195 thoughts on “A Desi by any other Name would smell like Me”

1. Manju,

   Would you please let me know how to get those vertical dotted quotes?

   You highlight all the relevant text with your cursor/mouse and then click on the first icon next to the “Comments” header.

   By the way, why did you assert that “Sikhism not part of Hinduism”? You brought a couple and one more unrelated variables to the discussion.

   I just mentioned it because I noticed that the controversy seemed to be targetting just Indian Christians (or people with Christian-sounding names) and Muslims.

   Don’t you think the discussion is valid only for Muslims and Christians ?

   I was playing Devil’s Advocate. Why should the discussion only be relevant for these 2 groups ? -If someone is asserting that “Only a Hindu can be Indian”, the counterargument — logically-speaking — would obviously involve other Indian groups such as Sikhs, Jains, etc.

   I don’t think bigoted Hindus have problems with Sikhism, Buddhism and Jainism.

   Depending on the specific person/group, I expect that’s because they either regard these religions as being part of Hinduism, or there is some xenophobic issue regarding the fact that Christianity and Islam are of “foreign” origin.

   sometimes I feel Ambedkar somehow let down Dalits by converting to Buddhism instead of Islam.

   Apparently one of his first choices was Sikhism but some dubious politics within the Sikh religious leadership at the time, regarding the somewhat un-Sikh issue of caste, ended up pushing him towards Buddhism instead.

   Babloo,

   The VHP/RSS activities in this area are fringe

   Perhaps (although the VHP did recently put out a public pronouncement stating “Sikhism is a sect of Hinduism”), but there is a lot of deliberate religious distortion about Sikhs and Sikhism currently being repeatedly — and regularly — depicted in some of the aforementioned popular Indian serials. Sikh characters are shown taking part in all kinds of religious practices which have nothing whatsoever to do with Sikhism — although they are a part of conventional Hinduism — and totally misrepresent how Sikhs conduct themselves in such matters in real life. Depicting practising Sikhs as taking part in “havans”, praying to murtis of Ganesh, or (worst of all) repeatedly praying towards paintings of Guru Nanak and erroneously referring to him as “Waheguru” (even though Sikhism does not believe in avtaars, and the term Waheguru does not actually actually mean Guru Nanak) is as realistic a portrayal of the religion and its adherents as it would be to show Sikhs praying towards Mecca five times per day or taking part in the Catholic communion ceremony.

   Santana Dharmic view of the religion then Sikhism, Jainism and Buddhism are branches

   I understand your point of view, but by that logic every single religion on earth is a part of the Sanatan Dharma view — including Islam, Christianity, Judaism etc. So are all those people Hindus too ?

   My original comments were just a “side-bar” as this topic had focused purely on Christianity and Islam, and were not intended to initiate any in-depth debate about Sikhism vis-a-vis Hinduism. It was just an example.

2. Jai, Thanks for your tips. I suppose my mozilla firefox is not displaying the button. I can only see “Comments:”

   You commented each and every point of my post but left out the most important and the fundamental one. This problem arises only because of bigoted Hindus.

3. hindu/jain/sikh/buddhist/christian/muslim, exogamy rates might be a good way to gauge these things.

   In Kerala, Hindu-Christian marriages are not uncommon. I don’t have the statistics. But I have seen my Malayalee friends getting married. And I don’t think it’s skewed up in any direction. I wanted to marry a Kottayam Christian girl but I had settle for a Kottayam Hindu girl…hmmm.

4. I understand your point of view, but by that logic every single religion on earth is a part of the Sanatan Dharma view — including Islam, Christianity, Judaism etc. So are all those people Hindus too ?

   No, Islam, Christianity and Judaism are not Dharmic religions (ie share the sanatan dharma view). They don’t have a concept of dharma/dhamma, reincarnation or inclusivity of other paths to salvation, among other things. The three you have mentioned are usually classified as Abrahamic religions.

5. Manju,

   You commented each and every point of my post but left out the most important and the fundamental one. This problem arises only because of bigoted Hindus.

   Actually I did answer that part too, as part of “Depending on the specific person/group, I expect that’s because they either regard these religions as being part of Hinduism, or there is some xenophobic issue regarding the fact that Christianity and Islam are of “foreign” origin.”

   I’m trying to get my head around the reasons why the aforementioned bigoted Hindus don’t regard Indian Christians and Muslims as actually being Indian. Is it because they think that people belonging to these 2 groups are “all” descended from foreigners ? Or are they having problems accepting the fact that, centuries ago, large numbers of indigenous Indians also converted to these religions (for one reason or another) ?

6. Babloo Great joy in planting logic landmines and jumping with glee on their explosion…

   I can only speak for myself. That is an incorrect assumption. My joy lies in good discussion, with substance an no unnecesary inflammation of emotion. This is happening now.

   Your points are mine too. Wittgenstein is someone I have been studying in this regard.

   Am curious to see why you found my posts deceptive. I am quite willing to clear anything not clear, If a question was posed. None were. So how did you arrive at the label of deceptive?

   Again, this is a sincere question. It merits an honest answer. I would like to learn from your response.

