"talk about getting voted off survivor"talk about being a dick

For someone that is Asian-American like myself, it's no big deal for me to consider myself, and be considered Asian-American. For children of mixed race couples, or kids that have been adopted, it's not an easy task to determine your "identity". If Scott Fujita grew up in a household that was more Asian-American than European-American, that is his identity and who are we to "reject" him? And in the long run, does it really matter? Does it matter whether Tiger Woods considers himself African-American or Asian-American? How would you feel if one (or both) of them committed some terrible crime? I'm pretty sure we would be rejecting them as Asian-American...

2pence, while i agree fundamentally that not all BLACK people in America are "African-Americans", Black people from Jamaica, Brazil and elsewhere are a part of the African diaspora, so they are 'African-something' if you wish to apply that 'hypenated' naming convention. That said, I DO very much agree that all of us (assuming you as a reader are amongst this 'us') who are Americans and affix some modifying adjective before that (to whit 'Hyphen' magazine) should really think about the extent to which we hyphenate ourselves. It seems to me that in the process of doing so, we weaken our claim to full citizenship.On Mr. Fujita, the aspect of his identity has to be considered in the context in which he is located. While he may identify strongly with his adopted father's Japanese heritage; Scott will NEVER be 'seen' as Japanese (or Asian) in this country. When he is in some big conference room; at the interview for a promotion to management; buying a car; applying for a loan; being pulled over for speeding - whatever - his white American male face will result in a different sort of treatment than if he had a 'Japanese' face. Certain assumptions will be made and others will NOT be made and these will alter the quality of his 'walk through life' in a way that yours or mine will not match. He can sympathize, he may even empathize, but he will never BE 'Asian American' in this country.And Sheila, while it may seem obvious, you did not mention Americans - they are not all white either :-)

i am asian american of the hapa variety, but often feel culturally more latina since I grew up in central america and my stepmother is from el salvador (hence, i have a large salvadorean extended family). i crave pupusas and yuca frita more than anything. but alas, complexity is wiped away by complexion.

and the complexion of latinos is remarkably different from that of many asians? i don't think so.what you've validated is the trumping of nurture over nature.

a questioner, while black people from jamaica, brazil etc, are part of the african diaspora, they have been there for centuries and most have intermarried with the indigenous people there. they are as jamaican, brazilian etc, as a white person in the united states considers themselves "american". who are we to apply the african label to them if they don't associate themselves with it? why can't they be brazilian-american or jamaican-american under the "hyphenated" naming convention for those who choose to use it? plus if you want to go far back enough, aren't we all "african-something"s?also, regarding your comment about mr. fujita, it would seem as if you believe that what he is or isn't is largely based on how he is treated. call me an optimist but i strongly believe that all people should be treated equally, and what or who you are should be dependent on your character, and who you define yourself to be, not by what other people label you or how they act towards you.and by the way, scott has gotten his ID taken away as a fake when he tried to enter clubs before he became famous in his local seattle, so i'm sure he's gotten a taste of what racial profiling is like.

i would say that having your ID taken away is not the same as racial profiling. it is hardly the most painful thing that can happen to you. not in the least.as for the 'african diaspora', in many of the places you name the indigenous people were all but killed off centuries ago. nevertheless, many people of many different types have been in america for years and years too - so they are just as american as any white americans.what mr. fujita 'is' or 'isn't' is a matter of scientific fact. how that plays out in the real context of 'life' is largely dependent on two things - how he perceives himself and how he is perceived and the first is ofetn influenced by the second. so to the extent that the latter looms large in the 'quality of life' that he experiences, then 'that outside world' is VERY important. This issue has two (if not more) contexts in whihc it can be viewed - the first is his personal life, which is the most important aspect. He should/can 'see' himself as whatever makes him happy. The second is the socio-political context. Should he legitimately 'classify' himself as 'Asian American' based on his adoptive father, he would eligible for a number of programs geared to help him overcome discrimination that has been metted out to minorities in America - a discrimination that he has never experienced. Unless you count been denied a beer blast as the same as WWII internment or lynching. So, the 'world view' of himself that he constructs exists in, and impacts upon the 'world' that all the rest of us live in. The personal is political and vice versa.BTW, your 'optimism', while honorable is, regrettably, not universally absorbed by all facets of society. A shame, but still true.

