"What does it all mean? I’ll let you guys sort it out…"

C'mon man... you the 'blogger'. Give us your perspective and we will argue about it.

I wonder if groups like ADL (Anti-Defamation League) would encourage hate crime reports from Jews. Without that, they're out of work. I mention this in the context of the consistently high number of hate crime reports from Jews and also with Indian groups looking up to Jewish groups as role models (this was related to lobbying) - perhaps we should take their successful models and better them?

The apostrophe is wrongly used in the post title. Please remove it.

The biggest problem with using FBI hate crime data to talk about "who's oppressed more" is that it counts offenses like vandalism and "intimidation". This data is therefore heavily reliant on people affirmatively choosing to report such incidents to the police.

As such, religious and ethnic groups that encourage their members to collect and report this information to authorities will be more represented in the stats. So a strong educational campaign, sympathetic public figures, and a well-funded informational (and potentially legal) infrastructure will significantly impact these numbers. I would argue that at least some portion of the high representation of hate crimes against Jewish people in these statistics is due to strong organizations like ADL.

Of course there's a chicken-and-egg thing going on here. You could make the argument that ADL is successful because it's directly responding to very serious, continuing discrimination. That view is borne out by the growth in Islamic organizations intended to combat discrimination after 9/11 -- CAIR has grown enormously, for example. Of course, there is virtually no such organization for Hindus, or even Desis as a group. I would argue that this group is heavily undercounted as a result (the fact that Desis are not even counted as a distinct group, and that Hindus are shoved into the general "Other" group along with Satanists, Wiccans, etc, etc... speaks powerfully to that).

Just think it through: if you wake up one day and find some offensive graffiti on your garage, what would you do? Who would you call? If you live in a large American city, there may be some anti-discrimination organizations that could help you, but that doesn't help many Desis. The organizations are also not widely known, and sectionalist impulses within the American Desi community may prevent people from reaching out to them. You could call the cops, but that would mean leaving it up for some time, and you know that investigating graffiti will not be a high police priority. Most likely, you would wash it off, stew for a while, and move on. And another "hate crime" goes unreported.

Having said all that, I freely admit it's possible that the sort of "hierarchy of American minority oppression" the stats suggest may be true. I can believe that the absolute number of crimes against Jewish people and Hispanic people absolutely overwhelms the number of crimes against Muslims/Hindus and/or Desis. But I think the FBI's data is fatally flawed as a tool to really get at that distribution. It's not nearly sophisticated enough.

The report has some very serious problems. It says that only 1 Hate crime was committed in Alabama and 0 in Missisippi compared to 739 in Michigan and 74 in Maine. We all know that Alabama and Missisippi have no minorities and no racial animus!

Jews v. Muslims: This stat is not all that surprising. Your local FBI office has to register a crime as a hate crime. The FBI agents dont register crimes as hate crimes usually unless the crime is very serious. In typical cases you need an organization to follow up with the FBI before it gets reported as such. Also Muslims (a lot them immigrants) might be unwilling to report such crimes anyway as is typical in immigrant communities.

Race of the offenders:

By Race
An analysis of available race data for the 7,330 known hate crime offenders revealed that:

58.6 percent were white.
20.6 percent were black.
5.7 percent were groups made up of individuals of various races (multiple races, group).
1.1 percent were Asian/Pacific Islander.
1.0 percent of known offenders were American Indian/Alaskan Native.
12.9 percent were unknown.

Vinod, I've commented on apostrophe use in your articles in the past as well; there is no reason why the plural of desi should be desi's.

Adding to the chorus of apostrophites.

Hindu’s & Sikh’s fall into the classic “other”...

Shodan, just be thankful that the Baha'i sect wasn't discussed on the thread.

Racism against South Asians is an interesting topic. I've lived in a couple countries due to my fathers job, US, UK, Germany, Malaysia and Saudi. I now live USA permanently. When I visit my relatives in India the topic racism often come up. Have you ever experienced racism, and so? Usually I try to argue that racism in India is allot more prevalent than in the west, but they can't see their own racism towards religious minorities etc. But that is really not very surprising, Indians are hardly alone when it comes to that. There was a very funny Sopranos episode about Cristopher Columbus, and thos mobster went on against defaming Italians while using harsh language against native Indians. It's just normal really.

No the interesting part as I see it, is why South Asians (or rather Indians) are so perceptive when it comes to racism in the west, even a comment to a Sikh cab driver in London make prime time news in India. This at the same time as Saudi Arabia executes 15 Indian nationals yearly, and Malaysia has apartheid laws for REAL. As we speak 26 ethnic Indians are being charged with murder only because they attended a demonstration against discriminatory laws against ethnic Indians in Malysia. To my surprise this news is not nearly as big as the Sikh cabdriver in London or the doctor that was held for terrorism charges in Australia. Not in Indian newspapers and not on this blog. I ask my self. How come?

If you want something done, ask a woman. Having said that, done, done and done.

Unless you find more. I'm kinda swamped right now with other things, so I didn't read his post/just scanned it. :)

Not in Indian newspapers and not on this blog. I ask my self. How come?

For the seventy-fourth time--

a) we are not a newspaper. we are a blog. nothing more.

b) if we don't have time, we can't post about it.

The minute one of you bonus-rich I-bankers wants to pay me to sit at home and blog all day, I'll be your Sepia Monkey. Then the stories which EVERYONE feels are being slighted merely because they weren't posted on a blog (???) will be covered. Until then? If you can, please accept what's possible. We do our best.

We don't even have time to proofread! Look at Vinod's posting and running! ;)

To my surprise this news is not nearly as big as the Sikh cabdriver in London or the doctor that was held for terrorism charges in Australia.

Vinod, as was mentioned previously, there are huge institutional barriers to reporting. Hate crimes against religious minorities ("other") increased by nearly 300% between 2001-2002 and then began to scale down again. How much of this was because of a drop, and how much had to do with confounding (too many different groups categorized as "other"), and how much had to do with underreporting or language barriers? It gets tricky. Also, given the high level of correlation between perceived ethnicity and religion/race, it's hard to disambiguate in hate crimes stats. The other difficult aspect is that to be qualified as a hate crime there's actually a relatively narrow definition, so many "bias incidents" (which are not actually hate crimes) are not captured in the survey.

I also think that there is a problem with classification of people under different races/ethnicities. For example, I got a speeding ticket a few months back and the police man put down my race as white. I was looking up information on this Bangladeshi dude and his race on a speeding ticket is put down as 'black'. So here you have two desis who very well might have been victims of race bias and one would show up in the records as white and one as black. There is no standardization and a lot depends on the perception of the person who is writing down the report.

ANNA

It was just a reflection, not a complaint. Why are Indians more occupied with racism in the west and less with racism in the arab world and South East Asia. How come?

Not How come you do not write about it. It wouldn't have made any difference if you hade wrote about, I would still have asked the same question, although leaving Sepia Mutiny out of it.

I was looking up information on this Bangladeshi dude and his race on a speeding ticket is put down as 'black'.

are you in a special line of debauchery work? or is speeding ticket info open to the public?

Here's a Slate article on what information the police can access about anyone. (birth info, credit report, etc.)

are you in a special line of debauchery work? or is speeding ticket info open to the public?

Its open to the public. Go to the Clerk of Court's website for your County and look up this information under public access or case file or case status online.

under public access

Today five more Indians where charged with murder, wich makes a total of 31 persons. All of them participated in a demonstration to protest against reservation quotas on jobs for Malays, and that Tamil speaking schools get less funding than Malayspeaking school. The Malay governents asnwers to those protest are, that Indians in Malaysia are better off in Malaysia than in India, and charging 31 with murder because one policeman was injured during the riots. This is nothing less than South African apartheid.

Sanjay, maybe we are concerned with U.S. issues because this is a DESI-AMERICAN blog? I know that, as an American, while I am concerned about global issues my bias is certainly towards issues that threaten democracy at home.

Camille

Well there where a lot of coverage concerning Australia. Again, it was not a question concerning the priorities of this blog, but a comment about how desis percieve racism in general.

#4 Also Muslims (a lot them immigrants) might be unwilling to report such crimes anyway as is typical in immigrant communities.

Ditto for hate crimes against latinos. I can't wait to see the stats for 2007 when this year is over.

Sanjay, maybe this is because of the demographics of the commenters on the site. There are more commenters from the U.S./UK/Australia than from Malaysia, in my experience :) Not that that makes an alternate view unimportant, just less represented. I have a feeling people perceive racism similarly (although fundamentally differently since racism varies by its social context and history), but that there is not the same level of direct experience or exposure.

Sanjay, maybe we are concerned with U.S. issues because this is a DESI-AMERICAN blog? I know that, as an American, while I am concerned about global issues my bias is certainly towards issues that threaten democracy at home.

I am not so sure about this catagorizaition. I think it has more to do with time (as in bandwidth), knowledge and passion of the bloggers. There have been enough posts about things that have very little to do with US and absolutely nothing to do with democracy.

Sanjay, while you can harp about and request a post about your favourite topic, I don't think you can browbeat bloggers into posting about a particular topic.

It was just a reflection, not a complaint. Why are Indians more occupied with racism in the west and less with racism in the arab world and South East Asia. How come?

It easier to get mad if the person who did it was white. Last week a sikh cab driver was attacked in Seattle. The person who attacked him was hispanic. So the outrage for that attack is not the same if it was if the person was white who did it.

