Huh? I don't get it. WTF?

Boner_Jones · Post by **Boner_Jones** » February 5th, 2011, 9:18 am

When I think of Indians (from India) I see them as very smart, hard working.. i live and work in a town with a lot of Indians too... actually my best friend for a couple years in high school was INdian. Theyre always in some brainy profession, going to the best colleges... realy talented people. To me they're like other Asians like Chinese, japanese, korean: very successful in something, I mean really successful. You always read about these rich Asian countries and...seeing the Asians in my work or school, well I can kinda understand why.

So how come India is such a shithole? Shouldn't it be developed and modern? WTF??

keius · Post by **keius** » February 7th, 2011, 11:32 pm

Well, ask any Chinese, Korean, Japanese, SE Asian, etc if they consider Indians to be Asian. The vast majority will be like "WTF, they're Indian, not Asian!".

Anyway, Indians....the ones that have immigrated at least, tend to be very hardworking. They're certain stereotypes, just like Chinese....but i won't get into that.

As for why India's such a shithole....not all of it is.
But just consider, India has what?....~1.2 billion people in about 1/3 the landmass of the US.
China has about 1.3 billion (?) in about the same area as that of the US.
India's overcrowding/overpopulation issues are much worse than China's if you consider the ratio of landmass vs population. They've got some major population control issues. That's just one of many factors though.

Boner_Jones · Post by **Boner_Jones** » February 9th, 2011, 5:25 am

How did it get that way? was it always overcrowded? Do they have a one child policy like China?

So will India ever become rich and developed like the east Asian countries?

ladislav · Post by **ladislav** » February 9th, 2011, 6:07 am

Where do you see those Indians? In the US? Those are the elite. They are the equivalent of Harvard Yankee Blue Bloods. They are the only ones who can get a visa to come to the US. The US has a very strange demographics. Lowest classes of Hispanics immigrate, highest classes of Indians do too. Weird. The people you see in the US are not the cross section of their original countries.

Well, ask any Chinese, Korean, Japanese, SE Asian, etc if they consider Indians to be Asian. The vast majority will be like "WTF, they're Indian, not Asian!".

In the US, you mean, as in ask Chinese-Americans, Korean Americans and Japanese, etc Americans?

Where most immigrants from Asia are of Mongolian-originated stock and the word Asian has come to mean someone that looks like this:

the arrival of Indians- a recent phenomenon, has produced contradictions and confusion. In America people are conveniently and simplistically divided into

Whites/Caucasians

Blacks

Hispanics

Asians

American Indians and Alaskan Natives

Nice and neat and we have the world divided now into sweet little human packages. Now you have these long nosed people coming in and buying 7-11? WTF.

Yup, when Afghans, Indians and Arabs arrived, people just did not know where among these simplistic categories they would put them. So they just left them with the original name- Indians, Arabs. But sorry guys, all indigenous people of Asia are Asians. So are Arabs.

You do not need to have features like these:

To be an Asian.

India is South Asia. Has always been there and will always be there.

There used to be a word Oriental which designated people of "Mongolian" stock. There also used to be a term Mongoloid race. But these two terms were declared non PC and insulting. And one cannot say Yellow people, Brown people and Red people, because it is insulting to them but one can say white people. And black people. Nice. A contradictory and inconsistent system. So, Oriental became Asian. But one thing the pundits of political correctness forgot was that Asia is enormous ( how would they know, Geography is not their strongest point) and that Afganistan and India and Turkey are all in Asia. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are in Asia. Turks are Asians. So are Iranians. Who are these PC imbeciles to be moving continents? And then they brainwash kids.

And to reply to your original question. India has a caste system. Low classes and high classes and a small middle class. The people of middle class are the ones who can study hard, work hard get diplomas and go to the US. The ones with money also can go and buy hotels and 7-11s. The lower classes = the majority of the population- cannot get the visa to go to the US. Only the cream of the crop can. So, those are the ones you see.

