Just in case you were unaware of it, Kiran Chetry, the CNN anchor, is half-Nepali, and was born in Kathmandu. 
In an interview in Nepal Monitor recently posted on our News Tab, Kiran is asked, predictably perhaps, a number of questions relating to her background. For me, her most interesting response came following a question about her “South Asian” identity:
Question: And this is about being a “South Asian.†Because you don’t really seem like a South Asian unless somebody does some research on you! There are very few South Asians actually doing major shows on cable television in the US. What does being a “South Asian†mean to you?
Kiran Chetry: I define it in a more narrow term. I feel that being half-Nepalese is my heritage, something I have always grown up being proud of and living with. It’s never been something that I dwell on a lot; I think that it’s just my life, it’s who my family is, it’s who my father is. My cousins, many of them that are my age, are here in the US, either studying or now have jobs here. And that is just a part of our culture. And I have lived straddling both.
Fair enough — much of what she said there should resonate with many SM readers. Even if your family isn’t bi-cultural, growing up in the U.S. forces you to always in some sense “straddle both” cultures. But it’s when Chetry gets to terminology beyond “helf-Nepali” (or as she says, “Nepalese”) that she starts to hedge:
But you are right, when people look at me they don’t necessarily say, “Wow, Kiran must be Asian†or “Kiran must be from Nepal.†But I think that when you get to really know me and you spend any time with my family, you see what an influence it is. Since my father is from Nepal and that is what I grew up around. It’s just me.
And there are not a lot of South Asians, if you want to put it that way, that are represented in the news. However, there are a lot more at CNN, which is interesting. We have our special correspondent Sanjay Gupta, also Betty Nguyen, who is on our air and Alina Cho, one of our American Morning correspondents. All of them are Asian, or South Asian. So I think it is wonderful to be able to see more faces of diversity. And, I am one of them, even though I may not look like I am! I think I understand what being part of the Asian culture is like, not to put everybody into one big generalization. But I definitely understand a perspective because it is part of how I grew up. (link)
She seems a bit uncomfortable with the term “South Asian,” preferring the more narrowly national “Nepali” or the more general term, “Asian.” And while she mentions Dr. Sanjay Gupta, she’s also quick to mention Alina Cho and Betty Nguyen.
While most desis I know do define “South Asian” as a subset of “Asian,” I’ve never met anyone who wanted to deemphasize (or reject) the “South” in favor of a more generalized “Asian” identity — to be defined as just Asian, and not South Asian.
What might be behind Chetry’s terminological discomfort? (Unfortunately, we kind of have to speculate here, since I don’t think Kiran Chetry has done any other interviews where she’s discussed these kinds of identity issues.)
I’ve never checked but wondered when “south asian” comes into use. I don’t recall hearing it at all prior to mid 90s. I think, also, that it is mainly only a US term as British people call us asian. To me the term is almost meaningless. It is almost a census clarification, a way of saying, for lack of better term, “non-chinky eyed asians.” What else does the term mean? Is it a reference to former british colonies? It isn’t really geographically correct as Pakistan is further north than most Taiwan, Delhi is further north than Hong Kong (and these places are never referred to as Southeast Asia, a term with its own little distinctions). I’ve also never heard “South Asia” or “south asian” used in asia or by asians over a certain age.
Further, Nepal in particular is very much an iffy “South Asian” place, sharing more perhaps with Tibet (which like it or not is in China) than with India. I like her subtle way of not giving much weight to the term south asian.
I think your over-examining her comments. From what I read she’s saying she’s a Nepali first, a South Asian next and then an Asian. South Asian and Asian don’t necessarily have to be two separate entities. I grew up in Dubai and have always identified myself as an Asian. However, on arriving here in the States I was immediately categorized as South Asian and much to my FOBtacular wonder, found out that Asians were a separate and discrete category, which I thought was kinda funny because according to Wikipedia 60% of people on earth are Asian:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asia
So yeah it’s kind of strange how we identify with being South Asian but not particularly Asian.
Interesting! I think this is like my cousins and me – we’re from Andhra Pradesh, a state in the south of India, but hate calling ourselves ‘South Indians’. We’re Indian, yes. Or we’re Telugu. The reason we hate calling ourselves South Indians is that people tend to lump everyone from the four Southern states into the same sociological/cultural bucket – and there’re some immense variations between someone from Cochin and someone from Kakinada! Not all of us are religious, pious, soft-spoken, idli-dosa eating, mathematics geniuses, non-physically active, non-aggressive, etc etc. I’m guessing Kiran, in addition, also has the issue of being from a smaller country normally dwarfed out by its larger neighbor, India, all the more reason for her to stress on her Nepali-ness. We don’t see Canadians or Mexicans calling themselves North American, even when they’re travelling or living in the other part of the world, e.g. Singapore. They prefer their national identity….
