Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They don't neatly fit into the 'white' or 'asian' racial category. Americans would see them as 'mixed'.
They neatly fit into Asian category; both them and Kirghiz population - I have no idea what you are talking about.
Why would all Asians look the same?
Of course they look different according to a country/region.
They're Asians. Why? Because their nations are located in Central Asia.
Has little to do with location, has more to do where the people state they are from regarding their roots, as described better by the gov guidelines for racial classification for EEO purposes.
An Asian can be 10 generations living in the US and still be considered Asian. Pakistanis is not considered Asian, yet Indians are. Though Russia extends far into the Asian continent, an ethnic Russian would not be considered Asian, though they could have residing there for 1000 years.
Aren't those countries not very well off because of the former Soviet occupation? Plus, they're just not well known, for whatever reason.
No, they were well off, better than ever and even now, though Kazakhstan could be the exception (though still far behind Russia), under Soviet rule. Go live there for a while and see the slow decay that is occurring to the society and infrastructure.
Being that the people of those regions were full participants in the revolt and Soviet regime, your question phrases like they were occupied, rather than a participant. You do not exactly see free elections being held post-Soviet.
Though Tsar rule was not perfect, and Soviet rule was not perfect, the end results show that it was a positive contribution to Central Asia.
Has little to do with location, has more to do where the people state they are from regarding their roots, as described better by the gov guidelines for racial classification for EEO purposes.
An Asian can be 10 generations living in the US and still be considered Asian. Pakistanis is not considered Asian, yet Indians are. Though Russia extends far into the Asian continent, an ethnic Russian would not be considered Asian, though they could have residing there for 1000 years.
Pakistanis are classed as Asians in both American and British censuses.
Lot of corruption in those countries.In sports like soccer, boxing- in the name of neutral, you see lot of umpires/referees/judges from these countries giving dubious decisions after taking bribe.
These countries were better off with USSR. now they have crumbling infrastructure. little access to sea for trade and commerce.now they are sandwiched between harsh regions of Russia, China and middle east. this region needs freight train connections across the region from caspian sea to russia, china, iran and look at their mineral wealth.
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,544 posts, read 56,034,272 times
Reputation: 11862
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure
They neatly fit into Asian category; both them and Kirghiz population - I have no idea what you are talking about.
Why would all Asians look the same?
Of course they look different according to a country/region.
No but they would be considered to have 'Caucasoid' admixture. Doesn't make them not Asian, but you know what I mean, they're not fully 'Mongoloid' according to some.
Lot of corruption in those countries.In sports like soccer, boxing- in the name of neutral, you see lot of umpires/referees/judges from these countries giving dubious decisions after taking bribe.
These countries were better off with USSR. now they have crumbling infrastructure. little access to sea for trade and commerce.now they are sandwiched between harsh regions of Russia, China and middle east. this region needs freight train connections across the region from caspian sea to russia, china, iran and look at their mineral wealth.
There is a downside to this. Under Soviet rule, there were so many abuses of power. Corruption existed under the Soviet Empire, and it continues today. Also, not all was equal. Look at the Aral Sea region. The Aral Sea was a great place for fishing, until the Communists decided to grow cotton. Guess what happened? The Amu Darya and Syr Darya rivers got tapped for their water, as cotton is a water-intensive crop. Those rivers fed the Aral Sea. More water was tapped out than put back in, and what was often put back in was polluted. Agricultural pollutants fouled up the water, and with the rivers being tapped all the time, the Aral Sea shrank to such low levels. It could very well disappear in our lifetime. What is left is a polluted mess. It is now windier there than ever. When the lake was much larger, it mitigated wind. Now there is just wind. The dust, contaminated with all kinds of poisons, gets into people's throats. Some of the highest rates of cancer in the world are in this region. Most of the persons around this area are in bad health. Where the Aral Sea used to be, you can find abandoned ships in the middle of nowhere. This is just the Aral Sea. Near Baku, oil was found and the area was drilled. When oil was found in Siberia, the area was abandoned, leaving behind pollution. Pollution would also become rampant in Siberia. Under the Soviet system, there were quite a few shortages of important things like food.
Has little to do with location, has more to do where the people state they are from regarding their roots, as described better by the gov guidelines for racial classification for EEO purposes.
An Asian can be 10 generations living in the US and still be considered Asian. Pakistanis is not considered Asian, yet Indians are. Though Russia extends far into the Asian continent, an ethnic Russian would not be considered Asian, though they could have residing there for 1000 years.
They're still Asians though, regardless of racial classifications in Western censuses. Any person who inhabits a country in Asia is an Asian. Asia isn't limited to China, Japan, and Korea, like some people seem to think.
No but they would be considered to have 'Caucasoid' admixture. Doesn't make them not Asian, but you know what I mean, they're not fully 'Mongoloid' according to some.
I thought it was the Kazakhs that had a fair amt. of Euro admixture. Funny, Tibetan nomads and Uighurs are 50% Indo-Euro or Indo-Iranian, but no one ever talks about them not being "fully Asian" or "fully Mongoloid". Does it really matter? Asia is a highly diverse place. Let's leave it at that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
