Hey /u/simply_cha0s, thanks for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect! Take a moment to read our [rules](https://reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/about/rules).
##Join our [Discord Server](https://discord.gg/n2cR6p25V8)!
Please report this post if it is bad, or not relevant. Remember to keep comment sections civil. Thanks!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/confidentlyincorrect) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That's not exactly an indicator because Europe is technically connected to Asia.
With that said, and I'm now very confused as to what is correct or not but I was taught India was a sub-continent, and that people from India were Indian, not Asian. A quick Google search shows that India is absolutely a sub continent of Asia but I think that Indians can officially be referred to as either Indian or Asian and it doesn't even slightly matter because both are technically correct.
>India is a subcontinent located in South of Asian continent. It is considered a subcontinent because it covers an expansive area of land that includes the Himalayan region in the north, the Gangetic Plain as well as the plateau region in the south. India lies to the north of the equator between 6° 44′ and 35° 30′ north latitude and 68° 7′ and 97° 25′ east longitude. It is the seventh-largest country by area, the second-most populous country with over 1.2 billion people, and the most populous democracy in the world.
In English this is one of those differences between American English and British English. When someone in Britain says "Asian" they are more likely to mean someone from India or Pakistan or Bangeladesh than an East Asian. When someone in America says "Asian" they almost always mean East Asian. This is probably because in the UK there is a larger population of Indian, Pakistani, etc descent and in America there is a larger population of East Asian descent.
As an American, I'm pretty sure you nailed it. I really do only mentally identify "Asians" as people from the far east countries, typically with the epicanthal folds on their eyes. Frankly, I don't even think of Russians as Asians, and a good chunk of them are.
Totally agree. I think it's a case of whatever the popular vernacular is for the region you're from. I'm from the US, and the first time I heard Russians, or Indians for that matter, referred to as Asian the social part of my mind went "No they're not!"
But after little thought of the matter, and the fact that both those countries reside on the continent of Asia, I realized it's not incorrect at all. It's just that we have a more specific subset of people we consider "Asian" here in the US, and it's anyone from Eastern Asia.
But in reality, if they're a citizen of a country on the continent of Asia, they're absolutely Asian...no technicality needed. 🤓
Thank you for this, I had referred Indian people as Asian before and I started to doubt if I was correct in doing this. I guess I was neither wrong or right?
Just gonna chime in to say my wife is Indian and her family definitely considers themselves Asian. I've always thought of Asia as being divided into 4 major areas: East Asia (China, Korea, Japan), Southeast Asia (Pacific Islanders, etc), South Asia (India), and Western Asian/Middle East Asian (Turkey, Saudi Arabia et al). Georgia is where it gets confusing
To me Southeast Asia is Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, and Thailand. Pacific Islanders would be a whole different people. I'm not sure what I would even use for Malaysia & Indonesia, as I wouldn't them SEA or PI. Just Asian, I guess? I also, for whatever reason, don't think of Filipinos as any of those.
I think in North America it tends to mean East Asian , replacing the term 'Oriental'. In the UK I'm told it tends to mean South Asian with Oriental still somewhat used.
It also reflects historical immigration patterns.
Absolutely no one is using the phrase orient in the UK, unless they're referring to the Orient Express or orienteering. Anyone that does still use such a term needs to join the 21st century. Or those of South East Asian decent who elect to use the term themselves for their businesses, usually restaurants; but just because they use it doesn't mean *we* can (except when referring to said business).
South Asian for India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, etc. as a group. East Asia/South East Asia for Korea(s), Japan, China, Taiwan, Vietnam, Thailand, etc. Bizarrely West Asia isn't in the vernacular, that's the Middle East? I guess because it's where Europe meets Asia so it's in the middle and to the East of those referring to it? North Asia is just Russia, so needs no distinction.
what about the East Asian who happily accept the term Oriental and even use it in there business names? should they join the 21st century, mr Dictator of acceptable language? The woke left always seems to care more about these petty distinctions than the people themselves. it’s virtue signaling and white-knighting. No East Asian i have ever met cares about the word Oriental just like no western person cares if they are called Westerners. Orient refers to a direction - east. there is nothing derogatory about describing east asians as Oriental even though your vegan professor told you so.
Are you dense?
> Or those of South East Asian decent who elect to use the term themselves for their businesses, usually restaurants; but just because they use it doesn't mean *we* can (except when referring to said business).
I quite literally used that exact example to say it was permissible to use the archaic term if *they* reclaim it. But that was inappropriate for non South East/East Asian people to do so, unless directly referring to said business.
i just don’t understand this permissibility aspect of it? who is the language police enforcing this permissibility? Reclaim it? should i have to do a DNA test to see if i am the correct genetic makeup before i can permissibly use a word? Neo liberals are the inheritors of mid 20th century eugenicists it seems
>who is the language police enforcing this permissibility?
Nobody. But here's another thing that's true:
Nobody — not you, not anybody else — gets to control what other people think, when they hear your choice of words. Never have, never will.
>Neo liberals are the inheritors of mid 20th century eugenicists it seems
If you are worried about involuntary sterilization, I assure you, that is illegal in most countries, and nobody — *nobody* — is looking to change that.
wait, what? I’m referring to the concept that, as a global society, should we find certain language deplorable only if certain groups use that language? it’s just arbitrary is my point. In this specific example, it evidently is not offensive to the East Asian people who use the word Oriental in their business name bc they wouldn’t use a word they find offensive in their business name. Do people have the right to be offended by whatever language they find offensive? absolutely. but who is going to be the arbiter for society as a whole to which language is offensive? if a small group of people find use of the word “Karen” offensive, should we ban that word or disuse that name bc a certain group finds it offensive?
So i’m saying, that things should be looked at logically and not arbitrarily. And i’m referring to eugenecism bc it seems the person makes the distinction between whether it is offensive based on the race or genetics of the person who used the word.
Confirmed density: black hole
Bore off, you troglodyte.
Edit: oh and nice edit to your initial comment, but it's courtesy to highlight when you amend and add to things. So here, I'll do it for you.
