From: saeed@watson.ibm.com (Saeed Jaffer)
Subject: Re: Choosing a name for this group
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 18:52:55 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

Preeti said:

|> ...and that I like saeed's suggestion for a name:
|> soc.culture.desi.american
|> 
|> 1. its short
|> 2. its unmistakeable (s.e. asians won't be confused)
|> 3. its in line with appropriating the term "desi" and legitimizing
|> it while stripping it of any negative connotations (with respect
|> to the current posts on whether the term is appropriate)

Thanks Preeti, but actually, I brought this up only because I was *wondering*
whether that would be a good name for the group.  After the discussion we've
had about this ("Is the term desi appropriate?") I'd like to establish my
support for the name: 

	soc.culture.south-asian.american

Desi is a great term for us to use to descibe south asians, but how will
non-desi americans really understand this term?  I asked other desi-amrikans I
know and some of them were not familiar with the term.  In my mind, South
Asian works best. 

|> The only problem i see with this name is that it seems to exclude
|> "desi's" outside the U.S. as does the present name. 
|> Maybe soc.culture.desi.world ?

True.  Does 

	soc.culture.south-asian.world 

work?  Raghavan's idea of "expatriate" might work.  Naming the group as such
would create a genuine expansion in what the group would cover.  I like that
idea.  From the recent posts by Pundarik Ranchod of South Africa and Permjit
Bhamra of Norway, it's clear there ARE desis abroad who read this.  BTW, I
think it's cool to have you both here -- hope you can contribute
interesting stuff in the future.

Hold on, though -- one problem.  In a sense, what we're trying to do here is
establish a newsgroup for those of us born and/or brought up mostly in the
U.S., right?  Or at least OUTSIDE of South Asia, right?  The danger is that a
worldly name could invite the group discussions to fall prey to the wild
postings that appear on groups like soc.culture.pakistan (the one I'm familiar
with).  For me, acuia has been a great group because it's designed specifically
for us amrikan-borns--at least those of us who were born/brought up OUTSIDE of
South Asia.  I think I'll write a whole post on this issue in a sec.

Now, a key reason I prefer "South Asian", is because I'm very much opposed to 

	soc.culture.indian.american

The main reason is because many South Asian Americans who read this group are
NOT from India, but Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, and Pakistan (like
myself :-) ).  Indian-american would also add confusion with regards to Native
American USNET readers.  Although I have no problem with the terms II and IA,
I prefer to describe myself as desi/South Asian or Pakistani to be specific.

Raghavan mentions the name:

|>  'soc.culture.indo.american'

To me, that seems even more confusing than the others.


One last note -- it seems like a group has been formed to draw up the charter
and it's being done.  Great!  Eagerly waiting the outcome ...

----------------------------------------------------------------------
--saeed jaffer        			So after a lot of thought
saeed@watson.ibm.com  			I'd like to reconsider
saeed@athena.mit.edu  			Please
					If it's not too late
					Make it a cheeseburger
							--L. Lovett
----------------------------------------------------------------------					
Newsgroups: alt.culture.us.asian-indian,soc.culture.asian.american