First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Post Reply Why is India considered culturally separated from Asia?
Posted 6/8/13

tinyd0t wrote:


magicuser360

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).



Well, Indians in India are dark as Africans in African countries, whilst I don't think Indians look like any Africans in the slightest, I still can't agree on classifying Indians as Caucasians. Putting the obvious darker skin tone aside, Indians mostly have very big wide brown eyes where as many Caucasians have different colours of eye colours and smaller eyes. Indians have much bigger noses than Caucasians, the hair of Indian descents is generally very thick and black and visible all over the body (Sorry but I have seen some pretty hairy Indian ladies), whilst Caucasians have relatively fine hair even if it's dark, and has much less body hair on both men and women.


Indians range in skin colour.

Some are dark, others are brown, and others (especially up North) are very fair skinned/white, so it is not fair of you to say they are ALL dark as Africans (and Africans themselves have a range of skin colours). Many Indians do have dark hair and brown eyes, but they also have varying hair colours up to red and light brown, and eye colours other than brown/black. You see this most often in North Indians, though you can find some in any region of India. My Indian friend for example has natural red-brown hair and green eyes and her skin colour is white. Her whole family is like that.

Like whites, Indians have a range of nose shapes, and hairyness, though I will agree on the fact that Indians tend to have more hair than whites usually (though again, this varies). Look at how hairy Italians or Greeks are - even Russians are known for being more hairy. And what about the French? They are usually hairer.

Again, Caucasian (as any other race) is based up not skin colour, hair colour, or eye colour - but upon facial features (bone structure) for example.

Where I live, you have a lot of Indians. The brown ones are mistaken for Greek/Italian, and the white ones are mistaken always for being well, white/European. The dark ones are never mistaken for Black or any other race.

Even if Blacks have light skin, they cannot be mistaken for white because of their features. And Asians with their (usually) fairer/yellow undertone skin are never mistaken for white because of their features.

Look up Nikki Hayley, governor of the American state of South Carolina. She is fully Indian, but she is always mistaken for white. It is easy to see her Caucasian features because of her skin colour.

I'm not trying to argue with you or anything, so do not get me wrong.
9325 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 6/8/13

magicuser360

Even if Blacks have light skin, they cannot be mistaken for white because of their features. And Asians with their (usually) fairer/yellow undertone skin are never mistaken for white because of their features.

Look up Nikki Hayley, governor of the American state of South Carolina. She is fully Indian, but she is always mistaken for white. It is easy to see her Caucasian features because of her skin colour.

I'm not trying to argue with you or anything, so do not get me wrong.


No no of course not we're just having a discussion. But some North Africans have very defined facial structures like Caucasians but they are still classed as Africans because of where they are geographically located. Indians are count as South Asians, I don't know where you live in the States (Sorry if I presumed wrong), but in the UK there are a very big population of Indians and Pakistanis and many of them have lived here for 3 generations, and no one include themselves would count them as Caucasians, and no one has ever mistaken them as one. British Indians/Pakistanis do have lighter skin than those who actually live in Asia, but the lighter looking Indians you're speaking of are the "royal" blood Indians who have mixed with English in the past, and I'm afraid that's only a very very small amount of them who has light colour eyes and light colour hair. If we're generalising the population as a whole, which is 1.2 billion Indian people we're talking about, they are not Caucasian, they're Asian.
Posted 6/8/13
There are plenty of cross-pollinations in cultural facets concerning Asia and India (while considering India still an Asian country).

You see Buddhism in India as well as some forms of martial arts practiced. You'd see Hinduism in all other parts of Asia and the world. You see Christianity in India, especially with Mother Teresa's efforts there. Indian restaurants are commonplace throughout the nations of the world. So it seems, we are all influenced by all cultures to some degree, conscientiously or not.
Posted 6/8/13

tinyd0t wrote:


magicuser360

Even if Blacks have light skin, they cannot be mistaken for white because of their features. And Asians with their (usually) fairer/yellow undertone skin are never mistaken for white because of their features.

Look up Nikki Hayley, governor of the American state of South Carolina. She is fully Indian, but she is always mistaken for white. It is easy to see her Caucasian features because of her skin colour.

I'm not trying to argue with you or anything, so do not get me wrong.