Things that go on in the arab and South East Asia are alot worse then anything in the west in the year 2007.

sulabh

Goddamit, I'm not trying to force anyone to do this or that. I am just asking why priorities is they way they are. Clueless gave an example of a relating phenomena. Why didn't the incident in Seattle get as much attention as the incident in London? I think that i interesting.

Camille

Yes of course, that might be the reason. But I'm not sure since it's a phenomena you see in India as well.

So the outrage for that attack is not the same if it was if the person was white who did it.

That view is definitely held by some people... recently Isiah Thomas, the Knicks coach said this:

Jurors heard the Knicks coach say he wouldn't stand for a white man calling a black woman a "bitch" - but wouldn't be as angry if the same words came from the mouth of a black man. ... Asked if he was bothered by a black man calling a black female "bitch," Thomas said: "Not as much. I'm sorry to say, I do make a distinction.

"A white male calling a black female a bitch is highly offensive," Thomas said. "That would have violated my code of conduct."
link

The big story in the NFL is that during the end of the Ravens-Pats game, when the Refs were doing everything in there power to help the Pats win. One of the Ravens players Samari Rolle who is black stood up to the Refs, and one of the Refs called him "BOY". The ref who called him this was also black. Could you image if the ref who said this was white. Al Sharpten,Jesse Jackson and HMF would be on every channel and we would never hear the end of this.

It easier to get mad if the person who did it was white. Last week a sikh cab driver was attacked in Seattle. The person who attacked him was hispanic. So the outrage for that attack is not the same if it was if the person was white who did it.

Things that go on in the arab and South East Asia are alot worse then anything in the west in the year 2007.

when you say that the level of outrage was unequal in cases involving white and non-white assailants, are you referring to a particular metric measuring said outrage? Are you adding up hits on news.google for support? Or are you making a baseless, blanket assertion about the 'typical' reaction to hate crimes where a desi is the victim and the assailant is white?

Also there is no region on earth called "The Arab." I presume you are referring to the Arabian peninsula?

I am just asking why priorities is they way they are.

There's a saying in the insurance industry, "It is what it is."

The ref who called him this was also black. Could you image if the ref who said this was white. Al Sharpten,Jesse Jackson and HMF would be on every channel and we would never hear the end of this.

Why does it bother you? Don't you understand the historical resonances of using that terminology? SO why does it itch you so much?

There was a topic last year here on this website about sikh being attacked by his neighbor in Califronia, and at 1st nobody the race of the person who attacked him. So people started making comments about the attacker being white. But when it came out the attacker was black, the comments changed.

What does that have to do with your comments about the different resonances of calling a black man 'boy'? Are you being deliberately obtuse?

There was a topic last year here on this website about sikh being attacked by his neighbor in Califronia, and at 1st nobody the race of the person who attacked him. So people started making comments about the attacker being white. But when it came out the attacker was black, the comments changed.

Clueless,

Your comments probably grate on sensebilities on quite a few on this blog, but I quite enjoy this straight talk. :)
I hope you never get banned :)

Your comments probably grate on sensebilities on quite a few on this blog, but I quite enjoy this straight talk. :) I hope you never get banned :)

Just
like
all
the
other
straight-talkers.

how charming.

I hope you never get banned :)

Y'all act like it happens all the time. It doesn't. :)

As for Clueless, you're not the only one here who appreciates him.

Godwin's law by commnet #34. That was fast. ;)

comment. grr.

I generally don't agree with Clueless, but I don't think "progressive" narratives of hate crimes and their causes allow for the perp to also be a Person of Color (PoC).

Just like all the other straight-talkers.

how charming.

You forgot this at the end of your list:

If people want to post about a particular story that's what the news tab is for. You can even comment there.

I don't think "progressive" narratives of hate crimes and their causes allow for the perp to also be a Person of Color (PoC).

You forgot this at the end of your list:

how does godwin's law make my comparisons invalid? People who say things, unvarnished by reason, logic and substantiation are often branded "straight-talkers" because their message is easy to understand i.e., "Immigrants are bad" or "Jews are evil and are wrecking our country." and it runs counter to what they perceive as the dominant narrative or accepted wisdom. Such 'straight-talkers' deserve neither credit or praise for the content of their message nor the manner in which it was delivered.

I'm sure the next time Hotair opens up commenter registration again, you'll have a chance to join in the 'straight-talking' over there.

I am not trying to bait, but Clueless, were you the person who said you favored Lou Dobbs' approach to immigration in the U.S.?

The minute one of you bonus-rich I-bankers wants to pay me to sit at home and blog all day, I'll be your Sepia Monkey.

The minute one of you bonus-rich I-bankers wants to pay me to sit at home and blog all day, I'll be your Sepia Monkey.

44 was in jest ;)

Godwin's law by commnet #34. That was fast. ;)

I'd have to say i'm fairly disappointed by your glib response. If you bother going through the links I provided (a broad spectrum of both current and past public figures/commentators who fancy themselves 'straight-talkers) you might find a quibble with his characterization of my comment as an example of Godwin's Law. Jared Taylor, Steve Sailer, Tom Tancredo and David Duke are not definitely not National Socialists but they are racists who feel the need to masquerade as 'reasonable folk' who 'speak the truth'.

if you wish me to get even more obscure references, I venture that your time is better spent in this fruitless enterprise than mine.

Well there where a lot of coverage concerning Australia.

While I certainly do believe that discrimination from the majority (in US the white community) is very different from discrimination from other communities in aspects of harmfulness, it is in countries like Malaysia and Saudi Arabia a matter of the major ethnic group against a minority. Maybe this interests me more because I am an indian who moved to America rather than an Indian-American.

melbourne desi

The Indian doctor who was related to the british terrorists. I said, that story got a lot more coverage in Indian media than the current story about 31 Indians being held for murder charges in Kuala Lumpur because they attended a demonstration against discriminatory laws in Maysia such as quotas for Malays in job and less funds for schools with Indian kids. That goes for the reaction among most Indians, this blog as well. I asked the question why is that? I find it interesting.

Seems like an interesting debate about what constitutes 'hate' and whether such things can only exist between minority and majority.

Al_Chutiya @ 14 and 17, this happened to me too, and it seems like a pretty easy way to cheat the data. Once I actually asked an officer to change my ticket so it read 'Asian/Pac Islander' instead of 'white.' I'm not that light-skinned. He refused, arguing that "You're not black, are you?"
I was young and scared and ended up signing the ticket. Looking back, I can't help but wonder if it was a way of balancing the scales. Each desi pulled over (there were a few in my suburb) balances a DWB and makes the county cops look less biased. Has anyone else experienced this?
Seems like the reporting aspect of this data (and almost any statistics) come in question in cases like this. What if I reported a hate crime and they marked me down as Jewish? Going back to the inter-minority question, what if a group of homophobic russians attack a desi? Is that still race-based?
What about rape? Does that constitute a hate crime?

Sanjay -- Maybe because the "indians" in Malaysia migrated generations ago. In the case of the Chitty Tamils, they arrived prior to 1511. That's a long time ago. (It shows how bankrupt the Malaysian Bumiputra policy is. Chitty Tamils are consider not to be "sons of the soil", even after 500 years!)

Persecution and violence agaisnt "indian" communities in Guyana and Fiji also get less attention. The Australian doctor was a real Indian citizen -- Indians are going to get more upset about the mistreatment of a fellow citizen over the mistreatment of distant co-ethnics.

Maybe this interests me more because I am an indian who moved to America rather than an Indian-American.

It bothers me too and I hope there is post on this soon, I just did not understand why you directed your outrage at this blog. Most of the posts on this blog are top notch with respect to content and language, this means bloggers have to spend time in composing a post, I have not seen a single half ar*e attempt yet. So give them a break, that's all.

And Clueless:

Such 'straight-talkers' deserve neither credit or praise for the content of their message nor the manner in which it was delivered.

See. Some sensebilities grate easily. ;)

See. Some sensebilities grate easily. ;)

It's not a sensibility. It's a sensitivity to dubious truth-claims and the consequences of accepting them without question.

example: "Sulabh's apparent refusal to engage with MM's points means that he is responsible for the rampaging cancer devastating the Tasmanian Devil population."

Straight talk--out of the barrel and originating at the hip ;)

Ikram

There was also the case about the Sikh cabdriver to who'm om ethnic slurs was directed. The interesting thing about the Indian doctor in Australia though is that if a similar case in India had come up he would probably have spent a significantly longer time in custody.

Sulabh
As I told you, it wasn't anger, rather curiosity.

Godwin's law by commnet #34. That was fast. ;)

I'd have to say i'm fairly disappointed by your glib response. If you bother going through the links I provided (a broad spectrum of both current and past public figures/commentators who fancy themselves 'straight-talkers) you might find a quibble with his characterization of my comment as an example of Godwin's Law. Jared Taylor, Steve Sailer, Tom Tancredo and David Duke are not definitely not National Socialists but they are racists who feel the need to masquerade as 'reasonable folk' who 'speak the truth'.

if you wish me to get even more obscure references, I venture that your time is better spent in this fruitless enterprise than mine.

Muralimannered, why are you so quick to get outraged (and seems like a pattern with you recently - is everything OK?), when none is intended by the comment? I was making an observation. As for you being disappointed by my response, that's your prerogative - I have no control over other people's thoughts/emotions. *shrug*
Peace out.

