• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

North Americans don't consider Indians Asian?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Pyrrhus said:
I take your point that the meaning of words changes over time, but I'm not sure how that factors in here. I'm not disputing that people find "Oriental" to be insulting or lamenting the old, once-acceptable use of the word. I just literally don't understand what about the word makes it a word we don't use in polite society. What part of the history or characterization of the word offends?

There's an inherent tone of hyperbolic exoticness associated with the word oriental, and in the vernacular around many Asian circles this is unwanted as it basically condenses one's ethnicity and background into an object or thing. Don't forget East Asians always suffered from ignorant stereotypes regarding this very subject.

I'm not quick to be offended by the word, but I can understand why people don't like it. I don't exactly love it myself.
 
Pyrrhus said:
I take your point that the meaning of words changes over time, but I'm not sure how that factors in here. I'm not disputing that people find "Oriental" to be insulting or lamenting the old, once-acceptable use of the word. I just literally don't understand what about the word makes it a word we don't use in polite society. What part of the history or characterization of the word offends?

I don't know if it is offensive, so much as it is clearly dated, and contains a lot of the baggage from the times of it's use. Similar(but not exactly) like how negro isn't exactly offensive, but it is very dated and brings back memories of a time that people aren't exactly comfortable with.
 
ULTROS! said:
I was wondering, do people classify the Filipinos as pacific islanders because of their looks or their culture?
I notice this only in NA, specifically, USA. I think it's mostly because the Philippines is probably the 'least' Asian out of all the Asian minorities in the USA. But what most people who use the term 'Pacific Islander' don't realize, is that it is technically not correct. According to the US Census(which coined the term), Filipinos are Asians. Pacific Islander is usually reserved for those with ancestry from Oceania(Hawaii, New Zealand maoris, Polynesians, etc), except Australia.

They do have some merit though, as Filipinos(along with Malaysian Malays and Indonesians, aboriginal Taiwanese and some Southern Thais) are more closely related to the said Pacific Islander groups genetically, linguistically and (before the Muslim, Chinese and Europeans colonists arrived) culturally, than to the East Asians like the Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese and Koreans.

This just shows you the flexibility and diverse interpretations of so called 'races' and 'ethnicities'.
 
I've always been under the impression that the term 'oriental' became considered tricky/troublesome because of the period in history from which it entered common parlance, ie. late 1800s. In america especially, I believe there was lots of distrust towards east asian immigrants, not to mention a class-based pigeon-holing of them within society. The word 'orientals' wasn't so much used politely as it was spat out with a sneer. Similar to the period in history when 'japs' became a common word to refer to the Japanese (ie. middle of 20th century), it was rarely used in a.. let's say 'friendly sentence', leaving the later usage of the word tainted by the echoes of that time.

EDIT: What Hilbert just above me is getting at, yeah.
 
Beam said:
Who taught you geography? Holly shit. There is a huge cultural difference between Korea and India and they are both Asian countries. The Middle East is what is called Western Asia.

I'm not saying they aren't. I'm simply further dividing up the region. Since the Middle East also spills into Europe and Africa, I wouldn't call it a part of Asia. I mean, Asian Studies is my major and we don't cover the middle east at all. But you know, just keep saying I don't know shit about geography, if that's what makes you feel better. I guess they teach it differently here.


sajj316 said:
Well they do have the 'sians' in Asians. Asia is not defined by an ethnicity. Asians are from the continent of Asia. Period.

But, that's not usually how they are defined. In Australia at least, "Asian" refers to people from East/ South East Asia, People from the Indian subcontinent are usually "Indian", Middle Eastern people (whom I don't consider a part of traditional Asia anyway) are "Middle Eastern", and like Fiji, Papua New Guinea etc are called "Pacific Islanders". And while origin plays a part, looks do come into it as well.
 
Sort of off topic, but do people outside of the US in the Americas get annoyed when people from the United States call themselves 'Americans'? I know the word for someone from the United States is "estadounidense" in Spanish. It's weird there isn't much of an equivalent in English.
 
Sort of off topic, but do people outside of the US in the Americas get annoyed when people from the United States call themselves 'Americans'? I know the word for someone from the United States is "estadounidense" in Spanish. It's weird there isn't much of an equivalent in English.

What do you want us to call ourselves? The United States of American? A "USAer"? We're the only country with "America" in the name, so what exactly is the confusion?
 
The actual problem of the USA probably is that it has no name.
"United states of America", that's not a name, that's a statement.
 
In general going from West to East, the ethnic groups in Asia are:

Arab->Desi->Asian.

Now I myself have no problem telling the difference between various subgroups under those three overly-broad categories but that is how people generally identify Asians.

Now what I'm wondering is who actually chose the borders of Asia and all the other continents? Is there a specific rule or law designating that? Because it kinda seems stupid and useless in a modern age.
 
I think when you say Asian, you get the idea of what a traditional Japanese, Chinese, Korean, etc. person looks like, same with African, or even European.

When you say one of those, people thing of race instead of geography.
 
While I consider Indians technically Asian, I typically mean East Asian when I say Asian.

I know it's illogical, but fuck it. And as someone else pointed out, technically Russians are Asians too but no one considers them that.
 
Its just parlance, not a technical definition or anything.

East Asians in North America have been the predominate group of Asians here since the 19th century, we didn't get many from the subcontinent until the 20th century.

I imagine its the opposite for the UK.

Asian also includes SE Asian in North America as well.

