Blogs and Stories
The Bobby Jindal Racism Issue
Tim Mueller / AP Photo
After the Louisiana governor's speech was panned as "creepy" and "weird," some suggested racism factored into the response. But Keshni Kashyap says if anyone's not comfortable with Jindal's roots, it's Jindal himself.
On February 24, two skinny and bookish dark-hued men gave televised speeches, one after the other. The first man, favored from the start, generally got a thumbs up, but the second suffered a wide, cross-political panning. Some panned for substance, but mostly, it was an issue of style.
With President Obama peppering race issues with elegant introspection, Governor Jindal suddenly has to answer questions about something he has long glossed over.
During his State of the Union-like speech on the economy, President Barack Obama, as usual, came across as supremely comfortable. But in delivering the GOP response, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal had a curious mien, one that has since been associated with fictional characters from 30 Rock’s Kenneth the Page to The Simpsons’ Mr. Burns. For the duration of the speech, his shoulders were stiff, his head cocked to the right. He wore a forced smile that seemed to plead with the Republican-weary masses to enter the peculiar magic castle he was selling. “My own parents,” he said tonelessly, “came from a distant land.” People called the speech “deeply weird.”
Just for a moment, leave substance aside, if only because your aunt or grandfather may have voted for George because they wanted to have a beer with him. Jindal is not a man of average intelligence. He went to Brown. Like Bill Clinton, he was a Rhodes scholar. At the age of 24, he was appointed secretary of Louisiana's Department of Health and Hospitals. At 36, he became the youngest sitting governor in the US. He is known to be a consummate wonk.
And, of course, he is Indian-American. It was only a matter of time before race came into the picture. Christopher Orr of the New Republic theorized that Americans can accept a nerdy black man, but not a nerdy Indian because Indians were never cool anyway. Ann Althouse of the University of Wisconsin Law School suggested yesterday that the reaction to Jindal and his speech might be racist: “If there’s someone of a different race, and you just have this gut feeling that something’s not quite right, why are you so confident that it’s not coming from racism?”
But if we are uneasy with Bobby Jindal, it is not because we’re a nation of racists, it’s because we are observing a man who seems to be uneasy with his own race.
While it hasn’t stopped him from taking campaign money from South Asians—I attended an Indian-sponsored fund-raiser in Los Angeles some years ago when he was running for governor for the first time—Jindal has downplayed his ethnic background throughout his political life. He changed his Indian name during childhood and, against his father’s wishes, he converted from Hinduism to Christianity. When the New Orleans Times-Picayune tried to go to India to cover his Punjabi roots, his family did not cooperate. And on Sunday night, when Morley Safer asked Jindal if he experienced racial tension growing up in Baton Rouge, the governor responded, “Not at all. You know, this has been a great place to grow up. The great thing about the people of Louisiana is that they accept you based on who you are." Safer pointed out this was hard to believe in a state where 40% of the population voted for Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke not so long ago. “We were raised as Americans. We were raised as Louisianans,” said Jindal’s wife, Supriya, when Safer asked them both if they maintained Indian traditions in their home. “Not too many,” they both agreed.
The Right Dumps Carrie
Jacob Bernstein is a senior reporter at The Daily Beast. Previously, he was a features writer at WWD and W Magazine. He has also written for New York magazine, Paper, and The Huffington Post.
What's Joe's Problem?
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
Geithner's Stock Plummeting
Jeff Madrick is a contributor to the New York Review of Books and a former economics columnist for the New York Times. He is editor of Challenge Magazine, visiting professor of humanities at Cooper Union, and senior fellow at the New School's Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis. He is the author of Taking America, The End of Affluence (Random House) and The Case for Big Government.
The Carrie Bradshaws of Mumbai
Keshni Kashyap is a writer who lives (mostly) in Los Angeles. Her first book, Tina's Mouth, a graphic novel, is to be published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt in 2010.
This all overblown. Can't we make fun anymore without it being racist?.
Simply put, Bobby was creepy because he spoke to America as if we were all kindergarteners. He was nerdy, awkward and gawky, not because he is Indian and we are racists, but because he is a nerdy, awkward guy.
