Many desis I’ve come across think that if you respect law and order of the country you live in, especially if its a non-Muslim country, you lose your identity. I was discussing with an irani yesterday, who left Iran illegally 18 years ago for a better life in Dk and would never want to settle in Iran. He was dissing Dk and our rights for freedom of speech. I never fully understood what exactly he thought was wrong with Dk, it just wasn’t Iran. If Dk did become Iran one day, he’d probably leave it for some other country. His strongest argument was that nationality and identity is not the same, which is correct why would you have two equally simple words to describe same thing :o My question is, if your identity is so dramatically different from your nationality, aren’t you a little misplaced? I’m not talking about ppl born and raised in western world who have an identity as Muslim / Hindu while they also identify themselves as Americans or French etc and have a mix of Pakistani or Indian culture along with western culture. This is about that huge group of ppl who totally reject their nationality for an identity they chose not to have.
Since I was explaining my pow as a Danes, he was like, ‘you identify yourself as a Danish?’ Of course I do, I’m born and raised here, respecting this country is the least I can do. My identity as a Pakistani goes perfectly well with my Danish identity. He on the other hand drinks alcohol and eats anything that doesn’t walk in his plate etc. Which makes me look awkward as a Muslim and Pakistani amongst non-Muslims. What kind of identity are you trying to protect? And why do you have a nationality that conflicts with your identity?
This reminds of ppl, desperately trying to protect their identities as Muslims when they feel threatened but when it comes to practicing values and teachings of same religion, they’re (often) the worse ambassadors of Islam. Khair.
Hmm, quite a thought provoking and confusing debate. YOu can't equate the two.
Identity in my view is a not a distinct concept that warrants a definition but what it leads to and focuses on is of utmost importance. Your identity can be:
--global, regional, local.
You can belong to any religion that doesn't take into regard the artificially created boundaries OR consider yourself a world citizen.
You can be a part of any cult/movement/regional grouping.. (South Asian, Korean American)
When you are a national of a country then your nationality becomes a passport, your identity to the rest of the world.
You can identify yourself as an Usghur, Baloch, Tamil (depending on your ethinicity)
Further still, you can be a housewife, an accountant, a teacher...
Now, these are the ways in which you can define yourself or better still pick up one to create your identity, your distinctive character. One can have multiple identities keeping this in view and employ those accordingly:depending on your circle, circumstances, your affiliations. Those who are very rigid, lets say Baloch or Firisians...they would take pride in their ethinicity above everything and shun the rest. Hence, for some people it is very important, while for others it doesn't matter at all.
When you identify yourself with a group, you ultimately lose your 'individuality,' when you become part of the collective group under duress or otherwise. This is where the conflict starts. Sometimes you use ' a particular identity' as it just governs your interactions with others but you as an individual can be different and that 'individual characteristic can be your identity but that creates problems too. ( like that Iranian)
In my view ( :D ) identity as a concept can be multifaceted and as a notion multifarious but something which is taken as really sacred because it is a 'fact' of who or what a person is.
Saba, not sure how the societal structure is in Denmark. i.e. melting pot vs. multiculturalism but I think most people in the US, immigrants and citizens both naturalized and those born here develop an identity that can signify their cultural backgrounds while having the core values of being an American. As Minerva said, Americans on the whole can be tamil muslim Indian Americans and practice/ preach those diverse attributes to developtheir identity freely. WHere I don't agree is that "losing your "indivdualism", at least in America, this is perhaps the biggest common fabric among all people. Their ability to be different and be accepted.
I have been wondering for the last 6-7 yrs, having intereacted a lot with muslim folk on this board, whether there can ever be true identity development for muslims living in foreign lands. (as defined here on GS in terms of : Islam way of life, kaffirland, khilafah, selective morality etc)
When your adopted home or your birth home is such a huge contradiction to your religion (which I am told every day that is the largest part of most Pakistanis beings) I can see no reconciliation. You have to moderate your beliefs or leave.
I really dont understand the issue here, but speaking of nationality vs identity. When I was leaving Pakistan for US one of my aunts told me " Verizon Dont ever forget that you are a Pakistani, thats your identity, you are an ambassador for the pakistanis, do us proud."
Never will forget those words.:tears:
Well I am proud to be an American of Pakistani descent. The iranian and the dutch can kiss my royal Amrikkkan of Paki descent A$se.
I have conflicting views about that. Part of me argues that when you board that PK212 to London from Lahore, you leave your Lahori identity behind and identify yourself as a Brit. Let’s be real, if someone wants to move away from one’s land for purely economic reasons, it will be really stupid and foolish to even have a debate over identity, as identity is way more sacred than just economic prosperity.
