Mar 3, 2005

Desis and Desi Organizations in Asian America

I've been thinking a lot about the current state of desis working in community-based settings around the nation, and specifically in NYC. The community infrastructure, at least through the lens of professionalized and staffed non-profit organizations, is still very limited, and not balanced around the nation. While there seem to be far more individuals entering the field, they are doing so without established channels for leadership development, nor even training and an introduction to the community. I fear that more folks are jumping in with hopes to create big waves and become the identifiable leadership before learning the ropes or engaging the broader social justice movement, and, to put it crudely, without paying their dues. There are always natural leaders in our midst, but without training in larger coalitions like Asian America, some folks have been questioning the value of these connections, either aligning with other interest groups, or going solo on a mission to make a brown voice heard above the cacophony of other groups.

When I began, and in the years before me, there was a very limited pool of South Asians who were interested in community-based work, and far from having South Asian-specific organizations in which to work, we took positions and interest in the pan-Asian mode of identity and coalition. There are a number of activists from that time, beginning in the late 80s on through the mid-nineties who took these positions and became more involved in the majority Chinese/Korean institutions within the Asian American communities in the East coast. These folks cut their teeth in the second wave of the Asian American movement (or whatever remained of it at that point), and were trained to recognize the commonalities between the communities, the uneasy alliances, and prospects for true coalition-building between the old order within Asian America and the new, more diverse young leadership.

Many of these desis came to more directly recognize the need for brown spaces, but not as an only resort. While the alliances between East and South Asians within Asian America are wrought with their own challenges, the need for political cohesion to form a critical mass of like-minded progressive/radical proponents for social change still seemed necessary, good, and worthwhile. Jump forward ten years, and the gap seems to be widening. I feel that the time at which it could have gone either was in the immediate aftermath of September 11th, but that's another post altogether. The point to remember here is that it wasn't always this difficult to have South Asians more involved in pan-Asian organizations and work, and it's a shame that in a city like New York, the principal pan-Asian organizations can't seem to hold onto their South Asian staff - with the holdouts who remain only biding their time, but seemingly uninvested in the bridging of the evident gap between the established communities and the new and emerging communities in the fragile alliance called Asian America.

On top of that, there are a lot of fledgling South Asian organizations that are forming, or splitting off from more established groups. With the funding landscape only becoming more and more difficult to navigate for new groups, specifically for agencies that work with communities that have come under so much scrutiny after the Patriot Act and other punitive measures have come into play. Foundations are stating overtly that they aren't interested in funding more South Asian groups - "why don't you learn to play nicely with one another?" is the general gist. So what to do? Some group leaders are coming together to talk about this soon, but there's so much mistrust, mixed history, and positioning going on that it's hard to figure out what's going to happen. Getting the groups to meet together isn't that difficult (unlike some communities), but getting them to work together in the long haul - that's a completely different, and far more difficult, proposition.

Not to mention that there seems to be a vacuum in the leadership structure, at least in New York City... where are all the progressive Desi men? But that's a future post...

6 comments:

Rage said...

Thanks for reading - on the other side of the world!

Rage said...

Saurav: Thanks for your thoughts. I agree with a lot of what you've written, but I think that part of my thinking that didn't make it into the post was concerned about a newer generation of folks who are interested in working in a social justice setting but aren't really oriented or trained through exposure in anything larger than the desi organizations in which they work. I used Asian America as a setting because it is what I'm familiar with, and because people have commented on one side or the other about the issue ad naseum. But I definitely think that issue- or other group-based coalitions are as important.

I don't feel as negatively as you do about pan-Asian spaces, though I have been quite unhappy with the way that they have integrated the significant (and rising) South Asian community into their work and planning, especially after Sept 11. It is an uneasy alliance, if you can even call it that at this point, but I think that rather than think of the relationship as an alliance, both sides still disregard, or are openly resentful of the other.

Though I don't think that identity-based alliances are the only, or even most effective, way of organizing, I also don't think that it is necessary to dismiss them altogether, either. Although even a "South Asian" identity is still a tenuous proposition at this point, and I hear you on the overemphasis of racial identity in South/Asian spaces. But it is also cultural and political identity, and for some, it's still a very viable means of finding their own path towards the work that they want to pursue.