Well India was part of the British Empire of course. Pakistan, Bangladesh, etc, were originally part of India. Religion screwed all that up.

Edit: just realised this is an old thread. lol
 
As a Vietnamese, I always assumed that Vietnam was closer to the east asians(China, Korea, Japan) than Southeast Asians(Philipines, Thailand, Laos) based on how similar our culture is. Or are we lumped with them based on our geographical location?
 
As an Indian myself, I kinda don't give a fuck. Just call me brown. That's good enough for me.
 
In Canada there are:

white, black, brown, asian people

At least, those are the only terms in common usage. Sure people will occasionally specific Arabic or Indian or whatever, but in general those are the terms we use. Not sure why it's 3 colours and then asian though.
 
Sort of off topic, but do people outside of the US in the Americas get annoyed when people from the United States call themselves 'Americans'? I know the word for someone from the United States is "estadounidense" in Spanish. It's weird there isn't much of an equivalent in English.
It would be silly to get annoyed. Since 'american' would also mean either north, central, or south american. So it wouldnt mean anything, might as well say earthling.
So no one outside the US should identify with being 'american.'
 
I am Pakistani, but I always get called Indian (which I really don't mind, since I admit it is very hard to tell us apart...and honestly, my family lineage technically is indian)...and I also get called Middle-eastern (this I find a little annoying...because it's only because I am from a muslim family).

either way, it is true, "asian" refers to east asian countries in the U.S. Indian refers to south asians.
 
I am Pakistani, but I always get called Indian (which I really don't mind, since I admit it is very hard to tell us apart...and honestly, my family lineage technically is indian)...and I also get called Middle-eastern (this I find a little annoying...because it's only because I am from a muslim family).

either way, it is true, "asian" refers to east asian countries in the U.S. Indian refers to south asians.

The US is also weird and uses "Indian" to refer to Native Americans too. In Canada we call them First Nations, Inuit (Arctic people), or Metis (mixed EU/Aboriginal heritage).
 
The US is also weird and uses "Indian" to refer to Native Americans too. In Canada we call them First Nations, Inuit (Arctic people), or Metis (mixed EU/Aboriginal heritage).
Only politicians call them first nations. Everyone calls them natives.
 
Woah old thread bump.

tenchir said:
As a Vietnamese, I always assumed that Vietnam was closer to the east asians(China, Korea, Japan) than Southeast Asians(Philipines, Thailand, Laos) based on how similar our culture is. Or are we lumped with them based on our geographical location?

Hm... that's a hard one really. Vietnam shares a lot of similarities with East AND South-East Asian countries. Based on geographical location its in South-East Asia, but that IS the most culturally, politically and economically diverse region in the world (Singapore vs. Indonesia vs. Burma, for example). When I think about "Asian people" though, I don't really distinguish between South-East and East Asian, together they form the "Asian peoples".
 
I call them brown people. Actually, most south asians describe themselves as brown people
KuGsj.gif
And most Chinese refer to themselves yellow people. Some how it becomes political incorrect in the US.
 
The actual problem of the USA probably is that it has no name.
"United states of America", that's not a name, that's a statement.

"United States of America" makes exactly as much sense as "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". United [governmental construction(s)] of [geographical region].
 
"United States of America" makes exactly as much sense as "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". United [governmental construction(s)] of [geographical region].

Except it includes all of Great Britain, the USA does not inlude all of the Americas, or even North America.
 
These states are "of" America. As in created from/existing within.

Yes, but it is not all the states in America. Or even all the ones that united in some form. I don't have a beef with people from the US calling themselves American, but it is not the same as the UK of GB.
 
You guys know a lot of the world still calls Native Americans "Indians," right? I don't think we can act like any of our ethnic etymology is more correct than an another's. It's all custom.
 
Yes, but it is not all the states in America. Or even all the ones that united in some form. I don't have a beef with people from the US calling themselves American, but it is not the same as the UK of GB.

The name doesn't signify that it's all states. It's not named the United States of all of America. Granted, should North be in the title. Probably but think of all the paper we've saved!
 
And most Chinese refer to themselves yellow people. Some how it becomes political incorrect in the US.
Wow, I never knew this! I think it's because we already have enough labels without adding another. So saying someone is yellow or brown here is just awkward or confusing because they aren't used much. I've never thought of it as a racist thing, but I have only seen the term "yellow people" used in a bad tone.
 
I call indians native americans now.

;)

Haha, that was my first thought too. Damn you Christoper Columbus!

On a side note though Native-Americans did come from Asia, so I guess you could consider them Asian. I'm 1/4 Native and I definitely have a bit of an Asian look to me, especially when it comes to my facial features.

Manifest Destiny! We'll get there eventually.

Exactly, I consider it a genius marketing ploy. It opens the door for the rest of the continent to join US.
 
The name doesn't signify that it's all states. It's not named the United States of all of America. Granted, should North be in the title. Probably but think of all the paper we've saved!

...or All the States of America, United. No where is it implied its all inclusive.
 
I say that I'm from the United States, or "the States."

"American" is a strange and ambiguous word that I may or may not want to associate with depending on context.
 
Columbus must have stuffed his calculations up so bad if he thought India was roughly where the Americas up. No wonder people were hesitant to fund him.
 
"So Chris, what do we call these people?"
"We're in India dude, we call them Indians"
"But they don't look like Indians"
"Yeh, that's because they're Red Indians"
"Oh ok cool, Red Indians then. You're so smart Chris"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom