How do you define "Asia" and "Asian"?

[Fartsniffage]

I don't. I wait for the people to define themselves.

[Todlichebujoku]

Most East Asians have very little to do with South or even southwest Asia. Too many mountains in the way.

[Gebidia]

I define Asia in the traditional continental way. As for Asians, I think that Language Family is the best indicator for shared ancestry among groups of people, rather than geography or physical appearance.

For instance, the Inuit would have developed white skin if they hadn't already been receiving sufficient Vitamin D from their strong diet of Fish. But that wouldn't have made them related to the people living in Europe because they separated long ago (although they lived relatively close by), as can be demonstrated through their linguistic differences.

I consider an Asian to be anyone born in Asia. However, ethnically, I consider countries in East Asia (east of Tibet) to be distinct, especially from India, Central Asia and the Middle East. Indians are more closely related to Europeans than some Europeans are to each other. For example, English and the majority of Indian languages are related whereas English and Finnish or Hungarian are not. The Chinese, Tibetans, Burmese, and Vietnamese are somewhat related. Japan and Korea are both linguistically distinctive from the rest of East Asia.

West Asians usually aren't called "Asians" even though Greeks who lived in Asia Minor were the terms' original description. The Middle East has crazy genetic diversity, just like East Asia does, so I think that Asians should be grouped by nationality rather than some sort of mega-group.

[Ifreann]

Asia is just a figment of your imagination.

[Atvania]

I prefer to use language family as the best indicator for shared ancestry among groups of people, rather than geography or physical appearance.

For instance, the Inuit would have developed white skin if they hadn't already been receiving sufficient Vitamin D from their strong diet of Fish. But that wouldn't have made them related to the people living in Europe because they seperated long ago, as can be demonstrated through their linguistic differences.

I consider an Asian to be anyone born in Asia. However, ethnically, I consider countries in East Asia (east of Tibet) to be distinct, especially from India and Central Asia. Indians are more closely related to Europeans than some Europeans are to each other. For example, English and the majority of Indian languages are related whereas English and Finnish or Hungarian are not. The Chinese, Tibetans, Burmese, and Vietnamese are somewhat related. Japan and Korea are both linguistically distinctive from the rest of East Asia.

West Asians usually aren't called "Asians" even though Greeks who lived in Asia Minor were the terms' original description. The Middle East has crazy genetic diversity, just like East Asia, so I think that Asians should be grouped by nationality rather than some sort of mega-group.

I wasn't born in Asia, but my ancestry is Asian, so I'm not Asian? What the.

[DesAnges]

Where's my option for southwest Kyrgyzstan?

[Xysticia]

Asia, to me, goes from the Middle East to the Far East.

[Gebidia]

I wasn't born in Asia, but my ancestry is Asian, so I'm not Asian? What the.

Are you saying that you're descended from Arabs, Turks, Persians, Armenians, Assyrians, Indians, the Chinese, the Japanese, Koreans, Thais, Kazakhs, Russians and Jews? That's the type of person I would say had "Asian" ancestry.

I think someone with descent from, say, Malaysia, should consider themselves as having Malaysian descent rather than having "Asian" descent is all. I have European descent, but from a bunch of Northwestern countries. I'm not descended from Russians, or Greeks or Romans. So I don't call myself European-American. I call myself White American because that's what you are in America if you have White skin. It's a cultural thing. Not scientific, but Americans only care about appearance when they think of your heritage. I think it's disrespectful to the people I'm actually descended from, but whatever. It's not a big deal.

[Forsher]

Asia is a continent attached to Europe. Alternatively, Europe's a continent attached to Asia.

However, when I think Asian I think of the likes of China etc. as opposed to India, but I do consider India, for example, to be Asian. I never consider Turkey, the Middle East and Russia to be Asian despite, well, the above.

To me there are two competing kinds of Asia. South Asia and East Asia, which I simplify down to India versus China, although Southeast Asia also exists.

The continent to the west of the Pacific extending from Taiwan/Japan/Russia to Azores (Portugal).

I've also argued that as Polynesians are Austronesians (the same as Malays) they should also be considered Asian

For whatever reason someone I know brought up the Polynesians originated in Asia idea. My response was "You were Maori before it was cool". Or, at least, I remember saying that.

