Comments

1. mistersquid wrote:

   I like Colbert’s approach in that he acknowledges that “talking about race” in some cases amounts to “propagate racist stereotypes” and “cultivate racist hatred.”

   The first part of the segment has Colbert trotting out many racist stereotypes, none more prominent than the racist oversimplification of contemporary black culture (figure of the racist conservative pundit).

   The end of the segment though reassures viewers what we knew all along which is that talking about race is as scary as putting a tarantula on your head. It provokes an apology for slavery which is itself a cliché of interracial relation and feeling: white guilt.

   Which is all to say maybe the message is not so deep as anyone would want it to be. But we are, as a nation (the US), taking the baby steps to talking about race in ways that matter. We are only just beginning to move beyond the clichés that have comforted us for more than two hundred years.

   And it’s good we can laugh about some of it.

   Posted 27 Feb 2009 at 11:09 am ¶

2. ty wrote:

   As an Indian American myself I had no problem in saying Bobby Jindal in no way represents me or anything I believe. If he were to ever run for president I would do anything I could to keep him from winning. His ideals arent supportive of his immigrant upbringing. It was laughable that he tried to illicit sympathy with a story about his fathers experience in India when he is a strong supporter of the conservative party that has disdain for us. (unless we are giving them money, which is all we are good for to them) To me Obama speaks more to me as and Indian American than Jindal ever did.

   Posted 27 Feb 2009 at 11:18 am ¶

3. Monie wrote:

   I really, really hope the Grumpy Old Party runs both Jinal and Palin in 2012. That would be a dream comes true.

   BTW, does everyone know that “Bobby” Jindal not only believes in exorcisms but participated in one? Apparently his college girlfriend was possessed by the devil.

   Jindal and Palin in 2012!

   Posted 27 Feb 2009 at 11:27 am ¶

4. Ugly Deaf Muslim Punk Gurl! wrote:

   fuck Bobby Jindal. as an Indian, I can’t take anybody seriously if they change their Hindu names to a name like “Bobby” in order to sound more “white” and be accepted by the right-wing crowd.

   He is NOT an inspiration for South Asians at all. If anything, he’s a DISGRACE for Desi Americans, and he makes me embarrassed to be Desi American. Barf!

   Posted 27 Feb 2009 at 11:38 am ¶

5. Logan wrote:

   UDMPG: It’s very common for people in South East Asian (at the very least in my experience in China, and from other people’s experiences in Korea and Japan that I know of), to take on an English Name (although I can’t speak for Indian people, and those that I’ve known had Indian names instead of American names). His wikipedia states that he chose his own name of Bobby at age 4, which became his colloquial name and that he’s still legally Piyush Jindal. I wouldn’t hold him using that name against him as a sign that he’s trying to whitewash himself if that’s what he goes by, and did so before he could become aware of his racial identity.

   Posted 27 Feb 2009 at 11:57 am ¶

6. Persia wrote:

   Ann Althouse keeps insisting there’s a magic formula that makes racism work in Obama’s favor and hurts Jindal.

   That’s the second of two rather embarrassing posts.

   Posted 27 Feb 2009 at 12:01 pm ¶

7. renee wrote:

   where did he get the “schuckin and jivin” black guy? “yep”, “nope”, “yessum massa”. because any discussion of race would be that one sided. right.

   Posted 27 Feb 2009 at 12:04 pm ¶

8. Thea wrote:

   Ick. I always feel like Colbert gets things half right. Srsly, I think people should think about the fact that they only have friends of a certain race. But to couple that with the gimmicks of the lighter, peanut butter and spiders definitely drowns the message. His show is best when it’s both being funny and subversive. This bit, while it started off well, was really neither.

   Posted 27 Feb 2009 at 12:23 pm ¶

9. A.D. Nix wrote:

   Full disclosure: I am a Colbert fan.

   @ renee
   And a black man who says he didn’t lack opportunity at that. What kind of question is this anyway? Is that really getting to the heart of the matter?

   The tarantula (why do you monsters even exist??) wrangler was undoubtedly an ‘actor’ which makes the words coming out of his mouth even more problematic.

   In short: black people don’t really suffer from discrimination and if you were brave enough to talk to one, you might find that out. So, get to it, white America. Talk to someone brown. Your guilt and fears will be assuaged.

   Note: people of color, you’re participation in this conversation is restricted to 15 words (that was my count for Duke) so choose wisely.

   The part about “shorty” was hilarious though. Because 1) I can relate to the occasional confusion and 2) I hate the term.

