Earlier, somebody asked if the incidence of hate crimes in the UK was worse now than in the past. The short answer is yes, immensely so:
In the three days after the bombing, police in London recorded 180 racial incidents. A total of 58 faith-related crimes were recorded, compared with one in the same period last year.Attacks have also been reported on mosques in Tower Hamlets and Merton, both in London, Telford, Leeds, Bristol, Birkenhead and Gloucester, and on a Sikh temple in Kent. [Guardian]
Today’s BBC Worldservice radio broadcast indicated that there have been additional reports of backlash related violence, but gave no further details. Before some of you start frothing at the mouth and comparing this to the violence of the bombings, there is no comparison. I was livid when the bombings occurred. Since then, it has only become more personal – my cousin was one of those lucky enough to dodge the bullet, passing through only 10 minutes before the bombs went off. There is no reason to mix the two issues though. The bombing does not justify anti-brown violence afterwards.
RC:
Actually, in the UK (as far as I know) desis were referred to as “Asians” Unlike the US, where asian means yellow, there it meant brown. Similarly, british racists lumped all desis together, calling them “Pakis”
Kumar – were you born in the US? If not, how old were you when you came here.
East Asians in general have not had animosity towards India…My point is that the 1962 war was not an expression of Chinese racial or religious ill will towards Indians. Even if many of the fairer Chinese may look down on darker Indians, there is no long history of war and conflict. It was more a Mao thing and Nehru’s ineptness in foreign policy.
there are complicated issues here
1) historical the chinese have had a narrow conception of ‘imperialism’ in comparison to muslims or christians. in fact, there is some analogy to hindu indian civilization, it the han absorbed non-han groups within the circumscribed bounds of the middle kingdom, and expanded into several peripheral regions. similarly, the caste hindus absorbed adivasis and other forest dwellers into the caste system over time (the ahoms, who were of shan burmese origin, are my favorite examples, from being mleccha they went to being exemplars of kshatriya chivalry as they defended hinduism against the advances of the mughals!).
2) but…the han also have a revulsion toward dark-skinned peoples (which to some extent is shared by indians, though by and large most are themselves dark-skinned). you can see this early on in the narrations of the ambassador to the khmer kingdom. these stereotypes cropped up again with the introduction of scientific racism into the modern chinese worldview. neoeugenicist han thinkers argued from the mandatory sterilization of the black, brown and aboriginal races of the world (the conservative confucians were no less racist, but they objected to the excessive systemetization of racialism and the rejection of the ability of self-perfection). the former PM of singapore, the han chauvanist (of a mild form) has made it clear he believes that south asians are inferior, and his revulsion extended to making sure that a swimming pool that an indian dignitary had used was cleaned very well. so don’t count out chinese racism as a factor in the decline of bhai-bhai, as long as india lags behind china many han will inwardly chalk it up to the inferiority of the brown-black race.
. The reason is clear – (radical) Islam does not like idol worshippers and polytheists. If the 2nd gen American does not disavow this theology lock, stock and barrel, and the population he belongs to does not discourage this theology in any meaningful way beyond platitudes, then there is every reason to believe that history will be repeated.
there are some nuances to this, in that many hindus would object to the religion’s characterization as polytheistic on an ontological level. but, nevertheless, a substantial minority of american christians hold similar views as muslims, though they have been gelded so as not to express it in a hostile fashion. this does not mean the urge does not lay latent within christianity, there are still occasional pogroms against tribal religionists in africa and there have been arsons and vandalizations of korean buddhist relicts and statuary by fundamentalists in that asian nation by protestant fundamentalists. my point is that the tendency is latent in christianity, but constrained by the culture, so yes, the culture needs to put the same restraints upon islam that it does upon christianity. in the medium-to-long-term i am rather confident that american islam will be suitably gelded.
How many Muslims(Indian or non-Indian) felt guilty about the Hindu cast-system or felt a need to explain to the western media or their non-desi friends about what cast-system is and the whys and hows of the problem…..
well, i’m an atheist from a muslim background, but i’ve been drafted into consultations about hinduism many a time. often i try to work my way out of it, but i feel that hinduism does need to be defended when christians start making fun of it as idol worship, since i see christianity as just as silly as hinduism. i had a born again christian friend make fun of the hindu concept of incarnation to me once, as he couldn’t get it into his head that that is the foundation of his own religion. but, i am not a typical “muslim,” as i am an atheist who generally has little sympathy for most religions and my “defense” was more in the service of rebutting christian chauvanism than defending hinduism.
