3 ms·
How so? The west is well-known for treating ethnic minorities as the "other". I don't think your opinion is very common among them.
by ikeyany 8y ago
How so? The west is well-known for treating ethnic minorities as the "other". I don't think your opinion is very common among them.
- xkcd-sucks 8y agoThe state sanctioned Chinese language literally does not have a word for "ethnicnically foreign permanent resident/citizen of China"
- thaumasiotes 8y agoThat would sound a little more convincing if you hadn't taken six words to define the concept in English.
- closeparen 8y ago“American” suffices over here. You need additional qualifiers to distinguish native-born from naturalized.
- hueving 8y ago"American" is the term in the US because it's not tied to ethnicity. "Chinese" is tied to ethnicity.
- yorwba 8y agoEnglish speakers may think of "Chinese" as an ethnicity, but it's different in Chinese. The default term is 中国人， which literally means "person from the middle country", which is quite obviously about nationality. If you want to talk about ethnicity, you'd use 汉人 for Han Chinese, 蒙古人 for Mongols and so on for any of the hundreds of Chinese ethnicities.
- iguy 8y agoThere's no utopia. That's all that's "well-known". I guess my criteria (for the above) are something like this: an awful lot of British people, and 100% of newspapers, will describe the sprinter Sir Mo Farah as being British, and only get to his place of birth on page two. This pretty much doesn't happen elsewhere. Although a reverse thing does happen, in which (for example) 2nd- and 3rd-generation british indians are not only welcome to almost all the privileges of Indian citizenship, but (if they become famous) are cheered in India. There is a lot of fawning over Priti Patel in the Indian newspapers, but obviously none at all in Ugandan newspapers.