One day they will say Muslims are not our brothers - then it will be the Christian Indians who they want to hate on, then the Sikhs, then the Dalits, then the Tamils if they are from North India and so on and so on.

These people just dont get it - they are so crude and vulgar of thought and mind.

Blah blah blah blah. At the end of the day we're all Americans, whether we're Canadian or mexican. What's an arbitrary line drawn across a map? At the end of the day we're all white, whether we're French or German, Aliied or Nazi, what's a little skin colour there....oh...wait...this is Sepia Mutiny....but I assume the Sepia refers to a time period, ya know like sepia-tinted photos. Why stop at the Sepia colour. We are all great apes at the end fo the day. I recommend you really get politically correct, and rename this site: Additonal-Melanin-Coloured-Primates-From-A-Part-Of-Pangea-Mutiny. Why do you stop at Sepia. How dare you not include people from the rest of Asia. From the rest of Eurasia. From the rest of the universe. Why is your arbitrary separation more sensible than mine? Especially considering Pakistan & Bangladesh are only 50-something years old. India is far older.

As really difficult as this seems to be to comprehend - the Idea of India is a very very old idea, far older than you my dear. And it is not the prejudiced, exclude-the-muslims-and-pakis-type idea that some random commenters seem to believe. It actually does stand for something. It is a place of refuge, for parsis, for tibetans, for buddhists, for nepalese. It is a place where Hindus and Muslims, despite everything actually do live together. It's a place which spawned at least 17 different reformist movements. Stop f-ing diluting my country's name with a bunch of jihadis. And you're right, Pakistani food IS very similar to Indian food....that is because it bloody well is Indian food, for [bad-word-for-fornication]'s sake.

http://25worldcountry.blogspot.com/2005/09/south-asian-my-ass.html

As long as Indians continue to look and and speak like Pakistanis it will be impossible for the average American to tell the difference between an Indian and a Pakistani.

Anna's post and TTG's response, illustrates that there *is* a difference between Indian-Americans and Indians. A failure to recognize this is usually the precursor to a full-fledged flame war. Differences between Indians and Pakistanis may not mean much in the American context as evidenced by the fact that many second-generation and even first-generation immigrant desis are happy to identify themselves as "South Asian." However, I can't think of many in the sub-continent who would identify themselves as South Asian. The differences which don't matter in the American context do matter in the sub-continental context. If second-generation desis feel irritated by the failure of many recent arrivals to recognize the "American" component of their identity [I am not suggesting that Indian-Americans are schizophrenic in that they have two distinct parts to their selves:-)], then they should recognize that attempts to emphasize the "unity" of all South Asian identities can irriate many Indians/Pakistanis/whatever. Indeed, in the sub-continental context, the well-meaning (but silly) attempts of many Indians to emphasize the "commonality" between Indians and Pakistanis by saying that "there is no difference between the common Indian and Pakistani" usually provokes a violent reaction from Pakistanis who perceive in this an attempt to deny their distinct Pakistani identity and part of a grand "Akhand Bharat" [Undivided India] project.

Suresh.

Dude (TTG)

Don't see what the point of this argument is. Identity comes from experiences
and circumstances, and is impossible to change just by a debate.

Anna retains her identity of South Asian, and you don't, you prefer to be Indian. Why the vitriol? Am I missing something?

Pragmatic or not, I do think that a pan-South-Asian identity is a noble ideal, and worth working for as much as reality permits. Which is why I like SM, despite being a FOB. It does not imply lack of a national identity. Being Indian would "destroy" my Bong or Guju or Tam identity (to speak of an analogy).

Not knowing what this spat is about, I think the term "Desi" is more all encompassing.

Stop f-ing diluting my country's name with a bunch of jihadis.

Yeah? I could ask you to stop f-ing with my identity, my processes of self-definition, my memories of my late father on this day when I lost him, just a few years ago. Where does that get us? I'm not trying to fucking dilute a damned thing, got that? And if that paki food which jihadis eat is so familiar to you b/c it's INDIAN then guess what, those jihadis are Indian and part of your ancient concept, too. If you want to claim it, claim all of it. Where does this get us? Did you even READ the second part of my post? We are coming from wayyy different places, that's why we're never going to agree, that's why the nastiness towards us is pointless.

Anna's post and TTG's response, illustrates that there *is* a difference between Indian-Americans and Indians. A failure to recognize this is usually the precursor to a full-fledged flame war. Differences between Indians and Pakistanis may not mean much in the American context as evidenced by the fact that many second-generation and even first-generation immigrant desis are happy to identify themselves as "South Asian."

Sigh. I was honestly hoping that I was clear and not offensive, I don't want to be flambed, not today of all days. Did you read the second part of my post? If someone as nice as you didn't understand what I wrote, bleary-eyed in the middle of the night/morning, then I'm fretful. This is what I was trying to say: I totally grok the huge difference between "them and us", that's why I talked about not being able to understand the other's backstory, after not living anything close to it.

If second-generation desis feel irritated by the failure of many recent arrivals to recognize the "American" component of their identity [I am not suggesting that Indian-Americans are schizophrenic in that they have two distinct parts to their selves:-)], then they should recognize that attempts to emphasize the "unity" of all South Asian identities can irriate many Indians/Pakistanis/whatever.

Thank you so much for being so diplomatic and kind with your words, I really appreciate that. I do recognize that our stance can irritate "them". Do they realise the same? Are they tolerant enough to agree to disagree? Or is this too addictive and easy a meme to give up, since the rants which include possessive statements about anatomy are too fun to write? What kills me is this-- do they think that we love India any less? That we aren't as proud, that we don't cherish her history and beauty as much as they do? Love isn't a finite resource. I can love India AND still have some pink, heart-shaped stuff to spare.

If someone of Indian origin calls themselves "South Asian", they have been successfully brainwashed by the campaign started by our neighbors in the "Indian" sub-continent region because of obvious reasons. Too bad they could not change the name of the "Indian" ocean in that region. As far as I am concerned there is only one landmass there and IT IS CALLED THE INDIAN SUB-CONTINENT. Anybody interested in the background behind how this "S A" moniker came should read Rajeev Sreenivasan's articles in Rediff.

Anybody interested in the background behind how this "S A" moniker came should read Rajeev Sreenivasan's articles in Rediff.

Can you please post a link to that article.
Also are Rajeev Sreenivasan and Moornam the same person ?

Sorry about the small type in Rajeev's name. Here is the link to that article: http://www.rediff.com/news/2000/mar/19rajeev.htm

>>every one of our parents once had ... exactly eight dollars in their pocket, upon landing at JFK

They had eighty dollars? 80 dollars? I had twenty. Take that! Just beat that, will ya?

TTG,

Let people who want to call themselves South-Asian continue to do so. There's no point in trying to convince those who have already made up their mind. Instead, it's better to concentrate on those Indian-americans who have not formed their identity yet. The ones who are still in school or college. The ones whose minds can be molded. They are the ones we are working on, and changing their mentality successfully so that they don't want to associate with anything Pakistani or Bangladeshi (Sri Lanka is just fine).

As for the South-Asians, unfortunately there will be many such IISc attacks to come. And as in the past, their Pakistani-American folks will do precious little to condemn it. Eventually, they may realise that Pakistani and BanglaDeshis use the term South-Asian selectively, when it's to their advantage, and quickly revert to Pakistani-American or Bangladeshi-American when their purpose is complete.

AMFD:
>>As long as Indians continue to look and and speak like Pakistanis...

Looks cannot be changed. Even speech can be changed little. But the thought process can be molded, which will help the average American to be able to distinguish us.

>>Also are Rajeev Sreenivasan and Moornam the same person

Our thought processes are very similiar (even though we have differences in our conclusions). I disagree with Rajiv on certain peripheral issues, but agree with him on the core problem.

No - we're not the same person!

M. Nam

They had eighty dollars? 80 dollars? I had twenty. Take that! Just beat that, will ya?

nope, EIGHT. as in single-digit. :)

p.s. thanks for being respectful while disagreeing.

. If second-generation desis feel irritated by the failure of many recent arrivals to recognize the "American" component of their identity [I am not suggesting that Indian-Americans are schizophrenic in that they have two distinct parts to their selves:-)], then they should recognize that attempts to emphasize the "unity" of all South Asian identities can irriate many Indians/Pakistanis/whatever.

I dont think one can assume that all 2gens self-identify as South Asians. I for one identify as Indian-American. This does not mean that I hate or anathemize Bangladeshis or Pakistanis or Sikhs or any of the other groups Jai Singh mentioned in his post. To me, if there is any home outside America, it is, and can only be, India. And this applies whether I'm in a night club in Delhi, on business in Mumbai or standing in an early morning cue with thousands of other pilgrims at the Sri Venkateshwara temple in Tirupati or at Sai Baba's samadhi in Shirdi. The facile equating of "progressive" with South Asian and "Hindutva" with Indian-American is really unfortunate. And let us face it, there are political realities on the subcontinent which shape our perception. Its not for nothing that India is building a 2500 mile wall around Bangladesh, or why India and Pakistan have fought three wars.

IMO "South Asian" takes you a long way if you are in lecture/seminar circuit. So that is why we see that term mainly in academia, useless conferences etc.

What is odd is how come our Paki, Sri Lankan, Nepali brothers don't like this term? I have in fact read in Paki newspapers that the term South Asian is coined by Indians to dilute "Pakiness" LOL. When the intended audience does not want to be any part of this South Asian orgy why some desi selfstyled intellectuals/writers/stuck-in-70s professors/stuck-in-my-dad-came-to-US-with 8 dollar bores, continue on using the term "South Asian" is beyond me.

>>nope, EIGHT. as in single-digit. :)

Moor simultaneously feels mixed emotions: Self-superiority at having more money and self-loathing at the inability to read properly.

M. Nam

jeez, did I even read the same post as you guys? I thought it was another beautiful, touching moment of ANNA's life that she chose to share with us. I love ANNA's dad stories...everytime she shares another one, I am so moved that I want to call up my father and thank him for taking the risk and believing in his future enough to try moving over here, with one briefcase, one suitcase, and $100 (loaned to him, which he paid back, incidentally), for doing the best he could, for being who he is and letting me learn from him and his life.

us, them, blah blah blah. I thought it was a story written in love, despite inspiration from a tragic event. half-full, half-empty, blah blah blah.

"South Asian" is meaningless because we do not share the same basic assumptions about the democracy, civil liberties, the (lack) of a role of religion in politics, and so on. I speak specifically of Pakistan, and increasingly of Bangladesh.

Secondly, forget about India-Pakistan animosities for a while - it might confuse you with all that Hindu/Muslim stuff. Just consider Pakistan-Afghanistan. If you fully understood what has happened there, you would not want to stand together with a Pakistani on any forum.

I thought it was a story written in love, despite inspiration from a tragic event.

I was smiling to myself until I read the other posts about pakis and indians and all that jazz. Honestly, when it comes down to it, does it matter how you are classified? You know deep down what you are and how you feel?

Take my example. I am a guju who was born and grew up in East Africa. I am now in the states, married to another guju who was born and grew up in America but who also spend a few years in India. What do I call myself? An kenyan of indian origin who is now living in America? Honestly, I don't f-ing care.

This has been the story ever since I came here seven years ago:

Them: What part of India are you from?
Me: I wasn't born in India. I am guju but I come from Kenya
Them: Wow..you don't look African
Me: No shit, Einstein. We brown people are like corn, we grow everywhere.

If I am to be branded Asian, South East Asian, Indian etc etc, I honestly don't care. People can call me Pakistani and call me persian, whatever. I am a child of three worlds and I have taken the best out of all of them.

Anna, your story really made me smile. My dad grew up in Zanzibar and had to ride his bicycle to school for over 12 km everyday. I got the 'Chokri! You waste so much money on petrol! story a lot. I think I am going to call him today. :-)

People, some kindness and respect please, especially when you are visiting someone else's home.

I started to write a long response to some of the comments in this thread, but in keeping with Anna's relentless spirit of minimizing negativity, I have deleted most of it.

The one thing I still did want to respond to though is the objection in the Rajeev Srinivasan article linked above that South Asian or South Asian American identities undermine the idea of India as a "brand." Respectfully, identity is not a "brand" that is "owned" by Mr. Srinivasan, the government of India, the RSS, or anyone else. Maybe this is too Kantian for Mr. Srinivasan, since Kant was from (gasp!) Germany, but none of these institutions or any other has the right to make any of us the instrument of their "marketing strategy," or the marketing strategies of anyone who purports to act in their name. Our identities, our lives, and our experiences are not commodities. So if the South Asian American or Punjabi American or whatever-else identity of an individual or community of individuals, rooted in their values and lived experiences, undermines Mr. Srinivasan's ability to engage in brand management, then too bad, so sad. In any event, it's not as if India and Indian-ness are not things that Mr. Srinivasan or anyone else has any right to claim "ownership" over -- they are a contested set of social and cultural meanings that are up for grabs every day, and always have been.

Anna, once again, thank you. There are few people who write as thoughtfully, as courageously, or as openly as you do, and all the noise aside, it is enriching for many of us when you do.

Anna can you(or Abhi) please also start protesting when people mention this site as Indian. A few weeks back there was a big news of Sepis's name being mentioned in some political scandal in India and you guys posted about it here. But i didnt see anywhere in that post that you mentioned that Sepia was actually a SA site not an Indian one as mentioned in that news. Also it will be highly appreciative if you can have a banner on top announcing that this site is SOuth Asian not Indian. That will reduce the confusion for a new visitor of your site.

Thanks!

Bravo anna; I love reading your stories as well.

Like technophobicgeek, this FOB doesn't understand what the point of the argument is. I embrace the idea of a South Asian identity. I don't understand what's wrong in celebrating what's common between people of the subcontinent and know pakistanis and bangladeshis and many indians in india who feel the same way. Just like I like celebrating things that I have in common with all the various people I meet and know: whether they be iranian or korean or nigerian or texan or the tanzanian nun I met a few days ago at Ohare. And having a forum like SM doesn't mean that I'm alienating myself from people who are not south-asian.

I think some commenters here are confusing the people of these countries and their governments. I know pakistanis and bangladeshis who share my "assumptions about assumptions about the democracy, civil liberties, the (lack) of a role of religion in politics, and so on"[Arun] and know Indians who do not share my political views. But I still call myself south-asian and indian.

I think another misconception is that the term "sepia" in the title of the blog excludes indians/south-asians whose skin-tone cannot be described as sepia (like mizos or kashmiris or whatever). I'm certain that was not the intention of whoever (Anna?) came up with the name.

Good grief!

I didn't want to get involved with this discussion as it's one we've had a thousand times (especially in the UK, where the Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities have more of a separate identity to Indians).

You can call yourself Indian AND South Asian for God's sake. People say 'ooh I'm not South Asian cos I don't share views about democracy with Pakistanis'. Dude, you're still South Asian cos you're from South Asia. If someone's thick enough to assume that all people from Asia are the same, then the word 'Asian' would never get used. It's YOUR job to educate the ignorant, to let them know that South Asia is a disparate group - but one that can happily co-exist under one banner. Those of you who dislike the term are worried that you will be 'tarred with the same brush as Pakistanis'. So what? If someone's dumb enough to think that I'm a suicide bomber simply because of where I'm from, that's their problem.

Do you like curry? Bollywood? Bhangra? Cricket? Jokes about sardars? Jeez look at all the things that unite us. There IS a common identity there, which is why we have Internet sites that cater to 'South Asians'. If they had no interest in associating with one another, these websites would not exist. There will always be an element that want to dissocciate themselves from others. But in my experience, those are the ones with a energy-wasting preoccupation. Which is why when I go out, my friends are Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Sri Lankan, English, American and a few I can't quite figure out.

I've never been one to pull my punches when it comes to criticising India's neighbours, nor India itself. I have no love for the Pakistani government and a great deal about their culture. But I'm perfectly happy being referred to as South Asian, Asian, Indian, British, Bengali or a jackass.

damn. hadn't thought id run into this american-indian vs indian vs abcd vs fob nonsense at SM (ha!). i thought discussions here were limited to hindus vs muslims vs christians :). there's obviously some history here that touched a raw nerve but an entire post on this beaten-to-death topic spawned by a stupid tip? the story of a father and his little daughter would have been so much sweeter without the additional baggage.

after a countless never ending discussions/arguments with various folks about this, my attitude is, im not gonna make assumptions about you if you don't make em about me. i might *think* i know where you're coming from (since im pretty smart), but not having walked in your shoes, i can't *know*. so let me hold back on my assumptions and judgements. people have very different experiences living in india *and* living in the US (or Dubai or london or at xyz) and they turn out very different. there is no generic prototype so let it go already!

think another misconception is that the term "sepia" in the title of the blog excludes indians/south-asians whose skin-tone cannot be described as sepia (like mizos or kashmiris or whatever). I'm certain that was not the intention of whoever (Anna?) came up with the name.

I think the term Sepia Mutiny was coined after the great Sepia Mutiny of 1857 when the British Indian Soldiers revolted againts the British for using "Cow fat" to grease their cartridges. I doubt if it has anything to do with the tone "sepia". If I am wrong- I respectfully apologize, don't want to be in Anna's black book ;-)

can u imagine the identity crisis of someone from northeast india that looks like someone from burma(ie someone from nagaland)? and also the naga culture may and some of the other ne cultures may be different from the pan-Indian culture (if there is such a thing) or just anybody that really wouldn't strike u as Indian. like for example in Pakistan and India there is a group of people from Africa called siddis http://www.kamat.com/kalranga/people/siddi.htm.

mea culpa. just skimmed through everything except the story initially. this blog and comments seem to bout a completely different animal. one i didn't even know existed. it's about brown and south asian. let me grab my popcorn, sit back and let my mind be jaundiced by people's prejudices.

I think another misconception is that the term "sepia" in the title of the blog excludes indians/south-asians whose skin-tone cannot be described as sepia (like mizos or kashmiris or whatever). I'm certain that was not the intention of whoever (Anna?) came up with the name.

"Sepia" is defined as an ink that is "brown with a tinge of red." This "ink" reference was included because are writers "inking" our thoughts on this blog. Mutinous is our style of writing. When you combine the two you have Sepia Mutiny which is a pun on the 1857 uprising. "Sepia" is not related to skin color.

I think this topic has already been debated extensively a number of times before, as Bong Breaker commented. However, a couple of points:

This does not mean that I hate or anathemize Bangladeshis or Pakistanis or Sikhs or any of the other groups Jai Singh mentioned in his post.