My old homeland has been and continues to be ravaged by Islamic separatism. I don’t want my new homeland (the US) to be similarly ravaged. I am making this argument not as a Hindu, but rather as a prospective American. Should I forget history and turn a blind eye to radical Islam growing here? Is it out-of-bounds to ask the brown US Muslim population to demonstrably jettison the dar-al-Harb stuff and Islamic separatism?
of course not, and i don’t see many people here arguing against that. it seems that there is a lot of shadow-boxing strawmen going on. abhi & co (to abbreviate) would likely argue that multiple talking points are not exclusive to each other
a) one can create a common south asian identity b) one can attack islamism c) one can appeal to muslims to spearhead the attack because of their fluency and knowledge of the islamists
my own personal beef was with sonal’s bizarro (in my opinion) idea that on a person to person level hindus or sikhs can disuade hate crimes by asserting their non-muslimness. i doubt that the anecdote about jefferson city was evidence of a proto-hate-crime averted by assertion of common hostility toward islam, rather, it was just some dumbasses shooting the shit. real violent types would just have jumped his asked without asking any questions.
Correct. And as Americans, shouldn’t the brown-on-non-brown violence also concern us?
of course, and that has what to do with objecting to a common south asian identity? i think the two are mostly orthogonal. i am skeptical of a common south asian identity, for many of the reasons saurav gives, but i don’t see that it is somehow a concession to islamism.
i mean “jumped his ass”.
Alienating a group in your country using us/them and wishing away destruction is less productive than assuming all responsibility and working towards reducing the radicalism regardless of if you are a muslim or not, brown or not – because ultimately, claiming that you have nothing to do with ‘them’ will not make you and your children less vulnerable to the next bomb.
let me be frank, all british people assuming a responsibility toward reducing radicalism on a symbolic level makes sense. just like all humans assuming a responsibility toward reducing male sexism makes sense. but as a matter of pragmatic reality, muslims must stand front and center, first
1) because names matter. the attackers call themselves muslims, and profess many commonalities with muslims. we can not just play the nominalist game on a day to day level.
2) the attackers came out of the muslim community.
3) muslims have many of the cultural tools that can infiltrate and subborn their networks.
by analogy, i think men do have a particular responsibility to get medieval on the asses of male abusers. they give our gender a bad name.
i think real solutions do require facing hard truths as well as keeping our eyes on the prize, so to speak.
Well I dont think Ananthan was talking about recent vs distant history. Rather we must take into consideration the feelings that pervade from these two incidents. Both are Wars yes, but the War(s) between India and Pakistan are as recent as Kargil. The feelings and sensitivies are still present in the pysche of citizens of both countries. The Veterans of the wars between India and Pakistan can be found alive now today, while the veterans of 1812 are long gone as are their widows and children. The widows of Kargil still struggle on both sides..as we speak. Its much more raw.
We must not discredit time. Time heals wounds. Titanic was a disaster that killed thousands of people, and in that day and age it was devastating for the British and Americans. Can you imagine making the Titanic movie in 1913 perhaps? It would seem so insensitive as it was fresh and raw. Its similiar to 9-11. It still very raw in the minds of most Americans.
.fine that makes sense..I agree..but I wish someone would tell me what culture that was? I really dont know what that entails? What are the different aspects to the Pan South-Asian culture? And how is it better than the Individual cultures? For example experiencing your friends Sri Lankan customs are wonderful, but proclaiming you are part Sri Lankan? eh..So culture is certainly not a binding religious ideology, its certainly not customs…which differ WIDELY amongst South Asians, its might not even be food, which vary widely country by country and region by region? Bollywood? Oh please..Music? Carnatic vs Qawaali..very different..Na..Family Issues? Nope..That is a individual thing…Smells as the other brainy poster suggested? Give me a break….Dance?naa..So what binds South Asians? Seems to me that while friendships within the various communities exist and are cherished (as they should be)…the ties to each other are individual and on a personal level. Making up a “culture” to feel a sense of unity or security makes no sense. If there is a “culture”, please let me know…because I would love to be enlightened by it. Thanks..
BTW…nofixedaddress..you rock dude..couldnt put it better than you did..thanks..
Ennis:
“were you born in the US?”
To quote my earlier comment, I am a “…Kashmiri Pandit brought up in the US…”, i.e., I was born in India.
“If not, how old were you when you came here”
I came here when I was a very (very) young child, though not an infant.
Kumar
I really dont know what that entails
i am curious about a systematic list too. of course, i think the nature of such things is that you will never be able to include ALL south asians in your set of axioms…but i’ve seen manish’s friendster, i believe that ‘south asianness’ does exist for some people. the question is how many. sonal, you and i are probably on two sides of the fence here, i demur any great attachment to south asian civilization (my ancient exemplars are prechristian classical and to a lesser extent early confucian), you seem attached to, shall i say, an older, more established, conception of brown identity in the USA. but there are many paths out there. no one speaks for everyone. though we all have our interests in mind when we do speak 🙂
I can’t say I’m particularly fond of the term “South Asians” because it is a mouthful and would likely confuse most people around here (the Midwest). When I was up in Canada, I heard another variation of this term “East Indian”.
