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 do think this convo. is a bit old hat (sorry Amardeep), but I also feel that sometimes feelings/circumstances change in how we define/view ourselves.
Probably excluded b/c northies wear lungis, too 🙂
I actually think it’s fine to exclude DBDs, Ardy, because I think the term “South Asian” has even less relevance for someone who actually DOES have a national identity as per their passport, place of birth, whatevs. I don’t think others have to use it, I just think it is a useful term in specific contexts (in the U.S.), some of which include leveraging a political experience/advocacy, and some of which includes a unique second/third, etc., gen. perspective.
Amardeep, I wouldn’t count Myanmar as S. Asia but rather as SEAsia. Speaking of which, I meet plenty of folks who confuse both of those regions as well. Ultimately many of these regions share connections, be it through trade, religion, certain cultural/dance/music practices, but I think oftentimes folks like to emphasize differences instead of commonalities. I also don’t think recognizing a unique culture/history requires similarly obscuring or ignoring shared cultures/histories.
actually, since i grew up in asia (not india), i much prefer to drop the “south” in favor of just “asian,” even though i identify as “indian” before asian.
“Then again, maybe everything really IS different in Canada and up there, the things we American desis have in common magically evaporate…”
Things are very different for browns in Canada. There are proportionally far more of us, especially in the big cities, so there’s greater awareness of the diversity of cultures that exist under the ‘South Asian’ umbrella, statscan aside.
You don’t see the same sort of brown homogenization that i’ve seen in the States…for instance you’re unlikely to find Tamil kids here calling themselves ‘desi’. In my experience, on an informal, social level there is a general idea of being ‘brown’ – of south asian descent, because there are some commonalities.
Anna, I am not anti-SouthAsian for others. As I said, if others want to define themselves that way, who am I to stop them. I’d mentioned in some detail in another thread (sorry can’t find it now) the reason why. I hope you will let me define myself the way I see fit, and let me choose my own labels. 🙂 I’d also suggested to include in the SM blog FAQ, a link to the two threads from the past (2005?) that did discuss this issue in much detail so that it is not re-hashed each and every time someone decides to write a post on it. Also easier for newcomers to get a primer on SM’s history with this issue.
And we can agree to disagree on some things – not everyone in this world is going to see eye-to-eye on all issues. If you want to float an identity of world citizen, I’ll be there. 🙂
I just don’t feel that the SouthAsian term is useful to me, and I find it to be along the same lines as akhand bharat idea of another party. The irony is that both the left and the right come up with ideas that are somewhat similar (just to preempt anyone who comes up with a list telling me the differences 😉 ), while they are at each other’s throats. Go figure.
Opponents?? I hope you mean simply having a different pov and nothing more. 🙂 I don’t really consider any of the SM writers as my “opponents” nor do I dislike any of you, though I’ll admit to being brusque sometimes.
I know. 🙂 Didn’t say you were.
Of course, it’s silly to even have to ask, isn’t it? Mutual respect, ’nuff typed.
I was thinking about this earlier today. It’s not like I (or any other mutineer…except perhaps, visionary Abhi??) sat around during the Summer of ’04 and thought, “Hmmm. Once this website has been around for a few years, how will we grapple with the concept of institutional memory? How will we catch n00bs up to SM-speed?” 😉
Honey, if I’ve given someone like you the impression that I can’t agree to disagree, then I am one huge South Asian Amreekan failure.
Growing up in Dallas, my grade school was about 1/3 Asian– about 20 in our class, and 3 of them Indian. At my HS, the diversity fell some, and I was the only Indian in my class of 250. There were more of what you would define as East Asian. However, the term South Asian is something I have only heard in America– my parents (both from Kerala and moved to the US) had always defined us as “Asian.”
When I would point out that I was indeed Asian in grade and high school, I would get the response “You’re not Asian, you’re Indian.” I chalked it up either as a sign of Texas or the US as a whole. I went to a competitive college in the Midwest with what I felt was a pretty academically strong student body— but I still got the “You’re not Asian, you’re Indian,” and when I pointed out that India was indeed in Asia, it surprised the majority of them. Which was shocking, because I felt it was common sense geography, but perhaps people only know it if they have some personal investment in it.
But who knows. Maybe I define myself as Asian instead of South Asian because I want people to understand that India is indeed part of Asia.
Maybe we can all go to the nearest Urban Outfitters, buy an Everyone Loves an Asian Boy shirt, and hold hands.