Can I just clarify for the second time this week that the post at the top of this thread is by Jay Singh of Pickled Politics, and not Jai Singh of Sepia Mutiny ie. myself. We have significantly different views on a number of topics, not to mention quite different personalities, as Bong Breaker could confirm from the handful of times both Jay and myself have participated simultaneously on Picked Politics.

Regarding the whole South Asian/Indian/Pakistani controversy : It depends on the similarities between the various groups concerned and their attitudes towards each other and towards the West as a whole (both politically and culturally). As Bong Breaker has also mentioned, the dynamics and behaviours appear to be different over there in the US compared to how things have developed over the past 10-15 years here in the UK. (Those of you with long memories may also recall Punjabi Boy and myself discussing this issue here on SM a few months ago). If most of the American Pakistani community generally has a benevolent attitude towards Indian Americans and the United States (and the West) as a whole, and are generally more "moderate" and liberal in their mindset -- which is the impression I have gained -- then a common "South Asian" identity is obviously a perfectly viable proposal. However, matters have unfortunately become radicalised amongst certain quarters of the British Pakistani population over the past decade-and-a-half, with significant numbers of people having a more antagonistic attitude towards their fellow non-Muslim South Asians (and the West in its entirety), corresponding with a decoupling to some extent of identification with their fellow desis and a greater slant towards the whole pan-Islamic Ummah mentality (even if we're just talking about "armchair caliphatists"). Moreover, negative attitudes and behavioural traits in certain areas are significantly more prevalent amongst British Pakistanis than British Indians, hence the objection by many in the latter group to any labelling of such issues as "Asian" (ie. South Asian) by the mainstream population and media. As Bong Breaker could again confirm from my sporadic posts on PP, one of the problems that has arisen in recent years is the fact that the terms "{South}Asian" and "Muslim" are often used interchangeably here, which is particularly inappropriate and, indeed, dangerous in the context of predominantly-Muslim (at least in the UK) issues such as (for example) honour-killings and forced marriages and, on a much larger scale, the issue of jihadist terrorism post-9/11 and post-7/7.

The concept of a pan-South Asian American identity is a noble ideal, and I hope to God that it works out more positively in the US than the unfortunate, and indeed tragic, route that it has taken here in the UK in recent times.

Dude, TTG, how Joyce of you:

Stephen Dedalus
Class of Elements
Clongowes Wood College
Sallins
County Kildare
Ireland
Europe
The World
The Universe

But, I think it misses Anna's point. I think it's kinda like how I, as an Hindu-raised atheist, see Christianity, Judaism, and Islam as being slight variations on a theme. Many people within those groups would have problems with that idea, but some would not. Like so many things, it's all in how you look at it.

Anna, I agreed with you on your reaction to ()'s silly tip.
But, having not grown up here, when I got to the line "...but I have this suspicion that the person in the parentheses didn’t grow up here" I had to stretch a bit to make the assumption that you didn't mean to generalize.

I'm sure you meant well.

Just like an Israeli wouldn't call himself a middle-eastern or American wouldn't call himself North American or a Chinese/Japanese/Korean wouldn’t call himself a East Asian, please don't call Indian people South Asian. Indian people are Indian alone. Some of the Sepia Mutiny people will be surprised to know that general public of India and Pakistan and Bangladesh have different culture, religion, world view and beliefs about 1000 f**** things. You can only club people of Indian sub-continent together if they somehow share something so valuable that they are virtually alike. Religion, beliefs, world view, and government and very big thing that separate us. I wouldn't like any thing better than to have a united South Asian, but that is nearly impossible while we share different cultures to a very large extent. Yes, South Asian were all part of a Hindu culture but they are not anymore, so as already pointed out by 10s of smart people, it is misnomer if not out right stupidity to call Indians/Pakistanis/Bangladeshis South Asian. Please don't insult the intelligence of 1 billion Indians by calling them South Asians.

S Jain,

Unless I'm mistaken, people here are referring specifically to individuals of Indian and Pakistani origin living in the West, especially those who were born (or at least grew up) in this part of the world; they're not actually talking about the citizens of India and Pakistan.

Can I just clarify for the second time this week that the post at the top of this thread is by Jay Singh of Pickled Politics, and not Jai Singh of Sepia Mutiny ie. myself.

I did not see your first declaration.

Moreover, negative attitudes and behavioural traits in certain areas are significantly more prevalent amongst British Pakistanis than British Indians, hence the objection by many in the latter group to any labelling of such issues as "Asian" (ie. South Asian) by the mainstream population and media.

In the US, the overwhelming majority of "South Asians" are from India. In the UK, the community is not overwhelmingly Indian. So any South Asian "amity" you detect here and find lacking there may well be because most card-carrying South Asians are Indians. South Asianism also seems to be a platform for "progressive" Indians to critique a number of political movements active in India and Pakistan. To my mind, the whole South Asian identity is tinged by politics. I bristled at the faux-liberalism I detected at South Asian venues, and the belief of *some* adherents that being in America means that they've become enlightened and transcended the "bigotry" of their parents, which to my mind trivialzes the very real suffering that took place at say, Partition. South Asianism is not merely a matter of sharing gol gappa and chaat and dancing to MIA with your mates on weekends. One can surely do that--and why just with so-called South Asians?--and not identify as one. I do know for a fact that many universities have both South Asian and Indian Associations. So to each his own.

Would the 1st/2nd generation immigrant from Africa prefer to identify as 'African' or 'Kenyan/Senegalese/Malian/etc'? Would someone from Europe prefer to identify as 'European-American' or 'French-American/Italian-American/Irish-American'? I wonder. When the 2nd gen on SM travel abroad do you identify as 'North American' or 'American/Canadian'?

I suspect in each case it is a personal choice, and completely dependent on the context of the situation. It is unfortunate that those who prefer to identify as 'Indian-American' or 'Indian' are immediately dismissed on SM, especially by those folks who have probably actually never even lived anywhere in South Asia themselves. Let's be tolerant enough to agree to disagree. That goes for both sides.

S.Jain

Indian people are Indian alone. Some of the Sepia Mutiny people will be surprised to know that general public of India and Pakistan and Bangladesh have different culture, religion, world view and beliefs about 1000 f**** things.

The general public of India itself has different cultures, religions, world views, and beliefs about 1000 f**** (i have no clue what word you are implying there) things. Which is why, IMO, the term South Asian is not so far fetched. Please do not leave out such an important facet of reality in your arguement.

When you combine the two you have Sepia Mutiny which is a pun on the 1857 uprising. "Sepia" is not related to skin color.

The Revolt of 1857 was the Sepoy Mutiny :)

Anna wrote:

I do recognize that our stance can irritate "them". Do they realise the same? Are they tolerant enough to agree to disagree? Or is this too addictive and easy a meme to give up, since the rants which include possessive statements about anatomy are too fun to write? What kills me is this-- do they think that we love India any less? That we aren't as proud, that we don't cherish her history and beauty as much as they do? Love isn't a finite resource. I can love India AND still have some pink, heart-shaped stuff to spare.

As one of "them" I can assure you that there *are* some who are capable of agreeing to disagree. I don't include myself in this category; however, in this instance, I was responding to TTG's ill-tempered post more than your post. Obviously, that didn't get through.

About "loving" India, I honestly don't know what to make of this statement. When Indians [that is, "them"] make similar statements about USA/UK/whatever, I interpret this to mean that they like the quality of life in that country well enough to move there or at least want to move there. Clearly, that is not the case here: I don't think any Indian-American likes the quality of life in India well enough to even remotely want to move there. Indeed, given that many Indians move out at the first available opportunity, this is hardly surprising. So I am genuinely puzzled about this "love" and would appreciate a clarification.

In any case, why should you care what "they" think? For that matter, who are "them" to decide who can/cannot "love" India? If you "love" India, good for you. If some boorish "them" imply otherwise, ignore them.

Suresh.

The Revolt of 1857 was the Sepoy Mutiny :)

That is what is called a pun.

You see that word you have to type in order to comment? Brown? Right. Now perhaps that's a better word...although it doesn't sound particularly cool, I have to admit.

The reason I say it is cos black people are all perfectly happy referring to themselves as black (even though none of them are black - just to pre-empt points about some northern communities not being brown).

And for those of you wondering about SM's name, why not read the FAQs?

Why is it that whenever I read the cold rage and haemmoroid squeals of MoorNam and Mark IV and their monomaniacal obsession with 'molding minds' I see the image of a match being lit and a Muslim/Christian/Sikh being soaked in petrol and burnt to a cinder?

The fact is, these Hindutvadis and New Jersey RSS wallahs are just as lax in their condemnation of extreme right wing Indian and Hindu nationalism and its genocidal corrolaries (Gujarat, Ayodhya ad nauseum) as any grumbling Pakistani-American is when it comes to the wicked deeds of Jihadis. So in terms of morality there is little difference there. And they just end up sounding so pompous, arrogant, fustian, and obsessive - there is something about them that speaks derangement and obsessiveness. The overseas Hindu, like the overseas Sikh and Muslim in the past, has been known to mitigate his penis-shrinking fear of the new by glorifying the old - and in the Moor Nam and Mark IV's case, make themselves blind to the terror their exclusivism breeds in the souls of the persecuted.

There are some speculators on sepiamutiny who do nothing else but enact their whining psychology and demons and bigotry in an obsessional manner - to observe MoorNam picking at his excrement is simultaneously illuminating, disgusting and hilarious.

Do you like curry? Bollywood? Bhangra? Cricket? Jokes about sardars?

There are some hilarious jokes doing the rounds about half Bengali half gora half-castes mixed-race blokes at the moment ;-)

And they just end up sounding so pompous, arrogant, fustian, and obsessive - there is something about them that speaks derangement and obsessiveness. The overseas Hindu, like the overseas Sikh and Muslim in the past, has been known to mitigate his penis-shrinking fear of the new by glorifying the old - and in the Moor Nam and Mark IV's case, make themselves blind to the terror their exclusivism breeds in the souls of the persecuted.

Psychoanalysis, eh? A loutish Londoner zombified by visceral Anti-Indianism (Dalits, Tamils and Sikhs lumped together...so Khalistani, I might say) will undoubtedly and predictably rage against anyone betraying the slightest sympathy for Hinduism or India. In this demonizing mind-space Hinduism will always equal Hindutva, and India would be best off as a billion little pieces rather than a single state. Heard it all before, so residual and derivative. Snooze.

I totally agree with others lauding Anna's original story, it made me feel proud of my family. Can you imagine the type of huztpah they had? Vah. And Anna your father seems like a very intelligent man. On the other topic, I'll just say that some ideas seem right to a certain group of people. To many people in the diaspora, South Asian feels like it fits, so people use it. Not many of them use it bc its academic jargon. Some people may never use the word, but in their thought process or daily life. You'll just have to chalk it up to preferences of a community. Which we 2nd and 3rd gen desis are. And there are many contributions to be made by this group, in the countries of their parents and in the countries they live in

perhaps i'm being simplistic, or even lazy--huge apologies if someone else said this already and i didn't catch it in my mutineering-by-slacking-off-at-work skim down the page, here are my two paise: it seems to me that most individuals differentiating between indian/pakistani/nepalese/etc. and "south asian" seem to have a very myopic, narrow perspective on identity, whereas for me at least, I see myself as a culmination of multiple identities. (make your jokes...this ibcd isn't all that confused, thank you very much)

i'm tanjavorian (sp?), tamil, south indian, indian, south asian, asian, world citizen. if i can attach all-encompassing labels such as tamil and south indian and indian to myself...hey I'll take it one step further and call myself south asian. after all, what do i have to lose? not much. but i have a hella lot of friends to gain.

I'm a first generation immigrant, who can identify with being an Asian american, south asian, south east asian, Indian, Tamilian, Brahmin. I honestly don't see how one precludes any of the others. Just because I consider myself a Tam, doesn't mean I don't consider myself Indian, or Asian. I don't see being referred to as south asian a dilution of my ancestry - it's just a fact.

Sure, there are plenty of differences between myself and a person from Thailand, who also falls under the broad category of "South east asian", but there are also quite a few similarities. If I were to only identify with the narrowest definition of myself, as a tamilian brahmin, I'd lose a lot of the richness in my life - of having friends from all over the world, enjoying the cuisines, cultures and traditions of them all, not to mention my beloved American husband.

After all, what would life be without the occasional Thai green curry, or Vietnamese coffee, in addition to dosai? India has had a far reaching influence in south east asia. Hinduism (an Indonesian friend of mine just named her son Abhimanyu) and Buddhism are practised in more places than just India, Thai green curry is not that different from Avial. Instead of looking and focussing on the differences, I choose to look at the similaries.

I started typing a response to on-going debate, but I'm sorry I just can't bring myself to care about this discussion again. Suffice to say that I would hazard a guess that those viscerally opposed to the handle of 'South Asian' are those who, as VBSF puts it, myopic. South Asian is more about culture than political affiliation. It certainly isn't about religion, as all religions exist in all South Asian countries.

If you want to talk about your politics, it's obvious that's tied to your country, so feel free to say Indian or Pakistani then. But when it comes to music, family values, food and all the other things that the first generation of immigrants had in common, an all-encompassing term is needed. After all, that's how it was coined - by people wishing to refer to all the immigrants who had come to the US/UK from SOUTH ASIA. To deny the use of the term is to deny that the four main countries have anything in common, when quite the opposite is true.

When people realise that calling yourself South Asian does not in any way negate your 'INDIANESS' (or whichever country) only then will this debate end.

what do i have to lose? not much. but i have a hella lot of friends to gain.

Nicely put.

There are some hilarious jokes doing the rounds about half Bengali half gora half-castes mixed-race blokes at the moment ;-)

You can't see it, but I'm sticking my tongue out. I'd like to hear them! Now I'm off to watch UK History, there's a programme about what SOUTH ASIA has brought the world!

The core of Hindutva is that Indians are all "Hindus" where "Hindu" is defined as one for whom India is both motherland and holy land, and the problem lies with those who have different loyalties. One can legitimately oppose this imposition of identity, after all, we all construct ourselves in different ways. But then to turn around and insist on another identity - "South Asian" - for which there is even less basis than the Hindutva "Hindu", and insist that those who don't accept it have a problem of some kind is ironic. "South Asian" might have had some meaning if Partition had not happened, or if despite Partition, the ideology of the Partition was no longer alive.

I am most explicitly not South Asian, and utterly and completely reject this as a useful category. I see "South Asian" as the same type of mistake as a Holocaust denier.

Hmmmm, couldn't care less about the Indian vs South Asian vs Indian-American, etc, etc, etc thing. Interesting that it always gets so many comments, and is never resolved as an issue. And never will be. I prefer fantastic-princess-her-royal-fabulousness-American myself, i.e. FPHRFA. Please remember this.

(btw, abhi, manish, and ANNA: I finally broke down and added M.I.A. to my Launchcast playlist. The terrorists have finally won.......)

(oh, and a second btw: are ya'll treating that SM intern right? Is that SM intern following standard work-hour guidelines? SM intern - we stand behind you!)

I see "South Asian" as the same type of mistake as a Holocaust denier.

OK, I think this could be the craziest thing ever written in the comments section.

Of any website.

Ever.

Anna, your posts as always are so incredibly inspiring.

On Identity politics:

I'm a 3rd generation born E. African. India nad Pakistan did not exist when my forefathers left the subcontinent. India and Pakistan especially are in my mind colonial contructs that I have a hard time identifying with. Sure you might argue that so are Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania, I agree with you entirely, but those are constructs that have meaning in my life, that is a part of my family's cognitive history, and still, there are border disputes, and an identity that remains wholly east African. They are afterall, as Anna's dad pointed out IMAGINARY lines dividing a people into fragmented bits. This ofcourse is how I see it. So the question then is am I allowed to call myself a South Asian? Would that offend those of you who seem to think that the term is some sort of covertoperation to tarnish your venerable (separate) identity? Can I call myself Kenyan? African? What will offend you more?

The truth is to me it doesn't matter whether you accept how I identify myself or not. I will not root against Pakistan in a cricket match any more than I'll root for India. It's Kenya that I love, and we did some major ass-whopping last time, so you'll do well not to underestimate our asses :)

I see "South Asian" as the same type of mistake as a Holocaust denier

Hmm....you think you have grown up and learnt all there is to know about the world around you, till some wise guy comes along and shake the very earth on which you stand. Actually, Bong Breaker, that is the most profound thing ever written in the comments section.

Of this Website.

Until comment 51 that is

I see "South Asian" as the same type of mistake as a Holocaust denier.

When everything else fails, bring up the Nazis or the holocaust.

But when it comes to music, family values, food and all the other things that the first generation of immigrants had in common, an all-encompassing term is needed.

That is quite hegemonic and bigoted, BongBreaker. Who are you to inflict South Asianitis on those who politely dissent, eh? The only solution is to agree to disagree. There is no bridging this chasm. You be South Asian-Americans or South Asian-Scottsmen, or South Asian-Zambians; we be Indian-Americans or Indian-whatever else. Finis.

Sure, I'm a bigot. Well proven, from my HIGHLY bigoted comments.

Actually, your closing statement is wrong Mark. You're an Indian-American, I'm a South Asian Brit AND I'm an Indian Brit. As I said before, they are not mutually exclusive. But yes, I agree that we should agree to disagree!

Fin.

I see "South Asian" as the same type of mistake as a Holocaust denier.

When everything else fails, bring up the Nazis or the holocaust.

I was wondering who would call Godwin's Law

In honor of ANNA's dad, may I just say "Po Oombe" to this entire conversation of whether anybody needs to validate how anyone else chooses to identify.

Bong Breaker
I started typing a response to on-going debate, but I'm sorry I just can't bring myself to care about this discussion again. Suffice to say that I would hazard a guess that those viscerally opposed to the handle of 'South Asian' are those who, as VBSF puts it, myopic. South Asian is more about culture than political affiliation. It certainly isn't about religion, as all religions exist in all South Asian countries.

>>You are kidding right? If you think all the countries in Indian SubContinent have all the religions and that people from all religions can worship whatever they want. Here is one news item to enlighten you about one of the countries from that part of world.

http://www.dawn.com/weekly/mazdak/20051203.htm

And before you point out about all the genocide of Minorities in India. I would say check the change in the percentage of their population in India since its Independence and match with other countries.