In general, I refer to people from the sub-continent as “desis/deshis”, partly because it is not usually easy to tell where a particular desi is from. In addition, most of the time that doesn’t really matter. If they are brown, they are likely to have a similar cultural background and immigrant experiences as me (atleast relative to the general population).
Some of my good friends happen to be desis (ABCDs & 1.5 gen) and we get along fine. Why be limited by the strife and tension that our forefathers/mothers felt in the past? Or the atmosphere of distrust and suspicion that exists in that region right now?
As for islamic extremism, I definitely think it is a problem (both for muslims and non-muslims). I can understand why people might want to distance themselves from it but unfortunately, it effects everyone.
well, speaking toward kashmiri pandits and what not, shall we bring up caste, since the question of regionality has been mooted? until the past few years i did not understand that caste had any salience for american browns, but of late it seems pretty clear to me that brahmins are rather proud of being brahmin, at least on the sly. this sort of mentality extends to other indians, i have talked to ismailis who claim that the negative aspects of their community are because they are converted from brahmins, in a backhanded way pointing to prestigous ancestry (actually, they are almost certainly converted vaishyas). i have talked to a syrian christian or too who claims to be descended from namboothiri brahmins, though the ethnological literature seems to suggest that syrian christians are probably an amalgamated community with many precursors. perhaps some browns simply don’t want to give up prestigous ancestral markers? i will fess up to my personal bias: i have an attachment to the name khan because it is associated with the most awesome conqueror to walk the earth. i have little attachment to the muslim/islamic associations of khan, and if i was god i would have left india hindu (though i would have wished away the abomination of caste too!), but i am a mongoliphile in some perverse ways, so i can understand how a kashmiri pandit might be wary of discarding a most-aryan-identity (the few who i met have repeatedly hinted to me a possible persian antecedant, a pandit version of muslims claiming central asian ancestry i guess). a more charitable interpretation is that various groups simply do not want to lose their distinctiveness in a monochromatic brown identity characterized by punjabi music, but i would like to see if there is a caste/class relationship here….m
“….i am curious about a systematic list too. of course, i think the nature of such things is that you will never be able to include ALL south asians in your set of axioms….”
As I suggested in my earlier post (#147), the irreducible normative element involved in these sorts of exercises underwrites a nominalism about such classifications.
Kumar
p.s. to add to why i think that caste and other particular distinctions might be more important than not, i do have a non-trivial number of private queries from (judging from domain names) american browns about the the quanta of “aryanity” (to use a catchall term) their own ethnic group might possess. most of the time i respond with a few quick literature cites and clarification of terminology…but sometimes i am irritable and basically tell them “not to worry, you’re sand niggers no matter what” (not those exact words, but to that effect).
the irreducible normative element involved in these sorts of exercises underwrites a nominalism about such classifications.
just because a classification is nominalistic does not mean it doesn’t have utility. for example, believe it or not, species come close to being a nominalistic category.
Interesting thread here. Obviously it has some tangents, I hope people will bear with mine.
Personally, I really don’t like the “South Asian” label. It doesn’t do justice to the diverse nature of the area.
I’ve always had a preference for using the word “Subcontinent”. Each region is distinct with different languages, cultures, history, and religion. The population of the area is large enough to be a continent, the diversity is more than enough, taking the whole region referred to as ‘South Asia’, I believe it would be as large if not bigger than Australia ( I would need to crunch some numbers).
Strictly from a geographical standpoint, I can see how the locale got classified “South Asia”. Even though it isn’t the southern most portion, it is the southern most in the center line of Asia. Now, when using South Asian to refer to the collective cultural identity of folks from the area, it simply doesn’t cut the cake.
I really don’t have any beef against people using South Asian, if thats what they like, so be it. People are free to associate with whomever they choose and call themselves whatever they want. But when people tell me: You HAVE to say South Asian, it really doesn’t go well with me. I’m guilty of using it in conversations just to dodge ensuing arguments, but since the topic has come up, I’ll drop my 2 cents too.
bdeshini,
Do you use the term desi with non-desis? When speaking to a non-(PakIndBang) Candian, would you refer to yourself or someone else as a desi? Or is desi a term to be used only with other desis?
If you had a new desi roomate and you call your mom do you say I have south asian roomate? I think this whole “issue” needs to be framed. Perhaps we all in agreement but arguing anyway. How very south asian? : )
Razib,
I was about ask Kumar about the “Kashmiri Pandit” identification too. I wonder if it is because if you call yourself Kashmiri, it leaves open the question whether you are Hindu or Muslim. Because I think most people would assume you were Muslim.
I think some Muslims drop the Brahmin origin hint is to distinguish themselves from other who were forced to convert or convert for financial benefit or were so disadvantaged in their prior religion that they had no choice but to convert. A brahmin convert I gather sounds like you did it out your own free will.
