On the Outrage, Oh, the Outrage!

A recent TIME article perceived as being racist or prejudiced has Indians and inhabitants of Edison, NJ in a tizzy, calling for the author's beheading, or at least a petition asking for a retraction and apology. As this sort of thing really interests me, and the backlash interests me even more, I thought I'd weigh in on it in an organized fashion, especially as I don't seem to side with that Indian/Edisonian backlash.

I've read over the article twice now and cannot side with the people who are upset over it. It always makes me laugh when people in my culture say that something "makes my blood boil," and that is exactly what I am reminded of by this outrage. Really? You guys get upset about this? I'll explain later why such disproportionate outrage annoys me when directed specifically to something like this, but for now, I'd like to say that it's exactly because of people like those of us who are upset at this article that people like Stein and many amateur comedians choose their words so timidly, and why so many good comedians, like George Carlin or Louis C.K., are not accepted into the mainstream - because everyone's just itching to hear some trigger words and go off in retaliation, and not enough people are really listening. People really need to read more. If they did, they'd be more astute in sensing tone and purpose. This wasn't purposely inflammatory and it's silly for anyone to call for any sort of retraction or apology from TIME. If you ask for that, you've missed the point, regardless of how well or poorly it might have been made--this simply is not an article to get worked up about. It would be like getting into a fight with a child who calls you a "dumbhead."

Anyway, let's examine the article systematically and weigh the claims that it is offensive. We'll start by getting a sense of the balance in poking fun.

Jokes/criticism aimed toward India/Indians:
-The inappropriateness of the roof of a re-appropriated Pizza Hut
-Removing the opportunities for Edison youth to learn crime
-Not all Indians are geniuses
-Some Indians are so far from being geniuses that we can understand why India is so poor
-The mentioning of "dot heads" as a racial pejorative
-The mentioning of multi-armed and elephant-nosed Indian Gods in order, one can assume, to point out how odd the people are, if not to also mock.
-The lack of charm of strip malls and housing projects
-The ways in which Indians resemble Jersey Guidos

Jokes/criticism aimed toward Joel Stein and people he considers to be like him:
-The stupidness of Americans who call for tech support from call centers in India
-The stealing of pies and general drunkenness
-Sneaking into R-rated movies
-Stealing from Italian restaurant register
-Jerseyans as a picked-on people
-Our malls as being bad
-Our ability to number exits
-LBJ's conflicting attitudes toward Asians
-The quality of American schools (seemingly in comparison to Indian schools)
-Their inability to come up with a better racial epithet for an easy target
-The changes in Chelsea and the undefined role the author played in them
-Characteristics of Jersey Guidos

This is all approximate, as many of his jokes about Indians aren't really jokes or about Indians at all. I tried to be liberal in picking things directed at Indians, and still, I think the balance is firmly tilted in favor of self-blame/ridicule from the author.

As for criticisms people might have about the article, let's examine those.

Perceived Offense #1: Indians are poor and not all smart
What the author meant to convey - Well, just that, I suppose. He seems to be commenting on the previous inhabitants of Edison and their changing perceptions/understanding. They initially thought everyone in India was a genius and might have wondered why the country was so poor if that was the case. They learned over time that not everyone in India was a genius--in fact, some immigrants were downright stupid--and it's no longer such a surprise that India is poor.

My take - Well, how is this offensive or, more pertinently, untrue? Not all Indians are geniuses, though we forget this, and India is poor, as much as we'd like to forget that. Oh sure, we get upset when people point it out because we want them to see the non-material richness and beauty of India, but 1) it's still true that India is poor and 2) almost every Indian who has come to the US has come because it is richer than India. Even those who say they came for opportunities speak of fiscal opportunities, and those who say they came for education still claim that Indian education is better. It's really all about money, but we don't admit this to ourselves.

As for some Indians being dumb...well, duh. We're people like everyone else. There are some really smart Indians and some really dumb ones. While there are some really great Indian business owners here, there are a lot that shouldn't make us proud, what with their shady dealings, cutthroat practices, shoddy conditions, poor sanitary records, and the shameful practice of near indentured servitude many inflict on their own people after getting them here illegally. This stuff happens, just like all the stuff in Slumdog Millionaire. While it might not be the sum of all that it is to be Indian, we shouldn't deny it either. Anyone who has been in one of those grocery stores on Oak Tree Road should have noticed the vast difference between them and the environment in there, which is reminiscent of the free-for-all bustle of Indian temples, and that of a supermarket here.

