ennis, you're right it's weird.

Ennis, which store is this from?

I saw signs like this at a branch of a chain small department store in Bombay...

This was from a store in Karol Bagh, Delhi. It was next door to Frontier Bazar where we spent a lot of time shopping.

I suggest we throw bricks through their window. This kind of stuff really annoys me. I bet you they have white mannequins also.

The naming practice seemed pretty consistent across Delhi. This was the one place where I took a picture, the signage made it particularly glaring.

it's truly annoying. as bad as calling your own clothing costumes or referring to the traditional (or anything non-western) clothing of people who still wear their own traditional or customary clothing day in, day out as costumes. western clothing is ethnic in itself and as much a costume.

Dont you get it? Its the clothing for the "Hindi Medium Types"
So "we" (or "you") are different from them. :-)

But if you're selling it, you don't want your buyers to feel like "Hindi Medium Types" especially when they're purchasing bridal gear.

wow....I thought we'd be normal in India. I guess we are just wierd everywhere...

Ethnic connotes the other

Maybe it doesn't in India? Maybe people don't understand ethnic and conflate it with traditional?

It's so true. We should really write to...somebody important. Amitabachan isn't doing much these days, right?

Main Entry: ethnic
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: cultural
Synonyms: indigenous, national, native, racial, traditional, tribal

I don't see what the problem is??

Do white people ever use the world ethnic to describe their own "national, racial, traditional, tribal" customs? Try using it over July 4th weekend - "Oh, so this is your ethnic potato salad! Mmmmmm and some ethnic hot dogs! I love your ethnic tank top!" and see how people react.

BTW, do you have a source on that definition?

It's as annoying as how they refer to Indian languages as 'the vernaculars'. Technically it's not an incorrect term (just as ethnic may technically not be incorrect) but it's demeaning and marginalising just the same. As if English is somehow far superior to 'the vernaculars'.

I do not see a problem in using the word ethnic at all in these stores. I havent read through the sign in its entirety, but given a modern, open economy where you are supposed to find traditional and modern clothing, it is correct to use 'ethnic clothing' when referring to traditional indian clothing.

you would want some way to distinguish between McBurgers and desi daal roti after all. ;)

Go on, get the flames working!

That definition of ethnic seems to be from the standpoint of an outside observer. Meaning ethnic is how an outsider would describe the 'indigenous, national, native, racial, traditional, tribal' aspects of an other culture.

Main Entry: ethnic
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: cultural
Synonyms: indigenous, national, native, racial, traditional, tribal
Source: Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.2.1)
Copyright © 2006 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved

Got it from www.thesaurus.com.

Sometimes words are used in their original definition rather than the colloquial meaning. And moreover the negative meaning you are referring to is not prevelant in India or atleast not percieved in that way.

Also, from a businessman point of few, they don't want to use the term "traditional clothing" because it has the connotation that it is not modern.

why is everything viewed in term of white.....why can't it be accepted that indian english is another form of english too. they accepted it and they use it without thinking what white people would say!

I do not see a problem in using the word ethnic at all in these stores. I havent read through the sign in its entirety, but given a modern, open economy where you are supposed to find traditional and modern clothing, it is correct to use 'ethnic clothing' when referring to traditional indian clothing.

Why call them ethnic at all? Does it add anything? Do people not know what a kurta or a sherwani or a lehnga is? Why waste space on a signboard with extra verbiage? Why not just call the clothes by their names?

you would want some way to distinguish between McBurgers and desi daal roti after all. ;)

Don't you mean the Western McBurgers and the ethnic daal roti? Imagine if restaurants all over India started using the adjective "western" or "ethnic" on their menus. Would you like some ethnic dosa or some ethnic idli? How about some ethnic pickle? Or maybe a western Burger? See how silly that sounds? It makes you wonder why they're doing it with clothing.

There is no them to be different from.

It is omnipresent. Since there is a free preview for indian news channels, i happen to watch this infomercial selling fairness cream. It is so blatant in saying that fair skin is better

I guess "traditional clothes" would be more appropriate if its in India.

ps I miss Delhi

I would blame this to the incomplete comprehension of the work "ethnic". Maybe the word "ethnic" is fancy, charming and upwardly.

Well, English is a foreign language after all. I think it's mostly that people don't know the nuances of the words they use. I wouldn't hold that against them.

What got to me on my last trip to India though was the big Thanksgiving promotions going on all over Delhi. By way of explanation I was told that well there are a lot of NRIs here so that's why they probably celebrate it. Made me cringe even more.

Even if this is a hinglishism, what does it add? I think the comparison with food is very apt. Nobody goes around calling their food ethnic (although they do call it western) why are they calling clothing ethnic?

I agree with MG, the term is used in India in its literal sense unlike the Western usage of the term. Ethnic in India is used interchangeably with traditional. There is a whole category of clothing labeled ethnic in India, is it in conformity with the western usage of the term may be not but it certainly doesn’t imply any negative connotations. Going by your example of food, western food is not as prevalent as western clothing in India hence non-usage of the term ethnic while describing food.

Some other definitions:

WORD HISTORY When it is said in a Middle English text written before 1400 that a part of a temple fell down and “mad a gret distruccione of ethnykis,” one wonders why ethnics were singled out for death. The word ethnic in this context, however, means “gentile,” coming as it does from the Greek adjective ethnikos, meaning “national, foreign, gentile.” The adjective is derived from the noun ethnos, “people, nation, foreign people,” that in the plural phrase ta ethnē meant “foreign nations.” In translating the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, this phrase was used for Hebrew gōyīm, “gentiles”; hence the sense of the noun in the Middle English quotation. The noun ethnic in this sense or the related sense “heathen” is not recorded after 1728, although the related adjective sense is still used. But probably under the influence of other words going back to Greek ethnos, such as ethnography and ethnology, the adjective ethnic broadened in meaning in the 19th century. After this broadening the noun sense “a member of a particular ethnic group,” first recorded in 1945, came into existence. [Link]

ethnic This is often used to mean 'foreign': ethnic clothing, fabrics, etc, being based (sometimes rather loosely) on the traditional materials and designs of other cultures, particularly peasant or tribal ones. [Link]

Why call them ethnic at all? Does it add anything? Do people not know what a kurta or a sherwani or a lehnga is? Why waste space on a signboard with extra verbiage? Why not just call the clothes by their names?

