6 ms·
I wonder why the headline says 'Asian' instead of saying Chinese, since all three researchers were Chinese with ties to China. As an ethic Indian, I'm kinda of
by yumraj 8y ago
I wonder why the headline says 'Asian' instead of saying Chinese, since all three researchers were Chinese with ties to China.
As an ethic Indian, I'm kinda offended when all Asians are just lumped together as I believe it promotes general racism and bias against anyone from that continent.
- lainga 8y agoMD Anderson President Peter Pisters says all [five] are “Asian”; Science has confirmed that three are ethnically Chinese.
- ABeeSea 8y agoIt’s a direct quote from a statement provided by the institution. Not a choice the reporter made, but they mention that they confirmed most are ethnically Chinese.
- lotsofpulp 8y agoIn the US, Asian = people from eastern Asia. In the UK, Asian = people from southern Asia.
- vinay427 8y agoSure, but even if we continue to abide by this inconsistent terminology, "eastern Asia" is not the same thing as China, so the OP's point still seems relevant.
- lotsofpulp 8y agoI'm not endorsing the use of the terminology, nor do I use it, but that has been my experience with others who use it in the US and UK. I know the US Census lumps Indians and Chinese together in one as Asian, but colloquially, I never hear anyone in the US refer to Indians as Asians.
- EliRivers 8y agoSpeaking as someone from the UK, when I say "Asian" I mean East Asian, and when I mean someone from South Asia, I name the specific nationality. For example, I generally wouldn't refer to someone from India as "Asian".
- toasterlovin 8y agoFWIW, all the UK coverage of the grooming gang scandals refers to the perpetrators as Asian (they are mostly South Asian, and definitely not East Asian).
- golemiprague 8y agoAnd mostly Muslims, but mentioning it is "islamophobia"
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- talloaktrees 8y ago> Cancer center officials have not named any of the five researchers. MD Anderson President Peter Pisters says all are “Asian”; I believe because that's the official statement.
- aiyodev 8y agoYour mystery can be solved by reading to the third paragraph. > Cancer center officials have not named any of the five researchers. MD Anderson President Peter Pisters says all are “Asian”; Science has confirmed that three are ethnically Chinese.
- codegeek 8y agoFunny you say that because in the US, Indians are not considered Asians in practice even though of course South Asia is, well in Asia. I have seen many people argue that Asians only mean East Asians and does not include South Asians. However, the official census lumps all Asians together.
- danso 8y agoHow are Indians not considered “Asians in practice” when they are considered as such by the Census, the authoritative organization that sets the categorization standard?
- robbintt 8y agoIts just the view the English language has consensed on at the ground level. It's not decided intentionally.
- RankingMember 8y agoIn my experience living in the U.S. at least, if someone is referring to someone of Indian origin, they call them Indian, whereas if someone is referring to someone of Korean/Japanese/Chinese origin, they'll call them Asian (unless they know their particular country of origin).
- toasterlovin 8y agoI would expand the Asian designation to include southeast Asians as well (Vietnam, Philippines, Cambodia, Thailand, etc). Though maybe that’s just a west coast thing.
- beaner 8y agoBecause laypeople don't think of those things. The divide in the way people look, the environment of their countries, how they sound, and what they believe, is split in Asia by the Himalayas. Obviously there are many differences between the countries but it's easy to see why conceptually some might group some of them together into 2 large regions. Also Indians in America don't generally refer to themselves as Asians when speaking, so if their goal is to be perceived as Asian, they are not helping themselves.
- president 8y agoSo you're fine as long as racism is only directed towards races other than your own?
- robbintt 8y agoChinese is a nationality or citizenship status. If the focus were reporting han chinese then it would enter the territory of racism.
- crunchiebones 8y agoit obviously depends on the context, but China is homogeneous enough that 'chinese' is often used to mean more than just nationality
- hpkuarg 8y agoConsidering China to be a homogeneous entity in any dimension is borne of ignorance. Linguistically, the four largest cities in China (Guangzhou, Shanghai, Chongqing, Beijing) speak "dialects" that range from barely mutually intelligible to not at all. Politically, the region has had a long history of provinces disregarding central rule, rivalry between major power centers, etc. Cultural boundaries have been somewhat muddied in the modern era, but one should not assume that the united front that the CCP presents to the outside world is reflective of internal unity. Sure, the Han make up 90%+ of the population (and in that sense you could call China homogeneous), but I struggle to say that Han == Han when it comes to the overwhelming diversity of the country.
