[snigdha]

That’s a great question, and something we grapple with often at The Juggernaut — we want to heal divisions. But one of the things we’ve observed is that healing those divisions also comes with beginning to understand one’s own heritage and feeling human again. (Some of our readers have mentioned how powerful it is for themselves to finally feel seen, which makes them feel more human.)

I would argue that more and more of us actually don’t see ourselves as just Indian or American. More of us see ourselves as multidimensional and want to go deep on some of parts of our identity so that we can understand our place in the world as a global citizen.

Instead, we as humans need to challenge and celebrate our cultures and it's hard to undo or clear the slate of culture, too. Being South Asian does come with its own traumas — and every culture and group has this. By discussing this group’s nuances, we hope to open it up to the world. We also have found several of our readers are not South Asian, and by reading The Juggernaut, they realize how alike we are, not how different. In that way, it’s the opposite of balkanization.

I'd love to continue the conversation and figure out what stories you think we can cover that will help ensure we don't balkanize.

[doctorcroc]

Thanks for the thoughtful response. I agree wholeheartedly with the thought the healing begins with self-understanding. There's a fantastic book about trauma called "The Body Keeps The Score" which explains how past traumas can be unconsciously embedded within the body in ways that talk therapy or pharmaceuticals cannot resolve alone. I bring this up because to your point, being without culture is similar to being disembodied and being traumatized - one needs to reclaim a sense of belonging our background so that one can feel at peace and resolved. For example, I strongly believe that years of slavery has left an indelible mark in African American culture, and we may not understand the scientific explanation until we further study epigenetics, etc.

My fear though is that this very real need to be seen, and heard is being coopted by factions trying to use that very real human need as fodder for power (hence the right's claims of "cultural Marxism").

The balance here lies in celebrating one's heritage, without using it as a token for victimization. Because we get nowhere by further victimizing others - eg. calling someone a colonizer or oppressor. Everyone has trauma, and healing begins with radical inclusion - of everyone. I think you have a huge potential for using The Juggernaut to take the greatest parts of South Asian heritage and sharing that with non South Asians. I think a great success example is western adoption of yoga and pranayama - these are tools that emerged from South Asian culture ages ago, that have a very real place and utility for anyone living in the modern era.

I'll send you a dm with my contact info so we can continue the conversation. Appreciate your openness!

[snigdha]

This line really resonated: being without culture is similar to being disembodied and being traumatized - one needs to reclaim a sense of belonging our background so that one can feel at peace and resolved. So powerful.

I do hear your fear of folks co-opting this human need for power. We definitely don't want that in our community.

We do want The Juggernaut share the best parts (and also call out where we need to improve) about South Asian heritage to a global audience.

[pow_pp_-1_v]

I apologize not adding anything new the discussion but just wanted to thank you both for a nice and reasoned discussion.

Wish everybody (including myself) talked like this.

[nurspouse]

>I bring this up because to your point, being without culture is similar to being disembodied and being traumatized - one needs to reclaim a sense of belonging our background so that one can feel at peace and resolved. For example, I strongly believe that years of slavery has left an indelible mark in African American culture, and we may not understand the scientific explanation until we further study epigenetics, etc.

I would be careful with this.

For context, I'm a third culture kid. I was born and raised in the Middle East, but my ethnicity is not Arab, and I don't have any claim to that area (not a citizen, need a visa to visit, etc). I came to and settled in the US. One of the nice things about the Middle East is that being a third culture kid is not unusual - it's full of them, from all over the world.

Now growing up and going to a school full of students from all over was one of the best things that ever happened to me. Any attempts at indoctrinating a superiority of one culture over others just couldn't stick. It was not a hypothetical discussion for me. I was interacting daily with people from all over, and I could see the flaws in the indoctrination. Even though I was part of an oppressed race with respect to the dominant one (Arab), there was no sense of inferiority. And much, much more importantly, being oppressed did not push me to be close to the culture of my parent's origin, and that was a giant blessing. As such, many people throughout my life have accused me of being "without culture", because I don't identify with any of the "recognized" cultures. Some aspects I borrow from one culture, others from another, and so on - and quite a few do not come from any "recognized" culture.

