Chefelf.com Night Life: Geography Failure - Chefelf.com Night Life

Jump to content

Crappy News Forum

This is a REPLY ONLY form. Only Crappy News Moderators can post news topics here. Anyone is free to reply to the news topics. It's the Crappy News Forum, where everyone's a winner!

  • (10 Pages)
  • +
  • « First
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • Last »

Geography Failure part 1485993830928

#46 User is offline   barend Icon

  • Anchor Head Anchor Man
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Crappy News Team
  • Posts: 11,839
  • Joined: 12-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nieuw Holland
  • Interests:The Beers of Western Europe, Cognac, and constantly claiming the world would have been a better place if Napoleon had won.
  • Country:Australia

Posted 04 October 2007 - 02:47 PM

QUOTE (civilian_number_two @ Oct 4 2007, 11:41 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
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.


No, that's not really what I'm saying at all.

People can feel free to identify with whatever part of their heritage they want. It's just when they claim a monopoly on it, that it becomes stupid.

QUOTE (civilian_number_two @ Oct 4 2007, 11:41 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
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 don't care what people call me. What I won't stand for is being corrected on the subject of my origin, which I'd like to think I'm prettty clued in on. I don't insist upon being called Asian, I'm just sick of the current trend that seems to be misinforming the masses and redefining teh word to suit the lazy.

Like, there's a lot of 4WDs on the road at the moment. In fact they make up more than half the vehicles out there. But it would be pretty stupid to start using the word 'vehicle' to refer to 4WDs while there are still vans and motor bikes and what not out there.

QUOTE (civilian_number_two @ Oct 4 2007, 11:41 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
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?


I'd call it a rose.
0

#47 User is offline   civilian_number_two Icon

  • Canada's Next Top Model.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Head Moderator
  • Posts: 3,382
  • Joined: 01-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In Your Dreams
  • Interests:I like stuff.
  • Country:Canada

Posted 04 October 2007 - 02:57 PM

QUOTE (Spoon Poetic @ Oct 4 2007, 12:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
But why are black people the only people that can call themselves "African?" That's my problem with the whole Egypt thing argument.

Again, Egyptians may say they are African, but they may not say that they are African. Dutch in South Africa may say they are African, but they may not say that they are African. Turks may say that they are Asian, but they may not say that they are Asian.

Perhaps an analogy would help.

As for Barend's response, I guess this isn't really as seriopus a topic as he wanted to make out. I suppose I should have taken him at his word when he said in his first message "If you are from a country in Asia, you are Asian. If you are from a country in Africa, you are African. If you are from a country in Europe, you are European." So Turks are as "Asian" as the Chinese. I suppose those trying to define racial groups need to make up new words, words that don't also define continents, to keep from confusing some people.

Can we bring back "Brown" and "Yellow?"

This post has been edited by civilian_number_two: 04 October 2007 - 03:51 PM

"I had a lot of different ideas. At one point, Luke, Leia and Ben were all going to be little people, and we did screen tests to see if we could do that." -George Lucas, in STAR WARS: the Annotated Screenplays (p197).
0

#48 User is offline   Cobnat Icon

  • Viva Phillippena Radio!
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,631
  • Joined: 25-December 05
  • Location:I am in atheist heaven.
  • Interests:Body Disposal.
  • Country:Australia

Posted 04 October 2007 - 04:08 PM

Oh bloody hell!

If a person is born in either Europe or Asia then they are Eurasian.
If a person is born in Africa then they are African.
If a person is born in either North or South America then they are American.
If a person is born in Australia then they are Australian.
If a person is born on a boat in the middle of an ocean then they are a pirate.

Your ancestry doesnít matter (take note white people in the Americas), what matters is the continent you are born in. Plus the continent you are born in doesnít determine what nationality you are. I mean, when the British, French and Spanish controlled half the world, if you were born in their colonies then you would get automatic citizenship for them mother country (except in French colonies but the French were assholes so they donít count).

QUOTE (civilian_number_two @ Oct 4 2007, 11:57 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
So Turks are as "Asian" as the Chinese.


Turks are the result of merging between Hun and Arab tribes. So yes, they are Asians.

This post has been edited by Cobnat: 04 October 2007 - 04:12 PM

0

#49 User is offline   Jordan Icon

  • Tummy Friend
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3,161
  • Joined: 31-October 03
  • Location:Mars
  • Interests:I have none.
  • Country:Ethiopia

Posted 04 October 2007 - 04:40 PM

Screw this man. Life's to short. I was going to write something but this is going nowhere, it seems every one has a different way to categorize people. I follow Civillians format though.

