Taz’s post today had one of the strangest statistics I’d ever seen — that 25% of South Asian Americans had, in 1990, identified themselves on the U.S. census as “white,” while 5% identified themselves as “black.”
It made me think of a post by progressive Muslim blogger Ali Eteraz from last week, where he discussed his own variant of an identity term crisis, not on racial but religious terms:
I onced asked a little kid I know what he was. He was like, um, er, I am a Pakistani-Muslim-American. I was like, what the hell, thatÂ’s messed up, little kids shouldnÂ’t have to hyphenate their identities like that, man.
Then one day I was typing up a post and I was like dammit I am really tired of having to write out the whole word “American-Muslim” or “American-Islam.” It’s just tiring.
So I decided that we needed a new ONE WORD term to call ourselves. . . In the end, I decided IÂ’m going to use “AmeriMuslim” – it is easy to understand, and it sounds like “A merry Muslim.” So from now on, thatÂ’s what IÂ’m going to use as my identity, thatÂ’s what IÂ’m going to teach nieces and nephews to say, and thatÂ’s what IÂ’m going to use even in my actual publications.(link)
Given that Ali Eteraz is (I believe) of Pakistani descent, my first thought is to say, “well, why not South Asian?” If we want to limit it to just one word, why not “desi” or “deshi”? Of course, in a sense I already know the answer: if religion is the most important aspect of one’s identity, one obviously privileges it over ethnicity. (Analogously, I also know a fair number of conservative Sikhs who are adamantly “Sikh American” and not “Indian American” or “South Asian American.”) Within individual states in the Indian Subcontinent, the term “South Asian” is rarely used. The progressive magazine Himal Southasian attempts to move beyond national identifications to a more regional, South Asian focus, but it’s the only enterprise I know of that does that. If “South Asian” exists mainly in the imagination of the diaspora, does that make it less meaningful?
Finally, I’ve noticed that more liberal Indian Americans in my acquaintance (of any religion) usually don’t bother with “South Asian” except when talking about someone whose national background isn’t known. It’s “Indian American” or just “Indian” (sometimes you even hear the slang term “Indo” — as in “there were a lot of Indos at the club”). In the comments at Sepia Mutiny at various points, people have also disparaged the term “South Asian” — mostly Indian nationalists, who’d rather deemphasize any association with Pakistan or Bangladesh. (On Pickled Politics, Sunny posted that conservative Hindus and Sikhs in England have been making similar arguments.) Is “South Asian” one of those terms that exists mainly in the abstract, to describe large groups and populations — but not necessarily individual people?
Kritic, just curious are you implying here that only the founders of an organization are important and not the members? I am sure there are many SAJA’s and South Asian Women’s Forums which have a lot of Pakistani and Bangladeshi members but were founded by someone else.
right and by your logic I was pointing out why some people do have an issue with it…I agree that identity is a personal choice, but was also trying to provide perspective from someone far removed from the subcontinent…Like CinnamonRani and other commenters here, I have a unique perspective, having been part of a diaspora that is a little older than the one in Amreeka (as a whole), and would like to show that as a contrast
If you look at something even as simple as language as an identity marker, I speak Gujrati, but don’t read/write it. My parents (dad esp) barely reads it, my grandparents were fluent, and infact my grandma spoke only Guju and Swahili (no english)…so over the years the knowledge has been distilled, much like the Indian identity has been distilled into a south asian one.
Do you really believe that in this country or any other diaspora an Indian (or Pakistani…) identity will persist after 3, 4, 5 generations? Especially after intermarriage between races, language groups, cultures? Look at the rest of ANY immigrant diaspora for a clue.
Thanks Taz. But for SM we would all be uneducated natives.
Now coming back to the real world, what exactly in his post makes you come to the conclusion that he is not informed. Unlike the pajama-clad bloggers, he probably goes out in the real world and meets real people and has first hand experiences as opposed to links from websites. You provide some anecdotal evidence that there are non-Indians who conider themselves south asian. I can provide you examples that prove otherwise, but do not want to give these sites/blogs any more publicity.
BTW, he also provided anecdotal evidence in one of his posts that clearly shows his experience has not been the same.
this post is very amusing to me. i feel like i’m watching a fight between the classic conservatives, who believe that race, ethnicity, tradition, and culture are the keys to identity, and the Marxists, for lack of a better term, who believe the same thing, but for different reasons (ie, as a rebellion against the hegemony of the classic liberal project.)
it’s kinda like watching bikini mud wrestling.
