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.
nevermind @ 71
Seriously, we need a solution to this soon. I have a health issue that is shared by one of my relatives: Hyperparathyroidism. I had never heard of it and neither had he. We didn’t know eachother had it until recently. Since it was considered rare in young people and now medical professionals are changing their attitute about that, I find myself wondering if it is more common among Indians. I dont know if I and my relative will be counted as an Indian American. One of the culprits is Vitamin D deficiency. Sounds familiar? We leave sunny India and…Well anyway, next time you are at the doctors office, get your blood work done and make sure your calcium levels are normal. It’s a small thing to fix but makes a huge difference.
I can understand people disagreeing about whether to identify as SA or not. But I can’t understand this sub-group who wants to identify as SA, but doesn’t like the term SA. Mr.Ks’ comment on the other thread seems relavent here.
I vote down the “brown” label, if at all any one is taking a vote 🙂 I predict it will degenrate into colorism issue and we will bring back SA label and have a big bollywood style reunion with much melodrama.
Taz, you are advancing equality 😉 … Mad props for an awesome post, and great responses to the comments above.
Take a hard look at the statistics above. This is IMHO the ONLY issue on which there is some potential of uniting the ‘South asian’ commmunity. Skilled immigration in this country is becoming a nightmare at least for Indians with huge processing delays on green cards etc. Where do progressives like taz stand on this issue? The Democratic party in general is perceived as anti- H1B, and anti-outsourcing. If anything it is the Republicans and big business who are lobbying for more skilled immigration. So even though I am hold liberal political views for the most part, I always support Republicans in this country and so do most of my 1st gen peeps. In the last election, we rooted for Bush, cause he was ok with outsourcing and skilled immigration and Kerrry was less than enthusiasitc. It is tactical politics. This is a huge disconnect with 2nd genners who seem to mostly lean democratic.
Other than the legal immigration issue, I believe there is no point forcing or trying to manufacture an artifical unity amongst such a diverse population. 99.99% of my fellow Indian 1st genners identify either as only Indian or Indian-American .As tef said earlier, being Indian is NOT about religion. Most of us who have come here recently have a very real experience of living in a secular and for the most part liberal democratic country that is unique in South Asia and gives us very little in common with people from religious theocracies like Pk or Bdesh . Add to that our difficult relations with these 2 countries and often personal experiences of terrorism , and you can understand why most of us have no interest in a shared identity with these other South Asian groups.
taz:
Heck no. Feel free to identify yourself however you wish. I misread your post and I thought you implied an animosity towards India over 1971 as the reason for avoiding the “Indian” label. My bad here.
brownz. they’re discussing brown at pass the roti.
Immigrant_guy,
You need to separate rhetoric from reality:
I personally REFUSE to accept the label “South Asian” (for reasons described above and more) but can live with the term “brown American.” I fail to see why those of us who are FOB Indians have to be co-opted into something we despise – “South Asian American” has little meaning without the consent of South Asians. Brown American is more acceptable since it implies a unity formed solely on the basis of race for those who want it and doesn’t implicate the actual subcontinent and its politics (which are still very fresh and real to us immigrants).
Unsurprisingly, I plan to register as a Republican (I will become a US citizen soon). Like most Indian immigrants of my generation (I’m 30), I tend to the Right in this country for a variety of reasons. However, putting aside my existing right wing tendencies, few groups in America make me feel as politically alienated as “progressive” desis in America, who seem willing to engage with any point of view except the Indian immigrant one. I care about my new homeland AND my old one; this is the reality of my life. The tone of “progressive” desi politics in America, alternating as it does between condescension (exemplified most by abhi on this site) and hysteria (exemplified by too many to name), is one I could live without.
Allow me to do some engineering of
The tone of conservative (and desi) politics in America, alternating as it does between condescension and hysteria, is one I could live without.
Ok, finished. For case studies on the veracity of this engineered statement, see McCarthy, Goldwater, Nixon, Reagan, Bush II, American Enterprise Institute, Hoover Institution, Manhatten Institute, Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation, Discovery Institute, Club for Growth, Competitive Enterprise Institute, RAND Corporation, The Weekly Standard, National Review, The New Republic, The American Spectator, et al.
American Enterprise Institute, Hoover Institution, Manhatten Institute, Cato Institute,
you’re lumping a lot of groups together here. AEI & hoover are pretty much republican outfits, but manhatten is less partisan and more empircal. cato institute is pure principle, and gets most of its money from small donors (cato’s VP, david boaz, is a friend of mine, full disclosure, blah, blah).
…and they are all part of the broader conservative movement. I forgot to the Op-Ed page of the WSJ.
