-
Totally stupid article hyping the model minority myth: “Why are Indians such a model immigrant group? In the absence of scientific research, I’ll present my own reasons for why this group has achieved so much. As an Indian immigrant myself, I have had the
-
“I think it’s interesting how each of the other tribes immediately has had to address the issue of stereotypes, and talks about ‘representing’ for their community, while the white team is here having a cocktail party,” I say… “That’s because they’re jus
-
The premiere of CBS’s “Survivor”… was the smallest audience watching a “Survivor” debut since the reality show started in 2000… even the storm of press reports about the new format failed to lift the show’s 8 p.m. audience above past debuts.
-
“RED DOORS” has a title that could suggest distant exoticism and symbolismthe sort that portrays Asians as foreign and inexplicable. Thankfully, the film has its feet quite firmly planted on the groundthe ground of suburban New York stateand portray
-
President Clinton met with liberal bloggers last week in Harlem…no one in the group was black or Latino. After a storm of controversy, the organizers acknowledged the absence of blacks and Latinos but said they had tried to invite two black bloggers who
-
the manifestation of mental illness in African American and Latino youth is seen as a “normal”, and not a mental illness at all. It is often seen as a “bucking of authority” or in the really recent past “breeding of criminality”, which also leads to feeli
-
A study released this week by the Harvard School of Public Health provides shocking data on life and death in America. Apparently, an African-American male living in a major U.S. city is likely to die almost 21 years sooner than an Asian-American woman li
-
…suggesting some sort of hierarchy of tastes when it comes to media. Specifically, white humor or film or fiction… is said to be “high brow” (Frasier, Seinfeld) whereas “black films” or comedy… is low-brow or indicative of a barbarous taste,
-
…Notice how the subject suddenly becomes not the all-white event, but whether or not it was intentional? Another example of talking about what’s in people’s hearts instead of who’s given a seat at the table…
-
(thanks April!) Among women, Asian Americans have some of the highest rates of suicide in the nation. A professor who has been studying suicide since her own sister took her life links it and other mental health problems to “model minority” identity press
-
Congrats to Rice Daddies! They were picked as site of the week by Seattle Post-Intelligencer family reporter Paul Nyhan!
Lyonside wrote:
You know, I think “Positive” Stereotypes needs to be its own category on MMW… is THIS how the US is dealing with racism? Flip negatives into “positives” in an effort to keep the status quo?
And for anyone who still thinks that a “positive” stereotype is harmless, please, tell me a positive “stereotype” about white people…
Posted 19 Sep 2006 at 8:22 am ¶
site admin wrote:
LOL you’re so right Lyonside, we *do* need a new category for that.
–CVK
Posted 19 Sep 2006 at 8:35 am ¶
lavanya wrote:
I kind of resent the way MMW completely dismisses the article by calling it “totally stupid” and then not qualifying why. Mind you, I’m no defender of the model minority myth but I noticed how you guys completely avoided engaging in any thoughtful discussion on your criticisms of the article. Calling it “totally stupid” is downright lazy on your part. You might as well have headlined this article with, “You Stupid Indians Need to Know Your Real Place.”
Posted 19 Sep 2006 at 11:41 am ¶
Lyonside wrote:
Lavanya:
No, there’s a difference between calling an article stupid and calling Indian people stupid, you know. MMW did the former. You’re claiming that the blog did the latter. Apples and oranges…
I think the point of listing a bunch of articles is to make a quick summary and the link and let the readers decide. If this were a single-article post, I’d expect MMW to go into greater detail, as they usually do. If the multi-article summaries were longer, would anyone read them?
Posted 19 Sep 2006 at 12:26 pm ¶
site admin wrote:
lavanya, point taken. These link posts are generated automatically when we bookmark pages in del.icio.us and we only have room for about 40 words to use as a description. Still, I probably could have come up with something more intelligent than “totally stupid.”
This was also one of those cases where I assume that most people reading MMW are already familiar with our belief system and have read a lot of past blog posts and listened to our podcasts, and would immediately know why I thought it was “stupid,” because we’re always going on about the pitfalls of positive stereotypes. But of course, not everyone falls into that category and we shouldn’t assume that. New people discover MMW everyday.