When you said in your post, why not call them Traditional instead of Ethnic, isnt that wastage of space. :)

To call a Sherwani a Sherwani doesnt let the buyer know whether it is a traditional/ethnic or a fusion/modern sherwani.

Sometimes you really need to sip chai to know its not tea ;)

I havent read through the sign in its entirety

Sorry, it's hard to read above. If you click on it, you'll get a larger, higher resolution version.

why traditional vs. modern clothing? this gives a sort of progressive heft to basically what we call western (read "modern") clothing. can't traditional (or "ethnic") be modern as well? a lot of indian designer clothes are "ethnic" or 'ethnic" inspirerd and yet modern as well. some very "modern" people wear them. likewise, some very regressive people wear "modern" clothing. i agree that the word ethnic is probably used for the most part without thinking and without any conscious negative connotations in india (although there are some for whom it does have negative connotations), but having lived in several colonized countries, its interesting to see the impact of clothing on people's thinking and how closely they identify it with certain stereotypes. in that respect, india is actually far luckier and far more confident about itself and independent than some of the other countries.

Why is desi clothing called “ethnic” in India itself?

1. Because South Asia existed and exists as part of a global system and that has enormous residues (e.g. the system of government, particular features of language like you point out, that the elite speaks Ennglish, etc.). This--adoption of a system of marginalization of one's self--is one piece of it.

Or

2. It might just be totally random, because they do do completely inexplicable things in India sometimes. Historical accident and whatnot.

I think the only people who would read into this are uptight ABDs and Hindutvadis. Strange bedfellows indeed

I think the only people who would read into this are uptight ABDs and Hindutvadis. Strange bedfellows indeed

I think the only people that would off-handedly dismiss this are the ones without anything intelligent to contribute who still want to see their first name on the internet.

Why? I've never seen it in any other English speaking country in the world.

Ennis, I agree with you on this. Indians shouldn't be marginalizing their own traditions in this way. It's sad. And you're right: Americans don't call their own clothing/food "ethnic".

We need to be more confident in who we are.

Also, why are NRIs celebrating Thanksgiving in Delhi? WTF? Thanksgiving is an American "Christian" holiday which pretty much celebrates the Pilgrims' victory over the Native Americans. What do NRIs have to do with that? I live in the States and I certainly do NOT celebrate that atrocious holiday...anymore than I would celebrate the British Raj.

which pretty much celebrates the Pilgrims' victory over the Native Americans.

That isn't true. Thanksgiving doesn't celebrate any victory. The iconic Thanksgiving scence is Pilgrims and NAtive Americans sitting down at a table together and sharing a meal in peace. The killing came later.

>>NRIs celebrating Thanksgiving in Delhi?

Calling Indian stuff "ethnic", celebrating Thanksgiving/Valentine's day/Mother's day etc in India are all manifestations of the same problem. I'm no proponent of banning/protesting against such stuff, but Bollywood/Indian TV shows can address the issue in proper terms via infotainment.

M. Nam

Ennis, I don't get the food analogy here. The words idli/dal roti and burger already inform us that they're "ethnic" and "western" respectively. But, with respect to clothes, there would be no such redundancy. I gather from comments on this site that the word ethnic carries with it a negative connotation here in the US, but in India there are no such implications. Maybe saying ethnic sounds less awkward for us than saying Indian all the time? Just a hypothesis.

The words idli/dal roti and burger already inform us that they're "ethnic" and "western" respectively. But, with respect to clothes, there would be no such redundancy.

I'm confused. If it's clear that you mean (Indian) idli, why isn't it clear that you mean (Indian) Sherwani? If it's clear that you mean (Indian) dosa then why isn't it clear that you mean (Indian) "Kurta pyjama"?

I hear people about fusion, that there are modern and traditional forms of sherwani, but that's not ethnic and non-ethnic at all. Both of them are desi, one is traditional and the other one isn't. Ethnic doesn't tell me anything here.

Perhaps you and other people are right that ethnic doesn't mean foreign in India, but that itself is worth remarking on because the connotation of foreigness goes back to its first usage in English (and back further to the Greek root of the word), and remains constant in all the English speaking countries I know. Canadians don't call their dress ethnic, neither do Australians, New Zealanders, etc. Nor have I encountered this in other former British colonies. In Africa they call their own dress "National Dress" to emphasize it's rootedness. The word shows up in dress codes all the time.

Ennis,

When you say Africa do you mean a specific country or the whole continent? Also is your example specific to this one shop you visited in Karol Bagh or every shop selling Indian clothes that you came across?

I can understand if this trend of labelling clothes started in India as a means to reach the tourist communities who are looking for 'ethnic indian wear'. The word 'ethnic' in the label just draws the customer in. I saw similar labels about three years ago in Connaught Place in Delhi which is a huge market for tourists. Karol Bagh is also one of the major shopping districts in Delhi, so I can understand if shop vendors want to market their products... if using 'ethnic' in the label adds to the effect then that's all they care for. I didn't know tough if this has caught on to local markets/ stores as well.

The notion of Indians in India following north american traditions and calling their own traditional clothing ethnic is a different issue. What is the root of this? It comes down to taking pride in who you are and what you represent.

It seems like kids in india want nothing more than to imitate the west and its ways... (n.b. this is far more common in the major indian cities vs all over india). Perhaps it's the excitement of something new/ different? Or the glamour of hollywood they see in movies? What about wanting to get out of india and finding a job in the west? Many indians aspire to study hard and go to top colleges to get a job abroad because they think that life 'there' is more comfortable and prosperous. Maybe what drives their inner desire to keep up to par with western standards is their hope to be part of that society someday? In the meantime not valuing what their own culture or traditions perhaps... but they are coming from a very different perspective than indians born and brought up in the west.

Just some more food for thought...

speaking of africa, this was an interesting story a couple of years ago: Kenya MPs fight 'colonial' dress code:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3070131.stm and the diverse feedback comments on same page.