Holy CRAP. What a lot of noise.
It is still not uncommon for Punjabis to go to mosque, temple, and gurudwara. I personally have worshipped at all three at various points in my past. This is the legacy of my maternal grandfather: the differences do not matter if we agree to it. And sometimes all it takes for agreement is simply choosing to agree. Some would say that the three religions are somewhat antithetical. To those people, I’d say: seriously, shut the hell up.
Let’s face it: desis have huge rejection issues.
I hear you Amitabh. Generally speaking I have a hard time with identity of any sort being made into a zero sum game. Depending on the situation, cultural identity often feels more like a Venn diagram. I suppose commonalities only become apparent when whatever circles we exist within begin to widen and maybe overlap.
I don’t know much about Donald Horowitz but I once wrote down a quote of his – “An Ibo may be … an Owerri Ibo or an Onitsha Ibo in what was the eastern region of Nigeria. In Lagos, he is simply an Ibo. In London, he is a Nigerian. In New York, he is an African.”
And in Kansas, he’s just plain black.
Internally he may feel all of these things at once, but in a world that leans towards bifurcation (Are you black or white? Male or female? Gay or straight?) the nuance gets lost. We get forced into multiple choice formats of cultural idenity.
Actually though I’m just waiting for the aliens to attack. I don’t care if they’re furry and English speaking (life Alf) or wide-eyed and merely homesick (like E.T.) or DNA-less, nucleus-free cellular structures that replicate at 300 degrees Celsius. Once they’re here we can finally have our homo sapien love fest and blast the beejezus out of those alien *#$@!&s. Wheeeeee!
…and they are all part of the broader conservative movement. I forgot to the Op-Ed page of the WSJ.
yeah, just like the democratic party and liberals are basically part of the broad anti-american movement.
Are you disputing that Cato is not a conservative think tank being that it is a repository of free-market advocates who have traditionally found more sympathetic ears in the conservative movement?
Are you disputing that Cato is not a conservative think tank being that it is a repository of free-market advocates who have traditionally found more sympathetic ears in the conservative movement?
no, it isn’t conservative. it’s libertarian. lumping it with AEI is insulting to CATO, which at least adheres to a firm set of principles. not all on the right are the same.
but whatever, keep on lumping. liberals and progressives are all communists, right?
i’m sick & disgusted by the casual, smug and ignorant smears of conservatives by some here, so i’m going to stop pretend like there are non-communist liberals. you’re all un-patriotic reds in my book from now on.
No von Mises,
I feel your pain. Whoever attached the warm, comforting, grandfather-with-a-cup-of-old-fashioned-cocoa label conservative to some of the *******s on the extreme right must be rotting in hell.
At least Chavez stood up and called out the devil 🙂 And it’s Bush he was talking about, not anti-Americanism.
Look, Razib, I understand your frustration and I don’t want to go down the route of petty, smug and ignorant smears. I’ll give you the squiggle room to free yourself from associations with AEI and Hoover but the reality is that at economic policy level, Cato is in lockstep with AEI and Hoover, with the latter two more soft around the corners in their technical research favoring more advocacy.
There is also something to be said of libertarianism’s waning influence in policy circles. It’s theoretical principles worked well on paper, as popularized by Friedman, but are now technically defunct in their application. That suggests libertarianism is more ideology and less rigorous than Cato makes it out to be.
Sorry for not going into more detail about the lumping earlier.
Tashie,
“Rotting in hell” or being agents of conductivity =):
So you’re ok with sharing that identification with brown skinned people who are not from South Asia, like Latinos, Filipinos and Arabs? Because they’re brown too.
Ok I’ve been hearing this a lot on SM, which is ultimately a pretty moderate blog community considering the scoffing backlash that occurs at the slightest indication of a “progressive” attitude, whatever you think that means. Can you please explain to me what you think a “progressive” desi is, and why you feel alienated by them?
Oh, and just to avoid getting yelled at, consider this a question coming from someone who has been called a progressive before, and does NOT lump everyone else as “conservative”. I don’t think like that.
(Abhi I’m sorry if this conversation has already been had.
I just like torturing you. 🙂I never really paid much attention to it on SM before, so I want to get it straight now.)Shut up!
SHUT up!
SHUT UP!!!
SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP!!!!!!!
Stop torturing me with South Asian identity!!!! Stop oppressing us and misguiding youths in America!!!
We are a caucas block! A strong one with foreign policy!!!
You are castrating us!! I reject you!! We are assertive Hindu Nation of Americans and we don’t want to be associated with cab drivers or commie pinko who fantasise about sex with negroes or Muslims and treat faggots as normal human beings.
