindutva) see jew as a natural ally - I have had numerous discussions over the years - as a little kid, I remember, most animated discussion in India for 1973 Yom Kippur war - it happened two years after 1971 - An average guy knew might never know where Sinai Peninsula was - but knew Israelis were kicking Arab butt, just like us in n1971. That is the way India collectively thinks.

i have never heard any indian-born person of any religion make an anti-semitic remark. i wonder if the very few that do - my guess - do so because of the palestinian situation, which for many years (and still is to a certain extent) was a popular cause for indians. are these remarks truly anti-semitic or anti-israel? i remember when yasir arafat visited india and was feted as a hero. or does it have to do with the huge number of israeli tourists that visit india now (and there have been a few problems both ways)?

are you telling me, after 9-11, you never went to an indian party and heard a scotch wielding uncleji say "we must kill all the Muslims!"

"the ONE time I heard something anti-Semitic from an Uncle...he was someone who had come here in the 60s."

but i wonder if his anti-semitism developed after he came to the u.s. or was it really a holdover from india? it's easy to go to a new country and develop new attitudes based on experience/influence from others/stereotypes etc.

but i wonder if his anti-semitism developed after he came to the u.s. or was it really a holdover from india? it's easy to go to a new country and develop new attitudes based on experience/influence from others/stereotypes etc.

I'm wondering, too. Maybe you are right, and they only felt that way after coming here and deciding to let one stupid experience cloud their perception of an entire people (we're all guilty of it).

Now this is interesting, this anti-Israel vs. anti-semitic idea. I've heard about the negativity towards Israeli tourists and how it goes both ways-- one Israeli website I went to had a comments section and a vocal minority were trying to call out an asshole-ish majority on their unfortunate, rather nasty views of Indians. It was all annoying and depressing.

similarly, my uncles and aunties who grew up in Bombay were more like Runakka. :)

Anna ,
:-) Thanks
You asked so here is my story :
Born in the des ,studied there, worked there ,married there, had a kid there and then moved here approx 7 years ago at age 32.So my formative years were all spent in India.I also lived and worked in 5 or 6 cities/small towns in India in the North and West ( alas! never the South).My parents always had a large circle of friends from all over India - all religions/castes/communities etc etc . I am in an "Aviyal " marriage - as are most of my cousins and friends.My best friend who I know since kindergarten and whose parents I consider a second set of parents is Bohri Muslim.I went to Catholic school. Does this make me unusual among DBDs ? I do not think so because most of the folks I know in the des have had similar lives

think Runa is more vigilant. She is not the only DBD on SM but maybe, the most committed to fight blanket utterances

Fight ? :-) Maybe - because I feel sometimes that everyone gets a skewed impression of the des because of the skewed sample they deal with.Secular DBDs are not as rare as they seem!

Now this is interesting, this anti-Israel vs. anti-semitic idea. I've heard about the negativity towards Israeli tourists and how it goes both ways-- one Israeli website I went to had a comments section and a vocal minority were trying to call out an asshole-ish majority on their unfortunate, rather nasty views of Indians.

When I was in Rishikesh for a couple of days, I was surprised to see written signs in Hebrew in some shops (probably for basic stuff), since a lot of Israelis end up there. And the boarding houses/lodges are very accommodating to them. One person I talked to was a bit sad (but not angry) that one of the lodges had started serving meat* because of Israelis and other foreigners. I'm sure that the glut of Israelis looking for a release/peace in India after their compulsory stint in the army has some negative impact on the local Indian population, which in turn leads some locals to be negative towards them. The few Israelis I talked to, their reason for being in India: it's a cheap place to travel, and many of them are looking for some kind of peace, or a place to do drugs and party. Another side-effect of the Middle-east conflict and its global impact.

* from what I gathered, the lodge was the only place in Rishikesh that served meat. Rishikesh has many yoga ashrams and religious organizations, is a spiritual/religious town at the foothills of Himalayas some distance away from Haridwar, and according to the person I talked to, all the restaurants in Rishikesh serve only vegetarian food, with the exception of the lodge.