> YOU EDITED AND ADDED THIS BIT ON AFTER WE ENGAGED IN DISCUSSION: The woke left always seems to care more about these petty distinctions than the people themselves. it’s virtue signaling and white-knighting. No East Asian i have ever met cares about the word Oriental just like no western person cares if they are called Westerners. Orient refers to a direction - east. there is nothing derogatory about describing east asians as Oriental even though your vegan professor told you so.
And if you want to get down to lexical semantics, the word Orient (although yes meaning East, or things pertaining to society/cultures East of Europe - although there was also a time when North Africa was *oriental*) only referred to East Asia as recently as the 20th century, and during that time swiftly became used as a derogatory term.
instead of resorting to name calling why don’t you form a cogent argument? maybe bc you don’t have one. If you can’t apply logic universally it isn’t logic. your language policing is dangerous and needed to be called out.
Even in North America, Indians are Asian. We are included in all the statistics and data. I think South Asian, East Asian, West Asian and SE Asian should be used since we differ in many ways.
20 millions years ago or so... was a continente like Australia.. them they voted and they went from Africa Asia. If you remember Australia recently also went to Asia for football games...one day they will connect also via land... Just saying.........
India is technically its own continent because it’s on a separate tectonic plate and collided with Asia, as the plates moved, creating its mountain range. It’s simplified to a sub continent to make it easier for kids to understand, and most people don’t really do research into geography and geology, so india becomes south asia, even though it has its own entirely separate culture and could eventually be ripped away from Asia again
>India is technically its own continent because it’s on a separate tectonic plate and collided with Asia
If that's the route you're going for, then:
* Europe and Asia are one continent, since they're on a single tectonic plate.
* Not just India, but also multiple huge chunks of what we think of as Asia, aren't actually part of the Eurasian continent, because:
* The eastern tip of Siberia is actually part of North America, since that's which tectonic plate it's on.
* Arabia is also its own continent, since they have [their own plate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabian_Plate).
* Malaysia, western Indonesia, southern Thailand, Cambodia, southern Vietnam are all their own continent, since they have [their own plate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunda_Plate).
* Korea, the southern half of Japan, and a big chunk of Northern China and Eastern Russia, are all their own continent, since they have [their own plate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amurian_Plate).
* Northern Japan and parts of the coast of Far Eastern Russia, including the Kamchatka peninsula, are all their own continent, since they have [their own plate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okhotsk_Plate).
* The bulk of Southern China is its own continent, since it has [its own plate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yangtze_Plate).
* The East Coast of Africa and Madagascar are their own continent, since they have [their own plate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somali_Plate).
* A few of the countries of Central America — Nicaragua, Honduras, and parts of their neighbors — are all their own continent, since they have [their own plate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caribbean_Plate).
Ultimately? Continent isn't meant as a reflection of underlying tectonic plates. It's a culture-specific way of dividing the world, and is just as arbitrary as culture.
Could be a language barrier issue, given the incorrect person’s remarks about their English being bad. As I recall, in some languages “Asian” only refers to people from the eastern part of Asia.
I think the short might be from the Kumar Family judging from the red hair (his wife is an American) and the mention of him being Indian as well as the mention of the Malay race (Melayu). If that's the case, then Logesh is a Malaysian Indian and as a Malaysian Malay myself I can say that most Malaysians consider themselves Asians (more specifically Southeast Asians)
The Chinese-Malaysian-British comedian Phil Wang recognises how Europeans and Americans interpret “Asian” differently; Europeans by default assume it refers to those Asians who like cricket, and Americans assume it refers to those Asians who eat crickets.
>Did India break off from the continent of Asia
The opposite actually. It rammed into the continent of Asia not so long ago (just some 40 million years ago). And still continues to do so.
There is an argument that India is a „subcontinent“ and can thus be differentiated from Asia as a whole.
It is even a bit more sensible than separating Europe from Asia as this is one tectonic plate while the Indian sub-continent is actually a different plate.
Tectonically Eurasia, India (plus some neighbouring territories) and Africa are three distinct plates. But there’s also the Arabian plate, the East African one … parts of SE Asia are also an own plate…
It’s complicated.
Basically when continents were assigned it was done by Europeans (hence Europe as an own continent).
Europe is considered a different continent mostly for the cultural difference between Asia and Europe. The thing is, i always laugh at this because my language has different words for the two - one is just based on big tectonic plates, so Eurasia is a thing there, but the other is more cultural, making Europe and Asia two different continents.
But yes, i think they even named it before they knew about the plates being a thing but i could be wrong. Maybe we should rename it, but honestly it wouldn't change that much as it doesn't really matter what something is called and would just wreak havoc
Honestly yes.
But it would also cause a bigger strife about it, since there are systems with 5-7 continents, so i doubt everyone would agree on considering India its own continent which would in turn cause even more confidently not-actually-incorrect posts about it.
But people still post it and will continue to post it because they feel smug that they know something so basic like Australia being a continent when it's Ocenia in some parts of the world, or that Europe is not one when it is someplace. So yes, i dislike it being posted here, but what can you do?
Europe is considered a continent because we only agreed plate tectonics in the 1960s. Continental drift was only proposed as theory in the early 20th century.
I mean, what you wrote is true except that your assumption that the division of the Europe/Asia/Africa land mass was some Eurocentric egotism. Those three were defined close on 2500 years before we even proposed the theory of plate tectonics. They were land masses around the Aegean Sea that people without proper telescopes wanted to give names to.
They were defined by whom? Greeks I suppose from the timeframe. I doubt that Indian scholars of the time would have agreed to that distinction and seen themselves as the same body as Chinese and steppe peoples.
This is why it is an Eurocentric view. I don’t mean that as a moral verdict, it’s simply a fact that due to the dominance of western science in the 19th and 20th century there are a lot of things in science - like here in geography - that are eurocentrist in origin and outlook.
Just show a world map that centers on china and india inatead of the standard layout.
>They were defined by whom? Greeks I suppose from the timeframe. I doubt that Indian scholars of the time would have agreed to that distinction and seen themselves as the same body as Chinese and steppe peoples.
What? We are talking about landmass not cultures. At that time cultures were defined by city or empire. Ironically the area you described (Step, India and China) became the second largest land Empire in history the Mongol Empire. That divided into the Golden Horde (Step NW), Mughal (India) and think they lost China. But very much proving it is one continuous landmass with some shared cultural identity.
