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.

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.

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.

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

This goes to show that you really do think of me as a rightwingnutjob, which is what I claimed : ))

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!

These arguments are the reason why I like the word "Subcontinental". The area is diverse, rich in history, conflict, assimaltion, seperation, etc. Your focus on religion itself is simplistic.

Ancestors of folks from the Bengal region have been, depending on time and place, Indian subjects of the Raj, subjects of Siraj ud Daulah, subjects of the Chandra, Pala, Sena, Magadha dynasties...

India/Indians/South Asians/whatever as a 'unified' voice is a relatively rare phenomenon. Through history, rarely has the country been under one rule/roof. The Brits, Mauryas, Mughals and current modern day India are probably the largest entities (I may be missing a few).

In modern day context, calling someone who is Bangladeshi or Pakistani an 'Indian' doesn't make any sense. From a broader perspective, shared history cannot be undone, either. Hence the modern day evolution of "South Asian" or in my case I like to stick to the word "Subcontinental". It gives the distinct region with multiple languages, religions, cultures - a sixth of the world's population, it's due credit.

What about Nepal? It is a Hindu (though who knows how long) nation. Is it Indian?

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.

Abhi, do you think the identity of being 'South Asian' is primarily an American phenomenon, or have you noticed (or any SM reader I guess) that it prevails among other communities scattered throughout the world? I don't know. The United States, Canada, GB may be the only places where diverse members of the scattering come into contact beyond their previous tribal affiliations.

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.

You seemed offended by my suggestion, may I remind you that some of those people that died during the Bangladesh independence war were...Indian.

oops post #84 was by me in response to taz

tef

You seemed offended by my suggestion, may I remind you that some of those people that died during the Bangladesh independence war were...Indian.

Who fought for the state formerly known as East Pakistan to be independent of India, not a part of it. If that were the case, then Indians would have occupied and unified Bengal, not use its military to ensure a new nation was carved out.

Abhi, do you think the identity of being 'South Asian' is primarily an American phenomenon, or have you noticed (or any SM reader I guess) that it prevails among other communities scattered throughout the world?

I don't know which other communities in the world may use it but judging by my experience on this website I would think it to be primarily American (which is really the only context I care about anyways). I think that is why so many commenters get so defensive. They think that we are trying to impose our term onto communities outside of the U.S.

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.

I guess we disagree then because I don't think a reasonable person could find South Asian American and Pakistani American mutually exclusive.

Voiceinthehead,

I am sure I would offend the Hindu rashtra types. Here is how I would weasel out of my generalization : ) I don't think there were many or any in the first parliamnent in India. There may have been Hindu rashtra types in the country, but when the country was founded in its modern incarnation the people of India did not choose Hindu rashtra types. In fact there were not many Hindu rashtra types in parliament till 1990. I am assuming they represented less than 5% of the MPs until then. I don't have the numbers with me.

Therefore one can say that the people of India did not choose to create a Hindu Rashtra.

But to address your larger point, I admit, yes generalizations and assumptions are bad : )

Yes, the idea of Pakistan is antithetical to a common South Asian identity.
But all Pakistanis and Pakistani-Americans haven't renounced their South Asian identity, so it cannot be said that the terms South Asian and Pakistani or Pakistani-American are mutually exclusive.

Also, from a strictly political point of view, Pakistan is a member of SAARC so Pakistanis can be considered South Asian.

taz:

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.

Did the Indian army not fight for the Bangladeshis in the Bangladesh liberation movement?

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.

'South Asian' is a shallowly held label picked up at college campus clubs for most; its forgotten by many when college is done with. For progressive South Asian activists and academics (practically all of whom are IAs), its the means of contesting what they allege is the prevalence of nationalist sentiment, Hindu-centrism, triumphalism about community achievements, and support for neo liberalism IN INDIA among Indian Americans. This is in large part about the subcontinent; it has little to do with American political positions, except to the extent that those positions influence policy on the subcontinent. Its politically loaded, tainted, and therefore increasingly rejected.

razib's term - "brownz" -seems like a better fit in the American landscape, and so far, is devoid of progressive connotations. So, if in addition to national terms, if there be need for a uniter, that may be it.

Did the Indian army not fight for the Bangladeshis in the Bangladesh liberation movement?

And that's why Bangladeshi's should be call themselves Indian?!?!?

?!?!

Gujudude,

Who fought for the state formerly known as East Pakistan to be independent of India, not a part of it. If that were the case, then Indians would have occupied and unified Bengal, not use its military to ensure a new nation was carved out.

Agree completely.

I was just pointing what I thought was ironic.

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.

taz, this is actually an interesting point. i don't identify myself as 'bangladeshi american.' i use the terms 'brown' or if in reference to my ethnicity, 'bengali.' i will state that my parents are from bangladesh if someone is persistent in 'where are you from.' bangladesh as it is now is very different from bangladesh in the 1970s, and dhaka dialect is developing its own style and standard which i think will eventually lead to an ethnogenesis of a 'bangladeshi bengali' identity which is more than just a collection of the muslim majority thanas and districts of greater bengal (remember, people from jessore or rangpur might have had more in common with bengalis across the border in india linguistically and culturally than bangladeshis from noakhali and chittagong to the southeast). but my parents, and what residual 'bangladeshiness' that i have is a matter of lines drawn due to the machinations and depredations of politicians and alien ruling elites. yes, in 2006 bangladesh has been around for nearly 40 years, but when i was born there it hadn't even reached a decade. when it left it had barely reached a decade.