The truth is to me it doesn't matter whether you accept how I identify myself or not. I will not root against Pakistan in a cricket match any more than I'll root for India. It's Kenya that I love, and we did some major ass-whopping last time, so you'll do well not to underestimate our asses :)

>>Why would Indians want you to identify as an Indian? Or have a problem if you call yourself South Asian? We mostly dont want you to mix both of these term because when you do it you by default us in it. And we definately dont want to be called anything but Indian.
And dont worry about supporting Indian team we have enough people in our country(outside too) to root for OUR team.

well, i was born in bangladesh...but left when i was 4. i kind of get weirded out when people call me a 'bangladeshi american' since i was born not to much after the country was created. i think south asian is surely an accurate term, though personally, i just say 'brown.' latinos here in the states are trying to create a 'brown power' movement, and i think real browns should forcefully reappropriate that term, cuz latinos have all those names and identities (hispanic, mexican-american/cuban-american/etc.) already, they can spare one. you know what they say, 'if you're brown, stick around.'

i certainly don't share many of the priorities of manish/abhi/anna & co. because my life experience is very different from theirs. but i understand what they are trying to do in their particular contexts. i.e., they do not live in india (or pakistan, or whatever), so these india vs. pakistan arguments have only so much relevance. though this site tries to be wide ranging, i think it is clearly americo-centric, and i think it needs to be taken that way. in the UK browns can be 'asian,' but here 'asian' is identified with east asians and there are already 'indians' out there (and native americans actually prefer the term american indian, just as blacks prefer that to african american). i have read this weblog enough over the past year to observe multiple instances where individuals upbraided the posters for 'betraying indian interests' (paraphrase). some FOBs and indian nationals seem to be unable to move past the fact that american browns have a distinct and different identity and interests which are at root american (in addition to the multiplicity of voices and opinions). some indian americans want to maintain nationally derived (i.e., indian) or local identities (i.e., kashmiri pandit). good luck to them. ultimately the viability of such an identity is dependent both on how that identity coheres within itself (endogamy rates, etc.) and how the general society relates to it (can they make distinctions between kashmiri pandits and other browns or middle easterners???). as a matter of empirical reality i think that the outcome will be diversely textured, and there won't be one outcome to rule them all. i predict that

a) some brown americans will dissolve into the 'non-hyphenated american' population via interrmarriage. even 10-20% outmarriage rates are in the long term significant, especially if immigration rates decline in the future, whether through legal fiat or prosperity in south asia.

b) some will hew to particular identities which will have great salience within group, though their visibility in the mainstream society will be negligible. i.e., ismaili muslims will have a brown identity, but their core identity will be as gujarati speaking ismaili muslims, even if the mainstream society does not understand or comprehend these distinctions very well. the same might apply to a small group of kashmiri pandits, or punjabi khatris, etc. etc. who do not outmarry.

c) some will generate a post-ethnic and pan-brown identity. this is what i see happening on this weblog. i think compromises will need to be made and new cultural conformations will arise de novo. to give an example, recently kxb objected that diwali is not a pan-brown hindu identity marker as bengalis do not celebrate it. this sort of confusions abound. i once had a north indian explain on my website the gotra-exogamy traditions of his region as if it applied to all of india. the reality though is that 'deviant' groups, like bengalis, who assimilate to the pan-brown hindu sub-identity will have to accept that diwali is part of the package (as well as hindi movies and bhangra [sp?] music). this sort of 'identity generation' has happened many times. the afrikaners created a dutch reformed identity out of a german, french and dutch melange. the quebecois in france assimilated many other european groups before the mid-20th century and recast their history as that of pure descendents of the 18th century settlers. i am not saying that there will need to be new myth creation, but the new identity will emerge out of group consensus and compromise. an exclusivist conservative strident form of islam or christianity will not accommodate the implicit religious pluralism well, and neither will an exclusivist conception of hinduism. individuals might retain adherence to particular 'faith traditions,' but they will express a 'but we all believe in the same god anyhow' outlook.

anyway, the numbers of a), b), and c) are to be determined. i think the #1 slot will be between a) & c), i don't give b) a chance because i don't think most groups have the numbers to maintain a strong ethnic-religious-caste identity (ismailis, gujarati patels, etc. might, but kayasthas from west bengal, no).

blagh. this me v. you, our v. your, them v. us argument makes me want to gag. all these labels are just constructs (thank you Kenyandesi, what an appropriate word!) that can be re-tooled and re-positioned based on one's purpose and worldview.

you say potato, i say oorlakazhangu...

Razib do you identify with the brown identity because you would rather be only American than anything else and since our brown color is the reason that the mainstream refuses to accept us brownies as full Americans, it makes sense to adopt the brown identity as we can not really get away from it.
Thats how I feel anyway.

Rajib,
You always do an excellent job of dividing Indians into several sub groups. Good Job again here.

i think brownness is the most salient aspect of my brown/south asian/desiness. it is what i am genetically. on the other hand, i reject 'south asian' religion, many of the norms, have little interaction with the popular cultural forms and am illiterate in its languages. i do have some culinary biases, etc., but none of these are powerful enough that i would be able to honestly say that i am ethnically identified.

You always do an excellent job of dividing Indians into several sub groups. Good Job again here.

categorization is a characteristic of the western mind :) seriously.

to razib: is there any issue for which you don't have a rational argument? 'tis very much humbling at times! :)

sand nigger, tell me why i love this shit, i gotz no rationalization of dat.

Vick you seem to be in a rather unnecessarily pedantic point-missing mood today. By saying that all religions exist in all South Asian countries, I never once implied that religious freedom exists. I just wanted to exempt religion from the argument. Most of the people who hate to be associated with Pakistan are Hindu - we can agree on that, right? Their opinions tend to be clouded by anti-Muslim sentiment and my point was that there are more Muslims in India than Pakistan. Hence it's meaningless to draw religion into the South Asian vs. Indian debate.

Razib raises a good point which I've often talked about on here. If you're so against being associated with other South Asians who aren't from your particular country (eg India), then how are you comfortable being called 'Indian' at all? India doesn't export one identity. Neither does South Asia.

And again following on from Razib, I follow no South Asian religion, don't fit in with the majority of South Asians in the UK and am only 50% Asian at all. Yet I have no problem being called South Asian.

There's almost an aspect of control to the discussion of South Asian vs Indian, Indian-American, etc. In other words, how you choose to identify yourself isn't the most important thing: it's how others would have you self-identify that matters. So, we have this back and forth where one person says, don't call me this, and another says, yes, not only can I call you that but you are that. I made a little joke in my last comment, but it was a joke with meaning! Being an American is the most important thing for me - I think that is the case not because of a nationalist sentiment, but because in the hodge-podge, in the melting pot, I can be myself, most truly and freely. I am of South Asian ethnicity, but I am so very Americanized in the common parlance, that I feel to identify myself as South Asian or brown first somehow turns me into a type, instead of an individual. I am me. I think this is a very Western and American concept. I'm not saying that only Westerners or Americans are interested in this type of individualism, but it is a very peculiar part of American lore: the iconoclast, the loner, the pioneer, the cowboy, etc. Laugh, roll your eyes, shake your head, by all means recognize your own very different experience, but I feel most authentically myself when I just let it go.....I am American, raised in America of immigrant parents. I state, again, I am me.

Okay, to summarize:

1. Why are some people so bothered if a person chooses to self-identify as brown, South Asian, or Indian. Is it not that person's choice? Why the need to control?
2. My unique, personal experience makes me want to stay within that illusion of uniqueness and personalness: I don't want to be particularly want to part of a group, and don't give a damn if someone on the outside wants to characterize me. Whatever.
3. I don't think nationalism is a dirty word.
4. I never feel strength in numbers, as it were (and on an emotional level) I feel trapped. Wierd, huh?

Arrgh, I meant: I don't particularly want to be part of a group....except a group of commenters here on SM....

not to be partisan, but i do have to note that it seems that those who use the term 'south asian' tend to be positive their actions, i.e., they use the term, but i don't see people saying, 'you aren't indian americna, you are 'south asian',' etc. the dialogue is not symmetric. ultimately i think the debate in the american context is moot, i have an obviously muslim name to most people, so the ignorati assume i am middle eastern and worship muhammad and revere cows and my mom has a dot on her forehead. that's what makes the 'we are not south asian' line a bit ridiculous to me, since most of the ignorati in the USA think that 'pakis' worship cows before they blow up buses, so you really aren't changing anything by differentiating between anything if you switch to 'indian american' (though in the long term there might be a yield, but i didn't know people laid seeds so far ahead).

South Asia man, catch the fever!

I dunno razib, isn't saying that people are only going to see you as brown kind of the same thing? At least, that's what some of the comments read like. It's not a symmetry, but it is like saying, you can call yourself whatever you want but since the average American won't accept you, you are just dreaming. As for the ignorati part, there's plenty of ignorati out there and it's directed at all kinds. Ask my Italian friends, or heck, just ask my Iowan friends who move to NYC and people assume all kinds of wierd stuff about them. Okay, that's not a symmetry, but I'm getting at an emotional point, razib. What I'm saying is that my first identifier, for myself, how I think about myself, is not South Asian. What others think: well, that's not my emotional life. I can't and am not interested in directing that. Does that make sense?

actually razib, when a commenter says mainstream america will never except us, we are brown first: isn't that like saying you are South Asian before you are anything else? Maybe I'm misunderstanding :) ?

Seriosuly though, MD to my mind brings up a good point. vis a vis diaspora identity. Razib probably has a theory on this, with evidence, but its almost like we're at a new place here, where national identity is some countries is much less ethnically tied. The unfortunate violence of the last few years has somewhat retarted this development, but I think its pretty cool. And "brand desis" are at the forefront of the global citizen trend. I love Woody Guthrie and Abraham Lincoln, I am somewhat verses in particularly american idioms, I also know who the Sugar Hill Gang is, and I know a little bit about Ghalib, and a bit more about Waris Shah. And also Baba Ambedhkar. All this goes to say, we are in a way new men and women here and lets celebrate that. All the ig'nance that gets in the way notwithstanding. Do we have time for power politics in India, B'desh, Sri Lanka, Pak? I'm fully ok with people from India being proud to be Indian. Go on with your goonda selves

A google news search on "Indian American" turned up 257 hits. South Asian American turned up 109 (most of which had nothing to do with South Asian Americans.) So "Indian-American" certainly exists as a category in the American media.

Razib I do not mind Brown, but I think Mexicans will eventually co-opt it.

So long as the great majority of immigrants from the subcontinent are from India, the Indian (as opposed to the South Asian identity) will certainly have continued salience (and I am presuming there will continue to be some immigration in the future). This would not be as easy to do in England, given that Bangladeshis and Pakistanis are represented in greater numbers.

I believe that Trinidadians refer to themselves as Indians in Trinidad; they haven't developed any sort of South Asian identity. Note that the Indian (and Hindu and Muslim)identities have endured even as caste identities have disappeared.

"..we are in a way new men and women here and lets celebrate that."

Sahej - I love that.

md, i know what you're saying. i know that you grew up in iowa 10 years before i grew up in eastern oregon, but my hometown newspaper had a story titled 'the blacks of our county' in 1990 when they surveyed all the black people who lived in the whole county and had little stories about them (there were 15), so i think we share some common experiences. but in regards to the brown thing, well, my point is addressed at those who think that distinctions between indian and pakistani are going to be extremely relevant in how one relates to the mainstream society. i.e., i don't have a problem personally if sikhs went around with t-shirts that said 'i'm not a muslim' after islamic terrorist attacks, but i'm skeptical as to their value because the retards who beat the shit out of people after such attacks just want to beat up 'ragheads,' details of accuracy aren't relevant to them (as i noted when i pointed out that sudanese christian refugees in atlanta were beaten up by local blacks for being muslim). my parents told my relatives in bangladesh that after 9-11 they felt really bad for the sikhs, since they dress differently. if you would ask me what separates me from the typical american, i suspect i would list my atheism as #1, as that is generally considered more weird than even islam (check out the pew poll's recent surveys on this topic, the public perceives muslims more positively than atheists, hey, tim mcveigh might have been an atheist, but most people i meet assume he was a christian so that can't be it). to some extent one can shape one's own identity, i.e., i reject being called a muslim because that is my familial origin, and i have made a point here on sepia mutiny of correcting people when they term me as such (i.e., an 'atheist muslim') because i do not identify as such and do not adhere to the ethnic conception of islam some people have. on the other hand, south asiannness or brownness is less fungible by its nature. neither of these are particularly important identifiers to me, but they are roughly accurate, so i have no particular objection to them.

ah, I see, I was misunderstanding your point. But, in a way, I see that it sort of underscores it :) Those people that want to distinguish themselves from, say, Pakistanis are more likely to be first gen: they identify with a national and cultural identity: India. It has less relevance in the US, so that here, as Americans, identifying as South Asian makes more sense. Ahhh, lightbulb goes off.....

Don't I have an endearingly creative attitude toward punctuation?

actually razib, when a commenter says mainstream america will never except us, we are brown first: isn't that like saying you are South Asian before you are anything else? Maybe I'm misunderstanding :) ?

there are many people who will never accept you, but many people who will. i know numerous people in the latter category. in any case, i think society is changing a lot. as i have observed, when i was a kid i got complimented on my lack of accent and asked where i was from every few weeks. that happens perhaps once every 6 months now. re: south asiannness, i don't think that manish, abhi or anna are south asian before they are american (i'm speaking for them, so they can correct me, but i need some people to use as examples who are flesh and blood :), but south asianness is what distinguishes them from other americans, so that is the term that gets used. americanness is a background assumption that you take as a given. some ethnic types do reject americanness and dwell on their rejection (or perceived rejection) from mainstream society, and that is a different affair altogether.

“The thing is, edi…we are more similar than different. In this country, no one cares if you were rich back home, or if you were a Brahmin, or if you came from one side or the other of Punjab, because part is here in India and the other is there in Pakistan…you’re just a foreigner. Maybe your children won’t be considered such, but by then, who knows how many countries this will be,” he concluded, fingers lightly tracing the subcontinent. “Be proud to be Indian, but don’t think that makes you better or different from your teacher or your Uncle Nasir. They aren’t Indian exactly, but in this country, that doesn’t matter and it never will.”

Anna, your father sounds like a truly remarkable man and you have my condolences. He sounds like my late grandma - at least, from what they tell me she was like.

You know, it's funny how similar your story is to mine. I grew up in a Malayali family (I'm half Malu, quarter Tamil and quarter Kannadiga), I had a Sri Lankan nanny(I learned about half my Tamil from her, and then forgot almost all of it when I came to America) and I faced the same kinds of racism you did in school. lol However, I found the Native American kids were more accepting than the white kids. Sort of like "you're Indian, I'm Indian and were both getting put down by the Man. Wanna be friends?"

I'm a first generation Indian immigrant, but since I was only 9 when I came here, I behave like an ABCD and my Indian friends label me as such. I'm sure you can relate to all these various forms of racism: North Indian desis don't think you're Indian because you don't speak Hindi, White kids ask you what tribe you're from, other Asians think you're some kind of disgrace and refuse to consider you Asian..etc. Of course, there were and are individuals above such prejudices, but still, such moments do hurt.

The whole Indian vs. South Asian thing seems pretty silly. I mean, why claim you're Indian at all? If you're so intent on such nationalism, why not call yourself Hindustani? I'd prefer being called South Asian for simply geographical and cultural reasons. Most East Asians/Orientals don't accept or awkwardly accept Indians as "Asian", while Middle Easterners wouldn't consider Indians among them at all(and vice versa). I guess the same would go for Bangladeshis, Pakistanis, Nepalis and possibly Afghans as well. South Asia has a culture and history distinct from the rest of Asia.

However, this did bring up a random question in my mind. Who are the North Asians? I though Russians referred to themselves as European.

Razib probably has a theory on this, with evidence, but its almost like we're at a new place here, where national identity is some countries is much less ethnically tied.

there were several waves of jewish emigration to the USA. the two primary ones were the mid-19th century bavarian-german one, and the 1900ish east european one. when the east europeans came they were separated between galicians, litvaks, hungarians, etc., but they were an amorphous uncouth east european mass before the german jews ('our crowd'). eventually the homogenized east european jewry absorbed the german jews so that askhenazi jews in the USA today usually don't have a strong identification as 'polish jewish' vs. 'hungarian jewish' (most are mixed).

btw, i suspect 'south asian' identity will be mostly a hindu-sikh affair. i think muslims who are 'into their heritage' will be absorbed into the islamic american subculture, and christians will in general be absorbed into the general american matrix, but i don't know enough about this topic really to do anything more than guess.

MD,

Since last five months I have been visiting SM, we get along quite well. We have different political affiliations but sometimes I agree with you more here than the group of people I identify with (liberal ideals).

Don’t you think you claim of being an “Me, an American only” is technically and emotionally correct and well within your rights and dreams but also shows that deep down you always feel your Americaness is in mortal danger and needs to be defended every second. Why this insecurity? Nothing wrong with proud and all that…but still. America is a great country, and nobody will take it from you (unless you act like Bobby Fisher) so why wrap the flag at all times.

I have a lot of Cajun friends – there as American as Apple pie but all of them (I mean all of them I know – one of them had his soldier cousin killed in Afghanistan a few months ago) will never compromise their distinct identity. The same holds with Texans – they always sem-seriously tell you that they want to cede from the American federalism [Between Texas and Louisiana, I have lived 10 years there]. All the Oregon cowboys tell me how rest of the country is “bunch of …”. Abhi and I work in same field – he will tell you we have very little minority in them unlike your profession – most of the people I work and hang around hardly even ever mention being American – years pass by.

Hmm, iconoclast, lone, cowboy – a hell of lot of folklore or from Clint Eastwood spaghetti westerns (which I enjoy a lot). The truth is that a lot of American immigration occurred through ghettoization – Italian immigrants would move to towns where they were Italian-Americans and then name streets from their home country. All towns in upstate New York are Greek – Utica, Seneca, Ithaca – because the chief surveyor was a Greek immigrant.

I mean not take away anything from you, don't take me too seriously – Happy New Year. Anna, excellent story.

Who are the North Asians? I though Russians referred to themselves as European.

historical point: peter the great (early 18th century) was important getting russia declared part of 'the west' and europe. before that orthodox russia was not viewed as part of 'europe,' whose frontiers were at poland-lithuania. these definitions are to some extent imposed constructions. remember, hindus weren't a unitary religion until muslims declared them as such.

