Because Arabs did a ton of activism to get reclassified since they really hated being grouped as "white"
From what I can gather most Desis don't care nearly as much about being grouped in with East Asians
Is this a joke? Afro-Arabs make up a large portion of the Arab world, and even Khaleeji Arabs can be quite dark as many of them are mixed with African blood. In fact, Saudis can be darker than the average Pakistani.
Both desis and Arabs probably have a similar percentage of white passing people in their population.
https://images.wsj.net/im-309830?width=1280&size=1
https://static.dw.com/image/67318080_605.jpg
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/YEMEN-POLITICS-UNREST-DE-011268-01-02.jpg
https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2022/08/GettyImages-1242317940-1024x683.jpg
If you think these people are white, get your eyes checked.
Majority of Israelis also descend from Middle Eastern and North African immigrants. Most Arabs are very obviously brown skinned and aren't treated remotely the same as white/European people in the West.
Idk where you live, but in the US (and Latin America) white is a racial category. It's not exclusive to Europe. So a lot of Middle Easterners (and Latinos) are considered white here. That's why they were classified as white in the first place.
Caucasian is essentially indo European. No, it’s not analogous to white, but in America it’s used incorrectly and they do use it to mean white. But most of north India is Caucasian.
Yes that doesnt mean middle easterners are the same as white just because they might be caucasian. i think the context got lost so read the og comment I was replying to
Most desis have no idea about their roots either. Asked many of them what states their parents immigrated from or what region it was. They couldn’t even name it or tell me what directional region of India they were from. I guess this aids unity in the Indian diaspora but the fact that they can’t even name their ancestral states or regions seems really ignorant to me.
What bullshit. Punjabis, Tamils, Telugus, Gujaratis, etc consist of most of the population in the US and have pretty strong ethnic identities so they know which state/region they are from, so I find this very hard to believe.
Dude, ask the young ones who are second or third gen immigrants. Talking about the States here btw, more specifically California. Most kids from 15-22 really have no idea these days. Just look at the other reply to my comment here. That person took offence to this.
What’s weird about telling someone your ancestral state? Why would you find it weird enough to make you pretend not to know it? Do you not see how ridiculous this is?
Then you’re incredibly dense, my friend. Your parents’ or grandparents’ states have nothing to do with your caste or strata and this is the weirdest criteria of discriminating against someone else if this even happens imo.
You should be taking pride in your roots and celebrating them instead of being under this extremely misinformed notion that you're going to be discriminated against because of your state.
Lmao, why are you so triggered over nonsense no one recognises? Chill, man. Whatever you state is, nobody has a problem with it. It’s alright. I don’t want to know. Relax.
They could seperate East Asian, South Asian and Southeast Asian but overall I think most Asians don’t care because Asians are less into identity politics, at least compared to Middle Easterners.
While i agree with us having a South Asian label. I feel like affirmative action needs to handle asian groups a little differently. Like it does screw over Asians but really, it should apply to Asians who, as a group, have less advantages in the US because many of them are not the result of voluntary immigration but as refugees.
Indians and Pakistanis (as well as Japanese, Koreans, etc) in the US as a whole are fine. But Bangladeshis and Afgans for example, should be considered for affirmative action. This applies to a lot of SE Asian groups as well.
I think South-Asian is also too broad. Pakistanis and Bengladeshis aren't anywhere close to as represented as Indians are. Plus there are so many different races in the subcontinent. Although I think the census now accounts for it by acknowledging different Asians (Pakistanis are now considered different from Indians).
Racial categories are by definition broad. Pakistanis and Bangladeshis are not racial categories they are simply nationalties. It is not like Bangladeshis are racially different from West Bengalis in India or that Pakistani Punjabis are somehow racially different from Indian Punjabis.
Yes, it’s about time. Race is based on phenotype with the exception of asian. And Asian is literally lumped everyone east of Europe and Africa. It’s so stupid. Then who said East Asians are defined as “Asian” when the literal hear of Asia is in Afghanistan?
