Talk:Asian Americans

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)

SOUTH ASIAN AMERICAN SHOULD BE BECOME A SUB-CATEGORY OF ASIAN AMERICAN AND INDIAN, BANGLADESHI, PAKISTANI, BHUTANESE, AND NEPALI CAN BE SUB-CATEGORIES OF SOUTH ASIAN AMERICAN.

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)

Just as an aside, the "new appreciation" of South Asians as part of Asian America seems to be more of a West Coast phenomenon, since in my experience this appreciation is old and common in the Midwest and on the East Coast. I do think that some note could be added about the fluidity of the term "Asian American" across geography and time. I think some scholars probably have written about it already... -Chicagoguy321 10:25pm, 8 Sep 2004 (CST)

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

I am Dark Tichondrias and I would like to point out that on the 2000 US Census Pacific Islanders self-defined themselves to be their own race, because they felt like they lacked similarity with the Asian Americans.

"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)

The "workforce deficiencies" can probably be reworded. But it should still be mentioned that the many Asians came to America to find for work.

-- J3ff 09:25, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Affirmative Action reference

I removed the following:

Asian Americans are often overrepresented at many educational institutions that do not practice affirmative action

since the proportion of Asian Americans is much higher than 3% at many institutions that do practice Affirmative Action, Harvard being only one example. We can discuss admissions practices that appear to put a "ceiling" on Asian populations, but the removed statement implies a lot of cause and effect that is highly controversial. --ishu 05:21, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ishu, a good edit. Also, I don't like the term "overrepresented" because of it connotes that one is getting more than is warranted, and am glad to see another way of stating it. Fuzheado | Talk 05:41, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

'Asian American' = 'oriental' ?

I removed the following:

This is an artifact of "Asian American" being a synonym for "oriental," which derives from a Latin word meaning "East."

I don't think that 'Asian American' is, or was intended to be, a synonym for 'oriental'. The idea is that the term 'Oriental' is imprecise due to its complicated and convoluted etymology. At different times it has to the Ottoman Empire and its descendants, and everything east to the Pacific Ocean. The usage in the U.S. during the mid- to late-20th century was narrower, but ill-defined. The other objection has been its colonial origin and associated connotations, referencing "east" relative to Europe. Asia is a defined land mass. On it are reasonably well-defined political states. There are somewhat well-defined ethnic groups within/across those. The reference is clear and more precise. --ishu 18:29, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Asian American Definition Website

This an informative Asian American website made by me Dark Tichondrias

www.asianracedefinition.zoomshare.com

Link to Yellow Peril from here?

(originally posted on User_talk:J3ff:)
Hello Jeff! You just reinserted the link that i had deleted from Asian American. My intention was not to gloss over this ugly part of history, but rather to put it in the correct context. There are many aspects of Asian-American history, and i believe it is better to group them together than to pick the one of them that is an ethnic slur to represent all of Asian-American history in that section. The article was already in Category:Chinese American history and i added it to Category:Japanese American history, which both can be found via the new Category:Asian American-related topics. It felt a bit odd to assign it to these two particular groups - as if other groups were not harrased. Maybe we should create a Category:Asian American history and link to it directly from Asian American – that would remove one mouseclick on the way to the Yellow Peril article. What do you think? — Sebastian (留言) 19:48, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)

(replying to first, less clear version of the above statement:)
Yes, I agree this was an ugly part of American history. However, I feel it should be included along with Model Minority. Model Minority may seem to be a "positive stereotype", but it is nontheless as racist as Yellow Peril. I do not feel Wikipedia should be censored in anyway. Feel free to leave any questions or comments on my talk page. — J3ff 19:46, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(after clarification of above statement:)
That's a good idea for creating an Asian American history category. However, I still think the link to Yellow Peril should remain in the article Asian American. — J3ff 19:54, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

----
I understand that you want to keep the balance. And i am not generally opposed to mentioning that period of history in an article about Asian Americans. But i think there are better models:

• Yellow Peril should be mentioned in the text of a history section – if this article had one.
• I disagree that it is necessary to balance the Model Minority link. The former is history, the latter is current. It makes sense to collect historical information one step removed from current one.
• If you insist that the Model Minority link is imbalanced we also can consider removing this link altogether. It doesn't only apply to Asian Americans, anyway.

