Talk:Eurasian (mixed ancestry)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Eurasian (mixed ancestry) article.
Article policies
Zuni girl; photograph by Edward S. Curtis, 1903 This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.
WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:
Flag
Portal
 Eurasian (mixed ancestry) is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
Peer review Eurasian (mixed ancestry) has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

| Lets get things clear. Eurasians are people of European and Asian heritage. This Eurasian article should first focus on the Eurasian communities that developed as the result of interraction between the European colonial nations and the Ottomans. They are: Portuguese Eurasians:India,Sri Lanka,Myanmar,Thailand,Malaysia,Indonesia,China(Macau) French Eurasians:Indochina British Eurasians:India,Myanmar and China(Hong Kong) Turkish(of Balkan stock) Eurasians in Indonesia(Aceh) Dutch Eurasians:Indonesia,Malaysia and Sri Lanka Spanish Eurasians:Philipines

Contents

[edit] related ethnic groups

It's stupid that we have a related ethnic group! What are they thinking i'm not related to blasians, or anglo indians. Eurasians background differ greatly were not an ethnic group

[edit] Genetic Supercluster

The "genetic supercluster" discussion has little to do with the established meaning of "Eurasian" and is longer than the rest of the article. Most of it belongs in the articles on said clusters or articles on human genetics, and duplicates the info already available in those articles.

[edit] Stereotypes

I added another section called Stereotypes of Eurasian people. I feel that since this is an encyclopedia that we should list the facts. (Kyla 02:32, 19 September 2005 (UTC))

Stereotypes are not facts. Calling your race beautiful is not fact it is opinion. JobE6 Image:Peru flag large.png 23:11, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

--No but if a stereotype is widely held that is itself a social fact, regardless of whether the belief itself is valid.Critic9328 (talk) 01:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I added a sentence regarding attractiveness stereotype. The relevent citation is here: http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/beauty.pdf Sorrowek 06:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


Why did you change attractive to "sexually attractive"? The study I cited makes no mention of any sexual aspects; it is a study on the facial aesthetics. I'm going to change it back to "attractive". I also removed "mestizo" from the list of terms because it doesn't apply to eurasians. Sorrowek 11:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry. I wasn't aware there was a difference between physical and sexual attractiveness. Thanks for changing it. User:Carie 13:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


The cited study does not involve stereotypes, it involves aesthetic evalutions of beauty and health. In other words, by changing "regarded" to "stereotyped", it implies that not only the claim is misleading, but also that the study was on perceptions of stereotype, which it is not. I am changing it back to "regarded". Sorrowek 00:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't touch the "regarded" part. I didn't change it to stereotypes. I know what they mean by it. User:Carie 15:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


I wasn't talking about you. :) Sorrowek 22:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


I reverted a sneaky delete that removed the aesthetics statement, even though it was backed by a scientific study. Sorrowek 21:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The "stereotypes" section has a "citation" that is a response to a satirical blog post that doesn't even support the "correlation does not equal causation" statement. I'm removing it. 2 September 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.244.185 (talk) 19:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eurasian people

I added a list of Eurasian people - is this O.K. ?

I expanded it - added people listed in the Eurasians category. --User:UrineForGas 14:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
"Kyoko Chan Cox � bastard child" was changed to "kidnapping victim". "Bastard" is neither appropriate nor factual.

Why do some listings say "porn star" and others "erotic [film] actress"? (and are all of them really that noteworthy?) Critic9328 22:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

They are notable enough if they have a wikipedia, so I listed them. User:UrineForGas 13:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Well I think it makes sense the way it is now, just having Tera Patrick (I'm still not sure "porn star" is more accurate than "erotic actress", maybe "adult film star" is the best descriptor)--Critic9328 15:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


Why did you erase half of the list? Sorrowek 21:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm also going to remove non Eurasians like Paula Abdul and Sean Paul, because they aren't eurasian. Abdul is sephard and lebanese, Sean Paul is sephard and african. I'm also restoring a few of the more notable ones like Nancy Kwan and Tera Patrick. No reason they shouldn't be included. Sorrowek 22:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I restored a few well known eurasians who were wrongly deleted. If we include Kate Beckinsale for being 25% asian, by that logic we should include Bruce Lee because he's 25% white. Sorrowek 22:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Fine with me. I made the error about Sean Paul, he's actually blasian but I saw his picture on a eurasian web page once and I was like 'what the hell, he's not eurasian, he's blasian!"
As for Abdul, her mother is Canadian-Jewish, father is Syrian/Lebanese and Sephard, aren't Syria and Lebanon in Asia? Shannon Elizabeth is part Lebanese and part English and she's considered Eurasian.

--User:UrineForGas 00:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


The original "eurasian" refers to people half-Indian and half-British (19th century), but the modern connotation refers to east asian and european caucasian. Syria and Lebanon aren't really "asian" in any cultural or genetic sense. They're caucasoid just like Europeans. If we go solely by an oversimplistic geographic quantification, then we're going to have a pretty meaningless word. Sorrowek 01:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


This wikipedia entry is going to be obscenely long if we include virtually every eurasian known by more than a few people, but I'll leave it alone...for now. I will be removing entries of people who are NOT eurasian (such as Catherine Bell). This page is becoming unsightly, and most of the people you re-added are nobodies. I'm going to scour other similar racial quanfiers and if this is the only page with an obscenely long list of people, then it will be fixed. Sorrowek 09:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


To shorten the entry, try dividing it into more than 1 column (you can find the tag/template code for it on internet phenomenon) User:Carie 18:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you do it? You're the one who made it ugly. :P Sorrowek 19:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


List of Eurasians --User:Carie 20:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Good job on that page. - Matthew238 07:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eurasian in fiction

I added a section for fiction and listed a film and a book pertaining to Eurasian. --User:UrineForGas 13:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Eurasians: The Begining?

I remember seeing a documentery on a PBS back in 2004 (I think it was November) talking about some genes that where found in one man living in Khazakstan or some other former Soviet republic in Central Asian.

I think the position of the show was that Europeans and Asians came from a common ancestor who split in that area around the Caucausus/Black Sea, and then inbread, becomming two destinct peoples seperated by the Siberian tundra and the Caucausus/Ural mountains located there. Does anybody else remember this show?

Also, can Björk count as well? (She came from Iceland). 69.248.43.27 02:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Some people are saying she's half chinese while others say it's because people who came from cold lands resemble east asians. [1] User:Carie 14:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Kind of inconclusive, but thanks nonetheless.

Ideocentric RoyBot69.248.43.27 01:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

She's not Eurasian, that's an Icelandic look. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.131.31.11 (talk) 06:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

Although they are not Eurasian; Icelandics, Italians, Romanians and Greeks may closely resemble the Eurasian appearance. Or do Eurasians resemble the appearance of Icelandic/Italian/Romanian people? Something to mention in the article if it hasn't been mentioned yet. User:Carie 21:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, as I tried to make apparent, I personally have come to belief that both Caucasians and Mongols are from a common ancestor, and that this ancestor(s) lived in Central Asia and Southern Russia before splitting and then inbreeding into two distinct races. I personally wonder about an actual "Eurasian Race" that pre-dates the two, and has still survived intact (Icelanders and Eskimos just may count, also notice the jaw on Native Americans is more teutonic then other Mongoloid people, suggesting that the Natives over here may have arrived before this split). Interestingly, I here the Scythians had green eyes covered by the fold, and I saw something on PBS last year about Amazons, which determined that some Sherpa girls had the genes of an Amazon warrior unconvered in an ancient Russian grave (the girl's hair was a blond, the rest of her was clearly Asian). I would not think the Greeks or the Italians though (the Greeks and Latins where already inbred, they would have had little resemblance to their ancestors, and the modern day Italians, like the Spanish, have a huge ammount of Semitic in them, naturally since they live near Arabian lands and where good at commerce). This is very unusual indeed, I am sure many epople on both sides do not wnat to hear this (except, maybe, for Slavs/Persians, of which I am a member).

Idecentric RoyBot69.248.43.27 01:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ice-T was right

(Possible Vandalism Alert! --IdeArchos 05:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC))

If it means that we end up having children as beautiful as the two young women picured, then I think we should all f**k till we're all the one colour. Am I right or wha?Fergananim 17:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

What in the world?! --Lady Rosala 15:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A fellow Eurasian with a birth certificate to prove it.

I just want to be short and sweet. I have a birth certificate that states that I am Eurasian. Can anyone out there provide the same? I took a peek into the discussion page and the pages on Eurasians, I was impressed that so many talented people are listed and want to be recognized as being Eurasians. I must say it is nice...but, I truly believe that to be Eurasian you have to have it listed in your birth cert right? Also, as part of being Eurasian, I definitely know all the mixtures that made my family Eurasian. Thank you for reading my note...Angela (Eurasianjewel)

Thank you for sharing. I do not think these sort of things are determined by birth certificates, only expressed in them (I am technically not Eurasian, my family on father's side is primarily Slavic with some obvious, though miniscule, Mongol influence). I would strongly recomend a study of Slavic, Persian, Tibetan and Mongolian culture, and a cross study of Plato, Confucius and Zoroaster (The Persian Moses). --IdeArchos 05:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


Proper acknowledgement requires proper documentation. Being Eurasian of Eurasian race requires validation. Thank you for your ideas and views IdeArchos. I was just looking at resolving a situation where I see a lot of noise going on. My view is that since we are all governed by laws, then it is the law that makes or breaks the notion of being Eurasian. Since a legal document such as a birth cert is produced by a country with laws, then it stands to reason that one can truly claim that one is Eurasian because one is formally acknowledged in law and in the eyes of the law as being a Eurasian of Eurasian race.

To add to this matter, on a formal note, the father is the determining factor in all this. My father is of Eurasian race and so is my mother. They too each have birth certificates to validate and give authenticity to this matter of being Eurasian. I am not being difficult, just letting the world know that being Eurasian is something special to me and requires proper proof. I grew up being the only Eurasian in my school, and in a large city. I was always treated differently, and I guess that added to my growing up thinking about my race and its meaning--being alone but strong and often standing up for myself. Being acknowledge as a Eurasian should be done through proper documentation given out by a country with laws. This is how one proves that one is actually Eurasian. I still stand by the fact that being Eurasian should be a fact acknowledged in law.

