propz for offering statistics. my comments in the next comments... 8-)

Why Indians are US's best immigrant group

http://ia.rediff.com/money/2006/sep/20indians.htm?q=np&file=.htm

This is a recent article (sep 20, today!)- exactly about issues bought up in this post - focus is on indian americans

Census data show that 81.8% of Indian immigrants arrived in the U.S. after 1980 (!!!). They received no special treatment or support and faced the same discrimination and hardship that any immigrant group does. Yet, they learned to thrive in American society

Taz/Razib,
You both are up at some bizarre hour; one churning out stats and the other reading it all. Go to sleep nerds;)
Very informative post Taz. Could you furnish some details on the ratio of Desi men to Desi women in the US; is it more or less even or disproportionate as in the Middle East?
Peace

Education:

USA median -
Bachelor's degree or higher, pct of persons age 25+, 2000, 24.4% cite
High school graduates, percent of persons age 25+, 2000, 80.4% (vs. 77% among bangladeshis, the worst performing brown group)

context matters. i think the education numbers speak for themselves, but they speak louder when you know the numbers of the "average" americans who have are so qualified.

Poverty & Housing:

both these need to be put in the context of the fact that south asians are geographically concentrated. this probably exaggerates their income, but also explains the low home ownership rates and overcrowding. if brown people want to own a home (hell, if anyone wants to own a home), you can move to nebraska. additionally

Assimilation:

the foreign born nature of browns can also explain lower home ownership and high poverty rates. many older immigrants end up on state support because it isn't like they have the accrued assets to live of off.

finally, the biggest issue is the implied parity of the communities. but the most deprived community, bangladeshis, is trivial in numbers compared to the stereotypical 'model minority' community, indians.

Indians - 1,645,510 88.4%
Pakistanis - 153,533 8.3%
Bangladeshis - 41,280 2.2%
Sri Lankans - 20,145 1.1%
cite

i think more data and more education is important. but more data means more ways to selection bias and frame the data ;-)

as for politics, i think a progressive and liberal political vision is easy to sell to south asians. but not because the community is oppressed or in need of government aid, but, because south asian youth are educated, idealistic and, unfortunately (from my perspective), often susceptible to identity politics. but all these do not necessarily lead to a specifically south asian, as opposed to liberal, political philosophy.

Go to sleep nerds

i have a database to configure.

The overcrowding issue - I can only speak for the UK, but this is a self produced problem that often gets cited as evidence of structural inequality or poverty attributable to a number of extrenal factors. But I have known of Bangladeshi families of 12 children living in a small house with three bedrooms. Then you start off a cycle of underacheivment because children dont get the attention and discipline they need to do well at school. Sometimes, we have to look inwards to explain certain discrepancies and weaknesses inside us.

vat! no graphs... ?

:-)

nice analysis. one thought. .. given that immigrants typically dont have a social legacy - think the people living in new york getting by on trust funds etc. - the income levels are somewat surprising.

one additional piece of data to compare and contrast would be the number of self-employed people. because the income reported by those folks is vastly different from those guys who draw a salary - and anyone with half a nut in the shell would know it makes sense to reduce tax liability by parking as much monies as possible under business expenses. just a thought... but i just think there is something missing here if the incomes are so low... median income would be interesting as well.

Another reason for the figures regarding overcrowding is the percentage of young male immigrants in blue collar jobs. The pattern is for young men to share accomodation and live in what are effectively 'flop houses', people sleeping on the floor, one man rising to work at dawn as another comes in from driving his taxi on the night shift to sleep in the same bed. This is until they establish themselves, and in the best desi style it is the cheapest thing available allowing them to save money to move on and buy a place of their own or whatever their ambition is. As long as you have fresh migrant inflows you will have this.

The example I used in my post # 6 was an extreme one, but I wonder if the larger-than-the-average families of even middle class desis, in which say two youngest sisters share a bedroom, leads to this percentage of overcrowding thing as well, when overcrowding is defined according to the national mean and each child having a room of their own, that kind o fthing. And then images of Bombay and Calcutta shanty towns loom in the imagination.

An example of the said identity politics-:

because south asian youth are educated, idealistic and, unfortunately (from my perspective), often susceptible to identity politics.

senaX's presumption that "[Indians] learned to thrive in American society" is refutable and mythic. A whole host of socio-economic variables are a function of success- the financial capital you immigrate with, your level of education, your ability to speak english, the socio-economic network you plug yourself into upon arrival (shopkeepers, blue-collar labor, etc), including other discriminating variables. To presume that some groups "learn to thrive" while others don't "learn" and thus remain marginalized or enjoy less income per capita is the type of circular sloppy thinking that is born and nurtured in success bubbles.

And Razib, being educated and idealistic does not necessarily bring about a liberal political vision. An argument articulated by Brad Delong, where he discusses the legacy of John Kenneth Galbraith, provides a critique:

What has survived throughout is the American myth of rugged individualism, and it is this that Parker's political story neglects. The power of this myth has meant that the United States is not, and never will be, a European-style social democracy. People may come together for barn raisings, but America is still the land of upward mobility and opportunity, where the most common questions are, I've done it, so why haven't you? and Doesn't this social solidarity stuff mean that I've got to pull more than my share of the weight? In spirit, it is still a nation of upwardly mobile immigrants blessed with an abundance of resources (free land) and an absence of government constraints (free labor).

Galbraith would say, sardonically, that this national self-image is just another fraudulent piece of conventional wisdom -- nurtured by the delusional, who cannot see reality, and the rich, who see it all too well but know that such delusions make them richer and more powerful. And Galbraith would be more than half right. But this self-image is also a very powerful social fact, and this more than anything else explains his waning influence on U.S. politics. It is not that the Democratic establishment has lost its nerve or been seduced by law firms and lobbyists; it is that the old Horatio Alger myth has proved extraordinarily durable.

I find the pick-yourself-up-by-the-boot-straps mentality quite dominant amongst browns when probed deeply. I think one result of that mentality in part plays into Taz's excellent points that 1) we have little research on our community and 2) we know very little about ourselves and our condition in America. The cause perhaps is a tendency to draw conclusions about self, group, etc., through anecdotes, assumptions, group-think, and popularized brown poster boys and girls of success.

Kudos to you Taz for bringing to our attention statistics about the less fortunate diaspora. If any of the above sounds jumbled I blame the hour =)

presumption that "[Indians] learned to thrive in American society" is refutable and mythic.

my bad boss - this is acutally an exceprt from the article i linked to

should have made that clearer ...