— Sebastian (留言) 20:29, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)

I agree that Yellow Peril should be mentioned in the text of the article. Until someone adds a section in the article describing Yellow Peril, I think it should be left as a link under "See also". — J3ff 20:37, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I did not say that "Yellow Peril should be mentioned in the text of the article". Please reread my first bullet point. (Maybe I should highlight the second half.) — Sebastian (留言) 21:01, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)

Am I mistaken? I thought you meant that Yellow Peril should be included in a history section (a section that currently doesn't exist). I'm saying that it should be kept as a link until such a section is created. — J3ff 21:05, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's what i meant – iff we had one. I certainly don't think it's a good idea to cherry pick a particular part of history and present it on a prominent place outside of historical context. The "See also" section of this article is prime advertizing space for all things Asian American. Bear in mind that i just agreed with Nectarflowed to remove Wing Luke Asian Museum from this list for this reason. — Sebastian (留言) 21:26, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)

I don't understand why it matters if the historical context is presented in the article it is linked from (the Asian American article). If readers wish to read the article, they'll click the link and see the historical context in the Yellow Peril article itself. Is there a policy on Wikipedia that articles listed under "See also" must be current?

Yellow Peril is significantly related to Asian Americans. Listing it is not the same as trying to create a link farm to advertise museums or businesses. — J3ff 21:55, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's it. I give up. I tried my best to convince you with rational arguments, but you just ignore or distort them. Policies are beside the point. I never said there was a policy for my way, but there is none for your way, either. This is something that rational people should be able to solve by listening to each other's arguments. I understand that you personally are very attached to this link. If your happiness depends on putting it there, be my guest. I can live with it. — Sebastian (留言) 22:46, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)

Thank you, Nectarflowed, for adding the history section – you did the right thing, where we two knuckleheads couldn't agree. — Sebastian (留言) 00:48, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing up the topic and exploring it's implications, as well as maintaining this article with me :) Nectarflowed ^(talk) 21:56, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Definition

Why isn't the definition simply, "an American of Asian ancestry or an Asian immigrant to the United States"? Someone who was born in the United States is not necessarily an American.

(above question posted by 128.226.195.158 on May 1)

That's a good question. Any objection to changing it? — Sebastian (talk) 02:36, 2005 May 16 (UTC)

I object. For reference, the current definition reads:

An Asian American can be generally defined as a person of Asian ancestry or origin who was born in or is an immigrant to the United States.

The current definition clearly defines (and distinguishes between) the two key attributes of being Asian American: (1) Asian ancestry; and (2) a definable relationship to the United States. The second part clearly avoids defining American, which requires an extensive disambiguation page (also see Use of the word American). The relationship clause also provides criteria to indicate who is included (citizen by birth or immigrant) and who is excluded (e.g., tourists). They're not airtight (e.g., a tourist overstaying a visa for work), but at least they're debatable on their own terms.

Using the word American in the definition of Asian American (as proposed above) raises more questions than it answers. We can debate how to define the relationship to the United States, but the definition should be clear. The current definition is wordy (i.e., could be improved), but it is conceptually clear.

Asian Americans have featured roles in several major controversies and legal legacies (e.g., Ozawa and Thind) over what defines American. I think it is important to explicitly include immigrants and natural-born citizens in the definition to make it clear that citizenship is not required to be included in the definition. Since Asian immigrants were denied citizenship for most of U.S. history, many people would argue that they are not "Americans" since they are not citizens. It is important to specify that Asian Americans include citizens and non-citizens, immigrants and natural-born citizens.

As an aside, there are plenty of European Americans who are citizens by birth but who reside abroad. For the most part, these people are considered to be Americans, both by people in the U.S. and in their host/home countries.

--ishu 18:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

South Asian American

I've expanded upon that article a bit, about the South Asian subgroup as a whole, so South Asian American probably shouldn't be merged in here. Arun 10:24, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Philippine-American War

I changed the reference to the Philppine-American War to "also see" since the existing sentence implied that immigration to the U.S. was a result of the Philippine-American War. The annexation (or whatever we choose to call it) of the Philippines is what enabled the immigration, not the ensuing insurrection. --ishu 22:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

removing link

I am removing the link to www.selectiveasia.com because it clearly does not add anything to the article. --vaeiou 02:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Demographics

I think that the demographics section is getting too mired in minutiae.

I changed the reference to East Brunswick, New Jersey back to Cherry Hill, New Jersey because of the earlier reference to Philadelphia, not because I think Cherry Hill is more important than East Brunswick. I appended "of these cities" to "suburbs" to clarify this relationship and hopefully prevent link-creep to an endless list of suburbs. For Pete's sake, if we must reference Middlesex County, then a better candidate is adjacent Edison Township, which has twice as many Asian Americans and is well known in the region for the South Asian district there, as well as a significant Chinese American population. But the suburbs of New York are better known as enclaves for Asian Americans; those of Chicago, Philadelphia and Boston less so, which is the reason for the original reference to Cherry Hill.

