as i pray for the affected, i'll thank the lord your cousin was spared. your cousins are a very cool group of people, even if they leave me flustered as a tour guide. ;)

The bombing does not justify anti-brown violence afterwards.

isn't that a strawman? the tards will always use anything as an excuse to beat the crap out of people. the people who go and beat the crap out of people are't reading weblogs, reading the paper or listening to tony blair's press conference. the best thing to do isn't to urge for calm, just pick up a bat (or a cricket stick) if you are that scared get ready to fend off some snaggle-toothed freak and his buddies.

p.s. my cousins are much more likely to get beat up by the sylhettis who target non-sylhetti bangladeshi origin people on a regular basis for intimidation than the snaggle-toothed freaks.

A Sri Lankan friend of mine went to a pub in San Jose to watch the England/Australia cricket match earlier this week and he had to leave because he was receiving so many verbal threats from other patrons in the pub. This is all really unfortunate, but it's almost inevitable these days.

Razib, easy for us to say. But what happens when 5 snaggle toothed freaks jump a lone 55 year old man? That's an example from just a year ago in NYC ...

my cousins are much more likely to get beat up by the sylhettis who target non-sylhetti bangladeshi origin people on a regular basis for intimidation than the snaggle-toothed freaks.

For real? I've had some syllhetis angry at me for not being able to communicate effectively with them, but nothing like what you're relating. It's always amazing how different things in Londontown :)

I wanted to post something in the other thread but could not as it was closed. I hope the mod wont mind if I post it here, the content is similiar to this thread..

Ennis...I feel bad for your Sri Lankan friend. He has experienced racism because of the actions of extremists. While innocent muslims never deserve any sort of backlash..I am sure your innocent friend was not a muslim. Sri Lankans are mainly Hindus and Buddhists from what I remember.So your friend, whose ancestors are from another whole country had a bad experience because of some extremists who are from an entire whole country...thousands of miles away. And light years away in religious ideologies.

I am American desi, but unlike some of you I spent alot of time in India. I have seen what Indians go through in terms of terrorism. I remember watching sadly as the Indian Airline hijacking was taking place in 1999. I remember the widow who lost her husband, the only man who was killed..mainly because of his big build. I think its time people of the Hindu, Sikh and Christian faiths disconnect our "South Asian" tie with Muslims. Now before all you "Foo-Foo diwali celebrating, bhangra dancing, "South Asian" ABCD students" shout at me, here me out please. I understand why most ABCD have this "we need to stick together" mentality. We all grew up together in this country and are bunched together in race. But actually we are a world apart religiously. And post 9/11 its time we made smaller steps towards pointing out our differences. For my future children's sake and for my family sake...People of the Muslim faith (especially moderates) need to reasses and deal with the issues that plague some members of their extremist society.

We as Indian Hindus/Sikhs/Christians living abroad need to do what is PRACTICAL for us. For our own sanity and safety.The West is not going to know the difference between "brown" people. But I think that needs to change. I for one am going to do my small part in teaching them the difference. My ancestors are from Gandhi country, yes Gandhiji had faults but he certainly was NOT violent. Who suffers when this "confusion of the browns" takes place? This misdirected retaliation? We do... Well of course the innocent muslims suffer as well, which is sad but in a way,andsomething they must deal with. But why on earth should I suffer?? My religious beliefs are so different from Muslims. I hardly know a thing about Islam..but why am I having to defend myself and my male family members on a daily basis for the actions of some OTHER religious extremist group??? So instead I will just explain it to people. If I experience any sort of racism I will say I am A HINDU..not South Asian. I am not South Asian. If my husband is about to be beaten up by a gang of bigots, I will scream out that I have nothing to do with Islam...come on...consider the flip side, you think if it was Hindu extremists committing these atrocities all over the world and Muslims experienced backlash, you think a Muslim girl would sit and defend Hinduism and proclaim her "South Asianness" if her husband was getting beat up? I doubt it..I am sorry, we need to be practical so that future generations dont have to deal with the crap we are going through. IF that means I am less "PC" well then so be it.

Sorry I just got home from work, most of you write so well, my doc brain doesnt function too well at this hour..lol..

But what happens when 5 snaggle toothed freaks jump a lone 55 year old man? That's an example from just a year ago in NYC ...

and last month. btw, i'm not saying that race is the only factor in beatings and murders--just that it happens and it doesn't serve anyone well to deny that it does. esp because a lot--housing discrimination, employment discrimination, "ordinary" slurs, etc. are happening under the surface that we won't hear about because it's not newsworthy.

Sonal,
You stated
Sorry I just got home from work, most of you write so well, my doc brain doesnt function too well at this hour..lol..

I agree. You should have gone to sleep instead of writing this post.

Sonal,
You stated
Sorry I just got home from work, most of you write so well, my doc brain doesnt function too well at this hour..lol..

I agree. You should have gone to sleep instead of writing this post.

I am not South Asian. If my husband is about to be beaten up by a gang of bigots, I will scream out that I have nothing to do with Islam
If you had gone to sleep, this brilliant strategy of yours would have never been made public.
Between good luck when they are beating up your husband where you shout out that you are not South Asian. I am sure the attackers will stop the attack and ask you for Yoga tips.

Razib, easy for us to say. But what happens when 5 snaggle toothed freaks jump a lone 55 year old man? That's an example from just a year ago in NYC ...

that's a tragedy. i'm just saying that let's not allow us to put these tragedies in the service of stereotypes. yes, stereotypes that white people are always simmering with pent up hatred ready to be unleashed when there is a bombing perpetrated by brown people. just look at the numbers, who is a new york cabbie more afraid of because of stereotypes (true or not, i'm not going to get into that), young black men or young white men?

look, some of you live in urban areas, and some of you live in rural areas, some of you live in the USA, some of you live outside of it. i'm speaking to americans here, and those of you who live in 'diverse' urban areas (diverse because places like NYC are rather sparse on white protestant evangelicals and political conservatives from what i can see and know). i've had stalkers target me,* so i'm not going to post my picture here, but i'm recognizably brown. i lived in eastern oregon for 5 years, 99% white, 75% republican, and did experience some racism. but on the grand scale of things, even if people are a bit ignorant (many cowboys talked to me in spanish, assuming i was latino), they were pretty decent. from talking to those of you who lived in urban areas i get the impression that you also have your experiences with intimidation, but often it was from other minorities. are you going to let those few experiences dictate your perception of people?

anyway, i know this is a brown blog. but i really don't get this fear about a backlash on the level of the populace. sure, i'm libertarian enough to not trust big brother, that i can relate to. but ordinary americans, of all races, are very decent, and frankly far more decent about communal relations than in most of the world. on the grand scale of things the danger is more symbolic on a person-to-person level, and i think an examination of the numbers would dispel that.

saurav, my cousins are public school boys. class might be an issue. but when my brother visited them they did have to be careful of other bangladeshis because the sylheti trouble-makers apparently take special pleasure in targeting people from "bengal." (sylhetis sometimes have a conceit that they are not bengali since they are from assam-this was an issue when my dad taught in syhlet back in the 1970s, though their jackfruits rock)

* because i'm 'racist and homophobic,' not because i'm brown.

and yes, i will add the caveat that perhaps my good-looks inoculated me from bigotry.

Well Sonal, good luck educating your husband's hypothetical attackers about the difference between us and them while he's being attacked. I truly hope they stop and embrace you. I hope you can discuss the finer points of Hinduism with them over chai and samosas.

It's xenophobia and racism we're dealing with, and I hate to break it to you but the folks who retaliate are simply not concerned about whether you're actually Muslim or not. They get to teach all the people they feel are invading "their" country by attacking us. You can go ahead and ingratiate yourself with white Americans. Please excuse me for not wanting to go along with that--it's not practical.

We as Indian Hindus/Sikhs/Christians living abroad need to do what is PRACTICAL for us. For our own sanity and safety.The West is not going to know the difference between "brown" people. But I think that needs to change. I for one am going to do my small part in teaching them the difference. My ancestors are from Gandhi country, yes Gandhiji had faults but he certainly was NOT violent. Who suffers when this "confusion of the browns" takes place? This misdirected retaliation? We do... Well of course the innocent muslims suffer as well, which is sad but in a way,andsomething they must deal with. But why on earth should I suffer?? My religious beliefs are so different from Muslims. I hardly know a thing about Islam..but why am I having to defend myself and my male family members on a daily basis for the actions of some OTHER religious extremist group??? So instead I will just explain it to people. If I experience any sort of racism I will say I am A HINDU..not South Asian. I am not South Asian. If my husband is about to be beaten up by a gang of bigots, I will scream out that I have nothing to do with Islam...come on...consider the flip side, you think if it was Hindu extremists committing these atrocities all over the world and Muslims experienced backlash, you think a Muslim girl would sit and defend Hinduism and proclaim her "South Asianness" if her husband was getting beat up? I doubt it..I am sorry, we need to be practical so that future generations dont have to deal with the crap we are going through. IF that means I am less "PC" well then so be it.

Sonal, this really cuts to the heart of the matter, so thanks for putting it out there. There are in situations that I don't know how I would react in. But when I'm not in those situations, I have to try. Otherwise, what's the point of it all?

p.s. my cousins are much more likely to get beat up by the sylhettis who target non-sylhetti bangladeshi origin people on a regular basis for intimidation than the snaggle-toothed freaks.

Razib,
Can you or someone else here elaborate on the profile of the Sylhetti population in UK.
As I understand the Sylhettis are also very tribal, conservative and religious like the Mirpuri Pakistanis in UK and have not been able to assimilate.
A lot of people actually attribute the lower achievement levels of the Pakistanis and the Bangladeshis to the large number of Mirpuris and Sylhettis in UK.
I am yet to see numbers on the various economic, social or academic indicators of the Non Mirpuri Pakistani population and Non Sylhetti Bangladeshi population. I have been told that the stats then would be comparable to the stats of Indians.

Al Mujahid,

I am not surprised you dont find value in my post. But its my choice to seperate myself from the "South Asian" umbrella that causes me much discomfort and irritation and pain.

Yea, shouting that I have nothing to do with Islam might not work, but at least I get my point across. With Ganesh prayers on my lips, at least I would have given it a try. Most backlash incidents I have experienced were not violent thankfully, it was more a sneer or a comment, and these would definetly cease if I explained who and what I am. Sorry you dont agree with it. But I think Muslims have more pressing things to think about than worrying about some Hindu girl who seperates herself from them.

My take on this backlash issue is not popular I know that. You have plenty of psuedo- Hindu/Sikh "South Asian" ABCD friends that will never ever leave your side. Dont worry your pretty little head.

In reference to lack of sleep, it was mainly an apology because I lack the eloquent writing style so many of you possess. Had this been during the day, I would write the same thing I wrote just now, but probably with less grammatical errors. Lucky you dont seem to have that problem..

I think its time people of the Hindu, Sikh and Christian faiths disconnect our "South Asian" tie with Muslims

What do you suggest the Indian Muslims do ?

You do have a brilliant solution to the problem of hate crimes. Just say NO I AM NOT MUSLIM. I guess the Muslims could also just start shouting out about not being Muslim and save themselves when a hate crime is being committed on them.

One extra point:

My uncle was visiting the small town of Jefferson City in Missouri a few days after 9-11. A gang of White men approached him threateningly and rougly asked him "What his people's problem was and why they attacked America..?"...my uncle calmly explained that "He was not a member of that faith, he was a Hindu, his cousin died on 9-11, and that he sympathizes with their anger and frustration because his people have dealt with it for centuries"....it worked..He made his point, they didnt beat him up, they left him alone after chatting with him for a few minutes, yea he alienated his "South Asian" identity maybe, but he surely saved his life. I say more power to him...

Can you or someone else here elaborate on the profile of the Sylhetti population in UK.

i have no idea, but my impression is that the majority of "bangladeshis" in the UK are from the syhlet region because of founder effect. i know in the USA that in places like detroit bengali medium schools are actually run by syhletis, who tend to not have anything to do with the other bangladeshis (one of my dad's best friends is an engineer in detroit who made the mistake of assuming that he would find kindred souls among detroit's sylhetis, and recounted to my father that it was like returning to bangladesh the people seemed so insular to him).

But its my choice to seperate myself from the "South Asian" umbrella that causes me much discomfort and irritation and pain.

May I suggest 'Khoon Safa' from Hamdard, an Indian albeit Moozlem company. Its an excellent 'Indian' made cure for irritation and similar problems.

Most backlash incidents I have experienced were not violent thankfully, it was more a sneer or a comment, and these would definetly cease if I explained who and what I am.

Of course they will. In fact they will apologize to you (hopefully not in an Apu accent)

My take on this backlash issue is not popular I know that. You have plenty of psuedo- Hindu/Sikh "South Asian" ABCD friends that will never ever leave your side. Dont worry your pretty little head.

I dont practice Islam either, so my chance of success is comparable to yours. I am just not that optimistic.

re: numbers, this says, "there are about 500,000 Sylheti people living in the UK." about 0.5 UKers are bangladeshi according to the las UK census, ergo, 500 K out of 300 K??? well, the numbers might be off, but it gives you a sense of the dominance of the syhletis....

Sonal,
I saw your uncle here
Is he the one on the right ?

Al Mujahid,

I dont get the joke? Sarcasm is an ABCD trait that I never picked up (un)fortunately. Sholay? I guess he wouldnt be considered a Hero and certainly not a villian...he didnt fight them, he just said whatever he had to, to avoid being beat up. And it worked... I guess desperate times call for desperate and "practical" measures. And if I was in that situation I would do the same.

Thankfully today my uncle Maruti is alive and well and his wife and kids narrowly avoided a devastation in their lives. Ali Mujahid, as I said my take is not popular, and your critique is welcomed, but I would ask that you refrain from making fun of my family members/elders.. it's so non-"South Asian" besides being childish...and more like something Bam from MTV Viva La Bam would do (throw eggs on elders, laugh at their actions blah blah)...Resorting to sarcasm because there's nothing left to say on your part, is kinda low..

So if you want to continue in that way,I humble will take my Hindu non "South Asian" azz out of this pointless argument. Good day..

Hey Pico,

you were being sarcastic, right? because, if not, you lost me at "hello." it makes me angry that you would wish that on another person that you're talking to and it leaves me dumbfounded that you think a country where a whole class of people are cowering in fear could possibly be safe--physically, emotionally, and psychologically.

hm. please don't feed the sonal-monster anymore. i'm not one who thinks islamophobia is a great sin, i hate religion in general, and islam in particular. hate the sin, not the sinner, but stupidity is the greatest sin of all.

Razib,

I am not "islamaphobic", if you read my post properly you would have seen that I said no Innocent people including Muslims deserve backlash. Go back and read it before you call me a monster. Thats just rude and people who cant read are certainly more stupid than me.

I guess my absent phobia is worst than your friend Ali Mujahid insulting an elder. Gawd, that's so non South Asian of you. Didnt your parents teach you guys to respect elders and not make fun of them?

You said you hate islam in particular..you are the hater not me..

I dont support Picos views. I would never want anyone to experience any pain. So stop comparing us. My views are all mine.

I guess my absent phobia is worst than your friend Ali Mujahid insulting an elder. Gawd, that's so non South Asian of you. Didnt your parents teach you guys to respect elders and not make fun of them?

i have little sympathy for most distinctive south asian values aside from preference for spicey food (you know, outside the common human universal set). i'm an observer here...and often gather information for my girlfriend since she wants to know what being brown is all about and i feel like an idiot not knowing what to say. and look, you might have coherent ideas, but you presented it in a rather predigested rant.

sorry, stupid is as stupid does. i speak to the style more than the substance of your argument. i don't know if it is strategic for non-muslim browns to disassociate, i think that depends on various locales and what not, but i don't think you are doing your argument any service by smearing it in a stream-of-consciousness fashion.

and thanks for calling me an islamophobe, i'll take it as a compliment. i've got some karma to payback since i have so many hanafi imam forebears.

People are beating up on Sonal but it is important to remember that the biggest single group that has fractured the South Asian identity in the diaspora has been the Pakistani community, and even some Indian Muslims and Bangladeshis. Put simply, when they form and perpetuate the pan-Islamic identity they do not want to be associated with Hindus and Sikhs. This is not just a few people, it is an entire movement and a conscious decision by Muslim Desis in the UK to reject Hindus and Sikhs and it has been going on for a long long time.

Whilst Sonal's point may be crude, it is the Desi Muslims, especially in Britain, who have been at the forefront of distancing themselves from the Kaffir Hindus and Sikhs. They have consciously formed a political identity that excludes and rejects Indians.

The message it has given to Hindus and Sikhs has been: We are Muslims first, we do not want to be associated with you, the Arabs are our brothers, we reject you, because you are infidel, our interests and future is separate.

It may be expressed more subtly than that, but that is how it feels, and if the feelings come to be reciprocated within the diaspora by Indians who say 'Alright then, See ya!', it is understandable.

Lets remember this; the distancing was initiated by Muslim organisations quite a while back, and the feelings of rejection that this engenders amongst some Indians, is understandable in this context.

Razib and Mujahid if you think about it you will know it is true.