I hadn't heard of the Sikh Cabdriver -- was it a big story in India? Elite Indians have an unusual attachment to London. Was it big in the US-Desi community? Americans identify more with the UK than Saudi.

Anyway -- Indians in Saudi are very different from persons of Indian ancestry in Guyana, T&T, Fiji, Malyasia or Indonesia. In the same vein, mistreatment of persons of Chinese-ancestry in Indonesia had no immediate reaction from the Gvt of China. Mistreatment of a few Chinese masseuses in Islamabad led to an international incident.

Muralimannered, why are you so quick to get outraged (and seems like a pattern with you recently - is everything OK?), when none is intended by the comment? I was making an observation.

That's not outrage. Outrage is when i make throw-away comments like yours and then 'peace out' before I explain my glibness. If nothing was intended I don't see why you had to type it at all and it's not incumbent on me to divine what exactly your motivations were.

if someone leaves a comment along the lines of , "this prior comment is just another example of a ludicrous tendency to rope in the Nazis and make the author look bad"

and then a subsequent commenter says, "Oh, haha, it didn't take too long for aforementioned commenter to take part in this ludicrous trend. hahahah"

what am i supposed to assume?

I'm grateful for your attention to my general well-being but it has no bearing on this discussion nor any influence on the tone of my comments.

Hitler was glib.

muralimannered, just so that you know, Amitabh Bachchan's angry-young-man-with-a-chip-on-his-shoulder is passé.

If nothing was intended I don't see why you had to type it at all and it's not incumbent on me to divine what exactly your motivations were.

I can make an observation, can't I? If it's not incumbent on you to divine my motivations, then you can give benefit-of-doubt instead of assuming. Go eat some mishti doi or a sweet - it'll cool you down. :)

muralimannered, just so that you know, Amitabh Bachchan's angry-young-man-with-a-chip-on-his-shoulder is passé.

I'm no fan of Big B and don't have any heroes I care to emulate that you've heard of, but i'll have to disabuse you of this notion that I'm angry and have a chip on my shoulder. I have very strong opinions about many issues--that doesn't mean that I'm angry but that I care to investigate issues below the surface and I care to articulate my views on said issues so that my line of reasoning can recognized easily. Can you point to these chips and anger? I never said that you can't make an observation, after all, that is what open commenting is all about--i did say, however, that if you appear to agree with Vikram can you please do us all the favor of explaining why. So what did you mean, exactly?

People who say things, unvarnished by reason, logic and substantiation are often branded "straight-talkers" because their message is easy to understand i.e.

Apparently that doesn't apply to the wild leaps of logic in your own post... For your own sake I hope you aren't scheduled for any drug tests in the near future. ;-)

Apparently that doesn't apply to the wild leaps of logic in your own post... For your own sake I hope you aren't scheduled for any drug tests in the near future. ;-)

Wild leaps, eh? Sounds like another glib-and-run to me. Do try, Dikram dear, to avoid the inevitable x-ray when applying for your next job--it could reveal the unfortunate consequences of an obsession with glass bottles.

Muralimannered, Ikram, Amit: Settle this the honorable desi way.... mixed classical indian dance fighting.

Wild leaps, eh? Sounds like another glib-and-run to me. Do try, Dikram dear, to avoid the inevitable x-ray when applying for your next job--it could reveal the unfortunate consequences of an obsession with glass bottles.

The picture from your family album is ... disturbing to put it mildly. But then again, you must hear that a lot. Ok, I'll you play with yourself on this thread... have fun.

muralimannered:

I mean no personal offense with this comment. Your posts as of late have been particularly and unnecessarily confrontational in tone, and this discourages posters like myself from joining the discussion for fear of being dragged into such an encounter, and general dislike for the atmosphere you create. Look at this:

"Or are you making a baseless, blanket assertion about the 'typical' reaction to hate crimes where a desi is the victim and the assailant is white?"

"I am just asking why priorities is they way they are." just)at the end of your post does not make it any less confrontational.

There's a saying in the insurance industry, "It is what it is."

You then go on, in post 34, to make a comparison between the poster and several other people you have designated "straight talkers", all of whom happen to be irrational extremists of one sort or another. I mean, come on, you are comparing the person's rhetoric to that of Hitler after reading only a few paragraphs of their writing, which is extreme in itself, but leaves out the fact that the poster was not deliberately deceiving anyone with rhetoric as Hitler (and some of the other "straight talkers") did, merely stating their opinion, unsupported as it may have been. You could easily have just called the person a "straight talker" and used less ridiculous examples, but you chose those specifically, which creates an inarguably implicit connection between that poster and those people. If that isn't blatant and baseless antagonism, I do not know what is.

I am not taking sides in the actual debate, and I don't really have anything against your opinions, but this is something that I feel needs to be brought to your attention.

muralimannered:

I mean no personal offense with this comment. Your posts as of late have been particularly and unnecessarily confrontational in tone, and this discourages posters like myself from joining the discussion for fear of being dragged into such an encounter, and general dislike for the atmosphere you create. Look at this:

"Or are you making a baseless, blanket assertion about the 'typical' reaction to hate crimes where a desi is the victim and the assailant is white?"

Reactionary, kneejerk assertion. You could easily have asked for evidence without making the claim seem invalid from the get go. Instead, you barge into the discussion in a crass manner, using hyperbolic adjectives (you don't provide evidence to the contrary, which means these adjectives are indeed extreme) and an antagonistic tone.

"I am just asking why priorities is they way they are."

Your question was clearly loaded, and carefully adding this neat little preemptive statement (I am just)at the end of your post does not make it any less confrontational.

There's a saying in the insurance industry, "It is what it is."

I certainly hope this is not the case for your recent posting style.

You then go on, in post 34, to make a comparison between the poster and several other people you have designated "straight talkers", all of whom happen to be irrational extremists of one sort or another. I mean, come on, you are comparing the person's rhetoric to that of Hitler after reading only a few paragraphs of their writing, which is extreme in itself, but leaves out the fact that the poster was not deliberately deceiving anyone with rhetoric as Hitler (and some of the other "straight talkers") did, merely stating their opinion, unsupported as it may have been. You could easily have just called the person a "straight talker" and used less ridiculous examples, but you chose those specifically, which creates an inarguably implicit connection between that poster and those people. If that isn't blatant and baseless antagonism, I do not know what is.

I am not taking sides in the actual debate, and I don't really have anything against your opinions, but this is something that I feel needs to be brought to your attention.

Muralimannered, Ikram, Amit: Settle this the honorable desi way.... mixed classical indian dance fighting.

Like this?

Your comments probably grate on sensebilities on quite a few on this blog, but I quite enjoy this straight talk. :)
I hope you never get banned :)

I agree with you

Your comments probably grate on sensebilities on quite a few on this blog, but I quite enjoy this straight talk. :)
I hope you never get banned :)

Thanks Anna

As for Clueless, you're not the only one here who appreciates him.

Thanks Anna

I generally don't agree with Clueless, but I don't think "progressive" narratives of hate crimes and their causes allow for the perp to also be a Person of Color (PoC).

It's all right to disagree with me.

And c'mon folks, there's no need to pile on Sanjay. It was fairly clear to me from his first comment (#9) that his focus was not on this blog's coverage, but rather on the general stories that the media publicizes (I believe he clarified that in another comment too). And I think the reality is that the established story line of oppression tinged by racism catches more fire in the popular imagination than brown-on-brown cruelty.

Although there is no reason to use that a reason to lessen the severity of incidents in US/Europe (which some other commenters seem to desire, at least as the subtext), or not examine them, especially given the otherwise high standards of liberty and freedom that the west claims to aspire to.

I am not trying to bait, but Clueless, were you the person who said you favored Lou Dobbs' approach to immigration in the U.S.?

Yes I have said I agree with alot of what Lou Dobbs said about immigration.

I mean no personal offense with this comment. Your posts as of late have been particularly and unnecessarily confrontational in tone, and this discourages posters like myself from joining the discussion for fear of being dragged into such an encounter, and general dislike for the atmosphere you create.

Heat. Kitchen. Leave. *cue violins*

Now if you're simply concerned that your argument won't stand up to criticism, then you've simply not developed skin thick enough for discourse with other adults. That's very sad and I hope you develop the extreme fortitude required to argue/discuss issues with online representations of people you can neither see nor hear.

I am not taking sides in the actual debate, and I don't really have anything against your opinions, but this is something that I feel needs to be brought to your attention.

See the fence. Know the fence. Become one with the fence. The fence is your friend.

There was a topic last year here on this website about sikh being attacked by his neighbor in Califronia, and at 1st nobody the race of the person who attacked him. So people started making comments about the attacker being white. But when it came out the attacker was black, the comments changed.

did you actually read what he wrote? If I wrote, "All xxx people engender a different response from the desi community when they do the same thing as YYY people" and didn't back up my statement with some sort of substantiation, then my statement would rightly be excoriated by other commenters. Why? Because it's wrong and no reasonable person could back up such an assertion. I'm terribly sorry that I can't be as eloquent as Rahul in my take-downs of obviously moronic comments but that's not a sign of fault in reasoning or style--that's the way I write and i could give fuck all if you or anybody else thinks it to be excessive.

but obviously (using the reasoning of Amit, Vikram etc.) the length of your comment and the feeling that 'inarguably' accompanied it (anger, jealousy..) suggest that you're carrying around a bag of Doritos on your shoulder, while browsing a family album filled with medical oddities and practicing your "Angry Big B" impression.

complete and utter tosh.