It's not rocket science, and if you asked anybody he went to grammar school with as a kid, they probably remember him getting his ass whupped.
The GOP has nerds in it. What's the big deal?
BOBBY & SARAH IN 2012 & 2016, LOVE IT, LET THEM STAND FOR THE RELIGIOUS CONFEDERATE REPUBLICANS... :)
Point well taken. I grew up in Alabama in the 70s and I can't remember many Indian kids in school with me? For that matter, many kids from any parts of Asia? I am sure Gov Jindal wanted to fit into his community.
Coming from a white female perspective, I am the child of an immigrant parent. My mother is first generation German. I would guess because she I am white, the issue of my roots never comes up?I suspect the thought never crosses their mind because of my white skin? Skin color doesn't equal who you are, it is what is inside that makes the person.
When I tell my Asian clients that my mother was an immigrant, I think they feel a kind of kinship to me? The thing I find interesting is like all assumptions, it never occurs to them that I would come from an immigrant background.
As a kid who grew up in the South, if one of the kids had a different or funny first name, we gave them a nickname. It was just the way it was. I am sure for Gov Jindal it was the same kind of thing, As a kid he wanted to fit in.
His religious views are personal and his own, that is not for me to discuss.
Again, from my perspective, I don't look at Gov Jindal as snubbing his Asian roots, but saying, "hey look, just because I come from somewhere else, I am as American as you are."
Afterall, isn't that what America was built on and what America is all about?
It's not that he looks like an Indian man, it's that he looks like Howdy Doody. And moves like a marionette. In addition, he's too Southern, and southern is out right now. When will these people get over the Civil War and accept their responsibility for trying to destroy the United States.
Given your own ethnic background, your response is understandable. However, I turned off Bobby Jindal's speech because he sounded like a parody of a used-car salesman. I would like to hear some of his widely touted off-the-cuff articulate responses on Meet the Press, to balance out that awful performance and gain a more informed perspective on Jindal as a (formerly?) rising Republican star. In my opinion, it's racist to blame racism for the almost universally negative reaction to the speech. Some people see racism everywhere because of their own racist tendencies, and that applies to people of all races -- think of Al Sharpton and others who claim racist discrimination because they expect all whites to hate all blacks.
This certainly is not yet a postracial society, but sometimes -- well, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and in this case Jindal's speech was just Jindal's awful speech.
Thanks for your insight. This was a very thought-provoking post.
Ms. Kashyap's comments about "race" are interesting, because they highlight the fact than in the U.S. race is about skin color as much as anything. Actually, Jindal is a Caucasian by race and his skin color an adaptation to "India's sunny clime." His ancestors are the Aryan tribesmen who invaded India in the bronze age. (Hitler stole the term and the swastika for his racial myth/lies.)Jindal probably has a better claim to being a "pure-blooded Aryan" than any of Hitler's blond minions. But skin color and nationality do add up to race in America.
the author is right that all-one/melting-pot talk is of a previous time, and jindal talks in past terms personally. his humane resume and personal tone didn't add up that night, and was off-putting; is religion the imbalancing issue? racist assumptions is also of a previous time.
just as we viewed obama as an individual with unclassic physical characteristics leaning to the endearing, jindal's similarly unclassic physical characteristics leaned toward distancing.
we see and judge the individual, not the race.
Very interesting post. I had similar opinions watching the speech. The whole speech was kind of odd but by far the oddest section was the beginning when he started by really self-consciously addressing the symbolism of Barack being black and giving the address. It was so two months ago in this really profound way. Partly because Barack's race was not what was really germane to the moment unlike at the inauguration but also because Jindal was so clearly uncomfortable. It was really squirm inducing.