   Posted 27 Feb 2009 at 12:35 pm ¶

10. Yolanda C. wrote:

    In my opinion, Gov. Jindal got dissed by both the left and right wing for rehashing the same tired GOP talking points: “no big government,” “end wasteful spending,” blah blah blah. Plus he stated openly that he would reject federal money for Louisiana, the state that suffered through Katrina! I’m sure folks in NOLA and Baton Rouge were throwing shoes at the TV when he said that shit.

    I see Jindal as torn between the desire to carry on the GOP tradition of pseudo-Christian reactionism, and the very real need to rehabilitate the GOP’s image in the minds of most Americans, many of whom blame the Bush White House for the sorry state of the economy. There’s a real crisis within the Republican party, as evidenced by Michael Steele’s wack plan to appeal to the masses with hip-hop. For the first time in decades, the GOP is in a catch-22; hold on to the right-wing base, but don’t look like obtuse dinosaurs in the midst of national crisis. That’s the contradiction that Jindal and other GOP politicians must live with.

    Posted 27 Feb 2009 at 12:40 pm ¶

11. gail wrote:

    @Renee and @A.D. Nix: That was a strange, stereotyped cliched interaction—White-toast, Colbert questions and up-beat “yep” “nope” answers. I felt uncomfortable with that aspect, but when I think about it in the context of the Black guy putting spiders on Steve, it is subversive, isn’t it? It’s clueless, White guy Steve making a dialogue about race all about him and his fear and the Black guy accommodating the same old, same old cluelessness.
    Effectively, Steve is saying “put spiders on me, terrify me,” and the black guy says, “O.K., here ya go!” It feels a little delicious to me.

    Posted 27 Feb 2009 at 1:09 pm ¶

12. Slush wrote:

    I like Colbert and think he often has some very savvy comments on race issues in his show, including the “I don’t see race” shtick. (Also I think he has more POC and female guests than just about anyone like him).

    But I felt like this one really missed the mark. Especially the tarantula bit, by which I guess he meant to suggest that people don’t even know what a conversation about race is, but somehow the whole bit didn’t really go anywhere.

    Posted 27 Feb 2009 at 1:12 pm ¶

13. Fiqah wrote:

    @Thea: Seconded. Inner dialogue watching this clip: “Oh, that’s funny…let’s see where he…oh. Oh, okay that was a little off-center, what on earth did THAT mean…wait, wait, he’s bringing it back…aaaannddd he’s sliding off again and sorry I don’t quite understand the…oh, oh, he’s bringing it back to…no. No. No. Random Black man and tarantulas. Cowardly approach to race talk now ‘justified’ in light of how ‘oooohhh, scary!’ it all is. Terrible signaling. Too bad. SO. CLOSE!”

    Colbert’s misses have the unique effect of turning me into a kinda weird-ass critical race analysis third-base coach.

    Posted 27 Feb 2009 at 1:41 pm ¶

14. deb wrote:

    I didn’t pay enough attention to Jindal’s speech. I was too distracted by its infomercial tone.

    Posted 27 Feb 2009 at 1:54 pm ¶

15. Elizabeth wrote:

    where did he get the “schuckin and jivin” black guy? “yep”, “nope”, “yessum massa”. because any discussion of race would be that one sided. right.

    I would agree if the guy wasn’t putting tarantulas on his head. I saw it as Black person who is an entomologist gets work on a tv show (like how Johnny Carson frequently had on Steve Irwin types with animals) and while he’s doing his job an ignorant white guy starts asking him stupid questions.

    Posted 27 Feb 2009 at 2:12 pm ¶

16. atlasien wrote:

    I’m a bit uneasy about calling Bobby Jindal “Piyush” and castigating him for changing his name.

    But I don’t have any qualms about calling him a cross between Gollum and Goofy. What a loser!

    I think the worst part of his speech was when he made fun of volcano monitoring in order to make a cheap joke. That upset a LOT of people on the West Coast who live near volcanoes and have an understandable interest in monitoring them.

    It’s sort of like saying…

    “$140 million for something called ‘hurricane monitoring.’ Instead of monitoring HURRICANES, what Congress should be monitoring is the STORM of spending in Washington D.C.! Hyuck hyuck hyuck!”

    Posted 27 Feb 2009 at 2:24 pm ¶

17. Jamerican Muslimah wrote:

    Wasn’t really feeling Colbert. gail took the words out of my mouth.

