Here at Sepia Mutiny, we often get into long debates in the comment thread of Indian-American versus the South Asian American. With elections right around the corner and all the focus on ‘issue based politicizing,’ the conversations often revolve around people who identify as Indian-American tend to care more about South Asian foreign policy and less about their lives here in America as an ‘American’ first, and vice versa for people that identify as South Asian American.
So the real question I see is as ‘Americans’, whether South Asian or Indian/Bangladeshi/Pakistani/Sri Lankan – American, are our issues domestically really that different? Should we be asking ‘what issues are desis interested in’ when we really should be asking ‘what issues affect the the desi community?’
Let me present you the information, and you make the educated judgement for yourself…The following numbers are based on the national demographics profile recently released by key APIA research organizations.
- Education: We know the model minority sterotypes — desis are ‘supposed’ to be the most educated. The truth is 23% of Bangladeshis have less than a high school degree, higher than national average of 20%. Pakistani (19%), Asian Indian (15%), and Sri Lankan (14%). On the other hand, as far as college education is concerned, 61% of Asian Indians have a bachelors or advanced degree, 42% of Pakistanis and 45% of Bangladeshis.
- Poverty: One doesn’t think that poverty affects the desi community — looking simply at the median household income we see that it is higher than the national and higher than non-Hispanic whites at $45,576 for Pakistanis, $52,392 for Sri Lankans, and $61,322 for Asian Indians. Bangladeshis we see fall the lowest at $37,074. When delving further we see that 15% of Bangladeshis and Asian Indians have 3 or more workers per family. Pakistani at 14%, Sri Lankan at 12% — the national number is 12%. But when comparing these numbers to the percentage of people below poverty level we see that all South Asians have a higher percentage than whites (8%): Bangladeshi 23%, Pakistani 18%, Sri Lankan 10%, and Asian Indian 10%. Seeing such ‘high’ numbers of poverty in our community, it’s sad to see that public assistance for this community is far less: 4% of Bangladeshi, 2% Pakistani, 2% Asian Indian and 1% Sri Lankan.
- Housing: Though nationally, 66% of Americans own homes, and 72% of whites own homes, the numbers for South Asian Americans is less than this. 25% of Bangladeshis, 40% of Pakistanis, 47% of Asian Indians, and 50% of Sri Lankans. Unfortunately, the overcrowded housing issue is far worse — 6% nationally live in over crowded housing, 2% of Whites, where as 43% of Bangladeshis, 31% of Pakistani, 21% of Sri Lankans, and 18% of Asian Indians.
- Assimilation: Though the immigration laws that gave South Asians our immigration boom happened in 1965, we still see a high rate of foreign – borns in our community: 83% of Bangladeshis, 79% of Sri Lankans, 74% of Pakistanis and 73% of Asian Indians. Comparatively, the national foreign born rate is 11%, for whites 4%, and for Latino 40%. The naturalization rate of foreign-born is 31% for Bangladeshis, 38% of Sri Lankans, 40% of Asian Indians, and 40% of Pakistanis. Nationally the rate is 40% and 55% for Whites.
Of course, the issues mentioned above are based on data we have access to from the the national Census. What about the types of information where data doesn’t exist and thus inferences for our community has to be poorly estimated based on the data we do have? Such as healthcare — with such an economically divided community, how many in our community are unable to afford healthcare? What are the health disparities within our community, such as higher rates of ovarian cancer, diabetes, and low birth weight babies? What is the divorce rate for our community, life span in our community? Rate of domestic violence and sexual assault?
Domestically, I feel that our issues, as South Asian Americans, are not just narrowed to racial profiling and hate crimes, but rather, we have a breadth of issues that affect our community. I largely believe in two things with regards to South Asian American issues — the first is that not enough research is being done for and by our community to really investigate what issues are affecting us and the second is the community is not being educated enough about themselves. I challenge you to ask your family if they had realized that the numbers were so drastic as in the issues I listed above in education, housing and poverty. I highly doubt anyone (in our family) knows that these types of disparities exist. Though some are making differences, even more needs to be done.
