First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Post Reply Why is India considered culturally separated from Asia?
566 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Somewhere
Offline
Posted 3/31/13
I've always thought Indians were Asians. They're just a different type of Asian, and I don't mean it in a bad way. If you try and look at the whole of Asia with a different perspective, you'll find yourself looking through a kaleidoscope of different peoples and cultures squeezed together to from Asia. I think the difference comes from the fact each culture differs depending on its region and geography. If you are an Asian from the Northeastern part, you'll probably share your identity mostly with the Chinese people, whom have influenced the Korean and Japanese culture, because they are so much closer to each other. If you are Indian, then you probably share your identity more with the middle-eastern countries, such as Pakistan which is to the northwest of the Indian continent, and Nepal, which is southwest from China. Indians are probably somewhat influenced by the Chinese, but because they are in between Nepal, (which include the largest mountains in the world, making communication and travel to and from China difficult,) the Indians probably relate more to the Northwest. Going further into the Northwest, the ethnicity and culture of Asia becomes more distinct, considering the fact these people are literally in the middle, so their culture can be defined by both the East and West. Going to the Southeast, which consist of Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia, Indonesia and Malaysia, the people there basically share every single Asian culture along with their own, due to its easy access sea wise, its importance as a trade region, and the fact people can access it either through Bangladesh, or China. The Philippines also share their culture with southeast Asia, but because of the influence of the Spaniards, they have become one of the very few Asian countries that host such a large Christian database, and their names also share Spanish influence.

So, basically saying........Indians are Asian. But like every single Asian in Asia, they are different, and different is not a bad thing. It's like the Europeans....you got the Brits, the Scots, the Spaniards, the French, etc., yet even though they are all Europeans, they have different customs and cultures. I think, the countries that have made the most influence within Asia are probably the Chinese and the Indians, just because their countries are so huge, and their populations exceed a billion people. As you can see from the Southeast, you have people who can look more Northeastern, or look more Indian/Middle-eastern.
24352 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F / New Zealand
Offline
Posted 4/1/13
To be honest, I think it's because they're brown. They don't look "Asian".
4961 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Earth
Offline
Posted 4/1/13

schnipdip wrote:

Well acutally there are more many religions in Asia. Bud, Confus, and some others. Hinduism is primarily India. When you compare and Asian and an Indian, you would never think they are both from asia just based upon looks. Indians look more like Africans. So there is a racial stereotype, where when we think of Asians we think of Koreans, Chinese, Japanese. The most common feature that people point to equate those countries as asians is that they have the same look for the most part. usually black hair, light tan, metro style dressing, etc. Indians have their own system of dressing and looks. Just a quick thought.


^This.
15505 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 4/1/13
There is the cultural aspect and also a geological aspect, it is a subcontinent because its tectonic plate is moving in an entirely different direction creating the Himalayan Mountains. That is a simplification of the geological situation for discussion. Before the British Raj (rule) it was made up a many smaller countries, now it is just the three large sized on the tectonic plate.



@ heyitsthatguy - We are not fat, we are big boned That and we produce a large amount of food.
4435 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M / ICQ: 114629959
Offline
Posted 4/1/13
Every cultural system that is large enough to be closed in itselfs usually has enough unique traits to be distinguished against other cultural systems.
Posted 4/1/13 , edited 4/1/13

schnipdip wrote:

Well acutally there are more many religions in Asia. Bud, Confus, and some others. Hinduism is primarily India. When you compare and Asian and an Indian, you would never think they are both from asia just based upon looks. Indians look more like Africans. So there is a racial stereotype, where when we think of Asians we think of Koreans, Chinese, Japanese. The most common feature that people point to equate those countries as asians is that they have the same look for the most part. usually black hair, light tan, metro style dressing, etc. Indians have their own system of dressing and looks. Just a quick thought.


I have never in my life thought Indians look like Africans. Indians are Caucasian. They might not always have light skin, but it is their features that set them apart from Asians and Africans (unless they are mixed-race). They have Caucasian features/bone structure, straight hair (non-typical-Black hair), non-typical Asian eyes which are so distinctive).

