Talk:Indian Americans

Demographic and Cultural Profile

Why does somebody delete my statement that Indian Americans are also well represented as taxi cab drivers? Anybody who lives in U.S. know that Indians are highly represented as cab drivers. Is it because it does not sound as fancy as being doctors and computer engineers?

I heard it was mostly paks that drive the taxis. Gujus mostly to the shops and hotels. --Dangerous-Boy

---

Do you have evidence? The plural of anecdote is not data, but the majority of taxi drivers I've taken rides with (in the Boston area, in the Philadelphia area, and in the San Francisco Bay Area, are of Indian origin, mostly Sikh (many of them clean shaven).

But for some data, here are some sources: Also, 60% of the members of the New York Taxi Workers Alliance are from [1]

From another source: "It is estimated that 65-80% of New York City's 25,000 taxi drivers are Sikhs." [2]

I'm adding back the statement that Indian Americans are also well represented as taxi cab drivers.

Arun 08:33, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Population Figure

"Numbering at least 2.5 million, Indian Americans account for slightly less than 1% of the total population of the United States"

2.5 million is the wrong number. According to the 2000 census, there were 1.6 million Asian Indians in United States or about 0.6% of the total population. July 25, 2005

---

Asian Group

"the official stance became to classify Indians as Asian despite acknowledging that many anthropologists classify Indians as Caucasian and not as Mongoloid."

What does the term "Asian" has to do with being "Caucasion" or "Mongoloid". Not all Indians are classified as "caucasion" by Antropologists. Only the North Indians are classified as "caucasion". Besides, the term "caucasion" does not mean anyhting. Indians are not considered "caucasion" in Western countries. Caucasion in America only refers to European Americans. 27 July, 2005.

---

American Indians, Pakistanis, and Bangalis refer to themselves as Desi (meaning "country men"), and usually forget about the political strife between the three countries which share very similiar cultures.

article is about indian americans, not paks and bangladeshis. There is already a pak american article.

---

"What does the term "Asian" has to do with being "Caucasion" or "Mongoloid". Not all Indians are classified as "caucasion" by Antropologists. Only the North Indians are classified as "caucasion". Besides, the term "caucasion" does not mean anyhting. Indians are not considered "caucasion" in Western countries. Caucasion in America only refers to European Americans."

No actually South Indians are classified as Caucasion as well. Theo only difference is skin color (being closer to the equator). 97% of all Indians (both North and South) belong to a caucasoid race of the mediterranean sub-branch. Also in America Russians, and Southwest Asians (Middle Easterners) are classified as caucasion, despite being Asian themselves. So race classifications often contradict themselves. Zachorious 03:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Bend it like Beckham?

Should Bend it like Beckham be included in the films sections even though it's british? --Dangerous-Boy

First of all, paks and bangladeshis are not desi. Desi is a name we indians give to greet other indians. Pakkis just want to be included. Let them find themself some other urdu word. Bend it like Beckhams should be included as it covers all the indian american sentiments. Location is less important than the subject. In this case the subject is universal and applies to indians everywhere(out side of india).

 Finally i end with a message to all the pakkis and bangladeshi's.  Stop identifying yourself with US!!!!

-You are so ignorant. We Pakistanis are the closest thing to you Indians, other than your fellow Indians. Our languge is the same as Hindi, just an overemphasis of Persian and Arabic vocabulary, as you guys overemphasize Sanskrit, (after independence). Our culture, customs, sentiments (for the most part) and languages are the same. We Pakistanis are majority Panjabis and Sindhis (i persoanlly am a Pathan but I feel proud of Punjabi ancestry as well). We are as much desi as others. Remember, a bloody violent partition is not enough to cut us off from each other. We are as tied together as Syrians and Lebanese are tied to each other. -User: Afghan Historian

I disgree. If you wanted to be apart us, you would have stayed. I have nothing incommon with a paki. Go join the arabs. that's what you center your culture around.--Dangerous-Boy 09:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Bend It Like Beckham is a film whose main protagonist is a British Asian. 65% of the film is about Jess's family (her, her sister and her sister's boyfriend, etc.), and in addition, the film was co-written by and directed by yet another British Asian. So, yes, I think that this film deserves to be in that category. No question. -- Jalabi99 06:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Classification

