Happy New Year, Mutiny! It is not possible to hyperlink a post title, so I offer this as my inspiration for the headline above.
Sometimes, when people assume I’m of Indian origin, I get grumpy and I think, I know just how Jan feels. I mean, I like Marcia. I understand that she’s the biggest sister and everyone in school knows her. But I am special too. 馃檪
As a result of this feeling (and arguably, my background as a sometime member of the Fourth Estate), I read media descriptions of desis pretty closely. Indian is NOT a racial or ethnic descriptor. But sometimes it’s used as such.
I recently wrote an e-mail to an editor at [ed: The New York] Times about three articles in which this came up. [Annotations in ital.]
<
p>I write you as a devoted reader of the Times and especially of the Travel section. I have noticed a pattern in several Times articles, two of which were in Travel, and would like to ask you about the section’s policies (and perhaps the policies of the copydesk).
<
p>I read Matt Gross’s article and I wondered about this line:
<
p>
It was packed with college students, hipsters in silly fedoras, a British couple with a baby, Indian 20-somethings figuring out how to ship saris back from London.
<
p>I was curious as to how Mr. Gross knew that the people in question were Indian; “Indian” is a national identifier, rather than a racial one, but since the line is basically doing the work of “color,” I didn’t get the impression that he had talked to them to ascertain their national origins.
Note to SM Readers: In journalistic terms, “color” refers to language that sets a scene or provides atmosphere. Back to our show.
<
p>Saris are traditional dress in a number of countries. Furthermore, did he know that they weren’t American? If they wanted to ship saris back to Los Angeles from London, they could have been South Asian-Americans with familial roots in any one of a number of countries.
This isn’t the first time I have had this question after reading a Travel article. I also wrote Michelle Higgins after reading “Flying the Unfriendly Skies,” which included the sentence,
“No to the young Indian man who asked for a blanket for his mother who was shivering in her sari next to him.”
(I wrote to Ms. Higgins shortly after that article was published, to ask her if she had asked the young man about his nationality. She wrote me back a very kind response and said that she had based the description on his mother’s clothing.)
<
p>Finally, I also wrote Allen Salkin about “A Long Way From Bollywood.”
This story included the phrase “ethnically Indian.” But it isn’t possible to be ethnically Indian; India has people of many ethnicities, some of which appear in other countries as well (Sri Lanka, Pakistan, or Bangladesh, for example).
<
p>Note to SM Readers: Allen was kind enough to write back too, although his response was less clear. I would have written to Matt, but it was harder to get an address for him. Back to what I wrote the editor.
All of this brings me to a final question: Does the Times have a policy about the use of the word “Indian” in such contexts? With an increasing number of South Asians in America, descriptions such as these as bound to crop up, and could easily be made more accurate.
Thanks in advance for any time you are able to devote to a response. I am grateful for the Times’ thoughtful attention to the coverage of race, and am always interested in its appearance, however minor, in stories with other subjects.
<
p>…So I sent this off to the Times, and relatively promptly, I got an e-mail saying that I made a good point that he would discuss with the copy desk and other editors there. Very responsive of them.
Now it will be interesting to keep an eye on this and see if they change how they do things! For those of you who think I am nitpicking… this is important! The descriptions are inaccurate. And I’M DOING IT FOR JAN.
Glad I’m Indian!
and my other pet peeve? “east indian” aaaargh!
Thanks for doing this! It may seem minor to some people, but this kind of gruntwork and having the courtesy to the people you’re writing to to post a reply is important. Especially because I’ll bet it was annoying but it didn’t take more than an hour – two tops.
Thanks so much!
Indian is like European an all encompassing geographic and cultural denominator. Sari = Indian is a common association. I would prefer that to South Asian any day. Besides Indian is used as the ‘race’ in Singapore an Malaysia.
I second the East Indian thing. I cant stand it. It’s Indian, motherf***er! East Indian sounds like something out of a 1940s book. Besides, these days, American Indians prefer Native American anyway reducing the confusion.
Speaking of inaccurate labels–which “Times” do you mean? I am betting you mean the NY Times, but that’s because I have grown used to the East Coast newspaper bias. In my neck of the woods, when we say “the Times,” we mean the LA Times. You’ve done to my “Times” what you accuse the “Times” of doing to you.
