Fashion designer uses only Asian models at New York Fashion Week show

[ookii]

The features on the models are too strong. Koreans and japanese women have softer features so generally most men prefer them over other asian groups although most korean and japanese women look too similiar with one another as opposed to the chinese. Maybe because some of them went to the same plastic surgeon

 

[panamaican]

When people use the term Asians, they are not typically referring to Indians. Honestly, when Asians talk about Asians, they are not talking about Indians either. When people talk about Indians, they use the word Indians. I think it's kinda lame if anybody's takeaway from this event was, "Ha, gotcha! You didn't get any Indians and technically they are Asian too!" It's just so bizarre to me that people automatically look to criticize things like this instead of taking for it for what it obviously was meant to be.

See, your paragraph is representative of the point.

If the claim is to showcase Asian diversity and buck te stereotypes then it's implied that the range of Asian appearances is important. People who live on the Indian subcontinent are Asian. It's actually more of a stereotype to exclude them from that definition. Not the psychos who claim that Italians or Greeks are not "white" because they're not from Western Europe. India is in Asia. Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshi, Malaysians, Nepalese, etc. are Asian.

I wouldn't criticize it personally but I wouldn't claim to showcase Asian diversity if I was only showcasing East Asian diversity. It's easy enough to just say "East Asian diversity".

It's far more bizarre, to me, to say "Yeah, I know Indians are Asian but it's okay to exclude them because stereotypically we don't include them." Chalk it up to an honest mistake, that's fair. But claiming it's not a valid point at all is not true.

 

[Sketch]

Apparently people are unhappy with the fact that she did not include Indians?

I think the point she was out to make is pretty clear. I think our culture has gotten really pathetic with this nitpicking and complaining.

While I understand Indians are in Asia, people will never consider Indians Asian. It's like they have their own category. Just an observation.

 

[helltoupee]

See, your paragraph is representative of the point.

If the claim is to showcase Asian diversity and buck te stereotypes then it's implied that the range of Asian appearances is important. People who live on the Indian subcontinent are Asian. It's actually more of a stereotype to exclude them from that definition. Not the psychos who claim that Italians or Greeks are not "white" because they're not from Western Europe. India is in Asia. Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshi, Malaysians, Nepalese, etc. are Asian.

I wouldn't criticize it personally but I wouldn't claim to showcase Asian diversity if I was only showcasing East Asian diversity. It's easy enough to just say "East Asian diversity".

It's far more bizarre, to me, to say "Yeah, I know Indians are Asian but it's okay to exclude them because stereotypically we don't include them." Chalk it up to an honest mistake, that's fair. But claiming it's not a valid point at all is not true.

Maybe by "asians", the director of the event meant mongoloids, and not caucasians?

 

[panamaican]

Maybe by "asians", the director of the event meant mongoloids, and not caucasians?

Well, I can see why she wouldn't say that, lol. Like I said I don't think it's particularly important in the grand scheme of things. But it is something I'm more cognizant of these days - amusingly when I fill out paperwork for my half-Indian kid, I'm supposed to include Asian in those checkbox sections. My wife is very particular.

 

[MicroBrew]

You don't think it is ridiculous to look at a fashion show with a vast variety of Asian women with all different features and skin tones and harp on the fact there wasn't an Indian woman there?

Leaving aside dark skinned South Asians, the models pictured aren't even dark skinned South East Asians. The 'dark; ones are not that dark, just a tad bit tanned. And all those models have narrow noses, whereas there are plenty of women in East Asia with broader noses.

The point is that claiming to promote diversity in the West, the designer is still sticking to racist Asian biases.

 

[nac386]

See, your paragraph is representative of the point.

If the claim is to showcase Asian diversity and buck te stereotypes then it's implied that the range of Asian appearances is important. People who live on the Indian subcontinent are Asian. It's actually more of a stereotype to exclude them from that definition. Not the psychos who claim that Italians or Greeks are not "white" because they're not from Western Europe. India is in Asia. Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshi, Malaysians, Nepalese, etc. are Asian.

I wouldn't criticize it personally but I wouldn't claim to showcase Asian diversity if I was only showcasing East Asian diversity. It's easy enough to just say "East Asian diversity".

It's far more bizarre, to me, to say "Yeah, I know Indians are Asian but it's okay to exclude them because stereotypically we don't include them." Chalk it up to an honest mistake, that's fair. But claiming it's not a valid point at all is not true.

It's not a malicious exclusion though, and that is where I think it's a bit ridiculous to make it a point of contention. Indians do not include themselves in a group with East Asians either. I know you are married to an Indian woman. Does she commonly refer to herself as Asian? Or her Indian friends and family as Asians? I dated a girl with Indian heritage for several years (she was from Trinidad), and she never used the word "Asian" to describe herself, and people asked her about her ethnicity constantly (like almost daily).

And the point made in the OP was not just that there were no Indians. He claimed there were no South East Asians or darker skinned Asians, which is not a good point at all. Looking at the pictures, there appears to be several.

