Posted by Ir (Helen) on: 05.04.2006 /
Yesterday Priti submitted these comments under the blog entry It’s National Hemant Appreciation Day:
Jim,
I noticed on the blog and on several of the taped interviews that you often say you are “partial” to Indians. In fact you overtly stress how much you “appreciate” and “like” Indians. To me, as an Indian, this seems very strange. In all of my experiences a caucasian man, who purports to “like” Indians, is interested in something more than fostering relationships between certain ethnic groups.
I would have appreciated it if you didn’t *always* point out Hemant’s ethnicity and your *acceptance* of it. I think that we are all human beings here and instead of saying “I trusted that Hemant would do what he did…because he was Indian” was an insult at least! Please know that it is offensive when you talk about a person’s specific race in a stereotypic way, whether positive or negative. It would be the same as saying “Yea I knew he was going to be cheap because he was Jewish” or “I knew he was going to control the situation because he was German”. We are all individuals.
(You can read Jim’s specific response to Priti in the same comments section)
Here’s a portion of the Soul-Dish interview with Jim:
Why were you so drawn to Hemant Mehta?
I have lived in India for short periods of time over the past 20 years. It is the most intriguing place I have ever traveled to. I am utterly taken by it and the peoples that live there. After getting into the bidding I realized Hemant was Indian - that took his stock way up for me.
So him being Indian helped?
Yes. I have a number of young Indian friends in India with whom I regularly correspond. I think very highly of them. Because of my predisposition and experience I was able to quickly ascertain that this was not a scam, joke or game. When he said he would go to church with an open mind - I knew he meant it. I don’t think I would have bid if it was a white person.
Tell me about your first encounters with him.
I flew to Chicago to meet Hemant within about 3 days following the bidding. I thought the whole project we were embarking on was pretty funny and would be a hoot no matter how it all turned out. Hemant was more than I hoped for. He was curious, passionate about his cause and genuinely open to the possibility of being converted if “something happened to him” on his journey into church. I don’t think this project would have played out as well as it has if it weren’t for Hemant’s kindness and humility toward those who are often unkind and dismissive toward him. He frankly models many of the best kinds of behaviors I hope to get Christians more interested in.
Here’s what I’m thinking:
It makes sense to me that I should not let prior bad experience with members of a group cause me to dismiss a person out of hand simply because they belong to that group.
Jim clearly said in the interview above that Hemant’s ethnicity was a deciding factor in him placing a bid on a stranger.
My guess about why Hemant’s ethnicity appealed to Jim was that when Jim was in India, Jim perceived that Indians had somewhat different values from Americans, and he liked the differences. And Jim anticipated that Hemant would have been raised with those values.
Comment by: Tom in Sacramento
1That depends on whether you place a high value on PC. Or, said another way, it depends on whether you value your own integrity and honesty more than you value what other people think of you.
I have to admit that, after working in a large, public, very PC research university for 35 years, I winced when I read what Jim said. but, as you suggest, Ir, I took it to be an honest evaluation based on Jim’s experiences…even if not entirely PC. ;-)
Comment by: Ben
2Prejudice is pre-judging- it is usually thought of as a negative judgement, but is as applicable as a positive as well. On the whole I think it would be good if we were all positively predjudiced toward everyone- always start a relationship expecting the best…
Comment by: Ir
3I love that idea, Ben!
There’s one caution I would have about it: if the other person has a track record of being dangerous I think for our own safety we should be careful. But hopefully that’s not usually the case.
For what it’s worth, I believe that when you think the best of people and treat them accordingly, you are more likely to get the best from them. It often really does change the way they behave towards you.
Comment by: Jayson B.
4Does that make it ok?
If Jim honestly evaluated that Hemant would be drinking pig’s blood, does that make it ok then?
Even if it’s in a positive light, it can still be negative.
Comment by: Jim Henderson
5Tom
Knowing the environment you have worked in for 35 years I especially enjoyed your comments
Comment by: Tom in Sacramento
6Jayson,
Your question goes right to the point I was trying to make. Whether or not it is okay for Jim to have the “gall” to publicly acknowledge his predisposition, based on his own experience, to value the integrity of Indians, depends on the relative weight you give to Truth vs. PC.
Imagine how refreshing it would be if the people in our lives were honest, rather than fearing public condemnation for not being PC or, worse, lawsuits because they’d been offended. “I’m sorry. We refused your loan request because you have a track record of spending your money very foolishly.” “We hired you because, being gay, we know we won’t have you taking a lot of child-care sick leave.” “We didn’t hire you because you dress like a slob.” And on, and on.
People who cared and wanted to get ahead would know exactly what they needed to work on. People who didn’t care wouldn’t walk away wondering if thy got the straight skinny.
Since I value Truth more than PC, I’m inclined to say that his honesty is laudable and ought to serve as a model for everyone. It also suggests to me that I can trust him to be honest in other matters.
My two bits. YMMV.
Comment by: Ir
7If Jim assumed based on his experience in India that Hemant drank pig’s blood and that led him to dismiss the possibility of working with Hemant out-of-hand because of it, I would say that Jim’s assumptions are unhelpfully limiting to him and Hemant.
