Interracial Marriage on the Rise.

Marriage between Korean and japanese wouldnt even count as interracial though.

It's not like 200 years ago where we considered French and Irish seperate races.

Probably in another 200 years there may be little distinction at all.
 
[quote name='panzerfaust']And right now Korean men do have Japanese woman on a pretty high pedestal, for whatever reason. Maybe exotic immediately links to more interesting? american woman loving foreign accents and so forth. Perhaps minorities just naturally draw more attention by looking distinctly different from the majority. People love talking about what makes up their "blood" -- "I'm 75% Polish and 8% Moroccan and 2% this and 1% that and blah blah blah." It's the most fascinating thing to some people.

Tons of other factors, as well those dependent on the individual, are surely part of the equation too.[/QUOTE]

japanese have been taboo for so long to koreans because of the war. though I'd imagine from my experience and friends, japanese girls seem more open minded, approachable, and less materialistic.

as for ppl who love to advertise their cultural makeup, it's possible they want to embrace it like cultures who have a lot of sing descent pride because in some instances being mixed is looked down upon in certain cultures...plus you know ppl are w/stats. they love to advertise them (except their weight, age, and measurements unless it promotes them in a positive light)
 
[quote name='eldergamer']Marriage between Korean and japanese wouldnt even count as interracial though.
[/QUOTE]

If you want to be politically correct about it, perhaps the more appropriate term is ethnicity. Korean/Japanese is as legitimate of an example as Mexican/White or anything else.

Science currently discourages use of the term, "race", because it's not relevant to the human species. We just toss it around in casual conversation.
 
[quote name='eldergamer']Marriage between Korean and japanese wouldnt even count as interracial though.

It's not like 200 years ago where we considered French and Irish seperate races.

Probably in another 200 years there may be little distinction at all.[/QUOTE]

What the fuck? Japanese and Korean are completely separate races. How damn ignorant are you?
 
My wife is Japanese, we've been married for 7 years. So to me it's just normal, but I often wonder if people look at us odd when we're out. I'd imagine we stand out a lot. I'm caucasians and so I'm a bit of a minority in South Florida and Asians (esspecially Japanese) are almost non-existent.
 
[quote name='Rodimus']My wife is Japanese, we've been married for 7 years. So to me it's just normal, but I often wonder if people look at us odd when we're out. I'd imagine we stand out a lot. I'm caucasians and so I'm a bit of a minority in South Florida and Asians (esspecially Japanese) are almost non-existent.[/QUOTE]

if anything there just thinking " lucky bastard" lol .
 
[quote name='confoosious']What the fuck? Japanese and Korean are completely separate races. How damn ignorant are you?[/QUOTE]

No. They're two different ethnic groups. They're both what we classify of the "Asian" race.

Are French and Italian different races? Somalian and Ethiopian? Russian and Polish? Mexican and El Salvadorian?

Although the Asian/Pacific Islander grouping together is ridiculous. I challenge anyone to point out the racial similarities between someone who's Chinese and someone who's Samoan.
 
[quote name='eldergamer']No. They're two different ethnic groups. They're both what we classify of the "Asian" race.

Are French and Italian different races? Somalian and Ethiopian? Russian and Polish? Mexican and El Salvadorian?

Although the Asian/Pacific Islander grouping together is ridiculous. I challenge anyone to point out the racial similarities between someone who's Chinese and someone who's Samoan.[/QUOTE]

ask a Korean or Japanese that, or better a Dominican and a Puerto Rican that. Classify all you want, Korean/Japanese, DR/PR is just a more indepth example of interracial marriage. Yes they are both asian or latin american but those ethnic cultures have very strong feelings towards/against each other...we could even go as far as saying, we're all human and that's a race.
 
[quote name='eldergamer']No. They're two different ethnic groups. They're both what we classify of the "Asian" race.

Are French and Italian different races? Somalian and Ethiopian? Russian and Polish? Mexican and El Salvadorian?

Although the Asian/Pacific Islander grouping together is ridiculous. I challenge anyone to point out the racial similarities between someone who's Chinese and someone who's Samoan.[/QUOTE]

You're truly an idiot. No Japanese person would say they are the same race as a Korean and vice versa. Maybe that's the way you look at them. You probably lump em all in as chinese right?
 
Race is a social construct. Biologically, there isn't as much difference between a Japanese person and a Korean person, as there is between any Asian ethnicity and a black person or a white person or a Hispanic person.

