The word 'Asian'
- Thread starter Flatfrog
- Start date
Recommended Videos
The term "Asian" isn't really racist. I mean it means someone from, you know, Asia. I'll admit that when I hear the word (also it seems like people that live in my area as well) I think more Oriental (i.e. Chinese, Korean, Japanese) rather than the whole gamut, but I'm still thinking of people from Asia.
Honestly, I see nothing wrong with Asian. It's just a good a describer as European or African. "Dusky" actually seems more racist to me though.
Honestly, I see nothing wrong with Asian. It's just a good a describer as European or African. "Dusky" actually seems more racist to me though.
I agree that "Asian" is a pretty loose term, too lose in my opinion. I personally refer to Asians as either Asians or East Asians- after all, racially the two are distinct.
Yeah, Asian to our generation is the neutral term for (forgive this actual technical term which sounds racist but it's still used in colleges sometimes) mongoloids/east-southeast Asians.
But see that term I used up there? Mongoloids. Used to be a neutral term. I went to UCLA to study anthropology and part of my studies was in how neutral words become taboo words. It's called a euphemism treadmill.
Negro used to be a completely neutral term but it's now offensive. Similarly, "oriental" was not an offensive term, it only refers to east Asia, hence the famous Orient Express.
Look at it this way:
Lame became crippled became handicapped became disabled became physically challenged became differently-abled.
It's sort of the same way with "black". Now that can be mildly offensive so African-American is the preferred term despite the fact that African roots might be 300 years removed.
Imagine if white people wanted to be called British-Americans.
Language evolves over time even it doesn't completely make sense.
But see that term I used up there? Mongoloids. Used to be a neutral term. I went to UCLA to study anthropology and part of my studies was in how neutral words become taboo words. It's called a euphemism treadmill.
Negro used to be a completely neutral term but it's now offensive. Similarly, "oriental" was not an offensive term, it only refers to east Asia, hence the famous Orient Express.
Look at it this way:
Lame became crippled became handicapped became disabled became physically challenged became differently-abled.
It's sort of the same way with "black". Now that can be mildly offensive so African-American is the preferred term despite the fact that African roots might be 300 years removed.
Imagine if white people wanted to be called British-Americans.
Language evolves over time even it doesn't completely make sense.
Most Americans that say Asian mean 'Vietnamese, Japanese, Korean, and Chinese' Pakistanis, Sri Lankans whatever tend to get lumped into at best 'south Asians' or 'Indians'
Actually, I missed that bit, and it both proves and disproves my point simultaneously! Because it does indeed exclude Chinese from Asian, but it also excludes Arab as well. So there you go!mikozero said:
Also, one interesting thing I've learned today is that the Middle East is technically part of Asia, which was news to me (although I should have remembered it from Risk...). I always thought of it as an offshoot of Africa - I suppose because of the political connections. Obviously it's all arbitrary anyway.
So there you go. I still think one thing that is fairly clear is that the term is pretty ambiguous. To someone from the US (and apparently Scotland) it suggests East Asia. To the English it mostly implies Indians/Pakistanis/... It doesn't imply Arabs to anyone despite the Middle East being in Asia. And no one thinks of Russians.
This is the definitions that I've gone by so far, Asia is far too big to have an "Asian" classification; (going from West to East)
Middle Easterns: Iran, Saudi Arabia (and all the surrounding countries, Lebannon, Syria, Afganistan etc), Turkey and by extension, North Africa (all of the Mediterrian bordering countries inc Morroco) since their complexion and mentalities are generally similar. It is incorrect to use the term "Arab" since Iranians are most definitely not arabic. Israelites are a tricky one since most moved to Israel post WW2 and are not Middle Eastern, although they are generally recognisable enough to outright say "Israelite"
Indian: The Indian subcontinent. When I'm not sure whether they are actually Pakistani or Bengali then it gets more troublesome
Oriental: East China, Korea, Japan and (to an extent) Vietnam (and surroundings), although they can be moreso under the next category
South East Asians: Self explanatory. Thailand, Philippines, Malaysia etc etc
Russians: Self explanatory, although most Russians that have left the country are actually European since they are from the rich cities West of the Ural Mountains
That covers most of it. Thing is that it's not too hard to actually tell the difference between the different nationalities country by country provided you know what to look for. Africans on the other hand ...... I'm clueless. Honestly can't differentiate apart between the different regions, although that could be due to the fact that I have met very few africans in my lifetime.
Interesting sidenote, I saw a map dating to post-Roman times once and it labeled the Middle East as the Orient.
