What about Russians, do you consider them asian? The thing is, short of ridiculously complicated, formalized definitions of all races, sub-races, and combinations you're going to have weirdness and misunderstandings. To most people, asian means China/Japan, and/or the accompanying facial-features that are predominant in those areas.

Are all people from Africa black? No, of course not. Are all people from America/Europe white? No, of course not.

So then, why do you want to define the "race" Asian using geography? When all others are based on skin-color/culture/identiy, for lack of a better way of simply-defining it.

At this point, I'm half-expecting someone to correct me about my definition/description of races. Or perhaps be told about some sort of already-formalized, government-endorsed definition of one of the races above that I got wrong.

Interesting... subcontinent is definitely part of Asia, but I would have expected criticism the other direction, that "Asian" lumps together too many really distinct groups, not concern that it was not inclusive enough.

Hmong households have slightly lower median incomes than the total US population, for instance.[0]

[0] http://www.hndinc.org/cmsAdmin/uploads/dlc/HND-Census-Report...

>"that "Asian" lumps together too many really distinct groups"

So does white/caucasian, and probably all the other race "colors" as well. I.e. They lump together many different geographically-isolated/defined peoples and cultures into one singular entity for simplicity. And then we're led to believe statistics that are somehow indicative of something regarding that "race".

Not sure if this includes Indian-American statistics, but Indian-Americans are the highest income group in US https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the_U...

It's the modern version of 'mongoloid' which has gone out of fashion.

Interestly enough, in the UK 'asian' refers strictly to people from India/Pakistan.

India is counted as Asian:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/05/11/the-challeng...