India had a turbulent history and most of it unfortunate. It was raped by Moghuls. It was robbed by the Brits. It is itself a divided nation with many ethnic groups that speak different languages and cannot understand each other. Overpopulation and bad politics and corruption. But give it time. It will rise. It is now growing and soon them and China will leave the rest of the world in the dust.

globetrotter · Post by **globetrotter** » February 9th, 2011, 6:29 am

Boner_Jones wrote:How did it get that way? was it always overcrowded? Do they have a one child policy like China?

So will India ever become rich and developed like the east Asian countries?

India and China were, combined, ~70% of worldwide GDP for 9 of the past 10 millenia.

So when the medical revolution hit in the 1800's, they had a bigger population in place and an extant civilization in place and they grew explosively.

Both nations will peak circa 2050.

China will only add another 100 million or fewer people.

India will add another 400 million to slightly surpass China in total population.

As nations become wealthier, women often work alone, they become choosier for husbands and they have fewer children or do not marry at all.
This is already happening in Beijing and Shanghai and it will slowly spread throughout China in the coming decades.

If, perchance, you lust for a rural Chinese girl with a good heart, you better put your plans in to action sooner rather than later.

Boner_Jones · Post by **Boner_Jones** » February 9th, 2011, 6:40 am

If theres nothing wrong with "white" why is it insulting calling other people "black" or "yellow" or whatever color? WTF?

If asia is so enormous maybe its not a bad idea to bring back some the old terms... like "oriental" for Chinese, japanese, korean. No offense to anyone Asian.... but personally I don't get whats so offensive about that term.

And then we can call Indians... "Indians."

And Arabs we can call "Arabs"

And then nobody has to call them "asian" anymore.

Come to think of it... I don't get why "negro" was such a bad word either if "caucasian" is used. Oh well...

ladislav · Post by **ladislav** » February 9th, 2011, 11:59 am

If theres nothing wrong with "white" why is it insulting calling other people "black" or "yellow" or whatever color? WTF?

It is demeaning because it was use pejoratively when they were poor immigrants in the US. The Japanese in Japan use the term yellow race. The Russians use the words Europid and Mongoloid. And Negroid.

If asia is so enormous maybe its not a bad idea to bring back some the old terms... like "oriental" for Chinese, japanese, korean. No offense to anyone Asian.... but personally I don't get whats so offensive about that term.

It is offensive to hyphenated Americans because they used to be oppressed. It is not offensive to people in their own countries.

And then we can call Indians... "Indians."

And Arabs we can call "Arabs"

And then nobody has to call them "asian" anymore.

Well, actually it is precisely the time when we can call them all Asians.

Come to think of it... I don't get why "negro" was such a bad word either if "caucasian" is used. Oh well...

It was used pejoratively by the white oppressors so it is bad now. Bad in the US, that is.

Far East is now non PC because it shows a Eurocentric view. But wait a minute, the Chinese calling their country- Middle Kingdom is not ethnocentric? And Oriental means a person from where the Sun rises. Japan means- the land of the origin of the Sun.

But it was used pejoratively when teasing.

This is why we leave it all behind when we go abroad.

keius · Post by **keius** » February 14th, 2011, 11:27 pm

ladislav wrote:
Well, ask any Chinese, Korean, Japanese, SE Asian, etc if they consider Indians to be Asian. The vast majority will be like "WTF, they're Indian, not Asian!".
In the US, you mean, as in ask Chinese-Americans, Korean Americans and Japanese, etc Americans?

Where most immigrants from Asia are of Mongolian-originated stock and the word Asian has come to mean someone that looks like this:
India is South Asia. Has always been there and will always be there.

A technicality based on maps drawn up by westerners (british colonization) really (whether Chinese have accepted this or not makes no difference)...
The fact is that if you asked any Chinese in China whether or not Indians were Asian, these are the Chinese (not ABC's) that will tell you that they are NOT Asian.
This is the predominant view. This view is based on ethnicity, not geography or location. The big view in China (as of 4 years ago) is that Indians are closer to 'blacks' than they are to *Asians*. This is
exactly what i was told when i was in China....accompanied by alot of nodding heads.
Only *politically correct* Chinese-Americans will consider Indians to be Asian.
You will also find that Chinese born American-Chinese don't view Indians as Asian. ABC's sometimes do since they are taught that in schools (based on historically western maps).
World geography isn't very important in Chinese education

Hell, Alot of Japanese would like to deny that they are Asian...they simply prefer Japanese.
Most Indians consider themselves Indian, and only 'south asian' when pushed if they admit it at all.
Do South Koreans consider Indians Asian? Not sure, i've never asked Korean-Americans and have never had the opportunity to live in South Korea.