Chinese people don't actually call themselves ASIAN, they have a different word for it, and i can garauntee you it doesn't include India. And Egyptians, in their native tongue, do not associate themselves with blacks because they live on the same continent.
Oh SMEG. What the smeggity smegs has smeggins done? He smeggin killed me. - Lister of Smeg, space bum
0

#50 User is offline   Spoon Poetic Icon

  • Pimpin'
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 2,876
  • Joined: 27-September 05
  • Gender:Female
  • Country:United States

Posted 04 October 2007 - 04:45 PM

But see, I don't see the continent adjectives as being names of nationalities/cultures/whatever. The Japanese culture is very different from the Vietnamese, so why should I lump them together as "Asian" when talking about culture/heritage? However, I would call them as well as Indians and Turks and whatever else "Asians" when talking about something common to the whole continent, such as "Most Asians have darker skin than us honkies" or something like that. Same with Europeans. The French are way different from the English are way different from the Spanish are way different from the Swiss are way different from the Norwegians. So I'm not going to say "That dude's culture is so very European." But they're all from a part of Europe and therefore Europeans when I need to talk about "Europeans have a higher average lifespan than Africans" or "It was mostly Europeans that settled America."

Like Barend said, I don't care what someone identifies themselves as when they're referring to themselves as a people - but when one group decides to monopolize the adjective that means "from this particular continent," that's when I think it's a bit silly.
I am writing about Jm in my signature because apparently it's an effective method of ignoring him.
0

#51 User is offline   civilian_number_two Icon

  • Canada's Next Top Model.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Head Moderator
  • Posts: 3,382
  • Joined: 01-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In Your Dreams
  • Interests:I like stuff.
  • Country:Canada

Posted 04 October 2007 - 06:06 PM

QUOTE (Spoon Poetic @ Oct 4 2007, 04:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
But see, I don't see the continent adjectives as being names of nationalities/cultures/whatever. The Japanese culture is very different from the Vietnamese, so why should I lump them together as "Asian" when talking about culture/heritage?

I didn't ask you to. I am talking about race, not heritage or culture. Genetics, not culture. I apologise that the word "ethnicity" is as ambiguous as any of the other words we're using. But the whole while I have been talking exclusively about race, that is genetic background rather than the names long ago given to continents or to countries.

Perhaps another analogy might help?
"I had a lot of different ideas. At one point, Luke, Leia and Ben were all going to be little people, and we did screen tests to see if we could do that." -George Lucas, in STAR WARS: the Annotated Screenplays (p197).
0

#52 User is offline   barend Icon

  • Anchor Head Anchor Man
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Crappy News Team
  • Posts: 11,839
  • Joined: 12-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nieuw Holland
  • Interests:The Beers of Western Europe, Cognac, and constantly claiming the world would have been a better place if Napoleon had won.
  • Country:Australia

Posted 05 October 2007 - 08:59 PM

QUOTE (civilian_number_two @ Oct 4 2007, 02:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
As for Barend's response, I guess this isn't really as seriopus a topic as he wanted to make out. I suppose I should have taken him at his word when he said in his first message "If you are from a country in Asia, you are Asian. If you are from a country in Africa, you are African. If you are from a country in Europe, you are European." So Turks are as "Asian" as the Chinese. I suppose those trying to define racial groups need to make up new words, words that don't also define continents, to keep from confusing some people.

Can we bring back "Brown" and "Yellow?"


YES! this is it exactly. this is where I'm at. If i don't mind being called olive or brown, then everyone else can chill and be described as they look. afterall isn't that what description is all about?

If people are sensative about it, then, honestly, fuck em. It's their problem not the world's.
0

#53 User is offline   civilian_number_two Icon

  • Canada's Next Top Model.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Head Moderator
  • Posts: 3,382
  • Joined: 01-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In Your Dreams
  • Interests:I like stuff.
  • Country:Canada

Posted 05 October 2007 - 09:40 PM

OK. Well Asians hated the term "yellow." Lobby groups went crazy. And Blacks wanted "African" instead of the colour. Lobby groups went crazy for it. But at least you're willing to acknowledge now that it's just a matter of semantics, which is a big step for you in this one, Barend. Because that whole rose thing was just mental.
"I had a lot of different ideas. At one point, Luke, Leia and Ben were all going to be little people, and we did screen tests to see if we could do that." -George Lucas, in STAR WARS: the Annotated Screenplays (p197).
0

#54 User is offline   barend Icon

  • Anchor Head Anchor Man
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Crappy News Team
  • Posts: 11,839
  • Joined: 12-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nieuw Holland
  • Interests:The Beers of Western Europe, Cognac, and constantly claiming the world would have been a better place if Napoleon had won.
  • Country:Australia