    Posted 27 Feb 2009 at 2:37 pm ¶

18. A.D. Nix wrote:

    @ gail
    . . . but when I think about it in the context of the Black guy putting spiders on Steve, it is subversive, isn’t it? It’s clueless, White guy Steve making a dialogue about race all about him and his fear and the Black guy accommodating the same old, same old cluelessness.

    I guess I just don’t see what’s subversive about it? He’ s terrifying Colbert twice over but still has to acquiesce when told to take the spiders off and, as he’s got no apparent racial axe to grind and seems ambivalent about the whole conversation, is getting no real 2nd level satisfaction from even momentarily putting Colbert in this position.

    Posted 27 Feb 2009 at 2:58 pm ¶

19. Kavita wrote:

    cosign w/ty. and i know, i shouldn’t assume jindal is trying to be white just because he goes by “bobby” (after bobby brady, to make it worse), but as an indian-american, it turns me off. i think at 4, while he might not have established a “racial identity,” he could probably tell he was different from most of the other people around. LA has a tiny indian population. more to the point, he made the conscious choice to continue to use the name to this day. i used to want an “american” name (samantha, after who’s the boss, lol), but by high school i was proud of my name and the history behind it. so yeah, i am probably projecting, but i think the name change is suspect. and obviously i don’t agree with his politics, so the name change leaves me very little to identify with. changing your name once you come to the US is not common among indians, we are more likely just to put up with having the pronunciation slaughtered.

    colbert was doing it for me until duke came on and didn’t have anything to say. i’d have like to see him put spiders on colbert while actually engaging him. i think he missed an opportunity to drop some truth on the majority white audience–or at least, make them a little uncomfortable.

    Posted 27 Feb 2009 at 3:19 pm ¶

20. shirky wrote:

    who was it who called him Bobby “Kenneth from 30 Rock” Jindal? hee!

    Posted 27 Feb 2009 at 3:58 pm ¶

21. Jaya wrote:

    I thought Stephen’s bit was funny. As always, the joke was on Stephen, not on those he interacts with. The fact that Stephen thought talking to a black man about race was as terrifying as being covered with tarantulas was a joke on Stephen, not on the black man. The focus on that gag was not on the spider-wrangler’s answers, but on the fact that he was covering Stephen with spiders. That was the joke. It wasn’t hilarious, but the man can’t always put out A-grade material.

    Also, I need to get this out of my system. Those tarantula’s were fucking HORRIFYING. Harmless-unless-provoked my ass. I was shitting my pants, waiting for the dude to take the giant stingy leggy spider out of Colbert’s hair. DEVIL CREATURES.

    About Jindal. I have such mixed feelings about the man — I really am proud of what he has accomplished, and am consistently amazed that he was able to win election in a state like Louisiana, but at the same time, hate his politics.

    I also heartily disagree with Ugly Muslim Deaf Punk Girl. And my grandmother, with whom I’ve had this fight with before. The man converted to Catholicism, sure. Who cares? Don’t we have freedom of religion in this country? Isn’t that his prerogative? Who cares if he has a nickname? Immigrants have been using two names – an American one and their original one – ever since they came to this country. It doesn’t necessarily mean he is disrespecting his heritage, and just because we wouldn’t do the same thing, doesn’t mean its wrong for him to do it.

    The fact that a brown man named Piyush Jindal has managed to capture such a high office and has managed to be talked about as a candidate for the Presidency is inspiring, to me at least. I do know, of course, that if he was a Hindu or a Muslim, things would be different, but at least its a first step. In any event, its a long way from the “macaca” days.

    That being said, I do believe the comparisons to Kenneth the Page are genius, and that speech was horrendous.

    Posted 27 Feb 2009 at 4:54 pm ¶

22. Leila wrote:

    @ A.D. Nix,

    I didn’t see Duke’s responses as ambivalence, I saw them as an ironic refusal to indulge Colbert’s self-importance at thinking that, unlike the rest of the country, HE has no problems talking about race.

    About Jindal,
    Everyone should absolutely have the right to change their name/religion/mind if they choose, the only problem is when those same people then refuse to accept those who choose not to change.

    The way Jindal spoke in his response the other day, as if racial divisions no longer exist in this country, makes me worry that he is either unsympathetic to those who still feel the horrible effects of prejudice, or worse, that he believes that such feelings are delusional and therefore such people can be justifiably ignored.

    I’m proud we’re seeing some highly-accomplished PoC gain prominent positions in government, and I hope Jindal does well. But I am not optimistic enough to believe that a politician’s race/religion/gender makes that much difference when they only serve to perpetuate society’s history of overlooking that same demographic.