Amitabh,
<
p>Let me say high up in the comments here that the great thing about Marcia is that when she knew it was the right thing to do, she stuck up for Jan. 馃檪
<
p>When I point these things out to South Asian friends of non-Indian origin, they are generally terrifically supportive. Thanks to them for that.
<
p>Rajkonya,
<
p>I’m with you. I also really dislike it when people think the term “Southeast Asia” includes Sri Lanka.
<
p>Dr. Amonymous, Thanks. 馃檪 Yeah, it can be time-consuming. But I’ve been pleasantly surprised by the responsiveness of most of the people I write to.
<
p>Indiyan,
<
p>I’m aware of how it’s done in Singapore and Malaysia, having written from there for this blog. That doesn’t make it any more accurate if it’s applied to someone of non-Indian origin. India refers to a country with borders. Indian subcontinent… that’s something else.
<
p>What’s more, the Times is an American newspaper, and that’s not how it’s done here. Finally, journalists shouldn’t be assuming associations between types of dress and nationality. As some journalists say, “When you assume, you make an ASS of U and ME.”
Hee.
Didn’t this blog have this conversation, ad nauseum at it’s founding? I dislike South Asian, but I suppose it is more accurate in many instances, although it’s dullsville, aesthetically. Indian is nice, Pakistani is nice, Bangladeshi is nice, Nepali is nice, aesthetically speaking. The other sounds like academic wonkery speech. The thing about getting older is you live through so many semantic changes, it gets exhausting….so, I suppose the consesus among people who think this is vitally important is South Asian?
“Ethnicity” in general is based on how you want to define it. Really any sense of community identification outside of your family or maybe your neighborhood is basically fabricated. A Swiss Francophone has no real reason to affiliate with a Swiss German-speaker but for the fact that it is the nation he was born into and he chooses to stay loyal to it. Does that make them different ethnicities?
How different do people have to be before they become ethnically distinct?
You mean the United States though. Total non-issue. Besides, India/Indian etc. does in some sense (specially historical) signify race and ethnicity so they’re much more correct in using Indian generically than you are in using American above. In any case, it’s good to talk like a normal human being and also not to expect people to give a damn where exactly one comes from.
PKS, thanks for commenting. In the examples I gave, the Times is using “Indian” where it may not or flat-out does not apply; my use of “the Times,” however, while it may be unclear, is not actually wrong. There are also hyperlinks in the post that do make clear which Times I am referring to.
All that said, the first reference should have been to The New York Times. I’m happy to change that.
To all of the nay-sayers: how about you poll the non-Indians of Brownistani descent you know and ask them whether or not they have a problem (whether they respond vocally or in silence isn’t really the point) with being labeled Indian?
Hahaha! The Marsha parallel is BRILLIANT.
Eeeeeep. In comment #7, I meant to say, “When I point these things out to South Asian friends of Indian origin, they are generally terrifically supportive. Thanks to them for that.”
Reminds me of my trip to the River Walk in San Antonio a few years ago. An ‘Indian’ guy pointed us out to his little kid as I entered a store and I heard the Americanized kid struggling with ‘Desi’. ‘Dayzeee’, he tried to repeat while his father was trying to correct him.
I felt like asking the man, “Tu kya asmaan sey tapkay kya ?” (Did you fall off from the skies ?) but just let go. Now if Indians insist on using ‘Desi’ as a slur then why blame Americans or Brits ?
Similarly, ‘Indian’ is a slur for some.
Even some browns of Indian origin aren’t crazy about being labeled Indian. Or if we don’t mind, we find the shoe doesn’t fit.
I mean I can’t vote in India, I can’t own property in India, and if I get in trouble in another country, the Indian diplomatic corps wont lift a finger to help me. The Indian national anthem doesn’t move me. So how am I Indian?
18 脗路 Ennis said
True, you are not. You are an American. I am an Indian. Lets stick with that. No South Asian please.
I personally don’t really understand why American Born Desis would be crazy about being labelled Indian. I am Indian and wouldn’t want to be labelled anything else unless I decide to give up my Indian citizenship.
When applying for a marriage license in Wisconsin, the lady asked me if a racial designation of Asian Indian was alright with me. I thought, “What if I were Bangladeshi, Sri Lankan or Pakistani?” Maybe they can call us Indian Subcontinental or just, huh, American.
