![]() | Disambiguation | |||
|
YES, Filipinos are defiantly ASIAN. But lots of Filipinos deny it. They usually say that they are pacific islanders or hispanic! Yes they are part pacific islander but mostly asian. Click on the link below for more infirmation about Filipinos.
"the Russian geographical segment of the trans-continental Inuit ("Eskimos") population"
Wrong. Very wrong. The Russian Eskimos are not Inuit. The Inuit are the people who speak Inuit, a language which is a subgroup of the Eskimo languages. The Russian Eskimos speak a variety of Yupik, and are related to the Yupik people of Alaska. They do not consider themselves Inuit. They are known as either the Yuit or Siberian Yupik.
This article describes Pakistan as Middle Eastern. Is it not a "South Asian" nation?
J3ff 03:48, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Culturally and linguistically Pakistan is part of India, and being of Pakistani origin myself I definitely consider myself South Asian. The fallacy that Pakistan is a part of the Middle East comes about due to the religious affinity Pakistan has with most countries of the Middle East, Pakistan being a Muslim nation in South Asia.
I hope this clears this up to some extent.
-Jameel Rahman jfrahman@suscom.net
Actually the Pashtuns who make up the second largest ethnic group in Pakistan after the Punjabis are not from the South Asian gene pool, they are Afghans. The Baluchi tribe are also an Iranian speaking people. A Pakistani would be more similar to a West Asian than to a Sri Lankan Tamil. 12 May `06.
You know how most Asians dont like being called "Orientals"? They should be considered lucky! For example, no one considers Indians as Asians anymore. They strive to be called Asians! It just doesnt seem fair to the South Asians. They feel left out because they don't feel they can be called Asian. What do we do about that? How can we change society to stop thinking that the term "Asian" is not ONLY meant for Orientals, but for South Asians and West Asians, too? Thank you. You should run a multimillion dollar advertising campaign.
Yes it is strange that of the largest continent containing sixty percent of all the people on Earth, people only associate "Asian" with people from a little slice of the continent (East Asia), while all the other people who are technically Asian aren't.
It doesn't make any sense to me either.
--Actually, I travel to the Europe quite often, and especially in the UK, the definition of "Asian" is opposite the American one. Over there, it is ONLY Indians, Sri Lankans, Bangladeshis, etc. who are considered Asian. The Chinese are described as just Chinese, much the way Indians are just Indian in the US. So really, I see the term Asian linked heavily to history and the specific groups of Asians that first came to each country.
I propose leaving the article titled "Orient" ( to which the "Oriental" article redirects ) to debate the relative offensiveness or not of the term.
Even if that is not agreed, then what is written in the Orient article and what is written in this article does not match up, so amendments somewhere are necessary.JRL 09:16, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
"Orient" mean forumer Osman empire.
In the United States Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT), Filipinos are reocgnized as belonging to different entities from both Asian and Pacific Islander, hence, there is a 'Filipino' option included. The United States government decided to create this distinction because it recognizes the variety of peoples living in the Philippines, some of which are not Asian, but are descended from European, Middle Eastern, or American parentage. In the Philippines, most Filipinos consider themselves as mixtures of Pacific Islander(Austronesian) and Asian, with some European, Middle Eastern, and/or American blood.
There are a lot of problems with the last section of this article. One is that it claims that the word Asian is "is not a very precise or accurate one". This claim is of course false. Another claim is that the word "can cause considerable confusion". This may be true - but does it cause considerably more confusion than, say, European or African? The sentence "some believe that […] the term should be replaced by [other terms]" automatically leads one to ponder who these "some" are; do these "some" perhaps advocate naming all Asian sub-groups in a long list as a practical and feasible alternative (only nine random Asian ethnicities are mentioned in the first sentence of that paragraph)? Or do these "some" just prefer Asiatic or the more achaic Oriental?
I suggest rewriting or else removing that entire section "Problems with the term". It is mostly opinionated ramblings about how the term is wrong and bad and indecent and racist and what not. Asian is in fact an adjective and a derived noun that both mean "of or relating to Asia (qv.)". See also Use of the word American. /// Big Adamsky 08:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I have attributed the confusion to (1) Historical origin of Asia from European usage and (2) implicit linguistic understanding that a category imply some form of homogenity. I also put the section at the top given that the entire article now appear to be disambiguation. FWBOarticle 14:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I deleted the section at the beginning referring to `Asian' as referring to `non-Caucasian' Asian countries. Caucasoid elements can be found in Pakistan and Northern India. Not all West Asians are Caucasoid as many Arabs from the Arabian peninsular are mixed with Negro blood and quite noticable in their appearance. Many Central West Asians are also `Mongoloid' in appearance.
I think this article should direct to Asian people. This article is dealing with "Asian," and it's pretty vague title for a discussion about asian people like 98% percent. I think it should be redirected to Asian people and this text copied to Asian people. I mean "Asian" come on. The title should be self-explanatory and simple. If we are talking about "Asian people" it should direct to "Asian people" article. Let's make it concrete and they are pretty large ethnic and cultural identity too. 71.196.236.162 07:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
![]() | Disambiguation | |||
|
YES, Filipinos are defiantly ASIAN. But lots of Filipinos deny it. They usually say that they are pacific islanders or hispanic! Yes they are part pacific islander but mostly asian. Click on the link below for more infirmation about Filipinos.
