Piyush

I’m going to have a post up later about Bobby Jindal’s Republican Response of last night — it’s taken me that long to get over my anger at him for using Hurricane Katrina as an example of why we need less government — but before I do, I wanted to take note of a name I’m seeing a lot on liberal blogs of late.

The name is Piyush.

Piyush is Bobby Jindal’s official name, the one given to him by his parents at birth. Like many second-generation immigrants before him, Jindal has chosen not to use that name in his professional life. Instead, he uses “Bobby.” Why does he do this? For the same reason that millions of second-generation immigrants have chosen to go by John instead of Juan, or Margaret instead of Mulan, or Barry instead of Barack, or Hank instead of Hans — because using a more traditional American name allows one to avoid some of the anti-immigrant, nativist hatred that has been a part of American society since the first Americans came to this country illegally and stole land away from its rightful owners.

Calling Bobby Jindal “Piyush” comes from the same dark part of the American soul that motivates some conservatives to always include Barack Obama’s middle name when speaking of him. It’s a way to “other” him, to make him sound less like an American, and more like a foreigner. It’s a way to attack Jindal’s ethnicity, and to argue subtly that he should be taken less seriously because he is an Indian-American, and therefore not a “real” American.

And that is, quite simply, abhorrent. There are many, many reasons to dislike Bobby Jindal politically, from his retrograde positions on women’s rights to his Norquistian, drown-it-in-the-bathtub view of economics. But these have nothing to do with his ethnicity, or where his parents were born.

Bobby Jindal has chosen to call himself Bobby. Polite and decent people call a person by the name they ask you to call them by. So feel free to call Bobby Jindal a sexist, a Christianist, and a disaster for the economy — but call him Bobby Jindal. Because that’s his name.

This entry posted in Race, racism and related issues. Bookmark the permalink. 

48 Responses to Piyush

  1. 1
    Pat Kight says:

    Yes. This. Thank you.

    There’s plenty to criticize, from his politics to his bad Mr. Rogers impersonation in last night’s GOP response. But we can’t use the same tactics the other side uses, and think ourselves somehow better than them.

  2. 2
    Myca says:

    Yes yes yes 100% agreed, totally yes.

    Thanks for this, Jeff. Some of the horrible racist responses I’ve seen from ‘our’ side just really disgust and piss me off.

    —Myca

  3. 3
    Mithras says:

    I wanted to take note of a name I’m seeing a lot on liberal blogs of late.

    Really? “A lot on liberal blogs.” Link? I read a lot of liberal blogs, and I was unaware of this until I read your post.

  4. 4
    Jeff Fecke says:

    Well, just a few examples: Roger Ailes (http://rogerailes.blogspot.com/2009/02/operation-piyush-was-abortion.html), Cogitamus (http://www.cogitamusblog.com/2009/02/bobby-jindal-the-right-wing-mr-rogers.html), and Brilliant at Breakfast (http://brilliantatbreakfast.blogspot.com/2009/02/it-would-be-relief-even-if-all-he-could.html) — all bloggers I like and read often. And they’re just the three examples I have at the top of my head — Democratic Underground pretty much refers to Jindal exclusively as Piyush.

  5. 5
    Lilly says:

    Word. I’ve been noticing this a lot. Though I would add another, slightly different, nuance to why liberals may be doing this — a kneejerk response to Jindal’s choosing to go by Bobby is to think of him as a sellout somehow, someone who wants to deny his Indianness. So referring to him by his birthname, I believe, is subtly supposed to shame him for his perceived denial of it. Thereby of course denying his agency in his name, but hey!

  6. 6
    PG says:

    Jeff,

    I agree it’s problematic when it’s used to Otherize Jindal in a negative way, but I admit to occasionally using Piyush because I am annoyed that some immigrants do do this, that they choose to duck confronting people with their Otherness. (I’d also point out that unlike what I’ve seen as fairly common practice among Chinese- Americans, Indian-Americans — at least Hindu ones — generally don’t give their kids a Westernized middle or alternative name; Jindal came up with this wholly on his own.)

    It’s coming from the same place in my head that was bothered by a Harvey Milk high school to stow away the gay kids who were having problems in the mainstream schools. Those kids shouldn’t have to carry the load of familiarizing their peers with being around gay people, and Jindal probably shouldn’t have to carry the load of familiarizing Americans with being around folks with “funny” names, but … who is supposed to carry that load? If we all try to Cover our Otherness, how is anyone going to learn to accept those differences?

  7. 7
    OuyangDan says:

    Word Jeff. Big fucking word.

    And honestly, I don’t give a flying rat’s ass what anyone thinks or how they feel about immigrants changing their names like that. It’s not. Your. Life. Period.

    We can hate a policy or something that a person does, but it doesn’t give us the right to decide what that person gets to call themselves. If you are not that specific person dealing w/ that specific set of issues than you don’t get to have an opinion about what name they use. Gah!

    And FYI, a lot of Asian Americans come up w/ their own Westernized versions of their given names, be it Chinese, Indian, Korean or otherwise. Just like when I live abroad in Asia I also use an Asian like version of my Western name that I took when learning Asian languages. Sorry it annoys some people, but sometimes things people do annoy you, and you don’t get to degrade them b/c of it.

  8. 8
    PG says:

    OuyangDan,

    But Jindal hasn’t legally changed his name — his legal name is still Piyush Jindal. He appears on ballots as Piyush Jindal. And I really object to your claim that calling someone by his legal name, if it’s not an “American” one, must be degrading. Hindu names are not cuss words, you know.