When you say Africa do you mean a specific country or the whole continent? Also is your example specific to this one shop you visited in Karol Bagh or every shop selling Indian clothes that you came across?

I had seen this regularly in Delhi. I spent a lot of time shopping at non-touristy desi boutiques / stores since my sister was shopping for her wedding. Since she was shopping, I was bored, and I had lots of time to observe my surroundings closely. That said, if my impressions are unrepresentative, I'm happy to be corrected.

As for Africa, you're right, it's a huge continent. But this discussion about which clothes are proper to wear in which contexts is one that I can think of in several countries in different regions. It's a common post-colonial issue.

Calling them "Indian" clothes makes the most sense to me- these clothes are worn by many people in India on a daily basis. I have to say that I never heard the term "ethnic" to describe Indian clothing when I was a child in India. I also feel a little odd when the term "ethnic" is used to describe people, but maybe this is in common usage here?

One thing I admire about this space is the humility of the authors. Contrary to what some ignorant commenter may say this is one of the premier places for thought provoking Diaspora discussion. I am not trying to be a smartass when I ask you those questions; I am just trying to get a better understanding myself. There may be subconscious biases that come across in signage like this.

I'm confused. If it's clear that you mean (Indian) idli, why isn't it clear that you mean (Indian) Sherwani? If it's clear that you mean (Indian) dosa then why isn't it clear that you mean (Indian) "Kurta pyjama"?

Oops, my bad. I was referring to a usage I'm familiar with in India where we say "I bought an ethnic bag/skirt/folder". I didn't notice the fine print on the image! I haven't really heard anyone saying ethnic sherwani though.

Long-time lurker here, commenting for the first time. From my experience growing up in India, "Ethnic" in the context of Indian clothing means:
- clothing with heavy embroidery, mirror-work, bead-work etc. Generally stuff that is meant to be worn for special occasions, not everyday wear.
- Folksy clothing, or hand-made cloth/clothing.
- non-fusion wear: i.e. traditional ghagra-cholis etc.

I've seen this distinction in Bangalore, Bombay and Delhi, so it seems to be a well-understood usage of the word.

Vanya, re: Ethnic sherwani - we saw something similar in Bombay - I think it was Ethnic kurta there - and it meant a standard-issue embroidered kurta, as opposed to one that is short/transparent/has-a-wierd-neckline.

That said, the distinction isn't very clear-cut at all: a broomstick skirt in a flowery, printed cotton is not usually called ethnic while the same skirt in a bandhni material is.

Ennis and All,

Calling clothes "ethnic" isnt shocking enough.
Here's a University (my undergrad) that has a department called Oriental Institute Its basically a Department that studies Sanskrit old texts. But oriental ?? WTF?? That shows whose point of view all these things are. For a westerner, study of Sanskrit literature would be studying "oriental" manuscript studies, but in India they call themselves "orientals"???
Jai Ho Shri McCaulay ki !!!

RC, was that in India?

Yes, My undergrad University. MS University of Vadodara in Gujarat.

Power puts the onus on the other to make distinctions, to salvage identity.

I, also, am a 'long time lurker here, commenting for the first time.'

I believe (and this is indeed my humble opinion) that commenting on the use of the term 'ethnic' in India is akin to Indian's (and I mean the original 'desis' who live in 'des') getting upset about the term 'desi' if applied to them. Colonial hangover? Most probably. But try calling someone in India a 'desi' and believe me, you will have a very upset national on your hands ..er .. in your face, never mind the literal meaning.

Back to the point, One will rarely see the term 'ethnic' in a store selling only Indian clothes. I do believe it's an economical way of differentiating between western and Indian garb. But hey, don't mind me. When I took my little mongrel pup to the Vet in Gulmohar Park, he put down his (my dog's) breed as 'ethnic'. I loved it.

try calling someone in India a 'desi' and believe me, you will have a very upset national on your hands ..er .. in your face, never mind the literal meaning.

What does the word mean to them?

One will rarely see the term 'ethnic' in a store selling only Indian clothes. I do believe it's an economical way of differentiating between western and Indian garb.

Again, why is putting the word "ethnic" in front of "Sherwani" or "Kurta Pyjama" economical? There are no western Sherwanis or Kurta-Pyjamas are there?

Just a note, and I apologize if this has been already said, but it's hard to read through 50+ comments: From my understanding (which is based solely on one half of my family) brides don't wear white because widows have to wear white. It's kind of like how it used to be taboo for even guests to wear black to Western weddings, but worse, it would be like the bride wearing black.

Right... Isn't the last thing India needs a bunch of abcd's pontificating about their English.. I take it as you have atleast finished improving your spelling skills by now.. ;)

i noticed this to when i went to the hyderabad central mall where all the desi clothes were named ethnic clothes. This problem does not exist in akistan as far as i have seen, and i think it is cuz india has taken to western culture way more than pakistan. I think it's sad, soon enough are samosas are gonna be called "ethnic" dumplings. ahahaha.

i apologize for the awful wording, i just woke up from a nap

Referring to desi clothes as "ethnic" in the desh itself is totally absurd and counter intuitive, but I think it has something to do with the status of the subcontinent's fashion industry these days and the shifts they're making

A lot of the designers that debut lines in Fashion Week there are trying to go "Western" with "ethnic" flare
read: legitimizing desi fashion in the eyes of desis in the subcontinent by making it western-clothing compatible, making it acceptable for non-desi customers by not being too "ethnic" [read funny looking], and relegitimizing it in the eyes of desis by showing them that the non-desis love it too) all while trying to carve out names for themselves as designers (it also has a lot to do with the rise of the desi ready-to-wear market) bye bye tailor ji!

So...after all this thought & trying to put "ethnic" in perspective, all i've come up with is: maybe its just the new buzz word for chic? grrr...annoying

but how is this any different from the way Koreans or Chinese refer to their "ethnic" "traditional" "costumes"? err...is this what we call progress?