Sure, we can ask South Asian Americans what issues are important to them, but the chances are they will answer in the typical with ‘economy, education and foreign policy.’ But I do believe that if we educate the community on the issues that are affecting them, as well as encouraging dialogue within the community, that the answers will be different. Are there issues that will potentially unite desis? I don’t know, and frankly, I don’t think we are there yet. Should we identify as Indian American or South Asian American? Domestically and politically, especially looking at these above issues, I think we have too much at stake to not identify as a South Asian American political community. But I’m not here to tell you how to think, just present for you the research and facts. I’ll let you make the educated decision yourself.
All data pulled from A Community of Contrasts: Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders in the United States, a demographic profile created by the Asian Pacific American Legal Center and the Asian American Justice Center. The report is not online, but can be ordered through the AAJC.
I’ll second (or fifth, or whatever) that. No need to run this one any further into the ground.
And I’m totally down with the Brown American. Political party motto: “What can YOU do for Brown?”
“What can YOU do for Brown?”
…or, let brown do YOU….
I am ok with some one deleting the first three paragraphs of this post. But be warned it takes a nation of billions to hold back : ))
I have to admit the reason I don’t identify myself as South Asian is that I don’t identify with people who call themselves South Asians. I have nothing against South Asia or South Asianess or South Asians in America or in their home countries. My problem is with people who call themselves South Asians.
When I refuse to identify myself as South Asian they assume things – that I am one of those right-wing hindu nut jobs. Not True. That I am an “FOB”. Not true. (Why is it that people who are so finicky about labels will balk at the term ABCD, insist on dropping the “C”, but think nothing of using the term FOB. ABCD is a neologism exclusive to desis and it doesn’t carry the same offensive weight as calling some one Fresh of the Boat.)
I refuse to identify myself as a South Asian, because I have a problem with people who claim to speak for me and others like me. If there was some secret poll that was taken, I am sorry I was never informed. Next time please send me an email at right_wing_hindu_nut_job_fob@rediff.co.in
The housing stats are I suspect misleading. I wonder what would happen if we took age into account. What percentage of the desi community is under the age of 35? How many of them are recent immigrants who can’t look to their mom & dad to help them with the down payment? I suspect that if you look at stats for desis 40 years or older and who’ve been here at least 15 years their home ownership rates wouldn’t be a cause for concern. Since they are more likely to be college educated, have higher incomes, less likely to be divorced I suspect their home ownership rates would be higher.
Speaking of stats, ”fewer than 100 of the 67,000 mortgages insured by the G.I. Bill supported home purchases by nonwhites.” [NYT] Talk about real housing discrimination! I am more inclined to join a group that would raise awareness about stats like these.
Median Ages (though I don’t suspect knowing the median age really changes how we should think about housing issues i.e. just because there’s an explanation for the numbers doesn’t make it a non-issue for the community):
pakistani – 28.2 Bangladeshi – 29.3 Asian Indian – 29.9 Sri Lankan – 33.9
US – 35.3 Whites – 38.6 Latino – 25.8
just because there’s an explanation for the numbers doesn’t make it a non-issue for the community
if you correct for age and region, and browns are pretty much where non-browns are home ownership wise, then i don’t think it is a communal issue. rather, it is an issue for why housing is so expensive in places like the northeast or west coast that young people of all communities can afford to buy a home.
can not
Fine, of course, this is obvious. And i’m not saying that just because the issues above are listed as such make them exclusively South Asian American issues. But rather, too often in the broader dialogue, “our community” often gets ignored in analysis – and thus being able to say housing issues affect the SAA community, is a way if inserting ourselves into the larger dialogue.
The research on these issues isn’t neccasarily a way to find other ways to remain insular, but also ways to insert and connect with larger iceberg movements, if you will.
taz,
Thanks for the breakdown.
Although, I am with Razib, I think it is an age related issue rather than a community issue.
Razib,
Knowing you I suspect you don’t really mean what I think you mean. Do you mean it is really an “issue”. It’s supply and demand thing since when in this country at least is that an “issue”?
What I think can be made an issue is that the way suburbs (where most new home construction takes place?) are zoned, in that they tend cater to McMansion owners who want to be within driving distance of an Olive Garden. They really ought to zone for more condos and enable 30-ish single people an opportunity to purchase a home and take advantage of the same tax breaks and financial rewards that McMansion owners get.
They really ought to zone for more condos and enable 30-ish single people an opportunity to purchase a home and take advantage of the same tax breaks and financial rewards that McMansion owners get.
yeah. there are many gov. regulations which influence supply….
