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.
Would depend on context, but for the most part it's not at all offensive. In my experience Indians in Silicon Valley refer to "indian things / culture" as Desi all the time.
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!
No, it’s regularly used as shorthand for South Asians and/or Latinos. It certainly can have derogatory undertones though, just like “Mexican” isn’t inherently racist but often has negative connotations. This has been statistically investigated using word embeddings to claim that language models are racially biased, but in reality it just shows the way we use language—in a racially biased way.
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 :)
Seriously? The first time I encountered the phrase was at a picnic while talking with an Eskimo tribal administrator and a physics professor from Khalilabad. For the life of me, I can't remember which one used it first.
I was under the impression that it was an acceptable short-hand for distinguishing which culture/ethnicity is being referenced when either is equally likely. Do the PC-police now disagree?
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.
> bringing potentially charged terms like "ethnicity" into some discussions.
But as you say, I think this is the point of the article isn't it? People in the west are squeamish about using those terms in their own backyard but are often much less squeamish about using those terms when talking about places far away.
Isn’t “Paki” just shortened for “Pakistani”? I never knew the word itself to be considered racist; but it’s definitely been used often in a racist / degenerative context and manner.
CGP Grey made a very convincing video on the argument that at least in the US, unexpectedly enough, "Indian" is probably the most appropriate term to use for Native Americans for a multitude of reasons: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kh88fVP2FWQ
I am from the US. "Dots and feathers" is not a common way in the US. It feels pejorative as well.
If it's ambiguous, I say "Indian (from India)" or "Indian (subcontinent)" vs. "Indian (Native American)". Or I'll just say "from India" or "Native American", and avoid that ambiguity.
Plus, I think many in the US don't know about the bindi, so referring to "dot" in that context may not help as much as you, someone from India, may think.
What about the term "American Indian"? I feel like that would be useful in headlines to set the context, so that then everyone knows which "Indian" is being referred to.
I see the sibling says "Indian" could be considered wrong.
However, again, with you post why is it wrong to say their ethnicity? Incidentally I was plugging for American as being an indicator of ethnicity; there's also a subset issue so for "sleazy American diner" read "sleazy Greek bar" (a bar in Greece, though it could be a bar run by a Greek I guess it doesn't seem to matter).
reply