   Sumita

7. Islam, Christianity and Judaism are not Dharmic religions (ie share the sanatan dharma view). They don’t have a concept of dharma/dhamma, reincarnation or inclusivity of other paths to salvation, among other things. The three you have mentioned are usually classified as Abrahamic religions.

   Interesting point of view. So technically, that makes the present Dalai Lama a Hindu too, along with all Buddhists worldwide. I wonder if he is aware of this perception.

   No need to repeat khalistani arguments that only serve as political tools….The danger is that the with lessening differences, instead of seeing each other as equal terms, rabid ideologies start which aim to go back to the ‘pure’ form of sikhism and try to create differences when none exist.

   Khalistan has absolutely nothing to do with it. It’s very important to get past the typical desi black-and-white, “you’re either with us or against us” point of view; please bear in mind that if someone says their religion is not actually a part of Hinduism — regardless of the Sanatan Dharma concept — then that does not automatically make them “pro-Khalistan” or “anti-Hindu/anti-Hinduism”.

   I can understand why proponents of the Sanatan Dharma worldview would regard Sikhism (and some other faiths) as being “branches” of this interpretation of Hinduism, but if the founders of Sikhism itself said that they were not Hindus, that their teachings — while all-embracing in the sense of being for the benefit of all mankind irrespective of their official religious affiliation — were not a branch of the mainstream Hindu religion in its organised form, and that tens of millions of Sikhs worldwide (perfectly ordinary, moderate people, with no relation to “rabid ideologies” or Khalistan) insist that they are not Hindus…then one cannot ignore their objections and insist that they are in fact following a sect of Hinduism.

   Sikhism does indeed have various things in common with Hinduism, but it also has common elements with the more positive aspects of other faiths too, including the aforementioned Abrahamic religions. Remember also that the Sri Guru Granth Sahib includes large numbers of verses by Sufi saints. This does not mean that Sikhism is a “Hinduised” sect of Islam, for example (something which has been argued by some Pakistani Muslims purely because Guru Nanak visited Mecca during his travels and also possessed a shawl with Quranic verses on it). Sikhism has a lot in common with some versions of Sufism but that does not mean that one is an offshoot or branch of the other.

   What all this does mean, however, is that what is fundamentally “True” in all these faiths — both “Indian” and Abrahamic — comes from the same divine source. One could in fact say that individuals from both of these two groups who believe in certain key concepts enshrined in Sikhism regarding the nature of God and “ideal” human conduct (regardless of what their official religious affiliation may teach) are, to a lesser or greater extent, “allies” of Sikhism if not necessarily Sikhs in the formalised sense. Remember that the Sikh Gurus had both Hindu and Muslim followers (including Sufi saints, along with Mughal generals who switched sides in the middle of battles).

   So is Sanatan Dharam an unofficial branch of Sikhism in its true all-encompassing sense, or is Sikhism a branch of Sanatan Dharma ? Ahh, that’s the controversial question, isn’t it ? wink

   I think we’ve sidetracked this discussion enough, but I hope you now understand why, from a Sikh perspective, it’s important not to restrict Sikhism to a localised “Indian religion/branches of Hinduism” interpretation, because the faith does not view matters that way (neither did its founders).

8. *along with Mughal generals who had joined them by switching sides in the middle of battles).

9. Jacob,

   Thank you again for your cogent response.

   “no matter what religion you are there is a strong element of ‘Bharatiya’ or ‘Hindu’ element in it.” This may be your view. I am not sure many other non Hindus share this point of view.

   Therein lies opprtunity for inquiry which must first 1. Acknowledge this inconsistency 2. Discuss it unemotionally based on data and facts, not feelings. 3. With a goal for arriving at a commonality and inclusiveness.

   Any identity that chooses exclusiveness over inclusiveness will become the subset. besides idenitties that are dirven by others perspective will always be powerless(hence I am not comfortable with the skin color thing.In any case, someone said, in 50 years the world might as well be beige, the rate at which folks are intermarrying)

   However, superficial concepts that do not take into account millions of people’s subjective reality of religion cannot be a way of sweeping the problem under the carpet

   Secularism is one such concept. It is too vague, too undefined (in the Indian context) to provide this umbrella we all seek.

   We must make an effort to find a different framework. This cannot be easy. I do understand that, but that does not mean we cannot try.

   Sumita

10. Jacob, I typed your name in the poster field by a genuine mistake. Am sorry if it causes confusion

    Sumita

11. Jai

    Part of my husband’s family comes from the sikh faith.One person in my family has converted to Buddhism.I was raised Hindu and find no difficutly with any of these realities.

    There are differences. They are important

    But more importantly, there are similarities. What exaclty are these differences and simialrities. This discussion becomes an emotional one as religion is always a subjective experience.

    What is this commonality of a subjective reality vs an objective reality? This is a true challenge. However, it is not insurmountable( So I hope and think)

    So I can ask questions, learn and explore and find what is my personal point of happy peace.Thats all I can do.