Oh, and great book to check out:

Re-Orienting Fashion: The Globalization of Indian Dress
authors: Carla Jones, Ann Marie Leshkowich, and Sandra Niessen

There's a whole chapter on how the Shalwar Kameez was made chic and more popular in India & Pakistan after Princess Di wore one on a trip to South Asia in 1997.

Great post Ennis.

I think the word ethnic is used because that is how it was understoof during the Raj when English was first widely taught. "Native" and "ethnic" carry the same connotation. The main problem is the unwillingness of many upper class Indians to shed the remnants of their English educations; my mom for instance still has the idea that nearly anything British is ideal or beautiful, because she went to schools and read books that enphasized this. In once sense that's why they renamed all the major cities, and in the South the language used on signs has been a major political issue among Dravidian nationalists. maybe the north should catch-up, I've never heard Indian clothes referred to as "ethnic" in the South.

“I think the only people who would read into this are uptight ABDs and Hindutvadis. Strange bedfellows indeed”

Truer words have not been posted here.

…its again the same western-liberal-elitist concepts in the service of a certain ABD-centrism, looking for meanings which don’t exist to the India born….as we had previously with the debate on the Time coevr..
…such contrived debates only throw up insecurities of the real intellectually colonized, even if presented in a barely restrained intellectually superior language….

In my opinion ABDs often see these issues more clearly than many Indian-born people do. This goes back to a debate I had on this blog several months ago...the irony of young, thoroughly westernised people from Mumbai somehow feeling more authentically Indian than ABDs, simply because of geographic provenance and having physically grown up in India; despite the fact that in many ways they are more 'confused' than the ABDs they mock.

The ethnic tag makes me cringe, and is yet another example of how the urban Indian mindset is so influenced by Western ideas (I'm not immune to it myself).

But this debate does make me think that issue of identity is not such a big deal for Indians as it might be for the Indian diaspora (I hope I don't offend anyone with that phrase). Whatever the degree of Westernization, Indians in India are still comfortable with their identity (most of them anyway) and may not see these issues as fundamentally important.

I totally disagree. If these are not issues in India among "real Indians" as you guys implicate, then why were there language riots? Why is the choice of language a primary poltical issue in half the states in India? Perhaps it is you middle-class Indians that are out of touch with the public due to your social climbing, and not the people on here who are rightly aware of the irony. Or perhaps you simply don't understand stand the connotations of powers of language. Read Michael Foucoult. Or maybe the people on this site are a poor representation, and there are lots of people in India who see this same irony. Hmm...might be a little of each.

Evil Abhi:

I suggest we throw bricks through their window. This kind of stuff really annoys me. I bet you they have white mannequins also.

I'll get my bricks.

I understand what people are saying about the word "ethnic" not having the negative connotation that ABDs are giving it, and I think it's weak reasoning. I'm sure the advertisers meant no harm, but it is, quite simply, an irresponsible use of language.

As far as I understand, "ethnic" and "traditional" are not the same things. Traditions are a matter of cultural practices not necessarily definitive of all those who practice them. Ethnicity, however, is an explicit identification used to formulate xenologies. Whereas traditions have their roots in practices, ethnicity has its roots in a people's collective identity, and whenever people's identities are involved, there will rightly be controversy.

Explicating clothes as "ethnic" to a consumer base that is already of that ethnicity (note also: the language has forced me to tar all of India's vastly diverse ethnic identities into one "ethnic" group) is othering their identity in the very place that gave them that identity. And that is absurd.

Btw, I consulted no dictionary to define traditional and ethnic. I'm just going off of what those words imply in popular culture.

Preach on, Shruti. Said it much better than I could.

"WhoseCountryIsItAnyWays?"

i just checked my passport and the country in question is mine too :)

i think the use of the word "ethnic" in india is harmless in some situations, harmful in others, unconscious (and innocent) by some, very conscious (and somewhat derogatory) by others, is no big deal in some cases, is a big deal in others and so forth....there's truth in practically every single post on this subject. now, back to eating my "ethnic" dumplings and patting my "ethnic" dog :) (those were funny).

Amitabh

You've raised a whole other issue in your comment. And if, as you mentioned, you've been through this debate a few months ago, I don't want to bring it up here. But I will say this - Basmati is Basmati because of where it comes from (yup, Geographic provenance). Ditto with Champagne. Ditto with Indians.
Now before those bricks are hurled in my direction let me again qualify this statement with 'In MY humble opinion,' I believe that culture is meant to evolve, grow and amass. To hold on to traditions in the name of authenticity is counterproductive. Having said that, I agree with your statement that a lot of issues are more clearly perceived from a distance.

uh.. ahem. ok. bring them on.

Have you guys run out of important topics to write about? First there is the squabbling over the Time cover of the call-girl, and now this. If the folks in India don't make a big deal out of this issue, why should the ABD's? Granted, it's a bit weird that Indian clothes are referred to as 'ethnic' in the motherland, but is it such a crime? Then again, I'm probably an ignorant European Desi, so I wouldn't know.

The thing is, we all 'exoticize' someone at some point. I'm sure the same would be true for many desis with regards to other cultures. I don't think it's something that can be eradicated, much like racism can't be eradicated.

Contrary to what many may think, there is a clear method and reasoning in place here; trouble is: you need a MBA to understand it. The use of the word ethnic as a prefix, though prone to be misconstrued, is part of an elaborate marketing campaign. By marking his Sherwanis as Ethnic Sherwanis this shopkeeper is adhering to many a principle of Marketing. This small word is immediately differentiating his product from mere trivial Sherwanis sold everywhere and worn by every Ram, Hari, and Gopichand.

An Ehinc Sherwani is for the true, complete, connoisseur; it’s for the noble gentleman who rides horses bareback, whilst reciting ancient Urdu couplets to himself. While he rides by, faceless men wearing ordinary Sherwanis bow in obeisance; unwashed little kids playing with broken marbles on dusty sidewalks, pause mid-game and observe him with admiration; women washing ordinary Sherwanis by the river, blush in unison, and gaze with longing in their wide Kaajoled eyes. Pray, who wouldn’t want to own such an Ethnic Sherwani?

