<p>Who does better on standardized testing?</p>
<p>both do very well. too close to tell who does better.</p>
<p>if you are talking about native americans, then it's asians.</p>
<p>i hope ur not saying asian indians vs asians because that is very insulting. india is very much part of asia. indians are asians. if you would like to differentiate between the chinese and indians or the koreans and indians, please do so. but dont place indians as though they are a seperate category.</p>
<p>is Turkey is Asia or Europe?</p>
<p>It's neither...
It's just a pariah</p>
<p>No, joking, I think Turkey is more middle east. They have the same religion and other folklores</p>
<p>but the middel east isn't a continent</p>
<p>the middle east is part of asia. in fact, the middle east is sometimes called west asia although rarely.</p>
<p>How about Europe and Africa?</p>
<p>india vs. east asia
east asia wins all the time</p>
<p>"that is very insulting."</p>
<p>i hope your not one of those people that gets really angry when somebody mistakes a japanese person for a chinese person. its gonna happen, expect it. to most people in america you look too close to call a difference on it.</p>
<p>the distinction is larger between people from india, and people from other countries which people group as asian... i think the thread starter is considering asians as people from china or japan or laos or a place where the people have the characteristics of being more asian-race-looking.</p>
<p>geographically you can argue india is part of asia, but so is russia. its like if there was a topic called "who does better on SATs, Russians or Asians", and i wouldnt get angry and offensive and say "oh i hope your not saying russia isnt a part of asia, because that is very insulting!"</p>
<p>lets play a little game called indian or asian (racially not geographically):</p>
<p>indian or asian?
<a href="http://www.nicksanders.com/Indian%20man%20day%2075.jpg%5B/url%5D">http://www.nicksanders.com/Indian%20man%20day%2075.jpg</a></p>
<p>indian or asian?
<a href="http://www.newenergy.com/vcmfiles/NewEnergy/Images/asian_man6.jpg%5B/url%5D">http://www.newenergy.com/vcmfiles/NewEnergy/Images/asian_man6.jpg</a></p>
<p>indian or asian?
<a href="http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20040304/capt.sge.pxz06.040304141957.photo00.default-206x300.jpg%5B/url%5D">http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20040304/capt.sge.pxz06.040304141957.photo00.default-206x300.jpg</a></p>
<p>How about mistaking a man from Sweden for a man from China?</p>
<p>Are these the answers to your pop quiz?</p>
<p>Indian
Asian
both</p>
<p>A man from Sweden could have parents from China and hence appear Chinese.</p>
<p>There really should be better ways to distinguish between location of birth and race. These two kinds of origins are mixed on such things as college applications (Black is a race, Asian is person from a location).</p>
<p>How about a man from China with blond, curly hair.</p>
<p>o god, get over race; it exists.</p>
<p>Race exists, so does place of birth. We just need to distinguish between the two.</p>
<p>I think we all know the story of the white man whose family lived in Africa for generations, and who put "African-American" on his scholarship application.</p>
<p>In fact, in a sense "African American" "Asian American" &c. &c. are all stereotypes. They are generalizations that associate a specific race with a specific location(s). We know very well that a person doesn't have to originate from a certain location to be of a certain race. People think that these new classifications are a step forward from the old "Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid" system, but by using location-race stereotypes aren't they really a step backward?</p>
<p>Asians are better at Math. Indians better @ bio.</p>
<p>Both are good in Math neither is good in English lol</p>
<p>well, some Indians could be very proficient in English because of British relations....</p>
<p>both want to be white lol</p>