I think you're right, when you spent your whole life consciously eradicating all the difference out of yourself, it's really difficult to pivot when that difference becomes attractive to other people. One of the interesting things about Obama's story is that he spent a lot of years coming to terms with his ancestry and accepting it as an important part of himself, you get the sense that Jindal has never spent comparable time and so he looked ridiculous when he concentrated on that part of his identity. If felt generic and awkward and we've gotten used to someone whose journey seems profound.
i should clarify that in this case we saw and judged the individual, not the race.
re: chuckv's interesting race post, we often use "race" when other cultures use "tribe" or even "clan". american indians deeply sense tribe, scottish sense tribe as celts, but u.s. history hasn't needed to organize that way.i think "nationality" or "sect" is the closest we get to the subtle regional and genetic cluster of the word "tribe".
btw in india, one dating site has a pull-down menu of a dozen words describing skin color (i remember one was called "dusky").
Chuckv is wrong when he says "His ancestors are the Aryan tribesmen who invaded India in the bronze age". The Aryan Migration Theory ( AMT ) has been demolished. Please don't pander lies here.
The AMT is reviled by many Hindus, he said, due to its implicit proposition that a tribe of 'Aryans' migrated into the Indian subcontinent, subjugated an indigenous people dispersing them to South India and established a caste system where the highest castes are comprised of 'Aryans' in an ethno-religious apartheid system.This 'explosive theory' that narrates that Aryans were only the first colonizers -- followed by Greeks, Mongols, Turks, Persians -- was used by European historians to justify the last foreign claim on India, the British Raj.However, he asserted, it is the latest genetic evidence, based on chromosomal and DNA analysis, that scientists believe definitively discredits the AMT.
Please educate yourself.
While I'm no fan of Jindal or his social and political views, it is his prerogative to embrace whatever identity he wishes. As someone of Indian descent myself, I see no reason why he should seek to hyphenate his identity. If he prefers to limit his Indian-ness to the occasional samosa or the addition of a pinch of garam masala to his gumbo, so be it. And while I'm also a northeast classic liberal, I think his popularity with white southern conservatives is something to be celebrated as, perhaps, a true sign of racial progress. Jindal is embraced by conservative whites in Louisiana because he is seen as one of them, if not racially, then certainly politically and culturally. And to their credit - and his- ancestry takes a back seat to political and cultural identities. Isn't this what we're all aiming for in America?
People here in Louisiana who don't like Jindal often make gratuitous use of his given name, Piyush. But I don't think it's a soft-core way of pointing out his race (although you might expect here in a Slave State).
I think it's because he has gone to such lengths to make himself "American" that he comes off as very, very artificial.
And his speaking style reinforces that.
Many people refer to him as Piyush to point that out, and I have to admit I do it myself on occasion because I am so offended by his political stance.
Blogging Heads in the New York Times batted this very thing about the other day. The final two paragraghs in your piece are very important and revealing in the sense that jindal has 'invented himself'. As Americans we pride ourselves in this. He is obviously uncomfortable with this. Why hasn't the GOP invested time and money in Jindal and Steele in media training? They both need it.
I am so glad someone wrote this piece. I am an Indian, have been in the US for about 8 years now and I was very offended by this guy. You are truly right when you say he is not comfortable in his skin. Maybe that is what he is but it sure does not come off that way. There is a point made above that conservative whites in the South think he is one of them because of his beliefs, I would like to know if that would have been the case had he not changed his religion. This may sound too shallow, however this bigotry still exists; case in point the elections and a woman in McCain's townhall meeting calling Obama an Arab
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
Take away his skin colour, his Indian heritage and judge him as a politician making a speech. So as a politician making a speech he sucked. Anyone would, where Obama is the opening act..
roger37, i agree with you, he comes off as very artifical, someone who is trying too hard to "American".. whatever that means these days..
You do realize (Asiatic) Indians are Caucasian, no? The populations of the Indian sub-continent arrived there more or less directly from their origin point in Eastern Europe. They're just dark-skinned white people, apparent oxymoron as that it may be.
I'm a human geneticist.
When I watched Jindal speak I felt like he was talking down to me. His race never crossed my mine. He seemed out of place. He just didn't sell himself well. For a Governor who's state has gotten millions of dollars showed how shallow he is. Now he says government is bad. The problem with him and the republican party is they are afraid the government helping people will really be successful. That would make them a minority party forever.
