Comments by "K `" (@user-jt3dw6vv4x) on "Asian Boss" channel.

  1. Indians are mixed. Their indigenous component (AASI) is East Eurasian and thus closer to east Asians and Australasians. Tribal Adivasis and low caste Indians carry high levels of this ancestry. The majority of other Indians (including high caste Indians) mostly carry West Eurasian ancestry which is related to Europeans and Middle Easterners. The northeastern and some other groups in the north of India mostly carry ESEA (related to East and Southeast Asians) DNA.
    3
  2.  @williamdripspeare741  Indians aren't racially "East Asian". Asian is not a race and is simply just a geographical term and that is how it is understood in Asia.
    3
  3. ​ @williamdripspeare741  Yep I agree, it's quite hard to categorise people into neat categories of "races". Population clusters make more sense based on PCA plots imo. So there would be a West Eurasian cluster (Europe+Middle East), North Africa cluster, Horn of Africa cluster, ESEA-East Asian-related cluster (East+Southeast Asia), South Asia cluster, Central Asia cluster, Pacific Islander cluster, Native American cluster, Australasia cluster (Australia+PNG) and Sub-Saharan Africa cluster. Those are the broad clusters that form on PCA plots when measuring genetic distance.
    3
  4.  @williamdripspeare741  Yeah I agree but that's in the West, many in the West use "Asian" as a race. I wouldn't say East Eurasian genes though imo, more in regards to Asians with epicanthic folds as many predominantly East Eurasian groups like the Kondh of India and the Semang of Malaysia don't look typically East or Southeast Asian. Outside of Asia, "Asian" is used to describe certain physical features.
    3
  5. It's such a trivial thing to talk about lmao.
    2
  6.  @LordYamcha  She looks Northeast Indian
    2
  7. China, Japan and Korea are not just Asia. 💀💀
    2
  8.  @malithaw  The term "Indian subcontinent" was coined by the British to describe British India (modern India, Pakistan and Bangladesh), not the whole of South Asia.
    2
  9.  @doit2810  Whatever helps you sleep at night
    2
  10.  @ishanbajpai6940  Indian land? Only Pakistan and Bangladesh were part of ancient India or what you call "Indian land" (Bharat). Do not claim Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bhutan, Maldives and even Myanmar as Indian. They were never part of India.
    2
  11. Agreed. Ronnie is just making a joke but many people dont' know about Malaysia's diversity and so don't realise he's joking.
    2
  12.  @WastedBananas  Yes they are Asians and always will be.
    2
  13.  @reach2prasanna  Thank you for your comment. I still think there is hope for India because it still has a young population but India's window of opportunity is closing. The reason I say this is because India's fertility rate is now 2.0, its urban fertility is 1.6. Every state in India now has below replacement level fertility, except for 5 which also happen to be the poorest in the nation. That's pretty alarming in my opinion because India is still a lower middle income nation. [PART 1]
    2
  14.  @reach2prasanna  I'm not a fan of Modi (I think aggravating minorities does not help in development, there are more important things imo to do than to engage in present-day nationalistic views which is really just water under the bridge). Leaders must look at the future and understand that everybody has a role in developing a country, by alienating a portion of your population you prevent sound and robust development because you are opening up potential wounds that can destroy your plans and your momentum [PART 3]
    2
  15.  @reach2prasanna  However, I think Modi is hardline and I think if he focuses solely on development (really empowers his belief in making India a developed country within 25 years), then it can be possible but India only has 25 years left. By the middle of the century, it will be losing steam with its growing elderly population and declining fertility. [PART 4]
    2
  16.  @riorio745  Yes I agree, prosperity brings democracy. Democracy works best in developed nations in my opinion.
    2
  17.  @wuhuhu1390  Sorry but who's saying the dictatorship in Korea was a good thing? Nobody is but the fact is that economic reforms were enforced under Park's rule and that laid the foundation.
    2
  18. Are they though? All of those countries along with Southeast Asia (Thailand, Myanmar, Indonesia etc.) are part of the Indosphere (Indian Cultural Sphere). They all share things in common (I guess with the exception of Pakistan which is now very Islamic). For example they celebrate Songkran (the South and Southeast Asian New Year -kind of like the equivalent to the East Asian Lunar New Year), linguistic scripts all derive from the Brahmic script, Sanskrit influence is widespread, traditional clothing, mythology, architecture, culinary influences, religion and dining etiquette among many other things trace back to Indian cultural influence.
    2
  19.  @Spasticmir  Firstly, caste system discrimination is not racial discrimination. Caste has nothing to do with race. Secondly, this is Singapore and this case involves a Malaysian man. His ethnicity has nothing to do with this. His nationality has nothing to do with this. Thirdly, Indians discriminating against other Indians is not racism if they're from the same country and if it's an Indian discriminating against another Indian from another country (say Singaporean Indian discriminating against a Malaysian Indian) it's called xenophobia.