"I am just asking why priorities is they way they are."

Your question was clearly loaded, and carefully adding this neat little preemptive statement (I am just)at the end of your post does not make it any less confrontational.

Guess what genius, I forgot to block-quote that question---but guess who actually wrote it????????

but i hear straw men and red herrings need confronting.

Muralimannered, Ikram, Amit: Settle this the honorable desi way.... mixed classical indian dance fighting. Like this?

Umm...no. The intent is to settle a dispute, not to excite me (inspite of all the best efforts of the Indian Film Censor board).

Hey, all, let's have a time out and let the mutiny be mutinous again.

Sanjay, I misunderstood your first post, but was happy to read the subsequent clarifications and reflections.

murali, Amit, et al. -- you all are usually so kind/reasonable, is this really the place to pick a fight? Things have clearly become blown out of proportion.

Let's return to the topic at hand -- hate crime stats, reporting, and challenges.

No the interesting part as I see it, is why South Asians (or rather Indians) are so perceptive when it comes to racism in the west, even a comment to a Sikh cab driver in London make prime time news in India.

How many South Asians move to Saudi Arabia with an expectation of liberal, fair standards of treatment regardless of race and religion? If you're going to talk the talk about being a pluralistic multicultural society that gives opportunities to anyone willing to work hard for them, you kind of have to walk the walk too...

Also it's a little sad how far afield this topic has gotten. Is "white people are, like, the REAL oppressed group because people assume that the racist idiots they read about are white" really relevant to this discussion. Does every discussion on race have to devolve into this?

Is "white people are, like, the REAL oppressed group because people assume that the racist idiots they read about are white" really relevant to this discussion. Does every discussion on race have to devolve into this?

That's what i was objecting to when i criticized Clueless' comment. It's not what's at issue here.

murali, Amit, et al. -- you all are usually so kind/reasonable,

yes, i usually am. Until people start accusing me of being an unwell, raging drug-addict. That is where civil discourse ends and endless arguments begin, no?

Let's return to the topic at hand -- hate crime stats, reporting, and challenges.

And dance fighting.

is this really the place to pick a fight? Let's return to the topic at hand -- hate crime stats, reporting, and challenges.

Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the hate crime discussion!

I am curious about the hate crime by religion - in this day and age, who is going around attacking Jewish people, in the US of all places, and that too in such large numbers? Is there a difference in the nature of the crimes between different religions? For instance, are Jewish victims of hate crimes being subjected to property defacement more than they are to violent crime? I guess I'm just surprised that there's still so much anti-Semitism.

Don't like Big B? No problem. I got another one (2:55 onwards). Mmmmm payasam!! :)

Camille, who's fighting? Not moi. :)

Addendum to #81 - I did read the FBI summary PDFs, but I could not find two-factor breakups in the time I read them. Both personal and property crimes are included, but not the relative distributions of each with race/religion etc. I'd be interested to know, for instance, whether I should expect to get beaten up or have my car vandalized (just an example, not that either is going to happen).

in this day and age, who is going around attacking Jewish people, in the US of all places, and that too in such large numbers?

Whoever it is, I wouldn't ask Debbie Schlussel, Norman Podhoretz or Phyllis chesler for the answer. It does seem to me that your impression is correct--synagogues and community centers are much easier and more visible and available targets of anti-semitic rage than private citizens. A can of spray-paint requires little from the vandal except timing and the ability to spell crude antisemitic slurs.

in this day and age, who is going around attacking Jewish people

resentment is a great motivating factor for bigots. The malay affirmative action program, bought into this thread by sanjay, also fits into this category. a state-sponsered hate-crime, if you will.

pingpong, I think Jewish community groups do a much better job of reporting hate violence, but in my own (anecdotal) experience saw a lot of vandalism against Jewish buildings, community centers, and synagogues. I remember a string of synagogue arsons around 2001-2002 in northern California, and while an undergrad the campus Hillel was vandalized twice, and neo-Nazi graffiti was sprayed all over one of our lecture halls. For those of us who live near large Jewish populations, I think we forget that it is not easy being Jewish in a lot of parts of the country.

But what is racial, religious or sexual bias, that is what we need to decide. Their have been many instances of people falsely claiming to be victims of bias.

Recently there was a news in Times of India about a professor of Indian origin based in UK who made millions by filing false litigations against universities. He would apply for a job with any university in UK, even though he was totally unqualified and when he was denied the job he would claim that it was due to racial bias.

So these days you can never be sure that the person who is claming a bias is speaking the truth. Most of them are fakes.

So these days you can never be sure that the person who is claming a bias is speaking the truth. Most of them are fakes.

Yes, one case of egregious fraud proves that anyone who claims they experienced any sort of prejudice are lying. And the FBI just eats it all up.

ugh, poor grammar. re-do:

Yes, one case of egregious fraud proves that most people who claim they experienced any sort of prejudice are lying. And the FBI just eats it all up.

Jew v. Muslim hate crimes stats are very interesting.

The hate crime stats against Jews are not all that surprising. Manju is correct that resentment is a powerful motivator when it comes to Anti-semitism in the US. Also the bigotry against Jewish people is more organizational compared to the free lancing yahoos who commit hate crimes against Muslims in the US. Most hate crimes against Muslims in the US are actually not committed by white supremacists.

I think the FBI/local police departments are still formalizing and trying to understand the nature of hate crimes against Muslims. If someone fires at a mosque and does not get caught, it is not deemed a hate crime and maybe it should not be anyway but the categorization of such an incident differs from community to community.

As hate crimes against Blacks and Jews have a much longer history, there is a better understanding of when its a hate crime. For example, broken window plus a swakstika on the door at a synagogue is automatically and correctly deemed to be a hate crime because everybody understands the significance of a swastika.

So these days you can never be sure that the person who is claming a bias is speaking the truth. Most of them are fakes.

Any evidence to support your incredible assertion?

Just out of curiosity, are people concerned with hate crimes, as opposed to crimes in general, because (1) they're inherently "worse," in an individual sense (i.e., to the victims), (2) they're easier to deter (maybe in-group violence is harder to deter, when/if it occurs) or (3) it's more dangerous for the society, because it may, if unchecked, touch of communal violence.

I buy (3). One could buy more than one of these, of course.

"touch off," I meant, not touch of.

props to v-man for posting data.

I am a silly ass if I interpreted this wrong... indeed I am but based on Vinod's Excel file (hatecrimes.xls) what I read is that white people experience more hate crimes than any other racialized group with the exception of black people in America? Am I reading this right? Can someone clarify this please and if I misread then ridicule me to the point where I only live by facades as a result of really low self-esteem?

white people experiencing hate crimes in Amerikkka more than any other racialized group with the exception of black people? Ummm... I think I had too much to smoke....

OK, I looked at Vinod's Excel file, and I scaled the numbers for race-based hate crimes for 2000 by the actual proportion of each of the races in the population. And of course I ignored reporting bias as well as registering bias - there's no way to tackle that, but that must be noted.

I find that, if the total number of hate crimes were still the same, but occurred randomly, so that their distribution by race matched the percentage of that race in the population: then Whites would have experienced 3,257 instead of 875; blacks would have experienced 533 instead of 2,884; Native Americans would experience 39 instead of 57; and Asians (including desis) would have experienced 156 instead of 281; and 'Other's would have experienced 239 instead of 240. So the 'Other' category experience race-based hate crimes in proportion to their population weight, but Whites do so at about a quarter of the expected rate, Blacks do so nearly five-and-a-half times the expected rate, Native Americans at about one-and-half times, and Asians at about one-and-three-quarter times.

As I looked at how the figures changed with time, I find that the crimes on Native Americans first increased and then are back in 2006 to roughly what they were in 2000, the crimes on Whites and Blacks are stable in absolute numbers, but the crimes on Asians have decreased quite significantly, so that in 2006 they are closer to the population percentage (181 actual versus 174 expected in 2006, vs 281 actual and 156 expected in 2000). Note here that the proportion of Asians in the population grew from about 3.6% to about 4.3% between 2000 and 2006, with Asian Indians growing fastest within the category. Of course, the total number of reported crimes in 2006 is about 8% less than in 2000.

These are rough calculations, and the 2006 numbers are based on estimates, and of course we are ignoring biases, etc. And 2.6% of the population claimed more than one race in 2000, I ignored that.

Well Chachaji, why not employ the same methods of analysis you employed with the "Victim" stats to see who it is that actualy COMMITS the majority of "Hate Crimes". Using your methods we would see that Whites are really the least racist of all groups and that minorities are considerably more prone to "Hate". (Some more than others). Here in the UK, taking the ultimate in "Hate" crimes (Inter racial homicide) we find that whites are 90 times more likely to be killed by a black than they are to kill one theirselves, for "Asians" it is "Only" 30 TIMES nore likely. Why not grow up? Not everyone will like us but suffering unkindness in a shop or taxi is nowhere near as "Racist" as being murdered.

"white people experiencing hate crimes in Amerikkka more than any other racialized group with the exception of black people? Ummm... I think I had too much to smoke...."

You have obviously never been a white person in a large urban area (most of the east coast, upper mid-west and LA). And as you are brown, you probably have little insight into attitudes and dynamics of the past 50 years. Everybody here seems to think the United States is still Alabama, 1930. All due respect, and I do understand your priorities, but you really need to think out of your brown bags. Not only are the black on white crimes more numerous than the other way around, but they are nastier. They range from vile verbal harrassment to rape, assault, murder and attempted murder. I have countless stories personal and friends, and few incidents were reported or if reported, not necessarily as "hate crimes." Just crimes where the victim was white and perps just happened to black. Of course race had nothing to do with it.

