I've never checked but wondered when "south asian" comes into use. I don't recall hearing it at all prior to mid 90s. I think, also, that it is mainly only a US term as British people call us asian. To me the term is almost meaningless. It is almost a census clarification, a way of saying, for lack of better term, "non-chinky eyed asians." What else does the term mean? Is it a reference to former british colonies? It isn't really geographically correct as Pakistan is further north than most Taiwan, Delhi is further north than Hong Kong (and these places are never referred to as Southeast Asia, a term with its own little distinctions). I've also never heard "South Asia" or "south asian" used in asia or by asians over a certain age.

Further, Nepal in particular is very much an iffy "South Asian" place, sharing more perhaps with Tibet (which like it or not is in China) than with India. I like her subtle way of not giving much weight to the term south asian.

I think your over-examining her comments. From what I read she's saying she's a Nepali first, a South Asian next and then an Asian. South Asian and Asian don't necessarily have to be two separate entities.
I grew up in Dubai and have always identified myself as an Asian. However, on arriving here in the States I was immediately categorized as South Asian and much to my FOBtacular wonder, found out that Asians were a separate and discrete category, which I thought was kinda funny because according to Wikipedia 60% of people on earth are Asian:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asia

So yeah it's kind of strange how we identify with being South Asian but not particularly Asian.

Interesting!
I think this is like my cousins and me - we're from Andhra Pradesh, a state in the south of India, but hate calling ourselves 'South Indians'. We're Indian, yes. Or we're Telugu.
The reason we hate calling ourselves South Indians is that people tend to lump everyone from the four Southern states into the same sociological/cultural bucket - and there're some immense variations between someone from Cochin and someone from Kakinada! Not all of us are religious, pious, soft-spoken, idli-dosa eating, mathematics geniuses, non-physically active, non-aggressive, etc etc.
I'm guessing Kiran, in addition, also has the issue of being from a smaller country normally dwarfed out by its larger neighbor, India, all the more reason for her to stress on her Nepali-ness. We don't see Canadians or Mexicans calling themselves North American, even when they're travelling or living in the other part of the world, e.g. Singapore. They prefer their national identity....

“I like her subtle way of not giving much weight to the term south Asian”.

I like that too, if you are going to say where you are from why not say Nepal, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Japan etc? South Asian is a term I never really liked, Asian sounds and feels better.

“preferring the more narrowly national “Nepali” or the more general term, “Asian.” She covers both extremes of the spectrum. No in between with this lady.

Always considered myself British Asian, sounds too weird to say British south Asian.

I hope the time is not far off when a person's national origin or ancestry does not take quite such a front seat. Perhaps this will happen more quickly if people from South Asia, in addition to realizing the "American Dream," make more of the kinds of first-rate contributions in diverse fields which are squarely in the international mainstream. There may be lessons in the manner in which Russia (Czarist Russia) began contributing in a ground-breaking way to the the world's literature (Tolstoy and Dostoevski) and science in the 19th century.

Well I'm from Sri Lanka and I do not enjoy being lumped under the "Indian" label by those who are not too familiar with South Asia. Not that I have anything against India or Indians, but I'm happy being Sri Lankan, and don't want to be subsumed under "Indian." Maybe Kiran Chetry feels the same way about being lumped under "South Asian."

Well I'm from Sri Lanka and I do not enjoy being lumped under the "Indian" label by those who are not too familiar with South Asia. Not that I have anything against India or Indians, but I'm happy being Sri Lankan, and don't want to be subsumed under "Indian." Maybe Kiran Chetry feels the same way about being lumped under "South Asian."

Nick, I agree with you -- and that is one of the main reasons why Sepia Mutiny has generally tried to define itself as a "South Asian" or "Desi" blog more than as an Indian blog (though that emphasis annoys many Indian patriots).

But by the same logic, wouldn't we expect Kiran Chetry to also prefer the term "South Asian"?

Further, Nepal in particular is very much an iffy "South Asian" place, sharing more perhaps with Tibet (which like it or not is in China) than with India. I like her subtle way of not giving much weight to the term south asian.

Noblekinsman, I disagree. Nepal is largely Hindu, and Nepalis are ethnically mixed between people who look "Desi" and people who look "Tibetan." For many years, India and Nepal had open borders (though those have tightened up of late, as I understand it). If anything, Nepal might be considered to be too close to India.

Always considered myself British Asian, sounds too weird to say British south Asian.

Rudie_C, I should have mentioned that the Brit-Asians use the word "Asian" differently...

I think Indians and other south asians in the US should make an effort to correct US public perception that Asian = East Asian. I was annoyed the other day when during a random conversation, a chinese woman definitively told me: "You say you are from Asia but you don't look Asian."!
This mis-perception can have some real consequences too. Like the number of US sourced medical articles which are headlined "Asians have a lower risk for XYZ disease", when they actually mean people of Mongoloid ancestry, and which are then reprinted verbatim in Indian and other newspapers. Since I have been here, I have been amazed that such a major inaccuracy is constantly propagated in a country where people otherwise seem so sensitive to being accurate about labels, especially those relating to people's ethnicities!

I really don't see an issue with someone identifying themselves as Nepali or Indian or Pakistani - I think the term "South Asian" is used mostly to make sure one's inclusive of the countries in the region other than India but if someone chooses to specifically point out that they are from a particular country - I think its totally fine to do that.

As for her identifying Betty Nguyen and others along with Sanjay Gupta -- well, she may just see the rest of the countries as being subsumed by the higher level identifier - in this case - Asia - rather than 'South Asia'. I really think this analysis is trying too hard to parse the distinction between "South Asian" and "Asian". I am from India - and I dont identify myself as South Asian or Asian in general - and given her context and her workplace - I actually think her response seemed very thoughtful and well laid out. Why should she identify herself as "South Asian" if she's saying that she's Nepali already?

Also, trust me - I completely understand the emphasis on "south asia" among progressive South Asian groups and in academia. I happen to be an academic that works on South Asia and time and again people who are not keenly aware of the distinction between "south asia" and "asia" use the words interchangeably when they are talking to me -- and these are other Asian (not South Asian) academics. So, I have thought of this question of the importance of a "South Asian" identifier for some time now -- and I really believe that at the individual level it makes more sense for people to identify themselves as Pakistani or Nepali or whatever....I dont meet very many people who self identify as South Asians. But at the organizational level - I am a part of academic and community organizations that all identify themselves as South Asian - and that is a good thing because it is inclusive of the smaller countries in the region. Meanwhile for someone not from the region or from Asia -- its very difficult to keep the geography straight when talking to you and remember to call you South Asian and not Asian - I really do not think its a big deal.