Getting to your comment, when you say "being without culture", I suspect you have a fairly narrow concept of culture, akin to all those who accuse me (and my "kind") of being without culture. For too many people in the world, culture is almost always tied to either geography, race, or nationality. In reality, culture is a much broader concept. For many/most people, culture is inherently associated with race or geography. But ultimately, culture is about your set of values, rituals, how you view the world, etc. And increasingly in today's world, these are not coming from race. Being in a profession will likely affect your culture. Scientists, programmers, business people all have their own cultures that often set them apart from their fellow countrymen/race. And profession is but one example.

Like it or not, you set your own culture. Some of it just comes naturally from being in a particular society/race, but at the end of the day, it is your choice what aspects you make a part of your identity and what you do not. And the more you do this, the more likely it is that someone is going to label you as "without culture".

It took me many years before I understood the problems associated with being "denied a culture" (e.g. slavery as you mentioned). For a long time I was not very sympathetic to this aspect. Eventually, after much reading on it, I have reversed my position. The evidence is out there, and there is a lot of damage done at a societal level. Nevertheless, an African American who adopts the notion that he is incomplete from a cultural standpoint because of the history of slavery is contributing to his own suffering.

I have nothing against this publication, and if it helps people out, more power to it. I do wish more people would realize that creating an identity based on your race/parents' nationality is not a prerequisite for anything, and you can still be whole if you don't. The corollary is that if you feel something is missing, and you decide to pursue an identity based on race/ethnicity you may still end up less than whole. Don't assume this path is a solution to your needs.

No matter what anyone tells you, you do get to pick your identity. Don't let anyone convince you that you are incomplete if you are not in touch with your ancestral heritage.

Along these lines, I once attended a lecture by a researcher at a local university. I think his research was more on the biological side of the brain, but he frequently collaborated on the "softer" side (psychology, etc). He described one study that I wish I had the reference for. The participants were provided with this prompt: I am _____. They were free to fill in the blank in anyway that felt true for them. The upshot: People who felt part of an oppressed minority focused mostly on their race/gender/sexuality. People who did not feel oppressed wrote ordinary statements like "I am an honest person." Or "I am a loving father". The unfortunate side effect of this is that those in the former camp are much more likely to perceive a negative interaction as tied to race/gender, etc. I personally have experienced this: A friend of mine of the same race as me was "performance managed" and eventually fired. He swore, without any evidence, that the whole thing was racially motivated by his former manager, who came from a race that historically has had issues with his. Now this friend had a history of demonstrating an identity tied to his race, so his reaction did not surprise me at all. Two years later, the exact same thing happened to me: Performance managed for BS reasons, and eventually fired. And my manager was of the same race as his. But the notion that it was racially motivated was just ludicrous to me. If I listed attributes of bad managers, he satisfied most of them. It was trivial for me to explain it away as "crappy manager".

[snigdha]

> I have nothing against this publication, and if it helps people out, more power to it. I do wish more people would realize that creating an identity based on your race/parents' nationality is not a prerequisite for anything, and you can still be whole if you don't. The corollary is that if you feel something is missing, and you decide to pursue an identity based on race/ethnicity you may still end up less than whole. Don't assume this path is a solution to your needs.

> No matter what anyone tells you, you do get to pick your identity. Don't let anyone convince you that you are incomplete if you are not in touch with your ancestral heritage.

Hi — there's a lot of wisdom in this post and I find the term 'third culture kid' fascinating. I agree with you that 'culture' and 'identity' is far more multifaceted than just your race, ethnicity, or parents' heritage. I think we all create our own cultures. And that's the beauty of it today: folks are going deep on different parts of who they are. Some of it might be their ancestral heritage. Some of it might be the culture of how they did school. By no means are we trying to dictate 'culture.'

What we've found from the stories we've published is that people relate to them. For example, our story on Netflix in India is about writers struggling to pitch their ideas — something many entrepreneurs can relate to, not just writers.

Not every story will speak to everyone in the same way because we are all different, but by archiving the stories that we think might not be told otherwise, and paying journalists well so that we as a society don't continue to devalue great writing, we are hoping to create a space where these stories resonate, for whatever reason that might be.