Utica, Seneca, Ithaca

hm. well, i don't know, re: greek, seneca was a roman (latin) statesmen, not a greek one. i do not believe that the 'seneca' indians call themselves seneca, so that can't be the origin.

Razib,

That what I thought when I arrived Ithaca.....untill dozen of Cornell professors told me over dinners and lunches. If I have time, I look up at the history of upstate NY or email one of them - they will surely laugh why am I asking them now - I'll tell them about Sepia Mutiny.

Kush Tandon - funny, I thought of it as a celebration and intellectual riff, but I can see how it could read that way. Isn't interesting how one can try to explain oneself and it's still not enough?

Kush, despite being an MD (ha, ha) I'm not an analytical person. I'm not razib :) If you asked me to explain myself I'd sooner paint a painting than use a set of words to lay an argument....I'm not being defensive or trying to wrap myself in the flag. I'm being emotional and exploring my own emotional terrain. I'm not insecure in my beliefs or in who I am (well, not more than most, I should think). Dude, it's a riff, it's poetry, as I wrote on another blog, it's emotional poetry....what I mean to say when I'm American is what others mean when they say they are South Asian and not Indian. It's how they feel.

i'm not denying the greek surveyor. i'm just saying that seneca is latin from what i know. seneca seems to have been their gens (family) name from what i can tell, so i suspect it would be latin in origin....

MD,

Peace, we are often allies here @ SM except Bush-talk. I was being funny too.

No, I also understand that as a woman, American ideals has a special place for you.

actually, as an arty-farty loon with pretensions of, er, arty-fartyness, all my crazy mixed up ideals have a special place for me. I swear, I'm so going abstract after this thread (see Stuart Davis and Jackson Pollock....:) )

I'm fully ok with people from India being proud to be Indian. Go on with your goonda selves

Gee, thanks. Do you need to badmouth Indians/Pakistanis/whatever in order to feel good about your "south asian" identity?

It is understandable that a central theme of the "South Asian" identity is an attempt to distinguish this identity from that of the "native South Asians." It seems to me that this is being done by positing that the "South Asians" are not encumbered by the caste/nationalistic/religious divides that plague South Asia, and thus presumably characterize the "native South Asians." Implicitly, it is being asserted that "South Asians" are superior to the "natives" because they are more open-minded and tolerant.

All this is fine, even if somewhat hurtful to a native South Asian. I suppose we all "validate" our own identities by asserting our "superiority" to others. One only has to look at the Hindutva characterization of Muslims and the converse or for that matter, some Indian representations of Pakistanis and the reverse to see this in action. If characterizing all Indians as goondas - yes I can imagine you saying, no not all - helps you do this, fine.

As an Indian with quite a few Indian-American cousins, I can appreciate the problem of identity. I also appreciate the insensitivity that characterizes many Indians (probably also Pakistanis/Bangladeshis/Sri Lankans though I don't know that much about them) when they fail to appreciate that Indian-Americans are *not* Indians. But paying back one misrepresentation with another: is that the way to go?

"go on with your goonda selves" is an attempted pun on the american saying, "go on with your bad selves". Its a positive saying. I substituted "goonda" for "bad"

suresh, i think you make some good points. the key is that, back to my tendency to categorize, we need to be careful to break down the various groups into their constituents. or, we need to give people the benefit of the doubt that such habits are background assumptions and that they are making a case in good faith. myself, i think that the posters on this weblog are relatively fair to browns in brownland, though they express a definite outsider viewpoint with outsider priorities. the 'problem' that anna alludes to is, i think, from newbie non-american browns who misunderstand the core focus of the posters and assume that indian/brown/south asian american == indian, etc. then there is the debate between brown americans between those who perceive a 'big tent' sense of brownness vs. those who perceive a 'small tent' sense of hindu & indian american sense of brownness. then, there are people, like 'kumar,' who are cautious about focusing on brownness if it would dilute their own particular ethno-religious identities which they find precious.

lol Sahej, you should probably add in a "(pun intended)" next time.

btw, i suspect 'south asian' identity will be mostly a hindu-sikh affair. i think muslims who are 'into their heritage' will be absorbed into the islamic american subculture, and christians will in general be absorbed into the general american matrix

Bingo, which is why so many people are averse to the whole South Asian thingy and prefer Indian-American. Heck, if its going to be predominantly Hindu, then why not Hindu-American? Atheists and agnostics can be "cultural Hindus". Jewish-American certainly works, and no one associates that identity with bigotry or nationalism. We are goddamn mionorities ourselves, why do we have to develop a coalition with everyone else from the region when the benefits of such a coalition are so few (maybe even negative), except in a few instances, like the coalition of taxi drivers in nyc. And don't kid yourselves, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis aren't lining up to be South Asians. Only Indians are.

It seems to me that this is being done by positing that the "South Asians" are not encumbered by the caste/nationalistic/religious divides that plague South Asia, and thus presumably characterize the "native South Asians." Implicitly, it is being asserted that "South Asians" are superior to the "natives" because they are moe open-minded and tolerant.

Bingo #2! And that natives--as opposed to the oh-so-enlightened "South Asians Americans"--are in need of reform. In the process they are attacking their own identity and it breeds, IMO, a good deal of self-hate in some of the "activists".

Static identities are impossible, pointless, unrealistic and hinder growth. This is not to say I don't love my heritage, religion, languages and overall culture, but what good is all that if I am not functional (and nice while at it) in my current reality? Pf what use is being an Indian at an NFL game or South Asian while being a general asshole?

Subtext: People are different and the way of the world does not encourage homogeneity. Thank goodness for that.

then why not Hindu-American

you've seen the problems on this very website: sikhs and jains do not necessarily want to be part of the 'hindu american' identity because they do not usually consider themselves hindus even if hindus (this is contentious obviously). additionally, you should note that two of the individuals who are central to SM are from christian backgrounds (i do not believe that vinod is religious though). even if something is predominantly x, that does not mean that it is necessarily judicious to define it as x.

Bingo #2! And that natives--as opposed to the oh-so-enlightened "South Asians Americans"--are in need of reform. In the process they are attacking their own identity and it breeds, IMO, a good deal of self-hate in some of the "activists".

this is the kind of crap i am talking about. how do you know how they define their own identity??? perhaps they do not want to be associated with x & y (good for the goose is good for the gander!). when a given culture shifts into an alien matrix it mutates and evolves into something new. jewish american culture is just that, it is not the shtetl culture, neither is it the sophisticated vienna assimilated culture. american jews have never had any compunction of attacking and disagreeing with both the reactionary medievalism of orthodoxy & hasidism, or, the strident secularism of non-orthodox jews in europe. the USA is particular in that its jewry have developed a vibrant non-orthodox religious culture. the 'south asian,' predominantly, but not solely, hindu, american culture is likely going to be very different from that of south asia. if it criticizes indian norms and forms, that is not self-hate, because it is not indian, it is indian american (or south asian, or whatever).

p.s. as a matter of personal preference i have many disagreemants with 'activists,' but i tend to think accusations of 'self hate' are not in good faith because likely a given person is acting in their own interest, even if you can't understand it because you aren't them.

as a matter of personal preference i have many disagreemants with 'activists,' but i tend to think accusations of 'self hate' are not in good faith because likely a given person is acting in their own interest, even if you can't understand it because you aren't them.

Woah! I hit a nerve. Sure, dissidents, loners, ascetics, people who adopt other cultures--I welcome it all, and you are right, it may be self-love and not self-hate that motivates them. Who am I to say.

we need to give people the benefit of the doubt that such habits are background assumptions and that they are making a case in good faith

Sadly, I dont see much good faith in most of the comments by the Anti-South Asian crowd.
To flame further, I know this Indian American dude who is rooming with a Pakistani American and a week back in a discussion, they both said that it was easier to identify with the other than with people from back home.

Also the Indian American guy is nominally Hindu while the Pakistani American is Muslim.

For people who have grown up in the US, there is a lot more in common in experiences with both their parents and the world at large between Indian and Pakistani Americans than some people think.
The values of the immigrant parents from both India and Pakistan are pretty similar, the obsession with their kids going into lucrative careers are pretty similar, the food, the cultural gaffes, the zany sayings, the frugalness,the scorn for American decadence and permissiveness are all similar in Indian and Pakistani households in the US.
The growing up experience is actually very similar. From 'desi' food to 'desi' music and movies to the treatment accorded by the other Americans is pretty similar.
So its no surprise that some Indian and Pakistani Americans might not see each other as that different.

On further reflection... I guess we are all a bundle of identities: gay or straight, Californian or New Yorker, Mets fan or Yankees fan, Pakistani, Bengali, Brahmin , Sudra, Christian and so on...adding South Asian doesn't matter that much. As the great Buddhist philospher Nagaruna might have said, all identities have no inherent existence, they are "empty". For example "gay" cannot exist without "straight", "Indian" cannot exist without a host of other competing identities like "Pakistani" or "American". "west" cannot exist without "east", "motion" cannot exist without "rest". Most of our self-identifications are dependent upon a critical appraisal of others (as Suresh points out), and that in itself is bondage--at a collective level it leads to patriotism or nationalism. Individually, in the Buddhist view, there is nothing there, there is no self, these identities are mere graspings, bubbles in the stream, the lead to attachment and unhappiness. It is the "quieting down" of mental conceptualizations that leads, in the Mahayana view, to enlightenment and to empathy for all beings, including our fellow humans.

the region has the highest fertlity rates. so, check back in 100 years and every other guy in the planet will be a south asian.

May I just point something out?

BBC News: SOUTH ASIA.

political anthropology points out that ethnicity is situational. it's fluid, not fixed; it's assigned or claimed in response to a variety of factors. in the united states, neither "indian" nor "south asian" has become entrenched enough yet in the mainstream culture to displace the other; in any case, such displacement would never be total. "desi" is gaining steam, but even if it became dominant (in the manner of "latino" or "african american"), that wouldn't settle the problem since different people have different views as to who the term "desi" includes.

what i'm saying here is, there's an identity that's up for grabs in the context of u.s. mainstream culture (mass media, school curricula, advertising demographics, whatever).

and therefore you get regular recurrences of the conversation that's taking place on this thread, including points taken to petty or absurd extremes.

but what's really getting played out is perceptions of self-interest, and ideology.

peace

the region has the highest fertlity rates.

africa & the middle east?

every blog should have a razib. :)

I have been thinking quite hard.........

Mohammed Ali calls himself African American. Why doesn't anyone from SM tell Mohammed Ali that he should only call himself American. Africans have a very special kinship with him, maybe a Suresh's equivalent from Africa (Comment #. 90) should tell him that he really is not an African.

Dr. Martin Luther King called himself African American.

At Texas A & M, my boss was an immigrant from Nigeria. He calls himself African American but never Nigerian American. An immigrant from Eriteria comes to America calls herself African American. Another immigrant comes from Ethopia, she calls herself African American. You know there is a war going on between Ethopia and Eriteria right now.

Have you ever met a Cajun who calls himself Cajun-American? Me never. Maybe, they are not Americans. At home, they do not even speak English often.

I have a friend from Ireland (now an American), he does not even bother calling himself anything. I asked him and he said, "Go to a bar and find some.........do not worry about details"

Me know nothing. Why? I am not that smart.

I was born in Libya, but they wouldn't give me citizenship because I wasn't a Muslim. I've spent most of my life in America. But I'm Malayalee.

I'm still confused why I should love India...

Is there any reason to do this? I am slowly finding "Desi" to be a good term to describe myself since I understand that my ancestery lies in Asia- or to be more exact, South Asia.

But seriously? Why do I have to love India? Or be proud of being Indian, or American, or anything for that matter?

Kush_Tandon wrote:

Mohammed Ali calls himself African American. Why doesn't anyone from SM tell Mohammed Ali that he should only call himself American. Africans have a very special kinship with him, maybe a Suresh's equivalent from Africa (Comment #. 90) should tell him that he really is not an African.

Eh? It's news to me that I have arrogated to myself the authority to tell others how to identify themselves - can you please explain how you inferred this from what I wrote?

And Eddie wrote:

Most of our self-identifications are dependent upon a critical appraisal of others (as Suresh points out), and that in itself is bondage--at a collective level it leads to patriotism or nationalism. Individually, in the Buddhist view, there is nothing there, there is no self, these identities are mere graspings, bubbles in the stream, the lead to attachment and unhappiness. It is the "quieting down" of mental conceptualizations that leads, in the Mahayana view, to enlightenment and to empathy for all beings, including our fellow humans.

For a fascinating discussion of the differences between the traditional Greek method of self-identification and the traditional Hindu and Buddhist methods of self-identification, may I recommend (apologies if you already know this source) Wilhelm Halbfass' "India and Europe: An Essay in Understanding"; see especially Chapter 11 "Traditional Indian Xenology."

I'm probably going to inadvertantly repeat what some other people here may have already said, but here goes.....

The bottom line is that I think the issue of self-identification should really be left up to the individual, unless there really is some kind of mass movement "on the ground" to officially identify certain groups one way or the other. If one is talking purely about ethnic identity, then yes, "South Asian" is probably the best term to describe us. However, if one delves deeeper into other cultural and/or social issues, then perhaps Indian-American, Pakistani-American etc may be better options. I already explained my own reasoning behind this in my earlier post (number 28). It depends on what the dynamics are on that side of the Atlantic.

By the way, to give another example, I believe that US-born Italians often refer to themselves as Italian-American and not "Mediterranean-American" -- although possibly this may be different if there were similar numbers of immigrants in the US with Spanish and Greek ancestry (I'm talking about relatively recent arrivals; in the case of the former, I'm not referring to Hispanics/Latin Americans). Just a spontanous analogy anyway, I could be way off the mark here.

A related but slightly off-topic question: Do first-generation desis over there in the US (parents' generation, not recent arrivals) happily identify themselves as American first and foremost, and are they happy for their children to do so ? The similar situation here in the UK could be a fairly controversial issue until fairly recently, with many parents not only refusing to identify themselves as British in any shape or form, but also being pretty hostile to the idea of their (adult) children doing so. Applying some armchair-psychology, this may be due to the colonial connotations of the term, along with the fact that (broadly-speaking) the UK isn't a "nation of immigrants" in the same way as the US, so the word "British" was usually interpreted as referring both racially and culturally only to the indigenous white population (again, until recently).

I thought it was a pertinent question, as the issue of "primary self-idenfication" can affect how much an individual/group feels a sense of belonging to the nation and culture one resides in, along with the level of goodwill or hostility towards the country of citizenship and the majority (in the case of the UK, also indigenous) population.

As long someone says they're American-South Asian, (or Brit-South Asian w/e) its fine by me. But its not fine if you choose to lump India together with some really "friendly" neighbours, and call me a South Asian, or represent Indians as South Asians. My identity has little to do with whether I'm friends with a Pakistani, Sri Lankan, Bangladeshi, etc., or If I like those countries. It has everything to do with me as an individual, and in being called "South Asian", I'm being denied being an Indian. If we're to generalise why stop at South Asian? Why not Asian? There are enough commonalities that one can come up with for any lame grouping. The point isn't the commonality (and if so, why stick with commonality in region only?), but the identity(besides, there are enough differences that can be pointed out). And I can hardly see how Indians and Pakistanis can identify themselves together.

Why does Indo-Pak commonality always have to emphasise on commonality of the Punjabi/North Indian with them? Seriously, there are enough people in India who share little with their Pakistani counterparts.

"ah, I see, I was misunderstanding your point. But, in a way, I see that it sort of underscores it :) Those people that want to distinguish themselves from, say, Pakistanis are more likely to be first gen: they identify with a national and cultural identity: India. It has less relevance in the US, so that here, as Americans, identifying as South Asian makes more sense."

Exactly. If, as a first-gen, you have grown up in India (or Pakistan), spent your life so far as an Indian and only an Indian and then you move abroad and now all of a sudden you have people who are 'brown' like you saying that it is 'right' and 'progressive' to now identify as a South Asian...wouldn't you be like 'huh'?!?!

If as an American you move abroad and all of a sudden you are recategorized as a 'North American' or just a 'Westerner' wouldn't you feel that was a bit odd?

A South Asian-American identity makes sense for 2nd gen (who choose it) because it refers to certain shared cultural characteristics - of family experiences, the feeling of growing up as an outsider, Bollywood, bhangra, food. But for those who are actually from India (or wherever) I think cultural characteristics are somewhat different, because they are more linked to the homeland - someone from Tamil Nadu does not even eat the same food from someone from Punjab, not everyone in India watches Bollywood as they may be more interested in regional film/music, etc...

I think Siddhartha touched on something I'd been batting around for a while. Identity is not only up to the individual, it's contextually what suits them. By way of example, I was recently filling out HR paperwork and the choices were the usual: White, Black/African-descent, Latino/Hispanic, and East Asian/Pacific Islander/South Asian. So in that instance I'm South Asian. If there was only one title heading for Asian, then I'm that. If they're progressive enough to name Indian Subcontinent or allow me to count as multicultural and allow me to specify which mix, then hell I will! Conversely, my Dad would always write in on such forms, "engineer". It's like the old biology classifications we learned in elementary school. Probe deeper and we all have subcategories-upon-subcategories to our personae.

If I go to workout at Lucille Roberts, then I'm categorized as a woman and perhaps fitness-conscious. If I go to a Jews for Jesus meeting, then I'm Jewish... If I go to a party thrown by Drunks With Dogs, then I'm a drunk and a dog-owner/-lover...whatever. We can be many things at many times; whether one person prioritizes their gender over their skin color or religion, political party affiliation or dietary preference... well, to each their own.

btw, i suspect 'south asian' identity will be mostly a hindu-sikh affair. i think muslims who are 'into their heritage' will be absorbed into the islamic american subculture,

Another quick point. If the latter happens, you'd better hope that the "Islamic American subculture" mentioned is more benevolent and compatible towards American society/culture (extrapolate that to Western society/culture) than the corresponding developments here in the UK. One of the reasons why so many problems have arisen here is because of Muslims from a South Asian background deciding that the version of Islam practised by their parents and South Asian (mostly Pakistani & Bangladeshi) co-religionists isn't "strict" enough as per what they perceive to be the "true" version of their faith, and they therefore want to be a part of the whole Middle Eastern interpretation (along with the pan-Islamic global Ummah mindset). The radicalisation has occurred when they don't identify (sufficiently) with their fellow non-Muslim South Asians on the basis of their shared ethnicity, and instead fall into the hands of non-South Asian Muslim elements or influences who don't have much respect for the more moderate Sufi interpretation and, of course, have no ethnically-derived empathy with South Asians at all. Apart from seeing significantly more hijabs/niqabs/burqas on the streets here in the UK in recent times, we also all know the disastrous consequences of where that particular road has led to here.