Btw, there is most certainly a caste residue among south asian muslims, may be not all but it does exist. It might not be based on any theological uderpinning but it certainly is a fact. A simple google search of caste & muslim should it.
Caste in India is not purely a Hindu phenomenon. It exists among Christians and Muslims.
You HAVE to say South Asian, it really doesn’t go well with me.
the terminology is in a process of crystallization, and it will be determined by social consensus. say what you want, and say it loud, your voice matters. i keep saying ‘brown’ because that’s the most accurate description of me, mostly a physically evocative appellation without any of the geographical and cultural connotations. it might not be the best description for you, but i don’t care about you, you do 🙂
-razib, the culturally non-brown guy who always has an opinion on brown culture 🙂
I think some Muslims drop the Brahmin origin hint is to distinguish themselves from other who were forced to convert or convert for financial benefit or were so disadvantaged in their prior religion that they had no choice but to convert. A brahmin convert I gather sounds like you did it out your own free will.
mebee. but as you said, caste matters to some extent for muslims in south asia too. did i mention my paternal grandmother was a bengali brahmin by origin? but to balance out the ledge, let me add her face was as black as coal and i am sure that her family were just rich sudras that purchased a certificate of brahminness along the way from a real-deal-true-blood-aryan.
and yes, caste exists for muslims, but because it is not a necessary condition of the religion, and in fact, the religion argues against it, it seems to be irrelevant in the USA. for muslims, caste is contingent upon the south asian social matrix. hindus on the other hand have a closer, more fundamental association with the system. for muslims, the main my-ancestor-was-brahmin assertion is that they are descended from arabs or turks. i used to think this was all a lie, but strangly i found that muslim north indians are about 5% west asian if their genes tell the truth, a small amount, but more than i would have guessed. perhaps i don’t trust people enough.
p.s. there is a lot of nuance that doesn’t get caught up in the sword-of-islam historgraphy, it is notable that islam is strongest in the regions where brahmanical hindusim was weakest prior to the invasion of the turks, the punjab and bengal.
Wow, coming in late on this site… As an upper-middle class Indian Muslim, I actually have to side with my fellow hindu Citizens. I am, frankly, tired of the idiots going around destroying real Islam with their nonsense. Yes, I have been the victim or some prejudice and bigotry here in India, but then so have low-caste hindus, women, sikhs and other people. But the fact is, that in this country – India – I have a right to vote, a right to say what I want and even a bunch of political parties who fight for my rights. Citizens of Pakistan do not have that right. Equating our countries is stupid, foolish and dangerous and the cause behind hate-crimes against all browns. If we (Indians) fought for a separate identity from the beginning, this would never have happened. There are lots of muslims in India who also choose to call themselves muslim first and Indian second, but like some older poster above said (I think his post has been deleted, don’t know why), Muslims in India don’t feel the need to turn to terrorism – this is because their rights are actually better protected in India than in America/Europe (which of course leads to aberrations like the Imrana case) and also because they’ve now been in India for about 600 years, so India is as much their home as it is for Hindus. (The fact that Indian laws are different for muslims, is war for another time). Whenever their used to be an Islamic-related terrorist attack (in India or outside it), everybody would start clamouring for moderate muslims (like me) to disassociate themselves from the fanatics and to openly abhor them. While previously I used to viciously fight this as the stupidity that it is, I am now faced with the danger of being associated with barbarians from another country which has been the hotbed of terrorism for a long, long time now. Just as Sonal says she wishes to disassociate herself from the others, so do I. I am an Indian. Not a South Asian.
For some reason,I feel like reciting the prayer that they use over at the Alcoholics Anonymous(dont ask me how I got it)…..even though I havent actually FELT a prayer since I turned atheist about 10 years ago,I like the sweet simple surrender inherent…it goes something like….
Dear God,
“Please give me the courage to change whatever I can and the patience to bear whatever I cannot and the wisdom to distinguish what I can change from what I cannot.”
And let me end by reciting this shayer of Ghalib which is like my all-time favourite(pardon me if I have used this before) Fikr-e-duniya me sar khapata hoon Mai kahan or ye bawal kahan (Needlessly I engage in the worries of the world, for I stand so far away from all this madness)
Peace ya’all
tef: ‘Kashmiri Pandit’/KP/Bhatta etc. are all common phrases, used by both Muslim and Hindu Kashmiris when talking about our community. So, the reference to Pandit is a traditional reference and not something I’ve invented to stress my difference from Muslim Kashmiris. The phraseology existed long before the ethnic cleansing, long before. As a matter of fact, the phrase traces back to the 18th century, at the least.
“…kashmiri pandits…shall we bring up caste…”
Yes, razib bring that up if you want, but that wasn’t my intention. And, yes, being a Kashmiri Pandit means that one is a Brahmin (like all Koshur-speaking Hindus) but that’s not the only thing, of course.
