Geography Failure part 1485993830928
#31
Posted 02 October 2007 - 06:41 PM
Besides, if they want to fight about what skin colour they had, that's fine. And because skin colour is a huge issue in this world, I understand why it is important to certain peoples what skin colour this great ancient civilization had. However, I find it sad that this is the state of things.
#32
Posted 02 October 2007 - 10:56 PM
No, I would include Koreans, Vietnamese, Laotians, Cambodians, Mongolians, Tibetans, Filipinos, Singaporans, and few others I'm sure, but I'm not pulling out a map. These people are ethnically "Asian," while they do not share common Nationalities. Since Asia is bounded arbitrarily by lines created in antiquity, the peoples found in all of its countries may not share a common ethnicity. So while it is clear that there are physical similarities among the peoples I mentioned, it is just as clear that the people of India, Southern India certainly, have a different origin. It's silly to call them "Asian." While they may live in Asia, ethnically (and Nationally) they are Indian. Similarly, I wouldn't use the word "Asian" to describe the people of Turkey, or Iraq, or Khazakstan, etc. No one would.
I don't know why you want to insist there are exactly five races, and that they are rigidly defined by ancient Continental boundaries. If you aren't saying that, you're sure saying something else in a very confusing way.
Getting back to the point, it's possible that people living on a continent or in a country do not share the same ethnic background as others living in that same place. It becomes confusiing when the word for the ethnicity is the same word as the continent itself. While you may want to use the word interchangeably, it doesn't move across contexts. Perhaps an analogy would help.
So maybe the Egyptians weren't African after all. Sitting as they do right next to the Middle East, maybe they were Middle Eastern. I think ultimately this all comes back to the myth of Black Jesus.
This post has been edited by civilian_number_two: 02 October 2007 - 10:58 PM
#33
Posted 03 October 2007 - 07:09 AM
Calling only the eastern rim of Asia 'Asian' is silly. I don't care how fashionable it gets, it's a gateway to idiocy and global intellectual mediocrity. And I for one won't stand for it.
I'm half Indian = I'm half Asian. That is a fact. it won't be refuted in my pressence just because a bunch of hippies feel some sort of historical gult for a what a bunch of assholes that probably weren't even related to them did few centuries ago. I think it's high time white people stop dictating what everyone else calls each other and further more that black americans realized that EVERYTHING is not about them and that maybe dwelling on history's mistakes isn't the most posative step forward if that's all you do. And most importantly I think people need to chill the fuck out about people asking them where they are from and that "you people" is not the the goddamned rodney king tape.
Also: The Chefelf.com Lord of the Rings | RoBUTZ (a primative webcomic) | KOTOR 1 NPC profiles |
Music: HYPOID (industrial rock) | Spectrox Toxemia (Death Metal) | Cannibalingus (80s style thrash metal) | Wasabi Nose Bleed (Exp.Techno) | DeadfeeD (Exp.Ambient) |||(more to come)
#34
Posted 03 October 2007 - 08:23 AM
As far as how it relates to the Egyptian thing, I'm saying if they're going to fight about what colour they were, they should go ahead and make it about colour, and not hide behind the word "African" when that word encompasses a lot of things.
#35
Posted 03 October 2007 - 11:48 AM
There is a word "Asia" that describes a continent. It was invented in Classical Antiquity to describe stuff the Romans didn't own. It's an entirely arbitrary series of dividing lines for a land mass, and the lines might have been drawn anywhere else.
Asia was also a Province of the Roman Empire. Mostly this was just what we now call Turkey.
There is a race "Asian" that describes people with a common heritage who live on the Eastern rim of the continent Asia. These people have little in common with the people of Kazakhstan.
There is a "supergroup" called "Asia" that was formed from former members of Yes, King Krimson, Hold the Ladder, The Buggles, UK, Uriah Heep and Emerson Lake and Palmer.
Asia Argento was an Italian horror actress back in the day.
Barend, Indians are not "Asians" in the third sense above. Ironically, it's folks who insist on using the word to describe Indians as well who generally fall under the title of PC Hippie. Occasionally too porn websites.
Drawing the analogy back to Africa, the term "Africa" describes in one sense a continent and in another an ethnic connection between peoples of separate Nationalities. The argument is that in this sense Egyptians were probably not Africans but were likely Middle Eastern. Nowhere does anyone suggest that in those days the arbitrary dividing lines that define the continent of Africa were placed differently. But just like with the Asia example, if there is an ethnic history connecting those peoples, then the argument is wrong, and if there wasn't, it's right. The ethnic background, whatever it is, will have been defined by history and breeding, not simply by some arbitrary lines drawn in the sand.
This post has been edited by civilian_number_two: 03 October 2007 - 11:50 AM
#36
Posted 03 October 2007 - 04:08 PM
youre absolutely right....
all those who believe humans are the direct evolutionary descendants of apes, please raise your hand
Shit, Fuck, Piss: I had to say that because I can on this website. (Thanks Chef!)