Let us not make this a wishy-washy thing, being Eurasian is very important to me, to my family and their extended families. Maybe it is time to let your officials who make the laws in your country look at this matter closely. If you feel strongly about this matter, then you should seek legal advice to help you get your proper recognition. I am acknowledged as being Eurasian by a country that has laws that are truly difficult to change, let alone make. If you or anyone would like to have this matter of being Eurasian hold some legal importance in your life, then you should make a legal move to have legal recognition in place in your country of birth to address this matter in a formal manner. Please, let me know how I may be able to help you in this matter. I will do my best. February 14, 2006 ,Eurasianjewel 00:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)eurasianjewel

  • Being Eurasian is not really a legal thing - different countries have different laws, and countries don't necessarilly list ones race on ones birth certificate. A birth certificate could say, for instance, that ones father was born in China and ones mother born in England, but it is race, not place of birth, that makes one Eurasian; you can be born in China but be of European ancestry; you can be born in England and be Asian. Yet if you wanted to get technicall, there is no such thing as Eurasian, or any "mixed-race", as there is no such thing as race (biologically speaking). It is all simply a social construct, and what "race" you are will depend on your society's particular views of, and classifications of, race. - Matthew238 03:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
    • You can even be of only European origin and be born in China. After all, there are Russians (throughout the north and in Beijing) and Portuguese (Macau) who live in China to this day. Le Anh-Huy 07:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I added David Malouf to the list of Eurasians and it was deleted. An Asian is an inhabitant of Asia. LEBANESE PEOPLE ARE ASIAN! Anyone disputing this is wrong. If they are not Asians, than how can you categorise Indians, Pakistanis and Persians as `Asian'. Some say Lebanse are `Caucasoid' but many people from Central and South Asia are as well, and of Indo-European origin too! It would not be morally right to restrict the term `Asian' to people only of `Mongoloid' origin, but if we include South Asians as `Asian' then why not West Asians (which include the Lebanese). In Modern context the word `Eurasian' is now used in a restricted meaning to identify people of European and East/South-East Asian ancestry as opposed to its 19th Century British-Indian term. If you delete David Malouf, then in that case you can delete the Anglo-Indians listed.

you don't need legal proof to be eurasian, becuase i am and my sister are techniacally eurasian ( half filipino-chinese, half english- french) but i am not considered to be a eurasian in australia by law (because most birth certificates in the world do not state a persons ancestry or race), other than that is is not recognised as a single race, because different eurasian can have different backgrounds, myself for example i am filipino chinese english and french, and the next eurasian you might meet may be german and filipino, the next one you meet will be spanish and thai etc. so it is hard to be legally eurasian because it would be hard to make it a single race without maybe millions of subdivions. aslo to eurasianjewel are you sure that you were actually the one eurasian at school, maybe you thought that because you would have been the only one to have described themselves as that Australian Jezza 02:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Definitely not dependant on legal documentation. My mother is Chinese Malaysian, my father English but on my documents, I am listed as European. It is apparently practice where I live (Malaysia) to follow the father's race. That doesn't make me any less "Eurasian" since I am, after all, 50-50 genetically. Hope that helps clear it up. STS (talk) 16:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edits by Americanbeauty415

Americanbeauty415 keeps incorrectly removing whole paragraphs from the article without valid reason. Edward Sandstig 06:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

User claims broken source during edits, but information is gleamed from the following line in the PDF: Census data indicate that the number of children in interracial families grew from less than one half million in 1970 to about two million in 1990. In 1990, for interracial families with one White partner, the other parent was Black for about 20 percent of all children, the other parent was Asian for 45 percent, and the other parent was American Indian and Alaska Native for about 34 percent. Edward Sandstig 06:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually the citation was rightfully taken out and then reitterated because it provided false information. The original user who posted that was in contact and resolved the issue so that the citation provided more factual information. So Thank you for your concern Edward, but you were mistaken on a few accounts., Americanbeauty415 June 21, 2006
The current version provided by JereKrischel is a much better and more neutral representation of the data. Edward Sandstig 20:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Yed JereKrischel and (I) Americanbeauty worked together to recolve any confusion or conflict. Thank you to JereKrischel for being patient and working with me to establish a good representation of data.

Hopefully we've all found some common ground on it - we obviously misunderstood each other, and have worked out an understanding now. Thank you everyone for their patience and willingness to dialog in order to settle our collective confusion! --JereKrischel 20:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Asha Gill Image

Have put in pictures of Kristin Kreuk (Dutch father, Indonesian mother of Chinese extraction) and Rob Schneider (American father of European Jewish extraction and Filipina mother). Someone had previously objected to all pictures being of attractive females, now there's a picture of one male and one female. --Edward Sandstig 11:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Exotic glamour

See http://www.time.com/time/asia/news/magazine/0,9754,106427,00.html. Regardless of your opinion of the objective validity of this statement, the perception is indeed real, and thus worth noting. Stop erasing it. 68.67.243.173 04:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it can be rephrased into "According to Time Magazine, some cultures view those of mixed European and Asian heritage as exotic and glamorous [2]". Certainly less provocative than saying it is "synonymous". --Edward Sandstig 11:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
If we are going to include that, we might as well write "Many people feel unsafe around Black people." On the African American page. The the perception is indeed real and worth noting! Obviously nobody is going to write that though. So why is it okay to promote a stereotype here?Bethereds 12:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Seeing as how "insults" are not appropriate, I think this sentence should be removed entirely. It is horribly POV, first of all, second, it perpetuates the Eurasian beauty myth, a harmful stereotype. Why create a standard that few Eurasians will ever be able to live up to?

Bethereds 05:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Myth implies it's not true. The problem is that objective reality doesn't correspond with your agenda. No one is saying all or most eurasians are beautiful (though studies show they are aesthetically prized ), but rather for obvious reasons they generally considered attractive and/or exotic. If YOU have eurasian self-esteem issues, don't use wikipedia as a therapy place. 68.67.243.173 02:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

There are articles where a magazine has out right claimed Halle Berry was the most beautiful person in the world. I guess that is a perception worth noting? I've seen an article where they said East Indians were seen to be the least attractive people. That must be a perception worth noting as well? What about the countless articles I've seen saying Afro-Asian females are the most beautiful women to come about this earth? If that was noted on the blasian site it would have been struck down as quickly as it had been put up. All in all, it's rarely been seen or heard where someone has commented on Eurasian beauty, so the fact that you swear one magazine has generalized that statements means nothing because it has no premise. Now if that was something you heard more often or was backed up my notable sources, then of course it could be considered, but it isn't. Americanbeauty415


Are you dense? See the univeristy study on eurasian beauty for further proof. 68.67.243.173 22:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you an idiot? Tha study has already been cited and only manages to further prove exactly was has already been said about the issue.

Learn to sign your comments, "idiot". The study proves what the article is saying, which proves what the original edit says about being exotic. If you're an ugly euraisan, I'm sorry, but don't butcher articles because you hate it. 68.67.243.173 04:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Your one to talk about signing your comments? How about setting up an actual profile oh mysterious one? Wrong again....saying that they are of exotic glamour is equivelent to saying blonde hair and blue eyes is the ultimate form of beauty. And you can believe it's been said in an article. Beauty can not be measured, any legitimate scientist would tell you this.

Beauty can be measured. Pick up any psychology journal. You aren't going to win this edit-war, my oblivious girl. 68.67.243.173 02:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah the truth comes out! Americanbeauty is BLASIAN, and thus feels a certain amount of (anger? jealousy?) against eurasians. You'll notice her edits of the blasian articles are extremely pro-blasian, yet she also camps the eurasian article and removes any positive statements. What's the difference? Eurasian ones are supported by FACTS. :) 68.67.243.173 02:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Wrong again anonymos one. I'm not blasian, I am of black and white descent, as if that's supposed to justify anything. I'm sorry to throw your hopes of being jealous out the door, but that is just not the case.\

Close enough. You obviously have a vested ethnic interest in playing up half-black mixes versus half-asian/white ones. Leave your therapy issues at the door, please. Sorrowek 03:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

"Close enough"...are you trying to be funny or are you just naturally slow? How exactly is that 'playing up' black mixes vs. white ones? In case you haven't noticed, the blasian board doesn't seem to be arguing over this issue so where exactly did you draw this conclusion. It's one thing to except that you were wrong about the situation and walk away with a new piece of knowledge, it's another to fight for your blatant ignorance by conjuring everything you say by providing opinions so far from fact they couldn't even be considered a theory. Leave the childish insults at the door and the need to badger others in order to to find a hint of acceptance.

Please, let it go. The statement is obviously POV pushing, subjective, and unsupportable. It makes the whole article sound like a cheap brochure. --JereKrischel 02:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
It's supported by two articles. You are denying world perception. 68.67.243.173 03:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Cite a quote from the article, if you'd like. Doing OR isn't allowed either. You are inserting an unsupportable interpretation of two articles. For example, from your time cite:
In Vietnam, these children were dubbed bui doi, or the dust of life. "Being a bui doi means you are the child of a Vietnamese bar girl and an American soldier," says Henry Phan, an Amerasian tour guide in Ho Chi Minh City. "Here, in Vietnam, it is not a glamorous thing to be mixed."
Hardly sounds like "synonymous with glamour". Please desist, you've had your 3 reverts for the day, next one gets put up on the 3RR notice board. --JereKrischel 03:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
You're "absolutely right". It's worthy of it's own discussion tab. Erasing. Sorrowek 03:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I hardly think that "being prized for their exotic beauty" is a positive thing. I don't really know or care about the person who seems to want to get this in here, but it's insulting. And the science of it all is faulty. The experiment proves that among the faces they used in the test, according to that psychology class, the Eurasians they chose are better looking than the monoracials they chose. Look at all the variables in there! One could easily change any of those variables and run the test again to find that people don't think Eurasians are more beautiful.Bethereds 04:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Who cares what's "insulting" to you? You obviously have an angenda to push. Your "criticism" of the study only proves you did not even read the study. Moreover, you got to say your little criticism of the article, it's only fair that I get to rebut it. STOP erasing/butchering my comments, as I am not erasing yours.Sorrowek 03:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Could have fooled me.Bethereds 00:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

Hey man, I like Kristin Kreuk, I really do, but there's a problem with this article if we only post girls' pictures, or choose people who are well known for their looks, rather than their achievements. I think the current representation of the Danish former princess, and the US Navy admiral is a better representation than simple actors and models. But that's just me. I'd be open to changes in the pictures as long as one is male and the other is female, and preferably that they don't work in showbiz. Bethereds 13:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Who are you to decide what gets posted? Good looking females offend you? Boohoo. Sorrowek 03:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
A wiki editor... duhBethereds 15:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


Can I ask why people feel the need to put people in showbiz on this page? Can't we find Eurasians known for anything else? --Bethereds 18:58, 2006-07-09

Probably because they're the easiest pictures to find. I'll see if I can dig up a picture of Akiko Thompson, she's an olympic swimmer. --Edward Sandstig 17:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

excellent set of images; I hope they are all allowed for wiki use so we don't have to go through this again soon. Thanks Hmains 17:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Good good, 2 women, 2 men, 2 showbiz, 2 not showbiz, two Bruce/Linda, two John Yoko. This is good.Bethereds 02:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I just realized that for the first time on this page, we don't have a single American pictured! Odd considering that most Eurasians are probably Americans. But I like the pictures we have now. We've got 4 different occupations and several different ethnicities. I think we should keep it like this for a while.Bethereds 02:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On using percentage