    Posted 27 Feb 2009 at 5:31 pm ¶

23. benjamin adam wrote:

    thank god for steven colbert.

    Posted 27 Feb 2009 at 5:53 pm ¶

24. soreal789 wrote:

    i thought the skit was hilarious! i love colbert and his comedy

    as for Jindal…I am not so sure about this guy. I think his rebuttal came off as conformist and kinda smug. He also was over-rehearsed and stiff on camera.

    Fortunately for him, the public has a short-term attention span so he will be able to re-introduce himself in a better light to America again.

    Posted 27 Feb 2009 at 7:16 pm ¶

25. A.D. Nix wrote:

    @ Leila
    I see him as ambivalent, not just to engagement, but to the subjects raised in the engagement. Cartoon: Eh, don’t read the post. Lack of opportunity: Eh, not really.

    I think it would have been a lot funnier and a lot more interesting if his responses showed he had a lot to say but just wasn’t saying (ie refusing to engage rather than just having nothing much to say on the subject).

    Of course, there are plenty of black people out there who would have like responses to Colbert’s questions if asked. But this seemed to be drab choice.

    @ Jaya
    Yes, I get the joke. This is not unfamiliar territory. I watch the show all of the time.

    Posted 27 Feb 2009 at 7:30 pm ¶

26. Thea Lim wrote:

    I don’t really think we should criticise Jindal’s decision to use the name “Bobby”. There’s lots of POCs of all races who are given “white” names at birth or choose to switch at some point in their life. Who knows the complex experiences that lead them to that choice? If someone is doing something f-ed up in the moment, hold them accountable for that. But don’t judge folks on something when you don’t know the back story.

    Posted 27 Feb 2009 at 7:47 pm ¶

27. bluemorpho wrote:

    I didn’t like that his satire of a one-on-one conversation about race was between a white person and a person of color and consisted of questions about what it’s like to experience racism. It may have been intentional – this is what most white people think a courageous conversation about race consists of – but I’ve seen too much stupidity masquerading as satire to take it on faith. (At this point I want a clear sign that the comedian is subverting racism and not exploiting it. Colbert doesn’t have a great track record, and I am done extending the benefit of the doubt to people who aren’t accountable).

    But the rest of the piece was kind of awesome to me. Getting white people to have honest conversations about race can induce panic and defensiveness, much like placing tarantulas all over them. And unconscious whites are willing to go about as far as “okay I’m sorry for slavery now can we please just stop this conversation?!”

    I can’t explain it. I just about fell out of my chair. And having a black entomologist put spiders on Colbert without showing any interest in his questions felt subversive. “So this is what talking about race is like – it’s terrifying!” I took that at face value. And I think Colbert intended it that way.

    Posted 27 Feb 2009 at 8:09 pm ¶

28. David Cone wrote:

    I don’t know the political affiliations of those who have speculated on Jindal’s choice of first names, but obviously, Bobby Jindal knew at age 4 that he’d be spoken about as a potential Presidential candidate, so he picked as “normal” a name as possible. LOL. That’s the converse of playing that stupid game of saying Barack’s entire name (stressing the middle name) and trying to associate that name with the war on terror.

    It will be interesting to see if the Democrats play on that thread if it ever comes to that.

    Posted 27 Feb 2009 at 9:23 pm ¶

29. Sanjal wrote:

    What I like about Colbert I also like about Obama. They walk a fine line between right wingers and left wingers. God save this country from both.

    Posted 27 Feb 2009 at 10:14 pm ¶

30. Jaya wrote:

    Colbert is a satirist, through and through. Don’t take anything he says at face value, that’s not the point. He does not walk any line between left and right, he’s firmly in the left.

    “Colbert doesn’t have a great track record, and I am done extending the benefit of the doubt to people who aren’t accountable.”

    How in the world does he not have a good track record? He does us all an incredible service: he exposes the incredible racism and stupidity of right wing talk show hosts, and he’s subtle enough to make Bill O’Reilly think he’s his friend. Half of his shtick is making fun of the notion that anyone can be blind to race.

    Posted 28 Feb 2009 at 1:00 am ¶

31. Yaffa wrote:

    I agree with Jaya. Colbert is all about satire. We don’t need to dig deep into every little detail on the show. What we must understand is his POINT. His point was to laugh at the fact that everyone was making a big deal about the “coward” thing. Maybe that’s why the tarantula dude had such simple, easygoing answers to his “questions about race”. Either the focus wasn’t supposed to be on him, or he was simply fulfilling the role of “just another black dude”. Both, probably.