That's why "Asian" is considered one racial group. Just like various Central and South American nationalities/ethnicities are labeled Hispanic, or whites in places as far ranged as the US/Canada to Europe are considered Caucasian.

It's not lumping them all together--its just that the distinction is made by ethnicity rather than racial group. In terms of social science classifications, census classifications etc., Koreans, Japanese, Chinese etc. are all in the Asian racial group. But that doesn't ignore the differences between groups, you just have to go down to the ethnicity sub-grouping to get into that discussion.

Just like the Hispanic racial group has tons of ethnicities with in it, with people from say Cuba being very different from people in Guatemala etc.

And I've never met an Asian that had a problem with the Asian classification. My ex and her family are Taiwanese, support Taiwanese independence from China, consider themselves Taiwanese and not Chinese etc. But they all consider both Chinese and Taiwanese people to be Asian. They're just different ethnicities/nationalities--Taiwanese and Chinese.
 
No asians object to being classified as "asian" but they sure as hell object to being classified as another in "ethnicity sub-grouping."

For that matter, I don't think you would ever see a Guatamalan up in arms about being called "Hispanic" but call them "Mexican" and they are highly offended.

Since race is a social construct, it's however the person of that particular race wants to classify it, not how the person looking in cares to classify it.

Is Japanese a different race from Korean? Yes, because Japanese and Koreans consider them different races. That's all that matters.

I think to not recognize those different races as such is highly offensive because you're saying "whatever, you're all basically chinese/mexicans" (not that there's anything wrong with being chinese or mexican obviously.)

In demographic data, they put Asian and Hispanic because it'd take 2 pages to list every single variety. Most people check off Asian or Hispanic with no problem because they understand uber-classifications and why it's just easier for demographic info. But if given the choice, they would always check off a specific race (chinese, japanese, korean, etc) and not think "oh, we're all the same race, it doesn't really matter."

Maybe surveyors and scientists don't think a chinese marrying a korean is interracial - but in china/korea, it sure as hell is. And to me, who the hell is anyone to tell them it's not?
 
[quote name='confoosious']No asians object to being classified as "asian" but they sure as hell object to being classified as another in "ethnicity sub-grouping."

For that matter, I don't think you would ever see a Guatamalan up in arms about being called "Hispanic" but call them "Mexican" and they are highly offended.
[/QUOTE]

Of course. We're just arguing the semantics. You're conflating race with ethnicity/nationality.

A Japanese/Korean marriage technically isn't inter-racial. In terms of the differences between the two, it more or less is the same type of thing as an asian marrying a white american or whatever. But technically it's the same racial group, just very different ethnicities/nationalities/cultures. And it's important to use the right labels, while still acknowledging the huge differences between the two groups.

No one is arging that it's ok to lump Japanese/Koreans or Mexicans/Guatemalans together--and to do so is very offensive.

It's just that the divide isn't on broad racial group, but rather ethnicity/nationality/culture.

It's just semantics of these group labels.

A Japanese person and a Korean person can be just as different as a Japanese person and a white American beyond the physical racial differences not being as large. Totally different cultures, languages etc., some physical differences (but not as big as the gap between Asians and whites or blacks etc.). So they are very different and shouldn't be lumped together. But that doesn't change the fact that they both fall into the Asian racial level, and are differentiated by sub-group factors like ethnicity, nationality, culture etc.
 
dmaul - it's a very simply question: are koreans and japanese different races?

Perhaps this study said "for the purposes of this study, we are using the Asian and Hispanic uber-categories to define interracial" and that's fine. They can set the parameters however they want. I have no problem with that at all. It would be too much more work and not within the scope (or I guess the point) of this study to show interracial asian or hispanic marriages. I get that.

But to me, saying koreans and japanese are not different races in general is just wrong.
 
[quote name='confoosious']dmaul - it's a very simply question: are koreans and japanese different races?

Perhaps this study said "for the purposes of this study, we are using the Asian uber-category to define interracial" and that's fine. They can set the parameters however they want. I have no problem with that at all. It would be too much more work and not within the scope (or I guess the point) of this study to show interracial asian or hispanic marriages. I get that.

But to me, saying koreans and japanese are not different races in general is just wrong.[/QUOTE]


Just have to agree to disagree then.

They're the same race--Asian.

But they're very different ethnicities, nationalities and cultures.