“I like her subtle way of not giving much weight to the term south Asianâ€.
I like that too, if you are going to say where you are from why not say Nepal, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Japan etc? South Asian is a term I never really liked, Asian sounds and feels better.
“preferring the more narrowly national “Nepali†or the more general term, “Asian.†She covers both extremes of the spectrum. No in between with this lady.
Always considered myself British Asian, sounds too weird to say British south Asian.
I hope the time is not far off when a person’s national origin or ancestry does not take quite such a front seat. Perhaps this will happen more quickly if people from South Asia, in addition to realizing the “American Dream,” make more of the kinds of first-rate contributions in diverse fields which are squarely in the international mainstream. There may be lessons in the manner in which Russia (Czarist Russia) began contributing in a ground-breaking way to the the world’s literature (Tolstoy and Dostoevski) and science in the 19th century.
Well I’m from Sri Lanka and I do not enjoy being lumped under the “Indian” label by those who are not too familiar with South Asia. Not that I have anything against India or Indians, but I’m happy being Sri Lankan, and don’t want to be subsumed under “Indian.” Maybe Kiran Chetry feels the same way about being lumped under “South Asian.”
Well I’m from Sri Lanka and I do not enjoy being lumped under the “Indian” label by those who are not too familiar with South Asia. Not that I have anything against India or Indians, but I’m happy being Sri Lankan, and don’t want to be subsumed under “Indian.” Maybe Kiran Chetry feels the same way about being lumped under “South Asian.”
Nick, I agree with you — and that is one of the main reasons why Sepia Mutiny has generally tried to define itself as a “South Asian” or “Desi” blog more than as an Indian blog (though that emphasis annoys many Indian patriots).
But by the same logic, wouldn’t we expect Kiran Chetry to also prefer the term “South Asian”?
Further, Nepal in particular is very much an iffy “South Asian” place, sharing more perhaps with Tibet (which like it or not is in China) than with India. I like her subtle way of not giving much weight to the term south asian.
Noblekinsman, I disagree. Nepal is largely Hindu, and Nepalis are ethnically mixed between people who look “Desi” and people who look “Tibetan.” For many years, India and Nepal had open borders (though those have tightened up of late, as I understand it). If anything, Nepal might be considered to be too close to India.
Always considered myself British Asian, sounds too weird to say British south Asian.
Rudie_C, I should have mentioned that the Brit-Asians use the word “Asian” differently…
I think Indians and other south asians in the US should make an effort to correct US public perception that Asian = East Asian. I was annoyed the other day when during a random conversation, a chinese woman definitively told me: “You say you are from Asia but you don’t look Asian.”! This mis-perception can have some real consequences too. Like the number of US sourced medical articles which are headlined “Asians have a lower risk for XYZ disease”, when they actually mean people of Mongoloid ancestry, and which are then reprinted verbatim in Indian and other newspapers. Since I have been here, I have been amazed that such a major inaccuracy is constantly propagated in a country where people otherwise seem so sensitive to being accurate about labels, especially those relating to people’s ethnicities!
I really don’t see an issue with someone identifying themselves as Nepali or Indian or Pakistani – I think the term “South Asian” is used mostly to make sure one’s inclusive of the countries in the region other than India but if someone chooses to specifically point out that they are from a particular country – I think its totally fine to do that.
As for her identifying Betty Nguyen and others along with Sanjay Gupta — well, she may just see the rest of the countries as being subsumed by the higher level identifier – in this case – Asia – rather than ‘South Asia’. I really think this analysis is trying too hard to parse the distinction between “South Asian” and “Asian”. I am from India – and I dont identify myself as South Asian or Asian in general – and given her context and her workplace – I actually think her response seemed very thoughtful and well laid out. Why should she identify herself as “South Asian” if she’s saying that she’s Nepali already?
Also, trust me – I completely understand the emphasis on “south asia” among progressive South Asian groups and in academia. I happen to be an academic that works on South Asia and time and again people who are not keenly aware of the distinction between “south asia” and “asia” use the words interchangeably when they are talking to me — and these are other Asian (not South Asian) academics. So, I have thought of this question of the importance of a “South Asian” identifier for some time now — and I really believe that at the individual level it makes more sense for people to identify themselves as Pakistani or Nepali or whatever….I dont meet very many people who self identify as South Asians. But at the organizational level – I am a part of academic and community organizations that all identify themselves as South Asian – and that is a good thing because it is inclusive of the smaller countries in the region. Meanwhile for someone not from the region or from Asia — its very difficult to keep the geography straight when talking to you and remember to call you South Asian and not Asian – I really do not think its a big deal.