This is an important point. I wonder what box would Borat would check in the “race” category when the options are White/Black/Asian and Pacific islander/Other ?? I guess Borat (assuming that he was really from Kazakhastan :-)) ) would check white, that means that although he is from Asia, he is white.
Now the popular definition of “Asian” in the US means east Asian. I dont think I would ever be mistaken for being “Asian” in the US. So logically Desis should go with what is loosely called “Arab” group. But we get all excited if someone calls us Arab and we start saying how I am a XXXX from YYYY of ZZZZ subgroup. Why the hypocracy??? Because we dont want to be lumped togather with “them” …… So why do people here have problem when some people have problem being lumped togather with non-Indians ???
So its OK for “south Asians” to resent being called “Arabs” but not OK for some “Indian Americans” to resent “South Asian” ????? Sounds hypocrytic to me
AND btw, my forefathers left “India” (in the late 1800’s) as BRITISH subjects (with British Overseas Citizen rights) NOT Indian passports. Which incidently is also why so many EAA (east African Asians) ended up in the UK in the 70’s after Idi Amin threw Asians out of UG and why to THIS day so many Kenyan-Asians hold British (overseas) citizenship even if they were born in Kenya….
I hope that you know that British Overseas Citizen Rights is an after, after, afterthought. It did not exist in 1800s. As you said, they were BRISTISH subjects, not BRITISH.
Well, if being “BRITISH subjects” rocks your boat and done you good, more power to you. I have nothing to add. Best and warm wishes.
And me!
Go to hell, South Asian Hypocriticalists!
Death to Hippocrates!
Hail Mogambo!
I don’t see why “Indian” is a national identitiy. It is a cultural identity too. Since I’m half Malyali and half Andhra I think of myself as Indian, and “South Asian”, and American and I don’t think they are mutually exclusive. Being Indian means something very specific to me in a cultural sense and I have multiple friends of differend Indian ethnic backgrounds who share that perspective. There is such a thing as “Indian culture” and it includes Bollywood, fashion, classical music, both Carnatic and Hindustani, architecture etc. When I think “South Asian” I think of the things that Indians have in common with other South Asians, like tea, food, watching Bollywood movies, and post-colonialism. I think some Indians who grew up here may identify more strongly with their specific Indian ethnic background, but when you are an Indian mutt and spent your whole childhood in India getting asked “what are you” (see, it happens there too) you learn to build a pan-Indian identity.
yo. on behalf of the various shades-of-beige people up in here, I’d like to remind you that beige is a shade of BROWN. we count 😉
Personally, I prefer desi or brown to any other labels because like ANNA said, it’s inclusionary and I wouldn’t want to use a label which would exclude my non-hindu or non-indian friends, who still feel the brown experience. If you eat daal-chawal, you’re down with the brown, and I will address you as such. Sorry SpoorLam 😉
label which would exclude my non-hindu
DesiDancer, since when did India became an Hindu term. From CIA website (I hope you believe CIA)
If you read all my comments, I never talked of exclusion. My take is having “reality check“
yo. on behalf of the various shades-of-beige people up in here, I’d like to remind you that beige is a shade of BROWN. we count 😉
true dat. as a big proponent of brown i don’t see it as some fixed rule defined by a ‘brown paper bag test.’ brown people are as brown as black people are black or white people are white.
p.s. map of world skin colors to preempt debates on how brown brownz are
shades for the numbers on the map.
Misspellings Directory > Words > Misspeller’s Dictionary hypocrisy
Common misspelling(s) of hypocrisy
right and by your logic I was pointing out why some people do have an issue with it…I agree that identity is a personal choice, but was also trying to provide perspective from someone far removed from the subcontinent…Like CinnamonRani and other commenters here, I have a unique perspective, having been part of a diaspora that is a little older than the one in Amreeka (as a whole), and would like to show that as a contrast
Very interesting Kenyadesi.
Do you really believe that in this country or any other diaspora an Indian (or Pakistani…) identity will persist after 3, 4, 5 generations? Especially after intermarriage between races, language groups, cultures? Look at the rest of ANY immigrant diaspora for a clue.