i'd say that having your ID taken away because your face does not match someone else's conceived perception of what a "mr. fujita" should look like does constitute as racial profiling. i'm in no way saying it compares or even comes close to lynching or wwii internment. that being said, does it have to come down to being interned in a concentration camp or lynched to make you an asian-american or discriminated minority? have any of the "legitimate" minorities scott fujita's age gone through such atrocities either? but regardless, god forbid we have an influx of adopted white Asian-Americans stealing programs from us legitimate Asian-Americans since there are so many threatening to do so.

a questioner: don't be silly. i used 'complexion' more as a metaphor for race, and as a play on words. get it? 'complexity' and 'complexion' both start with 'complex'--exactly the element missing when 'complexion' is often considered--not as a literal skin color comparison. my literal comparison of skin tones ended with the first grade. geez!as far as 'nurture' vs. 'nature' and my supposed validation of it, the experience was more complicated than can be summed up in your tidy sociological label, and it was far from a rosy nurturing. in fact, a great deal of it sucked. but no, i don't believe in racial essentialism. my real point is that people are much deeper than their ethnicity, and their experiences far more complex than others may realize. HOWEVER, as you would perhaps agree, people are typically initially seen for their ethnicity alone, almost as if they were ciphers.I would like to at this point SUGGEST that the inability for people (at times) to recognize that others' experiences may go beyond the expected is to their detriment. the very stereotypes that we proclaim to despise are the direct result of a failing to admit and make room for the complex. (and i'm not saying that only people with unusual upbringings should be exempt from stereotypes, obviously, but that the point is made especially clear through the enlarged contrast)Even though Fujita is white (and actually, who knows what he biologically is really, since all he and we know is that he looks white), and many may think he'll have an easier time in life because of it, maybe he doesn't actually have it so easy because his interior doesn't match what others perceive of his exterior. He may not have the same experience that 'you and I' would have, but 'you and I' and the multitude of Asian Americans haven't necessarily had the same experience, either. I would venture to say that being an adoptee is by itself not such an easy thing. At least he by accounts respects his parents, accepts his adoptive third generation Japanese American father as his father, and bothers to be concerned about the Internment. My three cheers for Scott for being whatever the hell he is.

Rebecca, thanks for your reasoned and well thought out response. i am glad that you were leaning towards the irony of the 'complexion' issue and not the narrow literal-minded view. the weakness of e-text at conveying all that is trying to be communicated is displayed yet again. i think we do agree on most (I will limit it, in as much as we've only touched on a few topics here) points and I don't believe that Scott is a 'bad guy' or even necessarily seeking to take advantage of his 'looks' and how others perceive him. that said, one of those 'little things' that I think are often overlooked (especially by whites in the US) is the 'on first glance' thing. Gladwell's 'Blink', so to speak. In many settings, whites enjoy that initial 'blink' of assumed competence, assumed 'understanding' of the important things, assumed 'membership in the club' by other whites. Now, all groups have a tendency to do this, but since most of the 'big dogs' at major institutions and 'hands at the helm' of the big stuff in the US are white hands, it can help you out to get that first little 'ah yes' sigh of comfort. there is a big difference between being assumed competent and having to 'prove' you are not than the other way around. Scott may have 'trouble in mind' reconciling himself as he sees it with the 'him' that others see, but at least he doesn't have to deal with quite as much 'external' bullshit. It gives you that opportunity to get that 'first step' which can make the remaining journey so much better.the adoption thing is an interesting topic. i actually am glad that that is the circumstance. we regularly see white couples adopt asian children. while it offers the kids a chance at a better life, there is (in my opinion) an underlying paternalism - and not the 'daddy' kind. a hidden message is 'oh. you poor suffering children. your own people cannot take care of you! we (white people) will come to save you from your horrid existence of being ...'...what you are. not being an adoptee, my perspective is limited, but it would seem to me that when a korean kid comes to self-realization in Ames, Iowa that "hey! there ain't too many of 'me' around", one thing that might go thru his or her head is "damn. am i so bad that NOBODY in my own country; my own people wanted me??" talk about getting voted off survivor island! i've wanted to talk to some friends about it, but i always felt it was (potentially) digging a little too deep.2pence, the ID snatch is a 'racial profiling' issue - or more a 'stereotyping' issue. but if that is his primary 'beef' with the large society, it sure is easier to deal with than some black guy getting shot by a state trooper as he reaches in his glove compartment for the auto registration that he was asked to produce. "but the sunglass case looked like a gun!" there is a big difference.the lack of, or attack on 'programs' isn't the real issue. I often think that those programs are misapplied. i think they should be more 'need' based than purely 'race' based. does the son or daughter of a surgeon need as much help as the daughter or son of a custodial worker?? however, in the context of current reality, the programs are adminstered the way they are. the outgrowth of Scott being catagorized as 'asian american' (or whatever he decides to pick) is that you could then have a free-for-all on how or what people define themselves as vis a vie the access to government resources. whereupon the 'savvy' will slip and slide to gain advantage and further concentrate wealth in the hands of a small minority...and it probably won't be a black, brown or beige minority. not a good thing. People should be free to define themselves as they wish. i define myself as a wasp who should be a legacy admit to harvard's b-school. if you can help me sell that, then you've got a job!!

