South[/b] 1,469,128,859 38.84%
Southeast 524,411,561 13.86%
East 1,514,834,136 40.05%
Central 55,266,730 1.46%
West 178,138,123 4.71%
Other 40,507,888 1.07%
Total 3,782,287,297 100.00%

Numbers from Wikipedia numbers

Note1: For countries who are transcontinental only Asian portions have been added
Note2: Despite the fact that Tibet is South Asian, its population has been added to that of the PRC
Note3: UNESCO definitions for regions of Asia have been applied

Note4: Other refers to the Asian parts of Egypt and Russia

Ok now look at this. Eastern Asian only makes up 1.21% more of the population than South Asia does. Also take into consideration that the People's Republic of China unfairly captured and annexed Tibet, a country who has been historically viewed to be SOUTH ASIAN. Tibet makes up a good portion of what is the PRC. If the UN bothered to do something regarding Tibet, South Asia would be the majority region of Asia

So now whenever some idiot tells you the Indians are not Asian you have proof against them
XLS file containing all the math is here:

http://geocities.com/superiorhominid/files/asia.xls
http://geocities.com/superiorhominid/files/asia.pdf

South[/b] 1,469,128,859 38.84%
Southeast 524,411,561 13.86%
East 1,514,834,136 40.05%
Central 55,266,730 1.46%
West 178,138,123 4.71%
Other 40,507,888 1.07%
Total 3,782,287,297 100.00%

Numbers from Wikipedia numbers

Note1: For countries who are transcontinental only Asian portions have been added
Note2: Despite the fact that Tibet is South Asian, its population has been added to that of the PRC
Note3: UNESCO definitions for regions of Asia have been applied

Note4: Other refers to the Asian parts of Egypt and Russia

Ok now look at this. Eastern Asian only makes up 1.21% more of the population than South Asia does. Also take into consideration that the People's Republic of China unfairly captured and annexed Tibet, a country who has been historically viewed to be SOUTH ASIAN. Tibet makes up a good portion of what is the PRC. If the UN bothered to do something regarding Tibet, South Asia would be the majority region of Asia

So now whenever some idiot tells you the Indians are not Asian you have proof against them
XLS file containing all the math is here:

http://geocities.com/superiorhominid/files/asia.xls
http://geocities.com/superiorhominid/files/asia.pdf

Tibet is not south asian and yes it does represent part of the PRC. Remember this, we are not laughing with you, we are laughing at you.

*The Northeast India states of Nagaland, Assam, Manipur, Tripura, Meghalaya, Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram are culturally and geographically part of Southeast Asia. China is actually divided across four of the five geo-regions of Asia. Tibet has been governed by China since 1959, but is historically considered part of South Asia.

CSAS seeks to develop and advance the scholarly study of the region conventionally known as South Asia, comprising the nations of India, Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, Tibet and the Maldives. The research activities encompassed include the social sciences, the humanities, and relevant professional fields.

South Asia and the Tibetans of Tibet

On the map, Tibet is part of Central, East and South Asia. But, even as the rest of South Asia neglects Tibet, changes are afoot in the high plateau, brought about by a surge in economic activity and demographic shifts. With upcoming rail and highway links, the knot with the Chinese mainland is set to be that much tighter. The South Asian mainland has ignored its Tibetan hinterland, if we may call it that, forgetting the close geographical proximity (the Himalayan divide is no longer the barrier it once was) and historical links of culture and economy. True, India, Nepal and Bhutan have provided refuge to Tibetan exiles, but otherwise South Asia has sacrificed Tibet to China. Even in terms of hardheaded long-term strategic, cultural and economic cost-benefit considerations, this seems foolish. When the economic exploitation of Tibet begins in earnest, will we find that a better appreciation of Tibet, even as, if necessary, a singular entity with the People's Republic, would have served 'South Asian' interests better? We tend to think of Tibet only in relation to the Himalayan rimland, but remember that it is inextricably linked to the Pakistani Punjab by the Karakoram highway, and is but a day's drive from Rangpur in north Bangladesh if you take the road up from Siliguri.

Himal has had its gaze away from the 'trans-Himalaya' since it converted from a Himalayan to a South Asian magazine in the spring of 1996. With this issue's special focus on Tibet and the Tibetans of Tibet (rather than the relatively small number living in exile), we are correcting this oversight. Himal hopes to continue to cover Tibet in the days to come, regarding it as much a part of South Asia as any other.

What and where is South Asia? South Asia is the name given to the region of the Indian subcontinent. It includes the countries of Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Nepal, the Maldive Islands, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka. Culturally, if not geographically, Tibet is sometimes also considered part of South Asia.

