First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Did you know that Oriental people are not count as Asians in Britain?
9325 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 6/10/13

TheRealEscargotpudding wrote:


tinyd0t wrote:


Your analogy make sense, but what doesn't make sense (and slightly racist) is that they sometimes categorise other East Asians under "Chinese". And people would give me odd looks when I say that I'm Asian, because the general concept of an Asian person in Britain is Indian/Pakistani/Bangledeshi.



Is this true, llax?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Asian
Posted 6/10/13
Fuck the British, I'm Asian whether they like it or not.

I always get confused as to what I put myself as on those things though.
20466 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Eagan, MN
Offline
Posted 6/10/13
Oh no! I are not counted as Asian in Britain?!
64447 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / US
Offline
Posted 6/10/13
You realize that England colonized India, parts of Pakistan, the Caribbean, North America and parts of Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Hong Kong, and a few others, right? England had at one time one of the largest empires in all of human history. It is no surprise that they have lengthy forms for such things.
tinnic 
58870 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Brisbane, Australia
Offline
Posted 6/10/13 , edited 6/10/13
*facepalm* The level of ignorance in this thread is mind boggling. Haven't you guys ever heard of "Malaysian Chinese" or "Indonesian Chinese"? Chinese is an ethnicity that is often especially distinguished. The British government is simply doing the same.

Also, yes, it is true that in Britain "Asian" usually conjures up "South Asian" as opposed to "East Asian" or "South East Asian". This is merely due to immigration patterns. Nothing more.


GayAsianBoy wrote:

"East African Asian"



Somebody shoot me now, or better yet shoot the organisation responsible for this mess.


O for the love of... They mean Indians and other Asian whose ancestors moved to East Africa but who are still ethnically Indian! Such as Indians from the Mauritius or Indians from Kenya. It's a perfectly sensible designation! The British Empire was HUGE in its day and people moved around it a lot! I mean come on!


peaka10 wrote:

i find them forms to be strange no matter where you're from.

an actual tick box at my college

are you from:

English,welsh,scottish, island and british. (this is how its spelt on the list)

o-o so if i tick this box will also be welsh and scottish;when did Britain become it's own country.


British applies to British citizen not born in Britain. For example, I have a colleague who is "British" but he was born in Zimbabwe. He's white and his family were from Britain. So he has British citizenship from birth because of his parents. But he does not consider himself English, Welsh, or Scotish but Zimbabwean British.


tinyd0t wrote:

Yes, as well as people from Central Asia such as Kazakhstan and Tajikistan. I mean would they class themselves under White, Asian, or Chinese under this limited option? Since Kazakh people are Eurasian, they tend to have the Oriental eyes with Western facial structures. I went to uni with a Turkish girl and she put herself down as white (as the term Arabic or Middle-eastern were not available), she said she didn't feel close to Asian enough to classed herself as one (though IMO majority of Turkish people are probably culturally and ethnically more close to Middle-East Asia, therefore, Asian would be the most appropriate answer between these narrow choices for her). But I do agree these lists are too outdated and Asia is way to big to have just one Asian race, at least they should make an attempt to separate East Asian, SE Asian, South Asian, Middle-East Asian and Central Asians.


... you cannot... seriously? *sigh* Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and not to mention Turkey is literally, LITERALLY part of Caucasus! Making them Caucasian! As in WHITE! The form collection information on ETHNICITY. Ethnically, a person from Turkey is Caucasian! That is how they are classified and they have been classified that way for thousands and thousands of years. Since Caucasian is a very, very old ethnic designation.


tinyd0t wrote:


tigerwolf29

But what if they're brown? :/


It is really weird because Portuguese people never say that they're white, and yet they are classed as "white" because they're European. And some Eastern Europeans such as Slovakians and Romanians are really dark (and often get mistaken as South Asians), they would still class as white purely because their countries are located in Europe.