    In any case, it doesn’t matter. What matters is Colbert’s response to the nation being called cowards. That’s what he was making fun of; not the actual issue of speaking about race.

    Posted 28 Feb 2009 at 3:01 am ¶

32. Luis wrote:

    @Jaya

    I agree. Sometimes he stumbles, but he’s consistently satirized the “I don’t see race” line from square one. He never lets it go unpunished.

    Posted 28 Feb 2009 at 4:08 am ¶

33. bluemorpho wrote:

    @ Jaya. Yah, I actually agree with you. I didn’t choose my words about Colbert’s track record on race as carefully as I might have. What I meant was, because of the whole ching-chong Chinaman bit, I no longer extend him blind trust to walk on the side of subverting the stereotypes and not milk them for laughs with a big *wink* to the audience.

    What I meant to express is that the hipster-ironic brand of racism has been very visible to me lately. And the white comedians who play around that for laughs don’t have to answer to discussions like this one, beyond maybe expressing, “Hey, calm down, it’s satire! If you were hip enough you’d get it.”

    Colbert’s lampooning of white racism and privilege is tremendously valuable. I guarantee you, there are white fans of Colbert to who first cracked up at his “colorblindness,” but then experienced the under-the-skin discomfort of realizing that there must be something wrong with that comforting idea, something wrong enough that Colbert would take it to an extreme for laughs. I wonder for how many whites that was a first. And I really needed firsts like that to start thinking about race. It’s not a trivial contribution.

    Frankly, I’d love to see him take on all those other masks of denial and privilege – “There’s a black president now. Racism is over.” “That’s reverse racism!” “That’s not racist. You’re just over-sensitive.” – and make them as transparently ridiculous as they really are.

    So no, Colbert doesn’t have a *bad* record on racism and he does a lot of good (and funny) with his show. But when the audience isn’t in on the joke/satire/subversion and they’re laughing along without discomfort, I need to know the artist has a clear idea of what’s going on. I want a bigger wink.

    Posted 28 Feb 2009 at 8:57 am ¶

34. Daniel P wrote:

    cosign Thea — I think there is definitely something ignorant at best and intolerant, xenophobic, and racist at worst going on when people have to change their names in order to have friends, or not be teased, or to otherwise get by as a kid (or an adult) with a name that isn’t common in the US.

    But whether it’s Barry Obama or Bobby Jindal, if that’s the reason for the name change, then the Obamas and Jindals of the world are the survivors (or victims, depending on one’s opinion) of the ignorance or intolerance, not the perpetrators. Blaming the survivors/victims is troublesome. Don’t ask why Bobby decided to change his name, ask what aspects of the culture and environment might have played a role in inducing the name change.

    Posted 28 Feb 2009 at 10:54 am ¶

35. Marcus Kwame wrote:

    I completely agree with Jaya. I could see how someone who isn’t a regular viewer might not get the context, but literally everything he does is a straight-faced imitation of insane, racist right-wing pundits. He’s mocking guys like Hannity who always have one-sided, biased and unproductive conversations on race. I like Colbert. He does a good job of deconstructing white privilege and racism. Not only that, he was making fun of the whole “I don’t see color” thing before “post racial” was officially lofted to the misguided, mythical status that it enjoys in the minds of many in these historic times.

    Posted 28 Feb 2009 at 12:12 pm ¶

36. Marcus Kwame wrote:

    Good point, Daniel P.

    Posted 28 Feb 2009 at 12:14 pm ¶

37. Fiqah wrote:

    @bluemorpho: “[...] Colbert doesn’t have a *bad* record on racism and he does a lot of good (and funny) with his show. But when the audience isn’t in on the joke/satire/subversion and they’re laughing along without discomfort, I need to know the artist has a clear idea of what’s going on. I want a bigger wink.”

    Nail on the head.

    Posted 28 Feb 2009 at 2:15 pm ¶

38. RJG wrote:

    I think part of what made the first two parts Colbert’s skit funny to me is that he still had control over what he was doing, so really there was no bravery involved.

    So he’ll say softball things “I didn’t invite anyone black to my party!” and “Rap is weird!” while doing equally harmless things, yet then declare himself not afraid of race.

    Then, for the last part, the [black] spider handler comes out for a discussion, yet the entire thing fails because Colbert is actually terrified of the spiders and the particular person he’s talking to isn’t _personally_ having major difficulties due to his race, or at least isn’t interesting in discussing it as much as focusing on terrifying Steven.

