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

  1. Blame it on American identity politics, they're the one that created this whole "Asian" identity.
    1
  2.  @Jambudvipa-ug6yg  Incorrect
    1
  3. I agree. I'd go as far as to say they're not even really Asian because they don't live in Asia. Asian means you're from Asia. The white people born and raised in Asia like the Slavic Russians in China are more "Asian" than any of them.
    1
  4.  @JigsawVsChucky  The term "Asian" in a UK context means "South Asian". Like the British media when they describe an Indian person or somebody who looks "Indian", they will say "Asian". In the US, it's the opposite.
    1
  5.  @user-bj6zf9yv7k  No they aren't. The term "Caucasoid" is an outdated term and nobody in the scientific community or those that understand human genetics use the term "Caucasoid" in such a way. The genetic make-up of Indians proves why such terms mean nothing today. Indians are basically "mixed race" and Indians are not "Caucasoid". You can't determine the genetic makeup of an individual by looking at their skull shape. We use "Caucasian" in vernacular English to refer to Europeans and also to refer to the native inhabitants of the Caucasus mountains, not Indians.
    1
  6.  @benjia7906  Not all Southeast Asians look East Asian though. Most Southeast Asians don't look East Asian. The reason why East Asian slurs are also used against Southeast Asians is because it's used against Southeast Asians with East Asian features. Most Southeast Asians in the US and many other Western countries are of ethnic Chinese origin. You aren't going to see a dark skinned Southeast Asian person called the c word for example.
    1
  7.  @deeksha2964  Asians have labels but those labels aren't based on skin tone. Nobody in Asia goes around calling all South Asians "brown" like Americans or Canadians do. I've seen light skinned Nepalese (including those with East Asian features and fair skin) in North America describe themselves as "brown" because that term seems to indicate South Asian people, culture etc. in general regardless of your skin tone (you can see that a lot on TikTok). In English language contexts in Asia, people will use "brown" or "black" simply to describe the colour of someone's skin in a derogatory manner but nobody classifies entire groups of people as "brown" or "yellow" or "black" in Asia. English is not the lingua franca in Asian countries except for Singapore and in Singapore, colour terminology is not used to define the local Chinese, Malays and Indians. Young Singaporeans and Malaysians in informal contexts, especially online, may use "brown Asian" to describe the local Indians and Malays but that's the result of Western influence. In everyday Singaporean and Malaysian society, in English language contexts, people will use "Indian" and "Malay".
    1
  8.  @deeksha2964  East Asian hostility towards South Asians isn't just due to colorism, it's also due to stereotypes and other factors. Yes, brown skin plays a role but in an East Asian country like South Korea, light skinned South Asians also face discrimination. South Korea is home to a lot of South Asian migrant workers, students and migrant brides and most of them historically have come from Nepal and Sri Lanka and in more recent years, from Bangladesh. Many of the Nepalese in Korea have light skin and many have East Asian features but they still face discrimination and stereotypes as a result of their South Asian origins. Same thing applies to Vietnamese migrant workers and migrant brides in Korea, who look East Asian and culturally connected to East Asians. There are historical and preconceived notions and stereotypes of South Asians and Southeast Asians in Korea. Same thing applies in other East Asian societies like Japan.
    1
  9.  @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
  10.  @unstable_7071  If most Indians looked East Asian or Southeast Asian, none of y'all would single them out like y'all always do cause the reality is that they culturally influenced other parts of Asia, especially Southeast Asia, so their cultural similarities are very visible to anybody that is well versed in Asian cultures.
    1
  11.  @OrlyYahalom  They have similarities, you should need to look for them instead of thinking they're completely different just cause most of them don't look East Asian. Why do people always determine what is "Asian" based on proximity to East Asian. Stop using it to describe appearance or race!
    1
  12.  @ha-kj2ex  No it absolutely is not lmfao. There are entire regions in South Asia where people speak Sino-Tibetan languages, look East Asian, have the same ethnic groups common in Tibet and related cultural practices. Be serious for a second.
