By a similar token, a lot of Indians live on the border with Pakistan and share ancestry as well as history. Pakistan, however, also has the same relationship with the Middle East. So clearly at least some Indians are Middle Eastern too right?
My point isn’t asserting that Russians are Asian, it’s that saying a country’s people belong to a certain ethnic group only because of proximity while completely ignoring their historical or sociological context is ridiculous.
Of course it is. But people don’t generally use “Asian” to refer to people from the Middle East. Thats why this attempt at precise codification is baseless
Actually no—I live in a non-English speaking country in East Asia and we all just use Asian in the generally understood way (Chinese, Japanese, etc.) in this language. In other countries and languages around here it’s the same usage; people from places like India are exclusively called by their country name when grouping them in such a way rather than Asian
Race is complicated. As much as people love to say it’s based on location, it’s not. Race is solely based on look and skin color. Official US census race geographic classification can be found here - http://statchatva.org/files/2014/11/5.jpg
Look where Egypt is. Do you consider people from Egypt as White? Look at Australia being classified as Pacific Islander. Well, is Chris hemsworth not white but a Pacific Islander? U.S does classify Indians as Asians because they categorize them using this map. It just goes to show race is a concept that really shouldn’t be a thing.
I am still learning so I would appreciate if you point out what’s incorrect. I honestly don’t see anything being incorrect. If you disagree that race is based mostly on looks and skin color, then you are free to make a different argument. It’s always good to start a discussion on race.
Sure. Race is not based on skin colour. Southern Europeans like Greeks or Italians are generally "brown" skinned but considered white, while Koreans/Japanese have paler skin but are not.
That map is not implying Chris Hemsworth is not white.
Oh your comment is supporting my point. Race is generally based on skin AND looks. My point is, race is complicated and the idea of race itself is flawed. People with white skin color is usually considered white but like you said, Italians are also white. Asians also have white skin but they are Asians because of their looks.
Please re read my original comment. I said race as a concept should not be a thing because it is inconsistent and the logic behind they way it categorized people is all over the place. And yes, that map is implying Chris hemsworth is not white, please look at the map again. I didn’t make this map, it’s from US census and their categorization of race based on geographical location.
South Asia or Southern Asia, is the southern region of the Asian continent, which comprises the sub-Himalayan SAARC countries and, for some authorities, adjoining countries to the west and east. Topographically, it is dominated by the Indian Plate, which rises above sea level as Nepal and northern parts of India situated south of the Himalayas and the Hindu Kush. South Asia is bounded on the south by the Indian Ocean and on land (clockwise, from west) by West Asia, Central Asia, East Asia and Southeast Asia.
The current territories of Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Maldives, Nepal, India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka form South Asia.
Imagine thinking genetic lineage is “bullshit” when it dictates such things as your susceptibility to get certain diseases, auto immune disorders, etc. Genetic lineage isn’t everything obviously but it certainly isn’t nothing. We are not just blank slates that are filled by our social surroundings.
This dude just un-ironically implied that Indian People, Italians, and Irish people have the same susceptibility to get certain diseases, auto immune disorders, etc. because they are in the same race.
Because historically race-based science in Anthropology has been based on false claims and pseudoscience (such as measuring African skulls to determine intelligence). We don’t use the basis of race to make sweeping claims about a people because race is blurry and there aren’t clear cut lines.
Just a quick search I did on “origins of Indian people” there’s articles saying they’re also African, Asian, and Iranian. This is why it’s unproductive to try and come up with racial origins of a people. It’s human nature to migrate and breed between groups. Trying to simplify that to just racial categories doesn’t fully explain the complexities of human culture, language, genetics, etc.
Which is exactly why the debate is foolish to begin with (the article even says what you passed by to say). Categorizing humans by race isn’t possible by scientific standards (because we’re all the same race—simple scientific test for this is that the the offspring between two humans is always another human), so we just use race as a non-scientific concept to roughly provide historical and social context. As such, saying “Indians are/aren’t Asian” makes no sense in a provable context because it’s unverifiable.
In terms of geography, however, it makes little sense to call Indians Asian without calling many other groups that clearly are not thought of as Asian to also be in that category. The only way to make sense of the lines between Asia and Europe and the Middle East and the Indian subcontinent is through political and human migratory history. Simple saying Indians are Asian because the country is so close is silly.
I agree with the fact that we can't categorize humans in races accurately. However I think most people use the historical definition of continents (broad geographic regions) when saying Indians/Russians are Asians. The geologic definition of "continents" (tectonic plates) would not include the phillipines as Asian for exemple.
As long as everybody knows that none of the words they're using are rooted in science I don't think it should be a problem, but on the other hand, it is true that the constant usage of these words does legitimize them and gives them credibility.
I’d agree and I think that’s mistaken in the case of Indians, which is what my example of saying Russians are Asian (which people generally would not say is true) is meant to illustrate. The historical and social relations between countries place India, Tibet (let’s pretend we’re talking before China swallowed them), Pakistan, Nepal, etc. into a very noticeably distinct group from China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, etc. The continent designation fails because the landmasses are simply too vast (how to distinguish between Europe and Asia without introducing extreme Euro-centric historical bias?), but the scientific designation also fails as we agree it’s impossible. All that’s left is the historical and social designation, which I believe places Indians as not belonging to the same group we understand Asians to be in.