Summarily, Ethnic Sherwani is about Branding and charging a premium for the Brand. A certain American called Philip Kotler has written a rather large book called Principles of Marketing; I bet this shopkeeper has read the book and eagerly underlined most of the chapter on Branding.

Have you guys run out of important topics to write about? First there is the squabbling over the Time cover of the call-girl, and now this.

to answer the question about why ethnic is used instead of 'sherwani','salwar kameez' etc, there are just too many different kinds of indian clothing. so to sum it up, we use ethnic instead of the different terms. simple, na? :) like someone else said, it isnt a crime. so u say 'zee' and we say 'zed' :)

regards,
desi girl

Now seriouly, I guess the usage of the term is absolutely fine in this context. Though India is a single nation and to us "...all Indians are my brothers and sisters...", aren't we ofcourse a conglomerate of diverse cultures and ethnic groups?

So a meaning of 'foreign' or 'belonging to a specific ethnic group' is not all lost on a 'Mundu wearing Mallu' when you are referring to Sherwani or Kurta Pyjama.

I don't see why this issue should be seen as one of ABDs vs. desis...I've always been bothered by the "ethnic vs western clothes" tag, growing up in various Indian cities. And I find it annoying when well-meaning Americans ask "is that your ethnic clothing?" when I wear a bloody Fabindia shirt with Indian prints or better yet, "is it a religious thing?" - as if anyone would ask an American if their jeans were "a religious thing." The implication of course is that the West and its culture are considered universal while everything else is considered a quaint tradition that surely people are holding on to for religious or similarly irrational reasons. It's similar to when Americans say someone speaks with an "accent" or "unaccented English" as a way of saying they speak American-accented English or not - they don't recognize the American accent as an accent, it is the default, universal, "correct" way. I don't get particularly hot and bothered about such things, but I do gently point out that these are just different ways of dress and speech. Similarly with "ethnic" foods, as in "I feel like some ethnic food - shall we go for Chinese or Indian?" I feel like handing those people a copy of a book I saw years ago - the WASP cookbook - with recipes for chicken salad and so on.

Tarana:

Thanks for your comment. I agree that the AVERAGE person from Mumbai is 'more Indian' (I know that's hard to define but work with me) than the AVERAGE ABD. But there is a significant subset of ABDs (especially the ones who blog here) who are well-informed, passionate, and outspoken on various desi issues such as are being discussed here. Many of them are well educated and know how to debate points. I don't think their opinions should simply be dismissed or discounted merely because of the ABD status. Furthermore, I know quite a few ABDs who would feel MORE at home (linguistically, culturally, etc) in small town Punjab or Uttar Pradesh than most Mumbaikars would, including those whose family origins are also from Punjab/Uttar Pradesh. I'm not trying to get into an 'authenticity' contest since that's pointless and unproductive, but I do feel it's very easy to dismiss someone's point of view with a label like ABD or FOB or 'Indian-born' or whatever. Look at the content of what the person is saying.

Just to be clear, the ABDs I mentioned who would feel relatively more at home in small town north India compared to most Mumbaikars, are all educated professionals living and working in big US cities, so very much at home in the West as well. However the culture maintained in the home by their parents helped to keep them in touch with their roots.

I think the only people who would read into this are uptight ABDs and Hindutvadis. Strange bedfellows indeed

Aha !!! Their it comes out. The above is what most people think in India. Anything less than an unconditional acceptance of everything western, will be called "hindutva-vaad". In this the key bad word is "Hindu" which stands for all that is "native" and hence repugnant.

In this the key bad word is "Hindu" which stands for all that is "native" and hence repugnant.

Well spotted RC! For sure, the persecution is ENDLESS and their repugnance for us is depthless and without principle, I feel so persecuted by this commie bastards. We are repugnant to them and for that I fartin their faces. Repugnant saffron farts.

Hail kurta pyjama Mogambo!

SpoorLam you are a fucking moron. Did I ever say anything about any persecution?? But in your stupid idiotic and fucked up mind the same tape is running over and over and it shows your intellect now.

to answer the question about why ethnic is used instead of 'sherwani','salwar kameez' etc, there are just too many different kinds of indian clothing. so to sum it up, we use ethnic instead of the different terms. simple, na? :) like someone else said, it isnt a crime. so u say 'zee' and we say 'zed' :)

regards,
desi girl

Desi Girl - if you click on the photo and make it larger, you'll see that the sign refers to "ethnic sherwani" and "ethnic salwar kameez". It's not being used as a short hand (although it would be a strange short hand to use), it's being used to make these words longer.

This stupid SpoorLam thinks that Myself, the bloggers of this blog and others are against the popular clothing worn all over the world and somehow are advocating people to revert to "kurta pajama". Ennis's post was about the word "ethnic". Ok let me say in the language that you will understand. Ennis is not going to start wearing "Kurta Pajama" from tomorrow. I guess there is no cure for "stupid".

RC,
I think SpoorLam for some reason is confused about your belief system. Those of us, who know you are well aware of the fact that you are reasonable and sensible and do not deserve the mocking. For some reason Spoorlam is lumping you with Moornam. (Not suggesting that Moornam deserves mocking, but Moornam does have some pretty unconventional views)

Spoorlam immediately attacks anyone who stands up for Hinduism at all, and immediately lumps them in with Modi, Moornam, Bal Thackeray and the rest. According to Spoorlam, there is no such thing as prejudice against Hindus, instead we spend all our time strapping bombs to our chests, attacking other nations, and sponsoring a large-scale Jihad against the West. God damn those war-hungry Hindus.

Spoorlam is obviously a disciple of an "Abrahamic" religion as he calls them, but he has simply found a more effective way to voice his anti-Hindu prejudices. Cue the lame attempt at anti-hindu satire right below:

So 'ethnic' is derogatory.. that's news to me.. I don't think people in India know about all this subtle nuances.. Generally, people who know English and say a few words are respected (and if you say bad words in English you'd gain extra respect.. :-)) )

I was shopping in a mall in Chennai a few years back (I think it is Globus) an English song was blaring out of the speakers, and the words were "fuck me like ..." etc.. (I don't exactly remember.. ). I just imagined what it would be like if we had a Tamil song with such words blaring out and was laughing ..

