Obligatory link (wait till abuit 1:04)
At the end when she’s says “I’m not crazy! I’m a very well-educated person!” I do agree that she comes across as mentally instable. That sounds exactly like what a person who’s been accused of being “crazy” in the past would say.
You know better than to toss around the word “incorrect”'in the context of usage.
I’m aware that there are about a million definitions of the term, but how about a cite?
Here’s mine:
I can pull up more cites, including my two dissertation students who use it in this way.
Oh oh - I never finished my university degree.
I assure you, I’ve had the benefit of a quality Laughing Academy.
You’re right. I thought about using “unconventional” or “not appropriate in this context” instead, but those didn’t seem quite right either.
“Desi” literally means “of the nation”.
“Des” or “desh” means “nation”, and “desi” means “of the nation”.
Saying “She’s of Indian descent, probably Desi” is like saying “She’s of Indian descent, probably “of the nation [of India]””
“Desi” is not used as an identity. For example, no one would say “Hi, my name is girlontrain, and I’m desi” or “This is my friend girlontrain, and she’s desi”. Using it in this manner would be considered derogatory by many who use the term to refer to their own people. Not sure if something like “He’s of American descent, probably redneck” or “This is my friend John, and he’s a redneck” has similar connotations, but maybe it’ll help in understanding the undertones.
Although “desi” is used by Indians, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis, none of them use it to refer to the other nations’ people. For example, an Indian would not say “I met with my desi friends for dinner last evening” if the group included Pakistanis; she would instead say something like “I met with my desi friends and some Pakistani friends for dinner last evening”, even though the Pakistanis in the group would use the same term to refer to the Pakistanis in the group (but not the Indians) in a similar manner.
Additionally, “desi” is not limited to people who live abroad. It is also used by people who live in India (or Pakistan/Bangladesh) to refer to people who live in India (or Pakistan/Bangladesh) when differentiating them from foreigners in a conversation that includes references to both groups of people.
“Desi” is also used to refer to things, not just people. “Videshi” is the antonym, refering to [foreign] things. Used in this context, “desi” often has an inferior connotation.
A more appropriate reference to girlontrain’s identity would be “She’s of Indian descent, probably an NRI”, where NRI stands for “Non-resident Indian” (if she was born in India but living abroad). Or even simply “She’s Indian”. A person of Indian origin who was born in America would just be referred to as Indian-American.
Further, take an example of an Indian, born in India, who emigrates to the US and takes up US citizenship. Do they refer to themselves as “desi”? In some situations. Would they be offended if someone else called them “desi”? Probably. What if this person was born in India but came to America as an infant, identifies primarily as an American, and has no real ties to India? Would they be offended if someone referred to them as “desi”? Very likely.
Also, I’m educated 
This is all well and good, and I thnk you know that I know what the origin of the term is. The fact however is that among people of South Asian descent in America, “desi” is in fact used commonly to mean “a person of South Asian descent, whether an immigrant from South Asia or born here.”
“I met this guy. He’s really cute.”
“Is he Desi?”
“Yeah, he is. He’s Panjabi.”
I’ve heard people from India use it this way themselves, somi think this battle is over.
Sorry, I’m an American with no Asian background. Desi is meaningless to me. Asian, in my mind, refers to Chinese, Japanese, Korean and to a lesser extent, Vietnamese, Cambodian, Thai, and Laotian. Until now, it never occurred to me to include Indian, Pakistani, and Bangladeshi. I guess it’d be like referring to Mexicans and Canadians as Americans because Mexico and Canada are technically part of the N. American continent.
I’m sorry I contributed to this hijack. Especially since it really isn’t relevant. The video went viral because the lady was acting like a douche in public, someone captured it with their phone, and someone else with a TV show took issue with her behavior and called her out on it. She gives the impression that she believes her station in life (that of a well-educated person) ought to preclude anyone from calling her out on her behavior. She seems to be under the misunderstanding that people on a train care about her scholarly accomplishments. That tends to rub people the wrong way. Maybe it flies in south Asia, I don’t know, but it doesn’t here.
Oh, and people like schadenfreude, especially when it happens to privileged people and people who think they are. While she really didn’t get her comeuppance on the train, she certainly seems to be getting it now what with the public shaming and all.
