Dear SAPAC lovers:
July 31 is the deadline to submit an application to perform/participate in this year’s VOR: FAIR AND LOVELY! Please forward the call to your friends/colleagues who may be interested in participating. We are specifically looking for proposals from visual artists and dancers–so network away, folks, and help this year’s VOR committee!
Please direct your friends/potential applicants/artists extraordinaire to the following address where they can find info and our Call for Artists:
http://www.sapac.org/blog/2010/05/16/are-you-fair-lovely/
Thanks so much for all of your help! We look forward to receiving your submissions!
Best,
SAPAC and the VOR committee
A great weekly show for all of you interested in Asian American politics to check out…
Asia Pacific Forum
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
8:00-9:00 pm EST
WBAI 99.5 FM, New York City
Podcasting and streaming live at Asia Pacific Forum
*********************************************************
NYC Solidarity with Immigrants in Arizona: On July 29th, the State of Arizona is expected to implement the controversial immigration law SB 1070. To stand in solidarity with those fighting the law, groups in New York have organized a march across the Brooklyn Bridge and protest on Thursday, July 29th. We speak with the event organizers, MONAMI MAULIK of Desis Rising Up and Moving and MICHELLE FEI of Immigrant Defense Project, about the solidarity action and how laws like SB 1070 are relevant to immigrant communities here in New York City.
Experimental Prison Units for Muslims and Environmental Activists: The Federal Bureau of Prisons operates two “Communications Management Units”–experimental prison units in Illinois and Indiana designed to isolate prisoners from the general population. Two-thirds of the prisoners housed there are Muslims who have been banned without explanation from interacting with other prisoners and regular phone calls and visitation. Environmental rights activists are housed there too. RACHEL MEEROPOL, Staff Attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights, joins us to talk about the recent federal lawsuit she filed against the Federal Bureau of Prisons challenging the CMUs, and the government’s recent attempt to have the suit dismissed.
MI21: Mother India–the 21st Century Remix: MI21 reimagines and reworks Mother India, the epic Bollywood film that captures the post-colonial Indian psyche, into a performance piece–60 minutes of visual images accompanied live by a DJ and musicians. We’ll talk about the relevance of the film for contemporary audiences and the creative process behind adapting such an iconic film with JOYOJEET PAL and INDY HUNJAN of Kala Phool in advance of the U.S. premiere of MI21 at Brooklyn’s Prospect Park on Thursday, July 29th.
*********************************************************
This program is brought to you by Silky Shah, Chitra Aiyar, Naureen Shah, and Amna Akbar of the APF Collective.
For last week’s show on Chenoan and US militarism, gentrification in Chinatown, and a “non”Asian-American arts exhibition, click here.
Every Tuesday from 8-9 PM EST, Asia Pacific Forum brings you coverage of Asian American and Asian news, politics, and culture. For more information see Asia Pacific Forum or contact them via info@asiapacificforum.org.
I completely love the idea of discovering a city when it is most silent–we often forget to listen.
via The Hindu: Life & Style / Metroplus: Sunrise symphony: Some intrepid writers from The Hindu boldly take a morning walk around their fair city.

Lodhi Gardens, New Delhi, India
On July 6, 2010, the British government launched a judicial inquiry into the collusion of British officials with acts of torture carried out by U.S. officials as part of the so-called “War on Terror.” In accordance with the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights, proven victims will receive financial compensation. This monumental decision was announced one day before the fifth anniversary of the 7/7 Tube bombings, and so somewhat ironically, coincides with heightened security measures and counter-terrorism efforts in the U.K.
Hopefully, the U.K.’s willingness to open this line of inquiry will increase pressure on the U.S. government to investigate this inglorious part of its own history and to reconsider the strategies it currently employs as part of anti-terrorism campaigns. There has been wide-ranging resistance from U.S. officials to exploring claims, prosecuting perpetrators, and compensating victims.
This issue seems particularly relevant here and now because of the recent trial of former Chicago police detective Jon Burge. Burge’s alleged torture of African Americans on the South Side of Chicago has been documented by the Chicago Reader for two decades. Burge was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice as related to past abuses, but the statute of limitation has expired for prosecution for the torture itself.
The South Side of Chicago, Guantanamo Bay, secret detention camps in Pakistan, Abu Ghraib: very different settings, all too similar stories. People detained (often without just cause), abused, and eventually released. Public officials colluding with cover-ups. Racial and religious profiling and persecution.