From a political point of view, having a much larger based unified identity would make a lot of sense – the interests of the non whites/blacks/Latinos would be a lot better served if there was a solid Asian identity which was politically active. In that sense developing an identity along Asian lines (as opposed to a South Asian one) makes a lot of sense. At the same time, culturally South Asia is quite different from East Asia and so an equal effort should be made to not lose the sense of a distinct identity within the Asian identity. Thus efforts should be made to get Whites and other ethnicities to identify South Asians as Asians too within the much larger Asian group and for other Asians to be aware of the same too. Instead what I see if a polarization over time where Asians and South Asians move away from each other and don’t leverage off the Asia label. Though I would have my reservations of trying to club the near east with the far east cultures (though culturally the middle east is a quite close to South Asians in comparison) because of the current negative vibes associated with that geographical culture (only from a political perspective)
With all due respect Amardeep, I think you are over-analyzing her statements probably made after a second of thought.
Amardeep, I tend to agree with the idea that maybe we’re reading a bit too much into Kiran’s remarks. Her heritage being split as it is, it does makes sense for her to emphasize her ‘half-Nepalese’ ethnicity. It is possible there is a faint echo of what could be loosely called ‘anti-Indianness’ which one sometimes sees among those in the diaspora with parental origins outside India being transferred to ‘South Asia’ as well – but I doubt it. For right now, since she is in the visual media – and doesn’t ‘look South Asian’, it doesn’t make much sense to me to microanalyze what she says too much. If CNN is positioning her as ‘Asian’ alongside Betty Nguyen then that is what she will say. She’s a media person, not a media academic, so we can’t look to her too much for self-analysis.
However, the discussion over her remarks also lets us explore the overlap and interaction between a diasporic South Asian identity on the one hand, and a South Asian federative, transnational identity ‘back home’ on the other. Some of my remarks here, I realize, will also have some relevance to the ‘linguistic states’ thread, and the Guha series in general. I have made some of these points in earlier comments, but am taking the occasion to amplify them and link diasporic and subcontinental identity issues – I trust you will be indulgent.
‘South Asia’ started off as a concept in earnest during WW-II, especially in Pentagon and State Department strategic and planning documents. The British had no use for the term, since the region was all ‘India’ to them – even Ceylon and Burma were administered together with the rest of ‘India’. Nepal was seen as something of a buffer state, along with Afghanistan, and had functionally much more autonomy than other princely states in the British dispensation. Tibet was a further buffer against China. But historically, Nepal has interacted much more with ‘India’ than with ‘Tibet’, so the connection with South Asia is certainly there, formalized today through a treaty with India, which among other things grants Nepal special transit rights as a landlocked country, and recognizes some rights of free movement for Nepalese and Indian citizens – as well as the Indian Army’s right to recruit in Nepal, as the British did before them, and indeed still do.
The current national structures in South Asia owe much more to the botched mid-century withdrawal of the British than to any compelling economic or ethno-national logic. One big stumbling block in getting to ‘South Asia’ as a reality on the ground – is the demographic, cultural and economic weight that India came to acquire in consequence of its political construction as a unitary nation state. Unless India becomes visibly more federal in its political structure – the smaller countries in South Asia will forever feel threatened by it. As well, the statist economic structure in India must be significantly diluted, and the private sector strengthened, before the logic of South Asia becomes more appealing.
Thankfully, these things are beginning to happen – and movement toward federalism is occuring, largely by default – with electoral dynamics combined with economic asymmetry generating stronger states and a weaker Centre. Concepts like federalism, transnational economic unions, diluted sovereignty – all essential in transforming toward a looser federation – are also emerging in the Indian national discourse. The smaller countries are beginning to see this, and are also reorienting their internal polities to align with the overall dynamics.
With all the recent troubles in Pakistan, this is difficult to see, but that is what I see happening below the surface. The weakening of the Army and the promotion of Benazir – who has made any number of conciliatory noises toward India (and which have been reciprocated) point in this direction. These developments combine with geopolitical transformations (for the first time since the departure of the British, Pakistan and India are on the same side as each other and the hegemon).
In addition, the growing demographic weight of the South Asian diaspora in the hegemonic state – the US – and the increasing assertion of the ‘South Asian’ identity overseas – together with telecom-media convergence – contributes in a ‘soft power’ kind of way to the development of a ‘South Asian’ identity in South Asia as well. This synergizes with both geopolitical and economic logic in South Asia itself, to further strengthen both. National boundaries in South Asia will continue for a while – perhaps a long while – but free trade and travel will occur – and a common currency will probably return.