    Also, I find your generalization about “Asian Americans” a bit ludicrous — my family also are Hindu Indian immigrants (we ended up in East Texas an hour from the Louisiana border), and taking a Western name to replace one’s Indian name just isn’t a common practice in our community. (I keep specifying Hindu because Christian Indians quite often have Western names, especially Biblical ones, and I don’t know enough Muslim Indian-Americans to be comfortable generalizing about what they do.) I’ve never encountered a Westerner in India who had adopted an “Indianized” (would that be a Hindu? Muslim? Sikh?) version of his name, even Westerners who spoke a South Asian language. South Asians lived under close British colonial rule for centuries and are acquainted with Western names.

    Hindu Indian =/= Chinese =/= Korean…

  9. 9
    Eva says:

    Jeff thanks for posting this & everyone thanks for your additional thoughts. Timely and good.

  10. 10
    JaneDoh says:

    PG,

    I don’t think OuyangDan was saying that calling someone by their legal name if it is not and “American” one is degrading, just that it is disrespectful if they express a preference to be called something else.

    I know lots of native-born Americans with traditional American names who go by a middle name or other nickname unrelated to their legal first name, as is their right. I also know lots of immigrants or children of immigrants who dislike the way native American English speakers say their names (due to sounds in the name that are not used in American English), so they pick an easier to pronounce nickname.

    There are many reasons besides “othering” that someone might choose to use a different name than their legal name. Even if someone chooses a name to avoid “othering” that is their right. It doesn’t matter what the “norm” is in the community. It only matters what the person to be addressed wished to be called. Why shouldn’t Bobby Jindal or anyone else get to pick how he is addressed?

  11. 11
    MH says:

    I’m generally with PG, here. The only place I’ve seen this name used, it was being used to mock Jindal for trying his damnedest to fit in with his Republican buddies. The use of Jindal’s legal first name does not HAVE to be “othering”, although it can be. Like so much of language, it depends on the context, a lesson this blog has taught me in the past. It depends on who is using the name, and who the audience is, and on the points the name is being used to make.

    How many of ya’ll felt it was inappropriately disrespectful to refer to ‘John Sidney McCain’? (It was well-established that McCain hates his middle name.) It’s not quite the same, since there’s no real racial component, but it still falls under the same, “call him by the name he chooses to use” issues.

    I will admit that using a name other than the one he prefers IS disrespectful. However, I do NOT agree that Mr. Jindal (nor Mr. McCain) are/were worthy of that respect; at least, not in the context of them acting in a disrespectful political manner, as they do and have done.

  12. 12
    Elkins says:

    I think part of the point of “respect” is that it ought be applied even to people whom one privately believes unworthy of it.

    It is a component of civil public behavior, which is very often predicated on the notion of treating people with more consideration than your emotions might otherwise dictate.

  13. 13
    Manju says:

    3 sides have converged to oppose Jindal along ethnic/racial lines:

    1. Americna jingoists who use his name as a slur like clinton and mccain supporters used hussein.

    2. Indians nationalists (or hidu fascists if you like martha nussbaum) who use piyush b/c their offended by his conversion to Christianity. these are nativists, not unlike our own nativists here in America who deny americaness to poc or those who chose cultural traditions counter to the traditions they define as American.

    3. PG’s uncle tom argument: progressives upset over jindal not confronting American racism in the manner they deem fit.

    now 1 and 2 should be low hanging fruits for this crowd, but 3 is a matter of debate, as is happening right now. the question is,, when does progressive identity politics begin to // tradional racsim and jingoism (as in #2), with standards of authenticity determined by self-appointed standard bearers. remember, obama as a happy negro didn’t begin with rush, but with the progressive LA times.

  14. 14
    NancyP says:

    On the other hand, some immigrants just get tired of having Americans mangle their name, and shorten their first name or use an Anglo first name for informal, or formal, use. South Indians and Thais would be likely to use the trimmed name – it’s hard to get an American to remember a 4 to 6 syllable first name’s (or last name’s) correct pronunciation, easier to give the Americans 3 or fewer syllables.

  15. 15
    JupiterPluvius says:

    I think this take on it is a bit oversimplified, for some reasons that others have said already.

    A) Governor Jindal’s legal name is “Piyush”–“Bobby” is either his preferred name-of-use or his nickname (I don’t know how he self-identifies it). He did not change his name to “Bobby”, he told people to call him “Bobby”.

    B) I know lots of people who have changed their names or adopted a preferred name-of-use because they were sick of Anglophone monoglots mangling their given first names. (Barack Obama’s styling himself “Barry” for much of his early life, for instance, or my friend Sokrates who introduces himself as “Sam”.)

    Governor Jindal is the only person I have ever known who has publicly declared that he chose his preferred name-of-use from a crap television sitcom. I don’t think it’s racist or xenophobic to notice that that’s a little goofy.

    C) That said, I do think a lot of people use his legal name because “oh ho ho it’s a funny furrin name and that’s funny” and that’s shitty.

    D) Thus I am now calling him “Governor Jindal” or “Jindal” from now on.

  16. 16
    PG says:

    JupiterPluvius,

    I think you have this right, and I didn’t intend with my earlier comments to indicate that I feel morally secure in my discomfort with using “Bobby”; I recognize that it’s judgmental and possibly unjust to feel this way. I was more trying to talk my way through why I, as a person who is wholly comfortable saying “Piyush” (and indeed, compared to the much longer polysyllabic names to which NancyP alludes, find it a very easy name and thus even more puzzling that it’s being avoided), feel uncomfortable using a nick-name instead of the name given a birth and on Jindal’s driver’s license. I think Manju fairly called me out for seeing Jindal as — well, not so much as an Uncle Tom (which connotes someone who excuses the dominant group’s mistreatment of the minority to which he belongs) — but as a little bit cowardly in opting for assimilation in this way instead of being proud of his name and patient with those who might trip over it.

