Perceptions of Race-Based Discrimination Among First-Generation Asian Indians in the United States

Participants

Participants included 20 men and 30 women who ranged in age from 29 to 67 years (M = 45.56, SD = 9.71). All participants were born in India, represented different regions, and had immigrated between 18 and 46 years of age (M = 25.39, SD = 4.33). All participants had a college education and were bilingual or multilingual. With regard to occupations, 41 were employed in professional positions such as engineers, scientists, financial consultants, teachers, and physicians; 6 were homemakers; and 3 were retired. Three participants identified as upper class, 21 as upper-middle class, and 26 as middle class. In terms of religious orientation, 38 identified as Hindu, 7 had no religious affiliation, 3 identified as Jain, 1 as Roman Catholic, and 1 was agnostic. Of the 50 participants, 1 identified as bisexual and the rest identified as heterosexual.

Recruitment and Interviewing

Participants were solicited through a purposeful, snowball sampling method using personal, social, and professional contacts. Criteria included being first-generation Asian Indians (i.e., immigrated to the United States after age 18; Inman, Ladany, & Constantine, 1999) and conversant in English. After receiving informed consent, a mutually convenient time was scheduled for the focus group and participants were compensated with a US$15 gift card.

Focus Groups

Nine focus groups (four to eight members in each group) were conducted in English. Consistent with published guidelines (Krueger & Casey, 2000), the interviewer was not directly known to the participants and groups were held in spaces where participants felt comfortable (i.e., participants’ homes and workplace). Focus groups lasted 1.5 to 2 hr. This methodology was used to capture the communal-collective orientation that has been identified as an important coping strategy for the Asian Indian community (Inman, Yeh, et al., 2007; Tummala-Narra et al., 2011). Focus groups increase the ability of participants to interact with each other, trigger memories, or generate thoughts that would otherwise not be available in an individual context and result in more in-depth discussions of the topic (Krueger & Casey, 2000).

Measures

Data Analysis

Grounded theory analysis was used (Strauss & Corbin, 1998) because (a) there is a lack of theory explaining the phenomenon of racial discrimination for first-generation Asian Indians in the United States, (b) current developed models have been tested on non-Asian Indians (Alvarez, Juang, & Liang, 2006), and, more importantly, (c) current theories do not address the role of other variables (i.e., caste system, colonization) important to the Asian Indian experience (Creswell, 2012). Using constant comparison analysis, we hoped to develop a framework that would help explain the processes related to the phenomenon (Creswell, 2012; Strauss & Corbin, 1998).

All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. The first three authors served as focus group leaders and were primary data raters. These included a first-generation Asian Indian female counseling psychologist who immigrated to the United States at the age of 22, a 1.5-generation Asian Indian female clinical psychologist who immigrated to the United States at the age of 7, and a 2nd-generation Asian Indian female counseling psychologist who was born in the United States. We began with open coding, followed by axial coding, and finally selective coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Core themes and categories were examined across cases (e.g., constant comparison) to assess similarities and differences across all groups. With open coding, we began by examining words, sentences, and small paragraphs to develop potential themes while staying close to participants’ words. For example, in attempting to understand how discrimination was discussed back in India, one participant said, “Indian philosophy teaches about tolerance.” We labeled this cultural message tolerance of discrimination. We noted other cultural messages such as “programmed not to make waves,” and “don’t want to talk about bad experiences,” which we initially labeled cultural message: do not discuss discrimination. Eventually, these three statements became coded as cultural messages with “do not discuss” and “tolerance” becoming properties of the category. Other dimensions that emerged within this discussion were related to the caste system (e.g., “India is very caste-based,” and “taught to discriminate against people of lower castes”). We designated this socialization within caste system. Codes were expanded and differentiated as we continued to analyze the experience of addressing discrimination. In the second level of analysis, axial coding, these open codes were condensed to bring the data to a more abstract conceptualization and create a broader category. Thus, cultural messages and caste system were subsumed under, and became properties of, a larger core category named preimmigration socialization that later became part of the evolving theory. All themes and categories were discussed until a consensus was reached. Two counseling psychologists, serving as auditors (1.5-generation Filipino American male and a 2nd-generation Taiwanese American female), conducted validity checks throughout the data analytic process.

