India IS part of the continent called Asia, but I never thought of them as "asian" -- can anyone clear this up for me?

 

It only makes sense. Plus ive seen plenty of asians with spikey died hair.

 

Sounds like a subjective topic. IMO, I wouldn't think so. By "Asian", I think of far east countries (i.e. china, japan, korea, etc.). With India, you're getting more inland. More importantly, Indians don't share some of the common "Asian" exterior characteristics (i.e. lighter skin, small eyes, etc.). Interesting conversation/argument though.

 

a little off topic...
alot of Russians look Asian but I think they're considered European.

 

No shit? I haven't run across any. Are you talking about people from mixed backgrounds? Or people who are 100% russian? Any pics? Just curious.

 

India is in asia, there for they are asians. But what about Pakistan, would you consider that more middle east-ish?

 

Yes Steve, so now you may date them

 

Not that simple. That's not what he meant; check out how asian is in quotations.

 

Im just looking it at from a literal point of view. Read his first post, its kind of unclear what hes asking. So i answered it from a literal POV.

 

Rolotomasu is correct in realizing that I put "asian" in quotes for a reason -- when the subject of ethnicity comes up, do natives of India call themselves asians? And... Saddam Hussein would never be thought of as asian, at least IMO. So I guess I was looking to see if there was a broad consensus (beyond my puny perception of real life) as to whether non-chinese-korean-japanese-indonesians-malaysians-thai-laotians-vietnamese ethnic groups considered "asian" even though they hail from the continent of Asia?