Asian? Yes. How about Pakistani? Or is speaking the truth racism? This thread is a critique of the compulsive ambiguity practiced by the British Press when referring to crimes generally committed by people of Pakistani origin in the UK. Why do they not call a spade a spade? Take this statement for example: "Asian and white youths get into a brawl resulting in 4 dead." Now what is one supposed to interpret? Who could be these Whites? English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish, German, Dutch, French, Russian, et al.? Who could be these Asians? Kazakhs, Mongols, Indians, Nepalese, Chinese, Vietnamese, Japanese, et al.? So what exactly happened? A bunch of Japanese got into a fight with a bunch of Germans? A bunch of Indians got into a fight with a bunch of Russians? A bunch of Kazakhs got into a fight with a bunch of French? <there are many possibilities> No. It almost certainly involves Pakistanis. Then why this gross generalization under the term Asian? Why can't we say instead that "two groups of homo sapiens got into a fight?" Or better, "two groups of living organisms of the animal kingdom got into a fight?" Or to make it embarrassingly naÃ¯ve, "two groups of autonomous locomotory objects got into a fight?" Beats me! Asian? Yes. How about Pakistani? Or is speaking the truth racism? Asian sex gang: young girls betrayed by our fear of racism Rochdale grooming trial: Police accused of failing to investigate paedophile gang for fear of appearing racist [HR][/HR] My focus is on the British Press. Why are they using the term 'Asian?'