You know, what frustrated all of us back then, was this binary mentality of either/or. Either you’re Asian American or you’re South Asian American. No…wait. Either you’re Indian or South Asian. Or…um…either you’re Malayalee first and Christian second! No! Hindu first and Telugu second!
I grew up in an area where every fifth person was Asian. When I was in first grade, my three best friends were Pinay, Japanese American and second-gen Chinese. I was Asian American long before I knew where South Asia was. 🙂
You can be everything. I (South Asian, Indian, Malayalee) am. 🙂
It seemed like you were, unless I misunderstood your sentence. 🙂
Really?? I thought north Indian men just wore their chaddis at home… 😉 I guess you do learn something new every day!
I’ve seen some gora Amreekans wearing lungis too. And it was quite common in the north. I even wear a lungi at home during warmer weather.
What does that make latinos and hispanics, bronze? burnt umber? rust?
latinos are multi-racial. that’s why latinos are an ethnicity which can fill in their race optionally (50% identify as white, 40% “other,” and 10% black, indigenous, etc.). the idea that brown-skinned mexican americans are the typical latino is ridiculous. there are enough white and black cubans, as well as people of white, black and amerindian and all combinations from south america to dismiss that generalization.
it is a fair point that south asians exhibit a lot of physical variation too in color. but i don’t think as much. the salient distinctive feature of south asians is that we are brown skinned, whether it be light gold or near black.
“When I would point out that I was indeed Asian in grade and high school, I would get the response “You’re not Asian, you’re Indian.”
It would be even harder for me. I’m Sri Lankan. At least the guy got one thing right. I would have to add an extra: “No, I’m not Indian. I’m Sri Lankan”
That’s why I love the ‘South Asian’ (or ‘brown’) identifier. The bulk of my culture does not share the same nationality as me (mostly in tamil nadu, India), whereas the bulk of my nationality does not share the same culture as me (singalese).
It be have been a whole lot easier if those tamil nationalists went through with their plans for a pan-tamil state, but what can you do.
Instead of repping any nationality I just rep ‘tamil’ and ‘south asian’..
“bangladesh” is one word, not two…
Anna, this sent me into a fit of giggles-am imagining you eating idli and trying to look pious at the same time.
… And all she got was an idli. LOL. Sorry Anna, just couldn’t help it.
PS: Love your and other mutineer’s posts. Keep it up y’all.
Camille, i thought you were Punjabi-Indian descent – if you don’t mind me asking – where are you from?
Oh God. Not this crap again.
A N N A @ #58: No! Hindu first and Telegu second!
One other thing to add to the suggested FAQ:
It’s not Telegu. It’s Telugu. It’s Telugu. It’s Telugu. Sorry, I don’t know why that misspelling freaks me out so much. It just reads and sounds so strange.
nala @ #36: vast differences between someone from Hyderabad and someone from, say, Hanuman Junction
Alright! Hometown in da house!! Nala, do you really know this town or do you just know it’s name from that stupid movie?
Chavalier @ #3: Not all of us are religious, pious, soft-spoken, idli-dosa eating, mathematics geniuses, non-physically active, non-aggressive, etc etc.
I don’t know about all that, but I do resent being called a madarasi when I want to be called a Gult, a Sambaar when I wan’t be called an Avakaaya or Gongoora or Kakinada kaja or Bandar Laddu.
@ 28, 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.
HA HA HA ! That was a nice one.
That’s exactly what I wanted to say.
.
Sorry about the misspelling, I’ll edit it soon. Though I do wonder if I subconsciously did it because your Gult brother who dissed every South Indian way upthread pissed me off so much that I wanted to punch him, but instead, could only put away idlis piously. 😉
@65,
I have a different view. Success is because of hard-work there is no doubt about it. But what I think Vijay Prashad alludes to is the “effect” of a “positive” economic family background amongst South-Asians unlike many other Americans. And atleast post-85-90s immigration is not universal. Most people who come here are from either rich or reasonably well off educated middle class Indian background. I definitely think immigration to US is a filter which is loaded more towards the reasonably affluent South-Asians.
latinos are multi-racial. that’s why latinos are an ethnicity which can fill in their race optionally (50% identify as white, 40% “other,” and 10% black, indigenous, etc.).
They identify as ‘white’ on paper. That doesn’t make them ‘white’ in sociological terms. But that’s an aside, Even the white hispanics (from spain and such) are more “brown” than say a white person with roots in Europe. But even so, calling one’sself ‘brown’ is impractical on two fronts
Say, like a white person with roots in Portugal, or Greece? Your statement lacks validity on its face.
