Do you think the Middle East's transition to the rest of Asia is a very sharp/fine line or a gradual one? (population, influence)

[markovian process]

An interesting comparison would be the Middle East's transition to the west compared to the east.

Actually come to think of it, the transition from the Middle East to the rest of Asia does actually seem more gradual than that to the west. If you go west from the Middle East, there is a stronger abrupt end. Perhaps where Greek and Turkish people meet on Cyprus, or where the Christians and Muslims meet in the Caucasus. In Europe, there was obviously a much stronger identity of European Christendom (witness the controversy over Turkey, whether it is in Europe and could be in the EU) and while there was Muslim control (eg. the Ottoman Empire and Islamic Spain under the Moors) in Europe, it seems like Europe's identity is forged against the Middle East's much more than the rest of Asia (which is no surprise, the rest of Asia doesn't have a self-identification as Asian to begin with).

Are Bosnians particularly more like Middle Easterners than Pakistanis, Bangladeshis or Malaysians?

[markovian process]

Originally Posted by Jesse44

Seems gradual to me. By the time you reach Pakistan and (moreso) India things begin to change a bit. I think Hinduism has an east Asian aesthetic and 'mystique' but much of the landscape in central India/Pakistan looks and feels somewhat Middle Eastern, along with the fact that there are obviously significant Muslim populations. Bhutan feels entirely ambiguous between the two, and then Myanmar is the first East Asian country IMO - although there are traces of South Asian (Indian, Bangladeshi...) feel still.

So that's a pretty complete spectrum, yeah?

Do you mean natural landscape or architecture, cities etc.?

I think the Indian subcontinent is in a climate/vegetation zone that somewhat merges into South-East Asia when the humid, monsoonal influence comes in. The Middle East is pretty much seen as more dry than most of Asia (though there are exceptions like the Caspian sea area of Iran or Mediterranean climates that are more well-watered like Lebanon).

[markovian process]

Also, it is interesting to compare India to Spain when it comes to perception of Middle Eastern influence.

Muslim rulers in the Iberian peninsula existed pretty much as long as the did in India and probably started even earlier (I think 700s CE in the case of Spain and something more like 900s in the case of the Indian subcontinent, though 700s at the edge of the subcontinent near Pakistan, someone correct me if I am wrong). Spain got language, culture, architecture influence from the Moors just as much as India did from the Mughals.

Spanish people can be mistaken for Middle Easterners by "looks" just as much as say Pakistanis can (although as people have said, physical looks for races of people is not a good way to judge culture at all)

Yet today, few people link Spanish or Portuguese with Middle Easterners or North Africans as much as they do Persians with Pakistanis/Indians, even though they all transition into one another some way or another. People link India (think of using Taj Mahal with the Persian-style garden to represent India rather than a South Indian temple with coconut trees in the background) to the Moghuls more than Spain to the Moors, even though both were Muslim outsiders who ruled outside the Middle East.

[The Postman]

Originally Posted by markovian process

An interesting comparison would be the Middle East's transition to the west compared to the east.

Actually come to think of it, the transition from the Middle East to the rest of Asia does actually seem more gradual than that to the west. If you go west from the Middle East, there is a stronger abrupt end. Perhaps where Greek and Turkish people meet on Cyprus, or where the Christians and Muslims meet in the Caucasus. In Europe, there was obviously a much stronger identity of European Christendom (witness the controversy over Turkey, whether it is in Europe and could be in the EU) and while there was Muslim control (eg. the Ottoman Empire and Islamic Spain under the Moors) in Europe, it seems like Europe's identity is forged against the Middle East's much more than the rest of Asia (which is no surprise, the rest of Asia doesn't have a self-identification as Asian to begin with).

Are Bosnians particularly more like Middle Easterners than Pakistanis, Bangladeshis or Malaysians?

Well depends where the 'West' begins. Greece has a lot of Near Eastern cultural influence, in fact during the Ottoman Empire there were a lot of Muslims in Greece. The food, for instance, is very similar to Lebanon, Turkey.etc. The Balkans today has quite a few Muslims.

[The Postman]

Originally Posted by markovian process

Also, it is interesting to compare India to Spain when it comes to perception of Middle Eastern influence.

Muslim rulers in the Iberian peninsula existed pretty much as long as the did in India and probably started even earlier (I think 700s CE in the case of Spain and something more like 900s in the case of the Indian subcontinent, though 700s at the edge of the subcontinent near Pakistan, someone correct me if I am wrong). Spain got language, culture, architecture influence from the Moors just as much as India did from the Mughals.

Spanish people can be mistaken for Middle Easterners by "looks" just as much as say Pakistanis can (although as people have said, physical looks for races of people is not a good way to judge culture at all)

Yet today, few people link Spanish or Portuguese with Middle Easterners or North Africans as much as they do Persians with Pakistanis/Indians, even though they all transition into one another some way or another. People link India (think of using Taj Mahal with the Persian-style garden to represent India rather than a South Indian temple with coconut trees in the background) to the Moghuls more than Spain to the Moors, even though both were Muslim outsiders who ruled outside the Middle East.