In the section where I give a hypothetical situation of how it is possible for an Eurasian to be 100% one ethnicity and 100% another, the point is to show that the different criteria that people apply into defining who they are sometimes is in conflict with each other. I don't know why people have problems with this. The section of the article is about being classified by other people. It makes perfect sense to point out the inconsistencies, and the humorous situations people are often put into. Furthermore, calling me a little girl or a big baby only makes YOU look less mature, not me.Bethereds 19:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Stop using percents as it implies genetics. You need to learn to differentiate between legal/religious standing and ethnic constituion. Sorrowek 21:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I also do not understand the opposition to using percentages. Can somebody please elaborate? --- Hong Qi Gong 21:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)\\

Korean and Jewish law refers to recognition on a NON-ETHNIC level, thus percents are not necessary. When the girl starts invoking percents it implies ethnic or genetic characteristics, which is absurd. Sorrowek 04:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
While these don't translate on modern terms, they are based on ideas that were related to what was considered the ethnic level. For Jews, many Jewish women thru history have been raped, and giving their children Non-Jewish status would be discriminatory. Jewish men would only marry Jewish women anyway, so the converse mix was quite rare. For Koreans in this case, Korean psyche was deep rooted in Neo Confucianism. While mixtures between groups of Asians did occur, Korea, China, and Japan all considered sometone to be whatever their father is. It's patrilineal. The two rules conflict. That's why it's possible to be 100% Jewish and 100% Korean. It's definately possible to be 0% anything, so I don't see why you have a problem with that. I'm sorry that for this example Korean and Jewish don't fit into your definition. But if you want to talk about Genetic characteristics, someone saying that they are 1/2 Frence and 1/2 Belgian is even more absurd than anything I've ever come up with, because most of these "genetic differences" are only validated because the two regions are seperate nations. If there is any legitimacy to that claim, where people decide the genetic barrier, I don't see why people can't decide that someone is 100% something. Stop reverting. We've put language in there to suggest it's not on a genetic level as well, it's based totally on the rules people make up.Bethereds 11:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Since it's not on a genetic level, there is clearly no need for percents. Jews are a definable ethnic caucasian group. You cannot be 100% Korean and be 100% Jewish. We are discussing national identification. Percents are not necessary or relevent. 140.139.35.250 11:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
See, that's more evidence to my point, that people can make up whatever criteria they want to define themselves. You say Jews are a definable ethnic caucasion group, but the truth is that they originated as a people from the Middle East. They were closely related to Arab people. When their kingdoms were destroyed, they scattered, some to Europe, where they blended in with the local population through intermarriage. But since the criteria for being a pure Jew is to have a Jewish mother, most Jews these days look White. The original Jews looked more Middle Eastern. By your logic, White Jews can't be 100% Jewish. The Korean citizenship laws were based on Neo Confucian patrilineal descent which stated that the kids belong to their father, and not their mother. When Koreans get married, the wife doesn't even take the husband's name. She's not part of his family afterall. So, the kids are whatever their father is. In cases where Koreans would take Japanese wives or Chinese wives, the kids would still be seen as 100% Korean because their father is. Korea's been conquered by practically everyone, and lot's of new DNA has been introduced into the Korean genepool, yet Koreans still are prideful about their "pure blood". How can that be? If rules are set up so that one who has a Korean father is purely Korean (aka 100%) then it makes perfect sense. I'm not suggesting that I agree with either rule. I'm only trying to show that these rules can conflict in the case of Eurasians. Everyone who is deleting it because it doesn't make sense is missing the point! It's SUPPOSED to not make sense! It's supposed to show how confusing it is! Bethereds 17:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
You seem to understand little about genetics and race. Arabs are also caucasians, just like Jews. Moreover, Koreans are virtually genetically identicial to Japanese, and have virtually no non-mongoloid admixture (Sforza et al). 140.139.35.250 18:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
So are Arabs white then? Do they not face discrimination in areas where Whites are the majority? Are they seen as White by other Whites who don't know them? You're the one that seems to understand little about race, and racial differences. You also continually miss my point, that IT DOESN'T always MAKE SENSE when two sets of different criteria are used on one individual. I'm not saying that I personally believe that anyone who has a Korean dad and a Jewish mom is 100% both. I'm saying that if both criteria are used, the result is confusing. If you'd read the paragraph before the example, you'd see that's the entire POINT of the example. It's more obvious that you have an axe to grind with me than you do with the content of the article itself.Bethereds 22:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's all step back for a moment and assume good faith - the citations make a strong case for illustrating the confusion of ethnic/racial/national identity without the percentages. I don't think they add to the article, but if there is more wording necessary to indicate how confusing such types of identification are (all "races" being abritrary social distinctions), I'm sure we can add that in. AFAIK, we all have a common ancestor only a few thousand years back - the idea that anyone is anything but pure human is odd. --JereKrischel 20:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree not to use percentages if we stick with the language that we have now.Bethereds 22:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we've got some miscommunication here. Some of us are talking identity politics using genetics, and others are talking identity politics as social constructs. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the point Bethereds is trying to make is that if you are from a Jewish mother, then you are considered, by traditional Jewish standards, to be Jewish, and only Jewish, nothing else. The same logic goes into if you are from a Korean father. So to say that you can be considered "Korean and Jewish", that language is not exact enough, because that can imply that you are considered to be both Korean and Jewish. --- Hong Qi Gong 22:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

THE LOT OF YOU seem to know very little about Jews. All this petty arguing, and the actual example is wrong, and none of you was smart enough to see it. Jews are not a race, and can come in all colours and sizes. White European Jews, Hispanic Jews, Arab Jews, Iranian Jews, Indian Jews, Chinese Jews, Ethiopian Jews.
If the example had been about a Korean man having a child with an Ethiopian Jewish woman, the child wouldn't even be Eurasian. The child'd be a completely Korean and completely Jewish Blasian. If the father had been Korean and the mother a Kaifeng Chinese Jew, the child would be a completely Korean and completely Jewish ...wait for it... ASIAN. The Asianness of the child in this last example would not have even been altered. So what on earth are all of you people arguing about?
You all need to find a better example which better illustrates the identity dilema. The current identiy dilema example of Korean vs Jewish identity is on an ethno-racial (the basis of Korean identiy) vs ethno-religious (the basis of Jewish identity) level. You need to find an exmaple where both sides of the identity dilema are based on an ethno-racial level. Jewishness has nothing to do with racial identity. What on earth makes you think there isn't such a thing as an Asian Jew anyway? Al-Andalus 14:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Then I suggest you start your edit war now over at the Jew article, as it defines the Jewish people as an "ethno-religious" group, and also start your other edit war over at the Who is a Jew? article, as it says that a Jewish person can be defined through ethnicity or religion. Until those articles change and concensus is reached, I don't see an overwhelming reason why the passage here about Jewish people need to be changed.
In the Who is a Jew? article:
  • According to Orthodox interpretation of Halakha (Jewish law and traditions), only a child born to a Jewish mother is counted as Jewish. A child with a Jewish father and a non-Jewish mother is considered a non-Jew.
--- Hong Qi Gong 15:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

There's no need for an edit war at either article. As both you and the articles have stated, Jews are an "ethno-religious" group, and a person can be defined as a Jews either by ethnicity, religion or both. Nowehre does it say by race. Ethnicity does not mean race, although race can be (although not necessarily) one of many factors which determines ethnicity. I suggest you look up the word ethnicity.

By the way, I myslef had already mention that the basis of Jewish identiy was ethno-religious. You've brought nothing new to this discussion. I said "The current identiy dilema example of Korean vs Jewish identity is on an ethno-racial (the basis of Korean identiy) vs ethno-religious (the basis of Jewish identity) level. You need to find an exmaple where both sides of the identity dilema are based on an ethno-racial level..."

There is absolutely no conflict with being Jewish and Eurasian, or any race (or race mix) for that matter, as Jewishness is independant of any specific race. I think the problem is that today European descended Jews are the most numerous of Jews, and this would mislead a person who doesn't know any better to just asume there is a race that corresponds to Jewishness. The current Korean/Jewish "identity dilema" example just doesn't apply. As already stated, there are in fact monoracial Asian Jews as well. Al-Andalus 15:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

That's awesome. Now read the statement in the article:
  • Sometimes societies have certain criteria in defining the ethnicity/race/nationality of a person.
The point being made in the article is not limited to race.
--- Hong Qi Gong 16:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The point being made was about a supposed conflict in the identity of Eurasians, whether racial or ethnic (having made clear that ethnicity encompasses many things other than race, and in some cases may not even involve race, as is with Jewishness). The supposed conflict in the identity of Eurasians was attempted to be exemplified with the "Korean/Jewish" example, however, it has also been made clear that there is no conflict with Jewish identity and racial (or mixed racial) identity, since Jewishness and any specific race (race mixture) are independant of each other.

Again, I suggest you find a better example to illustrate the alleged identity conflict of Eurasians which is spoken of in the article. Al-Andalus 15:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to make my point, the identity conflict spoken of in the article deals exclusively with the racial identity of the Eurasian, whether as percieved by him/herself or others, and not about any other identity.

  • "This section discusses identity politics in places where there are not many multi-generational Eurasian communities...Most Eurasians have one Asian parent and one White parent..." (a Jew can be white or asian, black, or anything else, and thus either one of the parents, the Asian or the white, could have been the Jew).
  • "Some Eurasians will identify themselves as White, others will identify themselves as Asian, and still others will identify themselves as something in between." (Whether the Eurasian identifies as white, or as Asian, is independant of his/her Jewish identity. Jewish identity is not a racial identity. Either one of the parents, the Asian or the white could have been the Jew.)
  • "Often among those who choose the third option, there is a debate between deciding if Eurasians are both [races] or neither." (whether they debate as being both or neither still is independant of the Jewish identity, because Jewish identity is not a racial identity. Either one of the parents, the Asian or the white could have been the Jew.)
  • "Eurasians who may racially identify a certain way are not always identified in the same way by everyone else. Oftentimes the one factor that absolutely determines how total strangers racially identify a Eurasian is the degree to which one looks Asian or White." (however people identify a Eurasian as, whether as white or asian, or whatever the degree to which the Eurasian looks Asian or White is independant of the Jewish identity. Jewish identity is not a racial identity. Either one of the parents, the Asian or the white could have been the Jew. In fact, both could have been Jewish.)
  • "Among those who are familiar with the Eurasian however, other cultural and social factors add to how they would racially identify the Eurasian. (i think i've made my point. the example of Korean/Jewish is flawed to illustrate the identity conflict spoken of in the article).