Say, like a white person with roots in Portugal, or Greece? Your statement lacks validity on its face.
Clarification, I meant north western europe: england, france, holland, scandanavia, etc..
I’ve been all over Spain, the only brown people I saw were recent Latin American immigrant farm workers. Outside of Andalucia people look pretty much like the French etc. and blondes don’t warrant a second look
Here’s a picture of a madrid police officer. Just a single sample point, but doesn’t look definitively “american white” to me.
From what I know, southern french people look and speak much differently than parisians? either way. the points I issued against the usage of brown are still valid.
The legacy of the term is not rooted anything positive really. Whitness didn’t exist until the 1600s, “blackness” didn’t exist in the US until the transatlantic slave trade. European immigrants post slavery (greeks, italians, irish) all took on the term ‘white’ as it gave them privileges. What privilege do we get by falling into this color heirarchy?
conceptions of color did exist in iberia during the medieval period. the peoples from the northern half of the peninsula were considered ‘blue-blooded’ because the fairness of their skin meant you could see their blue veins more easily than moors and mozarabs from the south. in any case, the ‘whiteness is a the result of european privilege’ narrative isn’t like quantum mechanics, invariant for all time and space. arabs and turks for example did consider themselves white, and superior to blacks (turks and most arabs still consider themselves white btw, in large part because turks and many arabs do look white). in south asia blacks meant the brown-skinned natives, who the turkic and persian muslim ruling elite wanted to remain distinct from (in this case, dark-skinned converts, the vast majority of muslims). i’ll give a very specific example, during the late fatimid and ayyubid sultanates there was a rivalry between white and black slaves, that is, those soldiers who were recruited from nubia and those recruited from the caucasus and turkic lands. at one point the black slaves got the upper hand by aligning a particular court faction and the white slaves, who were traditionally the elite soldiers (while black slaves guarded the harem more often) objected on pretty obviously racial grounds of superiority and supporter a usurper who overthrew the sultan (who was being controlled by his mother). the whole incident is recounted in detail in god’s war: a new history of the crusades. some knowledge of a broad arc of human history makes the silliness of attempting to shoehorn every dynamic into a grand-unified-theory-of-sociology pretty silly. e.g., white europeans are the most evil sons of the devil who introduced racism, whiteness and prejudice into the world.
They identify as ‘white’ on paper. That doesn’t make them ‘white’ in sociological terms.
many white latinos identify as white pretty easily. e.g., women who have married an anglo and change their name. that’s a big difference from brown folk. if i change my name to erik olsen i don’t turn white. i know of enrique gonzalez’s who could turn white by changing their name. granted, most american latinos (though not by as much as you would think, partly because the latinos we “see” on the street are those who don’t look white since they’re identifiable) are not physically white. but the point is that they’re not brown either, insofar as that denies the reality of white and black latinos. and finally, the fact that so many brown-skinned latinos identify as white on the census makes you wonder why we brown folk who identify as brown should really care that we might be confused for them? they don’t want to be brown anyway.
Here’s a picture of a madrid police officer. Just a single sample point, but doesn’t look definitively “american white” to me.
slap them. if there’s a pink mark left that means they’re white. that’s the white nationalist litmus test, and if we’re arguing if spaniards are, or aren’t, white, well we’ve stooped that low.
btw, if we accept HMF’s redefinition of white to exclude spaniards, who are now brown, the plunder of the new world south of the rockies was the work of the brown man, who forcibly christianized other brown men.
^The image of the police officer leads to an invalid link.
Italians definitely look quite brown. I haven’t been to Spain yet so have no info on that, but I do know a guy who is half-Spanish half-Dutch but he could even pass for a North Indian by his looks. The French aren’t brown tho most have dark hair.
Italians definitely look quite brown.
wow. the pax romana was a brown imperialism imposed on northern european whites! rewriting racial history as we speak. the dutch have rights to be racist, after all they were oppressed and persecuted by brown spaniards for 100 years. the british conquest of brown lands was simply payback for the attempted invasion by the brown spanish armada. and did i mentioned the notorious brutality of the brown spanish soldiers during the 30 years war against the protestant states of europe!
