It's just a nomenclature thing. Genetically your people are more similar to people from Europe then the "asians" the article refers to. The article uses the word "asian" but technically the article is just referring to people who have certain facial features that are similar to people from China, Japan, Korea, Vietnam... etc. You are asian yes, but in terms of facial features you are in a very separate category than the previous countries I mentioned.
I'm not sure what is the proper term here. I've seen the terms "mongoloid" and "oriental" used to refer to my people but I've also seen things written about how these terms are dated and considered to be insulting. I have found no other word to refer to "asians" the way the article refers to "asians."
It's strange that it's so hard to find a term here as there is a very clear cut category here. Whatever... it's just words.
I would respond to your query and say that "mongoloids" have a very different experience with racism in the US than Indian people due to a multitude of factors one of them being that most Indians already know English.
Qualitatively speaking, in the software world Indians are easily dominating that arena over "mongoloids" so it's a completely different experience.
Whatever hardships Indian people are going through would imho warrant a completely separate article to cover that topic.
I think you’ll find that’s strictly an American definition of “Asian”.
In the UK “Asian” definitely includes people from the Indian sub-continent. See the BBC Asian Network for the example.
Also your claims about genetic similarities and differences between races will need some supporting evidence as they sounds very much like personal opinion.
>I think you’ll find that’s strictly an American definition of “Asian”.
No, that's just colloquial usage of the term "Asian" in America. The official definition we use in America is the same as the UK version.
>Also your claims about genetic similarities and differences between races will need some supporting evidence as they sounds very much like personal opinion.
This is pretty common knowledge. "Mongoloids" branched off on a different ancestral line somewhere during the migration out of Africa. It happened roughly around the middle east with "mongoloids" migrating east on the north side of the himalayas and Indian people moving east to the south. The genetic markers when sampled from populations actually display this genetic separation geographically. In fact the grouping of Indians and "mongoloids" is far more natural and appropriate than the term "Asian"
This is pretty common knowledge from different facial features between Indians and Asian people. But if you want to get technical there are actually genetic markers that correlate geographically with racial physical features. The marker for "mongoloids" is called Haplogroup C-M217, also known as C2 (and previously as C3). It is a Y-chromosome DNA haplogroup. It is the most frequently occurring branch of the wider Haplogroup C (M130). It is found mostly in Central Asia, Eastern Siberia and significant frequencies in parts of East Asia and Southeast Asia including some populations in the Caucasus and Middle East.
The haplogroup C-M217 is now found at high frequencies among Central Asian peoples, indigenous Siberians, and some Native peoples of North America. In particular, males belonging to peoples such as the Buryats, Evens, Evenks, Itelmens, Kalmyks, Kazakhs, Koryaks, Mongolians, Negidals, Nivkhs, Udege, and Ulchi have high levels of M217.
The picture represents the frequency of the historic appearance of Haplogroup C-M217 among native populations with white representing very very low frequencies and the legend in the picture representing higher frequencies.
You will note that C-M217 is basically almost never shows up in India and is highly correlated with the geographic distribution of "mongoloid" facial features found from China going all the way to Native Americans in North America.
Now examine Haplogroup L-M20. Haplogroup L-M20 is also a human Y-DNA haplogroup, which is defined by SNPs M11, M20, M61 and M185. As a secondary descendant of haplogroup K and a primary branch of haplogroup LT, haplogroup L currently has the alternative phylogenetic name of K1a, and is a sibling of haplogroup T (a.k.a. K1b).
The presence of L-M20 has been observed at varying levels throughout South Asia, peaking in populations native to Balochistan (28%), Northern Afghanistan (25%) and Southern India (19%). The clade also occurs in Tajikistan and Anatolia, as well as at lower frequencies in Iran. It has also been present for millennia at very low levels in the Caucasus, Europe and Central Asia. The subclade L2 (L-L595) has been found in Europe and Western Asia, but is extremely rare.
The picture of the haplogroup linking Europe and India is illustrated here:
You will note that this haplogroup extends from India across the middle east into Europe which is consistent with the ancestral migrations of prehistoric humans and also with the caucasian features that Indians and Europeans share.
The story is more complex than this however. These Haplogroups only represent frequencies of two genetic markers. In reality what we interpret as race is an amalgamation of many many genetic and physical features. An individual needs to only have an average amount of these features for our visual cortex to recognize someone as "mongoloid" or "indian."
Because I chose to use a singular genetic marker to show the correlation between physical features, genetic features and geographic distribution you can actually find a flaw that arises from the use of a single genetic marker: Although japanese people and chinese people look alike, they do not share Haplogroup C-M127. Go ahead and look at the picture again above... you will see that japan is white, indicating a very low frequency of haplogroup C-M127 despite physical similarity. The reason for this is outside of the scope of this topic.