As for scientific classification, an Indian can be classified as causasian or mongoloid depending on which part of India you go to. There is even some negro. Most Indians probably put down asian American on surveys. Not causasian. --Dangerous-Boy

See United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind and Luce-Celler Act of 1946 for opinions of the Unites States govt. regarding the classification of Indians. While anthropologists may classify many Indians as Caucasian, the US govt, for legislative and census purposes, classify Indians as Asian. This is important because many laws and quotas are race-based. Thus, Indians are counted as Asian when tallying the Asian quota of UC (University of California) schools, as well as when tallying minorities to ensure large corps are diverse. The U.S. census is "self-described" affiliation, so a blue-eyed blonde of Nordic descent can check "African American"; however, many census-style forms explicitly mention "Asian (including Indian sub-continent)" to reduce doubts. --thoreaulylazy

You should add that info into the section. --Dangerous-Boy

Somebody added this, which I have removed: The Supreme Court determined that to be part of the White Race a region needed to be 2 out of 3 things: white-skinned, Caucasian, and from the West -- the 2/3 White Race Rule. The Indian Subcontinent was determined to neither be white-skinned nor from the West, being only (1)Caucasian, so they were determined to not be part of the White Race. Similarly, the Far East was determined to be neither Caucasian nor from the West, only being (1)white-skinned, so they were determined to not be part of the White Race. The Supreme Court case's name was (Ozawa v. United States 1922). Therefore, people from the Indian Subcontinent are Asian because they’re Asian “from the East”. In this sense, "from the East" and "from the West" refers to the 2 major religious groups of Eurasia. The "from the West" group: Jewish, Bahai, Christian, and Islamic religions are all similar to each other. In contrast, the "from the East" group, Hindu, Jain, Shinto, Daoist, Confucist, and Buddhist, are all similar to each other. The Middle East, unlike the Indian Subcontinent and the Far East, passed the 2/3 White Race rule. They are White because they are (1)Caucasian and (2)“from the West”, lacking only being "white-skinned". They are “from the West” because it was argued that the Arabs were historically the roots of Western civilization and they're Muslim. This Supreme Court case's name was (Ex parte Mohriez). There was no cite and I couldn't find any evidence of this when I searched. I put more reasons for the remove in United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind since the same person added this content there as well. Moreover, the results I found for Ex parte Mohriez seemed to all show that Arabians were found to be not White, contrary to what the original poster had mentioned - and, it was a 1944 verdict, which has nothing to do with the 1923 US v Thind case. To clear up the mess of classification once and for all, I've added a timetable of United States classification of Indians. --thoreaulylazy

It was done by User:Dark Tichondrias. I can't tell if he's a vandal. ----Dangerous-Boy

US paki's don't identify ourselves as Indians thus the name PAKI

what else needs work?

I think the article still needs to be fleshed out more. I want to make it even better than the chinese and filipino ones. What else do u guys think do we need to work on? --Dangerous-Boy

• I see sentences about politics, voting, affliations etc are spead out throughout the article. Bringing all of them under one section would be good --Vyzasatya 01:53, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Go ahead. Dangerous-Boy 05:14, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

age bias

the article shows clear age bias. the focus seems to be entirely on people 21+, who have emigrated to the US for jobs. many indian-americans are of my generation, and grew up in america. i realize there is already and article for the so-called "ABCD", however, at least some of that information needs to make its way into this article. also, i don't identify as ABCD, because I was born in India and still speak and read/write telugu. there are plenty of things that can be added to make this article more well rounded.

Vvuppala 02:19, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Swadhyaya Pariwar

I saw that the edit that added Swadhyay Pariwar to the list of cultural establishments. When that edit was removed on charge of vandalism, I looked on Google- Swadhyay Pariwar actually does exist, and does have centers in the US. I have reverted to the edit that includes the Swadyay Pariwar amongst the list of institutions.

