wildly off topic post 2: is 'oriental' an offensive word?

Having lived in the US I now always wince when I hear the word 'oriental' even though here it's used commonly to describe what in the US are called 'asians', including by British-'orientals' themselves. Hell, there's even an 'oriental plaza' and 'orient avenue' in the heart of Beijing, so the Chinese themselves don't seem to care.

Why exactly is it considered an offensive term? I never use it now but I'm still not sure why.

And how come east asians in the US get to appropriate the whole continent and call themselves asians, while in the UK its south asians who get the honour? I reckon we should agree standard terminology and use 'east asian' and 'south asian'. And where are the north and west asians? And why are Europe and asia considered seperate continents anyway, when they're all one land mass (aren't europeans really west eurasians?).

Oh, and on a similar subject I once met an austrialian who insisted on using the offensive abreviation for pakistani. They insisted it wasn't considered racist in Australia. Is this true or were they taking the piss?

We "occidentals" have to realize that race is not a textbook defintion and is a socially constructed concept that changes over time and place. For example, a person who would be considered "black" in the US would not be considered the same in other parts of the world, such as South America or Africa, depending on the ethnic mix of certain cultures.

Okay, no one says Oriental anymore to describe Asians in America. Various diverse ethnic groups from all over East Asia have formed panethnic groups like "Asian American" since the US civil rights movement. Panethnicity means these groups, although culturally different, can still ally along some cultural lines to form panethnic groups for greater political clout (this has also happened with Latinos and American Indians). Panethnic groups can include or exclude certain ethnicities for greater numbers--such as definitions of being a native Hawaiian changing over time, or why Asian Americans do not include, for example, those from India. Okay enough rambling, ....

I reckon we should agree standard terminology and use 'east asian' and 'south asian.

that does make sense, but the first thing that came to my mind was "well why dont americans refer to themselves as North Americans?"

Oh, and on a similar subject I once met an austrialian who insisted on using the offensive abreviation for pakistani. They insisted it wasn't considered racist in Australia.

do you mean Paki? im pakistani and i dont find that offensive at all, but it depends on the context one would use it in...ofensive=you fucking paki, get out of america" not offensive=kamar? he's a paki. i call myself a paki and sometimes pakman but im not as easily offended, but paki shouldnt be offensive. you can be safe and call them "daisi's" i have no idea what it means but they (indians/pakistani's) commonly use that word.

or why Asian Americans do not include, for example, those from India.

im an american first, paskitani-american second, and asian third. ill use asian on things that ask "ethnicity" like in applications for stuff. i feel im an asian as pakistan is part of asia.

kamar

Originally posted by 404 error And how come east asians in the US get to appropriate the whole continent and call themselves asians, while in the UK its south asians who get the honour? I reckon we should agree standard terminology and use 'east asian' and 'south asian'. And where are the north and west asians? And why are Europe and asia considered seperate continents anyway, when they're all one land mass (aren't europeans really west eurasians?).

who is the 'we' that should agree on 'standard terminology' to label east or south asians? East asians couldn't care less about how they are categorized or labelled by the west, plus I don't ever recall east asians 'claiming' the title 'asian' as to represent the entire asian continent. This is a label that was given to them... You can take your 'standard terminology' and shove it (you know where)

I never thought of "oriental" as being offensive before, unless perhaps it carries the same weight in the asian community as "the n-word" does in the african-american. It's probably been used derisively in the past, I am just not aware of it. I usually think of Asians as Asians anyway, and when I think of Asia I think of "Heat of the Moment" :D

Originally posted by BlindingSun > Originally posted by 404 error> And how come east asians in the US get to appropriate the whole continent and call themselves asians, while in the UK its south asians who get the honour? I reckon we should agree standard terminology and use 'east asian' and 'south asian'. And where are the north and west asians? And why are Europe and asia considered seperate continents anyway, when they're all one land mass (aren't europeans really west eurasians?).

who is the 'we' that should agree on 'standard terminology' to label east or south asians? East asians couldn't care less about how they are categorized or labelled by the west, plus I don't ever recall east asians 'claiming' the title 'asian' as to represent the entire asian continent. This is a label that was given to them... You can take your 'standard terminology' and shove it (you know where)

Apologies if any offence was given, none was intended...My talk of 'appropriation' was tongue-in-cheek.

