“White girl” shocks entire comedy show pic.twitter.com/TiQ2JSl8Py
— internet hall of fame (@InternetH0F) September 14, 2024
She has strikingly European features—reminiscent of the last Tocharians. But what’s more interesting is how deeply assimilated Muslims in the English-speaking world are—everyone immediately understood the Daywalker joke.
Presumably, she’s Pathan (or mixed), and if she had been Afghan instead of Pakistani, she’d likely have actively identified as white. But in Pakistan, “whiteness” is too remote as a social identity to be meaningfully claimed—Urdu writes like Dari/Farsi but speaks like Hindi, reinforcing its deep Desi-ness.
I once knew a Hindu Punjabi boy who looked entirely white—not even remotely South Asian. His entire social world reflected that. Whether we acknowledge it or not, racial presentation subtly shapes everything—from friendships to careers to dating.
I would hazard a broader generalization. Most Muslims ( not all) are resistant to assimilation anywhere. It’s more true now than it was 20-30 years back. Anecdotally, in India atleast there never used to be perceptible difference in how Hindus and Muslims looked in terms of clothing, language and cultural symbols. Now, it is so obvious due to the complete Arabization of the Indian Muslim. They have completely otherized themselves by discarding their Indian / Hindu cultural identity and embracing an alien one only because of religious affiliation.
The Irainians on the other hand are proud of their Persian heritage and see it as a forced Arab (inferior) religious imposition on their way of life, culture etc. This is what sets them apart from the subcontinent Muslims ( exceptions exist, but are in a minority).
That’s an interesting perspective, and you’re right—visible cultural markers have shifted significantly. But I wonder, is this ‘Arabization’ truly about religious zeal, or is it just part of a globalized identity shift? South Indian Hindus wearing jeans instead of dhotis isn’t ‘Westernization’ in a colonial sense; it’s just cultural drift. Could something similar be happening with Indian Muslims?
I once read that some of the angst against Muslims in India comes from their perceived resistance to Westernization, while many Hindus have embraced it more readily. The analogy to Iran/Persia is nuanced—the current government is pro-Muslim but deeply antagonistic toward its own diaspora, almost as an instinctive reaction.
I also don’t think Indian Muslims have simply ‘Arabized’; rather, they may be drawing from a different cultural matrix than Hindus, shaping their identity in distinct ways. This raises complex discussions about pluralism vs. homogeneity—how do you see this playing out in modern India?
Perhaps a mix of both. Newly discovered religious zeal ( thanks to SA Wahhabism) combined with aligning with the global ummah perhaps? I’ve never seen so many individual vigilantes enforcing the mullahs dikats, a recent eg is of Mohd Shami being trolled for not keeping Roza or Soha Ali Khan trolled for wearing a bindi ( she’s married to a Hindu and her mother was born a Hindu). These are of course celebrities, but vigilantism is increasing especially policing young women ( the hijab was never part of the Indian Muslim identity) yet now it’s taken centre stage. These new age Muslims now have an Arab patina ( like our Indian Americans with their Western patina). The cultural drift is driven by the complete embrace of the alien faith in Muslims while eschewing completely their native culture. It’s different from the cultural embrace of external Western symbols ( like attire, food) by the Hindu who does not eschew her / his Hindu faith. So the Hindu stays culturally moored to India but the Muslim drifts away from it.
If Indian Muslims keep othering themselves, it’s not a good thing for pluralism. Like in England, it will result in monoculture ghettos within a multicultural space. It’s already happening, but not sure how this will play out going forward.
Hindus, atleast the ones who really want to become American, very easily shed their external Indianess / Hinduness for acceptability in the Western world. I would expect the proportion of Muslims doing so to be far less. This could of course be in part due to the very contrasting nature of a Dharmic faith vs an Abrahamic one.
My Persian friend gave me some very interesting insights into the Mullah rulers of Iran that contrasts with the very different outlook of the people. Did you know that one must have / prove to have atleast 1% Arab ancestry ( or something along those lines) to be in the Iranian government? Also reinforces the perception of Arab colonization / subjugation of superior Persia amongst many Iranians. The Shahanameh kept both Farsi and the pre-Islamic history of Persia alive. Thats why Persia stands out in this whole picture, defiantly resisting the Arab colonizers where as the subcontinental ones gravitate towards them.
I’d look into the 1% Arab ancestry claim—I’ve never come across that before!
