Comments by "K `" (@user-jt3dw6vv4x) on "Jubilee"
channel.
-
101
-
52
-
31
-
29
-
29
-
20
-
20
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
11
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@Dand40 No South Asians don't. India had a big impact on the rest of Asia. Indian influence permeates South and Southeast Asia and also had an impact on East Asia via the spread of Buddhism. Most of South and Southeast Asia fall within the Indian cultural sphere with Indic culture being the root of Thai, Nepali, Sri Lankan, Cambodian, Burmese, Indonesian and Lao culture among others. Certain Japanese and Chinese dieties are of Hindu origin. For example, Chinese diety Wei Tuo and Japanese diety Benzaiten are of Hindu origin. Wei Tuo is known as Murugan by Tamils in India, Sri Lanka, Singapore and Malaysia. Benzaiten is known as Saraswati in India and Nepal. There are multiple other elements of Indian influence in other South, Southeast and East Asian cultures but there is too much to list. Thing is people think that just because most South Asians look different from East Asians or Southeast Asians it means they are culturally very different, they're not.
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@crate249 No, that's cultural diffusion. Cultural diffusion and cultural appropriation are very different. Cultural diffusion is what we saw in the ancient days and what we continue see today. The spread of customs, traditions, languages, scripts, music, literature, food, architecture, clothing, belief systems, philosophical beliefs among others are all part of cultural diffusion. Cultural appropriation is very different and is nothing like cultural diffusion.
It's controversial to adopt traits from a minority group because the group is marginalised or judged from the dominant society's perspective. For example, if Black American women are continued to be asked to have straight hair and use hair relaxers to abide by the standards of US society in corporate positions and other white collar positions yet a White American woman is allowed to adopt hair styles suited to Afro textured hair without any penalty then that's problematic. It isn't fair for society to continue to ask Black American women to straighten their hair or wear wigs to be "professional" yet allow White American women a pass because it's "exotic" or "trendy". There's no fairness in that. That's why cultural appropriation, in this context, is problematic. These days it seems like everybody calls everything "cultural appropriation" but there are specific details as to what constitutes cultural appropriation. This is an example. I hope you understand the difference now.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@deeksha2964 Also, as you said, Asians discriminate against their own. People talk of East Asian hostility towards South Asians but it also goes the other way. India has a huge problem with its treatment of Northeast Indians who look East Asian and broader discrimination against other Indians who have East or Southeast Asian like features who come from other parts of India. Not to mention other forms of discrimination against the varied ethnic groups of India like Biharis and Tamils, in addition to racism directed at neighbouring nations like Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and the Rohingyas of Myanmar. Same thing in Southeast Asia, Thai vs Burmese, Cambodian vs Vietnamese, Malaysian vs Singaporean, Thai vs Thai Malay, Bamar vs all other ethnic groups in Myanmar and so on.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@illustryfe5354 Firstly, Mongoloid is outdated racial term from the 19th century referring to the shape of people's skulls. You can't determine race based on skull shape. Mongoloid and other racial terms are outdated and no longer used in the scientific community today. Brown is also not a racial term. So many diverse groups are "brown skinned" but that doesn't mean they're the same race.
Secondly, it depends on context. In the US, the first wave of Asian immigrants were from East Asia and in the UK, the first wave of Asian immigrants were from South Asia. So in US English, "Asian" refers to East Asian and in British English, "Asian" refers to South Asians. Officially on government documents, both East Asians and South Asians as well as Southeast Asians are classified as "Asians" regardless of how the term is used in colloquial language. In Asia, "Asian" refers to everybody from Asia. In Singapore, for example, all Singaporeans of Indian, Malay and Chinese descent are considered as "Asians". This is because Singapore is an Asian country and the definition in Singapore and other parts of Asia is most similar to the dictionary definition of "Asian". So it depends on context but at the end of day, everybody from one of the native ethnic groups of Asia is Asian.
Finally, some Indian groups like Bengalis and various Northeast Indian groups have East Asian admixture which is why some of them look Thai or Chinese.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1