No no of course not we're just having a discussion. But some North Africans have very defined facial structures like Caucasians but they are still classed as Africans because of where they are geographically located. Indians are count as South Asians, I don't know where you live in the States (Sorry if I presumed wrong), but in the UK there are a very big population of Indians and Pakistanis and many of them have lived here for 3 generations, and no one include themselves would count them as Caucasians, and no one has ever mistaken them as one. British Indians/Pakistanis do have lighter skin than those who actually live in Asia, but the lighter looking Indians you're speaking of are the "royal" blood Indians who have mixed with English in the past, and I'm afraid that's only a very very small amount of them who has light colour eyes and light colour hair. If we're generalising the population as a whole, which is 1.2 billion Indian people we're talking about, they are not Caucasian, they're Asian.


I am sorry, I just do not agree.

North Africans are mixed with Caucasian and Black; their nationality is African, their race would be mixed (usually).

Take a look at Ethiopians. When the Brits took Indians/Arabs there to work, they intermarried with the Blacks - now look over time how the features changed, and how they differ from the "regular" Black features. Same with the Somalis etc.

I actually live in the UK as well. (Couldn't you tell I was European by the way I spelled colour :P). Where I live, a lot of lighter skinned Indians reside, and many times they are mistaken for whites or Persian even. Some are mistaken for Italian or Greek (and vice versa!)

The Indians in Asia also can have very fair skin. Look at all the Bollywood movie stars for instance. Most of the fair Indians in India are North Indian, but like I said - you can find some all over India.

India is an extremely ancient country. Even in their ancient history far before British influence, there were many very fair skinned Indians. They were most certainly not mixed with British until later.

And speaking of mixing - notice when an Indian marries a white person, their children's facial features stay the same - the main variation sometimes will be colour of skin. But their features - their Caucasian features do not change. If an Asian, or a Black person married a white, their kids would look mixed, with features from both races.

(I myself am mixed - Korean + white and I look mixed).

Indians are most certainly not Asian - Their nationality IS Asian; their race is Caucasian. What Asians have non-black/brown hair or non-dark/black eyes?
Banned
1789 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22
Offline
Posted 6/9/13
They're asains because they're from asia, and every country in asia has thier own culture. As far as behind "diversified" a lot of countries in asia are not, because they don't have many people from other countries with different cultures living there. I'm not even sure what you're even asking. As far as religion, India has a lot of them, as far as culture that's just how it is in that whole region. It's part of history.
Banned
1789 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22
Offline
Posted 6/9/13

magicuser360 wrote:


tinyd0t wrote:


magicuser360

Even if Blacks have light skin, they cannot be mistaken for white because of their features. And Asians with their (usually) fairer/yellow undertone skin are never mistaken for white because of their features.

Look up Nikki Hayley, governor of the American state of South Carolina. She is fully Indian, but she is always mistaken for white. It is easy to see her Caucasian features because of her skin colour.

I'm not trying to argue with you or anything, so do not get me wrong.


No no of course not we're just having a discussion. But some North Africans have very defined facial structures like Caucasians but they are still classed as Africans because of where they are geographically located. Indians are count as South Asians, I don't know where you live in the States (Sorry if I presumed wrong), but in the UK there are a very big population of Indians and Pakistanis and many of them have lived here for 3 generations, and no one include themselves would count them as Caucasians, and no one has ever mistaken them as one. British Indians/Pakistanis do have lighter skin than those who actually live in Asia, but the lighter looking Indians you're speaking of are the "royal" blood Indians who have mixed with English in the past, and I'm afraid that's only a very very small amount of them who has light colour eyes and light colour hair. If we're generalising the population as a whole, which is 1.2 billion Indian people we're talking about, they are not Caucasian, they're Asian.


I am sorry, I just do not agree.

North Africans are mixed with Caucasian and Black; their nationality is African, their race would be mixed (usually).

Take a look at Ethiopians. When the Brits took Indians/Arabs there to work, they intermarried with the Blacks - now look over time how the features changed, and how they differ from the "regular" Black features. Same with the Somalis etc.

I actually live in the UK as well. (Couldn't you tell I was European by the way I spelled colour :P). Where I live, a lot of lighter skinned Indians reside, and many times they are mistaken for whites or Persian even. Some are mistaken for Italian or Greek (and vice versa!)

