Is there a general term to describe the facial apperance of someone with India-Pakistan-Bangladesh origins, wihout knowing which one?
How about “South Asian?”
In the UK it’d be just “asian” - the assumption would be you were talking about someone from Pakistan / India / Bangladesh.
For east asians it’s either “east asian” or “oriental”, although I think “oriental” is frowned upon in the USA?
In the US “Asian” usually means “East Asian”. If I wanted to say someone looked “South Asian”, as in Indian, I would say “Indian”, alhtough I might add “Indian Indian” afterwards (to avoid confusion with American Indian). Oriental is still used some (mostly by older folks), but it’s a bit out of fashion and has some negative connotation.
In Australia we tend to refer to people from the India/Pakistan/Bangladesh region as from the sub-Continent if we don’t know exactly which country they’re from.
“South Asian” or “from the Indian sub-continent” work pretty well.
If you are in the US, the word Asian always brings to ming Chinese/Japanese. I would guess Indian would carry the idea accross more effectively disregarding whether it is correct or not.
Freudian slip? 
In most parts of the U.S., if someone looks east asian, you can just describe them as Chinese. If they are Indian/Pakistani, just say that they are “Indian - from India”. Sure it might not always be 100% accurate but everyone will know what you mean.
I’ve always heard the term East Indian, to distinguish between Native and Asian.
There is ‘desi’, but that’s not really a general term. It’s mostly only used by people of that group itself. While it’s not any sort of pejorative, some might find it mildy offensive if you used it when you aren’t one yourself.
It’s also not a very widespread term. I think it’s more common among people living outside of the region, and some might even consider it primarily to refer to immigrants or people living outside their ‘mother’ country.
Of note - there is an insulting term associated with it - ‘ABCD’ (American Born Confused Desi). I don’t know if this was invented or just popularized by the movie American Desi (which starred Kal Penn — aka Kumar who went to White Castle).
I find myself using South Asian. It incorporates Pakistanis, Hindu, Nepalese, Sri Lankans, and their cousins and descendants abroad.
For those formerly known as Orientals (which I had thought was a perfectly decent word, though correct only from a European point of few, so I understand why its no longer used), I find myself using East Asian which incorporates Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, Laos, Cambodians and other sub-groups.
Central Asians are the Uzbeks, Kazakhs, Tajiks, etc.
North Asians are Mongols and Siberians.
Thai are Thai.
Malay are Malay. (All Malaysians are not Malay, though.)
Filipinos, Indonesians and other islanders are the hard ones these days for me to identify on appearance alone.
And the Nagas are wonderful group of people that totally mess with pre-defined classifications. Never met one in person though I would like to.
[QUOTE=
Shagnasty]
In most parts of the U.S., if someone looks east asian, you can just describe them as Chinese. If they are Indian/Pakistani, just say that they are “Indian - from India”. Sure it might not always be 100% accurate but everyone will know what you mean.
[/QUOTE]
I doubt you mean offense, but most non-Chinese I’ve known would be insulted if you called them that, (along with calling non-Japanese, Japanese, calling non-Koreans, Koreans etc.) And definitely dont call a Pakistani, Indian.
I find it best to use the most general term until there is sufficient evidence and reason to do otherwise.
I agree with ‘desi’. Its used more as a self-identifying nickname, but not really meant for others. And I’ve known people who used ABCD to describe themselves also, so its not always insulting, its sometimes accurate.
No, it isn’t.
As someone who is from India, I find “desi” slightly uncomfortable, because of the slightly perjorative associations it has. It’s not entirely rational or easy to explain, but to me that word implies more than just origin - it has connotations of a fairly low social position, inclusiveness tending to xenophobia, a certain grasping attitude towards all things material, and a narrow-minded outlook on the world. Not a word I use to describe myself or anyone else.
For many it would be insulting, a bit like calling all North Americans Canadian, except there is more antipathy between India and Pakistan so probably a lot more so. In the UK the popular pejorative was often ‘Paki’ regardless of the country of origin. This was plenty hurtful enough to Pakistanis’ and no doubt more so to those from India and elsewhere.
same for calling a panamenian colombian or a lybian egyptian or belgian french*. I am assuming he was asking about a general term to convey a region to an audience of people not from that region and not particularly educated about global demographics.
- if you are so lame with bar pickups that you need to go the way of guessing nationalities, asking any european girl if she is belgian is very safe. Nobody seems to be offended by being called belgian and if she really is belgian, you just scored big time.
I use “South Asian”, and this term has appeared more and more in the media around here. “Asian” by itself implies “East Asian”. (We would also use “Central Asian” and 'North Asian", but this is uncommon… the people I’ve met from those areas, I just use their nationality (“Kazak”, etc).
For the native peoples of North America, I use “native”, “First Nations” (if speaking of their official political structure), or their tribal affiliation (Cree, Ojibwe, Anishnabek, etc). I do NOT use “Indian”. That would be just too confusing, given the number of people here who are from India. Not to mention the West Indies.
All of my friends of sub-continental origins call themselves ‘brown’.
Perhaphs I’m a bit dim, but I’ve always said, “Indian/Pakistani” when describing a person who of that colour/bone structure.