Absent an obviously unifying issue, like aparthied, civil rights, or independence, I don’t see desi’s “achieving” any uniform political movement like blacks have…since theirs is a legacy of the civil rights movement. Even issues that seem unifying: outsourcing, profiling, terrorism, nukes for india, hardly get any significant consensus here on SM. Only maccaca-gate had that affect.
Razib may be right that desi’s are susceptible to identity politics, but only at first. what happens when economic interests clash with the progressiveness of identity politics? I predict we are destined to never have a unifyed political front…though with india and desi-americans benifitting so much from free markets it’s tempting to try to make this a racial issue (but it wouldn’t be fair).
what happens when economic interests clash with the progressiveness of identity politics
middle class professionals can afford high taxes. especially those work for the gov., for benefit from regulations (like lawyers).
the trend over the last generation has been a slow but inexorable decoupling between income & party identification as cultural issues become more salient. e.g., kerry won 52% of the vote of those making over $100 K in california cite. nationally he won 41% of those making over $100 K cite.
and of course, there is the old maxim that jews earn like epsicopalians, but vote like puerto ricans 🙂 the only issue now is that epsicopalians have been trending democrat for years.
BidiSmoker:
Come on man, Taz didn’t do this because she’s “arrogant”. First of all, not everybody knows this information, especially the later generations. Second, judging from her posts and the fact that she’s an APIA organizer and researcher, it’s pretty apparent that Taz has invested a lot in trying to figure who this “us” is, how it has come into being, and where it’s going. It’s important when you’re an APIA organizer because you need to know if there’s even anything there to fight for. She’s just bringing up the question again because this time she has some numbers that might perhaps change the way people view the model minority/identity issue. Or they might not. That’s fine. But either way, the reason for the post is totally valid.
At the same time, your opinions are also quite valid — you bring up a lot of good questions that South Asian solidarity advocates like me need to consider. You ask why we should all identify with a South Asian bloc instead of with our respective ethno-religious/nationalistic bodies. Maybe you can start on your own question by answering one of mine: why come to a site which explicitly caters to the “South Asian diaspora” and makes a concerted effort to cover issues that aren’t just Hindu and Indian? What brings you to this blog when you know that there are people here who don’t have the same specific ethno-religious/nationalistic identification as you (don’t tell me that you don’t, to some extent, feel like a part of this blog community)? Is there something that makes all of us diasporic South Asians “fit in” here even though we often harbor extremely varying opinions? Would your participation in a black/Latino/East Asian/Southeast Asian/Middle Eastern/etc American blog be the same as your participation in a South Asian diaspora blog like this?
You’re probably going to make a distinction between cultural and political allegiances, but those lines get blurred in diaspora. For example, my dad still refuses to patronize Pakistani businesses, while at the same time, my best friend, the person who I feel closest to in terms of convictions, is a Pakistani Muslim. Maybe it’s easy for you to make that distinction; perhaps you have never been faced with an ultimatum of that nature, or perhaps you feel liberated by the fact that you’re moving to India and you won’t have to face these questions the way the rest of us still-diasporic desis have to. I for one have not yet found a way to reconcile my diasporic cultural inclinations with my desh’s political agenda. And as for Razib and Manju’s comment about the economic factor eventually negating the race issue: well, I know I’m in the minority here, but I wouldn’t make the identity decision based solely on the economics.
tef:
This isn’t banworthy, just illogical 🙂 This will happen no matter what you identify with, as long as there’s someone besides you who shares that identification. You will have to identify as a tef-ist, and nothing else, for there to be no one else who might at some point claim to speak for you.
And I think that not just “our” community, but many other disparate communities are becoming icebergs.
I love the concept of iceberg. I think of it as a “flash bloc” in much the same vein as a flash mob. Within a community, an issue polarizes portions of it to vote or speak out for a particular issue, but after the moment passes, we all go back to bickering and trying to strangle each other.
My personal observations. Religion is the crucial issue here (welcome to the world):
Indian Americans are most 1gens and those 2gens who strongly identify with Hinduism and India as center of Hinduism-Hindu culture (this doesn’t necessarily mean they are orthodox Hindus, just when they think of their identity, they think Hindu) and consider the rise of India and strong Indo-American relations as one of the primary drivers of their political choices and funding decisions. Other religious groups may uphold this identity, but in smaller numbers. There’s an issue for you. They tend to be wealthier, which is why they can afford to spend their time on foreign policy.
