Jump to content

Talk:Asian Americans: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 21: Line 21:


: Please sign your posts. Above written by [[User:66.231.17.107]].
: Please sign your posts. Above written by [[User:66.231.17.107]].

What is "open debate" in this article?

The term "oriental" has connections with European colonialism of the past. The history of the term "oriental" is related to its present day applicability, just as there are historical reasons for why "negro" and "colored" are not considered appropriate today to describe African Americans.

The economic issues surrounding a certain group are crucial for understanding. Many Asian Americans (and their ancestors) came to America looking for work, and it should be mentioned in this article.

-- [[User:J3ff|J3ff]] 09:14, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Revision as of 09:14, 22 August 2004

re: Central Asians-- My concern is one of wording rather than fact. Americans' newfound appreciation for south and central Asia (vis-a-vis Afghanistan) has been significantly upgraded. On the one hand, I think that it remains generally true that Central Asian ethnics are not considered to be Asian American. On the other hand, increasingly Indians and Pakistanis are included. Since many Americans now recognize the relationship between Pakistan and Afghanistan, central Asians may be included; alternatively, the ethnic groups might affiliate themselves in a new sub group. Just Talk:ing "out loud."--ishu 12:47, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I had problems with trying to figure out whether "Indian American" was a correct term, and whether this included Pakistanis, Bangladeshis or Sri Lankans. I'm not sure they would appreciate being referred to as "Indian" anything. - Fuzheado 06:24, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

FWIW, Indian American is just fine according to Indian Americans I know. Many are irritated that Columbus's mistake leads American Americans to be confused when Indian Americans say they're Indian. At the same time, many Indians also identify themselves as Bengalis, Gujaratis, or Punjabis. And yes, it's a bad idea to apply the Indian label to Bangladeshis, Pakistanis and Sri Lankans (not to mention separatist Kashmiris). It's no different from Canada (and Puerto Rico) being distinct from the U.S., no? --ishu 04:30, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

major edit today

Tried to make it more inclusive and give it a heavy dose of Asian American Studies 101. Still rather rough, but a lot of the immigration stuff is in -- left out a lot, potential focuses are now like legal, media, labor, women's issues -- you name it! Zhongyi

Sign your posts please. Fuzheado

Asian Pacific American

Asian Pacific American redirects here. There is no mention of the Pacific Islanders in this article. --Jiang

"Asian Studies" POV

The strong POV in this article is really disturbing. Open debates are presented as fact. The question of whether or not oriential refered to a "colonial" notion has nothing to do with the term's modern-day applicability, for example. See also the labor shortage point, which is an economic issue that is just stated as a given.

Please sign your posts. Above written by User:66.231.17.107.

What is "open debate" in this article?

The term "oriental" has connections with European colonialism of the past. The history of the term "oriental" is related to its present day applicability, just as there are historical reasons for why "negro" and "colored" are not considered appropriate today to describe African Americans.

The economic issues surrounding a certain group are crucial for understanding. Many Asian Americans (and their ancestors) came to America looking for work, and it should be mentioned in this article.

-- J3ff 09:14, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)