The return of city-state geopolitics

"For the first time in history, more than half its human population, 3.3 billion people, will be living in urban areas. By 2030, this is expected to swell to almost 5 billion." - United Nations Population Fund

http://www.unfpa.org/swp/2007/english/introduction.html

Histogram of the world population. Chart is organized by dividing nation-states into categories based on their population. Data obtained from data from http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/idbsprd
on 27 Nov 2007

The world is beginning to shape into an entirely different environment, and with that, a whole new way of doing politics.

In the very beginning of human civilization, there was the rivalry of competing city-states for global resources. Whether it was Persepolis vs Babylon , Athens vs Sparta, or Xi amen vs Xi'an. At some point after the invention of the printing press, the old loyalties of city-states fell to the rising tide of nations, and nation-states eventually dominated the geo-political scene thereafter.

The transition period was arguably characterized by competing religion-states, and elements of the religious alliances still remain in today's nation-state rivalry.

In modern times, as the world has thrown itself into a whole new level of connection, global consciousness, and living environment, a new dawn of geo-politics is emerging.

Citizens are re-organizing themselves into urban areas and with their migration they are also shifting their political boundaries. Across the globe, the political powers are shifting to the city-state levels, as massive federal nation-states such as Russia, India, and China, are seeing their political power challenged by the small but strong city-states such as Singapore and Kuwait, which are hardly visible from a world map.

The breakup of Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union are signs that in today's urban world, bigger no longer means better. Small city-states are starting to realize that survival is often easier when you have a smaller population and area to manage.

At the same time though, there are also examples of sovereignty going in the opposite direction. Agglomerations of massively large continental trade unions such as the EU and African Union demonstrate the growing trend towards larger sovereign territories.

Two diverging patterns are emerging, but even within these agglomerated trade unions, sovereignty is often divided between the unions, nation-states, and province level administrative divisions (city-states).

All of these political developments are further complicated by the political remnants of the days of religion-states such as the HRE and Islamic Caliphate.


The question is:

As political power begins to shift

upwards from nation-state to trade-unions, and

downwards from nation-states to city-states,

In the future battle for global resources, where will the ultimate sovereignty lie?

The large global trade unions, or the small but mighty city-states?

Global governance and global sovereignty has already began, and will only continue to strengthen if modern technological trends continue. However, will the ultimate sovereignty lie at the global level, trade-union level, or city-state level?

Opium on wheels

Henry Ford likely never imagined the impact the automobile would have on the world when he developed the first assembly line techniques for his Model T.

This machine is not an efficient means of transportation, but rather serves as a symbol of individualism, consumerism, power, and is the hallmark monument to the age of petroleum.

Petroleum and it's derivatives literally shape every aspect of modern global society from plastics to global trade and communications, and what single entity sums up all of these glorious and yet irresponsible behaviors than the automobile?

For the US, there is no other single symbol which so accurately represents the 20th century society. The US was the world's most important petroleum supplier from the beginning of the industry until the middle of the 20th century, only more recently being surpassed by the OPEC countries. The military advantages of hydrocarbon liquid fueled technology are unquestionably more effective than any other type of technology. It was this significant political and military advantage which helped the US win a decisive military victory in WWII on the European and Pacific theaters.

To secure this position, the political leaders at the time made a concerted effort to developing a permanent domestic market for this precious industry.

Eisenhower's Interstate and Defense Highway Act of 1956 was one of the most prominent examples of how far the government was willing to go in order to ensure that the petroleum suppliers would have a stead market for their product. Not only infrastructure, but the values of independence and freedom which are a defining part of US culture were intimately tied to the automobile. In fact, 4% of US teens lose their virginity in cars. This ensured that the people not only used the machine for convenience, but they fell in love with it, and began to believe that it fundamentally represented their core value system.

By 1973, the US had so built their entire society around this symbol, that when OPEC threatened to cut off petroleum imports it nearly brought the society to its knees. The revelation of this dramatic vulnerability sparked an intense US political and military interest in the OPEC region which resulted in a series of bloody conflicts, which were all selfishly motivated as a way to ensure the continuation of this precious way of life.

The automobile is the central figure behind the entire transit system.