as to the issue of the genocide and what not. i would think that the main point of the rebellion and resistance to west pakistani hegemony was that people have a right to self-determination, freedom and choice, and their identity can not be imposed from above. the freedom to identify, or not identify, as 'bangladeshi' is part of the gift of their resistance.

going back to terms like 'south asian' or 'indian,' i don't really care. my point was that i know my siblings (younger) will tell people they are 'indian' if saying 'bangladeshi' confuses them. i know this is the case with many bangladeshis who now live in the united states and their children. there is a lot of tension between bangladesh and india, but i don't perceive that that is a major issue here in the states. what separates bangladesh from the rest of bengal? the dominant religion. the rest was until recently a matter of political wrangling, as the there was never a bright line dividing hindu bengal from muslim bengal (khulna in bangladesh was majority hindu, and i believe one district in what became west bengal was majority muslim, but they were left in the other nation due to geopolitical location). as an american that history is not particularly salient to me, and those politics do not define me.

most americans perceive brown americans as 'indians.'

that's true, and because of that, I think there will be an increasing trend in U.S. desis identifying themselves as "South Asian American" (or another similarly inclusive term) instead of Bangladeshi/Pakistani/Indian-American. Since the larger society perceives desis to all be the same, it's in the best interest of desis to identify collectively to combat racism and other issues they face.

Since the larger society perceives desis to all be the same, it's in the best interest of desis to identify collectively to combat racism and other issues they face.

Yeah and 88% of South Asians ARE Indian-Americans, its not an invalid assumption. This ain't Britain, where the breakdown is much, much different.

as an american that history is not particularly salient to me, and those politics do not define me.

Which is why primarily i identify as a South Asian American first, Muslim American second, and Bangladeshi American third. When I was in India last year (my aunt works for the Bangladesh embassy there) she schooled me well. And though, like you, I see myself more as brown (the product of a racialized American society, I guess) for the sake of the history (and much schooling on bangladeshi history/pride while being in India- which is actually an interesting history lesson) and respect to the history, it's where I stand. I am insulted by the idea that one doesn't want to be referered to as a South Asian American which acknowledges this common diverse history, like GujuDude mentioned, but rather wants to negate that history by claiming Indian-ness only, and allowing others to refer to themselves as such. And as a South Asian AMERICAN, a BROWN, I will work here in the US to make sure that disparity as being brown in the US is minimized- the original point of this post.

it seems to me that the one term which tends to elicit the least animus is "brown." i think this is a TKO.

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!

mullani? Can we say Hadji in da House? ;-)

Hye Allah! I can see the Hindu Funds shaking their heads right now...

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

tef: So that "is" must have been was ;)
"brown" proponents: Do any one of you believe it wouldn't suffer from same sterotypification as the SA label that tef refers. How would a new name solve anything.

itz not new. people use brown every day.

Do any one of you believe it wouldn't suffer from same sterotypification as the SA label that tef refers. How would a new name solve anything.

I don't no dudue. I am wondering why the fuck I'm up so late wondering wtf I should call myself :)

I go Indian-American, Hindu and brown. Brown is secular, ideal for the American identity landscape wit itz black, white and latino, devoid of geographical connotions and subcontinental politics and is patently obvious, looking at how any one of us looks, minus the pink nippled and porcelain hued outliers - and before everything else there is that.

taz,

I respect your right to identify in the terms most comfortable to you.

I do not reject Bengaliness or Muslimness or even Bengali-Muslimness they are all a part of my Indianness.

When it comes to terms for identity, you are an inclusivist, and I am a neti netist. I got the neti neti from my Indian Pride/History edumacation. “Indian Pride/History”, wait, why does that make me sound like a right wing nut job, I swear I am not I swear...

Peace.

There is a certain tension in this thread which is a reflection of Hindu-Muslim history in the subcontinent, which rears its head even when very reasonable 'South Asians' are involved. It seems you just can't get away from it. And commonalities do not matter if people refuse to see those commonalities. Hard-core rural Punjabis for example, in both India and Pakistan (largely of Jatt ethnicity in both countries) are identical in blood, language, culture, and heritage; yet that religious difference of Muslim vs Sikh was enough to separate them in the most horrible of ways. Even though they are the SAME. These sort of issues and this sort of history will always prevent true unity between Muslims/Non-Muslims in the desi context. Taz, I give you much respect for trying.

nevermind @ 71

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.

Seriously, we need a solution to this soon. I have a health issue that is shared by one of my relatives: Hyperparathyroidism. I had never heard of it and neither had he. We didn't know eachother had it until recently. Since it was considered rare in young people and now medical professionals are changing their attitute about that, I find myself wondering if it is more common among Indians. I dont know if I and my relative will be counted as an Indian American. One of the culprits is Vitamin D deficiency. Sounds familiar? We leave sunny India and...Well anyway, next time you are at the doctors office, get your blood work done and make sure your calcium levels are normal. It's a small thing to fix but makes a huge difference.

I can understand people disagreeing about whether to identify as SA or not. But I can't understand this sub-group who wants to identify as SA, but doesn't like the term SA.
Mr.Ks' comment on the other thread seems relavent here.

It's said that people who like laws and sausages shouldn't watch either being made (the processes involved are sickening). I guess the same goes for branding.