QUOTE (chefelf @ Feb 23 2008, 10:30 AM)
That's what I'm here for.
#37
Posted 03 October 2007 - 04:25 PM
I know its a loosely applied term that is meant to refer to peoples who simply reside on the geographical continent, but through popular sub-cultures in recent times, simply saying "Asian" will tend to automatically conjure images of those that reside at the far eastern side of "asia" (Japanese, Korean, Chinese, etc)
And even though its more specific to refer to them as being Oriental, rather than Asian (as its more of a broader reference), you will still hear the term "asian" being used more and more than "oriental" to describe someone who is from China, Japan, Korea, Singapore, etc.
the confusion stems from trying to compile everyone who resides on a single mass of land into a single category and call them whatever that particular continent is called.
Looking at a world map, its pretty easy to determine where one continent ends, and the other begins. Australia is completely bounded by water: no arguments there
but where exactly does Asia begin and Europe end? When the USSR was intact,.it was so massive it covered much of Asia and Europe.,.so are they Asian?, since most of the USSR (and even now, Russia) is mostly in Asia? They look to be caucasian, so wouldnt that alone render them to being classified as being "european" instead?
What about Mexico? is it a part of North America, or Central America?, cause ive heard it both ways. Ive heard from some sources that there is only North America & South America, but some will go so far as to create a third continent,."central america"
I also agree with the poster that said it was misleading referring to someone of Egyptian, Lebanese, or Morroccan descent as simply "African", or "African-American", thats about as dumb as referring to Saudi Arabia as "Southwest Asia".
This post has been edited by sesame_street_hustler: 03 October 2007 - 04:26 PM
#38
Posted 03 October 2007 - 04:26 PM
all those who believe humans are the direct evolutionary descendants of apes, please raise your hand
That's not even what the evolutionary theory IS. Anyone else want to field this one?
This post has been edited by Spoon Poetic: 03 October 2007 - 04:29 PM
#39
Posted 03 October 2007 - 04:47 PM
Nope. Please enjoy this redirect:
http://www.chefelf.c...h...=4271&st=60
Mireaux, please read the latest entry for my opinion about humans and apes.
This post has been edited by civilian_number_two: 03 October 2007 - 04:49 PM
#40
Posted 04 October 2007 - 04:46 AM
Files: Indian, Chinese, Japanese, etc.
Subdirectory: Asian
Directory: Human
Also: The Chefelf.com Lord of the Rings | RoBUTZ (a primative webcomic) | KOTOR 1 NPC profiles |
Music: HYPOID (industrial rock) | Spectrox Toxemia (Death Metal) | Cannibalingus (80s style thrash metal) | Wasabi Nose Bleed (Exp.Techno) | DeadfeeD (Exp.Ambient) |||(more to come)
#41
Posted 04 October 2007 - 08:16 AM
#42
Posted 04 October 2007 - 11:41 AM
Yes, Classical Egyptians lived on the continent of Africa. No, I don't know whether they were African. Contemporary Egyptians are not African, just like the majority of contemporary residents of the United States are not North American.
I don't quite understand why all discussions of race get buried in discussions of racism. Further I don't know why they're always put there by people who say again and again that they wish that race didn't matter.
Barend, I didn't understand your last post, but it sounds like you're saying that Indians are Asian. Fine. I don't care; Indians are ethnically Asian. Arabs are Asian (or Oriental) as well, just like the Romans said. Further if two ethnic Indians move to Australia and have a child, then the child is ethnically Australian. The child shall never be called Asian, because it has no connection at all to India. At least I think that's what you're saying. Essentially, that Race is meaningless, and that what continent you were born on is everything.
What's amusing is you say that you won't let some white people tell you what race you are. You're assuming as many do that all conversations about race are started by White people. This one was actually started because some Black people wanted to insist that Clasical Egyptians were dark-skinned and descended from the peoples of Africa, in opposition to those who thought they were European. What's funny too is that you insist on being called Asian, because that's what the Romans (who were White people) called the people East of Asia Minor (Turkey).
I have a hypothetical question: If you were to take cuttings from an American Beauty Rose and grow it in Africa, would you have to call it an African Beauty Rose?
#43
Posted 04 October 2007 - 12:22 PM
the existing rose would still retain its name, thus "american beauty rose". however, if this rose was the result of other new roses growing from it that bloomed in africa, then it may be appropriate to add some sort of geographical deviation to its name.
if a dutch man visits america, he is a visitor
if the dutch man moves to america, he is an immigrant
if the dutch man gets naturalized, he becomes a naturalized citizen
if the dutch man's wife has a baby on american soil, its an american child.
#45
Posted 04 October 2007 - 01:18 PM
i think its due in part to the fact that the majority of the continent of africa is inhabited by negroes, and also through american pop-culture were so acclimated to hearing "african", "african-american" etc, so much when referenced to negroes, that its become commonplace to automatically associate the term with this visual.