You have obviously never been a white person in a large urban area (most of the east coast, upper mid-west and LA).

yes, we browns constantly aspire to white skin but are cruelly blocked by the tyranny of melanin. Or did you mean "been with." It's kinda hard for browns to spontaneously change their genetic make-up.

And as you are brown, you probably have little insight into attitudes and dynamics of the past 50 years.

I knew it! my 24 years of living stateside really amount to 0 when it comes to 'understanding attitudes and dynamics.' Woe is me and my unchanging skin color which somehow precludes understanding of racial dynamics of the country in which i was raised.

I better run to the local desi grocery store and grab some Fair n' Lovely--it's better than a college degree and a quarter-century of experience!!

And as you are brown, you probably have little insight into attitudes and dynamics of the past 50 years.

That should've been blockquoted (lest "edited" or "one off comment" returns to scold me for decreasing the collegiality of this non-academic forum)

Admin Note: Comments have been merged from this point forward, from today's post.

vinod,

i can't speak for the others but losing my comments was no great loss--i feel a greater sadness for the unfortunate disappearance of Camille's contributions.

Sorry that had to happen! I was typing a post when it crashed, so I will drop it here in case the discussion will continue from the last one.

Haley@ post 99 (of the previous version): "You have obviously never been a white person in a large urban area (most of the east coast, upper mid-west and LA). And as you are brown, you probably have little insight into attitudes and dynamics of the past 50 years. Everybody here seems to think the United States is still Alabama, 1930. All due respect, and I do understand your priorities, but you really need to think out of your brown bags. Not only are the black on white crimes more numerous than the other way around, but they are nastier. They range from vile verbal harrassment to rape, assault, murder and attempted murder. I have countless stories personal and friends, and few incidents were reported or if reported, not necessarily as "hate crimes." Just crimes where the victim was white and perps just happened to black. Of course race had nothing to do with it."

Are you white? I don't want to devalue your experiences, whatever they may be, but the conclusions you are drawing based on said experiences seem a tad off. Your experience is trapped inside your own skin, and is just as incomplete as anyone else's (albeit in a different way), so hopefully your accusation that certain others' thinking is restricted to a "brown bag" is tempered by an acknowledgment of your own shortcomings (mine is as well). My education, past and present, is specifically centered on American race-relations and history, so I am not entirely without textual knowledge of the topic, and my humble opinion, based on my experience and learning, is as follows:

In urban areas, you will generally find more impoverished black communities. To justify the violence against people you know would be ridiculous, but to pretend that there is any less violence against the black community by the larger system of white-privilege than there was 50 years ago is ridiculous. For example, the typical black family had 60 percent as much income as a white family in 1968, but only 58 percent as much in 2002 (obviously not because they are lazy and refuse to progess). While lynching and other directly violent acts are rare now, violence has taken a much more insidious form and is ingrained within the very institutions that make up society. It is the experiences and intimate understanding of these systemic inequalities that, if indeed you are white, will never be able to access. Despite that, it is reasonable to deduce that poverty, combined with systemic barriers that prevent those people from transcending their conditions naturally leads to high rates of crime.

What I am getting at here is that the crimes that have been committed against people you know are not necessarily hate crimes, and perhaps a deeper analysis of the situation is necessary. Race indeed has something to do with it, but to dismiss all of these cases as simple hate crimes ignores a larger and more relevant history. Even simple, deductive logic is applicable here: If I were a poor black person looking for cash, It would not be unreasonable to target a white person on the grounds that, on average, they would have more money. Also, note that there are many more white people in this country than black people, which, when combined with the statistics on poverty, make it relatively reasonable to assume that white people would be targeted, and that there are more targets to be reported. This is not to say that none of the attacks would be hate crimes, but that to dismiss them all this way is ignorant, and were they hate crimes, they are more often caused by the systemic equalities that breed ignorance, and so are very different from hate crimes where whites target blacks.

I would also like to see some statistics that quantify the "nastiness" of black on white crime as opposed to white on black.

Here is a scary (albeit stylized) thought about hate crimes--let's say that there are two groups in society, the A's and the Z's. Let's assume that each is equally predisposed to commit a hate crime against the other group. If the A's are 90% of the society, and the Z's are 10%, then simple statistics would seem to suggest that individual members of the Z's are way more likely to be victims of hate-crimes than are individual A's. This seems borne out by a rough eye-balling of the first chart above (far more black than white victims in absolute numbers, even though blacks are a minority of the population).

Did someone save a html copy of comments. I am sure our capable sysadmins can figure out a way to recover from it

Did someone save a html copy of comments. I am sure our capable sysadmins can figure out a way to recover from it

http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/004885.html#comments

pc out

well, in case the comments are lost, here's quick synopsis as of last night. The thread began looking like the oval office on the morning after the recent NIE report came out. People were upset over all the anti-jewish attacks, but not for the reasons we'd assume. Clueless posited a theory as to why, Adolf Hitler made an apperance, Camille said some smart stuff, and Puli asked for some dating advice...or maybe that was another time.

In any case, it felt was just like all the other threads. Good Times.

If there was a category of "racist thought crimes" Desis would occupy the top echelons. In the corridors of power in Desi homes & businesses some of the racist categories are:

- Religion (Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Christian, Jewish)
- Skin tone (fair, wheating, brown, kullu)
- Race (Black, White, Brown, half-breed)
- Money (poor, middle-class, rich)
- Caste
- Regional (north, south, east, west)
- Language (English, Hindi, Bengali, Punjabi, Tamil, Telugu, Malyali, Canada, Marathi, etc.)

Although we may not feature prominently in the report as victims or perpetrators, we've got plenty to work on.

VV Varaiya@ 8:

I think you are referring to other forms of prejudice, not racism (a more specific term). You can add sexism to the list as well.

I don't think we would occupy any significantly different echelon than any other group, as most of these forms of prejudice can be found in any corner of the world.

Looks like all is not lost. Am working on restoring lost post / comments. Should be able to fix this over the next few hours.

Chaitan, there's no hurry or anything. But just on the remote chance that you didn't already know and this comment helps you any, let me say: the old post and all the comments are right here, as Amit pointed out. Maybe nothing is 'lost'.

Having something classified as a hate crime is subjective and inconsistent as this recent story goes:

A Boston firefighter is mending from what could have been deadly stab wounds he suffered early yesterday morning when he was allegedly jumped in East Boston while off duty by a group of Hispanic males who told him they "don't want any gringo here."

Though police are not classifying the incident as racially fueled, the Boston Police Department's Community Disorders Unit is investigating.
link

It does seem to fit the profile of a hate crime as most would understand it, but to the police it is apparently is not so. There seems to be no real yardstick for measuring.

It's lovely that nothing is lost. Thanks Google Cache! http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/004885.html#comments
I'm so glad ANNA's Obama-Rama post hadn;t vanished.

Our sys admin’s have been notified.

Vinod, you did that on purpose, didn't you?

I know a bunch of folks (desi grad students early 90s) who lived in run-down apartments in Jersey City and went to school in NYC. On a regular basis they would be targeted by the black kids as a source of easy money. Those kids even had a name for us - walking ATMs. Sometimes there was threat of violence. None of us went to the cops. None of us felt this was a hate crime, just easy money for the kids. We all did what any desi would, transfer to a mid-west/california university after the first semester. For the ABDs here, would you classify this as a hate crime if it happened to a bunch of you on a regular basis?

I know a bunch of folks (desi grad students early 90s) who lived in run-down apartments in Jersey City and went to school in NYC. On a regular basis they would be targeted by the black kids as a source of easy money. Those kids even had a name for us - walking ATMs. Sometimes there was threat of violence. None of us went to the cops. None of us felt this was a hate crime, just easy money for the kids. We all did what any desi would, transfer to a mid-west/california university after the first semester. For the ABDs here, would you classify this as a hate crime if it happened to a bunch of you on a regular basis?

No, because the motivation is not racial animus. It is, as you yourself have described, driven by the fact that you were the only people in the neighborhood with $$$

There was some $ but definitely not $$$ :)

No, because the motivation is not racial animus. It is, as you yourself have described, driven by the fact that you were the only people in the neighborhood with $$$

In this case the targeting was based on race, the motivation may not be racial hatered. These guys were targeted not because black teens perceived them to be loaded, DBD students especially new ones do not give the impression that they have $$$. I think it is more because black-teens were confident that the consequence would be minimal if they robbed a foreigner.

I have heard similar stories from students who live(d) in Hyde Park area in Chicago. Most of students consider such experiences as a rite of passage; it prepares them for future - H1b, Immigration, USCIS etc. etc. :)

muralimannered, you misconstrue me...in the context of what i was saying, i meant the black/white racial dynamic and I do maintain that conviction. I am a blog-slut and will engage anybody in an honest exchange. This conviction is limited to the black/white racial aspect and does not reflect upon your undoubted sagacity in other matters. You certainly know all about most dynamics, as you say. I am not insensitive to your concerns as a person of south Asian descent: after 9/11, I was very worried about my very nice, turbaned veterinarian who loved cats. I prayed he would not be victimized, but I noticed he stopped wearing a turban.