“…i can understand how a kashmiri pandit might be wary of discarding a most-aryan-identity…”
Do me a favor, will you ? Don’t speculate about what I think. Just ask, and I’ll tell you that being a Pandit, to me and many other pandits, doesn’t mean hanging on to some ‘Aryan’ fantasy. No, unfortunately, the ethnic cleansing of our community means that most of us don’t have the ‘luxury’ of indulging in such puerile fantasies.
Specifically, for me, it means my family, here and in India. And our former home in Srinagar. And the food. And the language. And a long tradition of extraordinary scholarship ranging from Navya Nyaya (New Logic, pioneered by Udayana, a Bengali dude) to rather intricate metaphysics (Abhinavagupta, etc.). And, as it happens, a tradition of scholarship in Nyaya and Mimamsa which I’m lucky enough to be able to learn (through my family).
Just sayin’
Kumar
this is because their rights are actually better protected in India than in America/Europe
american/europe, just one big white-faced mass of land huh? sorry dude, here in amreeka our moslems have a lot of freedom 😉 europe is filled with many countries, so i won’t speak to that.
and also because they’ve now been in India for about 600 years
no, there is first of all a legend that a king of kerala converted right after the life of muhammed. even if this is not true, the muslims of kerala were probably there from an early age because the cochin coast had a pre-islamic arab presence of merchants who likely converted to islam with the rise of the caliphate in the 8th century. additionally, if you read books like Early India: From the Origins to AD 1300, you will note that 1) sindh was conquered around 700, and 2) arab muslims were employed in the armies and civil services of the western deccani maharajas in the early centuries of the islamic era. also, turkish muslim mercenaries probably showed up in the armies of hindu kings prior to the raids of mahmud of ghanzi and muhammed ghur.
ok kumar, i retract some of my aspersions. i apologize if i have had some experiences with pandit aryanists. shouldn’t engage in castial profiling 😉
Kumar,
Should have probably asked you earlier — are there many non Kashmiri-Pandit hindus in Kashmir? Curious. In a setting of say all Indian uncles and if someone asks you what or where are you from? Do you say Kashmir or Kashmiri pandit?
Muslims in India don’t feel the need to turn to terrorism – this is because their rights are actually better protected in India than in America/Europe
Hmm. Do you really believe that Adam ? I would imagine that right to life and property would be pretty high up in any list of important rights. Do you really believe that Muslim life and property are more protected in India as ompared to the US ? (Please dont bring up a red herring like the Iraq war because we are talking about rights of Muslims in India versus rights of Muslims in the US)
are there many non Kashmiri-Pandit hindus in Kashmir
i have read that the pandits are the last hindus in the vale of srinigar, all the other castes converted to islam (many of the pandits converted to, the current ruling dynasty of sheikh abdullah can trace their ancestry to a village pandit who converted in the late 1700s to islam).
razib:
Apology accepted. Now onto more substantive points…
“just because a classification is nominalistic does not mean it doesn’t have utility. for example, believe it or not, species come close to being a nominalistic category”
Nothing in my post suggests that nominalistic interpretation entails that there is no utility to concepts so construed. Merely that such concepts aren’t ‘objective’, and so not compelling for all. As you point out, such concepts can be judged only by their utility. And that will vary from person to person (indeed the ‘metric’ used to measure utility will also vary from person to person).
And about ‘species’. I count myself among those biologists (or soon-to-be biologist, in my case) who think ‘species’, uniquely among taxic categories, ought not to be construed realistically. But that’s a debate for another day, I think.
Kumar
Seems to me that if you cant define what the culture entails, defending and preserving it seems futile. But that’s just my humble opinion. If you want to have a “South Asian” identity that you belong to,just to feel “one with a bunch of brown people who look like you and live in the West”, thats fine but just admit it, and dont go around preaching your simplistic geopolitical views about the Subcontinent. And dont go preaching to someone else that she is stupid for leaving the “club”. At least Ms.Stupid knows what her culture entails.
I think the main reason I made so many people angry today is because I questioned your castle in the sky. Problem is you guys cant even tell me what the bricks are made of…
The only thing I see that binds us ALL (I am not talking about our individual relationships in the communities) and not just “some South Asians” is: skin color. And even THAT varies widely region to region and country to country. So alas I havent been able to come up with anything yet and neither have any of you. Instead you say no physical list can be made. Come on, there must be something holding the saints together??
Well then even the umbrella of “South Asians” has some exclusions. The one thing that South Asians fought with me about all day, about how I was being “narrow-minded” and “exclusionary”. I guess the saints become the sinners.
BTW, are you even sure all the members of your exclusive South Asian diaspora really want to be part of the club? Positive? Sure they arent going behind your back and identifying themselves in another way???
Sigh…anyways after chipping away at the mumble jumble, I am left with just my aching head. As a “human being” though, I apologize to anyone I might have offended. It’s all in good spirit. Peace..good night
razib:
I noticed a typo. I think species ought to be regarded as realistic.
