From: c150-bt@po.berkeley.edu (Manish Vij)
Newsgroups: alt.culture.us.asian-indian
Subject: Re: Is the term "desi" appropriate?
Date: 7 Oct 92 23:00:22 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley

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.

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."

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? :-)

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.

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.

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.

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.

                                          /-\o /-()  -- -  --   -
   Manish Vij    ::    '89 EX500          \_/ \\/ )  -- -    --
   mvij@ocf.berkeley.edu                       |/_\  -- -  --   - 
                                                \_/.  .  . . ........
Newsgroups: alt.culture.us.asian-indian