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".