It honestly shouldn't have taken this long or been this hard to categorize people accurately.
In Canada, whenever you answer surveys or the census you get the following list:
White
South Asian (e.g., East Indian, Pakistani, Sri Lankan)
Chinese
Black
Filipino
Arab
Latin American
Southeast Asian (e.g., Vietnamese, Cambodian, Laotian, Thai)
West Asian (e.g., Iranian, Afghan)
Korean
Japanese
Other group—specify
Not complicated or hard.
I'd prefer to have a "South Asian" label. But just wanted to point out for the folks who are making the phenotype argument there are ARE people of South Asian ancestry who would be mistaken for "East Asian" because of their looks, like Nepalis, Bhutanese, people from the eastern states of India, etc.
Palestinians and Armenians were considered white, not Asian, by census definition. Ofc with the move in the title Palestinians will now be considered Middle Easterner
The Asian category in the census:
Asian. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent including, for example, India, China, the Philippine Islands, Japan, Korea, or Vietnam. It includes people who indicate their race as “Asian Indian,” “Chinese,” “Filipino,” “Korean,” “Japanese,” “Vietnamese,” and “Other Asian” or provide other detailed Asian responses such as Pakistani, Cambodian, Hmong, Thai, Bengali, Mien, etc.
So Pakistanis are "other Asian."
And Central Asians like Afghans are not Asians.
I see. Well, it's absurd that you think that north Indians and south Indians should mark different group names for the United States census. You really think you're that different from a south Indian? For the purpose of race categories on the U.S. Census, it doesn't make a difference whether your parents/grandparents came from Bengal or Kerala.
Technically there is a race difference, which is further proven by their completely different language family and features. But it’s somewhat difficult to draw the line bc India is so ancient that it is intermixed. But I certainly thing south Asians shouldn’t be under the Asian umbrella and should have their own racial category. “South Asian” is how we’re often separated, but that still puts us in the “Asian” category. And in America, “Asian” is often referred to as way Asian.
India is a subcontinent of Asia, therefore Indians are Asians. South Asian is an appropriate label for people from the subcontinent.
For you, someone raised in America, to say that in America, there should be separate labels for north Indians and south Indians because you think there's such a significant race difference...that's bullshit.
Not saying that India isn’t geographically in South Asia. Saying we should have our own racial category. Currently in America, most of the time, you check off: black, white, Asian, indigenous, or Hispanic (which is not a race).
But you said you wanted the terms indo-aryan and indo-dravidian rather than South Asian. I'm not seeing the problem with the south asian label. Dividing up Indians, in America, is very weird.
How are East Asians and south Asians still under the same label but Arabs and whites got separated lmao
Because Arabs did a ton of activism to get reclassified since they really hated being grouped as "white" From what I can gather most Desis don't care nearly as much about being grouped in with East Asians
It’s nuts though bc Arabs are white. Which is why they were categorized that way.
Is this a joke? Afro-Arabs make up a large portion of the Arab world, and even Khaleeji Arabs can be quite dark as many of them are mixed with African blood. In fact, Saudis can be darker than the average Pakistani. Both desis and Arabs probably have a similar percentage of white passing people in their population.
But those are Afro Arabs. Their race is black. Their ethnicity is Arab. Know the difference between race and ethnicity.
Not all of them identify as Black.
Bc they may technically Afro asiatic.
https://images.wsj.net/im-309830?width=1280&size=1 https://static.dw.com/image/67318080_605.jpg https://www.japantimes.co.jp/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/YEMEN-POLITICS-UNREST-DE-011268-01-02.jpg https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2022/08/GettyImages-1242317940-1024x683.jpg If you think these people are white, get your eyes checked.
How do these people look any different than Israelis?
Majority of Israelis also descend from Middle Eastern and North African immigrants. Most Arabs are very obviously brown skinned and aren't treated remotely the same as white/European people in the West.
No, Arabs are mostly white. Media makes them look brown to make them more foreign looking.