If you are familiar with our stuff, you’d know that the last thing we’re suggesting is “You Stupid Indians Need to Know Your Real Place.” What the “totally stupid” referred to was the way the author of the article not only accepts, but CELEBRATES positive stereotypes and the model minority myth. And then also attributes these positive stereotypes to some kind of innate cultural capital possessed only by Indians and Indian-Americans.
This kind of thinking completely ignores structural issues. Wadhwa proclaims that Indians “received no special treatment or support,” but ignores the fact that only certain types of Indian people have been allowed into the country in the first place. Ever since the 1965 Immigration Act, the immigration system has been designed to give heavy preference to foreigners with education and skills, and those who already have relatives in the country. So the people who find their way to the U.S. are not some random sampling of people from a specific country: they are often highly educated folks who already have a support system here via their relatives — they’re not starting completely from scratch.
Also, if Wadhwa believes that Indians have an inherently superior work ethic as part of their culture, does that also mean that he believes other groups have inherently *inferior* cultures? You see how positive stereotypes all have an ugly flipside?
If you get a chance, definitely check out episode 18 of Addicted to Race and listen to our interview with Alice Sandosharaj. She does an excellent job of explaining why positive stereotypes are not only dehumanizing to the group being stereotyped, but how they exist at the expense of another community: usually blacks and Latinos. She also explains how it is unfair to pit, for example, Asian-Americans against African-Americans, because you simply cannot compare a group made up of large proportion of highly-educated recent immigrants with a group that has been politically, social and economically oppressed for centuries. Here’s the link:
http://www.addictedtorace.com/?p=33
I would also recommend checking out the lengthy discussions that have been going on among MMW readers for the past few days about positive stereotypes here:
http://www.mixedmediawatch.com/2006/09/11/tyra-banks-promotes-oppression-olympics/
–CVK
Posted 19 Sep 2006 at 12:44 pm ¶
lavanya wrote:
Dear site admin,
I appreciate the clarification. I, too, was critical of this article but I did cringe at MMW’s lead-in. It’s not “totally stupid” that indian americans as a group are wealthy, educated, and privileged — these are facts based on census statistics that deserve criticism, not total dismissal.
Posted 19 Sep 2006 at 1:03 pm ¶
site admin wrote:
Btw, check out Sepia Mutiny’s take on this article - great stuff:
http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/003788.html
–CVK
Posted 19 Sep 2006 at 1:05 pm ¶
site admin wrote:
lavanya, as Lyonside pointed out, I called the article “stupid.” Where did I say that Indian-Americans being wealthy, educated and privileged was “stupid?” –CVK
Posted 19 Sep 2006 at 1:06 pm ¶
lavanya wrote:
site admin,
when you called the entire article “stupid,” it was unclear what exactly you were calling stupid. after you clarified, i understood. before, i didn’t. that is all i meant to say.
Posted 19 Sep 2006 at 1:28 pm ¶
gatamala wrote:
AMEN Carmen!!!!! He even prefaces his logic with, “In the absence of scientific research….”
I wonder WHO gets special treatment & support and what that actually is??? I’m certain that he knows a female or a minority business owner. Surely he knows someone who took advantage of SBA & other govt loans and tax breaks in empowerment zones to open a business in an underserved, low income area occupied by lazy no family-values having people.
[sigh] As the daughter/granddaughter/descendent of non-immigrants whose fight to even be able to own a business/go to school/vote/get a loan w.o. redlining/live a life of dignity led to a more humane 1965 Immigration Act that allowed Wadwha to even set foot on this land, I must say I’m getting tired of these backhanded insults.
I do not dispute that these succesful immigrants faced discrimination and hardship, but if most of them arrived after 1980 (as he says), they did not face nearly the discrimination & hardship prevalent in the earlier part of the 20th century. I suppose making not-so-subtle digs at certain populations helps ease the integration into American society.
Posted 19 Sep 2006 at 3:02 pm ¶
lavanya wrote:
“they did not face nearly the discrimination and hardship prevalent in the earlier part of the 20th century.”
Are you serious? Do you, gatamala, know *anything* about Indian history? How Indians were colonized, raped, and pillaged by the British? That they were enslaved and sent abroad as indentured servants, who were never able to come back to their homeland? Have you ever heard of Gandhi and his struggle for the liberation of Indians? Just because they did not live in the US during the civil rights era of the 1960s does not mean they did not endure hardship and oppression before coming here.
