In Canada as well, generally speaking. It explains why, all things being equal, the East Asians are generally more accepted by the broader Canadian society than East Indians. Ethnic Indians are accepted when they are familiar, cool, speak, act and dress well, or when they are exceptionally bright or wealthy. That’s not what I’m referring to. It’s how Joe Blow or Sally Sixpack views, and behaves when there are strange Indians vis-a-vis strange Chinese, Japanese or Koreans. Look at the body language. Ethno-racial is the main factor. There are many exceptions of course.

I meant in political and cultural coordination in the USA, rather than genetic ancestry.

I’m a fan of your use of nuance on your discover magazine blog and gene expression.

On this general topic, I’m not that passionate. I’d like to see the smartest desis managing a lot more of the USA’s resources, but there are more routes than being the technocratic representatives of brown and black mass populations in a mirror of the role jews and wasps frequently play with white americans.

Alina, You note here: “I don’t see anything racist about it all. Race is a made up societal construct to an extent. Little boxes for us to check off on a form. No one is 100% “pure” anything,”

and here: “well we do lump them together in America, but they’re not really a race in the sense that most are mestizo (not sure if this is the word or how to spell it) but plenty are black or white or some mix of black/white/native so not really a “race” I guess. I think part of the reason hispanic became a race in American is because most of them seem to come from Mexico and be mestizo in their heritage, so it’s easier to lump them based on that. If we had an racially diverse hispanic population from all over latin america coming in, I bet it would be different.”

“Race is real, and hispanics aren’t a race” (my scare quotes) seems to me to be a bit weaponized against hispanics and any attempt by them to become a power bloc, and arbitrarily so (it doesn’t seem to me to be a symmetric response to anti-desi social agression by hispanics). But, who cares? I don’t have a stake in this further than excreting this commentary, so I’m done.

hispanic was created in 1970 for the purposes of gov. administration by nixon. just the term ‘asian america’ (which includes south asians) it has take a life of its own.

white and black hispanics experience life a lot differently than mestizo hispanics. the blacks experience the same racism that blacks experience. the white hispanics have “white privilege” in everyday situations if they want it.

the person who stated that “They may have a stronger racial claim by that measure than Whites or even south asians” sounds like a m*ron.

well we do lump them together in America, but they’re not really a race in the sense that most are mestizo (not sure if this is the word or how to spell it) but plenty are black or white or some mix of black/white/native so not really a “race” I guess.

I think part of the reason hispanic became a race in American is because most of them seem to come from Mexico and be mestizo in their heritage, so it’s easier to lump them based on that. If we had an racially diverse hispanic population from all over latin america coming in, I bet it would be different. Lots of white hispanic Americans seem to identify as white in America, in my (really limited) experience. But you still hear actresses like Jessica Alba and Alexis Bledel (danish descent, parents from mexico and argentina) touting their hispanic roots so idk.

I think that meme is a bit of a malign on Hispanics, because it’s true and untrue about every population. Hispanics are functionally a race in America in terms of coordination. They may have a stronger racial claim by that measure than Whites or even south asians.

As for Obama, I think the more accurate thing to say is he’s not black american, but he has enough traits and social intelligence to be accepted as black by black americans.

I think these distinctions are important for the sepia mutiny cohort to keep in mind, because I’d like to see desi technocratic competence elites follow the Obama model and become macroresource manager pageant representatives for the large black and hispanic populations in the U.S., like new england wasps and jews do for whites.

Less talented, more authentic blacks don’t successfully revolt against Obama representing them in the political pageantry. Think of Jesse Jackson’s failure in agressive posture towards Obama. I think desis can enter that Obama lane and we’ll all be better off as a result (because the most talented desis are probably much more talented than the most talented biracial 1/2 immigrant africans). Fluency in black american and hispanic american culture is a prerequisite.