I find the pick-yourself-up-by-the-boot-straps mentality quite dominant amongst browns when probed deeply.

I don't think you should knock or stigmatise that mentality. It's not an intrinsically bad mentality to have. But it should be tempered and shouldnt be taken to be the norm.

I don't think you should knock or stigmatise that mentality. It's not an intrinsically bad mentality to have. But it should be tempered and shouldnt be taken to be the norm.

Agreed. It becomes problematic when it becomes part of policy and frames policy debates.

Agreed. It becomes problematic when it becomes part of policy and frames policy debates.

Or when it's used to compare other minorities who might not have had as much intellectual capital to start with.

It strikes me as wrong on a more visceral level as well - it comes across as smug and sanctimonious and triumphant, and as Vivek says, it can be distasteful. I think the boot-straps mentality is the right one to have, but with a sense of realism and sympathy.

One example of how this can be burst was when I think Razib said in the thread in the aftermath of the Montreal shooting that he was glad desis in the US were not so f***ed up, prompting someone to immediately point out that a desi in America had already gone on a murderous psycho shooting spree. OK, I know it's a facile argument, but every shiny happy people headline begins to grate after a while, if for no other reason that it makes you complacent, and sometimes self-congratulation can seem like masturbation too.

I apply all my comments to the UK experience as well, every time the Sunday Times publishes a separate 'Richest Asians in Britain' supplement when it produces its annual 'Britain's Rich List', for example.

Taz,

Thanx for all the stats. It would be better if you could segment these nationality groups into FoBs 1st gen and 2nd gen and then run the stats. When starting indicators are considered, such as high school and college edn., FoB stats tell us more (if not all) about the conditions back home than here. And so too to some extent for Employment, Housing, and income. Or maybe one shd look at 2nd gens only. In the UK although reports don't seem to say so, 2nd and 1st gens seem to outnumber the FoBs. As far as politics goes for Indian-Americans the responsiveness of the political system in this country comes as a welcome change from the conditions back home. Their votes do matter here and so they do participate in the system.

Mangalam,

In the UK although reports don't seem to say so, 2nd and 1st gens seem to outnumber the FoBs

Desis in Britain who have recently arrived from the Indian subcontinent are massively outnumbered by 1st Gens and (even more) by 2nd Gens.

The vast majority of South Asians in the UK were born here; the largest waves of immigration were during the late 60s and early 70s, both from East Africa and directly from the subcontinent.

south asian youth are educated, idealistic and, unfortunately (from my perspective), often susceptible to identity politics.

I disagree, in part, that susceptibility to identity politics is a bad thing. I think it's bad when identity politics shift the focus from important issues (poverty, housing, crime, etc.) to less important ones that grab bigger headlines (e.g., racial profiling and hate crimes). I say that not to minimize the impacts on victims of profiling and hate crimes, rather in pure numbers there are far fewer individuals affected when compared to the former issues. However, I do think that identity plays a role in creating a community that carries more political clout. We have discussed ad nauseum the importance of recognizing the cultural diversity in the South Asian diaspora, and the dangers of assuming that we will all vote as one block. However, the more issues in which we can participate as a group, the more political clout we can carry. An example would be the unity and political discipline that religious conservatives exercised during the 2004 presidential election campaign. If South Asians can identify political issues that relate to identity, and affect us as a whole, I don't think it's a bad thing to take advantage of those commonalities in the political forum.

Taz, great work laying out the comparative stats across national-Americans.

It's clear from these stats that when it comes to those categories - most importantly education and income for me - there are significant numbers of people in EACH national group who are privileged as well as those who are underprivileged. There is no national group which is totally well-to-do, nor is there one which is totally destitute.

So the situation is that within each national group there are conflicting class interests, and between each national group there are conflicting - well, all sorts of interests.

When it comes to differing class interests, I don't really see any difference between South Asian Americans and any other Americans. I support universal health care, better public education (NOT tied to property taxes), and a whole slew of progressive issues on the domestic front. I'd have just as much of a chance of getting a rich Tamil Brahmin to agree with me on these issues as I would a rich Boston Brahmin.

Clearly these class divisions exist. What incentive can we provide for the establishment of solidarity between South Asian classes, and how does this differ from any incentive we could provide for class solidarity in a wider American context? Wouldn't such an incentive (be it ethical or somehow material) be a requisite for the establishment of a sense of South Asian community?

I think the New York Taxi Workers Alliance is a fantastic example of working class, immigrant South Asians transcending national identity and working in solidarity towards a common material goal.

But what about other contexts where national identity rules out solidarity between national groups? For example, what do you do about the USINPAC-type who puts Indian strategic interest ahead of everything when it comes to South Asian politics? Is someone like that likely to want to build solidarity with Pakistani or Bangladeshi Americans?

Also, about the South Asian identity as a whole: what exactly is India's place within it? In the comment thread of a recent post on brown identity at PTR, kettikili put it most articulately:

The making of "South Asia" within the sets of power relations I mentioned above– this is one of the reasons why I feel especially uncomfortable identifying with the term. We can all proclaim awareness of India’s hegemonic presence in the region, but that doesn’t change the fact that most uses of the term still collapse one nation-state within the region with a term that claims to represent the entire region. Not to mention that particular states within come to stand-in for the entire nation-state.

I tried to explain this in a classroom setting to a professor who, while acknowledging the course's limitations, shrugged as if he couldn’t do anything about it. In doing so, he completely missed the intellectual implications of what I was saying. This isn’t an argument about making something "representative" in an tokenistic way — add a little Nepal here, a little Sri Lanka there — but to think about how "South Asia" might be differently conceived from those particular vantage points. Otherwise, what is the point of any of us holding on to the label? I’d rather let go of the term. As it is, even though I’ve found myself drifting towards the term in the last few years (thanks in large part to my academic work), I cannot consider myself properly "South Asian."

Some of the numbers which struck me most are from the Sri Lankan American community; I had no idea that the numbers are that staggering
So when you say this:

Domestically, I feel that our issues, as South Asian Americans, are not just narrowed to racial profiling and hate crimes, but rather, we have a breadth of issues that affect our community.

I agree, but are there really enough people out there thinking of South Asian Americans as a community? Are underprivileged South Asian Americans better off seeking solidarity with other underprivileged ethnic groups than with affluent South Asian Americans on issues which affect their daily lives and livelihoods?

excellent article taz!

