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

    • I normally vote Lib Dem and will continue to do so.
    • the reason Tories have lost votes is because they have lost trust primarily. the voters didn't vote for what the Tories did, but what they promised. you can't blame the voters for the outcome, just because they voted for the party. Labour are in a position of influence so we will have to see what they do.  Reform are there, as quite a presence should Labour continue to fail. It feels as if we are on a very thin line
    • I agree with that The voters authorised strong austerity in 2010 and kept voting for it for 14 years - for that reason alone, given Labour have been in power for only months I can't find my else able to equate them as bad as each other. Yet. It may happen and given Labour's poor decision making and comms to date I wouldn't be surprised if they end up that way Problem is the voters say they want one thing (lower prices/better public services/things working) but then don't reward any government that tries to deliver -  and they explicitly said they wanted higher prices with Brexit and lower public services by voting Cons in for 14 years - so they got what they wanted, they just don't like the reality Whoever is elected now has to find a way to address those years of underinvestment and diminished growth - there is no painless way out. But blaming immigration for everything (Reform speciality) is only making everything worse
    • That’s good to know, but it just wasn’t clear to me.  
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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