3 ms·

The question as commonly understood is asking about your family geographical/cultural heritage. Your family heritage is constant. So unless new information ha

The question as commonly understood is asking about your family geographical/cultural heritage. Your family heritage is constant. So unless new information has come to light recently or you're really confused about your heritage, I don't think it makes sense to be changing your ethnicity/race on a daily basis. One could feel Asian because you're in a Chinese immersion program speaking Chinese 24/7, but if you don't have any ancestors from Asia more recent than Ghengis Khan, you can't really self-identify as Asian for the purposes of the question as commonly understood. It's not like one's family heritage changes if one's circumstances change.

nradov 7y ago
There is no such common understanding. Everyone has their own subjective understanding of such questions. Who are we to judge whether they're right or wrong. Please justify your assertion that self identification of being Asian should be cut off based on ancestry at 1227. It seems awfully arbitrary. Do you actually have a logical reason for picking that year, or are you just making things up to suit your own preferences?
- prewett 7y ago
  Language is common understanding (within boundaries). Sure, there is subjective understanding, but only to a point. As I understand it, the concept of ancestry in English implies a certain immutability. You can't be Asian today and African tomorrow. You can't identify as Eskimo one day and Pacific Islander the next (barring a rather unusual situation). You can't change identity like clothes. There are words for people who do that, though, "actor" being the kindest. If you want to redefine the meanings of these terms, fine, but then we're no longer using the same words, even if the syllables happen to sound the same. I never said 1227 and don't know why you are picking that year. I picked Genghis Khan because supposedly most everyone has some of his genes.

nradov 7y ago

There is no such common understanding. Everyone has their own subjective understanding of such questions. Who are we to judge whether they're right or wrong. Please justify your assertion that self identification of being Asian should be cut off based on ancestry at 1227. It seems awfully arbitrary. Do you actually have a logical reason for picking that year, or are you just making things up to suit your own preferences?

prewett 7y ago
Language is common understanding (within boundaries). Sure, there is subjective understanding, but only to a point. As I understand it, the concept of ancestry in English implies a certain immutability. You can't be Asian today and African tomorrow. You can't identify as Eskimo one day and Pacific Islander the next (barring a rather unusual situation). You can't change identity like clothes. There are words for people who do that, though, "actor" being the kindest. If you want to redefine the meanings of these terms, fine, but then we're no longer using the same words, even if the syllables happen to sound the same. I never said 1227 and don't know why you are picking that year. I picked Genghis Khan because supposedly most everyone has some of his genes.