Of course, the "Islamic American subculture" may well be substantially more compatible and benevolent towards the United States, so let's fervently hope that the influence of non-South Asian Muslims over there is much more constructive than some of their counterparts in the UK, assuming that Razib is correct in his hypothesis that many desi Muslims won't buy into the whole South Asian mindset and will identify primarily with their co-religionists instead.

OKay peeps! Listen up! Here in America no one cares if you're Pakistani or Indian, Bangladeshi or Sri Lankan! We're all the same to them! On forms here the term "Asian" has always been used for anyone who is really from "East Asia." I think the whole "south asian" thing has come along because we want to have some heading for ourselves since Americans don't see Asians as brown Indians, Pakistanis, etc. Also, give it a break. When there's a chance to provide unity in a country where we're a minority, I say it's a good call. This is why we won't make any noise till we come together. peace out!

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/in.html

wow I thought India's fertility rate would be a little higher. the estimate is 2.78 children born per woman for 2005. wonder what it'd be without the infanticide that goes on.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/pk.html
pakistans 2005 estimate is 4.14 children born per woman.

i wonder if anyone had parents from nagaland and are nagas if they would identify themselves as Indian and if not what would they identify themself as.

i think indian is a better understood identity as the term south asian isn't really bandied about in popular culture in the US.

Why would Indians want you to identify as an Indian?

Or have a problem if you call yourself South Asian? We mostly dont want you to mix both of these term because when you do it you by default us in it.

you obviously have a problem because as I stated before some of you seem to think that South Asian is some sort of attempt "to tarnish your venerable (separate) identity?"

And we definately dont want to be called anything but Indian.

that's your perogative, no one is denying that you should have the right to define yourself down to the most miniscule aspect of your identity if you so choose.

Let me ask you this, what is your reaction to someone who refuses to call him/herself Indian and wants only to be identified as a Gujrati Brahmin because s/he thinks that by identifying with anything other than Guju Brahmin will pollute his/her identity?

And dont worry about supporting Indian team we have enough people in our country(outside too) to root for OUR team.

Yes, you have over-population problems, your point is?

Of course, the "Islamic American subculture" may well be substantially more compatible and benevolent towards the United States, so let's fervently hope that the influence of non-South Asian Muslims over there is much more constructive than some of their counterparts in the UK, assuming that Razib is correct in his hypothesis that many desi Muslims won't buy into the whole South Asian mindset and will identify primarily with their co-religionists instead.

american muslims who are no black tend to be more educated than the general population. their socioeconomic forwardness is a big palliative for the tendency to muslims to get medieval on other groups.

p.s. re: italians, note that italy was only 20-30 years old when most 'italian americans' showed up, and it is highly likely that these overwhelmingly southern italian peasants did not even know italian (based on florentine) but spoke a sicilian or calabrian dialect and had much stronger regional and local identifications than any national sense of italianness. you still have this manifest itself in references to 'our village in sicily' in the context of the italian american identity (which is operationally a south italian identity in terms of cultural markers like food, since very few northern italians proportionately emigrated to the USA and transmitted their folkways).

A related but slightly off-topic question: Do first-generation desis over there in the US (parents' generation, not recent arrivals) happily identify themselves as American first and foremost, and are they happy for their children to do so ?

In my experience, no. Many dream of going back; many by property in India; many opt for transnational living--six months there, six months with the grandkids here. They do not--again, in my experience-- object to their kids self-identifying as "American."

The primary reasons Indians immigrate---as we've discussed ad nauseam on this blog--is economic betterment. One does not have to "love America" to be succesful here. Hindus and Sikhs are the product of a pluarlistic framework where everyone is really a minority and where no jaati (caste) dominates more than a fifty mile radius. One learns to negotiate the system and eke out a place...and they have obviously been succesful. Indian Muslims are part of this framework too. Some Pakistani Muslims adopt a posture of civilizational "superiority" and anathemize the very large out-group, then, well then...

For the second-generation folks for whom "South Asian" is a feel-good thing, I'd advise them that the world does not exist to make them feel good; it would be appropriate to recognize reality.

Bobby Jindall has figured on these pages; no doubt people are aware that some "South Asians" (notably the Pakistani American Congress) opposed his run for the governorship of Louisiana, not because he is Republican, but because he is "Indian". I thought "Indian" didn't exist as a category for second-generation "South Asian"-Americans. So much for the "South Asian" identity.

Group think is a terrible thing. Perhaps good for survival, but, it curtails experience and creativity. On that note they should get rid of this abominable site ;)

For the second-generation folks for whom "South Asian" is a feel-good thing, I'd advise them that the world does not exist to make them feel good; it would be appropriate to recognize reality.

if you disagree with someone, fine. that's your prerogative, your right. in your argument, however, give them reason, not condescension. the former earns respect, the latter . . . loss of credibility.

If this blog focusses on "South Asian" issues, I dont see much evidence of it. Writing on issues, which I assume would be of importance to the non-Indian part of that community is largely lacking. There were some posts from cicatrix on Sri Lankan issues, but that was about it.

For instance I would assume that Pakistani's and Pakistani-Americans would be interested in the Punjabi-Sindhi political interplay on view over the Kalabagh dam issue, but I do not find any mention of it here.

If the participants in this collborative blog are passionate about being "South Asian", then shouldnt they working harder at this?

If this blog focusses on "South Asian" issues, I dont see much evidence of it. Writing on issues, which I assume would be of importance to the non-Indian part of that community is largely lacking. There were some posts from cicatrix on Sri Lankan issues, but that was about it. ... If the participants in this collborative blog are passionate about being "South Asian", then shouldnt they working harder at this?

There were some posts from cicatrix on Sri Lankan issues, but that was about it.

Actually, I believe that former guest blogger Ads (who is missed) had some excellent posts on SL as well. This blog has covered that part of South Asia even if the blogger themself was not Sri Lankan. I know, because I am and I notice.

For instance I would assume that Pakistani's and Pakistani-Americans would be interested in the Punjabi-Sindhi political interplay on view over the Kalabagh dam issue, but I do not find any mention of it here.

Critics of this blog would do well to keep mind that it is actually an American blog first, a South Asian one second. I was born here, I don't care about the Kalabagh dam. Most of my friends (whose parents are Indian) haven't even heard of it. When they do cover something in India or Pakistan, it's one of two situations

--- either it is major news, and would appear on my Google News page anyways, for example (like the IISC shooting)

--- it's whimsical or amusing or different (that little boy who ran so much)

--- it's part of larger social commentary on international human rights issues.

Readers who have a problem with this post are arguing about totally different things then their opponents are. No one is saying that in India or Sri Lanka, you should or have to call yourself South Asian. But if we do that here, why care?

"Critics of this blog would do well to keep mind that it is actually an American blog first, a South Asian one second"

1. I am critic of this blog (as I am sure most posters here are), in the sense that I am giving an opinion or making an observation rather than dsiapproving of anything on this blog.
2. I dare think that the authors of this blog write about what catches their fancy. If there is an explicit mandate I certainly dont see it anywhere.

No one is saying that in India or Sri Lanka, you should or have to call yourself South Asian. But if we do that here, why care?

As an FOB I learn a bit about the 2G South-Asian-American worldview, maybe you can learn about other people's opinions as well.

as long as opinions are offered respectfully. that is a problem that sometimes crops up in that there is a perception of asymmetry. though this weblog is run by 2nd gen brown americans ("south asians"), some 'native' or 1st gen indians seem to presume that they are more authentic and deserve pride of place by virtue of who they are (their closer relationship to historically brown nations). certainly when it comes to south asian considerations (i.e., in the brown motherlands) that is so, but sometimes that assumption bleeds over into topics which are specifically americo-centric. there fewer than 10 million "NRI/PIO" individuals outside of south asia, vs. 1+ billion browns in south asia, so there is a real demographic asymmetry, but this reality i think allows some to believe that the 10 million NRI/PIO are simply an addendum or extension upon the brown experience. the 2nd gen on the other hand has to by the nature of demographic reality take into account the 1+ billion browns in south asia, and so i think there is more reflexive reflection from that perspective. but on this weblog their concerns and viewpoints loom particularly large and do take center stage, something some do not seem to be able to understand (this is apart and beyond the intra NRI/PIO discussions that seem to erupt, as well as the divergent american and british and canadian perspectives).

Readers who have a problem with this post are arguing about totally different things then their opponents are. No one is saying that in India or Sri Lanka, you should or have to call yourself South Asian. But if we do that here, why care?

>>I dont think Indians are going to have issues if you(SA Americans) start calling yourself South Asians or Browns or whatever. Problem is when you start mixing SA with Indians. Because then you include Indians(There prolly are more Indians in US than SA Americans) into this mix. And i assure you not many Indians would like to be included into that. And we have pur reasons for opposing this some of which are explained here.
Sepia is a prime example of mixing India & SA quite frequently. It claims itself to be a SA but most of the times its banner on top contain images related to INDIA. It conviniently forgets to mention that its not an Indian blog when its name is mentioned as INDIAN in big shot news items. SA and Indian are two different identities and least you can do is not mix them. Please.

SA and Indian are two different identities and least you can do is not mix them. Please.

impossible. the former contains the latter.

i take my role as "evangelist" for this blog pretty seriously-- i'm fairly sure i'm the only one who was dorky enough to print business cards with sepiamutiny.com on them, with "mutineer" as my title. :)

anyway, i've spoken to cable news channels, print media, documentary filmmakers etc...i have ALWAYS called us a South Asian blog. i think we all refer to SM that way, or we say "brown"...i've never heard abhi or manish use "Indian" to describe this space. if someone who writes or produces something about us calls us "Indian" after we inform them that we are SAA or brown, sure, we can contact them and correct them, but we don't have any control over their actions after that (just like we couldn't control their conflation of "Indian" and "South Asian" initially, when we used the latter).

i'm a south asian american. i almost never say "south asian" without "american" right afterwards, to answer someone fifty comments or so ago. i don't identify like that to piss any of YOU off, i do it b/c it's the truth, as i see and know it. if you have such a problem with that OR this weblog which dilutes and pollutes you...then to quote Mozz, "why do you come here? and why-h-hy-h-hy-h-hy do you hang around?"

like other commentators, i use different identities at different times. i use south asian often in circumstances where i am seeing a unifying reason to be categorized with people from south asian countries in addition to india. like if i were to be at a peace meeting btwn india-pak i would say, yeah South Asians for peace! So there you go, people using "south asian" use it because they love peace. yay!

Hear, hear, Anna

Brown is brown, politicians and their agendas aside...most of the divisions in the brown world (PAk, Bangla, etc.) are results of post-colonial divide and conquer games. Hey, not unlike Iraq!

Anna, to quote Mozz is interesting - always loved The Smiths (Marr especially). But what do you make of "Bengali in Platforms"??

most of the divisions in the brown world (PAk, Bangla, etc.) are results of post-colonial divide and conquer games. Hey, not unlike Iraq!

i would argue that a pan-brown indian identity was generated by muslim and european attempts to centralize the culture.* anyway, sorry, i get ancy when i hear terms like 'post-colonial.'

* not to deny that aryvarta and the subcontinent has a whole had some overall sense of difference vis-a-vi persia or china, for example, but i think the overall sense of indianness, and even bengaliness, emerged only in the last few centuries. this is not unique to browns of course

Fair point, Razib - but i did not refer to "indianness". I am referring to political/sovereign divisions specifically. Bottom-line is that we SA's all have more in common than we have differences. Not unlike all humans in general, if you want to talk genome...

this conversation has taken an interesting, possibly useful turn. bongdongs (#122) makes the point that the subcontinental references here tend to be indian, which of course will lead those who are only interested in indian references (as opposed to other south asian countries and emigrant experiences) to claim the content as "indian" and not "south asian." (and so doing, to claim this blog as "indian" -- it's a testament to the success of what the mutineers have built here that people are making competing claims about its identity.)

this has been discussed in previous threads on this topic, but it's true that pretty much the only "south asian but not indian" subcontinental authorial perspectives here have come from cicatrix and ads, who identify as sri lankan. (plenty more in the comments, also mainly sri lankan-identifieds.)

it was also brought up, again in a previous thread that i'm too lazy to look up, that it would be interesting and worthwhile to have a pakistani-identified voice here from time to time. there are lots of progressive "desis with pakistani identification" out there who share the overall perspective anna states at #128. i for one would love to see such a guest blogger sometime.

one advantage of bringing in such a voice is that it would make very clear to the "india only" crowd that this blog is not only not what they want it to be, but is in fact opposed to what they want it to be.

some of them will find it interesting and engage in respectful debate.

some of them will raise their objections to a crescendo, but only in some threads that the rest of us don't have to read.

some of them will go away.

it sounds like a win-win for me.

peace, from this south-asian-american-mixed-race-pluri-cultural-situationally-self-identified-and-always-in-creative-flux-otherwise the-brain-goes-stale-and-the-soul-goes-sour brother

re: pak, what about ikram saeed? ikram & i don't agree on much, but i think he'd be an obvious candidate.

i think the indo-centric view is sensible though, over 3/4 of south asia's population is in india proper, and over 4/5 of american browns are is of indian national origin or their parents are.* this weblog is not about perfect proportionalism, and it shouldn't be, it is the voice of authors, and to a less extent the readers in the comments. punjabi and mallu concerns loom rather large seeing as how the 2 of the principles are punjabi in origin and two are malayalee even though these two ethnicities aren't that numerous in india itself. and seeing as how sri lanka has only 20 million people, that angle has been pretty well covered too.

as anna said, if you don't like, don't read it. it is what it is.

* i'm ignoring that brits and canadians to some extent, but a blog needs focus. and it is up to manish & co anyway.

i agree with you, razib. and this is not a democratic forum, nor the united nations; it's the extended living-room of six very hospitable cultural creators, and they can do whatever the hell they want. the pakistan/india thing is a bit special though, because of the animosities. the south-asian-american in me would love to get some insight into the specifically pakistani global diaspora, and see the world as a progressive, positive-spirited member of that diaspora might see it. and i think it would be a cool addition here, even if just on an occasional or temporary basis. i'm just musing out loud here, respectfully as i'm just a guest, and constructively i hope, as i'm a regular.

peace

and happy new year to you all!

well, i wasn't criticizing you sid. just pointing out that one problem with popular weblogs is readers sometimes forget who built the house and is cooking the dinner :)

don't worry brother, i didn't take it as a criticism. and i agree with you.

peace

Vick #127:
I agree with you. America is a nation where skin color is the most predominant denominator. Creating a grouping called brown/south asian is a natural outcome of the need for security/identity based on skin color. Since "south asian" immigrants are still a new people, 2nd generation immigrants will continue to borrow and harp on themes/ideas from their lands of orgin till such a time they come up with something that is uniquely their own. Identity needs content: what better than India and her shenanigans?

India and Indians will continue to suffer till "SOuth Asians" branch out with their own new culture and other paraphernalia! But, as somebody above said this is a site for "South Asians". The best Indians can do in this war of memes is to learn to fund and market their own unique identity as distinct from and incompatible to other nations from the region.

India and Indians will continue to suffer till "SOuth Asians" branch out with their own new culture and other paraphernalia!

and the world will continue to suffer til bollywood costume designers branch out with their own new designs and paraphernalia, instead of using four-year old american shit. everyone borrows from everyone else. that's just how the world works. fluid, elastic...not so easily separated.

contd:
The ability to shape and transmit information is very important in terms of identity wars. This, regardless of the
veracity of information being transmitted. What matters is effective marketing arms which in America translates into academic and media influence. The shapers and the transmiters of knowledge. Indian Americans are begining to fund academia and are doing so on their terms. This should undercut the influence the "South Asian" lobby has in this country. That Indians and South Asians have something in common is a big lie that needs to be nailed. "South Asian" is suicide for India and Indian Americans. As regards "hanging around here", as long as info from India is being bandied about here, Every Indian has a right to critique and comment on the contents thereof. Perhaps, the writer should leave India alone and stick to something closer to his/her turf.

"can you please explain how you inferred this from what I wrote?"

Suresh,

I am sorry. I read your comment again - I misread you. My mistake.

I did want to state that identification is a very tricky thing and was using Mohammed Ali for a reason - his role in identifying with African and vice versa. Also the whole .........Vietnam War and its fall out, and most importantly "In Zaire" thing, it is quite fascinating thing.

That Indians and South Asians have something in common is a big lie that needs to be nailed.

right, except that the majority of us wacky "South Asians" ARE Indian. you can hate on me all you want if you'd like, but my dna ain't gonna change; i was born to Indian parents. i'm a SAA of INDIAN descent. that guarantees that Indians and SAs have something in common-- ME.

Perhaps, the writer should leave India alone and stick to something closer to his/her turf.

ooooooooh, scared of YOU. what's gorgeous is how i don't have to leave India alone. unlike you, she isn't so bothered by all this. she wouldn't have survived, absorbed, evolved and thrived the way she has if she were.

Abhinava

The ability to shape and transmit information is very important in terms of identity wars.

This, regardless of the veracity of information being transmitted. What matters is effective marketing arms which in America translates into academic and media influence. The shapers and the transmiters of knowledge. Indian Americans are begining to fund academia and are doing so on their terms. This should undercut the influence the "South Asian" lobby has in this country. That Indians and South Asians have something in common is a big lie that needs to be nailed.

As regards "hanging around here", as long as info from India is being bandied about here, Every Indian has a right to critique and comment on the contents thereof. Perhaps, the writer should leave India alone and stick to something closer to his/her turf.

PS visit pickledpolitics. Its a some what similar to SM dealing with 'asian' socio politico blog from UK it sucks.
IMNHO Thats an example of how not to do this kind of thing.
Also the banners on SM are quite good except for arundhati

Second Abhinava's comment most sincerely. This site is nothing without its 'India' connection. Take India away and there isn't much left for any discussion of import and dare I say it, of interest. No amount of 'South Asian' inclusiveness, without the necessary recognition of India's primacy in the general scheme of things is going to carry this weblog very far.