I'm not Indian myself (I'm half Korean, half white), but where I live there is a big Indian population, and they are NEVER mistaken for Black. The light skinned ones are more often than not mistaken for European or Persian or something. And even the tan/brown/dark ones are easily distinguishable from Black. And they are not the slightest bit Asian-featured at all.

Here's a picture of a full blooded but light skinned-Indian. (So you can see the features).



That's Nikki Hayley, the governor of South Carolina. She's fully Indian, but married a white guy so the last name is non-Indian. Her full Indian name is Nimrata Nikki Randhawa. Does she look the slightest bit Black or Asian to you?

What about the author, Salman Rushdie? Fully Indian again, but would you believe it on seeing his picture?



Even if they are mixed with white, the only difference you'll probably see is skin colour. The facial features will remain the same. Take a look at the mixed singer Norah Jones. She's half Indian, half Brit.

If a Black or Asian person mixed with white, you'd see big differences in facial features (both)/hair (Blacks), etc.


5 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 4/1/13
Seriously, does it really matter? Once someone starts playing the race game, they automatically want to feel superior.
19712 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/1/13

magicuser360 wrote:


schnipdip wrote:

Well acutally there are more many religions in Asia. Bud, Confus, and some others. Hinduism is primarily India. When you compare and Asian and an Indian, you would never think they are both from asia just based upon looks. Indians look more like Africans. So there is a racial stereotype, where when we think of Asians we think of Koreans, Chinese, Japanese. The most common feature that people point to equate those countries as asians is that they have the same look for the most part. usually black hair, light tan, metro style dressing, etc. Indians have their own system of dressing and looks. Just a quick thought.


I have never in my life thought Indians look like Africans. Indians are Caucasian. They might not always have light skin, but it is their features that set them apart from Asians and Africans (unless they are mixed-race). They have Caucasian features/bone structure, straight hair (non-typical-Black hair), non-typical Asian eyes which are so distinctive).

I'm not Indian myself, but where I live there is a big Indian population, and they are NEVER mistaken for Black. The light skinned ones are more often than not mistaken for European or Persian or something. And even the tan/brown/dark ones are easily distinguishable from Black. And they are not the slightest bit Asian-featured at all.

Here's a picture of a full blooded but light skinned-Indian. (So you can see the features).



That's Nikki Hayley, the governor of South Carolina. She's fully Indian, but married a white guy so the last name is non-Indian. Her full Indian name is Nimrata Nikki Randhawa. Does she look the slightest bit Black or Asian to you?




You gave one picture of a person who is most likely a mix between indian and caucassian. I deal with indians every single day. I know how they look and they aren't by any means caucasian. Plus that picture was taken with a flash in a darker environment, so the skin tone will be lighter.
Posted 4/1/13 , edited 4/1/13

schnipdip wrote:


magicuser360 wrote:


schnipdip wrote:

Well acutally there are more many religions in Asia. Bud, Confus, and some others. Hinduism is primarily India. When you compare and Asian and an Indian, you would never think they are both from asia just based upon looks. Indians look more like Africans. So there is a racial stereotype, where when we think of Asians we think of Koreans, Chinese, Japanese. The most common feature that people point to equate those countries as asians is that they have the same look for the most part. usually black hair, light tan, metro style dressing, etc. Indians have their own system of dressing and looks. Just a quick thought.


I have never in my life thought Indians look like Africans. Indians are Caucasian. They might not always have light skin, but it is their features that set them apart from Asians and Africans (unless they are mixed-race). They have Caucasian features/bone structure, straight hair (non-typical-Black hair), non-typical Asian eyes which are so distinctive).

I'm not Indian myself, but where I live there is a big Indian population, and they are NEVER mistaken for Black. The light skinned ones are more often than not mistaken for European or Persian or something. And even the tan/brown/dark ones are easily distinguishable from Black. And they are not the slightest bit Asian-featured at all.

Here's a picture of a full blooded but light skinned-Indian. (So you can see the features).