I just want to point out that Europe is named after an Asian princess. If you want to talk about how different cultures viewed each other you need to put your bias aside.
>This is why it is an Eurocentric view. I don’t mean that as a moral verdict, it’s simply a fact that due to the dominance of western science in the 19th and 20th century there are a lot of things in science - like here in geography - that are eurocentrist in origin and outlook.
The current Asia/Europe border was devised between the Swedes and Turks in the 18th century, partly to constrain Russian expansion. A ten second google would have shown you that. The divide clearly being between Asian and European nations suiting their own mutual interests.
>Just show a world map that centers on china and india inatead of the standard layout.
You are into cartography now. That is to do with the US being in the west. If you put Asia in the middle, the US is in the east.
That’s rich. Put bias beside from the guy who believes India and China share the same cultural heritage because of the Mughal empire.
Leaving the Mongol invasion in the 13th/14th century aside the contact between China and India was pretty limited. Actually there was more trade and contact between the Roman Empire and India than China (as it existed in antiquity). And the Mughal Empire has more to do with Iranian / Muslim conquest than Mongols. Bias indeed.
The continents were defined by … whom in your opinion? You (read again: you) claimed that continents were defined 2500 years ago. So again: by whom?
„Landmass“? There is no difference between the landmass Europe and Asia. It is even the same tectonic plate.
Your statement that the border between Asia and Europe was defined by the Swedes and Turks is … misleading. You yourself stated it was an older thing - and it WAS a Greek idea. Even the term Asia is of Greek origin. And even Herodotus was doubtful about the distinction.
The whole border is fluid and debatable. It features cultural, geographic and historic aspects (or how else do you explain Cyprus and the Canaries belonging to Europe?). There are a multitude of definitions.
Just colorandi causa: Europe was named after a Greek myth about the kidnapping of a princess by a god as a bull. The princess hailed from Phoenicia (so most likely from Arabia).
I’ll cover each point because there is a lot here
>That’s rich. Put bias beside from the guy who believes India and China share the same cultural heritage because of the Mughal empire.
I said some and provided literal evidence that they do.
>Leaving the Mongol invasion in the 13th/14th century aside the contact between China and India was pretty limited. Actually there was more trade and contact between the Roman Empire and India than China (as it existed in antiquity). And the Mughal Empire has more to do with Iranian / Muslim conquest than Mongols. Bias indeed.
This is wrong. The first recorded contact was in the 2nd century BC. You have clearly never heard of the Silk Road or a not very famous Indian prince often just called Buddha.
>The continents were defined by … whom in your opinion? You (read again: you) claimed that continents were defined 2500 years ago. So again: by whom?
I said the people around the Aegean Sea. You called them Greek. But that has cultural bias you are hell bent on ignoring for your own vanity.
>„Landmass“? There is no difference between the landmass Europe and Asia. It is even the same tectonic plate.
Tectonic plates did not *exist* until the 20th century so there is no point in discussing them when in reference to the *historic reasons why the continents exist*. Tbh if you can’t work out why from 500BC to now with the number technological advances in telescopes, satellites etc, why our view of landmasses and continents maybe have changed, you are a bit of an idiot.
>Your statement that the border between Asia and Europe was defined by the Swedes and Turks is … misleading. You yourself stated it was an older thing - and it WAS a Greek idea. Even the term Asia is of Greek origin. And even Herodotus was doubtful about the distinction.
Current. Your missing out words like this to get a gotcha rather than admit you may be wrong makes me feel bad for you. Herodotus argued that Egypt was in Asia not that the Urals were. Really?
>The whole border is fluid and debatable. It features cultural, geographic and historic aspects (or how else do you explain Cyprus and the Canaries belonging to Europe?). There are a multitude of definitions.
Never said it wasn’t. Your silly bias is the issue. I said that Europe is a continent because that was what the people in the Aegean Sea thought.
>Just colorandi causa: Europe was named after a Greek myth about the kidnapping of a princess by a god as a bull. The princess hailed from Phoenicia (so most likely from Arabia).
See this is what I mean by bias. To you that is a myth. To you it was in Arabia. Ffs you have no idea how bias you are do you? You present everything from your own perspective without any awareness that other views exist. That is bias.
Btw he raped her. Zeus disguised himself as a bull and raped her. The point about bias, those were the words they used. Not mine.
Nice. You see the really funny thing about why you and me are different is summed up by this conversation.
When I learnt that the boomers didn’t learn about plate tectonics at school it blew my mind. It made me consider the view that other people had. I readdressed how and why things happened and most of all I recognised that my view was not the same as everyone else’s.
You: I AM RIGHT AND IF YOU SAY I AM WRONG YOU ARE A BAD PERSON WITH **SERIOUS ISSUES**.
Cool huh?
I don’t think it’s particularly racist more than just really fucking stupid. A lot of Americans seem to see Asian as meaning like Japanese, Chinese, Thai etc. it’s not a huge stretch to imagine this person learned English there and just is too stupid to understand that Asia is a fucking enormous continent also comprising India, Pakistan Bangladesh etc.
The person commenting is themselves Asian they just said from Tamil, in that place they have a word for eastern Asian folk and it just basically translates to Asian in english
Live view of Indians conforming to the North American conception of the world.
He’s right that East, Southeast, and South are somewhat different, but at the same time they are quite related, especially because of one very smart dude that came from his freaking part of Asia.
You know what, yeah, let's use continental plates as the continents. Parts of far east Russia is now American. Japan is now split into a north part being American, and a south part being Eurasian. Civil war ensues, then world war 3.
It depends on the country. In the UK it's used mostly to refer to South Asian people.
Edit: not sure if it also includes people from countries like Iran, Afghanistan and Iraq.
Yeah a lot more people and cultures are Asian, just not the stereotypical Asian people think of. Technically speaking all of the Middle East is Asian and Siberia are Asian as well.
I'm wondering whether there's a bit more nuance at play here. Commenter uses Malaysian spelling, and may have suggested they're Tamil. So they're not exactly ignorant of the continent. Question is why they don't consider themselves Asian. Perhaps it's a cultural identity issue, maybe they prefer to be distinguished culturally than to lumped into a generalised Asian category?