    2
  20. @@Robey-si8ed Did you just comment and delete your reply? Also, to answer your question, I'm not.
    2
  21. @@Robey-si8ed Singapore doesn't want any refugees because they claim they're too small but the fact is that they prefer to maintain their culture hence why they prefer accepting Malaysian immigrants over anybody else who are the same ethnicity as Singaporeans (Chinese + Malay + Tamil). Thailand doesn't want more Burmese refugees but they still accept them. You're speaking about other things but the point is that Rohingyas aren't moving to India (especially North India) because they want to, they're moving there out of sheer desperation. They have no choice but to move to India. If they had a choice they'd be moving to other Southeast Asian countries like every other Burmese refugee has in the past.
    2
  22.  @kunalgohil7628  Like I said, nobody is moving to India, especially North India of all places, willingly. The richest states in India are located in the south which is far away from Myanmar. They moved to North India out of sheer desperation. So many Indians move to my country (Australia) each year, in fact they are now the largest source of migrants to this country overtaking the UK. There are zero opportunities in India compared to other Asian countries. SO anybody who is trying to get into that country is doing so because they are desperate. This is why Rohingyas deserve respect. They face extreme persecution and so escaped to India out of sheer desperation because they simply needed to escape. They have been moving to Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand for a long time and until recently there were no issues. They have always had opportunities in Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand because those countries are far richer and economically well off with a focus on social development but that's not the case in India. Rohingya refugees have zero opportunities in India. They'd much prefer to be back in Myanmar, not in India. Compared toother refugee groups, Rohingyas actually want to go back to their nation but their military government continues to persecute every minority group that lives there and so they're barred from going back.
    2
  23. They don't need a three child policy. Their fertility rate is 2, that's the replacement level and the level that is expected for a population to be sustained.
    2
  24.  @WastedBananas  They're all Asians. Asian is just geography. Stop conflating race with geographical terms. 💀
    2
  25.  @UnlimitedWere  How is that even comparable? India is an artificial nation, it's made up of many different ethnic groups. A Tamil is genetically closer to a Maldivian than they are to a Punjabi from North India. They are all different ethnically speaking.
    2
  26.  @UnlimitedWere  Race is a flawed construct but what you are referring to can be described as "South Asian" which broadly covers other nations close to India.
    2
  27.  @ar2r1an04  All of you are correct. There are ethnic Tibetans in India and Tibetan-related people who are indigenous to India. There are also Indians with what you call "Tibetan-like" features elsewhere in India like in Northeast India but also in Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Ladakh (areas all located in proximity to the Tibetan Plateau) that are not Tibetan-related but completely different. So, all of you are correct.
    2
  28. Most of Southeast Asia is actually culturally related to India. It's part of the Indosphere, not Sinosphere. Also, Indians aren't Black Africans...
    2
  29.  @wangtrista5019  I'm not blaming the whole of China. I'm talking about the CCP. Did I say that I'm blaming the whole of China? No I did not. Stop jumping the gun.
    2
  30.  @wangtrista5019  I never blamed the whole of China. I said CCP. Read my comment! Stop jumping the gun.
    2
  31. No, it's because they need people for an economy to function. Without people, you have no economy.
    2
  32.  @indo-pacific5940  There absolutely is. The native hunter-gatherers of South Asia are known as the AASI and they are genetically related to East Asians and Australasians. So that's one ethnic link. Secondly, ESEA (East/Southeast Asian) people have genetically contributed to certain populations in South Asia. I'm of Sri Lankan descent, Malays have settled in Sri Lanka in large numbers since the 13h century. My eyes are more like Malay-like eyes. The problem here is that you're homogenising us and being incredibly Indocentric. Stop calling us "Indian subcontinent". It's South Asia, not Indian subcontinent which is a term created by the British to refer to India, Pakistan and Bangladesh (British India). Really Chindians? So you just ignore all of the indigenous ethnic groups in South Asia that are connected to East and Southeast Asia. Let me repeat, the indigenous people of South Asia are genetically closer to East Asian people. The majority of Indians (e.g. Hindi speakers) are primarily of non-indigenous descent and there is an irony in someone suggesting South Asians have no genetic ties to East or Southeast Asia when all of the indigenous people of the land are far closer to East Asians than the typical North Indian who is closer to a European than an East Asian as they mostly carry West Eurasian ancestry.
    2
  33.  @milkandspice1074  She looks Northeast Indian and could pass in Southeast Asia and Nepal too.
    2
  34. 💀
    2
  35.  @Anonymous-qb4vc  Only in some Western countries does "Asian" mean "Mongoloid" appearance. In the UK and eastern African countries, "Asian" means Indian/South Asian appearance. Desi is too narrow of a term to use and really only applies to Indians, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis. Asian is not a race, people outside f Asia have turned it into one but nobody in Asia thinks it's a race. Hong Kong has a large colonial-era Indian community, they are considered Asians and in colloquial language they are known by the Cantonese equivalent for "South Asian". This issue of Asia's definition is only a non-Asian issue.