Taz, you are advancing equality ;) ... Mad props for an awesome post, and great responses to the comments above.

Assimilation: Though the immigration laws that gave South Asians our immigration boom happened in 1965, we still see a high rate of foreign - borns in our community: 83% of Bangladeshis, 79% of Sri Lankans, 74% of Pakistanis and 73% of Asian Indians

Take a hard look at the statistics above. This is IMHO the ONLY issue on which there is some potential of uniting the 'South asian' commmunity. Skilled immigration in this country is becoming a nightmare at least for Indians with huge processing delays on green cards etc.
Where do progressives like taz stand on this issue? The Democratic party in general is perceived as anti- H1B, and anti-outsourcing.
If anything it is the Republicans and big business who are lobbying for more skilled immigration.
So even though I am hold liberal political views for the most part, I always support Republicans in this country and so do most of my 1st gen peeps. In the last election, we rooted for Bush, cause he was ok with outsourcing and skilled immigration and Kerrry was less than enthusiasitc. It is tactical politics. This is a huge disconnect with 2nd genners who seem to mostly lean democratic.

Other than the legal immigration issue, I believe there is no point forcing or trying to manufacture an artifical unity amongst such a diverse population. 99.99% of my fellow Indian 1st genners identify either as only Indian or Indian-American .As tef said earlier, being Indian is NOT about religion. Most of us who have come here recently have a very real experience of living in a secular and for the most part liberal democratic country that is unique in South Asia and gives us very little in common with people from religious theocracies like Pk or Bdesh . Add to that our difficult relations with these 2 countries and often personal experiences of terrorism , and you can understand why most of us have no interest in a shared identity with these other South Asian groups.

taz:

Did the Indian army not fight for the Bangladeshis in the Bangladesh liberation movement?

And that's why Bangladeshi's should be call themselves Indian?!?!?

?!?!

Heck no. Feel free to identify yourself however you wish.
I misread your post and I thought you implied an animosity towards India over 1971 as the reason for avoiding the "Indian" label. My bad here.

brownz. they're discussing brown at pass the roti.

Take a hard look at the statistics above. This is IMHO the ONLY issue on which there is some potential of uniting the 'South asian' commmunity. Skilled immigration in this country is becoming a nightmare at least for Indians with huge processing delays on green cards etc. Where do progressives like taz stand on this issue? The Democratic party in general is perceived as anti- H1B, and anti-outsourcing. If anything it is the Republicans and big business who are lobbying for more skilled immigration. So even though I am hold liberal political views for the most part, I always support Republicans in this country and so do most of my 1st gen peeps. In the last election, we rooted for Bush, cause he was ok with outsourcing and skilled immigration and Kerrry was less than enthusiasitc. It is tactical politics. This is a huge disconnect with 2nd genners who seem to mostly lean democratic.

Immigrant_guy,

You need to separate rhetoric from reality:

The number of new H-1Bs issued each year in the United States is subject to an annual congressionally-mandated quota. Those beneficiaries not subject to the annual quota are those who currently hold H-1B status or have held H-1B status at some point in the past six years and have not been outside the United States for more than 365 consecutive days. This annual quota has had a significant impact on the high tech industry. It has generally been set at 65,000 visas per year, with some exceptions for workers at exempt organizations like universities and nonprofits. In 2000, Congress permanently exempted H-1B visas going to Universities and Government Research Laboratories from the quota. During the early years of this quota in the early 1990s, this quota was rarely actually reached. By the mid-1990s, however, the quota tended to be filled each year on a first come, first served basis, resulting in new H-1Bs often being denied or delayed because the annual quota was already filled. In response to the very hot high-tech market of the late 1990s, the quota was increased first to 130,000 and then, in 2000, to 195,000 visas per year. This increase in the quota seemed to play a role in oversaturating an already softening high-tech job market. During the years the quota was 195,000, it was never reached, and the availability of high-tech jobs in the USA plummeted as there was just too much competition for positions.

In 2005, the quota reverted to 90,000 when the temporary increase passed by Congress in 1999 expired. Since then, the quota is again filling up rapidly every year, making H-1Bs again increasingly hard to get. More recently, the basic quota was left at 65,000 but with an additional 20,000 visas possible for foreign workers with US advanced degrees. Of the 65,000 total, 6,800 are initially reserved for citizens of Chile and Singapore under free trade agreements with those countries, however, if these reserved visas are not used under the agreements, they go back to the general pool. Outside of the 65,000 quota, another 10,500 visas annually are available to Australian citizens under a similar but more flexible program, the E-3 visa program.

In 2006, the entire quota of visas for the year beginning October 1, 2006 was exhausted within a span of less than 2 months on May 26[6], and the additional 20,000 Advanced Degree H-1B visas were exhausted on July 26th.

I personally REFUSE to accept the label "South Asian" (for reasons described above and more) but can live with the term "brown American." I fail to see why those of us who are FOB Indians have to be co-opted into something we despise - "South Asian American" has little meaning without the consent of South Asians. Brown American is more acceptable since it implies a unity formed solely on the basis of race for those who want it and doesn't implicate the actual subcontinent and its politics (which are still very fresh and real to us immigrants).

