If you ddid, in the end, watch the show, I

Isn't there planty of alarmism about the Asian invasion in Australia? Pauline Hanseon's not a political force anymore, but the current PM seems to have co-opted her main issues. Of the Anglosphere countries, I would say Australia is the most racist (more than the US?).

Canada is about 11% non-white (with Ontario being about 20% non-white). There is very little concern about it, probably becuase the longstanding French fact entrenched pluralism here.

In Britain, the Muslim pop is about 2.7%, not too far from Canada's muslim population (approx 2%). But the majority of British Indian Muslims (1 million of them) live outside London. In Canada, non-whites live almost exclusively in large cities.

One explanation for the in UK is that minorities live outside London and are so visible in the declining industrial areas. Imagine if the outports of Newfoundland were 2% South Asian.

I'd note that the most recent wave of immigrants I've seen the London are Eastern european. Perhaps channel four should focus on the slav menace?

Bhutan treats Nepali-Bhutanese badly. Nepal treats Indi-nepalis badly. India treats Bangladeshi-Indians badly. Tough place to be a migrant.

Also quite typical -- crotchety blogger spews bile at only agency involved in the mess. Riff raff indeed.

A very good, thoughtful post. Along with the "Jewsweek" post, one of the two intelligent pieces to come out of the Easterbrook imbroglio. But no good deed goes unpunished ...

[excerpted quotes follow]

"I am a Jew. By this, I mean I share many of the traits (streotypically) of Jews, I am bookish, argumentantive ... In the Jews, I see me .. ... [but i have] ... expressed dismay at a "Jewish model" for the development of the ethnos that I am a member of by blood and birth .. want the brown to melt into the milk, I want desi (South Asia) culture to envelope itself into the broadly liberal tradition "

This is the most personal post of yours I have read so far. It's a coherent view of yourself and how you relate to the world. And I think its incorrect.

I think it's impossible to disappear, and that the "Jewish model" is the best and only way an non-Christian, non-white alien can become a real American. Melting into the milk is a futile effort that will result in a frustrated life (unless you do it the Bobby Jindal way -- that would work)

But you're already aware of my objections...

"The path toward ethnic self-awareness and identification is fraught with unasked for responsibilities and duties in exchange for the protection conferred by the group, while the path of individual self-definition is rich in the possibilities for failure and personal humilation, though it frees you up to dictate to the world who you are."

I'm not sure you can dictate to the world who you are. One part of the Hitler lesson is, as you say, become part of the establishment if you wish to be secure. But the other part is that, no matter how much you cast aside you ethnic markers (e.g. accent, funny clothes) you cannot fully dictate to the world who you are. Even if he had never taken power, blocked by a JB establishement, Hitler and company would have seen Jews, not Germans.

And in a country like the US, where Christ is central and a connection to the 'heartland' a sign of legitimacy, there will always be many people who will see you as part of the indissoluble brown, not part of the milk.

But I suppose from a multi-generational perspective, the melting is be possible, so long as your descendents embrace Christ. If Dershowtiz descedents will not be Jewish, it is also possible that Razib's kids will be creationist evangelical Christians, pure whole milk.

And finally

"has made me more hesitant about posting on racial issues"

Hallellujiah.

Or if the culture becomes less Christian, and more "spiritual". I don't think you have to "embrace Christ"

Said by a blue-stater. We are in the midst of the fourth great-awakening, the greatest Christian revival in America in a century. The President's most admired philospher is Jesus Christ. Outside Berkeley, "the culture" is not getting less Christian.

And maybe the rest of Cali-fornia is not so godly either. But, like it or not, American normality is defined by the 'heartland' -- the red states. And increasingly, it is defined by the south. When I lived there, Wednesday night was bible night, and this was in one of the richest parts of Texas. There was no hope of JB there, but plenty of WWJD. That's why Hindu Piyush Jindal is now Catholic Bobby Jindal.

If you don't want to convert yourself, the econd best hope is that your children will marry Christians and your grandchildren will be future Wesley Clark's or John kerry's -- both Christians with a smattering of non-Christian ancestry.

I suppose that's one way to have the brown dissolve into the milk. Is that what Razib meant?

Some of Thebit's best stuff is a bit older. I don't think he imported it from his underprogress.blogspot.com address. Worth perusing.

Liberal parties tend to get a very low proportion of the vote in OECD countries where they form a separate group. Condsider the case of the Free Democrats in Germany.

In the US, with its amalgamated party system, the small number of Liberals in the country (disproportionately found in the elite) have been able to take over both parties. If the US had a German electoral system, I epxect real Liberals would get a vary small (under 10%) percentage of the vote.

All that to say, the current popualtion of the US (and Canada) is not really Liberal. It accpets the Liberalsim imposed by the elites becuase the elite consensus works. SO long as it continues to deliver economic growth (the danegeld of democracy), they will accept it.