    I know a lot of this feeling is coming out of my own life experience of having a name that Americans can’t easily pronounce, and my younger sister’s tantrum when she was a kid over my parents’ refusal to let her be known as Jessica. (She’s fine with her name now, but it was tougher when she was the one little brown kid in her class.) When I was in college I went by a nickname that was a deliberate, Anglophone friendly mispronunciation of my “real” nickname (i.e. the one my family uses), but afterwards decided that this nickname was too childish-sounding to use in professional life, and also that it kind of pushed people away from me and made my identity feel more fragmented. It seemed like putting a distance between my Indian family and friends who used my real name, and my non-Indian friends (and now family, as I’ve married someone non-Indian and have non-Indian in-laws) who didn’t.

    Also, there’s the historical context of immigrants’ having their names changed upon entry by the native-born person who wasn’t interested in the retention of an ethnic identity, or of their doing it themselves to avoid discrimination when there was a periodic wave of rage against the Irish/ Italians/ Germans etc.

    It just seems to me that there is something worth holding onto with these inconvenient names of ours, and I feel sad/unhappy that Jindal apparently doesn’t share that sentiment.

  17. 17
    OuyangDan says:

    I don’t think OuyangDan was saying that calling someone by their legal name if it is not and “American” one is degrading, just that it is disrespectful if they express a preference to be called something else.

    That is exactly what I was saying, thank-you. Not one time did I say it was un-American. Where did I say that? I am simply pointing out that just b/c something bothers you it doesn’t give you the right to call them something else.

    And I also never said that Indian names are cuss words. Way to put words in my mouth! Just b/c PG has never met an Indian-American who has taken a different name doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. I have, so there it is. I don’t know her religious breakdown, wasn’t my business. I know she had a legal name, and a name she preferred to go by around anyone other than her family, and that was all I needed to know. I am not generalizing, I am saying that while PG may not know these people or it may not be common in hir community, it happens. Maybe not where PG is from, but my friend was not the only person in Ann Arbor, MI to do this.

    Regardless, it isn’t our place to say that someone should be called by one name or another b/c we like it better. All that matters is what they want to be called.

    I also didn’t say that Indian=Chinese=Korean. Where did I say that? I am saying that I know people w/ these identities who use Western style names, and for various reasons we don’t need to understand.

    My last rheumatologist was Thai, and he asked me to call him “Dr. C” when I asked how to properly pronounce his name. He said that it was easier since his name was so long (it barely fit on his uniform patch). That was his choice. Dr. C it was.

    All of our experience are different, for sure, but that doesn’t make them the universal. I am not the one generalizing here. Just b/c someone’s choice makes you uncomfortable doesn’t give you the right to go against their wishes.

    It just seems to me that there is something worth holding onto with these inconvenient names of ours, and I feel sad/unhappy that Jindal apparently doesn’t share that sentiment.

    I am glad you have that feeling of pride WRT to your heritage, but feeling sad that someone doesn’t share it doesn’t give you the right to impose that on someone else.

    Ouyang Dan isn’t my legal name, either, but I use it when I am in China, and sometimes in Korea. It’s my choice, and my friends enjoy it, and it was part of my immersion into the language learning process, plus it looks better written in the context of their language (but it was my choice). Being called Bobby is Jindal’s choice. It’s about personal choice. When it isn’t, as in w/ people having their names changed when immigrating (like my friend whose parents came from China, and had their name changed from “Zhu” to “Jew” by immigration), but b/c things like that happen I think that we owe it to people to be respectful and use their chosen names when they have that choice to make.

  18. 18
    PG says:

    I am simply pointing out that just b/c something bothers you it doesn’t give you the right to call them something else.

    Technically, I have the right to call them whatever I want so long as it isn’t threatening/harassing/defamatory (and I hope we’re all agreed that being called “Piyush” is not defamatory), but I assume you mean that just b/c it bothers me doesn’t make it socially or morally OK to call Jindal by his legal name if he has expressed a preference for “Bobby.”

    Ouyang Dan, do you use that name in China and Korea because you’re concerned that you won’t be accepted as just “Dan” (which is a Western name you’ve hung onto), or simply because it’s part of the whole language learning process? (I got a “Spanish name” in my high school Spanish class, but I didn’t go around telling people outside class who weren’t Spanish speakers to call me that.)

    Your assumption is that if someone changes his name rather than the government’s changing it for him, it must be wholly voluntary and uncoerced. I’m concerned about the environment in which this occurs and the extent to which there’s a lot of social pressure to assimilate, which reduces the freedom of choice involved. If Jindal lived in India and worked for an Indian company and had the random inclination to go by Bobby, I would find it amusingly eccentric. When it happens in the context of growing up in Louisiana, it seems less amusingly eccentric and more like a symptom of social coercion that I don’t think should exist. I realize that some people don’t consider anything that isn’t backed with the threat of force to be coercion, but I take a more expansive view of that concept.