I think one can argue about the validity of th statistics as razib has done quite well. But, even if issues like poverty and overcrowded housing are genuinely serious issues facing the desi community, I don't think you'd find much agreement on the solutions. I think more fertile terrain for mining issues desis can come together on have to do with maximizing opportunity. Most immigrants come to america because it is the land of (fairly equal) opportunity and even second+ generation desis have a large stake in the opportunity issue.

Policies that will maintain and improve America's ease of opportunity include:

* Ease of obtaining visas and citizenship
* Low barriers and red tape to entrepreneurship/trade
* Admission to universities based solely on merit
* Equal treatment by police and acceptance by society
* Separation of church and state
* Availability of quality education regardless of income level

Thanx for all the stats. It would be better if you could segment these nationality groups into FoBs 1st gen and 2nd gen and then run the stats.

FoB stats tell us more (if not all) about the conditions back home than here.

I disagree. Mind you, my work makes me a big fan of pulling out hte data for 18-24 yr olds. But in the context of this paper, "what is a community" --? Whether looking at Indian American or South Asian American, our community is not divided by foreign born rates, nor are they in the policy world going to be divided by ones foreign born status. This is self evident when in the issue of racial profiling, people don't ask "Where you born here?" before they start profiling you.

FoB stats, from the national census, completely tells us about FoBs IN america, not back home. Sure, demographically there may be differences between foreign born and native born, but we are still creating a desi community together.

the more political clout we can carry

this presupposes what "we" is.

senaX:

isn't that the same exact article Siddartha discussed over here? It's just in syndication now. Lovely.

Taz,

I'm usually a big fan of your posts, but it's pretty clear here that you are arguing for a very specific type of unity that I would argue is unnecessary and only of benefit to a small part of the desi population. As has been expressed on here many times, the vast majority of desi people in America are of Indian origin. What exactly is their commonality with Bangladeshi, Pakistani and and Sri Lankan people, other than race? Whenever I try to express sentiments of racial solidarity among minorities on this site, it is largely ridiculed. For once, I'm on the other side of the argument.

You use those statistics to demonstrate need in the desi community, and I'll be the first to admit that there is definitely need that should be addressed. However, according to your statistics, Indian-Americans are twice as likely to be educated than Bangladeshis, and half as likely to be in poverty as Pakistanis or Banglas. That's a pretty large disparity, and it hints at the large demographic difference between the two communities. Why should Indian-Americans ally themselves with communities that are probably at a different stage in their political development? It doesn't seem that we should have any more empathy for impoverished Bangladeshis (who enjoy the exact same political status as Indians) than we do for African Americans or Latinos, both of whom have faced historical discrimination in recent history.

Sure, we can ask South Asian Americans what issues are important to them, but the chances are they will answer in the typical with 'economy, education and foreign policy.' But I do believe that if we educate the community on the issues that are affecting them, as well as encouraging dialogue within the community, that the answers will be different. Are there issues that will potentially unite desis? I don't know, and frankly, I don't think we are there yet. Should we identify as Indian American or South Asian American? Domestically and politically, especially looking at these above issues, I think we have too much at stake to not identify as a South Asian American political community. But I'm not here to tell you how to think, just present for you the research and facts. I'll let you make the educated decision yourself.

Further more, I find it a tad arrogant for you to assume that the vast majority of South Asian Americans are not familiar with these issues. For the educated portion, the type toiling in "stereotypical" jobs like my parents, they are well aware of the demographics of our community, probably more so than us because they were here helping each other get by in the early days before being Indian was the norm or sites like this existed. As my Dad likes to say, what does a cab driver from Dhaka have in common with him? He's well aware of the plight of other South Asian Americans, and sympathetic. But he also understands that their political goals are different from his and his peers who immigrated here in the 70s. To him, education, the economy and foreign policy are the most important issues because they are the ones that affect his family directly, not because he is uninformed. And for that matter, those are usually the most important political issues to the average American voter. What makes us different?

I also take issue with this line: I think we have too much at stake to not identify as a South Asian American political community. It seems that if the "we" is Bangladeshi Americans, you are right. But what exactly would the Indian-American political establishment lose without the support of Bangladeshi and Pakistani Americans? Almost nothing, in fact, given that most Indian-Americans are Hindus, we might even become more focused, close-knit and effective at influencing policy important to Us-India relations. yes, our interests as South Asians coincide on some issues. But as you broke it down above, the differences are far greater than one might expect.

Of course the biggest reason why I oppose a desi political bloc for anything other than anti-discrimination issues is foreign policy. As we all know, there are a lot of desis whose connection to their motherlands are somewhat similar to the Jews with Israel (the more religious, the stronger the connection). For me, the number one foreign policy point outside of protecting American borders is supporting India, and I'm willing to work with any politician that has a similar goal. Of course, anyone supporting Pakistan would probably oppose that view. Since US-Indian policy is one of the few areas where Indian-Americans have succesfully lobbied for change and exercised our influence, why would we want to dilute that newfound strength by taking into account the concerns of people that might be directly opposed to our goal of helping India ascend to a world power?

I've always avoided referring to myself as a desi or South Asian, because what I consider myself to be is a South Indian American, which is a distinctive group in its own right. I would probably identify with any cultural group that sympathized with Hindus, and I would support any organization that fought discrimination against brown people and other minorities. But I don't see what the other political similarities are between people like myself and pakistani or Bangladeshi-Americans is. It seems like they have a lot more to gain by allying with the Indian-American lobby, which is much larger and better funded. Perhaps we should all work together on some common issues, but we should also be working with other minorities in the same way. I don't see us emerging as one homogenous voting bloc however, it's just not in our best interests.

Great info, Taz, Razib, Vivek, Sriram, and others.

A few things strike me in general about these discussions. One is how quickly they move beyond my own limited scope of knowledge! Another is the sheer amount of intellectual prowess concentrated in one virtual forum. The debates and even the statistics are fascinating for someone like me. It's remarkable how willing this little SM community is to understand, analyze, and discuss socio-economic issues for our community.

I kind of wish we'd do the same with socio-psychological issues, too.

With regard to Vivek's well-made point about where we draw the lines, and why they need to be drawn and redrawn...well, let's assume for a moment that there are sufficient numbers of "us" (Razib, "us" is whoever we say it is, by dint of participating in the discussion. Consider this the First Brown Constitutional Congress)(heh). You gotta start somewhere...

