We are Indians, Not South Asians

[coffee_rules]

5 minutes ago, zen said:

For a western POV, why would it matter if someone is a South Asian or an Indian? Nothing should change unless you are implying that South Asian brand is better than Indian. 
 

They could simply be using South Asian to target a larger audience including among Asian community for whatever they do. 

It is a matter of convenience for westerners to club all as south Asians, but in reality where ever I have encountered the term, it by these radicals that I pointed out. I am not speculating but know first hand. It is not a brand you want to associate with

[zen]

1 minute ago, coffee_rules said:

It is a matter of convenience for westerners to club all as south Asians, but in reality where ever I have encountered the term, it by these radicals that I pointed out. I am not speculating but know first hand. It is not a brand you want to associate with

if you do not prefer Indian radicals to use Indians to convey their message , then them using South Asian should be a win-win 

Unless you think by changing tags, they would magically stop being radicals or whatever 

 

 

[coffee_rules]

3 minutes ago, zen said:

if you do not prefer Indian radicals to use Indians to convey their message , then them using South Asian should be a win-win 

Unless you think by changing tags, they would magically stop being radicals or whatever 

 

 

Yes, precisely why that South Asian filter is used to make sure it is Anti-Indian.

[zen]

4 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

Yes, precisely why that South Asian filter is used to make sure it is Anti-Indian.

I think using a Indian tag to be anti-Indian can be more credible. South Asian could be used to convey the message to a larger audience 

 

For e.g. if x is happening in China, not many care except for Chinese. If x is happening in Asia, relatively more people can care for the message 

 

The message itself could be either positive or negative depending on perspective. 
 

Even many people in India do not care for India - see the corruption, politics, pollution and population growth for example. So first step should be to get the house in order rather than worry about what some obscure group is doing in Australia, NZ, etc. 
 

 

[coffee_rules]

4 minutes ago, zen said:

I think using a Indian tag to be anti-Indian can be more credible. South Asian could be used to convey the message to a larger audience 

 

For e.g. if x is happening in China, not many care except for Chinese. If x is happening in Asia, relatively more people can care for the message 

 

The message itself could be either positive or negative depending on perspective. 
 

Even many people in India do not care for India - see the corruption, politics, pollution and population growth for example. So first step should be to get the house in order rather than worry about what some obscure group is doing in Australia, NZ, etc. 
 

 

Why do you put words in my mouth? Did I say we have to ignore our faults and fight the taboo? Why are you then preaching me? 
 

We are too big enough community to be identified as Indians and not be subjected to unnatural packaging, there is no common south Asian history to feel proud about being from there,

[zen]

15 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

Why do you put words in my mouth? Did I say we have to ignore our faults and fight the taboo? Why are you then preaching me? 
 

We are too big enough community to be identified as Indians and not be subjected to unnatural packaging, there is no common south Asian history to feel proud about being from there,

I made a general comment as Indians in India do more harm to the country

 

There is no this or that. India is in South Asia, which is in Asia, and so on. Therefore depending on the context - one can be an Asian, a South Asian and an Indian

 

 

Edited August 11, 2020 by zen

[MechEng]

On 8/10/2020 at 7:51 PM, Real McCoy said:

We might have made it better but I don't think Samosa has its origins in India. Some guys argue it originated in Turkey and others Iran. The same way how chess originated in India but the persians and arabains took credit and now they know it was Indian all along. But modern chess was an European improvement. So Europeans made it better but it originated in India same like samosa is better Indian style but wasn't started here

i think the original indian chess was quite complex compared to modern version. 

 

In fact potatoes, cabbage, cauliflower,  chillies, tomatoes are not original to India. All were brought through colonial trade. If you see ayurveda and yunani medicine, you won't find any mention of green chillies, mostly cloves and black pepper to increase heat, and these are pre colonial works.

[coffee_rules]

Quote

Why would Indian identity sought to be erased in a manner that Italian or Greek or Chinese or Korean or Japanese identity is not. Is the academy still a hostage to the cold war or is it the sheer racism of “Brown people all look the same”? While in the 1990s, the term Indian American was still more in vogue than Chinese or Italian America, with the push for “South Asian American” this term began to decline.
 