That being said it is still possible to find correlation between genetic similarities, physical features and geographic distribution with just two haplogroups because the correlations are very very high. This response serves as proof to show that what I said isn't my opinion. It is more representative of your lack of knowledge misleading you to believe that I am stating my opinion rather than a commonly known fact.
Most people know how use vision and sight to identify these genetic similarities just by looking at faces. It's totally obvious to normal people. However,some people get so politically correct that they lose the ability to to use common sense to see these similarities. People like you... For these people we need to use raw science to show you just how misguided your thought process is.
>My flawed argument was based on India and China sharing a land border and that shared genetic markers are found on both sides of it.
This is not flawed reasoning. Despite Indians and Chinese people possessing unique genetic markers, people in India and China do still share genetic markers from earlier haplogroups. If you go far enough back into human ancestry we can find a markers arising out of Africa that all humans in Asia and Europe share.
>I’m not sure there’s any need to cheapen your point by making personal attacks.
It's not a personal attack. I assume your conclusions are irrationally influenced by the current "woke" trend that's taking over America today. I say this because my conclusion can be arrived at trivially with zero technical jargon.
The same conclusion can be derived from just looking at people. The similarity in facial features between Indians and Europeans and the marked contrast between Chinese and Indians makes my expose into the genetics quite unnecessarily pedantic. It hinders conversation by forcing me to go into details in order to state the obvious.
Correct conclusions can be arrived at in significantly less time if people utilized a combination of common sense and scientific evidence where it is deemed necessary. If I didn't choose to troll this thread with a mile long document of terminal evidence then very likely this conversation would have ended without a real conclusion despite the obvious fact that Indians and Chinese look different enough to be classified as following different branches in the ancestral tree.
> I think you’ll find that’s strictly an American definition of “Asian”.
Well, yes, American media are going to use the American definition of "Asian". This is an article on Vox, not the BBC.
> In the UK “Asian” definitely includes people from the Indian sub-continent.
It is my understanding that the UK term isn't more inclusive, it just refers to subcontinentals instead of orientals, since for historical reasons that's who's present in England.
> Also your claims about genetic similarities and differences between races will need some supporting evidence as they sounds very much like personal opinion.
Don't be ridiculous. Yes, Indians are much more closely related to whites than Asians are. You don't need to support basic well-known facts.
Recall that Indians were usually "white" under US law (there are some exceptions) until pressure from Indian activists in the Nixon administration got them reclassified.
> Don't be ridiculous. Yes, Indians are much more closely related to whites than Asians are. You don't need to support basic well-known facts.
Recall that Indians were usually "white" under US law...
I’m sorry but that is not a “basic well-known fact” that is just conjecture.
Dubious, now repealed, racial laws are not a sound basis on which to hang an argument.
If you want to make that claim stick you’d need to do a peer reviewed comparison of DNA and prove it.
If you really want to play this game consider that China and India share a border.
Where do the people 20 miles on either side of that border fit in your racial hierarchy?
I guess you can keep resorting to ad hominem or you can admit this is not settled and India is a genetically diverse place.
If you pick a different haplogroup such as O-M122, which is believed to have originated in China, you’ll see that is highly present in northern India showing that that border is porous, Himalayas or not.
Notice how the modal component in Indian groups is the "Europe" component. Notice how the East Asian groups share almost nothing with the European groups.
And the next time you want to have an argument in public, please try to make sure you know at least a little bit about the topic. Come on.
Then that person might be the US Census Bureau, which defines (or, rather, has had defined for it) the following racial categories (and more, but these two are relevant to the discussion):
“White – A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa.
⋮
“Asian – A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam.”
This also basically reflects the general use of the terms in the US, except that a lot of people would would consider Semitic people to be two additional separate races and not part of White, and/or would separate out those from the subcontinent as distinct from “Asians”. It's important to understand that while some of the racial terms have names of continent, they are about a particular model of racial identities, not continental boundaries.
Yea, the US has shown great historical leadership in naming people accurately. Thank God they just called the people there Indians and didn't go all the way and called the place India as well.
So the world has much more sense than to take it's cues from the US, in these matters atleast.
.png){kind=link}
I'm not sure what is the proper term here. I've seen the terms "mongoloid" and "oriental" used to refer to my people but I've also seen things written about how these terms are dated and considered to be insulting. I have found no other word to refer to "asians" the way the article refers to "asians."
It's strange that it's so hard to find a term here as there is a very clear cut category here. Whatever... it's just words.
I would respond to your query and say that "mongoloids" have a very different experience with racism in the US than Indian people due to a multitude of factors one of them being that most Indians already know English.
Qualitatively speaking, in the software world Indians are easily dominating that arena over "mongoloids" so it's a completely different experience.
Whatever hardships Indian people are going through would imho warrant a completely separate article to cover that topic.