From: rgopu@cs.tamu.edu (Rangarathnam Gopu)
Subject: Re: Is the term "desi" appropriate?
Organization: Computer Science Department, Texas A&M University
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 04:34:46 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.230022.14101@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c150-bt@po.berkeley.edu (Manish Vij) writes:
>In article <1992Oct1.174918.1958@tamsun.tamu.edu> rgopu@cs.tamu.edu (Rangarathnam Gopu) writes:
>>
>>	Its one reason I am puzzled why African Americans  get offended
>>	when someone calls them Ne---.  (Note:  I AM NO RACIST). I guess
>>	it's because the remark has been associated too long with racist
>>	remarks. I'll explain before u start flaming me. I certainly think
>>	the words ni--, co-- etc are extremely offensive, and should not
>>	be used. But negro just says that they are of the Negroid race,
>>	like I am of the Aryan or Dravidian or Caucasian or Mongolian or
>>	whatever race I may be. 
>>
>>	The white man is still referred to as white (as veLLai kaaran in
>>	Tamil) and so far at least they haven't considered that offensive.
>>	WHy should some one feel it is offensive when they are referred to by
>>	their skin colour, unless they are ashamed of belonging to a 
>>	particular race. 
>
>As you say, so shall you think.  Language is both a mirror and a feedback
>to the brain.  So calling people black, yellow, or brown is picking up on
>the physical attributes as a label for the person.

	Or, as I think, so shall I write? Please, dont jump to the conclusion
	that I am being racist or insensitive. Your lines below seem to
	imply that I am.
>
>Consider how this sounds:
>
>"Do you know John Smith?"
>
>"Oh, yeah, he's a negro."
>
>or
>
>"Oh, yeah, he's a yellow."
>"He's a brown."  "He's a white."
>
		
	I didnt mean refer to an individual by his/her skin color. I meant 
	the race. I dont care if John Smith is white black brown or sky blue.
	And I will think of John Smith as John Smith the person. I just feel
	sorry that it is considered politically incorrect to refer to a race
	by its original name, that 

>We should move on beyond physical attributes for labelling a person because
>those are the most superficial features in a person's identity.  Arguing
>that they aren't is stereotyping certain physical attributes, i.e.
>races, by linking them to attributes which are not necessarily true of
>the individual.  Calling somebody a Latino can bring to mind several
>stereotypes, some good, some bad.  Calling that person by his name better
>acknowledges his individuality.  Is this too American for you?  Or is this
>too Berkeley? :-)

	Nah. The problem is one of feeling ashamed because of one term,
	adopting another to hide the original's offensiveness, only to 
	discard the newly adopted term when it too becomes offensive.
	The term "lunatic" was apparently once a politically correct term 
	till compared to madman, then "mental case" took over, only to
	be discarded for "mentally handicapped/retarded". Similarly,
	Negro became offensive, black took over, and now it is 
	African-American. How long before that goes to be substituted
	with something else? A stigma or negative image is associated
	with the color of a people, it cannot be removed by inventing a
	new term - the "stigma" will simply attach itself to the new
	term. Politically correct words are just a respite, that temporarily
	mitigate the offensiveness of a few persons, by expecting tolerant
	sensible people to use them to distinguish them from boors.

	Man,(no pun intended :-) that's no solution, that's pathetic.

>
>Complicating matters is the fact that "negro" and other color-terms
>have come to have a derogatory aspect to them.  What if I asked, "Do
>you know Satyapal?"  "Oh, yeah, he's a brownie."  That 'ie' is a diminutive 
>just as nigger is an insult.

	I know, that's the problem and that's what I am talkin about. 
	"Oh yeah I know Dave he's white" isnt an insult, but, "Satya is a
	brownie" is! Something wrong with this picture.

>
>Interestingly, the gay rights movement has taken back the derogatory labels
>as a means of empowerment: fag, dyke, queer, when used by gays themselves 
>with pride, lose their sting.
>
	Exactly!! Just the point I am making two paras above

>So you say, "Goddamn PC police are making me measure my words.  I just
>use the easiest labels.  I don't intend to offend anybody."  Well,
>strike a balance then.  It is widely agreed that Negro and chink are considered
>offensive.  It is also widely agreed that desi is not so offensive.

	I strike the balance all right. PC policemy foot, if someone finds
	something offensive, I wont do it. unless its ridiculous. I am
	not going to refer to a homeless man as residentially challenged.

>
>Certain labels have certain connotations also, whether intended or not.
>Remember way back with the thread on Indian names, I argued that some words
>sound better or worse, harsher or softer, prettier or uglier, than others.
>This is true, of course, in the context of the language or culture in which
>you're evaluating those words.  By those standards, "bastard" can be
>delivered with much more devastating emphasis than "slimeball."  Similarly,
>"nigger" is harsh, while "latino" is usually not.
>
>You say you wouldn't mind being referred to by your skin color.  I would
>personally prefer being referred to by my NAME.  It's Manish.

	Whoa, whoa. If someone lists me as brown, by race, instead of Indian,
	that's ok by me. If someone calls me brown with an intention to
	refer derogatorily, that's not ok by me. not by a mile. EVERYBODY
	prefers to be called by his/her name. Me included, in case u have
	doubts.

>
>                                          /-\o /-()  -- -  --   -
>   Manish Vij    ::    '89 EX500          \_/ \\/ )  -- -    --
>   mvij@ocf.berkeley.edu                       |/_\  -- -  --   - 
>                                                \_/.  .  . . ........


--
------
Gopu
rgopu@cs.tamu.edu			ParukkuLE nalla naadu
Texas A&M University			EngaL Baaratha naadu