From a political point of view, having a much larger based unified identity would make a lot of sense - the interests of the non whites/blacks/Latinos would be a lot better served if there was a solid Asian identity which was politically active. In that sense developing an identity along Asian lines (as opposed to a South Asian one) makes a lot of sense. At the same time, culturally South Asia is quite different from East Asia and so an equal effort should be made to not lose the sense of a distinct identity within the Asian identity. Thus efforts should be made to get Whites and other ethnicities to identify South Asians as Asians too within the much larger Asian group and for other Asians to be aware of the same too. Instead what I see if a polarization over time where Asians and South Asians move away from each other and don't leverage off the Asia label. Though I would have my reservations of trying to club the near east with the far east cultures (though culturally the middle east is a quite close to South Asians in comparison) because of the current negative vibes associated with that geographical culture (only from a political perspective)

With all due respect Amardeep, I think you are over-analyzing her statements probably made after a second of thought.

But by the same logic, wouldn't we expect Kiran Chetry to also prefer the term "South Asian"?

Amardeep, I tend to agree with the idea that maybe we're reading a bit too much into Kiran's remarks. Her heritage being split as it is, it does makes sense for her to emphasize her 'half-Nepalese' ethnicity. It is possible there is a faint echo of what could be loosely called 'anti-Indianness' which one sometimes sees among those in the diaspora with parental origins outside India being transferred to 'South Asia' as well - but I doubt it. For right now, since she is in the visual media - and doesn't 'look South Asian', it doesn't make much sense to me to microanalyze what she says too much. If CNN is positioning her as 'Asian' alongside Betty Nguyen then that is what she will say. She's a media person, not a media academic, so we can't look to her too much for self-analysis.

However, the discussion over her remarks also lets us explore the overlap and interaction between a diasporic South Asian identity on the one hand, and a South Asian federative, transnational identity 'back home' on the other. Some of my remarks here, I realize, will also have some relevance to the 'linguistic states' thread, and the Guha series in general. I have made some of these points in earlier comments, but am taking the occasion to amplify them and link diasporic and subcontinental identity issues - I trust you will be indulgent.

'South Asia' started off as a concept in earnest during WW-II, especially in Pentagon and State Department strategic and planning documents. The British had no use for the term, since the region was all 'India' to them - even Ceylon and Burma were administered together with the rest of 'India'. Nepal was seen as something of a buffer state, along with Afghanistan, and had functionally much more autonomy than other princely states in the British dispensation. Tibet was a further buffer against China. But historically, Nepal has interacted much more with 'India' than with 'Tibet', so the connection with South Asia is certainly there, formalized today through a treaty with India, which among other things grants Nepal special transit rights as a landlocked country, and recognizes some rights of free movement for Nepalese and Indian citizens - as well as the Indian Army's right to recruit in Nepal, as the British did before them, and indeed still do.

The current national structures in South Asia owe much more to the botched mid-century withdrawal of the British than to any compelling economic or ethno-national logic. One big stumbling block in getting to 'South Asia' as a reality on the ground - is the demographic, cultural and economic weight that India came to acquire in consequence of its political construction as a unitary nation state. Unless India becomes visibly more federal in its political structure - the smaller countries in South Asia will forever feel threatened by it. As well, the statist economic structure in India must be significantly diluted, and the private sector strengthened, before the logic of South Asia becomes more appealing.

Thankfully, these things are beginning to happen - and movement toward federalism is occuring, largely by default - with electoral dynamics combined with economic asymmetry generating stronger states and a weaker Centre. Concepts like federalism, transnational economic unions, diluted sovereignty - all essential in transforming toward a looser federation - are also emerging in the Indian national discourse. The smaller countries are beginning to see this, and are also reorienting their internal polities to align with the overall dynamics.

With all the recent troubles in Pakistan, this is difficult to see, but that is what I see happening below the surface. The weakening of the Army and the promotion of Benazir - who has made any number of conciliatory noises toward India (and which have been reciprocated) point in this direction. These developments combine with geopolitical transformations (for the first time since the departure of the British, Pakistan and India are on the same side as each other and the hegemon).

In addition, the growing demographic weight of the South Asian diaspora in the hegemonic state - the US - and the increasing assertion of the 'South Asian' identity overseas - together with telecom-media convergence - contributes in a 'soft power' kind of way to the development of a 'South Asian' identity in South Asia as well. This synergizes with both geopolitical and economic logic in South Asia itself, to further strengthen both. National boundaries in South Asia will continue for a while - perhaps a long while - but free trade and travel will occur - and a common currency will probably return.

Thus in the future, I see (i) A more federative, less statist, 'free-er' India (ii) A more confederated South Asia (iii) A more cohesive South Asian identity in the diaspora - which people with ancestral national origins outside 'India' will find less threatening.

Coffeescoop, I can see how you might think that.

I guess the point here isn't to dissect every phrase of Kiran Chetry's on this subject (esp. since there isn't a huge amount to go on). Rather, I'm interested in eliciting the kinds of comments from Ardy and "DBD View" above (comments #9 and #10) on the general terminological/conceptual problem associated with "Asian" and "South Asian".

i agree with hokie pokie's comments above. most non-brown people (esp not in academia) are not very familiar with the term "south asian", and perhaps she was trying to accommodate that possible lack of familiarity. also, i don't get the impression she's trying to distance herself from being called south asian. i think non-indian south asians like to highlight their specific ethnic background when they get the chance, because it's so rarely acknowledged. but it doesn't mean the usefulness of the term "south asian" is any less appreciated.

"We don't see Canadians or Mexicans calling themselves North American, even when they're travelling or living in the other part of the world, e.g. Singapore. They prefer their national identity...."

good point. and we don't see americans(of whatever ethnic background), whether they live in the u.s. or are expats, refer to themselves as north american. they usually are quite specific in saying they are american or from the states. it's never the north american women's club, but the american women's club or the "united states" something or the other.

also, i don't think most americans get the distinction between asian/south asian or even consider people from pakistan/india/bangladesh/sri lanka etc. as asian. when it suits them, for example, cnn puts pakistan/india in the middle east. i think even during the democratic debate they geographically lumped pakistan with the middle east. most people also confuse the west indies with the caribbean.

i think she just uses asian/south asian interchangeably, when she has to think about it, but it seems she doesn't really think in those terms and more along the lines of being similar to an italian-american, irish-american, not a european-american.

Always an interesting debate. Is Australia an island or a continent? Are you a lumper or splitter? This largely stems from a census driven need to classify people. When I took Spanish in high school and college we would get into debates about the terms Hispanic, Chicano, Latin, etc particularly among the Mexican, Spanish (from Spain), Puerto Ricans, Cubans, and Columbians. Some didn't care, usually the second generation, while others were fiercely nationalistic. "Soy Colombiano no soy hispano!"