Saying they're the same race doesn't not in anyway apply that they are the same. Just that race isn't where the huge differences lie.

It's just a matter of using the labels properly. Sorry, I'm a sticker for such things as a social scientist.
 
Go say to a japanese/korean guy - "hey, you're the same race as the chinese right?"

See what that gets you.

You're basically using one definition of race, a word that has evolved over the years. Although I understand your definition is the flavor of the day. But for people who are actually within those races, the definition of race is different. Who are you "social scientist" looking in to tell people what race they are? If the japanese identify themselves as a separate race from the koreans, you get to tell them differently?
 
[quote name='confoosious']Go say to a japanese/korean guy - "hey, you're the same race as the chinese right?"

See what that gets you.[/QUOTE]

So what? The average person doesn't understand the difference between racial and ethnic labels.

What the labels are designed to mean are more important that what the average uninformed moron thinks they mean.

People can identify themselves as whatever they want of course. But when it comes to censuses, social science studies, they're all one race in this case. But get broken up by ethnicity/nationality if its relevant to the current study.
 
[quote name='confoosious']You're truly an idiot. No Japanese person would say they are the same race as a Korean and vice versa. Maybe that's the way you look at them. You probably lump em all in as Chinese right?[/QUOTE]

They're all Asian.

Look, maybe you never had taxonomy explained to you.

From general to specific, here's how it goes:

Race > Nationality > Ethnic Group > Familial Group > You
 
[quote name='eldergamer']They're all Asian.

Look, maybe you never had taxonomy explained to you.

From general to specific, here's how it goes:

Race > Nationality > Ethnic Group > Familial Group > You[/QUOTE]

^This.
 
So what we have here is a pedantic social scientist who wants to use his scientific definition of race even though that's not what people of different races use. And if they don't understand that, then fuck em.

On the other hand, we have eldergamer, who I can basically guarantee is not asian, telling japanese and koreans that they are not separate races because he looked up taxonomy on wikipedia in the past hour.

Again, why do you get to tell koreans and japanese they are the same race, if they don't identify as such? To a korean person, marrying a japanese is interracial marriage (and all that word implies) even if you don't think so.

It smacks of racism. "Hey look all you african tribes, we don't give a shit. We're smarter than you so we'll lump you guys all in as "darkies." Get over it. Let me explain taxonomy to you..." - some dude in 1590.

I love how race used to mean one thing, then "social scientists" decided it meant something else so now everyone has to fall in line and identify with the new definition and should not be offended by words that were based on the old definition.
 
[quote name='eldergamer']They're all Asian.

Look, maybe you never had taxonomy explained to you.

From general to specific, here's how it goes:

Race > Nationality > Ethnic Group > Familial Group > You[/QUOTE]

Exactly.

And sure, some people get offended by the classification because they don't understand it.

Or they're prejudiced against other nationalities/ethnic groups and don't like being grouped with them under the broad race label.

But that doesn't change that this is how humans have been classified for generations of demographic and social science research, nor that it is going to stay this way with race being the broad classification, and whatever sub-groupings get added to fall under that.
 
[quote name='confoosious']
Again, why do you get to tell koreans and japanese they are the same race, if they don't identify as such?[/QUOTE]

No one's telling them anything. They can classify themselves as whatever they want. It's just a matter of how they get categorized by race in census studies etc. Even in those, nationality/ethnicity can also be coded to keep the sub-groups separate.

And a lot of people don't get hung up on their race. A lot of people will say "I'm Japanese" or "I'm Mexican." But that doesn't mean that they think that's their race. For many, they just don't care about race classification and identify themselves by more specific criterion like ethnicity or nationality as that's what means more to them.

And I don't think most Japanese and Korean would be offended at both being considered Asian. Most would be fine with that, and just not care much as they consider themselves to be Japanese and Korean and not care much about race. And I can verify that first hand from my Taiwanese friends who consider themselves and those from China as Asians, but more identify themselves as Taiwanese as their nationality/ethnicity means more to them than their race.

Race isn't such a big deal in Asia as most of the nations are mostly populated by people in the broad Asian racial group. So ethnicity/nationality means a ton more over there as that's the main distinguishing characteristic. Unlike a melting pot like the US or Western Europe where they're are multiple races in fairly sizable numbers, as well as lots of nationalities and ethnicity within each racial group. Here we focus more on Race, and downplay ethnic/national classifications. Over there race is downplayed, and nationality/ethnicity is the main focus.
 
interracial marriage on the rise...this is statistically true. as the thread says.

what we're comparing now is cross culture relations and marriage and how it contributes towards interracial marriage which is on the rise.

dmaul1114 is pretty level headed & neutral in his responses so far...so i'll have to agree with him.
 