Why then continue to subsume India and Indians in the vague and pointless SA appelation?

Finally, to the weblog creators' point about 'why be here, if you are not ready to go along with us?', one can only repeat Abhinav's comment: If India is being discussed in a public forum, you can bet an Indian will put on record his view or in this case, his protest.

Here is my 2 cents FWIW. The SA moniker is not one brought about by the oh-so-kindred-spirit-and-common-brotherhood of 2nd gen desis. It is a moniker that has been adopted out of necessity to increase/feel more secure in one's brownness in the face of a white majority.

While appreciative of the typical 2nd gen's need to scurry under the SA cover, it is worth noting that a parent nation's identity isn't hostage to an immigrant's need for social/cultural security in his/her adopted land.

SA, as a term is is convenient. Reality, however, is not.

Peace and out

Finally, to the weblog creators' point about 'why be here, if you are not ready to go along with us?', one can only repeat Abhinav's comment: If India is being discussed in a public forum, you can bet an Indian will put on record his view or in this case, his protest.

mein gott in himmel, you make it sound like we're hating on India, forcing you to nobly defend her. hardly. (now you know why i threw my sincere declaration of love for the motherland in here...somewhere) we're not asking you to kiss our collective ass or "go along with us", we're all about discussion and RESPECTFUL dissent. an online adda if you will. i quoted "suedehead" for a reason, and it wasn't "agree with us or bugger off". more like "if you're so vexed, why come to a party you HATE?"

...listen to me
when i want to speak
about the world we live in
and life in general
though my views may be wrong
they may even be perverted
...hear me out and don't easily be converted
to my way of thinking
in fact...often disagree
but at the end of it all...understand me.

~m. gore

(i can't believe i got to see him sing it live.)

dear wheatish ones... now that you're done ruminating the shades of brown... a gentle nudge towards the clock ticking down... why so early you may ask... well, here's the long version. i was burying some demons in the woods the past few days ... the trip came to a sorry end when i was crossing a creek, my snowshoe got caught in some driftwood and I landed knee first on a large rock... the knee was followed by the rest of me and my big-ass backpack into the not-quite frozen stream... my much-abused watch (that's the thing with us guys - we dont leave off when things get rusty or chipped or dinged or frayed) may have seen this one abuse too many - because it is now reading MU 1 - 6:35 pm folks... So I looked down right now and thought... what the heck, it's a good excuse... and ta-daa---preeee... let me ring in the new year with ring a ding song... trust me on this, it's worth the click... the song is topical... so make merry and go into the new year with a little bit of good cheer, you hear...

from your greying biraadher from the north.

Crane. Denny Crane. :)
*Testing whether anyone is actually reading the comments before posting*

Dhaavak was that a sly vote for indian id or was that hedging bets.
The problem with those who are sticking with indian over SA is simply this.
A group did not want to call itself indian.
It created a ruckus to get its way.
Fine Good Riddance(damn the riddance was one sided so not so it wasnt that good!)
Now why the hell is there a desire for a common identity now!.
chal phut

अर्ज किया था हमने एक अमरीकी मियाँ से|
जिसने iselin में indo-pak store खोला था|
बाप को चाहिये था पाकिस्तान बाँट दिया उसने हिँदूस्तान|
बेटे ने चन्द काफ़ीरी पैसों के लिये जोड़ दिया indo-pak |
चलोँ हम तुझे हज़ारोँ बर्फ़ीयों का order देँगें |
लेकिन पहले नाम तो जरा hindu-pak कर दे |

"The SA moniker is not one brought about by the oh-so-kindred-spirit-and-common-brotherhood of 2nd gen desis. It is a moniker that has been adopted out of necessity to increase/feel more secure in one's brownness in the face of a white majority.

While appreciative of the typical 2nd gen's need to scurry under the SA cover, it is worth noting that a parent nation's identity isn't hostage to an immigrant's need for social/cultural security in his/her adopted land."

Beautiful Karmacola! "South asian" has interesting anthropological and psychological connotations. I have nothing against those that seek such an identity. Just don't make India subservient to your flights of fancy.

Just don't make India subservient to your flights of fancy.

Abhinava, I think you hit the nail right on the head. One of the main reasons why I passionately despise the SA-label is because of the overt campaign by Indian lefties, particularly academics, to use "South Asian" identity as opposed to an Indian one, as an explicit instrument of promoting their anti-India agenda in all fields of social sciences and the media. It is their explicit and consciuos attempt to conflate Hindu fundamentalism with Indian-ness and attribution of "progressive" ideas with South Asian-ness that is the root cause of this identity war. In academia, being a "South Asian" is almost a codeword for all sorts of anti-India crap such as promoting the AIT, identifying India and Indianness with the Caste-Curry-Cow-Dowry stereotypes, denigrating Hinduism and going as far as to ascribe the very idea of India as a colonial construct. I understand that this is not the South Asian-ness as explained by the writers of this blog, but a result of the aggressive campaign by leftist morons is that the artifical South Asian identity they have created has come to mean identification with "progressive" (i.e., retrogressive Marxist crap) agenda while an assertion of Indian identity is considered synonymous with a Hindu fundie agenda. Obviously, this is bound to make any nationalust Indian very angry.

All of us, including the writers of this blog, are part of creating the Indian identity in the US. They unfortunately happen to be on the side of the South Asia-wallahs, but the reasons for their choosing the SA identity for themselves are different. However, I suspect that if an SA-identoty meme is created, it will be based upon the constructs of the academic SA-wallahs and not the superficial food-dance-bollywood-brown skin commonalities that the writers of this blog ascribe their SA-ness to.

Anna, your childhood story was quite fascinating. Thank you for sharing it.

Its without question that dissent in any form needs to be respectful and restrained......uncalled for personal and semi-vitriolic comments have been aplenty from both the sides.

thanks Anna for a remarkable thread and am sorry the constructive critcism got lost somewhere......just a clarification though......regarding your point about why come to a party you hate......its kinda important as to what exactly u mean by hate.if someone was to believe strongly that 'south asia' is detrimental to 'india'(i am not saying that I think it is),its natural that he/she would come to a 'south asian' party to try and convert....as long as the discussion is civil and the bullets intellectual,it should still be welcome.

goes without saying that you guys got a good thing going with this blog.....i find most of your posts interesting and better still,relevant to even a first generation like me.every now and then however, someone amongst the fab8 does post/say something i dont agree with....or,i strongly disagree with.....thats not 'hate'.

and if by "hate" u mean rabid rantings permeated with the air of moral-superiority,
a) there have been plenty from both the sides
b)I remember some posts in the past which invited typically bigoted and xenophobic comments from some kkklan-ish types and i remember u taking the battle to them....but u never asked them to 'leave the party'.....if the doors to the party were not closed for those people,then why should they be........."

I dunno.....maybe I am being hypersensitive about the whole thing.

On a different note,can someone guide me to a blog where people;
1.discuss cricket
2.make fun of Bollywood but still watch the movies out of 'aadat'
3.make fun of ToI but still read it,again out of 'aadat'
4.discuss Chetan Bhagat
5.give two hoots about whatever happens to Bobby Jindal
6.can relate to the bliss that the 'paranthas' at the hostel cafetaria were.

me out now.....take care and have a safe and happy new year......

regarding your point about why come to a party you hate......its kinda important as to what exactly u mean by hate.if someone was to believe strongly that 'south asia' is detrimental to 'india'(i am not saying that I think it is),its natural that he/she would come to a 'south asian' party to try and convert....as long as the discussion is civil and the bullets intellectual,it should still be welcome.

discussion and debate (when civil) are more than welcome :) but since i am someone who shudders at aggressive "conversions" of a religious variety, surely you're not surprised that i'm consistent and thus slightly aghast when people at our neverending cocktail party here try to convert others. i would never go to their "house" and insult their choice of self-definitions or try and convince them that they are wrong and should embrace MY line of thinking.

goes without saying that you guys got a good thing going with this blog...

thank you. :)

i find most of your posts interesting and better still,relevant to even a first generation like me.every now and then however, someone amongst the fab8 does post/say something i dont agree with....or,i strongly disagree with.....thats not 'hate'.

no, it's not hate at all and i'm sorry if i made it sound like it was. nofixed, i've never felt like you were unpleasant or disrespectful. i'm glad you're here, in fact, i love when ALL 1Gs read us. not surprising, considering how i was crowned "Queen of the FOBs" in grad school. ;)

and if by "hate" u mean rabid rantings permeated with the air of moral-superiority,

a) there have been plenty from both the sides

b)I remember some posts in the past which invited typically bigoted and xenophobic comments from some kkklan-ish types and i remember u taking the battle to them....but u never asked them to 'leave the party'.....if the doors to the party were not closed for those people,then why should they be........."

no, because we just delete and ban those people.

i'm not asking anyone here to leave. no one has been THAT much of a jackass. it's more like...i'm curious as to why they would continue to stick around a place which they find so stupid and infuriating. it was me being perplexed vs defiant.

please understand what it's like on "our" end: our parents chose to come here and worked tirelessly to give us a beautiful life...and we have that academically or financially, but not necessarily in other ways, especially when looking back at our younger years. for those of us who, like me, grew up as the ONLY brown kid at school, integrating and enlightening as we went about life while wishing we could just be normal kids without the baggage of "difference", the process of self-definition may inspire eye-rolling dismissiveness but that's not kind. "Indian" in this country means feather, not us. i didn't know the word "desi" until college and that's fine for within our circles, but it means nothing to someone who ain't brown.

my father instilled an all-consuming passion for India's history, art and languages within me, and when i was younger, i begged him to let me go to berkeley to study it. what would've been on my degree? "south asian studies". which made perfect sense to me, since my father was born in a place which didn't include a "pakistan" or a "bangladesh". the ancient archaeological sites i am most fascinated with are now in pakistan. the bengali ex-bf i almost married came from a family which left bangladesh for kolkata. choosing "Indian" always made me feel like i was behind a barrier, kept away from those spaces. and yes, in this country, where we are defined by the majority, i do feel a sense of familiarity among other brown, no matter where they are from. when davis FINALLY got a south asian restaurant, i didn't care that it was actually nepali, nor did i adore the people who worked there any less effusively. when you've spent your whole life apart, you're a lot less sanctimonious about whom you identify or create bonds with.

:+:

incidentally, i have no problems with TOI. :) i always thought that was a first gen thing, to hate on them. "slimes of india" etc. ;)

wow. this is a hall-of-fame quality thread. the kind that academics, pollsters and marketers will use as evidence. (and argue about what it means.)

all i can say is the more i read some of these comments, the prouder a south asian i become.

it's amazing how much overt contempt some of the commenters have for the authors of this blog. and the need they have to voice it in disrespectful terms.

you guys are providers of bad energy.

but hey, go on with your bad selves.

anna, keep on keeping on, girl.

peace and a happy new year to all lovers and haters alike.

TOI is not very good, but i read it occasionally in web form. It takes a long time to download. My favorite paper in India is the Tribune of Chandigarh,{ which has an excellent web edition. I usually make sure to check out what is happening in Ludhiana district. I like cricket, and have watched India-Pak games late into the night. I usually know when to say, "that was a cracking shot". I am not up on the latest lingo, but I know the order is Aus-then everybody else. "We" are better than the Brits, which is always nice. "We" are usually better than SL, The Windies, and (um) I won't touch how "we" compare with Pak, too contentious to take on just right now. I would like to see an IIT north of Dehli. I know the three regions of Indian Punjab, Majha, Malwa, and Doaba, and I know which region has the most emiigrants (Doaba). Ludhiana district is in Malwa. I know Gurgoan (sp) is the tech capital in North India, and "our" answer to the hubs more south. "We" need more IT education in "apna" Punjab.

And yet, as a Pardesi, I am proud to be carrying on a legacy of "ours" which is to be, a Pardesi. I am also happy to be in Amrica. Can'ada has the same proporation of Sikhs in it as India, and maybe as many MPs proportionally (although thats just a guess). When I say I am South Asian, I not only speak to one of my realties, I speak to the history of saada Punjab.

Hoon pher, jai kisnay as web site tha koi polaka hai vew mai Indian hai kei nai? answer hai, zaroo

Anna writes:

>>my father made me a South Asian....They aren’t Indian exactly, but in this country, that doesn’t matter and it never will

With all respect to your dear departed father, I think this idea is outdated. I don't know when he instilled these ideas into you, but most likely it was before Pakistan started sponsoring terrorism in India(Punjab/Kashmir) and before Bangladeshis started flooding India and changing demographics of border areas(Assam/Tripura), thus fostering terrorism.

Personally, I don't mind at all if you or other SM'ers, Indians etc call yourself South-Asians. To each his/her own. However, what we object to is an attempt by many South-Asians to characterise all Indians as South-Asians, whether they want it or not. (This is akin to many Hindus calling other Sikhs as Hindus, whether they identify themselves as such or not.) In many a speech in such south-asian gatherings, I've heard statements like "There are 2.1 million South-Asians in America" or "Software industry is dominated by South-Asians" etc. They automatically include me in their statistical analysis, without ever bothering to consider whether I want to be called south-asian or not. That's my beef.

I (and many on this board) would not have had a problem with the south-asian label if it excluded Pak/Bangladesh, but included SriLanka, Nepal, Bhutan, Maldives. Too many of us have grown up in our formative years opening the newspapers and day in and day out reading items like "18 Hindus killed in Punjab"... "23 Hindus killed in Kashmir"..."17 killed in DurgaPuja blast in Tripura". Day in and day out. Without respite. For more than a decade. What we really feel for Pak/Bangla is mind-numbing hatred. Similiar to what Jews even today feel about Nazis.

But what about decent, tolerant Pakistani-Americans and Bangladeshi-Americans (and there are many of those)? Well, I wish them luck. But, to me they are no different or similiar than a decent Irish-American or a Texas cowboy or a Rabbi from Brooklyn. Let's transact business, but let's not pretend that there is a common bond between us beyond that.

Moreover, things have changed rapidly in the last decade or so. I am sorry that you suffered in your school years, but nowadays Indian kids are looked up to by many. Teachers/Principals clearly distinguish that Indian kids are better than Pakistani kids. Anybody who's worked in the software, medicine or finance industry (and nowadays in real-estate) knows that Whites know the stark difference between Indians and Pakistanis. The term Pakistan (and nowadays even Bangla) conjures up words like "Terrorism", "Bin laden hideout", "Honor killings" etc etc. The term India brings up words like "Software", "Outsourcing", "BPO", "Bollywood", "Stealing American jobs" etc etc. In the American mindset, Pakistan is out - India is in.

So - many of us really don't want to drag ourselves down into the gutter to feign a kinship that exists only in CIA archives from the 70's and 80's. Now, if Pakistan and Bangla fix themselves, stop sponsoring terrorism, when Pak-Americans stop campaiging against Indian-American candidates, then yes - I will reconsider my stand gladly.

However, I too am puzzled by folks here who get angry when SM'ers call this a South-Asian blog. Hey - if you don't like it, start one of your own!

M. Nam

When I read the email I would have thought that the Pakistanis and Bangladeshis would by offended by a blog run by Indian-Americans with a clear upwardly mobile, 2nd gen bias that claims to represent the interests of all South Asians in America. I which case I would support their attempt at trying to avoid Indian cultural hegemony

But as it turns out Indians are pissed off because of their own unfounded, intolerant, nationlistic elitism. In this case I do support Sepia Mutiny's South Asian Identity.

That Indians and South Asians have something in common is a big lie that needs to be nailed. "South Asian" is suicide for India and Indian Americans.

This is the heart of the matter. As an, ahem, Indian-American, I want nothing whatsoever to do with a Cold-War category that is oblivious to the ground realities in India and the region. When OCI becomes available shortly, I will surely opt for it, will continue to maintain my relationship with India, visit and spend money, donate to charities, and, if the opportunity is right, even invest. Heres an idea: since all South Asians were once part of India, how bout labelling all of us Greater Indians? :) Any takers?

South Asianism will destroy that primordial link the second generation should have with India, and will stifle the voice of India abroad that we should strive to represent. Greek-Americans, Polish-Americans, Israeli-Americans...those are the models we should be emulating, they don't allow themselves to be co-opted as Euro-Americans or Meditteranean-Americans.

The situational-postmodern-hybrid-addle brained-neo-colonized-desi--bhangra dancing-blokes can be South Asian all they want.

Please check out the wikipedia article entitled Indian-American. At the bottom of the page a certain South Asian blog has been misrepresented as Indian-American. I wonder if the owners of the blog would be so kind to inform the authors of this, as wikipedia is an important source of information and can impact the perception of brand Indian-American :-)

The best of the bloggists here is Manish. He looks out for grossly manipulative anti-Indian and anti-Hindu representations, and is not afraid to slap even the Catholic Church silly when they deserve it. He is also sees the destructiveness of proselytization. He also calls the bullshit of Indian and Hindu groups when they've done something to deserve it. That is the difference between this blog and some of the secularized Anti-Indian South Asian shit on the net. Thats why I bother with this place, which would be nothing without Indian-Americans.

The situational-postmodern-hybrid-addle brained-neo-colonized-desi--bhangra dancing-blokes can be South Asian all they want.

who you calling colonized, brown man?

This is the heart of the matter. As an, ahem, Indian-American, I want nothing whatsoever to do with a Cold-War category that is oblivious to the ground realities in India and the region. When OCI becomes available shortly, I will surely opt for it, will continue to maintain my relationship with India, visit and spend money, donate to charities, and, if the opportunity is right, even invest. Heres an idea: since all South Asians were once part of India, how bout labelling all of us Greater Indians? :) Any takers?

South Asianism will destroy that primordial link the second generation should have with India, and will stifle the voice of India abroad that we should strive to represent.

1) the 'relationship' with india is i think a key parameter lurking around here. my impression from anna's original post is in our day-to-day interactions india, or pakistan or bangladesh or whatever, are not particularly salient, it is our 'brownness' that really matters in our interaction with the world around us. i recall a post from abhi awhile ago showed real fissions between a putative 'india first' and 'non-india first' segment.