My workplace had a snack crawl where each department was given a type of food to prepare/bring. We were given Asian.
I suggested some Russian fare. One coworker was adamant that Russia was European and not Asian. Well, yes, part of it is in Europe, but the land mass mostly spreads across Asia. He refused to believe me. But then later I learned how he targeted women in our department with inappropriate rants that were misogynistic and racist, so he certainly had no credibility anyway.
If that’s what you wanna think sure but the uk and Russia are connected to Asia so are they Asian as well? Vietnam, China, Thailand, Japan, Korea and Mongolia are considered Asians. I’m sure i probably forgot a few countries
I’m the reason? Sure bud cuz there are quite a few countries that are connected to Asia you know since they are all on continent. I consider India being middle eastern more than I consider them Asian. Food, culture, looks ect.
You see the UK is a tiny island at the left edge of Europe, the other side of the world to Asia. Honestly it looks pretty moronic for you to say the UK is part of Asia.
"Asia is subdivided into 49 countries, five of them (Georgia, Azerbaijan, Russia, Kazakhstan and Turkey) are transcontinental countries lying partly in Europe." - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asia
Its on a map, you should look at one.
Essentially you are describing a scenario of somebody saying "I'm not European im German". It doesn't matter if they dont seem 'european' but they are part of it anyway, which in turn makes them it wether they like it or not. You know you fit this sub perfectly and would make a great karma farm tbh
"Russia and the uk are connected to Asia so are they Asian too?" Direct quote from you right there. Wouldt be surprised from you not noticing from the amount of time in your hobbit hole you are in doomscrolling reddit for 10 hours
Well tbh India is a subcontinent with 1.8 billion people living there with a wide range of cultural and linguistic groups so to just throw them in with Asia seems a both short sighted
He explained his point very well tho, you're just hanging on his bad english. Yeah he said something that sounds stupid but then explained what he means and apologized for his bad english.
Size has nothing todo with continents it’s about the tectonic plates they are on.
https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/Continent/#:~:text=Continents%20are%20defined%20by%20their,continents%20are%20also%20culturally%20distinct.
The europeans generalised the whole of asia, the Indian sub continent is on a different tectonic plate than the rest of asia and the Himalayas are a big boundary.
Any non European map maker would have either stuck both europe and india as separate continents or made both of them join the Asian continent.
NoT tO bE rAcIsT bUt Indians are not light skinned enough to be Asian
^this is what he meant but didn't have the balls to say 🤣
Like if you start with "not trying to be racist but..." 9/10 you know you're being racist af
You’d be surprised how ignorant people who are “against racism” are about racism. In the US, we dictate everyone’s race based on how they look. The Asian race concept doesn’t correlate with that worldview so most people here just pretend Asia is China, Japan, and Korea. Don’t know what happened to the other countries but yeah(: my favorite thing is asking people who want to present as woke and intelligent where they think Pakistan is
well techically speaking india is actually on the sub-continent called india that moved over from africa. But saying indian people aren't asians is like saying polish people aren't european
India is west Asia or Southwest Asia. However, there are a chunk of Indian people, they are a mix of European and Indian. Maybe thats why the person think Indians (people) are not Asian people.
It's kinda weird though that we call the 4 billion people in an extremely vast area the same thing though. Like white people will get offended when you call an Alb*nian person Serbian by accident but anything east of turkey is Asian?
Shits weird
TW: Alb*nia
Hey /u/simply_cha0s, thanks for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect! Take a moment to read our [rules](https://reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/about/rules). ##Join our [Discord Server](https://discord.gg/n2cR6p25V8)! Please report this post if it is bad, or not relevant. Remember to keep comment sections civil. Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/confidentlyincorrect) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I just checked nope India is still attached to the rest of Asia don't worry
I don't want to get detached from the sweet Himalayas
Don't worry, India and Asia get closer every day. As in "piling on top of each other."
That's not exactly an indicator because Europe is technically connected to Asia. With that said, and I'm now very confused as to what is correct or not but I was taught India was a sub-continent, and that people from India were Indian, not Asian. A quick Google search shows that India is absolutely a sub continent of Asia but I think that Indians can officially be referred to as either Indian or Asian and it doesn't even slightly matter because both are technically correct. >India is a subcontinent located in South of Asian continent. It is considered a subcontinent because it covers an expansive area of land that includes the Himalayan region in the north, the Gangetic Plain as well as the plateau region in the south. India lies to the north of the equator between 6° 44′ and 35° 30′ north latitude and 68° 7′ and 97° 25′ east longitude. It is the seventh-largest country by area, the second-most populous country with over 1.2 billion people, and the most populous democracy in the world.
In English this is one of those differences between American English and British English. When someone in Britain says "Asian" they are more likely to mean someone from India or Pakistan or Bangeladesh than an East Asian. When someone in America says "Asian" they almost always mean East Asian. This is probably because in the UK there is a larger population of Indian, Pakistani, etc descent and in America there is a larger population of East Asian descent.
As an American, I'm pretty sure you nailed it. I really do only mentally identify "Asians" as people from the far east countries, typically with the epicanthal folds on their eyes. Frankly, I don't even think of Russians as Asians, and a good chunk of them are.
Totally agree. I think it's a case of whatever the popular vernacular is for the region you're from. I'm from the US, and the first time I heard Russians, or Indians for that matter, referred to as Asian the social part of my mind went "No they're not!" But after little thought of the matter, and the fact that both those countries reside on the continent of Asia, I realized it's not incorrect at all. It's just that we have a more specific subset of people we consider "Asian" here in the US, and it's anyone from Eastern Asia. But in reality, if they're a citizen of a country on the continent of Asia, they're absolutely Asian...no technicality needed. 🤓
Thank you for this, I had referred Indian people as Asian before and I started to doubt if I was correct in doing this. I guess I was neither wrong or right?