Unsurprisingly, I plan to register as a Republican (I will become a US citizen soon). Like most Indian immigrants of my generation (I'm 30), I tend to the Right in this country for a variety of reasons. However, putting aside my existing right wing tendencies, few groups in America make me feel as politically alienated as "progressive" desis in America, who seem willing to engage with any point of view except the Indian immigrant one. I care about my new homeland AND my old one; this is the reality of my life. The tone of "progressive" desi politics in America, alternating as it does between condescension (exemplified most by abhi on this site) and hysteria (exemplified by too many to name), is one I could live without.

Allow me to do some engineering of

The tone of "progressive" desi politics in America, alternating as it does between condescension (exemplified most by abhi on this site) and hysteria (exemplified by too many to name), is one I could live without.

The tone of conservative (and desi) politics in America, alternating as it does between condescension and hysteria, is one I could live without.

Ok, finished. For case studies on the veracity of this engineered statement, see McCarthy, Goldwater, Nixon, Reagan, Bush II, American Enterprise Institute, Hoover Institution, Manhatten Institute, Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation, Discovery Institute, Club for Growth, Competitive Enterprise Institute, RAND Corporation, The Weekly Standard, National Review, The New Republic, The American Spectator, et al.

American Enterprise Institute, Hoover Institution, Manhatten Institute, Cato Institute,

you're lumping a lot of groups together here. AEI & hoover are pretty much republican outfits, but manhatten is less partisan and more empircal. cato institute is pure principle, and gets most of its money from small donors (cato's VP, david boaz, is a friend of mine, full disclosure, blah, blah).

you're lumping a lot of groups together here. AEI & hoover are pretty much republican outfits, but manhatten is less partisan and more empircal. cato institute is pure principle, and gets most of its money from small donors (cato's VP, david boaz, is a friend of mine, full disclosure, blah, blah).

...and they are all part of the broader conservative movement. I forgot to the Op-Ed page of the WSJ.

Holy CRAP. What a lot of noise.

Hard-core rural Punjabis for example, in both India and Pakistan (largely of Jatt ethnicity in both countries) are identical in blood, language, culture, and heritage; yet that religious difference of Muslim vs Sikh was enough to separate them in the most horrible of ways. Even though they are the SAME. These sort of issues and this sort of history will always prevent true unity between Muslims/Non-Muslims in the desi context. Taz, I give you much respect for trying.

It is still not uncommon for Punjabis to go to mosque, temple, and gurudwara. I personally have worshipped at all three at various points in my past. This is the legacy of my maternal grandfather: the differences do not matter if we agree to it. And sometimes all it takes for agreement is simply choosing to agree. Some would say that the three religions are somewhat antithetical. To those people, I'd say: seriously, shut the hell up.

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.

Let's face it: desis have huge rejection issues.

And commonalities do not matter if people refuse to see those commonalities.

I hear you Amitabh. Generally speaking I have a hard time with identity of any sort being made into a zero sum game. Depending on the situation, cultural identity often feels more like a Venn diagram. I suppose commonalities only become apparent when whatever circles we exist within begin to widen and maybe overlap.

I don't know much about Donald Horowitz but I once wrote down a quote of his - "An Ibo may be ... an Owerri Ibo or an Onitsha Ibo in what was the eastern region of Nigeria. In Lagos, he is simply an Ibo. In London, he is a Nigerian. In New York, he is an African."

And in Kansas, he's just plain black.

Internally he may feel all of these things at once, but in a world that leans towards bifurcation (Are you black or white? Male or female? Gay or straight?) the nuance gets lost. We get forced into multiple choice formats of cultural idenity.

Actually though I'm just waiting for the aliens to attack. I don't care if they're furry and English speaking (life Alf) or wide-eyed and merely homesick (like E.T.) or DNA-less, nucleus-free cellular structures that replicate at 300 degrees Celsius. Once they're here we can finally have our homo sapien love fest and blast the beejezus out of those alien *#$@!&s. Wheeeeee!

...and they are all part of the broader conservative movement. I forgot to the Op-Ed page of the WSJ.

yeah, just like the democratic party and liberals are basically part of the broad anti-american movement.

Are you disputing that Cato is not a conservative think tank being that it is a repository of free-market advocates who have traditionally found more sympathetic ears in the conservative movement?

Are you disputing that Cato is not a conservative think tank being that it is a repository of free-market advocates who have traditionally found more sympathetic ears in the conservative movement?

no, it isn't conservative. it's libertarian. lumping it with AEI is insulting to CATO, which at least adheres to a firm set of principles. not all on the right are the same.

but whatever, keep on lumping. liberals and progressives are all communists, right?

i'm sick & disgusted by the casual, smug and ignorant smears of conservatives by some here, so i'm going to stop pretend like there are non-communist liberals. you're all un-patriotic reds in my book from now on.

No von Mises,

I feel your pain. Whoever attached the warm, comforting, grandfather-with-a-cup-of-old-fashioned-cocoa label conservative to some of the *******s on the extreme right must be rotting in hell.

At least Chavez stood up and called out the devil :) And it's Bush he was talking about, not anti-Americanism.

Look, Razib, I understand your frustration and I don't want to go down the route of petty, smug and ignorant smears. I'll give you the squiggle room to free yourself from associations with AEI and Hoover but the reality is that at economic policy level, Cato is in lockstep with AEI and Hoover, with the latter two more soft around the corners in their technical research favoring more advocacy.

There is also something to be said of libertarianism's waning influence in policy circles. It's theoretical principles worked well on paper, as popularized by Friedman, but are now technically defunct in their application. That suggests libertarianism is more ideology and less rigorous than Cato makes it out to be.