[quote name='Msut77']My grandfather was Irish and married an Italian woman back when that was considered a big deal.[/QUOTE]
Was? That's fucking disgusting. Seriously. Gross.

/i married a j00. my italian family loves her.
 
[quote name='speedracer']Was? That's fucking disgusting. Seriously. Gross.

/i married a j00. my italian family loves her.[/QUOTE]

His sister married a Jewish man, for some reason this was less of a big deal. They moved to Alabama and now their whole clan speaks some indescribable draaawlll mixed with a tinge of brooklyn and yiddish.

Oddly enough, my Italian grandmother hated Italians. I never had a chance to ask her how she felt about irony.
 
LOLZ...I stopped posting in this thread for a fucking day and what happens? It gets moved to vs. and there is now a discussion on the difference between race and ethnicity...HAhahaHAhAAH
 
Dohdough are any of these Asian males at the Karaoke bars Bi and Vegan maybe?

Oh and Elder I have to give you props. Black women are just usually built better then White women, they have the booty. There, I said it.
 
[quote name='Sarang01']Dohdough are any of these Asian males at the Karaoke bars Bi and Vegan maybe?

Oh and Elder I have to give you props. Black women are just usually built better then White women, they have the booty. There, I said it.[/QUOTE]
You'll probably have an easier time with the bi part than vegan. Sorry homie.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']
And I don't think most Japanese and Korean would be offended at both being considered Asian. Most would be fine with that, and just not care much as they consider themselves to be Japanese and Korean and not care much about race. And I can verify that first hand from my Taiwanese friends who consider themselves and those from China as Asians, but more identify themselves as Taiwanese as their nationality/ethnicity means more to them than their race.

Race isn't such a big deal in Asia as most of the nations are mostly populated by people in the broad Asian racial group. So ethnicity/nationality means a ton more over there as that's the main distinguishing characteristic. Unlike a melting pot like the US or Western Europe where they're are multiple races in fairly sizable numbers, as well as lots of nationalities and ethnicity within each racial group. Here we focus more on Race, and downplay ethnic/national classifications. Over there race is downplayed, and nationality/ethnicity is the main focus.[/QUOTE]

Nobody ever said that japanese or koreans would be offended being classified asian. That's not the point but somehow you keep bringing it up. Of course they're all asians. Nobody disputes that. What I'm saying is that you keep telling me that koreans are NOT a different race than japanese. And I'm telling you that koreans, japanese, and chinese all consider themselves different races even if they understand they are classified as asians. It's such a simple concept.

The point is that you can't tell a japanese person that he's the same race as a korean person if he considers koreans and japanese different races. (And most do.) Who are YOU to judge what they should be offended by?

So if you tell a korean person he's the same race as a japanese person and he says "no, I'm korean, not japanese" because that's the level at which he classifies race, you tell them, "no you're an ignorant fool, I'm a social scientist and by current definition, race is the ubercategory of 'Asian'...."? Really? That's your response and justification for offending someone? because they are "ignorant?" Even though their definition of race is what traditionally has been defined in their culture as race and not whatever is the latest definition by social "scientists"?

Btw, race is a very big deal in asia. I don't know where you're getting your info from.

Look, I get your "I learned all these things and I want to show how smart I am" attitude regarding asian as the "race" category and not japanese and chinese. But sometimes these things don't work in the real world. In the real world, the definition of race amongst asians rests in the more specific level of japanese, korean, chinese, laotian, thai, vietnamese, etc.

(Btw, Taiwanese are completely different. Their nationality is Taiwanese, as distinguished from the Chinese nationality, but they are racially Chinese. Most of the population are descendants of mainland chinese. After all it hasn't been long since, as Roger Waters said, they changed Formosa into a shoe factory called Taiwan." And yes, Taiwanese and Chinese are still both asian.)