*facepalm* I worry about the state of education. *sigh* Portuguese people are not white because they are not from the region called the Caucasus and neither are Eastern Europeans "white". Some of them are Slavic people, others are Romanie etc, etc. This is ethnicity not the stupid concept of race that has no basis beyond "that person has pale skin, they must be white!". Ethnicity is derived from history and culture. Historically and culturally, both Portuguese people and the Eastern Europeans are NOT the same as Caucasusian people and therefore they are not "white" regardless of their look.


tinyd0t wrote:


peaka10 wrote:


that's the point

why go through all the country names just to say British.

by saying all the names singularly you are giving the impression that it is its own place.



And then you'll find the odd person to say that Scottish, Cornish, Irish, Welsh and Manx should be classed under Celts, and English people are Anglo-Saxons. lol


I am just going to assume you are joking and you don't actually need me to explain why that is a perfectly valid request.


I hope this answer at least some of the question for those who bother to read down to this far. Please let me know if I can explain any other part of a perfectly sensible form that is a reflection of the history of Great Britain! *sigh*
Posted 6/10/13

tinnic wrote:

*facepalm* The level of ignorance in this thread is mind boggling. Haven't you guys ever heard of "Malaysian Chinese" or "Indonesian Chinese"? Chinese is an ethnicity that is often especially distinguished. The British government is simply doing the same.


GayAsianBoy wrote:

"East African Asian"



Somebody shoot me now, or better yet shoot the organisation responsible for this mess.


O for the love of... They mean Indians and other Asian whose ancestors moved to East Africa but who are still ethnically Indian! Such as Indians from the Mauritius or Indians from Kenya. It's a perfectly sensible designation! The British Empire was HUGE in its day and people moved around it a lot! I mean come on!



When you put it that way, it does make sense.
9325 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 6/10/13

tinnic

... you cannot... seriously? *sigh* Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and not to mention Turkey is literally, LITERALLY part of Caucasus! Making them Caucasian! As in WHITE! The form collection information on ETHNICITY. Ethnically, a person from Turkey is Caucasian! That is how they are classified and they have been classified that way for thousands and thousands of years. Since Caucasian is a very, very old ethnic designation.

*facepalm* I worry about the state of education. *sigh* Portuguese people are not white because they are not from the region called the Caucasus and neither are Eastern Europeans "white". Some of them are Slavic people, others are Romanie etc, etc. This is ethnicity not the stupid concept of race that has no basis beyond "that person has pale skin, they must be white!". Ethnicity is derived from history and culture. Historically and culturally, both Portuguese people and the Eastern Europeans are NOT the same as Caucasusian people and therefore they are not "white" regardless of their look.


You actually need to calm down, you know the funny thing is that you class Turkish people as white but not Portuguese and Portugal is actually in Europe. I'm afraid Turkish people, at least the majority of them are not white, 95% of their land is in the Middle-East and they have the skin and facial features like other Middle-Easterners, therefore, they are Middle-East Asians. Unless you're going to convince me that the everyone in the Middle-East should be classed as white aswell.....

And is there something inaccurate about my explanation about Irish, Scottish, Welsh, Manx and Cornish being the descendants of Celts, and English people are the descendants of Anglo-Saxons, Romans and Scandinavians? Please correct me if my information is incorrect, because I can go back to my school and tell my teacher that she is wrong, which no one gets to do it so often.
tinnic 
58870 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Brisbane, Australia
Offline
Posted 6/10/13 , edited 6/10/13

tinyd0t wrote:


tinnic

... you cannot... seriously? *sigh* Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and not to mention Turkey is literally, LITERALLY part of Caucasus! Making them Caucasian! As in WHITE! The form collection information on ETHNICITY. Ethnically, a person from Turkey is Caucasian! That is how they are classified and they have been classified that way for thousands and thousands of years. Since Caucasian is a very, very old ethnic designation.