Razib and Mujahid if you think about it you will know it is true.

looks like i need to go back to my own handle. even though i labelled myself an islamophobe that doesn't seem to help (see why have sympathy for white people? they aren't the only ones who can't move beyond stereotypes-in fact, my experience is that white people tend to move past my muslim name quicker because they can't tell that big of a difference between 'razib' and 'rajendra').

anyway, you speak orthogonally to what people are criticizing about sonal's argument. of course muslims are often rather bigoted, exclusionary and contemptuous of uncircumcised ones. but are you really going to get any payout out of an educational program to education people are the "good browns" vs. "bad browns"??? my experience is that most white people who know browns know the difference, and those who don't know browns aren't ever going to figure out the difference.

i mean, look at me, i'm an atheist with a "muslim" name who has been assumed to be hindu most of my life. now, i could drop my drawers and show people that my cut penis indicates i'm not a hindu, but here in the USA most guys are cut, so this isn't special and they might not see the relevance.

where my parents live in seattle most of the anti-muslim prejudice has been aimed at sikhs. my parents, who dress in a western fashion, haven't experienced any of this. you might want to go educate the thugs on refining their tracking methods so that false positives don't occur as often, but i doubt you'll get anything out of it ;)

of course, i still it might be best for brown americans to fracture in their identity. but i have argued for that in other fora for generally personal reasons....

i'm an atheist, pox on all your gods, 1 to 333 million inclusive (my new signature, i will keep adding tag lines until i make my non-muslim identity clear to everyone and prove ikram wrong. after this persistent experience on SM i am thinking it best that the western public not get too fixed in their head an idea what islam is, as that might make it harder for me to disassociate myself from that identity since they might imbibe the muslim view that one is always what one is born-which clearly holds sway among many here)

p.s. here is one story (out of two) where i fought back against someone who disliked me for my brownness. every morning this cracker who smoked weed would shout slurs at me and threaten to kick my ass when i walked to school. about 2 weeks into it he decided to chuck me in the back. i thought of fighting back, but i bided my time. the next day he jumped out onto the sidewalk and was going to hit me when i pulled out a steak knife, a friend of mine jumped him from behind, while another was on the lookout making sure that the dude didn't have backup. after kicking him in the stomach a few times i put the steak knife to his throat (it was a steak knife, so some perspective please, i wasn't going to kill him) and told him i'd tear him up the next time he bothered me. he never bothered me again.

now, the moral of the story is that he called me a "nigger," a "camel jockey" and a "dothead." i am not really a nigger, technically speaking, nor have my ancestors sat atop a camel, that i know of, nor are any of them "dotheads" (i suppose i have 3rd cousins who are hindu, but we lost touch with them when they moved to calcutta in 1940 or so). i guess i could have explained the confusion to my potentional assailant, that i, as someone whose parentage was muslim, was born in a country where the mean precipitation was 80 inches, and have no recent (as in more recent that 40,000 years) african forebears in any great numbers, was being hated for the wrong reasons. but look, that cracker was dumb as a rock.

"My ancestors are from Gandhi country, yes Gandhiji had faults but he certainly was NOT violent."

Sonal, ever read any Gandhi? As you say, he was not violent. Nor was he prejudiced. "India does not belong exclusively to the Hindus. Muslims, Parsees, Christians all live here. The claim of the Hindus that India has become the land of the Hindus is totally incorrect. This land belongs to all who live here." More here. And here.

it is important to remember that the biggest single group that has fractured the South Asian identity in the diaspora has been the Pakistani community, and even some Indian Muslims and Bangladeshis. Put simply, when they form and perpetuate the pan-Islamic identity they do not want to be associated with Hindus and Sikhs.

Has this been your experience Prem? Because it hasn't been mine. I live in New York, where for the professional bangali Hindu Indian community I come from, a "South Asian" identity would be a joke. There are about 19 durga pujas, and even the bangladeshi Hindus and Indian Hindus don't have the same events. Outside of having pujas at gujrati samaj, I was never really exposed to other desi kids in my weekend desi identity.

Having grown up, now, my desi friends are Pakistani, Indian, Bangladeshi, 1st gen, 2nd gen, 1.9 gen, of all different ethnicities and languages (even if the homogenizing Hindi/Urdu speakers get on my nerves from time to time ;), Jain, Christian, Hindu, Muslim, straight(ish), queer, women, men, gender queer, etc. Although I still identify and like to associate with bangalis in particular (and in particular intelligent and/or creative and/or progressive and/or nice bangalis or at least bangla speakers), because it gives me a sense of identity and comfort on an emotional level.

A long while back, when SALGA (South Asian Lesbian and Gay Association) wanted to march in the India Day parade, they were told that they couldn't. When Sakhi offered to have SALGA march with them, the Federation of Indian Associations, which gives out the permits, denied them on the grounds that they were "South Asian" organizations--which was a convenient cover for their homophobia (which probably also applied to Sakhi, since conservative desis have in the past seen domestic violence groups as "lesbian" heavy).

Just to avoid being a parochial NY f@##: my friend in Louisville told me that the big divide there was between North and South.

I could probably dig up some more anecdotes, but I think my points been made.

Also, what's wrong with a pan-Islamic identity being the preferred one vs. a South Asian identity for some people? I'm sure there are some Bangladeshi or Indian kids in Queens that feel the religion thing more, some that feel the race thing more, some that feel the language thing more, etc., etc.

I'm sure there are some Bangladeshi or Indian kids in Queens that feel the religion thing more, some that feel the race thing more, some that feel the language thing more, etc., etc.

i think that the religion thing is more important for muslim browns because their religion ties them into a transnational community that transcends their race. in many parts of the country because of the lack of muslims masjids are multiethnic by necessity, so the act of worship can bring the more religious into regular personalized contact with people of other cultures. and even when masjids are dominated by one group others exist at the margins. hindu identity is different because to the first aproximation it is coterminus with brownness. remember that "hindu" was even originally the generic term for indian. cross-cultural/racial/ethnic marriages would be a good gauge of these trends within the brown community. that is, what is the rate of inter-religious marriage vs. inter-ethnic marriage vs. inter-racial marriage? after my talk of not knowing much about browns personally i will offer that my family seems to know many 2nd generation pakistani-bangladeshi marriages, but none between bangladeshis-and non-muslim indians. i know these exist, but i get the impression they are less common.

and Mr. Mujahid...that Sholay joke was in a very poor taste.

It would be funny, if it weren't so sad, how so many of these posts advocate that the Hindus, Sikhs, Christians etc. should distance themselves from the Muslims. I guess the motto is "Isolation: You can't do it alone!".

I am not "islamaphobic", if you read my post properly you would have seen that I said no Innocent people including Muslims deserve backlash. Go back and read it before you call me a monster. Thats just rude and people who cant read are certainly more stupid than me.

but wait...how will the racists know which muslims to assault? ooh, i know! we'll make them wear little crescent moons on their clothes...that way everyone can tell who the innocent muslims are apart from the guilty ones...and THEN the right ones will get beat down. cool!

sonal, razib is right, stupidity is the greatest sin. we can all read and unlike you, express ourselves clearly. with or without sleep, you are an idiot. (LoL!) i pray no one assaults you or anyone you love, because your pathetic "not me!" strategy will accomplish jack shit. i'm indian, and i HAVE been called a paki bitch. my saying that i was not wouldn't have accomplished a damned thing. the people who yelled that epithet screamed out of a passing car window at me-- but i guess if i were as earnestly lame as you, i would've chased them down and TAUGHT them that, lo, i am not an evil one.

while you try and disparage all ABDCs as being foo-foo bhangra dancers, all ABCDs are like, "thank GOD that moronic, prejudiced retard wants nothing to do with us." the system works.

as for avinash, you are confused at best and deluded at worst. islam is an abrahamic religion-- it shares more with christianity than hinduism EVER will. but hey, you're the expert on white conservative men loving the hindu cause-- how's pat robertson doing these days? i'm sure you are so potent a force, you've convinced him that your heathen people aren't all damned to hell-fire, right?

Realitycheck, me thinks you really need one. Its not a theology class for similarities between Abrahmic religions...try telling a white christian that what he follows is very similar to what Osama believes in. At best you will be brushed off as a moron, at worst you might get a few hundred stitches and/or need to replace some missing body parts.
White christians may still think of Hindus as heathen...but hell, we dont bomb the daylight out of NY and London. The words associated with 'Hindu' at least among the educated ones are the following: Intelligent, hard working, quiet, peace-loving (or whatever that means NO to violence). Any wonder why no temples are damaged in the UK after the london bommbings...

i think that the religion thing is more important for muslim browns because their religion ties them into a transnational community that transcends their race. in many parts of the country because of the lack of muslims masjids are multiethnic by necessity, so the act of worship can bring the more religious into regular personalized contact with people of other cultures.

I think it's personal, although if you want to bring up some examples or some information that show that one identity takes precedence over another among many people, I wouldn't take issue with that. It's just that I know a Muslim brown (who happens to be queer) who looks for Punjabi and English speakers. That's his criteria. I know a teenage Muslim brown whose identity calculus leaves here who knows where; all I know is that she dresses and acts like a working class person of color in New York. I know a Muslim brown that left his country because he faced persecution because of his religious ideas (which, if I recall, were atheistic). I know an upper middle class Muslim brown who's probably going to marry an atheistic Hindu.

I'm not saying they might not be outliers--I know others who come closer to fitting the mold that you're talking about. My point was just that vast generalizations like the one Prem made about how certain groups are like this or that in the diaspora may or may not be true overall, but in the specific context and among specific people that I know, they clearly are belied. And if I'm going to believe something other than what I've seen with my own eyes, I want more evidence than blanket assertions (particularly in the context of this discussion, which is so heavily steeped in a discourse of blaming Muslims that that it's not even funny).

Reality Check,

Your post is so full of hatred, your are not even worth my time. You foo foo ABCD..go back and do your ugly dances from bollywood movies while proclaiming your knowledge of Indian culture.."dude I am sooo Indian dude".."dude instead of learning what it means to be Brown from my parents, dude I come to a website to learn it"..yukk.

I dont care how the racists will identify the muslims...its not my problem. I worry about myself...selfish as it may sound. The "not me" strategy worked for my uncle, and it might not always work..but it's certainly worth a try. Besides, your post is so full of insults, your entire point goes down the drain. Dont worry your Muslim boyfriend or whoever will have plenty of support from Hindus out there. We Hindus are known for going against our own..solidarity so often seen in the Islam world is absent amongst Hindus.. Yea I might lame..but at least I am not dead from a mistaken hate crime. ABCDs are too confused to worry about whose prejudice etc...most are watching some Bollywood movie and attending a "South Asian" event..all the while saying how much they are truly Indian..err sorry I meant "South Asian"

Uma..thanks for your comments. Uma you live in Bombay. Come to the US/UK, sit on a train and be called Osama or a terrorist.. Then you will know the pain of it..and you will probably be wondering what you can do practically to appease it.

After Pearl Harbor, the Chinese alienated themselves from the Japanese after the backlash started here in the US. I guess they were all "stupid" too..Or maybe just maybe they were trying to survive and make their lives easier? IS that such a bad thing??? It saved many of them some grief. You dont have to agree with me, just stop the hurling...jeez

As I said before, and I will say again, I am not anti-Muslim. I dont think anyone deserves backlash against them.

If you read my post you might have seen that. I do however think there is absolutely nothing wrong in clarifying my religion to people when they question my origins...I will not take the harder road here..I want to make my life easier..in whatever small capacity that might be..

Guys, I think we should stop feeding the trolls in his post. After Sonal's comment at the top I have started to lose my faith in humanity. At one point I was actually cheering Razib on which NEVER happens :)

I agree with Sonal.
Indians have suffered a lot of terrorism from Pakistan and there is no way that I feel any solidarity with them.
It's unfortunate that we are all brown and all of us have to suffer because of the Pakistanis.The answer is to educate people that Indians are NOT the same as Pakis, we too are victims of terrorism.
ABCD South Asians, you really need a reality check.Please go to Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, try practicing your faith/atheism there and see how long you survive.

Guys, I think we should stop feeding the trolls in his post. After Sonal's comment at the top I have started to lose my faith in humanity. At one point I was actually cheering Razib on which NEVER happens :)

Okay. But you should cheer for Razib more often.

Is this a contest of who has more ethnic pride, versus who is more corrupt and western?

I think you guys are being overly condescending to Sonal. I don't agree with her views - they're narrow-minded and somewhat unrealistic - but they are her views and her reasoning isn't exactly insane.

Avinash and his "puki" talk, on the other hand, I have no defense for...

I'm not entirely sure where most of you were born/raised but it seems like people who've spent more in India are more dismissive of the term "south asian", while those of us who were raised in the west are open to it

George - the issue is not "Do we approve of everything that muslim countries and organizations do in the name of their religion." Of course not. We don't have to. But in terms of formulating a response to these attacks, solidarity makes alot of sense. I'm speaking as a Sikh who helped formulate community response post 9/11. Efforts to separate ourselves from Muslims were against our principles, but they were also ineffective. Sonal's uncle may have been able to talk himself out of a beating by saying that he wasn't a muslim, but most of the time people don't care. So even if you want to take a selfish stance, it makes sense to try to oppose all violence, rather than trying to redirect the violence towards "them" not "us".

George,

Thank you. But these people are mostly American desis and they will NEVER NEVER see where you and I are coming from. It such a travesty "gasp" for them to even imagine seperating people even for the sake of making life a bit easier. I am not talking about bigots and fights here, I am talking about general day to day stuff..Never...For them it's a "Brown vs Non-Brown" thing..well the only Second generation who do not follow the "brown vs non brown" thing evidently are the British Raised Muslims who attacked last week..hmmm. George the people here never lived in India, or experienced the terror in India firsthand. What they hear is usually from their parents, and time does heal the wounds of the earlier generation. I am American desi too, but had spent some years in India. I try to see both sides of the coin. I give up, I am done. I never meant for this to be a troll, I just wanted to give a different perspective. And I never was hateful or racist about it..if anything I was just being selfish..and trying to make my life easier...so sue me..peace..

Sonal, even if we disagree on your ends we can still evaluate your means. At least for Sikhs, it's completely ineffective. And given that these were clean-shaven young muslim lads who look indistinguishable from hindus, I don't know how much it will help hindus either.

ABCDs aren't that open to this strategy of differentiation b/c we know that bigots and tards don't make these distinctions.

In any case, why should they believe us? How will they know that we're not actually muslims who are lying to save our skins? What are we going to do - pull down our trousers and show them that we're not circumcised?

Again, I'm happy your uncle escaped, but in other cases it hasn't helped at all.

Personally, yes, I'm against it on principle. I don't want to say "beat them, not us" I think that's wrong. I'm opposed to all hate crime, just as I'm opposed to all terrorism (we don't write to A-Q saying set off your bombs in white neighborhoods, not brown ones). In this case, principled and prudential reasons converge around the same strategery ;)

DesiDancer, I was just thinking that! I sort of framed it as a question of assimilation versus non-assimilation. (I hate this word, but just for lack of a better term for living their cultural lifestyle in a country not their homeland.)

Non-Muslim South Asians in the west (for lack of a better term, seriously) DO have very strong cultural ties to the country and even the region that their families are from. However, they are very comfortable lumping everyone together as "brown" "south asian" "desi" etc. Perhaps because religion is not a huge excluser for Hindus? But Sikhs have less difficulty "assimilating" as well.

Is this about religion, or country of origin? Hindu youth in America identify first with others of their skin color and what part of the world they're from, is it different for Muslim youth? I would love to hear anyone's thoughts.

(Not just speculation and angry rants about what you would holler if someone was beating you with a baseball bat, I get it, WE ALL LOOK THE SAME, my point is identity differentiation WITHIN the "brown" "desi" "south asian" community by religion; is it more important to Muslims than Hindus?)

From http://indiauncut.blogspot.com/2005/07/bindi-not-required.html

"On Monday, for the first time since we came here, I worried about wearing a salwar kameez and boarding the tube. Would the public know that I'm not an extremist? Should I wear a bindi so they don't take me for a Muslim? (I have no problem in being thought of as one but in the present islamaphobic climate, I didn't want to take a chance.) Will they notice the difference? Will I be sized up when I get into a carriage? Will the co-passengers wonder what I'm carrying in my bag? Will they be wary of me? I worried and worried before slipping into my kurta. I needn't have bothered. The evening was smooth as ever. There were no hushed whispers or racist taunts. People were polite and went about their business. Someone even went out of his way to give me directions. I don't think he noticed my bindi."

Just to introduce some kumbaya vibes here :-).

Uma..thanks for your comments. Uma you live in Bombay. Come to the US/UK, sit on a train and be called Osama or a terrorist.. Then you will know the pain of it..and you will probably be wondering what you can do practically to appease it.

Sonal, we all make our own choices.

Where is the backlash from peaceful, civilized Muslims against the terrorists living in the midst, attending their mosques, etc.?

Sorry, Abhi, I can't keep my mouth shut.

But these people are mostly American desis and they will NEVER NEVER see where you and I are coming from. It such a travesty "gasp" for them to even imagine seperating people even for the sake of making life a bit easier.

Sonal, I had the privilege of being the first person to respond to you. The first thing I said to you, as an American desi, was "thank you for putting this out there." I think the issues that you raise are very real, and for every person who agrees with me that solidarity is more effective, there are people who agree with you that they need to protect themselves.

At this point, though, your comments are such a caricature of yourself, that you sound like a character that a 14 year old made up to harrass the commenters on this blog (along with those that are agreeing with you, expressing some long-repressed sense of "Proud Not To Be Muslim!").

The real question is, what do you mean by "making life a bit easier?" You raised the example of your uncle, and while I didn't really see the need for that last part where he fed into the anti-muslim sentiment of the other folks, I understood why someone about to get the $hit beaten out of him might want to avoid doing that. The same way I understand when Sikhs try to separate themselves out from Muslims by explaining what the difference is beteween Sikhs and turban-wearing Muslims. The same way I have an easier time arguing on blogs than when I'm confronted with threats in real life. I don't agree with the approach, but I understand.

But if you're talking about convenience, if you're talking about just being able to avoid a few conversations with some people because they would be unpleasant, as opposed to fearing violence or fearing retribution of some other kind, well, it goes from being understandable to just being sad.

And if you can't understand that, then that has nothing to do with you being 1st generation or respectful of your elders and the rest of us being ABCDs--I know plenty of 1st generation people that are far more progressive than you are--people--Muslim, Hindu, Christian, Marxist, atheist, whatever--who have absolutely no qualms about standing up for themselves and with other people who are getting abused. So don't play that card with me; I respect my elders when they earn my respect.

Non-Muslim South Asians in the west (for lack of a better term, seriously) DO have very strong cultural ties to the country and even the region that their families are from. However, they are very comfortable lumping everyone together as "brown" "south asian" "desi" etc. Perhaps because religion is not a huge excluser for Hindus

Well, there is the whole Hindu youth movement that the Sangh pushes. With the camps and everything. Maybe someone else knows more abot the size of that.

But setting that aside, I think that "we're all brown" is a very American construct and it comes from the fact that we're all treated as brown (and everything gets talked about in terms of race in the US).