So there are enough "us" to generate the question, anyway. Which means there are enough "us" to start looking out for "our" interests, and enough "us" to disagree with anything a majority group of "us" might say regarding a single cohesive policy on immigration, or religion, or education, for instance. Taz' point becomes very important, then, because the natural next step is identity politics, and identity politics leads to the politicizing of certain issues and the exaggeration of their importance in the big picture.

Umang, some agreement can be found with regards to solutions to the "big picture problems," like overcrowded housing, educational parity (I'd love to see stats on that one, correlated to age bracket), and immigration-related issues. The problem becomes maintaining unity in the face of disparate (and sometimes competing) interests, in the interests of furthering the greater good.

Bear in mind, since ours (there it is again, "ours") is such a diverse community, one of the responsibilities each of us have is to consider issues from all angles, or as many as I can try to imagine. Just because I'm a 2nd-gen, Ohio-born kid doesn't mean I get to overlook immigration issues or decide they don't apply to me, for instance. I have to try and consider them from the perspective of the newly immigrated Bangladeshi, or the H1-B who just lost her job and is now in danger of losing the rest of her carefully-built American life, or a couple with kids who just stepped off the plane from India. Then I need to vote and speak sympathetically. The issues and problems become apparent then, and not the dividing lines of nationality or religion or creed.

I don't believe in unity at all costs, but I do think we need to start looking for unity where we can find it.

Timely post, Taz

When the US census bureau results came out clumping all kinds of races together, I was wondering how relevant some of the information is going to be. The average life expectancy for example.

Asian Americans with average per capita income of $21,566, have a life expectancy of 84.9 years.link

More dangerous is grouping people of various races and cultures together for healthcare statistics. What does a Punjabi American woman and a Japanese American woman have in common when it comes to dietary habits? The first has the highest heart disease rate and the second the lowest. Average them and you get harmful data. Would it be better for the Punjabi American woman to look at her native state's statistics?

Overall, Asian/Pacific Islander and Native Hawaiian women have much lower rates of heart disease than women of other minority groups, but it is still the leading cause of death within their own group. Heart disease risk and death rates are higher among Native Hawaiians and some Asian Americans (Asian Indians) partly because of higher rates of obesity, diabetes, and high blood pressure. Diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, not exercising, and smoking all put women at risk for heart disease.link

Wow, BidiSmoker. That's fairly harsh.

Why should Indian-Americans ally themselves with communities that are probably at a different stage in their political development? It doesn't seem that we should have any more empathy for impoverished Bangladeshis (who enjoy the exact same political status as Indians) than we do for African Americans or Latinos, both of whom have faced historical discrimination in recent history.

Because to do anything else would be going down the path of complete and total Balkanization of a young and growing community struggling with forging a place for itself politically, socially, and culturally. We are different, we come from different countries, we face different issues. But the rest of the world (or even the US!) doesn't see it that way, and that alone should be reason enough to think carefully about our commonality. It's our job to bring those issues to the forefront of the discussion. That means you need to think like a Bangladeshi, or a Pakistani, or an Indian, or a Muslim, or a Hindu, or like an older person, or like the disenfranchised. It's not easy, and it doesn't come naturally, but it's the only choice that makes any sense at all.

I don't think we'll emerge as one homogenous voting bloc, either. But so what? As long as we're one voting bloc, we don't need to be homogenous. There are enough of us, concentrated enough in certain areas, and spreading fast enough to other areas, that getting communities to agree to issues we consider important as a community should be a no-brainer. I'd be highly inclined to support a NJ mosque's right to operate near a major shopping center in the face of public disapproval, because while I'm not Muslim, and may have little to do with their mosque, I can see where their interests overlap with mine and my own immediate Punjabi-Hindus-from-the-South community. And I'd hope that in the future, our communities would strive to build that kind of rapport with each other.

If the demographics were reversed, and the "community" was 80 pc Pakistani, would there even be talk of a self-identifying South Asian community? My sense is that the biggest proponents of the identity are Indian-Americans. Pakistani Americans I've talked to don't seem particularly enamoured of it, though my sample consists of just friends and work colleagues.

Salil-

That's very admirable, but you still don't explain why we should be more willing (we being Indian-Americans) to work with Pakistani Americans than with, say, African-Americans. To me, the latter has a lot more of a legitmate cause, and I would be more inclined to support their political goals. Many pakistani Americans I know identify more strongly with their Muslim heritage than their Pakistani heritage. To me, foreign policy in the 21st century is turning into Muslim countries vs. Non-Muslim countries, and since India has faced the brunt of Islamo-fueled terrorism, we should strongly be on the right side of that debate. And yes, foreign policy is the most important issue in elections these days, since it tends to dominate the discourse and now even our everyday lives.

Pakistani Americans I've talked to don't seem particularly enamoured of it, though my sample consists of just friends and work colleagues.

i recall a show on NPR about asian americans, and a pakistani american called in and said he considered himself a 'muslim american.' i think that is the key, muslim browns have a non-brown identity. to a lesser extent, so do christian browns. hindu & sikh browns though only have south asian identities, so of course they would bring it to the fore.

Bidismoker @ #25

I've always avoided referring to myself as a desi or South Asian, because what I consider myself to be is a South Indian American, which is a distinctive group in its own right. I would probably identify with any cultural group that sympathized with Hindus, and I would support any organization that fought discrimination against brown people and other minorities.

As South Indian Americans, we have a sizable Christian and Muslim minorities, so you would be better off with VHP(with more north Indian membership) than South Indians as a bloc. If all South Asians work as a group, we represent more voters and even if we disagree on certain Issues, Indian and Hindus will be a majority and will have more influence. We'll be better off in America sticking together as Desis, or else the system will screw us. AS if we don't have enough problems in common.

To me, foreign policy in the 21st century is turning into Muslim countries vs. Non-Muslim countries, and since India has faced the brunt of Islamo-fueled terrorism, we should strongly be on the right side of that debate.

irresponsible leaders on both sides are making it that way. we can sit back and let that happen, and then announce we're on the right side, or we can challenge the generalizations, shortcuts, hypocrisies and lies. it's an individual choice; apparently you've made yours...

p.s. it is also important to note that the most frequent commenters of muslim origin on this blog, myself & AMJ, are not religious (i do not identify as muslim, and i don't believe AMJ does either). the point is that brown identification can come to the fore when you have no other options....

i recall a show on NPR about asian americans, and a pakistani american called in and said he considered himself a 'muslim american.' i think that is the key, muslim browns have a non-brown identity. to a lesser extent, so do christian browns. hindu & sikh browns though only have south asian identities, so of course they would bring it to the fore.