In the meanwhile, Indian Americans and all plural inclusive Americans should reject the term “South Asian” and “South Asian American” for what it is—a crass racist way to deny Indian Americans their identity and their place in America. “South Asian” is the n-word for brown people. All brown people are not the same. We have distinct histories and cultures. And India is a multi-thousand year old term, even in the West. Let’s stop the erasure of our histories and identities. It’s time to excise “South Asian” from the vocabulary. Indian or Indian-American works great, thank you.

It is not about potatoes or tomatoes. Confused manufactured identies and sticking something that we are not. If you live outside India, you will face this more. Some of the reasons explained in the article.

 

https://medium.com/@sankrant/how-south-asian-is-a-racist-n-word-for-brown-people-7c19c107a1a8

 

How “South Asian” is a racist “n-word” for Indian Americans.
 

 

[zen]

^Those articles =  an exercise in making mountains out of mole hills. Also “Indians” in America is usually for natives. Ignores the history of America was an European colony. 
 

What should matter is what Indians in India do. India itself is a tag given by others. One should seek to use Bharat, which is one of the two official names of the country, more predominantly. 

[coffee_rules]

3 minutes ago, zen said:

^Those articles =  an exercise in making mountains out of mole hills. Also “Indians” in America is usually for natives. Ignores the history of America was an European colony. 

 

they are rightfully called “Native” Americans, Attaching Colonial tag of Indians to them is demeaning and racist. Columbus called them the Red Indians which is even more racist because he went in search of India and found America. Thus erasing their identity.

3 minutes ago, zen said:

What should matter is what Indians in India do. India itself is a tag given by others. One should seek to use Bharat, which is one of the two official names of the country, more predominantly. 

No. This article and OP is about Indian identity losing out to south Asian identity in USA. Don’t confuse it with Indians in India. 

[zen]

22 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

they are rightfully called “Native” Americans, Attaching Colonial tag of Indians to them is demeaning and racist. Columbus called them the Red Indians which is even more racist because he went in search of India and found America. Thus erasing their identity.

No. This article and OP is about Indian identity losing out to south Asian identity in USA. Don’t confuse it with Indians in India. 

American Indians, Natives, ....

 

That identity is being lost in USA is like a conspiracy theory,  which not many care for. There are various categories including Africans, Latin Americans, and so on 

 

As for Asia- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_Asia 

Edited August 12, 2020 by zen

[BacktoCricaddict]

11 hours ago, zen said:

American Indians, Natives, ....

 

That identity is being lost in USA is like a conspiracy theory,  which not many care for. There are various categories including Africans, Latin Americans, and so on 

 

As for Asia- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_Asia 

They should just call them indigenous Americans and completely dissociate their identity from the actual Indian identity.  

[Real McCoy]

7 minutes ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

They should just call them indigenous Americans and completely dissociate their identity from the actual Indian identity.  

Actually calling them Indian has become a kind of a slur against them because of the way they pronounce it differently like "injuns". These days they are called native americans. Indian can be used colloquially if said with respect.

[BacktoCricaddict]

Maybe there is an alternative explanation for the South Asian terminology.  

 

For the longest time, "Asians" in America meant Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Thai, Vietnamese.  Asian food, even today, refers mostly to food from these countries.  Until recently, people from these countries were a far more prominent part of America than people from India, pados, Sri Lanka and B'desh. 

 

Over the last 15-20 yrs, that has changed and a term was necessary to distinguish these folks from the traditional "Asian" identity.  Hence, South Asia (and people from these "South Asian" nations do look undeniably similar - heck, often even I can't tell a Bangladeshi apart from an Indian)

 

Could it be something as benign as this?  

[Real McCoy]

2 minutes ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

Maybe there is an alternative explanation for the South Asian terminology.  

 

For the longest time, "Asians" in America meant Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Thai, Vietnamese.  Asian food, even today, refers mostly to food from these countries.  Until recently, people from these countries were a far more prominent part of America than people from India, pados, Sri Lanka and B'desh. 

 

Over the last 15-20 yrs, that has changed and a term was necessary to distinguish these folks from the traditional "Asian" identity.  Hence, South Asia (and people from these "South Asian" nations do look undeniably similar - heck, often even I can't tell a Bangladeshi apart from an Indian)

 

Could it be something as benign as this?  

Until our recent categorization into "Asians", we were under the "caucasian" category with no Indian or south asian term because we were so miniscule in the american population. In fact, our face type generally speaking resembles that of a caucasian rather than an asian or african. Its only our skin that is dark. That doesn't mean we are a dark version of white people considering how much fair skin is valued here. We are our own group and there is also some differences within our group.