When it comes to actively experiencing an identity, though, my personal experience was that I never encountered a South Asian identity until I went to college. I grew up Bangali, the community I was in was Bangali, the desi friends I had were Bangali, and that was my identity. After I started a particular job and started meeting a lot of desi activists, I found that, as an adult, I enjoyed being around nonbengali desis for a variety of reasons (which would have been impossible anyway, for sheer numbers). And I did political work that was focused around a South Asian identity (actually, it was focused around a pan-Asian identity, which I reacted against and that strengthened my sense of South Asian identity). And I met a lot of different kinds of desis--people who didn't have the predominant sensibilities of the community I came from. So now I say "South Asian" in an American context.

But in a "South Asian" context, it annoys me to no end that what serves to unify to the external non-brown world, serves to allow certain components of the brown world to dominate others and define what a real "south asian" is in the United States. Whether that's Indians, or straight people, or Hindus, or professional class people, or Hindi-Urdu speakers or whatever.

So, in short, sometimes I am brown. Sometimes I am bangali. Sometimes I am none of the above. It really depends on where you place me and how I can be most disagreeable :)

This whole discussion of Indians from India not wanting to be termed South Asian is understandable, but at the same time it should be just as understandable why "ABCDs" do want to be referred to as South Asian. The anti-South Asia term camp seems to suggest it is arbitrary and Indians have nothing in common with Pakistanis and don't want to be associated with them. However, think of it from our 2nd generation perspective when being "indian" seems arbitrary. As an Indian/South Asian American from the North I have more in common with Pakistani-Americans than I would with South Indian Americans (in terms of language, food and culture). So of course Indian-Americans like myself are going to be friends with Pakistani-Americans and Bangladeshi-Americans because we have a lot in common as second generation kids growing up in America coming from similar cultures. Especially considering the time most of our parents were raised in the subcontinent and grandparents (when there was no separate india/pakistan/bangladesh) so the desi things we learn from them seem to reach past the arbitrary national boundaries that present day Indians and Pakistanis find themselves in. So of course Indians today feel different and can differentiate themselves from Pakistanis but for those of us who grew up in the U.S. (not sure how U.K. is different because desis seem kind of segregated by country) we do feel a common bond with other people from the subcontinent and it is much easier for us to refer to each other as south asian americans. I don't think most people in India know the term South Asian (my father almost always gets it confused and says Southeast Asian, and then I have to say no dad, that's like Thailand), and don't feel South Asian so I understand why people from India don't want this umbrella term used for them and feel it is an artificial construct, but by the same token they should try to understand that for us desi americans all identity is a construct and is relatively arbitrary and if south asian is a term we feel comfortable with let us use it without disparaging us, it is our own unique identity, separate from being indian, pakistani, american.

Further, how do those Indians on this thread who do not want to be called south asian in an attempt to disassociate themselves from Pakistanis, etc. propose to disassociate themselves from Indian Muslims? Or is that a group that you all do not disassociate yourselves from because they have not generally been involved in terrorism?

I'm not, but if I was in self-preservation mode like Sonal, I would not be convinced to feel otherwise by the aggressive jibes made on this comment thread. And if information for the purpose of persuasion wasn't the point, what was?

as that might make it harder for me to disassociate myself from that identity since they might imbibe the muslim view that one is always what one is born-which clearly holds sway among many here)

Razib,

This is more of a 3rd world view. In the West and Far East, religion has been relegated to the private sphere and numerosity of adherents has ceased to be a valuable commodity (resurgence of the republican religious right in America notwithstanding)
I have had people espouse the' born with it, sticks with you' view to me from -
1. A Lebanese Druz. 2. Christian Nigerian. 3. Turkish Jew 4. Christian Indonesian 5. Ahmadi from Pakistan. 6. Zorastrian from Iran. 7. Muslims from India.
Note : All the above people were completely atheistic/agnostic. They still held on to their ancestral religious identity. Some of them also made the argument that because of the socities they come from, when people 'back home' will kill them for being a Christian, then thats what you are. Of course all the people mentioned above were first generation immigrants to the US.
In 3rd world society, people dont profess open atheism/agnosticism in any large numbers and it is difficult for the common man to recognize it as a legitimate indentity and most people will usually disregard it.
Of course extrapolating anything from anecdotal evidence is always suspect. I also think that this phenomenon might be a result of the religious strife in these nations. I know in Northern Ireland, completely irreligious people identity themselves as Catholics or Protestants though that might have an English/Irish dichotomy to it.

People will continue to identify with the religion of their ancestors if the society will disregard their agnosticism/atheism and treat them like they would treat the other members of their ancestral religion especially when there is religious strife in that society.

Ali Mujahid, as I said my take is not popular, and your critique is welcomed, but I would ask that you refrain from making fun of my family members/elders

I am not mocking your family members. I am mocking you for your puerile remarks. You surely cannot be serious with comments like

I am not South Asian. If my husband is about to be beaten up by a gang of bigots, I will scream out that I have nothing to do with Islam

Once you decide to get serious about having a debate on substance I will stop with my sarcasm/mocking and discuss the issues with you like an adult.

Is this a contest of who has more ethnic pride, versus who is more corrupt and western?

corrupt and western? you know that finland is almost always rated the least corrupt country in the world and nations where the modal color is brown tend to be near the bottom of the list?

corrupt and western? you know that finland is almost always rated the least corrupt country in the world and nations where the modal color is brown tend to be near the bottom of the list?

They were probably referring to 'moral' corruption, which in Desi culture is exhibited by sexual promiscuity.

I have question for all the brown people experienced in living in the west:

1. What would be the most prudent thing to do if one were placed in the situation of Sonal's uncle ?

2. When you say "its was them not us" does not work, when you are being attacked, do you have any evidence (even anecdotal) ? I understand that some people would not make that choice for ethical reasons, but how effective is the approach purely for "not getting your ass kicked" ?

3. Are there many brown muslims born in the west here? What are your thoughts on conciously seperating your identity from the rest of diaspora from the indian subcontinent? I am of the opinion that amongst the subcontinent diaspora in the middle east, there is little concious dissociation... and I wonder if there are special reasons here to affect that, if it is true?

Thanks.

This is more of a 3rd world view. In the West and Far East, religion has been relegated to the private sphere and numerosity of adherents has ceased to be a valuable commodity (resurgence of the republican religious right in America notwithstanding)

i agree. ikram saed though has argued on my weblog for years that i can never disassociate myself from my muslim identity. muslims of course believe that one is a muslim if one's father is a muslim. mine is.

now, i am very willing to compromonise on issues of fact as regards my appellation. if society alters the name it gives to my race, ethnicity or whatever, i don't particularly care because i don't value these things. but my atheism is important because it indicates a peculiar commonality that i have with a very small minority in the rest of that the world. i will simply not cede of my association with lack of god-belief because god-belief is so alien to my nature, and "my people," who i trace to hsun-tzu, epicurus, diogenes and the carvakas have always been marginalized and pushed to side. and yet the longer i blog and interact with people the more i realize that the immutability of my identity on the religious level (and to some extent more broadly) is something that is strongest in in the minds of those who are extremely ethnically aware or "sensitive." so, for example, many south asians (though not necessarily the majority, but a far larger than frequency than in the case of whites) tend not to want to cede to my preference with not being identified as a muslim. this tendency is strongest amongst muslims, some of whom are not even particularly religious but think that i share their "laxity." i argue that i'm not lax, i simply have very different principles. some hindus on the other hand seem to think i view religion in the same way as they do, both a religion and an "ethnic identity" (broadly speaking, their caste identity is nested within the hindu religious identity), and i have a hard time getting it through to their heads that i'm an atheist, and i find it offensive to be called muslim (as offensive a hindu might find it to be called a muslim or a christian a wiccan).

of course, in relation to this thread, i think have made it clear that these niceties do not apply if someone is going to assault me. if i'm attacked as a brown, i fight back as a brown, if i'm attacked as a 'nigger' i don't object i'm not. bring it on! if someone attacks me because i 'worship cows' or 'pray to mecca' that's just one excuse to beat the crap out of them even harder, though i'm not going to lecture them on how offensive i find such aspersions in comparison to ethnic insults.

but all that is contextual. in my day to day life i will object to attempts to lump and group me against my interests, and i don't see everything as an inevitable consequence of the structure of society as it is. i don't, for one, perceive the ubiquity of anti-brown prejudice. to give a specific example, the one homosexual kid who i knew in high school was assaulted, tormented and degraded for being gay constantly. that rarely happened to me. so i would tell saurav if he moves in red america to not worry too much that is ass is brown, just keep his eyes off other dude's asses if he doesn't have back up.

(i have a friend who works on lambda legal's helpline. he told me the story of a black gay waiter in north dakota. most of the insults against him were gay related, a much smaller minority were race related, for what it's worth)

2. When you say "its was them not us" does not work, when you are being attacked, do you have any evidence (even anecdotal) ? I understand that some people would not make that choice for ethical reasons, but how effective is the approach purely for "not getting your ass kicked" ?

look, this is a country where in atlanta, georgia, christian religious refugee kids from sudan had the shit beaten out of them by black american christians after 9-11 because they were "muslims." i am skeptical that in most cases someone who wants to "hate crime" on your ass is going to open up a dialogue and enter into a verbal discourse with you on your identity. honestly, we are not sure that those guys were even going to beat up that individual in question. they seemed belligerent, but a lot of that ends in talk. i've been jumped once and my only safety wasn't in words but my friends. (they thought i was black american, in was a dark night, who was i to argue? they were drunk cowboys). i think broadly speaking sonal's argument can work on reducing hostility against hindus on the level of verbal aggression though. remember in the 1940s there was a campaign to distinguish between 'good asians' (chinese) and 'bad asians' promoted in the major media.

"We are Muslims first, we do not want to be associated with you, the Arabs are our brothers, we reject you, because you are infidel, our interests and future is separate."

If that is really an accurate picture of what the South Asian Muslim diaspora believes, it would be very naive of them to believe that given the treatment of South Asians in Arab countries.

saurav, regarding intermarriage.

i have done multiple surveys (which manish has criticized on reasonable issues of sampler error skewing toward high SES) that brown americans born or raised in the USA are outmarriage at around 40% rates. this is what the last census showed too. i also checked THE NEW YORK TIMES marriage pages once, i got about the same number (this is VERY high SES of course). i noted a few brown cross-religion marriages, but most of the it was brown on white (or white on brown if it was white male and brown female i guess).

i might do a friendster survey soon. when i have time. and i'm not commenting on blogs.

it would be very naive of them to believe that given the treatment of South Asians in Arab countries.

but they don't experience what south asians in arab countries do. they can live with the conceit that arabs view them as equals...after all, to a great extent south asian professionals in the USA fund and support the immigrant run mosques. when i was a kid i remember having to listen to a rant by a yemeni preacher about how we should all learn arabic, as that was 'the natural language of islam.' (he was offended by the translation headphones that most of the congregants wore, as only 1/4 were arab, and a good 1/2 were brown)

so i would tell saurav if he moves in red america to not worry too much that is ass is brown, just keep his eyes off other dude's asses if he doesn't have back up.

Thanks for the advice ;) My plan is to find someone here (or somewhere else with civilization--which I define as having a well-developed public transportation system) and then move somewhere peaceful.

i agree. ikram saed though has argued on my weblog for years that i can never disassociate myself from my muslim identity. muslims of course believe that one is a muslim if one's father is a muslim. mine is.

Setting aside what Muslims say Muslim doctrine says about your faith, what about cultural or social affinities? Customs that have inculcated themselves in you (whther Muslim or Hindu or sycretic)? Many, if not most, of my Jewish friends are probably athiests--to the point where I joke with htem that the two criteria to being Jewish are not believing in God and having a thorough knowledge of Woody Allen movies. Even so, they retain some qualities from their religious educations, from their upbrinign, they attend rituals, etc. Similarly, even if I were to stop believing in whatever the hell it is I believe in, I don't think I would be able to ever shed myself of all the Hindu influences (or the upper caste influences or the other influences). I think I've mentioned before that when my foot touches a book, my hand goes to my head almost automatically and I feel a sense of fear from having done something wrong--now the basis for that reaction has to do with respecting learning (and i suppose somme kind of ocd), but the particular way its manifested came through my mother's Hinduism. I'm sure there are a million other things too--like not wanting to share drinks with people, etc.

Anyway, I can understand having a belief in godlessness so strong that it supercedes all that and also that you may have shed many if not all of the things you were raised with (if you were raised with them at all)--but it's hard for me to imagine for most people.

I do not condone any backlash against Muslims/Pakistanis.
At the same time, there is no point in sharing any collective blame/guilt for the actions of Islamic fanatics ,just because they too happen to be brown.

Other than "brownness" I really do not have anything in common with Pakis or Bangladeshis. Their worldview, politics and culture are far removed from from the culture of India, which is not perfect, but is a functioning liberal secular democracy.

Terms such as South Asian just undermine the very real differences between Indians and Pakistanis.
Already in Britain the generic term Asian is used for Indians, Pakis, Bangladeshis .
I recall a few years ago, during the race riots in Oldham, the British media characterised the riots as between "Asians" and white, when in fact they were between Pakistanis and Bangladeshis on side and whites on the other.
The Hindu and Sikh communities had protested this unfair lumping of them with the Pakistanis.
This is in essence the danger of the appellations South Asian / Desi. All brown people have to share the collective blame for the actions of (almost always)Pakistanis .I am not willing to assume this artificial "brown man's burden".

The incessant promotion of the South Asian tag by mainly 2nd gen ABCDs may result in an unfortunate situations in the future where acts of terrorisn by Pakistanis will instead be characterised as acts of terrorists by South Asians/Desis. This is too high a price to pay for an artificial manufactured “brown” unity.

i think broadly speaking sonal's argument can work on reducing hostility against hindus on the level of verbal aggression though. remember in the 1940s there was a campaign to distinguish between 'good asians' (chinese) and 'bad asians' promoted in the major media.

This is extraordinarily myopic. In the worst case scenario, of course it can work. And you will have a group of people that are protected from anti-Muslim xenophobia or religious hatred. But as you keep mentioninig over and over, the person who's looking to beat the $hit out of you (or discriminating against you at the workplace or not giving you an apartment or questioning your right to vote at a polling station) is not being rational. They'll have some warped logic to waht they do (as we all do), but it's fundamentally irrational because its misplaced anger or resentment. At the end of the day, you might be fine for a while, but you're pretty much throwing yourself to the wind, leaving contingencies like which countries are depicted as taking jobs and which ones aren't, which stereotypes morph into which other ones, etc., just waiting for it to come back around and bite you in the a$$. It's not about protecting other desis--it's really about allowing an undercurrent of not sentimental, but active intolerance to exist in the society in which you live. It's just not a good thing.

Of course there are other factors--like getting better mental health treatment to most of the U.S., making sure that there are stronger civic institutions, making sure that people aren't driven to the point of active resentment by making them broke or work 3 jobs. At the end of the day, though, all those things are connected.

WHAM!!

That was the sound of George hitting the nail on that head. (Sorry for the extra post)

i have done multiple surveys (which manish has criticized on reasonable issues of sampler error skewing toward high SES) that brown americans born or raised in the USA are outmarriage at around 40% rates. this is what the last census showed too

40% seems way too high. This seems more realistic.

Ethnic Groups who are Married to . . .

Asian Indians

Husbands Asian Indians 89.7
(404,104) Other Asians 1.5
Whites 6.3
Blacks 0.6
Hispanics/Latinos 1.4
Wives Asian Indians 92.0
(396,434) Other Asians 1.2
Whites 4.1
Blacks 0.7
Hispanics/Latinos 0.8

I havnt checked the methodology used in getting these numbers though.

Many, if not most, of my Jewish friends are probably athiests

this a problem where analogies do not carry over well. strictly speaking, if your mother is a jew, you are a jew, according to the pharisaec halakah. since the 1800s and the jewish enlightenment there has always been an avante guarde of 'cultural jews' who do not assimilate christian values and retain their jewish identity. but, sans a high level of ethnic segregation this doesn't tend to last and their grandchildren are often part-jews with minimal jewish identity.

but consider a religion like baptist protestantism, for example, on the other end. all believers have to go through a baptism when they are conscious, there is nothing predestined or fixed about this, christianity is a personal choice. a lot of this emerged out of the radical reformation when some protestants gave up on the idea of universal salvation of society and decided to create communities of fellow feeling and belief which served as refuges against the world. the key is that belief was crucial, and i think that the radical protestant ethic in that sense is normative in america.

on the other hand, some groups, like jews have a different sense of religion, where it is passed down in a community rather than an individual profession of faith. so they get annoyed at baptists who try to convert them because it seems disrespectful. similarly, some hindus get mad at being targeted by christian evangelicals. i think this is simply a failure to understand the highly individual, free will orientation and post-cartel mindset of radical protestants. they also need to understand that the individual is the operational unit of respect in this country, and "communal" integrity will not be respected in the same way it is in more "traditional" cultures, where the emergent traits of groups are important cogs in the social order (muslims also have a problem with this, as they come from societies where it is usually forbidden to leave islam).

in 1980 during the primaries in front of an evangelical crowd one of the candidates for the republican nomination said that he was a good christian because he 'was a methodist, my daddy was a methodist, and my granddaddy was a methodist.' in contrast, ronald reagan said that he wasn't a good christian, he simply 'was a sinner who owed a debt to the man who died on the cross for him' (or something to that effect). reagan's answer went over well, the other individual's (whose name i forget) did not.

i bring that up because i think there are average differences between groups in how people view their religion, whether it is about practice, culture or belief (religious jews for example tend to emphasize practice, religious christians formulae of belief). i tend toward a belief based orientation, and that is the tradition in the united states as a whole (1/3 of amerians switch religions at some point). i had little contact with other muslims, so i have internalized few of the 'muslim' habits of practice (i dislike ham, though i like bacon and sausage). my gf tends to complain about my hickish habits or my upper middle class background far more than my islamic habits, since the last are not particularly salient (she is an atheist with little sympathy for religious orthodoxy, so if i displayed them residually she would express her displeasure). a muslim 'ethnicity' might develop, but honestly i think that is only likely in the case of a nation like france or germany where muslims are mostly from one ethnicity, so the two get tied together. in the USA though i think muslims by necessity must tend toward the radical protestant idea, the test of faith where identity is the profession of belief, since that is what they have in common (those from different sunni traditions even pray and enforce halal differently, so practice is not an exact equivalence either).

click next page for:

U.S.-Born or 1.5 Generation:
Percentages of the Six Largest Asian Ethnic Groups who are Married to ...