Sometimes it's difficult when the reality does not conform to the societal or mainstream stereotypes of what an American, Asian, European, African, etc should look like. I have a white friend who was born in Zimbabwae but now lives in America and is a US citizen. Technically he could call himself African-American even though he does not fit the proteotypical definition.

My wife's Indian (ABCD), Telugu to be precise, but it always catches people off guard when they ask about her (usually in reference to a photo of our daughter, Asha) and I reply "Oh she's American."

I think she's just trying to give a nice but inclusive answer to a question that I'm sure is annoying. Rather than asking about her skills as a journalist or TV anchor she has to deal with questions that address her ethnicity probably followed by her gender.

In the end we are who are and labels are more important for the SAT and college admssion applications.

I think this is like my cousins and me - we're from Andhra Pradesh, a state in the south of India, but hate calling ourselves 'South Indians'. We're Indian, yes. Or we're Telugu.

The reason we hate calling ourselves South Indians is that people tend to lump everyone from the four Southern states into the same sociological/cultural bucket - and there're some immense variations between someone from Cochin and someone from Kakinada! Not all of us are religious, pious, soft-spoken, idli-dosa eating, mathematics geniuses, non-physically active, non-aggressive, etc etc.

Generalize much? Also, I think they make an ointment for that self-hatred.

I happen to be an academic that works on South Asia and time and again people who are not keenly aware of the distinction between "south asia" and "asia" use the words interchangeably when they are talking to me -- and these are other Asian (not South Asian) academics.

That sounds sensible. However, a strange thing has happened state-side - a mini culture war emerged. South Asian became associated with individuals, who seemingly saw beyond communalism and the putatively regressive aspects of Indian culture, in addition to organizations who claim fealty with the Indian Left. As a consequence, Indian-American became a rallying cry for state-side Hindutvavavdis(!) Now I think, epistemologically, its a big loss for progressives to cede the Indian-American identity, because it de facto gives people with Hindu affiliation a priority in speaking for India in the states, including very high-level lobbying/politics (though that's also a function of money).

I prefer brown as a joint South Asian signifier.

p.s. I think my last comment proves that some South Indians are indeed aggressive and not soft-spoken. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go find some idli, which I will consume piously, while wondering about why people have such narrow definitions for the groups they belong-- or in this case desperately don't want to belong-- to.

chachaji, it sounds like you see South Asia facing it's own political trilemma of sorts.

Whose God is it anyways?, in maps produced outside the US, I have often seen North, Central and South America labeled simply as 'the Americas'. Of the South and Central American's that I have spoken to, they find the geographic distinction dubious explained below-

In many parts of the world, America in the singular is commonly used as a name for the United States of America; however, (the) Americas (plural with s and generally with the definite article) is not and is invariably used to refer to the lands and regions of the Western hemisphere. Usage of America to also refer to this collectivity remains fairly common.

While many in the United States of America generally refer to the country as America and themselves as Americans, many people elsewhere in the Americas resent what they perceive as appropriation of the term in this context and, thus, this usage is frequently avoided. In Canada, their southern neighbour is seldom referred to as "America" with "the United States", "the U.S.", or (informally) "the States" used instead.[34] English dictionaries and compendiums differ regarding usage and rendition.

...Americano/a in Spanish refers to a person from América in a similar way that europeo or europea refers to a person from Europe. The terms sudamericano/a, centroamericano/a, antillano/a and norteamericano/a can be used to more specifically refer to the location where a person may live.

Citizens of the United States of America are normally referred to by the term estadounidense instead of americano or americana. Also, the term norteamericano may refer to a citizen of the United States. This term is primarily used to refer to citizens of the United States, rarely those of other North American countries.[link]

I grew up using "Indian" or "Indian American" because I had never heard the term "South Asian" until college (I know). And yet I'm MUCH more comfortable using the term "South Asian" than "Asian." I have lost count of the number of times I have been told by non-Asians and East/Southeast Asians that I'm not "Real Asian."

So I'm confused... What's the determining factor here? The shape of one's eyes? The utensils we use (or don't)? The languages we speak?

In economicsese, the kind that makes me eyes gloss over, I know that people often mean China, Japan, and India when referring to Asia. I also know many South Asians who prefer the term Asian out of solidarity. I appreciate that, but I don't feel it myself. I want to, but it's not there yet for me. At a gathering for a group of Asians the other day I was one of two South Asians, and I still felt like an outsider.

Question: And this is about being a “South Asian.” Because you don’t really seem like a South Asian unless somebody does some research on you!

But her name screams South Asian.

I'd never even heard of the term "South Asian" to identify onself until I came to this site. I still never call myself that, partly because Indians and South American desis are lumped together, instead of Indians and Pakistanis/Sri Lankans, partly because it just sounds stupid(at least, in my language it does). I don't really understand some people's issue with the term itself, I don't hate it in particular. I don't have a need for it though, because most people assume I'm Indian when they see me anyway, so there's no need for me to explain myself.

What's the determining factor here?

9th entry, according to Manish.

So I'm confused... What's the determining factor here? The shape of one's eyes? The utensils we use (or don't)? The languages we speak?

Historically - the US has, er, oriented itself to looking at China + Japan + Korea - as 'Asia proper' while the rest was 'South-east Asia' or 'South Asia'. While in Britain, it was 'India', everything else was 'China' and later 'East Asia'. So the two countries have defaulted 'Asian' as being East or South Asian respectively. This has flowed through into popular usage in both countries. So in Britain, 'East Asians' have to distinguish themselves from 'Asians', while in the US, 'South Asians' have to distinguish themselves.

From a US immigrant demographics perspective also - initially there were many more people from China + Japan + Korea in the US - but now South Asians have almost caught up.

South Asia itself 'back home'(I+P+B) already has more people than China, and will soon have more people than China + Japan + Korea.

Thus, the default Asian in the US will no longer as easily be East Asian - as will be the case in Asia itself.

Since 'continents' were defined based on landmasses surrounded by seas, 'India' was not a 'continent' in colonialist cartography. Then ethno-culturally it was found so distinctive that 'subcotinental' status was assigned. Later, geologically it was discovered that India South Asia is tectonically different from the rest of Asia. As it acquires demographic, economic and political weight, South Asia may well lay claim later to being its own continent.