Thus in the future, I see (i) A more federative, less statist, ‘free-er’ India (ii) A more confederated South Asia (iii) A more cohesive South Asian identity in the diaspora – which people with ancestral national origins outside ‘India’ will find less threatening.
Coffeescoop, I can see how you might think that.
I guess the point here isn’t to dissect every phrase of Kiran Chetry’s on this subject (esp. since there isn’t a huge amount to go on). Rather, I’m interested in eliciting the kinds of comments from Ardy and “DBD View” above (comments #9 and #10) on the general terminological/conceptual problem associated with “Asian” and “South Asian”.
i agree with hokie pokie’s comments above. most non-brown people (esp not in academia) are not very familiar with the term “south asian”, and perhaps she was trying to accommodate that possible lack of familiarity. also, i don’t get the impression she’s trying to distance herself from being called south asian. i think non-indian south asians like to highlight their specific ethnic background when they get the chance, because it’s so rarely acknowledged. but it doesn’t mean the usefulness of the term “south asian” is any less appreciated.
“We don’t see Canadians or Mexicans calling themselves North American, even when they’re travelling or living in the other part of the world, e.g. Singapore. They prefer their national identity….”
good point. and we don’t see americans(of whatever ethnic background), whether they live in the u.s. or are expats, refer to themselves as north american. they usually are quite specific in saying they are american or from the states. it’s never the north american women’s club, but the american women’s club or the “united states” something or the other.
also, i don’t think most americans get the distinction between asian/south asian or even consider people from pakistan/india/bangladesh/sri lanka etc. as asian. when it suits them, for example, cnn puts pakistan/india in the middle east. i think even during the democratic debate they geographically lumped pakistan with the middle east. most people also confuse the west indies with the caribbean.
i think she just uses asian/south asian interchangeably, when she has to think about it, but it seems she doesn’t really think in those terms and more along the lines of being similar to an italian-american, irish-american, not a european-american.
Always an interesting debate. Is Australia an island or a continent? Are you a lumper or splitter? This largely stems from a census driven need to classify people. When I took Spanish in high school and college we would get into debates about the terms Hispanic, Chicano, Latin, etc particularly among the Mexican, Spanish (from Spain), Puerto Ricans, Cubans, and Columbians. Some didn’t care, usually the second generation, while others were fiercely nationalistic. “Soy Colombiano no soy hispano!”
Sometimes it’s difficult when the reality does not conform to the societal or mainstream stereotypes of what an American, Asian, European, African, etc should look like. I have a white friend who was born in Zimbabwae but now lives in America and is a US citizen. Technically he could call himself African-American even though he does not fit the proteotypical definition.
My wife’s Indian (ABCD), Telugu to be precise, but it always catches people off guard when they ask about her (usually in reference to a photo of our daughter, Asha) and I reply “Oh she’s American.”
I think she’s just trying to give a nice but inclusive answer to a question that I’m sure is annoying. Rather than asking about her skills as a journalist or TV anchor she has to deal with questions that address her ethnicity probably followed by her gender.
In the end we are who are and labels are more important for the SAT and college admssion applications.
Generalize much? Also, I think they make an ointment for that self-hatred.
I happen to be an academic that works on South Asia and time and again people who are not keenly aware of the distinction between “south asia” and “asia” use the words interchangeably when they are talking to me — and these are other Asian (not South Asian) academics.
That sounds sensible. However, a strange thing has happened state-side – a mini culture war emerged. South Asian became associated with individuals, who seemingly saw beyond communalism and the putatively regressive aspects of Indian culture, in addition to organizations who claim fealty with the Indian Left. As a consequence, Indian-American became a rallying cry for state-side Hindutvavavdis(!) Now I think, epistemologically, its a big loss for progressives to cede the Indian-American identity, because it de facto gives people with Hindu affiliation a priority in speaking for India in the states, including very high-level lobbying/politics (though that’s also a function of money).
I prefer brown as a joint South Asian signifier.
p.s. I think my last comment proves that some South Indians are indeed aggressive and not soft-spoken. Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to go find some idli, which I will consume piously, while wondering about why people have such narrow definitions for the groups they belong– or in this case desperately don’t want to belong– to.
chachaji, it sounds like you see South Asia facing it’s own political trilemma of sorts.