I buy that. Also I'm talking political identities. There's obviously much cultural commonality throughout S. Asia, as this blog admirably represents.

desitude (#29):

Pakistani Americans I've talked to don't seem particularly enamoured of it, though my sample consists of just friends and work colleagues.

Did you get a sense of why? Might it have something to do with the sentiment in the comment I quoted in #19?

Question:

I've never heard of a Sri Lankan Sinhala identifying as South Asian. Have you?

BidiSmoker:

I didn't realize that working together with Pakistani-Americans, Muslim-Americans, Islamo-fascists, or whatever you want to call them actually precludes working together with African-Americans (and you do realize that there's overlap between Muslims and African-Americans, didn't you?). We choose our commonality. We may not agree with African-Americans on affirmative action policies for public universities, yet agree with their overarching ongoing civil-rights struggle and find our common ground in their history of activism. Likewise, we may not

The thing I keep coming back to over and over is how much this needs to happen. Americans frequently simplify and reduce things to sound-bite sized intellectual McNuggets. To the average joe on the street, there's not a lot of difference between a Pakistani and an Indian, until he finds a negative through experience. Then he can say, "I don't like Pakistanis," or "I don't like Indians because..."

Your way allows this to continue, and even makes it worse.

siddhartha (#33):

irresponsible leaders on both sides are making it that way. we can sit back and let that happen, and then announce we're on the right side, or we can challenge the generalizations, shortcuts, hypocrisies and lies. it's an individual choice; apparently you've made yours...

Well put, that.

Siddartha-

I completely agree, which is why I'm largely a non-political person. But politics is all about advancing an agenda; if you want progress, you need to have clear goals and strong support in accomplishing them. I think most pan-South Asian issues are of the variety that also affect other Asian-Americans, African-Americans and Latino-Americans. In other words, immigration, education, combatting racism etc. are issues that should have broad ranging support and are not specific to South Asians. My continuous question has been, ignoring those issues that affect all immigrant communities or minorities, what other issues that are specific to "desis" (Indian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi Americans) should we rally around? OF course I've made it clear that I don't think there are any such issues, and that in fact, the average stance on the other most important issues (education, economy, and foreign policy) tend to be largely determined by Socio-economic status, religion and country of origin. So again, someone tell, what is this special link that unites South Asians politically? Culturally, I'll agree their is a lot of common ground. but what political issues are particular to us? I still don't see anything uniquely South Asian that we need to rally around.

As for the Islamic countries vs. the rest thing, I'm not that narrowminded. I am anti-Zionist. But when the choice is between rampant commercialism and capitalism vs. fundamentalist Islam, I know which one I support as a person of Indian origin. one ruins India with negative images and trashy consumer culture; the other bombs our major cities, parliament and houses terrorist camps. It's clear that the former is the lesser of two evils in my book.

The thing I keep coming back to over and over is how much this needs to happen. Americans frequently simplify and reduce things to sound-bite sized intellectual McNuggets. To the average joe on the street, there's not a lot of difference between a Pakistani and an Indian, until he finds a negative through experience. Then he can say, "I don't like Pakistanis," or "I don't like Indians because..."

Why would I let someone this stupid determine how I act politically? I realize most Americans can't tell the difference between Pakistanis and Indians. But you guys are saying that this basically means we aren't different. To me, that's pure BS. Why should we compromise our identity based on how whitey views us? That's accomodating to the extreme. If you're saying that all minorities should stick together, fine, I buy that. What I don't buy is that somehow I have more in common with a second-gen Pakistani-American than I do with a Iranian-American or a Mexican-american. They're all the same in my book. Why should I, as an Indian-American, be more worried about the plight of Bangladeshis than Chinese people? It doesn't make sense to me at all.

I think most pan-South Asian issues are of the variety that also affect other Asian-Americans, African-Americans and Latino-Americans.

yep.

It's all about Icebergs people. Icebergs.

Question:

I've never heard of a Sri Lankan Sinhala identifying as South Asian. Have you?

Yes, yes I have. I'd edit your statement to say "Sri Lankan Sinhala AMERICAN identifying as South Asian AMERICAN."

My idea to solve needless controversies ..
Change the term 'South Asian American' to 'Brown American'.. :-)

Replace the 'geographical grouping' with 'grouping based on color'. You can avoid the unnecessary issues that crop up in different regions that constitute the geography..

My idea to solve needless controversies .. Change the term 'South Asian American' to 'Brown American'.. :-)

Or better yet, Macaca American.

i like brown american!!!

brownz rule!

p.s. it is also important to note that the most frequent commenters of muslim origin on this blog, myself & AMJ, are not religious (i do not identify as muslim, and i don't believe AMJ does either).

I dont identify as Muslim either though I am a little different from Razib as in I am an apostate (left Islam) while Razib has never really been Muslim and is at best of Muslim 'origin'. I dont think Ikram is particularly religious either. Maybe Taz is the mullani in da house!

I cant believe we are discussing the South Asian American versus Indian American thing again! This might be possibly the most discussed topic on SM.

irresponsible leaders on both sides are making it that way. we can sit back and let that happen, and then announce we're on the right side, or we can challenge the generalizations, shortcuts, hypocrisies and lies. it's an individual choice; apparently you've made yours...

Word.

To add further,

'Brown American' is a more apt term.. 'South Asian American' is not the right term for people who are born and brought up in America, maybe it is right for their parents/ancestors who were from South Asia. The second generation folks would have hardly visited South Asia for a few months in their entire life time and except for a very few would know very little about the region..

If the idea behind 'South Asian American' is derived from 'African American', I think it is a mistake. I guess 'Brown' is not used in a derogatory manner as 'Black' and the countries in Africa (as far as I know) are not hostile with each other as in the case of 'South Asia'.. It would reduce the heartburn (of Indians) for creating artificial parity between India and other countries in the region..

Yes, yes I have. I'd edit your statement to say "Sri Lankan Sinhala AMERICAN identifying as South Asian AMERICAN."

touché :)

I was initially curious about, as you say, Sri Lankan Sinhala Americans identifying as South Asian American, but now that you mention it, I don't know how they identify with South Asia in other parts of the world either. Could you elaborate?

vivek, one of SMs guest bloggers wuz sinhala i believe.