Everything from low tax petrol, highways, parking lots, drive through food, and suburbs, the entire structure of society is based on this dominant form of transportation. In other parts of the world people use automobiles, but it is only one of many forms of transit and their entire society is not focused on this one mode of human transport.

For the purpose of this blog I will call this system centered around the automobile "Personal Motorized Transport System" or PMTS.

Personal meaning that it is not meant to transport multiple individuals along a common transit corridor in the way that mass transit does, but rather individual people using their own mechanism for the entire trip from origin to destination. Personal also limits the focus on human transport, rather than goods and raw materials.

Motorized means that it invokes the technology of internal combustion for purpose of superior speed performance, and Transport System is used to highlight that I am focusing on Personal Motorized vehicles as they relate to the purpose of transporting people on a regular basis. Recreational purposes are not in the scope of this discussion.

The relationship between the US and the PMTS is much like the relationship between Opium and Hong Kong society. When the British East India Company (EIC) started developing its trading center in the Pearl River Delta area, it needed to trade Opium to the Chinese in exchange for the valuable tea it planned to sell in Europe. the EIC promoted Opium use where it could as a way to ensure a market for its product. Hong Kong started its prosperity as a regional trading center as a result of the Opium trade. As an ode to this symbol of Hong Kong society, Opium became a favorite indulgence among many in the society as it not only served as an enjoyable recreational treat, but also symbolized the society's history and prosperity. Like Opium in Hong Kong, the PMTS of the US is an indulgence of the society which symbolically represent the society's historical prosperity. Also as in Hong Kong, this strong association with the society has been the result of an effort to ensure a domestic market for an important commercial product.

The analogy is remarkable in many ways, but it is the disturbing drug analogy that Opium shares with PMTS which I would like to highlight in more detail. PMTS is a kind of drug that the US society uses as a luxurious indulgence, without any regard for the potentially economic and well being risks associated with this highly dangerous indulgence. Like Opium the PMTS is certainly enjoyable, but also comes at a expensive and often fatal price. Also like Opium the US is now trapped in an inescapable addiction of which all forms of escape or freedom from the system would would come at a painful path of withdrawal.

Though Opium was at one time an inseparable part of Hong Kong society, the Chinese resisted this harmful drug and realized that its leisure and symbolic characteristics did not outweigh its harmful effect on society. Eventually the will of the people won out over their previous addiction.

Can the US or (any other society like the US in this way) break its addiction to its Personal Motorized Transport System? Is there a hope that the citizens can awake from their addiction to realize the harmful consequences of the system and demand that they no longer become bound to its grip?

For those that are not convinced of the dangerous consequences that the PMTS imposes on society, I will summarize my position as concisely as possible by highlighting how the system affects both the individual user, as well as how it spills harmful effects onto non-users who also live in the society dominated by the PMTS.

PMTS negatively impacts the user's health and safety

PMTS expose users to a significantly higher fatality and injury risk than other transportation systems.

Per kilometer travelled, a PMTS user's fatality risk is almost 50 times higher than other transport systems, such as walking, rail, buses, or planes. For average 15,000 miles/year and 70 years of use, users have 1 in 60 odds of dying in PMTS related accident. Most people in PMTS societies don't need anyone to remind them that they know many close friends or family who have died in an auto accident, and none in rail, bus, air, or pedestrian transport accidents. The source of most of the danger inherited in the system is the fact that humans of various skill level and disposition are operating the vehicles, as compared with rail, which follows a prescribed path and operated by an elite group of highly qualified professional operators. The root cause of over 80% of all PMTS related accidents are the result of human error. Contrary to some opinion, a user cannot lower his individual risk to the levels of other competing transport systems simply by improving his own operating performance, because he is still exposed to the risk of the irresponsibility of other drivers in the system.

Not only safety, but PMTS also poses an unnecessary health risk to the users.

PMTS generally cut out much of the normal walking that other transit systems such as walk-bus-metro-bus-walk, have built into the beginning intermediate, and end of the transit stages. All other things equal, this lack of exercise exposes the user to a higher health risk as a result of this very sedentary transit system. Medical experts recommend a minimum amount of daily walking for normal health, and have linked many health diseases such as obesity to a lack of proper exercise. Assuming the user is aware of this heightened risk exposure, he would have to devote extra non transit time to exercising in order to lower his health risk to that of the users in other transit systems. Another negative impact on user health is that operating a vehicle poses an unnecessary daily stressor to the user which may contribute to stress induced health risks.

