Jusunlee.com Forums Pages (4): « 1 [2] 3 4 »
Show all 77 posts from this thread on one page

Jusunlee.com Forums (https://www.jusunlee.com/forums/index.php)
- Debate (https://www.jusunlee.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?forumid=19)
-- flips asian??? (https://www.jusunlee.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=7787)

Posted by Alchemist on 11-30-2002 11:53 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by niggoreanboi
i say flipz are asians but their under the category pacific islanders


Yay, someone understood what I said about sub-categories.

Posted by ¨Õ¨Ø¨ß¨á¨Ú¨Ó on 12-02-2002 07:21 AM:

Yes but how can you be asian if you don't have a country. Its not ignorance. Its just a fact. How can you honestly say that the definition of being an Asian person is not having a country in Asia. How can you be Irish or Canadian if they don't exist? Ignorance is not knowing about how to acquire knowledge. I said this before in another thread. Since you are calling me ignorant on my opinion but its based upon what I believe. So therefor I am ignorant as a person. But if I believe on getting knowledge by listening to others peoples opinion. I throw mine out there, listen to their feedback and re-define my opinion. I useually don't listen to those who namecall though.

__________________
blah.

Posted by PsychoSnowman on 12-02-2002 07:47 AM:

Well asia is defined through a continent and several islands surrounding it. If you reside within that, then you are "asian" regardless if you have a country in it, you live there you must be subsumed in the category of asian...if not, then what are you?

__________________
Long messages do not equal aggravation of any sort,
rather they reflect nothing more than a response of insight
that should always be read in a matter-of-fact tone.

"Those womyn that seek equality with men, lack determination."

"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be wrong."
-Cromwell

Posted by ¨Õ¨Ø¨ß¨á¨Ú¨Ó on 12-02-2002 08:05 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by PsychoSnowman
Well asia is defined through a continent and several islands surrounding it. If you reside within that, then you are "asian" regardless if you have a country in it, you live there you must be subsumed in the category of asian...if not, then what are you?


Alright, let me ask you this. Hmong have no recollection of what they are or where they came from. So how do you even know you were in Asia? I have Hmong friends saying that they think that actually they were born in London and they migrated to Asia since when they are mixed with white they look more white than asian. So technically they can't claim their asian.

__________________
blah.

Posted by PsychoSnowman on 12-02-2002 08:42 AM:

by your definition, everyone is rendered to be from the African Rift Valley if we trace it to origins. Just because your friends are hmong and look more white than asian doesn't mean that hmong culture is suddenly european, that means they are not full hmong, nothing more they aren't subsumed in the hmong origin category though. Why did you bring that up? If i'm half korean and half white and live in london, could we then consider all korean people not asian becuase i look now more white than korean and live in london? That's absurd. You can't compare mixed races and where they reside in with hmong people. It's like comparing mixed races of chinese people with pure chinese people (as pure as one can get), it doesn't work.

Now if we look at hmong people, they tend to look more asian in appearance, the general consensus is that, well the more accepted idea is that hmong people originated out of south east china. That'd be asia, and the mere fact that they don't have a circumscribed country doesn't mean that they aren't asian. If they reside there and take on their characteristics, according to my definition then they are asian.

So, so what if they can't recollect they are from asia or wherever, that doesn't prove anything and they aren't the encyclopedia of hmongs (i know you didn't say that). But, there isn't any evidence showing hmongs ever lived in the united kingdom anywhere. There is evidence found most west in siberia, and most south in iran, but no where that far west. And, i think since the most widely accepted tenet is that they originated in south east china, that they are asian, even still they are on the very border of asia which would make them still asian, sort of haha sorry that's stretching i know. I mean siberia is partially in asia and so is iran...maybe haha.

Anyway, it's my definition vs. yours, i think they can claim being asian cause they share characteristics and resided their as shown empirically as far as we know. I just think yours is more of a long shot...i mean, ok so tibetans aren't asian then? They don't technically have a country.

__________________
Long messages do not equal aggravation of any sort,
rather they reflect nothing more than a response of insight
that should always be read in a matter-of-fact tone.

"Those womyn that seek equality with men, lack determination."

"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be wrong."
-Cromwell

Posted by ¨Õ¨Ø¨ß¨á¨Ú¨Ó on 12-02-2002 08:46 AM:

Yes but if they talk the talk doesn't mean they walk the walk. That's all I can say. Can you honestly tell a scottsman and an irishman or a russian apart. giving they are all wearing the same thing? add canadian to that list.