Ashkay, I am aware of all you say, but alas, I woke up recently realizing that everything I, as a whitey, was being accused of doing (racist-wise), I not only had never done, but had had it done to me. What a freaking sucker, i thought. And now they've got the perfect label: white privilege. Can never exonerate yourself from that one, short of suicide. As long as any blacks don't do well, we're guilty with no control over the outcome. We get no credit for the good whites may done in the past, but forever stand accused of anything any white anywhere did ever. Don't invest too much in the "white guilt." Most are not buying it any more (if they ever did). Well some are, but they're the type who like being whipped, handcuffed and strangled to death during orgasm while wearing black lace.
And another thing, I, who grew up poor and worked her way through college riding public transport at night and working in a black area, resent being described as a walking white ATM machine, especially in a part of the country where the average black government employee makes 80,000 p.a., actually higher than whites of comparable educational level. John McWhorter (AA) has written on the rise of middle class blacks, but I'm sure he's not to your taste. I also quite frequently see the "poor" driving new SUVs, toting 5 illegitimate children, getting free college education, child care and Section 8 housing in the same complex where I had to prove 40,000 p.a. income. One black county commisioner was appalled by the freeloading, especially after he saw the way they trashed the nice apartments. We present-day taxpayers are paying for the mistakes of certain long dead whites, and paying and paying. I guess it will never be enough.
Nobody has any right to tell a person, white or of color, who has looked into the eyes of the attacker (it still gives me nightmares), that interracial crime had no extra element of hate, horror, etc. You sepiamutineers (great name, btw) feel more horror at the thought of being attacked by a white person. I feel more horror at the fact of having been attacked by a black person. And guess which one of us is more likely statistically to have that experience? Brown perps--never thought about it. I have heard of some browns being attacked, but it has hardly amount to any progroms. There just is no intense, pervasive dynamic of hate between south Asians and whites in this country, and I truly hope nobody tries to incite any.
Ashkay, "I would also like to see some statistics that quantify the "nastiness" of black on white crime as opposed to white on black."
Ashkay, i have read of the crimes, they appear briefly on local news and then disappear from the radar. They run into the tens of thousands. It is well known in the media that black on white crime will not receive much play and whites accept this. We quietly talk among ourselves for news, or read the internet. It's been this way for years. I'm sure you don't know about this white underground confab because we don't want to be know as racists.
I just wish it would be admitted and discussed openly in the mainstream media without being considered 'racist', as are hate crimes against people of color, because the resentment is growing.

and finally, we have the rub from rob: "This seems borne out by a rough eye-balling of the first chart above (far more black than white victims in absolute numbers, even though blacks are a minority of the population)."

rob, considering what I have seen, and what the FBI tells me (not to mention the local police reports), I would like to know where all these black victims of race crime reside because virtually every one I've seen that is not domestic violence, is black perpetrated. I was attacked by blacks who came into my childhood neighborhood. Any white person who goes into a black neighborhood at night is likely to be attacked. I can't imagine any whites so brave as to invade black neighborhoods these days, and any black who is given a problem by whites walking in a white neighborhood can take it to court--or report it as a hate crime.



.

Vikram, it may be that police are hesitant to charge this as a hate crime because they do not have sufficient evidence to prosecute under a hate crimes statute, not that they are avoiding the possibility that it's a hate crime. This is often the case for non-white victims as well. I know it must seem redundant, but it is actually fairly difficult to invoke a hate crime charge to a crime. There are fairly narrow criteria that define what qualifies, and this is highly subjectively determined by prosecutors, etc. Sometimes it is actually not int he interest of the victim or the state to try a crime as a hate crime as the penalty is often less severe than if that same person were charged with a more heinous crime.

Haley, I don't think anyone can help you grapple with what you bitterly describe as "white privilege" but yourself. There are excellent conversations on how "white folks" (for lack of a better term) can leverage their privilege to build communities of equality. No one on this thread has degraded the experience of others, particularly not with respect to incidences of racial hatred. That said, violence does not happen in a vacuum, and it does not happen on equal terms.

Chaitan, thanks for working hard to recover the previous comments :)

I am not insensitive to your concerns as a person of south Asian descent: after 9/11, I was very worried about my very nice, turbaned veterinarian who loved cats.

Please, let's not get into the "i have xx number of friends of this particular ethnicity...therefore I feel your pain" rut. It's not a very good argument and not a good springboard for meaningful discussion. You assumed that because this is a desi-centric blog, most of us were immigrants and therefore not well-versed in American racial politics.

We get no credit for the good whites may done in the past, but forever stand accused of anything any white anywhere did ever.

if you wish discussion of 'white privilege' to end, you must cease to use "we" in reference to a great white community stretching out over time and space into the hoary past. The idea of 'white privilege' rests on there being a monolithic group, within which a great many members share societal privileges.

Well some are, but they're the type who like being whipped, handcuffed and strangled to death during orgasm while wearing black lace.

this is also a terrible way to start a discourse--accusing your ideological counterparts of a fascination with bondage and autoerotic asphyxiation.

I would like to know where all these black victims of race crime reside because virtually every one I've seen that is not domestic violence, is black perpetrated. I was attacked by blacks who came into my childhood neighborhood.

i meant the black/white racial dynamic and I do maintain that conviction

in my situation I served as a black surrogate, when the white kids at my middle school weren't talking about 'niggers' and what they'd like to do with them, they talked about 'sand-niggers' and what they'd like to do to me. When i moved on to college, the same kids (a bit older) thought it was ok to continue the same 'nigger' conversation while I stood right next to them. I believe I am eminently qualified to talk about this black/white dynamic.

geez, you guys sure argue a lot. In response to all the posts, I have to say I'm glad that I live in Canada :) and am also saddened by all of the shit that goes on in "democracies" but it's not like we all don't know that every government and governmental institution in the world is corrupt to a small extent e.g. the police, etc... the information is interesting but scaring the hell out of me.

there's a very interesting hate crime case going on at pace u. basically, a kid stole a koran and flushed it down the toilet. now the debate is whether this is the equivalent of burning an American flag or submerging a cruxifix in urine, on the one hand, or burning a cross on someones lawn on the other. is it constitutionally protected or a threat?

more problematically, the kid did commit a crime (theft, vandalism) but the crime in question is a mere misdemeanor. add the "hate crime" to the charge and it becomes a felony with significant jail time...raising the possibility that he'd only really serve time for hate, ie a thought crime.

raising the possibility that he'd only really serve time for hate, ie a thought crime.

Yes, that is a travesty. and I'm extremely embarrassed to have first read about this on MM's blog.

That is certainly the unproductive end of hate-crime legislation--is there any productive, i.e. appropriately punitive, end to this category of crime?

Comments will be temporarily closed. Please check back soon.

Comments open. Let's continue the party yaar ...

126 · muralimannered --is there any productive, i.e. appropriately punitive, end to this category of crime?

In terms of traditional punishment theory, I think the best argument for hate crime punishment enhancement is deterrent, not punitive.
See my reason (3) in comment #92, above. In other words, societies that pay particular attention to deterring inter-group violence may do better in the long run than those that hold to more traditional liberal notions of punishment.

52 · Ikram on December 5, 2007 07:25 PM · Direct link
Sanjay -- Maybe because the "indians" in Malaysia migrated generations ago. In the case of the Chitty Tamils, they arrived prior to 1511. That's a long time ago. (It shows how bankrupt the Malaysian Bumiputra policy is. Chitty Tamils are consider not to be "sons of the soil", even after 500 years!)

Persecution and violence agaisnt "indian" communities in Guyana and Fiji also get less attention. The Australian doctor was a real Indian citizen -- Indians are going to get more upset about the mistreatment of a fellow citizen over the mistreatment of distant co-ethnics.

In India, we have the *opposite* problem as Malaysia. Indians are very relaxed on who can call themselves "Indian". We have no problem accepting people as Indians. But we have many groups of people who don't regard themselves Indians even after 1,000 years! The Parsis feel ethnically distinct and racially superior, apparently. Why else don't they accept Indian converts to their religion? OTOH, they had no problem of bending the rules to accomodate the son of Mohd. Ali Jinnah (an Ismaili, bi-racially Perian, and *rich* founder of Pakistan) as a Parsi.

Also, there is a community of "Anglo-Indians" who look very Indian. Some, of course, look bi-racial. Their mother tongue is English, and the girls only wear dresses. This is very much a community of people ashamed of their Indian identity, even though many look Indian.

Finally, those Tamils of Malaysia - do they speak Malay? I know some Malay Tamils and they are quite proud Malaysians. One even married a bi-racial Malay girl.

Man there are so many hate crimes in the US against Indians its ridiculous. The basic problem is that Indians in general are pvssies and don't even report it. I don't know in what century this happened, because I read about these dudes like Prithviraj Chauhan, Ranjit Singh and Shivaji and they were certainly the exact OPPOSITE of a pvssy, but the fact remains that if confronted a modern day Indian will mostly react meekly. I blame Gandhi.

I remember in high school once, these two black guys were getting all up in a Sikh guys face. I bring this up because in the UK, India or Europe you NEVER mess with a Sardar. But this guy just lowers his head, finally I got involved. Surprisingly once confronted in a public place the two idiots walked away in shame and realized their hypocrisy. I can name so many other incidents, and the funniest thing is no Indian ever came to my aid and there was no Indian organization to report it to. Either Indians spirits are so crushed by America that they just don't lift finger or they just think thats how life should be here.