Newsflash, gatamala: discrimination does occur outside of the US. Just because certain groups did not experience it here does not mean that they’ve always had a comfortable, wonderful existence.
Posted 19 Sep 2006 at 4:34 pm ¶
Lyonside wrote:
Lavanya:
I’m not speaking for gatamala, but I didn’t take her comments to mean that Indians have never faced oppression… of COURSE they have. What I took her post to mean was that some more recent immigrants (like the article author) seem to be coming here AFTER the advances of the civil rights movement, looking at other minority groups, notably black and Latinos, and saying, “they don’t have it hard, what’s their problem, why can’t they be more like us?”
It also stands that many/most of the more recent immigrants from certain countries, notably India and Korea, are NOT the poorest of the poor, but are the moderately to highly educated, the new middle class, etc. with a different skill set and resources than earlier groups of immigrants and especially earlier groups of forced or manual laborers.
Example: South Korea is known for having banking co-ops that help recent immigrants get low-interest loans from Korea. I’m NOT saying they don’t work hard - I know they do, but it is an advantage that has not been available to minority business owners here, and in some cases would not be available today.
Example: Most Indians I know personally are from the middle class, were educated here in the States for either undergraduate or graduate studies, attended a high level of formal education in India, and come from the merchant “caste”… Caste is not supposed to exist in India, but it does exist de facto in many areas of Indian life. My friends will say that caste doesn’t matter… until it comes to getting married.
Immigration policies here in the US do favor those with higher education/skill sets. Is any of this the fault of the immigrant or by iteself a negative thing? Absolutely not. But that is why it can rankle if a recent immigrant comes in and essentially criticizes or is perceived to criticize other groups who may not have had all the same advantages, but who may have made the opportunities available to those recent immigrants possible…
Posted 19 Sep 2006 at 5:29 pm ¶
Candace wrote:
Gatamala said: “I do not dispute that these succesful immigrants faced discrimination and hardship, but if most of them arrived after 1980 (as he says), they did not face nearly the discrimination & hardship prevalent in the earlier part of the 20th century. I suppose making not-so-subtle digs at certain populations helps ease the integration into American society.”
Look, I thoroughly understand the implications of “postive stereotypes” and the effect they have in pitting minorities against each other. They are a tool used by those whose voices are heard the loudest (and consequently have the most power) in this country to “teach” underrepresented/disadvantaged minorities a “lesson” - shut up, work hard, and don’t complain. Gross.
BUT - I am getting sick and tired of the subtle and not-so-subtle Oppression Olympics orchestrated by many people who belong to disadvantaged minority groups. How many times have I heard a black or Latino person say, “They just don’t get it,” ‘they’ usually meaning Asian Americans. And yes, Asian Americans don’t - they have different histories. As much as I respect those who fought for civil liberties in the earlier part of this century, and am grateful for what they sacrificed and reaped for the rest of us, time moves on. Life is not static, movements are not static, culture is not static, situations are not static.
If you are a black person whose parents fought for civil rights, that doesn’t give you some sort of privileged place on the racism scale. What I’m sick of is this sort of nativist attitude I sense from people like Gatamala, who proclaim that they’ve been in America for generations and generations and fought for the rights that these “recent immigrants” benefit from. That’s great, Gatamala, that you are a “non-immigrant,” but that doesn’t give you a damn modicum more of a privileged speaking position than a Vietnamese refugee who’s been here for 10 days or an Indian neurosurgeon who’s been here for 30 years. I’m sorry, it doesn’t. Do you know why? Because times change. A black person or a Latino person does not speak for all of racism.