Kumar
“because their rights are actually better protected in India than in America/Europe”
I believe in the context above the poster is commenting on the fact that Muslims are allowed to live under their own personal laws. Something that is not permissible in US or Europe.
And as far as right to life and property are concerned they exist until someone tries to take them away and then that becomes a criminal act — and in theory those criminal acts are equally prohibited under US and India laws. Reality is a whole another matter.
Razib, What is the percentage of West Asian genes as detected in Hindus living in North India ? I suspect it would mirror the 5% found in Muslims living in North India. There are some Muslim communities especially in Western UP who have Central Asian genes. There are whole villages which came from the Iran-Afghanistan border and other places in that area and are now settled in India. Most of these people have minimum outmarriage rates outside of their tribes so they have maintained their original gene pool (since their arrival in India) But these villages are so small in number and their outmarriage rate so insignifact that statistically their impact on the overall gene pool of North Indian Muslims would be undetectable. North India I would imagine has over 75 million Muslims though I am not sure which states would be included in North India.
I think species ought to be regarded as realistic.
ok, this is WAY off topic, but i just read speciation by coyne and orr (my interest in evolutionary genetics, with a focus on epistasis FYI), and yeah, species is realistic, in comparison to other taxonomic categories which came out of the ass of linneaus…but just like “south asian” i don’t think that any species concept really works well across all clades….
tef:
“…. are there many non Kashmiri-Pandit hindus in Kashmir?”
No Kashmiri Hindus are all Kashmiri Pandits.
“..In a setting of say all Indian uncles … Do you say Kashmir or Kashmiri pandit?”
If they’re not Kashmiris or from J&K then we usually say Kashmiri Pandit. If they’re from J&K then we say KP or Pandit or Bhatta.
Kumar
and in theory those criminal acts are equally prohibited under US and India laws. Reality is a whole another matter.
Yes ma brotha. Reality can be such a bitch.
I suspect it would mirror the 5% found in Muslims living in North India.
off memory, you are actually incorrect. i assumed it would be as you ascertained, but no, there are alleles with specific turkic and persian origins which are found to a far greater extent among the muslims of uttar pradesh than among the hindus. the turkic part might be crucial, the altaic tribes did not enter into india in large numbers until they became muslim. also, FYI, the muslims of uttar pradesh show the same distribution of various caste specific alleles as the hindus of uttar pradesh, that is, surprising the genes tell the tale that they are a relatively representative sampling of the hindu population (kshatriya, dalit and brahmin modal alleles are found in the same frequencies!). the main difference is the noticeably higher frequency of central/west asian alleles. i was surprised. but of course, it doesn’t have to be to equally represented throughout the population.
razib,
yes off-topic, but very interesting stuff. What I’ll say here amounts to fairly crude philosophising but it is late and, hey, you gets what you paid fer! (or, hey, I’m just a would-be biologist): Briefly, I think that if any conceptual entity can have a causal effect, or can be shown to be enmeshed in a causal net, then scientists are justified in treating it as (provisionally) ‘real’. For various reasons, I think that the species concept meets that criterion–notice that it doesn’t have to have universal applicablility to do that.
And even more off-topic: Have you read Orr’s work on Fisher’s model? Just elegant stuff. Who’d have thunk the old model could yield such fascinating results. Which is another way of saying, I’m jealous of Orr. Maybe, when I grow up, I can be just like Orr 😉
Kumar
And that will vary from person to person (indeed the ‘metric’ used to measure utility will also vary from person to person).
sure, and we are arguing about this because everyone has their own opinion, and this is relevant because once a social consensus gets established than we are affected by it no matter what. so i will reiterate my viewpoint: brown americans should follow a swedish or italian american ethnic model, with a minimum amount of awareness for cultural activities, perhaps some organization in the interests of anti-bias, but also very open social networks and little formalization. i hear a lot of talk about browns following the ‘jewish model,’ and i don’t like that idea. there is always talk about ‘who is a jew,’ ‘jewish intermarriage rates,’ ‘jewish foreign policy,’ etc. etc.* jews don’t live in hell, but i like it or not, most jews do have to deal with the consequences of their ethnic leaders decisions at some point. for browns it will suck even more because our asses are recognizably brown all the time…just my opinion.
And even more off-topic: Have you read Orr’s work on Fisher’s model? Just elegant stuff. Who’d have thunk the old model could yield such fascinating results. Which is another way of saying, I’m jealous of Orr. Maybe, when I grow up, I can be just like Orr 😉
i’m a lover of fisher, but no, i haven’t gotten to that, i just finished Epistasis and the Evolutionary Process, which took off on the adaptive landscape, and i’m having a hard time looking additive variance in the eye right now. from what i gathered in speciation though coyne is more the fisherian ‘bean bag’ trad of the two.
off memory, you are actually incorrect. i assumed it would be as you ascertained, but no, there are alleles with specific turkic and persian origins which are found to a far greater extent among the muslims of uttar pradesh than among the hindus
Interesting. I guess ‘uncles’ can sometimes tell the truth as well !
brown connection: r.a. fisher helped get the indian statistical institute off the ground.
tef,
Do you use the term desi with non-desis? When speaking to a non-(PakIndBang) Candian, would you refer to yourself or someone else as a desi? Or is desi a term to be used only with other desis?