Asian Indians

Husbands

Asian Indians 69.2
Other Asians 3.7
Whites 20.5
Blacks 1.7
Hispanics/Latinos 4.3

Wives
Asian Indians 69.9
Other Asians 4.1
Whites 21.1
Blacks 2.5
Hispanics/Latinos 1.6

Razib: yeah, but:

... keep in mind that these numbers are only for marriages in which both spouses are U.S.-raised (as opposed to being first generation). Admittedly, marriages where both are U.S.-raised only represent less than half of all marriages involving Asian Americans.

This is in essence the danger of the appellations South Asian / Desi. All brown people have to share the collective blame for the actions of (almost always)Pakistanis .I am not willing to assume this artificial "brown man's burden".

apples and oranges i think. sonal seemed to be arguing for an implausible person-to-person disuasion of haters by distinction. of course the media should be educated on differences between browns, especially when they are stark as in the UK.

What do you suggest the Indian Muslims do ?

Al Mujahid, I have a theoretical answer for you from standpoint of a libertarian hindu. And I would hazard that 70% Indians would feel the same. All we wish to hear from an Indian muslim is that he is an Indian Muslim and not a Muslim living in India. The difference being that you consider yourself Indian more than Muslim and if push comes to a shove, your loyalties would lie more with your country than your religion.

Now, I pose a theoretical question to you. Is it wrong for me to be pissed off at the general community near Jama Masjid, New Delhi, when during *every* India-Pakistan match, there are Pakistani flags flying high from *every* nook and corner. Even more outrageous is the fact that they actually burn (I have seen it !) Indian flags.

When they shout "Hindustan Murdabad" (death to India) should my sense of patriotism not inspire an outrage in my mind?

What India has faced since centuries, UK , US, The Netherlands etc are feeling only now. It has taken India's monumental tolerance (which I personally feel comes close to being categorized as a lack of backbone) to maintain the secularity and a free and fair environment for everyone.

How do you think the UK will react, if there were (godforbid) 10 more blasts in the following months? How would US react if they have one more provocation on their home soil? They would have Musharaff by his balls. Thats what would happen. India has faced this for years and years.

Now Natwar Singh, is telling Pakistan that they have photographic proof of Pakistan's support of terror camps. I hope to God that Pakistan cleans its own s**t before someone else does is forced to do it.

btw, call me jingoist, but after reading some of the more "indian" posters on this thread, why am i less terrified of the supposed indian dominance in the "knowledge" industries?

After Pearl Harbor, the Chinese alienated themselves from the Japanese after the backlash started here in the US. I guess they were all "stupid" too.

Might the Japanese invasion of China not have something to do with it?

btw, call me jingoist, but after reading some of the more "indian" posters on this thread, why am i less terrified of the supposed indian dominance in the "knowledge" industries?

maybe because you are one of those who refuse to see the situation and want to remain blind!!! or you might be thinking "oh..I write so damn good english and my logic is impeccable so I can not be dominated ". OR may be because you judge the Indian konwledge industry by looking at some posts by few individuals on a blog.

When these threads started yesterday I too was rather surprised by poeple resenting the "South Asian" tag, but whe I think about it I feel like they do have a point. Yep, I would prefer to be referred to as "Indian" (as long as nobody asks me about my sqaw) rather than South Asian. Why? Maybe Im just embarassed about being in a same generic 'class' as some guys who think their religon is the only right one. (Im no Muslim-hater , I hate anyone who does that, from blind muslim clerics to right-wing hindu zealots to stupid bible-belt fake-evangelists.). Yeah, Pakistanis embarass me... it may not be always about terrosirm....sometimes its just their backwardness/conservatism, like women's rights, etc. But more than that , I found SR's point in comment #57 very true. That is, South Indians and FOBs seems less ready to accept the "South Asian" tag than others, and like SR said this might be because they have much less in comon cultral ties with Pakistan than the Northies/2n Gen. So I was thinking, the folks who started the SA vs Indian debate yesterday (JJ, George, Lionel etc) were obviously South Indians and FOB. I am, too, and I feel they are not far wrong. So, is that a pattern? ( Actually there were others too who supported them that I dont remember the names of, but I thought most of them they were plain Muslim-haters, period.)

What SR pointed out was something very true, we SOuthies dont have a LOT of attachment the Pakistanis - hell, I might as well go out on a limb and say we dont have nuch attachment to North Indians, either, but then that's a whole other flame war. :)

In my view the only thing the term is "South Asian" is good for is to segregate ourselves from the Mongoloid races whom Amreekans call "Asians". I mean, I have seen so many Indian guys tick their ehtnicity as "Asian" in forms and stuff. Of course there is nothing for us, we just have to go for "Other".

But , for God's (yours/mine's/anybody's) sake, please don't confuse "Indian" with "Hindu".

for God's (yours/mine's/anybody's) sake

Ewwwwwwww........... I meant yours/mine/anybody's, of course.

what continent is India part of?

Razib, I understand what you're saying. Interesting.

juve: North Indians have more reasons for not wanting to be included in the same club as Pakistanis.
And SR When people talk of being Indians they aren’t implying Hindu by default. I hope you understand India isn’t Hindu Republic and prolly is more diverse religiously than USA.

Quick survey question. When did all of you hear of the term ABCD? When was it coined? When did you come across the term South Asian.

I first "ABCD" around 1993. At first I thought it was just someone trying to be funny. Not a term that people self-applied.

I heard the term South Asian around the same time. And at the time I thought it was more of Berkeley thing. I think the term was first adopted by "political" desis in parts of the country where there was a critical mass of desis.

I grew up in the midwest (not Chicago!) went to school in the midwest. And did not know anyone who called themselves either ABCD or South Asian.

In the midwest we just like to think of us as white : ))

"us" s/b "ourselves" in the last sentence of the previous post.

Tef: you're right that the South Asian / ABCD identity was much more of a coastal thing.

In college circles, people used South Asian to describe themselves in 1988, so it goes back earlier than that.

I'm trying to remember when I first heard the long "rhyme" that ABCD is part of. It's funny that it no longer refers to people of Gujrati descent living in Jersey. It once had a specific referent but now is more general.

I don't understand the opprobrium Sonal is facing. As a South Indian and 1st gen guy in the US, I guess I conform to the stereotype about not wanting anything to do with the South Asian tag.

My position is this - my folks are devout Hindus, and maintain a collection of idols to a constellation of deities. In other words, they are both idol worshippers and polytheists. We all know that mainstream Islam is ferociously opposed to both of those practices. We have a 1000 year history that documents clearly the results of that opposition.

Why in the world do us Hindus have to "stand in solidarity" with brown Muslims when it is highly likely that brown Muslims don't feel any solidarity with us and their religion basically calls for the extermination of our religious practices? Because a few cracker whities might beat up a dozen of us? The risk seems to be vastly overstated, especially compared to the risk of claiming solidarity with an implacable historical enemy.

Ennis,

Yup that song!! All I remember is ...Named Omkar Patel -- bit.

And I suspect that the term ABCD atleast on West Coast might have some relation to ABC (American Born Chinese.)

Well, there were 400 incidents of violence or abuse against the Sikh community alone. I don't have the numbers on hand, but I'm sure there were more than "a dozen" incidents against Hindus.

More to the point, nobody is asking you to approve of Muslim religious ideology or of Pakistani government practice. The question is, will you exert political pressure against hate crimes when those hate crimes are committed in the name of anti-muslim bigotry. I argue that there are good moral and prudential reasons for doing so.

Sorry, my last comment was in response to JM, not tef.

'South Asian' on college campuses was probably influenced by colleges' 'South Asian Studies' departments, which in turn were originally funded by the Defense Department during the Cold War.

If I experience any sort of racism I will say I am A HINDU...

Nice. And the guys in pickup trucks will yell back, 'Iraqi bin Laden go home,' 'cause they're all ironic like that.

Manish,

I did not know the South Asian and the government connection. To think we might all have been called African & Oriental : )

Btw, I think this whole ABCD/South Asian/Brown debate should have been a separate thread. Sometimes the comments go one way and entries are related to some concrete news item no one wants to talk about. You guys should just have a debate section. Who speaks for the Midwest here?!

tef (ends rant with three fingers down and three fingers up)

Razib wrote:
ikram saed though has argued on my weblog for years that i can never disassociate myself from my muslim identity. muslims of course believe that one is a muslim if one's father is a muslim. mine is.

I based that on the number of people on the web that call you a 'Muslim', some of which really ought to know better. But I accepted that in real life, things may be different.

i will keep adding tag lines until i make my non-muslim identity clear to everyone and prove ikram wrong

Prove me wrong, baby! But I don't think "razib the Atheist" is going to work. I suggested long ago that you change your name (in real life and the web) if youw don't want to be treated like a Muslims. I suggest un-Muslim, non-ethnic names like 'Blake', Chad', or maybe 'Stone.

If you have a classic Bengali last name, it could sound quite nice -- Stone Suhrawardy. That rocks!

Anyway, I can understand having a belief in godlessness so strong that it supercedes all that and also that you may have shed many if not all of the things you were raised with (if you were raised with them at all)--but it's hard for me to imagine for most people.

Your degree of religiousness is strongly genetically influenced, and some people are just wired to be much more rationalist.

Curious: Is trying to forge solidarity between Indian-Americans and Pakistani-Americans under the umbrella of South Asian/Brown equivalent to expecting solidarity between American Jews and American Arabs under the umbrella of common 'Semitism'? Similar situation -- Historical enemity of ancestors, Common Racial origins, Common Language origins, Democracy vs theocracy in ancestral countries etc.

Yes, I understand IA/PAs are Americans first, there is no point being chained to ancestral suspicions and insularity and we must become more open and inclusive going forward. That being said, I don't think people will jump all over someone for suggesting American Jews ought to distinguish themselves from American Arabs and accuse people of being trolls.

Does anyone have documented proof of Pakistani Muslim reaction against the dot buster menace a few years back. Please no "My pakistani uncle Jinnah helped my chaachi Indira .." type anecdotes, would prefer documentation.

Babloo,

I am not sure if the comparison is entirely valid. I don’t think the Ashkenazi have that much in common with Palestinian Muslims. I just don’t see them all sitting down to dinner and have same level familiarity with each other that Indian-Americans and Pakistani-Americans ‘have’. After you move beyond the possible Halal/Vegetarian issue they could easily talk about cuisine, music & movies. Everything except Kashmir of course.

And while I am at it...

Isn’t South Asian a very confusing and unfamiliar term to most Americans. Most Americans understand/know “Indian” and “Pakistani”. I am not sure so sure about South Asian.

Isn’t refusing to acknowledge someone’s self-described “difference” a bit rude. If someone wants to define themselves as Muslim, Hindu or Indian , why not let them. Unless the category is absurdly specific or obscure.

And I have checked the “asian” box. Why am I not an Asian? Speaking for myself, I find there is a common cultural strand between second generation Chinese, Vietnamese, Koreans and second generation desis.

Your degree of religiousness is strongly genetically influenced, and some people are just wired to be much more rationalist.

Didn't used to be like that. It's odd.
on a sidenote, I see the transformation is complete. You're like batman.

Most second generation desis have more in common with second generation chinese, koreans than with FOB desis.
So no surprise that second generation Indians feel some kinship with other second generation Pakistanis or Sri Lankans.
People are free to identity themselves as 'Indian' or 'Hindu' and not as 'South Asian'.
So there is no reason to get upset over some people wanting to identify themselves as 'South Asians'.

I'm a very occasional visitor here. Also I'm Indian, not Indian American. No matter how wonderfully ariculate you all are, the confusion in your minds over your identity is very obvious here. No wonder you find yourselves isolated both from the American mainstream and the Indian one. At least Sonal has the guts to come out and say what he/she really feels. The rest of you will just keep explaining your nuanced positions away into obscurity.

Ennis:

The question is, will you exert political pressure against hate crimes when those hate crimes are committed in the name of anti-muslim bigotry.

I am against pretty much all crimes, whether they are anti-white, or anti-black, anti-Hindu or anti-Muslim. I don't see why I need to single out crimes committed due to anti-Muslim bigotry. I guess what I am saying is that the idea of a hate crime seems a bit spurious. If it is a crime, it is a crime, isn't it?

On the other hand, I see value in "educating" cracker whities about the ways of finding out if a brown person is Hindu, Christian or Muslim. If said cracker whitey feels the need to rant about radical Islamic theology, more power to him. I would suggest he rant at those who are followers of such a theology, or those who are not opposed to it, but please leave me out of it. But under no circumstances should he resort to criminal activity.

Al Mujahid,

It is nice to see you agree that everyone should be allowed to call themselves what ever they want. It would have been nicer if you had said that to Sonal in the first place. Is it me or did I see some needless FOB/ABCD friction. It's like our own Godwin's law.

Nacheez,

Your moniker doesn't quite suit the tone of your comment : )

Nacheez and others,
I will explain one last time as clearly as I can. Second generation Indian-Americans, Pakistani-Americans, Sri-Lankan Americans, Chinese-Americans, Filipino-Americans, etc., all have more in common with each other than they do with their peers back in their respective motherlands. Regardless of religion. There is no "confusion" here. We all grew up with common ideals, secularism in the public sphere, and opportunities abound. When we hear people from India (even if they now live here) express attitudes like Sonal, most of us (second-gens) are disgusted. It goes against everything we were brought up to beleive and witnessed in action around us. Her views are totally foreign to us. Since this blog was created by, and primarily for second generation desi Americans (many of whom like the term South Asian), you cannot fault us for being critical of views we find so foreign to us. You are entitled to your own views about what "South Asian" or "desi" means in India, but bear in mind that your world and our world have different rules. Repeatedly calling us "confused" just undermines your credibility in the eyes of the majority of our audience. I don't find myself "isolated" as you have put it whatsoever.

Is 'cracker whitey' a racist term? Just wondering....

Your degree of religiousness is strongly genetically influenced, and some people are just wired to be much more rationalist.

i know. i write about that on my weblog all the time. religious zeal, to be precise, seems to be about 0.5 heritable, in that half the variation is attributable to additive genetic variance....

Why should Razib change his name because of some psychos who share the religion of his dad? My Muslim-raised boyfriend changed his first name during art school but not his last. This was his way of dissociating from his abusive parents while hanging on to what he thought was a respectable lineage, from back in the days when Mughal emperors were important patrons of the arts and Islamic thinkers contributed enormously to the world's knowledge. Everyone's got their own personal and private deal with their ancestry, Razib should call himself whatever he likes. Hell, look at all the African-Americans with Arabic names, a result of the Nation of Islam's influence on the black community. No one seems to confuse those guys with bombers. ;)

As an outsider, I've also observed that 2nd-gen kids of immigrants (at least in the U.S., not so much in the UK) tend to have more in common with each other than peers from their "homeland." My Indian-Filipina friend lives with her Mexican-white partner and jokes that at least he can understand her identity issues. My Korean-American friend says people in Korea make fun of her and call her fat when she visits, and thinks no one can possibly understand her but other immigrant kids. After a stint in Brazil, my Indian-white friend has expatted himself to Korea, where he's decided he's comfortable in a Pico Iyer kind of way.

And SR When people talk of being Indians they aren’t implying Hindu by default. I hope you understand India isn’t Hindu Republic and prolly is more diverse religiously than USA.

Vivek - I know India is more diverse than that religiously. Don't talk to us desi-americans like we do not know anything about India. But what I was not understanding is why differentiating yourself as an Indian from Pakistan is enough to differentiate yourself from Islamic terrorism, which is what you all seem to want to do, when Indians are and can be Muslim as well.

I'm a very occasional visitor here. Also I'm Indian, not Indian American. No matter how wonderfully ariculate you all are, the confusion in your minds over your identity is very obvious here. No wonder you find yourselves isolated both from the American mainstream and the Indian one. At least Sonal has the guts to come out and say what he/she really feels. The rest of you will just keep explaining your nuanced positions away into obscurity.

Nacheez - we are not confused about our identities - and are not isolated from either mainstream and it is extremely rude of you to suggest so. If Indian-Americans were so excluded from the American mainstream they would not have been such an economically succesfully group in the U.S. If anything I think many of us feel fortunate to have dual identities and as cliched as it sounds "the best of both worlds." I think this blog is a testament to that!

I suggested long ago that you change your name (in real life and the web) if youw don't want to be treated like a Muslims. I suggest un-Muslim, non-ethnic names like 'Blake', Chad', or maybe 'Stone.

If you have a classic Bengali last name, it could sound quite nice -- Stone Suhrawardy. That rocks!

i've gone by multiple monikers in 'real life' for a test drive. jaysen, claude, troy and lance were all in circulation in my different social circles. and yeah, it is something of a change to look when someone calls your name...but it's another dude! right now razib is in too wide a circulation for me to change it. we'll see, i'm not attached.

but as for my last name...most non-browns don't immediately assume "khan" is muslim, though foreign muslims automatically assume i'm pakistani.

Razib,
Yes the stats on the second page are about second generation Indians and they are more appropriate.
The percentage of outmarriage is around 25% which is a little lower than the 40% that you found out. Lets see what rate you get if you try to poll this again.
I am presuming that the other Asians are Desis and I am not including them in the 25%.

there are so many debates on this thread it is hard to keep everything going. a lot of it is just due to the fact that we all have different experiences. there are divisions among 1.5-2 gens, who form the core of this blog, FOBs and long time 1sters who have their own angle, and brown people from southern asia. blah.

but as for my last name...most non-browns don't immediately assume "khan" is muslim,

Are there large Pukhtun tribes settled in BDesh as well ?
I am surprised that they they would go that far east.

Abhi,

“We all grew up with common ideals, secularism in the public sphere”

This is not just an American attitude. Secularism is also a valid Indian ideology.

“Her views are totally foreign to us”

Hmm…bible-thumpers from Alabama?

“Since this blog was created by, and primarily for second generation desi Americans”

I saw similar statement yesterday, something about cringing when this site was included in some Indian blog awards. Suppose someone else had said the same thing “I cringe when I am mistaken for a Muslim”. To state your difference is fine. But to feel offended for someone else’s misperception seems rude. And since this site does have a lot of India related stuff I don’t find it wrong that Indians (from India) should want to participate. Why can't we be more "South Asian" and be more hospitable?