What I’m sick of is that we live in a post-9/11 world in which innocent CITIZENS of the United States who are almost exclusively brown people from the Middle East and South Asia are denied their civil rights, illegally detained or deported from their countries and yet something like 70 percent of African-Americans (according to a study done after Sept. 11) said they agree with racial profiling of “Middle Eastern-looking people.” We live in a post-9/11 world where a Sikh man who describes the harassment and discrimination he faces on a daily basis for wearing a turban is met with the retort, “Yeah, well at least you can get a cab” from Spike Lee (see “The Inside Man”). SPIKE LEE, people. Am I supposed to feel grateful after that that Spike Lee even chose to highlight the Sikh issue? I’m glad he did, but absolutely did not appreciate the fact that he had to mediate it through a “my oppression is greater than yours” lens. We live in a world where Carlos Mencia makes jokes about the discrimination that Arabs face and says, “It’s your turn now” and everyone laughs. Tell me, Gatamala, since you seem to be so keen on distinguishing those minorities who have been here earlier this century vs. those who came later, what great struggle did the Hispanics face that is on par with what Middle Eastern and South Asian people are facing now? How many legal Latino citizens have been detained in secret prisons? And before you answer, note that I am talking about legal American citizens. Because if you’re going to go nativist, Highly Esteemed Non-Immigrant, so am I. (And as a side note, many Asian Americans have been in this country well before the 20th century. Whose labor helped build the railroads? Chinese-Americans. Ever heard of the anti-Indian immigration act in the 1920s? How about Punjabi farmers who came here at the turn of the century?)
Look, you can now view my comments as being extremely divisive and retort that I am an ugly racist who needs to recognize the importance of building coalitions/solidarity/insert college idealistic BS here. I have recognized that but am feeling very jaded. I’m sorry, but why should I join a coalition which is somehow always led by a disadvantaged minority group telling me that I have it “easier” than they have? Why should I stand around listening to “advantaged” minorities who have identity issues talk about how we face racism too, we do, we really do, but in the end the real victims of racism are disadvantaged minorities so let’s give them the pulpit to speak about real issues while we sit around talking about Asian American males’ penis envy?
See, statistics only say so much. All I know is that in the world I live in today, Muslims are given dirty looks by ALL groups in America - whites, blacks, Latinos, etc. When two women speak Spanish on the train, people let it go but when two Indian men speak in Hindi the train/plane/boat has to re-route for an emergency landing. When I tell people my religion, they don’t know if that is the “terrorist” one (yes, I have been asked that - by a Latina). That no matter what my family has gone through or how long they have been here in this country, we will always be foreign and talked down to by conservatives and progressives alike (you know, from those “non-immigrants”).
I’m not expecting anyone to reply to this b/c it might actually force you to question how you look at things. Yes, go ahead, call me a racist. Honestly, yeah, I am somewhat bigoted but at least I’m trying to look at the big picture. I’m not all about what I go through or what my particular ethnicity goes through, as the above rant may imply, but this thread really got me into a fit of pique. So go ahead, call me anti-black or whatnot, but ask yourself this: what about your own racism? Or bigotry? Or how about ignorance? Or maybe just lack-of-knowledge-about-all-things-not-directly-affecting-me?
My points are these: (a) that most people are stupid, and (b) that it’s not always about YOU.
Posted 20 Sep 2006 at 12:27 am ¶
Adrianna wrote:
I heard about the high rate of suicide in the Asian community due to cultural pressure on CNN. It was a special segment on education. IT focused on the Brown VS Board of ED 60 years later and if it had changed anything. In the special you had this African American couple who opted to send their kids to a chinese school in the city, because of the poor state of school in the city. But An Asian pshycologist warned viewers of the pressure Asian American children faced and Asian kids in general and about how they had the highest suicide rates, I find it disturbing that young women and men have to stand so much pressure. Life is hard enough!!
Posted 20 Sep 2006 at 4:29 am ¶
Meg wrote:
OK Candace, since you took the time to make a post and I read the whole thing, I’ll reply. Firstly, if your main points were the ones at the end why make such a long post?
More seriously, I think you’re trying to set up a straw man argument for the sake of a fight cos if your main points through the bulk of you post are the ones I’ve written below then you have way more in common with this website and other ppl on the site than you think. I guess other ppl can correct me if I’m wrong on this.
1. You don’t agree with positive stereotypes
2. You don’t like the ‘oppression Olympics”
3. You feel Middle East and South Asian people are discriminated against (for racial and religious reasons) and this isn’t being acknowledged.
I think most everything you say is to do with the oppression Olympics. It’s been getting such a run recently maybe Carmen & Jen should hold a medal ceremony. From the oppression Olympics comes the idea that African Americans/Latinos are not fully recognising the discrimination that other people (specific to post 9/11 times) go through. I don’t have much to say on this since I don’t live in America but the Spike Lee comment is definitely unhelpful and I think you make a fair point – this type of thing should be discussed.