Rather than go in the direction of push-narratives to atomize hispanics, I’d like to see desis go in the direction of push-narratives to unify blacks and hispanics under their (technocratic) leadership. I think sepia mutiny goes in that direction.

I think it’s interesting how the one-drop rule seems limited to Blacks in America. If someone is White/Asian, they are biracial. If someone is Desi/White, they are biracial. It gets trickier with Hispanics, since they’re not really a race, just a culture (What is Jessica Alba?), but half Black/White always seems to translate into African America. Alicia Keyes is considered an African American singer. Halley Berry is an African-American actress. Obama is our first African America president, etc…

as i’ve noted before, people who are half-asian or “half-latino” can play white film characters. keanu reeves, dean caine and mark-paul gosselaar are about 1/4 asian ancestrally, but they play whites. the tilly sisters play whites and they’re half-chinese (original surname chan). norah jones (geethali shankar) has played white women. that shows you the difference. to play white characters actresses of african descent have to look very non-black. rashida jones for example. her father is quincy jones, but he’s mixed black, white, and native american.

p.s. jessica alba is less than 13% indigenous in ancestry and 87% european. she’s been tested.

To clarify, I was trying to explain to Ash how the general American culture classifies people racially (why Obama is black) – not what my personal opinion is on the matter. I think of Obama as bi-racial and definitely consider Kamala Harris to be just as South Asian as she is Jamaican. But I completely understand why Obama is considered our first “African American” president. The one drop rule, racist or not, has been part of the dominant culture for centuries and it’s not going to go away overnight, not even with a black/white guy in the Oval office.

As for Obama personally – keep in mind he’s a politician first and pretty speeches littered with phrases like “diversity of heritage” are part of what got into elected in the first place. He needs to appeal to a variety of people, he needs to appeal to the African American community while making sure the rest of America, especially white Democrats and Independents, don’t feel left out.

@Razib: I think it’s interesting how the one-drop rule seems limited to Blacks in America. If someone is White/Asian, they are biracial. If someone is Desi/White, they are biracial. It gets trickier with Hispanics, since they’re not really a race, just a culture (What is Jessica Alba?), but half Black/White always seems to translate into African America. Alicia Keyes is considered an African American singer. Halley Berry is an African-American actress. Obama is our first African America president, etc…

Alina-M,

Seems to me that you had an issue with identifying Obama as biracial, and that’s why you mentioned the one-drop rule. And your comment regarding letting people self-identify runs contrary to the one-drop rule. Besides, I’m not arguing that he be identified as a caucasian.

You might want to read this, if you haven’t already:

More important, the notion that Obama clearly identifies himself as African-American is debatable. Sometimes he does — as in a post-election interview with the Washington Post, in which the president-elect exulted: “There is an entire generation that will grow up taking for granted that the highest office in the land is filled by an African-American. I mean, that’s a radical thing.” On other occasions, however, Obama has used far more ambiguous self-descriptions. In his celebrated 2004 Democratic National Convention speech, for example, Obama didn’t call himself “black” or “African-American”; instead, he spoke of his father’s birth in Kenya, his mother’s birth in Kansas, and the “diversity of [his] heritage.” (For good measure, he also included black and white in his list of illusory divides in American culture.) In his first press conference after the election, meanwhile, the president-elect memorably referred to himself as a “mutt.” And in his ballyhooed speech on race in America, he subtly identified with the African-American community — while simultaneously describing his own background in far more complex terms: I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas. I was raised with the help of a white grandfather who survived a Depression to serve in Patton’s army during World War II and a white grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line at Fort Leavenworth while he was overseas. . . . I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slave owners. . . . I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles, and cousins, of every race and every hue, scattered across three continents . . . Identifying as African-American? That’s debatable. Here, Obama seems to be identifying as meta-racial — as an individual whose own background renders traditional racial categories obsolete.

Full article here: http://thephoenix.com/boston/news/76658-black-like-him/?page=1#TOPCONTENT