No, probably not. Religious identities will survive : Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Christian, as they have in Fiji, Trinidad, and elsewhere. To the extent they are connected with Indian nationalism, I know not. I know the VHP is big in Trinidad and many TriniHindus go back to India regularly. But then, there are also a lots of others who could care less about India.
One of the primary reasons why Indian nationalism will persist here is because the American diaspora is still overwhelmingly 1gen, and substantial immigration, as evidenced by some inter-census reports released this year, appears to be continuing.
yes, I do know that…but they had similar rights as that of BO Citizens…my great grandparents/grandparents had the right to move to and settle in the UK (after 1930’s-40’s) if they so wished, a LOT of my family did in fact do that previous to the act of 1983. I was using terms more familiar in today’s lexicon of terms…justlike India in today’s lexicon is quite something else from what it was in the 1700s…haiii?
I was just referring to your comment about what passport Gandhi travelled on (a hundred years after my forefathers left “India”), and saying that while he may have gone on an indian passport, such was NOT the case in 1885.
And as for it rocking my boat, wtf? Again I was just referencing why these people (for the MOST part) didn’t go back to India but instead to the UK (Canada and US to some extent).
Glad you acknowledge it.
Good day!
I said Good day!
AlMfD,
I’ve actually become a bigger fan as a result of watching the re-runs since it finished (there were entire chunks which I’d missed the first time around). I think the best episodes were a) when Niles & Daphne go dancing — she’s wearing that red dress — and they pretend to be a couple, which of course gives Niles an excuse to act on his emotions for her…..and b) “Something Borrowed, Someone Blue [parts 1 & 2], when Niles & Daphne finally get together.
Having said that, the one where Frasier pretends to be Patrick Stewart’s “boyfriend” was hilarous too, mainly because of the outrageousness factor. That was Captain Picard, dammit ! Unbelievable !
It was such an outstanding show — extremely smart, no “dumbing down”, razor-sharp witty dialogue, and often very poignant too (especially the stories involving Niles, although it was also great when Frasier finally found “the one” towards the very end).
Absolutely brilliant, isn’t it ? 🙂 It was the first time British South Asians, especially the majority UK-born 2nd-Generation, really had a “voice” in the mainstream consciousness.
Agreed, I’ve said this quite a few times here on SM. I think it would be immensely helpful in enabling you guys to rectify the negative “Apu” or “nerdy desi” stereotypes you may be subject to by the rest of the population, and it would also let you really take control of your public image in the US per se. And it could be used to educate everyone else in various aspects of desi culture, much as GGM was in the UK.
That sketch is regarded as the best one of the entire show and, ironically, has also come to be regarded as a “classic” comedy sketch within mainstream British television too. It was quite controversial at the time — until then (or at least until the early 90s or so), British desis had also been on the receiving end of “humour” at our expense for an extremely long time within the mainstream media (similar in some ways to the kind of stuff desis in the US have to deal with), and that sketch totally turned the tables. It created quite a lot of thought-provoking discussion, as it showed Indians openly ridiculing white Brits like that, and in a show which was watched on a national scale.
There have been a couple:
The Kumars at Number 42 (fake-desi chat show, starts Meera Syal & Sanjeev Bhaskar who were also in GGM).
Grease Monkeys (also here).
The television version of Meera Syal’s novel Life Is Not All Ha Ha Hee Hee. (excellent website, packed with information and photos, also some clips).
Second Generation (starred Parminder Nagra from Bend it Like Bekham & ER — trust me, you’ve never seen her like this before)
Modern version of The Canterbury Tales, depicting a gangster-themed story about British Indians, starring Om Puri as a “don”, along with Indira Varma and others.
Kenyandesi,
It depends on the future course of history within the United States. If you look at what’s happened in the UK during the past 10-15 years, coupled with current global events, the opposite has happened amongst the British desi population.
Re: “Is “South Asian” one of those terms that exists mainly in the abstract…”
Yes.
British desi population.
muslim pop though, right? inshallah the stream of muslim immigrants will diminish.
I don’t understand why Austriala is mapped darker than India… Does the graph represent the skin colors of people lived there 100s of year ago or present?
It is possible, may be a watered down version. Jews??
I don’t understand why Austriala is mapped darker than India… Does the graph represent the skin colors of people lived there 100s of year ago or present?
yes. same for the new world.