Mary50,
Well if that is the case why are there not alot of minorities in the republican party? I do agree with you that america is one of the least racist countries in the world. You may have some republicans that aren't racist but not the majority. You see by their deeds.
The reason to hate Jindal is not racial. It is that he supports a set of beliefs that don't coincide with modern thinking. He should read a history book, or perhaps just watch 'Slumdog Millionaire'.
Rich people have always tried to control poor people. Poor people in this modern age should not have to die because they can't afford medicine. It's not a race thing, it's money thing.
If you keep the populace afraid, uneducated, and demoralized, you have no trouble controlling them. It's when they start to think they have rights that they get out of hand. I can no longer sit back in this country and pretend things are wonderful. People should have free healthcare, I don't care if it makes the dollar weak. That is what capitalists say "It is not convenient, not profitable" then America will have to soldier on. But people have rights, and one of them is the right to live long enough not to be poor, the state they were born into.
It was a poorly given speech and I don't care what his real first name used to be. That being said, he really does excite the Right wing's evangelical base. He's anti-stemcell, and against abortion in any circumstance. Bam! That's all you need to separate the conservative agenda from well thought out fiscal pillars established through intelligent debate to non-negotiable ideals on social issues. As a Democrat, I'm fine with it. As a person who likes options I should hope the GOP can produce someone better than anything they've had since Bush 41. I was particularly impressed by Jindal's handling of the hurricanes last year. It did look like he had a good handle on things. But to get back to your point about racism, make no mistake, yes he's Indian American but he still has the same political agenda as all the other crusty old southern white men, and I fear that if elected President that there would be people writing small illustrated books called "Jindalisms and Other Words the President Made Up" much in the same way that our previous President was treated.
I take it this article is actually a test to see which commenters read what's posted, and which just like to bloviate based on the headline alone. I don't understand how anyone who actually read the post could take it as an accusation of racism to those who didn't like his speech, when it's clearly about Jindal's own self-deception and his attempts to market himself as safe and ethnically neutral.
Interesting indeed. I was thrilled (for political purposes) that he was a cross between Kenneth and Mr Rogers in the speech. I was very afraid that the lack of Republican substance would be covered up by an endearing style and clever presentation. Hooray--it wasn't, even though Jindal has the "intelligence" resume, unlike Palin.
I forgot to think about ethnicity. Ah well, I live in the Northeast where the name Patel is as common as O'Leary--so I'm not a good example of what 'racist' thoughts are out there.
I did feel a pang during the 60 minute interview though. I was startled by his deflection (bordering on shameful rejection) of his roots as Indian. I completely understand the second generation 'problem.' I know the second generation is battling parents who have one foot in the old country. The next generation is American from birth and the two mindsets are one big clash for a very long-time. It's an old American story. But, the healthier end to the story usually comes when the American child becomes an adult and seeks to learn about heritage and his parents and broaden the brain as well as harmonize the two. Now, you get to be a better more knowledgable person and thus a better American.
Obama is an adult--he did all that and the evidence of its benefit is clear. Jindal is small in his thinking--no matter how many degrees Brown gives him. Bush went to Yale--but he didn't learn anything. I didn't dislike Jindal after the rebuttal speech. I deeply disliked him after the 60 minutes piece. All I kept thinking was 'his poor parents.'
I disagree with this article. I don't think his speech was weird because he is Indian. I think it was weird because he was acting. He was playing the role of what he thought he would look like as the person he thought America needed/wanted him to be. He was disassociated by this. I think this has nothing to do with his actual merit and more to do with his interpretation of America. It's like the quote in the movie Kill Bill 2. paraphrase: Clark Kent is Superman's critique of humanity.I think we just saw Jindal's Clark Kent.
Jindal's speech & performance were bad, plain and simple. Amateurish. Dorky. Any high school debater could have mopped the florr with him. None of which has to do with his race or ethnicity.
What does have to do with his race/ethnicity is the plain and simple fact that the mainly white, southern, male -- and yes, as we have seen time & again, generally racist -- base of the Republican party will not vote for a brown guy in the primaries. The only wuestion is, will that same base vote for Mitt? probably not. Sarah? quite likely.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.