Yeah there are lots of far-right “nationalists” among them but as tef and Bidi point out many are not, and simply do not like the way the “progressives” are making the identity choices. In fact, they may tout India’s secularism as a selling point in political discourse.
South Asians are religiously indifferent, or those for whom Indian/SA culture became a constraint to the full expression of their Americanness, their parents may have been ultra-orthodox, they din’t personally like it,, “progressives,” and politically, seem to spend lots of their foreign policy time contesting Hindu nationalism in India and debunking “India Shining” and the “model minority” sterotype. The goals of the two political identities conflict. The South Asians have oomphs of heavy-weight academics with op-ed space to debunk or defame the Indian-American identity.
Also some Bangladeshis
A tiny, tiny-ass faction of progressive Pakistanis who prefer a “secular” identifier.
The overwhelming majority of this group are Pakistani Americans and more importantly, Muslim Americans, and could give a hoot about aligning with Indians, in fact, they might be bemused by it.
You forgot health. However, as far as the wealth of health related research coming out of North America is concerned, South Asian Americans are next to invisible. That may reflect their low relative numbers, which makes a wider Asian American grouping more sensible.
As far as the labelling thing goes, this has raised an interesting conundrum in the UK. Those of Indian origin don’t want to be called British Asians, since they fear this will not identify them as different from the Pakistanis, Bangladeshis et al. The Govt. says, okay suggest a new label, we’ll make it official. Now if they call themselves British Indians, the Mauritians/Fijians/Kenyans etc. aren’t going to be too happy. If, on the other hand, they call themselves Britsh Hindus, the Jains/Christians/Muslims etc. aren’t going to be pleased. So they’re deadlocked. And I suspect they deserve to be.
Among other things, similar languages and culture and a common past. The political identities you mentioned are fairly new. People from Bengal have more commonalities with Bangladeshis than people from Punjab; same with Tamils in India and Sri Lanka vs. Kashmiris, and on and on.
What I have seen in desi immigrant communities is that, when faced with an identity crisis, people attempt to preserve what they feel is their culture and end up picking romanticized versions of practices, customs, beliefs and identities that distinguish them most from other groups from where they originally came from. The result is that in many cases, these desis, no matter how progressive they are in their adopted land, become nationalist and conservative in issues pertaining to their former land. These people then support politicians that appear to be helping people of their identity group.
For me, foreign policy is the most important area I would like to see a South Asian bloc become successful in. There is an alternative to supporting only India or only Pakistan. I was born in India, and I think the best thing for India, Pakistan, and all of South Asia would be if all the countries had good relationships with each other. A South Asian American community, formed on the principle that there are more things that unite us than there are that divide us, would recognize what policies are good for the entire region and would then work with politicians that promote those policies. We have too much at stake to not identify as a South Asian American political community in that if we don’t do it, we will lose the gains that come from cooperation of a powerful group of people.
No one is asking you to take off your American, Indian, South Indian, or Hindu hat (the design of these hats is such that you can wear many at the same time, stackable perhaps, or maybe a half Baboushka-doll type). Taz is just offering you a South Asian hat.
Shruti,
I didn’t actually think that what I wrote was really “banworthy”. Abhi had mentioned that the topic had become tiresome. I was just prefacing my comment by stating that I wouldn’t question anyone who wanted to delete my post.
As far as the statement being illogical. True — in the way you’ve understood it. I am not saying I have a problem with someone using South Asian in a representative sort of way. Representation will happen. Although I do like “tefist”, I think the world could use more tefists : )
But I am just contesting the notion that the majority of sec-gen desis have already decided in favor of calling themselves South Asian. I am not going to pretend to know how many do or don’t want to be called Indian-Americans.
I don’t see South Asian as a neutral term. It carries with it certain political connotations – let’s say, progressivist, with which again I don’t have a problem. My problem is that the label was created to ostensibly refer to a group of people from a geographic region with some cultural similarities. But it is most often adopted/hijacked by desis of a certain political stripe. The reason I stereotype “South Asianistas” is that they stereotype Indian-Americans, who they claim “tend to care more about South Asian foreign policy and less about their lives here in America as an ‘American’ first”. Implying that those who are from here – you know really from here – you know the ones born here – as opposed to those you know FOBs, even if some of those FOBs are, well, American citizens – they are not really American – not like us – because they are bit retrogressive. I like a big tent approach too. One that includes 1st gen desis.