“bear in mind that your world and our world have different rules”

?? : )) I got my ‘rules’ from my parents who are Indian, -- actually they are American now, and I haven’t noticed any rule changes.

“you cannot fault us for being critical of views we find so foreign to us”

Now I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt. You are not actually saying that you are critical of someone’s view just because you find them “foreign”. I will let you re-state that one : ))

But I do agree with you that Nacheez using the term “confused” was unwarranted.

Are there large Pukhtun tribes settled in BDesh as well ?
I am surprised that they they would go that far east.

hm. don't you know your brown history? the ghurids swept into bengal around 1200 and the various muslim foreigners never left. elite muslim society in bengal was until the 19th and 20th century non-bengali speaking, dhaka was a center of urdu literature.

anyway, khan is originally a mongolian name, 1/3 of mongols, who are buddhists still have it. its assocation with muslims is happenstance, because of the prestige that the lineage of the 'golden family' conferred upon the timurids. mostly it is just a title for people with some land and heft in the local area, nothing to do with ancestry, though my paternal grandfather did come from a urdu speaking family who were hereditary alams in comilla in east bengal. but my background is mixed, my paternal grandmother comes from a recently converted hindu family, i recently found out that my maternal grandfather's name was "sharkar" and that they have memories of a kayastha hindu past. my maternal grandmother is 1/8 chinese.

http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/afx/2005/07/14/afx2138673.html

Now that it looks like the 4th bomber was Jamaican born, I wonder if the backlash will spread to the caribbean community there.

Maybe the Non Muslim Caribbeans will now insist on being referred to as 'Christians' and not Caribbean ;)

well, some of the media are calling him "West Indian" so the Indians wanting to stop racists with their magical 'I'm Indian" mantras will have to make sure to call themselves "east indian" now.

And I have checked the “asian” box. Why am I not an Asian? Speaking for myself, I find there is a common cultural strand between second generation Chinese, Vietnamese, Koreans and second generation desis.

tef, plus the obvious part about India and Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka, The Maldives, and Bhutan being in Asia. ;)

I find there is a common cultural strand between second generation Chinese, Vietnamese, Koreans and second generation desis.

hm. my korean american friends thought thais were too dark-skinned and smelled bad. i won't imagine what they thought of browns ;)

Abhi, re #104. Thanks. That was very succinct and I thoroughly appreciate it.

2-G. Word.

Wow I am so flattered to see people still discussing my post some 15 hours later. That's wonderful. And I am surprised to see the same names.Dont you people ever sleep?

When we hear people from India (even if they now live here) express attitudes like Sonal, most of us (second-gens) are disgusted

her view is totally foreign to us

Abhi, Al Mujahid, etc etc. I guess
calling me "stupid" makes you guys the biggest hypocrites out there. Because "intelligent" people like you should reread posts before making assumptions. Calm down Al Mujahid, I know its been a tough 15 hours but as I said in my original post, I am ABCD!!!! I was born in the United States, lived here for most of my life and went to India for a couple of years and lived there. Rougly 4 years of my life...but those 4 years changed my perspective on many things..Somethings most ABCD's will not understand..similiar to how some Newer Immigrants (I prefer this word to FOB) will never understand about growing up here.
So the argument that I am a "FOB" and that I haven't assimiliated goes out the window. I am not going to conform to ABCD idea just because its popular amongst us. I feel enligtened by my time in India. Indian Muslims should not be offended by my remarks, I just said there should be some assessment into their extremist groups..and while that happens, I am going to remove myself from the "South Asian" label.

That is, South Indians and FOBs seems less ready to accept the "South Asian" tag than others

Why in the world do us Hindus have to "stand in solidarity" with brown Muslims when it is highly likely that brown Muslims don't feel any solidarity with us and their religion basically calls for the extermination of our religious practices?

But if you're talking about convenience, if you're talking about just being able to avoid a few conversations with some people because they would be unpleasant, as opposed to fearing violence or fearing retribution of some other kind, well, it goes from being understandable to just being sad.

Ennis..you are a better human being than I am. Your principles are honorable and I admire that. You are Sikh, go to any LOC across India and its full of courageous Sikhs fighting to protect India. I was at a spiritual camp in Bangalore India on 9-11. With me were a group of 20 Sikh families from all across India. When we all heard there was an immediate backlash against Sikh Americans...many were saddened, disgusted and outraged. Most of those Uncles were involved in the Indo-Pak wars of 60-70s. They couldnt understand why Sikh Americans werent trying to explain Sikhism to Americans. They didnt understand or better they couldnt comprehend why we werent making a bigger effort to distance ourselves and protect ourselves. But I really do appreciate what you have done for the diaspora since 9-11, people like you made our lives easier. I think the reason most Indians/New Immigrants and Myself (the lone ABCD) dont want to be labelled as South Asian is because we have seen first hand the tragedies the religious extremists (All religions) have done to India. Its easy to talk about unity here in the USA, but when in India, it gets much more complicated.

Saved the best for last:

Once you decide to get serious about having a debate on substance I will stop with my sarcasm/mocking and discuss the issues with you like an adult.

Sorry it's so long, just wanted to clear things up. Thanks for the rants and raves..its been an exciting day all around.

razib,

So your friends look down on the dark skinned ones, eh? Bingo, that is what I mean when I say we got a common cultural strand! : )

And we are all a little bit 'insular' and we buy those big rice bags and...

Bingo, that is what I mean when I say we got a common cultural strand! : )

touche!

Sonal,
I'm not flaming you, I'm not being sarcastic or mean in the least. With all respect that I can offer you, I have a legitimate question I'd like to hear your thoughts on:

If you dislike the term South Asian, I find it curious that in your last post you refer to yourself multiple times as "ABCD". Is this more acceptable verbiage to you? If so, why?

Second Generation Pakistani Americans are also ABCD so I suggest that Sonal should stop referring to herself as ABCD especially as it might confuse the abusers.

This whole South Asian / Indian debate is a good one and will only get more intense as both 1st & 2nd generation Indian population gets more sizeable, and India makes a stronger impact globally.

I would like to disclose that I am an Indian citizen living here in the US, and have previously lived in other parts of the globe. Also, I do have and have had numerous friends from other South Asian countries. I am also more for the LOVE then the HATE, and am glad that the South Asian Diaspora is able to bond well together in most societies.

But just as an American is not equal to a Canadian (for the millions of differences that exist), Indian is not equal to Pakistani. You have got to understand that just as you would salute a soldier who’s served your country, we Indians do the same. And for that reason, the little we do is fight for ‘an Indian view point’.

So while I did party last weekend at Hiro with my South Asian friends, I identify myself as an Indian, for that’s the least I can do. It’s not a trivial matter that 1000s have died during the Kargil war or are currently freezing in Siachen! So do understand us here.

I am all for PEACE and prosperity within the entire South Asia, but India is a separate country with a separate system with a separate set of problems, and for that reason needs to be identified separately – it has earned it, and it deserves it.

So while a lot of you here are 2nd generation South Asian, as you so choose to call yourselves, equating India to South Asia creates a problem for us Indians. It affects the views of US political system and general public on our country, which in turn has other consequences, including economic and social. We do not want , or deserve the Quid Pro Quo status.

Yes, we want to be distinguished because we cannot control what happens beyond our borders. But I am in no way saying that we cannot and should not be friends.

Sonal, I'm not flaming you, I'm not being sarcastic or mean in the least. With all respect that I can offer you, I have a legitimate question I'd like to hear your thoughts on:

If you dislike the term South Asian, I find it curious that in your last post you refer to yourself multiple times as "ABCD". Is this more acceptable verbiage to you? If so, why?

Desidancer, No its cool, I appreciate you asking me. Well I mentioned that I am American desi, in my original post at 2:30 am. Unfortunately people didnt read that and assumed that I was a new immigrant simply based on my views. I used ABCD often in my latest post, just to show these guys that they shouldnt make blanket statements and speak for all American Desis "I guess we ABCDs are disgusted by Sonal even though shes here now"...when I am an American desi myself. Also ABCD is somewhat inflammatory and I do acknowledge the big difference between American desi and ABCD, We have both ABCDs and American desis here, but ABCD shows more prominently on screen.. Thats the only reason I used it there. If I say I am "Indian American", people will again assume I am 1st generation..which is not true but was the crux of many of their arguments against me.

Abhi:

Second generation Indian-Americans, Pakistani-Americans, Sri-Lankan Americans, Chinese-Americans, Filipino-Americans, etc., all have more in common with each other than they do with their peers back in their respective motherlands. Regardless of religion.

"Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

There is no quibble on my part about you feeling kinship with 2nd gen Sri Lankan, Chinese and Filipino Americans. I see no problems with that part of your statement at all. But history has shown us that radical Islamic theology has always exerted a strong, if only occasional, influence on pretty much every significant population of Muslims. There will be a group of radicals who will claim that "pure" Islam requires them to do horrible things to dar-al-Harb. And a small, but dangerous sub-population of those Muslims will follow those and act upon those exhortations. Learn from history and you'll know why we are so wary of such "bhai-bhai" sentiments. You may find this "disgusting", but it is the truth.

Your disgust would be better used if directed against radical Islamic theology and in persuading your Muslim friends to share in that disgust.

But just as an American is not equal to a Canadian (for the millions of differences that exist), Indian is not equal to Pakistani.

True. But you might also agree that if an American and a Canadian were neighbors, living in...Morocco, they might get along as if they were countrymen, simply because there were few others around that resembled them, whether in looks, social practice, customs, foods, love for Bryan Adams...whatever...

DesiDancer,

Well how about if we subtract Canada and then add Mexico to the pot. Calling both Mexicans and U.S. citizens North Americans might make geogrpahic sense, but then you fail to recognize/acknowledge/respect the difference between the two.

I mean there are Italian-Americans and Irish-Americans I don't believe European-American resonates in the same way. Heck they even have the Scotch-Irish Americans : )

So while a lot of you here are 2nd generation South Asian, as you so choose to call yourselves, equating India to South Asia creates a problem for us Indians. It affects the views of US political system and general public on our country, which in turn has other consequences, including economic and social. We do not want , or deserve the Quid Pro Quo status.

these various identities are still congealing. you should withhold judgements about what the implications are until we know how they flesh themselves out. i will be honest and assert that i am skeptical of the long term durability of a desi identity in this nation, though i think a muslim identity is possible, unless hinduism reinvents itself into a denominational religion in the protestant mold (as islam to some extent seems to be doing).

But history has shown us that radical Islamic theology has always exerted a strong, if only occasional, influence on pretty much every significant population of Muslims.

i think your contemporary concern is correct, but i usually have disagreed with your depiction of the past. i think this is relevant because beyond the short-term it effects how we view the future.

Desi Dancer - True they will get along, just like we get along here. But an American is an American, just like their neighbors are Canadians. There is no such thing as a North American, or will be, even if you take Mexico out of the picture.

True. But you might also agree that if an American and a Canadian were neighbors, living in...Morocco, they might get along as if they were countrymen, simply because there were few others around that resembled them, whether in looks, social practice, customs, foods, love for Bryan Adams...whatever...

Desidancer I agree, if Americans and Canadians were living in Morocco, they would band together in all the ways and norms you mentioned. But Americans and Canadians were never at War, millions on either sides did not die, suspicions of one country sending their terrorist groups over to the other country did not occur. There was no parlimentary building blown up. There were no hijackings; (Indian Airlines 1999 linked to Pakistani sponsored terrorists). Even trivial social things like, certain religious groups of Americas cheering for Canada when Canada was winning in cricket did not occur (something I noticed alot when in India), The terrorist who was suspected of the Bombay blasts wasnt hiding in a prominent easily located city (giving interviews) in the neighbouring country. Etc etc....If this was the case, would Americans and Canadians still be so close?

JM,

I find it curious you mention the term bhai-bhai sentiment and in the same post find it ok to be friends with chinese-americans -- I believe you know where I am going with this... : )

Anyway, just because India and Pakistan have fought wars and might fight again, it makes no sense for one American Sec-Gen to bear ill will toward another American Sec-Gen.

Sonal- good point, I see that.

If Indian Americans become as high profile as British Indians, and Pakistani American dont do as well, the 'South Asian' title will go away and situation will more resemble England where Paki has become a racial slur.

to MD:
YES 'craker whitey' in my book is a RACIAL SLUR. But until 3 years ago I thought that 'cracker' only meant a food item.

let me interject, as a "bangladeshi american" (in some ways i find it a curious term since the birth of that 'nation' precedes my own by only a few years)....

1) i can see why indians, pakistanis, and to a lesser extent FOBs would be keen on making distinctions.

2) communal violence is a reality in india.

3) there have been wars.

4) there was partition.

etc. etc.

the important point is what day to day relevance does this have for browns in the USA? do we really care about partition, the various wars, and so forth? are the sins of the fathers passed on inevitably to the descendents? i've argued in different arguments that this is often taken too far, that american browns preoccupy too much with brown affairs rather than american affairs (though i also want to argue people should actually read a lot of history before passing on the bulls**t they learn from their parents!) and i would argue the same here. the important point is there is a concern over islamism in the west, and browns are a sizable, though not dominant, subset, and this should be a concern for everyone. in india the distinction between muslim and hindu is very salient, and communal riots mean you had better know which side you are on. here in the USA there isn't, to my knowledge, intercommunal riots between brown groups. the dominant group is christian, and they assert their dominance by putting up 10 commandment tablets while jews, muslims and other groups march, and file lawsuits. most of the brown-on-brown violence inflicted by islamists is a side effect of carnage wrecked on all our co-citizens. a secondary concern is that the fact that like it or not there is going to be a lot of 'false positive' mis-identification on the part of the haters. that's part of life too, and obviously not an issue in india where the hindu-muslim divide is a given that works as a background assumption.

as i said above, browns in the old country have their own interests, and we browns here in the healthy and wealthy west shouldn't tell them what to do. but by the same token, i do not think we are just "non-resident indians," (or bangladeshis or pakistanis), we are a whole spectrum and range of people who are choosing and shaping our places in american culture. i often disagree with a lot of people here, but i gotta say, perhaps it is time that americo-browns issue a declaration of no foreign entanglements in our/your cultural development. we ain't colonials no more....

tef:
That was indeed on my mind when I wrote it.

East Asians in general have not had animosity towards India, especially because it was known as the land of Buddha's origin. They used to send budding scholars to India to learn Buddhism from Nalanda and similar institutions, just as we desis have flocked to US universities in this age, though on a smaller scale. My point is that the 1962 war was not an expression of Chinese racial or religious ill will towards Indians. Even if many of the fairer Chinese may look down on darker Indians, there is no long history of war and conflict. It was more a Mao thing and Nehru's ineptness in foreign policy.

As for your second statement, it would be instructive to figure out why exactly there was animosity and ill will between Pakistan and India. The reason is clear - (radical) Islam does not like idol worshippers and polytheists. If the 2nd gen American does not disavow this theology lock, stock and barrel, and the population he belongs to does not discourage this theology in any meaningful way beyond platitudes, then there is every reason to believe that history will be repeated. So while you will have individuals who are golden, the overall population should be suspect. I fully encourage you to do what you can to protect individual Muslim friends if you believe they are in danger. I don't have a problem with individual friendships, but this "bhai-bhai" stuff with the entire Muslim population is not warranted. Trust of that sort should be earned and, in my opinion, it has not been so far.

Okay...my question to all fellow SMers,

How many Muslims(Indian or non-Indian) felt guilty about the Hindu cast-system or felt a need to explain to the western media or their non-desi friends about what cast-system is and the whys and hows of the problem.....
THEY DID NOT....coz they had no need to......coz it was a phenomenon unique to the Hindu society/culture.

Similarly,

The current wave of terrorism in the name of Islam is unique to Muslim society and needs to be adderessed by them.......I certainly do not want to have anything to do with it & do not need to be defensive about it......so yes,the Hindus and the Sikhs could do well to explain their differences from the Muslims than shout out some imaginary pan South-Asian identity.....I would do all that I can prevent fellow Muslims from being the target of racist violence BUT I would also do all that I can to tell the ignorant that I am not Muslim......the westerners might have a million prejudices aganist brown people in general or Hindus/Sikhs in particular and I will face them as I get along but I absolutely refuse to be drawn into a battle that is not mine.....

Its good to have a sense of unity and all but its even better to accept and acknowledge our differences and carry on from there.....for all our pretence about a pan South-Asian identity,the 1947 partition DID happen,dint it?

I think its ironic that almost all the times that hate-crimes have been committed against the Sikhs in US,they have always been during times of anti-Muslim undercurrent in the American society(the 1979 Iran fiasco,the Gulf war,post9/11,and now post-London)....I am sorry but the poor Sikhs must be getting tired of being mistaken and targeted for someone they are not....a moderate sensible Muslim should fight his war by engaging the extremists amongst them and by explaining to the western media how and why acts of terrorism are un-Islamic.........and the Sikhs/Hindus should fight their war by telling the public that they are NOT muslims.....I dont think there is any need to muddle a fact as simple as that.....

Sonal said:

But Americans and Canadians were never at War, millions on either sides did not die, suspicions of one country sending their terrorist groups over to the other country did not occur. There was no parlimentary building blown up. There were no hijackings; (Indian Airlines 1999 linked to Pakistani sponsored terrorists).

Sonal, actually that did happen. The US destroyed the Canadian Parliament building, they destroyed the White House.

In 1812, the US and the UK went to war; much of this war was fought in Canada and the soldiers fighting for the British were Canadian. Canadians talk about how they were invaded by the US.

On April 27, 1813, American forces attacked and burned York (present Toronto), the capital of Upper Canada, including the Parliament Buildings. [wikipedia]

The best known of these destructive raids was the burning of public buildings, including the White House, in Washington by Admiral Sir George Cockburn and General Robert Ross. The expedition was carried out between August 19 and August 29, 1814. On the 24th, the inexperienced American militia who had collected at Bladensburg, Maryland to protect the capital were soundly defeated, opening the route to Washington. President James Madison was forced to flee to Virginia, and American morale was reduced to an all-time low. The British viewed their actions as fair retaliation for the Americans' burning of York (later renamed Toronto) in 1813.[wikipedia]

More generally, the problem with your statement is that it conflates the Pakistani government with the Pakistani people. Many of us in the US have friends whose parents came from Pakistan. That doesn't mean that we (or they) have to support the Pakistani government's policies any more than they (or we) have to support those of the Indian government.