A big thing we have to remember is that every country has their own 'labels'.
Politically correct labels in the US may not fly in other countries. To insist/assume so is asking to be labeled an idiot in many foreign countries.
There is also an 'assumption' in North American lingo that the term 'Asian' refers to 'East Asian'. This is simply how it's used by most Americans nowadays.

FreeYourMind · Post by **FreeYourMind** » February 15th, 2011, 1:07 am

Boner_Jones wrote:If theres nothing wrong with "white" why is it insulting calling other people "black" or "yellow" or whatever color? WTF?

If asia is so enormous maybe its not a bad idea to bring back some the old terms... like "oriental" for Chinese, japanese, korean. No offense to anyone Asian.... but personally I don't get whats so offensive about that term.

And then we can call Indians... "Indians."

And Arabs we can call "Arabs"

And then nobody has to call them "asian" anymore.

Come to think of it... I don't get why "negro" was such a bad word either if "caucasian" is used. Oh well...

It's curious how Whites are more and more called Caucasians rather than Whites, while the use of Oriental and Negro is frowned upon. Anyone who uses Caucasian instead of White (which I and most Whites prefer to be called), should have no objection to Asians being called Orientals and blacks called Negroes, because they are racially descriptive terms, not "racist" ones.

momopi · Post by **momopi** » February 15th, 2011, 8:23 am

Asia is a large continent and there are many parts. Chinese/Korean/Japanese are East Asian and Indian/Pakistani are South Asian. In British English, the term Asian refers to South Asians (Indian/Pakistani/Bangladesh/Sri Lankan/etc), while East Asians (Chinese/Korean/Japanese) are Orientals. The word "Orient" is from Latin "Oriens", meaning "rising" as in the Sun rising from the East, versus "Occident/Occidental" is from Latin word "Occidens" meaning "setting" as in the sun sets to the west.

India's economic reforms did not start until 1991, vs. China in 1978.

ladislav · Post by **ladislav** » February 15th, 2011, 1:09 pm

"...This is the predominant view. This view is based on ethnicity, not geography or location. The big view in China (as of 4 years ago) is that Indians are closer to 'blacks' than they are to *Asians*. This is
exactly what i was told when i was in China....accompanied by a lot of nodding heads...."

And you buy that nonsense? Sounds like a mass misconception.

http://www.saarc-sec.org/

Bring those Chinese to the summit and have them climb on the stage and loudly announce to the people there that they are not Asians. And that they are are closer to Blacks.

Bring those Chinese to the HQ of this bank and have them loudly say that, too.

http://www.adb.org/Countries/

I guess the Chinese now compete with Americans in Geographical ignorance and ethnic ignorance, too.

keius · Post by **keius** » February 16th, 2011, 2:03 am

ladislav wrote:
"...This is the predominant view. This view is based on ethnicity, not geography or location. The big view in China (as of 4 years ago) is that Indians are closer to 'blacks' than they are to *Asians*. This is
exactly what i was told when i was in China....accompanied by a lot of nodding heads...."
And you buy that nonsense? Sounds like a mass misconception.
I guess the Chinese now compete with Americans in Geographical ignorance and ethnic ignorance, too.

Exactly my point. I don't buy that "nonsense", but to them, it isn't nonsense, it's their view of the world that they consider to be the truth as they know it.
It's about perception. In their area of the woods, that 'truth' is no less legitimate than our views. They have their own 'labels', much like we do.
Also consider the ruckus that's been going on about how the Sea of Japan is labeled...or how 'local' islets claimed by multiple nations in that area
are labeled. Many of those names were labeled by western nations, many of those names which are no longer used by locals, some of which have different names in each
claimant nation. If you look at world maps used by different nations, you may or may not notice that they tend to have small variances from the maps used by
western nations, usually involving their own country.