Posted 06 October 2007 - 05:22 AM

what? my opinon hasn't changed, it just wasn't clear enough.

those lobbyists are retarded. short people are short, tall people are tall, black people are black. People are trying to solve their problems by changing how people describe them. well calling a poor person and financially challenged person isn't going to make them rich. like i said, i don't care what color, race or continentally originated a person is... as long as they don't try to change the english language just because someone else gave them a hard time once for being a certain color.

as for the rose, all I said is that i'd call it a rose. a rose by any other name is still just some weird thing with red on top that grows out of the ground and will make women forget you cheated on them. I don't know one rose from another, I'm not a florist, so i settle for calling them by color.
0

#55 User is offline   civilian_number_two Icon

  • Canada's Next Top Model.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Head Moderator
  • Posts: 3,382
  • Joined: 01-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In Your Dreams
  • Interests:I like stuff.
  • Country:Canada

Posted 06 October 2007 - 08:03 AM

Yeah but calling it a "rose" only wouldn't distinguish it from other roses. Not all roses are red. An American Beauty Rose is, and so are a few other varieties, but a great many aren't. Since you don't want your terms to be descriptive enough, why even call it a rose at all? Why not just a flower? Or a plant? Perhaps that's too specific. Maybe "Living thing?" Or if that's too much, then "Matter." How about "energy?" Is that vague enough for you?

As I read it, the argument wasnt about lobbyists wanting to change the names of anything; it was about some black people arguing that the current residents of Egypt may not be descended for the Classical Egyptians, that those Egyptians were Africa. And about them gettig upset that some other peopel thought that was wrong, and that they weren't African at all.

You may be right. Maybe you're not being clear enough. Because so far you've still confused discussions of race with racism, and you said that the original complaint, that Egyptians may not have been racially "African" was ridiculous because racially people should be divided exactly by continent and by continent alone. I don't see how this is so much more confusing than colours; some races are described using colou words and others with region names. It's not as confusing as you seem to want to make it out to be.
"I had a lot of different ideas. At one point, Luke, Leia and Ben were all going to be little people, and we did screen tests to see if we could do that." -George Lucas, in STAR WARS: the Annotated Screenplays (p197).
0

#56 User is offline   barend Icon

  • Anchor Head Anchor Man
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Crappy News Team
  • Posts: 11,839
  • Joined: 12-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nieuw Holland
  • Interests:The Beers of Western Europe, Cognac, and constantly claiming the world would have been a better place if Napoleon had won.
  • Country:Australia

Posted 07 October 2007 - 09:36 PM

My point is that anyone who thinks 'African' = 80% of Africa instead of 100% are retarded. I used 'Asian' as an example because people seem to be quite hell-bent on declaring that 'Asian' = 65% of Asia instead of 100%.

I don't care what word people want to use to describe black or people with only two eyelids as long as they refrain from using words already in use that have a different meaning (especially when the word they choose already relates that group, pertaining to larger group of which those people are a part), or people will get confused and annoyed.

I mean, fine. if people don't want to be called 'yellow' or 'oriental' that's fine. but we have to agree on a term that isn't a phrase or word of current employment. As is, the word 'oriental' seems to be unemployed at the moment and was therefore the perfect solution as it carried no in-built malice linguistically. 'Negro' was once a sympathetic term. 'Black' too was in no way designed to aid cultural circumstance. 'African American' as I've said is retarded because it is too vague and naturally (mis)leads to the conclusion that 'African' = black.

I suspect that it was that very misappropriation of the word that lead to this group insisting that king tut or whoever was black. The only other possible origination for this belief is anthropological theory. 'Theory' being a key word. 'Theory' = Belief. Insufficient in any light to justify protest.

More importantly, the bust was about facial structure so these people were being a tad fussy to bring up the subject of skin tone. Obviously an issue of incredible importance and value to them. One can't help but feel the point of the undertaking was somewhat lost on them.

Please excuse that trip to back on topic.

back to flowers.

I honestly don't know one rose for another. Should this at any point in my life be cause of offence to another, I'll refuse to apologise and gladly offer satisfaction by means of a duel or some such practice that a flower enthusiast is unlikely to best me in.

However, I know a daffodil from a tulip, and a rose from a sunflower, and i think that should really be sufficient to get me through life. If people protest on it I'm honestly going to go a killing spree. I mean there's specific and there's just expertly educated pedanticism of which those not specialised in a field should not be scrutinised.