also, alot of hazaras can be mistaken for other ethnic groups (like pashtun, tajik, etc) and the same goes for pashtuns/ tajiks (so-called iranic-looking people.you know, afghans DO intermarry with each other. So don't think every slanty eyed afghan is a hazara (there are ALOT of other ethnic groups out there w/ "chinese eyes") and don't think every big-eyed/ white-looking afghan is a pashtun.god. get to know some afghans before just repeating nonsense you picked off of fox news.

Scott Fujita is the fortunate recipient not only of two cultures but of consciousness of the fluidity of identity that is truly the hallmark of the U.S. It's a mixed blessing to not be able to pin down what it means to be an American. Identity politics have always been exploited in the pursuit of money and power, too often using violent means. If identity becomes unavailable as a hook on which to hang imaginary differences, perhaps it will become clearer why we are killing each other. It's always because someone wants to make money off us. Identity, by itself, is not the problem. It's a lazy-minded attachment to the illusion of having things nailed down that can't be nailed down. We may not be brothers and sisters, but we're all cousins.

to the OP commenter up there -There is NO sterotypical look for an Afghan - so don't be so ignorant to think that they fit a pigeon-holed look like koreans.Take a look into the country - you have ppl w/ Greek/Persian/Mongolian/Turkic blood - with history like this - the people are ANYTHING but stereotypical.Moron.

Why does it matter what you call yourself? That isn't a rhetorical question. You guys are getting all tangled up in a heated discussion about the English language and I don't really know why. So please tell me why I should label myself. Or if you think it's an issue of personal preference, explain to me why you all want to so badly. It's just English terminology. I don't see why it's worth talking about.

Blah is so ignorant, it's incredible! If he/she thinks the term "Asian" is so broad to designate anybody because it means simply pertaining to Asia and he/she would prefer the term "Oriental" instead; does he/she now what the term "Oriental" actually means? It comes from Latin and it simply means "pertaining to the East". It originated in Europe during antiquities and it means anything East of the Roman Empire at that time. Therefore, if Blah thinks Asian is too broad a term, Oriental is even broader. In fact, Europeans used to refer to people of the Middle East as Orientals, hence rugs made in Arabia and Persia (now Iran) were called "Oriental rugs", a term used until this day. The train that ran between Paris and Istanbul, Turkey was the Orient Express etc...Blah, you "house Oriental" you. Get back to the kitchen like Hop Sing and cook up something for the white masters!

"Also, if you have East Asian phenotypical traits, you could easily be mistaken for Hazara (Afghan) or ethnic Kazakh, as those people appear to most as looking East Asian."However since you've mentioned 2 ethnic groups that are in afghanistan, I'd like to add that ALOT of other central asians share "East Asian phenotypical traits"Thats why alot of us get mistaken for HAPAS (duh)

Isn't about time that we stop hyphenating our ancestry with our citizenship. I am a naturalized citizen of the US born in Austria, but have lived in the US since before I was 3-years-old. If I live to the end of August of 2007, I'll be 71. I do not refer to myself as an Austrian-American.My wife's grandparents emigrated to the US from Italy. When I refer to my wife's ancestry, I say that she is of Italian heritage, not Italian-American.I was fortunate to go to high school on the South Side of Chicago. The student body was composed of kids who heritages were from many nations, but all were Americans. I got to appreciate those classmates who were Nisei for their talents and friendship, all the while not knowing that they may have been interned by our government during WWII into camps because of their ancestry. This knowledge came to me long after I graduated from high school.All I ask is that we be proud both to be Americans and of our ancestry.Oscar EdmundsonClass of '53

