We have, at least, come a long way since “hindoo.”

In all honesty that was probably the most accurate classification. After all the term “Hindu” was applied (I think by the Persians) as sort of an all-encompassing classification for everyone East of the Sindhu river. But with religion being such an ever present part of life for Indians back then Hindu referred to the people and the religion, but the religion itself doesn’t put itself in a categorized box like that. That was a category imposed by outsiders. For the Indians of the time they’d have various astika and nastika schools of thought within the Indian/Hindu society and everyone else was a mleccha.

So really, the entire system of classification is one designed for and by Europeans.

Second side-note: North America = continent South America = continent Asia = continent South Asia = region

So if a guy from Quebec and a guy from Maine want to find some general regional term, maybe they could call themselves Northern Atlantic American or East North American, instead of North American. Because if they call themselves North American, the Indian and Sri Lankan would call themselves Asian, if the apples:apples::oranges:oranges analogy follows.

See! I do it too. <3 semantics

Thanks, I appreciate that. (And thanks, too, to the lovely A N N A and Ennis for participating in this thread!)

I’m not sure why one would have to choose between lively writing and accurate writing. They’re not opposed. Since it’s possible to achieve both, I expect both. My note to the Times does not seek to hold them to any standard to which they do not already hold themselves.

As for Mr. Reeves, I agree that he is a gentle soul, but the person he was responding to was also somewhat off-topic. There were a number of off-topic comments here, and I did not point out each individual one. Mr. Reeves, I’m sorry if we’ve made you anxious, but this post wasn’t about people asking about each other’s backgrounds; it was about assuming (and that resulting in error). Seems like you ask!

So next time, some one mentions “South Asian” in an article, I’d ask “Indians” to take offence and shoot a few emails asking the reporter whether proper verificiation was done with that person before calling them “South Asian”.

If a bunch of people do this, I think the reporters would just like to stay out of trouble by not mentioning “Indian” or “South Asian” and figuring out it is better to ignore the “brown” rather than report and get into arguments.

The passive voice made it seem to me, reading the text, that it was a term you were in favor of. I’m sorry if I misinterpreted your text.

I still respectfully disagree with your main point – I don’t think you need the same fidelity in a travel diary that you do in a hard news article, but I see the mileage varies around here. I don’t think it was an egregious mistake, and I have canceled subscriptions to magazines and news papers because of the dullness of the writing. It is a tepid product these days, and accuracy is hilariously hit or miss in the Times to judge by the corrections pages, so in that respect, you have a point about South Asian.

Maurice Reeves makes a lovely point which is not off-topic, but responds to another commenter in this thread. It is a lovely and gentle sentiment. I should learn from Maurice Reeves – when disagreeing, be more gentle.

p>Thanks, A N N A, SSK, ptr_vivek, ak…

<

p>I wrote in favor of journalistic accuracy, not in favor of the term South Asian. It’s not the same argument.

<

p>On Park Street, look at your own comment at #65. You write:

2. Isn’t the author of this post assuming most people would prefer South Asian? Perhaps not, I don’t see that in the text. Still.

<

p>What an interesting idea, looking in my actual text to see what I said!

<

p>While I do myself use the phrase “South Asian” or a hyphenate twice in the e-mail (and yes, again on this comment thread), as a point of fact, I don’t say anywhere in the e-mail that it is the only solution to the possibility that these descriptions are wrong. I write, “With an increasing number of South Asians in America, descriptions such as these as bound to crop up, and could easily be made more accurate.” [emphasis added] That’s an intentionally passive construction.

<

p>I wrote it that way because the point of the e-mail was what ak said: “journalists are not supposed to assume anything – they’re supposed to ask. in many contexts, incl. some she pointed out, it says that the reporter didn’t care enough to bother actually knowing, much less asking.”

<

p>THAT is what the post is about. The Times and its copydesk are aiming for absolute accuracy, so the possibility of error means that by their own standards, there’s a problem.

<

p>I happen to use the terms South Asia and South Asian. (So does the Times.)

<

p>But I wouldn’t favor assuming someone is South Asian, either—I’d want to ask them, and then, depending on how they identified, choose an appropriate and accurate descriptor that is consistent with the standards and editorial style of the publication.

<

p>Expecting the reporter to ask is not unreasonable or too much or impractical. Asking is the reporter’s job. Running out of time or facing some other practical problem means writing around the need for an answer, or acknowledging not knowing it. It’s not hard to do that, and when you don’t have a fact solidly, that is what you do.

<

p>Maurice at #112, and many others… You’re simply off-topic.

And to head off the next obvious question, if I hear someone with a German accent I ask them where they’re from. Ditto Southern accents, or if I meet someone and they’ve got an obviously Scandinavian last name, etc. Maybe I’m just nosy and should knock it off.

I think what both of you say is equally valid. Not every one grows up in the army quarters. That’s an entirely different experience than the rest.

As partitioned American says, it is true that Punjabis / Bengalis / Urdu / Tamil speakers have more in common with people from outside the borders than people within the Indian borders. But they can all identify themselves as Punjabis/Bengalis/Urdus/Tamils respectively rather than bringing in a new global “South Asian” to throw everyone else in the same bucket.

112, Maurice,

that’s a nice comment.

You will expand their world, and probably yours.