 

[MicroBrew]

But the very first sentence says she used "East Asian" models. Does that not imply she was making a point about East Asia and not India? Or was that the OP's line? It's hard to tell.

But either way, would it somehow be a problem if she was not talking about India, a subcontinent that is not typically associated with East Asians at all? I just feel like it's such a lame and whiny thing to even mention.

The SubContinent is part of Asia. In America people typically assume Asian = East Asian, but this designer is from New Zealand. In Britain , Asian = Indian/Pakistani/other South Asians. Australia and NZ are heavily influenced by Britain. I don't know where the Aussies and Kiwis exclusively use "Asian" to denote East Asians ; @Ruprecht could tell us. If they do, then it is understandable that she didn't feature any South Asians, but what's the reason for no dark skinned South East Asians ?

And even in the US, South Asians are classified as Asian. The designer said "Asian group" , not "East Asian" or "Far Eastern" or "Oriental" . And Oriental isn't a slur; it is used in Britain to describe Far Eastern peoples and no one considered it a slur.

 

[nac386]

Leaving aside dark skinned South Asians, the models pictured aren't even dark skinned South East Asians. The 'dark; ones are not that dark, just a tad bit tanned. And all those models have narrow noses, whereas there are plenty of women in East Asia with broader noses.

The point is that claiming to promote diversity in the West, the designer is still sticking to racist Asian biases.

The women pictured are not all beautiful by stereotypical Asian standards at all. I think you guys are being ridiculous.

 

[MicroBrew]

It's not a malicious exclusion though, and that is where I think it's a bit ridiculous to make it a point of contention. Indians do not include themselves in a group with East Asians either. I know you are married to an Indian woman. Does she commonly refer to herself as Asian? Or her Indian friends and family as Asians? I dated a girl with Indian heritage for several years (she was from Trinidad), and she never used the word "Asian" to describe herself, and people asked her about her ethnicity constantly (like almost daily).

And the point made in the OP was not just that there were no Indians. He claimed there were no South East Asians or darker skinned Asians, which is not a good point at all. Looking at the pictures, there appears to be several.

There are fair skinned South East Asians, so my point was not that she didn't include South East Asians, my point was that she didn't feature dark skinned South East Asians.

 

[nac386]

There are fair skinned South East Asians, so my point was not that she didn't include South East Asians, my point was that she didn't feature dark skinned South East Asians.

Your point is terrible, because several of them have darker skin and their noses are all different shapes.

 

[MicroBrew]

The women pictured are not all beautiful by stereotypical Asian standards at all. I think you guys are being ridiculous.

But that comment can also be levied at many Western models, that they are beautiful by traditional standards. She does deserve credit for not predominantly featuring the soft feminine youngish face that is ubiquitous in Korean soaps and K-Pop. But racism in East Asia against dark skinned and South East Asians is well known, so it would have been nice of her to feature some dark skinned S.E.Asians.

 

[MicroBrew]

Your point is terrible, because several of them have darker skin and their noses are all different shapes.

None of them are all that dark, tanned yes, but not really dark.

 

[nac386]

None of them are all that dark, tanned yes, but not really dark.

Ridiculous. Here is the stereotypical light skin that is often desired in Asia.

Spoiler

And here are some of the models she used:

Spoiler

She did something interesting, was mostly successful with it, and your first instinct is to say she didn't find dark enough people? Come on.

 

[MicroBrew]

Ridiculous. Here is the stereotypical light skin that is often desired in Asia.

Spoiler

And here are some of the models she used:

Spoiler

She did something interesting, was mostly successful with it, and your first instinct is to say she didn't find dark enough people? Come on.

Yes she does deserve credit for featuring models who don't look like K-pop stars, but there are much more darker people in S.E. Asian. It's a bit like how some Western media or modelling agencies featured Blacks to show they were not racist, but they choose lighter skinned Blacks, and ones who had somewhat sharp features. While it's good they featured any Blacks, but even they didn't want dark skinned Blacks.

 

[panamaican]

It's not a malicious exclusion though, and that is where I think it's a bit ridiculous to make it a point of contention. Indians do not include themselves in a group with East Asians either. I know you are married to an Indian woman. Does she commonly refer to herself as Asian? Or her Indian friends and family as Asians? I dated a girl with Indian heritage for several years (she was from Trinidad), and she never used the word "Asian" to describe herself, and people asked her about her ethnicity constantly (like almost daily).

And the point made in the OP was not just that there were no Indians. He claimed there were no South East Asians or darker skinned Asians, which is not a good point at all. Looking at the pictures, there appears to be several.

I agree that it's not malicious. And while Indians do not consider themselves part of East Asians, they do consider themselves Asian - Southeast Asian.

And, yes, my wife refers to herself as Asian, SEA. She's the one who brought it to my attention - threw me off the 1st time she did it. That and having a half-Indian kid and having to check those ethnicity boxes all the time. I check "Asian", among other things, for him because that's the box that's often used for Indians when they don't have an Indian only box (he has "Overseas Citizen of India" status as the child of an Indian citizen so it matters for some documents).