I mean of course in my previous post that they look brown. Not that they ARE brown.
if bollywood is a measure of what indian/south asian/brown people look like, i grant that many southern europeans could “pass.” but i think that this measure is less of a reflection on the swarthiness of southern europeans then the idealization of a type many standard deviations from the average south asian. oh, and here’s a skin color map of the world: skin color map
reference for my assertion about racial perceptions and medieval iberia: The Victors and the Vanquished: Christians and Muslims of Catalonia and Aragon, 1050-1300.
also, re: kiran chetry. i doubt most people who assume she was of part brown heritage without knowing ahead of time, but after that piece of data was thrown in there it makes sense looking at her. she looks white. but she could be indian too. some south asian people can pass as white obviously (salman rushdie could). but very few.
“Hispanic” is an ethnic marker, not a racial marker. I’m with razib on this one — I meet plenty of Latinos who pass as “American white,” as you put it, HMF. The Latino population is super diverse racially, and folks literally come in every color and heritage imaginable (from my friend whose grandparents are Korean but identifies as Mexican — she is second generation, to my friend who is Afro-Peruvian, to my friend who is Colombian and has a WASP name). While it is fair to say that there is a growing “brown Latino” identity, I think it’s unfair to pretend that this experience is homogenous, particularly when some benefit and others do not within the larger racial hierarchy within the U.S.
PS, my parents are Punjabi-Indians, but my grandparents are pre-Partition Punjabis from what is now Pakistan. Both sides of the family identify culturally and historically with what is now Pakistani Punjab, but identify politically with the politics and secularism of the Indian independence movement. This is partially why all of us identify primarily as Punjabi and secondarily as South Asian. None of us identify as Indian or Pakistani.
i apologize for saying she could be “indian” 🙂 i’m one of those people who doesn’t care too much if someone thinks i’m indian or bangladeshi or pakistani or south asian or brown. so i interchange pretty easily. all the same to me 🙂
camille, re: your family’s origins. i find that interesting, but unsurprising. i was talking to a bengali whose family in his grandparents’ generation was mostly from east bengal (3 out of 4), but whose parents were born in west bengal. he said east-bengali-derived west bengalis definitely have their own attitude and identity. also, i’m a little amused that there are people in mauritius and south africa who are muslim and brown who identify as ‘pakistani’ in ancestral identity when 1) their ancestors arrived well before partition 2) their ancestors were probably not from historic pakistan (e.g., mauritius muslims are either from eastern uttar pradesh, or from gujarat).
Razib, I’m a little thick and I’m afraid I have no idea what you’re talking about. It could be a cultural difference tho. Americans tend to be more sensitive about race after all. Frankly I find most of these discussions on colour variations of different races to be quite bizarre.
meena, understood. since i do promote the brown, and people have accused me or implied that it is “too racialist,” and it is an empirical reality that some south asians are white-skinned and don’t really “look brown,” i will offer that i don’t think of the term brown as most definitely implying that you’re skin color is brown. i think of it is like the term “white” or “black,” there are very light-skinned black americans who could pass as white who identify as black. what? that’s they’re culture. as it is happens, most people of that culture are very dark skinned and traditionally called black. that doesn’t mean that you have to be literally black to be of that culture, black americans are 20% white in ancestry and so exhibit a wide range in complexion. similarly, most people from south asia are a rich and noticeable shade of brown. i just went to a sepia mutiny meet-up and there were people of ethnic south asian ancestry whose could pass as white, or even black, if they stood alone, but hanging around a group of brown people they looked brown. so kiran chetry is a typical white chick when she’s hanging out with white people. but around brown people i think you could see that she is also part of that range of appearance. if most south asian people were pink-skinned then the term brown wouldn’t make sense. but as it is, we’re not, we’re mostly brown-skinned. and that is probably our most notable feature. it isn’t like we have frizzy hair, or epicanthic eye folds or blonde hair or something else that is distinctive.
re: indian, i would be OK with that, but i’m far less nationalist than most people (i’m american, not bangladeshi, after all, so i don’t care that much about my brown ancestral origin except as a point of geographic accuracy) and i doubt most paks, bangs and sri lankans and nepalese would be happy.
re: south asian. it’s like saying “coitus” or “copulation.” it is academically correct, but i feel like i whipped out the latin. doesn’t roll off the tongue in casual conversation. i’d rather say f*ck. it’s honest 🙂
it isn’t like we have frizzy hair, or epicanthic eye folds or blonde hair or something else that is distinctive.
to be clear: there are people who are of south asian origin, brown, who have all these traits. it just isn’t common (i have blood family members who have epicanthic eye folds example, i’m bengali). it just isn’t that common.
conceptions of color did exist in iberia during the medieval period.