I've had my share of cuts and bruises from fights and thats good. Indians need to stop being all Gandhi. Stand up for yourself and if someone is being racist, tell the authorities or school staff. You can be sure the black dude will be the FIRST to complain if something like that happens to him. I remember I called a black girl "fat" once and she went on for hours and TOLD THE TEACHER I was being 'racist'. Frickin' land whale.

And finally relating to the Tamils in wherever or whatever land being abused. My family is from Delhi and Pune and sorry but to be honest they could care less what happens to Tamils or Sri Lankans. I'm sorry but they are so far away from traditional Indian culture its hard to see them as "Indian".

And finally relating to the Tamils in wherever or whatever land being abused. My family is from Delhi and Pune and sorry but to be honest they could care less what happens to Tamils or Sri Lankans. I'm sorry but they are so far away from traditional Indian culture its hard to see them as "Indian".

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. This like the cherry on top of the rest of your ridiculous comment.

Tamils or Sri Lankans...are so far away from traditional Indian culture its hard to see them as "Indian".

Sigh!

Indians need to stop being all Gandhi.

Depends. Maybe we just need less Mahatma Gandhi, more Sanjay Gandhi.

Indians in general are pvssies...I blame Gandhi.

the black dude will be the FIRST to complain.

I remember I called a black girl "fat" once...Frickin' land whale.

Tamils or Sri Lankans...are so far away from traditional Indian culture its hard to see them as "Indian".

Well, it's racist, abusive and intolerant, but at least it's focused on the issue, which is hate. And he didn't ask for Shivaji's contact info or ask us to name five battles fought by Prithviraj Chauhan.

Well, it's racist, abusive and intolerant, but at least it's focused on the issue, which is hate. And he didn't ask for Shivaji's contact info or ask us to name five battles fought by Prithviraj Chauhan.

I'm sorry how is it racist? I was just describing the race of the people involved. If anything the people I name were either being racist or oversensitive not me. I'm not saying blacks are the only ones being racist, those two instances were just appropriate to what I was saying.

If you think my statement about Tamils or Sri Lankans is racist well then... you are just a baby.

And man just look at your discussions above. Does even half of it have to do with the subject "hate crimes and desis"? These were personal experiences from me, an Indian its very appropriate.

You're absolutely right, saying "it's hard to see Tamils as Indian" is not intolerant and "the black dude will do X" is not racist. I humbly apologize. Thank you for shining light on the situation. The fact that it comes from the cross you set on fire is irrelevant.

I think Tamilians and the Delhi-Pune joint force should settle things one and for all with some dance fighting.

Rahul, re dance fighting, how about the Tiger himself?

You're absolutely right, saying "it's hard to see Tamils as Indian" is not intolerant and "the black dude will do X" is not racist. I humbly apologize. Thank you for shining light on the situation. The fact that it comes from the cross you set on fire is irrelevant.

Wow look at this hero.

I said black dude did X genius not all black dudes do X. Do you honestly not get the difference dude? Talk about hypersensitive I guess to please you I should have just said "dude" but I type similar to the way I speak so no.

As for the Tamil comment, does that really offend you so much? Like I said, I'm sorry but that is the truth.

138 · Rahul

I think Tamilians and the Delhi-Pune joint force should settle things one and for all with some dance fighting.

Rahul, while that point is valid, I'm afraid its soundness may be undermined by the reluctance of us old Delhi-wallah's to ally with the Maharashtrians. ;-)

Rahul, re dance fighting, how about the Tiger himself?

That would truly be an uneven battle. The man combines formidable verbal dexterity with his preternatural agility, and the Delhi bravehearts will seem as leadenfooted as if their feet were mired in bad wheat halwa while the Pune soldiers will be rolling around like so many bakharwadis.

Rahul, while that point is valid, I'm afraid its soundness may be undermined by the reluctance of us old Delhi-wallah's to ally with the Maharashtrians. ;-)

C'mon man, your cultures are just a 2 hr plane flight away from each other. You need to join forces to rout Lemuria.

142 · Rahul C'mon man, your cultures are just a 2 hr plane flight away from each other. You need to join forces to rout Lemuria.

The "near abroad" (Lemuria) must be be-friended for the longer-term interest of routing the far-abroad. :-)

The "near abroad" must be be-friended for the longer-term interest of routing the far-abroad.

Didn't John Nash get a Nobel for this sort of work? In "A Beautiful Mind", he advocated befriending the nearer broad to the farther broad.

Pingpong,
Heh--I was thinking more in terms of Russian foreign policy.
"The non-Russian countries that were once part of the USSR have been termed the 'Near abroad' by Russians."

Prithviraj:

You've violated SM's commenting policy several times, on more than one thread (and via more than one handle). Take your ignorant, inflammatory declarations elsewhere.

Muralimannered (#123):

On April 5, 2007, you posted:

"I grew up in a community populated by majority reform-jew hippies who moved to rural Virginia, had kids and followed a brown guru. My childood friends all had sanksrit or Tamil names, prayed to Vishnu/Krishna/Siva/Brama (as well as Christ, Allah, G-D, Ahura Mazda and who knows else), believed in the common currency of all religions, devalued material possessions as a measure of social worth and, for the most part, did not partake in legal or illegal drugs."

So were the majority reform-jew hippies also calling you sand nigger? That surprises me.

So were the majority reform-jew hippies also calling you sand nigger? That surprises me.

you have google skills. this is encouraging. however not knowing where I attended middle school is hampering your understanding. Why the sudden urge to start commenting?

Camille (#122):

The discussions about how "white folks" can "leverage their privilege to build communities of equality" is predicated on one or more of these assumptions: (1) such privilege exists (2) such privilege is unearned (3) such privilege is undeserved. Any of these axioms may be critiqued-- I'll start with (1). The evidence for (1) is normally in terms of group outcomes-- e.g. group 1 makes more money on the average than group 2. The fallacy is that averages iron out local distributions and that trivial one-variable explanations oversimplify nuanced interactions of multiple factors like class (and yes, just as there are localities where whites are oppressed, there are contexts where the rich is the victim-- for a fictional example, look at Bonfire of the vanities), sexual orientation, foreignness, etc. And I don't think this oversimplification is mere oversight.

there are contexts where the rich is the victim-- for a fictional example, look at Bonfire of the vanities

Are you getting your PhD from Dupont University where, I assume, citation of fiction is accepted academic practice?

Sisyphus, I'm not going to argue with you, nor with your underlying (and in my opinion, grossly inaccurate) point. This thread is about FBI hate crime statistics vis-a-vis the South Asian / South Asian American population in the U.S., and within that among the many religious groups represented in that calculation.

Rahul (#150):

I got my Ph.D. from a university not too different from DuPont, but in any case, I wasn't citing but illustrating. I also realize that my post last night was incomplete. To continue, the other problem with inferring discrimination from outcomes is that we do not know what other factors were involved. Studies can examine how much discrimination groups suffer on the average or how having certain names can lower one's chance of getting a job, not the complex ways in which they combine with other factors ("culture"? peer groups? families?) to affect performance. This issue is common in the social sciences, and it is not a problem so long as it remains an intellectual exercise. However, if you will use such analysis to institute policies (as in case of the Delaware diversity charade) that run counter to the intuitive notion of individual fair play or lecture folks with perceived privilege, you will face the same problems that the oh-so-dispassionate researchers of race and IQ run into-- namely, their speculative nature will be challenged.

Does that mean Haley or anyone can say that white (or rich, or male) privilege does *not* exist? The only correct answer is that we do not know, and that we can only judge individual cases or small groups rather than pervasive intangible factors.
In other words, to stand by the notion of individual fair play that is the backbone of the "Western" (I use the term loosely) law. Yes, "reverse" unfairness does not happen in a vacuum, but in order to apply that fact to concrete action, you need to show that the vacuum is truly absent AND that the absence matters in *this particular instance*, which you cannot unless it's a concrete case of discrimination or violence based on race/class/caste etc.

This is not necessarily to say that the status quo is the best. Far from it. Instead, this is a call for a bottom-up, agent/network-driven understanding of social problems rather than a top-down one. But that is a different can of worms...

Boston Mahesh wrote:
In India, we have the *opposite* problem as Malaysia. Indians are very relaxed on who can call themselves "Indian". We have no problem accepting people as Indians.

I don't see this as a problem.

But we have many groups of people who don't regard themselves Indians even after 1,000 years! The Parsis feel ethnically distinct and racially superior, apparently. Why else don't they accept Indian converts to their religion? OTOH, they had no problem of bending the rules to accomodate the son of Mohd. Ali Jinnah

Jinnah's son! Call the Pakistani embassy! Turns out Dina Wadia was man! Hard to explain how she had children then.

You mean to say Jinnah's daughter, herself a daughter of a (ethnic) Parsi, and who was married to Neville Wadia, a Parsi-born convert to Christianity. Their son Nusli Wadia "converted" back to the Parsi faith, although it was probably easier given he was three-quarters "ethnic" Parsi. Dina's grandson Ness Wadia was dating Priety Zinta, last I heard.

To be clear, I think the implementation of Malaysia's Bumiputra policy has been really bad, and that India's general openness to people and ideas is both a good thing and a sign of a confident culture.