Just as Europe is still 'Europe' even though it is in 'Eurasia', someday a new continent in South Asia might come to be named and defined, if only geographers and cartographers are made to bestir themselves. Hopefully just as, if not more prosperous than, Europe. And its geographic boundaries will be defined by the Himalayas, the Karakoram, the Khasi-Jaintia Hills etc, and this will be thought to be 'natural' - just as Europe's geographic boundaries defined by the Urals, the Caucasus etc are taken to be ipso facto 'natural' today.

We can take votes on the new name right here on SM. Till then, we'll have to do with '"South" Asian'! :)

I don't sense any hostility towards India in her refusal to adopt the South Asian identifier. Her paternal ancestry is Nepali, why would she obscure that in some catch all? Look, I know it causes many of you heartburn but "South Asian" just doesn't have much utility outside of the progressive community. I hear about groups like "South Asians for Obama". How ridiculous....are Pakistani-Americans suddenly OK with Obama's demand for hot pursuit into Pakistani tribal areas ?! I would like to see "South Asian" gain meaning, but realize that it requires India/Pakistan/Bangladesh to reach some European Union level of interstate amity and co-ordination before that's going to happen. I see Irish and Spanish kids here who proudly describe themselves as European....not surprising as the EU has been great to Ireland and the poorer nations of Europe. What exactly does a Nepali gain for being "South Asian" ?

Just as Europe is still 'Europe' even though it is in 'Eurasia'

I dislike the term "Asian." We might as well call it what it really means - "other." And most people connotate the term "Asian" with East Asia, not Arab, Persian, Afghani, Paki, Indian, etc. I prefer South Asian, although I have wondered why it is called "South" Asia. What about Subcontinental?

I think the distinction is important. Indians/Pakistanis are at increased risk for diabetes, heart attacks, while East Asians are at a lower risk. As a patient, the distinction is important.

8 · check Since I have been here, I have been amazed that such a major inaccuracy is constantly propagated in a country where people otherwise seem so sensitive to being accurate about labels, especially those relating to people's ethnicities!

Yeah, because, you know, we're so accurate here about everyone but the South Asians--white people really are white, we call Isrealis and Palestinians Asians because they live in Asia (not), and Egyptians Africans because they live in Africa (not). . . .

Re: Chetry's unease with "South Asian"--while I have no complaints about the term, I have always suspected that it's meant, in part, to linguistically paper over the pain/horror of Partition. Therefore, the term is, by definition, of more relevance/salience to Indians, Pakistanis, and Bangladeshis than to, say, Nepalese, Afghans or Sri Lankans.

make it easy. brown. btw, wut happened to http://www.indiansareasian.com/?

I've never checked but wondered when "south asian" comes into use. I don't recall hearing it at all prior to mid 90s.

It's actually interesting, I heard in a talk given by this professor recently, that the term gained traction in the mid 90s through the first group to use it, Sakhi.

As for anyone (particular in the mainstream media's) unease with it, my guess is to not have themselves "relegated" to some kind of minority special interest group. She acknowledges the "Nepali" term as it's her actual, physical heritage, but my guess is she doesn't want the mere appearance of aligning with any kind of larger "community" or "cause", otherwise, what else does the term "south asian" imply other than the regions of india, nepal, pakistan, etc.. are some how related and have similar background, experiences and goals (esp. in the US)

make it easy. brown

I guess this is my personal opinion but I prefer not using a term based on skin color to identify myself . When I use Indian or South Asian or Asian (in decreasing order of preference and/or increasing scope of unification), I use it to include the culture, mores, value system, geo-economic region etc etc but if someone uses the term Brown, it to me seems like a very narrow way of characterizing myself based on my skin color. The argument may be made that brown does encompass all these things I mention but if we are looking to get away from a race segregated society in the long run, we should make a start by not making it the dominant or primary aspect of our own self identification. I guess this also has to do with the fact that race has been a emotionally charged issue for much of recent history and comes across as a lot more 'in your face' differentiation (something like - dude, look at my skin color, I am so bloody different than you) while cultural differences are a lot more easily accommodated and thus people are able to move beyond them faster and assimilate (more along the lines of - yeah sure we are different, lets learn about each other).

I'm with tamasha on this one -- I always grew up being told I wasn't a "real Asian," but I clearly wasn't white (nor did I identify that way), and I wasn't Indian, nor was I Pakistani, so what was an appropriate way to describe my heritage? Similarly, I've been chee-chee'd on both sides of the aisle -- random Indian aunties chastise me if I tell them I am an American (i.e., not Indian), and white Americans ask, "oh but what are you really?" when I say I'm an American.

I think part of this negotiation around terms has to do with the fact that people of Asian heritage in the U.S. are diverse (by comparison, "Asian" refers to South Asians in the UK because they are an overwhelmingly large group within the "VME" community and among Brits of Asian heritage, so the definitions are logically different). It's not just to distinguish oneself (and history) from people of Chinese, Japanese, and Korean descent -- and sadly enough, I have definitely listened to people confuse that kind of Asian with the desi kind of Asian. It's also about acknowledging that the term "Asian" is overbroad and applies to people from a wide range of countries, from Cambodia to China to Kazakhstan to Lebanon. While we might piece some of those areas into geographic sub-groups, there IS a different culture, language, history, experience, etc., that comes from living in different parts of a huge continent.

I think the term "South Asian" is fine, but I actually like it more in long-form -- "South Asian American," because I do think there are more "common identity" experiences that ABDs share, as well as similar political needs, than Nepal, India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, etc.

All that said, I don't find it problematic that Kiran Chetry identifies as Nepali and Asian -- in media, where there are so few POC, it makes sense to see yourself as part of a larger group of people.

Identity is shaped by our experiences. I think Kiran's assessment of herself is fair and sound. If growing up, the only "south asian" culture she really had exposure to was Nepali, then I can understand why she describes herself as such. I'm not particularly fond of the South Asian label, but that is my choice. I won't tell others who are comfortable using it to not do so, it's what they feel ok with, so whatever floats their boats. I'm more comfortable with labels of American, Subcontinental, Indian American, Gujarti, etc. These were shaped by my experiences. Identity based on geographic labels, whether they encompass a larger subset or smaller, are wholly dependent upon the interaction with the community. There is no one label, nor are they mutually exclusive, nor is it for others to 'judge' what part they are comfortable associating with. To each their own.

I guess this is my personal opinion but I prefer not using a term based on skin color to identify myself .

Plus it doesn't even make logical sense to self-categorize us this way. What does that make latinos and hispanics, bronze? burnt umber? rust? We have to remember that the terms "black" and "white" (from which the word "brown" essentially derives from, in a racial setting) were chosen to represent human beings for very specific (and in my view, non-positive) reasons.