With this ‘progressive’, you are causing mental torture and oppression to us with your lefto fascist cabal.
In all serious discussion, please cease this. It is causing great upset and is a threat to India itself, and the health of Indian-Americans, who are already oppressed and suffering daily in torment and pain.
Now if you don’t mind, I am just going to resume my inspection of Kiran Desai’s book to make sure it doesnt upset us or there will be protests.
Death to Sepia Mutiny!
Death to Bangladeshi Americans!
Hail Mogambo!
like Latinos, Filipinos and Arabs? Because they’re brown too.
1) most american arabs can pass as white.
2) those of us who promote ‘brown’ aren’t all r*tards who don’t understand that to some extent it is a social construct. but it isn’t like “black” americans actually have black skin, i mean, objectively, it is brown. objectively, all humans except albinos and some redheads are a shade of brown, as the skin naturally contains the brown-black melanin pigment. the concentration of the pigment determines the extent of “brownness.”
3) brown americans are browner than any of the groups you list. we are the darkest skinned ethnic group aside from black americans. even if “brown” is an imprecise and imperfect appellation, it is most accurate for us of all the groups listed. at this point i await the declarations of arabs, filipinos and latinos who want to declare that no, they are darker skinned, because you know how popular being dark is 🙂
4) i don’t mind “south asian american” really. but it sounds clincial. like “coitus.” on the other hand, “desi” reminds of “i love lucy” and her husband. i hadn’t even heard the term until 3 years ago, so i’m not keen on it even if it is normative (though my own impression is that it has become less normative over the years on this blog :). “desi” is like “shag.” just a little to foreign of a slang to be anything but an exotic addition to the lingo.
5) brown, brown, brown, brown, brown, brown, brown, brown, brown, brown, brown, brown, brown, brown, brown, brown, brown, brown.
Yes, ‘brown’ fits well.. I’d add “brown skin and black hair”.. 🙂 Why bring ‘other geographical regions’ to define your identity and along with it the ‘historical baggage’..? Clearly, grouping the idea of India with the idea of other theocratic states is offensive to a lot of Indians, not just the right wingers..
no, it isn’t conservative. it’s libertarian. lumping it with AEI is insulting to CATO, which at least adheres to a firm set of principles. not all on the right are the same.
CATO is pretty hard core libertarian. AEI on the other hand is just plain nuts (IMO). I think some of CATO’s positions like advocating for doing away with minimum wage pretty extreme though thats a standard libertarian demand. CATO actually opposed the Iraq war, they are urging caution on Iran, they support more immigration etc. which are not exactly conservative positions.
Razib Brownwallah,
Re: post #126
I’m laughing my head off at point number 5 ! 🙂
Actually, from a British (South) Asian perspective, it does sound a little weird to hear our counterparts in the US using the word “brown” in reference to themselves in a racial sense, as I’ve mentioned a couple of times before. I mean absolutely no disrespect to you or anyone else here by saying this, but at first glance it sounded like a very artificial term constructed purely to be a counterpart to the existing terms “white” & “black”.
However, given the partially-different dynamics in America regarding race etc, it does make sense for this to seem normal to you guys over there. So for the record, I do understand your logic, even if (as mentioned before) I have some reservations about anyone using something as narrow as their skin colour to identify themselves by, especially as it has the possibility of degenerating into arguments about some people “not being brown enough” based on their appearance and/or perceived behaviour (the British desi equivalent used to be “coconut”), which we occasionally see here on SM too.
Brown brown brown light-olive porcelein alabaster mahogany coffee cafe-au-lait cafe-latte brown brown beige tan olive olive olive.
Ah, whatever. “Asian” works fine for me 😉
I think H-1B has now become a more complicated issue than a simple Republicans in favor and Union backed Dems against it issue. Republicans in the Senate might support more H-1Bs (though the rank and file Reps in the House have now become very anti-immigration period, including anti H-1Bs) but its the Democrats who will help the H-1s bring over their spouses H-2s and other family to the US. Republicans even in the senate are not really in support of more liberal family reunification laws. The Republican base has now become so anti-immigration that except for the libertarian minded elites, most of the House members are doing the bidding of anti-immigration extremists like Tancredo etc.
Would the India only people here also object to the term ‘desi’.
You speak as if you have already claimed “brown americans” for us. Yes, race is just a construction, but you’re not the only one constructing 🙂 You can’t claim this without the consent of other brown skinned people, even if they are a lighter shade of it. And no non-white supremacist brown skinned person that I’ve ever met would say that we desis are the browns and they are not.