Probably some overly pc academics were behind the movement to turn black into "african-american" and oriental into "asian."Asia is a continent, not a race. Asian denotes someone who has traits similar to the Asian continent.The Asian continent is the most diverse continent on the globe, comprising of myriads of "races," cultures, nations, languages, etc...Since Scott Fujita is apparently supportive of his Japanese cultural heritage, and of people of Japanese ancestry like his dad, then sure, it's cool with me.He is asian-american if he wants to be.As I look back on it, oriental is a far more precise label for people of the East Asian phenotype. "Asian" is just an overly Politically Correct, muddled BS term.Perhaps the people who wanted to change the label to "Asian," had in mind an effort to coalesce diverse groups of asian ethnicities into a political/ethnic coalition. -- In that sense, it is a worthy effort.However, since I look like an ORIENTAL, I won't be confused with an Afghan, nor a Kashmiri, nor a Siberian, nor a Khazak, nor a Bangladeshi, etc...And ORIENTAL stereotypes still affect and apply to people who actually look like me, not to people of Indian or Middle Eastern descent. Unfortunately other negative, but different, stereotypes affect other people of Asian ancestry.I'm an asian-american, and an oriental.And since he's cool with the lineage and culture of his Japanese parents, Scott Fujita can consider himself an asian-american.

and Blah, your expertise in this would be based on what???Here's a question for you all, is a Korean or Chinese adoptee, raised by a white family in a white town in the USA a white person....or are they still Asian??as for diversity, you could say the same thing about Africa as a continent.

Absolutely he should be considered Asian American if he wants that. It's good to have the culture originating from your ethnicity to be appreciated! Besides, anyone who has ever dealt with real, mean racism in life should be *very* reluctant to exclude anybody from his/her "inner circle" especially for a reason so irrelevant as biological ancestry. Cultures that welcome "others" with open arms always end up doing best in the deepest sense, anyhow. I'm not going to justify that comment but just state it as a matter of both belief and aesthetic. Forget all the finer points, past injustices groups of people dead or soon-to-be have inflicted upon one another, in the end they don't matter a bit. I think Scott Fujita is cool and I'm more than glad to have him in my "ethnic group" whatever that means.

So "blah", you're saying that Fujita, a Caucasian, can call himself Asian-American while the rest of us should label ourselves Oriental? Say what...?As far as I know the term "Oriental" wasn't created by Asian people. I don't know where you get your info from, but if you've done any research you'll see the term "Asian" as far back as when the Chinese came over here to build the freakin' railroads. Check out the American newspapers when Pearl Harbor happened. They didn't just call the Japanese "Oriental", they also used the term "Asian". Non-Asians did not use the term Oriental exclusively, even back then.Besides, even if they did, they weren't God! Asian people can decide what to call themselves. Which makes me wonder why people like "blah" vigorously defend the labels created by Non-Asian people, but then get all offended when ACTUAL Asian people want to change that label. Strange that it bothers you so much!BTW, I don't know what Scott Fujita labels himself, but that's his decision, just like it's your decision to label yourself Oriental, and MY decision NOT to.

How about we refer to people based on what nationality they are??Im from the US....Im not American. How do we get to become American because we are from North America??Asian is too broad, American is too broad, African is too broad.How about we stop being idiots and refer to people where they are from. If you are born in Italy....you are Italian. If you were born in New York and are of Italian heritage.....you are from the US (not italian).If Scott was born elsewhere and grew up in Japan (I dont know the issue), I would consider him Japanese....NOT ASIAN-AMERICAN.European is also too broad a term. French people are nothing like Polish people. Germans, very different than Finnish people. Where does one get the audacity to group all of these people into one category??By that train of thought....should we all be called "earthians"??If I meet someone that isnt from where Im from (country wise), I make it a point to ask them where they're from. That way, I can refer to them as....say...Argentinian........or Pakistani.

The guy respects the "Asian" culture so it shouldn't matter. Now if he was bashing on his father's background which I doubt anyone would do, that's a completely different story. BTW isn't there another guy in the NFL who is half Korean/half African American? I remember seeing something on CNN or ESPN about him. He looks like a hybrid though and he defaintely respects his "asian" background. Anyway, I'm watching the game, GO SAINTS!!!