It comes as no surprise that in the US and other societies that rely on PMTS there is a mountain of medical literature available which shows the prevalence of sedentary lifestyle linked health consequences of such as obesity, hypertension, diabetes, etc... This not only impacts the individual users, but eventually the entire society pays for treating these diseases in the form of medical insurance premiums and medicare programs. A very large portion of the total cost of US health care can be linked to sedentary lifestyle.

Aside from the uncertainties associated with the concepts of health and safety risks PMTS imposes a heavy economic burden on individual users.

Some might only consider fuel, but they need to remember that in other transit systems, there is no need for vehicle ownership and maintenance, so these costs must also be included in any comparison. Insurance, vehicle depreciation, maintenance and fuel are always orders of magnitude higher for the PMTS user than the mass transit user. Mass transit users typically pay one per-mile price in which the individual costs are instead managed by the transit provider. Operational expenses aside, lost time is more likely to be the bigger economic lost opportunity for PMTS users. While they are operating their personal vehicle, they do not have the choice of using that time for other productive or leisure activities, such as studying, reading, or even sleeping.

As highlighted in the way that PMTS causes medical costs to spillover from users to non-users, there are many ways that PMTS put a heavy burden on the society as a whole.

In the local urban society, highways take up more valuable real estate in the urban landscape than rail lines, and the more personal vehicles on the road relative to mass transit vehicles, the wider the highways must be to accommodate the larger number of vehicles. Highways produce more noise and air pollution relative to electric rail transit systems, which may be powered by any number of non polluting energy sources (France's energy is 80% nuclear). The support infrastructure needed for cars such as highways and parking lots sprawls the urban landscape unnecessarily and raises the cost of other infrastructural developments such as waterworks, electricity, and communications. This sprawl undermines the feasibility of mass transit for those who cannot afford to or chose not to use PMTS, usually by making it difficult for corridor ridership to reach profitable levels. For example, it would be nearly impossible to have an economically viable rail system in the Houston metro area, which would have a station within reasonable distance of all major residential areas. The city is too sprawled and the cost of the infrastructure and operations would far out-weight the small revenue from the sprawled out transit users.

This incompatibility of the two systems also highlights how PMTS is biased in favor of a class of people in society who can afford the high cost of operating a vehicle. PMTS have a tendency to promote the formation of stratified social classes because PMTS users can physically segregate themselves from lower classes which rely on mass transit. Finally, one point those in the US may pay attention to is that PMTS vehicles pose a security risk since they may be used as weapons, car bombs in Iraq are a good example of how this can get out of control (relative to just a regular pedestrian suicide bomber). As I have always said, I'd much rather have a close brush with a drunk-walker than a drunk-driver.

Finally, the consequences of PMTS permeate even to the global level.

Fuel economy for PMTS is significantly lower than that of mass transit systems, which results in inefficient use of limited energy resources. This is particularly true when the multi-passenger vehicles such as SUV and vans are normally under capacity, compared with buses and rail which normally average between 50 and 75% capacity. Of these energy sources, current technology limits PMTS to be entirely dependent on liquid hydrocarbon fuels, whose CO2 emissions elevate the risk of destructive global climate change.

I would like to highlight that I am not suggesting that automobiles don't have a place in the transport systems of society, only that they should not be the defining basis for all the transport needs.

Ideally there should be an appropriate mix of options for users to be able to decide what is ideal for them. There are several scenarios where mass transit systems don't appear to work well, such as late night when ridership levels go down and cases where users are transporting heavy luggage. Taxis are a great solution to these gaps because they are operated by trained professionals and reduce the risk associated with PMTS considerably. I understand that not everyone is like me and wants to live in an urban environment like Hong Kong, which is essentially built around the MTR, but it is important for people to begin analyzing the risks of various modes of transport, and making conscious decisions about where compromises are needed.

The problem is that many people agree with everything I have presented, but they say,

So what?

What can I do?

I am a trapped victim of the system and have the choice only to conform or leave the system altogether.

The simplest option is to avoid the US, but this is easier said than done. Many people have lives and loved ones that they are not willing to just pick up and leave for the sake of a poor public transit system. This leaves one with a sense of helplessness.

