In the recent Cecil Column, Marshall asks about the Chinese, while Cecil replies on Asians.
Are Cecil’s comments on all Asians, Asian Mongoloids or just Chinese ? Is Asian synonymous with Chinese ?
This is response to this Cecil Column (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/021004.html). Are South Asians i.e. Asian Indians, Sri-Lankans, etc. also considered Asians ?
Asian has come to mean what we old timers referred to as “ORIENTAL.”
Obviously Indians, Sri Lankans, Israelis, Saudis, and Turks are technically ASIANS.
However most people wouldn’t say Asian to refer to an Israeli. Kind of like “Anti Semite” means “Anti-Jew” even though Arabs are Semites as well. It is an idiom. Thus Asian has come to mean Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese etc…
Any Cites ? Or is this your opinion ? Oriental means Indians and the like - quote from www.dictionary.com - “Oriental Of or designating the biogeographic region that includes Asia south of the Himalaya Mountains and the islands of the Malay Archipelago.”
Who are most people ? Any statistics ? Is it only Americans ?
My sense is that many Americans often use “Asian” to refer to East and Southeast Asians, specifically Japanese, Koreans, Chinese, Vietnamese, Thais, Cambodians, Laotians, Philipinos, Malays, and Indonesians, and maybe Myanmarinians, but not the South Asians west of there–Bangladeshis, Indians, etc. Historically I believe there were more East Asians in the US, so it was natural that they were the ones referred to. But not always.
On the other hand, I believe when the British refer to Asians living there, it’s usually South Asians, because they’ve got a larger population.
And while Markxxx is technically correct, Americans at least hardly ever refer to what one might call “West Asians” as Asians.
The US government standards for classification of Federal data on race and ethnicity:
[Federal Register: October 30, 1997 (Volume 62, Number 210)]; [Notices]; [Page 58781-58790]; From the Federal Register; Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]; [DOCID:fr30oc97-141]
FROM Cecil’s Post
"Technically osmidrosis is the production of objectionably aromatic sweat, but many Asians think they’ve got a problem if they produce any odor when sweating–even an amount that would be considered normal in other ** races. ** "
Thanks Arnold. Asian is not a race as you correctly point out, but rather a collection of different races. IMHO Cecil is worng to group Asians into one race
andy_fl - now we’re getting into how to define the word “race”. There have been many discussions in the Great Debates forum on that issue. I think the preferred word is something like “population group”.
I guess that for the purpose of this article the word “race” should be interpreted to mean “the group of people who have fewer apocrine glands than your average Frenchman, Englishman, Camerounian, etc…” or something like that.
OK Arnold now you got me confused. Is Cecil saying that all asians have fewer apocrine glands or is he saying that only chinese asians and the like have fewer apocrine glands.
It sures sounds like the former.
I think he’s saying that some population groups in Asia have fewer apocrine glands. He didn’t precise exactly which population groups have that characteristic.
It is somewhat of an Americanism to refer to southeast Asians as “Asians” and Indians, Pakistanis, etc by their nationality. Asian in casual conversation is taken in this context, and I’m sure it is the context that Cecil was using.
As for labeling “Asians” as a race, I think if you look at that statement closely, you will see that he did not label all Asians as one race (however you want to define it), but rather he contrasted the subgrouping of Asians that have fewer apocrine glands with other races, which probably includes Indians in the contrasting group. (I’m speculating there - I don’t know if they have fewer apocrine glands or not, but my reading of the column fits that way.)
While I can only speculate as to why this is the case, I think perhaps it could be related to the way certain immigrants refer to themselves in this country. “Asian-American” is almost always used as a self-classification by the aforementioned groups delineated by phartizan. On the other hand, middle-east Asians typically refer to themselves as Muslims first and if identifying any ethnicity apart, refer to themselves either as Arabs or more likely by their country of origin. Similarly for Indians, Pakistanis, etc. This is an observed pattern of behavior.
If the terminology bothers you, perhaps you can supply a description that includes all groups in phartizan’s list while excluding the ones his list excludes without being offensive to anyone.
Note that several definitions of “mongoloid” I have found is as generic as Asian.
http://dictionary.metor.com/wnet/5586475.htm
http://www.youthwebonline.com/terms/m.html
http://www.pathinfo.com/cgi-bin/lh.cgi?tx=racial
Ooh, I came across this interesting article. While it really is off topic for this thread, some of you folks on the race issue might want to read up in preparation for another round of debates.
http://www.amren.com/rushton.htm
In the UK, the term ‘Asian’ usually means people from South Asia.
If you want to get technical, we shouldn’t use the term “American” to refer to U.S. citizens, instead of the inhabitants or natives of North and South America. Personally, I assumed that Cecil was using the term “Asian” in the sense that is conventional in the U.S. I didn’t even think about it.
But now that I do, it does seem rather strange that I would think of Indians as not being “Asian”, despite the fact that India is clearly located on the Asian continent. And there’s the more general problem that we may use the same terms to refer to people’s nationality, ethnicity, and/or country of residence. Since it’s not always clear what someone is even talking about, these distinctions are bound to be confusing, thereby keeping guys like Cecil in work. (I believe the Strait Dope did a column on what exactly it means for someone to be a “Jew”.)
Why?
J Philippe Rushton is a well-known racist. He is utterly irrelevant to scientific inquiry, except as a bad example of political science.
Speaking as someone of Indian descent, let me just say from personal experience that many Indians and indian-Americans are not comfortable being grouped as “Asians.” While, “South Asian” has become a widely accepted word for those whose ethnic heritage originates in the Indian subcontinent, most Indians do not feel any ethnic or cultural connection with East Asians that would justify inclusion in an “Asian” umbrella group.
Indeed, in the United States, “Asian” is still usually assumed to mean “East Asian.”
Until the 1980s or so “Oriental” was in the United States the common word for East Asians. For some reason that became classified as offensive, although I don’t understand why. It has the virtue of being less ambiguous than “Asian.” I myself prefer that “Asian” should be restricted to geographic uses and not ethnic or cultural references.
Um, when I posted that, I had just run across it and thought it might be something new. Upon reflection, I realize many of you following the topic are probably already familiar with him and his arguments, so I guess never mind.
I agree, but “oriental” is taboo because of Edward Said’s Orientalism. Actually he had little to say about East Asia.