I still giggle when my dad calls them "orientals" - but in this case, maybe it is a more useful term to separate SE Asians from Middle East or Russia-ish
UK cops already do, and this is the source of the confusion (on the US side. We are not in the slightest confused, no-one thinks Oriental when someone here says Asian).
Paki is a pejorative, so unlike Indians, we can't use that either.
Recording this code in interactions is required under section 95 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991
IC1 Nordic - Native British, Scandinavian, German, etc.
IC2 Mediterranean - South European, e.g. Spanish, Italian or Greek
IC3 Black - Sub-Saharan African or Afro-Caribbean
IC4 Indian Subcontinent - South Asian
IC5 Far East e.g. Chinese, Korean, Japanese, or Southeast Asian
IC6 West Asia or North Africa
IC9 Unknown
So by the time it gets to the papers, the writers use the descriptive part, not the code.
At the 2011 census we had about 6% IC4 and 1% IC5, in the US those numbers are the other way around.
So it makes sense for you to use "Asian" to mean IC5 and us to use "Asian" to mean IC4
The other races are not so common here. We would just use "East European" to mean anyone from the Baltics to the Chinese border.
I still giggle when my dad calls them "orientals" - but in this case, maybe it is a more useful term to separate SE Asians from Middle East or Russia-ish
UK cops already do, and this is the source of the confusion (on the US side. We are not in the slightest confused, no-one thinks Oriental when someone here says Asian).
Paki is a pejorative, so unlike Indians, we can't use that either.
Recording this code in interactions is required under section 95 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991
IC1 Nordic - Native British, Scandinavian, German, etc.
IC2 Mediterranean - South European, e.g. Spanish, Italian or Greek
IC3 Black - Sub-Saharan African or Afro-Caribbean
IC4 Indian Subcontinent - South Asian
IC5 Far East e.g. Chinese, Korean, Japanese, or Southeast Asian
IC6 West Asia or North Africa
IC9 Unknown
So by the time it gets to the papers, the writers use the descriptive part, not the code.
At the 2011 census we had about 6% IC4 and 1% IC5, in the US those numbers are the other way around.
So it makes sense for you to use "Asian" to mean IC5 and us to use "Asian" to mean IC4
The other races are not so common here. We would just use "East European" to mean anyone from the Baltics to the Chinese border.
Aren't your papers often using "Asian" for IC6?
I wouldn't know, I stopped reading them a long time ago.
I imagine Syrians might get lumped into Asian.
The journos now aren't exactly fact finders
Where do the Slavs fit in to all of this?
IC1 I guess