BBC 6 Music and Asian Network face axe in shake-up

On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 17:54:21 +0000 (GMT), charles
wrote:

In article ,
Peter Duncanson wrote:
On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 14:20:24 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Peter Duncanson wrote:
This subject is a can of worms. Americans use Asian when referring to
the Chinese and their neighbours. I think we Brits might call them
orientals or far-easterners, or something.

IIRC, the accepted term these days is 'South Asian'

Yes.

I was only ten years old when India became independent and split in two.
As far as I can recall people were generally known by their nationality:
Indian, Chinese, Malayan, Japanese, etc. Asia was the name of a
continent and Asian was therefore the general name for its inhabitants.
However, I don't think an individual would be described as an Asian
except perhaps to distinguish him or her from a European or African.

The problem in the UK when India split was what to call those people who
we had until then called Indian. Some were still Indian, but the
individuals who had been rebranded as Pakistani were not happy to be
called Indian. A general, neutral, phrase was needed.

and no-one remembers "Bangladeshi", whom I gather run most of our "Indian"
restaurants.

I had thought of Bangladesh. That was originally East Pakistan and then
broke away to become independent.

I think the point about the Bangladeshi-run Indian restaurants is that
they sell food that is Indian as well as Bangladeshi and Pakistani.

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 17:56:04 +0000, Graham Murray
wrote:

Peter Duncanson writes:

The problem in the UK when India split was what to call those people who
we had until then called Indian. Some were still Indian, but the
individuals who had been rebranded as Pakistani were not happy to be
called Indian. A general, neutral, phrase was needed.

I believe that few of the very many "Indian" restaurants, nearly all of
which were opened after the 'split' are owned and staffed by natives of
that is now, after the split, India. Yet, they are happy for their
establishments to be called Indian rather than Pakistani or Bangladeshi,
etc.

Yes. As I suggested in another post "Indian" refers to the type of food
rather than the national origin of the owners or cooks.


--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

There is an article in yesterday's Times on the demise of the Asian
Network. It is worth a read.

See
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle7046950.ece

Falling audience figures most likely due to growth of targeted
stations, Bradford for instance :-
http://frequencyfinder.org.uk/tc/bradford.html

2 FM, 2 AM, & 5 DAB

Alan P

"brightside S9" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 12:25:40 +0000, Ian
wrote:
In message , charles
writes

or even decided they didn't want to be patronised and listened to main
stream radio. After all, a great many "Asians" try to be more British
than
the British.

On the few occasions that I've heard Asian Network it's output has been
exclusively Indian/Pakistani oriented.

That's more or less what 'Asian' means in this country. Just as it means
Chinese or Japanese in the US.

Surely the term "Asian" includes Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis,
Sri Lankans, Mongolians, Indonesians, Filipinos and more.

Siberians, Kazakhs, Kyrgyz, Tajiks, Turkmenians, Uzbeks...

--
Max Demian