Camille (#151):

I am aware of what this thread started as, but a cursory examination shows that it diverged at least a bit since its beginning, as threads on blogs tend to do. So I ask you, what "underlying point" do you see as grossly inaccurate (if it is that I am crying a river over the fates of the oh-so-poor white/rich/upper-caste folks, I am not, and you will have to do better), and why?

We need to lose the wimp image. Someone threatens us, we f*** 'em up. Look at the Satendar Singh case and how slowly it is moving. Even more embarassing is how scared the Indian victim's friends were. A bunch of wimps. We need more visibility for the likes of the Indian cook who got stabbed in NYC.

I seriously think that all Indian kids should enroll in martial arts classes. Indian parents seem more interested in piano lessons. Teach them those ancient Kerala martial arts. You get exercise and cultural lessons in one nice package.

Indian parents seem more interested in piano lessons.

is that a desi thing? do indian kids in india play the piano a lot, or is that just in the US?

do indian kids in india play the piano a lot, or is that just in the US?

Puliogre,

From as far as I know most of my Catholic friends in India learnt to play the piano. Some completed their training through the trinity program till grade 8.

is that a desi thing? do indian kids in india play the piano a lot, or is that just in the US?

It's a stereotypical overachieving Asian-American nerd thing.

We need to lose the wimp image. Someone threatens us, we f*** 'em up.

Didn't we go through this on the Satender post? It's certainly not pointless to develop some skill in self-defense but lashing out, while not mindful of the state-defined parameters of self-defense (how much force can be used, when it can be applied), is not a good idea.

This issue is common in the social sciences, and it is not a problem so long as it remains an intellectual exercise. However, if you will use such analysis to institute policies (as in case of the Delaware diversity charade) that run counter to the intuitive notion of individual fair play or lecture folks with perceived privilege, you will face the same problems that the oh-so-dispassionate researchers of race and IQ run into-- namely, their speculative nature will be challenged.

Dr. Gottfredson? Good job blowing the whistle on that one!

Indian parents seem more interested in piano lessons. Teach them those ancient Kerala martial arts. You get exercise and cultural lessons in one nice package.

It's a stereotypical overachieving Asian-American nerd thing.

ouch!

oh yeah. You didnt know that? it's very popular in india. There are roadside carts with pianos all over the cities. any time you want to play the piano, you say "Ae! pianowallah! Come here. how much for piano?". And pianowallah says, "sure saaheb! for you and PuliBaba 40 Rupees only for 15 minutes". It does not work in kerala because the elephants keep tripping on the piano's. hence they took up kung fu.

the elephants keep tripping on the piano's. hence they took up kung fu.

WCW gets reduced to a quivering mass of regret

Jinnah's son! Call the Pakistani embassy! Turns out Dina Wadia was man! Hard to explain how she had children then.

You mean to say Jinnah's daughter, herself a daughter of a (ethnic) Parsi, and who was married to Neville Wadia, a Parsi-born convert to Christianity. Their son Nusli Wadia "converted" back to the Parsi faith, although it was probably easier given he was three-quarters "ethnic" Parsi. Dina's grandson Ness Wadia was dating Priety Zinta, last I heard.

To be clear, I think the implementation of Malaysia's Bumiputra policy has been really bad, and that India's general openness to people and ideas is both a good thing and a sign of a confident culture.

OK, my friend, you are very astute! OK, you've made great points. Listen me up, buddy. This is from wikipedia: "Dina's relationship with her father became strained when Dina expressed her desire to marry a Parsi-born Christian, Neville Wadia. Jinnah, a Muslim, tried to dissuade her, but failed. Mahommedali Currim Chagla, who was Jinnah's assistant at the time, recalls: " Jinnah, in his usual imperious manner, told her that there were millions of Muslim boys in India, and she could have anyone she chose. Reminding her father that his wife (Dina's mother Rattanbai), had also been a non-Muslim, the young lady…replied: 'Father, there were millions of Muslim girls in India. Why did you not marry one of them?' And he replied that, "she became a Muslim "

It is known that when Dina married Neville, Jinnah said to her that she was not his daughter any more. The father-daughter relationship became extremely formal after she married. They did correspond, but he addressed her formally as 'Mrs. Wadia'. Dina and Neville lived in Bombay and had two children, a boy and a girl. Dina's son Nusli Wadia born a Christian, but converted back to Zoroastrianism and settled in the industrially wealthy Parsi community of Bombay. Dina did not travel to Pakistan until her father's funeral in Karachi in September 1948."

OK, so Dina, Jinnah's only child who was his daughter, was *not* a Parsi! Technically, you're only a Parsi if *both* of your parents (not one of your parents) are Parsis. Also, you can't convert to Parsism. So when I die, no matter how much dedicated I am to promoting Zarathustra's good thoughts, deeds, and words, I can never have my carcass devoured by vultures. Yummy.

So Dina's mom was a Muslim convert. Her dad was a Muslims. She was a non-practicing Muslim, in my opinion. Her husband was a Christian convert. He, also, wasn't a Zoroastrian. Now, just because a person converts to a religion, that doesn't change a person's race. Sammy Davis Jr. is still an African-American, even though he's a Jew. Richard Gere is still a white-American, even though he's a Buddhist.

Our man Nusli, because of his good looks and massive fortuntes and pedigree, he was allowed to come back to his religion. Also, he wants to be distinguish himself from the "Indian masses," I'm sure.

Oh yeah, I'm sure that the Parsis would love for a Richard Gere to join their nice and ancient religion, but not a Sammy Davis Jr. (or a Jagdeesh Patel).

So the question becomes what is defined as a hate crime by the people who experience them and by the governing bodies who determine them. And I actually have nothing to say to Haley because amongst the many other fallacious comments this one really threw me off "I was very worried about my very nice, turbaned veterinarian who loved cats. I prayed he would not be victimized, but I noticed he stopped wearing a turban." You are such a super star! Did your "Turbaned" veterinarian thank you for your compassion? Or did you both discuss in a therapeutic manner the pains of hate crimes and racism which you have "experienced" to such a great degree in which you found commonalities? Muralimannered did an excellent job explaining systemic and institutional forms of racism, what is also necessary is the explanation of cultural racism and the "war on Blacks." And in attempting to intertextualize "The God of Small Things," The big god's (larger tragedies of racism i.e. systemic, institutional etcetera) trumps the smaller god's (smaller perceived tragedies of "racism" by whites - i.e. what theorist refer to, not racism that whites think they may experience but individual discrimination). To state the obvious which I always do (Captain Obvious) the way that these crimes are reported need to be scrutinized i.e. if a white shop keeper is robbed by a disenfranchised person of colour it may be misconstrued as a hate crime and in reality it may have been simply just a crime whether if the shop keeper were brown, yellow, green with pink stripes. As well, how many people of colour actually report hate crimes without fear? Or are actually confident (if they are for instance immigrants, refugees or "illegal aliens') in reporting hate crimes being a "minority" in a state majority? As oppose to a white, born and raised American "citizen?" And how does the discourse of denial and the ideas of "reverse racism" operate in this context? These stats have way too many variables and are quite messy to draw conclusions that white people experience hate crimes more so than any other person of colour (with the exception of black people). Next thing you know there will be stats on "reverse slavery."

is that a desi thing? do indian kids in india play the piano a lot, or is that just in the US?

brown bhang (#166): You keep carping about the "disenfranchised person of color", but not all persons of color are disenfranchised (the majority of Asians/ South Asians are certainly not). All you can say with certainty is that indices of well-being, economics, etc are differently distributed across color lines, that certain social networks of privilege are overwhelmingly white, and that your name may be a hindrance in getting interview calls. Of these, the last is a case of individual discrimination; the first two are problems only at the group level, and a simplistic explanation for that is in terms of institutional racism. But what are the micro-effects that translate into that macro-effect? What are the other confounding factors? If you are going to have an intellectually honest conversation on the topic (as opposed to just waving your flag/ distributing your pamphlets), you need to consider all these questions (and they are indeed fascinating).

The second question is how this connects to morality/justice/activism. Are group differences in outcome problems from first principles? "Institutional" racism is a bigger problem than "individual discrimination" only assuming one of the following: (1) theories of justice can be applied to groups, (2) individual acts of the discrimination against minorities are more hurtful/damaging than the same against whites. The second assumption is presumptuous and arrogant-- how would you know if you haven't lived both experiences (I think people who have lived as part of the "privileged" majority in India and part of the "underprivileged" minority in the US may be better suited to answer the question, having seen both sides of the coin)? As for (1), I am more sympathetic to that argument, although if the last century taught us anything, it is that the liberal state should aim to protect the individual and that state-enforced social engineering based on abstractions imagined by theoreticians should be avoided to the extent possible, and that "do no harm" rather than "do good" should be the guiding principle. But I am okay with it so long as (a) such violations of individually oriented justice is limited in scope, (b) it is understood that the trade-off being made is real and unfortunate, (c) it is established through argumentation that the good is really good and there is no serious alternative. It also needs to be argued that it is this particular group division (race in the US) as opposed to other possible group divisions (class, for example) that is to be taken care of this way.

I personally think this is an intellectually barren path, given that it relies on abstractions that are about as solid as Freud's theories of id, ego and superego. My feeling after traversing this space for a long enough time is that the only place where we can feel certain about our ability to do good is the space of the individual. The old-fashioned virtues of playing fair, loving your neighbor, and yes, protesting concrete injustices you see as individuals or groups.

As an aside, none of this is specific to whites/the West-- if you replace whites with upper-caste Hindus and the West with India, the same arguments could be made.