Establishing Data Trustworthiness

Consistent with Yeh and Inman (2007), we evaluated the trustworthiness of the data (i.e., accuracy and consistency of data interpretation) against three criteria: researchers’ self-reflexivity, the credibility and adequacy of data, and the interpretation of data. In qualitative research, data collection and analysis are never separate from the culture and the self of the researcher. As such, the threat of self-reflexivity can occur in two ways: being an insider to the culture of the participant and researcher bias. Because three of the researchers were Asian Indians and hence insiders to the culture, we used the strategy of investigator triangulation (Denzin, 1978). This involved using two auditors outside of the Asian Indian culture who assessed the validity of the procedures and categories and provided alternative perspectives to those of the research team (i.e., theoretical triangulation) based on their research expertise in racism and racial experiences. This helped ascertain that the data accurately represented participants’ voices.

At the onset, the research team independently identified their biases and expectations that could affect data analysis and interpretation. The three Asian Indian researchers reflected on their own experiences of race and racism in the United States, and then discussed these experiences throughout the project. All five authors believed that participants would see themselves as targets of racial discrimination, with three of the authors expecting perceptions of racism to have increased post 9/11. Four authors believed that racism would be based on more personal and visible characteristic (e.g., skin color, accent, foreigner status, food).

The next criterion for establishing trustworthiness, adequacy of data, refers to gathering data until a point of saturation, wherein new cases do not add any additional information to the findings (Yeh & Inman, 2007). Saturation was reached by Focus Group 7. We collected data from an additional two groups without finding any new themes. The constant comparison method allowed us to assess divergent and convergent data and to identify discrepancies. Categories were reviewed and revised to accurately reflect participants’ experiences.

The third threat to trustworthiness is the interpretation of data, which occurs when one is not listening to the participant’s voice and is unaware of one’s own bias or framework. To minimize this threat, we maintained detailed notes or memos (Strauss & Corbin, 1998) that highlighted our questions or reactions to the data. In writing the results, we stayed close to the participants’ words by highlighting quotes from the data set that reflected their voices.

Factors Influencing Perceived Experiences With Discrimination

Consistent with Figure 1, participants highlighted four personal factors that influenced their perceptions and experiences of discrimination: (a) Physical Appearance, (b) Professional Status, (c) Personal Behaviors of Indians, and (d) Level of Acculturation (Figure 1). Physical appearance (i.e., skin color) was seen as a risk by a majority of the participants. Participants felt a false sense of being a U.S. American, especially for their children, because “as long as they have brown skin, they will feel repercussions.” Participants also felt targeted due to their accent, speech, and attire (e.g., wearing saris). Conversely, participants’ professional status (e.g., doctor) was seen as a protective factor. Participants shared that “the Indian community is educated, upscale, made up of professionals. They are hard working, perceived as smart, respected for their intellect, and have positive stereotypes (re: math/science) and hence do not struggle.” They suggested that the model minority status was a form of social and cultural capital for Asian Indians. Participants also believed that Indians perpetuated discrimination through their own personal behaviors. For instance, participants shared, “Indians set the stage by their behaviors” (e.g., stereotyping, lack of community, engagement, not taking responsibility for their behaviors).

We create a stereotype behavior, we help them to discriminate [against] us . . . my brother works for one of these software companies and their whole group is pretty much all Indians and then one White person walks into the office and everybody is looking at him as if he is a stranger there. So he feels very uncomfortable and leaves at once.

Another personal factor influencing discrimination was participants’ level of acculturation. Participants believed that lack of assimilation to U.S. cultural norms perpetuated discrimination: “the fact that you didn’t grow up watching your brother play baseball. You missed a lot of that growing up . . . you know the socialization thing? So by osmosis you have not assimilated Americana.” Conversely, another participant shared, “a lot of Indians, especially the educated professional society, come here and immediately wear jeans. [When] we adapt [to] the American way of dress, I think that helps us blend in.”

Environmental factors that participants perceived as a risk of, and/or protection from, discrimination pertained to (a) Openness to Diversity, (b) the U.S. Being a Progressive Society, (c) the Presence of Ethnic Enclaves, and (d) Growing Visibility as a Community (Figure 1). Participants believed that increased exposure to diverse communities led to greater openness to diversity. In “remote, predominantly White Caucasian cities, people have little experience with Indian professionals.” “Mid-west cities and small towns” were seen as “conservative and narrow-minded.” However, participants perceived the United States as a progressive society (e.g., “elected a Black president”) with diversity being the norm. Participants believed that in comparison with Australia, Britain, and South Africa, “America is more open to immigrants, [there is] lesser discrimination because workplaces have stronger ethos for social equality thorough policies.” Moreover, participants believed that when they lived in ethnic enclaves, they experienced less discrimination. However, the growing visibility of the Indian community was seen as both an asset and a threat. Participants felt that the Indian stereotype had changed with Americans’ interest in technology. Although Indians moving into a neighborhood may raise the value of the neighborhood, “All these IT people coming to that vocation, taking over as competitors bring negative attention on the community.”