However, if Jim assumed Hemant drank pig’s blood and thought “Hey, I’ve always wanted to work with someone who drinks pig’s blood!” and it encouraged Jim to make the initial contact, I don’t see how it has unhelpfully limited anything. As soon as Jim got to know Hemant he would have quickly found out he’s a vegetarian but at the same time he would have gained enough other real knowledge about Hemant that proceeding further would be based on who Hemant is as an individual, rather than Jim’s presuppositions.
In other words, it seems to me being predisposed towards someone is not as harmful as being predisposed against, because being predisposed in favor leads to gathering real information which will correct the presuppositions where they need correcting. And the presuppositions will become irrelevant anyway now one has real knowledge about the individual they related to.
On the other hand, being predisposed against someone probably won’t lead to a situation where the truth about that person becomes known, so the presupposition will never get corrected and the error will persist and be unhelpfully limiting.
Comment by: Ir
8Tom I’m glad you brought up the issues you did. After thinking about Jim’s comments and Priti’s, it seems to me that it’s a shame if we cannot even openly say something like “My experience is that Indians value integrity more than Americans.
If we could say such things openly we perhaps could go on to ask “What are Indians doing better than us in communicating the importance of integrity to their children?” And we could study whether what they do differently is something we could apply, or whether we wouldn’t want to because they do at at the expense of something else we don’t want to give up.
We deny ourselves those sorts of opportunities if we create an environment in which it is not acceptable to even talk about such things.
Comment by: KSG
9I found the use of the term Indian refreshing in that it actually meant “a person from the nation of India” and therefore it didn’t depict race as much as it did location. But I should add that in my world, “Indian” is used as a derogitory slur against aboriginal persons & culture (a culture I share through my grandmother).
Comment by: Jim Henderson
10I do believe this especially when it comes to intellectual integrity- others may disagree but that has been my experience from living in India with Indian people.
KSG- I obviously did not mean Native Americans or Aboriginals - I think you know that - I hope.
I think we are currently living through a historical time where individualism has been raised to an unsustainable level of worship (aka PCism).
Comment by: Esther
11Wow! This is the beauty of our bloggers here!
We treat every opinion with respect. We weren’t quick to respond with offensiveness but instead we pondered and thought through the whole issue. And then we honestly, and politely stated out our thought…
Something (although that was no one’s intention) that could stir up mis-understanding, resentment, or even hatred; ended up being another insightful enlightenment!
Ir, I really appreciate your way of handling “touchy” issues :-)
I’ve learnt a lot from it!
Comment by: Jim Henderson
12Me too
Comment by: Tom in Sacramento
13Ir, #8, you nail it! that is exactly the reason that PC is so destructive. Everyon thinks they are being open and above board, when, in fact, they have narrowed the ROAA, thus closing potentially valuable lines of thought and reflection.
The other day there was a wonderful (I thought) piece by a guy I’ve come to respect very much, Shelby Steele, writing about the consequences of the White Man’s Guilt. You can find it here:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008318
Whether you wind up agreeing with him or not, he raises a worthwhile question that PC would never tolerate. Just one recent example.
Great insight, Ir.
Comment by: KSG
14Jim, re#10
Thanks, Yes I did recognize that it wasn’t a derogitory comment. Indian meaning ‘from India’.
It’s interesting how one word can have different meanings to different people based solely on experience (or lack of), yet we all persist in thinking that everyone else will understand our interpretation (and that it is correct!).
Isn’t our current level of individualism the result of post modern thought (reletivism)? Or did I misinterpret the data?
How do we as a culture move away from that type (PC) of thinking?
Comment by: CD
15I’m part Northern Native American, Ute Tribe, part German, part English, etc… I was raised a Christian and now am a Messianic-Jewish “Christian” (believer in the Jewish Messiah who died for everyone). I personally agree with the original complaint, though I would like to clarify that point a bit. Essentially, when you feel the need to point out someone’s race, even in a positive light by saying “even though she is dutch, she doesn’t wear wooden shoes”, you point out a sterio-type when it didn’t need to be pointed out at all, and you try to make yourself look good in the process, but in the end, that backfires.
If someone were to try to steriotype me, I’d be a corn eating, cream-dumping-all-over-everything-I-eat-or-drink, nazi-with-a-Jewish-identity-crisis-complex! I tend to avoid corn (high carb), I can’t use cream (milk allergy), I think Hitler had psych problems, I believe that Jesus is still a Jew and also that He can be seen in the Feasts of the Lord (Lev. 23), and I refuse to keep any “Christian” holiday that Constantine or other gentiles invented for Christans to keep instead of the Jewish customs they had been keeping before that.
So, stick me in whatever shoe-box you like, but also, measure your foot and your mouth to be sure they are the same size, ok? (*I claim dibs on that joke).
Comment by: Ir
16CD thanks for your response.
I don’t like labels but for honesty’s sake I’ll admit that saying you’re a Messianic Jew predisposes me in your favor because the others I know are neat people.
So go ahead and hate me for stereotyping you if you like! ;)