People are going to lose their shit if you bring up western or central Asia. Kazakhstan alone will have people scratching their heads once they look at what kinds of people you find there looks wise.
Samurai_Shinjo posted...
Controversial opinion here but I personally believe that Indians are only "Asian" in the geographic sense, but not so much culturally and phenotypically. I think "South Asians" should be a separate demographic. As you said, East/Southeast Asians don't feel the same kind of familiarity toward Indians as they do toward one another. Asia is such a huge continent that it's wrong to placed everyone under the same umbrella just because they happened to live in the same continent
Except they do this to Europe and Africa already and that's considered fine. All continents are huge, they're only continents. People here judge by looks above all else even though if you go to Europe and Africa you'll see that people look drastically different as you go throughout it and you'll EASILY be able to tell they're from different regions of the same continent. For example, you can tell a Slavic person apart from a non White Slavic person. To many people Slavic people look "exotic" next to non Slavic Whites due to how different they look. Yet nobody doubts they're White or European despite that.
Ben_Ruggiero posted...
No, it's the same as I don't consider middle eastern people as Asian.
Middle East stretches into Africa and a part of Europe as well. The Middle East is a term America made up by the way so not surprising it makes no sense.
Actually, Europe are ones who invented the term "Middle East". However, their definition was different, and meant northwestern South Asia and Central Asia, while the modern definition is Western Asia except for Georgia, Azerbaijan and Armenia. ---