SO AGAIN, the "conflict" spoken of in the the article deals exclusively with a racial identity conflict for the Eurasian, and the Korean/Jewish example is erred because Jewish identity is independant of racial identity. Al-Andalus 15:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Good points, and in a multicultural context they all make sense. However in societies where race/nationality/ethnicity are all pericieved to be the same thing (Korea for example)all of those arguments don't really hold up. I think the example given is fine.Bethereds 16:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Being Jewish does indeed have racial intonations. If it was purely a religious group, then you couldn't really be an atheist jew. Jews no doubt view themselves as a unique "race". Shall we take a look at how the Ethiopian jewish community has been integrating? Sorrowek 18:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Being Jewish does indeed have racial intonations? No it doesn't. Nowhere will you find - apart from Nazi-era literature - Jews defined as a race, or with connotations of anything related to race. Not even the Encyclopaedia Judaica defines Jews as a race, and it specifically state that Jews are not a race.
Further, no one said Jews are purely a religious group. Obviosuly that is wrong, since Jews are also an ethnic group, however, ethnicity needen't be based on race (so please see that article). There are many other factors that determines what constitutes an ethnic group, and race is only one potential factor. Note I said "potential actor", since it needen't even be a factor. More correctly, Jewish identity and Jews are an ethno-religious entity. Jews are not an ethno-racial group, or a racio-religious group, and not merely a religious group, but an ethno-religious group. Korean identity is an ethno-racial one. Al-Andalus 06:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
You guys are no fun. You removed my example completely. If that's how it is gonna be then fine, I thought it was necessary to show instances where there would be conflict. Everyone opposed to it being there is being very technical, announcing that the sources I listed affirm someone's Citizenship (Korea) and someone's religion or ethnography (Jews). The technicality is that it's not defining race. I agree with that, officially it shouldn't, and doesn't define race, however we're talking about 2 nearly homogenious societies. Lots of Jews don't even consider themselves white, even calling non-jews crackers. Their idea of Judaism and their race are one and the same. Korea is 99.9% Korean and to many Koreans, race, nationality, ethnic origin, and citizenship might as well be the same thing. So yes, while officially nothing I wrote out in that example should add up to ambiguity, in reality it does.Bethereds 17:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Attractiveness

NPOV please. We have the study cited, as well as a "criticism" of it, as well as a TIME article quote. Any more "anti-ea beauty" quotes and I will have to insert more pro-attractiveness quotes to balance it out. 140.139.35.250 15:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you do find some other sources, because the current "pro-beauty" source is not notable, POV, and I propose we remove it. All it shows is that a group of white Australian college students prefer mixed-race facial structures. In order for a survey like these to be notable, they need at least 1000 participants - that is the minimum number for predicting behaviour in a general population. The study is also biased toward white Australian beauty standards, and thus is POV. Most of the participants in the study were white Australians. --- Hong Qi Gong 15:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

"Biased towards white Australian beauty standards"? If that was true, then whites should have scored highest. No need to be bitter. 140.139.35.250 17:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Bitter? Is that a personal attack? And are you an expert on Australian beauty standards to conclude that Australians think monoracial white people are the prettiest? --- Hong Qi Gong 18:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
And who are YOU to say white Australians are culturally biased to love eurasians the most? 140.139.35.250 18:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I've never claimed that. I've only claimed that, by virtue of the fact that most of the participants were white Australians, that the study is bias. Even disregarding the glaring fact that the participant pool was too small for the study to be notable, at most, the study only concludes that young adult white Australians believe Eurasians to be more attractive than either whites or Asians. --- Hong Qi Gong 18:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I think HongQiGong is correct in his assessment - the citation was originally used to justify text saying that eurasians were "synonymous with exotic glamour", but it really does nothing of the sort. It really belongs as a refutation of something like Rushton's Genetic Similarity Theory, which asserts that people are inherently attracted to those they are most genetically like. --JereKrischel 20:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree, and that topic itself belongs in a different article entirely. So perhaps we should delete the section, or move it to the Rushton's Genetic Similarity Theory.Bethereds 22:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
1. Psychology studies do not need to have more than 1,000 participants to be considered notable. You seem to be confused with presidential polls. I recommend you take a university level psychology stats class, Hong. Sorrowek 01:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
2. This study is wholly relevent to the eurasian entry. There is a serious dearth of mixed-race studies, and suppressing information will not make your ideology any more valid. Sorrowek 01:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  1. I have taken university level psychology stats classes, as well as research methods classes. One of my majors was Cognitive Science, and my alma mater benefitted from the direct teaching and leadership of the late Herbert Simon himself. And seeing as how this psychological study gets its data by polling participants' opinions, yes, 1000 participants is considered the standard minimum for predicting the behaviours of a general population.
  2. I'm not trying to suppress information. If I was, I would delete the section altogether. I'm pointing out that the reliability of the study is questionable. --- Hong Qi Gong 02:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Proving the physical beauty of handpicked models per the opinion of a single psychology class in Australia is hardly mixed race studies. I think this section does deserve to be here, as long as there is equal play for the Eurasian beauty myth as a stereotype. Bethereds 02:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Models were readily available eurasian and graphical composites. Read the study.Sorrowek 02:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Majority white participant pool

  1. Experiment 1: Participants. Thirty-two Caucasian participants (nineteen female and thirteen male) aged between 16 and 34 years (M = 21 years) participated. On average, the participants knew fewer than four Japanese individuals personally (M = 3:9, SD = 9:1) and only two had ever visited Japan. Thirteen had studied Japanese, for a mean duration of 2.0 years (SD = 1:3 years).
  2. Experiment 2: Participants. Thirty-nine (twenty-one female and eighteen male) Caucasian adults (19 ^ 32 years), resident in Australia, and thirty-two (sixteen female and sixteen male) Japanese adults (18 ^ 24 years), resident in Japan, participated. All were recruited from local universities.
  3. Experiment 3: Participants. Seventy-two (thirty-six female and thirty-six male) Caucasian under-graduates from the University of Western Australia participated.

So yes, the majority of the participants were white Australians. --- Hong Qi Gong 03:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


You consider 39-32 a significant majority to cry the tired old "white bias" line? Yawn. Sorrowek 03:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Would you not agree that 143 - 39 is a significant majority? Even if you want to split them up to suggest experiment 2 was unbaised, why bother including experiments 1 or 3 which have NO Asian participants. Furthermore, how does it say anything about how someone in Korea or the US would react simply because an infantecimle number of Japanese or White Australians took this test? It's digging deep to try to show any kind of scientific relevance to Eurasian beauty based on this test alone.Bethereds 12:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree that experiments 1,3 don't have any asians, but the one that did was even. The same conclusions were reached, and this study simply confirms what everyone already knows. I've read that more studies are planned of a similar nature, and I look foward to them (as do many others), despite the kvetching of the PC crowd. Sorrowek 16:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorrowek, if you would like to say that Experiment 2 has an even number of white Australian and Japanese participants, then go ahead. In return, I would point out in the article that Experiments 1 and 3 didn't even have any participants that are not white Australians. --- Hong Qi Gong 15:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

You DO all realize none of these images are authorized? They're copyrighted and may only be used to illustrate the subject in question (IE: the wikipedia article with their name). Sorrowek 16:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

If you feel like moving them on that grounds, go ahead. I'd be fine if there were no pictures.Bethereds 17:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd like pictures, but authorized ones. We'll have to find one half-Indian one to keep Andus happy, and I'm sure you'll want to pick ugly eurasians... -_- 140.139.35.250 19:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
That's impossible. All Eurasians are good looking. --- Hong Qi Gong 19:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Do I detect a hint of jealousy in your sarcasm? Sorrowek 01:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I detect a superiority complex in a Eurasian, but this is based on my assuming you are Eurasian, so I might be wrong.Bethereds 02:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah I wish I was a Eurasian. I'm so jealous. I stay up nights thinking about it. Oh, it is so unfair. Why do Eurasians have to be so pretty, like Rob Schneider? --- Hong Qi Gong 02:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Even if some people are more attractive than others, we're all beautiful on the inside. :) Sorrowek 21:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

140.139.35.250, we have 2 pictures in there now of half Indian Eurasians. And what are you trying to say by suggestion I want ugly Eurasians? Don't you know that studies have proven that ALL Eurasians are seen as attractive and are prized for their exotic beauty? Lol, seriously, I don't care really about who's picture is on the front page, as long as it's not all hot women, or all actors/singers. I think what we have now is pretty balanced. Admittedly they are not authorized though.Bethereds 20:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Tommy Chong's picture[3] should be OK. Read the Licensing section:

It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of promotional material
  • on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation,
qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. See Copyrights for more information.

--- Hong Qi Gong 20:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

And Rob Schneider's picture[4] is actually in the public domain. Definitely usable. --- Hong Qi Gong 20:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] ADD MIXED WHITE AND WEST ASIAN IMAGES.

Since you have added images of two European and Indian people add images of people like Shannon Elisabeth. WEST ASIANS ARE ASIANS TOO!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.169.52.81 (talk • contribs)

No. The only reason we include half-Indians is because that's where the word eurasian comes from. Eurasian refers to an ethnic, not a geographic mix. By your faulty logic, someone who is half French and half Russian (still fully white) should be listed as a Eurasian. Sorrowek 04:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


-No, it is your faulty logic. Eurasian is often used today to define a cluster offspring of Caucasoid and Mongoloid peoples. Indo-Aryans are mostly Caucasoid and are related more to Aryan peoples of Iran and Afghanistan more than people from the Far-East. There is more of a distinctive phenotypical appearance that can be noticed with offsprings of whites and East Asians than Anglo-Indian and `Eurindian' appearances. Ben Kingsley for example is of European and Indian ancestry. He has played roles of Turks, Persians, European Jews and other roles where his character has been white. I do not think he would have been suited to playing them if he was half Chinese, Japanese or Korean. Arabs, Persians and Turks are not races which are native to Europe hence if you include the 2 Indians/European mixes than you can include whites and west Asian images. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.169.46.3 (talk • contribs)

That particular form of Eurasian belongs on a totally different page. This page is primarily about interracial people.Bethereds 17:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] EDITING AGAIN!

It looks like you are saying that there is a particular form of Eurasian. It's laughable that you are calling me ignorant.Bethereds 14:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
In a racial sense, half-Euro half-Indians are not truly eurasian, considering they are both caucasian. Nevertheless, we can consider them eurasians just because the word was coined on their behalf. Eurasian in a true sense only deals with mixes of east asians and Europeans. Sorrowek 23:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I, (58.169.36.255) have been trying to delete the foul mouthed comment I made above the last 2 entries when I was drunk and angry but you (Wikipedia) have been continually adding them when I have deleted them. Please delete the entry I made with my venomous tongue Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.169.25.55 (talk • contribs)

Firstly, please sign your comments. Secondly, we are not supposed to delete comments in Talk pages. They serve as a record of the discussion that transpired. You vandalised the Talk page, and we need a record of the fact that you did this. --- Hong Qi Gong 05:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, we are allowed to delete inappropriate comments in talk pages. History records it no matter what we do to the top of the stack, so it is unecessary to keep them on the top level. Thank you for the apology 58.169.36.255, and please feel free to contribute more constructively in the future! --JereKrischel 05:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Are you sure? For future references, can you show me an article that talks about this policy? --- Hong Qi Gong 07:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I'm sure. Please see Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages#Prune for more details. Again, if you're worried about "proof", you can always cite the history of a page - that never goes away. --JereKrischel 07:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Alright. Thanks. --- Hong Qi Gong 15:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
We better call the SPLC to investigate this hate crime by 58.169, lawl. Sorrowek 21:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mother's traits dominant?

Is it true that the mother's genes are typically dominant among "biracial" children? I have- albeit,unprofessionally- observed how for example half-Asian/half non-Asian children always look more like their mother. ie. if the father is white and the mother Asian, the children "look more Asian", but if the father is Asian and the mother white, the children "look more white". I've noticed the same thing among mulattos.

