I find it very surprising that the term "Asian" lives in this twilight zone where nobody is sure if it includes India, the second largest country in the region.
For the SAT distribution tables, the term Asian includes Indians I assume, while the following table from the German professor does not break out India. smh.
They absolutely are for demographic purposes, even though the typical American will think of East Asians if you say something like "there's an Asian boy in my class"
You are wrong. 'Caucasian' is used to classify white Europeans.
The US Government defines 'Asians' as 'having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam.'[0]
lots of anecdata there -- the division in the US politically between former slave-owning states and those opposed to slavery, and their vacillating political power, definitely adds to the extreme cases listed here. Plenty of classification and census work counts the majority of people with Indian Sub-continent history as "caucasian" . Those with the reverse axe to grind, spying racists everywhere, will emphasize the unjust and archaic examples. In the demography work I saw with my own eyes, people from the Indian Sub-continent were counted as "caucasian" without question.
not interested in partial arguments that can be misquoted by extremists on either side of this.
The US Census Bureau have been categorising Indians as Asians for more than 20 years. I'm not interested in any racial discussion, just stating how they are classified as.
For the SAT distribution tables, the term Asian includes Indians I assume, while the following table from the German professor does not break out India. smh.