Originally Posted by Zdrav
It seems that "Asia" and "Asian" consists of everybody on the general Eurasian landmass who's not White European. Despite the fact that a diverse array of religions and ethnicities exist in this Asian sphere, it is all clumped together in a overly broad categorization that reeks of haphazard classification by Eurocentric arbiters. What do Muslim Arabs, Hindu Indians, Buddhist Tibetans, and Catholic Filipinos have in common? From a Eurocentric point of view, they're all non-Europeans, so that's enough to lump them all together in the same group. But from an intellectually credible viewpoint, the term "Asian" is much too broad and ill-defined to be of any use.
I find it very interesting that you decided to divide people by their religions and, for instance, ignore the sizable Muslim Filipino minority in favor of the Filipinos who took on, as you might say, a White European religion; you are also overlooking the Arabs (the term Arab itself oftentimes improperly used to the point where you should find it offensive or even racist) who choose to be Christians.
It is also very interesting that you use the term "White" to lump all Europeans together into one group when there is in fact many different ethnic groups on the European continent that are as separate as an Arab and a Tibetan.
Just as interesting is the fact that you have wholly neglected to mention Africa, which happens to be attached to the Eurasian landmass (or would be except for a few waterways that most sane people would begrudge; else, what would you consider Sri Lanka to be?).
Interestingly enough, until this moment you probably have had no objections to the term "African", when the San and Amhara are as different as any of the ethnicities you have previously mentioned. You have also probably used the term "African-American" over the term "Black" without bothering to consider the nuances between an Americanized 3rd generation Kenyan and an individual who traces his ancestry back to the slaves of the 1700s brought over to the Americas.
It interests me that you have probably used the term Chicano, Latino, or Hispanic without fully considering the extent to which you have completely marginalized the variety of different ethnic groups that exist today south of the Rio Grande, and ignored the history and violence that killed off hundreds more.
And finally, I am interested to see if you can explain how someone who does
care to differentiate between humans by various ethnic, lingual, cultural, geographical, religious, etc. traits - some of which are selected on a bloody fucking whim; excuse me, but what the fuck is an Indian, you damnable Anglo-fellating-philic apologist
- on a regular basis is not a racist him or herself?
Q.E.D. YOU. ARE. A. RACIST. Good day, sir.
/Ah, I feel much better now.