*facepalm* I worry about the state of education. *sigh* Portuguese people are not white because they are not from the region called the Caucasus and neither are Eastern Europeans "white". Some of them are Slavic people, others are Romanie etc, etc. This is ethnicity not the stupid concept of race that has no basis beyond "that person has pale skin, they must be white!". Ethnicity is derived from history and culture. Historically and culturally, both Portuguese people and the Eastern Europeans are NOT the same as Caucasusian people and therefore they are not "white" regardless of their look.


You actually need to calm down, you know the funny thing is that you class Turkish people as white but not Portuguese and Portugal is actually in Europe. I'm afraid Turkish people, at least the majority of them are not white, 95% of their land is in the Middle-East and they have the skin and facial features like other Middle-Easterners, therefore, they are Middle-East Asians. Unless you're going to convince me that the everyone in the Middle-East should be classed as white aswell.....


*sigh* Let's start from the top. You are getting ethnicity, race which is defined rather shallowly on appearance only and geography mixed-up. Europe is a geographic location, as is Asia, Africa etc but your geography is only part of your ethnicity and the part is related to where you originated, how much your people inter-mixed with the new region you moved into etc.

The definition of "White" as a race that is based entirely on appearance is a very shallow definition of ethnicity that does not capture the nuances of culture, heritage and other complex things that go into ethnicity. However, Middle Easter people are, I repeat, ARE classified as white for census and by anthropologists. So yes, Middle Easter people are in fact white! Why is this? Well its because of where they originated. They originated in the Caucasus region and therefore they are Caucasian.

However, within the geographic region called the Middle East, Caucasians aren't the only ethnicity. But those who call themselves "Arabs" generally do identify as Caucasians. NOT, I repeat, not Europeans but Caucasians! Two different things. In conclusion, not all Europeans are Caucasians, and not all Caucasians are Europeans. But Caucasians do get classified as "white" under various census including the UK and the US.


tinyd0t wrote:
And is there something inaccurate about my explanation about Irish, Scottish, Welsh, Manx and Cornish being the descendants of Celts, and English people are the descendants of Anglo-Saxons, Romans and Scandinavians? Please correct me if my information is incorrect, because I can go back to my school and tell my teacher that she is wrong, which no one gets to do it so often.


You are correct, however, I did not gather that you understood this from your comment. I was thrown off by the "lol", my apologies.



tinyd0t wrote:


dark_paradox_21 wrote:

You realize that England colonized India, parts of Pakistan, the Caribbean, North America and parts of Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Hong Kong, and a few others, right? England had at one time one of the largest empires in all of human history. It is no surprise that they have lengthy forms for such things.


As a British citizen I'm pretty aware of the fact that the British empire was the biggest empire in human history, and this is exactly why I'm disappointed in the lack of geographic knowledge of these government funded and private organisations.


I think you need to worry about your own knowledge of ethnicity and history before you worry about anyone's knowledge of geography that has limited bearing on a form designed to collect information on people's ethnicity!


GayAsianBoy wrote:


tinnic wrote:

*facepalm* The level of ignorance in this thread is mind boggling. Haven't you guys ever heard of "Malaysian Chinese" or "Indonesian Chinese"? Chinese is an ethnicity that is often especially distinguished. The British government is simply doing the same.


GayAsianBoy wrote:

"East African Asian"



Somebody shoot me now, or better yet shoot the organisation responsible for this mess.


O for the love of... They mean Indians and other Asian whose ancestors moved to East Africa but who are still ethnically Indian! Such as Indians from the Mauritius or Indians from Kenya. It's a perfectly sensible designation! The British Empire was HUGE in its day and people moved around it a lot! I mean come on!



When you put it that way, it does make sense.


Yep! So if you run into someone who is African Indian or Islander Indian (Fijian Indians being the most common), you won't be surprised! Also remember that you can have South American Asians too! One of the former Prime Ministers of Peru was Alberto Fujimori, who is a Peruvian of Japanese descent. In ethnicity forms like these, he would tick "other" and write something like "South American Asian" or straight-up "Peruvian Japanese".
4980 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F / ireland
Offline
Posted 6/10/13

tinyd0t wrote:


tigerwolf29

But what if they're brown? :/


It is really weird because Portuguese people never say that they're white, and yet they are classed as "white" because they're European. And some Eastern Europeans such as Slovakians and Romanians are really dark (and often get mistaken as South Asians), they would still class as white purely because their countries are located in Europe.