I cant believe we are discussing the South Asian American versus Indian American thing again! This might be possibly the most discussed topic on SM.

Ummmm.... Wasn't that the point of the post? :-P

I'm reading the comments, though I have no time to post responses today- but I do have to say that though we keep beating this topic like a dead horse, that the arguments based today on actual numbers is a lot better than the hearsay arguments we've had in the past.

Carry on...

Al-Mujahid, apostasy is cool. Respect!

beating this topic like a dead horse

Has it occurred to anyone that beating a dead horse is a great way to make leather?

but I do have to say that though we keep beating this topic like a dead horse, that the arguments based today on actual numbers is a lot better than the hearsay arguments we've had in the past.

amen!

I'll second (or fifth, or whatever) that. No need to run this one any further into the ground.

And I'm totally down with the Brown American. Political party motto: "What can YOU do for Brown?"

"What can YOU do for Brown?"

...or, let brown do YOU....

I am ok with some one deleting the first three paragraphs of this post. But be warned it takes a nation of billions to hold back : ))

I have to admit the reason I don't identify myself as South Asian is that I don't identify with people who call themselves South Asians. I have nothing against South Asia or South Asianess or South Asians in America or in their home countries. My problem is with people who call themselves South Asians.

When I refuse to identify myself as South Asian they assume things – that I am one of those right-wing hindu nut jobs. Not True. That I am an “FOB”. Not true. (Why is it that people who are so finicky about labels will balk at the term ABCD, insist on dropping the “C”, but think nothing of using the term FOB. ABCD is a neologism exclusive to desis and it doesn't carry the same offensive weight as calling some one Fresh of the Boat.)

I refuse to identify myself as a South Asian, because I have a problem with people who claim to speak for me and others like me. If there was some secret poll that was taken, I am sorry I was never informed. Next time please send me an email at right_wing_hindu_nut_job_fob@rediff.co.in

The housing stats are I suspect misleading. I wonder what would happen if we took age into account. What percentage of the desi community is under the age of 35? How many of them are recent immigrants who can't look to their mom & dad to help them with the down payment? I suspect that if you look at stats for desis 40 years or older and who've been here at least 15 years their home ownership rates wouldn't be a cause for concern. Since they are more likely to be college educated, have higher incomes, less likely to be divorced I suspect their home ownership rates would be higher.

Speaking of stats, ''fewer than 100 of the 67,000 mortgages insured by the G.I. Bill supported home purchases by nonwhites.'' [NYT] Talk about real housing discrimination! I am more inclined to join a group that would raise awareness about stats like these.

Median Ages (though I don't suspect knowing the median age really changes how we should think about housing issues i.e. just because there's an explanation for the numbers doesn't make it a non-issue for the community):

pakistani - 28.2
Bangladeshi - 29.3
Asian Indian - 29.9
Sri Lankan - 33.9

US - 35.3
Whites - 38.6
Latino - 25.8

just because there's an explanation for the numbers doesn't make it a non-issue for the community

if you correct for age and region, and browns are pretty much where non-browns are home ownership wise, then i don't think it is a communal issue. rather, it is an issue for why housing is so expensive in places like the northeast or west coast that young people of all communities can afford to buy a home.

can not

rather, it is an issue for why housing is so expensive in places like the northeast or west coast that young people of all communities can afford to buy a home.

Fine, of course, this is obvious. And i'm not saying that just because the issues above are listed as such make them exclusively South Asian American issues. But rather, too often in the broader dialogue, "our community" often gets ignored in analysis - and thus being able to say housing issues affect the SAA community, is a way if inserting ourselves into the larger dialogue.

The research on these issues isn't neccasarily a way to find other ways to remain insular, but also ways to insert and connect with larger iceberg movements, if you will.

taz,

Thanks for the breakdown.

Although, I am with Razib, I think it is an age related issue rather than a community issue.

Razib,

it is an issue for why housing is so expensive in places like the northeast or west coast that young people of all communities can [not] afford to buy a home.

Knowing you I suspect you don't really mean what I think you mean. Do you mean it is really an "issue". It's supply and demand thing since when in this country at least is that an "issue"?

What I think can be made an issue is that the way suburbs (where most new home construction takes place?) are zoned, in that they tend cater to McMansion owners who want to be within driving distance of an Olive Garden. They really ought to zone for more condos and enable 30-ish single people an opportunity to purchase a home and take advantage of the same tax breaks and financial rewards that McMansion owners get.

They really ought to zone for more condos and enable 30-ish single people an opportunity to purchase a home and take advantage of the same tax breaks and financial rewards that McMansion owners get.

yeah. there are many gov. regulations which influence supply....

Should we be asking 'what issues are desis interested in' when we really should be asking 'what issues affect the the desi community?'

Domestically, I feel that our issues, as South Asian Americans, are not just narrowed to racial profiling and hate crimes, but rather, we have a breadth of issues that affect our community.

as for politics, i think a progressive and liberal political vision is easy to sell to south asians. but not because the community is oppressed or in need of government aid, but, because south asian youth are educated, idealistic and, unfortunately (from my perspective), often susceptible to identity politics.

Absent an obviously unifying issue, like aparthied, civil rights, or independence, I don't see desi's "achieving" any uniform political movement like blacks have...since theirs is a legacy of the civil rights movement. Even issues that seem unifying: outsourcing, profiling, terrorism, nukes for india, hardly get any significant consensus here on SM. Only maccaca-gate had that affect.

Razib may be right that desi's are susceptible to identity politics, but only at first. what happens when economic interests clash with the progressiveness of identity politics? I predict we are destined to never have a unifyed political front...though with india and desi-americans benifitting so much from free markets it's tempting to try to make this a racial issue (but it wouldn't be fair).

what happens when economic interests clash with the progressiveness of identity politics

middle class professionals can afford high taxes. especially those work for the gov., for benefit from regulations (like lawyers).

the trend over the last generation has been a slow but inexorable decoupling between income & party identification as cultural issues become more salient. e.g., kerry won 52% of the vote of those making over $100 K in california cite. nationally he won 41% of those making over $100 K cite.

and of course, there is the old maxim that jews earn like epsicopalians, but vote like puerto ricans :) the only issue now is that epsicopalians have been trending democrat for years.