The diaspora experience suggests that the cultural identity of people from the subcontinent is the world’s most enduring and resilient. The Indians of Guyana (descendants of indentured laborers from the 1840s onward), for example, have never had any substantive contact with India, live in a poor and racially divided country, and have created their own Guyanese diaspora in North America and Britain. Few Guyanese care about traveling to India. And yet they are proudly, resoundingly Indian. In fact, they are more “Indian” in their own diasporas than they are in Guyana because the cultural niche they occupy in New York or Toronto, for example, is Indian. Guyanese kids in New York idolize Shah Rukh Khan. A Guyanese boy growing up in Richmond Hill, Queens, whose grandfather was a cane cutter, and whose parents emigrated in the late 1990s, when Guyana’s economy was weak and crime was high, looks around for something that speaks to his identity — and the only thing available is Indian popular culture.
The resilient Indian global identity doesn’t have anything to do with language (Caribbean Indians don’t speak subcontinental languages) or region (most are from Bihar and UP but have nothing beyond ancestral ties). Guyanese Hinduism is simpler and less tied to specific deities. Guyanese don’t bother much with caste, and they don’t have any warm feelings for Mother India. They are not South Asians according to the census, and they don’t have much contact with subcontinental Indians, socially or in business, in New York, say.
They are really a new world community.
It is possible, may be a watered down version. Jews??
Sure. Being Jewish is mostly a religious identity. Personally, I would prefer an Indian identity, than a Hindu et al. But that is my personal choice.
Over, the year Razib and I have gone back and forth on SM, that nth generation immigrants in USA usually maintain their distinct markers – Irish Americans, etc. ALM, My sister-in-law is Taiwanese American. On a broad Starbucks fashion or filling out forms or federal papers, she is perfectly OK with Asian American tag but the buck stops there. She strongly identifies with Chinese culture and identity, and has no deeper association with Japanese or Korean.
Irish Americans
my main contention has always been is that the irish americans who you note as irish american are the minority of those whose ancestors emigrated during the 1840s (we are speaking here of catholic irish i assume, not scotch-irish). the majority of people with irish ancestry have been assimilated but you don’t notice them because there isn’t something distinctive about them. similarly, the german communities in milwaukie are not typical of german americans.
jewish outmarriage rates were around 10% until 1965, they’ve shot up to nearly 50% over the past 10 years, and only 40% of mixed-marriage children are being raised as religious jews (40% christian and 20% nothing from memory for the balance). the pattern with white ethnics has been that religion has been a marker, so that poles and italians and what not will marry in the 2nd generation. muslims are multiracial so i don’t expect the brown muslim identity to persist long (i already know of arab and malay + brown marriages). hindus obviously not so much, but i think the hindu and jewish analogy is pretty close because most american hindus are not very religious or tied to ritual communities.
As a historically-minded Indian expatriate in the United States (though second generation, I consider myself more expatriate than immigrant), it is very hard to identify as South Asian. Notwithstanding deep cultural similarities between India and its neighbours, it is impossible to find commonality in our political experiences. Nehru, Shastri, Indira, Rajiv (even Kamaraj) all loom so large in my conception of the world – Jinnah, Liaqat, Ayub Khan, Bhutto, etc. far less so. What is a man if not a political beast, and what are politics if not national.
Cool. India looks like a well crafted, immaculately layered cake.
Chocolate – dark, milk, white, almonds, peanut butter, swirls….
Razib, How could you?? SpoorLam will say you have saffron balls and everyone will be amused. People will call out for him to say it over and over.
Not really. Most Jews (who identify themselves as Jewish not who are Jewish by ancestry) might disagree. People claim that there is not that much of set difference between Jews with Zionists.
It depends on which segment of people you are talking about. People still clinging to their ancestral nationality will decrease at a rate depending on the economic success of the successive generations. You can see this play at a smaller scale in India. Rich people are getting homogenized where as poor people still cling their linguistic identity in all the big metros (I have lived there and I know of many such people).
Jai: Whats the joke behind ‘in it’?
sorry for barging in on your Frasier discussion, but one of my favourite episodes is when they all go on a ski trip and stay in a log cabin. everyone has the hots for someone else, but no one has the hots for poor Frasier.