  19. 19
    Ruchama says:

    Also, there’s the historical context of immigrants’ having their names changed upon entry by the native-born person who wasn’t interested in the retention of an ethnic identity,

    This is a myth. The names recorded upon arrival were copied directly from the ship manifesto — just checking the people against the names to make sure that the people getting off the boat were only the people who were supposed to be on the boat in the first place. The ship manifesto was written by the shipping line agent in whatever country it sailed from, where presumably they’d know how to spell local names. (Or, at least, sort-of-local names. Lots of times, people from Eastern Europe might leave from Bremen or Hamburg, but those lists still tended to be fairly accurate — I’ve done a fair bit of genealogical research, and only ever found two names on ship manifests that were actually wrong.) Much more common was the immigrants changing their names themselves (this often shows up on naturalization papers, filed several years after immigration, which list both then name the person entered the country under and the name they wish to go by as a citizen), or, once in a while, someone would write a letter to his brother still in Europe with something like, “Our name sounds funny here. I’m going by this new name now. When you come over here, just tell them that that’s your name, too.”

  20. 20
    PG says:

    Ruchama,

    You’re right about the Ellis Island name-change being a myth (although I don’t think the rules about copying names from the ship manifest existed until the Steerage Act of March 2, 1819), but even those that call it so note that name-changes weren’t always requested by the person in question: “Millions of immigrants had their names changed by schoolteachers or clerks who couldn’t spell or pronounce the original surname.”

    Also:

    Statistics quoted from the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service indicate that today 16 percent of immigrants who become citizens change their names. An unscientific poll by the Boston Globe adds that name changes are especially common amongst Asian, Arab, and Muslim immigrant groups. The reason for changing one’s name depends on the individual. In the Boston survey, for instance, immigrants who recently completed the process for becoming United States citizens offered various reasons: the desire to avoid embarrassment and frustration when others can’t pronounce one’s name, the need to adapt to American culture, the benefits that an American-sounding name offers for advancement at work and in society.

  21. 21
    Froth says:

    Thankyou, Jeff.

    Being called by a name you dislike, when you have asked to be called by a specific other name, hurts. It is painful. It feels like being slapped. A whole identity can be tied up in a name, and that may well be ‘the person I was then’ who you have tried to forget, to replace with ‘the person I am now’. To be called by the old name is to be forced into feeling like the person who has that name, and if you’ve gone so far as to change your name (and while legally changing it may be the only official standard, going solely by a different name surely ‘counts’) then it’s probably safe to assume that you strongly prefer it to the old one.

  22. 22
    PG says:

    Froth,

    A whole identity can be tied up in a name, and that may well be ‘the person I was then’ who you have tried to forget, to replace with ‘the person I am now’.

    Fair enough, although if you are applying this to Jindal, I’m really wondering what happened to him when he was four, and how he manages going to vote for himself and seeing the forgotten person’s name on the ballot.

  23. 23
    Yusifu says:

    An important point fell by the wayside early in this discussion: people using Piyush to refer to Jindal are almost always attempting to convey a specific, disturbing message. Although some people (e.g. PG @6) are expressing annoyance at Jindal’s misplaced assimilationism, usually it means something like, “Jindal’s pretending to be ‘Bobby,’ but we know he’s really ‘Piyush.'” That’s disturbing, and it’s racist. It’s got a lot in common with the people referring to the president as “B. Hussein.” I agree with Elkins and others, as an issue of basic respect we should almost always call people by the names they chose for themselves, even if we are disturbed by the choices they have made. (I’m not sure what I’d say if, for example, Fred Phelps were to change his name to Die-Faggot Phelps.)

    Like PG, I worry about what happened to Jindal at four to make him insist on being Bobby, but ultimately I don’t think it’s my place second guess him. And as a Louisiana voter, I’m somewhat skeptical that he would have won his elections had he run as Piyush. My new congressman is a bit more forthcoming about his given name, “Anh,” but he still mostly bills himself as Joe Cao. I don’t think it’s a coincidence, though I have no idea what the significance of Joe vs. Anh is for him.

    Like OuyangDan, I’ve had something of the reverse experience. My real name is Steven, but Yusifu (or Yusif) is the name I use while doing research in northern Nigeria, especially when I was working in a village where most people didn’t speak any English and for whom Steven was difficult to pronounce and remember. There isn’t a Hausa/Arabic analog for Steven, so I picked Yusif. It all worked well. The one problem was that the town judge really didn’t like me and did all he could to undermine me. One of the things he did was always, and very publically, to refuse to call me Yusif. I wasn’t a Muslim, he said, so I didn’t deserve the name. (He also objected anytime I wore Nigerian rather than western clothing.) The message was more than religious. It wasn’t just that I was Christian (a fact he assumed); I was an outsider who shouldn’t be accorded any familiarity or trust at all. It was painful, though most people in town thought he was being a creep. And it was very explicitly an attempt to demonize me.

    I’m not foolish enough to think there’s an easy analogy between Jindal’s experience and mine–or that a western researcher in Nigeria deserves any particular sympathy. But I do think Jindal deserves the respect of being called the name he wishes to go by. And I think refusing to do so invokes something very ugly.

  24. 24
    PG says:

    Yusifu,

    You’re right; I don’t think there’s any way to separate “Piyush” from the context of its being used by Jindal’s opponents as a way to say “You’re weird!” I’ll just have to hope quietly that more politicians begin to feel OK following Barack Obama’s example of using his legal name and getting people accustomed to it through repetition.

  25. 25
    grendelkhan says:

    I can’t believe there’s actually debate over this, given that it’s so soon after we were hearing “Hussein! Hussein!” on a regular basis. Hussein really is Obama’s middle name; does that make it any less of an attempt to make him sound Otherish?

    Take it away, Sadly, No!.