    I thought it was a good play off the “I’m not racist, I have a black friend!” where Colbert was going “I’m not scared of talking about race! Look at all these things I’m doing to scare myself that don’t involve race at all as I fail to really talk about race!”

    Posted 28 Feb 2009 at 3:02 pm ¶

39. jaye wrote:

    I don’t think it’s out of bounds to discuss why Bobby Jindal changed his name. I think we can look at what it means for him and why he did it, while also examining the wider culture that led him to that decision.
    I also think that it’s much more common among Asian Americans to give their kids Western names, while South Asians/Indians seem to stick with giving their kids Indian names. I’ve noticed they’ll shorten it, to Raj or Jas, but it tends not to be a Bobby or a Johnny most of the time (but correct me if I’m wrong).

    Jindal is the new face of the Republican party, a traditionally white, perpetually-racist organization that is in the middle of an identity crisis and power struggle. They’re using people of color to change their image to appeal to voters, even as they maintain a lot of the same racist, sexist, xenophobic and classist values they always have. To examine Jindal’s motives and to examine how he feels about his own race, what it means to him, does he harbor self-hatred…I don’t see what’s wrong with looking at that, at this man in a powerful position who could potentially change the lives of millions of people of color for better or worst. I think that is a legitimate question to ask, and it would be irresponsible of us not to look at it.

    Posted 28 Feb 2009 at 5:00 pm ¶

40. Tracey wrote:

    Bobby Jindal
    Wow. I do not like this person’s politics. I did not like them a year ago when I first heard of him, I do not like them now. While I respect what he did with the state of La. health department, I knew that his intelligence and seemingly dedication to get back to a sense of authenticity in conservatism would make him a highly popular rising star.
    I think he is an example of why the conservative party always rebuilds, always looking forward, talking about principles and being true to them, focusing on strengthing themselves rather than laughing at the other party, and being true to their ideals instead of the bull shit, spineless pandering to an imaginary middle the dems love to do.
    With that sad, his speech inspired both a sigh of relief and a sense of dread. Dread that he would be written off, relief that it failed so miserably. Seriously, hthe first image a lot of people will have of him begins with him walking from the shadows in a cheesy set-up. But while the entire set-up was a majorly stupid move, dems can’t discount the savy of a minority which is often subjected to the perpetual foreigner stereotype that won 54% of the La. vote in a three way race. Still, that speech was hilarious! “It’s a beautiful day in the neighborhood..” “Happy Mardi Gras (gunshots in background).” “If you live near a volcano, screw you, your collective lives aren’t worth what could finance a couple hours of the Iraq war.”
    While I have seem some suspect comments, I think the Kenneth the Paige reference was b/c he really does sound like the guy. Even the inflection of his voice and some of the expressions he used.

    Posted 28 Feb 2009 at 6:06 pm ¶

41. Maus wrote:

    “BTW, does everyone know that “Bobby” Jindal not only believes in exorcisms but participated in one? Apparently his college girlfriend was possessed by the devil.”

    There were some weird and absolutely creepy sexual undertones to that story.

    Posted 28 Feb 2009 at 10:55 pm ¶

42. Elainen wrote:

    @jaye – As a native Louisianan, I am very much not a Bobby Jindal fan. However, I’m immediately suspect of “Why can’t we talk about his name?” when really it seems like a way to criticize his personal choices. I think reading self-hatred into what Jindal uses to call himself just isn’t our call to make. Sorry if I’m projecting on you, but I’m tired of seeing self-proclaimed liberals use the fact that they disagree with Jindal as an excuse to trot out racist/borderline racist bullshit.

    Posted 01 Mar 2009 at 11:54 am ¶

43. robthomaseyes wrote:

    Trying to use his ethnic heritage in an attempt to make the GOP look more tolerant is ridiculous in light of the fact that Jindal has rejected at least two areas of his Indian-ness. His name and his religion. I’m not saying he should not be allowed to do so, but then don’t turn around and try to be Mr. Indian Ethnicity when you’ve rejected so much of it.

    Posted 01 Mar 2009 at 12:14 pm ¶

44. Elainen wrote:

    @robthomaseyes

    Wait, what? Where, when and how has Jindal been “Mr. Indian Ethnicity”? How is being Catholic or being named Bobby somehow less representative of the Indian-American experience?

