nanker_phledge said:
I don't agree , you can refer to 'Eurasians' as being the inhabitants of the massland Eurasia which is composed of Europe and some countries of Asia (as in the South East), but if we consider the definition of a Eurasian as a person who has one parent who is Asian and another one who is European than then it also includes all the ethnicities composing the Asian population (actually in all the definitions I found it says ' refers to people descended from a recent or historical mixture of European and Asian ancestors ' , it doesn't specify anything) . On a related note , I'm sick and tired of hearing of that assimilation that Asia = South East Asia / the far East . Asia is only a continent and a region of the world , I don't see why their inhabitants should be reduced to just a few ethnic groups . Personally , I'm half-Lebanese half-French , so technically speaking I'm Eurasian , it has always bugged me that whenever I would say that I'm Asian or live in Asia people would look at me as if I was ignorant or 'weird' , well yeah sorry I don't basically live in the Middle-East of Antarctica and if people tend to mix Northern Africa with the Middle-East that's not my problem . That's a bit like the notion of American referring automatically to North-America when South-Americans are Americans too.
I knew, from prior experience at another messageboard, that bringing race and my personal take on it would probably generate some heat so I'll clarify once and then leave it be.
You are defining yourself using an old geographical term. I'm defining the group based on race (physical characteristics) although I realize that doesn't always work, either. My definition of "Asian" does not encompass any part of the middle east. When I say Asian I mean East Asian. I speak for most other East Asians I know who are confused when persons of, say, Indian or middle eastern descent classify themselves as "Asian." Why do you not consider the Lebanese part of yourself of the "middle east" (I also think it's unfortunate that there is no such "official category" here in the US) or did I get the term wrong? I'm asking honestly. I mean no disrespect.
I'm not about to get all anthropological because I don't have the necessary background, but I DO think the geographical term "Asia Minor" (on which I think you base your argument) needs to be redefined and split up into other segments. It covers too massive an amount of space and too many ethnic subgroups to be a homogenous entity such that the term would imply. The term "Asian" as I personally use it includes only East Asians. (But even within this group people fight about how much territory East Asian includes: I know some Chinese people who don't consider Indonesians, Burmese, Filipina (due to Spanish blood I wager) "East Asian." And I'm not sure what to do with Mongolia and Tibet, I think they're closely related to each other but not terribly similar to most East Asians.) Personally, I'm not even sure where the boundaries of "East Asian" lie. All this presupposes that one classifies race according to one specific set of criteria: physical features/race, or geographical location, etc. and not a mix.
Indians, Kashmiri, Pakistani, etc. are classified as Caucasian from both a racial and an anthropological point of view. And why shouldn't they be? From a physical standpoint they are Caucasian. They have Caucasian features with dark, dusky coloring. They have Caucasian builds: tall, longer-limbed. They look nothing like East Asians with flatter faces and shorter stature. If you include parts of the middle east then drew a line of demarcation up, then practically half of Russia and all of the "stan"-countries end up Asian, too. Yet they share no physical traits with East Asians, neither in face nor form. Not even in coloring, one of those less important characteristics!: East Asians never have light-colored eyes (that I know of) while many folks in the middle east do. (In parts of Asia, I am addressed in formal English probably because my hair and eyes are a little different in shade, yet I speak the language fluently. That is how narrow some people's idea of Asian is.) Linguistically, they are vastly dissimilar. They have completely different cultures as well. I see no reason they should be put in the same category. They have nothing in common (save that we're all human of course
).
This article basically sums up my take on how misleading the term "Asian" is:
http://www.isteve.com/2002_Who_Exactly_Is_an_Asian_American.htm
I agree with what he's saying in general.
Or maybe I could become more consistent in referring to the better portion of my background as "East Asian" rather than just "Asian." Right now, I use both terms and I use them interchangeably. I never use the term "Oriental" because I hate it. I always think of a rug or a vase or something not human.
[Or: Perhaps the notion of race has become outdated because I am seeing more and more second and third-generation Asians (East Asians) call themselves "American" drawing no distinction between nationality and race. I don't know whether this is a phenomenon particular to certain groups of East Asians, usually in big cities and able to trace Americanized backgrounds back to the 1800s when the first wave of Chinese and then Japanese immigrated here. They tell me recognizing race is old and oudated; prevents assimilation and perpetuates racism, etc. I do understand their reasons, even though I find it a little sad. I guess it's the same for them: A lot of them have never been to Asia, can't speak the language, don't understand let alone practice the culture, been raised in a completely American way of life, married other Americans, etc. etc. but to be honest I cannot view the world without race and I don't know how they do it either. I don't view that was as a positive or negative thing; it just is.]
it was very helpful....ow i'm eurasian and i didn't know...
.