Something else to note, geography isn't an important subject in a Chinese education, even in those supposedly well educated. The only countries that people had any real knowledge about were those
that were considered notable....major "Asian" countries.....those that are commonly worth immigrating to....etc. Most Chinese live in their own small world with themselves at the center of it.
In that, they aren't much different from most Americans. I recall watching Leno or Letterman interviewing everyday Americans in NYC about simple world geography...these interviews also involved
US geography. Many didn't even know the capital of the state that they were living in......all i could do was shake my head.

I find the current 'geographical ignorance and ethnic ignorance' to be so very similar to certain views espoused by Americans in our own short past/history (like u mentioned, arguably our present day as well)....

EDIT: Did you know Chinese maps list/show Taiwan as a Chinese province?

globetrotter · Post by **globetrotter** » February 16th, 2011, 1:49 pm

ladislav wrote:
"...This is the predominant view. This view is based on ethnicity, not geography or location. The big view in China (as of 4 years ago) is that Indians are closer to 'blacks' than they are to *Asians*. This is
exactly what i was told when i was in China....accompanied by a lot of nodding heads...."
And you buy that nonsense? Sounds like a mass misconception.

http://www.saarc-sec.org/

Bring those Chinese to the summit and have them climb on the stage and loudly announce to the people there that they are not Asians. And that they are are closer to Blacks.

Bring those Chinese to the HQ of this bank and have them loudly say that, too.

http://www.adb.org/Countries/

I guess the Chinese now compete with Americans in Geographical ignorance and ethnic ignorance, too.

Now you are 'getting it'.

The Chinese tend to be very race, ethnicity and skin color conscious.

Lighter is better, Chinese is best.

The alternate between feeling superior to whites and feeling second rate to whites.

Blacks, Indians and those who are Brown are looked down upon.

They refer to people with hairy forearms or too much body hair as 'Being part Monkey'.

I have heard those precise words myself.

This attitude stems from the belief that all Chinese are descendants of The Yellow Emperor.

Also Chinese anthropology holds that homo sapiens sapiens arose spontaneously at various points around the globe at the same time. This is because it is impossible for the Chinese to get behind a scientific thesis that posits that Blacks from Africa (Lucy) are the progenitors of all of Mankind.

No way will the Chinese give credence to a doctrine that has them as descendants of Africans. This will never happen.

These attitudes of race are thousands of years old and have been absorbed by all Han Chinese who consider themselves to all be of the same race and all be descendants of The Yellow Emperor.

To all Chinese, their human progenitor is someone who looks like them 100,000 to 2,000,000 years ago.

Africa is completely out of the question in their family tree and so is the rest of the planet.

Whenever you read anything about science or history it's best to just append '...except in China...' to every statement because the 1.35 Billion Chinese will believe differently than everyone else.

You could ask me any question about the Chinese and I could tell you how their attitudes or social mores differ.

momopi · Post by **momopi** » February 16th, 2011, 4:50 pm

The multi-regional model of human revolution in China was originally proposed by Franz Weidenreich, based on his studies of Sinanthropus pekinensis. You can read about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Weidenreich

Modern Chinese geneticists, such as Li Jin, believe that the Chinese originated from Africa about 60,000 years ago:
http://english.people.com.cn/english/20 ... 45573.html

The Han identity is from Han Dynasty, if you look at people like Sima Qian, Ban Biao & sons, they're all from the Han Dynasty period when they authored history books from Han-centric perspective (i.e. naming the book "Book of Former Han"). In terms of identity in ancient times, they were people from the central plains in China. Back then many tribes battled for supremacy, what we refer to as "emperor" today was just a tribal chieftain then. The Yellow Emperor was a tribal leader to the western side of the central plains, who fought and won against other tribes to the east and became the head honcho.

globetrotter · Post by **globetrotter** » February 16th, 2011, 8:46 pm

momopi wrote:Modern Chinese geneticists, such as Li Jin, believe that the Chinese originated from Africa about 60,000 years ago:
http://english.people.com.cn/english/20 ... 45573.html

Most Chinese would never admit to such a thing.