Indian Fraternities and Sororities

This past academic year, I spent more time at a large public undergraduate college, where there is a pretty significant Asian American community. I got to interact with some of the college-aged South Asians - though they were primarily Indian American, of course. Although the school has multiple South Asian organizations, based on religion, ethno-national identity, and even cultural groups (singing troupe, dancing group) a lot of the folks were part of the ever-growing South Asian (really, Indian) "greek" life that seems to have blown up over the last 5 years.

I know that the first Indian fraternity started in 1994. It was called Iota Nu Delta (IND) and started at SUNY Binghamton. Their website is quite a trip. I particularly enjoy this call-out quote on the sidebar: “February 7th, 1994 would be the birth of an organization where eight great men laid the foundation for the entire South Asian Greek cpmmunity (sic)...”


Okay - where to start with these groups? I guess the first thing is that the groups were marginal at best when I was an undergrad, and even in the years following. We laughed at their initial steps, not realizing that they would grow and multiply. I think there are about 10 Indian/South Asian fraternities and sororities now, and the students I spoke with were very energized about their organizations - far more, in fact, than they were about being part of any traditional college organization organized around ethnic or ethno-national origin. Far more, in fact, than they were about attending workshops or taking classes that explored South Asian American history, organizing, and struggles in the U.S.

So what is it with these organizations? Speaking as an outsider, I guess I thought they were fairly harmless when I was first exposed to them. Just replications of the mainstream white "greek" groups, not really following in the footsteps of the Alphas or the other strong Black and Latino/a fraternities and sororities that really focused on service and building a different kind of community. Those groups really focused on academic excellence, built around a fundamental understanding that shit is fucked up and that the man is trying to push us down, so this is another site for political and personal growth, solidarity, and identity. Again, as an outsider, that's just what I saw, in comparison to the watered down animal house hijinks of the white frats and the vacuous self-absorption of the white sororities. I remember the Black and Latino/a organizations worked hand in hand with the political organizations - there were differences, but they were connected as well.

But it doesn't seem to be the case with the new Indian greek life. The organizations seem separate, the students seem like they are in their own worlds, and just when I thought the Long Island cluelessness that had seeped into the consciousness of so many suburban desi kids was the outer limit of their uselessness, these folks often push the envelope further. And I haven't seen an outpouring of critical thinking or even serious community service come out of these groups - it's just more of the same from the mainstream frats. With more of these organizations coming up, I wouldn't be surprised if they just get stuck in their own turf competitions, and fully check out of any other campus engagement.

I know, I'm old and I'm out of it. But these groups are no longer on the fringe where they exist, and honestly, political campus organizations have not caught up and created something that matches the powerful effect of the pledging process: particularly how the rites of passage make folks feel connected (artificial community development). Once they get the incoming students to pledge/join up, they don't need to explore different identities and ideas - they can stay in the comfort zone of these uber-cliques.

I'm genuinely fearful for the future: I wonder if even the Indian Student Associations of the American college scene (never mind the pan-South Asian groups) have the same pull they once did. Not to mention that these groups actually re-emphasize the "Indianness" of the whole thing - as campus South Asian spaces become more heterogeneous, the frats and sororities may reflect the circling of the wagons for the privileged middle class Indian kids from suburbia, whose picture of what brown people in college should be is being rattled by urban, working class, non-Indian, non-Hindu, non-conformists. Rather than find common ground, the mainstream folks have moved into different configurations and "safe spaces" where they can continue to push the falsely monolithic "Indianness" of their parents that's not as threatening.

And what will that mean for social justice organizations in the future? Does it limit their pool for recruiting and/or building consciousness, or were these folks the already/traditionally uninterested, so there isn't much loss related to this development? Are there other effects when the active South Asian population is so fragmented on campuses - so that you have the "cultural" groups that attract foreign students and folks who grew up around all or no South Asians, the growing greek groups, the religious groups (I have to post on this separately, because this is also a newer development that is interesting/troubling), and the (quasi-)political groups (do they even exist anymore?). How can these folks advocate together around common concerns for South Asian American communities (on campus and off)?