Chowgirl:"BTW, I don't know what Scott Fujita labels himself, but that's his decision, just like it's your decision to label yourself Oriental, and MY decision NOT to."I agree.But I want to disagree with you by saying that as an asian-american male who is oriental, that I defend Scott Fujita's right to label himself as an Asian-American because his father has bestowed upon him an asian heritage, and a respect for "asianness."Also I'm trying to raise this question: the word "Asian" means of "Asia." Asian is as racially descriptive of race as "Hispanic". Which is really: NOT.(Incidently, "Asian" refers to people of South Asian descent in Britain -- causing some confusion for Americans.)So, in logically and verbally, it bothers me that the term "Asian" (in US usage) is often used to label a race.What about people of India or the Middle East or of Israel or Siberia? They are of a different "race." Is it disrespectful to hog the entire Asian continent and use the term "Asian" only to apply it to people of China, Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia -- ie: peoples who were previously labelled "Oriental".Another previous label for "Oriental" was "Mongoloid" -- this is term that I really dislike because "Mongoloid" is also a term for a genetic birth defect which is also known as Down's Syndrome.I'm not really comfortable with the term "Oriental," and I abhor the term "mongoloid". But for accuracy, I feel that "Oriental" is the only popular term around that really describes the "race" that I am part of. As a compromise or alternative to "Oriental" how about "East Asian"? ... Ok, maybe "East Asian" is much better, but it's probably less catchy.I'm just stating my opinion, and pointing out the "elephant in the room" -- that "Asian," as a word, really belongs to the entire continent of Asia. And my pointing that out won't make it go away. And at some point, it's gonna seem silly to use "Asian" to describe "East Asians" when South Asians are also gaining prominence and visibility in the USA, and that immigration from the Middle East is also growing.-- So, as with Scott Fujita, in a geographical context, "Asian" is not really a descriptor of race, any more than "American" is a descriptor of race. In both contexts, it can be used to describe geography, heritage, or culture.So Chowgal, I'm not making you do anything. You can label yourself whatever way you want. "Strange that it bothers you so much." ;-)

I randomly stumbled across this post and felt compelled to add my 2 cents. I am a hapa who was adopted by a Nisei (2nd generation Japanese) family. I have a brother who is full Japanese-American. We were raised in the same house the same way, and I have always identified as purely Japanese-American. Many people have tried to "correct" this association, arguing that because I look more Caucasian than Asian, I must therefore identify, at least partially, as white. They cite the fact that when other people look at me, they don't see a Japanese-American (just like Scott Fujita), and may treat me better or worse because of it. These questions of identity so deeply affected me, I ended up majoring in Ethnic Studies to help sort it out. The irony of that is, there is no sorting it out. People's perceptions of you will never accurately mirror your own internal views. To me, the important bit is to be able to objectively recognize both and understand how they shape who you will become. I guarantee that Scott Fujita has no illusions that he could ever physically "pass" as Japanese. He is simply stating the fact that internally, that is who he is. I understand that there are some Asian-Americans who are frustrated by non-Asians "appropriating" their cultures. (I remember at Berkeley being a little surprised that the Tomodachi (Japanese club) was comprised primarily of Caucasians.) But what about people like Scott, or me, or non-Asians who were raised in Asian countries or communities? Shouldn't we be able to voice our connection to our adopted culture? In my opinion, identity is fluid. It is influenced by many factors, and ultimately, can only be determined by the individual. Similarly, Asian kids adopted by non-Asian families have every right to feel a diminished connection to their native culture without being hassled about it by other Asians. I have seen this happen, and it's quite obnoxious. They have as little control over their up-bringing as any of the rest of us.My apologies for such a long-winded post! To the individual who expressed hesitation in discussing adoption issues with his/her friends- yes adoption can be a personal issue, but if you are approaching the subject with sensitivity and the desire to be educated about the subject, I'm sure your friends would be more than happy to discuss it (at least I would!)

"However, since I look like an ORIENTAL, I won't be confused with an Afghan, nor a Kashmiri, nor a Siberian, nor a Khazak, nor a Bangladeshi, etc..."Oriental DOES refer to those in the Middle East. Oriental refers to things east, i.e. everything east of Europe. Part of northeastern Africa also used to be referred to as the orient, mainly Egypt. A rug from Egypt is considered an oriental rug.