How come anti-Semitism always refers to the hatred of Jewish people? In linguistics and in cultural studies/anthropology, the term refers to both Jews and Arabs (or their languages), along with some other small populations. Does anyone know why this is? From what I know, the term emerges late in the 19th century, but I can't seem to find out how it happened. Regardless, I think the term's current usage seems to have the negative effect of widening the perceived gap between Jews and Arabs by drawing that line, which is a shame since the two groups share so much peaceful history and culture!

The only time I've heard anything negative about Jews is from some Indian Muslims who have a conspiracy mindset and think that the Jews control everything that USA does.

That should be "..anything negative about Jews from Indians is..."

How come anti-Semitism always refers to the hatred of Jewish people? In linguistics and in cultural studies/anthropology, the term refers to both Jews and Arabs (or their languages), along with some other small populations. Does anyone know why this is? From what I know, the term emerges late in the 19th century, but I can't seem to find out how it happened. Regardless, I think the term's current usage seems to have the negative effect of widening the perceived gap between Jews and Arabs by drawing that line, which is a shame since the two groups share so much peaceful history and culture!

I tried this argument back in college and my raised-in-Israel, speaking-Hebrew/Arabic/French, sponsoring-PalestianianSolidarityGroup, professor shut me down very quickly. Usage really matters here, as you indicated, especially in the past 100 years or so when media studies became it's own discipline.

also, if you are going by semitic languages you must also include Aramhic (Ethiopians) and Aramaic as well as Arabic and Hebrew.

I am telling you guys - an average Hindutva guys (or even nationalist Indians who are not Hindutva) see jew as a natural ally - I have had numerous discussions over the years - as a little kid, I remember, most animated discussion in India for 1973 Yom Kippur war - it happened two years after 1971 - An average guy knew might never know where Sinai Peninsula was - but knew Israelis were kicking Arab butt, just like us in n1971. That is the way India collectively thinks.

Most people in my community (I am from Lucknow) do not even know what the Yom Kippur war was. They aren't even v bothered about muslims: in fact many have a v high opinion of them due to their association with old nawabi/lakhnavi culture, etc. Most prejudice is caste and region based. Just saying that it is v hard to tell what Indian collectively thinks: just look at the mishmash that gets elected to Parliament every year.

muralimannered:
We meet again! My post was more about the question than an argument. From what I have seen, in academia the term usually refers to all of the groups/languages above (I'm aware there are others; Maltese, Akkadian, etc.) whereas the general public usage seems to indicate only Hebrew/Jews. If you don't mind, could you elaborate a bit on the media studies point? I'm really interested in the history of the mass media/layperson's usage of the term, and would greatly appreciate it. Thanks!

Harbeer,
I think some of the Republicanism might have to do with my parents' original social circle being based in the midwest and southwest -- the majority of their friends/colleagues were solidly moderate (leaning slightly right). In the Bay Area it was different -- most had been lifelong Democrats. As the tenor of the Republican party has continually shifted right, most of the moderate aunties and uncles I know are becoming "decline to state"s. My parents, as Dems, have always been the exception in their circle.

With respect to the "are DBDs more anti-Semitic/bigoted" question... I don't think there's anything intrinsically or culturally more anti-Semitic about the des. I do think, however, that depending on where you settle in the U.S. it is easier to pick up the subtle bigotry that passes every day in the U.S., both in the form of mass media and in everyday interactions.

From Toronto Star:

"In India there was no such thing as anti-Semitism. I only heard that word after I left," says Abraham, a retired Hamilton city planner who came here in 1968 for a better economic opportunity.

With larger numbers in India, it was easier for Jews to preserve their faith and culture. In Canada, doing so is more challenging because "we are a minority within a minority," Moses says.

Parents in the small community typically send their children to Jewish schools or Hebrew night classes. They attend established synagogues. Bar and bat mitzvahs are celebrated. Small groups of families take turns hosting the Sabbath dinner at home on Fridays. Marrying within the faith is strongly encouraged.

Their strong identification with Indian culture means they also observe festivals such as Diwali and Holi.

"It's an interesting balance," says Moses.

"I also have allegiance to three countries because they've shaped who I am. If someone talks negatively about Israel I'm right in there defending the country. Same with India and now also Canada."