I think this is like my cousins and me - we're from Andhra Pradesh, a state in the south of India, but hate calling ourselves 'South Indians'. We're Indian, yes. Or we're Telugu. The reason we hate calling ourselves South Indians is that people tend to lump everyone from the four Southern states into the same sociological/cultural bucket - and there're some immense variations between someone from Cochin and someone from Kakinada! Not all of us are religious, pious, soft-spoken, idli-dosa eating, mathematics geniuses, non-physically active, non-aggressive, etc etc.

There are also vast differences between someone from Delhi and someone from Kakinada, but for some reason you don't have a problem calling yourself 'Indian.' Even beyond that, there are vast differences between someone from Hyderabad and someone from, say, Hanuman Junction, but you don't seem to have a problem calling yourself 'Telugu' either.

I'm just surprised you didn't add 'lungi-wearing' to your little diatribe.

I think the term "South Asian" is fine, but I actually like it more in long-form -- "South Asian American,"

Again, depends on the context and the purpose of this identification. For a socio-cultural identity if you use that, you would be excluding a lot of DBDs (whose number is rising at a fast rate) who wont relate to the term 'SA American'. However, it does have some merit from a political point of view since it would reassert that in the end the South Asians unified under the SA banner are indeed primarily American and thus not excluded from mainstream masses. In the land of Power of Pride bumper stickers, this is usually a good political ploy to reduce xenophobic tendencies of the majority during lobbying efforts etc.

I hate the term "South Asian". It's like trying to undo history, the pain of Partition, trying to de-emphasize one's own identity for an amorphous artificial one, all of it really.

RE: Asian vs. South Asian. I think that there may be common ground among Chinese-, Japanese-, Korean, and Indian-Americans (who, combined, make up the majority of Asian-Americans) when it comes to things like the model minority paradigm. Some of the areas where there are lots of desis (Bay Area, NY/NJ area) also have lots of East Asians, and I've seen South and East Asian 2nd-gens find some sort of 'common ground' on the basis of things like strict parents, supposed nerdiness, etc. On the other hand, I've also met some East Asians who thought of me as nothing more than a 'dothead.' So I find these census-categorization-of-race-based community-building to be tenuous sometimes.

With Kiran Chetry's reluctance, it seems obvious to me that she probably does feel Nepali as opposed to South Asian (& she doesn't have a problem stating how Nepali-ness has influenced her), but part of me wonders if she rejects the 'South Asian' label because it could be seen as too political (as opposed to cultural).

but for some reason you don't have a problem calling yourself 'Indian.'

On a related digressionary note, India After Gandhi being blogged by Amardeep in the other post explores this from time to time and in fact starts by questioning how as diverse a mass as India is even existent as a nation. In recent times, economics and cross cultural intermingling in India have helped create such an identity but in the early days of the nation and 'Hindi dominance' it is a wonder the country is still there in it's current form.

Oh, my only major annoyance with South Asians being subsumed under the larger 'Asian-American' label is when it comes to medical reports. There are vast differences, e.g. Indian-Americans are at higher risk for diabetes, but East Asian-Americans aren't.

I hate the term "South Asian". It's like trying to undo history, the pain of Partition, trying to de-emphasize one's own identity for an amorphous artificial one, all of it really.

You can continue to be emotional about it or else become pragmatic and leverage from it. Plus it does not de-emphasize your identity where your identity in a narrower sense is desired or required. Thus say in the local Tamil Sangam festival you wont be South Asian but if you are running for senate you would be American then South Asian then Indian and only then Tamilian.

Its how Area Studies Departments at Universities divide Asia. People study 'South Asia', 'Southeast Asia' (that what I do) and 'East Asia'.

My sentiments echo what GujuDude said. I don't really care to call myself a SouthAsian (nor do I wish to be categorized as such by others), but if others want to use that identity for themselves, more power to them. Overall, small potatoes in the bigger scheme of life - other than SM, I haven't really come across this issue in real life while interacting with others.

I'm wondering how much of this South Asian identity is used more frequently by PIO in the US than, say, by PPO (peeps of pakistan origin) or PBDO (bangla desh)?

One thing that is curious is how Statistics Canada divides visible minority populations. It's funny that they divide Asian "Oriental" groups into Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Vietnamese, Filipinos etc., but all "brown" ethnicities are grouped under one label - South Asian. It's as if the eggheads at Statscan went "Oh yeah, let's lump all them brown folks together. I can't tell the difference."

I suspect though that this is not done out of spite but is owing to historical circumstance. The Chinese and Japanese communities have had a significant presence in Canada since the late 1800s, and I believe Canadian census-takers have always recognized them as two separate, distinct ethnic groups. Once the Koreans and Vietnamese and Filipinos started arriving, the Statistics Cananada didn't know what to do, so they just created separate categories for them.

South Asian immigration didn't really start happening until the early 1970s, when Trudeau set up the race-neutral immigration points system. The initially wave consisted primarily of ethnic Indian Ismailis from East Africa, then more Punjabis came streaming in, then there was the Sri Lankan wave of the 90s, and now increasing numbers of Pakistanis and Bangladeshis are settling in.

Now sure we all hail from the same subcontinental landmass south of the Himalayas, and we're all varying shades of brown, but that's really about all that we all have in common. Now the American customs guy may not believe me when I meet him in a few weeks but, really, apart from my skin hue, I have as much shared affinity to a Pakistani Pathan as a Nigerian has to a Swede. The Pakistani dude is from a different country, speaks a different language, eats different food, worships a different God, has different customs... we're very different. I wouldn't think of Ahmed bin Syed from Islamabad as a "brother".

But StatsCan must infer that there's some sort of shared pan-brown ethnoracial/ethnocultural affinity amongst us, and I don't really see it. It's true that my generation of South Asians does classify themselves as "brown", but it's only at a superficial physical level. But beneath the surface, there's really no real pan-South Asian identity. For the most part, the Tamils hang with the Tamils, the Punjabis with the Punjabis and the Muslims with the Muslims. This is really not a surprise as we're all very different, and each independent South Asian ethnic/language group is numerous enough in numbers to allow for ethnocultural-based segregation, and because, unlike the rather cohesive African-American community, we don't have a clear identity rooted on a shared collective historical experience of victimization to draw upon. I actually think this lack of a pan/co-racial identity is a good thing as it inhibits the fermenting of debilitating identity/victim/race card politics as in the States.

So my argument is that we're too numerous now and too heterogeneous to warrant just one label, especially as each independent South Asian group is now significant enough in numbers to merit its own separate category. There are only four major countries in South Asia to begin with, so why not split the "South Asian" demographic into the four major groups - Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, and Sri Lankan.

