| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
 |
|
In rainy cold Britain the group most at risk from Vit D deficiency is apparently Asian women, at least the ones who cover themselves from head to foot. They may be deprived of sunlight but don't appear to suffer from any linguistic handicap.
Now I'm beginning to worry about pasty-faced Hebrew scholars who spend their lives in a Heder, if ever there was a study into Vit D deficient groups they'd be first in line.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Hatty wrote: | | In rainy cold Britain the group most at risk from Vit D deficiency is apparently Asian women. |
THEY AREN'T ASIAN WOMEN!
Asian women come from Japan, Thailand, Indonesia, The Philippines etc. (that covers most of my girlfriends). "Asian women" do NOT come from Pakistan. My god. Will you ever stop reading The Guardian?!?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Chad wrote: | | I don't think northern, urban, black Americans are measurably less articulate than their southern, rural counterparts... or their D-rich kinsmen in sub-Saharan Africa. |
And yet, "articulate" is the word white people tend to reach for when encountering an apparently exceptionally intelligent black man.
I for one find that interesting.
Nevertheless, what the case illustrates is that an inherited characteristic need not always be genetic in origin -- at least not directly.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
Oh sorry, maybe I should try reading the Guardian. Interesting assumption on your part!
Does taking Vit D supplements help with seasonal depression?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chad
In: Ramsbottom
|
|
|
|
| Ishmael wrote: | | THEY AREN'T ASIAN WOMEN! |
OH YES THEY ARE!
You really must learn to accept that parochial Americanisms don't carry much weight 'round these parts.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Chad wrote: | | OH YES THEY ARE! |
Shall we call Russians, Asians now?
Really.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
Are you an American, Ishmael?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Grant
|
|
|
|
How I long for the old days when they were Chinkies! And Pakis lived in India and Nig-Nogs in Africa.
Let's face it, Asian is a euphemism whether we use it about Chinese or Indians. It's like using Caucasian when we mean white, or Israelis when we mean Jews.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Grant wrote: | | Let's face it, Asian is a euphemism whether we use it about Chinese or Indians. It's like using Caucasian when we mean white, or Israelis when we mean Jews. |
Its far worse than that.
At least the aforementioned terms are applied to persons with recognizably common characteristics (physical or otherwise).
When one speaks of "Asian women" covering up their bodies, can we really be speaking of the natives of Cambodia? Is there any chance I might encounter such feminine specimens trouncing about Hong Kong or Tokyo?
This overly broad categorization produces only confusion that every reader can escape only by performing a mental transposition. "Oh! But she can't mean 'asian women.' She must mean those other asian women."
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Ishmael is, though he probably doesn't realise it, making an important point. All the people of the sub-continent are Indo-Europeans just like us. Very few other 'Asians' are. Racially we (Brits, Newfoundlanders etc) are the same as them. As it happens the classic study of 'modern rickets' was undertaken on East London Bangladeshi women because (for cultural reasons) they had to be covered in public but for (geographic) climatic reasons the sun wasn't strong enough in London to overcome this. Genetically it wouldn't have been significant.
But also for cultural reasons the Brits insist on seeing sub-continentals as racially different from themselves when of course they mean they are culturally distinct. This leads to all sorts of complications. I remember the (to me bizarre, to everybody else quite normal) spectre of an apartheid-era South African Indian castigating a British cricket team for not playing against his (ie an African) cricket team.
We, as Applied Epistemologists, need to be careful when making these categorisations.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chad
In: Ramsbottom
|
|
|
|
In the UK we have little exposure to yer Nips, Gooks and Pinos, so we need take no regard of them when applying our very sensible catagorisations.
We have only two types of Asians to consider: Hong Kong Chinese and those from the Sub-continent.
Chinkie and Paki, are no longer acceptable.
Chinese is what it says on the tin and 'Asian' is a good catch all for yer various Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and so on.
The Americans of course apply exactly the same very sensible logic to their particular 'Asian' categorisations.
Confusion only occurs when one lot can't follow the very sensible logic of the other lot.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
Your "Asian" category is the vestige of an old cladistic system designed for one purpose alone: To draw a distinction between us (ie. the cultured, imperial British) and them (ie. the darkies). That's why anyone a shade less than porcelain is suddenly an "Asian" and if they go nappy-headed they become.... well we can't write it even here.
That overly -broad categorization system is less likely to prompt me to look in the right direction than is a hand gesture followed by a grunt.
If you want to say something, be sure you say it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Chad wrote: | | The Americans of course apply exactly the same very sensible logic to their particular 'Asian' categorisations. |
No. In an immigrant society, cladistics evolve to be meaningfully descriptive and must take into account the peoples of the entire world. Your system was and remains political in purpose. While it was once used to support a right-wing agenda, it now supports a left-wing agenda. It survives because it remains useful to that end alone.
But it's hardly useful when one's purpose is communication, rather than obfuscation.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chad
In: Ramsbottom
|
|
|
|
| Ish wrote: | | In an immigrant society, cladistics evolve to be meaningfully descriptive and must take into account the peoples of the entire world. |
But in practice your "Asian" category is just as restrictive and ultimately meaningless as ours.
You only include slanty-eyed mongoloid types (who make up only about half the population of Asia)... And don't forget a good percentage of indigenous Americans are also slanty-eyed mongoloid types... Do you class them as "Asian"?
Not then a very meaningful description.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
It's a bit like Chad claiming to be English even though in fact he's from Lancashire.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