Perceptions of Race-Based Discrimination

Our participants clearly recognized what constituted racism as they identified several types of racist events at the individual (i.e., acting on belief about superiority of own race over another), cultural (i.e., values, traditions promoting dominance of one group over another), and institutional (i.e., laws and policies that restrict rights or choices) levels (Alvarez, 2009; Jones, 1997). At the individual level, participants spoke about being direct targets of overt racism. For example, being told “go back to your country,” made to “wait longer at a restaurant,” or “being searched while traveling.” In addition, participants shared their frustrations of people not being able to say their names or having to repeat their names, “They can pronounce these different Polish names without any problem, but they cannot say your name.” Participants also identified individual-level discrimination at the workplace:

I was being promoted and my immediate boss had . . . to really make a case because of the questions that were being asked—how do you know that her education is good enough, because my education is from India.

At the cultural level, participants highlighted racism pre 9/11 (e.g., discrimination by Dot Busters). Participants also mentioned racism post 9/11: “you know, as a group, after 9/11, the Sikhs were discriminated violently because of absolute ignorance. Just because they see the beard and the turban.” Likewise, they spoke of stereotypes that highlighted the cultural differences between them and those perceived as “Americans”:

I have been in the U.S. for about 3 and a half years, [and] I think this discrimination comes from people trying to stereotype you [based on the] country you come from . . . and in particular on being Brown [skinned]. What does Brown have to do with ones behavioral patterns? Are our mannerisms different from others?

In this regard, participants shared that mainstream U.S. individuals did not make an effort to understand cultural differences that exist within or across ethnic communities. For example, “Even if a Spanish person calls, the first thing they say [is], ‘Oh I don’t understand. It seems like it is an Indian.’ They give [the phone] to me and it’s a Spanish person. [As if] I understand them.” Outsourcing of jobs to India as well as Asian Indian portrayals in the U.S. media were areas in which this community was perceived negatively. In essence, U.S.-born individuals’ perceptions of India seemed to affect their perceptions of Asian Indians in the United States.

At the institutional or systemic levels, participants spoke of immigration quotas for Asian Indians, racial profiling by law enforcement, cruelty experienced by children in schools, realtors avoiding showing houses in certain areas, and faculty not wanting to work with Asian Indian students. In addition, participants described the perception that Asian Indians “stole seats” (i.e., open positions) in academic settings:

[in medical schools] I have seen when we make decisions on students and there are like these MDs, PhDs [who] are senior medical personnel and most often our Indians are the ones who take the seat. But, when we are discussing the seats some of them [the non-Indian MDs and PhDs] say there are a lot of Indians.

Participants also described limited health care services and glass ceilings in jobs as other examples of institutional-level discrimination.

Although participants experienced overt forms of racism at the three levels, a central overarching experience consisted of subtle discriminatory experiences. “It’s subtle. They won’t come out and tell you, but you can feel it.” “They will not tell you that they do not want to work with you because you are Indian. They will say, you know what . . . I am already working with somebody else . . .” These subtleties frequently led our participants to question whether they experienced discrimination at all. In effect, several of the participants reported that they Experienced No Discrimination or seemed reticent to label the discrimination:

There might be some rare cases where people don’t like your color, don’t like your accent and they may have some kind of jealous [feeling] about you, they may treat you bad. I mean, I had a couple of those small instances, but I cannot directly relate them to my discrimination.

Role of Preimmigration Experience on Perceived Discrimination and Coping

Participants’ preimmigration experience influenced not only how they understood their experiences of discrimination but also their coping with discrimination (Figure 1). The markers for this experience were based in an (a) exposure to diverse cultural experience and communal tensions, (b) caste-based socialization, and (c) cultural messages based in British Rule. Although participants spoke positively about their exposure to great diversity with regard to religion and regional backgrounds (e.g., different holidays, multilingual environments), they highlighted the ethnic, religious, and regional tensions prevalent in India as well. One participant shared, “I think Indians are the biggest racists . . . look at the regionalism in India.” Within this context, participants spoke to tensions between Hindus and Sikhs, Hindus being taught not to speak to Muslims, differences between the North and South of India, and derogatory name calling between different ethnic groups. Against this backdrop, participants spoke to the influence of the caste system. One participant stated, “The Indian society is very caste and race conscious . . . we have this hanging over us . . . I think we bring that baggage with us.” The effects of the caste system, “is always there,” even as an adult.