Clearly, the word Indian is not being used for a citizen of India – it is being used merely as a label for a race in which case if you have a brown skin or any other resemblance to someone from India, you are Indian. I can understand why someone who is from another country in Indian subcontinent may not like to be associated with India but we do call it Indian subcontinent and unless you want to protest against that label as well, you should accept it.
I guess the bigger issue is for someone who grew up here and have no real attachment to India or Indian subcontinent, being labeled as Indian (comment # 18). South Asian may be more politically correct but I don’t think most people are using it.
I am from India so it has never bothered me when people ask me where I am from or assume if I am Indian. My wife who grew up here, does not like being asked from where she is, althgouh she is okay with being called Indian.
If you were Punjabi, Kashmiri or Bengali, you would had a lot in common with people across the border of partition. (If you were Tamil you would have something in common with your co-ethnics in Lanka)
I’ve got far more in common with people across the border, since that’s where my family is from, than I do with people elsewhere in India. Mallus might as well be Bhutanese as far as I’m concerned.
you also can’t enter the country without a visa (unless you have dual citizenship).
I still don’t understand this attitude…why is this term so offensive? We’re asking it to be used for people who we don’t know their ethnic/racial origin, and to not make assumptions. Would you like it if someone called you an “Ay-rab” b/c they don’t know any better? Don’t take it as your culture being “watered down,” but as a way to be more inclusive. Maybe this isn’t an issue back in the motherland, but it is important in diasporic communities to have solidarity among different groups that may have some shared experiences that may not necessarily include food, culture, or religion.
That’s right. We know that there are some folks who are happy with being identified as Indian and some who are not. We should let each one choose their favorite identity.
No, you are not Indian. What do you think about “South Asian” ?. Whatever you said above applies equally to that label (I think). So are you comfortable being called a “South Asian” ? (I guess not). (Or) If you are comfortable being called a “South Asian American” what’s wrong if some people tend to identify themselves as “Indian American”.
This is another misconception…I don’t think anyone really expects one to refer to themselves as “South Asian,” or anyone where we definitely know what the person’s ethnic origin is. As I understand it, the term is supposed to be used when referring to groups of ppl that aims to be inclusive, or to ppl whose ethnicity we don’t know.
I still don’t understand this attitude…why is this term so offensive? We’re asking it to be used for people who we don’t know their ethnic/racial origin, and to not make assumptions.
You can use “brown”.
south asian leaves out the guyanese
It’s a good thing that Singh and Patel are in the NL, because I can’t bear to imagine the collective angst and confusion in the diaspora if they pitch against Cleveland.
Just a nit. Actually, even Bollywood is not common between a computer programmer from Madurai and an economist from Karachi. Only 0.86% Tamils know Hindi (from 1991 census) and we can safely guess that an average programmer from Madurai would not watch any Bollywood flick whereas some one from Karachi (being Mohajir dominated) can easily understand the Hindi/Urdu of Bollywood.
30 脗路 Ponniyin Selvan said
that could be a problem for non-brown indians, like people who look more
chinesepacific rimmish30 脗路 Ponniyin Selvan said
Wheatish. Thank you very much.
i once worked with a white guy from s.africa who referred to himself as african-american. heh
In light of Manju’s excellent points, I retract my earlier choice.
From now on, I would prefer you refer to me as a “Kumar”. I feel like it best represents my identity and cultural affinities.
i admit there would be minor problems for people in the North east, but I think it is a fairly good approximation.
Wow… I don’t live in South Asia. How am I South Asian ?
It’s a good thing that Singh and Patel are in the NL
i meant NL minors and long way away from major league picks
he..he.. Are you browsing the Indian matrimonial ads ??
No, but I feel a particular type of alienation when there’s an Indian-American Professional group instead of a South Asian professional group—I just assume they don’t want to see my Sri Lankan face in there! And that’s their perogative if they want to do that, but I don’t understand what the advantage is for a non-religious/non-cultural organization.