Vvuppala 18:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Voting/Discussion for Merge ABCD into Indian American as a section

I think the whole article should be moved over here. Having a whole entry on ABCD seems more like a Wiktionary thing to me. -Joshuapaquin 08:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I support the Joshua's idea. That is apt --Vyzasatya 14:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it article should be merged. ABCD deals with a lot more issues to all south asian people, not jsut Indian Americans. --Dangerous-Boy 01:15, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I dont foresee ABCD article growing more than what it is at present. With slight changes it will perfectly fit into Indian American as a section. If you look at what links to it you only see Indian related articles only. So none of the other relevant parties seems to be concerned about it --Vyzasatya 06:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

To remove ABCD as a separate article is akin to removing pages like Jewish-American Princess, Fresh off the boat, and others that occupy a similar social use and position in language. It would display Eurocentric bias to remove it, imo, and additionally serve no purpose. --Saurav

Saurav, merging the two articles serves the purpose of keeping Wikipedia separate from Wiktionary. A simple definition of the term "ABCD" does not need its own article. Please do keep in mind that the subject matter is not disappearing, it is moving to a location that gives it context. ABCD is an integral part of the Indian American identity. If you feel as though Indian American and American-Born Confused Desi are such separate topics, please do elaborate that. Also, I don't see how merging the two articles represents "Eurocentrism"? Vvuppala 09:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Jook-sing for the chinese is not merged with the chinese american article. --Dangerous-Boy 21:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Thats because Jook-sing has enough written to be a seperate article and ABCD not. Dangerous-Boy I respect your opinions but consensus seems to be for merger. --Vyzasatya 21:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

merger complete. I made ABCD a section in this article --Vyzasatya 21:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Race-based laws

In the "classification" section it says that classification of Indian Americans as "Asian" has consequences because many laws and quotas are race-based. Well, clearly many quotas are race-based, but are there really any state or federal laws that could be described as "race-based"? If so, which ones? Babajobu 11:40, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Indian Voting Patterns

The article is showing signs of bias in discussing Indian Republicans. The article says

"Also, many Indian-Americans are extremely wealthy, and thus tend to vote Republican, while others identify as minorities and tend to vote Democrat. This, in turn has lessened the effectiveness of lobbying for Indian-American causes."

This sentence is rife with unsupported assumptions. It implies that only wealthy Indians vote Republican, being wealthy leads people to vote Republican and that those who consider themselves to be minorities vote Democrat instead of Republican.

A similar sentence is found in another part of the article:

"Indian Americans as a whole tend to vote in U.S. elections for Democratic candidates. However, because of the number of extremely successful and wealthy Indian professionals and entrepreneurs, there is also a sizable Indian Republican vote."

Many Indians vote Republicans not because they are are wealthy but because they have conservative moral values. Others vote Republicans because they are business-owners and find Republicans to be business-friendly. Remember most business owners are not rich - they are middle class. In addition many Indians are wealthy ABCDs who vote Democratic because they are socially liberal. I suggest deleting these explanations for why Indians vote Republican (unless someone offers evidence-based explanations) and replacing them with a sentence such as:

"The majority of Indian Americans vote Democratic in national elections, however a substantial minority of Indian Americans vote Republican."

What do you guys think?

It would be interesting if we could find a source that discussed why different segments of the Indian-American population vote differently. Do Americans born in India more frequently vote Republican? Do their American-born children more frequently vote Democrat? Do business owners more frequently vote Republican? Et cetera. But unless we can find an actual source, maybe it would be better to remove the sweeping generalities, yeah. Babajobu 16:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

The only poll of Indian American voting patterns, indicated that in 2004, South Asians (which is a reasonable proxy for Indians in this context), went 90-9 for Kerry against Bush- Asian "Natural Republicans" vote 75% Democratic Arun 10:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

It was still there. So I removed it and added some things about political clout. Superdosh 21:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the article Asian "Natural Republicans" vote 75% Democratic is using a survey of the Indian-American voting of the Bush vs. Kerry Presidential Election of 2004. This does not show preference for a political party. It only shows preference for candidate. The second problem is that it uses a sample size of 99 voters. This sample size is too small. Therefore any conclusions built on this data is an extrapolation.

There is also another link that Vote Getters seems like it charges to see the article.

I suggest that we try to find better sources and delete these links. -Emmadi 12:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Intro

I reverted User:Dangerous-Boy's revert as:

Asian Indian is the current US Census term for Indian Americans, not "East Indian". East Indian was formerly used colloquially, though not as a US Census term for people from the Indian subcontinent. Speculation about the total South Asian American population should go in the South Asian American article. This article is strictly about the Indian American population.

