From: saeed@watson.ibm.com (Saeed Jaffer)
Subject: Is the term "desi" appropriate?
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 1992 15:44:24 GMT
Distribution: na
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

Satyen says:

|> ( As an aside, I'd like a sense of whether we, the South Asian 
|> community are willing to let ourselves be referred to as Desis - 
|> by non-South Asians, as you will find here. Or, like the infamous 
|> n-word and some African-Americans, if South Asians exclusively, in an 
|> appropriate context, can legitimately use the word. Personally, I've 
|> never been comfortable with the term at all, used by either 
|> group. But almost everyone I know continues to give it currency.
|> The connotations change with context and emphasis, but this is almost 
|> always lost on non-South Asians. Are we ready to be referred to as 
|> Desis by non-South Asians in the American context ? )

I'm not sure if others are interested in discussing this, but I am.

The first time I had ever heard people feel that the term "desi" might be
derogatory was in this newsgroup.  That doesn't mean it isn't, but I have to
ask why it may be?  As far as I know, desi literally translates to "local".
Hindi/Urdu/Punjabi/etc. speaking people from all parts use it to describe
anyone from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka.

A question to those brought up in desi cultures based on other languages
(Dravidian specifically): is the term desi used in languages like Tamil,
Sinhalese, Telegu, etc.?

Now, I can see how desi might be derogatory if it could be ascribed to a
person's *color* of skin.  However, IMO desi is distinctly defined by culture
(like Arab).  Albeit, there are hundreds of separate cultures within the the
umbrella of the sub-continent, but somehow all of them relate in some way.  Is
it color of skin/eyes/hair?  I say NO.  I know every color of desi.  Granted,
most of us look very similar, but one can't deny that are all types of desis 
(color/religious).

Other reasons I personally favor the term desi: a) avoids confusion, b)
includes all.  When I applied to the UC schools four years ago, I was
extremely pleased to see on the application a box for "East Indian/Pakistani"
that one could check off for one's ethnicity.  Yet, where does that leave the
Afghanis, Bengalis, Nepalis, and Sri Lankans?   The term DESI includes all. 
Personally, I like that because although I have nothing wrong with saying I'm
of East Indian descent, I prefer "desi" (since I'm from Pakistan).  

Now, if the box on the application had said "South Asian", wouldn't Malays,
Filipinos, Burmese, Indonesians, etc. be a bit confused?  I know that they're
considered SouthEast Asian, but still ... 

IMO, the best ENGLISH term is "Indian Sub-Continent".  In fact, what I usually
do on applications that only have the all-encompassing "Asian" box on the
ethnic question is check the "Asian" box and write in "Indian Sub-Continent". 
Now, of course, I have heard some say they're offended by the term
SUB-continent: "Why ARE we SUB-continentals?  It seems to imply we're
SUB-humans!"  I'm not sure about that.  I like to consider it a geographical
term.

Of course, one can make arguments against all this.  South Asian is also
all-encompassing.  Desi causes confusion because what exactly defines desi? 
Not geographical boundaries, skin color, religion, or language, but a vague
sense of common culture.  How do we expect the average amrikan to understand
the term "desi", let alone comprehend "South Asian"?  If one considers the
future progress of the desi community, it's probably better to claim the
"South Asian" title as ours.  Yet, I still can't help call us "desis".





Newsgroups: alt.culture.us.asian-indian