Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site rlgvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!trwrdc!rlgvax!raghu
From: raghu@rlgvax.UUCP (Raghu Raghunathan)
Newsgroups: net.nlang.india
Subject: Re: A press for Indians in North Americ
Message-ID: <777@rlgvax.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 21-Sep-85 13:35:44 EDT
Article-I.D.: rlgvax.777
Posted: Sat Sep 21 13:35:44 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 25-Sep-85 08:07:12 EDT
References: <516@im4u.UUCP> <51700003@uiucdcsp>
Organization: CCI Office Systems Group, Reston, VA
Lines: 23

> 
> Seriously, the phrase "Asian-Indians" is fine by me. It has
> been in use for quite some time.
> Manoj K. Jha
	
	The shortcoming with the phrase "Asian-Indians" is the fact
	that it ignores the "americanization" of these Indians. It
	gives no indication of the fact that these Indians have settled
	in America and may even be partly Americans (by citizenship or
	otherwise).

	To me "Asian Indians" could equally refer to people
	living in India, as opposed to Indo-Americans, who have partly
	severed their ties to India and are of divided loyalty. When
	they fully sever their ties to India, then they become just
	"Americans".
							- raghu

	PS: I like to refer to myself as an Indo-American since I feel
	an equal "sense of belonging" towards America as I do towards
	India (at present). If someone refers to me as Asian-Indian,
	I feel they are saying "Hey, you don't belong here; you are just
	a temporary guest in this country".