I have to confess that “Desi” is my preferred term but many Americans are not familiar with it. In those cases, I usually revert to the default term of Indians, which is problematic (because it is often times inaccurate and sometimes gets confused with Native Americans).
Tis true that we are making a lot of fuss over terminology. At the end of the day, we may not have much say over how we are classified/stereotyped by others.
What are the different aspects to the Pan South-Asian culture? And how is it better than the Individual cultures? For example experiencing your friends Sri Lankan customs are wonderful, but proclaiming you are part Sri Lankan? eh..So culture is certainly not a binding religious ideology, its certainly not customs…which differ WIDELY amongst South Asians, its might not even be food, which vary widely country by country and region by region? Bollywood? Oh please..Music? Carnatic vs Qawaali..very different..Na..Family Issues? Nope..That is a individual thing…Smells as the other brainy poster suggested? Give me a break….Dance?naa..So what binds South Asians?
Correct me if I am wrong, but these problems that you describe in defining the “South Asian culture” can also be attributed to the concept of the “common Indian identity”.
razib:
“…once a social consensus gets established than we are affected by it no matter what.”
My original comment, after much lurking, was to underline the ‘non-naturalness’ of the various classifications mooted in the post and comment thread. As such, I simply wanted to underline that one can’t assume that there is a ‘natural’ (hence ‘un-natural’) classification for 1.5/2nd generation people, with the implication that all such folks ‘should’ adopt the ‘natural’ classification.
I suspect that ‘desis’ will assimilate in a number of ways, with the loose affiliation and ‘Jewish’ models the two most prominent.
“brown connection: r.a. fisher helped get the indian statistical institute off the ground.”
I’ll take this as license to add a few points about Orr’s work. Orr’s basically extended (and corrected) Kimura’s result on the spectrum of mutations one would expect to find in an adaptive walk. Orr has shown, based on Fisher’s model, that mutations of large effect are more prominent than expected. Recently, his results have found some empirical traction. All of this is very interesting, and important in establishing a (semi-)quantitative theory of adaptation, as Orr points out.
Kumar
Just wanted to voice my support for your view, Sonal. I think it is completely understandable today to want to separate identities and come to be viewed by religion and culture as opposed to skin color. In fact…
“I have a dream…one day my children will be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character…”
I too am frightened of a “brown backlash” and will do all I can to try to separate myself from Islamic extremists. If this means informing those who are not aware of the differences between Hindus and Muslims, or Muslims and Muslim extremists, I see nothing wrong with that. People fear what they do not understand, and education is a good way to eliminate that fear.
I for one do not see the sense in defending every South Asian blindly simply because I happen to be of that origin. I will defend the beliefs and actions I find appropriate, and chastise those which I find to be senseless acts of violence, regardless of the cultural groups Americans or Brits lump us into. And I do not believe this makes me a sell-out or a separatist.
Tef: – Razib’s answer to #174 is very close. I have heard from my Grandpa that there usd to be some Kashmiri Hindus who were not pandits, but I have never met one of them.
There are however various subcastes within the KP community (Gor and Karkoon), but those have been forgotten gradually by our generation.
I think a lot of people think and feel that the relations between muslims and hindus in Kashmir would have been very strained. It was exactly the opposite, atleast in our mohalla (neighborhood) in Srinagar. The closest equivalent, I can find is Jews and Christians in NYC. There was an open understanding of the fact that most of the muslims in kashmir were hindus before. There were differences, but things NEVER went out of hand. Its just pathetically ironic how the fortunes were to change in a few years.
Kumar – Nice to see another KP on the thread. I happen to be a Koshur daylbatt too. 🙂 Have lived in Srinagar for a few years and visited the place for two months every summer vacation till 1988. I hope your family was not as affected by the terrorism as mine was.
paranoid android:
Fellow “…daylbatt…”, hello 🙂 We lived in Srinagar as well. In our mohalla Muslim-KP interactions were mostly free of communal friction (‘free’ relative to the Indian norm, I suppose), though not entirely absent. In retrospect, obviously, communal amity didn’t go deep enough.
Kumar
Well, the other thing is a common racialized experience. American laws and culture did not traditionally distinguished among “Hindoos” and “Mohammadens” when it has come to citizenship status, exclusion from immigration, and other items. Prior to 1947, there was nothing to distinguish from (nationality wise). But even had there had been, I doubt they would have, because there are a lot of commonalities in Asian Americans.