I suspect she had in mind the other meaning of the word educated in Indian English, meaning ‘well-mannered’. And as she got flustered trying to speak, some wires got crossed, she confused the intended sense of educated with the literal sense, and wound up talking about her schooling. Well, that’s my theory based on how the brain files and retrieves words. Otherwise, I’ve got nothing, unless it was her idea of how to pull caste.
Exactly. Even if she was behaving badly, it’s not doing her any good to respond in a more hostile manner. “I was not aware I was using an unacceptable volume” in response to the issue, even when accompanied by “what did I say that was vulgar?” is acceptable and appropriate in my book. It expresses disagreement in a way that is not putting the other person on edge when given in a neutral tone.
Having done a reasonable amount of travel on public transport, you expect a bit of background noise. If someone is really loud and belligerent, it tends to get reported, but merely being a little loud has never required a conductor and a supervisor to handle the situation.
The only other reason a supervisor would have been called in is if the passenger had requested a supervisor to intervene; however, IME, that’s rarely going to help the passenger who requests the supervisor to act as mediator. She was still speaking in a loud manner with a tone to her voice that indicated the “I’m too good to behave myself” attitude throughout the video, and that was not doing her any favors whatsoever. Even when you’re angry, being able to modulate the tone of your voice really helps keep the situation from escalating and getting out of your control. Because of her reaction, tone of voice, and unwillingness to accede to the idea that she might have been just a touch too loud, I think the supervisor and conductor were justified in escorting her off the train. According to the MTA rules of conduct, they were within their rights to ask her to leave without question:
[QUOTE= Section 1050.7]
Disorderly conduct.
No person on or in any facility or conveyance shall:
…
conduct himself or herself in any manner which may cause or tend to cause annoyance, alarm or inconvenience to a reasonable person or create a breach of the peace;
[/QUOTE]
I would categorize her reaction to being asked to be quiet to be within the range of this definition of disorderly conduct.
The funny part about Keith Olbermann using this clip is that I could imagine him pulling something something very similar. He is, by most accounts, an arrogant ass.
A model minority? For, like, other minorities to follow? Really?!
And, I’m doubly shocked because, apparently, someone will dispel that myth and earn a degree. Which means they knew all along that said minority was not, in fact, a model? But real, real bad minority.
It’s all very confusing…
I have also heard it used in this way, and of course there’s the acronym ABCD (American Born Confused Desi) that describes (as I’ve heard) Indian kids who have cultural links to India through parents, perhaps have visited occasionally, but are more or less assimilated into American society. This is very different from Indian-born folks who come here later in life, who my students tell me are not Desi in this usage. There are some derogatory terms for folks in this category having to do with sea-faring vessels.
“To a lesser extent”? 
I know a lot of Southeast Asians who would take exception to that. But even they are guilty of thinking only in East and Southeast Asian terms when in fact even Turks and Iraqis are Asian. It’s a big continent.
Absolutely. ‘To a lesser extent’, the regional distinction of Southeast Asian is used when referring to Thais, Vietnamese, Laotians, and Cambodians. Nobody refers to Iraqis and Turks as Asian; rather, Middle Eastern, which is another regional distinction. (Plain vanilla, no regional distinction) Asian is typically reserved for Japanese, Korean, Chinese.
For the UK, Asian means their former colonial possessions in Asia. Predominantly the Indian subcontinent.
For the US, Asia means chopstick-land.
And this is at least one of the reasons why I think we should eliminate “Asian” as an ethnic or racial description altogether. It ultimately has no useful level of precision. I’d say that instead of “Asian” we should be more specific – Middle Eastern (which may include Turkic, Arabic, Israeli, and Persian), Central Asian, South Asian, East Asian, Southeast Asian, and Pacific Islander. These groups are distinct enough that it should rarely be too difficult to specify.
Hate to continue to be a bother, but does the bolded phrase refer to Indonesians or Micronesians? 
ETA: Don’t forget about the Melanesians and Polynesians, too.
I don’t think this is confusing. Micronesians, Melanesians, and Polynesians are all Pacific Islanders. I’m classifying Indonesians and other Malayan people, along with Filipinos, Vietnamese, Cambodians, Laotians, Thais, and Burmese as Southeast Asians (unless someone persuades me otherwise).