Sorry for not going into more detail about the lumping earlier.

Tashie,

"Rotting in hell" or being agents of conductivity =):

But all these shocks turned out to be temporary. The middle class no longer fears impoverishment at the hands of another Great Depression, as it did in the 1950s, and it is less certain that it shares interests with the working class. Republican legislators may still feel that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, but they are now smart enough to keep quiet about it. The Democratic South has morphed into the Republican South, and enough electricity to power Illinois and New York could be produced if only one could attach magnets to Abraham Lincoln and William Seward as they spin in their graves.

I personally REFUSE to accept the label "South Asian" (for reasons described above and more) but can live with the term "brown American."

So you're ok with sharing that identification with brown skinned people who are not from South Asia, like Latinos, Filipinos and Arabs? Because they're brown too.

However, putting aside my existing right wing tendencies, few groups in America make me feel as politically alienated as "progressive" desis in America, who seem willing to engage with any point of view except the Indian immigrant one.

Ok I've been hearing this a lot on SM, which is ultimately a pretty moderate blog community considering the scoffing backlash that occurs at the slightest indication of a "progressive" attitude, whatever you think that means. Can you please explain to me what you think a "progressive" desi is, and why you feel alienated by them?

Oh, and just to avoid getting yelled at, consider this a question coming from someone who has been called a progressive before, and does NOT lump everyone else as "conservative". I don't think like that.

(Abhi I'm sorry if this conversation has already been had. I just like torturing you. :) I never really paid much attention to it on SM before, so I want to get it straight now.)

Shut up!

SHUT up!

SHUT UP!!!

SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP!!!!!!!

Stop torturing me with South Asian identity!!!! Stop oppressing us and misguiding youths in America!!!

We are a caucas block! A strong one with foreign policy!!!

You are castrating us!! I reject you!! We are assertive Hindu Nation of Americans and we don't want to be associated with cab drivers or commie pinko who fantasise about sex with negroes or Muslims and treat faggots as normal human beings.

With this 'progressive', you are causing mental torture and oppression to us with your lefto fascist cabal.

In all serious discussion, please cease this. It is causing great upset and is a threat to India itself, and the health of Indian-Americans, who are already oppressed and suffering daily in torment and pain.

Now if you don't mind, I am just going to resume my inspection of Kiran Desai's book to make sure it doesnt upset us or there will be protests.

Death to Sepia Mutiny!

Death to Bangladeshi Americans!

Hail Mogambo!

like Latinos, Filipinos and Arabs? Because they're brown too.

1) most american arabs can pass as white.

2) those of us who promote 'brown' aren't all r*tards who don't understand that to some extent it is a social construct. but it isn't like "black" americans actually have black skin, i mean, objectively, it is brown. objectively, all humans except albinos and some redheads are a shade of brown, as the skin naturally contains the brown-black melanin pigment. the concentration of the pigment determines the extent of "brownness."

3) brown americans are browner than any of the groups you list. we are the darkest skinned ethnic group aside from black americans. even if "brown" is an imprecise and imperfect appellation, it is most accurate for us of all the groups listed. at this point i await the declarations of arabs, filipinos and latinos who want to declare that no, they are darker skinned, because you know how popular being dark is :)

4) i don't mind "south asian american" really. but it sounds clincial. like "coitus." on the other hand, "desi" reminds of "i love lucy" and her husband. i hadn't even heard the term until 3 years ago, so i'm not keen on it even if it is normative (though my own impression is that it has become less normative over the years on this blog :). "desi" is like "shag." just a little to foreign of a slang to be anything but an exotic addition to the lingo.

5) brown, brown, brown, brown, brown, brown, brown, brown, brown, brown, brown, brown, brown, brown, brown, brown, brown, brown.

Yes, 'brown' fits well.. I'd add "brown skin and black hair".. :-) Why bring 'other geographical regions' to define your identity and along with it the 'historical baggage'..? Clearly, grouping the idea of India with the idea of other theocratic states is offensive to a lot of Indians, not just the right wingers..

no, it isn't conservative. it's libertarian. lumping it with AEI is insulting to CATO, which at least adheres to a firm set of principles. not all on the right are the same.

CATO is pretty hard core libertarian. AEI on the other hand is just plain nuts (IMO). I think some of CATO's positions like advocating for doing away with minimum wage pretty extreme though thats a standard libertarian demand. CATO actually opposed the Iraq war, they are urging caution on Iran, they support more immigration etc. which are not exactly conservative positions.

Razib Brownwallah,

Re: post #126

I'm laughing my head off at point number 5 ! :)

Actually, from a British (South) Asian perspective, it does sound a little weird to hear our counterparts in the US using the word "brown" in reference to themselves in a racial sense, as I've mentioned a couple of times before. I mean absolutely no disrespect to you or anyone else here by saying this, but at first glance it sounded like a very artificial term constructed purely to be a counterpart to the existing terms "white" & "black".

However, given the partially-different dynamics in America regarding race etc, it does make sense for this to seem normal to you guys over there. So for the record, I do understand your logic, even if (as mentioned before) I have some reservations about anyone using something as narrow as their skin colour to identify themselves by, especially as it has the possibility of degenerating into arguments about some people "not being brown enough" based on their appearance and/or perceived behaviour (the British desi equivalent used to be "coconut"), which we occasionally see here on SM too.

Brown brown brown light-olive porcelein alabaster mahogany coffee cafe-au-lait cafe-latte brown brown beige tan olive olive olive.

