From: Cecil Pinto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [Goanet]Semantics of migration - Jorge
Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 22:18:55 -0400
Nasci Caldeira has made an attempt:
"I would think that: one's citizenship, acquired or birth right, is and
should be, the criteria for this. A Canadian Goan would mean, that the
person is a Canadian citizen and happens to come from Goa India, the
previous nationality. Similarly, a Goan Canadian would mean that he is a
Goan Indian, or of Indian origin but residing in Canada; aiming or not for
Canadian citizenship."
-----
I don't quite agree with Nasci.
So Canadian-Goan would describe a person who is Goan by ethnic origin but
is now permanently settled in Canada. A Goan-Canadian on the other hand
would mean a person of Canadian ethnic origin who is now settled in Goa.
There are no Goan-Canadians to the best of my knowledge. Not yet at least.
Nasci's views and logic:
How can a Goan be of Canadian 'ethnic' origin? That way, it means : a Goan
Canadian is one who resides permanently or temoporarily in Canada and is yet
an Indian Citizen (Goan) I have given more importance to the first
Nationality in the syntax because, when a person surrenders his initial
citizenship for the one of his/hers adopted Country, one has to swear
allegience of 'do or die' for the Country, more or less. Hence one becomes a
full fledged Citizen whilst happenning to originate ethnically or
ancestrally from one's earlier Country.
Before Goa became part of the Indian Union, we Goans, in Bombay and other
parts of India used to have an inconclusive debate about this; if a Goan is
an Indian Goan or Goan Indian; because then Goans born in Goa had by birth
right a Portuguese Citizenship. And living in India would have meant the
person is a Goan Indian rather than an Indian Goan. And Goa and India did
then exist as seperate entities! Of course this argument does not apply now;
as it is a 'fait accompli' if anyone likes it or not, that all Goans are
granted Indian citizenship; unless a Goa born person demands a Portuguese
citizenship as one's birthright, like many have done and continue to do so.
Then again, RKN's suggestion has merit; re adjective and noun; but! though a
noun can have capital first letter, an adjective cannot have a capital first
letter. So this looks a bit messy.
Therefore I would venture that terms like African American / American
African and Gulf Goans etc. is a different kettle of fish; precisely because
Gulf and Africa are not countries/ nations. Africa is a Continent and the
Gulf is a big region with so many nation countries. Though America is
generally taken to mean the USA. Afirca shows the ethnic origin and Gulf
only shows the residence in the region. U should also note that these Gulf
countries do not give citizenship to non ethnic gulfies; not even permanent
residence like we know of it in advanced western countries. In the 'Gulf'
one is forever an expatriate!
At least this is what I know it is; unless a gulf goan can say otherwise.
Nasci Caldeira
Melbourne
.
Of course people like Jose Colaco would be problematic.
Bahamian-Portuguese-Indian? I think yes. Current permanent residence must
take priority over actual citizenship. If we went purely by citizenship
there would be no Gulf-Goans!
To my mind this simple syntax would solve the problem but there is
obviously more to it? Because by my rule a 'black' man in the USA would be
an American-African and yet the term used is African-American.
Cecil da Pedantic
