jaldhar

Sure. I’m not trying to whitewash colonialism just pointing out that it is a lot more complex than the standard anti-colonialist view would have you believe. E.g. in the context of Egypt, the Ottomans were also a colonial imperial power. To ignore that is also “White supremacist”.

It is as a student of history that the more I learn, the more I realize that The "White people did colonialism and everyone was sad" attitude I grew up with is simplistic when not flat out wrong. Egyptians (who were technically not part of the British Empire) were willing participants in the mummy trade. To ignore that is also dehumanizing.

The trick is to find non-white people so indifferent to their traditions and culture* that they’ll sell it to white supremacists for material gain.

*Also did 19th century Muslim Egyptians really consider mummies part of “their” culture? Or is the idea of “Egypt” also a White imperialist imposition?

What you are saying is generally true (and certainly true for many Indian texts), but the oral tradition of the Vedas really is old. Having been brought up in the West I only learned enough for daily and occasional rituals. My guru taught me without looking at a book and although I have such books now I bought them for curiosity only; if I had a question about recitation it would not occur to me to consult them. My son has learned the same way.

Central to the culture is the idea that a marriage is between two families not two individuals. Some people care more, some less.

Is a dating site profile creepy and weird to you? It’s the same thing basically.

I single out Christians BECAUSE WE ARE DISCUSSING J D VANCE. You keep talking about faith in the abstract but no one believe in Faith, they believe in specific faiths. Remember the story that started this thread was about how MAGA Indian-Americans are purportedly having second thoughts about it. Of all the things Vance could do to contribute to that feeling, this is not one of them.

Now traditional Hindus are unabashedly patriarchal; we don’t even try and pretend but if you think that’s what’s happening here you really don’t understand. (And let me again point out understanding != endorsement.)

A major difference in viewpoint is between those who believe the fundamental moral unit is the individual versus the family (or tribe or nation depending on context.) The labels left and right don’t really fit; let’s say universalist and particularist. Vance and I both believe that our faith is true and better than any other therefore it is important that our families who we love more than anyone else share that true belief. Vance also has the universalist belief that _everyone_ should share his faith whereas I do not but as far as spouses are concerned we are in agreement.

The only unusual thing about this is typically it’s the other way around. The husband is blasé about religion and it’s the wife who is more devout, drives family church attendance etc. Take one of my neighbors for instance. She is almost a parody of a Jewish liberal; there are few universalist causes she doesn’t support except when it comes to Judaism. Her husband is of Jewish descent but raised as an atheist in the Soviet Union. He goes along with all her observances even though he doesn’t afaik care personally because “it’s good for the kids.” Is he “subservient”? Is he being “dominated”? That would be a very jaundiced way of looking at it.

Are you married?

Oh ffs. I belong to the one true faith (big fat /s so you comprehend). I do not agree with people of inferior beliefs but I _understand_ why and how their beliefs drive their actions. So I’m not alarmed by Vance because he is a Christian and that’s what Christians do. I would have advised Usha not to get involved in that but 1. It’s too late and 2. She didn’t ask me.

I have noticed that for all their vaunted “empathy” leftists have great difficulty in understanding what motivates other people. Read Jonathan Haidt, he has a lot to say about it.

I’m now in the awkward position of trying to explain Christianity which I don’t know how well I’m doing but here goes. The emphasis in American Evangelical theology is on a personal conversion experience which can occur at any moment in life. So the present condition of a person doesn’t matter as long as there is the possibility of being “born again”.

Now Vance is Catholic but he is a convert who grew up Protestant (and his recent spat with the Pope suggests it might not have entirely rubbed off.)

For me it absolutely was a deciding matter.

That’s sad. I hope (there it is again!) you feel well soon. I personally have never let politics alter my mood despite being surrounded by people who are let’s just say wrong about everything.

If you read “Mostly these are not national issues but the national party sets the tone.” and understood that I think the president fixes potholes then maybe you should do the country a favor etc.

As I mentioned before, I live in a blue state as most Indian-Americans do. I can tell you every racist encounter me or my family has ever had (thankfully not a lot) has been with people who if they voted at all voted Democrat. The Internet is not real. Groypers don’t actually exist in my world. Crime, potholes, fraud, woke extremism and low standards do. Mostly these are not national issues but the national party sets the tone.

In 2028, I can see Indian-Americans voting for Vance or Rubio. If it is someone more extreme than that I don’t know. Last time I asked who the Democrat nominee should be. No one answered. If it is someone who is merely “not Trump” or has an appropriately colored vagina I like Republican chances.

Rather than make a snarky response I’m just going to say you should hope for better things.

After last weeks kerfuffle I told myself I not to get involved in politics threads on HN but this is right up my alley.

Your response illustrates the dilemma. Yes there is a problem with race on the right but the left don’t even understand the problem. Look at your example. We believe faith matters. It is perfectly understandable that a committed Christian would want his wife to share his religion. A Hindu in the equivalent situation would want his Christian spouse to share his. (Well, he probably wouldn’t marry one in the first place. Is that racist?)