On a different angle, if pan-South Asian work looks like it's failing, will that move more of the progressive South Asians on campus to the pan-Asian and pan-POC spaces out of frustration and their own search for community? Maybe that's a good thing... I have no idea if this is also happening in non-South Asian, APA spaces in colleges: and I really don't think this is likely on the West coast, where the history of student activism is so rooted. But I could be wrong, of course...

Read More......

Bud SUCKS

*sigh* This may go all over the damn blogosphere soon after the game, if it isn't already, so I'm just going to put it out there right now: that Bud Light ad was whack. It came on around 7:25EST. It featured white men in a bar teaching immigrants how to pick up women, giving them lines that the immigrants, of course, botch. There's an Indian guy, an East Asian guy, and an African immigrant. And at the end, the fourth guy, who ends up with a "date" due to his Bud Light, is another kind of Asian.

I'm sure there will be a link soon enough on YouTube, and a lot of guys will get their tighty whities in a bunch about it, especially Asian men feeling like it's attacking their manhood, etc (in the theme of my last post).

But of course, this is part of a different narrative: the "foreign Asian/immigrant" narrative. What's interesting is that they had three Asians and an African immigrant: no Latinos at all. What does that say about white male (I'm assuming they are behind the ad, but I could be wrong) paranoia about men of color and white women? Does it mean that Latino men are taking the place of African Americans as the biggest "threat" to "preserving the race"?

Reading a sexual subtext into the rabid anti-immigrant rhetoric by white male Amerika raises the stakes a bit. But I don't know if this is anything new, but the emphasis on violent crimes and criminals that "open borders" may let in far exceeds the reality. So there must be something else here.

Anyway, Bud sucks.

Read More......

A (New?) Different Asian Male Stereotype

People have been writing and talking about the asexual, effeminate, emotionless Asian male stereotype in the United States for a long, long time. People are still writing and talking about it. There's another type that pops up here and there, especially when something awful like Virginia Tech happens, that suggests the boiling over of a repressed, frustrated, unpredictable Asian male (the ticking time bomb of the quiet kid in the corner who draws/writes/thinks violent things for himself, and for good measure, mutters a lot too). Though people may connect the two (repressed sexually, or overcompensating), they are different.

But that "angry asian male" (not speaking of one in particular, hat tip) exists in another space. That's domestic violence. As you likely know, it runs pretty deep in our communities, both here and abroad. While some part of it, I'm sure, is that we're in a patriarchal society and the way that man mis/treat and abuse women is not checked enough by social norms, there is still too much violence happening in South/Asian communities for us not to look at this more directly and closely. And while I know this isn't something new - I just wanted to ask the question, why are Asian men taking out anger, in whatever way and from whatever root cause, on our Asian sisters?

On the broader subject of domestic violence, what does it mean for a community or communities (specifically desi groups in the U.S.) to have so many domestic violence organizations around the nation? Does it mean both that it is a serious issue, and it's one that's easy to rally around and create organizations that focus upon the issue than things like workers' groups? Why aren't these issues becoming less prevalent in our communities - I don't think it's because the steady stream of immigration brings more "traditional" men with fucked up values/performances of gender through violence against their partners. Without empirical data, I wouldn't be surprised if the numbers also come from native born or long-time U.S. residents who are South Asian as well.

So what is it about our men? Why are these issues still prevalent? And how do we move away from the angry (violent) Asian men in relationships? Do we need more affirmative, critical, and safe spaces for Asian men to work through these and other issues? Do any still exist?

Read More......

Sikh Org Battle Royale: Pt II

I knew I shouldn't give up on superlatives from another Sikh group. Just when I was looking at handing the prize for most "accomplishments" (or at least the most times I've seen "only Sikh organization" on one page) to the Sikh Coalition, watch out! Here comes SALDEF. My inbox was graced with a press release/solicitation:

SALDEF: The Sikh American Voice in Congress
(wait, they have a seat now? or is that an advisory position?)

1) SALDEF is the only Sikh American organization working with Congress to protect Sikh American families from hate crimes.

2) SALDEF is the only Sikh American organization working with Congress to ensure that Sikhs are not forced to check their religion at the door of their workplace.

3) SALDEF is the only Sikh American organization working with Congress to ensure our children attend school free from harassment and bullying.