The Portuguese wouldn't consider themselves white? What do they consider themselves than?

I know the Spanish do and they'd look the most similar.

Not sure why Chinese is separate tbh. Perhaps the government is especially interested in the amount of Chinese people in the country.

10577 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / chicagoland
Offline
Posted 6/10/13
i always pencil in "human" for the race question on those forms
9325 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 6/11/13

tinnic

*sigh* Let's start from the top. You are getting ethnicity, race which is defined rather shallowly on appearance only and geography mixed-up. Europe is a geographic location, as is Asia, Africa etc but your geography is only part of your ethnicity and the part is related to where you originated, how much your people inter-mixed with the new region you moved into etc.

The definition of "White" as a race that is based entirely on appearance is a very shallow definition of ethnicity that does not capture the nuances of culture, heritage and other complex things that go into ethnicity. However, Middle Easter people are, I repeat, ARE classified as white for census and by anthropologists. So yes, Middle Easter people are in fact white! Why is this? Well its because of where they originated. They originated in the Caucasus region and therefore they are Caucasian.

However, within the geographic region called the Middle East, Caucasians aren't the only ethnicity. But those who call themselves "Arabs" generally do identify as Caucasians. NOT, I repeat, not Europeans but Caucasians! Two different things. In conclusion, not all Europeans are Caucasians, and not all Caucasians are Europeans. But Caucasians do get classified as "white" under various census including the UK and the US.



I understand your argument about Middle East being part of the Caucasian race, however Middle East Asians are not white. I don't know how Americans classify someone as "white", but if you ask 100 white British or white Europeans in Europe whether they consider Turkish or other Middle-East Asians as white, or consider them to be in the same race, you will get 100 answers as no. Just because Middle-East Asians consider themselves Caucasians don't mean that they are white. And they should class themselves under Others or Asians others and specify their ethnicity.

The general concept of a "white" British person is someone originated within Europe (or at least for the past few hundred years), and majority of white British are either an Atheist/Agnostic or a Christian. Not being white doesn't make non-white British any less British than white British, in my opinions, anyone who would disregard their ethnicity and claiming to be somebody else are self loathing racists.


miserykitsune

The Portuguese wouldn't consider themselves white? What do they consider themselves than?

I know the Spanish do and they'd look the most similar.

Not sure why Chinese is separate tbh. Perhaps the government is especially interested in the amount of Chinese people in the country.



When I was living Macau, the Portuguese people (which was about 10%+ of the Macau population at that time) would just refer themselves as Portuguese rather than white. Don't get me wrong, they were very proud of their Portuguese heritage and being the "royalties" of Macau since they've colonised Macau for over 400 years, but they don't regard themselves the same as the white British next door in Hong Kong. I've heard many Portuguese calling white British/Americans tourists "white-ghosts" (sorry for the slight racism) as if they are not white themselves.
tinnic 
58870 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Brisbane, Australia
Offline
Posted 6/11/13

tinyd0t wrote:


tinnic

*sigh* Let's start from the top. You are getting ethnicity, race which is defined rather shallowly on appearance only and geography mixed-up. Europe is a geographic location, as is Asia, Africa etc but your geography is only part of your ethnicity and the part is related to where you originated, how much your people inter-mixed with the new region you moved into etc.

The definition of "White" as a race that is based entirely on appearance is a very shallow definition of ethnicity that does not capture the nuances of culture, heritage and other complex things that go into ethnicity. However, Middle Easter people are, I repeat, ARE classified as white for census and by anthropologists. So yes, Middle Easter people are in fact white! Why is this? Well its because of where they originated. They originated in the Caucasus region and therefore they are Caucasian.