Whose God is it anyways?, in maps produced outside the US, I have often seen North, Central and South America labeled simply as ‘the Americas’. Of the South and Central American’s that I have spoken to, they find the geographic distinction dubious explained below-
I grew up using “Indian” or “Indian American” because I had never heard the term “South Asian” until college (I know). And yet I’m MUCH more comfortable using the term “South Asian” than “Asian.” I have lost count of the number of times I have been told by non-Asians and East/Southeast Asians that I’m not “Real Asian.”
So I’m confused… What’s the determining factor here? The shape of one’s eyes? The utensils we use (or don’t)? The languages we speak?
In economicsese, the kind that makes me eyes gloss over, I know that people often mean China, Japan, and India when referring to Asia. I also know many South Asians who prefer the term Asian out of solidarity. I appreciate that, but I don’t feel it myself. I want to, but it’s not there yet for me. At a gathering for a group of Asians the other day I was one of two South Asians, and I still felt like an outsider.
Question: And this is about being a “South Asian.†Because you don’t really seem like a South Asian unless somebody does some research on you!
But her name screams South Asian.
I’d never even heard of the term “South Asian” to identify onself until I came to this site. I still never call myself that, partly because Indians and South American desis are lumped together, instead of Indians and Pakistanis/Sri Lankans, partly because it just sounds stupid(at least, in my language it does). I don’t really understand some people’s issue with the term itself, I don’t hate it in particular. I don’t have a need for it though, because most people assume I’m Indian when they see me anyway, so there’s no need for me to explain myself.
9th entry, according to Manish.
Historically – the US has, er, oriented itself to looking at China + Japan + Korea – as ‘Asia proper’ while the rest was ‘South-east Asia’ or ‘South Asia’. While in Britain, it was ‘India’, everything else was ‘China’ and later ‘East Asia’. So the two countries have defaulted ‘Asian’ as being East or South Asian respectively. This has flowed through into popular usage in both countries. So in Britain, ‘East Asians’ have to distinguish themselves from ‘Asians’, while in the US, ‘South Asians’ have to distinguish themselves.
From a US immigrant demographics perspective also – initially there were many more people from China + Japan + Korea in the US – but now South Asians have almost caught up.
South Asia itself ‘back home'(I+P+B) already has more people than China, and will soon have more people than China + Japan + Korea.
Thus, the default Asian in the US will no longer as easily be East Asian – as will be the case in Asia itself.
Since ‘continents’ were defined based on landmasses surrounded by seas, ‘India’ was not a ‘continent’ in colonialist cartography. Then ethno-culturally it was found so distinctive that ‘subcotinental’ status was assigned. Later, geologically it was discovered that
IndiaSouth Asia is tectonically different from the rest of Asia. As it acquires demographic, economic and political weight, South Asia may well lay claim later to being its own continent.Just as Europe is still ‘Europe’ even though it is in ‘Eurasia’, someday a new continent in South Asia might come to be named and defined, if only geographers and cartographers are made to bestir themselves. Hopefully just as, if not more prosperous than, Europe. And its geographic boundaries will be defined by the Himalayas, the Karakoram, the Khasi-Jaintia Hills etc, and this will be thought to be ‘natural’ – just as Europe’s geographic boundaries defined by the Urals, the Caucasus etc are taken to be ipso facto ‘natural’ today.
We can take votes on the new name right here on SM. Till then, we’ll have to do with ‘”South” Asian’! 🙂
I don’t sense any hostility towards India in her refusal to adopt the South Asian identifier. Her paternal ancestry is Nepali, why would she obscure that in some catch all? Look, I know it causes many of you heartburn but “South Asian” just doesn’t have much utility outside of the progressive community. I hear about groups like “South Asians for Obama”. How ridiculous….are Pakistani-Americans suddenly OK with Obama’s demand for hot pursuit into Pakistani tribal areas ?! I would like to see “South Asian” gain meaning, but realize that it requires India/Pakistan/Bangladesh to reach some European Union level of interstate amity and co-ordination before that’s going to happen. I see Irish and Spanish kids here who proudly describe themselves as European….not surprising as the EU has been great to Ireland and the poorer nations of Europe. What exactly does a Nepali gain for being “South Asian” ?
Specifically referring to Western-Europe, excluding the UK. Note that no one from Europe calls themselves ‘European’.
I dislike the term “Asian.” We might as well call it what it really means – “other.” And most people connotate the term “Asian” with East Asia, not Arab, Persian, Afghani, Paki, Indian, etc. I prefer South Asian, although I have wondered why it is called “South” Asia. What about Subcontinental?
I think the distinction is important. Indians/Pakistanis are at increased risk for diabetes, heart attacks, while East Asians are at a lower risk. As a patient, the distinction is important.