In Australia we saw the example of ppl being unable to distinguish “races” because there were race riots at the end of last year purportedly to protest the Lebanese Muslim community (don’t start at how this isn’t a race) but the ugly crowd basically turned on anyone who had brown skin. Yes Sikhs also are copping crap cos there’s a bunch of stupid people who act before/without thinking – they think one type of head dress is much the same as the next. We’re also going through an “Australian values” debate to do with migrants getting citizenship. If you want to talk about coded discussions on race/ethnicity go to an Aussie news site (skip past the Steve Irwin stuff, but it’s there) where we real Aussies (meaning Anglo) want to keep out undesirables who don’t hold our values (read Middle Eastern/Muslim/non-english speaking). AND YES the model (usually Greek/Italian cos they were the 1st main group of migrants to Oz) minorities are pointed to, to show everyone that if you come to Australia you should assimilate, get a job, learn what fair dinkum means, go to the footy and eat a pie. Does this make the discrimination recent migrants experience better/worse/same as the Indigenous Australians/Greeks/Italians? Different of course – massive historical differences. I don’t know that anyone on this site has ever claimed that there are certain groups of people who don’t get to speak about disadvantage based on the order in which they arrived in a country. If there is then I totally disagree. It’s a matter of fully appreciating that there are different kinds of pressures which affect GROUPS (not individual case studies to prove a point) in varying ways.
The issue about recent immigrants not having their experience represented fully (good with the bad) and being made to feel like you can’t speak on issues because you’re not related to someone from the civil rights movement is you orchestrating a straw man again. I’m sure Gatamala can defend herself on the points you take up, what I’ll say is people’s opinions shouldn’t be dismissed because of their ethnicity/cultural background and it shouldn’t be accepted just because of it either.
The article about Indians being the model minority (which I think started this whole debate?) illustrates that even those who may face discrimination can have a narrow view of the role that race/ethnicity still plays today. The author has reinforced the stereotype about a certain ethnic group – this gives us something to talk about at MMW. It goes right back to when you said that positive stereotypes are used to pit minorities against each other and to ‘prove’ that if you’re motivated you can do well. BUT it does need to be recognised that certain types of disadvantage disproportionately affect certain minorities. This is NOT to argue that other ethnic groups are fully accepted, red-white-and-blue Americans who never face any difficulties/discrimination.
Basically what I’m trying to say is I don’t think you’ve given this topic and site in general it’s due in terms of the conversation which is taking place. It’s not about saying that only African Americans can speak with authority on race, it’s not about ‘privileged’ minorities trying to claim some credit for discrimination they’ve faced. You’ll notice ppl of varying backgrounds and viewpoints discussing things. I for one welcome your views (maybe a little less defensive) and they could teach me something i’m sure - so just chill out and read some of the other topics/posts.
Posted 20 Sep 2006 at 4:49 am ¶
gatamala wrote:
Lyonside & Meg did a good job of speaking in my absence
Let me clarify I few things. I realize this is a personal issue for EVERYONE involved. I knew this was going to get a hot response, & should have prefaced my comments.
1) Forgive me if this sounded like Oppression Olympics. I figured it would have that tone when I typed it. I do agree that a constant comparison of who’s had it worse is fruitless. However, does it really do any good to pretend that we are all similarly-situated because we are non/part white? Candace, you started out condemning OO, yet slid right into through the remainder of your post. As for the Latin vs. ME/SA thing. I am not Latin. But when you get an opportunity, feel free to ask them about: differing treatment b/t black/white/brown Latins, deportation of LEGAL citizens, Sleepy Lagoon, cops, discrimination at the poles. See also the previous post site admin put up.
2) Lavanya, I’m sorry I wasn’t clear. I was talking ONLY about the US. My point was for the author (& those who harbor those thoughts) to consider that the social circumstances before the bulk of these particular immigrants arrived was extreme, to say the least. Yes, I do know about British colonialism in India. Which is why I wonder this gentleman wrote such a silly article. Certainly a few centuries of colonial rule have left (millions) of people in institutionalized, entrenched disadvantaged circumstances from which they will never arise- no matter how much hard work they do?