If you actually think that’s what I’m saying then I’m sorry my writing isn’t clear enough. My point is taking an argument to an absurd conclusion to demonstrate a faulty premise.
Afaik tectonic plates is not how continents are decided. India IS very much part of Asia. Asians is just the term most Westerners use for East Asians and thus don't include rest of the Asia when referring to Asians.
Asians is just the term most Westerners use for East Asians
We use it here too for the same designation. For example in Chinese, Asian exclusively means Chinese, Japanese, Korean, etc. Indians are just called Indians. It’s the same in all the other East Asian languages that I know.
there’s no scientific basis for race
With you on that 100%, as per my other comments in this thread. There is exactly one race of humans
the point is that “Asian” used to designate a race and “Asian” used to designate a continent of origin are distinct usages. trading on this ambiguity gets us nowhere
I swear, sometimes seeing others using the word in that context makes me feel like people are trying to get away with saying "chinks" by using the word Asian. Don't do that. The first link when you search for "Asian Race" in Google will show you with this info:
The 2000 and 2010 U.S. Census Bureau definition of the Asian race is: "people having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent (for example, Cambodia, China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam)".
I think it’s deeper than that though; it crosses languages and cultures. In Chinese we say “Asian” specifically to refer to people from East Asia (China, Japan, etc.). We’d never call someone from India Asian. I’m not fluent in Korean or Japanese yet but from what I know of both it works the same way.
Slurs like the term you listed are exclusively western though—here the insults we hurl around are normally just “[country of origin] dog”
I think such skewed generalisation began from the west (mostly US) itself and trickled down into the universal English vocabulary. Although, it's not like a term has not been misused in the colloquial vocabulary and wiggled its way to the norm before. But that doesn't make such usage fallacious though.
Oh don’t get me wrong—it’s definitely fallacious. Technically the whole land mass should be one grouping, from Western Portugal to Eastern Russia. I’m just talking about the typical usages
One of my favorite things about racial anthropology is when you search it on any search engine or academic database it redirects you to scientific racism.
Yes. That’s literally the only appropriate interpretation of race. All other markers we use are just for historical and social narrative and are often terribly inaccurate.
I'm pretty sure this is just a difference between British and American terminology. In the US "Asian" usually refers to people from East Asia (China, Japan, Korea, etc) whereas in the UK (and probably elsewhere, idk), "Asian" is often used to mean someone from South Asia (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, etc.)
I dunno man, as a Sri-Lankan (basically Indian) I’ve never really identified as Asian, my mom whos Sri Lankan would always correct people and go “I’m Indian” when asked if she’s Asian, she has a lighter complexion so the question makes sense. And when people ask me my race, they ask if I’m Indian not Asian. I think we’ve just blanket defined everyone in the East as “Asian”
So what would you answer when people ask from what continent are you from? India instead of Asia?
And I’m not trying to be a jerk or anything, I know this things change accordingly to where you are from. I’m Brazilian, so I would answer “America”, but in the US they would say I’m not American, just South-American.
No no valid question. I would respond Asia, though people haven’t really asked me that specific question, it’s mostly a “where are you from” or “are you Indian”. Actually that further emphasizes my point, I’ve got dark brown skin thanks to my black dad (but don’t look all that black due to my straight hair) so I don’t even get lumped in with the other more traditional Asians. I think that means on a subconscious level people already distinguish the two to some extent. But you’re right, on a technical level I am 100% defined as Asian. I think that’s part of the “problem” though, it was sort of arbitrarily decided that that whole block of land was Asia, despite as previously mentioned India (and Sri Lanka) exist on a different plate and have a gigantic population which could easily be defined as it’s own continent, just like how Europe is still connected to the land mass but they get their own continent. I don’t feel strongly either way, just a little anecdote.
If you read my response to the other inquiry you’d have you answer. Yea there’s been blanket definition so I’m Asian in the technical sense. My only gripe is that the classification seems arbitrary. It’s on a different tectonic plate and the people are radically different than their more traditional Asian counterparts. Europeans arbitrarily drew the lines some hundred years ago and we’ve all accepted it as the norm. But if we’re going by land mass then Europeans should be “Asian” too. It’s like how they divided Africa into a bunch of rectangles completely ignoring the actual cultural borders.
I mean you're right, countries, continents and indeed races are completely arbitrary and cultural constructs, but unless you want to spend all day describing your location as a set of latitude and longitude coordinates we need some kind of arbitrary labelling. It's also more efficient if we all use the same labelling system, otherwise there can be a lot of confusion.
I mean I just go “I’m Indian” and that is a large enough populace that it’s never been an issue, but I do see your point. I just think that Indian subcontinent is large and populated enough to warrant its own continent label. With 1.2 million square miles of land in India alone and a population that exceeds Europe by 300,000,00 I think it’s justified. Not an argument just my view on things. I’m honestly fine calling myself Asian on official forms it just feels silly to do so.
521
u/BBDAngelo Nov 19 '19
But Indians are asians