And since race is an english word, you would only count the opinions of english speakers. If you ask a chinese person what race they are in free form, they would say "I'm chinese." Perhaps they would answer "asian." If you said to them them "But racially, you're the same as the japanese?" they would reply "of course not." But of course, they are just ignorant right?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='confoosious']Nobody ever said that japanese or koreans would be offended being classified asian. That's not the point but somehow you keep bringing it up. Of course they're all asians. Nobody disputes that. What I'm saying is that you keep telling me that koreans are NOT a different race than japanese. And I'm telling you that koreans, japanese, and chinese all consider themselves different races even if they understand they are classified as asians. It's such a simple concept.

The point is that you can't tell a japanese person that he's the same race as a korean person if he considers koreans and japanese different races. (And most do.) Who are YOU to judge what they should be offended by?

So if you tell a korean person he's the same race as a japanese person and he says "no, I'm korean, not japanese" because that's the level at which he classifies race, you tell them, "no you're an ignorant fool, I'm a social scientist and by current definition, race is the ubercategory of 'Asian'...."? Really? That's your response and justification for offending someone? because they are "ignorant?" Even though their definition of race is what traditionally has been defined in their culture as race and not whatever is the latest definition by social "scientists"?

Btw, race is a very big deal in asia. I don't know where you're getting your info from.[/QUOTE]
You're making some seriously strong assertions about race vs. ethnicity here. What is your reasoning beyond "this is just what they do?" You're going to have to be pretty damned specific if you want to win this argument.
 
[quote name='dohdough']You're making some seriously strong assertions about race vs. ethnicity here. What is your reasoning beyond "this is just what they do?" You're going to have to be pretty damned specific if you want to win this argument.[/QUOTE]

Just go talk to a random sampling of asians.

Ask them the same questions I put in the second part I added.

Ask them (without any sort of prejudicing instructions)
- What race are you?
- Are you the same race as chinese/japanese/korean (pick any one they're not)

Let me know what they say.

What I'm telling dmaul is that regardless of his scientific definition of race, the majority of asians identify the word "race" at the ethnic level. Yes, if they have to check off "Asian" they will but if given the choice of specific ethnicities, they will check off the more specific one. And for that majority, saying japanese and korean are the same race is just damn insulting.

What race are you?
- Asian
- Chinese
- Japanese
- Korean
- Vietnamese
- etc
- etc

What do you think they would check? The average person. (Yes, accepting the fact that they are "ignorant" by dmaul's standards.)
 
[quote name='confoosious']Just go talk to a random sampling of asians.

Ask them the same questions I put in the second part I added.

Ask them (without any sort of prejudicing instructions)
- What race are you?
- Are you the same race as chinese/japanese/korean (pick any one they're not)

Let me know what they say.

What I'm telling dmaul is that regardless of his scientific definition of race, the majority of asians identify the word "race" at the ethnic level. And for that majority, saying japanese and korean are the same race is just damn insulting.[/QUOTE]
That's not a very good answer when MOST people don't understand the distinction between race, ethnicity, and nationality. You also didn't answer the question beyond "this is just what they do."

Not to mention that racial categories is mostly a eurocentric thing, whereas places like China, Japan, Korea, Vietnamese classify themselves through ethnicity, town/village/province/prefecture/dialect, and nationality.

edit: Given those choices, of course they're going to pick out an ethnicity instead of Asian. What I'd like to know is what makes you think you're such an expert on Asian and Asian American mentality.
 
[quote name='confoosious']No asians object to being classified as "asian"...[/QUOTE]

Wow, the ignorance in this thread is amazing. While they might not tell you they "object", it is most likely because they know it's a fight they will never win. Let me tell you that many of them think it's a big adjustment when they first come to America to be suddenly lumped together with people who've been their rival/enemy for years. Don't think the Chinese have forgotten what the Japanese have done to them in the past, or that the Chinese aren't reviled/hated/envied by other local Asian groups in their respective countries because the Chinese seem to have a disproportionate share of the wealth. And the Taiwanese comments... I don't even know where to begin. While it's true now that they get along better, there are still 3 distinct "factions": those with mainland ancestory who came over after the war, those who have island ancestory and think they should still be running everything, and those native aboriginees who live in the mountains and are looked down upon by both of the other two groups. Even inter-marrying among those groups can be a stumbling block for some traditional families. I could go on and on about some of the jealousies and rivalries between all of the different Asian ethnic groups in different countries. They may get cast aside on the surface when they come to America, but too many in this thread dismiss them without understanding...
 