BidiSmoker:

Further more, I find it a tad arrogant for you to assume that the vast majority of South Asian Americans are not familiar with these issues. For the educated portion, the type toiling in "stereotypical" jobs like my parents, they are well aware of the demographics of our community, probably more so than us because they were here helping each other get by in the early days before being Indian was the norm or sites like this existed.

Come on man, Taz didn't do this because she's "arrogant". First of all, not everybody knows this information, especially the later generations. Second, judging from her posts and the fact that she's an APIA organizer and researcher, it's pretty apparent that Taz has invested a lot in trying to figure who this "us" is, how it has come into being, and where it's going. It's important when you're an APIA organizer because you need to know if there's even anything there to fight for. She's just bringing up the question again because this time she has some numbers that might perhaps change the way people view the model minority/identity issue. Or they might not. That's fine. But either way, the reason for the post is totally valid.

At the same time, your opinions are also quite valid -- you bring up a lot of good questions that South Asian solidarity advocates like me need to consider. You ask why we should all identify with a South Asian bloc instead of with our respective ethno-religious/nationalistic bodies. Maybe you can start on your own question by answering one of mine: why come to a site which explicitly caters to the "South Asian diaspora" and makes a concerted effort to cover issues that aren't just Hindu and Indian? What brings you to this blog when you know that there are people here who don't have the same specific ethno-religious/nationalistic identification as you (don't tell me that you don't, to some extent, feel like a part of this blog community)? Is there something that makes all of us diasporic South Asians "fit in" here even though we often harbor extremely varying opinions? Would your participation in a black/Latino/East Asian/Southeast Asian/Middle Eastern/etc American blog be the same as your participation in a South Asian diaspora blog like this?

You're probably going to make a distinction between cultural and political allegiances, but those lines get blurred in diaspora. For example, my dad still refuses to patronize Pakistani businesses, while at the same time, my best friend, the person who I feel closest to in terms of convictions, is a Pakistani Muslim. Maybe it's easy for you to make that distinction; perhaps you have never been faced with an ultimatum of that nature, or perhaps you feel liberated by the fact that you're moving to India and you won't have to face these questions the way the rest of us still-diasporic desis have to. I for one have not yet found a way to reconcile my diasporic cultural inclinations with my desh's political agenda. And as for Razib and Manju's comment about the economic factor eventually negating the race issue: well, I know I'm in the minority here, but I wouldn't make the identity decision based solely on the economics.

tef:

I refuse to identify myself as a South Asian, because I have a problem with people who claim to speak for me and others like me.

This isn't banworthy, just illogical :) This will happen no matter what you identify with, as long as there's someone besides you who shares that identification. You will have to identify as a tef-ist, and nothing else, for there to be no one else who might at some point claim to speak for you.

Absent an obviously unifying issue, like aparthied, civil rights, or independence, I don't see desi's "achieving" any uniform political movement like blacks have...since theirs is a legacy of the civil rights movement. Even issues that seem unifying: outsourcing, profiling, terrorism, nukes for india, hardly get any significant consensus here on SM. Only maccaca-gate had that affect.

And I think that not just "our" community, but many other disparate communities are becoming icebergs.

I love the concept of iceberg. I think of it as a "flash bloc" in much the same vein as a flash mob. Within a community, an issue polarizes portions of it to vote or speak out for a particular issue, but after the moment passes, we all go back to bickering and trying to strangle each other.

My personal observations. Religion is the crucial issue here (welcome to the world):

Indian Americans are most 1gens and those 2gens who strongly identify with Hinduism and India as center of Hinduism-Hindu culture (this doesn't necessarily mean they are orthodox Hindus, just when they think of their identity, they think Hindu) and consider the rise of India and strong Indo-American relations as one of the primary drivers of their political choices and funding decisions. Other religious groups may uphold this identity, but in smaller numbers. There's an issue for you. They tend to be wealthier, which is why they can afford to spend their time on foreign policy.

Yeah there are lots of far-right "nationalists" among them but as tef and Bidi point out many are not, and simply do not like the way the "progressives" are making the identity choices. In fact, they may tout India's secularism as a selling point in political discourse.

South Asians are religiously indifferent, or those for whom Indian/SA culture became a constraint to the full expression of their Americanness, their parents may have been ultra-orthodox, they din't personally like it,, "progressives," and politically, seem to spend lots of their foreign policy time contesting Hindu nationalism in India and debunking "India Shining" and the "model minority" sterotype. The goals of the two political identities conflict. The South Asians have oomphs of heavy-weight academics with op-ed space to debunk or defame the Indian-American identity.

Also some Bangladeshis

A tiny, tiny-ass faction of progressive Pakistanis who prefer a "secular" identifier.

The overwhelming majority of this group are Pakistani Americans and more importantly, Muslim Americans, and could give a hoot about aligning with Indians, in fact, they might be bemused by it.

You forgot health.
However, as far as the wealth of health related research coming out of North America is concerned, South Asian Americans are next to invisible. That may reflect their low relative numbers, which makes a wider Asian American grouping more sensible.

As far as the labelling thing goes, this has raised an interesting conundrum in the UK. Those of Indian origin don't want to be called British Asians, since they fear this will not identify them as different from the Pakistanis, Bangladeshis et al. The Govt. says, okay suggest a new label, we'll make it official. Now if they call themselves British Indians, the Mauritians/Fijians/Kenyans etc. aren't going to be too happy. If, on the other hand, they call themselves Britsh Hindus, the Jains/Christians/Muslims etc. aren't going to be pleased. So they're deadlocked. And I suspect they deserve to be.

What exactly is their commonality with Bangladeshi, Pakistani and and Sri Lankan people, other than race?

What I have seen in desi immigrant communities is that, when faced with an identity crisis, people attempt to preserve what they feel is their culture and end up picking romanticized versions of practices, customs, beliefs and identities that distinguish them most from other groups from where they originally came from. The result is that in many cases, these desis, no matter how progressive they are in their adopted land, become nationalist and conservative in issues pertaining to their former land. These people then support politicians that appear to be helping people of their identity group.

For me, foreign policy is the most important area I would like to see a South Asian bloc become successful in. There is an alternative to supporting only India or only Pakistan. I was born in India, and I think the best thing for India, Pakistan, and all of South Asia would be if all the countries had good relationships with each other. A South Asian American community, formed on the principle that there are more things that unite us than there are that divide us, would recognize what policies are good for the entire region and would then work with politicians that promote those policies. We have too much at stake to not identify as a South Asian American political community in that if we don't do it, we will lose the gains that come from cooperation of a powerful group of people.