4) SALDEF is the only Sikh American organization working with Congress on the End Racial Profiling Act (ERPA).


Okay - so I don't know a lot about Washington, but how, exactly, does one "work with Congress," and how does one claim to be the only group to do so? Does that mean that all the other groups never call the Representatives or Senators of states that house their office, initiatives, or constituencies? This series of claims seems pretty hard to understand - and it's basically all about the same work. I mean, all you have to do is be a part of a task force called together by some staffers on the Hill, and then you're working with Congress! Well, I mean, that's what I would think.

Boy, I can't wait to see what United Sikhs and SCORE come up with.

Read More......

Supporting Sikh Civil Rights Groups: The New Faith-Based Giving?

Between the Sikh Coalition, the Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund (SALDEF), UNITED SIKHS, and I'm sure other, local groups who are planning to hire lawyers too, I think the Sikh community may have more staffed groups that claim to represent their civil rights than any other American community of similar size.   I don't begrudge the community that it needs this support, especially given what's gone down since Sept. 11, but the one-up-manship of the groups is bordering on ridiculous when you get emails from them all in succession, proclaiming that they are the "first", the "largest" or the most important and urging us all to pay attention.  Let's look at mission statements first:

1) SALDEF. Founded in 1996, SALDEF is the largest and oldest Sikh American civil rights and educational organization dedicated to protecting and promoting the civil rights of Sikh Americans through legal aid, advocacy and educational outreach. SALDEF's mission is to create a fostering environment in the United States for future generations of Sikh Americans.

2) The Sikh Coalition. The Sikh Coalition is a community-based organization that works towards the realization of civil and human rights for all people. The Coalition serves as a resource on Sikhs and Sikh concerns for governments, organizations and individuals.

3) United Sikhs. UNITED SIKHS is an international non-profit, non-governmental, humanitarian relief, human development and advocacy organization, aimed at empowering those in need, especially disadvantaged and minority communities across the world.

Then, some choice statements that they've made about themselves in recent press releases, which almost speak for themselves:

1) "With a full-time staff of five, the Sikh Coalition is now the most staffed Sikh organization in the history of the United States." Sikh Coalition press release, November 20, 2007.

2) "The Sikh Coalition is the only Sikh organization that employs attorneys full-time. The Coalition currently has three attorneys on staff." [website]

3)"The Sikh Coalition is the first Sikh organization to qualify for and receive an Americorps VISTA volunteer from the federal government." [website]

4) "The Sikh Coalition successfully encouraged the first Sikhs to successfully run for political office in New York City on a non-partisan basis." (hmmm -- this is kind of a risky statement to put out there) [website]

Wow - can't actually find equivalent proclamations from the other groups on their websites, though I know I've seen stuff. As a passing thought, I wonder how much of this is a gendered thing - given that all of the groups are led and predominantly directed by men, unlike most other South Asian groups. Then again, there's similar tension between other groups, so I may just be reaching.

Anyway, beyond the way that there seems to be at least a little shoving going on between these groups, it's interesting to see how many resources are going into this work. More than most ethnic or racial minority-based organizations, there seems to be support from the community for civil rights advocacy for Sikhs. A lot of the funding for these groups comes from donors - which is pretty impressive. But I know I would get confused to see that there are a bunch of groups claiming the same kind of work.

I often speak about how our communities actually have a deep history of philanthropic giving (unlike what the mainstream conventional wisdom about tight-fisted Asians may say), but it's usually within the family or to faith-based organizations. Are all of these groups still enjoying donations from the community because -- at least in this community -- civil rights groups are the new temples/faith-based institutions for specific groups who feel beleaguered by hate/bias/misunderstanding? It's hard to tell from the outside - because I can't think if there any other examples of faith-based identities that give in this way, save for Jewish communities with the ADL and other civil rights orgs that recognized the need for Jewish communities to defend themselves.

While the Indian/Jewish analogies have been getting a lot of play in the media (and this is problematic for a lot of reasons - from the model immigrant stories in the U.S. to the meta narrative about the nuclear power leanings of India and the BJP's desire to create an axis against Islamic States between the U.S., Israel, and India (they want the military aid and to finally be recognized as a world power -- i.e. take us seriously, damn it) -- it's interesting to look at the civil rights/community institutions model of the first successful Jewish communities in the U.S. and whether any of our communities here are modeling that now.