3) Candace: I was responding to that “model minority” article, not to Asians in general. I KNOW good & damn well that Asian immigrants arrived here in the 19th century. Go back & reread Whadwa’s article & then my post. I’m referring to the subset (post 1980 Indian immigrants) mentioned in his article. Yes, I’m familiar w/ anti-Asian immigration laws that prevented Asians from becoming citizens. Now reread my response to Wadhwa’s article again. WHEN/WHY/UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES WERE THOSE LAWS CHANGED??? In response to the not-so-subtle digs made by those who think like Wadhwa, damn right I’m going to remind them how/why they are able to come to the US to open a business.
4) No. I don’t think your comments are divisive or that you are an ugly racist. They merit discussion & action, particularly those regarding 9/11 detentions/deportations. I do think you misunderstand the purpose of the model minority myth. The effect is to place a high burden on Asians to achieve/be successful/win/make $/not complain/disappear/be grateful. It also has the effect of reinforcing stereotypes Asians have of other Asians and other immigrants/non-immigrant blacks. The purpose is to compare the success of some non-white people by disparaging others’ supposed lack of success. Yes, these others are Latins & of course Blacks. Disparagement of ethnic minorities is usually done through euphemisms. Generally: Crime/test scores/questionable work ethic = Blacks; immigration/non-English/crime = Latin; terrorism = anyone who fits a certain skin tone particularly ME/SA. Statements that may SEEM benign on the surface are actually bigoted sentiments expressed in coded language. Wadhwa used the same old tired bullshit we’ve heard for years: hard work (vs. lazy), special treatment (vs. affam [!] or welfare), family values (as opposed to your lack).
Wadhwa is peddling this bullshit at Duke and making a buck at the expense of people whose efforts made his opportunities in America possible. Reinforcement of age old stereotypes can render hard work, education, entrepreneurial spirit useless. He mentions this spirit & sound financial management as a reason why “Indians are such a model immigrant group.” Imagine how hard these goals are to obtain in the face of redlining. The man is preaching this nonsense to future business execs at a major university!!!
Posted 20 Sep 2006 at 10:16 am ¶
lavanya wrote:
Gatamala:
1. Immigration laws in the 1960s did not change because of you or your ancestors. They changed because of a critical labor shortage in medicine, science, and technology. It’s called labor economics.
2. My larger point in bringing up colonization was that is spite of 400 years of British rule, India’s economy is booming, the share of Indians living in poverty is rapidly decreasing, and its middle class is getting bigger and bigger. This isn’t some model minority myth, this is fact. So it’s not just about “the best Indians were let in here, ergo, they’re more privileged than other minorities.” India as a whole has a certain human capital that most other countries don’t have. This is largely due to lucky circumstances such as a) being a 6,000-year-old civilization, b) having a large English-speaking population, c) having a strategic education system that meets global workforce needs.
3. Canada and the UK had open-door immigration policies for Indians, yet Indians are doing well in those countries, too.
4. I think it’s kind of funny how you keep saying, “it was OUR struggle that allowed you to come here.” Well, struggles don’t always start and begin on US soil. Last time I checked, MLK, Malcolm X, and Ceasar Chavez all got their inspiration from a certain someone in India.
Posted 20 Sep 2006 at 1:19 pm ¶
Lyonside wrote:
Re: #2 - Comparing apples, oranges, and kumquats here. The British were not native to India and for the most part LEFT. Colonialism globally has created its own problems that are similar but also not similar to legal race regulation and race-prejudice in the United States, same roots, different fruits. I’m NOT saying that one version is better/worse…
But it bears stating that in the US, the people in control over people oppressed did not LEAVE the US… they were/are considered native born Americans. The peoples of African descent were not originally native, but during and after slavery many considered themselves and also were considered by the powers in charge as citizens (even if second class). The peoples of mixed European, Indigenous/Native Peoples, and African descent (commonly categorized as Latinos) also have varied histories based on region and location, and whether you consider a given person “native” or not depends on their individual personal history.
OMIG… why are we still arguing who counts and who doesn’t?