Everything doesn't have to be so right or left. Specifics and vagueness have there places, but by crikey, when a word has a damn meaning people should use it and not elect to administer it's misuse to the public. Otherwise what's the point of speaking at all if the language is going to change every few days to meet the whims of the oversensitive.

This post has been edited by barend: 07 October 2007 - 09:42 PM

0

#57 User is offline   civilian_number_two Icon

  • Canada's Next Top Model.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Head Moderator
  • Posts: 3,382
  • Joined: 01-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In Your Dreams
  • Interests:I like stuff.
  • Country:Canada

Posted 08 October 2007 - 06:33 AM

QUOTE (barend @ Oct 7 2007, 09:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
by crikey, when a word has a damn meaning people should use it and not elect to administer it's misuse to the public. Otherwise what's the point of speaking at all if the language is going to change every few days to meet the whims of the oversensitive.


So... you're so oversensitive that while the rest of the world uses the word "Asia" to describe a continent and "Asian" to describe a racial group that does not completely dominate that continent (again with the Turks), you opt instead to use the word "Asian" incorrectly? What's the point of speaking at all if the language has to change to your oversensitive whims?

And yeah, the point of the flower analogy wasn't so you could rant about how you can't tell Roses apart, and you know it. The point is the American Beauty Rose is a specific breed, and that'd be its name even one were cut and planted in Africa. If you'd like another analogy, I can order a Waldof salad in various hotels across North America, not just at the Waldorf. The name doesn't change. So again, if an Asian man is born in Australia, then culturally he's probably Australian, but racially he's Asian.

Also, "Theory" has many definitions, anf the scientific one is not restricted to "belief" in the sense you're using it. Analogies = "Theory of Gravity," "Number Theory," etc. "Anthropological theory" would be the body of facts and hypotheses associated with anthropology. The word "Theory" doesn't negate all ofthe facts and turn all of science into just a bunch of stuff some guys made up. Folks who choose to use the word "Theory" that way haven't taken the time to look the word up in a dictionary, and seldom know anything about science. I'm sure you know better, so tsk tsk.
"I had a lot of different ideas. At one point, Luke, Leia and Ben were all going to be little people, and we did screen tests to see if we could do that." -George Lucas, in STAR WARS: the Annotated Screenplays (p197).
0

#58 User is offline   barend Icon

  • Anchor Head Anchor Man
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Crappy News Team
  • Posts: 11,839
  • Joined: 12-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nieuw Holland
  • Interests:The Beers of Western Europe, Cognac, and constantly claiming the world would have been a better place if Napoleon had won.
  • Country:Australia

Posted 08 October 2007 - 08:02 PM

QUOTE (civilian_number_two @ Oct 8 2007, 06:33 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
So... you're so oversensitive that while the rest of the world uses the word "Asia" to describe a continent and "Asian" to describe a racial group that does not completely dominate that continent (again with the Turks), you opt instead to use the word "Asian" incorrectly? What's the point of speaking at all if the language has to change to your oversensitive whims?


Wait, what? Where did I say that?

What I said is that people should use th eword Asian to describe anyone from a country within Asia or anyone with heritage from any such country. NOT to exclusivley describe the South-Eastern rim of the continent. Otherwise the word is being used as only a smaller proportion of its full meaning. My use of the word is correct in every possible interpretation. You're just reading what you want to hear now.

Here's a list:
Afghanistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Brunei, Burma (Myanmar), Cambodia, China, Georgia, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Kazakstan, Korea, North, Korea, South, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Lebanon, Malaysia, Maldives,
Mongolia, Myanmar, Nepal, Oman, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Syria, Taiwan, Tajikistan, Thailand, Turkey, Turkmenistan, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, Yemen.

People from these countries are Asian. Those in the far west may prefer the qualifier of 'Middle Eastern' or something but that's rembering that 'Middle East' is nothing more than a region. and not seperate from it's continental placement.

Why are you struggling with me on this? I'm not sensative about anything, let alone over-sensative about this. I'm just not going to stand idley by as people desend into willfull retardation and have the hide to "correct" me when I refer to a non South-East Asian as 'Asian'. I also don't like the fact that USA residency is the qualifier for 'American' as they are not the only inhabbitants of the Americas. You could go for 'North Americans' but that would include Canadians.

QUOTE (civilian_number_two @ Oct 8 2007, 06:33 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
And yeah, the point of the flower analogy wasn't so you could rant about how you can't tell Roses apart, and you know it. The point is the American Beauty Rose is a specific breed, and that'd be its name even one were cut and planted in Africa. If you'd like another analogy, I can order a Waldof salad in various hotels across North America, not just at the Waldorf. The name doesn't change. So again, if an Asian man is born in Australia, then culturally he's probably Australian, but racially he's Asian.


