Razib Khan One-stop-shopping for all of my content

October 15, 2018

Nikki Haley shows she’s a good politician in regards to religion too

Filed under: Nikki Haley,Politics — Razib Khan @ 12:29 am

This week on The Remnant podcast, Jonah Goldberg, whose wife works for Nikki Haley, expounded at length about her skill as a politician. His point, which is legitimate, is that Haley is well liked by the broad mass of Trump-supporting Republicans (if not elite pro-Trump idealogues), as well as Trump-skeptical conservatives.

I’ve known of Nikki Haley since 2004, a few years after Bobby Jindal came onto to the national scene. Both are conservative Indian American Republicans elected as governors in the South. But there are differences between the two. While Haley can arguably “pass” as white, Jindal cannot (both are of Punjabi ethnicity). But a bigger difference has been their attitude toward religion: Jindal has worn his Christian conversion and faith on his sleeve, while Haley has been much more low-key. Throughout her career, Haley has admitted that the Sikh gurdwara remains a part of her life, despite her conversion to Methodist Christianity. Could you imagine Jindal saying such a thing about a Hindu temple?

The above is a video clip of Haley during a 2014 visit to India, where she visited the Golden Temple with her husband. When asked about her conversion to Christianity, she avers the sincerity of her belief. But Haley also speaks in an ecumenical language and seems to express the view that her choice of religion was in keeping with her culture as an American. Her turn to Christianity was not a denial of Sikhism, which she seems to see as grounded in India.

I can’t look into Haley’s heart, and to be frank her religious faith is not my business. But, I think I can say many people of subcontinental background tend to view converts to American Christianity as opportunists or somehow lacking in cultural pride and internal strength. American evangelical Protestant acquaintances would often mock Hinduism in front of me, despite the fact that I have a Muslim name and have been an atheist since I was a small child. To convert to Christianity is perceived by some to be conceding the point of that mockery.

And yet above Haley seems to be interpreting her conversion to Christianity as an expression of her alignment with the Dharma of the land in which she grew up, the United States. You may agree or disagree with her, but her emotional expression above certainly does make it seem that she retains a deep fondness for her Sikh upbringing.

August 16, 2011

What does a critical race theorist call a black man with a Ph.D.?

Filed under: Identity,Nikki Haley — Razib Khan @ 10:07 am

Malcolm X asked two generations ago: ““What does the white man call a black man with a PhD?” His response? “A nigger with a PhD.” In this frame Malcolm X was repeating objectively the state of affairs in American society at the time. Visible black ancestry marked someone as black, and other social variables were irrelevant (as opposed to the case in Latin America, where people with visible black ancestry could still self-identify with the majority non-black culture, such as Vicente Guerrero). This was important for Malcolm X because his mother was half-white. Despite his white ancestry he was a black nationalist, an eminently coherent position in America at the time.

But this framework continues down to the present day for race hustlers, high-brow and low-brow. Amardeep Singh has a relatively balanced follow up post on Nikki Haley’s issues with identity. In it he quotes Samhita Mukhopadhyay of Feministing. Here’s a section where her manichean race popery gets the better of her:

But, at the end of the day, it is not about what we say we are–race is a structural experience, as much as it is an interpersonal one, if not more so. Having access to white culture and more money doesn’t make you white, as many sociologists have found. Haley can self-identify as white, but she has had the lived experience of a person who is not white and as a result, will never be recognized as white or have access to “whiteness,” in the political sense of the word, even if some people once in a while mistake her for white on the street.

Who is this “we” that Ms. Mukhopadhyay speaks of? I think it’s pretty clear that she speaks with the Voice, the Voice of Right Thinking People who are Grounded in Reality. Their reality. But the key point is that unlike the rate of acceleration of an object on the surface of the planet this isn’t a clear and distinct inference which plops out of empirical results in a common sense fashion. There’s a whole broader framework where words like “privilege” get thrown about in a very coherent and intelligible manner to “insiders” to this “discourse.” The purveyors of this discourse are often rhetorically highly subjectivist in their epistemology, but in practice they are quite often hegemonic and privilege their own model of the world as if it easily and cleanly maps onto the objective world. Samhita Mukhopadhyay doesn’t known Nikki Haley personally, but she doesn’t need to know Nikki Haley, she knows how Nikki Haley experienced the world, and she knows how it will impact Nikki Haley’s psychology. Her Theory tells her so.

But of course she doesn’t know squat. Even ostensibly scientific psychologists operating within a positivist understanding of the world would be cautious about inferring from a model of the mind onto one individual. The reality of the matter is that Samhita Mukhopadhyay and her fellow travelers have an internally consistent theory of the world, and like the Marxists of yore are quite impervious to falsification. Nikki Haley’s own report of her own mental states would do nothing to perturb them, she would simply be assumed to have false consciousness. And like the armchair philosophers of the past they aren’t going to perform their own rigorous quantitative experiments or observations. They will select anecdata and scientific studies which support their theory, but the latter is clearer prior in precedence to the former.

August 9, 2011

Amardeep Singh on l’affaire Haley

Filed under: Nikki Haley,Politics — Razib Khan @ 8:25 am

Nikki Haley, Race, and the U.S. Census. As Singh observes, it’s complicated with regards to Nikki Haley. Of course some people don’t like complication, and like to turn everything into black and white cut-outs to further their own ideology. That doesn’t mean we always have to play by their rules (for what it’s worth, I always put “Asian” for my race if there isn’t a brown specific option, though I probably would not do so if it was for the purposes of biomedical research). I like Singh’s exploration in particular about the nuances of identity among Sikhs in America. Outsiders might not understand, and so impose their own categories to shape their perceptions. By analogy I kind of got tired of people constantly assuming that Mahatma Gandhi was revered in my family because we’re brown. There’s no great hate, but he doesn’t play the same role in the history of Bangladesh that he does in India. I recall once that a white reader accused me of being a “sellout” because I admitted that Gandhi wasn’t emphasized in my family. Because you know, he got everything about brown people. This problem of course applies even more to brown people, who overgeneralize from their own personal experiences and preferences to other brown people.

July 31, 2011

Nikki Haley as white

Filed under: Culture,Nikki Haley,race — Razib Khan @ 2:37 pm

Apparently Nikki Haley checked her race as “white” in some form in 2001. The horror! First, Nikki Haley kind of looks on the white side. Second, though I check “Asian” I do so because of its cultural valence, and that valence is socially constructed. The “Asian American” category as encompassing South Asians is an artifact of the 1970s, and even today there is some discussion about the role of South Asians in the broader Asian American movement, where being East Asian, in particular Chinese, Japanese and Korean, is normative.

Powered by WordPress