I for one am thoroughly sick of SpoorLam. I don't know why his posts don't get deleted...they are really a relentless barrage against Hindus (and believe me I'm not a Hinduvaad type), veiled in 'satire'. The moderators (Abhi, et al.) maintain that "if it's funny then it's all good". Are his comments still funny? I suppose now he'll mock all my posts as well since I dared to challenge him.

Al,
Who gave the free reigns to SpoorLam to be mocking others?? If one doesnt agree with someone's views, does that reason enough to start mocking someone??
MoorNam has been polite to the mockings, I am not.

Amitabh, I apologise if my words were a pointing of fingers. My intention (and work with me here) was, and is, to say that perhaps you are also falling into the trap that you just mentioned I was falling in to. India is not losing it's cultural identity because it's youth are wearing western clothes. (yes, there are mind-numbing exceptions of brain-dead west-aping wannabes. I do not talk for them.). Maybe I'm over-simplifying your statement. But as someone who has grown up listening to members of the extended family carry forth on this topic (not the parents, but everyone else), let me just say 'I cringe' when someone mentions the clothes and not the (wo)man.

Ubermetromallu mentioned the 'marketing tool'. Yup, I agree.

So sorry, Ennis, for the tangential remark.

Tarana,
If I may jump in (and I dont speak for Amitabh). I dont think anyone is claiming that Indian should not wear the so-called "western" clothing. Thats not the issue at all. And I know that no one in their right mind wears the traditional/ceremonial Indian clothing everyday to work (Let alone doing that in the west). The issue is the use of the word "ethnic". Use of the word "ethnic" by westerner to describe Indian clothing can be understood but to do that in India by Indians is hard to explain.

Ennis put in the post :

The word ethnic in this context, however, means “gentile,” coming as it does from the Greek adjective ethnikos, meaning “national, foreign, gentile.” The adjective is derived from the noun ethnos, “people, nation, foreign people,” that in the plural phrase ta ethne- meant “foreign nations.”

So the issue is NOT the choice of clothes but how its described.

UberMetroMallu, I did indeed mean a call-centre girl, apologies. :)

To the rest of you - yes, you do come across as Hindutva supporters. Who cares if someone non-Indian refers to Indian clothing as 'ethnic'? Yes, from their POV it is 'ethnic' because it is from another culture. I am so sick of this nitpicking.

I, for one, would much rather see an article on India's rapidly decreasing biodiversity rather than trivialities such as these.

Who cares if someone non-Indian refers to Indian clothing as 'ethnic'? Yes, from their POV it is 'ethnic' because it is from another culture. I am so sick of this nitpicking.

Ummm.... you missed the point entirely. I'm asking why Indians call their own clothing ethnic. That question is in bold, right at the beginning of the post.

Sure this is frivolous compared to issues like bonded labor or increasing rates of extinction or terrorism, but that's why we post on a diversity of different topics here.

The same wrong headed attitude is reflected in describing a dark skinned beauty - the overwhelming percentage of beautiful Indian women. I don't know how it is now, but twenty five years ago, Femina, Eve's Weekly, Filmfare and other popular magazines could not bring themselves to describe a drop dead gorgeous but dark complected woman as beautiful. The adjectives of choice were dusky, sultry, exotic (although they were all homegrown) etc. How's that for colonial hangover?

I don't know how it is now, but twenty five years ago, Femina, Eve's Weekly, Filmfare and other popular magazines could not bring themselves to describe a drop dead gorgeous but dark complected woman as beautiful. The adjectives of choice were dusky, sultry, exotic (although they were all homegrown) etc.

It's that way now. I spend a lot of time looking at beutiful indian women on the web, so I have a lot of datapoints.

Don't think this is an ABD vs "real" Indian issue either, unlike that Time cover. I do however, think this is an urban (read: "modern") Indian vs other Indians issue - I'm a FOB from Bombay (left 16 years ago) and distinctly remember being mercilessly made fun of by my cousin visiting from Varanasi when I told him I was going to wear "ethnic" clothing to a friend's 14th birthday party. People who don't think this is a big deal are likely from urban areas where everything Indian or traditional IS denigrated (oh those "rural" folks or those "villagers" or those "conservative" people). To my intelligent, well-educated-albeit-smaller-town cousin I was the very epitome of a clueless Bombayite with my head up my ass. Needless to say, I've NEVER used the word again to describe Indian clothing.

What about clubs in Bombay and Delhi that don't allow people dressed in Indian clothing? What the fuck is THAT all about? It's a manifestation of the same problem.

This is a rather odd discussion.

I am from Mumbai. I asked my friends here what "ethnic clothing" meant to them. They just said it was whatever you are calling "traditional/indian" etc. etc. There is no "oh-my-gawd, we are oppressed" connotation to it here. Did any of you talk to anybody in India to ask what it meant to them before waxing your theories of oppression.

It might be a charged word in U.S., but it's a neurtal word in India. Swastika means differnent things in different places. 'Oriental' mean different things. I dont need to be pissed off coz Edward Said said I should. The same word can have different connotations in different places and at different times.

Personally, its just obscene that even though you don't live here, you gripe about how a word used here ought not to be used coz it means something else where you are. Who are you to tell me what my words ought to mean to me? Who are you to impose "your english" upon me? Oh, I forgot, we are from "there" and "we do not understand the nuances of the English language". You have a monopoly on the nuances, and I ought to oddly embrace and be senstive to your intrepreations....oh, the gawl! Arm chair colanizers.

Yes, the above is exactly what I meant.

Sameer - the meaning of the word may be different in the US and India, but that's probably a peculiarity of Indian English rather than one of American English. This is why I presented the origin of the word - ethnic has meant "foreign" or "different" from its introduction into English over 600 years ago. Furthermore, if the word "ethnic" means traditional/indian, why isn't it used that way to refer to foods?

Sameer:

I think you meant 'gall' and not 'gawl'. Sorry to impose my English on you of course.