[quote name='soonersfan60']Wow, the ignorance in this thread is amazing. While they might not tell you they "object", it is most likely because they know it's a fight they will never win. Let me tell you that many of them think it's a big adjustment when they first come to America to be suddenly lumped together with people who've been their rival/enemy for years. Don't think the Chinese have forgotten what the Japanese have done to them in the past, or that the Chinese aren't reviled/hated/envied by other local Asian groups in their respective countries because the Chinese seem to have a disproportionate share of the wealth. And the Taiwanese comments... I don't even know where to begin. While it's true now that they get along better, there are still 3 distinct "factions": those with mainland ancestory who came over after the war, those who have island ancestory and think they should still be running everything, and those native aboriginees who live in the mountains and are looked down upon by both of the other two groups. Even inter-marrying among those groups can be a stumbling block for some traditional families. I could go on and on about some of the jealousies and rivalries between all of the different Asian ethnic groups in different countries. They may get cast aside on the surface when they come to America, but too many in this thread dismiss them without understanding...[/QUOTE]

Wait, why are you arguing with me?

I'm the one saying they are very different types of people and do not appreciate being all lumped into one "race." My whole point is that different ethnicities of asians would never say they were the same race as another group of asians, e.g. that koreans would like being told they are the same race as japanese.

Others have said that a marriage between a korean and a japanese wouldn't even be considered "inter-racial" when I think those korean and japanese families would absolutely think so. But then, I get the "well, scientifically, they're all the same race, and if they don't know that, they are the ignorant ones" as a response. Which I think is complete bullshit. The whole attitude by others in this thread of "koreans, japanese, chinese... they're all the same race," even if it's from a pedantic standpoint, is a disservice and an offense to the differences in those races.

But I do disagree that asians object to being classified as "Asian." Not so much that they think it's a battle they can't win but mostly cause they understand why it's an uber-category. Much like "South American" covers a handful of countries. Hell, it beats the old "Oriental" and the just one choice: "Chinese."
 
I'm not specifically arguing with you (and in fact I had several pull quotes I was going to reply to, but don't really have the time to make it look all fancy and nice). My main point is that some of the issues run much deeper than many are acknowledging in this thread. I agree with you that "they're all the same" is a disservice and an offense to many... just don't have such an easy pull quote to grab :) (because you'd never survive as a politician).
 
[quote name='confoosious']
Btw, race is a very big deal in asia. I don't know where you're getting your info from.
[/QUOTE]

Ethnicity/nationality is a big deal. They just consider it to be race as they "misuse" the term--and by that I mean they just aren't using it the way we use it in the western world where we divide people based on race, and then by nationality/ethnicity.

In our lingo Asian= a racial group. Chinese, Koreans, Vietnamese, Taiwanese, Thai etc. etc. are all in the Asian racial group in our lingo. They're just different ethnicities/nationalities.

Again, I'm not saying people can't consider themselves Japanese or Korean or whatever, and that it's not a big deal to them how they're labeled on that front. And if they want to consider that their race, so be it. People can define themselves however they want. They're just misusing the race label--at least as we use it in the Western world.

So when I'm cleaning survey data and someone puts their race as Japanese or Korean, it's getting recoded as "Asian." Same with people who put "Mexican" or "Puerto Rican" getting recoded to "Hispanic" on the race variable. The original info can sometimes be useful if one also wants to look at ethnicity/nationality. But those subgroups don't tend to be large enough to be meaningful in most datasets here in the US since most people stick with the default racial options of White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, Native American or Other.

But there's no point going in circles on this as your arguing the real world usage of how people label themselves in different cultures. And I don't give much of a shit about that. People can label themselves however they want. I'm going to use the terms as they're defined in the English language and how they're useful to my research due to how they're used in English language research. How people label themselves is meaningless to me other than adding some data cleaning work to recode people into the right broad race labels when they list a nationality/ethnicity as their race. :p
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dmaul1114']Ethnicity/nationality is a big deal. They just consider it to be race as they "misuse" the term--and by that I mean they just aren't using it the way we use it in the western world where we divide people based on race, and then by nationality/ethnicity.

In our lingo Asian= a racial group. Chinese, Koreans, Vietnamese, Taiwanese, Thai etc. etc. are all in the Asian racial group in our lingo. They're just different ethnicities/nationalities.

Again, I'm not saying people can't consider themselves Japanese or Korean or whatever, and that it's not a big deal to them how they're labeled on that front. And if they want to consider that their race, so be it. People can define themselves however they want. They're just misusing the race label--at least as we use it in the Western world.