On a more personal note my non-meat eating mother will buy halal meat from Pakistani store when we have muslim guests(Indian & Pakistani). She is too is an Indian-American. She doesn’t do this because she is hip and liberal. She is not exceptional, I think she is far more representative of India then many are willing to admit here. I don’t find it hard to reconcile “diasporic cultural inclinations with my desh’s political agenda”.
There is a perfectly good name for people from South Asia, who refused to be divided by religion – they are called Indians. I have no problem if a sec-gen Pakistani-American or a Bangladeshi-American who feels a shared desiness thinking of themselves as Indian. It’s what their grandparents and their grandparents and their grandparents were!
I am also fine with someone who wishes to retain their Pakistani identity. And wants simply to be a Pakistani-American.
But you can’t create artificial term (South Asian) to make Pakistani-Americans feel included, because by its very definition the term “Pakistani” is a rejection of shared South Asianess.
You have so perfectly captured the misunderstanding that has made this topic so incredibly tiresome. You can be BOTH Indian American AND South Asian American. It IS NOT either/or. I refer to myself as an Indian American as often as I refer to myself as South Asian American. It is all about the context.
You’ve got to be kidding me. Someone? Anyone? I’m too busy to respond, but someone?
Hmmmmmm.
You’ve got to be kidding me. Someone? Anyone? I’m too busy to respond, but someone?
well, to be honest taz, wutz the difference between someone like you or i and a muslim from west bengal? bangladesh is a relatively new nation, and my parents have spent far more of their lives in the united states than ‘bangladesh’ (i.e., they grew up in east pakistan). similarly, pakistan is a new nation. india is the same nation as what was once undivided british india, and our ancestors were ‘indians.’ most americans perceive brown americans as ‘indians.’
A lot of dead people that fought for their rights to freedom for Bangladesh- partition war AND the revolution war where my grandfather was in concentration camp when freeing ourselves from pakistan. Though, your argument razib is good for why I wear both a Bangladeshi-American hat and a South Asian American hat, you would never catch me calling myself an “Indian”, intentionally done, for the people that fought for the freedom of Bangladesh.
But thanks for the generosity tef.
tef: Can you explain what exactly you mean by that. You made a sweeping generalisation about 1 billion people. Indians who want to make India a Hindu rashtra would be offended by it. How does your generalisation tie in with your fears about labels, representation, automatic assumptions.
Aw crap, the above post would have been #26 but I forgot to press the Post button.
Yes, I agree with you that how others see us is not a good justification for adopting this identity. A good justification is that we have a lot in common.
It all depends on the available identities you are willing to adopt. For example, why would a South Indian feel an affinity with a Kashmiri Indian?
Can’t get better than the above quotes.. well said..
Abhi,
In response #74,
Yes I understand that the terms as you use them are not mutually exclusive. Heck, I have used the term south asian, and I am sure in my comments posted here.
But a reasonable person could claim that he finds the terms South Asian and Pakistani-American mutually exclusive and yet not find South Asian and Indian-American mutually exclusive.
In response # 76
This goes to show that you really do think of me as a rightwingnutjob, which is what I claimed : ))
These arguments are the reason why I like the word “Subcontinental”. The area is diverse, rich in history, conflict, assimaltion, seperation, etc. Your focus on religion itself is simplistic.
Ancestors of folks from the Bengal region have been, depending on time and place, Indian subjects of the Raj, subjects of Siraj ud Daulah, subjects of the Chandra, Pala, Sena, Magadha dynasties…
India/Indians/South Asians/whatever as a ‘unified’ voice is a relatively rare phenomenon. Through history, rarely has the country been under one rule/roof. The Brits, Mauryas, Mughals and current modern day India are probably the largest entities (I may be missing a few).
In modern day context, calling someone who is Bangladeshi or Pakistani an ‘Indian’ doesn’t make any sense. From a broader perspective, shared history cannot be undone, either. Hence the modern day evolution of “South Asian” or in my case I like to stick to the word “Subcontinental”. It gives the distinct region with multiple languages, religions, cultures – a sixth of the world’s population, it’s due credit.