Sameer:
I understand that in certain circumstances words and expressions can be appropriated by a group to mean whatever it wishes them to mean. (I am of an age that I remember a time when "gay" just meant happy.) Usually, it is to take control of how one wants something personal to be defined rather than letting others define it for you. Sometimes the purpose is to take the sting out of an outsider's derogatory epithet by making it your own. For example, the words nigger and queer used by African Americans and homosexuals in the US. Sometimes however, an inappropriate word enters the common paralance out of sheer ignorance - because it "sounds" smart or because one was too lazy to look it up in the dictionary.

I grew up in India and came to the US as an adult. Sometimes it helps to leave home to be clear eyed about home. During my high school and college years in Delhi, the smart set frequently put each other down by quipping,"don't behave like a nate" as in native. You could speculate that they too were being militantly tongue in cheek as in the case of African Americans or gays in America in the preceding examples. Except that they also used words like bhaiyya and behenji for those with similiarly gauche outlook on life. So "nate" really meant "native." African students were routinely referred to as negroes. Being a tiny minority on campus, most just kept quiet. Just once did I witness a grad student from Nigeria challenge someone saying, "Whom are you calling a negro? I am from Africa." Chinks and Japs were terms that tumbled out snappily and unselfconsciously to describe ALL students with east Asian features including those from Nepal, Assam, Meghalaya and Nagaland. Some of my friends who had never met a Jew, accused people of "Jewing them down" when they felt that they were at the losing end of a bargain.

So from where did these expressions enter the vocabulary of young Indians if not from alien societies whose prejudices were internalized without a second thought? These are all already "charged" words imported from a foreign language unlike the swastika which had a benign history in India and only gained its sinister connotation in the hands of the Nazis after it was exported from India. The words I have described were used by a certain section of the Indian elite precisely to sound like the Brits and the Yanks (and therefore desirable.) They were not used so much out of ignorance or because the words did not have a significant social impact in the Indian context, but out of thoughtlessness, casual contempt and mindless imitation.

Of course, not all misused words are as offensive as the examples above. But I purposely used them to illustrate that it would be unwise to assert that just because there are not a significant number of blacks, Jews or Chinese in India, those words are not charged and therefore can be used with impunity in Delhi or Mumbai but not in San Francisco. Words do have meanings and some thought ought to go into what enters our daily vocabulary.

As I said, inappropriate usage need not always offend - sometimes it is just plain silly. Calling sari or shalwar kameez "ethnic" within India is silly. Just as it is to call a dark skinned Indian woman "exotic." How hard is that to understand?

P.S: Sorry Ennis for colonizing your blog posts today. There is no soccer. It is raining in Houston and I am out of blogging ideas of my own.

>> Furthermore, if the word "ethnic" means traditional/indian, why isn't it used that way to refer to foods?

Unbelievable. Well, are you really serious about expecting consistencies in common usage of language? Then, I have a question - why do we call white people 'goras' and not 'safed'. Apparently, 'safed' is the word for white, right? Someone, please explain to me why did we invent a new word for skin color. Is this a latent admiration for that unattainable sanjivini called "white skin"... [Deep Thinking]... I wonder.

Inconsistencies are a dime and a dozen. In the US, why do you park in the 'driveway' and drive in the 'parkway'? Protest this illogical atrocity. Yes, come hither my languge fascists. Let's purge our languages of all its apparent irrationalities. While you are at it, can you get rid of the phrase - "it's raining cats and dogs". Always thought it was absurd. And none of the reasons here are logical enoough.

>> I think you meant 'gall' and not 'gawl'. Sorry to impose my English on you of course.

Uhh..Watson called. Wanted me to tell you that Holmes recomended you for a Pulitzer. He said that he remembers you from the 'Spelling Bee' days.

>> As I said, inappropriate usage need not always offend - sometimes it is just plain silly. Calling sari or shalwar kameez "ethnic" within India is silly. Just as it is to call a dark skinned Indian woman "exotic." How hard is that to understand?

Silly or not. Who cares? Language is what it is. I think its silly to say that something is "cool"... what's anything got to to do with the tempartaure of things? Silliness abounds in language depending on what you deem logical. I think its offensive to call some one brown or someone refer to me as South Asian. Will the world adjust to this little senstive child? Obviously, the predominant interpretation in a region will prevail. And, the predominant interpretation of 'ethnic' is 'traditional'. It's just silly to say that there is a metaphysical meaning to this usage. Is that so hard to understand?

As a matter of fact, the word "ethnic" is regularly used in India for lots of traditional/desi aspects of culture including food.

Rather than highlighting or even subliminally demarking any lower, inferior status it does the opposite.

Ethnic is used EXACTLY the same way a Jamaican might use the word "roots" (as in roots cuisine), or one of you young 'uns in Amrica might use "desi". Please note that the word "ethnicity" ( which - along with concomittant baggage - goes along with "ethnic" with you lot like daal with rice) effectively does not exist in India. All those word-relationships that make you uncomfortable - ethnic profiling, ethnic cleansing - are basically meaningless in the same Indian English which blithely refers to our cherished feathers and nose rings as ethnic fashion. Different words are used.

If you've seen the hordes of holiday shoppers from the Indian diaspora (especially the US and the UK) in Hauz Khas, Greater Kailash and other high-end (at least for the average Indian) areas in Delhi, you'll know why the messaging in the stores is targeted toward them. The word 'Ethnic' is just another way to attract attention from the high-spenders from outside India - what else could explain the plethora of 25-pound sequin-studded dresses for $500-1000 that you see at these stores. In the '70s and '80s, these same stores had their messaging in Russian to cater to the Russians who would come to India to buy things on the cheap.

Sameer:

I understand what you're saying, but I am getting really sick of the whole 'real-Indian' vs. 'patronising and over-sensitive Indians who live in the West' division that people like yourself make and then attack our poor Oreo souls for supposedly colonising you...

Firstly, it's pretty obvious that most of the people on this site are bi-cultural, so yes, they will have their own 'English' and their own opinions on this post partly shaped by the rampant racism many of us face in western countries. Yes, we have it pretty good in lots of ways, and no it's not like we're getting lynch-mobbed, and of course there's racism in India too.