- chungleong 8y agoThe only meaningful distinction is between mainland Chinese vs Hong Kongers/Taiwanese/Chinese Diaspora. There's no ignoring the damage done by the Cultural Revolution. The old honor code that used to govern social relations just isn't there anymore. Mainland China is a complete wild west where anything goes. Cheating. Stealing. Stabbing friends in the back.
- 8y ago
- i_am_proteus 8y agoThe United States Government has official racial categories for individuals, of which "Asian" is one. Employers and academic institutions are required by law to categorize employees/researchers/students into these racial categories.
- agumonkey 8y agobecause india is not in asia, it's in india Weird jokes aside, I cannot not think asia = china,japan,tibet,koreas,vietnam,laos,thailand .. In my brain, the rest is ~elsewhere
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- _bxg1 8y agoAgreed. There's no reason to distrust "Asian researchers"; there's reason to distrust "researchers with ties to China in the political climate of 2019".
- yding 8y agoReason=racism?
- ucaetano 8y agoBecause that's how the five were described: Cancer center officials have not named any of the five researchers. MD Anderson President Peter Pisters says all are “Asian”; Science has confirmed that three are ethnically Chinese. Also, race, geographic origin and ethnicity are complicated. "Asian" is as vague in describing the people from Asia as "white" or "European" or "caucasian" are vague in describing those from Europe & Western Asia. You'd be better with Germanics, Baltic, Persian/Iranian, Kurds, Turks, Slavs (and the multiple breakdowns), Uralic, Latin/Roman, Hispanic (nothing to do with the US 'latino/hispanic'), European Jews (and the different breakdowns) and so on. Which also brings into play the fact that in Europe the concept of a Nation-State (essentially, a country which is dominated by a people) has been slowly disappearing over the past few centuries (but not entirely), while in Asia IMHO it still seems to be the rule.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- Razengan 8y agoYes, “Asian” as used by most Westerners† is the current socially-palatable “Oriental” or “Mongoloid”, but it’s no less lazy, ignorant, annoying and even racist. Imagine calling Canadians and Mexicans “American” because of the continent. † If you’re annoyed by being lumped under “Westerner” you might be able to relate.
- billfruit 8y agoI think it is an Americansim, the British do not generally use "Asian" with that specific connotation.
- PhasmaFelis 8y ago> Imagine calling Canadians and Mexicans “American” because of the continent. I've seen "North American" used like that pretty often, actually. > If you’re annoyed by being lumped under “Westerner” you might be able to relate. I'm not. Should I be? It makes sense. I agree that "Asian" doesn't make sense in the way the West tends to use it. "East Asian" is somewhat better, though still not 100% geographically accurate. But then "Westerner" isn't really accurate either; it's just the best commonly-accepted term for a useful concept.
- toasterlovin 8y agoIs your position really that it’s unacceptable to refer to some subset of people who trace their recent ancestry to Asia as Asians? Do you think it’s unacceptable to refer to people of recent European ancestry as Europeans?
- int_19h 8y agoWhat if I preferentially self-identify as "Westerner"?
- calvinbhai 8y agoTotally agree. As it is, Indian diversity is already lumped together into one nation. No one says European cuisine, European language, European culture etc when referring to something specific. As a person from India, who lived more than a decade in the USA, I took quite some time to realize the following: - We are not Asians even though India is in Asia. Asians are those who have the "oriental facial features". - We are not Indians, because generally native Americans are referred to as Indians, and I realized only later that if I mention "native Americans" when someone refers to them as Indians, can be a little incorrect (politically) based on who says that. - We are all "South Asians" when a terror attack occurs in developed countries (especially European counties). - When there's something specifically negative pointed out about India, then it's clearly "Indians" and "India" (this point is limited to celebs and US/Eu media, not the general population that I have come across). people if USA are used to be called Americans and not "USAians". I guess it's the same attitude towards other countries that leads to such usage of terms.