>
>> actually no, i do not know what bush's friends had to say about mccain's
>> adopted daughter, but more to the point: i am not contesting that
>> indians have been targetted.
>
> Less to the point, I'm afraid.
>
> My point, viz McCain fille, wasn't that Indians were targeted, my point
> was that race isn't the product of one's own aspirations but of other's
> people's attitudes. To paraphrase Sartre, you are black if other people
> think you are.
>
yes i can agree with that, but that indians seem to aspire to "whiteness" was only one of the points i brought up. the context is that art mcgee's post implied that "japanese, koreans, chinese people etc., are placed a couple of levels above blacks" in the "dehumanizing white supremacy" because of the "model myth that envelopes [them]". i do not think that mcgee suggests that japanese, korean or chinese people are embraced wholeheartedly as white or that they are not targets of attacks. in particular art mcgee says that "japanese, koreans, chinese people" are only a "couple of levels above blacks". my response therefore was to question (and it is important to note that its a question. i do not have a conclusion to present) whether indians are really at that same slot as the blacks or would it not be true that indians too might be slotted a couple of slots above (like the japanese, chinese, korean people) blacks, and my i presented some thoughts (about model minorities) that were behind my doubt.
>
>> perhaps the statistics point to significant differences here?
>
> I'll start and you chime in when you're ready, ok? Sean Fernandes of
> SF, Waqar Hassan Choudhry of Dallas, Balbir Singh Sodhi of Phoenix,
> Attar Singh Bhatia of Richmond Hills, Kulwinder Singh of Seattle, Uday
> Menon of NY....
>
how do i chime in? do i have to furnish a list of korean or chinese or japanese americans who have been targetted for attacks?
--ravi
ps: i make a claim that indians seem to aspire to 'whiteness'. perhaps that is a flawed perception on my part. it most certainly is not a claim i can qualify beyond doubt, so i stand guilty of generalizing about my own. also, i notice that you put "their" in quotes in your previous response. i presume you are wondering why i said "their" rather than "our" (since i am indian), and the reason was only to use third party reference while responding to mcgee, who i guess is not indian.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- man is said to be a rational animal. i do not know why he has not been defined as an affective or feeling animal. more often i have seen a cat reason than laugh or weep. perhaps it weeps or laughs inwardly - but then perhaps, also inwardly, the crab resolves equations of the 2nd degree. -- alasdair macintyre.