U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-08-2008, 12:48 AM
 
2,344 posts, read 3,799,679 times
Reputation: 2191

Advertisements

Yes, but in evolution and genetic terms, we are losing genetic diversity because of it. Through constant intermingling, we are not allowing for gentic drift, one day, many many years from now, it will come back to haunt the human race.

Races are classified along gentics as there is around a .1% genetic difference due to genetic drifitng that is associated with each race. That is why Aboriginies from Australia are not considered to be Negroid but of the Mongoloid race.

There are physical features also that separate the species far from just skin color and eye position.

The separation is important as different races are more prone to certain medical conditions than others. To just sweep it under the floor does not solve any problem socially or scientifically.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-08-2008, 01:00 AM
 
Location: Silver Springs, FL
23,440 posts, read 30,618,996 times
Reputation: 15560
I totally understand what you are saying in terms of genetics, but are we not all looking the reaper in face right now? People from all genetic inheritances have many grim reapers to face, I am well aware of the harvesters of life that genetics may present.
I was trying to cast the net a bit wider than what mere genetics represent, do you not agree that what some folks call genetics, others call racial discrimination?
To me, that is the greatest genetic blight of all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2008, 01:11 AM
 
2,344 posts, read 3,799,679 times
Reputation: 2191
I prefer not to mix the subject of science and racism. It is not the fault of researchers and many years of research that some people want to interprete the results to fit whatever agenda they want it to.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2008, 01:18 AM
 
Location: Silver Springs, FL
23,440 posts, read 30,618,996 times
Reputation: 15560
Quote:
Originally Posted by k350 View Post
I prefer not to mix the subject of science and racism. It is not the fault of researchers and many years of research that some people want to interprete the results to fit whatever agenda they want it to.
That is by far and large the wisest statement I have come across in eons. Kudos to you, you are a very wise person. That is what is what I was trying to say in a much more wordy, and ineffient (sp?) way.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2008, 01:31 PM
 
Location: Live in VA, Work in MD, Play in DC
694 posts, read 1,983,384 times
Reputation: 249
The word Asian used today usually refers to only people of East Asian ancestry.

While Asia encompasses a much broader area than just East Asia, the word "Asians" have been used for people from East Asia for such a long period of time that it stuck. Much like using the word "Indians" instead of "Native Americans".

The word "Asians" is not in itself correct, but Asians are a race. Japanese, Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese, etc. are ethnicities of the Asian race.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2008, 01:54 PM
 
985 posts, read 3,190,358 times
Reputation: 413
Default Is Asian a race?

Quote:
Originally Posted by tenken627 View Post
The word Asian used today usually refers to only people of East Asian ancestry.

While Asia encompasses a much broader area than just East Asia, the word "Asians" have been used for people from East Asia for such a long period of time that it stuck. Much like using the word "Indians" instead of "Native Americans".

The word "Asians" is not in itself correct, but Asians are a race. Japanese, Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese, etc. are ethnicities of the Asian race.
Yes, it's just according to the US census, Asian encompasses also the Indian subcontinent and Indonesia, whereas on the other hand Central Asians are considered to be Caucasian even though they're more Asian.

In the day to day practice, people who have their ancestry in the Indian subcontinent are also considered Asian, the same goes for Indonesians, many of whom are quite "un-Asian".

India and Indonesia are the 2nd and 4th largest countries in the world, and they're suggested to be of the same race as East Asians.

The way Asian is applied in the US, one may also argue that it's not a race, but rather ethnicity; something people like to stress about Latino.

Quote:
Originally Posted by radraja View Post
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2008, 06:00 PM
 
Location: Beaumont, Texas
539 posts, read 1,612,779 times
Reputation: 287
k350,radraja,kshe95girl- great and well thought out posts. I think that the question was more in terms of actual "accepted" usage not the more literal and correct terminologies you've all cited.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2008, 07:49 PM
 
Location: Burkina Faso
421 posts, read 570,857 times
Reputation: 115
I consider "Asian" to be more of a political definition, than a racial term. It works to the extent that people from the subcontinent and East Asia who are living in the U.S. tend to be similar in history (post 1960 immigration), income levels, education, etc. They are most definitely not the same racially. People living in the subcontinent have more in common with other Indo-European peoples linguistically and racially than they do with their East Asian neighbors. Also, the semitic peoples of the Middle East (Jews, Arabs) are a different race/language group entirely than folks to their East (Iranians, Indians) or their West (Europeans).

I dislike the fact that orientals here in the U.S. have hijacked the term Asian for themselves only, which is ludicrous. Asia is a massive continent that includes Siberia, the Middle East, the Indian subcontinent, and the Central Asian republicans (like Kazakhstan, of Borat fame), as well as the Orient. In England, if you say "Asian" it means someone from India, Pakistan, or Bangladesh. People from East Asia are known as "Orientals" there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2008, 08:44 PM
 
985 posts, read 3,190,358 times
Reputation: 413
Default Is Asian a race?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paddington View Post
I consider "Asian" to be more of a political definition, than a racial term. It works to the extent that people from the subcontinent and East Asia who are living in the U.S. tend to be similar in history (post 1960 immigration), income levels, education, etc. They are most definitely not the same racially. People living in the subcontinent have more in common with other Indo-European peoples linguistically and racially than they do with their East Asian neighbors. Also, the semitic peoples of the Middle East (Jews, Arabs) are a different race/language group entirely than folks to their East (Iranians, Indians) or their West (Europeans).
Political or ethnicity term. In any way comparable to Latino, which people emphasize is not a race. The same can be said of Asian. We share a point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paddington View Post
I dislike the fact that orientals here in the U.S. have hijacked the term Asian for themselves only, which is ludicrous. Asia is a massive continent that includes Siberia, the Middle East, the Indian subcontinent, and the Central Asian republicans (like Kazakhstan, of Borat fame), as well as the Orient. In England, if you say "Asian" it means someone from India, Pakistan, or Bangladesh. People from East Asia are known as "Orientals" there.
I don't know if the East Asians hijacked the term Asian for themselves. That was simply the way history goes. Just like in England Asian is "hijacked" for people from the Indian subcontinent.
In any case, both are entitled to use the term, because they are Asians. Yet to suggest that they are of the same racial group, as it is being done in the US, is quite ludicrous.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2008, 09:15 PM
 
Location: Live in VA, Work in MD, Play in DC
694 posts, read 1,983,384 times
Reputation: 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paddington View Post
I dislike the fact that orientals here in the U.S. have hijacked the term Asian for themselves only, which is ludicrous. Asia is a massive continent that includes Siberia, the Middle East, the Indian subcontinent, and the Central Asian republicans (like Kazakhstan, of Borat fame), as well as the Orient. In England, if you say "Asian" it means someone from India, Pakistan, or Bangladesh. People from East Asia are known as "Orientals" there.
That would be like people living in the United States hi-jacking the name "Americans" when the word "America" covers a much more larger and diverse land than just the United States. It actually covers 2 continents.

No one hi-jacked anything, usually people are given their name by others and not the other way around.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top