On your point about groups splitting and new groups forming, I think that it is inevitable. But I think that there is a very clear focus on individual achievement and chasing of "it" status that causes some of the jockeying that I've seen for space within Desi America. Or maybe it's more a NYC thing, because I've spoken with folks in other parts of the country, where while their organizations and groups aren't as numerous, nor as far along in their development, there is still a more clear spirit of cooperation between the so-called leadership. While I see that in NYC, I also feel that there's an undercurrent of something else that is also stirring just under the surface of the more mainstream groups in particular. While it's easy to say that the funders need to be educated, it is also a fact that they have begun to openly state that they won't fund new South Asian organizations. And that our base from which to get individual donations within the desi community is still very small, because we still have a lot of consciousness building to do through our education efforts. And are we sending out messages to the potential donors that resonate with one another? Or are we working at cross purposes, confusing the folks who can help us become more independent of the corporate-foundation complex, and losing the chance to build a strong foundation upon which we and future generations can continue this work?

3) Finally, in regards to men, I actually disagree with you on this one. I do not think that it's adequate for men to step aside and let women lead alone. I don't believe that the correction or countering of patriarchy and gender discrimination within the community must be enacted by the effective non-status of men. I believe that there should be more equity in the leadership, and that more men should step up, because I believe that there are good solid folks who have what it takes, and the young men need mentors and leaders to look up to, and to learn from. I think that it's a responsibility that men have to take up again, rather than sit comfortably aside as women do the hard work.

Rage said...

I don't know the dynamic between CAAAV and Andolan, but I do know that the history of CAAAV and South Asian organizing is more complicated than whatever relationships they may have salvaged/formed now.

I think that while class seems to have become the elephant in the room that everyone is talking about but still remains in the room, I don't think that it can be cleanly separated from the racialized power hierarchy within the United States. I don't think that you're saying this at all, but it's just a point that I wanted to explicitly state. Just like sexuality, skin tone, nationality, language, gender, etc... I think that whatever you can use to build collective consciousness is critical. Chris Ijima - musician, activist, attorney, and teacher - put it best in the liner notes for Yellow Pearl's album in the 70s, when he said that it is critical to remember that this struggle isn't for the sake of enforcing or rallying around an identity - it's for a larger goal of social justice or social change. Anything short of that is just a waste of time. I'll post up the specific quote (more eloquent than my paraphrase) when I find it.

With regards the comments on money - I do think that funders need to be educated, but I think that we also have to be more strategic in how we work together and how we make the case that grounded work must continue and grow, just as our communities grow, and the mainstream system doesn't seem to give two shakes of a rattle about the members of the community who aren't making the big political donations (not that their opinions matter all that much anyway).

Regarding men - I know that you were ½ in jest, and ½ serious, but I do feel that it's an issue that should be addressed. I want to believe that men can be as active and important a part of this work as women, and that we can do so in a way that's equal and conscious of the errors and challenges that past movements have had in establishing gender-positive environments, relationships, and contexts that allows for more honest gender equity, rather than invisibility of either side. I'm hoping to get ready to stop commenting, and start doing.

***

One more thing - damn! - stop writing comments that are longer than my posts! :) No one reads my comments!

Rage said...

Thanks for reading!

Rage said...

Ms World - don't what more there is to learn from the back and forth than the peculiar ponderings of two NYC bloggers, but thanks for tuning in.

If we do start a talk show, or a podcast, or whatever, we'll be sure to let you know.

Saurav: thanks for leaving that awkward linguistic flourish alone. I think it sounded better in my head, and there's no edit button on these comments. :)

I agree with you on the organizing models piece, and your points are taken very much to heart.

And on the identity piece, bingo. I think that ties in with the thread on men in the movement as well, though there's a lot more to write on that, and I'm hoping to do something a little more in-depth when I have time.

Rage said...

Ms. World - how fascinating... I hope that this blog (which ends up covering a lot of things outside of the diaspora) continues to be of interest.

I actually have been thinking more about the intersections of religion and culture lately, and have something that may be coming up soon. Thanks again for tuning in - maybe I should have guest bloggers on this thing, so that the interesting conversations aren't lost in the comments!