PS: Ultrabrown covered Indian Jews very poignantly recently.

re: anti-semitism, a lot of the jewish themed conspiracy themes are memes of recent vintage. there are a fair amount in japan as well now, not because they are very familiar with jews, but they seem an exotic and powerful people. there is anti-semitism bred from familiarity and resentment, as might be exhibited by old-line WASPs who resent their decline in relative power in part due to the influx of jews into the american elites. and then there is anti-semitism bred from exoticism, basically ignorance fed by legend, myth and exaggeration. and finally there is anti-semitism bred from something in between, such as attitudes some muslims have about jews because of palestine and the arab-israeli conflict (e.g., i have heard southeast asian muslims repeating anti-semitic 'elders of zion' type myths, but they obviously were just repeating some stuff they'd heard at masjid or in muslim literature).

The story of Jews in India is more complicated than just that of the historical communities in Cochin and elsewhere on the Konkan and Malabar coasts (from Gujarat down to Kerala). These coastal Jewish communities never got pressed into 'middleman' roles, they lived among and with the local population. Neither was there any religious animosity, so the classic conditions that gave rise to anti-Semitism in Europe were not present, and so it's not surprizing that it never arose there.

However, there were also Jewish traders and sojourners, some of whom had Indian slaves - where 'slaves' need not necessarily bring to mind chattel - such as the merchant profiled by Amitav Ghosh in 'In an Antique Land' - perhaps the visibility of such traders was small, so no particular 'otherizing discourses' got started.

But Jews also came in with other colonizers - certainly with the British, participating both as administrators (there were Jewish Viceroys in India, as well as Secretaries of State for India in Britain), plus lesser functionaries; as well as merchants, traders, investors and bankers. Here they adopted more explicitly 'middleman' roles - competing with Marwaris head-on in Calcutta and Bombay, for example. So here the conditions for seeing them analogously to European Jewry were there. In fact, some of these communities directly brought in the attitudes and 'human and social capital' that characterized European Jewish communities.

The post-Great Depression Hitlerian anti-Semitic discourse did find some resonance in India, and the specific Palestinian situation created another space for such discourses. So anti-Semitism is not altogether absent in India, and in places, can be quite strong. Many of the people who have these anti-Semitic views have never actually met or interacted with Jews, but they pick up the attitudes from the media, from colonial mindsets, etc.

But still, I find the very discussion of anti-Semitism amongst Indians, especially in the US - a little curious, if not altogether surreal. In the North American context, Jews as a community are vastly more numerous and vastly stronger. And as both individuals and a community - vastly more influential and vastly more wealthy than Indians. It's going to be a long time before Indians are both Secretary of Defence and Secretary of State at the same time (which happened in the US for first-generation European Jews - more than 30 years ago) - or hold down a dozen Senate seats, or head up all of the largest financial companies, or be Mayor of the largest cities etc - if it ever happens.

And Razib, to your list of how anti-Semitism arises, I would add that some Jews do in fact behave in clannish ways - I have seen the behavior myself, both in academic Departments and in companies. Many other Jews are extremely outgoing, 'liberal' etc of course. But let's not completely discount the fact that some of the time, the behavior that the worst bigots ascribe to all Jews is actually exhibited by some of them.

once upon a time i happened to be sitting next to a north african grad student (columbia U) at a sushi and we got into a political discussion. at one point, he leaned in and asked me if i knew who was really responsible for 911, and the answer was "the israelites." i could be wrong, but i sensed the reason he felt comfortable saying this tyo me was because i'm brown, and he felt a comradeship, perhaps assuming brown=sympathy toward palestinians=open to zionist conspiracy theory. somehow i doubt he would've said that to a white man.

so i think we must remember that our data is a tad skewed because your own type will usually let their hair down around you and tell you how they really feel. so, i guess that why i was so surprised around my ex's family. maybe they felt a kinship that i didn't.