What about Nepal? It is a Hindu (though who knows how long) nation. Is it Indian?
Abhi, do you think the identity of being ‘South Asian’ is primarily an American phenomenon, or have you noticed (or any SM reader I guess) that it prevails among other communities scattered throughout the world? I don’t know. The United States, Canada, GB may be the only places where diverse members of the scattering come into contact beyond their previous tribal affiliations.
You seemed offended by my suggestion, may I remind you that some of those people that died during the Bangladesh independence war were…Indian.
oops post #84 was by me in response to taz
tef
Who fought for the state formerly known as East Pakistan to be independent of India, not a part of it. If that were the case, then Indians would have occupied and unified Bengal, not use its military to ensure a new nation was carved out.
I don’t know which other communities in the world may use it but judging by my experience on this website I would think it to be primarily American (which is really the only context I care about anyways). I think that is why so many commenters get so defensive. They think that we are trying to impose our term onto communities outside of the U.S.
I guess we disagree then because I don’t think a reasonable person could find South Asian American and Pakistani American mutually exclusive.
Voiceinthehead,
I am sure I would offend the Hindu rashtra types. Here is how I would weasel out of my generalization : ) I don’t think there were many or any in the first parliamnent in India. There may have been Hindu rashtra types in the country, but when the country was founded in its modern incarnation the people of India did not choose Hindu rashtra types. In fact there were not many Hindu rashtra types in parliament till 1990. I am assuming they represented less than 5% of the MPs until then. I don’t have the numbers with me.
Therefore one can say that the people of India did not choose to create a Hindu Rashtra.
But to address your larger point, I admit, yes generalizations and assumptions are bad : )
Yes, the idea of Pakistan is antithetical to a common South Asian identity. But all Pakistanis and Pakistani-Americans haven’t renounced their South Asian identity, so it cannot be said that the terms South Asian and Pakistani or Pakistani-American are mutually exclusive.
Also, from a strictly political point of view, Pakistan is a member of SAARC so Pakistanis can be considered South Asian.
taz:
Did the Indian army not fight for the Bangladeshis in the Bangladesh liberation movement?
But I am just contesting the notion that the majority of sec-gen desis have already decided in favor of calling themselves South Asian. I am not going to pretend to know how many do or don’t want to be called Indian-Americans.
‘South Asian’ is a shallowly held label picked up at college campus clubs for most; its forgotten by many when college is done with. For progressive South Asian activists and academics (practically all of whom are IAs), its the means of contesting what they allege is the prevalence of nationalist sentiment, Hindu-centrism, triumphalism about community achievements, and support for neo liberalism IN INDIA among Indian Americans. This is in large part about the subcontinent; it has little to do with American political positions, except to the extent that those positions influence policy on the subcontinent. Its politically loaded, tainted, and therefore increasingly rejected.
razib’s term – “brownz” -seems like a better fit in the American landscape, and so far, is devoid of progressive connotations. So, if in addition to national terms, if there be need for a uniter, that may be it.
And that’s why Bangladeshi’s should be call themselves Indian?!?!?
?!?!
Gujudude,
Agree completely.
I was just pointing what I thought was ironic.
A lot of dead people that fought for their rights to freedom for Bangladesh- partition war AND the revolution war where my grandfather was in concentration camp when freeing ourselves from pakistan.
taz, this is actually an interesting point. i don’t identify myself as ‘bangladeshi american.’ i use the terms ‘brown’ or if in reference to my ethnicity, ‘bengali.’ i will state that my parents are from bangladesh if someone is persistent in ‘where are you from.’ bangladesh as it is now is very different from bangladesh in the 1970s, and dhaka dialect is developing its own style and standard which i think will eventually lead to an ethnogenesis of a ‘bangladeshi bengali’ identity which is more than just a collection of the muslim majority thanas and districts of greater bengal (remember, people from jessore or rangpur might have had more in common with bengalis across the border in india linguistically and culturally than bangladeshis from noakhali and chittagong to the southeast). but my parents, and what residual ‘bangladeshiness’ that i have is a matter of lines drawn due to the machinations and depredations of politicians and alien ruling elites. yes, in 2006 bangladesh has been around for nearly 40 years, but when i was born there it hadn’t even reached a decade. when it left it had barely reached a decade.
