Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Before 1947 there were no 'Pakistanis', so in that sense, the whole Pakistani identity is a pretty recent thing. They were just seen as Indians, as Pakistan was part of British India. I think that's more what we're saying, not that all Indians are alike. In the last half century or so though it seems Pakistan has tried to distance itself from it's neighbour for political and religious reasons. I mean Urdu is basically a variety of Hindi, as well.
Well before 1947 there may never have been 'Pakistanis', but there were never any 'Indians' before 1747(when the British colonized South Asia), India was a roman word used by Europeans to refer to South Asia, but before they came the people of South Asia have always seen themselves as a small continent of a diverse group of people, more diverse than Europe.
Well before 1947 there may never have been 'Pakistanis', but there were never any 'Indians' before 1747(when the British colonized South Asia), India was a roman word used by Europeans to refer to South Asia, but before they came the people of South Asia have always seen themselves as a small continent of a diverse group of people, more diverse than Europe.
Well outsiders give names to peoples who might not really see themselves as a homogenous group, it's not only in India.
"The name India is derived from Indus, which originates from the Old Persian word HinduÅ¡. The latter term stems from the Sanskrit word Sindhu, which was the historical local appellation for the Indus River.[15] The ancient Greeks referred to the Indians as Indoi (Ινδοί), which translates as "the people of the Indus""
Anyway, the point is, Pakistan is a recent creation, and most Pakistanis are basically sub-continentals and the same as Muslim Indians from that region. I believe a lot of Muslims from the Punjab were moved to Pakistan. I was surprised that so few Muslims lived in these border states but it makes sense now.
The actual Sanskrit terms for India are Aryavarta and Bharata(pronounced Bharat). The latter is still used India to refer to India. For ancient Indians, India was a continent or universe in itself. I'm surprised that a Pakistani isn't aware of this.
That makes a lot of sense, the American media has made the American people and other Asians believe that the only "true Asian" is the one that "looks" East Asian.
Yeah, and it seems that the term "Asian" refers to people of South Asian descent in the United Kingdom.
Back to the topic, I would consider Pakistanis "Asian" ....South Asian to be more exact.
I think that the term 'Asian' is much less complex to 'European' or 'American'. To myself, it means nothing other than people living in the commonly recognized geographical sense of Asia (including Pakistan, of course). There's a lack of cultural cohesion between different Asian ethnicity and countries that we consider 'Asia' simply as a geographic concept.
Debates such as 'is Turkey/Russia Europeans?' are rarely in Asia according to my understanding. Instead we have arguments as 'is Tibetan Chinese?'. In short terms, Asia is just too large (both geographically and population wise as well) and too diverse to be viewed as a single entity, therefore it's just meaningless for Asian to attempt to disqualify anyone from being one.
I think that the term 'Asian' is much less complex to 'European' or 'American'. To myself, it means nothing other than people living in the commonly recognized geographical sense of Asia (including Pakistan, of course). There's a lack of cultural cohesion between different Asian ethnicity and countries that we consider 'Asia' simply as a geographic concept.
Debates such as 'is Turkey/Russia Europeans?' are rarely in Asia according to my understanding. Instead we have arguments as 'is Tibetan Chinese?'. In short terms, Asia is just too large (both geographically and population wise as well) and too diverse to be viewed as a single entity, therefore it's just meaningless for Asian to attempt to disqualify anyone from being one.
I think a lot of people are not aware of geographical and the people living in Asia or Europe or Africa? that they think everyone that live from those continent are homogenous from culture and race. A lot are not aware that it is just a geographic and people living from these continent are diverse.
Why should "looks" matter in whether someone is North American, South American, African, Asian, European etc.?
What should matter should be whether they have a shared heritage or civilization that resides on that continent. Having ties to the physical land where the culture resided and came to develop most of its features (whether it be the castles or temples it built, the crops it harvested or the scripts or languages it invented etc.).
Native Americans and Eskimos look more East Asian and are closer to East Asians than South Asians in terms of their genealogical roots. But no one will say that Native Americans are Asians just due to that. They might have had ancestors in Asia, but their cultural development is completely in the New World they settled.
Pakistan should be Asian obviously because it developed on the Asian continent itself.
Why should "looks" matter in whether someone is North American, South American, African, Asian, European etc.?
What should matter should be whether they have a shared heritage or civilization that resides on that continent.
Native Americans and Eskimos look more East Asian and are closer to East Asians than South Asians. But no one will say that Native Americans are Asians just due to that.
Pakistan should be Asian because it developed on the Asian continent itself.
and some of them do not even considered or other people do not considered them as Asian because they think East Asian look or Southeast Asian is the only exclusive Asian look? A lot of Arabs are not aware that they are Asians too but because they don't look like East Asian they think they are not Asian that being Asians is just a continent or geographic.
FWIW those in the UK use "Asian" to describe those originally from India and Pakistan, whereas down in Australia "Asian" means strictly those of Asiatic appearance such as Chinese Japanese and further down the region such as Filipino and Malaysian.
We would never describe an Indian person as Asian.
FWIW those in the UK use "Asian" to describe those originally from India and Pakistan, whereas down in Australia "Asian" means strictly those of Asiatic appearance such as Chinese Japanese and further down the region such as Filipino and Malaysian.
We would never describe an Indian person as Asian.
Technically Australia is part of Asia too.
I think Australia was group in 'Oceana', Why India are not part of Asian? Asian was taken from the word 'Asia' right? So why Indian are not part of Asian so where do you group them then? Have you heard people from Nagaland in India.
The term Naga people (Burmese: နာဂ, Hindi: नागा) refers to a conglomeration of several tribes inhabiting the North Eastern part of India and north-western Burma. The tribes have similar cultures and traditions, and form the majority ethnic group in Indian states of Nagaland, with significant presence in Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh and some small population in Assam.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
