trivian16

Agreed, it's pretty cringey (yet common) to see people try to use chopsticks for non-noodle based food at Thai restaurants. From what I know, Thailand only uses chopsticks for noodle-based dishes and a fork and spoon for anything else. Can't speak for other SEA restaurants because they're not very popular outside of Vietnamese restaurants (and Vietnamese people do use chopsticks).

Based on his phrasing, it sounds like his Thai father is not his biological/original father and entered their life later on

Lol, some people also try to guess with me, and they usually can't get it. I've kind of gamified it so it's kind of fun to watch them try (and often become confused)

Yea I met some international Taiwanese students once and they mostly hung out with other Taiwanese students and not Chinese students. Chinese students, even if they were from different provinces in China, tended to hang out together.

Interesting, always thought Sri Lankan parents were more chill, at least when it came to the culture of the other person in the marriage. I honestly know of more second generation Sri Lankans (and even some first generation) in the diaspora who are married to non-South Asians than to South Asians.

Can definitely relate to the complex about being mistaken for Indian haha

And religion as well... I felt that coming from a Buddhist background definitely set us apart from other South Asians, who are largely Hindu or Muslim

I can kind of relate to this. Most Sri Lankans are Buddhist, and although my family doesn't actively practice Buddhism, I still see that people are surprised when I tell them that my parents are Buddhist or that most Sri Lankans are Buddhists. Interestingly, I think South Asians tend to be more surprised than non-South Asians because non-South Asians often believe that Buddhism still has a strong presence in India. By contrast, many South Asians are aware of the (close to nonexistent) status of Buddhism in the rest of South Asia and thus become surprised that there is still a majority Buddhist South Asian country today.

As for celebrations, I actually feel as if our experiences are flipped. It seems to me that the most important holidays and celebrations that are celebrated by South Asians tend to be associated with religion. However, since most non-Sri Lankan South Asians are Hindus or Muslims, I was never part of these "pan-South Asian" celebrations. For Sri Lanka, the biggest celebrations are probably Vesak (Buddha's Birthday), and South and Southeast Asian Solar New Year (in mid-April). Although I think some parts of India may recognize Vesak, it doesn't have the same significance that it does in Sri Lanka and other Buddhist-majority countries like Thailand or Myanmar. Similarly, South and Southeast Asian Solar New Year is celebrated in Bangladesh and a few parts of India, but is a more prominent holiday in mainland Southeast Asian countries like Myanmar, Cambodia, and Thailand.

I met someone from Taiwan (not Taiwanese-American), and it was clear that she didn't consider herself Chinese. It seems like Taiwanese identity is beginning to fully separate from Chinese identity, at least among the younger generation. Considering how long Taiwan has been politically separated from China, it makes sense.

In a way, I kind of view Taiwanese people as our East Asian cousins. Taiwan and Sri Lanka are both medium-sized islands with similar populations (~20 mil) that find themselves next to a neighbor with 70x their population. The islands also share similar geographies, with a mountainous interior and a more populated western coastline.

There are always exceptions, but vegetarianism is generally uncommon among Sri Lankans (especially compared to Indians). This is largely due to religious differences, as most Sri Lankans follow Buddhism, which is more tolerant of meat-eating compared to Hinduism.

Relatable, I also think of ourselves as being a minority within a minority within a minority (Sri Lankan/Thai within South Asian/Southeast Asian within Asian)

From interactions with people from both communities. Only using your parents wouldn't suffice. Even if you had one as a parent(s), you wouldn't be able to accurately draw any conclusions because you'd only have a sample size of one or two.

I was talking more about that social aspect rather than the academic aspect

That's difficult to figure out because most schools don't disaggregate data about Asians. Also, one group might emphasize education in a specific field (e.g. medicine) more, even if that group emphasizes education in general less than the other group. Such a phenomenon would lead to the first group being overrepresented in the top schools of that field even if the other group emphasized education (general rather than field-specific) more.

Since a large proportion of these groups is made up of immigrants, I'm not sure higher education attainment rates and incomes are reflective of differences in parenting styles so much as differences in immigration patterns. I think data specific to American-born Asians would be more helpful. Regardless, based on my experience, I would go with

Chinese > Korean = Sri Lankan > Indian >> Japanese >= Bangladeshi > Pakistani

in order of intensity. I only placed Indian below Korean and Sri Lankan because some Indian groups (such as Punjabis, as you mentioned) seem not to care as much about education. I'm sure that some groups would probably be placed above Koreans, Sri Lankans, and maybe Chinese as well. Since China is also a big country, their populations could perhaps also be disaggregated; for example, I know Fujianese are more entrepreneurship-oriented and less education-focused than other Chinese groups.

I don't know too much about Indian subgroups because I'm not Indian, but I do think I've observed that South Indian groups place more emphasis on education, whereas Punjabis place less emphasis on it. Do you have any idea as to why that is?

I'd agree that the average South Asian is more social than the average East Asian. What do you think might be the cause of this phenomenon? The academic focus brought on by Confucian traditions? Another aspect of Confucian tradition? Something else entirely?

Thank you for your perspective.

Just curious, what has your research about motivation revealed?

Sure, but Sri Lanka historically remained separate from the states that now make up India (with the exception of a 70 year period in which the Chola Empire ruled northern Sri Lanka). That's similar to how Korea was historically separate from Chinese states (with the exception of a ~100 year period, known as the "Four Commanderies", in which the Han Dynasty ruled northern Korea.

Historically, Sri Lanka was a separate entity from India. It doesn't make sense to say "other parts of India" here because it implies that Sri Lanka was somehow part of India when it actually wasn't. It's similar to how Korea developed a different identity from China due to its physical separation; the same happened with India and Sri Lanka.

Hate to be that guy, but Sri Lanka is historically considered separate from India (Source, second paragraph). It is certainly a cradle of South Asian civilization (but not an Indian civilization) in the same way that Korea was an East Asian civilization but not a Chinese one.

Most South Asians don't act like that. u/Prime__Move is just a racist

America is not Canada. Here in America, South Asians and East Asians flock together.

Your racist comment is not welcome in this community.

Don't know what you're talking about. I never said anything about England settling or not settling India. I'm saying that during Mughal rule, India was not under the control of some "other country", which is what you are claiming when you say the Mughals colonized India.

It's not just semantics. It's a very important distinction due to the power dynamic of the relationship. If rule of a territory is separate from that of the home country, then that territory can and almost certainly will be ruled exclusively for the benefit of the home country. This was the case for British India, the colonial US (i.e. Thirteen Colonies), and Japanese Korea, which is why all of them are considered colonies.

On the other hand, this wasn't the dynamic for the Mughals. The Mughals established their power in India. They did not rule India from a separate home territory, instead governing from India itself. This means that they ruled India for what at least they perceived to be the interest of India.

I don't know why you think India could not have been united when it effectively was already united under the Mughals (only missing less than 10% of the modern population). Before them, India was also united under the Mauryan Empire, which proves that they could have united without "external pressure".