as to the issue of the genocide and what not. i would think that the main point of the rebellion and resistance to west pakistani hegemony was that people have a right to self-determination, freedom and choice, and their identity can not be imposed from above. the freedom to identify, or not identify, as ‘bangladeshi’ is part of the gift of their resistance.
going back to terms like ‘south asian’ or ‘indian,’ i don’t really care. my point was that i know my siblings (younger) will tell people they are ‘indian’ if saying ‘bangladeshi’ confuses them. i know this is the case with many bangladeshis who now live in the united states and their children. there is a lot of tension between bangladesh and india, but i don’t perceive that that is a major issue here in the states. what separates bangladesh from the rest of bengal? the dominant religion. the rest was until recently a matter of political wrangling, as the there was never a bright line dividing hindu bengal from muslim bengal (khulna in bangladesh was majority hindu, and i believe one district in what became west bengal was majority muslim, but they were left in the other nation due to geopolitical location). as an american that history is not particularly salient to me, and those politics do not define me.
most americans perceive brown americans as ‘indians.’
that’s true, and because of that, I think there will be an increasing trend in U.S. desis identifying themselves as “South Asian American” (or another similarly inclusive term) instead of Bangladeshi/Pakistani/Indian-American. Since the larger society perceives desis to all be the same, it’s in the best interest of desis to identify collectively to combat racism and other issues they face.
Since the larger society perceives desis to all be the same, it’s in the best interest of desis to identify collectively to combat racism and other issues they face.
Yeah and 88% of South Asians ARE Indian-Americans, its not an invalid assumption. This ain’t Britain, where the breakdown is much, much different.
Which is why primarily i identify as a South Asian American first, Muslim American second, and Bangladeshi American third. When I was in India last year (my aunt works for the Bangladesh embassy there) she schooled me well. And though, like you, I see myself more as brown (the product of a racialized American society, I guess) for the sake of the history (and much schooling on bangladeshi history/pride while being in India- which is actually an interesting history lesson) and respect to the history, it’s where I stand. I am insulted by the idea that one doesn’t want to be referered to as a South Asian American which acknowledges this common diverse history, like GujuDude mentioned, but rather wants to negate that history by claiming Indian-ness only, and allowing others to refer to themselves as such. And as a South Asian AMERICAN, a BROWN, I will work here in the US to make sure that disparity as being brown in the US is minimized- the original point of this post.
it seems to me that the one term which tends to elicit the least animus is “brown.” i think this is a TKO.
mullani? Can we say Hadji in da House? 😉
Hye Allah! I can see the Hindu Funds shaking their heads right now…
tef: So that “is” must have been was 😉
“brown” proponents: Do any one of you believe it wouldn’t suffer from same sterotypification as the SA label that tef refers. How would a new name solve anything.
itz not new. people use brown every day.
Do any one of you believe it wouldn’t suffer from same sterotypification as the SA label that tef refers. How would a new name solve anything.
I don’t no dudue. I am wondering why the fuck I’m up so late wondering wtf I should call myself 🙂
I go Indian-American, Hindu and brown. Brown is secular, ideal for the American identity landscape wit itz black, white and latino, devoid of geographical connotions and subcontinental politics and is patently obvious, looking at how any one of us looks, minus the pink nippled and porcelain hued outliers – and before everything else there is that.
taz,
I respect your right to identify in the terms most comfortable to you.
I do not reject Bengaliness or Muslimness or even Bengali-Muslimness they are all a part of my Indianness.
When it comes to terms for identity, you are an inclusivist, and I am a neti netist. I got the neti neti from my Indian Pride/History edumacation. “Indian Pride/History”, wait, why does that make me sound like a right wing nut job, I swear I am not I swear…
Peace.
There is a certain tension in this thread which is a reflection of Hindu-Muslim history in the subcontinent, which rears its head even when very reasonable ‘South Asians’ are involved. It seems you just can’t get away from it. And commonalities do not matter if people refuse to see those commonalities. Hard-core rural Punjabis for example, in both India and Pakistan (largely of Jatt ethnicity in both countries) are identical in blood, language, culture, and heritage; yet that religious difference of Muslim vs Sikh was enough to separate them in the most horrible of ways. Even though they are the SAME. These sort of issues and this sort of history will always prevent true unity between Muslims/Non-Muslims in the desi context. Taz, I give you much respect for trying.