Talk:Asian American
|
|
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)
- 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)
| Contents |
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)
- 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)
'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)
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? User:SebastianHelm/sig-t 19:48, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC) </font>
(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)
User:SebastianHelm/pilcrow
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.
User:SebastianHelm/sig-t 20:29, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC) </font>
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.) User:SebastianHelm/sig-t 21:01, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC) </font>
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. User:SebastianHelm/sig-t 21:26, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC) </font>
- 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. User:SebastianHelm/sig-t 22:46, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC) </font>
Thank you, Nectarflowed, for adding the history section – you did the right thing, where we two knuckleheads couldn't agree. User:SebastianHelm/sig-t 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)</font>
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)