    I’ve heard “Barack HUSSEIN Obama” more times today than I’ve heard the name of John McCain, and I keep thinking of a friend back in the greater world who says whenever he hears it said that way, he thinks of the upper-crust pseudo-fascists and pro-Nazi pornographers back in the ‘30s who talked about “Franklin Delano Rosenfeld”.

  26. 26
    PG says:

    grendelkhan,

    “Hussein” was way more loaded than just an attempt to make Obama sound “Otherish” (which sounds like it should be a language in Tolkien). “Barack Obama” is unavoidably “Other” sounding, by itself, and if Obama had sought to duck Otherness he probably would have taken his mother’s maiden name and stuck with his childhood nickname: “Barry Dunham” sounds pretty mainstream. As I said above, I hope other politicians with non-Western names will follow his example and be proud of their heritage. The “Hussein” emphasizing was a deliberate attempt to associate Obama with Saddam.

  27. 27
    Eva says:

    “I’ll just have to hope quietly that more politicians begin to feel OK following Barack Obama’s example of using his legal name and getting people accustomed to it through repetition.”

    PG – Yes, for those of us who aren’t in the lime light all we can do is hope it works and support those who do choose to use their unusual-to-some full birth names in public life.

    On another note – Barry Dunham???

  28. Expanding on what Lily said at #5, and without arguing with your conclusion, I have to wonder if people who call him “Piyush” think they’re doing so to other him. I would tend to take away the message “he’s not even being straightforward about his identity, how can we trust him on anything else?” And sure enough, he did say something false in his speech*. Ahem. The difference between the left calling Jindal “Piyush” and the right calling Obama “Barack Hussein Obama” is that this is presented as something Obama is supposed to be ashamed of whereas it’s presented as something Jindal is supposed to be proud of (which is not to say it’s ever ok to tell anyone how they should feel). In other words, our hypothetical conservative is saying “I wouldn’t vote for a candidate named Hussein so you shouldn’t either,” while the hypothetical liberal is saying “I’d vote for a candidate named Piyush so I don’t know why he’s playing to people who wouldn’t.” That’s only objectionable because it’s presumptuous to tell people what they should call themselves, and what aspects of themselves they should emphasize.

    *I don’t think he lied, exactly.

  29. 29
    Schala says:

    A whole identity can be tied up in a name, and that may well be ‘the person I was then’ who you have tried to forget, to replace with ‘the person I am now’.

    Not all trans people can change their names immediately, in a few places, even at all. Sometimes there are stupid requirements (Quebec province, or Germany), sometimes the fees are too high.

    I’ve been called Sara for something like 3 years now, by basically everyone I know or meet who has to know a name. I still see my legal name on IDs and when I get government or hospital stuff, and yes, it makes me cringe. It’s not been changed legally yet.

    It would feel like a slap to be called by my legal name, even without any ill intent. As such, I would respect Bobby’s name.

  30. 30
    Manju says:

    In other words, our hypothetical conservative is saying “I wouldn’t vote for a candidate named Hussein so you shouldn’t either,” while the hypothetical liberal is saying “I’d vote for a candidate named Piyush so I don’t know why he’s playing to people who wouldn’t.”

    In theory this is an important distinction, but within the context of politics it could simply provide plausible denial, one of the key components to a southern strategy. In fact, this occurred at least twice to President Obama during the campaign.

    right before the Iowa caucus, bob (not john) kerrey stood in front of an all white Iowa crowd repeatingly addressing Obama with his middle name, saying how great it is that his name is “Hussein”,, and how proud he was that Obama attended a (secular) madrassa. most Clinton haters (like myself) and African Americans saw right thru this, but it was enough plausible denial to allow the likes of paul krugman, among others, to bury their heads in the sand.

    as a sidenote, i think this was one of the great miscalculations of the clinton campaign. they thru out hussein, madrassa, and drugdealer–islamophobic and racist rhetoric–in the heat of the iowa race: seemingly unaware that this was a caucus–which attracts progressives and party faithfuls, those who are least likely to be swayed by such a strategy, and who may very well have reacted by punishing Clinton for it (as opposed to her “hard working white Americans” in TX, PA, and OH, who provided her with a firewall after similar strategies were deployed.)

    later in the campaign, the clinton camp allegedly released a photo to the drudge report of obama in somali garb. maggie williams faked outrage by saying: ““If Barack Obama’s campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed.” again, true in theory, but in this context just more plausible denial.

    stephanie tubbs johnson took it a step further: “I have no shame, or no problem, with people looking at Barack Obama in his native clothing, in the clothing of his country.”

    His native country is the United States of America, Asshole.

  31. 31
    JupiterPluvius says:

    And as a Louisiana voter, I’m somewhat skeptical that he would have won his elections had he run as Piyush.

    It says “Piyush ‘Bobby’ Jindal” on the ballot, though, yes?

    So it’s not like voters don’t know that “Piyush” is his legal name, and “Bobby” is his preferred name-of-use. Also, it seems to me that Louisiana politicians are more given to nicknames than the politicians of many other states–to quote calliopejane, a commenter at Pandagon:

    For example (these are real public officials, just a few who first come to mind out of hundreds with such names): Emile “Peppi” Bruneau, Clayton “Snookie” Faucheux, John “Big John” Illg, Gary “Goose” Fontenot, Jerry “Truck” Gisclair, Albert “Nookie” Romero. The number of politicians with “Buddy,” “Bubba,” or “Sonny” as part of their official ballot name is extraordinarily high.

    Compared to “Goose”, “Truck”, and “Nookie”, “Bobby” is formality itself.