Greek-Americans, Polish-Americans, Israeli-Americans...those are the models we should be emulating, they don't allow themselves to be co-opted as Euro-Americans or Meditteranean-Americans.

there is a real category problem in this. greek and polish americans are ethnically equivalent to bengali or punjabi americans, but not nationally. *culturally* india is analogous to europe. one can make some analogy to china here, though china is more homogenous because of the unified han ethnic identity and written language (though the 1/3 who speak 'dialects' are not intelligible with mandarin standard). the 'israeli' american category is somewhat like india because it is broken down into ashkenazi and sephardic and other ethnic fissures which exist within israeli society.

re: moornam's contention that americans know the difference between indians and non-indians of south asian origin, my last name is clearly muslim (think genghis someone :), but a client i've had whose database app i have refactored and redesigned periodically over the past 3 years asked me if i was hindu since he realized i celebrated xmas. some background: he has lived in thailand for the past 10 years, has a master's degree in mathematics and an MBA, and he visited bangladesh 2 years ago (he knows i'm bangladeshi). so anyway, as someone who has been assumed to be hindu and 'indian' my whole life, i'm skeptical that operationally the distinction works with most people. but i'm willing to be convinced, i'm not invested because i have no 'primordial' links at jeopardy or in play.

razib,

exactly, brother.

brownness is a state of mind.

those who dig it, have a natural home here. the furniture in the living room is to their taste, they find the snacks tasty and the beverages quench their thirst.

those who don't, aren't comfortable. the door is open to them, which is wonderful. but they look around nervously. some are wallflowers, some are boors, and some just join the party.

and on that note, enough from me on this new year's eve. time to do some cooking. once again, happy new year to all.

peace

time to do some cooking.

order pizza and get drunk! oh, wait, my lady cooked 3 varieties of pesto pizza last night, so i don't need to order!

What we really feel for Pak/Bangla is mind-numbing hatred. Similiar to what Jews even today feel about Nazis.

So you feel about Bangladeshis what the Jews felt about the Nazis.
Reality check my brotha.

just another thought which cross my mind re: 'primordial' links. the greek, polish and israeli example(s) do share something in common: small nations with tightly focused geopolitical needs/considerations. have you ever wondered to think about the relationship between the japanese americans japan, or german americans and germans, or french americans and the french, or italian americans and italians? i think one difference, especially in the case of france or germany, as that these are large nations which diverse interests who at various points were at cross-purposes with the interests of the united states. note that the USA manages to be friendly with both israel and saudi arabia, and gives a lot of aid to egypt. my point is that expecting there be a relationship between india and the USofA that is analogous to the polish or irish model is not going to work because india is a nation with diverse interests and on its way to being a 'great power.' not only is the analogy between greeks:indians weak (10 million people in a nation the size of a medium sized american state vs. 1 billion people in a nation the size of western & central europe), i think in the long term that sort of ethnic model will not be particularly viable.

this isn't a comment on what should be, rather, an analysis of the plausibilities in the future (by this model, a pakistani american lobby can be more successful because its interests revolve around india, it is a regional power-though this is confounded by the reality that pakistan is a seedbed for transnational terrorists).

I agree with moornam here that there is a segment of americans who can identify muslims and hindu separately now.
Mostly its from names. Its a recent phenomina i think its post 9-11. And its only a certain segment of population.

attacking South Asian identity as "addled-brained" and the product of people being duped; you're wrong. the phrase fits in our context. Many of us are aware that "South Asian" started as a diplomatic and academic phrase. Maybe there is room for those of us who are indeed hybrids, and enjoy that life. As there is room for those who identify with a distinct national identity. Personally I think those of us who are hybrid have a signficant part to play in generating harmonious relationships globally, economically, socially, artistically. At the same time, there is a value in being "placed". There seems to be a basic desire for belonging. That is why actually I think ethnic Americans have it good; we live in one of the more pluralistic cultures, a culture that by-and-large holds pluralism as a good (particularly in urban "blue areas" but also in "red areas". You will find open exchanges based on pluralistic values in Iowa, Nebraska, Montana, as well as in NYC. Of course, pluralism is not held as a good by all at all times.

In addition to this, we as desis can "place" ourselves in old cultures. And since we are at times marginalized by name, color, religion, we can find comfort in participating in a culture that validates that which would otherwise marginalize us.

At the same time, many of us revel in hydridity. Be this in food, music, culture, ect. There is much to learn from and in hydridity.

A hybrid is not a non-identity, it's not rootless. A hybrid plant for example, has roots. There is much to be said for hybrid vigor in plant genetics. The interesting thing about hybridity among people is, we can to some degree choose those characteristics we adopt. That is why the increasing pressure to conformity is uncomfortable to hybrids. A person who knows they have the ability to choose from rich cultures would like to preserve the right to take from those cultures what they will, and would not like those choices constrained by outside influences adovacting that they adhere to one or another culture wholesale.

But as it turns out Indians are pissed off because of their own unfounded, intolerant, nationlistic elitism. In this case I do support Sepia Mutiny's South Asian Identity.

just another thought which cross my mind re: 'primordial' links. the greek, polish and israeli example(s) do share something in common: small nations with tightly focused geopolitical needs/considerations

I think this is a good point Razib. Also it gets at one of the anti-South Asian planks; that by not acting as solely "Indian-American" we doom the hurt the interests of India. I think many "South Asians" understand this objection to themselves acting as South Asian. However, understanding does not mean agreeing. They do not agree that they are hurting India by being South Asia. In fact, many think they are helping. And I think this has merit. Actually, I wonder if a "South Asian" is not, tangetially helping a "Brand India" type of project -- even though the "Brand India" idea seems in ways problematic. A South Asian uphold some values that "Brand India" people might like to associate with India. However, a South Asian does not forfeit the ability to call himself or herself both South Asian and Indian. Nor does the term South Asian negate the ability to someone to identify themselves as both South Asian and Indian. However, what is being asked here seems to be that South Asians either forfeit the ability to call themselves at times South Asian and at other times Indian.

In practice many South Asians are likely to often refer to themselves as Indian

Regarding hybrids are we discussing mules here. :-)
Cultures as well as individulas adopt and assimilate ideas from another culture/individuals all the time.
What makes you think that those who chose to identify themselves as Indian Americans have not adopted/adopt food,culture,music,literature,lifestyle,etc from other sources and dont enjoy doing so.

In practice many South Asians are likely to often refer to themselves as Indian

contra some commenters here i have little personal experience here in the pacific northwest of the term 'bangladeshi' being relevant or intelligible in any way distinct from 'indian' with non-browns. things might be very different in NYC since there are many bangladeshis there, but in most of the country i accept that people simply consider me 'indian' and don't get into arguments with them about it because a) i don't care that much b) they are telling me about their trips to the madurai temple complex and seem excited to be able to talk to someone who can 'relate' c) it is a first approximation that works for them, i don't want to detail for them how western and chinese cultural traditions are much more personally appealing to me than hindu or muslim ones since that would REALLY disorient them.

my point is that expecting there be a relationship between india and the USofA that is analogous to the polish or irish model is not going to work because india is a nation with diverse interests and on its way to being a 'great power.' not only is the analogy between greeks:indians weak (10 million people in a nation the size of a medium sized american state vs. 1 billion people in a nation the size of western & central europe)

good point guru. the analogy does work in regards to pakistan-indian tensions, as that is a simple geopolitical issue (so to speak). my overall point though is that greek, jewish, polish, armenian, irish, etc. political activism in relation to the "homeland" is relatively easy because the nations in question are marginal players in the grand geopolitical scale (israel can be thought of as an exception, but in practice i don't think so, the arab elites like israel as a whipping boy, and they would never invade it now that it has nuclear weapons, etc.). japan or china really aren't/weren't, and so we don't think of a chinese american or japanese american political lobby/interest group because the emergence of such groups is much more problematic in the context of patriotism because these starts have many relationships, positive & negative, with the united states. if india does develop economically i suspect that the american-india relationship will bear much more relationship to american-japan or america-china, than america-armenia or america-greece.

re: "south asian" leftist-activists. how prominent are these individuals and their movement? i don't know much about 'brown america' besides what i glean from this weblog and see in demographic monographics or census data releases?

they are telling me about their trips to the madurai temple complex and seem excited to be able to talk to someone who can 'relate' c) it is a first approximation that works for them, i don't want to detail for them how western and chinese cultural traditions are much more personally appealing to me than hindu or muslim ones since that would REALLY disorient them.

To prevent disorientation you must gesticulate your head sideways as fast as you can while you thank them for showing interest in India in a ridiculous sounding Indian accent (think Apu) with extreme deference and servility.

When I first started visiting with my wife's extended family on holidays etc., I had two reactions from her relatives.
The ignorant and kinda hickish ones just saw me as a weird 'brown' man and they did not know or cared about nor did they discuss India or anything remotely foreign.
The more well-informed (the ones who travel to India-Nepal or plan on travelling and have read Vikram Seth/Rushdie) would engage me about 'eastern spirituality' (I have none) and what not. It would upset me to no end as I did not necessarily agree with either their views or their attempts at presumptively appropriating to me an identity which they believed I would/should have without bothering to find out what I really believed in.
I would say things which would make their heads spin and wreck havoc on their world views.
With time, I have dropped my hostilities and antagonistic stance. I know play along (actually played pretty well this Christmas) and humor them with what they want to hear.

It would upset me

well, i don't get upset because life is about probabilities. if people persist after i do inform them of my lack of interest in hinduism or my hostility toward islam, then i get upset! i have had to deal with people who are totally taken aback by my lack of sympathy/empathy with islam and don't mind engaging them in a hostile manner when they accuse me of 'selling out' or 'betraying' my culture. but that is not typical, though it happens too often coming from self-styled 'progressives' who seem to think that only white people get to reapproriate and recreate their own identity unmoored from considerations of blood & custom. this can of course be flipped around to some people who enter into SM with an attitude that 'brown' or 'indian' must entail 'x, y, z, etc.' there are some here who do agree that there is a debate to be engaged in, and who respectfully disagree, and they are not a real problem. the problem is that some people seem to want to pretend that they get to decide the rules of the game and that those rules have been fixed for eternity as ideal platonic types.

i don't personally sympathize too much with pro-multiculturalist lefty types who think that my favorite hijab store is a 'vibrant' expression of diversity. if 'south asian' is connected to the hip with that sort, well, i can understand more the objections. but i don't know, it seems these terms are up for grabs, SM is part of the normalization and standardization of the terms. denying that the debate is legitimate or necessary seems to be the stance of some, and that i object to.

Great debate. Here, I often get asked if I'm from Bangladesh. I guess to describe myself I would say "Indian" rather than "South Asian" but I can understand SM going with South Asian.

....their attempts at presumptively appropriating to me an identity which they believed I would/should have without bothering to find out what I really believed in.

This is in a slightly different context, but when I started school here, some students would immediately ask me (when I said I was from India) a) whether I did yoga b) whether I was good at Math. To my eternal chagrin, I did yoga for years and oh God, I have a masters degree in Math...

impossible. the former contains the latter.
If you cant do that dont moan when Indians complain about it. If you prefer being controversial and like to have tons of comments on your posts thats fine.
And i never said that you claim to be Indian blog. But you very conveniently forget to mention it on SM when posting about news items such as the recent sting operation. You never mentioned THAT THIS WAS A SA blog not an INDIAN one as mentioned in that article. So someone reading that post here on SM will get confused about this blog's identity.
And i come here for the same reason i go to a Pakistani site.

"vick": i was prepared to respond to your...comment, then i realized that you don't make any sense, so it's pointless.

the analogy does work in regards to pakistan-indian tensions, as that is a simple geopolitical issue (so to speak).

my overall point though is that greek, jewish, polish, armenian, irish, etc. political activism in relation to the "homeland" is relatively easy because the nations in question are marginal players in the grand geopolitical scale

...japan or china really aren't/weren't, and so we don't think of a chinese american or japanese american political lobby/interest group because the emergence of such groups is much more problematic in the context of patriotism because these starts have many relationships, positive & negative, with the united states.

...if india does develop economically i suspect that the american-india relationship will bear much more relationship to american-japan or america-china, than america-armenia or america-greece.

Well written Anna. Although I don't agree with you entirely on the 'south asian' identity issue (...do we now presume that all white people are Europeans?), I do agree that some of us do share a common cultural heritage. Our nationality however is a different matter and not to be confused with or dependened on colour of skin, religion or mother tounge.

The few greeks and poles that i know of identify themselves as white americans and dont feel a strong connection to ancestoral land as the indians and jews do with israel(even though for many thats not the ancestoral land...so many of them dont even look semitic any more). There has been an ancient greek civilization but that ancient greece culture/religion hasnt survived. Greeks dont feel that they are continuing that lineage but are carrying on the greek orthodox christian tradition. However Indians(mostly hindus, but includes jain sikhs,buddhists and small minority of indian muslims) feel a connection to the ancient indian civilization and that they have that lineage and that is a stronger part of their identity.

the greek & polish american fixation with their motherlands is very narrow and related to existential concerns in regards rivals (turkey, russia, etc.). i don't see how the fact that ancient greeks were pagan while modern greeks are orthodox vs. hindu continuity is particularly relevant, remember that greeks were orthodoxy in the uniformity by the 7th century, so they have been christian for over 1,000 years. greek nationalism in the 19th century were predicated in part on a synthesis of ancient nationalist affinities stoked by romanticism with greek orthodox rebellion against muslim hegemony.

Well the mainland chinese have a lot of cultural professional an religios oriented orgs. I dont know how they interact with others and themselves in US. But their real lobbyist are their influential businessmen. Clinton Administration was a lot more generous to them b/c of their influence. Algore had a political issue on hand over money raised for dems at a chinese buddhist temple in california...But that i think was an exception. The most influential organization for them are their business.

the chinese and japanese have always had many cultural organizations. my point is that they have had fewer political organizations with close ties with their countries of origin. in part this was due to historical circumstances, the american vs. japanese rivalry and wars throughout the 20th century and chinese communism would have made such a relationship unjudicious. but cuban americans have a powerful obby that is against their country of origin (so to speak). i think the key is that cuba is a small player on the world stage. if, for example, chinese americans wanted to push for an economic boycott of china, they would get nowhere, because china is too important to be simply left to a mediating minority. similarly, i am arguing that india is simply too important to be left to a mediating minority. this is not to say that indian americans will not play an important mediating and facilitating role, but i do not feel they will ever play the seminal and central role as is the case in the cuba-america or armena-america or israel-america relationship because those relationships are relatively marginal concerns for a superpower and can be left to motivated groups who wish to devote resources and time to monopolizing them. my comment was in response to comment 158, where he stated, "South Asianism will destroy that primordial link the second generation should have with India, and will stifle the voice of India abroad that we should strive to represent." those are not statements that seem limited to economic or cultural goodwill and development, they imply that indian americans should be an arm of india abroad. to some extent jewish and armenian americans have become the arm of their nations abroad, but i believe that the american system tolerates this because they are small nations. i do not believe america would ever tolerate chinese, japanese or indian americans being an arm of their nations of origin abroad. america never tolerated the germans being an arm of germany abroad, for example.

oh, and re: poles & greeks vs. indians (americans), most indian americans are 1st gen., most poles and greeks and 2nd & 3rd & 4th. that can also explain the relatively diffuse affinities the former have in comparison to the latter.

greek nationalism in the 19th century were predicated in part on a synthesis of ancient nationalist affinities stoked by romanticism with greek orthodox rebellion against muslim hegemony.

yes quite right. there's numerous points of evidence of this but one I thought was interesting that came to mind was in David Sedaris's ancedotes about his father and his pride in the ancient greek language as a statement of modern greek pride.

an interesting tangent on that is how Mexican culture celebrates its indegenous history as a means to express nationalism in the more recent Mexican nation

Also, on the idea of German-Americans as arms of Germany, I seem to remember reading that there are cases pending now of posttumous pardon of german-americans accused of disloyalty in the run-up to WWII in Montana. Another viewpoint on that comes in Philip Roth's book last year

I think Razib is right that American generally would not tolerate IA being arms of India, but also, I don't think many IA's would prefer to take up that role. Even though they may like or love India and wish it the best, many of them really do like America and feel there are many goods here worth preserving. Particularly now when as Americans we are called upon to uphold the values here that we do indeed cherish. Its not for nothing that American values carried currency. Pluralism, meritocracy, and rule of law among them

the chinese and japanese have always had many cultural organizations. my point is that they have had fewer political organizations with close ties with their countries of origin.

Iris Chang's book is relevent here. Although its been awhile since I read it, I think initially the Chinese Aid soceities were connected to Mainland China. I'm not sure how Communism changed that, those details if in Chang's book I have forgotten.

Iris Chang's book is relevent here. Although its been awhile since I read it, I think initially the Chinese Aid soceities were connected to Mainland China. I'm not sure how Communism changed that, those details if in Chang's book I have forgotten.

my understanding is that the original chinese settlement of the west was closely connected with the proliferation of cantonese organizations, legitimate and illegitimate, in the context of manchu ruled china. chinese history has been in flux over the 20th century, with nationalists vs. communists, etc. and other factors being at play, as well as differences between the older cantonese speaking communities and new mandarin speaking immigrants as well as waves of fujianese. it's complicated. i had a friend of mine who was from a cantonese speaking family from hong kong. he had a girlfriend who was from a taiwanese family who had recently immigranted who spoke a fujian dialect as well as mandarin. they did not share a spoken chinese language. my friend told me that one reason he became an activist in asian american politics is that he saw that 'chinese' was a somewhat simplistic identity for him as an american born person of han ethnicity who could not read or write mandarin & chinese ideographs. of course, a recent immigrant from china might tell him to just be proud to be chinese american, but life is a bit more complicated for him than that, and he doesn't want to deny that in many ways he has more in common with korean or japanese americans than he might have with someone newly arrived from beijing (cantonese and mandarin are unintelligible, people in north china eat wheat based food stuffs while south chinese tend to be rice eaters, more like japanese, etc. etc.). i think some of this is playing out in some of the comments made here by american born browns, and i think some (not all) non-american born browns are not acknowledging this reality.

and he doesn't want to deny that in many ways he has more in common with korean or japanese americans than he might have with someone newly arrived from beijing

Likewise a Bengali Indian American can have more in common with a Bangladeshi American than what he would have in common with a Tamil from India. For American raised desis, growing up in America is an important part of their identity and shared common experience of growing up as Brown Americans will play an important role in shaping their world view.