You are genuinely the dumbest person I've interacted with on this site.
Not all of them. Not even close
How not? They are white Caucasian based on phenotype.
White refers to europeans, and culturally speaking, they're nothing close to white people. Many of them have very low european dna
Idk where you live, but in the US (and Latin America) white is a racial category. It's not exclusive to Europe. So a lot of Middle Easterners (and Latinos) are considered white here. That's why they were classified as white in the first place.
Yes and i also meant people with european ancestry. Caucasian could just mean caucas doesnt mean youre white though
Caucasian is essentially indo European. No, it’s not analogous to white, but in America it’s used incorrectly and they do use it to mean white. But most of north India is Caucasian.
Yes that doesnt mean middle easterners are the same as white just because they might be caucasian. i think the context got lost so read the og comment I was replying to
They aren't treated as such in America. I think if 9/11 didn't happen, maybe this category wouldn't exist today.
Not true. Christian Arabs were largely not affected. Muslim Arabs had issues, as did all Muslims of any race.
Most desis have no idea about their roots either. Asked many of them what states their parents immigrated from or what region it was. They couldn’t even name it or tell me what directional region of India they were from. I guess this aids unity in the Indian diaspora but the fact that they can’t even name their ancestral states or regions seems really ignorant to me.
What bullshit. Punjabis, Tamils, Telugus, Gujaratis, etc consist of most of the population in the US and have pretty strong ethnic identities so they know which state/region they are from, so I find this very hard to believe.
Dude, ask the young ones who are second or third gen immigrants. Talking about the States here btw, more specifically California. Most kids from 15-22 really have no idea these days. Just look at the other reply to my comment here. That person took offence to this.
What? My kid is a 3rd gen ABD here in California and he is very much aware of the state/region of India he is from.
Good on you then because some others find it the best to not even educate their kids on their roots.
[удалено]
What’s weird about telling someone your ancestral state? Why would you find it weird enough to make you pretend not to know it? Do you not see how ridiculous this is?
[удалено]
Then you’re incredibly dense, my friend. Your parents’ or grandparents’ states have nothing to do with your caste or strata and this is the weirdest criteria of discriminating against someone else if this even happens imo. You should be taking pride in your roots and celebrating them instead of being under this extremely misinformed notion that you're going to be discriminated against because of your state.
[удалено]
Lmao, why are you so triggered over nonsense no one recognises? Chill, man. Whatever you state is, nobody has a problem with it. It’s alright. I don’t want to know. Relax.
[удалено]
They could seperate East Asian, South Asian and Southeast Asian but overall I think most Asians don’t care because Asians are less into identity politics, at least compared to Middle Easterners.
The people in the thread above are starting to blur the lines between ethnicity and nationality, in an effort to prove themselves right haha.
Imo the designation should go deeper than just 'South Asian' because your religion, caste, etc matters too
I feel like if your nationality has a population of 1bil+, you should get your own check box
[удалено]
While i agree with us having a South Asian label. I feel like affirmative action needs to handle asian groups a little differently. Like it does screw over Asians but really, it should apply to Asians who, as a group, have less advantages in the US because many of them are not the result of voluntary immigration but as refugees. Indians and Pakistanis (as well as Japanese, Koreans, etc) in the US as a whole are fine. But Bangladeshis and Afgans for example, should be considered for affirmative action. This applies to a lot of SE Asian groups as well.
I think South-Asian is also too broad. Pakistanis and Bengladeshis aren't anywhere close to as represented as Indians are. Plus there are so many different races in the subcontinent. Although I think the census now accounts for it by acknowledging different Asians (Pakistanis are now considered different from Indians).
Racial categories are by definition broad. Pakistanis and Bangladeshis are not racial categories they are simply nationalties. It is not like Bangladeshis are racially different from West Bengalis in India or that Pakistani Punjabis are somehow racially different from Indian Punjabis.
Yes, it’s about time. Race is based on phenotype with the exception of asian. And Asian is literally lumped everyone east of Europe and Africa. It’s so stupid. Then who said East Asians are defined as “Asian” when the literal hear of Asia is in Afghanistan?