  32. It says “Piyush ‘Bobby’ Jindal” on the ballot, though, yes?

    So it’s not like voters don’t know that “Piyush” is his legal name, and “Bobby” is his preferred name-of-use.

    Except I seriously believe it’s entirely possible that people who are happy to vote for the candidate they’ve heard referred to as “Bobby” aren’t really going to register that he’s called something else on the actual ballot (similarly, if the junior senator from Illinois had been calling himself Barry Obama I don’t think people would have been put off by seeing “Barack” on the actual ballot, or even really noticed).

    So he tells them, which isn’t the same as them knowing.

  33. 33
    OuyangDan says:

    Technically, I have the right to call them whatever I want so long as it isn’t threatening/harassing/defamatory (and I hope we’re all agreed that being called “Piyush” is not defamatory), but I assume you mean that just b/c it bothers me doesn’t make it socially or morally OK to call Jindal by his legal name if he has expressed a preference for “Bobby.”

    No, I meant what I said. You don’t have that right over someone. What gives you the right to call someone something they choose not to be called? What makes your opinion of their name more important than their personal identity? Not trying to be hostile, but I don’t like being corrected when I am not wrong. It isn’t a freedom of speech thing, it’s about respect, and if we are trying to be respectful of people then we should agree that we should respect their agency. If you asked me to call you Princess Marjorie of the Multiverse I would do it, b/c you asked me to.

    Ouyang Dan, do you use that name in China and Korea because you’re concerned that you won’t be accepted as just “Dan” (which is a Western name you’ve hung onto), or simply because it’s part of the whole language learning process? (I got a “Spanish name” in my high school Spanish class, but I didn’t go around telling people outside class who weren’t Spanish speakers to call me that.)

    For the record, “Dan” isn’t my real name either. Yes, I acquired the name as part of an intensive language immersion program where we were not permitted to use English at for nearly two years. This name b/c as much a part of me as anything. It is easier to translate into writing than my Western name, and honestly, when meeting people, I offer both names and let them call me whichever they prefer. By the same note, my Western name is traditionally a man’s name, and it is frustrating to explain to people time and again. As an aside, my family used to call me a feminized version of it when I was a child, which I never liked, and still dislike now. Every time they call me it I feel slapped and infantilized. Names have a lot of meaning, even more so if we choose to use or not use them for various reasons. It has nothing to do w/ being accepted, and everything to do w/ personal preference and agency. Trusting that grown ups are capable of making decisions for themselves and supporting those decisions.

    But that’s not the point. The point is that people, as human beings, deserve dignity. It’s the same to me as when one of my transitioning friends asked me to call hir by a different name when I had known her by something else for a long time. I use hir chosen feminine name b/c it is what she wants, and I respect that (and b/f you accuse me, I am not saying that immigrating is the same is transitioning from one sex to another).

    I understand why you want to help people be proud of their names, but you can’t force them to like something they dislike, and it isn’t our place to second guess a person. Like you pointed out, some people get their names changed against their will (and it is extremely common w/ Asian immigrants, like you pointed out and like I mentioned w/ my friend’s family above). Refusing to use a name that someone chooses to go by is basically doing the same thing to that person.

  34. Pingback: Names, words, wev… « random babble…

  35. 34
    Schala says:

    (and b/f you accuse me, I am not saying that immigrating is the same is transitioning from one sex to another)

    Well, unless someone has a particularly androgynous name which, while not that rare, is also not that common, or somehow decide not to change their given name socially – they will always change their name when transitioning. Some simply feminize/masculinize their legal name, many don’t (I didn’t, they’re world aparts).

    Someone immigrating will be faced with cultural forces and have personal preferences, and that relates to the foreignness of their name as well (immigrating can be from UK to US too – then a name change might not be sought).

    Someone transitioning, who’s new name is known by all, and who is still called by their (unchanged) legal name, is being mentally slapped in the face. It’s not only disrespectful to their agency, it’s disrespectful to their whole person. It means someone does not accept who they claim to be, and state so openly, often without thinking they might have offended the other party.

    There may be a parallel here, but having a typical Quebec French-speaking-family name, I’m not well aware of those problems faced by people immigrating.

    People on MWMF forums have openly stated often, that trans women are really deluded/perverted/spy men who want to prey on women, that trans men are deluded women who only want male privilege, and the use of wrong pronouns abounds (wrong name doesn’t usually, since we all use pseudonyms). When someone else without ill intention does the same thing, the association that they might think like those people can still occur, wether their reasoning is even vaguely similar.

    I cut off the whole paternal side of my family (including my father) due to repeated disrespect, even 2 years after the fact.

  36. 35
    PG says:

    Ouyang Dan,

    No, I meant what I said. You don’t have that right over someone. What gives you the right to call someone something they choose not to be called?

    The First Amendment? I can’t tell if you’re an American or not, but if you are, you ought to be aware that with a few exceptions, I can call someone whatever I want. I can call Schala “Dave” on this message board and if the mods don’t block me (a matter wholly within their discretion), then Schala can’t stop me. She and others may not respond to my using that name, in which case I’m losing the whole purpose of communication (being understood by others), but yeah, I do have that right in this country.

    It isn’t a freedom of speech thing, it’s about respect

    Which is fine, but respect, again at least in the American (and indeed Anglo-American) political and legal philosophic traditions, isn’t a matter of rights, whereas freedom of speech very much is a matter of rights. Unless you’re speaking in a different context, one where you can legally force me to show you respect, you’re using the word “right” incorrectly when you refer to it as something that people have with regard to being treated with respect. But since we’re speaking about a U.S. born American politician on a U.S.-based blog, and I’ve identified as American, it would be really odd for you to be talking about rights in a non-American context, especially without identifying what that other context is. In the U.S., you’re wrong, and that’s why I corrected you.