By 'we' I mean the English speaking world, or at least the US and UK.

I'm confused what you mean by 'east asians don't care how they're labelled by the West'. 'east asians' and 'the west' aren't different things, surely, when one is talking about the east asians who are very much part of the West, and from what I remember in the US the east asians there cared very much how they were labelled (e.g. a huge kerfuffle over a university dining hall's attempt to hold an 'oriental evening'). True, the Japanese and Chinese nationals I've known didn't seem to care a fig, but it's east asians that are part of the west that I'm referring to.

I'm sure the different terminologies never will get fixed, I was just giving into exasperation after one email misunderstanding too many. Two nations divided by a common language and all that.

Originally posted by WenOrder I never felt oriental was offensive to me. I never really even knew some asians found it offensive until i was in middle school. It doesn't matter if you vietnamese, thai, korean, japanese, etc. most americans think we are chinese anyways.

Does that put most americans on an intellectual par with Bez? Oh dear.

Originally posted by kamar khan > I reckon we should agree standard terminology and use 'east asian' and 'south asian. that does make sense, but the first thing that came to my mind was "well why dont americans refer to themselves as North Americans?" > Oh, and on a similar subject I once met an austrialian who insisted on using the offensive abreviation for pakistani. They insisted it wasn't considered racist in Australia. do you mean Paki? im pakistani and i dont find that offensive at all, but it depends on the context one would use it in...ofensive=you fucking paki, get out of america" not offensive=kamar? he's a paki. i call myself a paki and sometimes pakman but im not as easily offended, but paki shouldnt be offensive. you can be safe and call them "daisi's" i have no idea what it means but they (indians/pakistani's) commonly use that word.> or why Asian Americans do not include, for example, those from India.im an american first, paskitani-american second, and asian third. ill use asian on things that ask "ethnicity" like in applications for stuff. i feel im an asian as pakistan is part of asia. kamar

Interesting, the P-word carries rather different connotations here, for sure. I don't think there's any use which wouldn't give offence.

Originally posted by 404 error Apologies if any offence was given, none was intended...My talk of 'appropriation' was tongue-in-cheek.By 'we' I mean the English speaking world, or at least the US and UK. I'm confused what you mean by 'east asians don't care how they're labelled by the West'. 'east asians' and 'the west' aren't different things, surely, when one is talking about the east asians who are very much part of the West, and from what I remember in the US the east asians there cared very much how they were labelled (e.g. a huge kerfuffle over a university dining hall's attempt to hold an 'oriental evening'). True, the Japanese and Chinese nationals I've known didn't seem to care a fig, but it's east asians that are part of the west that I'm referring to.I'm sure the different terminologies never will get fixed, I was just giving into exasperation after one email misunderstanding too many. Two nations divided by a common language and all that.

What is concerns me is that this is a discussion about how to correctly label a goddam huge group of people based on the colour or their hair, eyes and skin. Even if the english speaking world were to agree on standard terminology to correctly identify all types of asians, the differences in language and culture between all those who fall under these 'correct terms' would still make this a pointless exercise. Might just as well call anyone who has black hair, fair skin and small brown eyes Chinese (ask Bez). Know what I mean?

Originally posted by BlindingSun > Originally posted by 404 error> > Apologies if any offence was given, none was intended...My talk of 'appropriation' was tongue-in-cheek.> > By 'we' I mean the English speaking world, or at least the US and UK. > > I'm confused what you mean by 'east asians don't care how they're labelled by the West'. 'east asians' and 'the west' aren't different things, surely, when one is talking about the east asians who are very much part of the West, and from what I remember in the US the east asians there cared very much how they were labelled (e.g. a huge kerfuffle over a university dining hall's attempt to hold an 'oriental evening'). True, the Japanese and Chinese nationals I've known didn't seem to care a fig, but it's east asians that are part of the west that I'm referring to.> > I'm sure the different terminologies never will get fixed, I was just giving into exasperation after one email misunderstanding too many. Two nations divided by a common language and all that.