Aside: Black people are in the same boat, but the "Black" category is a little more problematic. Given that there are there are several dozen countries in Africa and numerous little islands in the Caribbean, separating Black into to independent black ethnicities would be a colossal mess - (although the vast majority of Black Canadians I've come across hail from two countries - Jamaica and Somalia.) I think they should do as they do in the UK census - split the "Black" category into two: Black African and Black Caribbean - though by no means are either of these groups a cohesive, homogeneous lot.

South Asia itself 'back home'(I+P+B)

tamasha, (I+P+B) is not the 'accepted definition' - But these are the three most populous countries. If these are already more populous, when put together, than China (which is the point I was making) then it doesn't matter who else you include in South Asia - it still has a larger demographic weight than China!

BTW, (Nepal + Sri Lanka + Bhutan + the Maldives + Myanmar + Afghanistan), has a smaller population than Bangladesh alone - 125 million vs 159 million. Pakistan is at 161 million while India is at 1,170 million and China at 1,322 million. Link

Whether Afghanistan does or doesn't belong is a great discussion. Myanmar - not in my current vision, though I'd like to see that discussed. I noticed SM blogged the Afghanistan issue a while back, I skimmed it but haven't read that thread yet.

Thanks so much for linking to the South Asia Maps on Google. I've been looking for them forever!

I'd hit it.

The "South Asian" question has been argued, rehashed and re-anguished-over SEVERAL times on this blog, during the past 3+ years. Each of the points Sen made @45 (and I'm aware that the comment discusses Canada, but still) has been refuted and those refutations debated as well.

I hate this topic, but I understand that I do so because of the rancorous threads of the past, and that people who are new to SM have no memory of such name-calling, identity-bashing, flaming, troll infestations, virtual graffiti and everything else we blissfully, unnecessarily endured during those comment brawls. Just when I think we've "moved on", and people who are "anti-South Asian" like Gujudude and Amit indicated they are, above, do so kindly with full awareness of why their opponents feel the way they do, we're back here again, discussing this like it's something new.

I don't want people to be unaware of the history of this rather loaded "question", since it defines SM, and we have fought to explain why and what good purposes such a term serves repeatedly. Then again, maybe everything really IS different in Canada and up there, the things we American desis have in common magically evaporate...

“Just when I think we've "moved on", and people who are "anti-South Asian" like Gujudude and Amit indicated they are, above, do so kindly with full awareness of why their opponents feel the way they do, we're back here again, discussing this like it's something new”.

I’m new, and I don’t really like using the term, but the bottom line for me is (as my most favored song says) it’s “whatever” be what you want to be, do what you want to do.

I do think this convo. is a bit old hat (sorry Amardeep), but I also feel that sometimes feelings/circumstances change in how we define/view ourselves.

I'm just surprised you didn't add 'lungi-wearing' to your little diatribe.

I actually think it's fine to exclude DBDs, Ardy, because I think the term "South Asian" has even less relevance for someone who actually DOES have a national identity as per their passport, place of birth, whatevs. I don't think others have to use it, I just think it is a useful term in specific contexts (in the U.S.), some of which include leveraging a political experience/advocacy, and some of which includes a unique second/third, etc., gen. perspective.

Amardeep, I wouldn't count Myanmar as S. Asia but rather as SEAsia. Speaking of which, I meet plenty of folks who confuse both of those regions as well. Ultimately many of these regions share connections, be it through trade, religion, certain cultural/dance/music practices, but I think oftentimes folks like to emphasize differences instead of commonalities. I also don't think recognizing a unique culture/history requires similarly obscuring or ignoring shared cultures/histories.

actually, since i grew up in asia (not india), i much prefer to drop the "south" in favor of just "asian," even though i identify as "indian" before asian.

"Then again, maybe everything really IS different in Canada and up there, the things we American desis have in common magically evaporate..."

Things are very different for browns in Canada. There are proportionally far more of us, especially in the big cities, so there's greater awareness of the diversity of cultures that exist under the 'South Asian' umbrella, statscan aside.

You don't see the same sort of brown homogenization that i've seen in the States...for instance you're unlikely to find Tamil kids here calling themselves 'desi'. In my experience, on an informal, social level there is a general idea of being 'brown' - of south asian descent, because there are some commonalities.

Just when I think we've "moved on", and people who are "anti-South Asian" like Gujudude and Amit indicated they are, above, do so kindly with full awareness of why their opponents feel the way they do, we're back here again, discussing this like it's something new.

Anna, I am not anti-SouthAsian for others. As I said, if others want to define themselves that way, who am I to stop them. I'd mentioned in some detail in another thread (sorry can't find it now) the reason why. I hope you will let me define myself the way I see fit, and let me choose my own labels. :)
I'd also suggested to include in the SM blog FAQ, a link to the two threads from the past (2005?) that did discuss this issue in much detail so that it is not re-hashed each and every time someone decides to write a post on it. Also easier for newcomers to get a primer on SM's history with this issue.

And we can agree to disagree on some things - not everyone in this world is going to see eye-to-eye on all issues. If you want to float an identity of world citizen, I'll be there. :)

I just don't feel that the SouthAsian term is useful to me, and I find it to be along the same lines as akhand bharat idea of another party. The irony is that both the left and the right come up with ideas that are somewhat similar (just to preempt anyone who comes up with a list telling me the differences ;) ), while they are at each other's throats. Go figure.

awareness of why their opponents feel the way they do

Opponents?? I hope you mean simply having a different pov and nothing more. :)
I don't really consider any of the SM writers as my "opponents" nor do I dislike any of you, though I'll admit to being brusque sometimes.

Anna, I am not anti-SouthAsian for others.

I know. :) Didn't say you were.

As I said, if others want to define themselves that way, who am I to stop them. I'd mentioned in some detail in another thread (sorry can't find it now) the reason why. I hope you will let me define myself the way I see fit, and let me choose my own labels. :)

Of course, it's silly to even have to ask, isn't it? Mutual respect, 'nuff typed.

I'd also suggested to include in the SM blog FAQ, a link to the two threads from the past (2005?) that did discuss this issue in much detail so that it is not re-hashed each and every time someone decides to write a post on it. Also easier for newcomers to get a primer on SM's history with this issue.

I was thinking about this earlier today. It's not like I (or any other mutineer...except perhaps, visionary Abhi??) sat around during the Summer of '04 and thought, "Hmmm. Once this website has been around for a few years, how will we grapple with the concept of institutional memory? How will we catch n00bs up to SM-speed?" ;)

And we can agree to disagree on some things - not everyone in this world is going to see eye-to-eye on all issues. If you want to float an identity of world citizen, I'll be there. :)

Honey, if I've given someone like you the impression that I can't agree to disagree, then I am one huge South Asian Amreekan failure.