26 脗路 sparky said
i don’t really have a dog in the fight so allow me to take a stab. sometimes what appears to be neutral is just a cover for a new regime, a new identity so hellbent on expnding the definition of what is offensive that it ends up erasing age old identities in the name of inclusiveness, and imposing a new catch-all identity on those who don’t want it.
so, for example, have you noticed that those who are most inclusive are actually the most censorious amongst us? take dr A and the roti passers, who routinely pop in here to lecture us about inclusiveness yet advocate a level of censorship, here and on their own blog, that reduces conversations to a very narrow set of permissible ideas. perhaps the Indians are more adept at noticing this sleight of hand.
Is the term “Middle Eastern” or “of Middle Eastern origin” not used when we don’t know someone’s specific background? Because I thought it was. Also, back when I was in college, there was a Middle Eastern Students Association.
The Brits do us one better – they use Asian, full stop, which as Manju said, still leaves out Guyanese, or Fijians. How about Homo sapiens? Can’t be wrong there, in most cases….
I don’t have a problem with the writer’s sentence – he made an educated guess and it’s descriptive enough – people know what he meant. What he meant was: someone who looks like they are from Indian based on my educated guess. What if they were Indian, VV, wouldn’t using South Asian or South Asian American be, in it’s own way, just as inaccurate, or less accurate in the case of South Asian? I’m not the least offended by the sentence the Times author used, although others are, but I suppose I don’t speak for the, er, South Asian community. Please, God, let us not have official spokespersons for the South Asian community on reporter blackberries or whatever….that’s the last thing we need, although some types might be glad to get that make-work phoney-baloney job. It’s easier than making a real living, that spokesperson stuff.
Ennis, you can own property in India.
It seems that those that don’t want it, don’t have the term apply to them anyway.
And the point of the post was that some of us non-Indian people don’t want to be called Indian…because we’re not Indian. If you’re not going to bother investigating someone’s true identity, then use a broader term, instead of a potentially wrong, Nationalistic identifier.
Ooooh, I just thought of something. Problem solved!
Pres-Elect Obama can appoint a Language Czar who will then raise a committee, of the best academic minds he can find, who will then form a list of approved phrases for reporters to use. I know, First Amendment and all that, but the would just be Friendly Czar Language Usage suggestion To Help Reporters, like the food pyramid or something.
Excellent. Lots of phoney-baloney job creatage there. I would pay higher taxes for that!
true story : I was fixing up some food racks in an aisle at my store when I heard a kid in the next aisle ask his mother. ‘what kind of store is this’? his mom says ‘Indian’. Kid: aren’t they all dead?
And some of us don’t want to be called South Asian, sparky, and South Asian can be incorrect, too. I’m an American who was born in India. When I lived in New Mexico, people routinely assumed I was Hispanic and if someone in a magazine article described me as Hispanic, if they were describing a general scene where I happened to be, I’d be, like: that’s a reasonable assumption.
Reporters are trained NOT to assume such things. They’re supposed to check them.
Its a slur for a lot of people around the world. Being from India or Africa consigns one to a low status globally. Whether it is the color hierarchy or the human development hierarchy india ranks near the bottom.
26 脗路 sparky said
Nothing offensive but i dont wanna add another identity when i know Indian works perfectly fine for me. Its more a problem for people from smaller countries, No often you gonna find an Indian being called Sri Lankan. And South Asia isnt even a defind area yet there are several versions of it. If you gotta use, use Asian or Brown. And do you think if we start calling outselevs South Asian whole world will do it too? Do you really think people will stop identifying me as mexican or from any other latin amercian country?
Indian is inaccurate for more and more of “us” — I don’t have an Indian passport. South Asian is clunky, and a pretty distant connection for a Ismaili American born in Kenya (South Asian Americans of African origin?) , or a Guyanese New Yorker (West Indian East Indians?).
Go with colour — “brown”. Ntto much else works, and its what you prejudiced, racist brain wants to know anyway.
The water-body below South Asia and above Australia should be renamed South-Asia Ocean, or North Australia Ocean. And the water-body on the west and east coast of India should be renamed western-Indian and eastern-Indian ocean.
You really have a lot of time in your hands. Asking people to call you south Asian will not change the way people think about you. The process of categorisation is driven by perception, not by labels. People may say “African-American” in public speech, but they still categorise as “black”.
Most brown people are from India, that is what drives the “Indian” categorisation. The only way that is gonna change is by perceiving more brown people that are non-Indian than Indian. It may be more productive to try for something like that.