The other part of me argues that one can never (even if one tries too) give up the identity one is born with. Look at Indians who have lived for over a hundred years in the Caribbean, and still identify themselves as Indians.
Saba, what I find really interesting is that there are Pakis who are born in the Persian Gulf countries, but are as much Arab as an Icelandic is a Kenyan. It is all about how insular one is kept.
^^ I disagree Madhannee. If that was the case then why go back to pakistan, if you are leaving leave for good. Plus waht if you get deported once you arrive in LDN or US or where ever.
The color brown is what sets us apart be rpoud to be an Indian from sub-continent and kiss white a$$ as much as you like.
Verizon, I fail to see your point. I was talking about those who leave Pakistan for legitimate migration with no intention of coming back for economic reason… they can go back for visits 10 times a day if they wish to do so, but I was talking economic migration. And my point is that if one leave his ancestral land for economic reasons, he can pretend to uphold his native identity, but that’s a hogwash. It is only fooling oneself. If most of those Browns who have settled here (e.g., USA) will be sihtting in their pants if they were relocated back to Sahiwal. Identity and economics are inter-related and more integrated than most people realize.
Well and I fail to see your point. I am an american naturalised ofcourse but I am also of pakistani descent, you cant take 'being pakistani' away from anyone. You (not you in particular) can pretend and talk as much like an american but you go to a car dealership and the first ? is where are u originally from?
Verizon, I totally fail to see your point yet again. If you were really a Pakistani the car dealer wouldn’t even ask you that question to begin with.
When people settle in lands that are foreign to them, they become part of it more than they realize. Sure, one will always be identified with his ancestry, e.g., Kennedys and Ireland, or Cuomos from Italy, but that’s only a paper identity.
If the 2nd or 3rd generation Punjabi Pakistani who doesn’t speak a word of Punjabi identifies himself as a Punjabi, I would like to feed his ass to wild boars.
Minerva,my statements are not conflicting. One states that economics is a major compoenent of one’s identity (when when leaves ones ancestral land for economic reason); and the other statement that says that “identity is way more sacred than just economic prosperity” is also in line with the other statement. It’s a fact that people generally are identified by their identity and not how rich or poor they are (specially migrants).. The Questions that Saba raised are to do with migrants…
I agree with you Madhanee and reiterate my point that identity is way more sacred.
shuria Madhanee for clarification...
In my view,there is an identity one is born with and there is one which is acquired over time. One is more spiritual, the other temporal. You can be a proud American yet you yearn to visit the bhati gate,you enjoy a play at Broadway yet you reminisce about the evenings spent with your friends watching that 'dance' in lahore. Black tea and a cheese spread or phajay day payay... some people do not have problem balancing those identities while for some these can be really bothersome.
So mgrants irrespective of their background or circumstances do confront such questions at some point in their lives.
.Originally Posted by Madhanee
When people settle in lands that are foreign to them, they become part of it more than they realize. Sure, one will always be identified with his ancestry, e.g., Kennedys and Ireland, or Cuomos from Italy, but that’s only a paper identity.
Paper identity can also hover a person. That feeling to hold on to something creates problems. Essentially one has to give up part of himself/herself , compromise, aquire some/lose some inorder to lead a worry free life :D Desis usually have probel in assimilating and thats due to the fact that they hold on to their previous identity and revere that.
I feel Americans are by far the more liberal people in terms of defining themselves and providing others a chance to do that...post 9/11 things have changed though.
Minerva. Very true. But also, over time, let’s say my grandkids’ generation will only be about 6% Pakistanis (only in name) and the remaining 83% American and half gay. Over time, things get diluted and one is identified differently. It is only natural that people have a hard time letting what is dear to them go, but they slowly lose control over it.
I have to agree with Madhanees last statement, to add to that I think our nationalities and identities will become so diluted over time that the question of nationality and identity wont be as easy to answer.. In my own example, I dont feel I have a national identity with any place.... I was born in Canada, grew up in Saudi, high school in England, spent time in Japan and Colomubia, uni in Canada, married and moved to the STates... I dont feel I belong to any one place....and I dont think I will ever have that feeling... paper or real.....
When someone asks me where I am from?? I just say all over....and if they press me further I give them the long winded answer...
As for my identity...same thing....so diluted over time that I dont feel I identify with just one particular thing....
It’s also a matter of preference (a new variable introduced here). How many Pakistanis consider themselves Indians? Some of us like to flash our Turkish and Chinese ancestry around, but whom are we kidding? A Gokolopolos born in Sydney will be Greek Australian and not Greek Greek.
It’s like female Latoo.. a small top and goes around when spun. Usually you hold it between your middle finger and thumb and spin it to the ground. It goes all over while spinning…