The Indians in Asia also can have very fair skin. Look at all the Bollywood movie stars for instance. Most of the fair Indians in India are North Indian, but like I said - you can find some all over India.

India is an extremely ancient country. Even in their ancient history far before British influence, there were many very fair skinned Indians. They were most certainly not mixed with British until later.

And speaking of mixing - notice when an Indian marries a white person, their children's facial features stay the same - the main variation sometimes will be colour of skin. But their features - their Caucasian features do not change. If an Asian, or a Black person married a white, their kids would look mixed, with features from both races.

(I myself am mixed - Korean + white and I look mixed).

Indians are most certainly not Asian - Their nationality IS Asian; their race is Caucasian. What Asians have non-black/brown hair or non-dark/black eyes?


I think we're just a mixture really. They're SO many different looks and feautures , tho pakis have a very prominent nose....
But for the record my race (bengalis) are half porteguse and half Persian waaaaaay back.
If you are going by bone structure then maybe yes we are closer to Caucasians than anything else, but we are still asain. Just think the look for "asains" needs an upgrade in definition because asia's got so many different looks than Chinese-ish...
Posted 6/9/13

VeniVidiVici- wrote:


magicuser360 wrote:


tinyd0t wrote:


magicuser360

Even if Blacks have light skin, they cannot be mistaken for white because of their features. And Asians with their (usually) fairer/yellow undertone skin are never mistaken for white because of their features.

Look up Nikki Hayley, governor of the American state of South Carolina. She is fully Indian, but she is always mistaken for white. It is easy to see her Caucasian features because of her skin colour.

I'm not trying to argue with you or anything, so do not get me wrong.


No no of course not we're just having a discussion. But some North Africans have very defined facial structures like Caucasians but they are still classed as Africans because of where they are geographically located. Indians are count as South Asians, I don't know where you live in the States (Sorry if I presumed wrong), but in the UK there are a very big population of Indians and Pakistanis and many of them have lived here for 3 generations, and no one include themselves would count them as Caucasians, and no one has ever mistaken them as one. British Indians/Pakistanis do have lighter skin than those who actually live in Asia, but the lighter looking Indians you're speaking of are the "royal" blood Indians who have mixed with English in the past, and I'm afraid that's only a very very small amount of them who has light colour eyes and light colour hair. If we're generalising the population as a whole, which is 1.2 billion Indian people we're talking about, they are not Caucasian, they're Asian.


I am sorry, I just do not agree.

North Africans are mixed with Caucasian and Black; their nationality is African, their race would be mixed (usually).

Take a look at Ethiopians. When the Brits took Indians/Arabs there to work, they intermarried with the Blacks - now look over time how the features changed, and how they differ from the "regular" Black features. Same with the Somalis etc.

I actually live in the UK as well. (Couldn't you tell I was European by the way I spelled colour :P). Where I live, a lot of lighter skinned Indians reside, and many times they are mistaken for whites or Persian even. Some are mistaken for Italian or Greek (and vice versa!)

The Indians in Asia also can have very fair skin. Look at all the Bollywood movie stars for instance. Most of the fair Indians in India are North Indian, but like I said - you can find some all over India.

India is an extremely ancient country. Even in their ancient history far before British influence, there were many very fair skinned Indians. They were most certainly not mixed with British until later.

And speaking of mixing - notice when an Indian marries a white person, their children's facial features stay the same - the main variation sometimes will be colour of skin. But their features - their Caucasian features do not change. If an Asian, or a Black person married a white, their kids would look mixed, with features from both races.

(I myself am mixed - Korean + white and I look mixed).

Indians are most certainly not Asian - Their nationality IS Asian; their race is Caucasian. What Asians have non-black/brown hair or non-dark/black eyes?


I think we're just a mixture really. They're SO many different looks and feautures , tho pakis have a very prominent nose....
But for the record my race (bengalis) are half porteguse and half Persian waaaaaay back.
If you are going by bone structure then maybe yes we are closer to Caucasians than anything else, but we are still asain. Just think the look for "asains" needs an upgrade in definition because asia's got so many different looks than Chinese-ish...


Again, it depends. Pakistantis may more often than not have more prominent noses, but then so do Greeks and Italians as well. But they're still part of the same racial group. Persians and the Portuguese are also Caucasian.