    Sumita

12. Sumita,

    Sikhism is an interesting paradox, in the sense that — in the form consolidated by Guru Gobind Singh — its adherents are encouraged to maintain their separate identity yet to simultaneously identify with their fellow human beings without any recognition of religious, ethnic, or national differentiation. Perhaps one way of defining it would be “exclusivity within the wider context of inclusivity”.

    This isn’t a way of promoting the view that Sikhs are “separate” from the rest of mankind (and certainly not “superior” or exalted above everyone else), but it’s to ensure that there is no distortion of Sikh scriptures and teachings by misguided or malicious members of other faiths, especially religious figures. It’s also one of the reasons why Sikhs react so negatively to claims that their faith is actually part of another religion, or to attempts by members of different organised religions to hijack/appropriate Sikh teachings and the Gurus and claim them as their own. This independence is also important in order to prevent any claims of religious authority over Sikhs by other faiths (or by their religious leaders).

    Someone who knows enough about Sikh tenets and history would be aware that, in essence, it’s not actually an organised religion in the exclusive are-you-Hindu-Muslim-or-Christian–tick-the-right-box way at all; as the faith teaches that God does not differentiate between different religious groups but is more concerned with your conduct as an individual and the subsequent impact on your soul — your “heart”, basically — the aim of Sikhism has always been to create an alliance of like-minded, good-natured, idealistic individuals for the whole world, cutting right across any formalised, official religious boundaries. Hence it does indeed promote the cultivation of an inclusive attitude and worldview towards one’s fellow human beings (ie. try to look for what you have in common rather what differentiates you, which I believe is what you’re alluding to). Another consequence of this is that one “adopts” Sikhism rather than formally converting to it, with the exception of the most committed adherents who go for the whole 5Ks Amrit ceremony.

    Jai

13. dear lord, i think i preferred the guy who hates yuppies in their BMWs. you know, Rajeev Srinivasa Venkata Narayana Krishnamoorthy Padigondla? the one who wants us all to get him a frappuccino? at least reading him didn’t make me want to gouge out my own eyes.

    please come back, oh multi-named pseudo-prick. muddy the waters! insult whiny desi yuppies and mock their need to navel-gaze! be even meaner, i won’t mind…your words would be a welcome respite from the nauseating blather put forth by those whose sense of humor apparently dissolved the moment they procreated. i mean, thanks for killing a wonderful, enlightening thread where everyone felt safe enough to share their experiences which were relevant to THE ACTUAL POST. geez louise.

    anyone up for a rousing chorus of “smelly cat?” no? darn.

14. Dear Rachel

    “wonderful, enlightening thread where everyone felt safe enough to share their experiences which were relevant to THE ACTUAL POST”

    oooohhh!! sorry to burst your bubble!!

    your “safe” bubble.

    God!!Talk about whiny folks. Nothing’s more icky than whiny!!!I am looking for happy folks.

    yeah!! I sense that “Love me, love me!!” sense emanating from you too. Am sure someone here will…have fun…didnt men to spoil your party!! Spread the fun and the joy.

    Laters…

    My favorite blog was the one about the ring, though.

    Sumita

15. Thanks for the explanation, cicatrix. I could be pulling the town elder-bestowed name-thing out of my ass, but I seem to recall my parents bickering about whether such a thing existed (My mom, who claims that it does, is from a village near Gampaha, if that means anything).
    One thing I still don’t get about the “ge” name, though. Since the “ge” is possessive, do siblings all get the same “ge” name, or do they get different ones? (Sorry if this is a dumb question; I’ve never heard most of my cousins’ full names and don’t have a “ge” name myself, so I’m still confused about where the part of the name that precedes the “ge” comes from, and whether the “ge” name is a distinct category, apart from the other types of names that you mentioned.)

16. “I do think this site cultivates a certain competitiveness regarding who is more “Indian” that invariably causes people to make such comments when they have nothing to say “

    I sense it more along the well-worn “FOB/ABCD” divide.

17. First of all, I found razib’s comment #30 spot on. Secondly, I am disturbed and angry at the lack of civility displayed by Christopher and Sumita, as they pile on him accusing him of lack of civility and other crimes.

    It seems that Christopher is saying that Razib’s perhaps inappropriate use of “Know Thyself” was a central point of the post it appeared in, and invalidation of this usage invalidates Razib’s whole viewpoint. Whereas I saw it as a throwaway comment whose invalidation does not invalidate Razib’s central point or perspective.

    And many of Sumita’s comments seem to be along the lines of “I have spent a lot of time thinking about this. It is more complicated than you think.” without enumeration of what exactly her perspective is. For one thing it is not at all self-evident to me why all Razib’s assertions are flawed, as it is to Sumita.

    Sumita, I know why I did not respond to your post full of questions earlier. To me, an American Brown, ABCD, or whatever, they appear to be simplistic and vague, although I think I can imagine why to you they may appear precise and meaningful. So, let me take a look at them now, and maybe in my answers you can come to see why your questions seem to me to be poorly-defined in relation to the realities of “American Browns.” (I do mean this criticism of your questions non-judgmentally).

    Am curious about one thing though. In your view, does the identity of American Brown (I have no experience of what that means) differ from that of an Indian?

