Falklands

Remove all ads!

Ooooh, go 8peeps!

 

OK, but regardless of the genetic correctness or incorrectness, that's how we talk about it in the US. I'm sorry, but it's the only perspective and terminology I have to discuss my viewpoint. And regardless, I still don't see how "Japanese" can be considered a race.

(As an aside, I don't even know what a Dravidian is. Some of them are obvious, like what you call an American Aborignal we call Native American, and what you call a Polynesian we call a Pacifc Islander.)

 

Dravidian = Stemming from South India.

 

I feel the need to post this. I couldn't get the time jump to work on the boards, so just skip to 2 minutes and 9 seconds.

Enjoy

 

@TGS...

All I can say is LMFAO!!!!!!

 

Well, there IS a point behind her rabbling.

A mix between two very different races (ie. between two different umbrella groups listed by 8ppl) isn't really the easiest thing to force into one of the existing categories. My very own daugter is a mix between caucasian (me) and polynesian (my wife) and you can already tell that she doesn't really even LOOK like either.

Whether it really matters in any meaningfull situation is another matter altogether, but if specifically asked about race, she'll pretty much need to specify a mix of some sort.

 

Ooh, Aldeth, you'd get yourself into some serious trouble if you ever went to Europe and started to lump everyone in that whole continent into one race!

---------- Added 0 hours, 6 minutes and 8 seconds later... ----------

Actually, Aldeth, I do think you're digging a bigger and bigger hole for yourself the longer you go on with this. You're defining race as being "anything that looks outwardly different to you" which is a pretty 18th century Imperial way of looking at humans.

 

I guess so. I'd say most people in Europe are Caucasian - which would be the race I'd list myself as well.

Perhaps. Although it's not just me - it's the view of most of the US. It's even on our official forms. I just got out my driver's license - my race is listed there too. (Although I think in that particular case it's a bit superfulous - afterall, my PICTURE is on the license.)

Perhaps people view race in the US differently, and I think it's rooted in our history - for two obvious reasons: slavery, and the fact that we are a nation of immigrants (with the exception of the 1% native american population).

I also don't think that it is racist to state that people of different races look differently. There is a diverse population in my area - my circle of friends, neighbors and people I work with cover a pretty wide cross section of US society.

 

I think that says a lot about the way Americans view the world. That you can divide people up into "darkies", "slanty eyes", "frizzy hairs", and "average caucasians" - when there is probably more variety within the 3 billion "slanty eyes" than all the rest put together.

 

Ah... but now you are using race in a derogatory fashion. It would be insulting to call, for example, someone from Japan "slanty eyes". I do not think refering to them as an Asian American is in the same ballpark. Yes, most Asians have slanty eyes, but I love how you immediately jump to the stereotype. It's not like that's the only difference between Asians and other racial groups. They also all have dark hair and eyes, and they also tend to be (on average) shorter than people of other racial groups.

I also think people (not just you, but people in general) are hyper-sensitive to race. It's to the point that you cannot even bring race into a discussion (as evidenced here) without people thinking that you are trying to say one race is better than another. It's one thing to point out differences in people, it's another to say one is better, or that only people of a certain race can or cannot do certain things. I have never stated nor implied such.

I also think people from the US are a tad less sensitive about race simply because we are so diverse. I doubt there's anywhere near that diversity in New Zealand - but I have to admit that I don't know the demographics well enough to say what percentage of the population are the native people. (Maori I think they are called?) You probably have some people who are Pacific Islander as well, but I'd be shocked if the majority population wasn't caucasian by a wide margin (probably 75%+).

 

I think you know what he's saying though.. you're grouping and pigeon-holeing people that shouldn't be grouped or pigeon-holed, as they're all individually diverse. He was using stereotypes for emphasis, but the point is the same, whether you're being stereotypical or not.

 

It is a good thing. If the Argies attack, the budget will rise again.

PS: Did they loose a football/soccer match?

 

But they are not more diverse within the group as they are between the groups - that was my point. I still think that it's a race issue. I don't think I'd have got people's dander up nearly as much if I said "European" instead of Caucasian - or is grouping people by an accepted geographic landmass also considered pigeon-holing? Which I suppose would then make African and South American equally offensive.