People /= Government
Being South Asian is about culture, not about endorsing the position of any particular government.

Razib:

it is time that americo-browns issue a declaration of no foreign entanglements in our/your cultural development.
Here is my counterpoint.

My old homeland has been and continues to be ravaged by Islamic separatism. I don't want my new homeland (the US) to be similarly ravaged. I am making this argument not as a Hindu, but rather as a prospective American. Should I forget history and turn a blind eye to radical Islam growing here? Is it out-of-bounds to ask the brown US Muslim population to demonstrably jettison the dar-al-Harb stuff and Islamic separatism?

most of the brown-on-brown violence inflicted by islamists is a side effect of carnage wrecked on all our co-citizens.

Correct. And as Americans, shouldn't the brown-on-non-brown violence also concern us?

The war of 1812 isn't much more than historical trivia to most north americans, it really can't be compared on the much more recent and ongoing tensions between pakistan and india

but i agree that the distinction between people/government is important, although im not sure exactly what support for offending govt actions are like in pakistan or india

My previous comment should not be taken as if I WISH that situation similar to England should occur in the US. (Besides it occurs ONLY if there is a marked achievment gap between the communities. It is less likely to happen here as more professionals from all the countries of sub-continent prefer US over UK) I am just pointing out that the same two groups living in the UK dont use the title 'South Asian'.. why?

I'm a Canadian, and of PK descent. In my view, the differences between my country and yours, and my parents country and your parents country is not exactly the same, but it of the same order and the same magnitude. It's small.

And when I am abroad, in France, the UK or elsewhere, I do identify with and seek out Americans -- we have a common culture and a common outlook on life. The same went for my parents, back in the 70s when they arrived and today -- they watched the same movies, ate the same food and (usually) spoke the same language as Indians in North America.

But as Razib said, the commonalities between India and PK are irrelevant. Back when I lived in the South, folks didn't take the time to determine if the "wetback" was of Mexican or Guatamalan descent. That's why the US has a Latino (or Hispanic) identity, despite the vast differences between Mexico, Cuba, etc.

And for the same reasons, distinguishing between browns on the basis of their parent's national origin is stupid. Beyond IN and PK, what about Trinidad and Fiji? Does VS Naipaul or Neil Bissoondath have no cultural commonalities with Rohinton Mistry or Salman Rushdie? Where does Vijay Singh fit in?

Rather than national origin, look at cultural practices here, in your own country. If you watch bollywood movies, eat food that stinks up the house, have interfering parents who think choosing your spouse is their right, understand what "wheatish" means, and know that your family's greatest shame is that you are not a doctor, join the club.

Razib -

the important point is what day to day relevance does this have for browns in the USA?

The sepcific reasons you have cited may not all have any relevance, but the way I am looked / perceived at is proportionally tied to the image / perception of my country.

I dont know if you are going to be a beneficiary of this perception, but many will.Do you know how many Indians (not US citizens) there are here in the US? Of these a significant portion become citizens. Do you know how many people back in India depend on this perception for their livelihood? Do you know how many Indians will end up visitng the US in one form or fashion?
The way i look at it - You do well here, your country of origin looks good. Your country of origin does well, you do good here ! Its a global flat world !

I meant You do well here, your country of origin looks good. Your country of origin does well, you look good here

Ikram: Your (as well as others') summary list of 'desi culture' in North America is a rather thin one which I, a Kashmiri Pandit brought up in the US, do not think amounts to a sound rationale for a 'South Asian' identity. I suppose it would be possible to construct a reductio ad absurdum of your rationale for a 'South Asian' identity by suggesting that, say, Italian-Americans (or Greek-Americans, Jewish-Americans) or some other 'non-South Asian' group share many of the characteristics you list as 'South Asian'.

But I am not interested in pursuing that sort of critique. Rather, I would like to underline that such 'folk' taxonomies are not purely objective, but necessarily involve a normative element. Among other reasons, a normative element is introduced into such taxonomies based on the choice of characteristics used to construct a taxonomy. Perhaps the most obvious example in your list is, say, the conspicuous absence of love of a particular South Asian language(s) or, say, a deep interest in a particular South Asian religion.

But this is not to suggest that you, and other 1.5/2nd generation 'desis' of similar dispostion, are irrational in embracing a 'South Asian' identity. It's simply to say that there are other 1.5/2nd generation people, among whom I count myself, who may not think of ourselves as 'South Asians'. Or, perhaps, agreeing that they're 'South Asian' but not 'South Asian' simpliciter. I see no rational way to arbitrate between such freely chosen self-identity. None, I think, are 'natural' in that sense.

All of this is not to say that bigotry against anyone in America should be tolerated. Yes, we must make common cause with those who may be under attack. But this need not necessarily be as fellow 'browns' or fellow 'South Asians'. I should think that citing the rights granted all people in American jurisprudence ought to suffice.

Kumar

The war of 1812 isn't much more than historical trivia to most north americans, it really can't be compared on the much more recent and ongoing tensions between pakistan and india

I don't think recent versus distant history gives one incident more or less merit than another, nor does it disparage the efforts, losses, or consequences. Ennis had a very fascinating and relevant post.

Sonal et al.,

I think it is not as important to distance yourself from a "group that is taking heat" as it is stand up against backlash no matter what group is targetted. Because you never know how circumstances might change:

Today we can work hard to distance ourselves from people of pakistani origin, tommorrow if we find out an that indian muslim in involved in terror plot, should we work towards distancing ourselves from indian muslims, and highligthing our indian hindu identity, and after a Hindutva pogram in an north Indian state, should we will distance ourselves because we are south indian hindus, then as a tamil south india hindu, and then an iyer south indian hindu from a city ... we can go on ad infinitum.

And solidarity is far more important because cirsumstances can change very easily: all it takes is a bunch american tourists kidnapped and beheaded in India by muslim terrorists, and I am sure now you have to make the next jump in the identity ladder, by perhaps distancing yourself from the Indian Muslims.

In the long run, I think distancing yourself has very little practical effect (like decrease in amount of hate crimes towards a group) than if the same effort is put into decreasing backlash on any minority. Any body knows any eveidence to support/disprove this hypothesis?

Regardless, Martin Niemoller's 1945 poem about Nazi persecution is very apt here:

First they came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.

Hence, it think it is prudent and effective to stand in solidarity with muslims and to work with them even though your not a muslim.

If you are British, the first thing that should matter to you is that the bombers sre british citizens, and hence it is your problem not if because you are brown, but atleast because you are British.

Alienating a group in your country using us/them and wishing away destruction is less productive than assuming all responsibility and working towards reducing the radicalism regardless of if you are a muslim or not, brown or not - because ultimately, claiming that you have nothing to do with 'them' will not make you and your children less vulnerable to the next bomb.

In the larger context, it's petty to squabble about how you want to be called by other people.

RC:

Actually, in the UK (as far as I know) desis were referred to as "Asians" Unlike the US, where asian means yellow, there it meant brown. Similarly, british racists lumped all desis together, calling them "Pakis"

Kumar - were you born in the US? If not, how old were you when you came here.

East Asians in general have not had animosity towards India...My point is that the 1962 war was not an expression of Chinese racial or religious ill will towards Indians. Even if many of the fairer Chinese may look down on darker Indians, there is no long history of war and conflict. It was more a Mao thing and Nehru's ineptness in foreign policy.

there are complicated issues here

1) historical the chinese have had a narrow conception of 'imperialism' in comparison to muslims or christians. in fact, there is some analogy to hindu indian civilization, it the han absorbed non-han groups within the circumscribed bounds of the middle kingdom, and expanded into several peripheral regions. similarly, the caste hindus absorbed adivasis and other forest dwellers into the caste system over time (the ahoms, who were of shan burmese origin, are my favorite examples, from being mleccha they went to being exemplars of kshatriya chivalry as they defended hinduism against the advances of the mughals!).

2) but...the han also have a revulsion toward dark-skinned peoples (which to some extent is shared by indians, though by and large most are themselves dark-skinned). you can see this early on in the narrations of the ambassador to the khmer kingdom. these stereotypes cropped up again with the introduction of scientific racism into the modern chinese worldview. neoeugenicist han thinkers argued from the mandatory sterilization of the black, brown and aboriginal races of the world (the conservative confucians were no less racist, but they objected to the excessive systemetization of racialism and the rejection of the ability of self-perfection). the former PM of singapore, the han chauvanist (of a mild form) has made it clear he believes that south asians are inferior, and his revulsion extended to making sure that a swimming pool that an indian dignitary had used was cleaned very well. so don't count out chinese racism as a factor in the decline of bhai-bhai, as long as india lags behind china many han will inwardly chalk it up to the inferiority of the brown-black race.

. The reason is clear - (radical) Islam does not like idol worshippers and polytheists. If the 2nd gen American does not disavow this theology lock, stock and barrel, and the population he belongs to does not discourage this theology in any meaningful way beyond platitudes, then there is every reason to believe that history will be repeated.

there are some nuances to this, in that many hindus would object to the religion's characterization as polytheistic on an ontological level. but, nevertheless, a substantial minority of american christians hold similar views as muslims, though they have been gelded so as not to express it in a hostile fashion. this does not mean the urge does not lay latent within christianity, there are still occasional pogroms against tribal religionists in africa and there have been arsons and vandalizations of korean buddhist relicts and statuary by fundamentalists in that asian nation by protestant fundamentalists. my point is that the tendency is latent in christianity, but constrained by the culture, so yes, the culture needs to put the same restraints upon islam that it does upon christianity. in the medium-to-long-term i am rather confident that american islam will be suitably gelded.

How many Muslims(Indian or non-Indian) felt guilty about the Hindu cast-system or felt a need to explain to the western media or their non-desi friends about what cast-system is and the whys and hows of the problem.....

well, i'm an atheist from a muslim background, but i've been drafted into consultations about hinduism many a time. often i try to work my way out of it, but i feel that hinduism does need to be defended when christians start making fun of it as idol worship, since i see christianity as just as silly as hinduism. i had a born again christian friend make fun of the hindu concept of incarnation to me once, as he couldn't get it into his head that that is the foundation of his own religion. but, i am not a typical "muslim," as i am an atheist who generally has little sympathy for most religions and my "defense" was more in the service of rebutting christian chauvanism than defending hinduism.

My old homeland has been and continues to be ravaged by Islamic separatism. I don't want my new homeland (the US) to be similarly ravaged. I am making this argument not as a Hindu, but rather as a prospective American. Should I forget history and turn a blind eye to radical Islam growing here? Is it out-of-bounds to ask the brown US Muslim population to demonstrably jettison the dar-al-Harb stuff and Islamic separatism?

of course not, and i don't see many people here arguing against that. it seems that there is a lot of shadow-boxing strawmen going on. abhi & co (to abbreviate) would likely argue that multiple talking points are not exclusive to each other

a) one can create a common south asian identity
b) one can attack islamism
c) one can appeal to muslims to spearhead the attack because of their fluency and knowledge of the islamists

my own personal beef was with sonal's bizarro (in my opinion) idea that on a person to person level hindus or sikhs can disuade hate crimes by asserting their non-muslimness. i doubt that the anecdote about jefferson city was evidence of a proto-hate-crime averted by assertion of common hostility toward islam, rather, it was just some dumbasses shooting the shit. real violent types would just have jumped his asked without asking any questions.

Correct. And as Americans, shouldn't the brown-on-non-brown violence also concern us?

of course, and that has what to do with objecting to a common south asian identity? i think the two are mostly orthogonal. i am skeptical of a common south asian identity, for many of the reasons saurav gives, but i don't see that it is somehow a concession to islamism.

i mean "jumped his ass".

Alienating a group in your country using us/them and wishing away destruction is less productive than assuming all responsibility and working towards reducing the radicalism regardless of if you are a muslim or not, brown or not - because ultimately, claiming that you have nothing to do with 'them' will not make you and your children less vulnerable to the next bomb.

let me be frank, all british people assuming a responsibility toward reducing radicalism on a symbolic level makes sense. just like all humans assuming a responsibility toward reducing male sexism makes sense. but as a matter of pragmatic reality, muslims must stand front and center, first

1) because names matter. the attackers call themselves muslims, and profess many commonalities with muslims. we can not just play the nominalist game on a day to day level.

2) the attackers came out of the muslim community.

3) muslims have many of the cultural tools that can infiltrate and subborn their networks.

by analogy, i think men do have a particular responsibility to get medieval on the asses of male abusers. they give our gender a bad name.

i think real solutions do require facing hard truths as well as keeping our eyes on the prize, so to speak.

I don't think recent versus distant history gives one incident more or less merit than another, nor does it disparage the efforts, losses, or consequences. Ennis had a very fascinating and relevant post.

We must not discredit time. Time heals wounds. Titanic was a disaster that killed thousands of people, and in that day and age it was devastating for the British and Americans. Can you imagine making the Titanic movie in 1913 perhaps? It would seem so insensitive as it was fresh and raw. Its similiar to 9-11. It still very raw in the minds of most Americans.

Being South Asian is about culture and not about govts

BTW...nofixedaddress..you rock dude..couldnt put it better than you did..thanks..

Ennis:

"were you born in the US?"

To quote my earlier comment, I am a "...Kashmiri Pandit brought up in the US...", i.e., I was born in India.

"If not, how old were you when you came here"

I came here when I was a very (very) young child, though not an infant.

Kumar

I really dont know what that entails

i am curious about a systematic list too. of course, i think the nature of such things is that you will never be able to include ALL south asians in your set of axioms...but i've seen manish's friendster, i believe that 'south asianness' does exist for some people. the question is how many. sonal, you and i are probably on two sides of the fence here, i demur any great attachment to south asian civilization (my ancient exemplars are prechristian classical and to a lesser extent early confucian), you seem attached to, shall i say, an older, more established, conception of brown identity in the USA. but there are many paths out there. no one speaks for everyone. though we all have our interests in mind when we do speak :)

I can't say I'm particularly fond of the term "South Asians" because it is a mouthful and would likely confuse most people around here (the Midwest). When I was up in Canada, I heard another variation of this term "East Indian".

In general, I refer to people from the sub-continent as "desis/deshis", partly because it is not usually easy to tell where a particular desi is from. In addition, most of the time that doesn't really matter. If they are brown, they are likely to have a similar cultural background and immigrant experiences as me (atleast relative to the general population).

Some of my good friends happen to be desis (ABCDs & 1.5 gen) and we get along fine. Why be limited by the strife and tension that our forefathers/mothers felt in the past? Or the atmosphere of distrust and suspicion that exists in that region right now?

As for islamic extremism, I definitely think it is a problem (both for muslims and non-muslims). I can understand why people might want to distance themselves from it but unfortunately, it effects everyone.

well, speaking toward kashmiri pandits and what not, shall we bring up caste, since the question of regionality has been mooted? until the past few years i did not understand that caste had any salience for american browns, but of late it seems pretty clear to me that brahmins are rather proud of being brahmin, at least on the sly. this sort of mentality extends to other indians, i have talked to ismailis who claim that the negative aspects of their community are because they are converted from brahmins, in a backhanded way pointing to prestigous ancestry (actually, they are almost certainly converted vaishyas). i have talked to a syrian christian or too who claims to be descended from namboothiri brahmins, though the ethnological literature seems to suggest that syrian christians are probably an amalgamated community with many precursors. perhaps some browns simply don't want to give up prestigous ancestral markers? i will fess up to my personal bias: i have an attachment to the name khan because it is associated with the most awesome conqueror to walk the earth. i have little attachment to the muslim/islamic associations of khan, and if i was god i would have left india hindu (though i would have wished away the abomination of caste too!), but i am a mongoliphile in some perverse ways, so i can understand how a kashmiri pandit might be wary of discarding a most-aryan-identity (the few who i met have repeatedly hinted to me a possible persian antecedant, a pandit version of muslims claiming central asian ancestry i guess). a more charitable interpretation is that various groups simply do not want to lose their distinctiveness in a monochromatic brown identity characterized by punjabi music, but i would like to see if there is a caste/class relationship here....m

"....i am curious about a systematic list too. of course, i think the nature of such things is that you will never be able to include ALL south asians in your set of axioms...."

As I suggested in my earlier post (#147), the irreducible normative element involved in these sorts of exercises underwrites a nominalism about such classifications.

Kumar

p.s. to add to why i think that caste and other particular distinctions might be more important than not, i do have a non-trivial number of private queries from (judging from domain names) american browns about the the quanta of "aryanity" (to use a catchall term) their own ethnic group might possess. most of the time i respond with a few quick literature cites and clarification of terminology...but sometimes i am irritable and basically tell them "not to worry, you're sand niggers no matter what" (not those exact words, but to that effect).

the irreducible normative element involved in these sorts of exercises underwrites a nominalism about such classifications.

just because a classification is nominalistic does not mean it doesn't have utility. for example, believe it or not, species come close to being a nominalistic category.

Interesting thread here. Obviously it has some tangents, I hope people will bear with mine.

Personally, I really don't like the "South Asian" label. It doesn't do justice to the diverse nature of the area.

I've always had a preference for using the word "Subcontinent". Each region is distinct with different languages, cultures, history, and religion. The population of the area is large enough to be a continent, the diversity is more than enough, taking the whole region referred to as 'South Asia', I believe it would be as large if not bigger than Australia ( I would need to crunch some numbers).

Strictly from a geographical standpoint, I can see how the locale got classified "South Asia". Even though it isn't the southern most portion, it is the southern most in the center line of Asia. Now, when using South Asian to refer to the collective cultural identity of folks from the area, it simply doesn't cut the cake.

I really don't have any beef against people using South Asian, if thats what they like, so be it. People are free to associate with whomever they choose and call themselves whatever they want. But when people tell me: You HAVE to say South Asian, it really doesn't go well with me. I'm guilty of using it in conversations just to dodge ensuing arguments, but since the topic has come up, I'll drop my 2 cents too.

bdeshini,

Do you use the term desi with non-desis? When speaking to a non-(PakIndBang) Candian, would you refer to yourself or someone else as a desi? Or is desi a term to be used only with other desis?