Although I have to make the exception among half East Asian-half South Asian people; a person who is half Chinese-half Indian looks the same to me, regardless of which group their parents belong too. For me, the same goes to when someone is of half-African, half-Mideastern ancestry. Le Anh-Huy User:Le Anh-Huy 19:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that's generally the case as I've observed a number of biracial children with East Asian mothers who could easily be mistaken for being of full-blooded caucasian origin. In two other cases, I've observed that a part East Asian, part Nordic child may end up with more meditteranean traits. I think it's pretty much random which ethnic traits a child will inherit. --Edward Sandstig 20:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
My cousin is Chinese and she married an Egyptian. She has two kids, my niece and nephew. Her kids are half-Chinese and half Egyptian. They're short like Asians and they can speak Chinese, but other than that, they are way more White than Asian. They have pale skin, blonde hair, and blue eyes. Why sigh, cutie pie? 04:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, is he Egyptian Arab or is he among the minority groups in Egypt (ie. Copts, Greeks, Berbers, black Nubians, etc)? I know a Vietnamese guy who married a Lebanese Arab woman, and I would say their kids would look Central Asian to me like me. Le Anh-Huy 06:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

He's Egyptian Arabian but appears to be mixed with White blood (he has pale skin, blue eyes, and blonde hair). I don't know, I guess my cousin's a rare case then. Why sigh, cutie pie? 20:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] White Caucasians?

rvt1 - no one says "white Caucasians"

No one?

Google results:

  • Google - 5,640,000 for "white Caucasian" [5]
  • by site:.gov - 146,000
  • "We have suspected that there are differences compared with white Caucasian coeliacs, especially with respect to..." [6]
  • "Student A is 9 years 2 months old and a white Caucasian male. His reading. ability demonstrates" [7]
  • by site:.gov.uk - 112
  • "To study and compare the maternity needs of the Chinese community with those of White Caucasian Women" [8]
  • "Hypertension was a very significant factor in Bangladeshi cohort (OR 7.22 vs 1.95 for White Caucasian) and our observations" [9]
  • by site:.gov.au - 92
  • "The third offender is described as a white Caucasian male with a proportionate build." [10]
  • "Indigenous then Asians and anyone different to white Caucasian; Everyone to different levels but prominently Indigenous Australians." [11]
  • Google Books - 839 for "white Caucasian"
  • "If a mixture is of White races (White, Caucasian, Puerto Rican, Portuguese, Cuban, or Mexican), code to the first race listed." - The Peopling of Hawaii by Eleanor C Nordyke, page 106

[12]

  • "By contrast in the UK, the Asian community have a higher risk of heart disease but have a lower prevalence of cigarette smoking than white Caucasian people..." - Epidemiology of Hypertension by C J Bulpitt, page 122 [13]
  • " will mark �Other� and then just write in �Portuguese,� because I get tired of being white Caucasian. But most respondents no longer saw their ethnicity as ..." - Ethnic Options: Choosing Identities in America by Mary C. Waters, page 163 [14]
  • Google Scholar - 3040 for "white Caucasian"
  • "Comparative prevalence of non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus in Asian and white Caucasian adults." [15]

Etc.

No one is using "white Caucasian"? --Calton | Talk 00:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I was wrong. Some people do say "white Caucasian", although it's worth noting that most of the hits for "white Caucasian" are actually some like "white/Caucasian" or "white (Caucasian". But there definitely are some hits that are using "white Caucasian" as a phrase. It nevertheless sounds awkward and we should probably avoid using it.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 00:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

More importantly, the study specifically says "Caucasian", and not "white Caucasian". --- Hong Qi Gong 01:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

More importantly, I just proved you wrong. See below. 69.170.35.211 04:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Give References Please

For example, Rina Chinen is listed as "singer-songwriter (� Japanese, � White)". Does anyone have a reference to back this up? "She looks half white" doesn't qualify! ;-) She is Okinawan Born; an island halfway between Taiwan and Japan that had has a mixed ancestory; Chinese predominantly, then Japanese and also Pacific. Some might have confused her Okinawan looks for Eurasian looks. Or maybe her dad is a US Serviceman (with a Japanese surname... nahhhh). Either way, lets see a reference.

[edit] Types of Caucasians

Well HongKeeGong, here you go:

Return-path: <gill@psy.uwa.edu.au> Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 08:23:57 +0800 From: Gill Rhodes <gill@psy.uwa.edu.au> Subject: Re: Attractiveness in Mixed Race Individuals ...our Caucasian participants in most studies are Australian university students - their ethnic origins are certainly mostly European. Cheers, Gill Rhodes

The professor has now twice confirmed with me that "caucasian" in context of the study refers to European caucasians, and did not include North Africans, Arabs, etc. Good day, sir.69.170.35.211 04:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

"Caucasian" does not necessarily include or exclude north Africans and Arabs. Again, the study directly says "Caucasian". Let's be accurate. --- Hong Qi Gong 05:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Let's be more accurate. 69.170.35.211 05:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Here you go:

Return-path: <gill@psy.uwa.edu.au> Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 08:23:57 +0800 From: Gill Rhodes <gill@psy.uwa.edu.au> Subject: Re: Attractiveness in Mixed Race Individuals Your email is unverifiable and anybody could have made it up. Cheers, Gill Rhodes

Cheers. --- Hong Qi Gong 05:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You'll call anything that proves you're wrong "unverifiable". I could (and I probably will) upload an full size TIFF screenshot of the email correspondence and you'd still deny. Moreoever, what's even more laughable is the fact you REFUSE to do any work such as emailing the professor (the way I did), most likely because you're afraid of being proved wrong. Why are you on Wikipedia? 69.170.35.211 05:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Like I said, anybody can make up that "email". However, a linked PDF file that is a 23-page paper written about a university study is a verifiable source of information. Anyway, please remain civil and assume good faith. --- Hong Qi Gong 06:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Don't obfuscate. The passage in question is not a direct citation from the study, but rather is attemping to give a summary. You are dodging the issue. There is absolutely no harm is specifying which caucasoid group the study consisted of, and I'd say it's rather important considering the article is about eurasians. Sorrowek 06:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ACHIEVEMENT OF EURASIANS?=

WHAT HAVE EURASIAN DONE NO HISTORY OF YOU GUYS ????????? NOT LIKE MULATTOS AND MESTIZOS, WE DONE A HELL OF A LOT OUR OWN LARGE COMMUNITIES WHERE IN GOVERMENT ROLES FAMUS MULATTO AND MESTIZO PEOPLES ALL OVER THE WORLD. WHERE ARE THE EURASIANS AT NO RECORDS WHERE ARE THE 1800S - 1700S RECORDS AT? I CAN LIST MULATTOS AND MESTIZOS ALL OVER THE WORLD WERE EURASIANS LIST AGAIN NO RECORD. DID YOU KNOW MULATTOS AND MESTIZOS ARE LARGEST MIXED RACE EVER IN THE WORLD. WHERE ARE THE EURASIANS IN THE WORLD DEMOGRAPFY AND WORLD HISTORY?? >) -Posted by a racist mulatto coward using User_talk:216.27.165.170. Unfortunately this person's IQ is in two-digit form thus the inability to spell.

Reply:Yeap!! Euroasians and Amerasians are lowlives illigitimate childrens and have achieve nothing in History.. -Posted by a racist latin-american coward using User_talk:198.142.80.105, his/her mother is most likely a whore., auto signed by Sinebot
I'm at a loss for words in the face of this obvious mulatto superiority. 69.170.35.211 02:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. I find it most disturbing. Just because there are more mulattos and mestizos doesn't make them superior, there are more purebreds in this world than mixtures, and that's counting Arabs as mulattoes. Being Eurasian myself I find those remarks offensive. Besides, we can't prove mulattoes are older-maybe the Kurds are Eurasian and older than the Arabs. --69.234.211.216 (talk) 19:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
When Russia and China (after intermingling with eachother) both use America for money to launch the first manned mission to Mars long after they decide to nuke your sorry behinds, then I think that will be their greatest achievement (BTW: I am not Eurasian myself, I am a proud Slav with a trickle of Mongol blood in me, that is super Y Chromosome stuff right there).
No. When Russia, America, and China get involved in the Israel-Iran and Indo-Pakistan wars that will eventually happen, the world will be damaged, we'll lose all our technology and no one will go to Mars. Then we will realize that we are all equals, and no one will care about who achieved what because it will all be gone.--69.234.211.218 (talk) 17:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

does the guy who started this section KNOW that mestizos ARE Eurasians if they are not mestizo hat are full asians.... plus eurasian is a new term that means mestizo or those who have european and some asian heritage such as english/ french/ spanish/ italian/ german/ polish etc. with chinese/ japanese/ korean/ filipino etc. also of course mestizo are gonna be the largest mixed ethnic group in the world... they're the on;y mixed ethnic group in the world technically (because eurasian, would fall in the same category, and would make up the majority of them)Australian Jezza 13:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hispanic, Mestizo, Negro, and Mulatto Hypocrasy

What Hypocrassy! Eurasianism is only a hundred something years old, and a very rare phenomena, so tell me, how many things do you expect from such a small and deligitimized group of people in such short a time? Mestizos and Mulattos are nearly double that, and tell me exactly what your people did also (U.N. embassidor Robert Bunche is one of the better examples I can imagine).

Now imagine this: The Hunnic peoples seem to be a kind of Eurasian hybrid. The Huns eventually settled and ibread in two nations: Hungary and Finland. Just look at the List of Hungarians and List of Finns, these people have quite a bit of poets and inventors in their ranks. Other places to check out are the central Asian areas such as Kazakstan, Tajikistan, Afghanistan, and Siberians.

Where am I getting? All that I am saying, I guess, is to recall Scripture, and treat your slaves kindly, for ye yourselves where once slaves. -- 68.32.201.254 16:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Finns have nothing to do with Hunns. Hunns never get to Finland or even close 193.65.112.51 19:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Something to think about the indigenous people of Japan where white, the Ainu people they got mixed in with the Yamato People 1000s of years ago. --Caligvla 05:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Thus, the Japanes are themselves Eurasian also? Wierd, realy, realy, wierd... -- 68.32.201.254 04:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay this is pretty late in the game, but Eurasians are not a "hundred years old" phenomenom but have existed for quite longer than that. For instance, in my own family's history, the dutch/germans were marrying and mating w/ indonesians since the early to mid-1700s, which would make my little Eurasian family 300 years old. Also to imply as this racist ass does below that all Eurasians are descended from "mail-order" brides or prostitutes. That's pretty insulting. For your information you ignorant ass, my great-great grandmother was a princess of the court who married a Beligian man. So screw you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.9.181.6 (talk) 20:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Aren't Hungarians Eurasians? Huns mixed with Europeans? Basically, aren't Huns Asian? And that racist is wrong to say that all Eurasians were given birth to by mail-order brides or prostitutes. I know several Eurasians who are the children of Asian immigrants who waited until they were married before having eurasians.--69.234.211.218 (talk) 18:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question about Eurasian illigitimate childrens of Mail-order brides

The Majority of Eurasians are sons and daughters of prostitutes and mail-order brides fathered by Old & Young White Anglo men? Most mother's of Euroasians are mail-order brides seeking to get a permanent visa! Correct me if I'm Wrong! -Posted by a racist latin-american coward using User_talk:198.142.80.105, his/her mother is most likely a whore.