    Posted 01 Mar 2009 at 5:36 pm ¶

45. jaye wrote:

    Elainen:

    I don’t see why we can’t read into it. Obama talked about going as ‘Barry’ for awhile before going back to ‘Barack’…and what it meant to him. It reflected the personal struggle with his race and identity. That doesn’t mean that everyone who chooses a Western name is going through a major internal struggle with their identity, or that we have a right to question every individual who makes that personal choice.

    But for someone who chooses to go into the national spotlight, and to use their racial background as a way to get votes and as a platform to begin to reposition the Republican party’s image and political values to the public, I think it’s fair game to look into his relationship with his racial identity. HE”S the one using it to appeal to voters, he brought it up to connect emotionally with the stories of immigrants and children of immigrants. So why can’t we question that story…part of it which was his decision to change his name…and compare it to those similar to him who didn’t change their names…and ask what it means to this one man who is now the face of one of the historically whitest organizations in the world that seeks to influence, impact and intrude on the lives of millions of people of color not just in the U.S., but globally…they like to go into other people’s countries and change POC’s lives with money, with bombs, with guns, with legislation…so why shouldn’t we examine the personal decisions of the people who seek these positions of incredible power and ask questions about what it means about who they are as individuals and what values and beliefs they really hold (maybe even unconsciously)?

    And I agree with you, there are probably many “self-proclaimed liberals use the fact that they disagree with Jindal as an excuse to trot out racist/borderline racist bullshit”, but I’m not one of them.

    Posted 01 Mar 2009 at 6:19 pm ¶

46. vodalus wrote:

    Questioning someone’s “authenticity” because of what name they chose to use is frankly bullshit. Its the same thing as questioning a multi-race person’s authenticity because they recognize multiple heritages. It is the exact same thing.

    My boyfriend is Chinese and insists on using his “American” name of Jimmy that his cousins picked for him at age 7. Why does he do this? Well, for one, it’s the name he’s always been called; he wouldn’t remember to answer to anything else. Another reason is that his Chinese name is difficult for many people to say. Wouldn’t you get tired of repeatedly hearing people butcher your name? Especially if it constantly made you feel like an outsider and foreign? I think that it is within the realm of personal choice to avoid that experience.

    Finally–getting back to my original point–choosing to use a name that recognizes one side of a dual cultural experience does not invalidate the other aspect. You are not less Chinese, less Indian, less Black because you chose to go by a “wasp”y name. Sure its a form of assimilation or capitulation, but one doesn’t have to stand on anti-racist principles all the time. Some people like President Obama find it empowering to use their given name. Others don’t. I think that it is unacceptable to say that so-and-so is a race traitor just because they use a non-ethnic name. There are all sorts of good reasons to use or not to use an alias and we should respect the individual’s right to make that decision for themselves.

    Posted 01 Mar 2009 at 7:57 pm ¶

47. Elainen wrote:

    @jaye
    I’ve also go to apologize, my last line in my original reply was too confrontational. I did not mean to call you racist or boderline racist; I wanted to vent my frustration. I easily see how it could read as though I was simply calling out you. Of course, I’m still on the “Give it a rest” side of the Bobby Jindal name issue. I think he’s doing/done many more hurtful, offensive, and outright dangerous things than call himself Bobby.

    The difference with Obama talking about Barry vs. Barack is well… it’s Obama talking about himself, and not us positing what his name does or doesn’t mean to him. And no, I don’t think we get to look into Jindal’s relationship with his racial identity, because I have no idea how we would even begin to do that. I, and I am going to go out on a limb here and say you, are not Bobby Jindal. We did not grow up in South Louisiana in the 1970’s as the children of Indian immigrants. I think we’d do better to question the Republican party’s crass exploitation of Jindal as a different face for the same old shit (Much like Sarah Palin) than to dissect every aspect of Jindal’s life.

    I’d say we, as citizens, certainly get to question Jindal’s homophobia, promotion of intelligent design, anti-choice policies, support of the Patriot Act, support of chemical castration for sex offenders, and all the other terrible things he’s done. Because really, it’s not the GOP that uses money and violence to get their way, it’s the US government as a whole. And I sure as shit think that we need to keep an eye on our politicians, and not just in terms of legislation. But to keep this in the realm of LA politics, I think there’s a world of difference when Jindal’s legal name is Piyush but he goes by Bobby (and has since he was a kid) and when KKK golden boy David Duke can still come in a close 3rd in Republican Party House of Representatives runoffs.