"the Russian geographical segment of the trans-continental Inuit ("Eskimos") population"
Wrong. Very wrong. The Russian Eskimos are not Inuit. The Inuit are the people who speak Inuit, a language which is a subgroup of the Eskimo languages. The Russian Eskimos speak a variety of Yupik, and are related to the Yupik people of Alaska. They do not consider themselves Inuit. They are known as either the Yuit or Siberian Yupik.
This article describes Pakistan as Middle Eastern. Is it not a "South Asian" nation?
J3ff 03:48, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Culturally and linguistically Pakistan is part of India, and being of Pakistani origin myself I definitely consider myself South Asian. The fallacy that Pakistan is a part of the Middle East comes about due to the religious affinity Pakistan has with most countries of the Middle East, Pakistan being a Muslim nation in South Asia.
I hope this clears this up to some extent.
-Jameel Rahman jfrahman@suscom.net
Actually the Pashtuns who make up the second largest ethnic group in Pakistan after the Punjabis are not from the South Asian gene pool, they are Afghans. The Baluchi tribe are also an Iranian speaking people. A Pakistani would be more similar to a West Asian than to a Sri Lankan Tamil. 12 May `06.
You know how most Asians dont like being called "Orientals"? They should be considered lucky! For example, no one considers Indians as Asians anymore. They strive to be called Asians! It just doesnt seem fair to the South Asians. They feel left out because they don't feel they can be called Asian. What do we do about that? How can we change society to stop thinking that the term "Asian" is not ONLY meant for Orientals, but for South Asians and West Asians, too? Thank you. You should run a multimillion dollar advertising campaign.
Yes it is strange that of the largest continent containing sixty percent of all the people on Earth, people only associate "Asian" with people from a little slice of the continent (East Asia), while all the other people who are technically Asian aren't.
It doesn't make any sense to me either.
--Actually, I travel to the Europe quite often, and especially in the UK, the definition of "Asian" is opposite the American one. Over there, it is ONLY Indians, Sri Lankans, Bangladeshis, etc. who are considered Asian. The Chinese are described as just Chinese, much the way Indians are just Indian in the US. So really, I see the term Asian linked heavily to history and the specific groups of Asians that first came to each country.
I propose leaving the article titled "Orient" ( to which the "Oriental" article redirects ) to debate the relative offensiveness or not of the term.
Even if that is not agreed, then what is written in the Orient article and what is written in this article does not match up, so amendments somewhere are necessary.JRL 09:16, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
"Orient" mean forumer Osman empire.
In the United States Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT), Filipinos are reocgnized as belonging to different entities from both Asian and Pacific Islander, hence, there is a 'Filipino' option included. The United States government decided to create this distinction because it recognizes the variety of peoples living in the Philippines, some of which are not Asian, but are descended from European, Middle Eastern, or American parentage. In the Philippines, most Filipinos consider themselves as mixtures of Pacific Islander(Austronesian) and Asian, with some European, Middle Eastern, and/or American blood.
There are a lot of problems with the last section of this article. One is that it claims that the word Asian is "is not a very precise or accurate one". This claim is of course false. Another claim is that the word "can cause considerable confusion". This may be true - but does it cause considerably more confusion than, say, European or African? The sentence "some believe that […] the term should be replaced by [other terms]" automatically leads one to ponder who these "some" are; do these "some" perhaps advocate naming all Asian sub-groups in a long list as a practical and feasible alternative (only nine random Asian ethnicities are mentioned in the first sentence of that paragraph)? Or do these "some" just prefer Asiatic or the more achaic Oriental?
I suggest rewriting or else removing that entire section "Problems with the term". It is mostly opinionated ramblings about how the term is wrong and bad and indecent and racist and what not. Asian is in fact an adjective and a derived noun that both mean "of or relating to Asia (qv.)". See also Use of the word American. /// Big Adamsky 08:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I have attributed the confusion to (1) Historical origin of Asia from European usage and (2) implicit linguistic understanding that a category imply some form of homogenity. I also put the section at the top given that the entire article now appear to be disambiguation. FWBOarticle 14:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I deleted the section at the beginning referring to `Asian' as referring to `non-Caucasian' Asian countries. Caucasoid elements can be found in Pakistan and Northern India. Not all West Asians are Caucasoid as many Arabs from the Arabian peninsular are mixed with Negro blood and quite noticable in their appearance. Many Central West Asians are also `Mongoloid' in appearance.
I think this article should direct to Asian people. This article is dealing with "Asian," and it's pretty vague title for a discussion about asian people like 98% percent. I think it should be redirected to Asian people and this text copied to Asian people. I mean "Asian" come on. The title should be self-explanatory and simple. If we are talking about "Asian people" it should direct to "Asian people" article. Let's make it concrete and they are pretty large ethnic and cultural identity too. 71.196.236.162 07:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)