Maybe it's because there are hardly any Muslims in Spain today compared to Pakistan and India. When looking at the percentage of Muslims by state in India I expected those states near Pakistan to have more Muslims but that's not the case. I think it's because during the partition many were moved to Pakistan, while Hindus in Pakistan moved to present-day India. Of course, Pakistan is a modern day creation. I think in Spain now though the cultural imprint of the Moors is recognised and appreciated, most visibly in some of the architecture like the Alhambra which, interestingly, was the Moorish attempt to sort of imitate the Christian palaces at the time with an Islamic twist.

[Dangerous-Boy]

Originally Posted by The Postman

Actually I feel the Indian sub-continent has a lot of similarities with the Middle East, from architecture (via the Mughals), religion in Pakistan and throughout India, cuisine (pilaf/briyani, use of spices like saffron), clothing.etc. The Mughals ruled much of India for centuries, and the influence was profound. The Taj Mahal is more in the Persian style. Not surprisingly it's mostly obvious in Islamic Pakistan, which has tried to differentiate itself more from India (Urdu is similar to Hindi but written in Arabic script). The influence is also obvious in Central Asia.

As for religion, during the partition there was mass migration of Muslims to Pakistan, and Hindus to India, which is why the religious boundary is so sharp. Same with West Pakistan/Bangladesh.

Further east, Malaysia and Indonesia were influenced by Arabs and Persians, and through religion things like names and dress. Persians and Arabs even established communities in eastern China where their influence is still evident today, most notably in the Hui, e.g. Chinese Muslims.

Middle east influence was terrible central asia, south asia, and to an extent southeast asia. Persia is still stuck in the dark under mullahs. Their own native religion, Zoroastrianism, is almost extinct. Women are forced to wear head scarves. Who the wants to live like that? This is the nation of the cyrus the great and xerxes who almost defeated the greeks and kept the romans at bay for century. They went totally backwards after the arab invasion of iran.
Afghanistan is still a hellhole thanks to the taliban. Zoroastrianism, buddhism, and hinduism are basically extinct has well. The taliban were particularly cruel to women and financed by the Saudis. They blew up the buddhist statues carved into the mountains. Lets not forget to mention they harbored Osama bin ladin. If the US didn't need revenge for Vietnam, they should have let the Soviets stay in the 80s.
You are never supposed to trust a commie but they are good at nuturing the mullahs.
Pakistan is basically known for exporting jihadis, sheltering Osama as well and is basically a theocratic state.
India is basically suffering from the middle eastern, central Asian invasions of the last 1000 years. There are still ideological differences that flare up. The descendents of the middle eastern and central asian invaders did not assimilate unlike the invaders before them. India is attacked by external and internal jihadis as well. The invaders were also trying to erase the Native indian cultural. urdu was just the beginning. If the mugals stayed in power, India would have ended up backwards like Iran with an arab culture.

[The Postman]

Originally Posted by Dangerous-Boy

Middle east influence was terrible central asia, south asia, and to an extent southeast asia. Persia is still stuck in the dark under mullahs. Their own native religion, Zoroastrianism, is almost extinct. Women are forced to wear head scarves. Who the wants to live like that? This is the nation of the cyrus the great and xerxes who almost defeated the greeks and kept the romans at bay for century. They went totally backwards after the arab invasion of iran.
Afghanistan is still a hellhole thanks to the taliban. Zoroastrianism, buddhism, and hinduism are basically extinct has well. The taliban were particularly cruel to women and financed by the Saudis. They blew up the buddhist statues carved into the mountains. Lets not forget to mention they harbored Osama bin ladin. If the US didn't need revenge for Vietnam, they should have let the Soviets stay in the 80s.
You are never supposed to trust a commie but they are good at nuturing the mullahs.
Pakistan is basically known for exporting jihadis, sheltering Osama as well and is basically a theocratic state.
India is basically suffering from the middle eastern, central Asian invasions of the last 1000 years. There are still ideological differences that flare up. The descendents of the middle eastern and central asian invaders did not assimilate unlike the invaders before them. India is attacked by external and internal jihadis as well. The invaders were also trying to erase the Native indian cultural. urdu was just the beginning. If the mugals stayed in power, India would have ended up backwards like Iran with an arab culture.

Indeed...Islam has you could say erased a lot of the culture of the region, which is kind of a pity.

[Jesse44]

Originally Posted by markovian process

Do you mean natural landscape or architecture, cities etc.?

I think the Indian subcontinent is in a climate/vegetation zone that somewhat merges into South-East Asia when the humid, monsoonal influence comes in. The Middle East is pretty much seen as more dry than most of Asia (though there are exceptions like the Caspian sea area of Iran or Mediterranean climates that are more well-watered like Lebanon).

Both. The central plains are flat and dry before monsoon, but it's no desert either. And of course there is the Great Thar Desert in Rajasthan, which I think is primarily a Hindu area. So that's interesting.

Then you have stuff like this (Neelkanth Mahadev temple):



Contrasting stuff like this (something in Lucknow):



http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2625/4...f75a94c8_o.jpg
http://www.educationworld.in/userfiles/Lucknow.jpg

[Dangerous-Boy]

Maybe, when the US becomes energy independent, the saudis will lose the money to fund the madrassas with their oil money.

[The Postman]

^ those tower like temples are more South Indian style, I think Hindu temples in the north tend to look different.