If they don’t declare it, it’s because they have the same colorist complex that most desis have. Other groups have various shades of brown, same as we do. Just because our color range includes darker shades not found in those other groups doesn’t mean that those other groups aren’t still “brown”. Why can’t “South Asian” just mean a region-specific brown?
Immigrant guys point in #108 is very interesting. Given the percentage of 1gens to 2gens (3 to 1), and given the continual increase of Indian immigration, the writing is on the wall: ‘Indian-American’ and India-centric political issue framing will likely dominate the American brown scene for at least another generation. As most Pakistanis have already moved on to Muslim American (when not using national origin) and many of the South Asians here would have married out of the community (making their kids Americans or ‘mixed’ as the excellent dialogues here have shown), the last remaining South Asian “progressives” will be hanging on in outmoded silliness, kind of like the votaries non-aligned movement. I strongly suggest the collecivists embrace and propagate brown if they really feel the need to get cuddly with all of South Asia – before its usurped by numerically superior groups!
Down with brown!
A wonky internet connection and work have prevented me from getting as involved in this thread as I’d have liked.
Given the sentiment against South Asian identity on this thread (for which the arguments have literally made me nauseous), I’d like to once again pose my question from #19:
Are underprivileged South Asian Americans better off seeking solidarity with other underprivileged ethnic groups than with affluent South Asian Americans on issues which affect their daily lives and livelihoods?
SA (#72):
YES YES YES YES YES YES YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THANK YOU!!!
I’ve never understood why members of the diaspora have to continue to look at South Asia through a nationalist lens. If we’re really interested in peace in South Asia it seems that we have the luxury to be able [and responsibility] to step back and look at the larger picture: a united front of Pakistani and Indian Americans who are interested in Indo-Pak peace have the power and ability to put pressure on both the Indian and Pakistani governments to solve the Kashmir issue once and for all. It’s a bloody waste of time and energy for Indian American interests to go tit for tat against Pakistani American interests in their quest to get the US government on one side or the other, or to make or break military deals to one side or the other.
In the same vein, a strongly unified South Asian American front, working with South Asians from Canada, can put pressure both on the Sri Lankan government and the LTTE to go to the negotiating table.
Vivek,
If that ever comes about I hope Indians and Pakistanis can come together and tell assorted Indian-Americans and Pakistani-Americans and plain ole Americans and the lone South Asian that America should first focus its attention on bringing “peace and democracy” to the Middle East : )
I would hate to see desi versions of the neocon likudniks. And, no, I am not some anti-semitic nut job.
tef werote: There is a perfectly good name for people from South Asia, who refused to be divided by religion – they are called Indians. 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.
This is a pretty deep misunderstanding of Pakistanis. That identity isn’t a rejection of “south Asianess/Desi-ness (although some do think it is) its just a different stream of South Asian. In fact, given 25% of South Asians are not Indian, “Indian” is inadequate to express Desi identity.
But this thread shows the problems — Indian immigrants are going to define “South Asian American” identity. They are overrepresented (88% of browns) in the USA, and will control any movement. They can either create an epansion, inclusive identity, or a narrow, sectarian one. My guess is that the greater the proportion of FOBS, the narrower the conception of brown identity in the USA.
Things will be very different in Canada.
BidiSmoker (#135):
My point is that folks in the diaspora can and should effect changes in the dynamics of current South Asian inter-state politics, not perpetuate those dynamics.
What does the Indian American political lobby gain from the following?
1) Cross-border terrorism 2) Leadership on both sides playing on Kashmir while Kashmiris continue to suffer abuse and die at the hands of BOTH sides 3) Antagonism between two nuclear states (one of them not exactly stable)
These are all three attributes of the status quo and I see no reason to keep them around. If there’s going to be a change, there needs to be a radical shift which compels both sides to engage in a genuine peace process. If Musharraf takes any risks, he will likely lose power or worse. Congress isn’t likely to take any risks, and even on the off-chance that they did, they’d be tarred and feathered by the BJP on counts of softness on terrorism, etc. The BJP of course wouldn’t take such a step – too many of their leaders benefit politically from the vilification of Pakistan and of Musharraf (not to say that this isn’t true of some Congress leaders).
If the impetus for change is unlikely to come from inside, why not apply pressure from outside? And why not set the stage for cooperation with a unified call for peace from the South Asian diaspora? This would also beat the chickenshit habit everyone seems to have of running to the State Department every time they don’t like something.
Ikram (#137):
How so?