Ah, whatever. "Asian" works fine for me ;)

I think H-1B has now become a more complicated issue than a simple Republicans in favor and Union backed Dems against it issue. Republicans in the Senate might support more H-1Bs (though the rank and file Reps in the House have now become very anti-immigration period, including anti H-1Bs) but its the Democrats who will help the H-1s bring over their spouses H-2s and other family to the US. Republicans even in the senate are not really in support of more liberal family reunification laws.
The Republican base has now become so anti-immigration that except for the libertarian minded elites, most of the House members are doing the bidding of anti-immigration extremists like Tancredo etc.

Would the India only people here also object to the term 'desi'.

brown americans are browner than any of the groups you list. we are the darkest skinned ethnic group aside from black americans. even if "brown" is an imprecise and imperfect appellation, it is most accurate for us of all the groups listed.

You speak as if you have already claimed "brown americans" for us. Yes, race is just a construction, but you're not the only one constructing :) You can't claim this without the consent of other brown skinned people, even if they are a lighter shade of it. And no non-white supremacist brown skinned person that I've ever met would say that we desis are the browns and they are not.

at this point i await the declarations of arabs, filipinos and latinos who want to declare that no, they are darker skinned, because you know how popular being dark is :)

If they don't declare it, it's because they have the same colorist complex that most desis have. Other groups have various shades of brown, same as we do. Just because our color range includes darker shades not found in those other groups doesn't mean that those other groups aren't still "brown". Why can't "South Asian" just mean a region-specific brown?

Immigrant guys point in #108 is very interesting. Given the percentage of 1gens to 2gens (3 to 1), and given the continual increase of Indian immigration, the writing is on the wall: 'Indian-American' and India-centric political issue framing will likely dominate the American brown scene for at least another generation. As most Pakistanis have already moved on to Muslim American (when not using national origin) and many of the South Asians here would have married out of the community (making their kids Americans or 'mixed' as the excellent dialogues here have shown), the last remaining South Asian "progressives" will be hanging on in outmoded silliness, kind of like the votaries non-aligned movement. I strongly suggest the collecivists embrace and propagate brown if they really feel the need to get cuddly with all of South Asia - before its usurped by numerically superior groups!

Down with brown!

A wonky internet connection and work have prevented me from getting as involved in this thread as I'd have liked.

Given the sentiment against South Asian identity on this thread (for which the arguments have literally made me nauseous), I'd like to once again pose my question from #19:

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?

SA (#72):

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.

YES YES YES YES YES YES YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THANK YOU!!!

I've never understood why members of the diaspora have to continue to look at South Asia through a nationalist lens. If we're really interested in peace in South Asia it seems that we have the luxury to be able [and responsibility] to step back and look at the larger picture: a united front of Pakistani and Indian Americans who are interested in Indo-Pak peace have the power and ability to put pressure on both the Indian and Pakistani governments to solve the Kashmir issue once and for all. It's a bloody waste of time and energy for Indian American interests to go tit for tat against Pakistani American interests in their quest to get the US government on one side or the other, or to make or break military deals to one side or the other.

In the same vein, a strongly unified South Asian American front, working with South Asians from Canada, can put pressure both on the Sri Lankan government and the LTTE to go to the negotiating table.

Vivek,

a united front of Pakistani and Indian Americans who are interested in Indo-Pak peace have the power and ability to put pressure on both the Indian and Pakistani governments to solve the Kashmir issue once and for all.

If that ever comes about I hope Indians and Pakistanis can come together and tell assorted Indian-Americans and Pakistani-Americans and plain ole Americans and the lone South Asian that America should first focus its attention on bringing “peace and democracy” to the Middle East : )

I would hate to see desi versions of the neocon likudniks. And, no, I am not some anti-semitic nut job.

tef werote:
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.

This is a pretty deep misunderstanding of Pakistanis. That identity isn't a rejection of "south Asianess/Desi-ness (although some do think it is) its just a different stream of South Asian. In fact, given 25% of South Asians are not Indian, "Indian" is inadequate to express Desi identity.

But this thread shows the problems -- Indian immigrants are going to define "South Asian American" identity. They are overrepresented (88% of browns) in the USA, and will control any movement. They can either create an epansion, inclusive identity, or a narrow, sectarian one. My guess is that the greater the proportion of FOBS, the narrower the conception of brown identity in the USA.

Things will be very different in Canada.

BidiSmoker (#135):

The flaw in your argument is the same one I pointed out before. Yes it would be ideal if all the South Asian countries got along. But they don't.

My point is that folks in the diaspora can and should effect changes in the dynamics of current South Asian inter-state politics, not perpetuate those dynamics.

So why would the Indian-American political lobby want to jeopardize the strength of their newly found voice by diluting it with competing concerns?

What does the Indian American political lobby gain from the following?

1) Cross-border terrorism
2) Leadership on both sides playing on Kashmir while Kashmiris continue to suffer abuse and die at the hands of BOTH sides
3) Antagonism between two nuclear states (one of them not exactly stable)

These are all three attributes of the status quo and I see no reason to keep them around. If there's going to be a change, there needs to be a radical shift which compels both sides to engage in a genuine peace process. If Musharraf takes any risks, he will likely lose power or worse. Congress isn't likely to take any risks, and even on the off-chance that they did, they'd be tarred and feathered by the BJP on counts of softness on terrorism, etc. The BJP of course wouldn't take such a step - too many of their leaders benefit politically from the vilification of Pakistan and of Musharraf (not to say that this isn't true of some Congress leaders).