That's Nikki Hayley, the governor of South Carolina. She's fully Indian, but married a white guy so the last name is non-Indian. Her full Indian name is Nimrata Nikki Randhawa. Does she look the slightest bit Black or Asian to you?




You gave one picture of a person who is most likely a mix between indian and caucassian. I deal with indians every single day. I know how they look and they aren't by any means caucasian. Plus that picture was taken with a flash in a darker environment, so the skin tone will be lighter.


I suggest you actually look that person up before speaking. And yes, while most Indians are brown/darker, their features set them apart. You're either biased or just stupid.I suggest you actually look that person up before speaking. Come on now, I even have a friend who is 100% Indian. She's one of the light skinned ones and constantly mistaken for Persian and even white.
Posted 4/1/13 , edited 4/1/13


The problem with you, is that you are only seeing skin colour.

That is all. You are not seeing facial features, eye shape, hair texture,bone structure, etc.

Like I said, where I live there is a BIG Indian population. And like I also said, they are NEVER mistaken for Black by ANYONE (other than you).

A lot of immigrants fresh from India live where I live and they come in all skin colours - they are never even thought of as Black (African). Or even Asian featured at all. Even the super light ones are never mistaken for Asian.

Like I said, you're mistaking skin colour as the defining trait of race.
19712 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/1/13

magicuser360 wrote:



The problem with you, is that you are only seeing skin colour.

That is all. You are not seeing facial features, eye shape, hair texture,bone structure, etc.

Like I said, where I live there is a BIG Indian population. And like I also said, they are NEVER mistaken for Black by ANYONE (other than you).

A lot of immigrants fresh from India live where I live and they come in all skin colours - they are never even thought of as Black (African). Or even Asian featured at all. Even the super light ones are never mistaken for Asian.

Like I said, you're mistaking skin colour as the defining trait of race.



Well it doesn't matter what their face looks like. If they have a trunk on the front of their head does that make them an elephant?
Posted 4/1/13

schnipdip wrote:

When you compare and Asian and an Indian, you would never think they are both from asia just based upon looks.



schnipdip wrote:

Well it doesn't matter what their face looks like. If they have a trunk on the front of their head does that make them an elephant?


Contradiction much?
19712 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/1/13

magicuser360 wrote:


schnipdip wrote:


magicuser360 wrote:



The problem with you, is that you are only seeing skin colour.

That is all. You are not seeing facial features, eye shape, hair texture,bone structure, etc.

Like I said, where I live there is a BIG Indian population. And like I also said, they are NEVER mistaken for Black by ANYONE (other than you).

A lot of immigrants fresh from India live where I live and they come in all skin colours - they are never even thought of as Black (African). Or even Asian featured at all. Even the super light ones are never mistaken for Asian.

Like I said, you're mistaking skin colour as the defining trait of race.


Well it doesn't matter what their face looks like. If they have a trunk on the front of their head does that make them an elephant?


"...Well it doesn't matter what their face looks like..."

Yup. Knew I was dealing with an imbecile from the start.


I never mentioned anything about their facial features. You assumed that I did.
Posted 4/1/13

schnipdip wrote:


magicuser360 wrote:


schnipdip wrote:


magicuser360 wrote:



The problem with you, is that you are only seeing skin colour.

That is all. You are not seeing facial features, eye shape, hair texture,bone structure, etc.

Like I said, where I live there is a BIG Indian population. And like I also said, they are NEVER mistaken for Black by ANYONE (other than you).

A lot of immigrants fresh from India live where I live and they come in all skin colours - they are never even thought of as Black (African). Or even Asian featured at all. Even the super light ones are never mistaken for Asian.

Like I said, you're mistaking skin colour as the defining trait of race.


Well it doesn't matter what their face looks like. If they have a trunk on the front of their head does that make them an elephant?


"...Well it doesn't matter what their face looks like..."

Yup. Knew I was dealing with an imbecile from the start.


I never mentioned anything about their facial features. You assumed that I did.


Actually, you mentioned it quite a lot. Even the other user had to correct you. Nice picture though.
Posted 5/6/13
When did this happened? cuz of the diamond on their forehead?
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.