    I don’t think there is or will be one “American Brown” identity. But, I would say that if you could make some sort of plot of “identity,” the identities of American browns would cluster fairly separately from the identities of browns in “desiland.” The cluster separability would be due to life experience in a land where your genetic background and your (or your parents’) cultural background are not in the majority.

    I am not sure how you (and your friends here) perceive the difference.

    I think that the difference that any “American Brown” may feel between his/her identity and that presumed of a “desiland Brown” is caused by the fundamental difference in life experience due to “American Browns” growing up as a minority (as I said above). Now, what that difference is/(those differences are) perceived to be will vary from person to person. (Any perceived similarities would also vary from person to person.)

    That difference (or similarity) may be key to many things.

    I don’t know what you mean by “many things,” so there’s not much I can say here, although dimly I feel that recognition of similarities between American Browns and desiland Browns does and will play a role in self-definition of many American Browns.

    Am very interested in knowing how you perceive these differences(or similarities) as related to desis from desiland(namely India)

    Two examples:

    I might venture that one common difference between American Brown and desiland Brown identities is the AB’s generally greater willingness to generalize multiple desiland identities into “Indian,” or “South Asian,” or “Desi.” In other words the AB is often more likely to note a global similarity between the multiplicity of desiland identities. (This is not always true; sometimes an AB identifies tightly with the specific desiland identity of his/her parents, being for example caste-conscious in a way which is not common among urban Indians.)

    I might also say that desiland Browns, from my American Brown perspective, often seem to view American Browns (NRI’s or ABCD’s) as lacking some commitment to/pride in the homeland and their ancestral backgrounds – and this in their view forms the basis of the difference between AB and dB identities.

    But again, I think you’d have to take a poll of large numbers of AB’s and dB’s to get their specific, personal answers rather than looking for one person to give you one total and universal answer.

    To add to it, what takes precedence in defining the Brown American identity, the similarities or the differences, or both?

    This is kind of neat. Well, SM here exists, and lots of us come here, Hindus, Christians, Muslims, atheists, Sinhalese, Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Northies, Southies, etc. (I’m not marginalizing those of you who I haven’t mentioned, I’m just tired!) If most of us didn’t perceive our American Brown identities as at least somewhat defined by the similarities between AB’s and dB’s, this whole blog wouldn’t be happening.

    I personally would say the perceived similarities take precedence in the process of defining our AB identities, because those bring us to the table in the first place. But then the perceived differences kick in to help each of us refine the process of self-definition.

    So now, via my answers you may be able to refine or reword your questions to better convey to me what you might actually be seeking? Unless I’ve actually won the lottery and hit it here?

    Razib mentioned somewhere (I think in this thread, but maybe not) that people from different viewpoints tend to do a lot of talking past each other due to insufficiently explicit definition of terms. I agree.

    Razib, don’t leave. Keep up the good work, you have at least one fan. 🙂

18. Razib, don’t leave. Keep up the good work, you have at least one fan.

    Ditto that.

19. Deepa

    Thank you for your response.

    My first post was triggered by the statement Razib made.

    “American Brown” was being made here, , even as he also stated he is not concerned with this identity.

    I am trying to raise children who, while being in school here for many years, do not yet display an awareness of an identity based on skin color. Please note that I say yet. I have been encouraged by this. But clearly here, more people seem to see themselves together more because of cutaneous similarities, rather than philosophical or ideological or religious etc….having lived, worked and interacted in the US for many years, also my color has not been my defning identity, hence I was struck by that remark and was curious to explore what exactly it meant. I was also wondering if my children would exhibit an identity based on color and what could I do to prevent it.(I do have the choice to live anywhere on the globe I want, even maintain multiple residences in different countries, if I wish)to make informed decisions, an understanding of such identities is key.

    Hence Razib’s comment got my attention.

    My familiarity with many African american writers works on the issue of identity based on skin color, was behind the question, which were completely sincere. However, I sensed from Razib’s responses, (and from yours) that some may perceive it as an attack.

    Its not. It is an attempt to examine and debate. However, if a different point of view seems to be threatening, then I am quite fine with being silent. MY hope was, that all here are confident enough for self examination of concepts and identities.

    If its a group of young people who want to have a good time and are together because they feel comfortable in their similar ideas, then my posts were clearly misplaced.

    I dont think”American Brown” is a meaningful or precise identity to begin with. I am not even sure why color must become defining rather than ideas. I am also curious about the name of the site as the history of 1857 is very conflicted and probably stands for failings rather than victories. Rudrangshu Mukherjee’s book on the rising uses the term “pondies” which I have been familair with since childhood. It is not a favorable term and yet in a name based on mutiny might very well be associated with this term. Hibbert’s work, as well as Dalrymple touches upon these issues. Am guessing that these fine details are of not much concern here, even that most may not be aware of them.

    Yes, your answers were very clear and did answer what I was looking for.(smile you did hit the jackpot there) This is what I wanted from Razib, and did not get. But I did not show any lack of civility to him, rather was subjected to questionable language. In my world, “logic my ass” is not a civil answer. I am learning, in certain worlds it may be. For me, its good learning.For that, am grateful.