Why can’t “South Asian” just mean a region-specific brown?
it can, but it just as arbitrary. look at the map. i have actually encountered some confusion about ‘south asian’ because some perceive that southeast asia is part of south asia…as it is to the south of ‘south asia’ proper.
brown, brown, brown, brown, brown, brown, brown, brown, brown, brown, brown, brown, brown, brown, brown, brown, brown, brown…ya’ll.
also, it is relevant (i think) that 47% of “hispanics” put white as their race on the CENSUS. obviously there are hispanics/latinos who use the term ‘brown,’ but they are as thick on the ground, i would argue, as brownz who use the term ‘south asian’ habitually 🙂
wutz catchpa again??? 🙂
So you’re a Hindu American?
Their cultures (while extremely beautiful and interesting) are as different from mine as a Serb or Argentinian
that’s not factually true though. to say that a muslim from mumbai and a syrian christian is as different as a “serb or argentinian” is so absurd as to render you pretty uncredible. of course, you might have your own very very special culture….
…but mebee i’m hung up on literality and not giving you rhetoric license.
let’s blame this thread on the British, hyphens, geography, and melanin.
…and they called him cinnamon love….
Vivek,
You make some good points in the post with the quote about a Pakistani reaction to ‘South Asian’ being Indian anyway. Thats a reaction I never expected. I think you are correct in saying that coalitions built around issues we care about needn’t be narrowly construed. For those issues, I don’t see a “South Asian” consensus emerging. Rather people who care about those issues who happen to be of South Asian descent will be part of the coalition, and given the inordinate levels of education among us (thanks to selective immigration policies) we have the resources to be, as individuals, among the leaders and shapers of the direction some of these issues take. This was the case with Biju Matthew and Vijay Prashad playing a crucial role in the Taxi alliance. But South Asians as political community still seems untenable to me. I will have to agree with Ikram that the Indian and Hindu demographic domination of the American diaspora will set the tenor of the organized (and highly funded) political activism towards India-biased foreign policy. There is some truth to the joke that Indians aspire to be the “new jews.”
As for the undeniable cultural and genetic commonality, Razib’s ‘brown’ sums it up best. And its more aesthetically pleasing than South Asian American, and more apprehendible to the general population than “desi” – much as that pains me to say 🙂
‘brown’ is better for raps and shout outs too. “yo brown, git down here!!!!” and you can use the UPS tie in for pick up lins, “can brown do you?” or afterward, “was brown good for your?”
well put, desitude!
Just for the record, the person I quoted is of Sri Lankan origin.
Sure, I’m down with brown. But given kettikili’s point about India’s place within the whatever-you-want-to-call-this-American identity, it’s going to take a bit more introspection than just settling on terminology if we want to be as inclusive as possible. And I do.
Vivek — Only 47% Canadian Desis are of Indian origin, versus 88% of American Desis. Sri Lankans and Pakistanis are next. West Indian Desis and East African Desis make up smaller but influential communities, resulting in a very diverse puiblic face to the “community”. And religiously, 30% of Canadian Desis are Sikh, 28% hindu (one third of them Sri Lankan), 23% Muslim. Rich male techie Indian-origin Hindus are probably going to be the politically dominant desi element in the USA, but not here in Canada.
but not here in Canada.
well, i hope you freeze your asses off!!!
tef on #103: I have never before seen anyone miss being called “Pinko” 😉 So what is your preferred ideological moniker ? I will make sure I refer to you by that next time. I envy you. I have the exact opposite problem, people assume I am a leftie unless I couch my arguments in rightwing code words. If I ask people to join in a minute of silence on WorldPeace I am a leftie, call it vasudhaika-kutumba and all the rightwing nutjobs are cool with it.
brown bros and sistas : I have nothing against brownz term. It is way cooler and shorter than SoutAsian. I am an Indian and will remain one. Brown/SA unity is of tangential intrest to me. My larger point is that rebranding is a useless weapon/defence against stereotyping. Education is the only way out. Arguments and ideas should stand or fall on their own strengths and weaknesses, not in the terms they are couched in.
razib: More power to your cousins who don’t mind identifying as Indians.
Thanks, Ikram
Ikram (#137):
It also ignores the history of perceived exclusion of various groups during the independence struggle and the subsequent regional and religions nationalisms which rose up in response to the mainstream [largely industrialist North Indian upper-caste Hindu] Congress-led nationalist movement.
I’m really interested in Taz’s post, which had more to do with domestic policy than foreign policy. I made my argument along class lines in #19, and no one seemed interested. BidiSmoker referred to socio-economic status in #40 among other factors…
I’m really curious as to why class divisions haven’t really come up in this discussion as much as religion and nationality. I fully acknowledge that there are differences between national groups, and the points about differing foreign policy interests has been made more than clear. But I said in #19, the statistics Taz laid out clearly show that there are economic differences within each national group as well. Is class a bad word? Should I use socio-economic status instead?