What point does all of this make? Well, simply that while Indians are generally hardworking and industrious, and might be able to make a quick buck and a small fortune, that doesn't necessarily make them all intelligent in a way that leads to group success. It shouldn't surprise us that though there are many hardworking and intelligent Indians, the majority of India is very poor. The same kind of self-serving shadiness that we see in many of the Indian-run businesses here are what has led to the wide gap between haves and have-nots in India, with the ruling class selling out everyone else there. Many intelligent Indians find the US (which I concede is far from perfect) a more fitting, egalitarian forum for the practice of their skills.

Mind you, Stein only spoke of Indian merchants being not-as-brilliant. Their not-so-bright cousins might be any number of Indians that we know here. What comes to my mind are all the people here and abroad who try to outdo Westerners at being Western, until they come off as the kind of caricature at which Stein pokes fun at the end of his article. More on them later.

Perceived Offense #2: Indians have silly Gods
What the author meant to say - If you took offense at this, you have to admit that it's got to be the laziest insult ever against Indians. What you fail to realize is that that was exactly the author's point...that even if his schoolmates wanted to be lazy, they should have found bigger targets than just the dots on Indians' heads.

My take - Really, this paragraph should be all anyone reading needs to figure out what the author's tone was. He gives an example of just how lazy and unimaginative, however adamant, bigotry can be, and I remember experiencing this sort of treatment when I was young and growing up in a town that didn't have as many Indians as we do now. People who just drive down the street and direct Native American battle cries at me (ignorant) or yell "Hindu!" at me (more of a statement of fact than an inherent criticism). Stein is really just making an observation, though, in a self-conscious move (or perhaps one prompted by a nervous editor), he uses this as an opportunity to poke fun at his people/schoolmates for being unimaginative. If we take offense at simply being pointed out to be different, that's rather silly and hypocritical, no? First of all, shouldn't we realize that to most other people, gods with multiple arms and elephant noses would seem odd? Second, don't we know people (including us) who poke fun at things about other cultures that we don't understand? Sure, there is meaning behind those multiple arms and elephant noses, and we might be able to explain that significance, given the chance, but isn't there usually meaning and significance behind the things that everyone else does, and don't we all think things are silly until we learn that? Stein never claims that we and our gods are unequivocally silly or foolish...just that they come off that way initially to young people of a different culture.

Perceived Offense #3: That Indian owned/run strip malls and housing developments are charmless
What the author meant to say - What he said
My take - well duh. Anyone who knows anything about city planning or the fight against urban sprawl and all that good stuff understands why we work toward the charming downtowns of some of the neighborhoods in NYC, towns like Princeton or Westfield or Cranford, or of the European cities we most like to visit. Relative to one of those places or, say, the neighborhoods of San Francisco, the parts of Edison that Indians have developed are more like Canal Street or Time Square in NYC - they're efficient, busy, profitable, but also garish, overrun, and the furthest thing from charming. The area shows no value for city planning, for the construction of neighborhoods that might be attractive or artistic - it shows a value for the bottom line, for packing as many people and as many consumers into as little space as possible, aesthetics/cleanliness/sanitation/prevailing conventions be damned. It is what it is, right? Not every place needs to be charming and quaint and quiet, but let's not get upset about it being called as it's seen.

Hmm, not sure what else is specifically taken as offensive that isn't addressed above. Anyway, while we can argue about the humor of the piece (whether there was any, which I think there obviously was, or how effective it was - I would at most concede that the humor wasn't as good as he might have hoped), I hope people see that the author actually had some small points in this mostly tongue-in-cheek article.