    1
  13.  @asdfasdf6271  The Japanese included India in their "Great East Asia" plans during WW2.
    1
  14.  @asdfasdf6271  Firstly, why are you correlating India with South Asia? South Asia does not just consist of India. Secondly, Tibeto-Burman groups don't just live in Northeast India. What do you mean by the "core of India"? Are you trying to tell me that brown skinned Indians who speak Hindi and other languages are the "real Indians" and everybody is negligible? Really annoying when people do that.
    1
  15.  @asdfasdf6271  It's not about agreeing, it's about you being wrong.
    1
  16.  @asdfasdf6271  Here's dome advice, don't talk about things you don't understand. You want to talk about Asia, then learn about the entire continent not just East Asia, which you fetishise.
    1
  17.  @asdfasdf6271  Imperial Japan tried to colonise India and the rest of South Asia during WW2 due to the fact that they have similarities with other parts of Asia. Time to use Google
    1
  18.  @asdfasdf6271  Since when does the majority of Indians equals the whole of India? Stop thinking they are the crux of what India is a if everybody else is negligible. This is the second time you have done this. 💀💀
    1
  19.  @gappleofdiscord9752  Don't worry about that other user, everything you said was correct and there shouldn't be a need for you to justify anything cause what you said makes sense.
    1
  20.  @ysf-d9i  White people with darker skin? The most Chinese American or rather American thing to say
    1
  21.  @incumbentvinyl9291  Indians are a mix of West Eurasian and East Eurasian (what some people may call Asiatic) ancestry. The East Eurasian ancestry in India is found highest among the tribals as well as among eastern and southern Indians.
    1
  22.  @incumbentvinyl9291  The only East Eurasian (what you call Asiatic) components in Europe are found among Finns at low levels and Turkish people. Aboriginal Australians are the most "Asiatic" group outside of Asia.
    1
  23.  @Pmc987  Indians culturally influenced other parts of Asia, especially Southeast Asia. South Asia, including India, and Southeast Asia are part of the Indosphere. The scripts used to write Southeast Asian languages are Brahmic and related to the scripts used in India. The traditional clothing of SEA countries like the sabai of Thailand is related to Indian traditional clothing.
    1
  24.  @Pmc987  Korea, Chinese, Japanese and Vietnamese are related culturally and are part of the Sinosphere, the rest of Asia is different
    1
  25.  @Pmc987  Modern Indian culture is still related to other Asian cultures. What aspects of modern Indian culture do you think are so "dissimilar" to other Asian cultures?
    1
  26.  @williamecrowe  Both of you don't understand the cultural similarities between Asian nations and think Asian only means East Asian
    1
  27.  @Pmc987  Indian cultural influence in SEA is one of the main roots of SEA culture. What do you mean by "how long ago was that?". SEA culture is still practiced in SEA. So yeah the cultures are still very similar because people are still practicing SEA culture. If they weren't, then nobody would be celebrating Indian-influenced festivals like Solar New Year or Loy Krathong or speaking the languages that they speak which are all Sanskrit influenced.
    1
  28.  @Pmc987  Yeah they're White South Africans, I'm not missing the point. Comparing them to Indians is insane. Indians are literally native to India and y; all are claiming they are immigrants comparable to the Boer.
    1
  29.  @Pmc987  Asian in the context of culture?? Yeah that makes ZERO sense when most of Southeast Asia (which Americans consider to be Asian) is culturally related to South Asia (e.g. India). You don't even know what you're talking about
    1
  30.  @k1r4z.  All Indians carry East Eurasian ancestry. Yes, most North Indians mostly carry West Eurasian but they have around 20-30% East Eurasian ancestry too. Eastern and southern Indians carry more East Eurasian ancestry and it's the tribal adivasi that have around 90% East Eurasian ancestry (mostly AASI ancestry). Himalayan natives are not Sino-Tibetan
    1
  31. Indians are Asians because they're from Asia.
    1
  32.  @user-3g7c6  Indians are from Asia, so they're Asians. It's not that hard to understand.