I think an argument can be made that Sikhs are sorta there or getting there. And it's really interesting to see that some of the mission statements claim an interest to represent/help many different groups, beyond just Sikhs. Again, I don't think it's necessarily bad to have "competition" between non-profits, in the interest that the best model eventually wins out, but it can be duplicative, confusing, and unproductive if there is a bigger strategy in mind for any of these groups.

Read More......

Desi Attitude: Hardly.

A friend turned me onto DJ Desi's myspace site, from which I saw a link for Desi Attitude that I assumed was a rip of Rocawear or something. So I played along and clicked.

Ends up that DA is a non-profit that the DJ is involved in (i.e. founded?). Aside from a splash page that seems to have taken it's cue from myspace, at least in the number of photos it has on it, there was much to wonder about with this group.

Apparently, it's dedicated to the "hi-5s" - a list of five program areas that really kind of cover the whole spectrum:

Children
Poverty
Women
Literacy
Music & Arts

I don't know - it's a nice idea, and you can tell that he's sincere, I guess, but I'm skeptical about this whole thing - sorta the dude who takes himself a bit too seriously, and really, looks like he's all about the parties, but this "project" is his way to sell the other products.

Maybe that's a little cynical of me, but let me tell you, when you go to the desi attitude myspace, the wallpaper has "spread the desi virus" as the clever slogan. Wha?! Okay dude - I don't know what you're smoking, DJ "They-See", but that's not flying for me.

But the classic quote from your website is:

Money is not the only thing a homeless person is looking for. Sometimes they just want someone to ask, "How are you?"; sometimes they just need a hand to stand up, someone to listen to their story, someone to tell them a story, a laugh, an element of inspiration, just something to make them feel human. That's the attitude we want to bring to giving. And when you touch a human on that level, they get a lot more.

- DJ Desi

Uh. Okay dude. Thanks for the lesson. I thought the second sentence would be "they want a home." But I guess the point is compassion, right? You take yourself pretty seriously for someone who's supposed to be throwing a bunch of parties. Regardless, while going through the site, and the model-like team that you've put together, I keep trying to find the punchline.

But then I realize - I mean, your name is "DJ Desi." You don't have a single ironic bone in your body. For real. What about "DJ Day-Z." Not DJ They-C? How about DJ Daisy? Don't want to hate, brother, but I'm not a big fan of the shirts, the logos, the whole get-up. Come on brother. Is this for real?

Read More......

Men's Psychology (or How I Found a Pristine Bathroom Stall at 3 in the Afternoon)

Disclaimer: Though this won't qualify as TMI about me, and I'll stay away from the toilet humor (har har), this is not particular to desi people. Who the hell cares, though, right?

So I have a tough time with public bathrooms. I would never use them while growing up (and this may be somehow linked, I think, to how I wouldn't change for gym in front of the other boys - opting either to have my gym shorts underneath, or taking a non-participation mark until I got past it in high school). Ah, the joys of growing up different in small town America.

Men's bathrooms are interesting places, as it is. You don't talk to other guys in the bathroom, you stare at the wall in front of you at a urinal, and you try really hard to touch as little as possible. As it stands, they are incredibly non-social places, and remind me again and again of why I hate most men. I tend to do what I have to do - i.e. nothing involving contact with any surface - quickly and without any delay. But the worst is opening a stall and confronting whatever the schmuck before you left there with no courtesy or consideration for the next guy or the staff that has to clean up his mess.

Anyway, so at my school, which is already bulging at the seams, the custodial staff does its best to clean up after the idiots who go here, but it gets pretty nasty by the last couple of hours before afternoon cleaning. The bathrooms have three toilets and one urinal each, and there's one on the first floor, and generally 2 on each of the 4 other floors. But with ~600 men in the building on any given day, that's not a lot of places to do what you have to do.

