Do you consider Arabs to be Asian?

[haplesshobo]

Just curious, since it seems people here are calling Indians and Russians asian as well.

[Filiprish]

Yes, West Asian.

[soapzen]

Well, I don't... they aren't listed as Asians by the US government. IMO, if we're listed together, we should stick together and form some kind of cohesive voice like the latinos do.

As we all already know, Asians are the only group openly discriminated against. Arabs are only subvertly discriminated against.

I don't see T-shirts with derogatory Arab cartoons being sold, do you? Why's that? Cuz we don't act together and we have no voice anyone worries about. So we're picked on. What should we do about it?

This doesn't mean I don't feel bad for Arabs in the US who are discriminated against because of Iraq and 9/11, when they had nothing to do with it.

But if we're going to talk about discrimination, I think our 'fight' should be for ourselves first, as in we ARE the only group right now no one minds insulting and discriminating against.

It pisses me off to see people defending black and jews. They are SOOO GOOD at defending themselves. Who defends US?

[Seamus]

Look, Arabs from the Arabian peninsula, Iraq, Syria, Palestine and Lebanon are technically Asians, though it's not what many Americans think of when they hear the word "Asians." But Arabs also live in north Africa, from Morocco to Egypt, and they're not Asians. Both Arabs and East Asians face discrimination, though for different reasons: for Arabs, it's because they're seen as terrorists. And for East Asians, well you know the rest.

I'm not saying we shouldn't look out for ourselves. But you've got to be blind if you think that Arabs face no overt discrimination. That's simply not true.

[BestChinese]

Hell No!

[Leinad]

i don't care... only human.

bestchinese, how'd u get minus karma?

[BestChinese]

i don't care... only human.

bestchinese, how'd u get minus karma?

I don't know!

[mr. x]

i don't care... only human.

bestchinese, how'd u get minus karma?
:wink:

[Napoleon Chynamite]

As we all already know, Asians are the only group openly discriminated against. Arabs are only subvertly discriminated against.

What are you talking about. If anything discrimination against Arabs seems to be the most acceptable form of discrimination in American society today. People who can't see this are blind to their own plight and selfish needs.

[DragonKnight]

Well, I don't... they aren't listed as Asians by the US government. IMO, if we're listed together, we should stick together and form some kind of cohesive voice like the latinos do.

So why should we let a government led by a whole bunch of elitist white men tell *us* what we are and aren't?

I agree with Fliprish, they're West Asian.

[robotic]

;_;

haplesshobo, thanks for respecting our self-identity issues.

[Faithless]

;_;

haplesshobo, thanks for respecting our self-identity issues.
Is Arab a race or an "ethnic" identity?

And does anthropologic definitions out-weigh the US government's?

[Chad]

The US government doesn't even recognize multiracial people. In the past, they counted Asians as "Indian" because that was the only category besides white and black. And they weren't asked, it was just "eyeballed."
There's still an awful lot of "eyeballing" going on when we arbitrarily decide who belongs to a group and who doesn't. What are the consequences of including Arabs in the Asian group or not?
It seems like some people feel that they own the "Asian" term and only people of East Asian ancestry fit into the category. The mass of land called "Asia" is much larger than this.

[soapzen]

I think the better question is... do Arabs consider themselves Asian? And I think, judging by the arabs I have met, absolutely not.

Most Arabs are muslim, there are a lot of black muslims, and they catagorize themselves as 'middle eastern'. Not a racial category (since they are caucasian), but they do not seem to agree with us about their groupage, and would probably be personally offended if they were told they were Asian.

Arabs in the middle east consider Asians a 'servant class'. They bring in phillipino and malaysian to work for them, and there have been several brought up on charges, in the US, for beating them physically (does no one remember the news story a few months ago about how a Middle Eastern 'princess' beat her phillipino maid til she was hospitalized, this was in a NYC hotel, and was arrested? Diplomatic immunity protected her, and the phillipino maid was given immunity in the US. There was quite a hoopla about it).

In the Middle East, asian servants are sometimes beaten to death. It's just a fact of life there. So I seriously doubt they themselves would agree with you, or want to.

[Chad]

In the West, non-servant Asians are sometimes beaten to death. It's just a fact of life here.
http://www.kundiman.org/images/17.jpg

[soapzen]

If that's the case Chad, would the guys who beat those non-servant Asians to death wish to be classified as Asian themselves?
Are Westerners, whites and blacks also Asian then?

I'm not sure what you are saying here... the question was, do you consider Arabs to be Asians, I said no, others said yes, and I pointed out why some Arabs would object to the classification.