Unfortunately, once something goes in an entry (e.g., this suburbs discussion), it's hard to take it out. This might be a good case for reduction, or moving to another section. The proportion of Filipinos to Chamorros is not irrelevant, but it isn't quite on-point with respect to aggregate demographics of Asian Americans. For example, the specific ethnicities within any particular state are not discussed in this section, and are more appropriate topics for the individual state articles. --ishu 07:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a reasonable concern. I added the link (List of U.S. cities with Asian American majority populations) under the Demographics section. Perhaps another list should be created to say List of U.S. cities with large Asian American population. Mikefzhu 02:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Asian Americans in Sports

Are Ichiro Suzuki and Yao Ming, two people who are Japanese and Chinese citizens respectively, considered "Asian Americans?" I think they should be omitted from this article, as they are not "American citizens with Asian ancestry", unlike Michelle Kwan. I have a feeling that a few other people mentioned in this article are not Asian Americans, although I haven't checked this. I would really appreciate some input.--Xmts 03:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I think they should be removed too. --Lukobe 05:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

I don't think most the pictures and images are really appropriate for the article. Photos of real people should be used instead, and the first image 1) doesn't really seem necessary and 2) is of poor quality. Anyone else agree? --Lukobe 05:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree. No offense to the person who took the time in making them, though. --Chris S.

I re-deleted them after they were re-added. Haven't had the time yet to add images of real people, but I really don't think the pictures belong in the article. Can the editor who re-added them comment here? --Lukobe 07:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Asia redefinition

This article asserts that:

1. " "Asia" consists of the Far East, Southeast Asia and the Indian Subcontinent. " (for the purposes of this term)

Question: How can Asia be redefined ? It is geographically clear what Asia is. This statement is surely a nonsense.

• Certainly. I think the article is trying to say that, generally, Americans of Far Eastern, Southeast Asian, or Indian Subcontinental descent are considered Asian Americans, and Americans of, say, Lebanese or Turkish descent are not. --Lukobe 19:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

2. " Asian-American replaces Oriental "

Question: Surely (assuming the absurd redefinition in 1 is applied) Asian American includes and replaces Oriental as well as including persons from SE Asia and south Asia ?

Is this article a true representation of what Americans believe this term to mean ? If this is so, then the answers to the above two points need to be discussed, as to non Americans, this seems like the article is a nonsense in these two respects.

In addition, what about central Asians, Israelis and Turks - shouldn't descendents of these peoples be Asian Americans too - if not then this article should make clear what US hyphernated American label is applied to these people. And what about Russians (from Vladivistok for instance) - if, as many are, they are of East Asian appearance - are they Asian Americans if their descendants emigrate to the USA ? Is a person emigrated to the USA from Uganda an Asian American if he is of Indian appearance (after Idi Amin booted Indian descendants out) ? Or are they African Americans ? Or neither ? Many Pashtuns have pale skin and blue eyes, and many have often been mistaken as being of traditionally European appearance, but under this definition, such peoples descendants in the USA would be Asian Americans. However, perhaps it is fortunate that the redefinition of Asia is applied as if it were not then descendants of Cypriot Greeks in the USA would also be Asian Americans - after all Cyprus is in geographic Asia, even though it is now in the European Union.

These questions do not need answering here, of course. But they serve to demonstrate that this article is poor as it asserts the term Asian American as if it has true meaning, whereas meaning is surely subjective to the user. Therefore the subjectivism of the term and its use should also be discussed. What the term means is surely the first purpose of this article (the matter is glossed over in the "Definition" paragraph) before going on to list people and history as if the term is defined and clear.

Thoughts ? I am not American and am merely confused as to the use of this term, if anyone thinks I am trying to make a major point of US use of American hyphernated identity (a point which I am not attempting to make)--jrleighton 11:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• This is a great starting point. We should definitely talk it over. I think there is absolutely no doubt that people of Korean, Japanese, and Chinese descent "qualify." We can very likely add to that Mongolian, Vietnamese, Laotian, Cambodian, Burman, Thai, and Malaysian. Indonesia and Philippines as well? Comments? --Lukobe 19:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Why Asians Comparison Changed to Whites

I changed a section to make Asians be compared to Whites as a group with different physical and cultural traits. Before it was being compared with Hispanic. Hispanic is not a 2000 US Census race. I felt Asian should be compared with a 2000 US Census race. Whites as defined by the 2000 US Census to be Middle Eastern, European, and North African do have dissimilar physical traits and culture. I made the comparison between Asians and Whites to compare to more similar terms people can grasp.--Dark Tichondrias