    It has nothing to do w/ being accepted, and everything to do w/ personal preference and agency.

    This may be true for you, but why do you assume that it’s true for all others, including Jindal? As Schala notes, “Someone immigrating will be faced with cultural forces and have personal preferences, and that relates to the foreignness of their name as well (immigrating can be from UK to US too – then a name change might not be sought).”

    I notice that you don’t at all address what I said about social coercion toward assimilation, and instead raise the example of trans people, where of course the coercion goes exactly in the opposite direction: the new name someone wants to be called is one that there is social coercion against because it is perceived as not being appropriate for the person’s gender as designated at birth.

  37. 36
    OuyangDan says:

    I notice that you don’t at all address what I said about social coercion toward assimilation

    B/c it doesn’t fucking matter WHY, like I have said multiple times already. What matters is that a person wants to be called a certain name, and any DECENT person would respect that. I don’t know why it is hard for you to understand that I am saying that.

    Fine, you can argue semantics w/ me all you want over “rights” and freedoms. Call a person anything you want. It’s your right, whatever. It would make you a total jerk to do so, but that would be your right.

    However, instead of ceding that it is about respect, you would rather make assumptions and put words in my mouth. I agree that there is social pressure regarding names for people immigrating. I’ve admitted that. It’s not the opposite of transitioning at all. We are talking about respecting that someone who IS NOT YOU chooses to be called by a certain name, and about YOU REFUSING to acknowledge that it is the decent human thing to do in adhering to it. It’s NOT ABOUT YOU. I don’t even like Jindal, b/c he is a fuckwit w/ bad policies, and a real foot in mouth problem, and here I am defending his right to be called by his name. For reasons I don’t need to understand. What ifs don’t matter b/c it is about HIM, and NOT YOU and YOUR FEELINGS on his chosen name.

    It doesn’t matter which country I am from. You are trying to gloss over my points by acting like I am stupid, and kind of othering me in the process. I don’t know why I’ve incurred your ire, but I am not going to take up more space on this thread arguing w/ someone who can’t see that no matter the situation, a person should be respected enough to be allowed to be called whatever name they choose, no matter how YOU feel about it. Talking to a wall at this point would be more productive.

    Schala said:

    Someone transitioning, who’s new name is known by all, and who is still called by their (unchanged) legal name, is being mentally slapped in the face. It’s not only disrespectful to their agency, it’s disrespectful to their whole person. It means someone does not accept who they claim to be, and state so openly, often without thinking they might have offended the other party.

    Yes! That is exactly what I am saying! I was not trying to equate transitioning and immigration as the same experience, b/c neither of those experiences are mine to equate, but I am trying to show a similarity in the way refusing to use someone’s chosen name is hurtful and dehumanizing. You nailed it right there!

  38. 37
    Ampersand says:

    OuyangDan, I know how frustrating and angering discussions can be. But please try to dial it down a couple of notches.

    Thank you.

  39. 38
    PG says:

    Fine, you can argue semantics w/ me all you want over “rights” and freedoms.

    I don’t consider the First Amendment or the concept of rights generally to be “semantics.” (And if you had been using “fuck” so freely in public 40 years ago, you might have more interest in it too.) I pointed out that technically I have the right to call Jindal whatever I want (with some narrow exceptions), but that I understand you to be meaning that ‘just b/c it bothers me doesn’t make it socially or morally OK to call Jindal by his legal name if he has expressed a preference for “Bobby.”’

    You then got pissed off that I had “corrected” you about whether I have a right to call Jindal something other than Bobby, even though I had said that you were making a social/moral judgment about the matter (as now expressed in your statement “It would make you a total jerk to do so, but that would be your right”).

    You are trying to gloss over my points by acting like I am stupid, and kind of othering me in the process.

    I grasp what you’re saying. It’s not complicated; you’re taking a brightline, no greys, no exceptions stance. I don’t know why you think that because I don’t perfectly, 100%, all-aboard agree with you, that because I have some hesitancies and confused feelings about this due to my own background, I must not understand what you’re saying. Nor am I acting like you’re stupid — that’s actually what you’re doing to me by insisting that I must not understand you when I’ve said over and over that I do understand the position you and nearly everyone on this thread has taken, and am just offering an alternative perspective. I don’t insist that everyone agree with me in order to be worthy of conversation.

    I’m not othering you by pointing out what U.S. law is on the subject of speech; I’m giving information in case you come from a different background. (My understanding is that many European countries, for example, are much more limiting in freedom of speech.)

    I have no idea why you’re taking this personally and claiming that I’m insulting you. Given what you’ve said about Jindal, it certainly doesn’t sound like you’re any friend of his, so I can’t understand why being faced with someone who doesn’t echo your own ideas back is so horrible for you. But if discussing this issue with someone who doesn’t line up behind you and say “rah rah rah” is that distressing, I agree that we probably shouldn’t continue talking.

  40. 39
    Schala says:

    In employment, while someone may have the right to use any name or pronouns for anyone, they could have a complaint against them from the concerned person to the HR department, which would result in a bad comment on their file, or other sanctions if the behavior continues. It’s one of the reasons I’ve had no issue at all at work regarding my being trans, no one dares, eventually no one cares either.

    I guess that doesn’t apply to everywhere. My work has a blanket ban on discrimination and such behavior. You don’t need to find a certain protected category to claim this.