# The University of Wisconsin at Madison's South Asia Summer Language Institute (SASLI) offers courses in eleven languages: Bengali, Gujarati, Hindi, Malayalam, Marathi, Nepali, Sanskrit, Tamil, Telugu, Tibetan, and Urdu. General information is available at: http://www.wisc.edu/sasli.
# American Institute of Indian Studies (AIIS) will offer courses in Hindi, Bengali, Tamil, Telugu, Marathi, Urdu, Malayalam, Sanskrit, Pali and Prakrit at various Indian locations during the summer of 2006. This year, AIIS is also introducing a second-year intermediate Hindi course. For details and applications, see: http://www.indiastudies.org/AIIS.html.
# Cornell University will offer Nepali language instruction during the summer of 2006. General information is available at: http://www.einaudi.cornell.edu/southasia/; a description of the Nepali program is available at: http://lrc.cornell.edu/asian/programs/summer/nepali.
# University of California, Santa Barbara, as part of its summer program in Punjab studies, offers Punjabi in Chandigarh. Details are available at: http://www.global.ucsb.edu/projects/punjab/home.htm.
# Harvard University will offer beginning Hindi and beginning Sanskrit during the summer of 2006. For course listings and registration information, see: http://www.summer.harvard.edu.
# University of California , Berkeley will offer Hindi during the summer of 2006. For details, see: http://summer.berkeley.edu/mainsite/index.lasso.
# University of Virginia will offer Tibetan during the summer of 2006. For details, see: http://www.virginia.edu/summer/SLI/tibetan.html.
# Indiana University Summer Workshop in Slavic, East European and Central Asian Languages will offer Pashto during the summer of 2006. Details about this program are available at: http://www.indiana.edu/~iuslavic/swseel/languages/asia.shtml.
# The Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS)at John Hopkins University, Washington, D.C., will offer Hindi-Urdu during the summer of 2006. Details are available at: http://www.sais-jhu.edu/nondegree/summer/sli.htm.

Tibet occupies a strategic location in Asia and has historically played a role in maintaining peace in Central and South Asia

India alone will beat the rest of Asia someday

According to the UN, Iran & Afghanistan are also apart of Southern Asia. If you include those countries, Southern Asia has a population of 1,563,507,338 (not including Tibet), making it the most populated region in Asia, and the world.

tibetans look more east asian than south asian..

LOL but indians aren't even considered part of Asia

As for you, your're an idiot. You're on an Indian Forum on an Asian website... If we weren't Asian this forum wouldn't be here...

thats what I was thinking too...why is there an indian forum in an asian website...LOL

LOL but indians aren't even considered part of Asia

Last time I checked, India was a part of asia. I don't know what kind of $hitty map of earth you're reading.

In American when you hear asian you think of east asians because they were the first asians to come to American but in the U.K, people think of Indians as asians and call east asians oriental.

What are you doing in this section anyways? You don't like Indians or what?
Well, thats a damn motherfu-king shame and I hope that changes soon. Maybe that only works in America, where east asians are thought of as the only asians, which is motherfu-king retarded.

So lemme guess, you think of Indians as african or middle eastern? LOL!!!

Dont respond to him, he's ejay, the troll. {JV PPS}

@ Superhumanid--good post. Interesting read.

I think middle-eastern people are closely related ethnically to indians. Heck Heck middle eastern people have as much right to be called asian as indians do if ur talking about being called asian due to geography.

is that what u call people who don't agree with u knowadays

My number included Iran and Afghanistan already

LOL but indians aren't even considered part of Asia

I think middle-eastern people are closely related ethnically to indians. Heck Heck middle eastern people have as much right to be called asian as indians do if ur talking about being called asian due to geography.

LOL but indians aren't even considered part of Asia

cool. its really true that south asia is the majority. but many from the east juz dont consider south asia as part of asia.

what do u guys think of this idea that i have??

what i suggest is separate south asia from the original asia as a separate continent juz like north america and south america soo this confusion of whom and which is asian is cleared. so there will be the separate continent of south asia and the separate continent of east- south east asia. what do u guys think??

u think its good idea or not?? do u think it will benefit?? i have no idea, i juz wanna get ur feedback.

tibetans look more east asian than south asian..

what do u guys think of this idea that i have??[/b]

what i suggest is separate south asia from the original asia as a separate continent juz like north america and south america soo this confusion of whom and which is asian is cleared. so there will be the separate continent of south asia and the separate continent of east- south east asia. what do u guys think??

u think its good idea or not?? do u think it will benefit?? i have no idea, i juz wanna get ur feedback.

cool. its really true that south asia is the majority. but many from the east juz dont consider south asia as part of asia.

what do u guys think of this idea that i have??

what i suggest is separate south asia from the original asia as a separate continent juz like north america and south america soo this confusion of whom and which is asian is cleared. so there will be the separate continent of south asia and the separate continent of east- south east asia. what do u guys think??

u think its good idea or not?? do u think it will benefit?? i have no idea, i juz wanna get ur feedback.

blah blah blah......doesnt matter when you all look the same....joking!!!!!
please dont take that seriously.

No offence, but that is utterly stupid

South East Asia is culturally closer to South Asia that East Asia and East Asia is GENETICALLY closer to South Asia than it is to Southeast Asia
It is purely asanine

blah blah blah......doesnt matter when you all look the same....joking!!!!!
please dont take that seriously.

How is East Asia genetically closer to South Asia than it is to Southeast Asia?

It's only the Himalayan regions of South Asia that may be genetically closer to East Asia but otherwise East Asia is genetically closer to Southeast Asia.
Blah blah blah...... all you Brits look the same!

Oh wait, I am a Brit.

im irish....independance since 1916.
btw your wrinting in soap opera thread is superb!

How is East Asia genetically closer to South Asia than it is to Southeast Asia?

It's only the Himalayan regions of South Asia that may be genetically closer to East Asia but otherwise East Asia is genetically closer to Southeast Asia.
Blah blah blah...... all you Brits look the same!

Oh wait, I am a Brit.

According to the Human Species (2003), East Asians generally are more genetically similar to the South Asians than to Southeast Asians, because the Far East and the Indian Subcontinent are members of the Eurasian branch while Southeast Asians (including south Chinese) are members or the Oceanic branch. More interestingly, Asians have very local genetic clusters inside these regions, implying different Asian ethnic groups have not historically interbred with each other. Examples of localized genetic clusters include Japan, Korea, Mongolia and China which form separate genetic clusters from each other.[11][12]