Also, when some of us talk about “pressure from our families” or “the demand to go to achieve academically” or “the demand for status” or “the one track uncle” or “why the food on 6th street in new york sucks” or any number of other things–there’s a reason you don’t have to explain yourself to a lot of other people who are brown–they get it because there are some commonalities.
And so, to the extent that “South Asian” makes sense as an identity, it’s both because we all have to live through experiences that were shaped by similar historical actions by the state, lumped is into a similar category, treatedy our group similarly, racialized our group similarly, and therefore there’s a historical grounds that has remnants in the legal system and the culture for us banding together. It makes no sense ot talk about about post 1965 wihtout recognizing the difference between pre-1965 and post 1965 and who it affected. And add to that the inherent commonalities of someone who knows or has learned to enjoy bollywood or rabindranath or classical desi music or whatever.
The fact that this debate has gone on over 200 comments is pretty clear evidence that there are some things–if only the question of where to draw the line on identity–that we have in common.
In any case, I agree with a lot of the people that have objected that South Asian identity is often rammed down our throats without any considereation of whether we want to be a part of it or not–just as Asian-American identity has been and many other identities have been. People who want you to be included in their identity need to give the space for differences.
That said, on an individual, moral level, there is a tremendous difference, when your survival or your deep interests are not at stake, between 1) clarifying your own Hindu identity to no-gooders and 2) clinging to your Hindu identity while aiding outsiders in casting aspersions on Muslims in a context in which Muslims are being widely targeted. The former is your right, while the latter is, to me, something of a disgrace. It’s the difference betwen being trying to survive and being complicity in predudice, in my eyes (and that applies to other issues besides whether Hindus and Muslims and atheists and Christians need to stick together against discrimination and attacks from the government). Otherwise, you live in your own little bubble, and you never really grow. Which is sad for you.
By the way, Sonal, can you clarify some of these “experiences” you’ve had in India that have so thoroughly transformed you and given you such greater insight into the workings of identity in the United States?
I have just one point to make in response to Abhi’s post.While I respect his or anyone’s desire to be referred to as ” South Asian”, I think it is unfair to refer to others people’s different sense of identity as disgusting. You may have more in common with Second generation Indian-Americans, Pakistani-Americans, Sri-Lankan Americans, Chinese-Americans, Filipino-Americans, etc.. I would like to point that approx half of these groups are not south asian. They are Asian. Why do you then need the subgroup “south asian” within the Asian American grouping? By calling yourself south asian or desi are’nt you guilty of holding the same “disgusting” view? I think this is just a question of an individual’s limits. You probably limit yourself to identifying with fellow south asians to distinguish yourself from other american asians communities. Whereas other people limit themselves to being called Indian, to differentiate themselves from other asians. It is only a matter of degree rather than ideology. Everyone who calls themselves Indian does not do so because of hate for their neighbouring countries, its because we have a seperate identity. I would also like to point out that a lot of people who are brought up in India, are also fortunate to be born in a liberal, secular society. It is not an american exclusive privilege, though looking at the way things are in america right now I would cringe before calling it a liberal secular society 😉
Can be. But it often reflects something different than, say, the n* word. imo, the context in which its used and what it’s pushing forward matter as much as the words themselves.
Razib wrote :
You are very quick in judging people ..calling them ethnically mypoic, clueless, unaware of history, and other shit ..as if you know everything under the sun ..you falunt it by throwing around some genetic sh#t around from time to time.
Razib: the difference between Italian / Swedish immigrants and South Asian immigrants is (a) that the former group could pass (b) that the former groups were members of the dominant religion(s). That’s why they had a relatively open model.
There’s a great quote, I think by Nitzche, about how it is the anti-semite who makes the jew. As a group, we’re defined both by our own members and by the reaction of other groups.
The inability of most desis to pass visually, and the cultural sacrifices involved in doing so, argue against an open model of assimilation working as well.
Razib: the difference between Italian / Swedish immigrants and South Asian immigrants is (a) that the former group could pass (b) that the former groups were members of the dominant religion(s). That’s why they had a relatively open model.
well, remember that “popery” was not always considered part of the dominant religion. one reason the colonies revolted i believe was tolerance extended to catholics. but your point is good to a first aproximation, but i tend to think that since only 80% americans are christian, there are a lot of people to work with as far as creating open social networks go (check out a unitarian church, for example).
.as if you know everything under the sun ..you falunt it by throwing around some genetic sh#t around from time to time.
hey, if people are saying stupid stuff, why shouldn’t i object? a lot of the time people aren’t even saying anything that wouldn’t take 5 seconds of google to falsify. opinions everyone has, but the facts, well, that is something that has to be seen. kumar obviously wasn’t stupid, so i apologized.
Have you all seen this statement re: London bombings? I think this is a more constructive way to respond then what others have in these previous posts!
http://saalt.org/news_7-14-05.html