Couple things, I'm glad someone correctly pointed out that in the UK, the word "Asian" is usually used to refer to South Asians and sometimes (I imagine mistakenly) Arabs and Persian people.Also, if you have East Asian phenotypical traits, you could easily be mistaken for Hazara (Afghan) or ethnic Kazakh, as those people appear to most as looking East Asian.

"However, since I look like an ORIENTAL, I won't be confused with an Afghan, nor a Kashmiri, nor a Siberian, nor a Khazak, nor a Bangladeshi, etc..."Oriental DOES refer to those in the Middle East. Oriental refers to things east, i.e. everything east of Europe. Part of northeastern Africa also used to be referred to as the orient, mainly Egypt. A rug from Egypt is considered an oriental rug.

I can understand blah's sentiment: I agree, asia is a continent. Not a race, and not an ethnicity. Although I prefer using the term "East Asian" to "Oriental."And yes, a questioner, the same idea applies to Africa. Not all Africans are black, not all Asians are yellow, and not all Europeans are white. These are the fallacies that arise when you use continents to define race and ethnicity.

To me, Oriental describes objects. Like a rug, or a lamp. NOT people.Yes, Asian includes a whole range of people as it refers to the contient and not a race. Iranians, Pakistanis, Indians, Chinese, Vietnamese, Japanese, Filipinos are all Asian. I don't think "Asian" is meant to lable a "race," though maybe some people mistakenly use it that way. I think it refers to all of the above, and more.I think the term you are looking for blah, to dscribe yourself is East Asian. Oriental contains negative connotations here in America, so why use a word with negative connotations? Why not use "East Asian" or a specific ethnicity?Asian American is a political term, born out of the Asian Ameican movement, when different Asian ethnic groups in the US tried to work together towards common goals.Also, I agree that Fujita is Asian American if he feels that he is. He certainly seems interested and educated about his father's family's heritage.By the same logic then, a Korean adoptee raised by an Irish American family is Irish American. But if that person has no connection to his or her Korean hertiage, does that make her not an Asian American? Or is this person Asian American because she IS bloodwise, an Asian. Which is more important: environment or genetics?

Difference between an non-Asian being adopted into an Asian family and an Asian being adopted into a non-Asian family is the color barrier. For some reason, this country still has a hard time giving minorities whether in color or sex an equal chance. There is always talk, but MOST Americans will NEVER change even though they talk and act like are culturally diverse. Back to the whole adoption issue, Asian children who are adopted completely lose their heritage whereas non-Asians adopted into Asian families seem to retain both cultural identities. How is this so? How many Asians adopted by non-Asians do you see walkinig with into their wedding wearing a kimono or eating with chopsticks? Some even refuse to date within their own race which is another which I won't even go into since I can rant about that topic for days. Anyway, back the main post, Scott Fujita is a great example of a man who has embraced both his ties to two different cultures. I don't see why anyone would be so mad about it.

i concur with 2cents. oriental is an outdated and miscontrued word. the term "orient" refers to the east. but the question is east of what? looking from a purely eurocentric view in which the term originated, it would be all countries and civilizations east of western europe, encompasing turkey, the middle east, india, etc. however, as we are all moving towards a more global view, this term is quite vague, and even erroneus. for instance, taking the literal meaning of the word, what would the "orient" of the united states be? europe. because of this, the terms east asia, south east asia, etc while not perfect, are considered better alternatives and more accurate. that being said, if that is what you wish to call yourself, that is completely your right. i also agree with blah that the term asian-american is not without its problems. while it can be used to present a positive sense of unity among the various "asian" groups, it can also be dangerous to lump all the various ethnicities and cultures that comprise of asia into one group. that is part of what makes labeling people by continents unsuitable. another example mentioned by various commentors would be the term african-american. many decendants of "african"-americans have been living in the united states for much longer than white americans but why aren't those white americans called "european-americans"? in addition, not all black people in the u.s. are from africa. the person you refer to as an "african-american" may well be from jamaica, or brazil. they may even have british citizenship like ben gordon of the chicago bulls, who i'm sure many have mistankenly referred to as african-"american". anyway to end my rant, we shouldn't be governed by excessive "political correctness" on how we refer to others and ourselves. but if you end up inadvertently offending someone, or being questioned as to why you are using a certain term, be sure you have the knowledge to back your reasoning up. in answer to the topic question, yes, scott fujita is as asian american as my korean adopetee friend is jewish. 100% as much as they want to and feel like being.