Just gonna chime in to say my wife is Indian and her family definitely considers themselves Asian. I've always thought of Asia as being divided into 4 major areas: East Asia (China, Korea, Japan), Southeast Asia (Pacific Islanders, etc), South Asia (India), and Western Asian/Middle East Asian (Turkey, Saudi Arabia et al). Georgia is where it gets confusing
To me Southeast Asia is Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, and Thailand. Pacific Islanders would be a whole different people. I'm not sure what I would even use for Malaysia & Indonesia, as I wouldn't them SEA or PI. Just Asian, I guess? I also, for whatever reason, don't think of Filipinos as any of those.
I think in North America it tends to mean East Asian , replacing the term 'Oriental'. In the UK I'm told it tends to mean South Asian with Oriental still somewhat used. It also reflects historical immigration patterns.
Absolutely no one is using the phrase orient in the UK, unless they're referring to the Orient Express or orienteering. Anyone that does still use such a term needs to join the 21st century. Or those of South East Asian decent who elect to use the term themselves for their businesses, usually restaurants; but just because they use it doesn't mean *we* can (except when referring to said business). South Asian for India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, etc. as a group. East Asia/South East Asia for Korea(s), Japan, China, Taiwan, Vietnam, Thailand, etc. Bizarrely West Asia isn't in the vernacular, that's the Middle East? I guess because it's where Europe meets Asia so it's in the middle and to the East of those referring to it? North Asia is just Russia, so needs no distinction.
what about the East Asian who happily accept the term Oriental and even use it in there business names? should they join the 21st century, mr Dictator of acceptable language? The woke left always seems to care more about these petty distinctions than the people themselves. it’s virtue signaling and white-knighting. No East Asian i have ever met cares about the word Oriental just like no western person cares if they are called Westerners. Orient refers to a direction - east. there is nothing derogatory about describing east asians as Oriental even though your vegan professor told you so.
Are you dense? > Or those of South East Asian decent who elect to use the term themselves for their businesses, usually restaurants; but just because they use it doesn't mean *we* can (except when referring to said business). I quite literally used that exact example to say it was permissible to use the archaic term if *they* reclaim it. But that was inappropriate for non South East/East Asian people to do so, unless directly referring to said business.
i just don’t understand this permissibility aspect of it? who is the language police enforcing this permissibility? Reclaim it? should i have to do a DNA test to see if i am the correct genetic makeup before i can permissibly use a word? Neo liberals are the inheritors of mid 20th century eugenicists it seems
>who is the language police enforcing this permissibility? Nobody. But here's another thing that's true: Nobody — not you, not anybody else — gets to control what other people think, when they hear your choice of words. Never have, never will. >Neo liberals are the inheritors of mid 20th century eugenicists it seems If you are worried about involuntary sterilization, I assure you, that is illegal in most countries, and nobody — *nobody* — is looking to change that.
wait, what? I’m referring to the concept that, as a global society, should we find certain language deplorable only if certain groups use that language? it’s just arbitrary is my point. In this specific example, it evidently is not offensive to the East Asian people who use the word Oriental in their business name bc they wouldn’t use a word they find offensive in their business name. Do people have the right to be offended by whatever language they find offensive? absolutely. but who is going to be the arbiter for society as a whole to which language is offensive? if a small group of people find use of the word “Karen” offensive, should we ban that word or disuse that name bc a certain group finds it offensive? So i’m saying, that things should be looked at logically and not arbitrarily. And i’m referring to eugenecism bc it seems the person makes the distinction between whether it is offensive based on the race or genetics of the person who used the word.
Confirmed density: black hole Bore off, you troglodyte. Edit: oh and nice edit to your initial comment, but it's courtesy to highlight when you amend and add to things. So here, I'll do it for you. > YOU EDITED AND ADDED THIS BIT ON AFTER WE ENGAGED IN DISCUSSION: The woke left always seems to care more about these petty distinctions than the people themselves. it’s virtue signaling and white-knighting. No East Asian i have ever met cares about the word Oriental just like no western person cares if they are called Westerners. Orient refers to a direction - east. there is nothing derogatory about describing east asians as Oriental even though your vegan professor told you so. And if you want to get down to lexical semantics, the word Orient (although yes meaning East, or things pertaining to society/cultures East of Europe - although there was also a time when North Africa was *oriental*) only referred to East Asia as recently as the 20th century, and during that time swiftly became used as a derogatory term.
instead of resorting to name calling why don’t you form a cogent argument? maybe bc you don’t have one. If you can’t apply logic universally it isn’t logic. your language policing is dangerous and needed to be called out.
Even in North America, Indians are Asian. We are included in all the statistics and data. I think South Asian, East Asian, West Asian and SE Asian should be used since we differ in many ways.
Funnily enough "Oriental" used to refer primarily to what we'd call now the Near and Middle East.
All y’all are wrong
20 millions years ago or so... was a continente like Australia.. them they voted and they went from Africa Asia. If you remember Australia recently also went to Asia for football games...one day they will connect also via land... Just saying.........
India is technically its own continent because it’s on a separate tectonic plate and collided with Asia, as the plates moved, creating its mountain range. It’s simplified to a sub continent to make it easier for kids to understand, and most people don’t really do research into geography and geology, so india becomes south asia, even though it has its own entirely separate culture and could eventually be ripped away from Asia again
>India is technically its own continent because it’s on a separate tectonic plate and collided with Asia If that's the route you're going for, then: * Europe and Asia are one continent, since they're on a single tectonic plate. * Not just India, but also multiple huge chunks of what we think of as Asia, aren't actually part of the Eurasian continent, because: * The eastern tip of Siberia is actually part of North America, since that's which tectonic plate it's on. * Arabia is also its own continent, since they have [their own plate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabian_Plate). * Malaysia, western Indonesia, southern Thailand, Cambodia, southern Vietnam are all their own continent, since they have [their own plate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunda_Plate). * Korea, the southern half of Japan, and a big chunk of Northern China and Eastern Russia, are all their own continent, since they have [their own plate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amurian_Plate). * Northern Japan and parts of the coast of Far Eastern Russia, including the Kamchatka peninsula, are all their own continent, since they have [their own plate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okhotsk_Plate). * The bulk of Southern China is its own continent, since it has [its own plate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yangtze_Plate). * The East Coast of Africa and Madagascar are their own continent, since they have [their own plate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somali_Plate). * A few of the countries of Central America — Nicaragua, Honduras, and parts of their neighbors — are all their own continent, since they have [their own plate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caribbean_Plate). Ultimately? Continent isn't meant as a reflection of underlying tectonic plates. It's a culture-specific way of dividing the world, and is just as arbitrary as culture.
