I think that's an unfairly dismissive take and the "going to restaurants" bit is a mischaracterization at best.
There massive difference is WHERE the discrimination is taking place. Most would not move to India or any other place and impose their culture and exclude locals in a fair and just world. I'm not saying it doesn't take place, and yes colonialism happened and was far worse, but we're talking about what SHOULD be.
> Most would not move to India or any other place and impose their culture and exclude locals in a fair and just world.
I'm trying to say that going to restaurants as a group of people and having in-jokes does not qualify as "imposing your culture" in any way. These things routinely happen at companies that have few to no Indians, they just take a different form.
Also, are you really claiming that if you moved to Bangalore, and had 2-3 coworkers from your hometown that you knew and shared cultural ties with; that you wouldn't tend to hang out together at lunch?
Sure, but Americans have been doing this for hundreds of years through exclusionary hobbies like golf, fantasy football, and a hundred other things. That's just how social groups work. They are often cliquey and exclusionary.
That's why I think it's weird to only target Indians in this regard. They are building an in-group just like everyone else; the difference is that OP seems to have little experience not being part of the in-group.
We should be working to decrease it in all exclusionary groups by working to make them more inclusionary. That means intentionally rotating comfort zones.
And it is a historically seductive siren call that once an immigrant community in any country attains some power, they use it to ramp up exclusion and cronyism.
In all fairness, to protect their tenuous grasp on that power from external racism, but it also succumbs to use for less noble, more human ends. E.g. getting ones friend hired.
Other groups doing this too doesn't make it okay. Nobody should be forming exclusionary groups where all the shots are called and business decisions are made.
The better question is: if you had a Bangalore company founded by Indians, then a management hire from the US or Britain started hiring immigrants from there too, and they excluded or sidelined Indians, especially ones who didn't speak English - you'd be annoyed too right?
Actually you'll find that this happens a lot. Search up expat communities, for example. They don't necessarily "impose their culture and exclude locals", but they are for and by the expats from a certain country.
Seeking "your" people when living/working abroad, or when working in a diverse workspace, is pretty normal and happens everywhere. It's usually harmless though.
i’m not sure that’s the point though. i think the point is lost in op layering restaurants and jokes and such into their narrative. i think the actual point and concern is how being “out-group” affects their employment due to what they perceive as deliberate exclusion.
Brits living anywhere outside of Britain is a classic example - exemplified by the clubs and societies formed around the world when the sun didn't set in/on their empire.
There massive difference is WHERE the discrimination is taking place. Most would not move to India or any other place and impose their culture and exclude locals in a fair and just world. I'm not saying it doesn't take place, and yes colonialism happened and was far worse, but we're talking about what SHOULD be.