[The United Communist Solar Republic]

By the bloody continent.

It's part of a continent.

This statement, I support it.

[DesAnges]

Asia, to me, goes from the Middle East to the Far East.

Where is the Near East?

[Equalium]

Where's my option for southwest Kyrgyzstan?

No one cares about xbox nation.

[The Parkus Empire]

Asia, to me, goes from the Middle East to the Far East.

Where is the Near East?

Turkey and such.

[The Batorys]

Pretty much by these boundaries. I could see an argument, maybe, for Indonesia not being part of it, but I think that's about right.

Are there problems with that definition? Sure, Asia and Europe aren't really separated by any large bodies of water, and lie on the same tectonic plate (whereas other parts of Aisa traditionally seen as part of the continent have their own plates), etc.

However, when it comes to changing geographic definitions, I'm not sure what the benefit would be. Already, Asia is such a huge place that its usefulness as a term is limited (with smaller definitions like "East Asia" and "South Asia" being almost necessary to really convey much). Adding what's been seen in the past as the 'continent' of Europe, let alone Africa (which does, at least, lie on a separate tectonic plate) to it makes it an even broader category, and I'm not sure I really see much purpose in that.

[DesAnges]

Where's my option for southwest Kyrgyzstan?

No one cares about xbox nation.

Hey, Kyrgyzstan are a well kno...highly respecte...high Scrabble scoring country with a long and rich cultural heritage?

Where is the Near East?

Turkey and such.

I guessed as much but the confirmation is nice, thank you.

[Zonolia]

I define "Asia" as the entire continent and "Asian" as the entire populace albeit I call some regions by it's colloquial terms such as "Middle East(ern)".

[Seitonjin]

Asia? That big-ass landmass with the Near East and the stringy islands of Indonesia, Philippines, japan, etc.

Asian? East and South (East) Asia.

[Greed and Death]

The piece of Eurasia east of the Urals, the Black Sea, the Caspian Sea, and the Mediterranean Sea and north of Melanesia.

It's much more complicated than you think.

Watch it until the end the answer is clearly 6.

[Katyuscha]

It's that part of Afro - Eurasia that isn't Afro - European.

[Jamzmania]

When I say "Asia", I usually mean China, Korea, Japan, Southeast Asia, and maybe India. Middle East and Russia are, in general conversation, separate.

[Cetacea]

From Turkey and the Finnish-Russian border to Guam ... and Australasia (aka Oceania) which is everything southeast of SE Asia.

so why Guam?

Guam is the biggest island in Micronesia and Micronesia is part of Oceania. It's primarily the Guam-Phillipines split which makes the division problematic.

It would probably be easier to further subdivide Eurasia into Western Europe (Europe isn't a continent its a peninsula off the far western coast of Eurasia), Eastern Europe (including Russia and Central Asian states), Middle East (Asia Major), Indian Subcontinent, Orient (East Asia) and Oceania with Malaysia and all the SE Asian islands included in Oceania

not gonna happen soon but yeah...

[Vitaphone Racing]

As in the asian continent ?

Um, duh. -_-

And the people.

If you're defining it as the Asian continent, this is a really straight forward question with only one correct answer.

[Maklohi Vai]

This map: http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/coun ... newzzz.gif, except for the island of New Guinea and smaller islands laying entirely within 50 miles of its coasts.

[New American world]

I consider orientals when I say Asian or Asians it may be incorrect but that is what is meant this poll is off by people trying to be poltically correct I'm not to sure cuz I know Europe is very politically correct maybe that's what they do in Europe

[Cameroi]

to me, and this is just what asian and oriental means to me, is that part of the eurasian continent that lies to the east of the boundry between packistan and india along with the islands in the indian ocean and those near its side of the pacific.

asian as an ethnicity refers to someone who's lineal ancestry, are from the region i have described as asia.

as an adjective also it refers to whatever is also of the origin of that region.

(i am aware that baha'u'llah and others have defined asia and the orient as also including the middle east. sorry, but i do not. biologically as well as culturally the regions are too unalike. i could also define asia as the primary sphere of influence of buddhism, hinduism, taoism and shinto)