[Chad]

I'm just objecting to your generalizations. You said:
Arabs in the middle east consider Asians a 'servant class'.
Is this something you've learned first-hand? Because my first-hand experiences are in conflict with this. Abuse of domestic servants is a world-wide phenomenon. It's especially bad when they are migrants to countries where they have no rights. Don't confuse the elites and corrupt governments with the people.

[robotic]

i don't know why, when as a community we're supposed to oppose the generalization asians tend to face, we just tend to encourage them in our justifications.

hehe and again and again, why do we have to tell people what do identify with?

[LaiSteve66]

I've never viewed Arabs as Asian (in a conventional sense).

[soapzen]

Chad, if you read my note, I was talking about IN the Middle Eastern Arabic countries for that sentence.

Asians are usually seen as 'servants' because so many of the servants there are Asian. This is backed up by quite a lot of articles, and personal stories from people who worked there.

It's still splitting hairs. I've never met an Arab who feels himself closer to say Chinese than say black muslim if asked.

Why don't you find one and ask if they had to choose from Asian, Black, White, (Asian geographically, black religiously, white anthropologically) which group they're in?

I'd be willing to wager that none choose Asian.

For your edification, some specific reading on the subject:
http://www.time.com/time/international/1995/951023/justice.html

http://www.unrisd.org/unrisd/website/document.nsf/0/045B62F1548C9C15C1256E970031D80D?OpenDocument
A quote from above:
"As increasing numbers of “cheap” foreign workers from Asian and African countries have fulfilled the demand for unskilled workers, so the particular kinds of jobs found in the secondary labour markets have become racialized. That is, the dirty, dangerous and difficult jobs become associated with foreign (Asian and African) workers to such a degree that nationals in these countries refuse to undertake them, despite high levels of poverty and unemployment."

[haplesshobo]

they're West Asian.

I'm curious about the logic behind this, where you're now willing to further clarify them as west asian, and not simply asian. Does that mean that we should start calling Chinese, Koreans, etc.. as East Asian, instead of Asian. Or, would you have any issuses if we started classifying Indians as Southeast Asians, instead of simply Asian.

I understand that technically Indians, Iraqis, Russians, etc.. are all Asian. But, there seems to be some invisible line where we start distinguishing one group as Asian and the other as not even though they're both technically Asian since they're all from the same land mass. Where is this line?

[DragonKnight]

^The all inclusive Asian group can be broken down even further geographically. Sorta like Asian -> East Asian -> Chinese -> etc. It's convenient to lump people into a larger, all-inclusive group, but it must be understood that there sub-groups with unique characteristics whether it'd be geographical or culture that distinguish them from one another.

[haplesshobo]

^The all inclusive Asian group can be broken down even further geographically. Sorta like Asian -> East Asian -> Chinese -> etc. It's convenient to lump people into a larger, all-inclusive group, but it must be understood that there sub-groups with unique characteristics whether it'd be geographical or culture that distinguish them from one another.

Then, why the uproar for suggesting that we break down asian group into one of east asian like china, korea, etc.. vs. one for southeastern countries like India. Or, to point out that the chinese, japanese, koreans, etc.. share a common culture that is distinct from indians, pakistans, etc..

[DragonKnight]

Then, why the uproar for suggesting that we break down asian group into one of east asian like china, korea, etc.. vs. one for southeastern countries like India. Or, to point out that the chinese, japanese, koreans, etc.. share a common culture that is distinct from indians, pakistans, etc..
Maybe because the context of the breakdown in those discussions are more about disunity rather than appreciating the diversity.

[deez nuts]

if you no use da chopstix, you is no asian!

[Chad]

Chad, if you read my note, I was talking about IN the Middle Eastern Arabic countries for that sentence.

Asians are usually seen as 'servants' because so many of the servants there are Asian. This is backed up by quite a lot of articles, and personal stories from people who worked there.

It's still splitting hairs. I've never met an Arab who feels himself closer to say Chinese than say black muslim if asked.

Why don't you find one and ask if they had to choose from Asian, Black, White, (Asian geographically, black religiously, white anthropologically) which group they're in?

I'd be willing to wager that none choose Asian.