And she's not alone. There are plenty of Southeast Asian professional organizations filled with Indians who see themselves the same way. I'm not surprised that a Trini doesn't consider herself Asian (my mom's maternal uncle was Trini); West Indians view themselves very differently than similar ethnic groups on other continents.

I looked through the pictures and I agree with the OP. I don't think there were any SEA or dark skinned Asians either. The closest I saw looked like someone with a tan.

But, again, I agree there's nothing malicious in play.

 

[Ruprecht]

The SubContinent is part of Asia. In America people typically assume Asian = East Asian, but this designer is from New Zealand. In Britain , Asian = Indian/Pakistani/other South Asians. Australia and NZ are heavily influenced by Britain. I don't know where the Aussies and Kiwis exclusively use "Asian" to denote East Asians ; @Ruprecht could tell us. If they do, then it is understandable that she didn't feature any South Asians, but what's the reason for no dark skinned South East Asians ?

And even in the US, South Asians are classified as Asian. The designer said "Asian group" , not "East Asian" or "Far Eastern" or "Oriental" . And Oriental isn't a slur; it is used in Britain to describe Far Eastern peoples and no one considered it a slur.

Colloquially, "Asian" means East Asian (although South East Asians like the Vietnamese, Thai and Cambodians might be included in context), and groups from the Indian subcontinent (or even Malays) are likely to be called "Indian". Pacific Islanders would be another regional/racial/ethnic grouping.
I believe it's the same in New Zealand.

Seems like a non-issue to me. Not just because it's a fashion show, but also because (according to the interview in the article in the OP) the "diversity" she was aiming to show was juxtaposed with Asian stereotypes of personality and beauty. It wasn't supposed to be representing every racial, ethnic, national or geographic group in Asia.

 

[mixcontactsport]

See, your paragraph is representative of the point.

If the claim is to showcase Asian diversity and buck te stereotypes then it's implied that the range of Asian appearances is important. People who live on the Indian subcontinent are Asian. It's actually more of a stereotype to exclude them from that definition. Not the psychos who claim that Italians or Greeks are not "white" because they're not from Western Europe. India is in Asia. Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshi, Malaysians, Nepalese, etc. are Asian.

I wouldn't criticize it personally but I wouldn't claim to showcase Asian diversity if I was only showcasing East Asian diversity. It's easy enough to just say "East Asian diversity".

It's far more bizarre, to me, to say "Yeah, I know Indians are Asian but it's okay to exclude them because stereotypically we don't include them." Chalk it up to an honest mistake, that's fair. But claiming it's not a valid point at all is not true.

Most of East Indians genetically are closer to White people. They identify more with White people physically than they do other Asians. They don't have a bamboo ceiling like East and South East Asians do. They can go farther in America than their Asian peers. They are brown skin not yellow. They have little to no Mongoloid genes. Samoans, Filipinos, heck even native Americans may not be considered East Asians, but they at least have some Mongoloid genetics. It's like labeling Middle-Easterners Black, because some of their Countries are in Africa, better yet, imagine White South Africans being labeled African-American in America? That just don't happen. It's unfair labeling, that only applies to Asians. America has a race base class divide that's bigger than what's generally perceived in the Media. I honestly don't care about equality, I just don't like liars, and the American Media is the biggest, fattest liar of them all.

 

[panamaican]

Most of East Indians genetically are closer to White people. They identify more with White people physically than they do other Asians. They don't have a bamboo ceiling like East and South East Asians do. They can go farther in America than their Asian peers. They are brown skin not yellow. They have little to no Mongoloid genes. Samoans, Filipinos, heck even native Americans may not be considered East Asians, but they at least have some Mongoloid genetics. It's like labeling Middle-Easterners Black, because some of their Countries are in Africa, better yet, imagine White South Africans being labeled African-American in America? That just don't happen. It's unfair labeling, that only applies to Asians. America has a race base class divide that's bigger than what's generally perceived in the Media. I honestly don't care about equality, I just don't like liars, and the American Media is the biggest, fattest liar of them all.

That's kind of convoluted. I'll simplify it for you. India is on the continent of Asia. Indians are Asians on the U.S. Census. Genetically, while they have some European in their ancestry, they are still majority Asian in origin - Central and West Asian.

The rest of your post kind of doesn't make sense in the context of my post so I'm not sure what point you're making.

 

[mixcontactsport]

That's kind of convoluted. I'll simplify it for you. India is on the continent of Asia. Indians are Asians on the U.S. Census. Genetically, while they have some European in their ancestry, they are still majority Asian in origin - Central and West Asian.

The rest of your post kind of doesn't make sense in the context of my post so I'm not sure what point you're making.

If you know me by history, you know what I'm talking about. Indians may be Asians, but they aren't Yellow people. People like you get the two confused.