Growing up in Dallas, my grade school was about 1/3 Asian-- about 20 in our class, and 3 of them Indian. At my HS, the diversity fell some, and I was the only Indian in my class of 250. There were more of what you would define as East Asian. However, the term South Asian is something I have only heard in America-- my parents (both from Kerala and moved to the US) had always defined us as "Asian."

When I would point out that I was indeed Asian in grade and high school, I would get the response "You're not Asian, you're Indian." I chalked it up either as a sign of Texas or the US as a whole. I went to a competitive college in the Midwest with what I felt was a pretty academically strong student body--- but I still got the "You're not Asian, you're Indian," and when I pointed out that India was indeed in Asia, it surprised the majority of them. Which was shocking, because I felt it was common sense geography, but perhaps people only know it if they have some personal investment in it.

But who knows. Maybe I define myself as Asian instead of South Asian because I want people to understand that India is indeed part of Asia.

Maybe we can all go to the nearest Urban Outfitters, buy an Everyone Loves an Asian Boy shirt, and hold hands.

You know, what frustrated all of us back then, was this binary mentality of either/or. Either you're Asian American or you're South Asian American. No...wait. Either you're Indian or South Asian. Or...um...either you're Malayalee first and Christian second! No! Hindu first and Telugu second!

I grew up in an area where every fifth person was Asian. When I was in first grade, my three best friends were Pinay, Japanese American and second-gen Chinese. I was Asian American long before I knew where South Asia was. :)

You can be everything. I (South Asian, Indian, Malayalee) am. :)

I know. :) Didn't say you were.

..and people who are "anti-South Asian" like Gujudude and Amit indicated they are..

It seemed like you were, unless I misunderstood your sentence. :)

I'm just surprised you didn't add 'lungi-wearing' to your little diatribe.

Probably excluded b/c northies wear lungis, too :)

Really?? I thought north Indian men just wore their chaddis at home... ;) I guess you do learn something new every day!

Probably excluded b/c northies wear lungis

I've seen some gora Amreekans wearing lungis too. And it was quite common in the north. I even wear a lungi at home during warmer weather.

What does that make latinos and hispanics, bronze? burnt umber? rust?

latinos are multi-racial. that's why latinos are an ethnicity which can fill in their race optionally (50% identify as white, 40% "other," and 10% black, indigenous, etc.). the idea that brown-skinned mexican americans are the typical latino is ridiculous. there are enough white and black cubans, as well as people of white, black and amerindian and all combinations from south america to dismiss that generalization.

it is a fair point that south asians exhibit a lot of physical variation too in color. but i don't think as much. the salient distinctive feature of south asians is that we are brown skinned, whether it be light gold or near black.

"When I would point out that I was indeed Asian in grade and high school, I would get the response "You're not Asian, you're Indian."

It would be even harder for me. I'm Sri Lankan. At least the guy got one thing right. I would have to add an extra:
"No, I'm not Indian. I'm Sri Lankan"

That's why I love the 'South Asian' (or 'brown') identifier. The bulk of my culture does not share the same nationality as me (mostly in tamil nadu, India), whereas the bulk of my nationality does not share the same culture as me (singalese).

It be have been a whole lot easier if those tamil nationalists went through with their plans for a pan-tamil state, but what can you do.

Instead of repping any nationality I just rep 'tamil' and 'south asian'..

"bangladesh" is one word, not two...

....Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go find some idli, which I will consume piously....

Anna, this sent me into a fit of giggles-am imagining you eating idli and trying to look pious at the same time.

....Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go find some idli, which I will consume piously....

Anna, this sent me into a fit of giggles-am imagining you eating idli and trying to look pious at the same time.

... And all she got was an idli. LOL. Sorry Anna, just couldn't help it.

PS: Love your and other mutineer's posts. Keep it up y'all.

Camille, i thought you were Punjabi-Indian descent - if you don't mind me asking - where are you from?

Oh God. Not this crap again.

A N N A @ #58: No! Hindu first and Telegu second!

One other thing to add to the suggested FAQ:

It's not Telegu. It's Telugu. It's Telugu. It's Telugu. Sorry, I don't know why that misspelling freaks me out so much. It just reads and sounds so strange.

nala @ #36: vast differences between someone from Hyderabad and someone from, say, Hanuman Junction

Alright! Hometown in da house!! Nala, do you really know this town or do you just know it's name from that stupid movie?

Chavalier @ #3: Not all of us are religious, pious, soft-spoken, idli-dosa eating, mathematics geniuses, non-physically active, non-aggressive, etc etc.

I don't know about all that, but I do resent being called a madarasi when I want to be called a Gult, a Sambaar when I wan't be called an Avakaaya or Gongoora or Kakinada kaja or Bandar Laddu.

@ 28,
I think the distinction is important. Indians/Pakistanis are at increased risk for diabetes, heart attacks, while East Asians are at a lower risk. As a patient, the distinction is important.

HA HA HA ! That was a nice one.

Oh God. Not this crap again.

That's exactly what I wanted to say.

.

Sorry about the misspelling, I'll edit it soon. Though I do wonder if I subconsciously did it because your Gult brother who dissed every South Indian way upthread pissed me off so much that I wanted to punch him, but instead, could only put away idlis piously. ;)

@65,

Another trend I've also noticed is the way "South Asianists"
dismiss the success of Indians in America as not being the result of hard
work, intelligence and education but because of "immigration law" as Mr.
Vijay Prashad put it.
http://www.asiansinamerica.org/museum/comm_ind.html

I have a different view. Success is because of hard-work there is no doubt about it.
But what I think Vijay Prashad alludes to is the "effect" of a "positive" economic family background amongst South-Asians unlike many other Americans. And atleast post-85-90s immigration is not universal. Most people who come here are from either rich or reasonably well off educated middle class Indian background. I definitely think immigration to US is a filter which is loaded more towards the reasonably affluent South-Asians.

latinos are multi-racial. that's why latinos are an ethnicity which can fill in their race optionally (50% identify as white, 40% "other," and 10% black, indigenous, etc.).

They identify as 'white' on paper. That doesn't make them 'white' in sociological terms. But that's an aside, Even the white hispanics (from spain and such) are more "brown" than say a white person with roots in Europe. But even so, calling one'sself 'brown' is impractical on two fronts

1. Even though hispanics are multi racial - there are indeed 'brown' hispanics.
2. The legacy of the term is not rooted anything positive really. Whitness didn't exist until the 1600s, "blackness" didn't exist in the US until the transatlantic slave trade. European immigrants post slavery (greeks, italians, irish) all took on the term 'white' as it gave them privileges. What privilege do we get by falling into this color heirarchy?