For your edification, some specific reading on the subject:
http://www.time.com/time/international/1995/951023/justice.html

http://www.unrisd.org/unrisd/website/document.nsf/0/045B62F1548C9C15C1256E970031D80D?OpenDocument
A quote from above:
"As increasing numbers of “cheap” foreign workers from Asian and African countries have fulfilled the demand for unskilled workers, so the particular kinds of jobs found in the secondary labour markets have become racialized. That is, the dirty, dangerous and difficult jobs become associated with foreign (Asian and African) workers to such a degree that nationals in these countries refuse to undertake them, despite high levels of poverty and unemployment."
My objection wasn't to your argument that Arabs don't consider themselves Asian, it was to the generalization you made which is what I have already said. Is it really so difficult?
As for this debate over whether or not Arabs are Asian, or if they consider themselves Asian, what does it matter? What are the consequences of including them in the "Asian" category or not?
IT IS OF VIRTUALLY NO CONSEQUENCE AND THEREFORE A STUPID, WORTHLESS, AND FRIVOLOUS DEBATE which could only serve the most petty interests.

[soapzen]

Chad, wasn't trying to get you all worked up.

You said in your first response:
What are the consequences of including Arabs in the Asian group or not?
It seems like some people feel that they own the "Asian" term and only people of East Asian ancestry fit into the category. The mass of land called "Asia" is much larger than this.

I didn't even address your question, except to indirectly say that people who share characteristics with one or more groups can choose which classification they belong to. Given that in my personal experience and reading, no Arab can relate to most government defined 'Asian' category.

If you read the Indian thread, even Indians should have a position of choice, because their language, culture, majority religions and anthropological classification (skull classification), puts them closer to the Middle East (caucasian) than Asian.

If Indians can even choose whether they wish to be considered either group for the purpose of demographics, Arabs, who are even farther west can even more.

But the US government doesn't classify Arabs as Asian, so besides geography, and the fact that not every Arabic country fits in Asia geographically, Arabs share not a single other trait with Asians that I can think of, other than being a small % of the US population.

What are the consequences of including them? It's a meaningless inclusion if no one but your group feels they belong to your group.

And uhh... yes... Asians 'own' the term Asians, we are Asian. If your name is Chad, you don't own the name Chad? Can you name someone else, who doesn't want to be called Chad, Chad?

You can get all the Chads together, and collectively say you own the name Chad, but you can't go to a Bill and tell him, "from today forward, Bill, your name is Chad". However, Bill can change his own name to Chad. Whether Arabs are Asians is up to them.

However, they are not currently considered Asian, including for the purpose of:
1. census (tallying numbers of minorities in this country, more of a minority, the more politicians must cater to their needs to get their votes),
2. minority status (used to matter for issues such as Affirmative Action and awarding minority government contracts or 'hate crime' protection), or
3. economic demographics (corporations researching whether they care about the opinions of a target group to determine product development, advertising, etc),

In order for Arabs to be considered would require proactive lobbying of the government on the part of Arab groups. I don't see any Arab groups screaming to be called Asian anywhere. Sooo... why would anyone want to call them Asians? What THEY consider THEMSELVES is very very relevant to this issue.

Is what so very difficult?

As for the frivolity of this debate... so what? Most debates are frivolous when you consider that that's all they are and not calls to action. In this case, it may not be entirely frivolous, since defining who we are is a prelude to banding together for any kind of action.

I do want to say that based on your reaction, I hope I am not coming across as racist against Arabs, regardless of their perceived attitude towards us IN THE MIDDLE EAST.

There's a difference between Arab Americans and Middle Eastern Arabs, just as there was between Japanese Imperialists during WWII and the Japanese Americans interred by America during WWII. From that perspective, maybe tossing in Middle East perceptions had nothing to do with the original subject which was US Arabs.

In either case, no need to get your panties in a wad and start yelling at me. :biggrin: :tongue: . We are all Asians here *group hug*.

[deez nuts]

yeh seriously, calm yourself, chad.

try not to get so hella worked up.

[robotic]

There's a difference between Arab Americans and Middle Eastern Arabs, just as there was between Japanese Imperialists during WWII and the Japanese Americans interred by America during WWII. From that perspective, maybe tossing in Middle East perceptions had nothing to do with the original subject which was US Arabs.

yep, you're right,

but these aren't two groups of arab personalities, though.
you could have "middle-eastern type" arabs among arab-americans and "enlightened arabs" among the middle eastern population, too. hehe, even these terms themselves are kind of generalized and stereotypical; unless of course if you're referring to the governments in that paragraph.

i agree with chad because he has a "let people call themselves what they want to be called!" stance on this, which i agree is very much true. despite where they are from, i think their identity should be decided by them alone - whether or not they want to be included as asians is solely their choice. i can understand why many people don't agree how arabs and indians can be included within your stereotypical asian - but i don't want to be so rigid in my definitions that i will not allow an arab or indian to associate him/herself with asian even if they wanted to be. is another individual's identity really our choice?