However, within the geographic region called the Middle East, Caucasians aren't the only ethnicity. But those who call themselves "Arabs" generally do identify as Caucasians. NOT, I repeat, not Europeans but Caucasians! Two different things. In conclusion, not all Europeans are Caucasians, and not all Caucasians are Europeans. But Caucasians do get classified as "white" under various census including the UK and the US.



I understand your argument about Middle East being part of the Caucasian race, however Middle East Asians are not white. I don't know how Americans classify someone as "white", but if you ask 100 white British or white Europeans in Europe whether they consider Turkish or other Middle-East Asians as white, or consider them to be in the same race, you will get 100 answers as no. Just because Middle-East Asians consider themselves Caucasians don't mean that they are white. And they should class themselves under Others or Asians others and specify their ethnicity.

The general concept of a "white" British person is someone originated within Europe (or at least for the past few hundred years), and majority of white British are either an Atheist/Agnostic or a Christian. Not being white doesn't make non-white British any less British than white British, in my opinions, anyone who would disregard their ethnicity and claiming to be somebody else are self loathing racists.


What's your point exactly? If you ask a 100 Turkish or a 100 Middle-eastern people they will say the consider themselves white. Are you really, really saying that they cannot classify themselves as "white' despite having history, culture, the field of anthropology on their side because YOU and others like you think they are not white? Wow! Just wow!
4980 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F / ireland
Offline
Posted 6/11/13 , edited 6/11/13

tinyd0t wrote:




miserykitsune

The Portuguese wouldn't consider themselves white? What do they consider themselves than?

I know the Spanish do and they'd look the most similar.

Not sure why Chinese is separate tbh. Perhaps the government is especially interested in the amount of Chinese people in the country.



When I was living Macau, the Portuguese people (which was about 10%+ of the Macau population at that time) would just refer themselves as Portuguese rather than white. Don't get me wrong, they were very proud of their Portuguese heritage and being the "royalties" of Macau since they've colonised Macau for over 400 years, but they don't regard themselves the same as the white British next door in Hong Kong. I've heard many Portuguese calling white British/Americans tourists "white-ghosts" (sorry for the slight racism) as if they are not white themselves.


Ah right. I understand that, I don't go round calling myself white either, usually just Irish. Neither would most around here

People kind of just assume Irish or Portuguese are white looking anyway and they don't really need to emphasise it. (Of course you can get Asian or Black Irish/Portugese people, there just wouldn't be very many since these countries where poor and not attractive to immigrants for a long time)

I got that in Spain too, apparently I blind people with my skin. I suppose while we'd all be white (I think that's a very loose term that seems to be more important in places like America) Northern Europeans are definitely a lot paler than those in the South.

Still confused about the Chinese thing on those forms though.
9325 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 6/11/13

tinnic

What's your point exactly? If you ask a 100 Turkish or a 100 Middle-eastern people they will say the consider themselves white. Are you really, really saying that they cannot classify themselves as "white' despite having history, culture, the field of anthropology on their side because YOU and others like you think they are not white? Wow! Just wow!


First of all, as I'm saying this in a second time - you need to calm down. And secondly, I cannot agree that Middle-East's culture and history is anything alike to European cultures. Of course the Turks and the Greeks had (or has) a very long-standing rivalry history, and you had some European countries invading Middle-Eastern countries back and forth, vice versa at some point in the human history, but the modern society, culture, race and religion play a very big part of shaping how we class ourselves in this modern society.

Whether you are white or not, it does not make you a better or less of a person, no matter how much you try to persuade us that Middle-East Asians are white, me and the majority of British people won't view you as one. Do you really need me to point out the major differences in education, governments, languages, religions, women's rights, freedom of speech/religion, general qualities of living, languages, facial features and food between Europe and the Middle East for you, to reason why Middle-East Asians are not considered "white" in the British and European societies?