  41. 40
    PG says:

    Schala,

    Yes, there definitely are serious private sanctions against using the wrong name or pronoun for someone, and indeed that these are greater than just the general “don’t be a jerk at work” proscription, because they’re often backed by local, state and federal prohibitions on discrimination and hostile workplaces. (I don’t think I agree with him on this, but Eugene Volokh has argued that such legal prohibitions violate the First Amendment.) However, there aren’t very meaningful sanctions about what someone calls a politician, particularly one on the opposing side, because hostility comes with the job.

    EDIT: And the implementation of this UN resolution provides an excellent example of why I find the insistence on a “right” to respect, rather than a strong moral rationale for respect, to be disturbing.

  42. 41
    Schala says:

    Private employers, of course, may restrict employees’ speech with no First Amendment difficulties, just as private householders and private publishers may restrict speech on their property; 3 but when the government pressures the private employers into restricting speech, the First Amendment steps in.

    I don’t believe my employer was forced to comply with state dictated ways of going about this. They took this avenue of their own accord due to the high diversity of the workforce they employ, small as it may be.

    This summer we were about 400-450. Now we are about 150. Low season, and much of the summer workers were only working for the summer (students). We have people from foreign countries, such as France, Italy, Spain, Japan, Germany, Deutsch, Danmark and others. Discrimination is prevented first and foremost because of them, who are contract workers moved to here in order to participate. This has also served to prevent all discrimination against other employees.

  43. 42
    PG says:

    Schala,

    I don’t believe my employer was forced to comply with state dictated ways of going about this. They took this avenue of their own accord due to the high diversity of the workforce they employ, small as it may be.

    Right, I should have specified that I’m speaking and Volokh is writing from a U.S. law perspective, although I would be surprised to hear that Canada is behind the U.S. in legal prohibitions on harassment in the workplace. While not allowing workers to harass one another of course has inherent benefits to the employer in a happier and more productive workforce, employers that don’t have a diverse workforce sometimes feel it’s more trouble to rein in the majority’s misbehavior than is worthwhile for keeping the minority comfortable. (This is quite common in cases where the first woman comes into a traditionally male workplace — certain factories, auto repair shops, etc. — and the employer doesn’t want to bother with disciplining the dozen men who are overtly or covertly harassing the one woman.)

  44. 43
    Schala says:

    Right, I should have specified that I’m speaking and Volokh is writing from a U.S. law perspective, although I would be surprised to hear that Canada is behind the U.S. in legal prohibitions on harassment in the workplace.

    I’ll admit that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Liberties is intended to be a lot stronger than anti-discrimination laws in the US. Though I don’t know how far-reaching its effects are. A lot of the time, the discriminated employee has little recourses, not having any funds to sue, and the employer knows it can more or less ignore anti-discrimination in those cases.

    A transgender lawyer sued the Registrar of Civil Status (of Quebec province) over their preventing males from adopting female names and vice-versa. And won, since there was no law preventing such. She also sued the National Bank of Canada who wouldn’t hire her (and won). And the Canadian Army over same (not sure what happened yet).

  45. 44
    PG says:

    Schala,

    Is there an equivalent of the EEOC in Canada, i.e. a national government body of some type to which complaints can be brought without having to pay for a lawyer?

  46. 45
    Lu says:

    I’m totally with Jeff on this one.

    My name is hard for a lot of people to pronounce and remember; only about 5 percent get it right on the first try (the rate goes up, but not by a whole lot, if I’ve already introduced myself). This drives me absolutely around the bend — and bear in mind here that I’m not running for office or living in a foreign country or dealing with anything else other than just having an odd name — and when I first had to pick a screen name I went with something no one could screw up, either Lu or Lulu depending on the venue. My real name is Lucia; as advertised by my blog, it rhymes with fuchsia (it does not rhyme with idea, and it has exactly two syllables). Now that I’m more comfortable in my cyberskin, I usually go by Lucia, but on Alas I’ve stuck with Lu because 1) there’s another Lucia whom I haven’t seen post here in quite a while, but she had the name first; 2) everyone here knows me as Lu.

    All of which is to say that Bobby Jindal may very well go by Bobby simply to make life easier for strangers and to avoid being driven around the bend by hearing his name mangled 50 times a day: I’m not sure how to pronounce Piyush, and if meeting him I sure wouldn’t want to screw it up (although now I could just call him Governor). In any case, I don’t need to know why he goes by Bobby; I just need to know that, should we ever reach a first-name basis, that’s what he prefers to be called, and that’s what I should call him, as in, “Bobby, I think your positions foolish and your ideology repugnant.”

    And you may call me Lucia, or Lu, whichever is easier for you.

  47. 46
    Lu says:

    Oh, and by the way, could we extend the same courtesy to Joe “Joe the Plumber” Wurzelbacher, until his 15 minutes are mercifully up? For my money the stupidest remark of the entire political season was “…and his name isn’t even really Joe!”

    (Joe, if you’re reading this? I find your positions foolish and your ideology repugnant.)

  48. 47
    Schala says:

    Is there an equivalent of the EEOC in Canada, i.e. a national government body of some type to which complaints can be brought without having to pay for a lawyer?

    I know you can have free law representation if you’re below a certain income (10,000$ a year is pretty much the limit). I don’t know if there is a government organization representing someone for free though, in human rights or not. Some might do it pro-bono, but ergo, they could be paid, too.

    I think Kimberly Nixon’s lawyer did it pro-bono. Nixon vs VRR in BC, 2002, 2005, 2007.