Yeah, because, you know, we’re so accurate here about everyone but the South Asians–white people really are white, we call Isrealis and Palestinians Asians because they live in Asia (not), and Egyptians Africans because they live in Africa (not). . . .
Re: Chetry’s unease with “South Asian”–while I have no complaints about the term, I have always suspected that it’s meant, in part, to linguistically paper over the pain/horror of Partition. Therefore, the term is, by definition, of more relevance/salience to Indians, Pakistanis, and Bangladeshis than to, say, Nepalese, Afghans or Sri Lankans.
make it easy. brown. btw, wut happened to http://www.indiansareasian.com/?
I’ve never checked but wondered when “south asian” comes into use. I don’t recall hearing it at all prior to mid 90s.
It’s actually interesting, I heard in a talk given by this professor recently, that the term gained traction in the mid 90s through the first group to use it, Sakhi.
As for anyone (particular in the mainstream media’s) unease with it, my guess is to not have themselves “relegated” to some kind of minority special interest group. She acknowledges the “Nepali” term as it’s her actual, physical heritage, but my guess is she doesn’t want the mere appearance of aligning with any kind of larger “community” or “cause”, otherwise, what else does the term “south asian” imply other than the regions of india, nepal, pakistan, etc.. are some how related and have similar background, experiences and goals (esp. in the US)
I guess this is my personal opinion but I prefer not using a term based on skin color to identify myself . When I use Indian or South Asian or Asian (in decreasing order of preference and/or increasing scope of unification), I use it to include the culture, mores, value system, geo-economic region etc etc but if someone uses the term Brown, it to me seems like a very narrow way of characterizing myself based on my skin color. The argument may be made that brown does encompass all these things I mention but if we are looking to get away from a race segregated society in the long run, we should make a start by not making it the dominant or primary aspect of our own self identification. I guess this also has to do with the fact that race has been a emotionally charged issue for much of recent history and comes across as a lot more ‘in your face’ differentiation (something like – dude, look at my skin color, I am so bloody different than you) while cultural differences are a lot more easily accommodated and thus people are able to move beyond them faster and assimilate (more along the lines of – yeah sure we are different, lets learn about each other).
I’m with tamasha on this one — I always grew up being told I wasn’t a “real Asian,” but I clearly wasn’t white (nor did I identify that way), and I wasn’t Indian, nor was I Pakistani, so what was an appropriate way to describe my heritage? Similarly, I’ve been chee-chee’d on both sides of the aisle — random Indian aunties chastise me if I tell them I am an American (i.e., not Indian), and white Americans ask, “oh but what are you really?” when I say I’m an American.
I think part of this negotiation around terms has to do with the fact that people of Asian heritage in the U.S. are diverse (by comparison, “Asian” refers to South Asians in the UK because they are an overwhelmingly large group within the “VME” community and among Brits of Asian heritage, so the definitions are logically different). It’s not just to distinguish oneself (and history) from people of Chinese, Japanese, and Korean descent — and sadly enough, I have definitely listened to people confuse that kind of Asian with the desi kind of Asian. It’s also about acknowledging that the term “Asian” is overbroad and applies to people from a wide range of countries, from Cambodia to China to Kazakhstan to Lebanon. While we might piece some of those areas into geographic sub-groups, there IS a different culture, language, history, experience, etc., that comes from living in different parts of a huge continent.
I think the term “South Asian” is fine, but I actually like it more in long-form — “South Asian American,” because I do think there are more “common identity” experiences that ABDs share, as well as similar political needs, than Nepal, India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, etc.
All that said, I don’t find it problematic that Kiran Chetry identifies as Nepali and Asian — in media, where there are so few POC, it makes sense to see yourself as part of a larger group of people.
Identity is shaped by our experiences. I think Kiran’s assessment of herself is fair and sound. If growing up, the only “south asian” culture she really had exposure to was Nepali, then I can understand why she describes herself as such. I’m not particularly fond of the South Asian label, but that is my choice. I won’t tell others who are comfortable using it to not do so, it’s what they feel ok with, so whatever floats their boats. I’m more comfortable with labels of American, Subcontinental, Indian American, Gujarti, etc. These were shaped by my experiences. Identity based on geographic labels, whether they encompass a larger subset or smaller, are wholly dependent upon the interaction with the community. There is no one label, nor are they mutually exclusive, nor is it for others to ‘judge’ what part they are comfortable associating with. To each their own.
I guess this is my personal opinion but I prefer not using a term based on skin color to identify myself .