73 HMF Even the white hispanics (from spain and such) are more "brown" than say a white person with roots in Europe.

Say, like a white person with roots in Portugal, or Greece?
Your statement lacks validity on its face.

Say, like a white person with roots in Portugal, or Greece?
Your statement lacks validity on its face.

Clarification, I meant north western europe: england, france, holland, scandanavia, etc..

I've been all over Spain, the only brown people I saw were recent Latin American immigrant farm workers. Outside of Andalucia people look pretty much like the French etc. and blondes don't warrant a second look

Here's a picture of a madrid police officer. Just a single sample point, but doesn't look definitively "american white" to me.

From what I know, southern french people look and speak much differently than parisians? either way. the points I issued against the usage of brown are still valid.

The legacy of the term is not rooted anything positive really. Whitness didn't exist until the 1600s, "blackness" didn't exist in the US until the transatlantic slave trade. European immigrants post slavery (greeks, italians, irish) all took on the term 'white' as it gave them privileges. What privilege do we get by falling into this color heirarchy?

conceptions of color did exist in iberia during the medieval period. the peoples from the northern half of the peninsula were considered 'blue-blooded' because the fairness of their skin meant you could see their blue veins more easily than moors and mozarabs from the south. in any case, the 'whiteness is a the result of european privilege' narrative isn't like quantum mechanics, invariant for all time and space. arabs and turks for example did consider themselves white, and superior to blacks (turks and most arabs still consider themselves white btw, in large part because turks and many arabs do look white). in south asia blacks meant the brown-skinned natives, who the turkic and persian muslim ruling elite wanted to remain distinct from (in this case, dark-skinned converts, the vast majority of muslims). i'll give a very specific example, during the late fatimid and ayyubid sultanates there was a rivalry between white and black slaves, that is, those soldiers who were recruited from nubia and those recruited from the caucasus and turkic lands. at one point the black slaves got the upper hand by aligning a particular court faction and the white slaves, who were traditionally the elite soldiers (while black slaves guarded the harem more often) objected on pretty obviously racial grounds of superiority and supporter a usurper who overthrew the sultan (who was being controlled by his mother). the whole incident is recounted in detail in god's war: a new history of the crusades. some knowledge of a broad arc of human history makes the silliness of attempting to shoehorn every dynamic into a grand-unified-theory-of-sociology pretty silly. e.g., white europeans are the most evil sons of the devil who introduced racism, whiteness and prejudice into the world.

They identify as 'white' on paper. That doesn't make them 'white' in sociological terms.

many white latinos identify as white pretty easily. e.g., women who have married an anglo and change their name. that's a big difference from brown folk. if i change my name to erik olsen i don't turn white. i know of enrique gonzalez's who could turn white by changing their name. granted, most american latinos (though not by as much as you would think, partly because the latinos we "see" on the street are those who don't look white since they're identifiable) are not physically white. but the point is that they're not brown either, insofar as that denies the reality of white and black latinos. and finally, the fact that so many brown-skinned latinos identify as white on the census makes you wonder why we brown folk who identify as brown should really care that we might be confused for them? they don't want to be brown anyway.

Here's a picture of a madrid police officer. Just a single sample point, but doesn't look definitively "american white" to me.

slap them. if there's a pink mark left that means they're white. that's the white nationalist litmus test, and if we're arguing if spaniards are, or aren't, white, well we've stooped that low.

btw, if we accept HMF's redefinition of white to exclude spaniards, who are now brown, the plunder of the new world south of the rockies was the work of the brown man, who forcibly christianized other brown men.

^The image of the police officer leads to an invalid link.

Italians definitely look quite brown. I haven't been to Spain yet so have no info on that, but I do know a guy who is half-Spanish half-Dutch but he could even pass for a North Indian by his looks. The French aren't brown tho most have dark hair.

Italians definitely look quite brown.

wow. the pax romana was a brown imperialism imposed on northern european whites! rewriting racial history as we speak. the dutch have rights to be racist, after all they were oppressed and persecuted by brown spaniards for 100 years. the british conquest of brown lands was simply payback for the attempted invasion by the brown spanish armada. and did i mentioned the notorious brutality of the brown spanish soldiers during the 30 years war against the protestant states of europe!

I mean of course in my previous post that they look brown. Not that they ARE brown.

if bollywood is a measure of what indian/south asian/brown people look like, i grant that many southern europeans could "pass." but i think that this measure is less of a reflection on the swarthiness of southern europeans then the idealization of a type many standard deviations from the average south asian. oh, and here's a skin color map of the world:
skin color map

reference for my assertion about racial perceptions and medieval iberia: The Victors and the Vanquished: Christians and Muslims of Catalonia and Aragon, 1050-1300.

also, re: kiran chetry. i doubt most people who assume she was of part brown heritage without knowing ahead of time, but after that piece of data was thrown in there it makes sense looking at her. she looks white. but she could be indian too. some south asian people can pass as white obviously (salman rushdie could). but very few.

"Hispanic" is an ethnic marker, not a racial marker. I'm with razib on this one -- I meet plenty of Latinos who pass as "American white," as you put it, HMF. The Latino population is super diverse racially, and folks literally come in every color and heritage imaginable (from my friend whose grandparents are Korean but identifies as Mexican -- she is second generation, to my friend who is Afro-Peruvian, to my friend who is Colombian and has a WASP name). While it is fair to say that there is a growing "brown Latino" identity, I think it's unfair to pretend that this experience is homogenous, particularly when some benefit and others do not within the larger racial hierarchy within the U.S.

PS, my parents are Punjabi-Indians, but my grandparents are pre-Partition Punjabis from what is now Pakistan. Both sides of the family identify culturally and historically with what is now Pakistani Punjab, but identify politically with the politics and secularism of the Indian independence movement. This is partially why all of us identify primarily as Punjabi and secondarily as South Asian. None of us identify as Indian or Pakistani.

i apologize for saying she could be "indian" :-) i'm one of those people who doesn't care too much if someone thinks i'm indian or bangladeshi or pakistani or south asian or brown. so i interchange pretty easily. all the same to me :-)

camille, re: your family's origins. i find that interesting, but unsurprising. i was talking to a bengali whose family in his grandparents' generation was mostly from east bengal (3 out of 4), but whose parents were born in west bengal. he said east-bengali-derived west bengalis definitely have their own attitude and identity. also, i'm a little amused that there are people in mauritius and south africa who are muslim and brown who identify as 'pakistani' in ancestral identity when 1) their ancestors arrived well before partition 2) their ancestors were probably not from historic pakistan (e.g., mauritius muslims are either from eastern uttar pradesh, or from gujarat).