I am not a race or genetics expert, but I think "Asian" is not a race.
Asia includes the Indian subcontinent, including India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Natives of the subcontinent are different from Orientals, such as Chinese, Japanese and Korean, for example, but both are Asian.
Neither is "White". An Australian is completely 180 opposite of Canadian in almost everything and there is almost nothing common except monarchy and English language.
Are Amish white? People from Turkey? Sicilians? Argentinians?
I find the whole concept of "race" perplexing and catering to the lowest common denominator.
You could make the same point about the actual color “white”. You can point to various items of different colors and ask “is this thing actually white?”. You’ll have some people agreeing on most of these things, and disagree on some of these things. Would it make the whole concept of “color” meaningless and useless? Hardly.
If you had some people that were from India, some from Japan, some Siberian Russia, then actually I could see the answers being significantly different
You are missing my point: Asians - vietnamese, chinese, japanese, naga indians, have very little in common from educational/ecnonomical/social point of view.
Same with "whites" (whatever the definition is and for the life of me I just dont understand).
An Australian moving to Canada has a culture shock that is inversely similar to a Japanese going to Paris.
Americans are weirdly still clinging on to the race concept
There are common physical traits that form a family resemblance.
There’s also skull shape and nose length. But what’s the point of binning by these traits? US usual racial division is nonsensical (and I’d say offensive if I was american) and no one dares to question it. You literally blow the question of genetical origin to 100x size compared to the rest of the world. And yet don’t even do it in a way that could make sense instead of being a phenomenon similar to racism but by ignorance and meaningless overgrouping. And then avoid talking about it cause it’s a taboo. It is uniquely American.
>It’s probably the place where discussing race has the least social tolerance.
No. the rest of the world doesnt discuss it because it makes the least sense. I gave you examples above. It doesnt make sense to put an Aussie and Canuck in same bracket, neither does it make sense to put a Thai and Japanese in same bracket for whatever data point you want.
Even within India a sikh has nothing in common with naga has nothing in common with Tamils.
Race is an absurd abstract. Why not hair color? or eye color? or eye shape?
to show what I mean. See those words in the context of the sentences in which they occur, and it can be seen that you are not giving any evidence for your claims either.
Do your own research, if my comment is so important to you.
Also this is HN, a forum, not a court of law. Tons of other users on here, regularly and casually make comments which may seem false to others, without giving evidence for their statements.
>Notice that a charged label on a Wikipedia page is enough for you, a skeptical person, to make an absolute conclusion.
Don't try to mislead, by using words like "charged label". The conclusion is clearly made by the Wikipedia page, not by me. I merely quoted it. Anyone who doubts that can go read it first, before making "absolute conclusions".
>Notice that a charged label on a Wikipedia page is enough for you, a skeptical person, to make an absolute conclusion.
Notice what charged label on the page [1]? By common sense logic of conversation, if you considered that I was using a "charged label" (whatever the heck that means) in my argument, the onus was on you to, at a minimum, mention that label, which you clearly did not do, although I think I can guess which one you mean.
>If it’s so obviously false, can you share the landmark study or experiment that disproved it?
How about you first sharing "the landmark study or experiment" that proves it?
And I wonder if you read the whole article, seeing that the word "discredited" (referring to phrenology) appears at least 5 or 6 times in the article, in many cases with citations.
>All that’s true, but you can still identify them trivially. There are common physical traits that form a family resemblance.
That's exactly what I implied by my above comment ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42383753 ), which means the same as this part of yours: (i.e. you can still identify them trivially. There are common physical traits that form a family resemblance.).
But mine was referring to the differences between Indians on the one hand, and East Asians (and some others) on the other hand.
Here, the ”East Asians” includes Chinese, Taiwanese, Japanese and Koreans, among others, and the "some others" also includes Tibetans, Nepalese, Bhutanese and Sikkimese, and Burmese, and people of the North Eastern states of India, such as Assam, Meghalaya, Manipur, Nagaland, and Tripura.
All of these above people can easily be distinguished from (the rest of) Indians by their narrow eyes.
I don't know what is so difficult to understand about this. Nor is it discriminatory. It is simply stating obvious facts, that anyone can visually ascertain for themselves.
It is the people who behave in a discriminatory way towards anyone, based on where they come from, or their ethnicity, who are the real racists, not those who talk in an innocuous way about distinguishing visual characteristics of various categories of people.
>Yeah, I’m not buying that race is a uniquely American construction. It’s probably the place where discussing race has the least social tolerance.
(
>American
Say the word right, dude. USian, not American. :)
)
Discussing race may have the least social tolerance in USA (or not), but when it comes to actual behaviour, i.e. racism?
And I do not mean to single out the USA. There is plenty of racism in Europe and Asia too. I have myself experienced it in both places, and have heard of plenty of anecdotes about it from people whom I trust.
There's probably high genetic kinship (Britain) for Canada and Australia amongst 'white' people, the US too has a large body of genetic kinship with Britain, it's definitely not your 180.0.
I am not a race or genetics expert, but I think "Asian" is not a race.
Asia includes the Indian subcontinent, including India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Natives of the subcontinent are different from Orientals, such as Chinese, Japanese and Korean, for example, but both are Asian.