    I write on issues of identity as an observer Hence am always observing, and clarifying stands of different demographics, rather than make leaps of judgements. As a constant student and observer, any contentiuous questions stem from clarifying what seems to be strong statements.

    This will be my last post in this serious note. I prefer to stick to information on popular media (books, films etc) rather than ideas and philosophy. On no account do I mean to challenge anyone.

    Thank you for taking time to reply. I really appreciated it.

    Sumita

20. And many of Sumita’s comments seem to be along the lines of “I have spent a lot of time thinking about this. It is more complicated than you think.” without enumeration of what exactly her perspective is. For one thing it is not at all self-evident to me why all Razib’s assertions are flawed, as it is to Sumita.

    Sumita, I know why I did not respond to your post full of questions earlier. To me, an American Brown, ABCD, or whatever, they appear to be simplistic and vague, although I think I can imagine why to you they may appear precise and meaningful.

    AMEN. i agree totally. i also think there is a “you are not as wise as i, you silly young people who cannot debate me”-vibe.

    I dont think”American Brown” is a meaningful or precise identity to begin with. I am not even sure why color must become defining rather than ideas. I am also curious about the name of the site as the history of 1857 is very conflicted and probably stands for failings rather than victories. Rudrangshu Mukherjee’s book on the rising uses the term “pondies” which I have been familair with since childhood. It is not a favorable term and yet in a name based on mutiny might very well be associated with this term. Hibbert’s work, as well as Dalrymple touches upon these issues. Am guessing that these fine details are of not much concern here, even that most may not be aware of them.

    if only your comments weren’t so suffused with this obvious smugness. i think someone once brilliantly said the following about you:

    “it’s hard to have an exchange of ideas with someone making declarative statements.

    you say you are attempting to examine, clarify, debate…it really seems like you are trying to nitpick, split hairs and assert a position of superiority. if people ignore your “brilliant” questions, that is why.

21. Hi Sumita,

    You may not end up reading this as you have decided to stay away from such topics in future, but just in case, I will respond. I’m glad we communicated a little regarding your questions. I didn’t see the questions themselves as an attack, but didn’t answer them initially because for me it would be retreading old ground (“ABCD 101”). It may be as you spend more time at this non-Indian-born dominated site that you will arrive at your own answers, and you can probably see from the answers I gave that I feel that that would be the best way for you to arrive at those answers.

    No, the perception that you were attacking came from comments like:

    Let it go. You are way out of your depth here.In that you will earn mine and everyone else’s respect.

    I could cite data way faster and way better than you could.

    Anything you write, any intelligent person here can google in the age of the internet( and do).

    Maybe this portal is aptly named.Those who love gentle, intelligent, cogent ways of questioning their identity should rethink their participation.

    Some of these are in response to comments by Razib which with the exception of one or two, were serious responses to comments of yours. Others are your response to the discussion between Razib and Christopher. Razib and Christopher have a conversational history which extends to at least one other thread, and their responses to each other tend to reflect that history rather than only what has just been said. (Frankly, with Christopher’s strategy of nitpicking “know thyself” and ignoring the main point of Razib’s answers, I don’t blame Razib for shutting off the discussion…but that’s their conversation, not yours or mine.)

    And I guess it must be in another thread, but I remember reading a comment of yours saying that your 9-year-old could give better analysis than most or all people on this blog. That is a pretty “attacking” comment (and untrue). So is the following, made to someone else upthread who I thought had a point about the discussion of names and “legitimate” identity as desi having been killed:

    God!!Talk about whiny folks. Nothing’s more icky than whiny!!!I am looking for happy folks.

    Enough about that. The other issue I see is that you want others here to do a lot of self-explanation, but give these types of comments as justification:

    Am interested in knowing how you arrive at the answer. That process is of grat significance

    This disagreement is of interest to me. It is not as simple as it seems

    It would be only fair to explain yourself as thoroughly as you feel others should explain themselves. I at least, when seeing someone asking me detailed questions but providing no detailed exposition of their own, do not feel a desire to answer those questions.

    MY hope was, that all here are confident enough for self examination of concepts and identities.

    I think the questions about non-Indian-born “brown” identity are constantly being explored here – usually implicitly through the discussion, erupting into explicit discussion sometimes. The questions you have are not new to nIbb’s (non-Indian-born-browns). Everyone has in some way dealt with them before, and come here with those thoughts/experiences as a basis which they don’t usually feel the need to explicitly rehash. So all the posts, comments, etc. here are an extension of the basic, explicit discussion of identity in which you are interested. The discussion at SM is there for you to read and participate in, but is happening on its own terms, with which you may or may not feel satisfied.

    I am trying to raise children who, while being in school here for many years, do not yet display an awareness of an identity based on skin color. Please note that I say yet. I have been encouraged by this.

    having lived, worked and interacted in the US for many years, also my color has not been my defning identity,

    Well, your and their lack of skin color-based identity is interesting. I don’t know what type of schools or workplaces you have. I think many of us who grew up in America, UK, etc. have skin-color consciousness because we are part of societies with many skin colors and because we experience being labeled as “other,” discriminated against, etc., purely because of our skin color.