I was sticking with the analogy on that one. If I can't tell something apart I describe it. Re-read my comments and I'm sure you'll find it.

QUOTE (civilian_number_two @ Oct 8 2007, 06:33 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Also, "Theory" has many definitions, anf the scientific one is not restricted to "belief" in the sense you're using it. Analogies = "Theory of Gravity," "Number Theory," etc. "Anthropological theory" would be the body of facts and hypotheses associated with anthropology. The word "Theory" doesn't negate all ofthe facts and turn all of science into just a bunch of stuff some guys made up. Folks who choose to use the word "Theory" that way haven't taken the time to look the word up in a dictionary, and seldom know anything about science. I'm sure you know better, so tsk tsk.


I was simplifying. Theory = formulated belief based on artifacts and random elements of circumstancial evidence. 'Theory' is imagination applied to facts to fill gaps.

...in a nutshell, it's an educated guess but still subject to being completely and utterly wrong in every respect. People tend to forget that about theories and accept them as gospel. Which is another beef I've always had with the so called rational minded. I believe in logic, and not commiting to the unproven, while repectfully maintaing a capacity for guessing and imaginative gap filling.

This post has been edited by barend: 08 October 2007 - 08:05 PM

0

#59 User is offline   civilian_number_two Icon

  • Canada's Next Top Model.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Head Moderator
  • Posts: 3,382
  • Joined: 01-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In Your Dreams
  • Interests:I like stuff.
  • Country:Canada

Posted 08 October 2007 - 10:52 PM

Barend, here's why I'm struggling with you on this one. You say that when a word has a damn meaning people should use it as it's meant, not try to administer different uses. You lso seem to deny that many words have actually more than one meaning, and that it is up to context to determine which meaning is intended. For example:

Asia is a continent; Asia is also a racial group. Not everyone living on the continent of Asia belongs to the Asian racial group. Afghanis are not Asian. Another way to look at it: would you suggest changing the name of the racial group that you incorrectly ascribe to Afghanis were we suddenly to declare that Afghanistan belobed to the continent of Europe and not Asia? I really don't get why you can't handle this one, but perhaps an analogy would help.

Also, "Theory" has several uses as well. One of those is as you say, an educated guess. Like I think Zack Snyder's WATCHMEN movie is going to suck. The scientific use of the word "theory" to mean "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" has nothing to do with guesswork; like the word "Asian" as a racial group above, the word therory in this case means a grouping of facts and principles governing a particular subject, eg "Number Theory." In that context, the word doesn't indicate that mathematicians hold that "there might be numbers." Using the word exclusively to mean "guesswork" is generally a strategem of ignorance employed by religious people when they want to deny any scientic principles they don't like, esp Evolutionary Theory, without actually doing any reading. I don't think it's fair to include you among that number. So apart from a predilection to argue things to death, since the word has a damn meaning why do you insist on using it incorrectly?
"I had a lot of different ideas. At one point, Luke, Leia and Ben were all going to be little people, and we did screen tests to see if we could do that." -George Lucas, in STAR WARS: the Annotated Screenplays (p197).
0

#60 User is offline   Jordan Icon

  • Tummy Friend
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3,161
  • Joined: 31-October 03
  • Location:Mars
  • Interests:I have none.
  • Country:Ethiopia

Posted 09 October 2007 - 01:40 AM

Barend, it's like this, if you told me you were coming to my house and brining an Asian friend, and he turned out to be Afghani, i'd be confused. I think if our roles were reversed, you'd be confused.

This example, however, does not apply to Europe. If your mystery friend was german and you said "I'm bringing over a European". I wouldn't be shocked if he was German, French, Polish, Serbian, Lithuanian or Spanish.


But wait, it gets more strange.

My British friend, who is also East Indian says only British people refer to him and his people as Asian. I just asked him this last night, I told him about our debate here. I don't know any one in North American that calls Indians Asian. I don't know any Indo-Canadians that call their food 'asian food'. My pal accepts the term "Asian" because it's already in popular use back in England. Yet if you ask my pal what an Asian is, it's a person with yellow skin and slanted eyes.

My chinese pals, when talking about Asians, never use it to include Turkey or Afghanistan.

The term has multiple meanings and can only be understood when one understands the context that it's mentioned in.

This post has been edited by Jordan: 09 October 2007 - 01:42 AM

Oh SMEG. What the smeggity smegs has smeggins done? He smeggin killed me. - Lister of Smeg, space bum
0

  • (10 Pages)
  • +
  • « First
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • Last »


Fast Reply

  • Decrease editor size
  • Increase editor size