    1
  33.  @larssrensen4353  Caucasian is an outdated racial term from the 19th century. Indians/Pakistanis aren't Caucasian. Caucasian described skull shape, nobody in the scientific community uses that term. You can't determine ethnicity by skull shape, only a genetic test can reveal that. South Asians are mostly a mix of Ancestral North Indian (ANI) and Ancestral South Indian (ASI) components. That's why even in the 19th century, Indians/South Asians were sometimes classified as "mixed" or "unclassified" by anthropologists like Carleton S. Coon because South Asians are so diverse and modern science has shown us why South Asians were so hard to classify back in the 19th century.
    1
  34.  @larssrensen4353  Did you watch the video properly and have you watched Masaman's other videos? He clearly said that Caucasian is an outdated racial term and that we don't use those terms anymore. If you actually follow his content, then you'll know that it's an outdated term and he actually created the video to illustrate the historical terminology and the modern terminology we now use which include terms like "West Eurasian" and "East Eurasian".
    1
  35.  @664theneighbor5  Depends on context. . In the UK, for example, "Asian" means "South Asian" and in Asia, "Asian" refers to all Asian groups. In Singapore, for example, all Singaporeans of Chinese, Malay and Indian descent are considered "Asian".
    1
  36.  @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
  37.  @basedabdu8653  No that's wrong. Caucasian is an outdated racial term from the 19th century. Indians/Pakistanis aren't Caucasian. Caucasian described skull shape, nobody in the scientific community uses that term. You can't determine ethnicity by skull shape, only a genetic test can reveal that. South Asians are mostly a mix of Ancestral North Indian (ANI) and Ancestral South Indian (ASI) components. That's why even in the 19th century, Indians/South Asians were sometimes classified as "mixed" or "unclassified" by anthropologists like Carleton S. Coon because South Asians are so diverse and modern science has shown us why South Asians were so hard to classify back in the 19th centur
    1
  38.  @bonappetit7522  No that's wrong. Caucasian is an outdated racial term from the 19th century. Indians/Pakistanis aren't Caucasian. Caucasian described skull shape, nobody in the scientific community uses that term. You can't determine ethnicity by skull shape, only a genetic test can reveal that. South Asians are mostly a mix of Ancestral North Indian (ANI) and Ancestral South Indian (ASI) components. That's why even in the 19th century, Indians/South Asians were sometimes classified as "mixed" or "unclassified" by anthropologists like Carleton S. Coon because South Asians are so diverse and modern science has shown us why South Asians were so hard to classify back in the 19th centur
    1
  39.  @AyanAli-py7ci  "Caucasian" is an outdated racial term like I said in my other comments. The term is "West Eurasian". Pakistanis have more West Eurasian admixture and yes those western Pakistani groups are genetically and culturally related to Iranians and other Middle Eastern groups and not to South Asians.
    1
  40.  Shazzad Amin  See my other comment that I posted.
    1
  41.  @Jambudvipa-ug6yg  Yes they are
    1
  42.  @xandercorp6175  The term Indian subcontinent was coined by the British to describe India's diversity. The Indians did not create that term. Indians view themselves as Asians.
    1
  43.  @sageo7618  They're all Asians. Non-Asians trying to divide up Asia again.
    1
  44.  @rheincunanan6011  They're all Asians.
    1
  45.  @qranked  It's not true. Stop being racist
    1
  46.  @isabella.5568  of course you are, weeb
    1
  47.  @isabella.5568  Bad karma will come knocking on that door for being racist towards South Asians
    1
  48.  @merc9nine  They're all Asians. Are you fr rn?
    1
  49.  @merc9nine  Asian is NOT a race, even if it was South Asians would be part "Asian" because they have 40% East Eurasian ancestry
    1
  50.  @c0olducky514  Asians are better than non-Asians
    1