    As a side note, when I was 9 I felt I was “Indian,” with my life in the US only an accident of birth. I couldn’t say the same thing when I was 21. So your young children’s answers may seem very clear now, and may become less clear as they age and become more engaged with the society they live in.

22. am trying to raise children who, while being in school here for many years, do not yet display an awareness of an identity based on skin color.

    well, fortunately for them it’s not the 1970s anymore, so maybe nobody’s called them Dot Head yet to bring about such awareness in them. We didn’t view color as an issue in our house, but if you have a “weird name” and get asked enough questions about if your dad wears a turban or if you’ve ever eaten snakes… well it becomes a quick topic at home after all…

    well said, Deepa. thanks for that.

23. deepa,

    hear hear, your comment was wonderful. i think i lurve you more than ross right now. 😉

24. Alot of excellent points Deepa.

    As a side note, when I was 9 I felt I was “Indian,” with my life in the US only an accident of birth. I couldn’t say the same thing when I was 21.

    When I was 9, my Canadian peers would ask me where I was from. The direction of this question towards me, when it was not directed towards anyone else, made it a leading question. If kids are asking me this question, I must be from somewhere else, and that place is India. Very simplistic idea of identity, but that’s how a child’s logic works.

    Now, as time goes on, and we begin to understand discrimination and racism, and ideas (from mostly caucasians) that we are less Canadian or less American than them continue to be directed towards us, we understand that this is unfair. Because this ignorant idea is really prevalent, we have to fight it. That’s why we say, “Hey, being born and raised here, we’re just as American, Canadian etc. as you; we just happen to be brown. Don’t hate, don’t discriminate, we’ve been here all our lives. We have a right to participate politically, socially, culturally, economically. We have a right to be seen as citizens.”

    Now, that doesn’t mean that your kids can’t have a rich cultural life. I don’t know what I’d do without tandoori chicken and shrimp korma! But please, at the same time, don’t allow them to harbour the belief that they are less American than anyone else. This will ensure that they can stand up confidently to counter any accusation, that they shouldn’t be allowed to do this or that because they are less American than their caucasian peers.

    There was a report about 10 years ago, on the CBC program, THE JOURNAL, in which the “dilemma” of caucasian kids not faring as well as their “asian” counterparts in high school performance, was addressed. Now, these east asian, south asian kids were all born in Canada. White kids and parents were upset they weren’t able to compete and that these “immigrants” were going to get into better schools. Their implicit argument was that immigrants shouldn’t be allowed to get into the best schools before their own Canadian citizens. I watched the program, and realized all the kids they were featuring weren’t immigrants – they just happened to be visible minorities and they WERE Canadian-born. I also battled such ignorance, personally. It’s situations like these that made me realize it’s time to battle this dumb idea of what a Canadian is.

    That’s just one argument. It’s not even the best one. I’m sure it’s already been beaten to death that being born in the West, we are exposed to Western culture daily in many subtle, implicit ways. Explicit teaching about India, or even coming to this board to learn more, isn’t going to change that. A culture is so much more than simple exposure to facts, rituals, books, and ideas: It is so much richer than that. It’s really hard for me to say I’m Indian, when I haven’t even been there – does that make sense?? And even if I had, a 1 month visit isn’t going to make me fully understand the culture of India – I may understand facets of it, but I can’t say what it truly means to be Indian. However, I do know what it means to be Canadian, especially one with a desi heritage. That’s why so many of us non-immigrants come here and chat it up. We share a special, unique bond, and can understand one anothers dilemmas of being a visible minority, and other pressures and issues unique to us.

    My mom understands this now that we are full grown. She used to have ideas that she could protect us and place us in a vacuum of all things Indian. Now, she understands that there’s no way you can do that, and we turned out pretty awesome anyways.

25. Angie, good points. For all of Canada’s genuflection at the altar of multi-culturalism, there is an implicit acceptance by the majority that “immigrants” must start at the bottom rung. Anything evidence to the contrary, such as the achievement of higher education by minority groups, and expect to overhear more conversations about the “white man” being the most endangered of species in the employment jungle.

26. the history of the human race is about recreating yourself. i have had hindus tell me that they couldn’t understand how my ancestors could leave their religion and go worship a semitic sky god, but i simply responded that it is quite likely that their own ancestors (like mine) abandoned their gods of wood and water and their small sacrifies for the hindu religion with its dichotomy between folk devotion and brahmanical ritual and philosophy, and before that they probably abandoned desert gods which had no utility in their new monsoonal homeland.

    I think this is an excellent point, and the same goes for CULTURE. Think of it not as something that can easily break, if one strays too far from the “pure” origin, but as malleable, and ever-changing. I’m pretty sure my grandparents don’t know alot about Turkey, or wherever else, we supposedley “came from”. And I’m not too worried, either. Culture is something that makes life more enjoyable and rich, and it isn’t static.

    At the same time I can sort of understand why some groups want to preserve their culture and identity… i.e. Native Americans/Canadians. THIS is where they are from. They don’t have a zillion people keeping desi culture alive on the subcontinent like we do!