The first floor bathroom is one of the worst. It always has people in it - and there's inevitably some kind of mess because people tend to be in a hurry. The top floor is too close to the cafeteria, which is generally not a good scene, not to mention that it's busy. And 2 of the other floors have large classrooms, which tend to have long classes with hyped-on-caffeine students who run out and in with no concern for the next guy (see the theme here?).

But today, I figured out what I'd been trying to assess for the whole time. The best bathroom to use where there won't be a lot of traffic because there are only small classrooms and faculty offices (and it's right near the Dean's office, no less). So it was clean today at 3 PM.

And what's even better is that, when I looked at the stalls, I finally figured out how to get the least used stall when I need some privacy: guys hate to be near other guys. So the handicap accessible stall, which is the most roomy, and my personal choice when I have to make a choice, is probably the most popular. On top of that, I think that guys probably do the quick "if I'm on one side of the other of the three stalls, I have a chance of not being near another guy because he'll choose the farther one."

So that takes out the stall on the far end from the accessible one. So I thought - I wonder about the middle stall. Because that one gives people the sense of claustrophobia, and the highest chance of having to be near another guy. Sure enough, the stall was clean, and the TP roll indicated that it had not been used since the last cleaning. Woah. That's unheard of.

It's the little things in life that really make things worthwhile.

Read More......

yield.

You know what really pisses me off? The way that some straight white men interact with public space - the sense of entitlement to dominion over shared or other public space is overwhelming sometimes. Let me give one example, though I (and I'm sure you, the intrepid reader) can think of many more.

The kicker for me has always been in the simple task of walking down the sidewalk, or even a crowded hallway. Most people that I know, from women, to men of color, usually yield a little when faced with someone walking towards them in a constricted passageway. When walking down a crowded sidewalk, I weave and lean, leading with one shoulder at a time, sometimes stepping briefly off the curb, sometimes falling straight behind the person I'm walking with, in the effort to do my part to make the public space work.

If we all walked with our shoulders squared, we would crash into one another all the time - specifically when there isn't enough space for people to walk abreast of one another in opposite directions (like in most of the City below 14th Street). So we do our small part, generally subconsciously (and it's an easy way to figure out who belongs in the City, and who is a spectator in a full-contact sport).

Anyway, I can't count how many times I've been walking along, either thinking to myself, or with a friend, when I've squared off, as it were, against some white guy, walking alone or with his own companions. As we're walking by, I do what I have to do to make room, but almost without fail, the white dude doesn't - his shoulders are squared, and he brushes against me, or sometimes even sends me spinning.

WTF? Is it that hard to just accommodate the other person and find a way to coexist on the busy streets? I'm not asking for a hug or something - I'm a New Yorker after all - but at least recognize that I exist, and that I have a claim to the same right of walking down the street without being knocked into. So therein lies my problem - more than anything else. I feel like at times, these people walk around like they own the joint - and we're just granted some license of use, but they can pull that whenever they feel like it.

The phenomenon is not limited to just a few men - I've gone through this over and over again, where someone will walk straight down the middle of the sidewalk like he owns it. He won't yield. I usually get angry as a result, but don't do anything (because it's usually too late, and it's not like I'm going to make a cogent argument to the back of someone's head anyway. And it's not as satisfying, or probably as seemingly safe, as road rage. But it just pisses me off that I, and many other people (women, people of color, etc) are expected to make the space around them (or in their shadows?) work for the rest of us.

I guess men in general are guilty of filling out more space than necessary on subway cars, spreading their legs like tsars in their own small domains, creating spatial inefficiencies for women, children, and non "guy-guys" who have to squeeze into the spaces that they leave for us.

But maybe the beleaguered white man feels like sidewalk is one of the last domains where he can still feel like the king of the jungle, after all, he's been beat down by all these -isms and hyphens in America. He is the new oppressed, the new minority, the vilified, the victim, the target of virulent attacks. Whatever. My solution? I don't yield to them. I keep my shoulders square when I walk down the street and face someone who doesn't seem like he sees me. Because this is about being visible, and being invisible. If you don't even respect me on the street, where we should all be equals, how will you respect me in a situation where there is a more obvious challenge of power? You won't. And we head south from there.

So I square my shoulders, and if you have to yield for once in your life, good. If not, you'd better be a helluva lot larger than me, because I have sharp shoulders.

Read More......