If the impetus for change is unlikely to come from inside, why not apply pressure from outside? And why not set the stage for cooperation with a unified call for peace from the South Asian diaspora? This would also beat the chickenshit habit everyone seems to have of running to the State Department every time they don't like something.

Ikram (#137):

Things will be very different in Canada.

How so?

Why can't "South Asian" just mean a region-specific brown?

it can, but it just as arbitrary. look at the map. i have actually encountered some confusion about 'south asian' because some perceive that southeast asia is part of south asia...as it is to the south of 'south asia' proper.

brown, brown, brown, brown, brown, brown, brown, brown, brown, brown, brown, brown, brown, brown, brown, brown, brown, brown...ya'll.

also, it is relevant (i think) that 47% of "hispanics" put white as their race on the CENSUS. obviously there are hispanics/latinos who use the term 'brown,' but they are as thick on the ground, i would argue, as brownz who use the term 'south asian' habitually :-)

wutz catchpa again??? :)

So you're a Hindu American?

Their cultures (while extremely beautiful and interesting) are as different from mine as a Serb or Argentinian

that's not factually true though. to say that a muslim from mumbai and a syrian christian is as different as a "serb or argentinian" is so absurd as to render you pretty uncredible. of course, you might have your own very very special culture....

...but mebee i'm hung up on literality and not giving you rhetoric license.

let's blame this thread on the British, hyphens, geography, and melanin.

...and they called him cinnamon love....

Vivek,

You make some good points in the post with the quote about a Pakistani reaction to 'South Asian' being Indian anyway. Thats a reaction I never expected. I think you are correct in saying that coalitions built around issues we care about needn't be narrowly construed. For those issues, I don't see a "South Asian" consensus emerging. Rather people who care about those issues who happen to be of South Asian descent will be part of the coalition, and given the inordinate levels of education among us (thanks to selective immigration policies) we have the resources to be, as individuals, among the leaders and shapers of the direction some of these issues take. This was the case with Biju Matthew and Vijay Prashad playing a crucial role in the Taxi alliance. But South Asians as political community still seems untenable to me. I will have to agree with Ikram that the Indian and Hindu demographic domination of the American diaspora will set the tenor of the organized (and highly funded) political activism towards India-biased foreign policy. There is some truth to the joke that Indians aspire to be the "new jews."

As for the undeniable cultural and genetic commonality, Razib's 'brown' sums it up best. And its more aesthetically pleasing than South Asian American, and more apprehendible to the general population than "desi" - much as that pains me to say :-)

'brown' is better for raps and shout outs too. "yo brown, git down here!!!!" and you can use the UPS tie in for pick up lins, "can brown do you?" or afterward, "was brown good for your?"

well put, desitude!

Just for the record, the person I quoted is of Sri Lankan origin.

Sure, I'm down with brown. But given kettikili's point about India's place within the whatever-you-want-to-call-this-American identity, it's going to take a bit more introspection than just settling on terminology if we want to be as inclusive as possible. And I do.

Vivek -- Only 47% Canadian Desis are of Indian origin, versus 88% of American Desis. Sri Lankans and Pakistanis are next. West Indian Desis and East African Desis make up smaller but influential communities, resulting in a very diverse puiblic face to the "community". And religiously, 30% of Canadian Desis are Sikh, 28% hindu (one third of them Sri Lankan), 23% Muslim. Rich male techie Indian-origin Hindus are probably going to be the politically dominant desi element in the USA, but not here in Canada.

but not here in Canada.

well, i hope you freeze your asses off!!!

tef on #103: I have never before seen anyone miss being called "Pinko" ;) So what is your preferred ideological moniker ? I will make sure I refer to you by that next time. I envy you. I have the exact opposite problem, people assume I am a leftie unless I couch my arguments in rightwing code words. If I ask people to join in a minute of silence on WorldPeace I am a leftie, call it vasudhaika-kutumba and all the rightwing nutjobs are cool with it.

brown bros and sistas : I have nothing against brownz term. It is way cooler and shorter than SoutAsian. I am an Indian and will remain one. Brown/SA unity is of tangential intrest to me. My larger point is that rebranding is a useless weapon/defence against stereotyping. Education is the only way out. Arguments and ideas should stand or fall on their own strengths and weaknesses, not in the terms they are couched in.

razib: More power to your cousins who don't mind identifying as Indians.

Thanks, Ikram

Ikram (#137):

tef wrote: 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. This is a pretty deep misunderstanding of Pakistanis. That identity isn't a rejection of "south Asianess/Desi-ness (although some do think it is) its just a different stream of South Asian. In fact, given 25% of South Asians are not Indian, "Indian" is inadequate to express Desi identity.

It also ignores the history of perceived exclusion of various groups during the independence struggle and the subsequent regional and religions nationalisms which rose up in response to the mainstream [largely industrialist North Indian upper-caste Hindu] Congress-led nationalist movement.

I'm really interested in Taz's post, which had more to do with domestic policy than foreign policy. I made my argument along class lines in #19, and no one seemed interested. BidiSmoker referred to socio-economic status in #40 among other factors...