__________________
blah.

Posted by PsychoSnowman on 12-02-2002 09:01 AM:

no, if they talk the talk that doesn't mean they walk the walk. Some canadians speak french, that doesn't mean they walk the path of a frenchmen, hence being "french."

I'm not saying i can always tell all of them apart, but i think the bigger picture here is that the first ones you listed were european and canadians are north american.

__________________
Long messages do not equal aggravation of any sort,
rather they reflect nothing more than a response of insight
that should always be read in a matter-of-fact tone.

"Those womyn that seek equality with men, lack determination."

"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be wrong."
-Cromwell

Posted by ¨Õ¨Ø¨ß¨á¨Ú¨Ó on 12-02-2002 09:15 AM:

That's not my point. If you live in Korea but are born in America you are considered Korean-American. If you are Hmong you don't know were you originated from, how can you assume your asian? Just by your looks? If it looks like beef, it could be dog. My point is, you can't tell, so don't assume.

__________________
blah.

Posted by PsychoSnowman on 12-02-2002 08:10 PM:

you can say you are part asian because it's a generally accepted tenet that hmongs originated in asia. Hence if you are hmong but born in america you would be Hmong-American, which could be considered asian with our best accuracy.

__________________
Long messages do not equal aggravation of any sort,
rather they reflect nothing more than a response of insight
that should always be read in a matter-of-fact tone.

"Those womyn that seek equality with men, lack determination."

"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be wrong."
-Cromwell

Posted by ¨Õ¨Ø¨ß¨á¨Ú¨Ó on 12-02-2002 08:15 PM:

That wasn't my point once again. You are where you were born and were you live. I'm born in Korea but i'm in the USA that makes me Korean-American. You see hmong have no country, so how do they know that they came from Asia? Just by taking their elders word when there is no proof. As soon as I see proof that they are from Asia or originated from Asia, I will not consider them Asian but Hmong. I could dress up a white kid up like an asian girl but does that make em' asian? No. My point still stands, how can you be Asian if you have no clue where you originated from? They could be European or Russian, they could be anything. They don't know. They can't assume oh since we have people who live in China we are from Asia. They COULD'VE migrated from somewhere else.

__________________
blah.

Posted by PsychoSnowman on 12-02-2002 08:47 PM:

of course that wasn't your point, that was mine. Since we don't know exactly, to our best knowledge they are asian. Sure, we can trust in the miniscule chance (based on our knowledge of them today) of them not being from asian but physical appearances of hmongs tend to look rather asian, it can go the other way. Do you see me giving a definite answer saying "yes they are asian"? No, stop arguing as if i am saying that, i'm saying based on our evidence it's best to classify them as asian. Sure, they could have migrated from Russia or something, but that's like saying british people could possibly have migrated from australia or something. Sure, only to a certain degree that works, but nonethelss it's the same on a certain level. Furthermore, basing if someone is part of a continent on the basis of migrations is infinitely regressive. Then, we'd all be from Africa, and be considered African if we go by the theory that early hominids arose from the African Rift Valley. We don't say that because certain people, say british people, have developed characteristics to differentiate each other from their so called absolute origin. It doesn't matter that they migrated from that, they are considered European because of hte pigment in the skin difference, physical features and the mere fact that they reside there, simple as that.

And, going back to the original point of the thread, "do you consider them asian?" I do, and you don't. I think everyone knows our point of view on this issue by now, it's bootless to debate endlessly for no reason. I'm saying they are asian because they reside there/share physical characteristics (not just dress), i still adhere to my definition and not yours that's why mine will never work with yours. Again, i don't htink we've made any progress the past couple of posts, no one is going to change their definition probably.

__________________
Long messages do not equal aggravation of any sort,
rather they reflect nothing more than a response of insight
that should always be read in a matter-of-fact tone.

"Those womyn that seek equality with men, lack determination."

"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be wrong."
-Cromwell

Posted by ¨Õ¨Ø¨ß¨á¨Ú¨Ó on 12-02-2002 10:53 PM:

Yes. No one can claim they are Asian. I can't claim they are European. I will agree with that. My points are just as valid as yours. I just think that they shouldn't be considered Asian just 'cause they have the looks. I mean, some white girls look Asian but we don't consider them Asian. So, until then, its not right to assume their Asian. For all we know they could be African(sarcastic).