Have you got statistics to prove that or are you just trying to convince yourself that you're not the only one whose mother's a whore? -210.194.93.32 15:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Reply: Like it or not, It is true guys!. Most mothers or Fathers of Euroasians today are Mail-order brides/grooms seeking to marry foriegn husbands or wife so they can get a permanent residence. Countries were mail order brides are commonly found are in the U.S., Australia, Northern Europe and Scandanivia etc. U always see these children with older fathers and young mothers. -Posted by a racist latin-american coward using User_talk:198.142.66.80, his/her mother is most likely a whore.
And you still don't have statistics? Dude, just coz yo momma's a ho, doesn't mean everybody else's momma's a ho too. -203.236.239.246 20:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Reply: That's True! and all ya Euroasians are illigitimates. Don't mess with us!! especially with African-Americans!!, Hispanics, Mestizos, Mullatos, Portuguese Filipinos, Brazilians etc, coz we are the Superior group!!We are da Best yollll... Black and the Brown= bronze race are da best!! -Posted by 198.142.80.82 but edited by 198.142.66.80. Likely the same person as the original poster and too stupid to realize that Filipinos and East Timorese are Asians and thus, when mixed with Europeans they are also Eurasians.
  • Reply:

What evaaa Chinese/Japanese/Korean,/Malaysian/Indonesian,/Taiwannese,/Thailand, Burmese and Vietnamese Mother Fuckeerrs!! That's your Euroasian/Amerasian Madda Fuckin Problem.. Coz WE African-Americans and Hispanics take Great Pride of our Mullatos and Mestizos race, got that maaa!!

  • Reply: And also, Filos (Filipinos) and Timorese are part of the La RazA (Brown or Black race) communities and will always be part of the Hispanic, Portuguese and African-American blood Brothers communities.. All of Us share the same hIstory, Religion, Phylocifies and Colonial Mentalities in life for OVER 500 YEARS. AAAll of ya madaa fuckin Euroasians and Amerasians ARE just Contemporary people who only existed in the last 100 years or so. Your Euroasian-Amerasian race are of small population, compare to us: Mullatos and Mestizos. WE out number of you in populations easily. Euroasians-Amerasians have done nothin in History maa!! Fuck your Euroasian/Amerasian Maddaa Fuckinn race!!..The Bradaa Rulez, bieaaatchh.. !!!
Hey dunce, "la raza" not only does not includes Filipinos, but it also doesn't include blacks. Comprende?

69.170.35.211 05:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Dude la raza doesn't include Filipinos because Filipinos are Asian and therefore Eurasian when they mix with Europeans. Filipinos look like Asians. They talk like Asians. Their accent is Asian. They walk like Asians. They smile like Asians. The Philippines is in Southeast Asia. Therefore, I'd say that the Filipinos are Asians, although some of them identify themselves as Pacific Islander, which is accurate too, as the Philippines are a bunch of islands in the Pacific. Since the Amerindians are pretty much Asian (because Asians moved to the Americas before anyone else got there, and became the Native Americans) that theory makes Latinos Eurasians too, then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.179.40 (talk) 21:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Reply: La Raza is a Mexican Term for "The Amerindian or Hispanic Race" or simply "the brother & sisterhood race". This term is only used by Patriotic Mexicans.. Majority of Filipino-Mestizos are of Mexican-Spanish descent. Many Mexican-Spanish descent came over to the Philippines during the colonial days, especially in the Manila-Acapulco Galleon trade. Filipino-mestizos are considered Hispanic or La Raza broo. Don't rock ya self.. Vato!

Spanish are not part of "la raza". There is a difference between ethnicity and nationality. Mexico's ruling class is white Spanish, despite the fact they are "Mexican". 69.170.35.211 21:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply: The Majority of Filipino Mestizos have Mexican blood, whether it's Amerindian or White Hispanic blood in there genes and that's a fact! Like it or not!! I'm intitled with my opion and your intitled to your opinion, which is fair enough..But You can never change my vision.. Whether Filipino are asian or Hispanic they will always be are part of us Latinos.. This Message comes from a Venezuelan point of view..
Spanish are not "latinos". They are white. Filipinos have very little non-mongoloid admixture (despite their darker look), if you're going to claim Filipinos as your "racial brothers", you might as well include Japanese, Chinese, Koreans, and Vietnamese. Yawn. 69.170.35.211 23:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
While its true some are Mexican, most Filipinos are Malay or Chinese, just look at them. Of course, with some of them it's hard to stop looking.--69.234.211.218 (talk) 18:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

"your intitled to your opinion" - LOL. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 23:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply: I'm talking about Filipino-Mestizos! Not the Full blooded Filipinos. And also. Sorry! but Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Vietnamese, Indonesians, Malaysians, Thailand etc., are not blood brothers coz they are not part of the Spanish Empire. We do not share the same religion, History, Phylocifies and colonial mentalities in life. Blood Brothers Filipinos however are part of us coz they are part of Spanish Empire...for over 400 years, which is a fact...Filipinos and Us Hispanics Share the same Visions in life...Whether they are asian in race or in demography or what. Only countries who have connections with Spain or Portugal and Latin America are considired part of us. Filipino has that connections and they are still part of the brother & sister hood race.. Whether You Like it Or not!! Your Intitled to your opinion. This Message comes from a Venezuelan point of view..

right.... and we want to be spanish... why? plus not all filos are spanish, i myself 9on my asian side and Filipino Chinese, there definately not spanish blood there!)Australian Jezza 13:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Filipinos are Malay or Chinese by blood (mostly, although we do have Mexicans, Spanish, Americans and arabs. We may be Spanish/American by culture, but we're Asian by blood. Kind of like Asian kids adopted by Caucasian Western parents.--69.234.211.218 (talk) 18:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fins and Huns

Can these two peoples of Finland and Hungary, Khazakstan and Tajikistan be conseidered peoples who make up an actual and sustanable Eurasian race? Because if this is true then it will certainly blow away allot of the juvinile nonsense that has just transpired above, for all they know, given politics between Russia and China, and the policy of China to only allow sons to be born, Eurasians will probably be the first, likely ONLY, to colonize Mars and conquer this solar system, all the rest of these sorry, spoild by capitalism degenirates will not survive ICBM attack one (and just for the record, if Khazakstan turns out to be an actual Eurasian Nation, then that means theyve got Vladimir Zhiranovsky, can you deal with something like that?). Za vostok ih za tavorishchja!

Finns have nothing to do with hunns. Genetically Finns are quite normal Europeans. Your idea about "mongol Finns" is old racist lie that has been proven false decades ago 193.65.112.51 19:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

IdeArchon -- ~~

Er I don't know who told you China has a policy of only allowing sons to be born. China has a one child policy and a number of Chinese prefer sons for a variety of reasons (although no where nearly as bad as in India) but the don't have a policy of sons only Nil Einne 11:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

They relaxed the policy a little and it became the 1 and a half child policy, where a man and a woman can have a second child if the first is a girl,this is due to the social-familly perceptions that when a girl gets married she becomes the property of the husband, and so only a son would be able to look after the parents when they reach old age. --- not that any of this is relevant at all :o/

[edit] Religion (Give references or remove)

I'm not confortable with the assertion that the vast majority of Eurasians are Christian without any citations to support it. Without any evidence this is pure conjecture.

Citations need to be given or the Religion section should be removed.

203.161.96.96 00:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

      • I vote to remove it I spend extensive time in Asia, 6+ months a year, and in my own experience, none of the mixed Asians I have met are Christian. prove it or remove it...--Caligvla 05:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
It probably should be removed. It's somewhat true in Malaysia & Singapore & Phillipines maybe Macau AFAIK, at least when it comes to the older Eurasians and is probably mostly true in many European countries but I suspect it is not so true in China, Japan, Korea, Vietnam and India? Nil Einne 11:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it should be removed. (I'm actually very disappointed with this entire article. "Eurasian" is not a well-defined cultural group.) --203.161.96.96 16:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Another vote for removal of Religion section. --Edward Sandstig 22:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

There are many Eurasians that are Muslims too, especially those who are partly Malays/Indonesians, Pakistanis or Central Asians. So, to assume that almost all Eurasians are Christians is incorrect. --203.15.122.35 05:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Um

Would a person still be considered Eurasian if they're like, Asian mixed with European blood but not with two parents of each race? I'm asking because I'm Chinese, but I'm one-eighth Portuguese from my mom's side (she's 25% Portuguese). Would I be considered Eurasian? 75.17.183.129 05:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I would considered you Eurasian, but this is not a science if you want to know your true mix consider DNA testing, you might be suprised at the DNA you have...--Caligvla 05:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Really it's up to you. Definitely I would say you are Eurasian but it is ultimately up to you if you want to identify yourself as Eurasian. Generally speaking, I would say most people who identify with being Eurasian would feel at least some connection with both their Asian and European side. The fact that you ask this question suggests you do identify with both sides. Nil Einne 11:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Just an aside, but doesnt your mom being 1/4 Portuguese make you 1/8 Portuguese (not 1/6)? --203.161.96.96 03:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Didn't notice that but yes you're right. It's actually rather difficult to be 1/6 anything Nil Einne 09:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Well then, that makes it even worse, because 1/8 is only like 12.5% and you can still tell I'm mixed. That makes me 12% Portuguese and 88% Chinese, and I still have curves and freckles and natural reddish-brown hair (but I have an Asian face) like a Portuguese girl. Unh. Why sigh, cutie pie? 16:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not East Asian only

Whoever keeps trying to assert that in modern usage Eurasian only applies to people of European and East Asian descendancy needs to read this article and perhaps the East Asian article. Malays and Tetums are NOT East Asian but people descendent from Malay-European & Tetum-European relationships such as the Kristang people are usually considered Eurasians (including by the people themselves) which we mention. Also, I'm skeptical whether it's fair to exclude South Asian-Europeans either. While in India, the term Eurasian is apprently disliked according to this article, it would still probably be acceptable and even preferred to many Indian-Europeans in Malaysia & Singapore. It may be fair to exclude West Asians since I'm not particularly sure whether many of them identify with being Eurasian. BTW, the references don't appear to support the assertation that it only applies to European-East Asian either. Nil Einne 11:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Reading the article more, another group which are not usually considered East Asian are Filipinos but many Filipino mestizos are considered Eurasians Nil Einne 11:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

well filipinos are still sort of conidered east asain or south EAST asian but think about it when some one says they are asian, would you automatically think indian or arab etc., or chinese, japanese, filipino etc.Australian Jezza 02:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

According to my hardback Oxford dictionary, it clearly states in its usage section that the term Eurasian now refers to people of European and East/South-East Asian ancestry and not including Anglo-Indians.