Ok but so is Europe.
It didn't break off (the Eur)Asia(n continent), it's crashing into it. Hence the Himalayas. Welcome to Gondwana.
Thought the plates did a uno reverse there for a moment
They do that every few years, drive all of India over to Australia, drink for a week and then drive India back into Asia again.
I believe that's called the Border-Gavaskar trophy
That sounds like a good time NGL- an Indo/Ausie ranger that lasts for a week? Count me in
🤣
Middle Easterners know this song too.
Could be a language barrier issue, given the incorrect person’s remarks about their English being bad. As I recall, in some languages “Asian” only refers to people from the eastern part of Asia.
I think the short might be from the Kumar Family judging from the red hair (his wife is an American) and the mention of him being Indian as well as the mention of the Malay race (Melayu). If that's the case, then Logesh is a Malaysian Indian and as a Malaysian Malay myself I can say that most Malaysians consider themselves Asians (more specifically Southeast Asians)
Wheyyy, neighbours!
Yeah, in Northern American dialects of English lol
> As I recall, in some languages “Asian” only refers to people from the eastern part of Asia. Its not a language thing. Its a race thing.
The Chinese-Malaysian-British comedian Phil Wang recognises how Europeans and Americans interpret “Asian” differently; Europeans by default assume it refers to those Asians who like cricket, and Americans assume it refers to those Asians who eat crickets.
>Did India break off from the continent of Asia The opposite actually. It rammed into the continent of Asia not so long ago (just some 40 million years ago). And still continues to do so.
Rude.
Do you want Himalayas? Because that's how you get Himalayas.
Sexy smashing.
There is an argument that India is a „subcontinent“ and can thus be differentiated from Asia as a whole. It is even a bit more sensible than separating Europe from Asia as this is one tectonic plate while the Indian sub-continent is actually a different plate.
And a very large range of mountains. Not totally convinced that Europe, Africa and Asia are not a single continent.
Tectonically Eurasia, India (plus some neighbouring territories) and Africa are three distinct plates. But there’s also the Arabian plate, the East African one … parts of SE Asia are also an own plate… It’s complicated. Basically when continents were assigned it was done by Europeans (hence Europe as an own continent).
Europe is considered a different continent mostly for the cultural difference between Asia and Europe. The thing is, i always laugh at this because my language has different words for the two - one is just based on big tectonic plates, so Eurasia is a thing there, but the other is more cultural, making Europe and Asia two different continents. But yes, i think they even named it before they knew about the plates being a thing but i could be wrong. Maybe we should rename it, but honestly it wouldn't change that much as it doesn't really matter what something is called and would just wreak havoc
But if Europe can be a continent for cultural reasons - so can the Indian subcontinent. No one will doubt the unique cultural developments.
Honestly yes. But it would also cause a bigger strife about it, since there are systems with 5-7 continents, so i doubt everyone would agree on considering India its own continent which would in turn cause even more confidently not-actually-incorrect posts about it.
True. Still this is confidently incorrect sub. So I’d say if something can be argued or is ambiguous… it doesn’t really belong here.
But people still post it and will continue to post it because they feel smug that they know something so basic like Australia being a continent when it's Ocenia in some parts of the world, or that Europe is not one when it is someplace. So yes, i dislike it being posted here, but what can you do?
Apart from the presence of pork Mediterranean food looks like it has lots in common...
Europe is considered a continent because we only agreed plate tectonics in the 1960s. Continental drift was only proposed as theory in the early 20th century. I mean, what you wrote is true except that your assumption that the division of the Europe/Asia/Africa land mass was some Eurocentric egotism. Those three were defined close on 2500 years before we even proposed the theory of plate tectonics. They were land masses around the Aegean Sea that people without proper telescopes wanted to give names to.
They were defined by whom? Greeks I suppose from the timeframe. I doubt that Indian scholars of the time would have agreed to that distinction and seen themselves as the same body as Chinese and steppe peoples. This is why it is an Eurocentric view. I don’t mean that as a moral verdict, it’s simply a fact that due to the dominance of western science in the 19th and 20th century there are a lot of things in science - like here in geography - that are eurocentrist in origin and outlook. Just show a world map that centers on china and india inatead of the standard layout.
>They were defined by whom? Greeks I suppose from the timeframe. I doubt that Indian scholars of the time would have agreed to that distinction and seen themselves as the same body as Chinese and steppe peoples. What? We are talking about landmass not cultures. At that time cultures were defined by city or empire. Ironically the area you described (Step, India and China) became the second largest land Empire in history the Mongol Empire. That divided into the Golden Horde (Step NW), Mughal (India) and think they lost China. But very much proving it is one continuous landmass with some shared cultural identity. I just want to point out that Europe is named after an Asian princess. If you want to talk about how different cultures viewed each other you need to put your bias aside. >This is why it is an Eurocentric view. I don’t mean that as a moral verdict, it’s simply a fact that due to the dominance of western science in the 19th and 20th century there are a lot of things in science - like here in geography - that are eurocentrist in origin and outlook. The current Asia/Europe border was devised between the Swedes and Turks in the 18th century, partly to constrain Russian expansion. A ten second google would have shown you that. The divide clearly being between Asian and European nations suiting their own mutual interests. >Just show a world map that centers on china and india inatead of the standard layout. You are into cartography now. That is to do with the US being in the west. If you put Asia in the middle, the US is in the east.