To all of you who feel helpless I can only tell you that you always have a choice, and a government is always subject to the will of its people. For me I have started a kind of boycott against the system. I live close to where I need to be every day. I actively avoid circumstances where I need a car, and use mass transit when available. I save lots of money from using less gas, and am more healthy from the increased daily exercise from walking. When given the opportunity, I will openly advocate for more public spending on public transit over highway improvements.

I'm sure that my actions in a small way have an affect on the overall system, and if others follow my example, the results could have a dramatic effect on the system.

Higher ridership rates on mass transit coupled with lowered gasoline revenues is one of the best ways of communicating to your city planning officials what you prefer. Surveys, opinion polls, donations, and voting are all effective tools in shaping the landscape of society.

A gasoline tax on non-commercial vehicles could serve as an excellent revenue source for infrastructural reform, as well as an economic incentive for users to switch to a safer system. These are a few examples of how the conscious actions of a few motivated individuals can be used to rid the society of its indulgent addiction.

Other options could include selling off the interstate highway system to the private sector who would presumably institute tolls to charge users per-use to ensure adequate maintenance and upkeep of the system, as well as a way to repay their initial investment. The public funds normally allocated for maintenance of the highway system, plus the funds generated from the sale of the highways would be more than enough to start building a 21st century public transit system - Light Rail, High Speed Rail, etc... This option also creates a disincentive to use the highways and provides alternative transit solutions.

Make an effort to tell others how you feel about the disadvantages of the current system, and show your support for reform when the opportunity comes. Talk to people about the issue, and explore the risks and benefits for yourself to decide what kind of society you want your children to live in.

Thinking beyond the border

Won't we all feel dumb if humanity is destroyed and lost forever because we didn't learn our lesson from the battle of Singapore and had our guns pointed in the wrong direction?

On June 2, 1987 Ronald Regan made a speech at the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin at at time when the city was divided into East Berlin and West Berlin by the Berlin Wall. Though his intentions were largely political, and based on spreading the philosophical notion of democracy into the communist controlled area, the effect that it had on the denizens of the entire community around Berlin was that they realized that absurdity of the wall itself. Within 3 years the idea spread throughout the area, and people began flooding past the border at it's weakest points, until finally the political powers realized that people no longer wanted the wall to be there. People no longer believed in the wall.

Do you believe in borders between nations as they exist today?

Fundamentally do you believe that there are irreconcilable differences between people around the world that require us to put up walls and barriers to keep us separated?

What we saw later in the breakup of Yugoslavia and now in Civil Wars that rage on in countries like East Timor, Sudan, Congo, Iraq, etc.. that the ultimate consequence of strong nationalistic passion whereby various "nations" compete for global resources is violent confrontation. Europe learned after WWII that intense emotional feelings directed against "foreigners" has devastating consequences. Homes and businesses were destroyed and countless lives were lost, and when it was over and they began picking up the pieces of their broken dreams they realized that the frailty of humanity is shared among us all. Events like WWII and the fall of the Berlin wall led to the unification of Europe that propelled it to become one of the most successful economic stories of the late 20th century. The power that lies in the common European identity and prosperity that it gives to it's members is something we all should look to as an example of how our entire global community should feel.

Do you really believe that you are Japanese, or Chinese, Singaporean or Korean and that as a result of that fact, you are entitled to certain privileges that others cannot have access to?

Poor neighboring countries like Mongolia or Indonesia have individuals that are facing the same human struggle that you face, but because you are born on the correct side of the wall, you suddenly are entitled to more privileged opportunity than them?

Most countries believe that "locals" or "citizens" are entitled to the opportunity to use the resources of that particular country freely as well as reside in the area bound by that country as long as they like. These countries emphasize that "locals" belong inside the borders of their respective country, and "foreigners" 外国人 belong outside. These countries put strict limitations on those that are perceived as "foreigners" and in many cases one may be born inside the borders of that country and still be considered "foreigner" and not have equal rights as a "local".

The truth is that all of these lines that divide nations are completely arbitrary in the modern global community. We all come from a common origin and all subject to the same human experience and all live on planet earth, yet we still insist on using the term "foreign" 外 when we refer to our own brethren?