Further west of us, Arabs and Iranians could easily pass off as Italian or Greek until 9/11 happened. Infact, the 9-11 caricatures has doomed our cause more than the arabs. Those arabs who could pass of as italian can do so by naming their kids into western sounding names but we cannot do so as we look like those caricatures. This is further exacerbated by the behavior of padosis in uk mostly and us is also getting aware of them. It is the reason why I say we should avoid the south asian label and call ourselves as Indians.

@sandeep made an anecdote where some padosi called herself Indian. If they themselves are doing so, what is the problem with us doing the same thing . I remember back when I was in peepee forum, some padosi was under the impression that we created the south asian to come under the pakistani umbrella Their delusion knows no bounds. Just for this, I say we should quit this "kumbaya we are all the same" South Asian identity and embrace our actual Indian identity. This South Asian identity was created by 2nd genners who didn't want our neighbors left out and indicates their magnanimity. But why do we do the same. Most of us are Indians or atleast immigrants.

[coffee_rules]

3 hours ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

Maybe there is an alternative explanation for the South Asian terminology.  

 

For the longest time, "Asians" in America meant Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Thai, Vietnamese.  Asian food, even today, refers mostly to food from these countries.  Until recently, people from these countries were a far more prominent part of America than people from India, pados, Sri Lanka and B'desh. 

 

Over the last 15-20 yrs, that has changed and a term was necessary to distinguish these folks from the traditional "Asian" identity.  Hence, South Asia (and people from these "South Asian" nations do look undeniably similar - heck, often even I can't tell a Bangladeshi apart from an Indian)

 

Could it be something as benign as this?  

Indology was the academia term in colonial times, every university had a Indology and Sanskrit studies. As theorized in that article, the term Indian Americans were popular for NRIs living in USA, in the pre-70s era. But Cold War or some other reason, Intelligence and State depts popularized South Asian studies in universities. 
It could be a simple reason why South Asian is popular now, because of the way we look alike, but these days this term is becoming a tool to criticize Indian policies and social systems. Ambedkarites, Dalit organizations funded by evangelists and Kashmiri and Paxtani groups use the South Asian tag for legitimacy. We don’t want to be identified with such groups and hence we are big enough to be called Indian Americans.

[someone]

South Asian is a term used to couple India with Pakistan. And we need to get to stop that.

 

I say social sciences, think-tanks, governments identity us as South Asia. Many ambassadors to Pak eventually become one to India, not vice versa. As South Asian, we get associated with terrorism, backwardness. South Asian studies hurt us, and paint a bad narrative.

[coffee_rules]

Look at this organization. They are milking one case of caste discrimination in Cisco CA and they run a campaign of South Asian centric causes, mainly focusing on UC Hindus. As if South Asian Muslim women don’t face any domestic violence.

 

 

[zen]

2 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

Look at this organization. They are milking one case of caste discrimination in Cisco CA and they run a campaign of South Asian centric causes, mainly focusing on UC Hindus. As if South Asian Muslim women don’t face any domestic violence.

 

 

In the tweet, where does it say that south asian muslim women do not face domestic violence? .... From what I see, the tweet tells that Hindu women take the initiative to make a difference, which can encompass women of all types of backgrounds including muslim. Muslim women could be relatively passive when it comes to fighting discrimination against them. May be because of being brought up in a draconian environment, they could feel more helpless to gather courage. 

 

 

Edited August 13, 2020 by zen

[coffee_rules]

12 minutes ago, zen said:

In the tweet, where does it say that asian muslim women do not face violence? .... From what I see, the tweet tells that Hindu women take the initiative to make a difference, which can encompass women of all types of backgrounds including muslim. What it shows is that Muslim women are relatively passive when it comes to fighting discrimination against them and that is understood as many could have been brought up in a draconian environment to feel helpless. 

That’s your inference. Why do they highlight caste and India when fighting domestic violence. As an NGO they should help the weaker not the stronger of the community. They are highlighting where DV is happening more .. among upper caste Hindu Indians. Are you a spokie for Equality Labs that you are defending them? Do you know their agenda and activism? This is not one tweet. They are a front for Dalit Christian organization whose sole purpose is to target caste based image of India and Indians in NA. They are calling themselves HR activists and trying gain relevance in the BLM movement. They are trending DalitLM and MuslimLM from India.

Edited August 13, 2020 by coffee_rules