__________________
blah.

Posted by PsychoSnowman on 12-03-2002 02:10 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by ¨Õ¨Ø¨ß¨á¨Ú¨Ó
I just think that they shouldn't be considered Asian just 'cause they have the looks.


Yes, and this conveniently leaves out the other plank to my definition, where it is that you have to reside within in the area, let me extend that to mean the majority of a population at one time resided in a certain area.

quote:

I mean, some white girls look Asian but we don't consider them Asian.


again, disregarding my other plank to the definiton. Sure, white girls can have some characteristics similar to asians, but they won't have the specific ones that are generally accepted as asian, all in one i mean, they can have some features sure. But, whilst it all, they still don't reside in asia...thus, rendering them not asian. It's not just physical characteristics.

quote:

So, until then, its not right to assume their Asian. For all we know they could be African(sarcastic).


Your explanation of why they aren't asian still defeats itself. You don't set a specific moment where we should consider a group of people to be of "origin." You use the instance of hmong people could have migrated from russia, ok...so is that where they are from? If so, why there? Didn't they migrate from somewhere else? Oh of course they did, so which place is considered an origin, and what's not? I think i've avoiced that facet with my definition. Your sarcastic remark is exactly why your rationale for hmongs not being asian is self-defeating.

__________________
Long messages do not equal aggravation of any sort,
rather they reflect nothing more than a response of insight
that should always be read in a matter-of-fact tone.

"Those womyn that seek equality with men, lack determination."

"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be wrong."
-Cromwell

Posted by ¨Õ¨Ø¨ß¨á¨Ú¨Ó on 12-03-2002 02:38 AM:

Yes but just 'cause they all resided in a certain area doesn't mean they could've came from somewhere else. I mean, think of Columbus. He came from somewhere else, but lived there. That didn't make them native. If an asian girl DID live in asia who had asian characteristics people would assume that she is asian. Assumptions are not facts. Even if they are from asia they wouldn't be considered asian they'd be some other race. I mean if they didn't come from somewhere else why is everything lost... If they didn't they'd be a branch off of something else. Like Chinese, Filipino, etc.. But they aren't. They are HMONG. So until they show me proof that they had a country in Asia, i'm not gonna consider them asian. On that terms, no one else can say they are asian 'cause that would be based off an assumption.

__________________
blah.

Posted by tm11 on 12-03-2002 02:55 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by ¨Õ¨Ø¨ß¨á¨Ú¨Ó
I mean, think of Columbus. He came from somewhere else, but lived there.


This example is laughable, and doesn't prove anything. Either you're correctly conveying what you mean to say or you just have severe misconceptions about certain things. So what if Columbus lived in Spain but was not originally from there, he is not an ethnicity.

quote:
Originally posted by ¨Õ¨Ø¨ß¨á¨Ú¨Ó
If an asian girl DID live in asia who had asian characteristics people would assume that she is asian. Assumptions are not facts.


You're partially right, assumptions aren't always facts, this example is stupid too, that girl IS asian, obviously you could have phrased it better, but these are all isolated events, and I don't know how you justify extending them to entire groups of people and generalizing.

quote:
Originally posted by ¨Õ¨Ø¨ß¨á¨Ú¨Ó
Even if they are from asia they wouldn't be considered asian they'd be some other race. I mean if they didn't come from somewhere else why is everything lost... If they didn't they'd be a branch off of something else. Like Chinese, Filipino, etc.. But they aren't. They are HMONG.


David and I have asked you what Tibetan people are, and you still haven't answered. What about the Ainu, or indigenous people in general that reside in countries. I think nationality and ethnicity are getting blurred in this debate, which is too bad.

quote:
Originally posted by ¨Õ¨Ø¨ß¨á¨Ú¨Ó
On that terms, no one else can say they are asian 'cause that would be based off an assumption.


You talk of how assumptions should not be translated into facts, however somehow you assume that political status, and sovereignty qualify people for the ethnic status of "asian." Nowhere do you justify this leap of logic, you just spout out isolated instances and hope that they somehow lend themselves to generalizing your logic, this is silly.

We can say they are Asian, because of their features, and where they reside. I think your rationale is severely flawed, you'd have to account for indigenous peoples the world over, and there is an endless mess of ethnic statuses endowed by your assertions.

