Response to Geography Lesson
In my previous post, I mentioned about this Chinese male who said that he "didn't consider Filipinos to be Asians".
My friend Stuart Hayashi (who is Japanese American) has this to say
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do not see any problem with Filipinos being considered "Asians,"regardless of whether or not they are generally darker than East Asians like the Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans.
In fact, the very point that Filipinos are necessarily darker --for genetic reasons -- is subject to debate. In the nineteenth century and early twentieth centuries, a number of prominent whites (such as many of President Theodore Roosevelt's favorite nonfiction authors) described East Asian Japanese, Chinese, Koreans, Tibetans, etc., as "brown-skinned." This was not without reason.
It can be argued that Japanese nationals are often light-skinned due to environmental factors rather than genetic, given that people of Japanese ancestry who have lived in Hawaii for many years often become quite brown. This may not be surprising to scientists who have found that the skin color of the first humans was brownish/bronze instead of black (they say that the first humans probably looked more like bushmen than like West Africans).
Indeed, reflecting upon his stay in Hawaii during the Massie Case, attorney Clarence Darrow made a comment in his memoirs that was along the lines of, *Honolulu looks just like any other American town,except that everybody is brown*. He said this upon observing, not only Native Hawaiians, but East Asian immigrant laborers as well.
By what standard are we to judge what makes someone "Asian"? When we consider their continent of residence, the indigenous peoples of India are "Asian," are they not?
I also find it weird when Russians are called European, since they too live in Asia and are always referred to as "The East." And it is true that, for some years, Russia was actually a political territory ruled by that famous Mongoloid conqueror, Genghis Khan.
And, if only East Asians like the Chinese, Japanese, and Vietnamese are to regarded as "the only real Asians," then how are weto classify the people of Kyrgyzstan? A lot of them are Muslims with Sinic-(i.e., Chinese)-looking facial features. But a number of Kyrgyzs are Caucasoid-looking, too.
It may be true that the Philippines is not located on the Asian continent. But, then again, neither is Japan or Hong Kong. Technically, the Japanese don't live in Asia; they are on an island chain.
And the English aren't on any continent either. So maybe we shouldn't use the word "European" on them?
What term are we to use for South Asians like Indians, Pakistanis, Sri Lankans, Bangladeshis, and Kashmiris? Dravidians were the indigenous peoples they descended from, but the South Asians have ancestors of various other ethnicities, too. Since they actually dwell on the Asian continent, perhaps they and the Russians are "more Asian" than the Japanese? And, as you pointed out, what are we to say of the Indonesians and Malaysians?
If Fiipinos are not "true Asians" for some racial reason, then what about Pacific Islanders who have both Negroid and Mongoloid ancestors?
Your points about the classifications of "Asian races" are very much on the mark. It is not as if ethnic researchers' modern classifications of "races" are as scientifically exact as "2 + 2 = 4."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pablo's comments: Stuart made interesting good points up there.
The Chinese American male I mentioned earlier was a total ignoramus who went to the same high school as myself. He flunked a social studies class as well as a few math classes (proving that not all Asians are good math).
That ignoramus was ignorant of geography, even the geography of the continent his ancestors came from
.All that ignoramus knew about Asians was what he saw in person in Hawaii. Meaning, most of the Asians he seen were Japanese, Chinese, Koreans, Filipinos, Vietnamese and Laotian. He's most likely was not familiar with Indonesians, Mongolians, Burmese, Malaysians, Cambodians, Tibetans, Kahzaks, Uzbeks or Krygyzs. He just noticed that Filipinos are darker than the other Asian groups common in Hawaii, so he placed them in the same category as other brown skinned people common in Hawaii (ie Polynesians) which is totally ridiculous.
Just go to any myspace profiles of Filipinos, under race, they'll put Asian, NOT Pacific Islanders.
Asians tend to go in the following categories : Northeast Asians (Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Mongolian, and the ethnic groups in Siberia), Southeast Asians (Filipinos, Vietnamese, Laotians, Cambodians, Thais, Burmese, Indonesians, Malaysians), South Asians (Indians, Pakistanis, Bangledeshis, Sri Lankans), Central Asians (Kahzaks, Uzbeks, Krygyzs, Tibetans)
West Asia is more commonly knowns as the Middle East, so the people there are placed in a different ethnic categories.
Russia covers parts of Europe and Asia. Those who are ethnically Russians are white Europeans. They were able to conquer mass amounts of territory in Europe and Asia and have mixed with other ethnic groups. So in Russia, we have white Europeans, Middle Eastern people, and Asians)
As for Pacific Islanders, we got Melanesians (New Guinea, Vanuatu, Solomon Islands, New Caledonia), Micronesians (Marshallese, Chuukese, Chamorros, Palauans, Pohnpei) and Polynesians (Hawaiians, Samoans, Tongans, Tahitians, Maoris)
Native Fijians have been considered Polynesians by some, Melanesians by others. Fiji also has a large population of South Asians, imported to work on plantations, just like how Japanese and Filipinos were brought to work in Hawaii plantations.
Australian Aborigines look similar to Melanesians, though some scientist have placed them in separate categories.
So Stuart Hayashi was right when he said "It is not as if ethnic researchers' modern classifications of "races" are as scientifically exact as "2 + 2 = 4."