Point #1: That Edison has changed, often for the better
I hope you guys noticed this...that in comparing the neighborhood of his childhood to now (and while Nilam pointed out that he's mostly focusing on Oak Tree Road, it seems that his memories from childhood are of businesses in that neighborhood, so his article is really about that part of Edison, not of all of Edison. You can't argue that he wasn't affected by or didn't observe the change if a number of the businesses we know now were businesses he frequented or worked at as a kid), he is critical, though nostalgic, about the people/places of his memories. The biggest criticism he says about the businesses that replaced them is that the old Pizza Hut roof doesn't suit the current establishment. He's matter of fact in stating the existence of an Indian grocery store and a cinema that shows Bollywood films and serves samosas, and positive in pointing out that Moghul is a famous restaurant. He later says that the food has improved, and Indians brought a smarter, geekier element into his circle of friends. And he pokes fun at Indians for not being able to tell the ages of white people, which is the old "all you people look the same" dynamic that comes into play any time two cultures initially meet.

Point #2 - That he's simply nostalgic
Stein speaks of the sense of loss and anomie that he shares with people of Arizona. While he does not [seriously] advocate kicking Indians out of Edison and reverting it to what it used to be, it's harmless enough for him to simply say, as he does, that he misses the Edison of his childhood, that it no longer exists for him to return to, and that he no longer seems to belong in his old neighborhood. Notice that he doesn't even make this point without including a joke about Americans/light praise for Indians/Mexicans by pointing out their shock that we can eat such spicy foods. If anything, Stein's article not only has no real barbs, but also pulls its punches.

Point #3 - That people of every culture/country feel put off when another group immigrates, but does not assimilate. And that Indians are now assimilating, which makes Stein's feeling about Edison as it is now more mild.
While I am critical of groups that remain insular while living in another group's country (even if that country is a supposed melting pot, like this one), Stein does not seem to be. He's just pointing out that this has been the reality of the transformation of Edison, and that that increased the feeling of change. He points out at the end that Indians are becoming more American in the area, poking fun at Indians, at New Jerseyans/Italian-Americans, and at you the reader for being a hypothetical pedophile. I hope no one's upset about the comment about the Statue of Liberty shedding a tear about the cologne, because it's both true that the people he describes here wear too much cologne and it's besides his point, which is essentially that "the more things change, the more they stay the same."

As a humorous piece about nostalgia and the nature/inevitability of change/assimilation, this isn't a bad piece. It's not a particularly strong piece, but, as I said, it's just a bit of light humor, not a real satire (really, good criticism and good comedy go hand in hand, and this was rather a bit of light jabbing and no more). If some people are upset about Time, fine, get upset at them for printing the article, though I think Nilam is off-base in saying that this piece belongs in The Onion more than in Time. The Onion is not real satire - it's absurdist humor. This is closer to The Daily Show or Colbert Report in that it makes a small point through a lot of tongue-in-cheek fake-serious points. It should be obvious to anyone reading that this is mostly not a serious piece, and we also shouldn't label Time as something that is completely serious and non-fiction (just look at some of their person of the year choices, for example). This might be on the lighter side of Time fare, but not only is our media far from perfectly informative/objective, but also, there is plenty of room in a magazine such as Time for op/ed/humor.

Now, as for why I am worked up enough about this to write this much about it...I feel strongly that this kind of pride/courage for one's culture is silly and misguided at best and hypocritical at worst. At worst, what Stein said is ignorant (though the more I read it, the less I see any truth to that statement). Simple ignorance is not something to rail against. You don't shout at the dark. You shine light upon it. To shine light upon this article is to miss the point, though. And if this is how we fight for our culture, by missing the point, by getting upset about someone pointing out some harmless facts, then we are blind to our culture and ourselves.

I get upset at Indians who complain about all the injustices heaped upon us by all other people in the world throughout all of history, because it all seems to be very selfish and showy. Showy in that the outrage isn't proportional to the perceived offense, kinda like Aishwarya's many scenes of being disproportionately upset in her movies. And selfish in the sense that few Indians get upset about these sorts of things in a universal way, or out of principle. When a group of Indians get together and make fun of all the other people we deride (pretty much everyone), or are casually misogynistic or homophobic, or when any other group of people says anything mildly critical about anyone else, are we all up at arms because of the affront to humanity? Do we stand up for all people, even against "our own" people?

