Amun Bains Journalist

Asia houses 4.75 billion human beings; a majority of the planet. To say the term “Asian” is vague is an understatement.

Historically, since significant migration of people from South Asia occurred in the mid 20th century in the UK the term “Asian” has been used to ethnically classify these people.

In the USA, “Asian” usually refers to people of East Asian descent.

There are issues that affect all people defined as “Asian” in the British sense of word – namely discrimination, identity issues and skin colour (sort of).

In the past, this made more sense because the racism was not about different religions or nationalities but quite overtly about being non-White.

This was understood so well that the concept of political Blackness came to be; people who classified themselves as minorities all defined themselves as “Black” in order to fight discrimination together.

In fact, Prime Minister Salisbury said of the first ever Indian MP in the UK, Dadabhai Naoroji in 1892 called him a “black man” undeserving of an Englishman’s vote.

The issue is that it blankets distinct cultures under one term, thus erasing them.

Also it just doesn’t make sense outside of classifying discrimination. Aside that one factor, people defined as “Asian” in the UK live completely differently.

It is understandable perhaps to say British Muslim/Hindu/Sikh etc because you get commonalities; going to the same religious buildings, similar cultural ideas etc.

However, “Asian” is patently ridiculous.

You could say, who cares? What does it matter? Well it absolutely matters because it can spread misinformation and block useful information.

Amnesty International UK has said in the past “Black and Asian people are more likely to live in poverty”. That isn’t true.

What we are talking about is Black British people and British Pakistanis and Bangladeshis. I don’t say this to spread any agenda but facts matter. British Indians and Chinese are consistently some of the highest earners and most educated.

There was also instances where other Asian groups became irritated such as when British Indians complained about the classification of “Asian grooming gangs”.

I don’t think the media should be mentioning ethnicity at all as it isn’t relevant but if you’re going to do it, at least get it right.

There is also so much talk about ‘representation’ these days. I don’t disagree but you can’t do that if you classify 4bn people as the same.

Companies, media organisations could essentially get away with employing or making shows for only British Sri Lankans as an example, then pretend they completed the work for “Asian” representation.

The same argument can be made for Black individuals; I think the culture and history of the Windrush is very different to any other. That deserves some kind of acknowledgement.

As I said, when talking about racism it makes sense. I have personally used it in the past because I have discussed the issue of a lack of representation for “South Asians” in football because, in that very specific case, the issue is universal. However these are exceptions not the rule.

Also, even “Asians” don’t want it or believe in it. British Sikhs have a distinct culture and after the 1984 Sikh genocide especially, have legitimate reason to refuse any Asian or even Indian label.

They have their own media; Baaz News for the Sikhs, 5 Pillars for Muslims, Hindu Matters in Britain.

The idea of a “British Asian” doesn’t exist outside the realm of discussing discrimination and so the media and large organisations should stop using it.