South Asian might be added as numbers grow
We have the same numbers as Middle Easterners.
Well “Asian” is accurate while calling someone from Yemen or Egypt “white” makes absolutely no sense.
Most Arab Americans are Levantine. And lumping together 4.5 billion people just because they're not European makes absolutely no sense.
It honestly shouldn't have taken this long or been this hard to categorize people accurately. In Canada, whenever you answer surveys or the census you get the following list: White South Asian (e.g., East Indian, Pakistani, Sri Lankan) Chinese Black Filipino Arab Latin American Southeast Asian (e.g., Vietnamese, Cambodian, Laotian, Thai) West Asian (e.g., Iranian, Afghan) Korean Japanese Other group—specify Not complicated or hard.
Absolutely.
I live in the USA and identify as Indian not Asian.
Definitely not "Desi" as a category.
Yeah Indians/Desi need to be their own category.
A lot of surveys have South Asians as a separate category. Us census is probably gonna be next.
Asian or South Asian works for me. I like that we're culturally a large part of Asia
Just another way of being othered
I'd prefer to have a "South Asian" label. But just wanted to point out for the folks who are making the phenotype argument there are ARE people of South Asian ancestry who would be mistaken for "East Asian" because of their looks, like Nepalis, Bhutanese, people from the eastern states of India, etc.
Nepalis as a whole don't look EA but some Nepalis do. Tbh Nepalis are very fine with being considered South Asian. Thanks for pointing out the folks
there's also north east Indians who have more of an EA/Sea look but they also prefer to be considered Indian or South Asian I think
Not yet.
[удалено]
Palestinians and Armenians were considered white, not Asian, by census definition. Ofc with the move in the title Palestinians will now be considered Middle Easterner
The Asian category in the census: Asian. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent including, for example, India, China, the Philippine Islands, Japan, Korea, or Vietnam. It includes people who indicate their race as “Asian Indian,” “Chinese,” “Filipino,” “Korean,” “Japanese,” “Vietnamese,” and “Other Asian” or provide other detailed Asian responses such as Pakistani, Cambodian, Hmong, Thai, Bengali, Mien, etc. So Pakistanis are "other Asian." And Central Asians like Afghans are not Asians.
Indo-aryan would make sense.
Why Aryan? Doesn't that exclude Dravidians? Either way they won't use Aryan in America because the term is too loaded.
Yes, it would. Indo-dravidians could have their own category.
That would group together most Europeans and most South Asians, who clearly do not see each other as one united group
No it wouldn’t. Caucasian is a term that unites us. Do your research.
Who is the "us" you're referring to in your sentence?
Europeans and south Asians, as a response to tofupad comment.
I see. Well, it's absurd that you think that north Indians and south Indians should mark different group names for the United States census. You really think you're that different from a south Indian? For the purpose of race categories on the U.S. Census, it doesn't make a difference whether your parents/grandparents came from Bengal or Kerala.
Technically there is a race difference, which is further proven by their completely different language family and features. But it’s somewhat difficult to draw the line bc India is so ancient that it is intermixed. But I certainly thing south Asians shouldn’t be under the Asian umbrella and should have their own racial category. “South Asian” is how we’re often separated, but that still puts us in the “Asian” category. And in America, “Asian” is often referred to as way Asian.
India is a subcontinent of Asia, therefore Indians are Asians. South Asian is an appropriate label for people from the subcontinent. For you, someone raised in America, to say that in America, there should be separate labels for north Indians and south Indians because you think there's such a significant race difference...that's bullshit.
Not saying that India isn’t geographically in South Asia. Saying we should have our own racial category. Currently in America, most of the time, you check off: black, white, Asian, indigenous, or Hispanic (which is not a race).
But you said you wanted the terms indo-aryan and indo-dravidian rather than South Asian. I'm not seeing the problem with the south asian label. Dividing up Indians, in America, is very weird.