Is that label typically applied to anyone not an ethnic Bangladeshi, or to people who aren't citizens of Bangladesh? E.g. if there's a Bangladeshi in India, would they be bideshi? Conversely, if there's someone who moved to Bangladesh from Pakistan but are current citizens, do they get that label? (this is to satisfy my own curiosity about identity formation on the subcontinent, not accidentally stumbling on some hot button political issue)
> In Bengali, the term bideshi is used to describe a foreigner. The literal translation is "without land." This past summer, during six weeks conducting research on a global health project in Bangladesh, I heard the term often -- in reference to me.
> It felt strange, as I was born in Bangladesh and lived there until I was 3. To me, Bangladesh is where I can easily blend into a crowd. Bengali was the first language I learned. I visit often to see family. I feel a sense of ownership and belonging in Bangladesh that I have not always felt in America.
Citizenship isn’t particularly meaningful in Bangladesh. You can’t become Bangladeshi by acquiring citizenship.
This is a good point. I'm Bengali (but from the western part). People I have met from the eastern part (Bangladesh) identify themselves culturally as Bengali, but politically as Bangladeshi. So the adjective is Bangladeshi (Bangladeshi government, Bangladeshi flag, Bangladeshi Army etc etc).
As an aside Bangla = the ethnicity, Desh = Country, so country of the Bengalis.
It’s not. In Bangladesh, we precisely identify the town or village ethnic Bangladeshis come from, but have a single word to refer to all non-Bangladeshis (“bideshi,” meaning “foreigner”).
The article reads like the author wrote it, and then sprinkled in “white men” randomly wherever it fit grammatically. Maybe it helped get the thing published.
There are two predominate meanings: the Census Bureau definition includes the Indian subcontinent along with East and Southeast Asia. The vernacular excludes the Indian subcontinent, though perhaps less so among the Indian community.
Afghanistan would not be included in either definition. Someone of Afghanistan ancestry (I'm purposefully avoiding distinguishing the various ethnicities in Afghanistan) would be classified as either Middle Eastern or Caucasian under the census definition as well as in the vernacular.
I always took this to mean they identify more strongly with their home country, and don't want to be mistaken as someone who is willing to fully acclimatise to the local ways. They're keeping a way out just in case.
I don't know if there's a racial component but thinking about it more, people I've heard described as ex-pats are basically always white in a non-white country. I've never heard anyone use it to refer to Asian non-citizens working here in Australia for example, even if they technically meet the criteria.
I mean, the process by which I came to have an Arabic surname coming from a place 3,000 miles away from the Middle East was not exactly bunnies and rainbows.
I hear what you’re saying, but it seems to me like you’re calling for a moral double standard. It implicitly assumes that Americans have a capacity to behave to a higher standard than Bangladeshis or Indians or Chinese. I remember talking with someone about Trump voters, and I mentioned I had no trouble understanding them because they’re reacting just like Bangladeshis would if the shoe were on the other foot. And this very liberal white lady says disgustedly: “well, this isn’t Bangladesh.” One of the only times I’ve ever encountered a white American express to my face that they believe they’re morally superior.
You're right that two different terms are in use, but you're wrong (and unnecessarily provocative) to attribute it to race. There's a lack of symmetry between a wealthy Brit moving to Singapore or Dubai and an economic migrant from Pakistan, say, moving to the UK. That lack of symmetry justifies the different terminology.
In the UK it's a derogatory catch-all term for anyone that vaguely looks South Asian and was initially widely publicized in the 60s/70s around "paki-bashing" (= aka "lets gang up and beat up some immigrants").
Still, I'd avoid probably avoid using "natives", even if it was meant purely as a neutral label. "Locals" would be better - if it really was important to mention their cultural/ethnic background, I'd use whatever term they prefer for themselves.
This might just be an issue of regional vocabulary though I'm sure it's used in the presumptuous way you describe as well, the underlying question isn't necessarily unfriendly or borne of a discriminatory attitude - in a Midwestern town right now, but I can recall a few weeks ago actually this exact conversation between my American friend who's from a Pakistani background and a female census taker who was from South Asia.
In her case, she used the exact same vocabulary but it was much more obvious she didn't mean to imply that they weren't native born because she herself was not native. Context is important in conversation, but there is such a thing as regional mannerisms. On the west coast my vocabulary was certainly brought up for being just a tinge different.
Sometimes, people (at least in northern parts of India) tend to use the word as a synonym for "last name" in common parlance. It can be used without an intention to discriminate (though the consequences depend on the context, since you can figure out the community from a last name in most cases).
Was the interviewee of Indian origin?
Unless you are of Indian origin, it's not applicable to you.
If the interviewee was of Indian origin, and she didn't already know the interviewee's last name, I would probably give her the benefit of doubt, and ask to clarify what she meant.
American here: I've only heard "desi" used as a self-descriptor by South Asian people, usually Indian (but I think Pakistani sometimes as well?). It doesn't carry a negative connotation here that I know of, though I might have missed one that does exist.
I dunno, but I've seen/used American Indians before to disambiguate (unless talking about specific nations/ethnicities), and Indian-Americans for Americans from India. for (non-American Indian) Indians in India, maybe Indian Indians? subcontinental Indians? that last sounds wrong to me but I dunno what else to use!
In Britain we'd probably go with Native American in a formal context, American Indian might be used but probably isn't as common anymore I'd say, Red Indian would be understood as well but it's a bit dated, I assume that would be considered an offensive term in the US though.
So while we use/understand the term (American) Indians, Indian by itself would be considered to refer to people from India.
I'm Indian calling my own people 'Code-monkey Indians'. My friends have told me that this makes me a 'reverse racist' i.e. racist on my own people. Not sure if that makes sense but it's funny and I whole-heartedly embrace that title :)
reply