If you had a new desi roomate and you call your mom do you say I have south asian roomate? I think this whole "issue" needs to be framed. Perhaps we all in agreement but arguing anyway. How very south asian? : )

Razib,

I was about ask Kumar about the "Kashmiri Pandit" identification too. I wonder if it is because if you call yourself Kashmiri, it leaves open the question whether you are Hindu or Muslim. Because I think most people would assume you were Muslim.

I think some Muslims drop the Brahmin origin hint is to distinguish themselves from other who were forced to convert or convert for financial benefit or were so disadvantaged in their prior religion that they had no choice but to convert. A brahmin convert I gather sounds like you did it out your own free will.

Btw, there is most certainly a caste residue among south asian muslims, may be not all but it does exist. It might not be based on any theological uderpinning but it certainly is a fact. A simple google search of caste & muslim should it.

Caste in India is not purely a Hindu phenomenon. It exists among Christians and Muslims.

You HAVE to say South Asian, it really doesn't go well with me.

the terminology is in a process of crystallization, and it will be determined by social consensus. say what you want, and say it loud, your voice matters. i keep saying 'brown' because that's the most accurate description of me, mostly a physically evocative appellation without any of the geographical and cultural connotations. it might not be the best description for you, but i don't care about you, you do :)

-razib, the culturally non-brown guy who always has an opinion on brown culture :)

I think some Muslims drop the Brahmin origin hint is to distinguish themselves from other who were forced to convert or convert for financial benefit or were so disadvantaged in their prior religion that they had no choice but to convert. A brahmin convert I gather sounds like you did it out your own free will.

mebee. but as you said, caste matters to some extent for muslims in south asia too. did i mention my paternal grandmother was a bengali brahmin by origin? but to balance out the ledge, let me add her face was as black as coal and i am sure that her family were just rich sudras that purchased a certificate of brahminness along the way from a real-deal-true-blood-aryan.

and yes, caste exists for muslims, but because it is not a necessary condition of the religion, and in fact, the religion argues against it, it seems to be irrelevant in the USA. for muslims, caste is contingent upon the south asian social matrix. hindus on the other hand have a closer, more fundamental association with the system. for muslims, the main my-ancestor-was-brahmin assertion is that they are descended from arabs or turks. i used to think this was all a lie, but strangly i found that muslim north indians are about 5% west asian if their genes tell the truth, a small amount, but more than i would have guessed. perhaps i don't trust people enough.

p.s. there is a lot of nuance that doesn't get caught up in the sword-of-islam historgraphy, it is notable that islam is strongest in the regions where brahmanical hindusim was weakest prior to the invasion of the turks, the punjab and bengal.

Wow, coming in late on this site...
As an upper-middle class _Indian_ Muslim, I actually have to side with my fellow hindu Citizens. I am, frankly, tired of the idiots going around destroying real Islam with their nonsense. Yes, I have been the victim or some prejudice and bigotry here in India, but then so have low-caste hindus, women, sikhs and other people. But the fact is, that in this country - India - I have a right to vote, a right to say what I want and even a bunch of political parties who fight for my rights. Citizens of Pakistan do not have that right. Equating our countries is stupid, foolish and dangerous and _the cause_ behind hate-crimes against all browns. If we (Indians) fought for a separate identity from the beginning, this would never have happened. There are lots of muslims in India who also choose to call themselves muslim first and Indian second, but like some older poster above said (I think his post has been deleted, don't know why), Muslims in India don't feel the need to turn to terrorism - this is because their rights are actually better protected in India than in America/Europe (which of course leads to aberrations like the Imrana case) and also because they've now been in India for about 600 years, so India is as much their home as it is for Hindus. (The fact that Indian laws are different for muslims, is war for another time). Whenever their used to be an Islamic-related terrorist attack (in India or outside it), everybody would start clamouring for moderate muslims (like me) to disassociate themselves from the fanatics and to openly abhor them. While previously I used to viciously fight this as the stupidity that it is, I am now faced with the danger of being associated with barbarians from another country which has been the hotbed of terrorism for a long, long time now. Just as Sonal says she wishes to disassociate herself from the others, so do I. I am an Indian. Not a South Asian.

For some reason,I feel like reciting the prayer that they use over at the Alcoholics Anonymous(dont ask me how I got it).....even though I havent actually FELT a prayer since I turned atheist about 10 years ago,I like the sweet simple surrender inherent...it goes something like....

Dear God,

"Please give me the courage to change whatever I can and the patience to bear whatever I cannot and the wisdom to distinguish what I can change from what I cannot."

And let me end by reciting this shayer of Ghalib which is like my all-time favourite(pardon me if I have used this before)
Fikr-e-duniya me sar khapata hoon
Mai kahan or ye bawal kahan
(Needlessly I engage in the worries of the world,
for I stand so far away from all this madness)

Peace ya'all

tef: 'Kashmiri Pandit'/KP/Bhatta etc. are all common phrases, used by both Muslim and Hindu Kashmiris when talking about our community. So, the reference to Pandit is a traditional reference and not something I've invented to stress my difference from Muslim Kashmiris. The phraseology existed long before the ethnic cleansing, long before. As a matter of fact, the phrase traces back to the 18th century, at the least.

"...kashmiri pandits...shall we bring up caste..."

Yes, razib bring that up if you want, but that wasn't my intention. And, yes, being a Kashmiri Pandit means that one is a Brahmin (like all Koshur-speaking Hindus) but that's not the only thing, of course.

"...i can understand how a kashmiri pandit might be wary of discarding a most-aryan-identity..."

Do me a favor, will you ? Don't speculate about what I think. Just ask, and I'll tell you that being a Pandit, to me and many other pandits, doesn't mean hanging on to some 'Aryan' fantasy. No, unfortunately, the ethnic cleansing of our community means that most of us don't have the 'luxury' of indulging in such puerile fantasies.

Specifically, for me, it means my family, here and in India. And our former home in Srinagar. And the food. And the language. And a long tradition of extraordinary scholarship ranging from Navya Nyaya (New Logic, pioneered by Udayana, a Bengali dude) to rather intricate metaphysics (Abhinavagupta, etc.). And, as it happens, a tradition of scholarship in Nyaya and Mimamsa which I'm lucky enough to be able to learn (through my family).

Just sayin'

Kumar

this is because their rights are actually better protected in India than in America/Europe

american/europe, just one big white-faced mass of land huh? sorry dude, here in amreeka our moslems have a lot of freedom ;) europe is filled with many countries, so i won't speak to that.

and also because they've now been in India for about 600 years

no, there is first of all a legend that a king of kerala converted right after the life of muhammed. even if this is not true, the muslims of kerala were probably there from an early age because the cochin coast had a pre-islamic arab presence of merchants who likely converted to islam with the rise of the caliphate in the 8th century. additionally, if you read books like Early India: From the Origins to AD 1300, you will note that 1) sindh was conquered around 700, and 2) arab muslims were employed in the armies and civil services of the western deccani maharajas in the early centuries of the islamic era. also, turkish muslim mercenaries probably showed up in the armies of hindu kings prior to the raids of mahmud of ghanzi and muhammed ghur.

ok kumar, i retract some of my aspersions. i apologize if i have had some experiences with pandit aryanists. shouldn't engage in castial profiling ;)

Kumar,

Should have probably asked you earlier -- are there many non Kashmiri-Pandit hindus in Kashmir? Curious. In a setting of say all Indian uncles and if someone asks you what or where are you from? Do you say Kashmir or Kashmiri pandit?

Muslims in India don't feel the need to turn to terrorism - this is because their rights are actually better protected in India than in America/Europe

Hmm. Do you really believe that Adam ?
I would imagine that right to life and property would be pretty high up in any list of important rights. Do you really believe that Muslim life and property are more protected in India as ompared to the US ?
(Please dont bring up a red herring like the Iraq war because we are talking about rights of Muslims in India versus rights of Muslims in the US)

are there many non Kashmiri-Pandit hindus in Kashmir

i have read that the pandits are the last hindus in the vale of srinigar, all the other castes converted to islam (many of the pandits converted to, the current ruling dynasty of sheikh abdullah can trace their ancestry to a village pandit who converted in the late 1700s to islam).

razib:

Apology accepted. Now onto more substantive points...

"just because a classification is nominalistic does not mean it doesn't have utility. for example, believe it or not, species come close to being a nominalistic category"

Nothing in my post suggests that nominalistic interpretation entails that there is no utility to concepts so construed. Merely that such concepts aren't 'objective', and so not compelling for all. As you point out, such concepts can be judged only by their utility. And that will vary from person to person (indeed the 'metric' used to measure utility will also vary from person to person).

And about 'species'. I count myself among those biologists (or soon-to-be biologist, in my case) who think 'species', uniquely among taxic categories, ought not to be construed realistically. But that's a debate for another day, I think.

Kumar

Seems to me that if you cant define what the culture entails, defending and preserving it seems futile. But that's just my humble opinion. If you want to have a "South Asian" identity that you belong to,just to feel "one with a bunch of brown people who look like you and live in the West", thats fine but just admit it, and dont go around preaching your simplistic geopolitical views about the Subcontinent. And dont go preaching to someone else that she is stupid for leaving the "club". At least Ms.Stupid knows what her culture entails.

I think the main reason I made so many people angry today is because I questioned your castle in the sky. Problem is you guys cant even tell me what the bricks are made of...

The only thing I see that binds us ALL (I am not talking about our individual relationships in the communities) and not just "some South Asians" is: skin color. And even THAT varies widely region to region and country to country. So alas I havent been able to come up with anything yet and neither have any of you. Instead you say no physical list can be made. Come on, there must be something holding the saints together??

i think the nature of such things is that you will never be able to include ALL south asians in your set of axioms

Well then even the umbrella of "South Asians" has some exclusions. The one thing that South Asians fought with me about all day, about how I was being "narrow-minded" and "exclusionary". I guess the saints become the sinners.

BTW, are you even sure all the members of your exclusive South Asian diaspora really want to be part of the club? Positive? Sure they arent going behind your back and identifying themselves in another way???

Sigh...anyways after chipping away at the mumble jumble, I am left with just my aching head. As a "human being" though, I apologize to anyone I might have offended. It's all in good spirit. Peace..good night

razib:

I noticed a typo. I think species ought to be regarded as realistic.

Kumar

"because their rights are actually better protected in India than in America/Europe"

I believe in the context above the poster is commenting on the fact that Muslims are allowed to live under their own personal laws. Something that is not permissible in US or Europe.

And as far as right to life and property are concerned they exist until someone tries to take them away and then that becomes a criminal act -- and in theory those criminal acts are equally prohibited under US and India laws. Reality is a whole another matter.

Razib,
What is the percentage of West Asian genes as detected in Hindus living in North India ? I suspect it would mirror the 5% found in Muslims living in North India.
There are some Muslim communities especially in Western UP who have Central Asian genes. There are whole villages which came from the Iran-Afghanistan border and other places in that area and are now settled in India.
Most of these people have minimum outmarriage rates outside of their tribes so they have maintained their original gene pool (since their arrival in India)
But these villages are so small in number and their outmarriage rate so insignifact that statistically their impact on the overall gene pool of North Indian Muslims would be undetectable.
North India I would imagine has over 75 million Muslims though I am not sure which states would be included in North India.

I think species ought to be regarded as realistic.

ok, this is WAY off topic, but i just read speciation by coyne and orr (my interest in evolutionary genetics, with a focus on epistasis FYI), and yeah, species is realistic, in comparison to other taxonomic categories which came out of the ass of linneaus...but just like "south asian" i don't think that any species concept really works well across all clades....

tef:

".... are there many non Kashmiri-Pandit hindus in Kashmir?"

No Kashmiri Hindus are all Kashmiri Pandits.

"..In a setting of say all Indian uncles ... Do you say Kashmir or Kashmiri pandit?"

If they're not Kashmiris or from J&K then we usually say Kashmiri Pandit. If they're from J&K then we say KP or Pandit or Bhatta.

Kumar

and in theory those criminal acts are equally prohibited under US and India laws. Reality is a whole another matter.

Yes ma brotha. Reality can be such a bitch.

I suspect it would mirror the 5% found in Muslims living in North India.

off memory, you are actually incorrect. i assumed it would be as you ascertained, but no, there are alleles with specific turkic and persian origins which are found to a far greater extent among the muslims of uttar pradesh than among the hindus. the turkic part might be crucial, the altaic tribes did not enter into india in large numbers until they became muslim. also, FYI, the muslims of uttar pradesh show the same distribution of various caste specific alleles as the hindus of uttar pradesh, that is, surprising the genes tell the tale that they are a relatively representative sampling of the hindu population (kshatriya, dalit and brahmin modal alleles are found in the same frequencies!). the main difference is the noticeably higher frequency of central/west asian alleles. i was surprised. but of course, it doesn't have to be to equally represented throughout the population.

razib,

yes off-topic, but very interesting stuff. What I'll say here amounts to fairly crude philosophising but it is late and, hey, you gets what you paid fer! (or, hey, I'm just a would-be biologist): Briefly, I think that if any conceptual entity can have a causal effect, or can be shown to be enmeshed in a causal net, then scientists are justified in treating it as (provisionally) 'real'. For various reasons, I think that the species concept meets that criterion--notice that it doesn't have to have universal applicablility to do that.

And even more off-topic: Have you read Orr's work on Fisher's model? Just elegant stuff. Who'd have thunk the old model could yield such fascinating results. Which is another way of saying, I'm jealous of Orr. Maybe, when I grow up, I can be just like Orr ;)

Kumar

And that will vary from person to person (indeed the 'metric' used to measure utility will also vary from person to person).

sure, and we are arguing about this because everyone has their own opinion, and this is relevant because once a social consensus gets established than we are affected by it no matter what. so i will reiterate my viewpoint: brown americans should follow a swedish or italian american ethnic model, with a minimum amount of awareness for cultural activities, perhaps some organization in the interests of anti-bias, but also very open social networks and little formalization. i hear a lot of talk about browns following the 'jewish model,' and i don't like that idea. there is always talk about 'who is a jew,' 'jewish intermarriage rates,' 'jewish foreign policy,' etc. etc.* jews don't live in hell, but i like it or not, most jews do have to deal with the consequences of their ethnic leaders decisions at some point. for browns it will suck even more because our asses are recognizably brown all the time...just my opinion.

* japanese americans also have their own ethnic model, and have had disputes with who could qualify for 'japanese american beauty contests' because of all the intermarriage and stuff. kind of get's weird.

And even more off-topic: Have you read Orr's work on Fisher's model? Just elegant stuff. Who'd have thunk the old model could yield such fascinating results. Which is another way of saying, I'm jealous of Orr. Maybe, when I grow up, I can be just like Orr ;)

i'm a lover of fisher, but no, i haven't gotten to that, i just finished Epistasis and the Evolutionary Process, which took off on the adaptive landscape, and i'm having a hard time looking additive variance in the eye right now. from what i gathered in speciation though coyne is more the fisherian 'bean bag' trad of the two.

off memory, you are actually incorrect. i assumed it would be as you ascertained, but no, there are alleles with specific turkic and persian origins which are found to a far greater extent among the muslims of uttar pradesh than among the hindus

Interesting. I guess 'uncles' can sometimes tell the truth as well !

brown connection: r.a. fisher helped get the indian statistical institute off the ground.

tef,

Do you use the term desi with non-desis? When speaking to a non-(PakIndBang) Candian, would you refer to yourself or someone else as a desi? Or is desi a term to be used only with other desis?

I have to confess that "Desi" is my preferred term but many Americans are not familiar with it. In those cases, I usually revert to the default term of Indians, which is problematic (because it is often times inaccurate and sometimes gets confused with Native Americans).

Tis true that we are making a lot of fuss over terminology. At the end of the day, we may not have much say over how we are classified/stereotyped by others.

What are the different aspects to the Pan South-Asian culture? And how is it better than the Individual cultures? For example experiencing your friends Sri Lankan customs are wonderful, but proclaiming you are part Sri Lankan? eh..So culture is certainly not a binding religious ideology, its certainly not customs...which differ WIDELY amongst South Asians, its might not even be food, which vary widely country by country and region by region? Bollywood? Oh please..Music? Carnatic vs Qawaali..very different..Na..Family Issues? Nope..That is a individual thing...Smells as the other brainy poster suggested? Give me a break....Dance?naa..So what binds South Asians?

Correct me if I am wrong, but these problems that you describe in defining the "South Asian culture" can also be attributed to the concept of the "common Indian identity".

razib:

"...once a social consensus gets established than we are affected by it no matter what."

My original comment, after much lurking, was to underline the 'non-naturalness' of the various classifications mooted in the post and comment thread. As such, I simply wanted to underline that one can't assume that there is a 'natural' (hence 'un-natural') classification for 1.5/2nd generation people, with the implication that all such folks 'should' adopt the 'natural' classification.

I suspect that 'desis' will assimilate in a number of ways, with the loose affiliation and 'Jewish' models the two most prominent.

"brown connection: r.a. fisher helped get the indian statistical institute off the ground."

I'll take this as license to add a few points about Orr's work. Orr's basically extended (and corrected) Kimura's result on the spectrum of mutations one would expect to find in an adaptive walk. Orr has shown, based on Fisher's model, that mutations of large effect are more prominent than expected.
Recently, his results have found some empirical traction. All of this is very interesting, and important in establishing a (semi-)quantitative theory of adaptation, as Orr points out.

Kumar

Just wanted to voice my support for your view, Sonal. I think it is completely understandable today to want to separate identities and come to be viewed by religion and culture as opposed to skin color. In fact...

"I have a dream...one day my children will be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character..."

I too am frightened of a "brown backlash" and will do all I can to try to separate myself from Islamic extremists. If this means informing those who are not aware of the differences between Hindus and Muslims, or Muslims and Muslim extremists, I see nothing wrong with that. People fear what they do not understand, and education is a good way to eliminate that fear.

I for one do not see the sense in defending every South Asian blindly simply because I happen to be of that origin. I will defend the beliefs and actions I find appropriate, and chastise those which I find to be senseless acts of violence, regardless of the cultural groups Americans or Brits lump us into. And I do not believe this makes me a sell-out or a separatist.

Tef: - Razib's answer to #174 is very close. I have heard from my Grandpa that there usd to be some Kashmiri Hindus who were not pandits, but I have never met one of them.

