Indians, like the Chinese, are not “model minorities,” as they do not and cannot identify with the US. This is land formed by the blood, sweat, toil and tears of the Western European man. They share nothing in common with them. Additionally, with leftism as our new religion, they are able to act out their frustrations and figuratively humiliate the historic majority—the people who created all they enjoy, and all they could never create—for the crime of letting them settle in their land and affording them the opportunity to amass fabulous wealth and enjoy a standard of living undreamed of in their native land.(Someone may think that there is a little self-loathing going on here, but he subsequently responds to this charge. Besides, that he may not actually get along with Chinese wouldn't be unexpected. Others do not get along with Chinese as well, and Chinese people have their own chauvinism.)
When push comes to shove, these model minorities will jam-pack the airports gouging each others eyes out to get out here as the world comes crashing down. Such are the vibrant, diverse “citizens” of the Republic.
But I am not worried about them. They are the enemy in the sense that they are easily identifiable and will self deport when this house of cards comes crashing down. The real danger are white liberals. They can’t go anywhere and nobody wants them. Nor will any white man deport or exile his people which means we’re stuck with them.
There are plenty of Chinese and Indians living here in the San Francisco Bay Area. If things get tough in California (or in the United States as a whole), how many of them will leave? How many of their children will go with them? While those who are older, the immigrants or their parents and even maybe a few of the first generation natives, might be inclined to leave, I do not think those who have assimilated to some degree will wish to do so. Because of the strong ethnic ties of the Indian community (interracial marriage is still relatively rare among Indians?), I think Indians may be more likely to leave than ABCs. Most ABCs have adopted the Yankee liberal mindset -- some may preserve an awareness that they are different from their white counterparts. While the cultural differences may be slight, separation because of group or racial identity is no less real and sufficient to prevent real mixing of two peoples. If the children stay, the parents will probably stay as well, unless it is not evident by then that long distance separation may become rather permanent, in which case some may go back to their native countries with the foolish belief that they can continue flying back and forth on airplanes to visit their children.
"Liberal" Robert Lindsay has put up critiques of [Hindu] Indian culture which fault it for the continued misery and poverty of the lower classes. How different are the Indian Christians? I am reminded of AM and her two brothers; they returned to India with their mother while their father stayed here. Economic hardship? I didn't ask and she probably is too young to know. Her family attended St. Mary's Knanaya Mission in SJ, not the Syro-Malabar church in Milpitas.
The OP talks about the different groups collectively called "Indian." Is there more of a sense of a unified identity for immigrants who come to the United States? Who uses the Indian Community Center in Milpitas, for example? It is clear that there are differences between Catholics, Muslims, Hindus, and Sikhs because of their religion. Caste distinctions might be relevant for Hindus in the U.S., but I suspect that those who come here are mostly or all from the higher castes. Is the assimilation rate different between these different religious groups?
(See Lindsay's post on Italian dialects.)
I don't think I posted a link to this piece by Mark Mitchell, did I? The Unmaking and Making of Community
*Someone else writes, "The lack of dissent and the inability to handle dissent is a unique Indian problem (though it is even worse among the Chinese)." I have been wondering whether the concept of face and the practice of saving face (or taking care to save the face of others) arose as a means of mitigating social conflict or strife between kinship groups.