They are using “Asian” to describe Middle Easterners, who are actually Caucasian—hence, the same “race” as Europeans—the main difference being that Europeans have a Christian background, and Middle Easterners have a Muslim background.
My impression of actual Asians is that they are civilized people. South Korea and Japan are completely modern civilizations, and I certainly did not feel unsafe when I visited Korea.
Pakistanis—the main problem in the UK—are Caucasians from way back, but also Muslim. And, that’s the prime component of the English version of “Asian.”
I agree that Koreans, Japanese, and Chinese are more socially civilized in general (war behavior of the Japanese being an exception) than the typical Paki Asian.
“My impression of actual Asians is that they are civilized people. South Korea and Japan are completely modern civilizations, and I certainly did not feel unsafe when I visited Korea.”
I might even be wiling today to visit S. Korea, Japan, and China. As far as the Mideast is concerned, I’d pay a lot to avoid visiting any of that hideous part of the world.
Confusion upon confusion - you appear to be using the term ‘Middle Easterner’ to include people deriving from the Indian sub-continent. I gather this has been an increasing trend in US colloquial usage in recent years, whereas here in Britain the Middle East is never considered as extending any further Eastward than Iran. Conversely we would never use ‘Asian’ to describe people from the (British-sense) Middle East, who are simply described as ‘Middle Eastern’. And contrary to the widespread assumption on FR, the British usage ‘Asian’ doesn’t necessarily imply ‘Muslim’ - it includes Hindus, Buddhists, Christians and indeed anybody deriving from the Indian sub-continent.
In my youth the term ‘Near East’ was normally used for the countries of the Levant: but the Near East has long since vanished from general usage - as has the Levant, for that matter.
“I certainly did not feel unsafe when I visited SOUTH Korea.”
(fixed it for you :)