In a famous court case called "Brown vs Board of Education", the US Supreme court ruled that it is logically impossible to maintain "separate but equal" facilities. This "separate but equal" concept was at the time a very popular excuse that was used to justify segregation of the school system as a way to preserve the elite racial "white" class from being polluted by the less privileged "black" class. As it turned out, the facilities were not equal, and this fundamental court case ruling concluded that in no way is it possible to maintain separate segregated facilities and assume that they will be equal. Segregating our society into it's various "nations" and assuming that everyone will have equal opportunity to global resources is a no less ridiculous assertion.

Why is it that we feel that others within our national group "deserve" our tax money spent on them, and others do not "deserve" the money to be spent on them?

Do children suffering from malnutrition in Africa in some way "deserve" your hard earned money any less than well fed children across the street from you?

Asians, I talk to you because I believe we can make a difference in the world. We are the world! 60% of the world's residents live in the continent of Asia. Not only that, but economically we are expected to become the dominant global force in the next generations.

What will we do with this prosperity?

Will we keep it for ourselves, and our children, and whoever decides to live permanently within our borders . . .

Or will we realize that the world needs our help, and share the prosperity so that everyone of our fellow global citizens can have the same economic opportunity in the future generations?

Why do we put up barriers?

What are we trying to accomplish?

Is it that we fear?

Do we fear that our way of life will in some way be lost if we let others into our corner of our global community?

I encourage you to ask a German, ask a Spaniard, or ask the Irish if they feel that their way of life was in some horrible way lost after they broke down the barriers they had between neighboring countries. If we are so proud of our way of life, then we must share it with the rest of the world, and not horde it to ourselves only for only our benefit. We should invite people to come and learn, and not push them away out of ignorance. Division and isolation are motivated by fear, whereas assimilation and congregation are motivated by love.

Will we be a fearful Asia, or a loving Asia?

A final thought to ponder. . .

In 1990 the spacecraft Voyager I, at a distance of more than 6 billion km, turned around and took a photo of the earth. The late Carl Sagan commented on this photo's deeper meaning in a 1996 commencement address
(full text here --> http://obs.nineplanets.org/psc/pbd.html)

In the address, he reflects on the common human experience we have on this earth, and how precious it is to our common global way of life. "That's here. That's home." With the military technology available to us today, we posses the power to destroy ourselves. Not only do we poses the power to destroy ourselves through nuclear holocaust or human induced global climate change, but our very existence is vulnerable to complete annihilation by outside factors such as non human induced global climate change or asteroid impact. For those that don't know, your risk of dying from a catastrophic asteriod impact is as high as 1 in 20,000. That's about the same odds as dying in a plane crash, and much much higher risk than dying from a shark bite or terrorist attack (less than 1 in 100,000). The scary thing is that as we see from this photograph, and as Carl Sagan notes "there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves. It is up to us." This image of the pale blue dot "underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly and compassionately with one another and to preserve and cherish that pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known."

If some billion years from now another civilization in their exploration of the galaxies comes across the ruined remains of our pale blue dot, what will they see?

What story will we leave behind for them?

Will they see a community that bound together under a common identity to fight to preserve their survival, up until the very end . . .

Or will they see a world that failed to respond to the threat to their existence because their guns were pointed in the wrong direction . .

at each other.

You've got funny eyes

So what do Nelson Mandela and Gary Mckinnon have that Jackie Chan lacks?
Single Eyelids, or "asian eyes".







A lot of people talk about "Asians" , "CaucAsians" or other silly stars-upon-thars categories and assume that everyone knows what they are talking about, but what exact are they talking about?

What does it mean to be "Asian" and how is it different from any other word coined to divide people based on some phenotype differences?

It depends who you ask.

In England, some say that "Asian" should mean descendants of the area once ruled as British Raj (Now the sovereign territories of Pakistan, India, Nepal*, Bangladesh, Bhutan, and maybe Burma?) 

*The Kingdom of Nepal was not ever under British sovereignty, although I assume that in England the ethnic term "Asian" would still apply to one who would identify as Nepalese.

Others in Russia, a country that is split in half by the Ural mountains, might refer to Asians as non-European Russians.

While some may assume Asian to include anyone from just the easternmost chunk of this great landmass (China-Taiwan, Japan, Korea, and Vietnam).

