Jump to content

Recommended Posts

On 1 May 1707, the Kingdom of Great Britain was created by the political union of the Kingdom of England (which included Wales) and the Kingdom of Scotland. This event was the result of the Treaty of Union that was agreed on 22 July 1706,and then ratified by both the Parliament of England and Parliament of Scotland each passing an Act of Union in 1707. Almost a century later, the Kingdom of Ireland, already under English control by 1691, merged with the Kingdom of Great Britain to form the United Kingdom with the passing of the Act of Union 1800. - from wikipedia


I don't know about india/asia though...

In Canada, Red Indian is now quite an insult, they are members of the First Nation.


My wife has just taken a brief from the local Metis group (although Metis are not First Nation as they are descendents from mixed marriages, etc with the original French settlers) to stop a construction project in Winnipeg, they are claiming it is being built too close to an ancient burial ground.

Definition: Inuit

1.[noun] a member of a people inhabiting the Arctic (northern Canada or Greenland or Alaska or eastern Siberia); the Algonquians called them Eskimo (`eaters of raw flesh') but they call themselves the Inuit (`the people').


'Inuit' is not entirely interchangeable with 'Eskimo' (which usually refers to the Eskimo-Aleut peoples).


See: Inuit and Eskimo

On the Indians vs. Asians question - are you talking about Red Indians or people from India?


The "Red Indians" sobriquet was coined by some daft buggers who didn't know how far around the world they'd sailed, and mistook the Americas for the same continent as the one with the Indus river.


If you're talking about the land of the Taj Mahal, then 'Asian' refers to anyone from Asia (of which Indian is a subset). In much the same way you're probably English, British, European and Caucasian - even though you don't come from the Caucasus.


I imagine the description 'Asian' arose as did the level of education, and knuckle dragging neanderthals discovered that just because someone had different coloured skin it didn't make them all 'Pakis'.


'Asian' is quite useful as a catch-all, because it covers such a diverse range of peoples that it's almost impossible to apply just one set of filthy prejudices. In doing so, it limits the ability of bigots to apply any (this makes the bigots frustrated). Clever eh?


I think that globally one of the things that stands out most about people obsessed with the application of racial labels is that they're most often to be found creating areas of the world torn apart by mindless violence. Not so clever eh?

In New Zealand the term 'Asian' tends to refer to people of what I guess you would call (for lack of a better definition) Asian-Pacific origin, e.g. people from China, Japan, Vietnam, Malaysia, etc, etc.

When I first arrived in the UK it took me a wee while to get my head around the fact 'Asian' included Indian, Pakistanis, etc. Other kiwis I have spoken to have found the same thing.


I guess that in NZ most 'Asian' immigrants are from the Asian-Pacific area, hence we associate the word with these countries. It does raise the question of what we'd call someone from the rest of Asia if we weren't sure of their country of origin...probably (wrongly) Indian.


Just some useless info to throw into the discussion, and I'm sure other kiwis are more enlightened than myself and have always taken the broader view of the word.

We still call people from India "Indian", as far as I know... "Indian" is a subset of "Asian".


Forgive me for saying so Steve, but I think it's rather a strange question. How would you like it if people from Asia called all Europeans "Germans"? I am guessing that you wouldn't! Therefore, people from Pakistan or Bangladesh might not like being called "Indian" either.

SteveT Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Why were indians suddenly called asians?

>

> When did britain become the uk and why was the

> name changed when we are known as the british?



More importantly, why did the good old Marathon bar become a Snickers bar?

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Just as one example, the grass in a least some of  the tree pits in Ulverscroft Road appears to have been sprayed. If it's not the council who has done it, then I wonder if someone is trying to kill the trees 😭 although I doubt if that would work, as the council have sprayed tree pits in the past (ignoring handwritten notices by my then very young grandchildren asking them not to spray as they had sowed flower seeds there) 🤬 Grass in the pavement nearby appears to have been neither sprayed nor scraped out. I'm quite confused.
    • They aren't. They are removing them manually, scraping and cutting them out. I've seen them doing it on my road and surrounding roads. I can't imagine that they would have different methods in different parts of East Dulwich.
    • I see. But as I read it, Tesco would still need the agreement of the owners/ leaseholder to submit proposals, so would need Poundland’s cooperation? I suppose we’ll have to wait while this plays out. There’s applications re this site on the Southwark planning portal dating back over 70 years. In 1954, Woolworth’s applied to convert the original 4 shops here (Nos 29-35) into one Woolies but the council refused because the flats above the shops would be lost and there was a local housing shortage following the war. Small businesses being displaced by big chains on Lordship Lane was already a trend back then.  
    • I see what you mean.  Perhaps the "alcohol licensing flyer for Tesco Express on the Poundland site" confirmed by the OP has been removed then.  
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...