What is concerns me is that this is a discussion about how to correctly label a goddam huge group of people based on the colour or their hair, eyes and skin. Even if the english speaking world were to agree on standard terminology to correctly identify all types of asians, the differences in language and culture between all those who fall under these 'correct terms' would still make this a pointless exercise. Might just as well call anyone who has black hair, fair skin and small brown eyes Chinese (ask Bez). Know what I mean?

It's a natural human tendency to try and group people in some way, I guess it's supposed to help the brain process this information if they call all people who happen to be one color "black", "white", "yellow", etc. I'm not defending it, I just think it's natural. Thus, anyone from Asia is "an Asian", no matter if they come from Korea, China, etc. It's just something we as humans do. In some ways it's kinda like saying someone is French, but not distinguishing whether they're from Marsailles or Paris. At any rate, I don't think it's solely an English-speaking tendency.

The problem with all this euphemisms and political correctness is when you end up like Bill Clinton, who while on an African tour referred to the Ugandeans (I think it was there) as afro-americans!!!

Come to think of it and Almanso will correct me if I am wrong "Orientales" are the people from Uruguay.

Originally posted by BlindingSun > Originally posted by 404 error> > Apologies if any offence was given, none was intended...My talk of 'appropriation' was tongue-in-cheek.> > By 'we' I mean the English speaking world, or at least the US and UK. > > I'm confused what you mean by 'east asians don't care how they're labelled by the West'. 'east asians' and 'the west' aren't different things, surely, when one is talking about the east asians who are very much part of the West, and from what I remember in the US the east asians there cared very much how they were labelled (e.g. a huge kerfuffle over a university dining hall's attempt to hold an 'oriental evening'). True, the Japanese and Chinese nationals I've known didn't seem to care a fig, but it's east asians that are part of the west that I'm referring to.> > I'm sure the different terminologies never will get fixed, I was just giving into exasperation after one email misunderstanding too many. Two nations divided by a common language and all that.

What is concerns me is that this is a discussion about how to correctly label a goddam huge group of people based on the colour or their hair, eyes and skin. Even if the english speaking world were to agree on standard terminology to correctly identify all types of asians, the differences in language and culture between all those who fall under these 'correct terms' would still make this a pointless exercise. Might just as well call anyone who has black hair, fair skin and small brown eyes Chinese (ask Bez). Know what I mean?

Not sure if I know what you mean or not. I take it you'd prefer Japanese/Korean/Chinese etc to be treated as entirely seperate. I take the point that they don't necessarily have much in common. But... I'm part asian and neither I nor my sri lankan family members object to the term 'asian'. If anything an insistence on the specificity of 'Indian' 'Sri Lankan' etc is seen as being politically divisive in the face of a white population who often regard all as 'pakis' and discriminate against all indiscriminately. Then again, many 'asians' insist its their Muslim identity that is most important to them.

I do know I hate having to fill in those damn census forms or job application forms that insist you choose a box to desribe your race/ethnicity (for the purpose of equal opportunity monitoring). Every year those forms get more complicated. First it was black or white, then the Irish say they want a box seperate from 'white', then the Scots, then the Welsh, then they have to add all the mixed identities (asian-welsh?). Do they have these stupid things everywhere?

Originally posted by Spotnick Well..It's true most people call asians "chinese", that's a little ignorant, but you know, most people who don't know people from other races think they all look alike.. altough I must say that I think it's more true for asians than other races (probably due to the very large amount) in my head, I guess most people simply to give a damn to give it a try...

I have found that every Chinese or Japanese national I have met has invariably told me that I "don't look English". Which makes me wonder if east asians in turn think we should all look alike even if we don't (I half suspect all true Englishman are supposed to look like Gareth from the Office).

I can usually determine if a person is Korean or not, or Japanese or not, but I never call someone Chinese, because they may be Taiwanese. I can tell who is Vietnamese by their thick accents, but if I am stumped I just call them asians.