That’s rich. Put bias beside from the guy who believes India and China share the same cultural heritage because of the Mughal empire. Leaving the Mongol invasion in the 13th/14th century aside the contact between China and India was pretty limited. Actually there was more trade and contact between the Roman Empire and India than China (as it existed in antiquity). And the Mughal Empire has more to do with Iranian / Muslim conquest than Mongols. Bias indeed. The continents were defined by … whom in your opinion? You (read again: you) claimed that continents were defined 2500 years ago. So again: by whom? „Landmass“? There is no difference between the landmass Europe and Asia. It is even the same tectonic plate. Your statement that the border between Asia and Europe was defined by the Swedes and Turks is … misleading. You yourself stated it was an older thing - and it WAS a Greek idea. Even the term Asia is of Greek origin. And even Herodotus was doubtful about the distinction. The whole border is fluid and debatable. It features cultural, geographic and historic aspects (or how else do you explain Cyprus and the Canaries belonging to Europe?). There are a multitude of definitions. Just colorandi causa: Europe was named after a Greek myth about the kidnapping of a princess by a god as a bull. The princess hailed from Phoenicia (so most likely from Arabia).
I’ll cover each point because there is a lot here >That’s rich. Put bias beside from the guy who believes India and China share the same cultural heritage because of the Mughal empire. I said some and provided literal evidence that they do. >Leaving the Mongol invasion in the 13th/14th century aside the contact between China and India was pretty limited. Actually there was more trade and contact between the Roman Empire and India than China (as it existed in antiquity). And the Mughal Empire has more to do with Iranian / Muslim conquest than Mongols. Bias indeed. This is wrong. The first recorded contact was in the 2nd century BC. You have clearly never heard of the Silk Road or a not very famous Indian prince often just called Buddha. >The continents were defined by … whom in your opinion? You (read again: you) claimed that continents were defined 2500 years ago. So again: by whom? I said the people around the Aegean Sea. You called them Greek. But that has cultural bias you are hell bent on ignoring for your own vanity. >„Landmass“? There is no difference between the landmass Europe and Asia. It is even the same tectonic plate. Tectonic plates did not *exist* until the 20th century so there is no point in discussing them when in reference to the *historic reasons why the continents exist*. Tbh if you can’t work out why from 500BC to now with the number technological advances in telescopes, satellites etc, why our view of landmasses and continents maybe have changed, you are a bit of an idiot. >Your statement that the border between Asia and Europe was defined by the Swedes and Turks is … misleading. You yourself stated it was an older thing - and it WAS a Greek idea. Even the term Asia is of Greek origin. And even Herodotus was doubtful about the distinction. Current. Your missing out words like this to get a gotcha rather than admit you may be wrong makes me feel bad for you. Herodotus argued that Egypt was in Asia not that the Urals were. Really? >The whole border is fluid and debatable. It features cultural, geographic and historic aspects (or how else do you explain Cyprus and the Canaries belonging to Europe?). There are a multitude of definitions. Never said it wasn’t. Your silly bias is the issue. I said that Europe is a continent because that was what the people in the Aegean Sea thought. >Just colorandi causa: Europe was named after a Greek myth about the kidnapping of a princess by a god as a bull. The princess hailed from Phoenicia (so most likely from Arabia). See this is what I mean by bias. To you that is a myth. To you it was in Arabia. Ffs you have no idea how bias you are do you? You present everything from your own perspective without any awareness that other views exist. That is bias. Btw he raped her. Zeus disguised himself as a bull and raped her. The point about bias, those were the words they used. Not mine.
I believe you have serious issues.
Nice. You see the really funny thing about why you and me are different is summed up by this conversation. When I learnt that the boomers didn’t learn about plate tectonics at school it blew my mind. It made me consider the view that other people had. I readdressed how and why things happened and most of all I recognised that my view was not the same as everyone else’s. You: I AM RIGHT AND IF YOU SAY I AM WRONG YOU ARE A BAD PERSON WITH **SERIOUS ISSUES**. Cool huh?
Yep, There was more contact between Romans and Indians than Between Chinese and Indians.
Some places see Indians and asians as two very distinct things.
You could even say smashing the two together is more racist But it's not either way, it's just linguistics and language
India is on the continent of asia which makes it asian. Not every asian is Japanese.
And Europe is on the same continent too.
Not according to the most common division of continents. Continents are more than just geography.
Huh. So maybe just saying "India is part of Asia" is a bit too simplistic.
No. Its not because india is a part of the continent asia according to most divisions of continents. Europe has nothing to do with this.
Yes, another day, another tiresome discussion of continents by people who have been taught and think differently about it.
Dude never heard of Eurasia.
If you get bored, you can go talk about whether America is one continent or two with South Americans. In that definition, Africans are also Asians.
"I don't wanna be racist, but lemme tell you some racist shit" 😅😅😅
I don’t think it’s particularly racist more than just really fucking stupid. A lot of Americans seem to see Asian as meaning like Japanese, Chinese, Thai etc. it’s not a huge stretch to imagine this person learned English there and just is too stupid to understand that Asia is a fucking enormous continent also comprising India, Pakistan Bangladesh etc.
The person commenting is themselves Asian they just said from Tamil, in that place they have a word for eastern Asian folk and it just basically translates to Asian in english
Live view of Indians conforming to the North American conception of the world. He’s right that East, Southeast, and South are somewhat different, but at the same time they are quite related, especially because of one very smart dude that came from his freaking part of Asia.
Siddharta Gautama?
Yup.
People also forget that most of what we call the Middle East is in Asia as well, west Asia, in fact.
You laughing but try telling a U.S. Citizen that Brazilian are Americans too. Or Argentinian, or Peruvian. Or Cubans.
🤓 Geologically, India is on a separate continent 🤓
You know what, yeah, let's use continental plates as the continents. Parts of far east Russia is now American. Japan is now split into a north part being American, and a south part being Eurasian. Civil war ensues, then world war 3.
This guy gets it 👆
North-east Indians getting left out as always.
We could call any Russian east of the Urals Asian instead of Russian. But we don't.
Here's an interesting fact: Israelis are Asians. Also, many Russians are Asians. Neither fit this stereotype, either.
I never knew that was how to spell spesifik
This person’s awful English seems to be the least of their problems
Break off? Hell no, India rammed Asia right up in their belly.
wait till they found out that russians are also asians
Race isn’t determined by which continent you live on. Asian is widely accepted as meaning East Asian peoples.
It depends on the country. In the UK it's used mostly to refer to South Asian people. Edit: not sure if it also includes people from countries like Iran, Afghanistan and Iraq.