Plus it doesn’t even make logical sense to self-categorize us this way. What does that make latinos and hispanics, bronze? burnt umber? rust? We have to remember that the terms “black” and “white” (from which the word “brown” essentially derives from, in a racial setting) were chosen to represent human beings for very specific (and in my view, non-positive) reasons.
There are also vast differences between someone from Delhi and someone from Kakinada, but for some reason you don’t have a problem calling yourself ‘Indian.’ Even beyond that, there are vast differences between someone from Hyderabad and someone from, say, Hanuman Junction, but you don’t seem to have a problem calling yourself ‘Telugu’ either.
I’m just surprised you didn’t add ‘lungi-wearing’ to your little diatribe.
Again, depends on the context and the purpose of this identification. For a socio-cultural identity if you use that, you would be excluding a lot of DBDs (whose number is rising at a fast rate) who wont relate to the term ‘SA American’. However, it does have some merit from a political point of view since it would reassert that in the end the South Asians unified under the SA banner are indeed primarily American and thus not excluded from mainstream masses. In the land of Power of Pride bumper stickers, this is usually a good political ploy to reduce xenophobic tendencies of the majority during lobbying efforts etc.
I hate the term “South Asian”. It’s like trying to undo history, the pain of Partition, trying to de-emphasize one’s own identity for an amorphous artificial one, all of it really.
RE: Asian vs. South Asian. I think that there may be common ground among Chinese-, Japanese-, Korean, and Indian-Americans (who, combined, make up the majority of Asian-Americans) when it comes to things like the model minority paradigm. Some of the areas where there are lots of desis (Bay Area, NY/NJ area) also have lots of East Asians, and I’ve seen South and East Asian 2nd-gens find some sort of ‘common ground’ on the basis of things like strict parents, supposed nerdiness, etc. On the other hand, I’ve also met some East Asians who thought of me as nothing more than a ‘dothead.’ So I find these census-categorization-of-race-based community-building to be tenuous sometimes.
With Kiran Chetry’s reluctance, it seems obvious to me that she probably does feel Nepali as opposed to South Asian (& she doesn’t have a problem stating how Nepali-ness has influenced her), but part of me wonders if she rejects the ‘South Asian’ label because it could be seen as too political (as opposed to cultural).
On a related digressionary note, India After Gandhi being blogged by Amardeep in the other post explores this from time to time and in fact starts by questioning how as diverse a mass as India is even existent as a nation. In recent times, economics and cross cultural intermingling in India have helped create such an identity but in the early days of the nation and ‘Hindi dominance’ it is a wonder the country is still there in it’s current form.
Oh, my only major annoyance with South Asians being subsumed under the larger ‘Asian-American’ label is when it comes to medical reports. There are vast differences, e.g. Indian-Americans are at higher risk for diabetes, but East Asian-Americans aren’t.
You can continue to be emotional about it or else become pragmatic and leverage from it. Plus it does not de-emphasize your identity where your identity in a narrower sense is desired or required. Thus say in the local Tamil Sangam festival you wont be South Asian but if you are running for senate you would be American then South Asian then Indian and only then Tamilian.
Its how Area Studies Departments at Universities divide Asia. People study ‘South Asia’, ‘Southeast Asia’ (that what I do) and ‘East Asia’.
My sentiments echo what GujuDude said. I don’t really care to call myself a SouthAsian (nor do I wish to be categorized as such by others), but if others want to use that identity for themselves, more power to them. Overall, small potatoes in the bigger scheme of life – other than SM, I haven’t really come across this issue in real life while interacting with others.
I’m wondering how much of this South Asian identity is used more frequently by PIO in the US than, say, by PPO (peeps of pakistan origin) or PBDO (bangla desh)?
One thing that is curious is how Statistics Canada divides visible minority populations. It’s funny that they divide Asian “Oriental” groups into Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Vietnamese, Filipinos etc., but all “brown” ethnicities are grouped under one label – South Asian. It’s as if the eggheads at Statscan went “Oh yeah, let’s lump all them brown folks together. I can’t tell the difference.”
I suspect though that this is not done out of spite but is owing to historical circumstance. The Chinese and Japanese communities have had a significant presence in Canada since the late 1800s, and I believe Canadian census-takers have always recognized them as two separate, distinct ethnic groups. Once the Koreans and Vietnamese and Filipinos started arriving, the Statistics Cananada didn’t know what to do, so they just created separate categories for them.
South Asian immigration didn’t really start happening until the early 1970s, when Trudeau set up the race-neutral immigration points system. The initially wave consisted primarily of ethnic Indian Ismailis from East Africa, then more Punjabis came streaming in, then there was the Sri Lankan wave of the 90s, and now increasing numbers of Pakistanis and Bangladeshis are settling in.