That's interesting but it's just one view. This article appears to suggest that anglo Indians from India don't like to use the term Eurasian when referring to themselves (although whether this means they don't consider themselves Eurasians or they just don't like the term is a different question) and I assume it is correct since I personally have no knowledge of this matter. However as I have pointed out above and tried to make clear in the article, there is no clear evidence it is an accepted definition by everyone. Specifically, and quite importantly, some people who are either anglo-Indians or related groups such as the Burgher people (and any South Asian-European groupings in Malaysia and Singapore) still appear to use the term Eurasian when referring to themselves so it strikes me as unfair to try and tell them that they're not Eurasians just because some dictionary says they're not. Nil Einne 08:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
BTW, this article mentions Asha Gill who is widely considered Eurasian and AFAIK considers herself Eurasian. She is of Punjabi-European descent. At a guess, I would say were she from India, she might consider herself Anglo-Indian but being from Malaysia, she considers herself Eurasian. Nil Einne 08:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anglo/Euro-Indians

The following images are of celebrities Nasser Hussain, Ben Kingsley, Lisa Ray, Saira Mohan, Asha Gill and Michael Chopra all in that order. They are all Anglo/Euro-Indian. It is safe to say that most, if not all of them could pass completely for European. Maybe not necessarily Nordic, but definitely Medirterraneans. Although technically `Eurasian', in a racial sense the diversity between Europeans and Indo-Aryan Caucasoids is not always that big and the following celebrities have a distinctively different appearance to that of a European mixed with an Asian from the Far East. It is probably why this is partially the reason why the term `Eurasian' may be unpopular to Anglo-Indians due to not wanting to be clustered in the same category as mixes of East-Asians and whites.

http://www.nriinternet.com/NRIsports/UK/Nasser_Hussain/NasserHussain.jpg

http://www.ekiba.de/images/BenKingsley_Gandhi.jpg

http://www.nude-bollywood.com/lisa-ray/lisa-ray-21.jpg

http://www.factio-magazine.com/_current/saira_1.jpg

http://www.talentfactory.com.my/singleartistpage-img/asha2.jpg

http://www.sporting-heroes.net/files_football/CHOPRA_M_20040501_GH_L.jpg

However Asha Gill considers herself Eurasian as I mentioned above. Also, I wonder how many people were aware Rob Schneider is a Eurasian from how he looks? As I've discussed above, the reasons why Anglo/Euro-Indians from India often don't like to be called Eurasian is discussed in the article. It's not something I have great knowledge of but this reason appears to concur with the observation I've made (also above) that Anglo/Euro-Indians without a recent connection to India, for example people like Asha Gill and others from Malaysia and Singapore, also those in Sri Lanka do often identify as Eurasian. To me, this make more sense then your theory. Also while Eurasian may be more of a racial/ethnicity thing, it also has strong links to culture. Nil Einne 09:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


Firstly, Rob Schneider is predominantly European, Not `half' Asian (his image should reallly be deleted from the article actually as he is not a typical Eurasian). Secondy, why I do not dispute that Euro/Anglo-Indians are technically `Eurasian', there are staunch oppositions to identifying Europeans and West Asian mixes like Skandar Keynes, Shannon Elizabeth and Gabrielle Anwar from being categorised as `Eurasian'.........WHY???!!!?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.169.25.254 (talk • contribs)

What the heck is a "typical Eurasian"? -- Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
You appear to have misunderstood the point. We already mention the fact that some people are opposed Euro/Anglo-Indians being considered Eurasian. We also mention reasons for this. However, as has been said repeatedly, there ARE MANY people who are mixes of European and South Asian heritage who DO consider themselves Eurasian. We need to mention this, which we do, and it would be quite wrong for us to suggest this usage is somehow incorrect. Instead, we simply report all definitions. It's IMHO offensive to tell people who consider themselves Eurasian that they're not Eurasian or not typical Eurasian or they only technically Eurasian but not really Eurasian simply because your definition of the term does not include them 203.109.240.93 12:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

What I meant by `typical' was that he was that Rob Schneider was not half, and his predominant European ancestry is more likely the reason as to why he looks more `white'. I have seen Kate Beckinsale's name mentioned in Eurrasian lists on the grounds that she is 1/8 Burmese! If this is the case then everyone from the Balkan Peninsular can be classed as Eurasian because of their Turkish ancestry and everyone from Easern Europe because of their Mongol ancestry as well as evryone from the Pakistan/Afghan border because of their mixed ancient Greek heritage.

[edit] HunXue'r

HunXue'r (混血儿) does not mean "half caste"; it means "mixed blood", i.e. "a person with mixed blood or ethnicity", i.e. "a mutt".
Funny how "half caste" is not only incorrect, but kind of offensive.
I am correcting it, again....

Speaking of "half-caste", it does actually sound offensive for someone with mixed-race parentage - in this case, we're talking about the "Eurasians". In my opinion, calling a mixed-race person "half-caste" is like saying he or she a second class citizen of a nation or somewhere near Sudra or maybe slightly lower than, if not equivalent to, Ksatria (for Hindus) just because they're not pure European or Asian. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.15.122.35 (talk) 09:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC).
I'd agree - I'm Eurasian and I've only ever heard 'half-caste' used as an offensive term (mostly by a teacher at school in the '80s who would use it to excuse me and another girl errors in etiquette which she assumed we wouldn't have made if we were white). I've not heard it in decades, which makes me suspect that people now recognise that it's not a term than many mixed-race people are happy to have applied to them. Squeezeweasel 22:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Actual Eurasians

Where do actual Eurasians fall into this category? This article seems to imply that Eurasians are "biracial." Can you actually call a Kazakh or Uzbek person "biracial" or of "mixed ancestry" even if they look exactly like a person of half-Asian, half-European descent? If a Kazakh's parents are both "Kazakh" would it be possible to call him "biracial" if we're going by phenotype alone?

Not so much picking bones with this article, just throwing a question out there.

I would like to consider Eurasians as a race in of themselves. -- 68.32.201.254 21:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
To be honest with, you, I don't know. In some countries (Russia and Pakistan) some people look Asian, some Caucasian.--69.234.178.247 (talk) 17:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Terminology

I'm half Malaysian/Chinese and half English. My Malaysian/Chinese grandmother used to call me and my brother 'ten mix', which I understand is extremely rude (I'm not clear on exactly what it means, since our parents used to shepherd us out of the room as soon as she started!) If any Malaysian editors can clarify and add this to the terminology section (if appropriate), that'd be great. Squeezeweasel 22:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

honestly no offence. but i don't think u are considered eurasian. eurasian is not just because on of your parents is english and chinese. Eurasian is a culture. we are Eurasian because of where we come from, our historical background. Not of parentage. Tperreau 5 January 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 13:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you please expand on that? Where exactly would you have to come from in order to be Eurasian? We need to know if your view belongs in the article.--69.234.211.216 (talk) 19:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Statistical sources

Could someone please cite some specific sources for the figures presented in the population box? --Defrosted 10:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] The authenticity of the number of eurasian people

How did the number come?As far as I know,most of country don't classify the mutilracial as a single ethno.So the number is very questionable.--Ksyrie 06:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering that as well; most of the references are to www.joshuaproject.net, but I don't really understand where that website is coming up with their statistics. It's something involving Christianity... but if it's being used as a reference, the exact URL of the stat should be listed and not a generic www.joshuaproject.net.
And the Aesthetics section seems a bit biased/unwarranted. Is there any other Ethnic group on Wikipedia that has a section dedicated to that group's beauty? on camera 13:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
No, there aren't! We should delete it, since it's based on a very small and non-notable classroom experiment anyway. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Right, it should be deleted. It's just an opinion or preference and isn't encyclopedic, especially since I couldn't find any other wiki-article that has a similar topic in it. on camera 16:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

the nummber probably came from those who on a census claimed to have a european and asian ancestry s then they would be classified as a eurasianAustralian Jezza 02:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Userbox

Feel free to use on your user page. I claim no ownership. Pink moon 1287 (email • talk • user) 14:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

{{User Eurasian}}

[edit] Anglo Indians

That is really aggrivating me SOmeone keeps adding anglo indians to the eurasian list just because india is in asia doesnt make indians asian Why dont they just make there own list of anglo indians —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.245.161.98 (talk • contribs) 2007-02-11 22:34:33

Some of the entries that you deleted from List of Eurasians were not Anglo-Indians as the term is normally used. They were people of part European, part-South Asian heritage. And why aren't Indians considered Asian, if India is located in Asia? In the UK, the term "Asian" specifically refers to South Asians rather than East Asians, as it does in North America. ... discospinster talk 19:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

russia is located on asia israel is located on asia turkey is located on asia yet we don't cosider someone who is part israeli part french eurasian I don't think people should consider some one part asian if the boundaries of the country are in asia. maybe in the UK the term asian refers to south east asian but why don't we just label indian white mixes indian eurasian or something like instead of just eurasian because indians and east asians are two different races

you wouldn't cosider some one who was 1/2 aboriginal 1/2 white and some one who was 1/2 australian (100% white still) and 1/2 British the same just because there ancestors are from the same continent


PLEASE SEE MY QUOTE 7 ENTRIES ABOVE ABOUT ANGLO-EURO INDIANS. Indo-Aryans are mostly Caucasoid and carry the R1a1 DNA haplogroup like Europeans and West Asians. If their mixes with Europeans are Eurasians then so are the mixes with West Asians and Whites.

I've already largely address the issue of why we should not exclude anglo-Indians above. However just to clarify again. Firstly Russia is only partly in Asia and Turkey is usually said to be in both. Secondly, Russians, Israelis and Turkish people are unlikely to identify as ethnically Asian IMHO whereas Indians do. If a Russian, Israeli or Turkish person isn't Asian then a Russian, Israeli or Turkish - European mix obviously can't be a Eurasian. Thirdly, many people you call 'anglo-Indians' identify as Eurasians and you have no right to tell them otherwise. Fourthly, the genetic stuff seems mostly BS to me as the genetics of is a controversial issue, a number of prominent geneticists feel race is mostly a meaningless concept genetically speaking (see Race and genetics). BTW, are you the same person who keeps referring to Mongoloids? In that case check out Mongoloid race since it sounds as if you don't realise that the concept of a mongloid race is largely discredited. Nil Einne 20:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hobson-Jobson (1884) p. 344 gives cites of "Eurasian" back to 1844, and defines it as Anglo-Indians, nothing about people of East Asian descent. Here it is online: [16] --JWB 03:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually if you look up British Asian, many people of Turkish, Iranian, Iraqi and other Arab peoples also identify themselves as `Other Asian'. Their mixes with Europeans can be considered Eurasian. The website called 'Eurasian Nation' also has a forum on how East-Indian/European offsprings often produce offspring which look `Completely Caucasian or just naturally tanned'http://eurasiannation.proboards48.com/index.cgi?board=family&action=print&thread=1113248238- something quite uncommon with East Asian/white mixes. Like I stated in my entry several entries back, have a look at the images I provided. If they wish to identify as Eurasian then so be it, but almost all Anglo/Euro Indians that I know dont.