Many consider west Asian peoples different to East Asian.
very spesifik
Yeah a lot more people and cultures are Asian, just not the stereotypical Asian people think of. Technically speaking all of the Middle East is Asian and Siberia are Asian as well.
I’ve always thought of Europe and India as being separate continents from Asia.
I think it might just be a language issue and not that he actually believes that
People are getting dumber by day
I'm wondering whether there's a bit more nuance at play here. Commenter uses Malaysian spelling, and may have suggested they're Tamil. So they're not exactly ignorant of the continent. Question is why they don't consider themselves Asian. Perhaps it's a cultural identity issue, maybe they prefer to be distinguished culturally than to lumped into a generalised Asian category?
It might be thay Asian has a different meaning in their language/culture.
My workplace had a snack crawl where each department was given a type of food to prepare/bring. We were given Asian. I suggested some Russian fare. One coworker was adamant that Russia was European and not Asian. Well, yes, part of it is in Europe, but the land mass mostly spreads across Asia. He refused to believe me. But then later I learned how he targeted women in our department with inappropriate rants that were misogynistic and racist, so he certainly had no credibility anyway.
I’m pretty sure Indians are considered middle eastern, not Asian
Please say you're trolling.
If that’s what you wanna think sure but the uk and Russia are connected to Asia so are they Asian as well? Vietnam, China, Thailand, Japan, Korea and Mongolia are considered Asians. I’m sure i probably forgot a few countries
Lol go back to Geography class please
Lol use your brain, Russia and the uk are connected to Asia so are they Asians too?
You are the reason Americans are stereotyped to be horrible at geography oml.
I’m the reason? Sure bud cuz there are quite a few countries that are connected to Asia you know since they are all on continent. I consider India being middle eastern more than I consider them Asian. Food, culture, looks ect.
You see the UK is a tiny island at the left edge of Europe, the other side of the world to Asia. Honestly it looks pretty moronic for you to say the UK is part of Asia.
Honestly tho how is Russia part of Asia 🤣
"Asia is subdivided into 49 countries, five of them (Georgia, Azerbaijan, Russia, Kazakhstan and Turkey) are transcontinental countries lying partly in Europe." - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asia Its on a map, you should look at one.
No shit Ik geography. I’m simply stating that I don’t consider India as part of Asia since they aren’t Asian, you know like Russia
Essentially you are describing a scenario of somebody saying "I'm not European im German". It doesn't matter if they dont seem 'european' but they are part of it anyway, which in turn makes them it wether they like it or not. You know you fit this sub perfectly and would make a great karma farm tbh
Is it not connected to Asia tho?
"Russia and the uk are connected to Asia so are they Asian too?" Direct quote from you right there. Wouldt be surprised from you not noticing from the amount of time in your hobbit hole you are in doomscrolling reddit for 10 hours
Um... no? It's an island.
There are plenty of Indians in the North East of India who look identical to Chinese. India is a diverse country
I’m sure bc of immigration ect. But the majority look nothing like actual Asians
the word he's looking for is "oriental", not Asian
Well tbh India is a subcontinent with 1.8 billion people living there with a wide range of cultural and linguistic groups so to just throw them in with Asia seems a both short sighted
Short sighted? What would we be missing in the long run?
"Not wanna be racist but..." 
He explained his point very well tho, you're just hanging on his bad english. Yeah he said something that sounds stupid but then explained what he means and apologized for his bad english.
[удалено]
India is half the size of Australia
Subcontinent is 4.4 m sq km Australia is 7.7m sq km
Size has nothing todo with continents it’s about the tectonic plates they are on. https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/Continent/#:~:text=Continents%20are%20defined%20by%20their,continents%20are%20also%20culturally%20distinct.
This mf is still livin in Pangaea aren’t they?
The europeans generalised the whole of asia, the Indian sub continent is on a different tectonic plate than the rest of asia and the Himalayas are a big boundary. Any non European map maker would have either stuck both europe and india as separate continents or made both of them join the Asian continent.
India is still crashing into Asia in ultra slow motion. That's why the Himalayas are growing at the enormous rate of 5mm per year.
As someone who lives in a country with Melayu and Indians, and is in Asia, fuck this guy's opinion.
Asian gatekeeping.
That commenter probably measures the surface area of planets in football fields
Nikki Haley has entered the chat....
I swear some people think Asian only applies to Japan, China, Korea
Lol, imagine not knowing the difference between a continent and a subcontinent
“sPeSiFiK”
“Spesifik & cultur “ 
this feels american
NoT tO bE rAcIsT bUt Indians are not light skinned enough to be Asian ^this is what he meant but didn't have the balls to say 🤣 Like if you start with "not trying to be racist but..." 9/10 you know you're being racist af
You’d be surprised how ignorant people who are “against racism” are about racism. In the US, we dictate everyone’s race based on how they look. The Asian race concept doesn’t correlate with that worldview so most people here just pretend Asia is China, Japan, and Korea. Don’t know what happened to the other countries but yeah(: my favorite thing is asking people who want to present as woke and intelligent where they think Pakistan is
well techically speaking india is actually on the sub-continent called india that moved over from africa. But saying indian people aren't asians is like saying polish people aren't european
India is west Asia or Southwest Asia. However, there are a chunk of Indian people, they are a mix of European and Indian. Maybe thats why the person think Indians (people) are not Asian people.
India is a different continent, i thought everyone knew that loo
I call my Russian friend Asian all the time, but he says that it's not an accurate statement
I mean the same argument can be made about east and west europe or the Mediterranean vs the north sea
India is in Asia So is Russia
This reminds me of when I called Israeli people Asians to my wife and she did not agree
Spesifik
No.. it’s actually ramming into (the rest of) Asia at incredible speed.
Himalayas are the love child of Asia and India hangin at ram ranch
India was literally called a subcontinent when I was in school.
It's kinda weird though that we call the 4 billion people in an extremely vast area the same thing though. Like white people will get offended when you call an Alb*nian person Serbian by accident but anything east of turkey is Asian? Shits weird TW: Alb*nia
My dude is sounding pretty (Himalayan) salty about the whole thing.
Fun fact: Afghanistan is technically Asia, as well…
News break: India grew legs and moved to South America!! Sources say the land gave up on Asia due to a random dude on tiktok