...and will stifle the voice of India abroad that we should strive to represent." those are not statements that seem limited to economic or cultural goodwill and development, they imply that indian americans should be an arm of india abroad. to some extent jewish and armenian americans have become the arm of their nations abroad, but i believe that the american system tolerates this because they are small nations. i do not believe america would ever tolerate chinese, japanese or indian americans being an arm of their nations of origin abroad. america never tolerated the germans being an arm of germany abroad, for example

guru, i don't think anyone begrudges india its economic success. as a human it is nice to see that 1/5 of humanity which has been predominantly living in abject squalor might see the sight of basic modern affluence within their lifetime. there are many points within the ideological space we are discussing here. if someone is talking about a 'primordial' link to mother india it seems to me something deeper and more significant than investment and economic development. the analogy with jews works here, as the american jewry does, by and large, have a 'primordial' link with the nation-state of israel as an expression of their national aspirations. to some extent jews have gotten a pass, in part because of their high status and cultural fluency, and in part because israel is a small state which does not seem to require direct military aid against the arabs. i don't think indian americans would get such a pass. i don't think that indian american 2nd and 3rd gen have a specific 'primordial' link to mother india, because i don't think an analogy between 'indians' and 'jews' is appropriate (india is ethnic diverse, and as a nation-state it is new creation, though not as a cultural region).

in short, going back to anna's original post, i think the issue can be understand more clearly if we acknowledge its inherent complexity and texture. the problem i have is the attempt to dismiss or delegitimize anna & co's generation of a particular identity because it does not toe the party line of other groups. this is not a black & white issue, some here clearly disagree with anna's conception of a pan-south asian identity, but they grant that it is a real possibility that is not negated by the facts on hand.

Likewise a Bengali Indian American can have more in common with a Bangladeshi American than what he would have in common with a Tamil from India. For American raised desis, growing up in America is an important part of their identity and shared common experience of growing up as Brown Americans will play an important role in shaping their world view.

guru, i don't think anyone begrudges india its economic success

f someone is talking about a 'primordial' link to mother india it seems to me something deeper and more significant than investment and economic development. the analogy with jews works here, as the american jewry does, by and large, have a 'primordial' link with the nation-state of israel as an expression of their national aspirations. to some extent jews have gotten a pass, in part because of their high status and cultural fluency, and in part because israel is a small state which does not seem to require direct military aid against the arabs.

i don't think indian americans would get such a pass

i don't think that indian american 2nd and 3rd gen have a specific 'primordial' link to mother india, because i don't think an analogy between 'indians' and 'jews' is appropriate (india is ethnic diverse, and as a nation-state it is new creation, though not as a cultural region).

in short, going back to anna's original post, i think the issue can be understand more clearly if we acknowledge its inherent complexity and texture. the problem i have is the attempt to dismiss or delegitimize anna & co's generation of a particular identity because it does not toe the party line of other groups. this is not a black & white issue, some here clearly disagree with anna's conception of a pan-south asian identity, but they grant that it is a real possibility that is not negated by the facts on hand.

Regarding hybrids are we discussing mules here. :-) Cultures as well as individulas adopt and assimilate ideas from another culture/individuals all the time. What makes you think that those who chose to identify themselves as Indian Americans have not adopted/adopt food,culture,music,literature,lifestyle,etc from other sources and dont enjoy doing so.

taking on habits or interests from sources other than india is possible, but not the same thing as having an identity developed in hybridity. i don't think one is better or worse than the other, but different. for example i'm sure there are some people for whom baseball and cricket are both basic parts of their understanding of sport

Political leverage and overt cashflow has kept israel afloat. American military industries are lobbied to include israeli subcontractors and thus technology transfers.

this is very tangential, but israel's existence is not contingent on american aid. my reading has suggested that american (gov.) aid only began in great amounts after the 1967 war. the israeli advantage over the arabs is NOT technological, it could be argued that they were at some disadvantage in that count in all the wars with the arabs up until yom kippur (which they almost lost!). the israeli advantage is culture, in that israelis will actually fight for their nation. the arab armies are riven by clan and familial faction and simply can not mobilize force in a coherent and organized faction. american subsidizes (to some extent) israel's relatively high standard standard of living, but, the existence of israel can be put at the doorsteps of the lack of power of arab nationalism, not american aid (and as we know, during the 1948 war israel received more aid from the soviet bloc than the USA anyhow).

I also disagree on the idea of india as a nation. Amartya Sen once cut sunil khilnani off in a telvised conference over that issue and launched a verbal fact throwing arguements starting from ashoka,to ramayana to mani.

please note that i did say india had a cultural unity or affinity. definitions of "nationality" usually presuppose either a) a one state/gov b) one people. for the vast majority of india's history it has not been one state, and the subcontinent is characteristic by ethno-linguistic diversity. this is not to deny that there is an overall commonality, but, i would argue that india's cognate is not france, poland or greece, but the european union. that is, europe as a whole is clearly a cultural unit, and today it is tying itself together into a supranational unit. i think india is a case where you have multiple ethnic groups tied together in a supranational unit, though that unit has a basis in cultural realities. the preceding summation is in itself simplistic as the 'ethnic' units that people perceive are to some extent prior to the modern era simply lines on the map, or define elite literate traditions which mask graduated clinal variation on the ground. to use a point of comparison a strong argument can be made that france as a nation as we understand it did not exist prior to 1800, as local identities and languages were VERY strong before the republican gov. crushed them (rather self-consciously) and imposed standard parisian french upon the nation. this semantic quibbling is necessary because people here freely make analogies between indians and greeks, for example, when i think the analogies mislead since the greeks (hellenes) have been ethno-lingistic self-conscious and unitary since antiquity, though their national unity has only been extent over the past 150 years. similarly, china has a political entity has existed periodically since 200 BCE (and the han ethnic identity dates from a dynasty that which was founded in this time).

i agree with your comment on variation.

this is very tangential, but israel's existence is not contingent on american aid. my reading has suggested that american (gov.) aid only began in great amounts after the 1967 war. the israeli advantage over the arabs is NOT technological,

Can we still comment here if we're Indian, American, global, Indian-American, South Asian, and feel that, as DesiDancer, siddhartha and I have been alluding to all along (and have been largely ignored for saying so): "Identity is not only up to the individual, it's contextually what suits them?"

Or do you have to want to be Indian-American or South Asian? *yawn*

Happy New Year!

you know, it's not that i WANT to be south asian, it's that i just am. i know, it's boring and tedious to discuss how i label myself but it's relevant, because it mirrors how and why this site labels itself-- something people feel passionately for and against.

when asked "what are you?" i could reply "indian", but when i blurt that out, it often means i'll get asked "oh, what tribe?". for that reason alone, i adore SAA, since it preempts my red dot getting replaced by a feather. yes, yes...of course if i get a confused look, i add that my parents were from india, and i have no problem doing so. why would i? i'm not ashamed of such an awesome place, especially when it contains Kerala.

it's not as if this is fun for me. i'm an american who doesn't look it. ethnically, i'm indian. socially, i'm brown, since i don't see much of a difference between erstwhile guest bloggers Ads and Saheli, even though only one is from the same country my grandparents are buried in. if i were IN india, i wouldn't call myself SA. i'd be indian, just as i'm an american here. but it's never going to be that easy, not for a long while, and definitely not while people STILL profess surprise at how good my english is (less than 48 hours ago) or assume that i wasn't born here (less than 24).

happy new year.

I grok, ANNA, because I get the exact same (re)actions you do. [Every time someone commends my English, I automatically blurt out, "Yeah, you know English that came from that country called England that's not in the US." So, I come off as an asshole, so what? The person who brought it on came off as an idiot.]

What I ask you, and all the mutineers, is this: Does SM have to take on an official identity as Indian-American, South Asian American or what have you? A lot of you had the good fortune of being genetically Indian but born and/or raised in the States, while some of us have Indian DNA, but were born in X, raised in Y, Z, AA, BB and then moved to the States, and speak perfectly good American English along with our native languages and a number of others gathered along the way. Even in the States, we've moved around and have been Yankees and Southerners, among other subcultures like Midwestern and Bicoastal. After a while, a tangible identity, viz. one that you can put adjectives to, loses meaning and you just are who you are, minus all the hyphenated precursors to your Americanness (barring the hyphen in my own last name, of course :-)).

That's the extent of my point.

South Asian is a perfectly fine label, as long as we keep in mind that it's about as definitive as white or black. I think all the contention starts when we start trying to give it certain characteristics. I personally don't think it's much more than just 'brown'.

Does SM have to take on an official identity as Indian-American, South Asian American or what have you?

SM's official identity is "brown"; when 192 of you read us via Bloglines, it still says "All that flavorful brownness in one savory packet" right underneath our name. The problem is, once again, we're competing with yet another ethnic group. Just as Native Americans get to be "Indian" like we do, hispanics are also "brown". The chicana girls i went to catholic school with all loved Lighter Shade of Brown, when they came out with that joint where they were "chillin' at the park, just waitin' for the sun to go down".

I'm all about the "brown"-- I use it all the time, to the point where poor www.indiandating.com is transformed in my everyday speech and blogging...90% of the people i interact with really think there IS a "browndating dot com", b/c i say it so much. But if you think "South Asia" is confusing, then surely you must grok that brown doesn't even get us as far as that "academic" term, even if it's a natural choice in this black and white nation. At the end of the day, we're a blog that exists for and about the South Asian diaspora, even if my fellow mutineers and I are almost always Indian. Nothing's perfect. Not the nomenclature, not the bloggers who write here, not these pained explanations, nothing. We don't have to take on any official identity besides "Mutinous", but that doesn't alter reality-- we're South Asian Americans who write about more than India or Indians. Just because we don't officially state something, that doesn't stop it from being true.

Okay, last comment on this thread because I've said my piece and plenty already: have most of you been told that your English is good? I keep reading these experiences and I've never been told that. If anything, I get more questions from browns here in the city about my origin, than I did from non-browns back in the small town of square state I'm from. Or maybe I'm misremembering or something. I've been known to do that.

But I do know no-one has ever said to me:. "Oh, your English is so good." I mostly get asked, by browns from the mid-east, or Africans or, oddly enough from European immigrants, "where are you from?" For some reason non-desi browns and non-browns alike never get my ethnicity and these days I get the most questions from people who are Iranian or Saudi Arabian or whatever. "Are you a mix?" they always ask. I don't mind. Seems like a perfectly reasonable question to me. Okay, last thought on identity: siddhartha did say it best - it's fluid, personal, and evolving.

Okay, last comment on this thread because I've said my piece and plenty already: have most of you been told that your English is good? I keep reading these experiences and I've never been told that.

You need to work on your English speaking skills ;)

okay, I lied about the last comment part. Al Mujahid - that made me laugh! I really am ridiculous, huh? I'm just pissed off because every time I speak try to speak Hindi people just laugh. And when I speak English, the same thing. Sigh.

Al Mujahid, that was priceless. :)

MD-di, yeah, I clenched my jaw when she started asking, b/c I was worried it would bounce off the floor if I didn't. I remember being incredulous, especially since the woman who asked me was ARMENIAN.

Siddhartha is almost always right. ;) I'd type that without the qualifier, but I don't have time to search through all his comments to find the one which may exist, which may get thrown in my face. Oy, it's like writing for a bunch of lawyers here. :D But yes, it's fluid. Sometimes I'm just an American. Sometimes, I'm Malayalee. Sometimes, (especially after my very desi drink of JW Black) I'm just an ass.

i'm an american who doesn't look it.

In a way Anna I don't agree. If in your experience that's how you feel or have felt, I understand. but indian/south asian/ect people, i think we do look american. maybe a generation ago or something people had doubts, but nowdays i don't feel i look not amer, but nican, particularly in urban areas

i've also never personally been told my english is good. i've been asked where i am from, but never from peers who were white. older people maybe. and recent immigrants. recent immigrants i understand and its cool when they ask

What the hell is wrong with you retards who take a compliment as an insult? If you don't want to be COMPLIMENTED (omg, what an insult cry cry cry), then speak shitty english or something.

vipin- your use of the word 'retarded' is mad ironic, son.

In a way Anna I don't agree. If in your experience that's how you feel or have felt, I understand. but indian/south asian/ect people, i think we do look american. maybe a generation ago or something people had doubts, but nowdays i don't feel i look not amer, but nican, particularly in urban areas

when i say that i don't "look" american, i'm referring to my status as a born citizen of this country. i have NEVER met someone who wasn't surprised when they learn that i was born here. when people stop assuming that i'm ineligible to run for president, i'll stop feeling that way. i mean, what's really going on in that sitch? it's basically, "you don't look like you're from here." and i'm not relating that b/c i'm some hyper-sensitive "retard" (way to miss the point, vipin), i'm just amazed that in this age when bowl games are sandwiched between ads carefully showcasing the plethora of ethnicities on college campus X, we're still "foreign" enough that people don't picture us popping out in LA hospitals.

i've also never personally been told my english is good. i've been asked where i am from, but never from peers who were white. older people maybe. and recent immigrants. recent immigrants i understand and its cool when they ask

that's wonderful that you haven't been given the back-handed compliment. well, either that or Al Mujahid is right and you should brush up on your skills. ;)

everyone asks where i'm "from" (and i hear you on the recent immigrants thing). i have a lot more respect for people who do it in a straightforward, accurate, non-herb-like fashion...they don't get my stock, "i'm from california, born and raised." that answer frustrates all involved, since that's NOT what they want to hear and it's probably all i'm going to say, unless i'm in an excessively patient mood.

oh noes, the strange man on the internet insulted me!

really, you guys have a twisted view on the world to be like this. ever heard of manners?

really, you guys have a twisted view on the world to be like this. ever heard of manners?

pot? meet kettle.

You know what Anna, you should just get used to it. Face it, people won't just assume that you were born in America until South Asians get to London-like proportions. I don't see it as anything to get worked up over.

About ads...people don't usually relate ads to real life, so don't expect ads to be a precursor/predictor to how people would/ought to behave.

omg i am rude on the internet. how could i ever forgive myself!

You know what Anna, you should just get used to it.

uh, i AM used to it.

Face it, people won't just assume that you were born in America until South Asians get to London-like proportions. I don't see it as anything to get worked up over.

again, unclear. what i got worked up over (and what inspired this entire post) was a jackass who used our tipline as a way to cravenly lob insults at us, for no good reason. now, have you anything besides this approximation of snark to contribute to the debate? one hopes. when you have a point (london-like proportions), it's a decent one.

hmm... vipin, check out this link , and scroll to the right for Shilpa Suthankar's "Bio of an american hostess" . I suppose the experience can be pungent. Tread carefully.

And that is so realistic? Real people (atleast those I know) just don't act like that.

While I felt very uncomfortable while watching the short (I wouldn't want to be in the vicinity when that draama happened), I don't really draw parallels between that and real life. Am I supposed to go into detail about the short now...

And that is so realistic? Real people (atleast those I know) just don't act like that.

funny. if i have the unmitigated audacity to go somewhere besides my car or the event i'm dressed for while wearing a sari, that's EXACTLY the bullshit i am likely to run in to. nothing happened/no one said anything asinine the day i took the picture i just linked to, but that's unfortunately the exception. i now take a perverse pleasure in being excessively chatty while in line at the store, waiting to pay for a bottle of wine or a wedding card. the discomfort from cognitive dissonance some experience is ridiculously amusing.

What's the record for most Sepia comments?

What's the record for most Sepia comments?

My guess is that this post is in the running...It has been pretty well, eventful.

Anna,

Talk about a small world...and don't ask how this came about. I was partying at 'Cloud' in Dupont Circle on Friday when my husband started talking to some girl about SM. Turns out, she knows you. Her name is Sophia and I think she said that she was from Atlanta. Rings any bells?

it seems this post now leads, as the last post with the most comments, was closed for commenting at 213.

Again, another lovely "identify my way or else" thread... [sigh]

Wow. Aside from the below-the-belts on both sides : "addle-brained, bigoted, myopic, megalomaniacal," this has been a very informative thread. There is passion on both sides here. In fact, this has the makings of an emerging intra-brown culture war. As sidharta said, this isssue is far from settled.

Suresh (#108), thanks for the reference, I'll check it out.

ditto, eddie. this type of discussion is why i went to sasa...except all i got there was a hangover. mad props to sepia mutiny for giving us so much to think of. i don't know what side i'm on but the next time someone asks me what i am...i'll have to think about it. sepiamutiny- all the knowledge, none of the drama\antibiotics (of sasa)

...antibiotics?

Razib makes a good point in post 189. It is just that we need not choose from between a South Asian or an Indian identity. There are times when one emerges more strongly than the other and that depends on the context. For instance, at a Pakistani or Srilankan restaurant, or at my Bangladeshi grocer who is the only person in town that stocks fresh-water fish, I feel a deeper richer subcontinental connection with all the brown people around me. The fact that they are Pakistani or Indian or Bangladesi seems immaterial. We share the same values, music, culture and food. And being in America, anything that even remotely approximates Indian culture seems so refreshingly nice. At times, I have even spotted cognates of Hindi words in Farsi and Arab songs that some of my labmates play.

But, I guess being a first genner, my national identity is something I cling to as dearly as my passport. I guess it sort of comes out when someone disses India or Indians -- I don't think I would react as viscerally if someone were to similarly diss any other subcontinental nation. Yes, I would be offended, but I would take offense intellectually. I would claim discrimination -- and shout foul-play. But I would be led by my principles and my intellect. Or for instance in a cricket match when I would definitely cheer India over any other country -- even though cricket is not my favourite sport.

I think the texture that other commentators have spoken of can be best understood when I cheer for India along with all these other people sitting on one side of the Pakistani restaurant while the SriLankans/Pakistanis/Bangladeshi's cheer for the opposing team from the other side of the aisle. Yeah, and they make a terribly spicy (don't knock me on this one guys) Rogan Josh too!

Guys, time to move on- all the cool people have already left this post behind...

then why am i here?

weird..

I'm sorry, in the context of your post Anna, me disagreeing with your feeling on not looking american (to others) is not something I can actually disagree with, as its your feelings

but just that its related, but i don't feel that people assume i was not born in the us. ok, old fogeys yes, but people my age saw me and my sou/indi/brown pals grow up with them so they aren't like that for the most part

anyway, tomatoh tomatoh (i dont really know the other ways its pronounced)

antibiotics? yeah. sasa...was off the chain and true story- one of myfriends came back with a souvenir. but i don't think anyone learned that much.

on a different tip, anna, i'm real sorry to hear about your loss. keep ya head up, lady.

anyway, tomatoh tomatoh (i dont really know the other ways its pronounced)