No one is asking you to take off your American, Indian, South Indian, or Hindu hat (the design of these hats is such that you can wear many at the same time, stackable perhaps, or maybe a half Baboushka-doll type). Taz is just offering you a South Asian hat.

Shruti,

I didn't actually think that what I wrote was really “banworthy”. Abhi had mentioned that the topic had become tiresome. I was just prefacing my comment by stating that I wouldn't question anyone who wanted to delete my post.

As far as the statement being illogical. True -- in the way you've understood it. I am not saying I have a problem with someone using South Asian in a representative sort of way. Representation will happen. Although I do like “tefist”, I think the world could use more tefists : )

But I am just contesting the notion that the majority of sec-gen desis have already decided in favor of calling themselves South Asian. I am not going to pretend to know how many do or don't want to be called Indian-Americans.

I don't see South Asian as a neutral term. It carries with it certain political connotations – let's say, progressivist, with which again I don't have a problem. My problem is that the label was created to ostensibly refer to a group of people from a geographic region with some cultural similarities. But it is most often adopted/hijacked by desis of a certain political stripe. The reason I stereotype “South Asianistas” is that they stereotype Indian-Americans, who they claim “tend to care more about South Asian foreign policy and less about their lives here in America as an 'American' first”. Implying that those who are from here – you know really from here – you know the ones born here – as opposed to those you know FOBs, even if some of those FOBs are, well, American citizens – they are not really American – not like us – because they are bit retrogressive. I like a big tent approach too. One that includes 1st gen desis.

On a more personal note my non-meat eating mother will buy halal meat from Pakistani store when we have muslim guests(Indian & Pakistani). She is too is an Indian-American. She doesn't do this because she is hip and liberal. She is not exceptional, I think she is far more representative of India then many are willing to admit here. I don't find it hard to reconcile “diasporic cultural inclinations with my desh's political agenda”.

There is a perfectly good name for people from South Asia, who refused to be divided by religion – they are called Indians. I have no problem if a sec-gen Pakistani-American or a Bangladeshi-American who feels a shared desiness thinking of themselves as Indian. It's what their grandparents and their grandparents and their grandparents were!

I am also fine with someone who wishes to retain their Pakistani identity. And wants simply to be a Pakistani-American.

But you can't create artificial term (South Asian) to make Pakistani-Americans feel included, because by its very definition the term "Pakistani" is a rejection of shared South Asianess.

But I am just contesting the notion that the majority of sec-gen desis have already decided in favor of calling themselves South Asian. I am not going to pretend to know how many do or don't want to be called Indian-Americans.

You have so perfectly captured the misunderstanding that has made this topic so incredibly tiresome. You can be BOTH Indian American AND South Asian American. It IS NOT either/or. I refer to myself as an Indian American as often as I refer to myself as South Asian American. It is all about the context.

There is a perfectly good name for people from South Asia, who refused to be divided by religion – they are called Indians. I have no problem if a sec-gen Pakistani-American or a Bangladeshi-American who feels a shared desiness thinking of themselves as Indian. It's what their grandparents and their grandparents and their grandparents were!

You've got to be kidding me. Someone? Anyone? I'm too busy to respond, but someone?

There is a perfectly good name for people from South Asia, who refused to be divided by religion – they are called Indians. I have no problem if a sec-gen Pakistani-American or a Bangladeshi-American who feels a shared desiness thinking of themselves as Indian. It's what their grandparents and their grandparents and their grandparents were!

When I refuse to identify myself as South Asian they assume things – that I am one of those right-wing hindu nut jobs

Hmmmmmm.

You've got to be kidding me. Someone? Anyone? I'm too busy to respond, but someone?

well, to be honest taz, wutz the difference between someone like you or i and a muslim from west bengal? bangladesh is a relatively new nation, and my parents have spent far more of their lives in the united states than 'bangladesh' (i.e., they grew up in east pakistan). similarly, pakistan is a new nation. india is the same nation as what was once undivided british india, and our ancestors were 'indians.' most americans perceive brown americans as 'indians.'

You've got to be kidding me. Someone? Anyone? I'm too busy to respond, but someone?

well, to be honest taz, wutz the difference between someone like you or i and a muslim from west bengal?

A lot of dead people that fought for their rights to freedom for Bangladesh- partition war AND the revolution war where my grandfather was in concentration camp when freeing ourselves from pakistan. Though, your argument razib is good for why I wear both a Bangladeshi-American hat and a South Asian American hat, you would never catch me calling myself an "Indian", intentionally done, for the people that fought for the freedom of Bangladesh.

But thanks for the generosity tef.

There is a perfectly good name for people from South Asia, who refused to be divided by religion – they are called Indians.

tef: Can you explain what exactly you mean by that. You made a sweeping generalisation about 1 billion people. Indians who want to make India a Hindu rashtra would be offended by it. How does your generalisation tie in with your fears about labels, representation, automatic assumptions.

Aw crap, the above post would have been #26 but I forgot to press the Post button.

Why would I let someone this stupid determine how I act politically? I realize most Americans can't tell the difference between Pakistanis and Indians. But you guys are saying that this basically means we aren't different. To me, that's pure BS. Why should we compromise our identity based on how whitey views us? That's accomodating to the extreme.

If you're saying that all minorities should stick together, fine, I buy that. What I don't buy is that somehow I have more in common with a second-gen Pakistani-American than I do with a Iranian-American or a Mexican-american. They're all the same in my book. Why should I, as an Indian-American, be more worried about the plight of Bangladeshis than Chinese people? It doesn't make sense to me at all.

There is a perfectly good name for people from South Asia, who refused to be divided by religion – they are called Indians.

But you can't create artificial term (South Asian) to make Pakistani-Americans feel included, because by its very definition the term "Pakistani" is a rejection of shared South Asianess.

Can't get better than the above quotes.. well said..

Abhi,

In response #74,

Yes I understand that the terms as you use them are not mutually exclusive. Heck, I have used the term south asian, and I am sure in my comments posted here.

But a reasonable person could claim that he finds the terms South Asian and Pakistani-American mutually exclusive and yet not find South Asian and Indian-American mutually exclusive.

In response # 76

T