27. i.e. Native Americans/Canadians.

    Clarification: Aboriginal American Indian/Canadians.

    Peace:)

28. Angie,

    please, at the same time, don’t allow them to harbour the belief that they are less American than anyone else.

    This is a very good point and also one that’s extremely important — because in its most extrapolated form you risk ending up with Western-born South Asians like those that caused 7/7 here in London (and those that support such a mindset). Considering that both Sikhs and Hindus have grown up here a) facing racism from the majority community for many years, and b) hearing their parents and many others in the older generation continuously saying “saala gaura this, gaura that” and so on (use your imagination — antipathy towards Western society isn’t always limited to just the Muslims), I often think that the only reason they didn’t follow a similarly violent path as the London bombers is because the scriptures and tenets of their respective faiths give them relatively little material/justification to violently act on their feelings of alienation, along with their resentment towards how they may have been mistreated over the years. Thank God for that.

    Also, making sure that your children don’t feel like they “don’t really belong here” and that their “real home” is somewhere thousands of miles away also prevents (or at least mitigates to some degree) the cultural schizophrenia that many Western-born desis have suffered. Some people handle it okay, others — as we all know — become very confused indeed, resulting in all kinds of misguided and extreme behaviour. You can imagine the psychological impact it has on people when they receive negative information continously from their elders (especially over the course of many years) and can’t deal with it appropriately.

    I think this is an excellent point, and the same goes for CULTURE. Think of it not as something that can easily break, if one strays too far from the “pure” origin, but as malleable, and ever-changing

    Exactly. The problem is that many Indians — particularly those from the older-generation — regard Indian culture as something sacred. This is the point — religion (or at least spirituality) is sacred, “culture” is not. Culture is vague, man-made, artificial, dynamically-changing, and is not inherently sacred (it has both positive and negative points). One needs to be very careful indeed with regards to the psychological and physical lengths one goes to in order to enforce it; all manner of injustices are carried out in the name of desi culture, regardless of whether it’s actually morally correct to do so, because the people perpetrating such actions exalt their culture to such a disproportionate degree.

    The bottom line is, one shouldn’t treat Indian culture as some kind of sacred cow (apologies for the unintentional pun).

    Rachel Green,

    i think i lurve you more than ross right now. 😉

    You should have found a way to make your relationship with Joey work, dammit ! You two gave up too easily 😉

29. This is a very good point and also one that’s extremely important — because in its most extrapolated form you risk ending up with Western-born South Asians like those that caused 7/7 here in London (and those that support such a mindset). Considering that both Sikhs and Hindus have grown up here a) facing racism from the majority community for many years, and b) hearing their parents and many others in the older generation continuously saying “saala gaura this, gaura that” and so on (use your imagination — antipathy towards Western society isn’t always limited to just the Muslims), I often think that the only reason they didn’t follow a similarly violent path as the London bombers is because the scriptures and tenets of their respective faiths give them relatively little material/justification to violently act on their feelings of alienation, along with their resentment towards how they may have been mistreated over the years. Thank God for that.

    not a justification – but the sepiates are not above crap either – your mail took me back to when I was about 10 – newly enrolled in a school- my first month in africa – kid sits in next to me in the bus, says – “glad you’re here. I cant stand these xxxx’s” – was totally confused – the guy was just mean spirited, learnt his hate from his mum who happened to be a teacher in the school – she took a vicious dislike to me because i was outshining her precious in school – couldnt believe i scored so high in math – pulled me out and tried to force me to admit i cheated in front of the class – “you cheated”. “admit it. YOU CHEATED”. – hurt real bad… – took me to the headmaster – my math teacher (an african) came to rescue and supported me – the matter was shushed. yea…. but i remember. going on with the mean streak expat indians have… it kind of became evident i didnt share the us-and-them like the expats… didnt fit in – they had religious classes in that school with kids partitioned off to their supposed denominations – catholics, muslims, protestants, 7th day adventitists, hindus, sikh etc… Each class led by one of the teachers of the approp faith . technically i was hindu… but the hindu teacher wanted to speak in gujarati – and suggested i go to the sikh camp … and the teacher was … yup … the one with the issues – and i was flushed out again… my religion classes were spent sitting in a corner trying to deal with all this crap… and heck, i was like 10 yrs old… anyway guys… be cool in front of yer kids – they’ll take it out on some poor little sod who has no clue in heaven why he doesnt fit in.

30. The bottom line is, one shouldn’t treat Indian culture as some kind of sacred cow (apologies for the unintentional pun).

    Amen to that! And on that final note, South Asians, Western Browns, (be your name Angie or Anjali or Zak or Amardeep or Jacob) are a diverse bunch, and it’s no one’s business (but yours) to tell you who you are or how to invest/celebrate in your culture.

31. and it’s no one’s business (but yours) to tell you who you are or how to invest/celebrate in your culture.

    Absolutely on the money!!