[Faithless]

This thread feels so much like the building up of a "straw man" just to let others knock the stuffing out of him. :frown:

[yoMAMA]

if you no use da chopstix, you is no asian!

they eat rice though.

[deez nuts]

they eat rice though.


that is true. but, so do the mexicans.

it's not what you eat; it's how you eat it.

[yuuteya]

better to ask the arabs themselves.

[Teymour]

As we all already know, Asians are the only group openly discriminated against. Arabs are only subvertly discriminated against.

I don't see T-shirts with derogatory Arab cartoons being sold, do you? Why's that? Cuz we don't act together and we have no voice anyone worries about. So we're picked on. What should we do about it?




Are you for real!?!?!?!

Just turn on the TV some time...

Besides, in this particular "case", the terminology of "Arab" seems rather constricting. The real question should be, are "Middle Easterners" considered to be "Asian".

Last I checked, there were/are Turks and Iranians living is Western China(Xinjiang), as they always have.

Oh course, you probably did not even know that...:mad:

[soapzen]

Teymour, I actually assumed that the landmass to the west of Iran was not considered Asia, only East of Iran. However, from a quick check of an online atlas, it appears more of the Middle East is in Asia, and considered 'West Asia'. Didn't know that.

Ethnic people living in Xinjiang are not called Iranians or Turks. They are called Ethnic Minority Chinese belonging to groups such as Kirgiz, Ozbek, Kazak. Some have green eyes and red hair. They are still Chinese and have been there for thousands of years.

I just looked up definition of the Middle East on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_East

Apparently, the Middle East includes Egypt under all definitions, which is in Africa. If used in the broader sense, it includes areas from North Africa.

By that definition, yes, most of the Middle East is in fact geologically located in Asia.

However, they still are not considered 'Asian' by the US government, and would need to petition (maybe sue) to be included in that category if they desired.

[Teymour]

Teymour, I actually assumed that the landmass to the west of Iran was not considered Asia, only East of Iran. However, from a quick check of an online atlas, it appears more of the Middle East is in Asia, and considered 'West Asia'. Didn't know that.


Interesting theory, and a rather arbitrary place to draw a "line". It puts Iran in a rather funny predicament, as well.

Oh, and technically Arabia and India are "subcontinents", and not strictly part of the Eurasian landmass. A rather mute point, I suppose...



Ethnic people living in Xinjiang are not called Iranians or Turks.


Perhaps not.

Of course, many are by definition "Turkic" and "Iranic" from a socio-cultural-linguistic and even anthropological stanpoint.

I recommed you do a "wiki" search on that one, to. It might suprise you...



They are called Ethnic Minority Chinese belonging to groups such as Kirgiz, Ozbek, Kazak. Some have green eyes and red hair. They are still Chinese and have been there for thousands of years.


The PRC can call them whatever they want to, because they run the place.

Kirghiz, Kazakhs, and Uzbeks are "Turks", from a linguistic and cultural angle. Of course, you will only find such "light" features as green eyes and red hair amongst the Uzbeks.



Apparently, the Middle East includes Egypt under all definitions, which is in Africa. If used in the broader sense, it includes areas from North Africa.


Afew points here:

1) There is no set definition of the "Middle East", due in part to the fact that the terminology has no real academic grounding. As soon as I have the ability to link into my posts, I will show you why. Some versions include Egypt, Turkey, Iran, the Maghreb(North Africa), Central Asia(Turkestan), Pakistan, while others do not. I have even seen a map from the 1920's that included Greece...Unthinkable in modern times!

2) Most of North Africa(about 98% of it) is totally uninhabited. The Sahara desert sees to this. The only regions in North Africa that are sustainable to human populations are the Maghreb "Atlas Mountains" region, outside of the Sahara's reach, in modern day Tunasia, Algeria and Morocco(the weather is alot like Southern California there). The other area is the Nile River Valley and Delta, where virtually all of Egypt's nearly 80 million people live(An area about the size of the Los Angeles Basin!). Ironically, the part of Egypt that is technically in Asia, the Sinai Peninsula, is virtually devoid of life, human or otherwise.

On a side note, this geographic trend of desertification carries into the Arabian Peninsula, as well, and even into Southern Iran/Afghanistan/Western Pakistan/Northernwestern India, and Central Asia...