Originally posted by 404 error Not sure if I know what you mean or not. I take it you'd prefer Japanese/Korean/Chinese etc to be treated as entirely seperate. I take the point that they don't necessarily have much in common. But...I'm part asian and neither I nor my sri lankan family members object to the term 'asian'. If anything an insistence on the specificity of 'Indian' 'Sri Lankan' etc is seen as being politically divisive in the face of a white population who often regard all as 'pakis' and discriminate against all indiscriminately. Then again, many 'asians' insist its their Muslim identity that is most important to them.

I understand where you are coming from now, really I think my frustration is not over the actual term 'Asian', but stems from people's ignorance about how richly diverse all the countries from east and south Asia are. I've met far too many people that believed that there is absolutely no difference between people from Japan, Thailand or China etc. In reality they are literally worlds apart. It would be nice if people called me Chinese and it's also fine to label me asian but one should realize 'asian' is a most basic term that goes no further than to describe my outward appearance... and in today's sophisticated society we all know that outward appearances do not go a long way in revealing one's heritage, culture or even character. Unfortunately many use this basic term to draw final and complete conclusions about those facts. Remember how after 911 that Indian Sheik at the gas station was shot simply because 'he looked like an arab'?

Sorry if I'm being rather simplistic, but isn't "oriental" (meaning "of the east", from the Latin) simply the opposite of "occidental" (meaning, duh, "of the west" also from the Latin, cheers your holiness)?

I've never heard it used in a derogative sense before. Most of the less pleasant people seem to have far more offensive terms for people from the Far East (it's the Far East from where I am anyway, but if I lived in Japan I guess it wouldn't be).

I always thought it was quite a nice word really, but if that's offensive to anyone, then I'm sorry.

Originally posted by death of art Sorry if I'm being rather simplistic, but isn't "oriental" (meaning "of the east", from the Latin) simply the opposite of "occidental" (meaning, duh, "of the west" also from the Latin, cheers your holiness)?I've never heard it used in a derogative sense before. Most of the less pleasant people seem to have far more offensive terms for people from the Far East (it's the Far East from where I am anyway, but if I lived in Japan I guess it wouldn't be).I always thought it was quite a nice word really, but if that's offensive to anyone, then I'm sorry.

Good point. Even the word "Asian" is western-- Greek and Latin-- in origin.

Originally posted by BlindingSun > Originally posted by 404 error> Not sure if I know what you mean or not. I take it you'd prefer Japanese/Korean/Chinese etc to be treated as entirely seperate. I take the point that they don't necessarily have much in common. But...> I'm part asian and neither I nor my sri lankan family members object to the term 'asian'. If anything an insistence on the specificity of 'Indian' 'Sri Lankan' etc is seen as being politically divisive in the face of a white population who often regard all as 'pakis' and discriminate against all indiscriminately. Then again, many 'asians' insist its their Muslim identity that is most important to them.

I understand where you are coming from now, really I think my frustration is not over the actual term 'Asian', but stems from people's ignorance about how richly diverse all the countries from east and south Asia are. I've met far too many people that believed that there is absolutely no difference between people from Japan, Thailand or China etc. In reality they are literally worlds apart. It would be nice if people called me Chinese and it's also fine to label me asian but one should realize 'asian' is a most basic term that goes no further than to describe my outward appearance... and in today's sophisticated society we all know that outward appearances do not go a long way in revealing one's heritage, culture or even character. Unfortunately many use this basic term to draw final and complete conclusions about those facts. Remember how after 911 that Indian Sheik at the gas station was shot simply because 'he looked like an arab'?

I take your point entirely, I guess 'asian' can be an ostensibly 'polite' version of 'oriental' while still having the same underlying offensive assumptions.

Originally posted by 404 error > Originally posted by WenOrder I never felt oriental was offensive to me. I never really even knew some asians found it offensive until i was in middle school. It doesn't matter if you vietnamese, thai, korean, japanese, etc. most americans think we are chinese anyways.

Does that put most americans on an intellectual par with Bez? Oh dear.

hey! Bez isn't actually a stupid guy - have you read his autobiography? he actually makes some pretty good insights...

but i see your point, all the same.