Still some may chose to include the Indonesian islands, Indochina, Siam and Malaysia.

Ironically very few will venture to include Iran or Iraq (don't know why??)

Borat might be referring to Kazakhstan and the rest of Central Asia.

Possibly some from the Balkans or Greece might just be referring to Turkey,

and a few brave souls may actually be referring to the whole darn landmass.

For the purpose of this note, East Asia will refer to the modern territories of China-Taiwan (but not Tibet and Xinjiang), Korea (North and South), Japan and Vietnam.

First of all, the concept of "from" also differs from place to place, and where to draw the line historically?

For some, "from" refers only to where one maintains permanent residence (that's me!). For others, "from" must mean where one spent early childhood. Others would like to stick to claims to citizenship and birth. Still others that might feel unsatisfied in immigrant communities may want to hear about birthplaces of parents or grandparents.

Then there's the ones that want to know information about everyone in one's genetic past as far back as one can possibly go, usually along the route of the surname (for most this is the patrilineal line) since the surname is the only thing left as a historical record to follow. These answers are usually based on 90% myth or legend and 10% actual recorded facts. For these, the line may be drawn as far back as one can go, but must not go back as far as the period when humans migrated out of Africa (not sure why this is not an acceptable answer?)

The other complicated concept of "from" is the idea of where to draw the line geographically?

Some may want to know "from" details on a geographic scale the size of Singapore which is not even visible on most world maps, whereas others are content with "from" answers as large as the diverse geographical territory of China.

When you combine those that want "from" answers going back as far as possible with the xenophobes demanding "from" information with geographic terms relating to the current nation-state borders, you will really run into some tricky problems.

The first problem is that the modern political concept of nationalism (and nation-states) has only been around for about 300 years. Anything before that was multi-lingual empires that would shift and change their territories dramatically depending on how well their kings rolled the dice.

The second problem is sex.

These "from" answers would be pretty straightforward if humans reproduced like yeast cells. unfortunately sexual combination means that the number of ones descendants explodes geometrically to the power 2 with ever generation. That means after 1 generation you have 2 parents, 2 generations 4 grand-parents, 3 generations 8 great-grandparents, and so forth and so forth, all with their own unique residential and migratory history. Assuming no inbreeding, by the time you go back 28 generations you find that your descendants at that time are numbered in the 200 million range, which was approximately the world population at that time. Is there anyone out there that has the audacity to claim that all of their 200 million ancestors came from one small geographic chunk of the world? Or would it be more appropriate to admit that he/she is the product of some seriously intense inbreeding?

So now that you are completely confused on this concept of "from", we'll dive even further into genetic phenotypes.

Genetic variation exists in populations around the world, and there's hardly any evidence linking place of birth, and genetic makeup. See my post with Bill Nye and Race to see how he is dumbfounded on his preconceived notions of geographic origin.

You may be wondering . . .  yea but what about dark skinned people in Africa and funny-eyed people in East Asia?

Skin tone is partly inherited, and partly determined by environmental factors throughout an individuals life. In all cases it is a function of how much melanin one has in their skin. The genes that determine what tone human skin will be are the same as those that do the exact same thing for cows and other mammals.

Melanin content in the extremes can have some negative health side effects, for example too much melanin blocks the UV rays necessary for vitamin D synthesis, whereas too little melanin leaves the sensitive dermis exposed to harmful radiation and possibly folate deficiencies.

The complicated part about skin tone as a way to categorize communities of people is that there are a nearly infinitely many ways of dividing color tones ranging from 0 melanin (albino) to the highest content known to exist in humans. In other words, any attempts to categorize leave you with a whole lot of ambiguous browns = (

Browns are found in various locations throughout the world, and it is only in the social constructed perceptions that light-browns may be distinguished from dark-browns. Most likely these socially constructed divisions may have originated from the caste system in India, where lightness of skin was linked to a progression up the caste system to the Brahman elite. These skin-tone ideas may have been picked up by the British and then used as a way to justify land seizure and slavery in Africa.

Eye features is an incredibly complicated process that is a combination of genetic as well as environmental factors. everything from skull shape, diet, exercise, allergies , and particularly emotions may drastically change the shapes and features of one set of human eyes. Not only that, but now plastic surgery may add additionally drastic permanent effects to the outward superficial appearance of eyes.

