Maybe it's some sort of confirmation bias, but it seems like there's a lot of prominent right wing people of Indian ancestry (Vivek Ramaswamy, Dinesh D'Souza, Nikki Haley). Is it confirmation bias or is this a real thing? If the latter, what is driving it other than US immigration policies excluding leftists?
To immigrate from India nowadays you basically have to be a capitalist or petty bourgeois
Caste system, mutual hatred of Muslims and India being a key component in "containing" China.
The Indian immigrants you're exposed to via these channels are petty bourgeois or PMC climbers and often casteist. Or their children. If you look at everyone in these same positions who aren't Indian immigrants or their children, you will find a very similar story.
One part of this is that in the US, to immigrate from India it is more common to do so via education, either by already being educated or by going to the US for education and then staying. This will already reflect class and caste biases, the ability to have sufficient base education and any supplementary funding to maintain your education abroad.
I would imagine a lot is just down to wealth. Indian Americans have a median household income of over $150k. They're by far the wealthiest ethnic group in the United States; for comparison white median household income is only ~$70k.
there's a billion indians, they end up everywhere. there's also plenty of left-wing indian politicians, like Jagmeet Singh, Humza Yousaf, Leo Varadkar, António Costa, and of course, most of all, Kamala Harris.
There’s a billion Africans but you see a lot less of them praising capitalism
Sir afaik Africa is a continent not a country with a shared national identity, I might be wrong who knows
Joe Biden would be considered its own continent if not for Donald Trump standards of measuring what a Joe Biden is
It is still considered a sub continent. Doesn't give the whole dumb "praising capitalism" statement any credence. There's telugu nationalism or tamil nationalism or punjabi nationalism. Chennai had a beautification drive and evicted 100s from homes by force and demolition. Huge pogroms were carried out in manipur. Hmmmm I guess both of those times they were praising capitalism. I guess they were probably only dictated by some regional nationalism.
So which is it, they are all the same and praise capitalism but can't be looked at anything other than sub nationalist patchwork. Or its a large ubiquitous continent and they all praise capitalism.
Well the west fails at courting African countries because they can't help by being racist and exploit everyone, and many of them aren't near superpower level like India. The west is also racist towards Indians and exploit them, but the country's productive capacity and population means they can have leverage while pursuing their own agenda. Many African producers of minerals and metals are starting to stand up and tell the west to fuck off, but they still have to be balance a relationship with China and the west because they lack the productive forces.
Akshuallkfuenrhdjdndbsndjd
HumanHumza (crackkker autocorrect) Yousef is of Pakistani descent fyi
It's pretty funny seeing British liberal parties being full of white guys and then you look at the conservative party and it's one of the most diverse roster of fascists ever
One of the things that was prescient about the movie Children of Men that nobody seems to notice, is the multi-racial-ness of neo-fascist Britain. 21st century fascism will look very different from the old fascism.
In addition to what others have said, it's also the model minority thing. There's a good portion about this in a book called "We Too Sing America" by Deepa Ayer. She described a "racial bribe" phenomenon (sorry long quotes coming through, I've bolded important parts):
At times, non-Black communities of color have colluded, consciously and unwittingly, to maintain White supremacy and its racial hierarchy in place. Our positions on the racial ladder in America dictate the opportunities, privileges, and entitlements that are available to us. Blacks are at the bottom, while Whites maintain the top position. Latinos, Arabs, and Asians fall in middle positions. The racial ladder preserves White privilege while propagating anti-Black racism. Racial groups in the middle maintain and reinforce this structure, sometimes with their consent. For example, immigrants of various racial backgrounds internalize racist attitudes toward Black Americans in the process of becoming “Americanized.” In her 1993 essay “On the Backs of Blacks,” author Toni Morrison explains that “the move into mainstream America always means buying into the notion of American blacks as the real aliens. Whatever the ethnicity or nationality of the immigrant, his nemesis is understood to be African American.”
South Asians, Arabs, and other Asians have historically been tempted to take this racial bribe in order to advance to higher positions on the racial hierarchy. We must firmly decline this invitation. When we do so, we can begin to dismantle the racial ladder altogether.
In their book The Miner’s Canary, Lani Guinier and Gerald Torres explain that the racial bribe has four goals: “(1) to defuse the previously marginalized group’s oppositional agenda, (2) to offer incentives that discourage the group from affiliating with black people, (3) to secure high status for individual group members within existing hierarchies, and (4) to make the social position of ‘Whiteness’ appear more racially or ethnically diverse.” That is, non-Black communities of color are often invited to take the racial bribe in order to make the status of Whiteness more appealing and to signal Whites’ openness to diversity.
Why are South Asians especially vulnerable to the racial bribe? The myth of cultural exceptionalism is partly to blame. It promotes the idea that South Asians possess innate cultural characteristics that propel them to succeed and thrive more than other minority groups. This narrative is tied closely to the model minority concept that purports similar views of the intellectual superiority of Asian Americans. The nuanced difference between these two narratives is that cultural exceptionalism is less focused on explicit racial comparisons to other groups, while the model minority narrative explicitly creates a wedge between Asian American and Black communities. Policy makers often exploit the model minority narrative to deny access to benefits to people of color as a whole by claiming that Asian Americans do not need them.
If you wanna read more about it, just look up "We Too Sing America" by Deepa Ayer. Here are some links from Anna's Archive:
https://annas-archive.org/md5/9b7552f3607e8244dd8abe93d3ea2a50 (epub)
https://annas-archive.org/md5/cf043ff43fcc1b4e14db31fa0ece2b9c (pdf)
I've noticed it too and it feels like white supremacy is at least tolerating people of Indian descent. Until there's a leopards eating face moment like Haley having to bend the knee to Trump or Ann Coulter telling Vivek she won't vote for him because of his skin color.
white supremacy has been known to tolerate minorities who serve it (I forget the exact phrase that sums this up pithily), but i even see this phenomenon on my local level here in a smaller city... its really quite odd
You would be surprised at how many top Dem staffers are Indian like Kaivan Shroff, etc. They aren't running in national office yet but they keep the machine going. Also Indian Americans agree with the goals of BLM more than any other ethnic groups. Sadly they may very well not be anti-Modi, and also blocked an anti-caste discrimination bill in California lol.