[thekhatribharat]

I agree with the views. Also, this dovetails into how people's nationality becomes a core part of their identity and how this is used by governments to ride the "patriotism" wave — often leading to cold wars and injustice against outsiders. The present “nation-first” campaigns by govts. across the globe is a prime example.

[snigdha]

Agree this is happening - really unfortunate when fear is twisted to harm others. But there's another side of nationalism and pride that is less dangerous and just one of many identities.

[nurspouse]

A few poorly phrased statements in my comment, and even though HN allows me to edit, none of my edits are showing. Some things I'd restate:

>Nevertheless, an African American who adopts the notion that he is incomplete from a cultural standpoint because of the history of slavery is relieving himself of the obligation of shaping his own identity.

And

>Being in a profession will likely affect your culture. Scientists, programmers, business people all have their own cultures that often set them apart from their fellow countrymen/race. Not hard to find two scientists from across the world who are more at ease with each other's company than with people in their own countries.

[dang]

Your edits should be showing no problem. Can you try again? If it still doesn't work, email [e-mail] with your desired text and we'll put it in there, as well as try to track down the bug.

[nurspouse]

Rephrased statements are in the comment above yours. I think I had others but can't recall them.

May be a quirk of my browser...? I could edit the comment above yours just fine though.

[doctorcroc]

I think you misunderstood me -- I agree with you. Hence, my first comment that kinship (and the culture I choose to belong to) is determined more by values and quality of character.

I too am a "third culture" child in some ways. Born in India, raised in a conservative state in the USA, moved to a liberal state in the USA (which feels like a different country at times). I've even had a liberal acquaintance mention to me after the 2016 election that she "couldn't imagine how much worse [I] felt". Why? Because I am a ethnic minority, I need to be extra upset at the result? I resist this trend of treating any "group" as a monolith that all of its members has to adhere to, otherwise be labeled an apostate.

The one area I kind of disagree with you on is that you come off as very individualistic, which is admirable. But at its extreme, it can become a caricature, much like an Ayn Rand novel. Every human willing or not is part of a community, and the effects of its treatment in that community will reflect on its psyche. I referred to the book on trauma because it shows that psychic experiences can become embedded in physiology (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics_of_anxiety_and_str...). And not every individual has the self-determination you do to craft their own identity and resolve their traumas without some level of communal support.

In the case of African descendants of slaves, I'm not arguing that they don't have control over their destiny. Rather, that ignoring hundreds of years of stress and persecution is a myopic way to address historic imbalances. In order to control your future, you have to know your past, and yourself. I think a good example of this in modern life is Kendrick Lamar, who has a beautiful song "i" which is about self-acceptance and the freedom to determine your worth. He even got in trouble for arguing that Black Americans should look inwards first and resolve their internal struggles before trying to change the world (https://www.npr.org/2015/12/29/461129966/kendrick-lamar-i-ca...)

I too am worried about people polarizing based on superficial qualities like race or sexuality. Where does it stop, and why draw the line there? Why not a "asymmetrical face" group or a "under average height" group? Both those groups also probably experienced institutionalized discrimination, but have no torch bearer yet. But we don't fix this problem by yelling at people to be more self deterministic (they would say you have some form of privilege and ignore you anyway). We fix this problem by acknowledging their grievances and usher them into the greater community so that power mongers don't divide and conquer.

[nurspouse]

>I think you misunderstood me -- I agree with you.

Nah, I was mostly hijacking your comment to bring the perspective forward for discussion. Reading the rest of your comment we're pretty much in agreement.

>I've even had a liberal acquaintance mention to me after the 2016 election that she "couldn't imagine how much worse [I] felt". Why? Because I am a ethnic minority, I need to be extra upset at the result?

Yes, I too have lived in both conservative and liberal places. And people in liberal areas are annoying this way. Living in such a place right now, I often joke that the worst part of Trump's election is that it has made all the local liberals even more insufferable.[1][2] Joking aside, this is a serious issue I've seen amongst left leaning folks, and although it's mostly not been directed to me, I've found it incredibly condescending, not to mention quite biased. Elif Shafak gave a fantastic TED Talk[3] which touches on this. When I lived in a very white conservative state, I never witnessed the locals treating others differently because of their appearance/ethnicity. In liberal areas, it is almost the norm - they are much more likely to interact with me based on my race.