I don’t know if it was a coincidence that the U.K.’s torture inquiry opened the day before the anniversary of the Tube bombings. It seems to me an acknowledgment that an essential component of assuring the security of any country is a willingness to openly discuss and redress past injustices.
Racial politics at a baseball game? Oh fun! Nothing signals the start to a great evening like the guy sitting next to me and my friend leaning over to say, “Wow, I got back from Baghdad a month ago and haven’t seen anyone who looks like you in a month.” Um, thanks?
Amidst Joel Stein’s very useful analysis of those damn Indians ruining his hometown and Arizona immigration laws targeting anyone who might be an immigrant, I guess it’s at least nice to have someone that changes up the generic “Where are you from?” with something new. It’s also another reminder that even though I’m supposed to be proud to be an American this weekend, I (still) am not seen as one.
Guest blogger Kareem Khubchandani is a graduate student in Performance Studies at Northwestern University, and one of those family-all-over-the-globe diasporic desis. He has lived in Chicago for two years now and majorly loves this city!
Today, a friend sent a distressed email over the Trikone-Chicago listserve, severely upset that a picture of him at a Trikone event had appeared in a publication; he’s not out. I got the email on my phone while I was at dinner with a friend with whom I was extensively discussing an email he was painstakingly crafting to come out to his straight desi friends. He was writing this email because he felt that he had grown apart from these friends by keeping this part of his life separate from them. All this fuss over being out. I came out to my parents when I was 18, visiting them back home in Ghana after my first year of college. I was outed to the rest of my relatives when my uncle found an article I wrote for my college newspaper online, and forwarded it to the family. I’ve come out (to friends, family, and strangers), been outed (intentionally and accidentally), and outed other people (intentionally and accidentally). Sometimes I wait eagerly for a trashy tabloid to announce that Karan Johar, Gurinder Chadha, Rekha, Kal Penn, and Jay Sean have come out, too. Instead we get Lance Bass, Ricky Martin, and some random country singer.
I guess I’m wondering if visibility politics still matter, or if coming out is just something celebrities do when they need a popularity boost. Outness clearly matters for my two queer desi friends who attach value to other people knowing they are gay, a value that will either include or exclude them from the communities that matter most. And of course, it depends on the kind of queer we come out as. Jim McGreevy (former governor of New Jersey) coming out as a “gay American” certainly made him more palatable to the general public. And a paparazzi spotting of a hate-mongering homophobe with an escort that he hired to “carry his bags” carries a very different pleasure than knowing that we were right about Ricky Martin all along. Coming out is and isn’t a radical act, and outing someone is and isn’t a useful means to a political end.
This week “So You Think You Can Dance” trotted out its latest ill-conceived Bollywood number. This time it featured all-star Kathryn McCormick and current contestant Jose “Full Deck” Ruiz (who uttered the title questions when his dance assignment was revealed). I wasn’t sure if Jose’s breakdancing background would make this piece easier or more difficult to pick up, but you can judge the results for yourself:
The dancing itself is passable, but nothing great (at least with Jose). What really bothered me were the ridiculous costumes and motif and the judges’ reactions.
Let’s start with those costumes. As my friend Sandhya exclaimed over email during the show, “SERIOUSLY, GENIE IN A BOTTLE???!!!?!???” The portrayal of South Asians as genies in a bottle, along with the stupid “I Dream of Jeannie“/Aladdin costumes, were enough to ruin whatever positives might come from a mainstream show featuring an aspect of desi culture. If this truly is “the Indian-American decade,” some people desperately need to catch up and ditch those age-old stereotypes.
Then there were the judges. Ah, the judges. So often encouraging and constructive in their critiques, but just as often awkwardly inarticulate. In this case, they were just dumb. They ripped Billy for his unconvincing krumping, Alex for his not-smoldering-enough Fosse, and Kent and Ashley for not emoting enough–even though they all neared technical perfection–but gave a pass to Jose for his technically incompetent Bollywood dance because he was “having fun.” It might have been the most blatant double standard I’ve ever seen on reality TV, and I’ve watched every season of “Top Chef.”
If they really want to be able to judge technique, why not tackle a classical South Asian dance form like Bharatanatyam or Kathak–or even Bhangra, which many people don’t realize is quite challenging when done correctly?