There are however various subcastes within the KP community (Gor and Karkoon), but those have been forgotten gradually by our generation.

I think a lot of people think and feel that the relations between muslims and hindus in Kashmir would have been very strained. It was exactly the opposite, atleast in our mohalla (neighborhood) in Srinagar. The closest equivalent, I can find is Jews and Christians in NYC. There was an open understanding of the fact that most of the muslims in kashmir were hindus before. There were differences, but things NEVER went out of hand. Its just pathetically ironic how the fortunes were to change in a few years.

Kumar - Nice to see another KP on the thread. I happen to be a Koshur daylbatt too. :) Have lived in Srinagar for a few years and visited the place for two months every summer vacation till 1988. I hope your family was not as affected by the terrorism as mine was.

paranoid android:

Fellow "...daylbatt...", hello :) We lived in Srinagar as well. In our mohalla Muslim-KP interactions were mostly free of communal friction ('free' relative to the Indian norm, I suppose), though not entirely absent. In retrospect, obviously, communal amity didn't go deep enough.

Kumar

The only thing I see that binds us ALL (I am not talking about our individual relationships in the communities) and not just "some South Asians" is: skin color.

Well, the other thing is a common racialized experience. American laws and culture did not traditionally distinguished among "Hindoos" and "Mohammadens" when it has come to citizenship status, exclusion from immigration, and other items. Prior to 1947, there was nothing to distinguish from (nationality wise). But even had there had been, I doubt they would have, because there are a lot of commonalities in Asian Americans.

Also, when some of us talk about "pressure from our families" or "the demand to go to achieve academically" or "the demand for status" or "the one track uncle" or "why the food on 6th street in new york sucks" or any number of other things--there's a reason you don't have to explain yourself to a lot of other people who are brown--they get it because there are some commonalities.

And so, to the extent that "South Asian" makes sense as an identity, it's both because we all have to live through experiences that were shaped by similar historical actions by the state, lumped is into a similar category, treatedy our group similarly, racialized our group similarly, and therefore there's a historical grounds that has remnants in the legal system and the culture for us banding together. It makes no sense ot talk about about post 1965 wihtout recognizing the difference between pre-1965 and post 1965 and who it affected. And add to that the inherent commonalities of someone who knows or has learned to enjoy bollywood or rabindranath or classical desi music or whatever.

The fact that this debate has gone on over 200 comments is pretty clear evidence that there are some things--if only the question of where to draw the line on identity--that we have in common.

In any case, I agree with a lot of the people that have objected that South Asian identity is often rammed down our throats without any considereation of whether we want to be a part of it or not--just as Asian-American identity has been and many other identities have been. People who want you to be included in their identity need to give the space for differences.

That said, on an individual, moral level, there is a tremendous difference, when your survival or your deep interests are not at stake, between 1) clarifying your own Hindu identity to no-gooders and 2) clinging to your Hindu identity while aiding outsiders in casting aspersions on Muslims in a context in which Muslims are being widely targeted. The former is your right, while the latter is, to me, something of a disgrace. It's the difference betwen being trying to survive and being complicity in predudice, in my eyes (and that applies to other issues besides whether Hindus and Muslims and atheists and Christians need to stick together against discrimination and attacks from the government). Otherwise, you live in your own little bubble, and you never really grow. Which is sad for you.

By the way, Sonal, can you clarify some of these "experiences" you've had in India that have so thoroughly transformed you and given you such greater insight into the workings of identity in the United States?

I have just one point to make in response to Abhi's post.While I respect his or anyone's desire to be referred to as " South Asian", I think it is unfair to refer to others people's different sense of identity as disgusting.
You may have more in common with Second generation Indian-Americans, Pakistani-Americans, Sri-Lankan Americans, Chinese-Americans, Filipino-Americans, etc.. I would like to point that approx half of these groups are not south asian. They are Asian. Why do you then need the subgroup "south asian" within the Asian American grouping? By calling yourself south asian or desi are'nt you guilty of holding the same "disgusting" view? I think this is just a question of an individual's limits. You probably limit yourself to identifying with fellow south asians to distinguish yourself from other american asians communities. Whereas other people limit themselves to being called Indian, to differentiate themselves from other asians. It is only a matter of degree rather than ideology. Everyone who calls themselves Indian does not do so because of hate for their neighbouring countries, its because we have a seperate identity. I would also like to point out that a lot of people who are brought up in India, are also fortunate to be born in a liberal, secular society. It is not an american exclusive privilege, though looking at the way things are in america right now I would cringe before calling it a liberal secular society ;)

Is 'cracker whitey' a racist term? Just wondering....

Can be. But it often reflects something different than, say, the n* word. imo, the context in which its used and what it's pushing forward matter as much as the words themselves.

Razib wrote :

"ok kumar, i retract some of my aspersions. i apologize if i have had some experiences with pandit aryanists. shouldn't engage in castial profiling ;)"

Razib: the difference between Italian / Swedish immigrants and South Asian immigrants is (a) that the former group could pass (b) that the former groups were members of the dominant religion(s). That's why they had a relatively open model.

There's a great quote, I think by Nitzche, about how it is the anti-semite who makes the jew. As a group, we're defined both by our own members and by the reaction of other groups.

The inability of most desis to pass visually, and the cultural sacrifices involved in doing so, argue against an open model of assimilation working as well.

Razib: the difference between Italian / Swedish immigrants and South Asian immigrants is (a) that the former group could pass (b) that the former groups were members of the dominant religion(s). That's why they had a relatively open model.

well, remember that "popery" was not always considered part of the dominant religion. one reason the colonies revolted i believe was tolerance extended to catholics. but your point is good to a first aproximation, but i tend to think that since only 80% americans are christian, there are a lot of people to work with as far as creating open social networks go (check out a unitarian church, for example).

.as if you know everything under the sun ..you falunt it by throwing around some genetic sh#t around from time to time.

hey, if people are saying stupid stuff, why shouldn't i object? a lot of the time people aren't even saying anything that wouldn't take 5 seconds of google to falsify. opinions everyone has, but the facts, well, that is something that has to be seen. kumar obviously wasn't stupid, so i apologized.

Have you all seen this statement re: London bombings? I think this is a more constructive way to respond then what others have in these previous posts!

http://saalt.org/news_7-14-05.html

The inability of most desis to pass visually, and the cultural sacrifices involved in doing so, argue against an open model of assimilation working as well.

Not that I really disagree with most of what you've been saying, ennis, but the counterargument to the point above is that the culture in the United States will adjust to reduce racism (against some, anyway) in order to make sure that it has the the IT specialists it needs. Because the alternative to that is to create large classes of highly intelligent, highly educated, disempowered people, which is not something that ruling classes tend to be interested in doing--at least when they have their wits about them.

also, on further thinking...i think here might not be then. the perceived cultural-racial distance between germans and the WASPs of the 18th century was great, and similarly with italians-WASPs in the early 20th century. i am not sure if past models are the best at this point. i have argued that there is a post-religious secular subculture in the united states that many browns can assimilate too. an open social network is not created by wholesale absorption, but rather by intersections of marriage and friendship. there are other options, like conversion to christianity (aka bobby jindal). secularism and christianity don't need to be majoritarian movements, just enough so that you have many of the Other in your extended family.

as regards "race" the wildcard for browns is that many seem to produce children with white americans who can "pass" as white ethnics, so the physical differences can be blended away quicker (like east asians, but unfortunately, not black americans, at least according to the current consensus).

let me be frank, all british people assuming a responsibility toward reducing radicalism on a symbolic level makes sense. just like all humans assuming a responsibility toward reducing male sexism makes sense. but as a matter of pragmatic reality, muslims must stand front and center, first

I realize how useful/and in their interest it would be for muslims to be at the forefront to reduce radicalism, but I dont understand why it is their responsibility any more than why it is my responsibility as a male to "go medivial" on the sexist becaue they also have a membership in my group of being male .

I dont understand why it is my responsibility to speak for 3 million people (men) or actions of 1 billion indians or that of all americans!

I can understand that I might be more concerened about some causes affecting some groups, but it is not my responsibility any more than it is my responsibility if my brother is a murderer, because we belong to the same group called "family"

Can you explain to me why the onus must be on the tag of muslims rather than on british or on the muslims of pakistani descent, or muslims from Pakistani descent living in London or on people from south asian origin.

I hope you look at the point as a member of the said group, rather than as an outsider (in which case it would be easy for you to lump some people together and think of them as one entity). To most muslims (including the parents of the bombers), the group that carried out the atatcks seems incomprehensible. They see themselves as distinct from the bombers as we do. So, how do we divide people to a hirearcy of groups, and who do we hold most responsible ?

Can you explain to me why the onus must be on the tag of muslims rather than on british or on the muslims of pakistani descent, or muslims from Pakistani descent living in London or on people from south asian origin.

there are always debates about who is a "true christian" or a "true muslim." the analogy i will use is that of the united states: none of my ancestors were here when the native americans were pushed off their lands, but as a citizen of this country i take the good with the bad, and have to bear some of that responsibility by virtue of the fact that i am a proud american (and shame are pride can go together). it is part of the history of this country.

now, the situation with religion is dicy, because ultimately in most contexts religion is a self-description, and voluntary. there is a common response for religious believers to use formulas to determine the bounds of the faithful. for example, after 9-11 i heard one headscarfed young woman use this logic:

1) osama bin laden is a muslim
2) muslims do not commit terrorism
3) therefore, osama bin laden could not be responsible for 9-11

this was in the week after 9-11, so i assume her skepticism disappeared upon further review. but my point is that people have to give up this excessively formulaic system and acknowledge that religious-identity-groups are dynamic systems that emerge from the bottom up. formulae might be relevant within the group, but they have less utility in relation to those outside your group because those outside do not share your belief axioms. even the catholic church, which is explicitly top-down (unlike islam) has a hard time dictating what "catholics should believe."

anyway, the muslim terrorists come out of a muslim milieu. they profess a belief in an entity which goes by the same name as the muslims' entity of worship. there is a good concordance in most of their beliefs and many of their practices with most "muslims." i think there is a preponderant continuity between muslims-against-terror and muslims-in-favor of terror that does make it difficult to just say "we disown them, our hands are washed." to use an analogy, it makes as much sense to me for a christian to disown the intolerance of the christian past because "they weren't real christians, christianity is about love, not forcing pagans to convert for their own good." names do have a correspondence, roughly, to reality, even if names do not dictate reality.

one final point: i think one problem is that people act as if we live in a world of platonic ideals, sealed off perfect "kinds" that we can mix and match at will. this just isn't so, the macro world is contiuous, and on the socioloical level not necessarily deterministic or linear. i think both those who would assent to the ideat "this isn't real islam" and that "the sword-of-islam has always been hanging over our heads" fall into the trap if idealizing the past and present. there is closer correspondence between the platonic kind and the continuous and fuzzy reality when evaluated over a very small space or period of time, but to get the most accurate reality of the world we need to abandon platonism and be willing to put principle in the service of utility.

and a final addendum: there is a difference being brown and being muslim, the former is a fixed identity, more or less, brown is a state of physiognamy, islam is a state of mind, it is a voluntary identity. that makes a difference when you ascribe "blame."

Satish quotes

First they came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up, because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me.

In this hysterical attempt to create some kind of concurrence between the West and Nazi Germany everyone seems to have forgotten one thing.

The fascists who are out to get everyone are Islamic Extremists who are bombing people strapping explosives to themselves and killing tens of innocent infidels whilst a bunch of lily livered liberals ignore the spread of this fascist strain and virus in the Muslim communities of the West and get everything arse side up.

Any words about that from Saurav et al, without blaming anyone else?

Get some damn perspective on where the real fascism emanates from. This psychoapths worked as teachers with children. Can we have some words on that please or is everyone too scared of offending people?

I hope the thread hasn't died down - it is a great comment thread.

Being an Indian living in the US (meaning 1st gen FOB), I don't like the term South Asian(that's not surprising). Now most of the supporters of this term have argued that, here I quote,

what day to day relevance does this have for browns in the USA?

To give a practical example, any association/group formed with the 'South-Asian' moniker will not be able to show support for any Indian cause if it simultaneously opposes any of the other countries - like when India and Pakistan were to go into war as an extreme example.

Now the 1.5/2nd gens could argue that they don't need to be 'patriotic' to India and I agree. The problem is faced by people like me who might want to show support to such a cause but do not find space within a SA organization.

I don't understand why some of you are outraged that Indian Hindus, Christians, atheists and especially the Sikhs in the west, would feel the need to distance their own culture from the Muslims due to the rise in islamic terrorism.

Non-indian south asians diffrentiate themselves from India whenever it is beneficial for them. Example:

I remember taking a world religions class way back in high school. Given the facile nature of the highschool curriculum, our discussion about hinduism was equally divided between the caste system and the strange gods. Naturally being the most hindu-like guy in a predominantly Jewish school, I got ridiculed for the caste system and the eleven armed gods. I should point out that I was pretty much a confirmed atheist by high school, but professing that would have been a sign of weakness/ lack of pride, so I countered by saying something about how Jewish people make such a big deal of a minor holiday like Haunnaka just cuz it happens to fall around Christmas. (it was pretty close to holiday season)

They also picked on the other hindu-like people in the class, a sikh girl and pakistani guy, both of whom quickly mangaged to distanced themselves from hinduism for obvious reasons. They were spared the taunting, and while I was no more responsible than they were for the caste system, I was essentially guilty by association.

The point of the story is that the whole idea of 'south asian solidarity' is a myth. Now if I was in the pakistani guy or the Sikh girl I would have probably done the same thing.

-----------
In an ideal world I firmly believe that middle class everyday innocent muslims should not have to face the kind of racial backlash that they do for the terrorist actions of a minority. Then again in an ideal world there would be no terrorism, we would all be bhai-bhai and the rest would be gravy.

But in the real world, ordinary moderate muslims are forced to regularly diffrentiate themselves from the terrorists and fundies by 'condemning' the terrorists and fundies do not follow 'true islam'.

Similarly I think there is absolutely nothing wrong with Indian Americans, or other non-muslim brown folks who wish to diffrentiate themselves from the Arabs, and South Asian muslims in order to avoid the possible reprecussions from Islamic Terrorism ( to which non-muslims tend to be completely unsympathatic).

The previous point about diffrentiation is especially true since everyone on this blog always bitches and moans about cultural ignorace they find in America about desiland, heck its about time the rest of America realized that we desis are a very diverse group of mirchi lovin, cricket playing, bollywood watching (

There is no such aryan invasion or fantasy.Aryans lived here from the starting,it is a theory propagated by some britishers and followed by historians like bipan chandra and romila thapar,If aryans killed dravidians and drove them south then why is there no evidence of mass murder,why then they both profess hinduism.Arayans were the most educataed people and civilised.These muslims,barbaric and jehadic concept,carried there religion either by killing or converting by the sword.Marathas fought these muslims,Sikh religion was formed out of hindus to protect the kashmiri pandits and i am proud of it.I know least about britain,In dindia every body is free,Gujarat aws there because there muslims regarded themselves as muslims first and indians later and then they burnt 58 karsevaks,so retaliation got to be there,barring that they are not being other incidents.Has any muslim board or ulema has issued any fatwa against Osmaa bin laden.
Either muslims have to tell whats written in quran,and we ave to take them in our fold and become inclusive too.But the real thing is when would it all stop in the name of Islam and killing the non beleivers.Its totally bullshit stuff and this part should be discussed and its validity should be debated in todays context

romila thapar

she spends a whole chapter in her most recent book discussing why it wasn't an invasion. again, i rest safe in the conviction that americans have little to fear from india's "knowledge" sector.

Epoch said:

Non-indian south asians diffrentiate themselves from India whenever it is beneficial for them. Example:

I remember taking a world religions class way back in high school... our discussion about hinduism was equally divided between the caste system and the strange gods... I got ridiculed for the caste system and the eleven armed gods

They also picked on the other hindu-like people in the class, a sikh girl and pakistani guy, both of whom quickly mangaged to distanced themselves from hinduism for obvious reasons.

It is very revealing the way that you conflate hinduism and India. It's precisely for that reason that I don't identify myself as Indian, because too many Indians think that really, at its heart, it's all about Hinduism.

Satish quotes

First they came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up, because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me.

Prem quotes

In this hysterical attempt to create some kind of concurrence between the West and Nazi Germany everyone seems to have forgotten one thing.

I never meant to compare anybody to Nazi Germany. My apologies if it sounded like that. Perhaps, the poem would have been better served without the context.

The purpose was simple:

1. People have argued here that distancing yourself from muslims makes you less vulnerable to be cast in negative light (and say as an extension would reduce hate crimes directed against you because you would not be considered a muslim).

2. My point was that distancing yourself will only have very little impact on how you are percieved, and only a marginal impact on your susceptibility to hate crimes, or whatever concrete manifestations "being shed in negative light" entails. (This was a hypothesis; and I asked if anybody had any evidence how distancing oneself from the "hot seat" group benefitted the distancing group)

3. And hence, the effort spent in distancing oneself might be better spent on fighting bigotry (like if you were in a discussion where everybody dissing all muslims as one entity, and if you are a hindu, it is not as important to proclaim that you are a hindu, as it is give some prespective - like saying that it is too much of generalization..and here is why etc.) This, will serve everybody better in the long run, I think.

4. Hence, the statment that "resources are better spent showing solidarity than squabbling about what you need to be called". And, the peom merely states this point poignantly.

5. Also, please note that, I am not suggesting that you say that "oh..bombers had nothing to do with Islam; they are just outliers, and it could happen to any religion". But, I want you to be honest in your prespective: If I as a hindu, start a cult and have a series of beheadings in next 1 year; I dont think you would feel so great about being criticized for what I did, and asked to defend yourself for my actions, or think that it is ok to label all hindus as fanatics. There needs to be a prespective here, and most Muslims are just as responsible for the bombing, as you would be if I went on my crazy spree.

Regardless, I think strategically (not as a ethical principle) distancing yourself will not bring us any marked change in our perception, or our share of hate crimes....

I ask what if we spend the same time and resources dispelling myths of whatever group is presecuted right now (and not being particualrly averse to that tag being applies to us), will we see a better experience for all of us or no? I think, yes.