    Posted 01 Mar 2009 at 9:44 pm ¶

48. Tracey wrote:

    I’m going to reiterate my respect for Jindal and say his popularity has a lot to do with his intelligence and authenticity. Being a POC might be a factor, but I don’t think it’s a major one. With this one, I really think the GOP is pushing him because he is shaping up to be an iconic unifying figure. A social and economic conservative who isn’t anti-intellectual.
    The GOP has lost a lot of support among lbertarians in the past few years and has made a lot of other supporters fed up with them. The Steele apointment might have had an element of pandering, but I really think Jindal’s popularity comes from the fact that he is an extremely intelligent, gifted social and economic conservative who pulled a state’s Dept. of Health from the brink of bankruptcy to a surplus at an age many people don’t even finish grad school at.
    I understand why some people might want to question why he calls himself Bobby,though I don’t think he ever legally changed it, but I don’t know how productive it will be from a political stand point. Also, from what I understand he hasn’t addressed his minority status before, and besides from playing the child of immigrants up by the bootstraps card, I don’t know if he will in the future.

    Posted 01 Mar 2009 at 10:40 pm ¶

49. jaye wrote:

    Elainen:

    I understood where you were coming from. I’ve met a lot of supposedly liberal people who hide under “enlightened” views to say or insinuate racist things, and it’s hard to know where a person actually stands a lot of times.

    But I think we’re going to have to disagree on this name thing. I have no problem with questioning it. I also have found that it is a South Asian thing, they tend to have Indian names way more than Chinese or Japanese…maybe it’s different where Jindal comes from. And I know Obama is the one who brought up his name change, but Jindal is the one talking about his immigrant experience, and that includes his name, which I think is a point of contention among a lot of immigrant groups. And just being a POC who is the face of the GOP at this particular time in history, the racial aspect is an inherent part of that…he doesn’t even have to say it, it’s there. I just think it’s fair game for someone who is being used (?) by the Republican party in part for the fact that he is a POC, we get to talk about his values and his choices. I don’t think we have to be limited to his public policy decisions. They are in too powerful of a position not to look a little deeper. And I get it’s not just the Republicans starting wars, it is and has been the U.S. gov’t…but the U.S. gov’t are made of individuals. I believe we need to look at these people as individuals to incite change in the government, rather than seeing it as some amorphous, nameless entity. Like Larry Craig the anti-gay marriage crusader, if you are going to affect public policy, then yes, your personal relationship to your sexual orientation is up for discussion as far as I’m concerned. Dick Cheney’s daughter…if you tried to amend the U.S. constitution to ban gay marriage, then it is not off-limits to talk about your gay daughter and how you feel emotionally, privately, about this issue…and how those personal feelings are influencing your policy decisions that impact millions of people. Your personal feelings about public issues, your integrity, your character, is fair game.

    With Obama, his policy decisions are important…but not much different from Hillary Clinton’s. What separated the two of them? Part of it was his marriage to Michelle Obama, a lot of it was his putting out his personal history with his mother, his father, his grandparents…what endeared me to him were a lot of those personal choices I heard he had made in his past, it really showed the kind of character he had. It showed he had integrity, it showed he had been willing to take on serious struggles with his identity… part of that was his story about Barry/Barack. It’s one very small part, but it was important, and when you’re in the spotlight…yeah, a lot of your decisions are going to get a lot more scrutiny than the average person’s, esp. when your a POC at this particular period in U.S. history. I’m not saying that based on Jindal’s choice of name, that tells me everything I need to know about him. It’s one small piece of a lot of other decisions he’s made…I just don’t think it’s off-limits to talk about.

    Posted 02 Mar 2009 at 12:29 am ¶

50. Slush wrote:

    In contrast to that video, I laughed a lot at Colbert’s challenge to Michael Steele for a rap battle on conservative issues – March 2 evening, I don’t know how to link to it. I thought it had a much more savvy and self-deprecating racial dynamic. There is stuff to be offended by, I think, but offered in such a way as there’s no mistaking that it is atrocious, as opposed to being ambiguous about the ultimate message.

    Posted 03 Mar 2009 at 2:35 pm ¶

51. Colin Bowden wrote:

    I disagree that we should be bringing up Bobby Jindal’s first name. The example given about Barack Obama is informative; remember the furor over Obama’s middle name? I can see now a similar anger roiling if Bobby Jindal’s legal first name is used by Democrats and/or so-called progressives. It’s problematic, to me, because it ignores a person’s identity choices, while the benefits are truly tiny in nature. There is little character judgment one can gleam from this that cannot and would not be discovered from policy decisions/statements and interpersonal choices made through Gov. Jindal’s life.

    Posted 11 Mar 2009 at 6:44 pm ¶