Now sure we all hail from the same subcontinental landmass south of the Himalayas, and we’re all varying shades of brown, but that’s really about all that we all have in common. Now the American customs guy may not believe me when I meet him in a few weeks but, really, apart from my skin hue, I have as much shared affinity to a Pakistani Pathan as a Nigerian has to a Swede. The Pakistani dude is from a different country, speaks a different language, eats different food, worships a different God, has different customs… we’re very different. I wouldn’t think of Ahmed bin Syed from Islamabad as a “brother”.
But StatsCan must infer that there’s some sort of shared pan-brown ethnoracial/ethnocultural affinity amongst us, and I don’t really see it. It’s true that my generation of South Asians does classify themselves as “brown”, but it’s only at a superficial physical level. But beneath the surface, there’s really no real pan-South Asian identity. For the most part, the Tamils hang with the Tamils, the Punjabis with the Punjabis and the Muslims with the Muslims. This is really not a surprise as we’re all very different, and each independent South Asian ethnic/language group is numerous enough in numbers to allow for ethnocultural-based segregation, and because, unlike the rather cohesive African-American community, we don’t have a clear identity rooted on a shared collective historical experience of victimization to draw upon. I actually think this lack of a pan/co-racial identity is a good thing as it inhibits the fermenting of debilitating identity/victim/race card politics as in the States.
So my argument is that we’re too numerous now and too heterogeneous to warrant just one label, especially as each independent South Asian group is now significant enough in numbers to merit its own separate category. There are only four major countries in South Asia to begin with, so why not split the “South Asian” demographic into the four major groups – Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, and Sri Lankan.
Aside: Black people are in the same boat, but the “Black” category is a little more problematic. Given that there are there are several dozen countries in Africa and numerous little islands in the Caribbean, separating Black into to independent black ethnicities would be a colossal mess – (although the vast majority of Black Canadians I’ve come across hail from two countries – Jamaica and Somalia.) I think they should do as they do in the UK census – split the “Black” category into two: Black African and Black Caribbean – though by no means are either of these groups a cohesive, homogeneous lot.
Hmm… So, I just Googled “South Asia Map” to see if this is the accepted definition of South Asia. In school, when we have students create their own definitions for regional terms, they have included (in the past) any combination of the following countries: Indian, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan, the Maldives, Myanmar and/or Afghanistan (this is the one they argue over the most) in their definitions of South Asia.
tamasha, (I+P+B) is not the ‘accepted definition’ – But these are the three most populous countries. If these are already more populous, when put together, than China (which is the point I was making) then it doesn’t matter who else you include in South Asia – it still has a larger demographic weight than China!
BTW, (Nepal + Sri Lanka + Bhutan + the Maldives + Myanmar + Afghanistan), has a smaller population than Bangladesh alone – 125 million vs 159 million. Pakistan is at 161 million while India is at 1,170 million and China at 1,322 million. Link
Whether Afghanistan does or doesn’t belong is a great discussion. Myanmar – not in my current vision, though I’d like to see that discussed. I noticed SM blogged the Afghanistan issue a while back, I skimmed it but haven’t read that thread yet.
Thanks so much for linking to the South Asia Maps on Google. I’ve been looking for them forever!
I’d hit it.
The “South Asian” question has been argued, rehashed and re-anguished-over SEVERAL times on this blog, during the past 3+ years. Each of the points Sen made @45 (and I’m aware that the comment discusses Canada, but still) has been refuted and those refutations debated as well.
I hate this topic, but I understand that I do so because of the rancorous threads of the past, and that people who are new to SM have no memory of such name-calling, identity-bashing, flaming, troll infestations, virtual graffiti and everything else we blissfully, unnecessarily endured during those comment brawls. Just when I think we’ve “moved on”, and people who are “anti-South Asian” like Gujudude and Amit indicated they are, above, do so kindly with full awareness of why their opponents feel the way they do, we’re back here again, discussing this like it’s something new.
I don’t want people to be unaware of the history of this rather loaded “question”, since it defines SM, and we have fought to explain why and what good purposes such a term serves repeatedly. Then again, maybe everything really IS different in Canada and up there, the things we American desis have in common magically evaporate…
“Just when I think we’ve “moved on”, and people who are “anti-South Asian” like Gujudude and Amit indicated they are, above, do so kindly with full awareness of why their opponents feel the way they do, we’re back here again, discussing this like it’s something newâ€.
I’m new, and I don’t really like using the term, but the bottom line for me is (as my most favored song says) it’s “whatever†be what you want to be, do what you want to do.