Middle Easterns: Iran, Saudi Arabia (and all the surrounding countries, Lebannon, Syria, Afganistan etc), Turkey and by extension, North Africa (all of the Mediterrian bordering countries inc Morroco) since their complexion and mentalities are generally similar. It is incorrect to use the term "Arab" since Iranians are most definitely not arabic. Israelites are a tricky one since most moved to Israel post WW2 and are not Middle Eastern, although they are generally recognisable enough to outright say "Israelite"
Indian: The Indian subcontinent. When I'm not sure whether they are actually Pakistani or Bengali then it gets more troublesome
Oriental: East China, Korea, Japan and (to an extent) Vietnam (and surroundings), although they can be moreso under the next category
South East Asians: Self explanatory. Thailand, Philippines, Malaysia etc etc
Russians: Self explanatory, although most Russians that have left the country are actually European since they are from the rich cities West of the Ural Mountains
That covers most of it. Thing is that it's not too hard to actually tell the difference between the different nationalities country by country provided you know what to look for. Africans on the other hand ...... I'm clueless. Honestly can't differentiate apart between the different regions, although that could be due to the fact that I have met very few africans in my lifetime.
Interesting sidenote, I saw a map dating to post-Roman times once and it labeled the Middle East as the Orient.
Never actually seen any other person call Oceania by its name. Everyone usually calls it Australia.thaluikhain said:
OT: Asian are meant to mean people from Asia. Where I am from it usually refers to people from an Oriental background. People from the Middle-East area are referred to as Arabs and Indians as Indians.
If you're talking in terms of today's usage, I prefer the term Oriental. Using the catch-all term "Asian" just seems insulting to me for some reason... probably for the same reasons why I'd get upset if someone called "African-American" versus simply "black". :/
Categorically speaking, from various different sources, I have in fact seen people of Indian (India Indian 
) descent classified as "Asians". Don't know if it's in an abstract sense or not, but in the same light one could say those of Middle Eastern descent are "white"...just the "desert-tanned" version of them. Genetics states similar things from what I've read.
Then again, it's the "over-arching word" category we're speaking of. Some people are broad about their terminology whereas others are very specific. I've heard arguments ranging from numerous cultures to the thought of "there are truly only three to four different brands of human beings out there". European descent, African descent, Asian descent, and possibly the Natives of both North and South America.
I have to shrug at this, given it's essentially an opinion as to what one classifies another as.
) descent classified as "Asians". Don't know if it's in an abstract sense or not, but in the same light one could say those of Middle Eastern descent are "white"...just the "desert-tanned" version of them. Genetics states similar things from what I've read.Then again, it's the "over-arching word" category we're speaking of. Some people are broad about their terminology whereas others are very specific. I've heard arguments ranging from numerous cultures to the thought of "there are truly only three to four different brands of human beings out there". European descent, African descent, Asian descent, and possibly the Natives of both North and South America.
I have to shrug at this, given it's essentially an opinion as to what one classifies another as.
Because it was an accurate example.Sanglyon said:
Half of Russia is Asian. That half of Russia is still mostly white people. It makes my point.
I should've known to go into EXACT FUCKING LANGUAGE, though, because obviously not grovelling to pedants ruins the entire fucking argument.
EDIT: NOW I am done.
The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, Radiohead, The Who, The Sex Pistols, The Clash, Coldplay, Elvis Costello, David Bowie, Elton John, Muse, Oasis, Pink Floyd, Queen, Eric Clapton, The Smiths and Van Morrison suggest otherwise. I really don't think you are in a position to criticise, Canadian.misterprickly said:
You've got Rush and Neil Young. Oh, an Nickelback.. They're great..
Monty Python, Fawlty Towers, The Office, football, Shakespeare, Dickens, Andrew LLyod Webber, Charlie Chaplin, Alfred Hitchcock, London, Robin Hood, Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin, Tea, Fish and Chips, Winston Churchill and Big Ben. Oh, and the Royal Family. And the biggest Empire that ever existed. And cricket!misterprickly said:
Coming from a Canadian, this is pretty funny.
Incredibly vague. You could say those three things are a problem in every single country.misterprickly said:
Gay rights aren't a problem. Gay marriage exists in the UK. Look at countries like Australia if you want to criticse.misterprickly said:
Talking out of your arse again. Incredibly vague.misterprickly said:
What? I'm English and I have never in my life heard someone call Canada "The colonies". As far as the Commonwealth goes, Canadians are probably the most hated. You are as good as Americans to most people in the UK. They certainly don't consider you as part of "the colonies". I've heard that term belong to Australia and South Africa before, but never Canada.misterprickly said:
And my Father is from the West Indies and he refers to it as "the West Indies". So does their cricket team http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Indies_cricket_team So I hardly see your point here.
Well if they remove the law it'll get abused to shit. It's the lesser evil here.
EDIT: Wroooong thread.
EDIT: Wroooong thread.