Whats “logical” about that? Arabs and other west asians do not see desis as their racial brothers any more than east asians do. The humiliating experience of even desi muslims in arab lands should disabuse you of any “logic” behind this pathetic attempt to jump on the arab bandwagon. The bangladeshi “miskeens” in particular are subject to the worst racial prejudice. Even christian filipino servants are treated better. A south-east asian looking Indian from the north-east states commands a far higher status in the Gulf Arab states than the stereotypical desi.
There’s nothing to suggest that this is true generally. In fact, wealthier diaspora Indians are the ones driving the cultural and civic organizations, paying for the building of temples (in India and elsewhere), throwing extravagant traditional weddings for their children, making sure the family visits India regularly, etc. The first generation sacrifices and saves and doesn’t have time for much else. Successive generations are wealthier and more culturally connected.
There is also no substantial pressure in the US to “assimilate” in the ways the Europeans did in the late 19th /early 20th centuries. It’s a good time to be an Indian immigrant. The stereotypes are positive (“the model minority”). Indians are wealthier and better educated than the general population. The professional class is extremely prosperous. Everyone speaks English.
What would assimilation look like? Not wearing a sari? Not eating curry? Indian culture is shaping to world culture. World culture is not destroying Indian culture.
Jai,
Is this due to new immigrants, or is this a feeling that even 2/3rd gen immigrants feel? Because going by my family/friends in the UK, rates of intermarriage between communities (within my family/friends again), etc, I wouldn’t have thunk it.
Although the caveat is that most of my interactions are with former/current east african asians, so my perception may be skewed, and not representative of the asian population as a whole
The bangladeshi “miskeens” in particular are subject to the worst racial prejudice. Even christian filipino servants are treated better.
false.
TTG & chick pea,
I don’t know that SM bloggers intend to impose their ideas on people from India or anywhere else, but sometimes i’ve noticed that it comes across that way. I think it comes across that way because sometimes people tend to generalize their opinions, and those who feel they don’t belong to that generalization naturally wish to speak out. Everyone is and should be allowed to feel however they want and express their opinions. There is no right and wrong in identity.
I think that sometimes people can try to be more sensitive in how others are interpreting what they say and how they are expressing themselves instead of everyone becoming so defensive about everything. I don’t think that one should brush someone off so easily and say “don’t read this if you don’t like it.” It makes sense that if someone feels offended that they would try and correct the misinformation that they feel is being perpetuated. I think anyone would do the same, especially if they feel they can get through to someone.
In my opinion, the whole idea of identity is very personal, and as Abhi stated it completely depends on the context of the situation what particular identity you identify with. They ARE NOT mutually exclusive. I think that it’s human nature to want to classify one’s self. People like to belong to groups. In a community where there are few Gujaratis, but many Indians, I might identify myself as Indian. In a community where there are few Indians but a large group of South Asians, I might identify myself as South Asian. Generally when I get asked where I’m from or what I am, I say that I was born and raised in Texas, but my parents are from India. And if they want to know more specifically what part of India, I tell them I’m from the region of Gujarat.
Where I went to school we had the South Asian American Students organization, Sangam – an Indian Students Association, and also a Pakistani Students organization. SAAS was as an undergrad club, and aims to be inclusive of everybody since it was a relatively small school, and by identifying as South Asians, it made the contingency larger and more effective as an organization. The other two groups were largely made up of international students who strongly identified with those respective national identities rather than the umbrella South Asian identity. It was strange at first, but in the end, we all got along and respected the visions and purpose for each organization.
jewish identity survey. note, of the 3 ‘half-jewish’ senators (feinstein, allen and kerry) only 1 identifies as religiously jewish. that’s the future. that’s why multiple identities are the future.
oh, and for organizations and how they define themselves it depends on what their purpose is. I guess that’s obvious though. Someone who is a part of JAINA can also be a part of a Gujarati Samaj and Indian Cultural Community (ICC) and can also be a part of a broader South Asian political group because each group has a different purpose.
BidiSmoker, Be polite or be banned. Last warning.
No I’ll ban you because you are a disrespectful to other commenters. If you can’t argue intelligently then STFU.
There is also no substantial pressure in the US to “assimilate” in the ways the Europeans did in the late 19th /early 20th centuries.
interracial marriage:
1) 90% of asian indians (90% of american browns) are married to other asian indians
2) among US born or raised (2nd or 1.5 gen) 70% of asian indians are married to other asian indians
the results are symmetric for sex.