Pan European whiteness didn’t exist until the formation of what became to be the US, and the transatlantic slave trade. Conceptions of color surely existed as far back as Ancient Egypt and Babylon. You’re still straying from the central point, the monicker brown, is rooted in sillyness, negativity, and impracticality.
But it has been used before, to represent..actually. dark skinned hispanic people, by the 1950s song “get back”
They said: “If you was white, You’s alright, If you was brown, You could stick around, But as you’s black, hmm, hmm, brother, Get back, get back, get back.” [link]
Some how, in 1950 I dont think he was referring to desis with that.
@Razib: OK, that’s clear then. Sometimes I try to get through to people on this site that not everywhere in the Western world do people think in terms of race as much as America. My attempts mostly go by unnoticed. I’m not implying that Europeans can’t be racist – they can. But people in my country at least tend to think more in terms of ethnicity and religion than of race. I suppose it has something to do with the mostly secular nature of the country. There are a lot of ethnic groups struggling with their identity, notably the people of Muslim religion, and the national debate revolves mostly around them – it bypasses us South Asians, who are in such a minority that we’re invisible anyway. Besides, South Asians(to use the all-encompassing term here) have no problematic history of integration. Which is why I’ve never personally caught on to the South Asian vs. [whatever country you’re from] debate. Personally, I don’t see any problem with the term South Asian, though I never resort to it, because it just sounds dumb in my language – there are not nearly enough of us for them to resort to a broad term to describe us. As for the term Asian, its a mixed bag around here. I’ve seen it apply to only Chinese/Japanese/Koreans, but I’ve also seen it used to describe not just those people but Indians, Bangla’s, Thai, Filipino’s, Malays, etc as well. Again, there are really not enough of Asians for the people to keep to a set definition – I know a some Indians, some Chinese, but only one Japanese and no Koreans or any other Asian ethnicity.
“Hispanic” is an ethnic marker, not a racial marker. I’m with razib on this one — I meet plenty of Latinos who pass as “American white,” as you put it, HMF.
No, I agree with that, I only said there does exist a group of brown Hispanics.
As far as I know this ‘pan European whiteness’ has existed a long while before the foundation of the USA(just look up those 16th century explorers and what they thought of the natives) and has little to do with slave trade. A lot of the foundations of the idea of the superior ‘Aryan race’ were laid in the 19th century by different European philosophers, and unfortunately some scientists as well(Haeckel).
That’s a misread, I said:
Pan European whiteness didn’t exist until the formation of what became to be the US, and the transatlantic slave trade, ie the settling of the Americas, as far back as the 1600s. That’s where you find the first mention of it used to describe human beings. I didn’t mean until the US stated independence from England.
As far as I know this ‘pan European whiteness’ has existed a long while before the foundation of the USA(just look up those 16th century explorers and what they thought of the natives)
well, i tend to agree with HMF is a specific way on this issue. europeans did have a sense of themselves as europeans in a general way, but it was as christians, or members of christendom, more than as whites. remember that in the medieval period european christians were looking to align with a christian potentate, prester john, who supposedly lived in africa or asia. during the late 18th century the british could still be turned away by the chinese and treated as a unimportant vassal state.
i think the white racialist tendency is relatively recent, and was given its biggest boost by the rise of taxonomical biology. the slave trade was a primary issue, but i think it is hard to tease apart the causal parameters, it all happened in a short period of time between the age of exploration and the 19th century when darwinism really kicked the great chain of being into high gear.
as for the term brown and its positive and negative connotations. just because a term was negatively associated in the past doesn’t mean it has to be now. after all, most of us come from a cultural background where dark-skinned people are disparaged as ugly and of less worth. most of us have gotten to the point where we can admit that this is stupid and perhaps even immoral (which doesn’t mean that we’re all past the prejudice). that doesn’t mean that we deny that skin color variation still exists within the culture, just that it doesn’t have value associations.
as a specific note, i’m reading a fair amount about the european wars of religion. during the 17th century there were particular catholic german polemicists who argued that catholic germans should identify with dark-skinned catholic converts, whether asian, amerindian or african, as opposed to heretical german protestants of the same culture and race. this wasn’t a peculiar stance at the time, when religion had so much salience. but this would have been unthinkable in the 19th century, when bavarian catholics fought against catholic austrian germans in the service of their protestant prussian officers.
also, heran cortez’s half-amerindian son (from his relationship with malinche) fought in austria as an officer in the service of the holy roman emperor, charles v (who was also king of castile & aragon). this wouldn’t be conceivable in the 19th century when racial attitudes and hierarchies had hardened.