What is it about the eyes of a lot of people who live in East Asia that makes them appear unique to that part of the world?

The unique look of eyes seen in East Asia is a combination of two different features known as epicanthal folds and single eyelids.

Everyone is apparently born with epicanthal folds, but some later grow out of it as the features of the bridge of the nose start to pull the excess skin away from the eye. Those with less pronounced nose bridges will have a distinct epicanthal fold. Epicanthal folds come in a spectrum of variety, just like skin tones, and are one contributing factor to the outward appearance of eyes.

Single eyelids is an extra layer of fat in the upper eyelid that distinguishes it from the double eyelid appearance in which there is a noticeable eyelid fold between the tip of the eyelid and the eyebrow. Just like the epicanthal folds, the degree of double-eyelidedness is extremely diverse, and many different varieties exist as to where the eyelid crease is, as well as how pronounced the crease is. The appearance of the crease is also dependent upon environmental factors such as emotion, light intensity, or allergies.

Some hypothesize that the correlation between East Asia and the single eyelid is because of early adaptations to harsh winter conditions, and later aesthetic preferences and sexual selection. 

The truth is that even within East Asia, it is difficult to classify a representative trait, since 80% of Korean residents have single eyelids and only 50% of Chinese residents have single eyelids, the trait is far from predictive of East Asian residency. In addition, the same gene that determines whether East Asians will develop single eyelids is also found in Bushmen tribes in Africa, proving that this trait is by no means unique to East Asia, but instead merely highly correlated. Regardless, these single-eyelids and epicanthal folds have so many variations that they hardly make adequate features for racial categories.

Humans have all sorts of variety, not just on skin tones or eye features, but also in this such as attached earlobes or the ability to smell cyanide or color blindness. If we found a population of people in Bhopal that could smell low concentrations of MIC should we make a new race for people who can detect MIC? What is so special about eyes and skin tone?

The answer lies in the fact that humans are visual creatures with an insane amount of brain real estate devoted to facial recognition. Humans feel the urge to categorize people based on outward appearance as a result of this affinity to visual information. 

Can we as civilized humans also resist this urge to categorize people based on outward appearance?

References

Blog description of how humans perceive faces - specifically eyes, and how those perceptions relate to "beauty", and recognition of Asian, or any other ethnic distinction

http://asianeyes.wordpress.com/beauty/

Study on variations in eye features within and between ethnic groups

http://www.v2020la.org/pub/PUBLICATIONS_BY_TOPICS/VARIOUS/Blake%20et%20al%202003%20Ethnicity%20&%20ocular%20anatomy.pdf

Study concluding that eye variations between Asians and Caucasians is the same as that between Native Americans and Caucasians

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=13430067

The United States of Florida

Out of a renewed sense of nationalism in some places around the world, many governments are renaming their territories from the name given to the territory by the illegitimate colonizers to a more accurate, "original" name. Some of the documentations of these "original" names are speculative at best, and akin to legend in many cases. Some examples are the renaming of Bombay to Mumbai, or Burma to Myanmar, and although there has not been an effort to rename the island, many locals regard Temasek as the "true" name for Singapore.

In all honestly, people assign names to various places according to their purpose, and as the territory changes hands to different rulers, so its name may change as well. No particular name has any more or less validity than another, rather it is merely a reflection of that particular regime's personal preferences. The ancient civilization of Ur, for example, has traded through a multitude of hands through the centuries, but it does not appear that there is a push in present day Iraq to rename the city of Baghdad to Babylon or Ur anytime soon.

I decided to apply this nationalist logic of "original name" to the current territory of the United States of America, since the use of the short name, "America" applied to this territory is controversial due to it's association with a much larger territory.

What was the "original" name for the current territory of the United States?

Is "America" an appropriate shortened name for this territory, or should it be changed to a more historically accurate and less controversial name?

1584 map by Jerónimo de Chaves made after Hernando De Soto's expedition into La Florida, which included trekking into the Mississippi River Valley and the Appalachian Mountains.

I began a quest to answer this question by researching the first expeditions to the New World. Even though there are well documented claims that a Chinese explorer Zhou Wen made it to the New World in 1421, for whatever reason that expedition did not have a subsequent political impact in the region. So I began focusing on the Spanish, Portuguese, and French explorations.