Relatedly, participants spoke about the cultural messages they received about dealing with discrimination and the caste system within the context of British colonial rule. Participants shared that they did not talk about caste even though it was a part of their daily lives. They said, “we were raised not to speak up to authority,” “not make waves outside the home,” and “being ruled by the British, we are followers.” It appears that an Indian upbringing meant that they could talk about caste issues at home but not question them outside the home. A second cultural message, a British colonial vestige, was valuing light/White skin. Even with arranged marriages in India, participants noted, “[the] fairer your skin, the prettier you are.” A third remnant of the British colonial rule was being mistrustful of foreigners: “We grew up with messages about Westerners as bad or uncaring of people in developing countries.”

Several aspects of this socialization created feelings of dissonance. Realizing that discrimination was socially accepted (e.g., having servants sit on the floor) and knowing that it was wrong, but not being able to speak to it, was challenging. “We rarely discussed it. I obeyed my parents. It wasn’t, like you had to think beyond your bubble.” Participants spoke to mixed messages from parents: “they used to preach, treat everyone equally . . . but it actually hit home [when] both their kids [got] married out of the community, that was a big deal for them.” Such contradictory messages along with the social acceptance of caste-based discrimination perpetuated the karmic notion that “what you do (discriminate) comes around to you.”

Intervening Variables Influencing Coping Strategies

Three factors directly or indirectly influenced participants’ coping strategies: (a) Psychological Impact, (b) Generational Differences, and (c) Appraisal of Discrimination (Figure 1). Participants spoke of the “subtle [psychological] impact on the psyche.” In particular, they spoke about feeling marginalized: “It’s emotionally draining and you are alone and feeling isolated.” They spoke to experiencing dissonance: “You are shocked when you experience discrimination,” and “it was surprising because I didn’t face this type of discrimination before.” In this regard, participants identified feelings of helplessness, sadness, anger, and anxiety: “You are hurting because you know what happened. I started crying . . . I could not express the outrage and the injustice, there is confusion in your mind.” “It hurts you, it bothers you, but in a court there is nothing you can prove. It’s my word against his.”

Another variable that influenced participants’ coping strategies seemed to be based in generational differences. Participants noted that generations react differently: “Second-generation takes it easier than first . . . they are more accepting and say to ignore the discrimination.” Participants believed that “second-generation do not have the same hang ups as first-generation.” Conversely, first-generation individuals were seen as “carrying more baggage and being more realistic” about the experience of discrimination. Relatedly, they felt that there seemed to be a role reversal where children tended to take on a teaching role with first-generation parents in dealing with discrimination. Participants shared, “they get mad at me, ‘dad, your behavior, you are not behaving good.’” These ponderings created parenting dilemmas for our participants. For instance, some parents wondered, “What is my children’s experience like? . . . [I] hope that they do not feel different from other children.” Conversely, our participants were proud of their second-generation children at having the advantage of being exposed to the U.S. culture. One participant shared, “he [second-generation son] knows how to handle discriminatory experiences better than I do because I’m the one who is not in that world all the time, he is there 18 hours a day.” Another noted, “The difference is, they are very outspoken . . . I feel proud that they can fight their battle and I know that they are successful.”

When selecting a coping strategy, our participants seemed to appraise the discrimination through multiple lenses: their resources and abilities based in their preimmigration experience as well as the specific instance of racism. At first, they spoke to the ambiguous and unintentional nature of discrimination. One participant shared,

Here you are not sure if they are being genuinely nice to you or only superficially . . . there is the sweet face talk, not sure how to read signals . . . it’s more subtle . . . it’s like you sense it with your interpersonal intelligence, that there is something that is not welcoming.

Another participant shared, “It’s hard to qualitatively or quantitatively say because I don’t have the data for why I did not get the job, no way to question the [interviewer].” Within this context, participants seemed to struggle with how they perceived certain incidents, unsure of the cause of others’ motivations, attitudes, and actions: “Sometimes it is discrimination and sometimes it may not be; two people can experience the same event differently.”

Resoundingly, participants spoke to the fact that Indians discriminate too. Frequently they compared the discrimination in India with that in the United States suggesting that discrimination in India was worse: “We discriminate more in India,” “Indians make nasty remarks about India, North Indians make disparaging comments about South Indians . . .” In relation to this, our participants felt that discrimination was inevitable: “It’s happening everywhere . . . Irish Americans faced discrimination, it’s not just Indians, Chinese, Koreans. No matter what this discrimination is, it’s going to be there.”