Ps. I'm sorry to hear from you that you have to bring out the field of anthropology to prove your point, because about 200,000 years ago, we were all Africans. So ancient lineages aren't really valid in today's racial profiling.


miserykitsune

Ah right. I understand that, I don't go round calling myself white either, usually just Irish. Neither would most around here

People kind of just assume Irish or Portuguese are white looking anyway and they don't really need to emphasise it. (Of course you can get Asian or Black Irish/Portugese people, there just wouldn't be very many since these countries where poor and not attractive to immigrants for a long time)

I got that in Spain too, apparently I blind people with my skin. I suppose while we'd all be white (I think that's a very loose term that seems to be more important in places like America) Northern Europeans are definitely a lot paler than those in the South.

Still confused about the Chinese thing on those forms though.


Yeah it is quite weird to class other East Asians under "Chinese", I'd go Genghis Khan on those who made the forms if I were other East Asians! My boyfriend get asked a lot of typical Irish stereotype questions whenever he's abroad, the funniest one was "Do you guys have McDonalds in Northern Ireland?", and he gets annoyed about people having a false impression of all Irish people living in Mediaeval cottages, drinking beer all day, and well.. having potatoes for every meal.
tinnic 
58870 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Brisbane, Australia
Offline
Posted 6/11/13 , edited 6/11/13

tinyd0t wrote:


tinnic

What's your point exactly? If you ask a 100 Turkish or a 100 Middle-eastern people they will say the consider themselves white. Are you really, really saying that they cannot classify themselves as "white' despite having history, culture, the field of anthropology on their side because YOU and others like you think they are not white? Wow! Just wow!


First of all, as I'm saying this in a second time - you need to calm down. And secondly, I cannot agree that Middle-East's culture and history is anything alike to European cultures. Of course the Turks and the Greeks had (or has) a very long-standing rivalry history, and you had some European countries invading Middle-Eastern countries back and forth, vice versa at some point in the human history, but the modern society, culture, race and religion play a very big part of shaping how we class ourselves in this modern society.

Whether you are white or not, it does not make you a better or less of a person, no matter how much you try to persuade us that Middle-East Asians are white, me and the majority of British people won't view you as one. Do you really need me to point out the major differences in education, governments, languages, religions, women's rights, freedom of speech/religion, general qualities of living, languages, facial features and food between Europe and the Middle East for you, to reason why Middle-East Asians are not considered "white" in the British and European societies?

Ps. I'm sorry to hear from you that you have to bring out the field of anthropology to prove your point, because about 200,000 years ago, we were all Africans. So ancient lineages aren't really valid in today's racial profiling.


Its very telling that you assumed that I am from the Middle-East and consider myself white. I am South Asian and most definitely do not consider myself anything other then South Asian! It is also telling that you think anthropology is only concerned with stuff that happened 200,000 years go. Ethnicity is the realm of anthropology and they will tell you that none of the factors you cited are determining factors in ethnicity BECAUSE they are transient. Societies change, including their culture, religion, political structure etc, etc. By your definition, Russians were not "white" while they were under communist control and didn't have a lot of freedom of speech, a government that was drastically different to those in Britain and western Europe in-general etc and I am not even going to bring-up Chechnya. Perhaps you think Bosnians are not white because they are muslims and maybe in your world map Azerbaijan, Albania and Kosovo are also not part of Europe and their people not white on account of them having large muslim populations. And of course in your Europe, the native cuisines of Italy are somehow related to the native cuisine of Iceland but you know, I don't think shark fermented in its own urine is all that popular in Italy and while we are on the topic, I don't think the Icelandic language shares the same root as Italian!

... I hope you see just how stupid what you just said was because no matter how you spin it, there are a lot of countries in Europe that do not conform to your definition and so by your own definition, the members of these countries, most of which are geopraphically firmly inside Europe, are not white or even European. Neither Europe nor the White Race both inside and outside Europe are a monolithic block that can be so easily categorised by ticking a checklist. You may want to remember that before you start telling people they are not white because you said so.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.