wow you're fast.

i was tryin' to get a non-indian, non-american post up there first to ease the indian/american bias felt by us minorities within the minority blog.

not sure if you have read White Nation by Ghassan Hage, but it deftly puts the 'multicultural conservatives' you discussed into the category of 'Good white nationalists', as opposed to 'Evil white nationalists.' Sorry for crap personal web page (even though it's his, not mine!) Even though it's set in Australia, it's a great book from an antropologist's POV in looking at how 'multiculturalism' itself has been turned into a majority culture debate between excluding/tolerating 'others'.

how do you manage to be so active on this blog? Please pass on some of your time management skills to moi.

Sorry! I actually haven't been posting very frequently as of late and I was annoyed enough to actually want to write something, so I did :)

Please do put up some variety for the festivus rest of us.

As for time management...well...suffice it to say that that's not my strong suit.

Oh and on the substance of what you said, I found a review of White Nation that was illuminating. It's always interesting to see how the same/similar issues play out in different landscapes.

If you're interested, you should check out Twilight of Equality (which is slightly different but makes a similar argument about the use of cultural politics to support neoliberalism) by Lisa Duggan and the relevant parts of Biju Matthew's Taxi.

Saurav,
coming back to the original question you raised before the blargument ensued, Tariq Ramadan is pretty prolific when it comes to talking about diasporic Muslims in Western countries...so
check out To Be a European Muslims or Western Muslims and the Future of Islam
Unlike a lot of the Daniel Pipes-type stuff out there, I really appreciate Ramadan's work.

Saurav, it's funny -- I think that substantively I probably agree with you on many issues, but there really is a strong tinge of "you're either with me, or with the terrorists conservatives" in what you are saying here. Substitute "moderate" for conservative throughout your post and you would be describing many people who might not agree with right now, but who might well end up agreeing with you -- but only if trying to persuade them matters to you. I don't get the sense that it does.

And I frankly am not sure that I get the logic -- you said:

The question is this: is this kind of “not homophobic” useful to most LGBT people in the world–most of whom are also presumably of color, not US citizens, poor, and in other ways distinctly intersectional? So you support gay marriage–is that the highest priority for the LGBT people who don’t have access to health care or are living in war zones?

Maybe it's not useful to them, and maybe gay marriage shouldn't be the highest priority -- but the nature of the injustice involved probably is not, at that point, based on sexual orientation. So shouldn't orientation simply drop out of the conversation at that point so we can discuss the issues that are at stake more directly?

The reality of the multicultural conservative has its benefits

There is also a reality of the "multicultural liberal/left/progressive". This veers off into what you have said below, but I have the same critique about "leftists", "liberals" (who are actually center right in this country), and some "progressives". I know I am taking it out of the context that you have put it in, but the assertion below applies to the supposed "liberals" have also formulated a type of "special interest group" mentality that is really counterproductive.

By selectively promoting the rights of one group in one instance at the expense of others, different groups of disempowered people are effectively kept apart (”Blacks” vs. “immigrants”, “gays” vs. “Muslims”, “immigrants” vs. “criminals”). As a result, people end up believing that their interests are more at odds with others in different social groups than with the people who make the rules. We are all, then, compartmentalized, and left to fend for ourselves–largely by appealing to the powers that be to throw us a few sops because “we are not terrorists” or “we are not criminals” or “we followed the rules.”

So:

The question is this: is this kind of “not homophobic” useful to most LGBT people in the world–most of whom are also presumably of color, not US citizens, poor, and in other ways distinctly intersectional? So you support gay marriage–is that the highest priority for the LGBT people who don’t have access to health care or are living in war zones?

I agree with you that the identity of LGBT are an intesection of ethnicity, class, sexual orientation, and so on. But forgive me, Saurav, the things that you have spoken about-- health care, living in war zones-- does not apply to the well being of LGBT also. There are other kinds of people who undergo similar situations. I am NOT seeking to reduce the fact that LGBT's rights have been violated-- but I also feel uncomfortable in highlighting only this segment of a population, when, some of these problems are pretty universal- to both LGBT's AND others.

Last thing: I am not so sure of using labels like "conservative", "progressive", etc to be used to describe people's views [a problem I myself am seeking to overcome:) ]. Truth is, individuals are much more complex than that, and this is not wrong. I have met several self- defined "Republicans" who have done more "progressive" things than the many liberals I know; and I have also met liberals who, using PC language, are saying the same things that the people-- who they technically differ from-- are saying.

Oops-- typos: :)

But forgive me, Saurav, the things that you have spoken about– health care, living in war zones– does not apply to the well being of LGBT also.

I meant "only".

I know I am taking it out of the context that you have put it in, but the assertion below applies to the supposed “liberals” have also formulated a type of “special interest group” mentality that is really counterproductive.

"supposed 'liberals' who have also formulated....

Much love, Saurav :)

PS. I realized that I might have been implying that you are all of the above. I am not. I am speaking about my experiences with others.

Much, much love... :)

Hi Number Six,

Thanks for responding. I understand why my tone might lead you to think I'm a "with us or against us" kind of guy. Part of my thinking is that there are enough people out there who really will engage with the people who frustrate me, whereas I would rather just call them out and let other people make those decisions about who to trust and who not to. It's not a life strategy set in stone, but it is what I'm going with right now.

I'm, however, talking about a specific worldview here :) I'm not even talking about all conservatives, let alone moderates. I just don't have time for people who would then use those stories as fodder for militarism or fearmongering or other things that relate.

I'm just saying that there are some forms of "lgbt rights" arguments that are fundamentally counter to a progressive agenda. Basically the point is that it's not enough to acknowledge difference--let alone commend people for utilizing identity politics to promote another agenda. If gay marriage referenda are the dark side of dividing people by values, then supporting gay marriage as a means of justifying the Iraq War are the dark side of uniting people under a aegis of supposed progressive values.

If the latter is done, then, yes, I would rather that LGBT issues didn't get discussed at all until someone with a more genuine concern for LGBT people came along to bring them up (and there almost . The point is that it's not simply ideological, but borne out by people's real life experiences. The question ought not be about concepts like rights, but about people.

Part of my thinking is that there are enough people out there who really will engage with the people who frustrate me

well, for all of our sakes i hope you're right about that. alas, that hasn't remotely been my experience with people on our side....

Desi Italiana,

I don't know why you would think I would be offended by anything you said :) I think you're right on about pretty much all of it.