Growing up in California, I have used the term “Asian” at least since the early 80s. I think the practice got to the midwest a little later. I have a vague recollection of there being an “Oriental Student Union” in middle school, and that’s about the last time I remember it being common usage. I personally cannot recall ever using that word to describe a person. It has been “Asian” as long as I can remember.
Ironically, it seems that the people who take the greatest offense are those who harbor an irrational attachment to the word “Oriental”. Some people become positively outraged at the idea that the word is old-fashioned. This is complicated by the fact that usage is different in other countries.
I remember a thread about this quite awhile ago. What will happen is that people will get red-faced and scream about their “right” to say “Oriental”. It will mainly be older people and people in rural areas who never got the memo, and now refuse to believe that the usage ever changed. And I’m sure there are parts of the country where it didn’t ever change. I imagine you can still find people who say “Negro” too. Some self-righteous younger people will join in and wail about “PC” destroying their lives - the usual schtick. And participants from the UK and other countries will join in with the angry Americans, not understanding that the usage is completely different in their country.
And the problem with this is that it’s not completely accurate. My wife is Tawanese (ethnic Chinese) but during our vacation in Vietnam was constantly mistaken as a native, by Vietnamese. Sure, mostly the look different, but we saw Vietnamese who looked East Asian, which others have pointed out is an acceptable alternative.
I’m wondering of those who are getting riled up have bothered to read the informative article which Tom linked to. After having first lived in Japan in the early 80s, I’ve heard “Asian” much more frequently.
I don’t really bristle or get offended at “oriental.” I find it a bit jarring, but only because it sounds so antiquated to me. Kind of like calling a black person “colored” (I think)…it isn’t overtly disparaging, it just sounds very 1963.
Antiquated is, I think, the best way to describe oriental. I’m not offended or outraged by the word, but it’s somewhat discomfiting. There are connotations of ethnocentrism and long-since-eradicated ignorance. It’s like the word inscrutable when applied to a Chinese person, or Chinaman. It’s not that the connotations are necessarily evil or racist, just out-dated and ignorant.
Since you also live in California, perhaps you’ll agree with me that “Oriental” can be offensive due to its Euro- / East Coast-centricism. So called “Orientals” don’t live east of here, they’re west! “Oriental” smacks of a world view according to which civilization’s true point of reference is an axis running roughly from Hoboken through Manhattan and then through the capitals of Europe.
The debate over whether the general switch from “oriental” to “asian” is PC nonsense is funny to me. I think the best guide is to listen to what the people who belong to the group ACTUALLY say. My Asian friends tend to say “Asian,” so that’s what I say. My black friends tend to say “black,” so that’s what I say. Worrying about what Jesse Jackson or similar “spokespeople” think about it…now THAT may be PC nonsense, but using the term used by the community at large just makes sense to me.
I’m Indian-American and I’m with Sage Rat and Evil Captor on this one. I would like to be able to use the word “Oriental” for people, because it has a meaning, and “Asian” does not have the same meaning.
I believe “farang” can be traced all the way back to interactions between Arabia/North Africa and Europe. It’s my understanding that as far back as the Crusades, the Turks and Arabs were calling Europeans “Franj” (Franks).
So the argument is basically that you desire a word with more specificity than “Asian”? If you want to be specific, you can always use the person’s actual ancestry: Chinese, Korean, Philipino, etc.
Sage Rat’s argument was that there’s only one word in English which describes people of the oriental look (Chinese, Korean, or Japanese) and that Malaysians, Vietnamese and Filipinos don’t share this “look”. Aside from what was already pointed out regarding the fact that it’s often impossible to make such a distinction based only on appearance, why do you need this distinction? I’ve been using the word “Asian” all my life, and have never run into a situation where I felt I needed a different word.
It seems like a contrived argument. I don’t hear anyone ever argue that “Negro” is better than “black”, even though it could be argued that Negro is the more specific term (there are certainly people of Indian ancestry whose skin color is darker than some people of African ancestry). The fact that people seem willing to accept that Negro is an outdated term, yet refuse to accept that Oriental is, seems to be simple stubbornness. The point is not how specific it is; the point is that it has negative connotations.
As far as I can tell, whether I say “Oriental” or “Asian” or “East Asian” I’m pissing somebody off. Well shit, is it the consensus that if I’m not pretty damn sure where an individual hails from I should not mention a physical description at all?
Since I’m in the middle of White Bread Central, USA I’m afraid I’m not conversant with all differentiating characteristics of the people whose ancestors, recent or distant, may have come from China, Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines, etc., so it’s hard for me to tell with any accuracy which country they might be from.
I think what steams me about this is the recent ass-chewing I got from an acquaintance when I described someone as “Asian”. She was quite heated in advising me that the individual in question was Filipino, and I was way off base in calling him Asian. What should I have said when she asked me for a description? Or maybe she’s just an ass.
Lowbrass, it’s as simple as this – “Oriental” refers specifically to people who look Oriental, at the very least Chinese, Japanese, and Korean, and anyone else who has similar appearance.
“Asian” means all Asians. Not all Asians look Oriental.
Why is it impossible? Either someone looks “Oriental” or doesn’t. Either someone looks “white” or doesn’t. Either someone looks “black” or doesn’t. Maybe it doesn’t follow strict lines of nationality and citizenship, but it’s not a nationality or citizenship-based distinction in the same way that “black” and “white” are not nationality or citizenship-based distinctions.
Sometimes you do want to make a distinction based only on appearance. What else are the terms “black” and “white” for? Those are purely appearance-based.
Explain how this applies. Post 82 talks about nationalities. “Oriental” is not a nationality-based classification.
Because “Asian” means “from Asia,” which includes ethnicities of varying appearances. It doesn’t specify a particular appearance.
Because those terms are too specific. What if I insisted that all people who hail from the landmass of Eurasia are properly referred to only as “Eurasian” or by their specific nationality – barring you from using terms such as white, Caucasian, Semitic, South Asian, etc.
Your Post 82 offers “East Asian” as an alternative to “Oriental.” If “Oriental” is an unnecessary and illogical term, then don’t the same arguments apply to “East Asian”?
Asian is vague. It’s an enormous continent, and Chinese people don’t look like Bangladeshis who don’t look like Iranians. That much ought to be obvious. I don’t think I believe that black is any more precise, however.
Bottom line is that you don’t really need a more specific term if you know anything about how names work and how people look. I’m not nervy enough to describe how Koreans look different from Japanese, but they’re not identical, and neither are the names. There’s no real term for people from the Indian subcontinent, either (once in a while I’ll say “subcontinental”), I know. On the other hand, is there some great potential for confusion that I’m unaware of? I don’t like vague language, but more specific terms and identifiers do exist.
