Skip to main content

View Diary: An Asian's Take on Republican "Self-examination" (65 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I agree with pretty much everything but... (22+ / 0-)

    I can't help but feel that even those "conservative" values are also changing. I'm Indian by birth, and my parents can't understand homosexuality. They aren't the only ones. My generation however, is perfectly cool with it. And it's interesting to think about the way you view Government. In many ways, it makes a ton more sense than the way I broke down conservatism versus liberalism. After all, Clinton's neoliberalist policies kinda helped put us half in the hole to begin with (NAFTA, DOMA, Repeal of Glass-Steagall). I hope the Dems don't screw up.

    But until the Republicans Understand this (and not some wannabe like Michelle Malkin) nothing will change.

    •  Values changing (21+ / 0-)

      Actually, I agree, and it's very visible here in the Bay Area, where a race-blind, orientation-blind culture actually seems to be emerging.

      thanks,

      The Wanderer, from somewhere over the Pacific...

      by Wanderer1961 on Sun Mar 03, 2013 at 05:34:00 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, values ARE changing, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        AoT

        so I'm tipping this comment. But I'm not sure I agree with the "race-blind, orientation-blind" culture emerging in the Bay Area.

        The discrimination is still pretty thick here, and members of traditionally marginalized groups will assure you, it regularly swipes them out of absolutely nowhere.

        It's here they got the range/ and the machinery for change/ and it's here they got the spiritual thirst. --Leonard Cohen

        by karmsy on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 09:52:05 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  While NAFTA was signed by Clinton, it was... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      chimene, SilentBrook

      ...negotiated by the Bush I team.

      •  Clinton Loved It. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Roadbed Guy, SilentBrook

        Clinton didn't push very hard for worker's rights that would have truly leveled the playing field.  He pushed and pushed and used the bully pulpit to pass NAFTA.  

        The repeal of Glass-Steagall and the outrageous Phil Gramm bill was the beginning of the Bush II economy, of course made truly awful under Bush/Cheney.  But Clinton was fine with it.  

        I read somewhere that he would fight his impeachment during the morning, and 'work' with Congress on the Gramm bill in the afternoon.  I have no proof that it's true, but it seems to fit with how things worked out.  

        The Telecom bill under Clinton is what gave complete power to the RW noise machine.  

        Clinton fully embraced the DLC view.  In all fairness, the Democratic Party had to embrace some of these centrist ideas in the 90's to stay viable.  But Clinton embraced them all a little too much for my comfort.  

    •  A comment on Indian culture. (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      scott5js, Eowyn9, Odysseus, AoT, boudi08

      I am native-born, not of Indian descent. I am in my late 40s. I have lived in the same metropolitan area since age 18. In the past 20-30 years, I have watched Indian culture explode in terms of its numbers and its influence on society. It has just taken off. Also, Indian culture, itself, at least in this country, and probably in India, has become less conservative. At one time, most older, Indian-born women wore saris. This is no longer true. In cases that I was personally aware of, people from Indian-American families had arranged marriages. The custom of arranged marriage still exists, but it is really breaking down. Where most families are concerned, it looks much more like "love marriage" than it used to, and there's much less urgency about it than there used to be.

      Just some random thoughts.

      It's here they got the range/ and the machinery for change/ and it's here they got the spiritual thirst. --Leonard Cohen

      by karmsy on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 08:29:17 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  on "arranged marriage" ... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        karmsy, Odysseus, AoT

        I want to make a point on "arranged marriage". A lot of my American friends cringe when they hear that I had an arranged marriage. There is a difference between arranged marriage and forced marriage. When you hear 'arranged marriage', you are thinking of the 'forced marriages' in European aristocracy.

        My arranged marriage involved my parents searching for a bride based on my parameters (and a few from their side which) on sites that are pretty much the same as Match.com. Why them and not me? Because they wanted to do horoscope matching and a few other bride-family related checks.

        Once a shortlist is arrived at, the bridge & groom meet at least one physically and in this modern time, chat for a few days or a few weeks to find mutual interests and if they can visualize a future together. Conceptually, the same as dating but may be with a few constrains (not too many family allow for evenings in restaurants and public trips!).

        Only if the bride & groom agree, they get hitched - else, the process is repeated with someone else.

        So, I see no major difference between 'arranged marriage' or 'love marriage'. All that needs to exist after marriage is LOVE.

        •  Sorry I apparently didn't use the most helpful (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          AoT, InfiniteThoughts

          term to distinguish between Indian- and Western-style marriage; forgive me.

          I'm NOT making a value judgment, merely pointing out that in Western-style marriage, one's family isn't involved, formally or usually at all, in one's choice of a marriage partner. We have a big mythology here about "when the parents first meet the girl/guy Johnny/Susie wants to marry." It's a total unknown to them, a surprise that shakes the family to its foundations. Whole works of fiction, whole movies are based on this. This is the distinction I was trying to make, between "love marriage" and "arranged marriage."

          It's here they got the range/ and the machinery for change/ and it's here they got the spiritual thirst. --Leonard Cohen

          by karmsy on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 02:50:59 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  That depends on who you're talking to. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            InfiniteThoughts, boudi08, karmsy
            one's family isn't involved, formally or usually at all, in one's choice of a marriage partner.
            For many Americans, especially those of evangelical background, patriachal permission is still required before dating.  Certainly my uncle stated loudly and often that he would formally vet every one of his daughter's dates.

            And peer pressure is sometimes tremendous.  Read any of the stories of lapsed Mormons, or even some of the stories from boondocks areas.  The list of formally approved structures is very short, and the penalties for not conforming are quite high.

            -7.75 -4.67

            "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."

            There are no Christians in foxholes.

            by Odysseus on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 04:03:34 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well, traditionally, the young (0+ / 0-)

              swain who approaches the lovely young lady's father, asking him for the honor of his daughter's hand in marriage, has met her on his own, correct? They haven't been introduced by the bride's parents. It wasn't a matter of their respective families getting together to arrange the match; they chose each other.

              Hence, the distinction I was making.

              It's here they got the range/ and the machinery for change/ and it's here they got the spiritual thirst. --Leonard Cohen

              by karmsy on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 04:53:42 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  no issues ... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            karmsy

            given the ribbing I got from my friends, I thought I would clarify ...

            I agree to your point. I think involvement of family (not approval) makes the whole process smoother for the bride to integrate into the family. Why is that important? For quite a while (not too much these days), the bride lives with the groom's family and hence folks had to think about integration with family

            But with nuclear families taking hold in India, it is no coincidence that we see a lot of 'love marriage'. It think it is all intertwined ...

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site