"

The uneducated layman definition? I'm talking about perceived race. And most americans are intelligent enough (though that may be debatable) to realize that south asians and east asians are racially and culturally distinct. What does it matter that a few high brows at some obscure institutions go about claiming what is which, when the general population has a clear image of what an asian is? An asian to those people have pale skin with a yellowish tint and slanted eyes. And where is your ""authoritative source"" on this ridiculous aryan invasion of east asia? Is this a joke? East asians are a mix of altaic mongoloid peoples and sino-tibetans, there is nothing from south asia. However there were many mongol invasions of India so maybe there are some blood relations there, since the mongols were known for their barbarity and rapes. When americans talk of indians, they will never link them to any other asian people or claim them to be asian. Indian americans are indian, nothing more nothing less. But hey, if you are going to call indians ""asians' I want to also include in this taxonomically worthless term, all the israelis jews, all the persians, all the arabs and all the other races we may have missed. And yes East Asia is ""somewhat disparate"" compared to South Asia because they are racially and culturally completely different, the relationship between south asia and east asia is near zero. Anyhow this is all irrelevant, my original point was that the ""asian"" as defined by this article should be changed from ethnic based term to another. Here is my source: ""Asian American—An umbrella term referring to Asians in the U.S. and covering a broad range of ethnic backgrounds (East Asian, South Asian, Southeast Asian)"" This is quoted from the University of Illinois, the Asian American Resource and Cultural Center. Asian American is an umbrella term and has no implications in race or ethnicity. -  "