I'm really curious as to why class divisions haven't really come up in this discussion as much as religion and nationality. I fully acknowledge that there are differences between national groups, and the points about differing foreign policy interests has been made more than clear. But I said in #19, the statistics Taz laid out clearly show that there are economic differences within each national group as well. Is class a bad word? Should I use socio-economic status instead?

vivek, the trend in US politics has been away from class as an organizing principle and toward touchstone cultural issues. i would suspect that most people on this blog are more culturally than fiscally progressive (or at least, they give more thought to the former than the latter). i don't think class is an emotionally salient bond across religion and ethnicity. i thought world war I proved that as 'patriotic' socialists sent the workers to the trenches? additionally, one thing that cropped up early on this blog when s-man was hangin' was that bringing up class tended to undermine identity politics, or come into clash, and many people here are very down with identity politics, whether it be from the progressive 'we-are-people-of-color' left or the 'hindu-nation-is-number-one' right. i actually backed up s-man a few times early on because i did think that the identity politics kind of went out of control and neglected class sometimes, as when upper-middle-class brown americans analogize their plight to the oppressed of the nation.

brown, brown, brown, brown, brown, brown, and then some!

I'm really curious as to why class divisions haven't really come up in this discussion as much as religion and nationality.

Weird right? Especially since the comment thread has degenerated to it's usual spin by the time it reaches 150+ posts on SM. And especially since domestic stats were given. C'est la vie- it's the way of the comment threads at SM.

Class is an issue, and it's a difficult issue. Helen Zia talks about it well in her book the Asian American Dream where she compares the taxi worker movement to the Bay Area Tie group and how disconnected they are. It is something that I've struggled with as a SAA voter organizer- an issue that some in the pass the roti circles would call classist organizing amongst desis ;-)

For many Americans, fighting terrorism is the number one political concern right now. Why should Indian-Americans be any different? Last time I checked, there were no Islamic terrorist training centers in India.

Those Americans are very silly. And so are those Indians. Browns.

"To prevent comment spam, please type the word brown below:"

Razib, clearly it's not working. What do we call this? Brownian...non-Motion?

razib and taz,

Thanks for the responses. I wish I had something intelligent to say, but I'm too sleepy. I'll get back to y'all in the morning...

Aha! I have it!

"Brownian Emotion."

ultrabrown.com vs. ultradesi.com vs. ultrasouthasian.com ?

I hate my job. But I love Photoshopping (even if I only really have MSPaint).

ULTRABROWN! ULTRRRRAAAABROWN!

ultrabrown.com vs. ultradesi.com vs. ultrasouthasian.com ?

I think "Ultradesi" has quite a nice ring to it :)

Anyway, I thought I should clarify my reasoning a little further, to complement the points I made in my previous post.

Along with what I said before, I should mention that -- as very long-term visitors to SM will know -- I tend to have a "human first" attitude; meaning, I don't mentally subdivide people up into "races" in the literal sense. I know that there is some medical basis for "race", at least in terms of some groups being more susceptible to certain ailments than others, but beyond that I don't consider it at all. It may sound like a cliche, but I only regard there as being one race -- the human race -- and beyond that it's just a matter of people being from different countries (which are very artificial geographic/political delineations created on the planet by humans themselves anyway).

Because of this, personally I agree with the attitude in the UK of using geographical origin, not skin-colour, as a form of ethnic identification; it's because, in my view, the latter just sets up another barrier between people and inadvertantly promotes the notion of "race" as some kind of semi-separate "species"-type classification, as someone else mentioned higher up in this thread.

Also, the risk is that using skin-colour as a primary form of self-identification can inadvertantly reinforce preoccupations with such matters and perpetuate excessive self-consciousness about one's own skin-colour (and that of other people), instead of actually eradicating such attitudes.

For various historical reasons this may have been the dominant attitude within the United States, but there is such a thing as perpetuating something which was a mistake in the first place, especially a misguided and generally nasty approach which has its roots in the Victorian era.

Along with my previous post, this has been the basis of my arguments from Day 1 -- again, as some very long-time visitors to SM will be aware.

However.....It is becoming very clear to me these days that, in some aspects, there are considerable cultural differences between the South Asian community in the UK and our counterparts in North America, so beyond a certain point it would not be appropriate for me to comment excessively on this matter, especially as someone who doesn't actually live in the US. It's apparent that you are all still trying to hammer out the various issues regarding "identity" etc.

I'm sure you guys know what's best for yourselves and can therefore figure out the right course of action and the right approach to take ;)

Don't you think going forward, say, in a couple generations when we are grandparents, that 'desi' and 'asian' and 'south asian' will have less umph as identities and typecasts? Btw, I'm thinking of America, the UK is a different beast. America is quite good as a factory for producing Americans.

Brown seems more plausible than the others (but still not sufficient).

A toast to brown. For now.

In thier country they kill all the Hindus, yet they invade India to eat the endagered animals!

I think you're confused.

It is not in the best interest of Indian-Americans to ally themselves with the other SA communities for one main reason: the primary issue of interest to most Indian Americans is pro-India foreign policy. Of course we can agree on issues such as skilled immigration, minority protections, etc, but these we have in common with many other communities. If you look at it objectively Indian-Americans share interests more with Jewish Americans than with other South Asians, both are wealthy but small minorities with an exclusive unified interest in promoting their homeland, and particularly protecting Israel, India and America from radical Islam. In fact, these similarities are playing themselves out on the political stage as we can see the USINPAC already allying with the AIPAC and other pr-Israel organizations.