__________________
word is bond

Posted by PsychoSnowman on 12-03-2002 03:01 AM:

Your first sentence is self defeating again, it exposes the infinitely regressive nature of your standards on your definition. It's not set, it's all just subjective to your standards of which everyone else is oblivious to, really. No one knows what you consider is "origin" you haven't set a spot for it yet at all. Again, you prove my point further, they could have come from somewhere else yes...and hence, back to the african rift valley...tell me, where do you draw the line between origin and migration? After what migration is one considered to be starting an "origin"?

If an asian girl did live in asia who had asian charactersitcs she would be asian....i dont' see your point. I think you might have meant, if a white girl who resembled an asian lived in asia then she would be considered an asian. But, you are ignoring the plank of the definition where a majority of people who look like that must reside somewhere. Her being mixed probably would render her to look like that, and there isn't some large mixed population in europe somewhere where everyone looks like that, then that woudl be called a new race so to speak since they share common characteristics in physicality, which would be subsumed in teh category of mixed still though. But, this example doesn't work in that someone we have all ready have defined areas of what european and others are, hence she would never be seen as asian because they would know her definite origin came from elsewhere.

Again, it's absurd to judge whether someone is asian on artificial political cirumscribes. you have never answered the question of what tibetans are, or what exactly are native americans then? They don't have countires....what exactly are they. This really si crucial to the progression of this debate.

No one can show you proof because you have an infinitely regressive definition of origin. Until you figure that out straight, you are unable to be shown proof. Simple as that.

__________________
Long messages do not equal aggravation of any sort,
rather they reflect nothing more than a response of insight
that should always be read in a matter-of-fact tone.

"Those womyn that seek equality with men, lack determination."

"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be wrong."
-Cromwell

Posted by ¨Õ¨Ø¨ß¨á¨Ú¨Ó on 12-03-2002 03:19 AM:

Yes but Native Americans did have their own country for a period in time, it was just taken away. Hmong must've had their own country... If not they must've been some sort of group. None the less, this is all based upon what if. Yes, I meant a white girl. Lastly, how can you assume if Hmong are asian then if they can't say 100% themselves that they are.. Are you honestly saying that its not possible for them to not come from somewhere else? I'm not saying that they are not asian but since they don't have a country or knowledge of their past. I just call them Hmong. I segragate Hmong from Asian. Its just based upon the facts.

__________________
blah.

Posted by tm11 on 12-03-2002 03:28 AM:

How can you call those facts? Just because the 2 Hmong people you know don't know where they came from how can you generalize to all Hmongs, and how can you exclude them from the classification "Asian?" Ok, and we're still waiting to hear about Tibetans.

Using your method of obtaining "facts," let's ask Julie what she has to say and then use that to generalize everything else and accept everything she says to be true. She is Hmong, after all, and would be able to resolve this discussion for us.

__________________
word is bond

Posted by PsychoSnowman on 12-03-2002 03:41 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by ¨Õ¨Ø¨ß¨á¨Ú¨Ó
Yes but Native Americans did have their own country for a period in time, it was just taken away. Hmong must've had their own country... If not they must've been some sort of group. None the less, this is all based upon what if. Yes, I meant a white girl. Lastly, how can you assume if Hmong are asian then if they can't say 100% themselves that they are.. Are you honestly saying that its not possible for them to not come from somewhere else? I'm not saying that they are not asian but since they don't have a country or knowledge of their past. I just call them Hmong. I segragate Hmong from Asian. Its just based upon the facts.


oh fun stuff

now we're getting into yet another level of subjectivity of what YOU think is country. Can you be completely clear for once? Now, waht do you mean by country? There was no country recognized by the rest of the world that was owned by the Native Americans...if so, why can't you name the country? It's because they never had one, they were "a group" of people in North America, and we call them North American. Hence, your example of hmongs "must've been some sort of group" is the same as Native Americans, and then we can call them Asian. Hey, sweet. Isn't it nice when the other person contradicts themselves and then we can use it to prove our point?

But yes, we need to ask julie, that would settle everything haha, And, how about tibetans? While we're at it, what is exactly a country? Again, this really is essential for progression in this conversatoin.

__________________
Long messages do not equal aggravation of any sort,
rather they reflect nothing more than a response of insight
that should always be read in a matter-of-fact tone.

"Those womyn that seek equality with men, lack determination."

"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be wrong."
-Cromwell

Posted by tm11 on 12-03-2002 03:44 AM:

i think filipino people are asian.

__________________
word is bond
All times are GMT. The time now is 06:00 AM. Pages (4): « 1 [2] 3 4 »
Show all 77 posts from this thread on one page