But (secondly) when you're a minority in another country, whether you're driving a taxi or working on the operating table, you naturally feel more sensitive towards ideas of difference and especially tags like 'exotic' and 'ethnic'.

I don't think that dismissing 'ethnic' as harmless is such a good thing to do. Language shapes the way people see each other, and for me when I see signs like that in India I can see that discrimination goes both ways, and the worst thing ever is to have it internalised and then perpetuated.

Calling aspects of your own culture 'ethnic' in your own country makes those of us who are trying to have a little pride cringe. No it's not the end of the world but it sure as hell is right up there with cheesy matrimonial ads, tackily over-decorated Indian restaurants and having people telling you how good your English is for that all-out cringe factor.

I think Sameer needs someone in his corner, so, here goes.

From Dictionary.com:

ver·nac·u·lar

n.

1. The standard native language of a country or locality.

And,

eth·nic

adj.

1. Of or relating to a sizable group of people sharing a common and distinctive racial, national, religious, linguistic, or cultural heritage.

(What these words meant in Greek and what subtle connotations these origins give the words are slightly irrelevant IMHO.)

As far as I can see both usages, as they are used in India, are valid. Things might become a bit clearer if you try and trace the 'Indian' identity. As far as I know, the nationhood project started to make sense to the local people somewhere in the beginning of the 20th century? Till today, the nationalist project is riddled with inconsistencies because our identities stem from language, religion, and region, more than anything else. If you ask anyone in India, "What are you?", the first few answers maybe "I am a Malayalee", "I am a Hindu", or "I am a Maharashtrian", or even, "I am a Bombay-ite". Within India, we never think of our identity as Indians because it's irrelevant at some level. What defines us and identifies us are other things like I said before.

I think the 'Indian' identity begins to make sense when you displace the Kannadiga, or the Tamilian, or the Punjabi, what do you call a students' association that has all these: Indian Students Association. The needs to be inclusive deems that this be the name.

So, to call a kurta Indian makes it something of India, and for those of us that are not from TV Serials or the North of India, or from a cultural background that wears kurtas, the kurta is definitely not of my/our India. Similarly the sherwani is also alien to a large percentage of Indians; I have never worn one in my life. And I probably will never. I don't think of it as 'Indian wear'. I think it's North-Indian. And to think that the sherwani is actually not even North Indian in terms of origin. It probably comes from Persia? I'm just guessing here, but I'm trying to point out the problem with calling these things Indian.

Particularly with respect to clothes, the shops need to categorise, and they will look for categories. I've seen the western vs ethnic (and less frequently, the modern vs ethnic) categorisation, and I think it works. Otherwise, where would you put the mundu/veshti? Have a South India section? Even better, have a Tamilian and a Malayalee section and have the same clothes with two different names in both sections? Where does the Lehenga go? It's called a Langa in Kannada. Have it in the North-Indian section? Or the South-Indian section? Or the Gujarati section? Or the rural Karnataka section? Wait a minute, the same thing is called a Paavaadai in Tamil. Oh fuck...

Also, fashion shows in college cultural festivals have two categories, western and ethnic. Another ideosyncratic categorisation, but what to do when you have Marathi people, Punajabis, Gujaratis, and Mizos in the same team? What term would cover all that? (Side note: If you say India in Mizoram, a significant percentage will glare at you. There is quite a lot of resentment towards 'India' in the north-east. Blame the Armed Forces Special Powers Act. Anyway, that's a whole other main post. And how many North-East India-centric articles have I seen on SM? Ok, I'll stop this train now...) The only term that can be neutral and even in the same ball-park cricket stadium as accurate is ethnic. You can try regional, but it doesn't have the zing of ethnic.

A significant point is to note who uses the word ethnic in India? Does the Kannadiga villager know the word or its meaning? Does he even need the word? No. He will go to the neighbourhood store and see Kurta, written in Kannada and buy it if he wants to. The need for the word comes when people who speak English as their first language but come from various ethnicities within India need to agree on a common term to define all their different 'costumes' or foods or whatever. And the need for the word arises when you need to sell to these people.

To that end, among the English-speakers of the country, ethnic even has connotations of authenticity.

The same view of India as a somewhat uncomfortable patchwork of different cultures also explains why the term desi is so reviled. It means nothing to anyone who does not speak Hindi. And to claim that it can be used as a blanket term to represent all Indians is reprehensible.

As far as who is more Indian, the ABD who can be more comfortable than a Mumbaiyya (or should that be Mum-bhaiyya?) in a village, or the commie that speaks unkindly of Hindutva, there is no need for an answer. Who said being comfortable in a village is more necessary or positive or 'Indian' than being comfortable in Bombay? Both represent India. You just have to decide whose India you are laying claim to. My India is not represented by kurtas, and rotis, and daal, and pulao. My India actually finds itself closer to the cutlet than to the kachori. In fact, the cutlet is probably more ethnic to me than the kachori. And I mean that in a good way. :)

(This is a long comment, and I've been rambling a bit; very stream of conciousness response to all the 102 comments before me. So, I'll probably get torn apart. But that's my bit. Seeya.)

Words are just words.

Maybe most of the people who shop there are visitors from abroad.
Besides, you have to remember that in India many terms which can be construed to be slurs for those who have spent significant time in the West, really isn't intended as a slur. It's often just the naive use of the language in its un-idiomatic (read non-colloquial) form.
Hardly something to get riled up about.

JN - other comments argue that this usage is widespread and not just a matter of tourist stores.

Fatmuttony:

I appreciate your lengthy post and I'm certainly not trying to be hostile to you. But, in the first place I think its rather sad that so many people in India speak English as their FIRST LANGUAGE now. There is something so inherently wrong with that that anyone living in any other part of the world (other than India) would immediately see it. That doesn't strike you as odd (or presumably strike Sameer as odd but he can correct me if I'm wrong). Yet if we challenge your usage of a word in your precious adopted FIRST LANGUAGE you find that strange and somewhat offensive. Feeling comfortable in a small Indian town is not something everyone can do; feeling comfortable in Mumbai (if you have enough money) is something virtually anyone can do.

Words are just words.

Them's there are fighting words, missy!