3) A more accurate term that describes what you may be looking for is the "Near East", sometimes also called the "Levant", or simply the "East Mediterranean".

4) Some even consider the Caucusus region to be Europe, while others hold it to be the Middle East, or both. Then, of course, there is the issue of Istanbul and Thrace, and there proximity/relation to the Balkans in Southeastern Europe.



By that definition, yes, most of the Middle East is in fact geologically located in Asia.

However, they still are not considered 'Asian' by the US government, and would need to petition (maybe sue) to be included in that category if they desired.


I worked in labor law, and what you are refering to is a whole new can of worms. According to the U.S Labor Department, individuals with their origins in Europe, North Africa and the Middle East are defined as being "white" for the purpose of racial categorization. In recent years, this has also gone to include all of the former U.S.S.R republics in the Caucusus Region as well as Central Asia.

For the U.S governement, Africa does not really begin until you hit "Sub-Saharian" Africa, and Asia does not really begin until you hit China, or pass through the Khyber Pass, in Pakistan.

Thus ironically, Pakistan and India are lumped in with East Asians, while Afghans, Turks, Arabs, Uzbeks, Berbers, etc...Are lumped in with the whole of the Europe.

I hoped that cleared things up alittle! :wink: :wink: :wink:


P.S...The "racial status" of Middle Easterners(not just Arabs), is not going to change anytime soon. This has to do with FAR more than just petitioning the government. There are many many rather historical, and ugly, political and demographic elements at play here. Too many for me to attempt to cover in this post.

[AliBabaIncorporated]

Ethnic people living in Xinjiang are not called Iranians or Turks. They are called Ethnic Minority Chinese belonging to groups such as Kirgiz, Ozbek, Kazak. Some have green eyes and red hair. They are still Chinese and have been there for thousands of years.
Using the word "Chinese" for referring to Turkic is confusing to most Americans because they think of Chinese as an ethnic category, not a national identity. Similar to the way many Asians think of the "American" category, actually (e.g. making a distinction between "Americans" and "blacks").

Ethnic people living in Xinjiang are not called Iranians or Turks.
By whom, exactly? There is no distinction in Turkic languages between "Turk" (ethnicity) and "Turkish" (nationality). This leads to confusion like Azeris in Iran referring to Turkish language as "Republican Turkish" or "Istanbul" to distinguish it for themselves.

As for the Tajiks (a groups in China speaking a language related to Persian), I have no idea what their autonym is, but I'm pretty damn sure it's not Tajik cuz that's also a name the Turkic people gave them.

[Teymour]

Alibaba!

You seem to know a thing or two about Central Asia!:smile:

On a side note, all the Tajiks I have ever met have been from either Tajikistan, Uzbekistan or Afghanistan...Mostly Uzebekistan.

They seem to call themselves "Persian" in my presence, but that might have to do with accent, more than anything...:wink:

[Seamus]

How did we get on this topic? There are a lot of Turks in China (Uyghur, Uzbek, Kazak, Kyrgyz, Salar), but I thought we were talking about Arabs (of whom there are probably only a handful in China--mostly foreigners). There are a lot of terms for "Chineseness" in China--Junggoluklar, Kitailikler, Henzülikler--and you'll get different responses depending on whom you ask. Officially, everyone is a "Junggoluk" but some people may think of themselves as being Turks first, and Chinese second. In fact, the feeling of Turkic identity, or the idea of a "Turan Halk"--is probably stronger in Central Asia than in Turkey, where many people look to Europe and think of Turan ideology as being too right-wing.

It is well known that Turks originated from northern China and Mongolia, then moved into Xinjiang ("Sherq Turkestan"), and further west into the rest of Central Asia and Anatolia, and mixed with other local groups. The Arabs, on the other hand, originated in the Middle East. The four groups (from east to west)--Hans, Turks, Persians and Arabs--are all very different, though you can't deny the influence they have had on each other over history.

[Maru_chan]

i would consider them asian because the homecountry is in asia so..yea

[Teymour]

How did we get on this topic? There are a lot of Turks in China (Uyghur, Uzbek, Kazak, Kyrgyz, Salar), but I thought we were talking about Arabs (of whom there are probably only a handful in China--mostly foreigners).

Well, I believe we got on this topic because of the real issue at hand, which is not so much if "Arabs" are Asian, but if "Middle Easterners" in the U.S should be considered such, and what the terminology even really means.

After all, it has been my experience in American that most Americans can't tell an Indian from a Pakistani, from a Afghan from an Iranian, from a Arab, etc, etc, etc...:biggrin: