This is frustrating. Why do desis have to write on India? Do we have an India-oriented chip in which that’s all we write about? And what about the desis who aren’t Indian? Should they all be writing on India, too? I feel like this is like asking why all Chinese emigrants don’t write about China. It makes sense that he’s not talking about India right now. American security policy isn’t talking about India right now – nearly everything has taken a back seat to Iraq and the Middle East. It’s logical to me that someone who does IR-security would focus on geopolitical hotspots.

I’m not a huge Fareed Zakaria fan (as in not a fan at all, but I do think that people should read The Future of Freedom to get a sense of where he is – I would also put him closer to the Thomas Friedman neolib/neocon camp), but some of this slander has me a bit stumped. I understand when people get upset about Condoleeza Rice and Clarence Thomas – over 80% of the African American population either votes or identifies as Democratic, and there is a fairly strong consensus on some key community issues. But how many desis aren’t Republicans? Maybe I’m really ignorant, but isn’t it like 40-60%? And I do think he’s more cogent, intelligent and interesting than Dinesh D’Souza, who from my p.o.v. is just walking on another planet!

No. Must. Convince. Desione.

Okay, so we’ll disagree, but I still don’t understand how you could think a Dunkin Donuts worker has more political interests in common with Bobby Jindal than her coworkers without overemphasizing the effects of race to the detriment of class.

By the way, what is your view with respect to organizations like SAYA (clearly a successful organization), which are decidely race/ethnicity first? Also out of curiosity, which orgs are you involved with?

Well, I’ve always heard good things about SAYA as a moderate organization that does service work and creates community among desi youth. Like I said, I’m not against using race/ethnicity as a factor because racism/ethnicity can be a way to bring people together in the service of a larger political analysis, particularly to combat race/ethnicity based discrimination. You should note though that most of SAYA’s office is in Queens and I think that most of their youth are probably working class (not a fact…just my best guess).

But I’m not getting further into the mine field of evaluating NY desi organizations in this public a space

As a throwaway line, it begs the question: why do you believe it’s a failure in thinking?

I feel Jindal has more in common, which is why he has a duty. This is our fundamental difference in viewpoint. We disagree, all good.

By the way, what is your view with respect to organizations like SAYA (clearly a successful organization), which are decidely race/ethnicity first? Also out of curiosity, which orgs are you involved with? There are a fair number of NY-based sepia peeps it seems, there should be some sort of community calendar on here (aside from dispersed postings and comments).

Lastly, saw your blog, love your take on the reward of F-16s given to pakistan…”How About Giving Them Food, A$$holes?” hahah good stuff.

As for the Uncle Tom stuff, I’m curious to know how many people are actually buckin’ The Man and not sucking up or sucking from the system in some way…

I would agree with [power analysis rather than race politics] but I think it has problems practically speaking.

I’m drawing this from practical experience. The most successful activists in New York’s desi activist scene are the ones that do issue based organizing (even if it has a race/ethnicity component to it)–Restaurant Opporunties Center, Families For Freedom, Andolan Organizing South Asian Workers. They do community building, provide social/resource support, and a variety of other tactics that helps people while trying to change what’s undermining the situation of people like them.

Further, where I’ve seen things go wrong is where people wield identity politics like a sword–for example, not acknowledging power as management within an organization and attributing everything to gender or class or race. Or excluding people on the basis of their membership in a particular social class without looking at the multiple ways people get screwed (gender, sexuality, class, etc.).

Social change is complicated, but it isn’t brain surgery if you pay attention to who’s fcuking who over and how in particular situations.

I hate to break this to you, but this is how the world already works. Elites support elites, even though they have obvious rivalries. There are obviously gradations (e.g. the Indian government has less power and influence than the U.S. government) but it has power. Similarly, the more people identify with the empowered, the less they give a $hit about the disempowered–like all the desi citizens that don’t care about undocumented people or all the rich desis that don’t care about Dunkin Donuts employees.

And given that the poor have such limited resources, it would be pretty disastrous. Practically speaking, power comes from the size and ability of your community/network group….especially in a globalized economy with large network effects.

That’s why you organize.

Emphasizing racial and minority connections is the best hope that poor people have.

Ultimately, all this leads to is a different dominant racial/ethnic/religious group with the same power divides.

I don’t believe classlessness can exist in the real world, but I think it’s like equality or freedom or safety–something you work towards as an ideal. The alternative is “the American dream” model where the smartest, most talented people leave their disempowered communities, gain wealth and power, and throw a few sops back down, if that.

I am advocating racial and ethnic awareness (tossed salad not melting pot), and political action in line with this awareness.

And I’m advocating “ethnic awareness” (i.e. identity politics) that’s in line with our political analysis. If we don’t understand human relations in terms of power (which breaks down by race, class, gender, and many other facets), then we can’t understand why resource distribution and human welfare happens in some ways rather than others.

As the richest racial/ethnic group in the US (ahead of Whites) according to the 2000 Census, South Asians have a good thing going economically. It would be a shame to deemphasize this connection when it can be used so powerfully to combat a hostile political enviroment.

It would be a shame to put being South Asian over being decent to all people that are suffering, both for pragmatic reasons (above) and idealistic reasons. Again, at the end of the day, a Bangaldeshi or Indian working in Dunkin Donuts has more in common with a Mexican restaurant worker than with a software engineer, much less Bobby Jindal.