    2
  36.  @anasian8894  It has a negative connotation in the US only and it's primarily propagated by East Asian Americans who claim calling someone "Oriental" is degrading because the term "oriental" is used to refer to non-human objects like rugs (e.g. Oriental rugs of the Middle East and Central Asia).
    2
  37. I mean I can understand why someone in India may feel that way. English was adopted out of a necessity due to the sheer ethnic diversity and it came with colonisation. Japan's relationship with English has no nationalist undertones
    2
  38. Well Asian's not a race anyway and Indians aren't Caucasian either. Genetically speaking, Indians are "mixed race". The first inhabitants of India were an East Eurasian people who are genetically closer to East Asians known as the AASI. Adivasi tribal people in India are comparatively closer to East Asians than most other Indians as they carry the most amount of indigenous South Asian (East Eurasian) ancestry. Most other Indians, on the other hand, carry higher levels of West Eurasian ancestry (which is related to Europeans and Middle Easterners). So in conclusion, Indians are a separate race. They can't be placed into "Caucasoid", "Mongoloid" etc. India's cultural output is also different. They culturally influenced most of Asia. Most of South Asia (India, Nepal etc.) and Southeast Asia (Thailand, Indonesia etc.) is part of the Indian Cultural Sphere and the spread of Buddhism across Asia transported Indian ideas to East Asia. Imperial Japan tried to colonise India during WW2 and unite it within "Greater East Asia" due to this very fact of cultural commonalities. Europeans tried to divide and conquer Asia one time and that led to Imperial Japan, they're trying to do it again and now we're having China talk about "Asia for the Asians" all over again. Trying to designate them as a separate entity doesn't do anything, geographically India is in Asia. Asia is just geography, that is all.
    2
  39. I thought the video was good but yeah the comments are interesting, good discussions are happening.
    2
  40. Exactly, Asian is a secondary identity for actual Asian people in Asia. Nobody thinks of it first. Such a trivial thing to talk about.
    2
  41.  @stephanatlas5331  Bollywood loves that pale white Punjabi look, let's be real. Nobody is looking for that round faced Assamese or Bengali look (e.g. Sayani Gupta) or the dark skinned South Indian with neotenous features (e.g. Shaun Romy). There is a specific idea of what is considered the standard in Bollywood and that's the sharp featured fair skinned Punjabi look.
    2
  42. Asian is just geography, only people who seem to struggle with this are people in the US.
    2
  43. You can get hints of the Singaporean accent but a very Westernised version of it. It's definitely a mixed accent.
    2
  44. If you're wondering, most Singaporean-Indians have dark skin like the girl in the video. There's a famous Singaporean influencer who is in an interracial relationship, she has really dark skin too and is beautiful and of Indian descent. I can't remember her name though.
    2
  45. ​ @Andy-P  Yep, Kishore Mahbubani is a prominent Singaporean-Indian representative of China's pro-Asian and pro-China rhetoric. His career began in Singapore when Lee Kuan Yew practiced the ideology of Asian Values and his worldview is completely shaped by that Asiacentric, anti-West worldview that 1990s Asian leaders and modern CCP-led China profess. I would say Kishore Mahbubani is the most prominent non-ethnic Chinese Asian figure to have a worldview that aligns very closely with China's. It is why, while respected, his views are questioned in the West and among Western-leaning Asian people.
    2
  46. They are. They just said they are in the video and Ronny was making a joke anyway. He's Malaysian so of course he's joking. Malaysians are of Malay, Chinese, Indian and Orang Asli descent and is known as "mini Asia" as a result of it.
    2
  47.  @aliya_aqeel  Yeah you're right but as the OP said there's a difference depending on context. For example, the mainstream Western media and those social media users on YT and other platforms who look down negatively on India and Indian people and then there are those outside of the internet (and even on the internet) who praise Indians for their academic and intergration success in Western countries.
    2
  48.  @Justin_Why  No but many Indians are dark with rounder eyes (except for northeastern or some tribal groups). Some of the Montagnard tribes of Vietnam have rounder eyes and darker skin. They look more "Indianish" than typical "Southeast Asian". I don't like comparing them to Indian features because they aren't "Indian". Those tribes, like many of the tribes of India and various parts of Southeast Asia, descend primarily from an ancient East Eurasian lineage that traditionally had rounder eyes, darker skin straight or wavy hair before the development and arrival of lighter skinned neo-East Asians into Southeast Asia. There just isn't a word in the English language that can describe that type of phenotype. I just say "Indian" because that's the largest country in Asia that has a similar phenotype even though the majority of Indians are actually mixed.
    2
  49.  @WastedBananas  Yes they are. 💀
    2
  50. @imyourrealfather-yes There are people like that everywhere, doesn't change what they said.
    2