But should grwoth falter, don't be suprised to see Hueyt Long at your doorstep.

(And, since Americans aren't really liberal, illiberal immigration doesn't really matter. Immigrants, like other Americans, will accede to the leite consensus so long as it fill their pocketbook)

Johnny -- Mississauga is brown-country. I know tons of Pakistanis who live their (including much family). If it's that it is the lowest crime suburb, then Canada needs to open its doors to more Pakistani immigration.

This is not an endoresement of Mississauga. It is about as bleak and boring as a southern Ontario suburb can get (or is that Markham?).

But complimenting Mississauga does not imply dissing toronto. Toronto crime is _really_ low. I've walked thru the worst housing project in Canada, Regent's Park, at 2am, and felt quite safe.

And it is worth noting that the greatest increase in crime in Canada came in all-white PEI. The prairies also have a very high crime rates.

As for Canadian immigration -- keeping the doors open is a policy that has broad support in Canada. Yes, immigrant organized crime is a associated problem, but we let in 1 million Italians in the past fifty years, sufferred thru the attendent crime problems, and are not worse off for it. And Tamil crime is less of a concern to ordinary Canadians than Italian crime was.

Bob -- I think you are missing the point. and this is the key phrase:

"selection criteria to reduce the risk of subversive fifth elements"

If immigration policy were tailored to reduce harm to the US, Englishmen would be first off the list, especially English farmers. A single case of mad cow would devastate the US farming economy (look to what is happening in Canada).

But the US is not stopping Englishmen from coming to the USA. (Derbyshire's, Sullivans', the land abounds with unreconstructed Englishmen. Hasn't anyone thought of the children?)

That's just one example. there are many other risks to the US -- from AIDs to espionage (Katrina Leung). US immigration has no blanket bans on Chinese immigrants though the danger of espionage certainly exists.

Why?

The right answer is to look at the risks and benefits of a government regulation (including immigration restriction tailored to national origin). Would a blanket ban on chinese immigrants reduce espionage? -- Certainly. Is it the most sensible way of coutnering espionage? -- Nope. (If you disagree -- we can go into this point further).

The same point applies to all goverment regulations. What is the most cost-effective, low impact way of achieving a policy goal?

(And, no, Bob. I am not American. And lately, I have become very grateful that I declined the option to become one.)

Zack -- This is how the smear works. Next question -- why do you hate America so much? Don't dissemble, just answer the question.

Razib -- Seriously. Did you really have any hope of civility when you raised this topic? You do not have the right type of readership for civility (and yes, I include myself).

But on the topic of religious infuence in government affairs, the Catholic church has in the past two days put a lot of pressure on Canadian politicians to vote agians the gay marriage law. Bishops in Ottawa and Calgary have said the PM and the next PM (both Catholics)will go to Hell if they support gay marriage.

The level of religious pressure being placed on Catholics had not been seen in Canada in many years.

Can a Catholic be a member of the Liberal party? Most definitely. See www.warrenkinsella.com. The Pope is not the church.

But if the Liberal party launched into a strong attack on Catholics and the Cathiolic church in response to the Pope's anti-gay position, could a Catholic remain in the Liberal party?

I liked the article. I can certainly identify better than Zack. Maybe better than Razib.

Esp. god was the part about the insupportability of boundaries and dual identities. And how immigrant culture can be anti-fun -- all about deferred gratification. That's Un-American!

And Razib -- Nomani's pregnancy is not the only thing in the article you can't relate to. Let's be real -- how much Tantric sex are you having with your imaginary blonde girlfriends?

On the other hand, you may be able to relate to the guy who calls himeslf a "technical virign"!

This seems to accord with the fluidity of racial boundaries in the US.

With a minimal amount of African genetic ancestry (one drop) a person can choose to be an African American. In the same way, with next to no Native American ancestry, one can choose to be Aboriginal.

Though note, the fluidity only goes one way. One drop of European ancestry does not make you white.

The American social practice of one-way racial mobility worked fine when when being African-American or aboriginal lowered your social status and your prospects in life. No white person would pretend to be non-white. And in general, non-whites could not become white (unless they 'passed' and severed themselves from their family).

So in practice -- no racial mobility.

Now that there are some statutory and de-facto benefits to being aboriginal, there's a reverse flow towards an aboriginal identity (and it really shows up in the census race self-identification question.)

There are also many white Americans with African ancestry (take a look at the Sally Hemings descendents reunion). But these whites are not clamouring to be called African American to gain the any governmental benefits.

You'll know that racial barriers have truly fallen when whites start claiming to be black to get the benefits. Since we don't see that flow right now, the downside to being black must be much greater than any upside.