Arun 10:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

sorry. I thought the user was vandalizing by deleting so much stuff.--Dangerous-Boy 19:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Edited out Zogby report

Edited out: "See external link for a comparative media portrayal: [http://www.niaf.org/research/report_zogby.asp"

(1)Is this a peer reviewed study? (2)"People from India" are not in the report. For many Americans, "Asian American" or "Asiatic" refers to Chinese. For example, see the Wikipedia article Asian in other English-speaking countries. (Remember, the Zogby report was asking teenagers, not United States government officials. 4.228.90.84 03:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Flawed Population Figures

The population figures, seeming quoted from the US Census of 2000 are highly incorrect. The 1.6 million figure is apparently taken from the the census where it is denoted for "Asian in combination with one or more other races" and NOT Indian American. It should be further noted that the same 1.6 million is further divided 5 sub-groups including Asian White, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, and even Asian Black. Not all of these can be categorized as "Indian American". Now I am not here to tell you that there aren't so many Indians in America, just that the source of are quoting does not match up with what is being said in the article. So either find a better source, or remove the 1.6 million figure.

Reference: http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/c2kbr01-16.pdf

--H2d2 22:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

No, the number is correct. Go to the following US government website http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFIteratedFacts?_event=&geo_id=01000US&_geoContext=01000US&_street=&_county=&_cityTown=&_state=&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on&ActiveGeoDiv=&_useEV=&pctxt=fph&pgsl=010&_submenuId=factsheet_2&ds_name=DEC_2000_SAFF&_ci_nbr=013&qr_name=DEC_2000_SAFF_R1010&reg=DEC_2000_SAFF_R1010%3A013&_keyword=&_industry= The exact figure for "Asian Indian alone" is 1678765. For "Asian Indian alone or in combination with other races" the figure is 1899599.

Asok the intern

This character was introduced way, way earlier than 2003 -- he was around at least as early as 1996.

areas that still need work

• Cultural establishments
• Entertainment

citations

• Disunity
• Assimilation

--Dangerous-Boy 20:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, moving out the racial classification into another article. Arun 07:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Image of "an Indian American boy"

Is this really necessary? I mean it seems bit silly. Not every article needs an image. In this case, I find it both funny and sad. That image can be of anyone anywhere in the world. I can't think of the words but it looks rather ridiculous. --Blacksun 04:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Some cleanup

Got rid of the not very relevant Indian American image, some unfounded speculation, made some corrections (people want to keep removing the fact that many Indians are cab drivers. Also added a few "Citation needed" tags, where they would be useful.

Arun 07:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I kind of liked that image. Also, we might need to clean out some of the links section.--Dangerous-Boy 18:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

LoL "not very relevant" is rather diplomatic :P --Blacksun 19:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Disunity

There is a clear unified Indian-American voice in the U.S. political system. Indian-Americans have a PAC (Political Action Committee), the US India PAC (www.usinpac.com). Their goal is to represent Indian-Americans and offer a clear unified voice for the Indian-American community in American politics. They do offer bipartisan support to candidates while representing the community.

It is true that Indians vote for different parties just as Caucasians and Hispanics but it does not mean that there is not a clear voice for the Indian-Americans in American politics. I believe that there is confusion as how sub-communities differ on opinions on issues such as culture, language and traditions with politics.

I suggest that there be two categories one that shows that there is disunion between the regional communities and one that shows that there is a clear voice for Indian-Americans in the US political system while showing that the Indian-American community shows support for both the Right and Left wing.

Hello anonymous user. It will be easier to participate in conversations if you create an account and sign your messages, by placing ~~~~ at the end of all of your messages. I have a couple points about your last comment. First, how prominent is this group? The following article Vote Getters seems to indicate that there are several other groups. Also, there are several industry groups which additionally have political platforms like the Asian American Hoteliers Association. This statement is a bit sweeping.

Arun 15:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, www.usinpac.com seems to have a broken webpage.

Arun 15:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

get rid of disunity section?

The politics section seems to cover it.--Dangerous-Boy 07:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I believe that it should be deleted. I would also like to suggest a clean-up of Politics. -Emmadi 11:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)