From: AXM128@psuvm.psu.edu (ARIJIT MAHALANABIS)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian.american
Subject: Re: Why is SCIA needed ? (Re: An Indian-American Legislator
Date: 12 Apr 92 01:35:28 GMT
 <92101.111615AXM128@psuvm.psu.edu> <1992Apr10.221023.20963@cbnewsi.cb.att.com>
Distribution: usa
Organization: HAM - Hackers Against MUDs
X-Subliminal-Message: IBM/370 assembler is your friend.

In article <1992Apr10.221023.20963@cbnewsi.cb.att.com>, alok@cbnewsi.cb.att.com
(alok.vijayvargia) says:

>In article <92101.111615AXM128@psuvm.psu.edu>, ARIJIT MAHALANABIS
><AXM128@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>> I would venture to say that anything
>> that is not of European origin cannot in reality become "American" under
>> current social definitions.

>Not quite. Asian-americans and african-americans have become part of American
>society. They are increasingly socially accepted.

I don't think this is true. African Americans especially like to project
themselves as quite different from mainstream America. Although Asian Americans
are a lot more integrated in this respect, they still are far from mainstream
America. I wonder if you could cite any info. that would contradict this. I
have my doubts.

>> Hence, Indian Americans appear to be on the
>> fringes of America's political structure.

>I think it is because they are relatively new (30 years in USA) as compared to
>asian-americans (who started coming here almost a 100 years back)
>and african-americans (who of course came here along with europeans).

If one compares representation in government by Americans of Eastern European
origin with representation in government by Americans of Asian origin, there
is a vast difference. Even if we consider the fact that there are fewer
Americans of Asian origin, I would hazard a guess that the representation of
their community is proportionately less. There have been theories forwarded
by American historians that the Asian and African American communities will
never become identified as main stream America, simply because of physical
attributes. As much as this theory may upset people it is true. I cannot alter
the color of my skin but a Polish American change his last name to make it
more 'American.' I can, right off the top of my head, think of several
Congressmen of prominent stature who are of Eastern European origin. But I
cannot think of one single Asian Congressman. If they are well represented,
why is this the case? Of course it could just be me.

>> While other minorities have made
>> progress in defining themselves as American and yet remaining culturally
>> tied to their own roots, we Indian Americans are still a little confused
>> as to whether we should stick to our own roots or go wholesale 'American.'

>Other minorities have made progress partly because they had more time
>and partly because they make a conscious effort to positively project
>their roots. This is especially true for asian-americans.

>For Indian-Americans they are indeed confused as you say. Perhaps with time
>and effort such confusion would reduce.

If this argument were forwarded by anyone else, I would tend to agree with
them. But Alok, just days ago you were condemning your own roots. It is IMHO
hypocritical to say that we can advance ourselves by projecting our roots
positively and then saying that you are ashamed of your roots. Which one is
your true view Alok? Perhaps you are one of the confused individuals :-).

>> The result is that those who stick to their roots do so vehemently and
>> refuse to acknowledge the benefits of this society and those who emulate
>> American pop culture completely ignore their roots. I think we will remain
>> under-represented politically in this country until we find a middle
>> ground that will allow us to be culturally aware of our roots and at the
>> same time allow us to be accepted into mainstream American society.
>>

>And that is one major reason why I decided to push for this group. This group
>can be a stepping stone in developing a cultural middle ground , retaining
>the good aspects of our INdian heritage and at the same time acquiring
>the good aspects of the American society.

I was under the impression that this is why SCIA was formed. But more and more
I'm convinced it was formed more to protect you from the barbs of those who
would refute you. If it was really your intention to turn SCIA into a group
for those with problems or solutions to living in America you would have just
kept quiet and let them flame away. But you keep exacerbating the situation.

>Not all is good in Indian heritage. Likewise not everything is hunkey-dorey
>in America. Indian-Americans have this unique opportunity to be in touch
>with both the Indian culture (through their own living in INdia or through
>their parents, relatives, INdian friends etc.) and American society
>(by virtue of living/working/growing up here).

Not all is good in Indian heritage indeed. But what gets me is people like
you being ashamed of India. Not everything is well in America as you point
out correctly. But I have yet to find one single American who is ashamed of
his country.

>Challenge is in translating this opportunity into action and this group
>can provide a medium.

Again, IMO, I think it is foolish to believe that SCIA alone could solve
all problems that IA's face in this country. But it could have been an
invaluable tool for many people. It's too bad that you saw it fit to act
in an unethical and immoral manner.

>> Arijit.

>Alok

Arijit.
Xref: sparky soc.culture.indian.american:1817 soc.culture.indian:14721