Accusations of racism are fashionable these days. Paris got more attention that Baghdad? Racism! Someone honestly questions the use of color in affirmative action? Racism! A while ago, the Guardian carried a piece implying that the word “Expat” was only used for white people, and the term “Immigrant” was for “inferior races”. I call bullshit.
I’m not implying that racism doesn’t exist. I’m saying that often it’s used lazily. Instead of doing the hard work of finding a real reason for a difference in behavior, it’s simply easier to accuse people of discrimination based on color. The Expat vs Immigrant debate is a great example.
It just so happens that white people tend to live in developed nations
The accusation is that even though the dictionary definition of “Expat” is “a person who lives/works outside their native country”, it’s almost exclusively used to describe white people living in third world countries. “Expat” doesn’t have a negative connotation. “Immigrant” on the other hand, so it is claimed, is only used to describe those from the third world going to “the white man’s land”. And the reason for this apparently is racism.
First of all, there is truth in how the two words are used. That much is correct. I disagree however, that the reason is racism. Often a behavior that ends up disproportionately affecting people of color is inaccurately labeled as racism. And here’s why.
The word “immigrant” is commonly used for people seeking out a better life in another country – a life that their native land cannot provide them with. So yes Indians settling abroad in Europe or the US are overwhelmingly immigrants because in most cases, they are seeking a better life than what India can provide them with. The same is usually true of Arabs and Africans.
“Expat” however, doesn’t have this connotation. So an American citizen settling in Europe is usually called an expat. A French citizen living in India is certainly not staying for the higher living standard. So they’re not called immigrants, but expats.
It just so happens that white people tend to live in developed nations, so they don’t move out of their country seeking a better life. It’s therefore rare to think of a white person as an “immigrant” in a third world country.
So while “Expat” is overwhelmingly used for white people, and “Immigrant” is mostly used for asians, arabs, and black people, the two terms are not racist in nature. It’s economics and not race that informs the choice of words. For historical reasons there’s a strong link between economics and race, but that doesn’t mean it’s racism.
I am not sure that I agree. If you are a black European or Asian born European and you come to live in developing world for a few years, you do not become an expat automatically, often people treat you as an immigrant.
Expat has to do something with your way of thinking starting from the personal understanding that it is a temporary phase in your life, but then Indian students/professionals going to UK or US, even when they know it is for a few years, do not feel/act like an expat. I am probably going around in circles but …
In reply to Sunil Deepak
I think people would treat a black European or an Asian born European like an expat in the developing world IF people knew where they were from. Otherwise the natives would assume they’re from an even less developed nation!
According to the dictionary, an expat is someone living or working outside his/her native country while an immigrant is someone who has permanently migrated to another country. So, it seems that the terms were meant to convey temporary living versus a permanent move.
So, perhaps, it does sync a bit with what you’re saying, though it’s not always true.
In reply to Roshni
Makes sense. Typically those who stay permanently are doing so for better living standards…
great article… but do you really think Expats and Immigrants terms are not Racism. no matter what it has mean according to the dictionary.
In reply to Ravi
I think that even though the term “Expat” is generally used for white people, that doesn’t automatically mean it’s racist…
I see lefties of the Guardian type whining endlessly about alleged racism and bigotry. Perhaps the race baiting left should migrate to a new country, then?
When mocking those who complain about media in India, you never forget to mention their right wing affiliation. Why not mention which side of the political spectrum the race baiting losers come from?
In reply to Sumit
I don’t mention the political spectrum because I don’t see a trend. I don’t know how to identify “a leftist”. Right wingers on the other hand, are easy to spot. They talk about how ancient India was awesome, how the evil west is responsible for its problems, Congress, media, blah blah. You know – the usual things associated with the word “right wing”.
Now that you mention it, it’s mostly right wingers who complain about racism and bigotry and how the word “expat” is only used for foreigners and that the west thinks of itself as superior etc etc.