I just don't get what the problem is. People who are Asian - say one group from China, one group from Korea, or one group from Vietnam - have differences in their genetic compositions, but those differences are less than any of them will have with someone who is Native American for example.

 

Aldeth, you're confirming what I have been saying all along. You genuinely think that because all "Asian" people look the same to YOU, that that makes it a valid category to lump 3b people into. Whereas someone from Korea would genuinely believe that Koreans are more different from Malaysian and Indonesian people than those people are from Indians or Arabs. There is a colossal difference between a Korean and a Vietnamese and a Filipino and a Mongolian, possibly even more than the difference between a Greek and an Afghan and a Nepalese, even though you'd insist on categorising the first lot together because they look the same to you.

And to your other comment, I live in Auckland, where the census figures say 56.5 percent identify themselves as "Europeans", 18.9 percent as "Asian", 11.1 percent as "Māori" and 14.4 percent as other "Pacific Islanders".

 

Neither do I. Aldeth didn't invent the concept of race, nor did "Americans." (Generalize much? You must be a culturalist!)

The Free Online Dictionary (we all know they are the authority on these things) says:

Interestingly, it also takes the liberty of cautioning us as follows:

Bad Aldeth!

Anyway, debate the genetic, ethnic, and social origins of Falkland Islanders all you like, but saying or implying with feigned outrage that AtFI is somehow dodgy just for bringing it up is really kind of shameful and smacks of piling on the common enemy (for the group win!). It's not like he's got a history of being a hate-monger. Relax.

 

So, what you guys are saying is that there's no (politically) correct way of roughly describing someone using even the broadest common trait categories?

Of course there's going to be HUGE individual differences within a 3b population group, but take a busload of randomly selected tourists from that group, dump them into a random city well outside their usual area of living and ask the local citizens where the group might be coming from. I'm betting on getting a majority of "oh, they're somewhere from Asia, I guess" answers rather than "there's exactly 8 Chinese, 6 Vietnamese and probably a Malaysian walking over there".

Edit: Yes, I'm aware that "comes from somewhere in Asia" is quite a different beast than being "Asian". But for the common layman, that's about as far as you're going to get. So why the need for obfuscation?

 

Sir Rechet - that's exactly my point. But if you dumped them into Shanghai, you'd get a different answer. So the broad term "Asian" only works if used in an environment that is ignorant of what "Asian" means. And vice versa, so it's not just Americans that would be guilty of this.

How would you classify someone from Egyptian descent, or Mexican? As Africans and Europeans?

 

*sigh* Harbs, I finding this frustrating, because you are completely misinterpreting my arguement. While I will agree with you that I think people of a given race share a set of visually identifiable characteristics, I'm not grouping them together because they look the same to me. I'm grouping them together because they are genetically similar. They have similar genetic markers on their chromosomes. If you think I can see these markers, then you're giving my vision way too much credit.

Ah... Now I see the problem. The term "Asian" when refering to race in the US does not mean everyone from the continent of Asia. Perhaps that's where the hangup starts. When someone from the US refers to someone as Asian they are generally refering to someone from southern and/or eastern part of the Asia continent - the Far East if you prefer that term. People from the Middle East are not called Asians in the US. Nor are people from India. Nor are people from eastern Russia or Mongolia. Nor Nepal. Nor Filipino (they are classed as Pacific Islanders).

The people who are classified as Asian are people specifically from southeastern Asia, along with China and Japan. And yes, they are genetically more similar to each other than they are to people of a different group. Or if you prefer, there is more genetic commonality within the group than outside of it.

It looks like Aukland is non-representative of New Zealand. I just looked up the demographics for New Zealand that identified it as 77% European (although to be fair, the 14% Maori was spot on).

EDIT: People from Mexico belong to a range of races. There was a slave trade going on there too. That's why they use the general term "Hispanic" or "Latino" which doesn't describe a race. Many Mexicans are a combination of caucasian, african, and native races. Egypt is easy - they are genetically caucasians - despite looking a bit different than most other caucasians, their DNA tells the story.

 

Filipinos are Pacific Islanders!? What are Indonesians then?

---------- Added 0 hours, 1 minutes and 25 seconds later... ----------

So you lump the Vietnamese with the Koreans, but the Filipinos with the Samoans? And the Egyptians with the Scottish?

 

What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object? This thread!