    Which is why, there are many wonderful ways to express oneself apart from color, Of course, if folks feel that color is their defining USP(unique selling proposition) then so be it. It may even be a strength( as it has been for whites). But it stands a danger of segregating us from other colors, for instnce yellow, or black or white, if one wants to eventually take this to bigger frameworks.

    As someone said, in 50 years we may all be “beige“

    Sumita

32. Which is why, there are many wonderful ways to express oneself apart from color

    Agreed!

    Of course, if folks feel that color is their defining USP

    I don’t know of any non-desiland-born-desi (whatever) who defines self solely by color, but I would postulate that one who does, would not have had any exposure to their parents’ cultural background.

    …Actually, I do remember a couple of girls I knew, neither of which knew much about their “Indian” background. The first was lighter colored and identified with latino culture, and the second was darker colored and identified with african-american culture. But that was some years ago, in an area where there were very few desis (12 at our school).

33. Ok I get it now – this is brown Friends. Makes sense…would be more fun to watch if you folks were a little less self-conscious. And a few more declarative sentences (since I’m not interested in debate !) Razib – you sound very smart but I can understand Christopher John’s curiosity to push your buttons and see if you jump. Nice to see that you do. However you seem to spend an inordinate amount of time at this site which is definitely a bad sign. Christopher John – big bore. Accusations of pettifogging perfectly justified. Sumita – bigger bore. If you are interested in improving your children’s upbringing start by losing the pomposity. Jai Singh – you sound conflicted. Sikh-ness is probably too large a part of your identity. Thank you all for an afternoon’s entertainment.

34. Sumita – bigger bore. If you are interested in improving your children’s upbringing start by losing the pomposity.

    FINALLY! Someone had the guts to say it. 😛

35. Nacheez,

    Jai Singh – you sound conflicted

    Not at all.

    Sikh-ness is probably too large a part of your identity.

    It can never be too large a part of anyone’s identity, Sikh or not, my friend 😉

36. FINALLY! Someone had the guts to say it. 😛

    I did! I did!!!

    well, not really. I just piled on 😉

37. Everyone lay off Sumita — she seems like a nice person and, from what I can tell, just tries to be objective about matters and analyse the various issues dispassionately as per her own viewpoint. I guess there’s sometimes an element of playing Devil’s Advocate too.

    Sumita: You’re probably a fair bit older than many of the people who take part in SM discussions, as you’ve rightly mentioned yourself a few times, but it may be worth bearing in mind that this isn’t necessarily the case with regards to many other participants. For example I’m in my early 30s, MD is approaching 40, and so on*. Obviously I don’t think you’ve ever been condescending towards me — far from it — but it may be a good idea to keep in mind that the people you’re swapping messages with here on SM may not always be as young as you may presume.

    The evergreen ladies’ man Uncleji is another prime example of the “silver surfer”, of course. They don’t call him the “Tom Jones of Jalandhar” for nothing….A perennial favourite of the over-60s bingo-hall aunties, who love throwing their underwear at him — just like his Las Vegas-loving alter ego — whenever he jumps on the karaoke stage to sing “Apna Punjab”. Although Uncleji, the human purple Punjabi viagra pill, prefers to indulge his 20 year old groupies who like to learn from the more mature gentleman with a bit more “experience” (about 50 years worth of experience in this particular case). *wink

38. Listen up sweathogs! This discussion is DONE (and beaten up more than Horshacks’s face… or Epstein’s face for that matter).

39. am i supposed to know what that last comment meant? i’m 30 and i feel like kotter was before MY time. sheesh. 🙂

40. Hey maan, re-runs inspire me…..

41. that show rocked. great song

42. this post is about smells, not sounds. 😉

43. The evergreen ladies’ man Uncleji

    Gidda ! Somebody mentioned me ? Somebody hassling my Laaaady Sumita….

    YOu should do what my old man with my younger brother mispell his name, so that is totally bizarre and sit back and await a lifetime of hate and madness. His name should be Sandeep but it’s spelt on his birth certificate as Sudip and for years he wrote Sudeep . So naturally we call him Rick. Its all so very Johnny Cash

44. my goodness Uncleji…as if you weren’t already irresistible enough, now you’re including johnny cash links in your always-hilarious comments? i’m going to swoon. 🙂

45. I know this was written a long time ago and probably no one will still be reading this, but I just discovered this post and it’s eerie how much I can relate. A few days ago an Indian classmate of mine was talking about a tradition her family had, and said it was something “all Indians do.” When I said it obviously wasn’t all Indians, because I don’t practice that tradition, she said, “Well, you’re Catholic, so you’re not really Indian.”

    Her ignorance just shocked me. She didn’t say it in a mean way, but matter-of-factly, as if it was common knowledge that Indian Christians weren’t really Indian and that was that. The whole day I felt this righteous indignation, but I also felt a little bit like an outsider. I mean, I’ve been asked questions about why I don’t have an “Indian” name or why I eat beef, but never has another Indian said anything like that. If other desis couldn’t accept me. . . it was just a horrible feeling.

    And then I read this, and it’s just nice to know that other Indians have felt that feeling of not being Indian enough. So thanks for writing this, even if it was like six months ago and I’m a little late here. 🙂