If you ever met the person you called a “colonialist prick” you’d understand that he was no such thing. As usual you irrationally fly off the handle because of that huge chip on your shoulder. Just chill out a bit.
for some (myself included), i think the issue is how some people use the label “Indian” as a last resort …
its desi, brown, american, south asian, hindu, muslim, christian, gujarati, punjabi, sikh, tamil, malayali… etc
but somehow saying that you’re indian (to someone who asks you) is kind of taboo … i just don’t get that … i also don’t get why if someone asks you this question, its like a game of wills to see how much badgering (?) has to be done before the word “indian” is spoken …
i am not talking about commenters like kenyandesi (i have no experience with 3+ gen diaspora)… but about people (regardless of from where in india – as it is known today – and what religion) whose parents came to UK/USA …. when questioned about their ethinicity, it seems that “indian” is the last thing that they will say … i just don’t get that …
[i am not denying the need for other terms like “south asian” b/c there is a need for them as well, esp in respect to describing this blog]
i don’t get how if one brown person asks one of my friends “where are you from”, they will say “the north pole” before they say “indian” … it is that sentiment that i can just never understand …
what is the big deal with saying that you’re indian?
Bidi, if you really read what I wrote, instead of what you think I wrote, you would agree with me.
Substitute “liberal” for “Indian” and see if anything changes.
I’m sorry I don’t see anything offensive about what Preston wrote. If anything he is pointing out that we should all feel pride in being Indian today because we are better accepted as we are versus decades ago when the presure to assimilate was a lot stronger. No one looks twice today if they see a woman in a sari, smell curry etc. That is a GOOD thing. What is offensive about it?
Everyone has stories about the difficults of growing up in the middle of nowhere America but we ain’t seen nothing like our parents did when they came here in the 60s and 70s. Perhaps it’s us that need to get over it because they chugged along and did what they needed to without cribbing about how bad it was. They made the best of their situations and you know what most of us turned out just fine and actually turned out loving brown.
I think many of us can use getting off the high horse and accept the positives without always talking about the negatives. India is in the news ALL the time now, it’s everywhere, in our foods, in our fashions, in our books, on our TV (The Office is celebrating Diwali tonite), in our economy, in our corporations and in the success of this country. Shall we take a deep breath and accept that as a good thing without getting offended?
Rani I’m with you girl. It’s the simplest answer to me. When I came to this country I was Indian. It hasn’t changed and will not till I die. Yeah I’m American too. Interestingly to those that matter to me and in general in life, neither identity matters.
I, however, do not, and so am forced to judge people by what they say online.
look in the mirror brother.
what is the big deal with saying that you’re indian?
i think it depends on context. i’ve met some mutineers, and they use the term themselves.
“Men in rage strike those that wish them best.” -Shakespeare
You are in denial:
http://afgen.com/saudi_slaves.html
“Anyone who has visited Saudi Arabia knows the racism with which many ordinary Saudis treats the brown and black-skinned masses that come for Hajj. Like hundreds of Bangladeshis every year, my parents endured these indignities during their recent pilgrimage. When he returned from Mecca, my father told me, “To them, we will always be miskeen (beggar). Doesn’t matter what we do, or where we come from. They see our skin and don’t need to see more.” If this is how pilgrims are treated, imagine how much worse is the plight of the “Guest Worker”. Yet, we Muslims remain silent on these abuses – after all the Saudis are the keepers of Islam’s holiest site, so they cannot possibly be racist!”
OTOH, the gulf arabs seem to have a fetish for filipinas. Many, including Osama bin Laden, have filipina wives.
OTOH, the gulf arabs seem to have a fetish for filipinas. Many, including Osama bin Laden, have filipina wives.
they’re not muslim usually. they can be abused and they have little legal recourse even officially. i won’t speak more to this, but it is offensive that you allude to abuse and injustice just for the purpose of casting aspersions at south asians. i have many relatives who’ve worked in the gulf in all sorts of positions, and they have seen how filipina ‘maids’ are treated. if the filipinas are treated ‘better’ than bangladeshis thank god that bangladeshis aren’t treated ‘better.’
you’re disgusting.