That aside, I agree it’s complex, but I think Islam has undergone a dramatic transformation in the past 20 years, largely due to social media—at least in the West.
Western Muslims today feel very Westernized, though that might just be my bias.
That’s fair—assimilation varies by class, and elite kids often absorb cultural fluency faster. But are Pakistani-Americans really scions of the elite? It seems like they mostly come from the medical community and the older wave of diaspora immigrants. Just heard about a 2nd-gen Pakistani-American kid who dreams of him and his siblings becoming doctors—he went to Stuyvesant & MIT, so no messing around there.
But I’d push back on the idea that Pakistani languages were ‘made’ to be written in Nastaliq. The Perso-Arabic script came with centuries of cultural transmission—it wasn’t just an imposed afterthought by the Pakistani government.
As for Urdu vs. Farsi, I’d say the difference is that Farsi’s script feels native (with no serious effort to replace it), whereas Urdu’s Nastaliq carries a built-in historical tension with its Indic linguistic roots. Urdu is, after all, a relatively recent state phenomenon—if I recall correctly, Persian was only supplanted in the mid-19th century, post-Mutiny?
Why just racial presentation, cultural affiliations have strong dictates on our behaviour too. A christian from the sub continent moving abroad is far more likely to assimilate in western culture and date and marry a westerner (churches being ideal locations for societal interaction) than a Hindu or a Muslim.
Completely agree—cultural affiliation often dictates social pathways even more than race. Churches provide built-in social networks, giving Christians a structural advantage in assimilation. Even within Hindu and Muslim diaspora communities, class, region, and caste create different levels of openness to assimilation. Do you think Sikhs integrate differently compared to Hindus?
I also agree that assimilation is shaped by many intersectional factors—language, accent, class, race, religion, color, aesthetics, education, and family culture all play a role. It’s a complex phenomenon. But if you notice in the video, Faiza, the Pakistani girl, was wearing a sports shirt—that’s rare among Pakistani women. That kind of casual sportswear leans more toward a Western aesthetic.
The comedian also joked that 9/11 was just ‘easier’ for her—his point about presentation impacting social discourse is compelling.
For Indians (or sub continent people as a whole) group size changes the dynamics a lot. A few Indians and they racially identify and group, many and they split themselves up by language and state and religion, many more and they get down to caste and dialect, finally ending up with which side of the river you live on.
In general I feel Sikhs due to distinct visible symbols have a much higher propensity to clique and this has given rise to the Khalistan movements in the west.
The population proportion in UK and Canada seems to have hit that sweet spot where they are large enough for common purpose, but unlike the Punjab they aren’t split along lines of caste and area, and unlike the US and say Dubai they are too few to clique exclusively.
The UK is 7.5% South Asian, but the once-dominant British Asian identity of the 2000s has completely fractured.
Today, British Muslims, Hindus, and Sikhs are increasingly distinct, shaped by separate socio-economic trajectories and diverging cultural-political identities.
you always say that. i don’t agree at all. maybe it’s true for you.
Fair enough—I might be projecting based on my own observations. I grew up in London (among other places), but I’ve noticed this pattern in other big Anglo cities too—people with similar racial presentation tend to cluster together.
Maybe it’s just my own bias, since I have a mixed identity and have moved through so many different social spaces. I’ve had to study people to fit in, so I might be hyper-aware of these dynamics.
That said, I still remember sitting in a business school cafeteria, watching MBA students naturally sort themselves into meta-racial groups, with only a handful of mixed tables. It struck me because MBAs are often framed as melting pots, yet this kind of social sorting still happened.
At the same time, I find it confusing—race consciousness has exploded into the mainstream in the past few decades, yet despite all the talk of diversity, racial and aesthetic presentation still seem to shape social environments in ways not always acknowledged.
Curious to hear your take—where do you see it differently?
i don’t personally cluster in this way at all. so that’s how i see it differently
i think england is more racialized and multicultural explicitly is part of the issue
but part of the issue is your personality/background/idk. you have always been finely attuned to matters of racial presentation and class in your posts going back a decade. i’m interested in an intellectual way, but i don’t care too much about that
Interesting observation. I agree that Britain is deeply class-defined, but when I moved to New England, I was shocked by the racial stratification in the third space (coffee shops, living areas etc)—so subtle yet so pervasive that it felt almost invisible.