To insert an heterodox idea to this blog: Perhaps affirmative action benefits need to be increased until we do start seeing that flow, and then decreased slightly. Then you'll have equalized the benefits of being black or being white in America. Assuming a race neutral socety is desirable -- which isn't a universally accepted proposition on this blog.

Razib -- Look at the changing Arab sector birthrates over the past few decades. The Christian community has already gone thru the demographic transition, and the Muslims community is in the early stages (and, presumably, as the community gets wealthier and better integrated, birthrates will drop faster).

Jonathan over at Headheeb does a ton of posts on the Arab sector (as you know). Look thru the top of his right sidebar -- from Israel's ambassador to Finalnd (Ali Yahya) to several thousand words on Arab Israeli identity. He discusses Palestinianization, among other things. Plus there is a hell of a lot of discussion in the comments, almost all of it intelligent.

I think he doubts that Arabs will ever make up more than 30% of the pop, given demographic trends. They may make up a majority of the Triangle, and significant portions of Haifa and the Negev, but Arabs have next to no presence in Tel-Aviv and surrounding areas (see Israeli Census documents). Randy McDonald has also posted on this a bit.

Mirandica/Quite Contrary, a Former-USSR Jew in Germany, occasionally writes on her personal experiences and the nature of the Jewish community in Germany.

ExpatEgghead (or maybe Andrew Lazurus, I forget exactly), who lives in Israel, has mentioned the popularity of the emigration option -- but this has always been emigration to the USA. I've never heard Germany mentioned.

As with any topic on the Israel-Palestine issue, this topic has been blogged to death in a thousand different ways in a thousand different forums. Though there can always be a new spin on an old issue. And GNXP certainly spins differently.

I think I missed one of the logical arguments in your post. Your group (South Asians) is not legally distinguished in the fields you mention. Nor is it handicapped.

So why do you compare your predicament with Marcus Cole. Because of government policy based on groups, Cole feels his acheivement to be suspect in the eyes of others.

Any taint your acheivement might have in the eyes of others has no relationship to government policy. I don't see how the two are comparable.

(And, as I've said before, stereotypes of South Asians is strongly regional. In my area, a smatterring of professionals are brown, but all the coffee-jockeys at the nearest Tim Horton's are from South Asia -- except the manager, who is Eastern European. And in BC, South Asians have more of a criminal-gangsta image. Your local stereotype will also change in time.)

No I still don't get it. Cole is seens as an affirmative action baby. This hurts him. Affirmative action is a gvt program.

Razib is seen as not meeting the cab-driving standards of South Asians (or other 'group' perceptions).

One is a gvt. enhanced group evaluation. The other is not. Are they really comparable?

I understand the main point of the costs of group evaluation on the individual. I don't understand the subsidiary comparison.

I don't mind admitting my er -- 'density' on this one.

R -- what are you talking about?

Razib said,

"i will also get to ikram's point"

No need. I think I get it now.

I would also concur with Juvenal. This was a very good post (on the individual costs and benefits of group evaluations). That did not come across in my initial comments.

Engineers are scientists! Next you'll be telling me plumbers are scientists. They've got good problem solving skills too!

(And economics is certainly not a science.)

I thinkt he 'we-should-find-common-cause-with-blacks' idea will run right into the wall of brown racism.

South Asians are tremedously colour conscious 'back-home', and this carries over to North America. And without any residual white-guilt, south asians in America are free let their anti-black bigotry run unfetterred.

A black man has a hard time getting a cab in NYC? Who do you think all those cab drivers are?

(This is brown racism somewhat ameliorated among practicing South Asia Muslims -- not 'cultural muslims' -- who sympathize with Black Muslims. But only somewhat, and there is a fair amount of patronizing going on there)

There's no reason to give browns a free pass on racism. Browns are bigots too.

Mahathir -- Yes, anti-Islamist. Also anti-Jew.

When people ask for 'moderate' muslim, do they mean a muslim who drink alcohol or likes anal sex, or do they mean a supporter of the 'women in green' and Effie Eitam?

Godless -- Prior to the 'terrorist-under-your-bed' sentiment in the US, many American Muslims,a and all non-African American Muslim organizations were Republican supporters. And conservative Muslims still are natural Republican supporters. I expect them to return to the fold in a few years.

The Republican party is still The Muslim Party of America.

Diane: What about anal sex with the women in green? Or anal sex with a drunken Effie Eitam - he'd be a bottom of course.

Your criteria for moderate doesn't really work. Any member of a universalist religion, whether Muslim, Mormon, or southern baptst, is going to want to convert you. Do you think all Mormons are extremists becuase they sned missionaries to convert you.

If you belong to a universal religion, and you know the trick to keep a person out of the fires of Hell, the more people you convert, the more people you are helping. If a mormon looks at you and decides not to try to convert you, he is deciding that you are the kind of person that should go to Hell. That's not very nice.

So your conversion test makes no sense. No member of a universal religion would qualify.