In some ways, our participants had internalized the discrimination. They noted how they “put kids under pressure to work hard . . . it’s internal to Indians. Sometimes it’s self-imposed.” “We have thick skin or maybe we are ignorant due to the subtle messages growing up, we take it in stride.” Despite this personalization, participants saw discrimination as contextualized or situational. For example, a person shared, “I saw a commercial about two Indians and I thought it was hilarious, but if a non-Indian was laughing, then I might find it offensive.”

Another participant shared,

You may win or you may lose. But, it’s not worth it. It’s not worth your time or your life. In fact, there was one incident [where] a Black guy pointed a gun at us . . . It’s not worth fighting with that guy and winning it . . . So, you got to be situational.

However, participants noted how their perspectives about discrimination changed over time and context: “Until we settle here, we don’t really notice.” Another participant noted,

Never thought about having to think or talk about racism in India. I never thought I would experience racial discrimination when I moved to the U.S. It did not hit me until later when the outsourcing boom came up . . . I never thought I was different from anyone else.

Coping Strategies in Dealing With Race-Based Discrimination

Coping seemed to be influenced by both participants’ preimmigration history as well as the intervening variables (Figure 1). For instance, Avoidance was frequently used as a coping strategy. A few participants stated, “I did not do anything,” “When it does not affect my life, I tolerate it and avoid the emotionality.” In avoiding dealing with discrimination, participants seemed to have a sense of resignation or disengagement with the situation, as noted in the following quotes: “Sometimes I feel its no use,” “There is only so much you can do about it.” “You live with it, that’s it.” Participants also felt the need to be cautious by choosing their battles:

[We] need to be judicious, weigh the pros and cons of the situation. [For instance,] initially when [my] immigration status was tentative, [I] tended to stay quiet. If [I] applied for a permanent residence, what if that guy put some remarks that may harm me for the rest of my life? At that stage you are so insecure you keep quiet.

Another important element was the need to be a model citizen through overcompensation and overachievement—a need to excel as a way of making up for any negative stereotypes and perceptions toward the community.

When I am out in public, not just in the U.S. but in any country, I feel as if I am representing India. I want to showcase India and the Indianness to the best. I want to become an ambassador to my country, deliver the best, always over perform, have that internal desire to show how super valuable I am.

Despite these sentiments, several of our participants seemed to directly address the discrimination, stating that one needed to “recognize that you fight for the entire community, [or else we] will become third-class citizens if we don’t watch out.” Another shared, “I was aghast that she talked to me like that, I am not a confrontational person but [I said] ‘What do you mean? Why would I [remain silent]? This is my country too, you know.’” Interestingly, there was an educational element in the way they handled perceived discrimination. For instance, one participant shared about an incident experienced by her daughter:

I remember that there was this African American girl who said something like “You are brown, you are dirty.” My daughter was surprised. She said, “She was like me, she was dark brown . . . why did she say this to me when she was dark brown.” I made it an opportunity to talk about things a little bit, about race. Just in the way that a 4 and a half year-old can understand . . . I also wanted to educate the teacher.

However, participants’ preimmigration socialization seemed to clearly dictate the next two strategies that they identified. Because they felt that discrimination was a function of assimilation levels, they believed that it was important to fit into U.S. norms. They said, “I tried to assimilate,” “changed name to fit in,” and “changed way of dress to fit in.” They also noted that it was important to put discriminatory experiences into perspective. “Discrimination is how you take it; give the person the benefit of [the] doubt . . . [a] few people make life harder, others are good.” Finally, participants also mentioned that they learned to cope through time: “. . . over time, you slowly learn to speak up because if you don’t speak up they will just bypass you.”

Insights on Future Coping

Finally, participants shared thoughts of how such race-based discriminatory incidents should be dealt with in the future. Participants realized a desire/need to talk about the issue. In this context, they reflected on the social action needed in the community. Participants spoke about the need to be proactive at individual, communal, and institutional levels. At an individual level, participants felt that they “need more people to identify with the issue . . . need to get the word out . . . need to change mind-set of Indians, unite Indians.” At the communal level, participants felt the need to “educate people about the positive things about Indians, the need [for Indians] to engage in community service so that Indians are seen as giving back not just taking jobs.” At an institutional level, participants felt that there was a “need [for] more people occupying key roles (school boards) . . . to make ourselves more visible. The only way it’s going to sort is if we become politically active.” An important element here was the need to have confidence in self. Participants said, “Be comfortable in your own skin, be proud of our identity . . . don’t be apologetic about your Indian traits.” They noted,

We have [to have a] strong sense of identity like the Jewish . . . It’s a community where they have been through a lot and they are open about discussing all these taboo issues; they don’t take “no” for an answer.

