I commented on
level_head's "
Euphemisms for Jihadists":
"Asian" is one of those continent-based racial descriptions that actually describes very little. An "Asian" person may be Caucasian, Mongoloid or Negrito: within the "Caucasian" category he may be of European, Indian or Semitic ancestry.
When the British press describes a perp as "Asian" all they are saying is that he is neither of native British nor Negro origin. Given that Britain has sizable Indian, Pakistani and Chinese immigrant communities, the reader is given a choice of three likely ethnic origins.
This confusion is entirely intentional on the part of the communicators. Said communicators should reflect, however, that they do not have a monopoly on information presentation, and that while their deliberate vagueness may accomplish their ideological ends, it may also be reducing their own market shares.
Furthermore, it may boomerang. Their audience may come to assume that "Asian" only means "Pakistani," and wind up blaming Pakistanis for crimes committed by Chinese or Indian perpetrators as well!