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.
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.
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