Of course, that was years ago, and I don't know how the people are in those cities in the age of Trump. And of course, conservatives had their own set of issues (opposition to good health care, etc).

>The one area I kind of disagree with you on is that you come off as very individualistic, which is admirable. But at its extreme, it can become a caricature, much like an Ayn Rand novel. Every human willing or not is part of a community, and the effects of its treatment in that community will reflect on its psyche.

I'm aware of this, which is why I said I had reversed my position after extensively reading up on the topic. I can't deny the damage such actions do, and I am fortunate to have been somewhat immune from it. My comment is that one should not dump all of it on the history.

Case in point: Recently there has been a flareup between India and Pakistan. On Reddit's front page was a thread from the India subreddit with something like 6000+ comments. One of the top ones: "Let's not forget that the real culprit is the British and the manner they divided the country."[4] Really? Over 70 years after the British have left, it's somehow still there fault? I always have a metric for maturity: You become a mature adult when you stop blaming your parents for your problems (even if there is truth to it). It's when you realize that whatever the cause of your problems, you can't expect others to solve them. 70 years later and Indians still have not grown up.

And trust me: Even without trauma, I know it totally sucks to be in a community where you cannot find like minded folks. I've been halfway there, but not all the way. My brother, OTOH, did not come to the US and at some point had to move back to his "home" country - a country he had never lived in. His home country is very monolithic an homogeneous, and it completely sucks for him. His personality would be quite normal here in the US, but over there multiple people have suggested he has a mental illness and often treat him differently simply because his values differ, and the locals don't have the ability to comprehend that it can be different. No amount of individualism can shield you from that.

>Rather, that ignoring hundreds of years of stress and persecution is a myopic way to address historic imbalances. In order to control your future, you have to know your past, and yourself.

I'm not advocating ignoring history. I am disagreeing with the second sentence. I do not believe that one must know their own (distant/ancestral) past to have a fruitful culture. It's certainly one way, but not the only way, and IMO, not even a particularly good way. It's just a way. I honestly think this is more of an artifact - it's fairly natural that people pass on their culture to their kids in this manner, and when the past has been taken from you, you naturally feel disadvantaged.

>Both those groups also probably experienced institutionalized discrimination, but have no torch bearer yet. But we don't fix this problem by yelling at people to be more self deterministic (they would say you have some form of privilege and ignore you anyway). We fix this problem by acknowledging their grievances and usher them into the greater community so that power mongers don't divide and conquer.

I completely agree with you, as I have been on the receiving end of institutional biases, and have often in the past complained that a lot of these biases are ignored simply because they do not neatly fall into the gender/race/sexuality/age mental models. I don't see this being coupled to the other points in the comments.

[1] In 2017, a (very liberal) friend of mine cut off ties with a sporting club he was involved in, and implied it had to do with the politics of the organizers (conservative). I imagined scenarios where they openly made derogatory remarks akin to the extreme Trump voters, or otherwise ridiculed them for being on the losing side, or something. But no: The reason was that they were not "active enough" in the ongoing protests in the city against Trump's misogynistic remarks. My friend was essentially trying to say "Hey, I can be cool with you being conservative, but you have to prove you're the right type of conservative by taking part in these protests." How the tables had turned, when just a decade ago liberals criticized conservatives who demanded Muslim Americans make an explicit show of being loyal to the US.

[2] The January after the election, I attended a workshop series on soft skills. The person running the workshop started the series with comments along the lines of "I know you're feeling depressed at the outcome of the election", etc - without any qualifiers. It was just a given that no one in the workshop voted for Trump. It was otherwise a great workshop, but I've never recommended it to others because of this behavior (several similar occurrences in other sessions of the series).

[3] https://www.ted.com/talks/elif_shafak_the_politics_of_fictio...

[4] You get similar sentiments in African countries about both the English and the French.