[BRIEF NOTE] On the fuzziness of diasporas
Aug. 1st, 2011 11:57 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rfmcdonaldOver at the Times of India, Ashley D'Mello's article "Without Hong Kong and Taiwan, Chinese diaspora smaller than Indian" introduces the reader to the fuzziness of the concept of diasporas. The two largest Asian diasporas are China's Overseas Chinese versus India's Non-resident Indian and Person of Indian Origin, but which is larger?
This is problematic. Including Taiwan and Hong Kong as Overseas Chinese communities is--frankly--silly inasmuch as these are territories which are, respectively, autonomous under Beijing's rule or continuing to identify with the Chinese state. But Wikipedia's quick and dirty numbers suggest that there are in fact forty million Overseas Chinese versus more than thirty million Non-resident Indians. What are the boundaries of the Indian diaspora, though?
But any number of people do take migrants of Pakistani and Bangladeshi origin into stock, arguing that the recency of British India's partition and the origins of many of the largest Indian communities before the partition makes a broader South Asian diaspora including Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, and other South Asians a more relevant category. Google does return 1.21 million hits for "Indian diaspora" versus 217 thousand for "South Asian diaspora"; but 217 thousand hits is not nothing.
Too, both the Indian and Chinese diasporas break down into multiple subdiasporas, India's Tamil diaspora (and the related Sri Lankan), for instance, or China's diaspora from Fujian province. Might these subdiasporas, specifically rooted in particular geographies and cultures and languages, be more relevant than broad overarching communities that are so broad as to risk losing meaning?
And then, there's the question of assimilation. The largest Overseas Chinese community is identified as living in Thailand, with more than ten million people, but--from what I know--Thailand's Overseas Chinese population is highly assimilated. Does it make sense to include these people as meaningfully Overseas Chinese?
Ah, fuzzy demographic categories: what would we do without them?
Though China boasts of a diaspora population of 35 million, and India's figure stands at 27 million, the Chinese figure also includes Hong Kong and Taiwan. Secretary for overseas Indian affairs, Alwyn Didar Singh, points out that without Hong Kong and Taiwan, the Chinese diaspora figures would be lower than that of India. In fact, NRIs said, if India were to calculate figures the way China did, it would have to include the diaspora of Pakistan and Bangladesh in its figures.
This is problematic. Including Taiwan and Hong Kong as Overseas Chinese communities is--frankly--silly inasmuch as these are territories which are, respectively, autonomous under Beijing's rule or continuing to identify with the Chinese state. But Wikipedia's quick and dirty numbers suggest that there are in fact forty million Overseas Chinese versus more than thirty million Non-resident Indians. What are the boundaries of the Indian diaspora, though?
Didar Singh said that while Pakistan and Bangladesh were once part of India and are of the same ethnic stock, they are now independent countries so their figures can't be taken into account. So while India and China are sometimes compared in the case of economic growth, experts feel the Chinese figure can be lowered by 1% as they have their own peculiar style of calculating statistics.
But any number of people do take migrants of Pakistani and Bangladeshi origin into stock, arguing that the recency of British India's partition and the origins of many of the largest Indian communities before the partition makes a broader South Asian diaspora including Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, and other South Asians a more relevant category. Google does return 1.21 million hits for "Indian diaspora" versus 217 thousand for "South Asian diaspora"; but 217 thousand hits is not nothing.
Too, both the Indian and Chinese diasporas break down into multiple subdiasporas, India's Tamil diaspora (and the related Sri Lankan), for instance, or China's diaspora from Fujian province. Might these subdiasporas, specifically rooted in particular geographies and cultures and languages, be more relevant than broad overarching communities that are so broad as to risk losing meaning?
And then, there's the question of assimilation. The largest Overseas Chinese community is identified as living in Thailand, with more than ten million people, but--from what I know--Thailand's Overseas Chinese population is highly assimilated. Does it make sense to include these people as meaningfully Overseas Chinese?
Ah, fuzzy demographic categories: what would we do without them?