Relatedly, they spoke about seeking support through building coalitions and developing a support system:

We have the language-based groups, race-based groups, and also the minority, ethnic-based groups. We need to be part of those. [When] anything affects the community as a whole, or any segment of society, we should be vocal. We should collectively do something to fix that problem.

Interestingly, throughout these revelations, our participants sometimes laughed when sharing stories about discrimination, suggesting nervousness in discussing a challenging topic.

Summary of Results

Taken together, several of the aforementioned factors helped inform a theoretical model for first-generation Asian Indian postimmigration race-based discriminatory experiences. Specifically, personal and environmental risk and protective factors as well as the preimmigration socialization experience seemed to influence Asian Indians’ perceptions of race-based discrimination at the individual, cultural, and institutional levels. Moreover, their experience of discrimination not only created significant psychological impacts but their experiences with the caste system, the British rule, as well as their exposure to communal tensions back home (i.e., preimmigration socialization) influenced how they appraised the discrimination. Coping strategies seemed to develop in response to feelings of marginalization and helplessness (psychological impact) in the face of discriminatory events. The strategies used to cope with discrimination were further influenced by several contextual and intervening variables, namely, their preimmigration socialization, generational status, and their appraisal of the discrimination. Important insights gained included a potential for action, whether it involved being proactive, being comfortable in one’s skin, or seeking support in the community.

Contextualizing Racial Discrimination

Our findings clearly highlight the tensions and ambiguities surrounding the role of race-based discrimination in Asian Indian lives. Although our participants prided themselves in their diverse backgrounds and spoke to a familiarity with, and exposure to, regional and ethnic tensions within India, they seemed to struggle with the subtleties that they perceived in U.S discriminatory experiences. This frequently led them to question whether discrimination had in fact occurred, resulting in alternative explanations for people’s behaviors. These experiences are common in the context of microaggressions due to the ambiguous and unconscious nature of these transgressions (Sue et al., 2008). However, at other times, our data revealed that participants often rationalized their experiences of discrimination. Consistent with previous research on Asian Indians’ use of collectivistic coping in the face of racism-related stress (Inman, Yeh, et al., 2007; Tummala-Narra et al., 2011), many participants described their experiences of discrimination in terms of culture-specific understandings of the self and other. For example, based on Hindu beliefs, participants seem to personalize experiences of discrimination by seeing it as karmic, highlighting their involvement with caste-based discriminatory practices back in India. The baggage of the caste system seemed to pervade their conversations about racial discrimination. Frequently, the “casteism” in India was referenced in their conceptualization and appraisal of discrimination (S. Bhatia, 2007). This is not surprising as authors have frequently compared U.S. racial injustices with caste inequities in India and the word “caste” has been associated with skin color (Slate, 2011). Furthermore, the reluctance to name some incidents as discriminatory in the United States, a predominantly non-Latino White country, may be related to a history of British colonization in India and internalized negative or subordinate images of Asian Indians. Indeed, a critical dimension of colonial mentality (David, 2011) is not only a denigration of one’s group but also a denial or trivialization of racial dynamics and discrimination itself—what Neville and colleagues have described as color blindness (Neville et al., 2011). As such, Millan and Alvarez (2014) have argued that this color blindness is the most insidious and damaging outcome of colonialism and internalized oppression because it “convinces Asian Americans to deny the very existence of the oppression of which they are the target” (p. 177). Our findings underscore the importance of historical colonial legacies and the related messages, which continue to pervade interactions for this community in the United States.