Why do the answers to these questions matter? They matter because fundamentalists of every group - the people who take themselves way too seriously and "will not stand" for all kinds of perceived affronts, who perpetuate cycles of revenge, who justify anything and everything with some sort of previous offense/attack - get worked up in this way only when they and people they deem like them are affected. This sort of pride/nationalism/what have you splits us apart and breeds hate. To build healthier relationships with one another and a healthier understanding of ourselves, we need to be able to recognize harmless humor and to be able to stomach and overcome the smaller affronts. You'd think the people who express such undue criticism for this article had never seen a comedy show, in which the criticism is almost always much harsher than anything here. The best comedy exaggerates stereotypes in an attempt to not only elicit laughs, but also to shift the focus onto and poke fun at us for still giving any credence to those stereotypes. Whether affronts come in the form of good or bad humor, or harmless/harmful ignorance, we do everyone a disservice when we refuse to tolerate them.

Though it's perhaps not as detrimental, it still bugs me very much when people get upset about articles such as these not out of indignant and self-righteous hate/anger, but instead out of self-importance. That is, many people just (usually sub-consciously) want to think of themselves (and be seen) as being cultured, and so exhibit a disproportionate and displaced anger toward inappropriate, and rather weak, targets such as this author/article. Again, the reaction is often not conscious, and the displacement is a defense mechanism. To have this said about oneself feels very critical, and I admit that I too have been guilty of getting overly worked up about things because I felt I should, and because I had little perspective. The great souls of our various traditions would not be stirred by something like this. The Dalai Lama, for example, would probably just laugh at it, and not only because he is at peace, but also because there are much bigger, more insidious forces at work than what is conveyed here.

It's easy to get upset about an article such as this one. What does it accomplish to go after the author and editor? Nothing. Do we as Indians actually think about his points? Do we question why we are in America if we really value everything non-material in India more than the comforts we have here? Do we insist on living like ordinary Indians when we return to India? Do we care about the kinds of neighborhoods we create here, the kind of practices our people demonstrate in their professions and the way this reflects on us?

Branching out, do we get upset at what is implied when Prop 8 is turned down? Do we care about the loss of rights in Arizona when people can be searched for merely "looking" like illegal immigrants? Do we get up at arms and do something about that? Those are much bigger, more real affronts to all of us as human beings than anything stated in this article. Are we part of petitions on those matters? If not, shouldn't we shift our gaze away from Stein and take a long, hard look at ourselves?

UPDATE
While I was on our honeymoon, my sister sent me a response to this blog post and said that the article was pointless and passed along a retort to it. Here's what I said in response to this retort:
Anyway, I hope by now everyone's forgotten about the article because it is, at worst, forgettable. The response article that Indian guy wrote underscores my point...if this really is a pointless article (I didn't feel it was. It really seemed like an honest confession of guilt/embarrassment from an otherwise proud liberal wrapped in perhaps unsuccessful light humor), then why the outrage? If it's poor writing/humor or poor decision-making by TIME, then why aren't people writing to say, "Hey, my intelligence demands better journalism!" Why direct such outrage and, in the case of Rahul Parikh, pretension, at such a harmless, easy target, when there are much more dangerous forces at work? I think it's precisely because it's easy that people jumped on this guy, because it's reflexive and patriotic in a misguided way, and I think that's far more debilitating to people with real problems (in a world with the same) than anything Stein said. I wonder how the people upset about this article would react to a comic doing a standup routine in which Indians (or any race) are joked about, though the venue/medium is also blamed (that this is simply inappropriate for TIME to publish). I think that's weak, because, again, the outrage isn't about the quality of journalism (we could use a lot more of that kind of criticism). We all need to be able to recognize humor (even humor that fails) because the best of humor (and yes, even this article) tells uncomfortable truths (though the ones here are and were meant to be about Stein himself. If he wanted to criticize Indians, he pulled his punches. It's funny that Parikh doesn't realize that simply pointing out that Indians have spicy food and unfamiliar gods doesn't really say anything except to state a fact). To appreciate humor, we have to be honest with ourselves, and so it is that humor about race is the most appreciated type of humor...until it's about "our" race.