Personally, I don't agree with you on the Asian stance, but thanks for the reply anyway.
jree78 
57808 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Houston, TX
Online
Posted 6/9/13 , edited 6/9/13
India is multiracial there are different peoples in India.
South Indians are more dark skinned but they don't look African.
Islanders from the Nicobar Islands look African.
North Indians are much more light skin and Caucasian featured, because thousands of years ago a group called aryans from northern Persia invaded north India and decided to stay a related group went to Europe. The caste systems reinforced that by making lighter skinned Indians not marry darker skinned Indians.
That's why we have Indo-European languages because north Indian languages and a lot of European languages are connected.
Northeast India have certain peoples who have more east Asian facial features but they are still Indian.
There are just a lot of different people in India.
Why aren't Indians included in the idea of "Asians?" I don't care really.
66553 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
53 / M / Northeast Ohio, USA
Offline
Posted 6/13/13

FlyinDumpling wrote: We all know people from India are Asians, but why are they not recognized as being fully culturally diversified with the rest of Asia? Even though we know Indians are Asians and one of the major religions in Asia (Buddhism) comes from India, it seems like Indians are put in their own little special group. Don't pretend that you don't see this.

For the US, that's fairly easy: because the largest groups of Asian immigrants into the US West during the 1800's and earlier 1900's were Japanese and Chinese, so "Asian" most often means East Asian when used in the US without any special qualifiers.

Meanwhile in the UK, which once upon the time was the imperial center of the Raj, there are a far larger share of Indian and Pakistani immigrants, and "Asian" more often means South Asian.

From my decade in Australia, in Australia, "Asian" often meant Southeast Asian, especially in West Sydney.

So just habits of thought based on immigrant populations in place long enough to be taken for granted as the "normal" case.



19119 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/22/13
I am from india I consider myself asian lol and plus north indians are ayran not oriental since we have different colored eyes and light skin and some even have blonde hair where my village is.
19119 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/23/13

jree78 wrote:

India is multiracial there are different peoples in India.
South Indians are more dark skinned but they don't look African.
Islanders from the Nicobar Islands look African.
North Indians are much more light skin and Caucasian featured, because thousands of years ago a group called aryans from northern Persia invaded north India and decided to stay a related group went to Europe. The caste systems reinforced that by making lighter skinned Indians not marry darker skinned Indians.
That's why we have Indo-European languages because north Indian languages and a lot of European languages are connected.
Northeast India have certain peoples who have more east Asian facial features but they are still Indian.
There are just a lot of different people in India.
Why aren't Indians included in the idea of "Asians?" I don't care really.


also the greeks mixed with north indians as well because of alexander greats invasion.
13133 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
42 / M / Florida
Offline
Posted 12/6/13
One of the reasons is -of course- race & the other is geography: India is a sub-continent.
Posted 12/6/13 , edited 12/6/13

jree78 wrote:


Islanders from the Nsicobar Island look African..


Wow, I looked that up on Google and saw a guy that looks like Soulja boy



The one in the middle, doesn't he?
2401 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F
Offline
Posted 12/8/13
Actually culture-socially, it's japanese that are separated from the rest of asia (learnt this in some sociology course,.. i was quite surprised).

So i don't think that it's culturally separated, but, i think it's easy to forget that they're part of asia. Apart from UK, southeast asians is the main representation of 'asia'. and when you think 'asia' it's mainly south-east asia/asians that come to mind, and this thought is so dominating, it's just easy to forget that not asians have black hair and yellow/light/olive skin.
15466 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
45 / M / Once more on my m...
Online
Posted 12/8/13
One other thing to keep in mind as a possible cause of this "division" of India from the rest of Asia, is history. The predominant viewpoint that seems to be expressed here is western cultural traditions, so with that in mind consider when western culture was rebuilding itself after the dark ages they turned to much of the Greek and Roman histories...and Alexander the Great had conquered part of India. So India was in the histories they had, they knew it was there, and some of the few scholars of the dark ages knew of it too.

That's not to say that no one in Alexander's day knew nothing of the far east, they may have been good solid trading partners, but it is believed much of the records of Alexander's domain went up in smoke when either some pesky Italian guy named Julius Caesar, a self important Bulgarian named Aurelian, or another guy named Omar who had a problem with all books except one came to town.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.