3. UK: the colonialist power - again, not the same. Don’t know abotu Canada, but are you saying that impoverished Indians from the lowest classes were still able to afford to move to Canada and the UK? Or would possibly the middle and upper classes still have the greater mobility (as happens everywhere, not just in India)…
4. And neither do they begin/start in India with Ghandi. The “Civil Rights Movement” in the US began way before the 1900s. There were black leaders before the end of slavery. Why can’t we just say that multiple people have contemplated many ways to struggle against oppression, both peacefully and by force, and leave it at that?
Posted 20 Sep 2006 at 1:56 pm ¶
Lyonside wrote:
And to get this away from the black/white, white/Indian dichotomy, it may be wise to add the following:
1. US law intially allowed free white males to vote (first class citizens.) Free white women were next in line since they were citizens, but were limited in both voting and ownership powers (i.e. if married, property almost always transferred over to the husband - the reverse was not true).
2. Many of the state race-based laws involved cohabitation and marriage (specifically the banning of), and whatever minority group was in the area or of concern at the time would get the short end of the stick. Where it was mostly blacks, the law would spell out blacks. Where there were Asians, the law would specify that as well. Mexicans (basically the only Latinos in the US in the 1800s) and those of Mexican descent were often considered “white.” But where/when they were not, I’m sure some local and state laws were passed.
3. Jim Crow was law in 1/2 the states and de facto segregation was the unspoken law in the other half until the 1960s. Both affected ANY visible minority. Some were affected more than others, again based on region.
4. The only thing that unifies these is that the same majority group was in charge no matter WHO was being oppressed. NOW… can we focus a bit and talk about real issues and not who’s better (worse) than another?
Posted 20 Sep 2006 at 2:17 pm ¶
gatamala wrote:
YESSSS King drew inspiration from Gandhi’s non-violent resistance. But the civil rights movement did not begin in the early 60s either-citizenship & voting rights had been fought for from the mid 19th c. Unfortunately, being from the land of Gandhi does not protect Wadhwa from any criticism for propogating supposedly a positive stereotype that has a nefarious undertone. If anything he should know better.
As for the immigration laws, I do not deny that critical labor shortages were part of the reconsideration of immigration laws. However, the laws changed to remove the PREFERENCE for [western] Europeans and to admit non-white folks from other parts of the world. Don’t think for one second that economic necessity was the impetus for removing the color preference/open-door policy. The [latest] push to change the social climate by eliminating color barriers- which criticized the sheer racism immigration & other laws - was by MLK, Malcolm & CC’s followers. Mind you that policy has been abrogated a bit in the past 5 years - labor necessity went right out the window, much to the detriment of those who need medical care in rural areas. Don’t underestimate the dominance of color prejudice NOW - now imagine what it was like some 40 years ago.
What I am saying is going right over your head. The MM is used to utterly deny the existence of racism as a real, persistent barrier to opportunity. My point is not to tear down Indian-Americans and begrudge them their success, however, I think the MM designation and its basis in exceptionalism is a crock. It is insane to hold a small segment of a small population as an example of how/why another group should be as successful, when their collective histories in THIS country are differ greatly. I’m not denying the experiences of others abroad, or their difficulties when they come here. I’m saying that most have not borne the brunt of America’s systematic cruelty; therefore, it’s silly to attribute one’s material success to some sort of cultural exceptionalism. When one makes the MM argument that ethnic heritage & culture alone account for a groups relative success, he is implying that cultural deficiences are the reason for another’s relative struggle. Read his paragraph that starts with “A MODEST EXPLANATION.”
How the hell can you attribute 6,000 years of civilization, English, & education to luck? I thought 400 years of colonial rule brought English? You know good & well that a disrupted history and neglected educational system has to do with a lot more than bad luck!!!
From the gitgo you approached responses to this article as an attack on India/Indian Americans. You say you don’t buy into the MM myth but are hell bent on defending its basis. Yes, it is difficult for IAs. Yes, you have suffered hardship here and abroad. No, AfAms aren’t the only ones who have faced discrimination. FTR, I have seen others discuss this MM on SMutiny, where there are very interesting posts that deconstruct this myth with stats galore.
Posted 20 Sep 2006 at 3:17 pm ¶
eric daniels wrote:
Yes Candance you are a bigot, just like me and most Americans in this country. at least your’e an honest Asian - American who’s a bigot.
Posted 21 Sep 2006 at 3:53 am ¶