The reluctance to name racism may also be related to a desire to be accepted by the non-Latino White community and a belief in American meritocracy, a notion also consistent with a colonial mentality. During colonial times, for many Indians, it was necessary to acculturate to the British norms to survive economically and socially. Although our participants identified strongly with their ethnicity, their desire to be closer to, or to be perceived like, the non-Latino White community was clearly evident. For instance, several participants aspired to be like the Jewish community who they perceived to have a strong sense of community. Ghasarian (1995) noted two incidents in 1994 where Indian associations in San Francisco and Boston invited Jewish leaders to address the audience on issues of empowerment and strengthening of their communities. It is interesting to note that the participants seemed more willing to be identified with a non-Latino White, Jewish community rather than with a racial minority community (e.g., African American, Latino/a American). This finding may reflect a desire to minimize the salience of skin color in U.S. racial hierarchies. Moreover, it may also be an attempt to differentiate their U.S. experiences from the British colonial past of India, and a hope to live the “American Dream,” in which opportunities come to fruition with enough hard work. Our participants believed that they were protected from discrimination and their successes were based on their educational qualifications, skills, work ethic, and professional competence. The emphasis on selective individual factors seemed to diminish the sociocultural, historical, and political milieus within which Asian Indians are located (Yoo et al., 2010). The desire to see the United States as a progressive and a culturally sensitive society seemed important to several of our participants. From laws protecting against discrimination to their technological prowess to comparing their experiences to Indians in other countries (e.g., Britain), they highlighted the social class differences in the waves of immigrants to these countries especially given that class and caste privileges are linked to educational privilege (Mazumdar, 1989), reinforcing the idea of model minority (S. Bhatia, 2007).

This notion of Asian Indians as a model minority pushed participants to overcompensate, striving to be model citizens as a way to make up for negative perceptions of the community. As Yoo and colleagues (2010) noted, internalization of the model minority myth can create feelings of embarrassment and shame especially when people “unnecessarily stand out from the group based on their race” (p. 116). This is in keeping with the recent amicus put forth by some Asian Indian groups in Texas in relation to admission quotas in colleges (Jaschik, 2012), wherein Asian Indians believe that race or ethnicity should not be considered in admission decisions. In effect, this seems to allow them to deflect any racial discrimination and resist identifying as racial minorities and, therefore, manage emotional stress rooted in experiences of discrimination. Although our participants looked to the White Jewish community as models of a successful immigrant community, they did not discuss anti-Semitic experiences faced by the U.S. Jews, and how an active engagement with discrimination may contribute to more cohesion within ethnic minority communities.

Meaning Making and Coping

There seemed to be a collective notion about the experience of discrimination endorsed by our participants. Specifically, our participants asserted that racism is universal, inevitable, and unintentional. However, they also believed that Indians perpetuate discrimination through their behaviors (e.g., by not integrating with the U.S. society) and thus need to put the discriminatory experience into perspective. Mazumdar (1989) called this “blaming the victim” and “exhibiting a subservient mentality” calling for “mainstreaming” (p. 52).

Discrimination was frequently seen by the participants as situational or contextualized and this often dictated how these first-generation Asian Indians appraised and coped with discrimination. The cultural message, based on a colonial past, of not making waves or not questioning authority pervaded some of their coping styles. Our participants’ use of avoidance or being resigned to the experience elucidates these issues. However, it is important to use caution in equating avoidance with bad coping. It is possible that avoidance may be a form of resiliency in response to a chronic stressor and consistent with Asian Indian values wherein being confrontational is seen as culturally incongruent (Liang et al., 2010). Furthermore, the dissonance experienced within the context of their own socialization experiences to the caste-based discrimination as well as the ambiguities experienced in the United States may have framed their responses. Participants frequently asked interviewers about whether their experiences were consistent with others as a way to seek validation and normalization of their situations. Their need to be cautious and even “model minorities” highlights the impact of the sociopolitical systems on Asian Indian immigrants (Mahalingam, Balan, & Haritatos, 2008).

In coping with discrimination, three factors seemed salient: distancing, generational differences, and political action. Consistent with previous research (Liang et al., 2010), participants in the study distanced themselves from perceived discriminatory events. Although several participants spoke about the negative emotional impact of discrimination, when speaking about discriminatory experiences, participants’ descriptions of composite details of discriminatory incidents were frequently framed as hypothetical or happening to others, thus depersonalizing the issue. Perhaps these tendencies may have been a function of the damaging effects (e.g., marginalization, helplessness) of racism (Speight, 2007).

The tendency to use seemingly circuitous language to elucidate an incident (Inman, Howard, et al., 2007; Inman, Yeh, et al., 2007) and highlight feelings in a cognitive manner further helped participants emotionally distance themselves. This is consistent with previous research on Asian Indians (Das & Kemp, 1997) that has highlighted how emotional expression is frequently kept at a minimum and challenges are presented through narratives or stories as opposed to disclosing emotions. We speculate that when some participants laughed when sharing stories involving discrimination, they may have attempted to distance themselves from emotionally distressing experiences. Furthermore, some participants may have found it difficult to express their feelings openly in English in contrast to their heritage language, or in a group setting, particularly when considering that issues of discrimination are rarely discussed in community settings. Nonetheless, participants found the group nature of the interview process to be an affirming experience.