So when I'm cleaning survey data and someone puts their race as Japanese or Korean, it's getting recoded as "Asian." Same with people who put "Mexican" or "Puerto Rican" getting recoded to "Hispanic" on the race variable. The original info can sometimes be useful if one also wants to look at ethnicity/nationality. But those subgroups don't tend to be large enough to be meaningful in most datasets here in the US since most people stick with the default racial options of White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, Native American or Other.

But there's not point going in circles on this as your arguing the real world usage of how people label themselves in different cultures. And I don't give much of a shit about that. People can label themselves however they want. I'm going to use the terms as they're defined in the English language and how they're useful to my research due to how they're used in English language research. How people label themselves is meaningless to me other than adding some data cleaning work to recode people into the right broad race labels when they list a nationality/ethnicity as their race. :p[/QUOTE]
You have to admit that soonersfan60 gave a good answer though. I just wish I could say the same about confoosious.:D
 
[quote name='dohdough']
Not to mention that racial categories is mostly a eurocentric thing, whereas places like China, Japan, Korea, Vietnamese classify themselves through ethnicity, town/village/province/prefecture/dialect, and nationality.

edit: Given those choices, of course they're going to pick out an ethnicity instead of Asian. [/QUOTE]

Exactly. I don't think many Asian people consider their "race" to be Japanese or Korean or Chinese.

Sure, they'll pick those options in the example he gave as people in Asia identify much more on ethnicity/nationality, the village their from etc. than a broad race label. So if you give them a list of Asian, Japanese, Korean etc. they'll pick their nationality as that's what they most identify with.

But if you give them one question for race with responses like "Caucasian, Black, Hispanic, Asian etc." and then follow it up with a question where you ask them to list their Ethnicity/Nationality I expect most all of them would pick Asian with absolutely no reservations and take no offense in the category, and then list their nationality/ethnicity in the second category.

I know that happens in surveys I've given with such categories and Hispanic people selecting Hispanic as race and then their country in the ethnicity/nationality field. Where as if you give an "other please specify) option you just get the Nationality from some and have to recode. No reason to expect Asians (especially Asian Americans) would be any different.

They understand the difference between race and ethnicity. They just identify more with ethnicity/nationality than with race and prefer to describe themselves as Japanese or whatever than as Asian if given the category. Where as most white and black Americans identify more with race as we just mostly consider ourselves Americans since most of our families have been here for multiple generations and our bloodlines have lots of nationalities/ethnicities mixed in now (and most of us have no idea what the mix is!)
 
[quote name='dohdough']You have to admit that soonersfan60 gave a good answer though. I just wish I could say the same about confoosious.:D[/QUOTE]

To some degree. People just overstate the "lumping together" as using a broad label of "Asian" doesn't negate the major differences between nationality/ethnicity within that label.

No more than lumping tons of nationalities/ethnicities into Hispanic does.

Race is just a broader label to lump biologically similar groups of people into, and it's often necessary in social science research in the US and Europe as you usually don't have big enough numbers of certain ethnicities/nationalities in your sample to be statistically meaningful. But you do when you look at whites vs. blacks, asians and hispanics etc.

It doesn't ignore the importance of nationality/ethnicity as being very distinct. Just a way to categorize things for analysis when ethnicity/nationality isn't a key focus of a study.
 
Actually, I'll remove the whole discussion on "race" in Asia. It doesn't make sense because "race" is an English word and we are talking about race in America.

As americans and with "race" as an english word, koreans in america do not consider themselves to be the same "race" as japanese in america. (or chinese, or vietnamese.) It doesn't matter what your social "scientific" definition of "race" is. All that matters is how that group defines it.

As soonersfan said, there is a long history of animosity between a lot of asian ethnic groups. To be told "you're all asian and all the same race" is a real slap in the face. Maybe in your field, the technical definition is set at "asian" but not in the real world. It may be correct technically to say they are the same race but to different asian ethnicities, to say all asians are the same race brings up too many instances of the ignorant racists who call every single flavor of asian "chink."

Go ask some random asians tomorrow what race they are.
 
Like I said, I'm not going to go in circles on it.

I view things from my nice shiny ivory tower here in academia, so you commoners can call yourselves whatever the fuck you want! We'll just recode it. :D
 
[quote name='confoosious']Actually, I'll remove the whole discussion on "race" in Asia. It doesn't make sense because "race" is an English word and we are talking about race in America.