This month, another Southern state moved toward electing a governor of South Asian descent. A runoff is scheduled for the Republican nominee for the South Carolina governorship, but it is likely that Nikki Haley will become the second South Asian American governor, making Haley and her fellow Republican Bobby Jindal the highest-ranking elected South Asians in the U.S. government.
The similarities in the biographies of these groundbreaking individuals have been widely noted, including here, here, and here. Both were born in the U.S. in the early 1970s to recent Indian immigrants. Both converted to Christianity. Both have impeccable conservative credentials and names that are easily pronounceable to most Americans. Both have been hailed as the future of the GOP, and both are assumed to have an eye on the presidency.
Jindal’s election in 2007 was mystifying for many reasons. After all, this is a state that reported a total Asian population of 1% in the 2000 census and that usually elects Democratic governors…and where former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke earned 44% of the vote for governorship just 17 years prior to Jindal’s election.
Having chalked Jindal’s victory up to a fluke, I was shocked when Nikki Haley nearly won an outright majority of votes in the Republican gubernatorial primary earlier this month. South Carolina also reported around a 1% total Asian population in the last census (comparatively, California had 13%), and Haley was the target of a racial epithet from her own Republican colleague during the race.
In addition to the racial makeup of these states, studies show that South Asians largely affiliate with Democrats. So from a statistical standpoint, Jindal and Haley’s success stories don’t make sense. Data regarding Haley’s election are still forthcoming, but exit polls and shifting demographics in Louisiana provide some insight into Jindal’s victory:
- There was a significant decrease in voter turnout in the 2007 Louisiana election, with the most marked drop noted in the heavily Democratic New Orleans area after the Katrina exodus. Low voter turnout, especially by African Americans, shifted several parishes that have historically been Democratic strongholds to Republican hands. 2000 census data indicate Louisiana consists of 65% whites and 33% blacks, and exit polls reported a turnout of 51% of white voters and 35% of black voters.
- Exit polls also indicate that Jindal received 63% of the white vote and 10% of the black vote. His nearest competitor was a Democrat (Louisiana does not have party primaries), who won 14% of the white vote and 36% of the black vote (this was the extent of the vote breakdown available). Essentially, Jindal carried every parish in the state except New Orleans, even very conservative northern/eastern parishes that supported David Duke. In contrast, Barack Obama carried just 14% of the white vote in Louisiana in 2008.
That Jindal had much more success with white voters in Louisiana than Obama is not that surprising, given how conservative this voting bloc has historically been. And both he and Haley only speak of their ethnicity in the context of the added credibility their second-generation status gives them as fiscal conservatives, a great tactic in states where the Tea Party is flourishing. They may also benefit from the “model minority” perception of Asians in these states with high degrees of racial polarization.
I think there are many layers to this complex situation, only a couple of which I alluded to here. As different as my politics may be from these two, I can’t help but feel a twinge of satisfaction when the Louisiana of David Duke and the South Carolina of Strom Thurmond move toward electing South Asian governors. A record-high six South Asians nationwide (all Democrats) are running for Congress this year—a notable shift for South Asians from fundraising and campaigning to candidacy.
There are numerous organizations, Asian and otherwise, that consider comprehensive immigration reform to be of utmost importance. Very legitimate issues such as family reunification, protections for immigrant labor, and straightforward pathways to legal status drive their advocacy.
On a more macro level, it’s much less clear (in my mind at least) what the goals of immigration reform should be. That is, what does the ideal immigration policy look like? Totally open borders? Quotas based on labor skills? No immigration at all?
The reality of whatever policy or policies we choose is that they have direct effects on the function of our economy and, perhaps a major consideration, our ability to finance basic social services including education, health care, and welfare.
Recent trends in the labor skills of immigrants indicate an increasing concentration in low-skilled manual labor and thus low pay. Moreover, those with low levels of skill tend to utilize a significantly greater share of public assistance than they pay in taxes, creating a net fiscal burden. Particularly in states with high levels of immigration (not even accounting for undocumented workers) such as California, New York, and Illinois, the strain on the budget for social services is not insignificant.
The point is not to suggest that we should have an immigration policy that disqualifies people based on their earning potential–but we also cannot expect to have a functioning social safety net and make it available to anyone around the world that wants it.
Thoughts?