Some previous research suggests that second-generation Asian Indians may be more distressed by experiences of racism when compared with first-generation Asian Indians (Inman, 2006; Tummala-Narra et al., 2011), whereas other studies (e.g., Kaduvettoor-Davidson & Inman, 2013) have found that first-generation Asian Indians perceive higher levels of racism-related stress than their counterparts. Interestingly, the participants in our study perceived their second-generation children as better equipped to deal with discriminatory experiences due to their socialization to the U.S. culture. This is consistent with the ideas that greater assimilation or acculturation would reduce discriminatory incidents, a notion perhaps developed out of their colonial experience. However, research has also revealed that racial identity is a buffer for second-generation South Asians in dealing with such conflicts (Inman, 2006). Furthermore, consistent with Inman, Howard, and colleagues’ (2007) findings, our participants experienced parenting dilemmas and worried about protecting their children from discrimination. Although they spoke from a place of pride about the role reversal (e.g., children educating parents about discrimination), participants were concerned about not having a language to educate their second-generation children. As evident in previous studies (Tummala-Narra et al., 2011), our findings suggest that conversations about discrimination were few among many participants’ families. Interestingly, a majority of the participants with children asked the interviewers about their own experience growing up in the United States. Participants’ desire to understand these issues highlights their curiosity and anxiety as immigrant parents as well as their motivations to participate in this study.

Despite a reticence to own their racialized minority status, interviews provided participants with an opportunity for self-reflection, another noted reason for their involvement in the study. Through this self-reflection, participants recognized a need for political action (Mazumdar, 1989). The need to talk more about the issues, be proactive, have self-confidence, and directly address discrimination were important themes. Our participants felt strongly about being seen as part of the U.S. American fabric and spoke of political figures (e.g., Nikki Haley, Bobby Jindal) who were successfully holding key roles.

Throughout the interview process, it was notable that we experienced several participants struggle with the appraisal of and coming to terms with the realities of racism in the United States, as they worked to maintain a sense of optimism for their own futures and that of their children. As interviewers, we found ourselves listening to participants’ conflictual feelings about racial discrimination (a dissonance inducing experience), and a desire to uphold the “American Dream.” Perhaps this in part reflects the devaluation of the culture of origin and idealization of the new culture (Akhtar, 2011; David, 2011). At the same time, it is possible that first-generation Asian Indians do not conceive of the United States as their primary psychological home despite having lived in the United States for a long period of time (Tummala-Narra, 2009). First-generation immigrants may deflect racism-related stress through maintaining the possibility of returning to living in India someday. In fact, a few participants indicated that they are less concerned about racism in the United States, because they feel India, not the United States, is their home. The view of India as home may be implicated in appraisals of discrimination in the United States, as many participants may experience themselves as transnationals, crossing back and forth between India and the United States, rather than viewing themselves as “Americans.” Furthermore, ambivalence about the United States as a permanent home and perceptions of discriminatory incidents as ambiguous may influence Asian Indians’ decisions to engage with political action.

Limitations

The limitations of the study relate to the specificity of our participants, our data collection approach, and our data analytic procedures. Participants in the study were college educated and a majority identified as Hindus and hence may not reflect the experiences of Asian Indians with different educational and/or religious backgrounds. We also did not inquire about participants’ caste designations or their socialization experiences in India, which may have limited our understanding of these variables. There were also several “potential participants” who refused to participate indicating that this was not a salient issue for them suggesting biases in the self-selective nature of our sample.

A second limitation relates to our data collection approach. The focus group structure may have contributed to participants feeling vulnerable in sharing personal stories and may have caused participants to withhold information related to experiences with racial discrimination. Moreover, our focus groups included both men and women. Although the data did not reveal any gender differences in participation or responsiveness, we are unsure of any gender effects that may have occurred. Our participants also immigrated to the United States during different historical periods with unique sociopolitical conditions (e.g., pre and post 9/11), which may have affected their experiences with discrimination.

Finally, our findings may be limited by the nature of data analytic processes (e.g., trustworthiness; Yeh & Inman, 2007). Although we accounted for researcher bias through self-reflexivity, investigator triangulation, and participant and auditor feedback, our findings are unique to one set of researchers’ perspectives of a specific data set. Despite these limitations, our findings have important implications for theory, research, and practice.

Implications