It's really funny because after three trips to the New World, Columbus swore to his death-bead that he had made it to China and "The Indies". Other explorers in the region, and other cartographers more familiar with the east coast of Asia were not so convinced, and asserted that Columbus had actually discovered a Terra Incognito, Terra Neuvo, or "New World". This was the name first assigned to the entire Western Hemisphere.

Because of Columbus's stubbornness on this issue, and the fact that he was exposed as a cruel and incompetent explorer, that the cartographer Martin Waldseemüller decided to name the entire New World after the explorer Americus Vespucius instead. The exact nature and geography of this New World were still far from understood though, and it would take over 200 years before maps began to shape into images recognizable from space.

The Spanish were the first to explore the New World, and were given exclusive rights to the territory according to the Papal Bull of 1493. The first area they settled in the New World was on the island of Hispaniola. Without the aid of satellite images, the way that these early explorers formed how they understood the geography around them was through a combination of ship logs as well as local descriptions of the coastal and interior areas.

The area directly to the South and West of Hispaniola was the first area of focus for the Spanish explorers, but very quickly the explorers learned about the legend of Bimini to the north from the local Arawak natives on Cuba and Hispaniola.

Bimini was a mythical island to the north of Cuba which the locals described as full of wealth and supposedly contained waters with healing powers. This mythical island-nation was very similar to the Grecian legend of Atlantis. Ponce De Leon was so enchanted by this legend of Bimini that he set off on an expedition to explore the territory north of Cuba. Supposedly he was looking for the healing waters of the Fountain of Youth to treat his impotence problem.

On April 2, 1513, Ponce landed somewhere near present day Daytona Beach, and named the territory "Florida" because he landed during Pascua Florida, the Christian Easter holiday, and probably because there were probably several flowers in bloom at that time. He claimed the territory for Spain, according to the authority granted to him by the Papal Bull.

For Ponce, this territory was ultimately not very welcoming, as he died of an attack by the vicious natives, the Calusa. This harsh territory north of Cuba would remain underdeveloped for another 50 years, which would give the French and British opportunity to challenge Spanish sovereignty in the area.

That same year, 1513, the Spanish explorer Balboa reached the Pacific Ocean, or the "South Seas". Spanish development of South and Central America rapidly took a progressive turn when they took over the Aztec Empire in 1519 and the Incas in 1532.

Knowledge of the territory north of Cuba was still mysterious though, due to extremely hostile encounters with the natives and the failed expedition by Narvaez in 1528. Little was known of the geography and many believed the entire landmass of North America to be an island they called Terra Florida, as depicted in a map by Leonardo da Vinci in 1515, and reiterating the original concept of the legend of Bimini.

Leonardo da Vinci's 1515 map of the New World, which reflects one of the common theories at that time that the North American continent was an island known as Terra Florida.

This map clearly illustrates that "America" was a term designated for the landmass to the south of Cuba, and Terra Florida the territory to the north.

Eventually, Hernando de Soto would disprove the island theory when he successfully lead an expedition into Terra Florida and provide the first detailed description of the geography north of Cuba. The area was still controlled by hostile local tribes, and settlement in the area was still limited. Though Spain held the original claim to all of the New World, the French and English were quickly beginning to challenge Spanish sovereignty to the north of Cuba.

in 1523 an Italian explorer Giovanni da Verazzano under the French service started to explore the east coast of the landmass north of Cuba. During his journey he incorrectly assumed that a vast ocean existed which divided the landmass into two parts, the southern part which was still referred to as Terra Florida, and the Northern part presumably a territory of potential interest for the French. This false "Sea of Verazzano" was seen as an oversight on the part of Giovanni, but may likely have been a part of a political attempt to convince those back in Europe that this northern landmass was separate from the Terra Florida under Spanish control, and thus candidate for French colonization.

One of the earliest maps of the New World by Sebastian Münster ca 1540, which labels the area presently known as the United States as "Terra Florida".

In short, the original name of the North American landmass north of Cuba was certainly "Florida", and not "America" but do we see people now wanting to be called "Floridans" instead of "Americas", or is there a push to rename the territory to "The United States of Florida"? No, and though this may seem like a silly idea, it's no less preposterous than renaming Bombay to Mumbai.