In reply to bhagwad
Ha ha,
Don’t know how to identify a leftist…even you can do better than that one :) The Lefties would be the ones who complain about building anything from a highway to a metro to a bullet train. They would be the ones obsessively and jealously filling newspaper columns complaining about India’s “wasteful” space program. They would be the ones telling you why the evil West is worse than ISIS.
Yes, race baiting social justice warriors mostly come from the right :) So true! The Guardian is totally a flagship right wing publication :)
As for ancient India’s awesomeness, see everyone has their fairytale land. You had the Soviet Union, we have ancient India. The Hindu right has the advantage that ancient India was a long time ago. So it’s easier to create myths about it. The Lefties got their a$$es handed to them too recently to start re-imagining the Soviets yet…
In reply to Sumit
Unless a person specifically shows support for the welfare state, nationalization of the economy etc, you cannot call them “leftists”. It’s kind of the definition.
Lots of people on the right have called India’s space program wasteful. The right is also extremely suspicious of the west – note the whole “bad western influence” talking points.
A right winger on the other hand is pretty easy to spot and identify. Here’s a handy guide: http://www.bhagwad.com/blog/2010/politics/alternatives-for-calling-someone-right-wing.html/
In reply to bhagwad
The best proof that you are living in la-la land is that you actually want to offer alternatives to being called “right wing”. You can go ahead and call me Hindu right. I am proud.
Hindu right did not keep India Communist till 1991 and condemn the whole nation to poverty. Hindu right is not going around telling people to give up cars, planes, power plants, satellites and return to the stone age. So go ahead and call me Hindu right. Go check with the lefties: they are busy telling tribals to be suspicious of electricity…lol. The right may talk about ancient India, but if anyone actually wants to go back to a world without cars and electricity, it is the lefties.
I still can’t stop laughing that you think race baiting social justice warriors are coming from the right wing and writing in the Guardian.
I’m telling you…India and its people are too backward for the leftie progressivism. Americans are too racist and culturally insensitive to appreciate Sharia. No country in the world is good enough for lefties…go form your own country.
Oh wait…you already did that. My bad!
In reply to Sumit
In order to support your claim:
“Several of those whom I would put in the “right wing” camp in Indian politics have expressed their dislike for the term. ”
you linked to a tweet of Sandeep as evidence. Pity you were too stupid to realize that his tweet does not express dislike for the term “right wing”, but rather expresses irritation/surprise that people like you think its an insult of some kind.
And what’s funny is that in you then interpreted it in a liberal way to mean: “Oh they must want a new more ‘sensitive’ term”. So you began a search for a new term! See brother, we are right wingers. Not pansies like liberals. I know you people call each other by euphemisms like “physically challenged” and “minimally exceptional” and “full figured” and “cisgender”. We actually prefer direct language. No, we don’t want some silly new term to feel more “accepted”. We are totally fine with being the Hindu right and we want more people to proudly identify with it. Save your rainbow world of sensitive language for some pampered young liberal who has just found out that trophies for participation don’t exist in the real world.
In reply to Sumit
You’re starting to ramble, confusing liberalism with leftism, assuming I’m a left/liberal, and a bunch of other logical errors.. And you’ve gone way off topic (as usual). So instead of taking the effort to correct you, I’m gonna end this here :)
In reply to bhagwad
Oh come on. Now you have gone into your usual spin of creating fig leaf technicality based defenses between liberalism/leftism/communism. I don’t know why you guys create all these hair splitting barriers. I suspect its because you need a fig leaf to protect yourself from the Soviet embarrassment. This must be the kind of conversation people have in third class Delhi colleges like Stephens where rich entitled losers go to “study”. Talk in broad outline, man if you can. Step up and admit to being a leftie. Why be such an intellectual coward?
my man bhagwad stays with the cold logic
too many people nowadays throw around the word ‘racism’ like it’s going out of style, good to see some rationality applied
In reply to tehy
Glad you liked it :)