As americans and with "race" as an english word, koreans in america do not consider themselves to be the same "race" as japanese in america. (or chinese, or vietnamese.) It doesn't matter what your social "scientific" definition of "race" is. All that matters is how that group defines it.[/quote]
You know what's funny? In certain schools of thought, you're right on the money...one that I happen to subscribe to actually, but what you're actually talking about, but don't really know that you are, is the heavy social constructed aspect of the word "race" and how it's shaped by hegemony.

As soonersfan said, there is a long history of animosity between a lot of asian ethnic groups. To be told "you're all asian and all the same race" is a real slap in the face. Maybe in your field, the technical definition is set at "asian" but not in the real world. It may be correct technically to say they are the same race but to different asian ethnicities, to say all asians are the same race brings up too many instances of the ignorant racists who call every single flavor of asian "chink."
Click to expand...
I think we all get that self-identification is contextual and while your bolded example is valid, this isn't quite the same thing.

Go ask some random asians tomorrow what race they are.
Click to expand...
Ha...bit of a strawman here. What's problematic here is that you don't make a distinction between Asian and Asian-American and you'd bet there'd be a difference.
 
Correct and correct. In American/Western/Clinical/Scientific terms for classification. this is what race is. It is NOT the same as Nationality or ethnic group.

A better discussion would be why classification for Hispanic is based on language spoken in your country of origin.

Or, how someone from Egypt or Libya is still considered "African".

(Random guess: Confooshious is a white guy from America extrapolating his views on what Asians ( read: people who live in Asia) believe based on his own personal discussions he's had with them over the internet)
 
I know two "Asian-Americans" married to each other who would very much classify their marriage as an "Interracial Marriage" - she's Filipina, he's Indian.

What do the experts say that they have in common, anthropology-wise?

BTW: The wife's sister (also Filipina) is married to a Chinese "Asian American" and the husband's sister (also Indian) is married to a white guy. When we go to their family gathering, it's like the United Nations. ;)
 
[quote name='hostyl1']I know two "Asian-Americans" married to each other who would very much classify their marriage as an "Interracial Marriage" - she's Filipina, he's Indian.

What do the experts say that they have in common, anthropology-wise?

BTW: The wife's sister (also Filipina) is married to a Chinese "Asian American" and the husband's sister (also Indian) is married to a white guy. When we go to their family gathering, it's like the United Nations. ;)[/QUOTE]

You must tell them that they are ignorant because they are the same race and therefore does not qualify as an interracial marriage. The "experts" say so!

Honestly, I've never understood why Indians are classified as asian.
 
[quote name='hostyl1']I know two "Asian-Americans" married to each other who would very much classify their marriage as an "Interracial Marriage" - she's Filipina, he's Indian.

What do the experts say that they have in common, anthropology-wise?

BTW: The wife's sister (also Filipina) is married to a Chinese "Asian American" and the husband's sister (also Indian) is married to a white guy. When we go to their family gathering, it's like the United Nations. ;)[/QUOTE]
It would really depend on the specific type of anthropology you're talking about.;)

Some Indians consider themselves Asian and others do not. It's more common in Europe for Indians to consider themselves Asian though. In the US, not so much. This has more to do with the US-centric paradigm of race. Where a person was brought up pretty much defines how they would answer it. Race, as understood, is a social construct that is defined differently from place to place.

[quote name='confoosious']You must tell them that they are ignorant because they are the same race and therefore does not qualify as an interracial marriage. The "experts" say so!

Honestly, I've never understood why Indians are classified as asian.[/QUOTE]
See above.
 
[quote name='confoosious']You must tell them that they are ignorant because they are the same race and therefore does not qualify as an interracial marriage. The "experts" say so!

Honestly, I've never understood why Indians are classified as asian.[/QUOTE]


At some point anthropologists, entrenched in western thought, decided to label Indians as Asians. However, prior to that, they were either Caucasian or Asian based on what part of India they came from. Arabs are considered Caucasian as well.

People get way too hung up on Race.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dohdough']You have to admit that soonersfan60 gave a good answer though. I just wish I could say the same about confoosious.:D[/QUOTE]

confoosious does make some valid points/observations, it's just the momentum of the thread is making some statements and opinions misunderstood or given a bias due to past arguements/counter arguements.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top