P.S. How `Asian' are South Asians anyway? Britain and anglophone africa are the only places in the worlsd which use the term exclusively to identify South Asians. If one considers that they are identified as Caucasoid then their offsprings with Europeans are debatably not even mixed-`race'.

I don't know where exclusive came into this. I wasn't talking about exclusive. Also, as I'm pretty sure I stated at some stage, 'race' is only part of the equation. All this talk of mongloids and caucasian (both of which are largely discredited concepts) is missing the point that culture is another key part of concept of a Eurasian identity. And South Asians are much closer to South East and East Asians culturally then they are Europeans (especially Northern Europeans). I was probably a little extreme about Central and Western Asians rarely self-identifying as Asians since some obviously do. However there is a lot of info that suggests a distinction is often made between South, South East and East Asians and Western and Central Asians with the former far more likely to identify as Asian then the later. IMHO supported by what I've read and seen, most South, South East and East Asians both in their native countries and other countries are likely to self identify as Asian. However this is rare with Western and Central Asian. Therefore, given that Eurasians tend to be a minority anyway, it's not surprising that it's rare that people of Western and Central Asians - European mixed ancestory are identified as or self-identify as Eurasian. As has been mentioned many times in the talk page and also in the article, there is a reason Anglo-Indians (in India) don't tend to identify as Eurasian. However this does apply to Sri Lankans, (possibly Bangladeshis and Pakistanis) as well as the minority communities of Indians in Malaysia and Singapore. Therefore, it is far more common in these countries that they will and do self-identify as Eurasian. I can't be bothered arguing this issue any more. If people refuse to accept that there are in fact quite a number of people of South Asian - European mixed ancestry who self identify (and are externally identified) as Eurasian based on discredit racial concepts and other such junk then there's nothing that can be done. Just don't mess up the article. The article already explains the Anglo-Indian / Eurasian issue. In any case, the article has far bigger problems now with the hybrid vigour crap. Nil Einne 00:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ai No Ko

Article says '"# Ai no ko, in Japanese literally means "child of unlike things put together."'

Sounds dubious. Can't tell without the Japanese characters, but this looks like Ai=Love or Meeting, No=Possessive, Ko=Child. So literally it's "Love's Child" or "Meeting's Child". Definitely not "child of unlike things put together." 203.213.7.133 12:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes it sounds like complete rubbish. You're right but I can't be bothered to even start changing this article it's just a big bunch of opinions and sounds like a conversation in a pub not an encyclopedia article.


Google for "愛の子": 798 hits. Google for "合いの子": 34,400 hits.

WWWJDIC[17] for "ainoko": 間の子; 合の子; 合いの子; あいの子 【あいのこ】 (n) person of mixed parentage (derogatory); crossbreed; Eurasian; mulatto; hybrid [G][GI][S][A] [G][GI][S][A] [G][GI][S][A] [G][GI][S][A]

WWWJDIC for "ai" (relevant ones only):

愛 【あい】 (n,n-suf) (See 愛する) love; affection; (P) [Ex][G][GI][S][A][W]

合い 【あい】 (n,pref) joint; associate; accomplice [Ex][G][GI][S][A]

WWWJDIC for associated verb "au":

合う 【あう】 (v5u,vi) to fit; to suit; to agree with; to match; to be correct; to be profitable; (P) [V][Ex][G][GI][S][A]

会う 【あう】 (v5u,vi) to meet; to interview; (P) [V][Ex][G][GI][S][A]

逢う 【あう】 (v5u,vi) to meet (with drama or pathos); (P) [V][Ex][G][GI][S][A]

遭う 【あう】 (v5u,vi) to meet; to encounter (undesirable nuance); (P) [V][Ex][G][GI][S][A]

遇う 【あう】 (v5u,vi) to meet; to encounter [V][G][GI][S][A]

--JWB 03:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The sources for this article are terrible

The Joshua Project and some Eurasian identity pushing website aren't reliable sources.--Nydas(Talk) 18:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eurasians Apperances

Hey All, My name Is Brandon Bevan and I am Half Chinese, and Half German and I look Mixed I have Black hair and Brown Eyes and Tan skinned with a slant to my eye and I was wondering how I can look mixed and others like Bruce Lee takes the Chinese part and Brandon Lee takes Chinese part than later on German, Swedish, or Engish and How Mark-Paul Gosselaar takes over the Dutch part of his heritage out of being Dutch and Indonesian, as Zack Morris on Saved by the Bell.

So, according to Wikipedia, I can be Eurasian even though my Portuguese ancestor entered my family tree centuries ago? That's a cool thought, but not all mixed people look mixed, especially after a few centuries of mixing in and out. Would Eurasians (half/half) accept Filipinos as Eurasians because we have centuries old blood from Europe? I think appearance is important because those who look mixed are usually put in a "special" group, cast outside the mainstream. That happens whether we like it or not, no matter what country we come from. Even though Eurasians aren't an ethnicity, they can't fully blend in with their native countries without totally and awkwardly standing out. Awkward because people don't know where we fit and how we are supposed to look. Everyone else has it all worked out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.213.191.14 (talk) 02:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think most Filipinos have centuries old Eurasian blood from Europe, the Wikipedia article on Philippine demography says that most Filipinos are Malay, Chinese, or both. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.198.52 (talk) 22:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Australia- Info box

i added filipinos to part describeing the types of eurasian in australia, as the majorit of filipinos in australia would be part british along with filipino and maybe even chinese, like myself and alot of the people i know who are filipinoAustralian Jezza 12:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Anglo-Euro Indians are not Eurasian this thread explains why!!! http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=10329

who wrote that comment?? lolAustralian Jezza 09:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What the heck happened to this article?

While this article has always been problematic I came to visit it to discover someone or multiple people have royally screwed it. What the heck is this hybrid vigiour about IQ and skin whiteners and autism and even Ashkenazi Jews crap? I felt like deleting it all even if a lot of it claims to be referenced (it appears to be a complete original synthesis Nil Einne 00:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I've removed some of the questionable sections - if someone would like to add it back in, let's see if we can discuss it further first. --JereKrischel 04:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

Does "American" mean "European American"? Does "American" include "Asian American"? Is a person with Asian American and Asian parents considered Eurasian and not Asian?

Viewing "American" as only "European American" is POV, since the United States is a multicultural society. Only "Native Americans" are officially considered American.

I suggest replacing "American" with "European" to avoid ambiguity if Americans means European Americans in this article. Otherwise clarify the article to say that Eurasians can be "pure racial".

Also, not all whites are considered European, nor vice versa. Hypodescent in the United States classify Eurasian as Asian. Therefore, the interpretation of the statistics from the United States Census Bureau is inaccurate. In my opinion, this article is biased toward Eurasians with East Asian and white ancestry.

Some Amerasians are "pure racial", in that article: "The racial strain of the American parent of one Amerasian may be different from that of another Amerasian; it may be white, black, Hispanic, Native American, or even Asian."

This article marginalizes Eurasian with non-East Asian ancestry. It is recommended to add some information regarding Europeans with non-East Asian ancestry and information regarding Eurasians with non-white ancestry.

Unfreeride 01:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Useful discussion of Eurasian ethnicity?

I removed this part from the article:

“Thus, very little can be said about 'Eurasians' in this general sense; for useful discussion one must focus on specific ethnic groups, such as the Spanish-Filipino Mestizos, the Portuguese-Malay-Indian Kristang, and the European-Thai luk kreung.[9]”.

This has to be wrong. We may have a long-standing tradition of referring to various groups of people as belonging to distinct ethnic groups, but surely, ‘Eurasian’ ancestry could be the subject of quite a few volumes. Part of the reasoning behind the statement I removed was that Eurasians constitute “... a large collection of ethnic groups with vastly different cultures, histories, genetic profiles, religions, etc.. Indeed, there is little justification to treat European-Asian people as a whole...”. True enough, but I believe the same could be said about many of the sub-categories that are supposedly more justified as ‘true’ ethnicities, as opposed to the Eurasian ethnicity. I would argue that ethnicities are constructed through our perceptions of them, rather than the other way about. Can we safely say, that all mixed European/Native-Americans of Latin America share the same culture, history, genetic profile and religion? Apparently not. So I think “useful discussion” can be had equally well of Eurasian ethnicity, as of any traditional ethnicity. Alfons Åberg 11:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

By all means add some references to useful discussion to this article. At the moment, it looks like a jumble of different concepts artificially lumped together.--Nydas(Talk) 11:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The are 2 main lineages in the world. One from Africa which everybody knows and One from Euasia, which alot of people don't know, Alot of North African and West African people are Afro-Eurasian origins like my African descendants the Fulbe who are of Afro-Eurasian origins. The most of the Bantu in Africa and not of Eurasian origins. There are various Native America tribes mostly from Central South America and Canadian like the Maya, Inuit or Dene and Eskimos who are also from Eurasian origins. Then in The South Pacific the Solomon Islanders, Fijians, Vanuatu and other Melanesian and other Polynesian are also from Eurasian origins too. Rh negative people or pure Caucasian and Southeast Asian have command Eurasian origins. Most of the other people around the world regardless of the color and so called races are mostly African in origins. Some of the people listed above are of Eurasian Origins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.188.117 (talk) 02:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] misconception

I'm a eurasian. like real eurasain. the portugese eurasian that took over malaysia. I think taht this article should really bring out the misconceptions of eurasian. I don't think that just because someone's parents is from europe and another one from asia is an eurasian. Thats just mixed blood. they can't really call themselves of eurasian ethicnity. they were just born. we on the other hand have been around for generations. i also read on the other talks about more misconceptions. And i think that this article should really clear the misconceptions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tperreau (talk • contribs) 13:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


I think there's two somewhat different understandings of the word Eurasian out there--one that refers to people like yourself and one which refers to what you call "just mixed blood". The first is concrete, while the second is more abstract; I do think it's something which needs to be clarified (I think it's what's behind a number of the disagreements here).

One could argue that your only real claim to greater authenticity is time--that is, originally your Eurasian ancestors were also once just "mixed blood". But I understand that you feel that since then it's developed a specific culture unto itself, and doesn't just refer to a general mix of two backgrounds.Critic9328 (talk) 01:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes but the "eurasian" culture of Malaysia would be different to that of Singapore and of Indonesia and anywhere else it might have sprung up over generations. There is no "concrete" definition. As for myself and many other "mixed bloods" here in Australia, perhaps we're the start of yet another strand of Eurasian culture. Though this is not the place to speculate, I'm simply pointing out the flaw in this argument. Primarch (talk) 13:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mess

This article is in an awful mess. Without better references I think a lot of it should just be deleted. I would rather see a factual stub here than the present mixture of original research, outdated racial biology, and out-and-out crap. I removed the two pictures as there was no evidence that either of them showed members of this supposed racial category. Any comments? --John (talk) 21:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I've started to trim out some of the worst excesses. We need to either reference or shorten everything here, or both. --John (talk) 19:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)