And Razib, to your list of how anti-Semitism arises, I would add that some Jews do in fact behave in clannish ways - I have seen the behavior myself, both in academic Departments and in companies. Many other Jews are extremely outgoing, 'liberal' etc of course. But let's not completely discount the fact that some of the time, the behavior that the worst bigots ascribe to all Jews is actually exhibited by some of them.

chachaji, of course. i've discussed some of that here:
http://scienceblogs.com/gnxp/2007/07/a_reflected_light_from_the_nat.php

but i assume it as a background condition that the rabbinical jews viewed goyim as amoral animals just as the goyim viewed jews as blood-sucking parasites (there is a long tradition in kabbalah of non-jews essentially lacking souls and being descended from 'adam belial,' the evil adam). but this dynamic is not particular to the jewish-gentile one, we south asians here need no lessons on groups dehumanizing each other alas.

p.s. some german jewish refugees ended up in cochin in the late middle ages and in the early modern period.

here is the direct link to my rumination upon jewish exclusivity.

244 · razib_the_atheist

chachaji, of course. i've discussed some of that here:

razib,

I read that--wow--that's really more of a research agenda than a manifesto--you should totally go into academia--you've got a lifetime's worth of interesting topics to work on--and this seems to me (no expert) to be plausible but not established stuff--so unlike so much self-satisfied academic carrying-on.
Do
it!

Heh--to ensure your success, pick a weak (academically speaking--i.e.,at the professorial level) field, like law!

rob, my primary interest is in evolutionary biology. my historical interests are a sidelight. as for the facts i reported, they don't require any deep research. e.g., if you read "pop kabbalah" closely there are hints of pretty nasty attitudes toward gentiles if you know the historical context, so just follow the bibliography and you'll find some shocking stuff.

(this is not to imply of course that most jews believe that the lives of non-jews are without worth or value. there is some nasty material in the new testament about jews which obviously does not reflect the attitudes of most contemporary christians. historical context matters)

pick a weak (academically speaking--i.e.,at the professorial level) field, like law!

"a mind is a terrible thing to waste" :=)

razib,
my point is that most (professional) historians, social scientists, law professors, etc. these days are so crazy that someone with your level of engagement yet detached rationality, coupled with high IQ, could clean up--take the suggestion for what it's worth--it's just coming from me, but I'm pretty sure it's true.

these days are so crazy that someone with your level of engagement yet detached rationality, coupled with high IQ, could clean up--take the suggestion for what it's worth--it's just coming from me, but I'm pretty sure it's true.

i have an interest in historical population genetics, so you might seem me wander into that area in the near future ;-) but two points

1) re: me, i'm bad at languages. a scholar dependent on secondary sources is at a disadvantage in the game of the academy

2) in the natural sciences we ultimately cede ground to lady nature. i am not totally unconvinced that the sclerotic machinery of human social evolution hasn't suborned the humane studies to the point where fidelity to the Truth wouldn't be a handicap! but perhaps i should have more faith!

so i think we must remember that our data is a tad skewed because your own type will usually let their hair down around you and tell you how they really feel.

more true than false. 'Bigoted' comments are quite common in India. But anti- semitism? I daresay that for most DBDs who live in India Jews dont register. If you are in Bombay then one is aware of Jews. Rest of India - I doubt it.

Is it easier to deal with a racist who is vocal about their thoughts than with a racist who controls their speech? At least in the former one knows where one stands.

"If you're immigrating to this country and you don't like the rules that are in place, then you have the right to choose not to live here.'' He goes on to say, "But if you choose to come to a place like Canada, then shut up and fit in … these are the rules. There's the door. If you don't like the rules, hit it. We don't need you here. You have another place to go: It's called home. See ya!"

I suggest we build a lexicon of jolly and punchy labels against the Anglo racists and rightwingers.How about it?

i had a lebanese american friend who was often called "sand n*gger", and she would respond to some of her taunters "like jesus."

Technically 60% of Indian American citizens are DBDs.

It is even higher, from Stanford website, 83% of Asian Indians are foreign born. Sure, foreign born includes Fiji, Carribean, Africa, and all

Not to backtrack, but Bob Hebert had an interesting commentary on the RNC and African Americans in today's NYT: The Ugly Side of the G.O.P.

I thought, in light of our discussion re: South Asian American political affiliations that it offers an interesting perspective on the issue of "racist-pandering" in the RNC.

Ever since the civil rights act of 1964, a piece of legislation that had 95% of the southern dixiecrats vote against, racists have had to get a bit clever in practicing their craft, which of course includes the recruitment of unsuspecting minorities to do some of their work for them.