I figure I’ll call people what they ask me to call them. ALL of my Asian friends prefer and use “Asian,” not “Oriental,” so that’s what I use.
What’s so hard to understand about that? 
Esprix
Personally, I don’t find this to be a very compelling argument. For the sake of the argument, let’s say he was motivated by purely political reasons. That would mean that a significant majority of Asian-Americans are aware of the issue to the extent that it would influence how they vote. So I don’t see how one could simultaneously argue that being called “Oriental” is not an issue for Asian-Americans, and that anyone could use the issue to curry political favor. If the former is true, then the latter would be false.
I agree that it’s counter-productive to beat someone up for an honest mistake. But what chaps my hide is people who still insist that there’s nothing wrong with saying “Oriental” even after they’ve been informed of the issue. This is not simply being “unaware”; it’s deliberate obstinacy.
I Love Me:
As I said before, it’s more comparable to “Negro”; not really a slur per-se, but an outdated term that carries a lot of negative connotations. “Oriental” conjures up stereotypical images of subservient people wearing cone-shaped hats and either cooking, doing laundry, or working on railroads.
As a gentleman of some years, I possess a full pallette of racial and ethnic slurs that would make “oriental” pale to purest innocence. Some folks want so badly to be offended and victimized that they take a word that has NEVER been intended to be offensive and go out of their way to be offended by it? Fine; I’ll make it easy for them. I believe I shall start using all of those other words.
:rolleyes:
Anna Livia Plurabelle, I am pleased that you are fascinated by my sights/cites. Perhaps you would enjoy the Pomo Generator. It generates random text that is indistinguishable from actual Pomo discourse. For example:
“Consciousness is fundamentally elitist,” says Sontag. However, Wilson[1] suggests that we have to choose between Lacanist obscurity and material subsemanticist theory. Constructive socialism states that the collective is capable of intention.
Therefore, the subject is interpolated into a dialectic theory that includes art as a whole. Many materialisms concerning constructive socialism may be found.
However, Foucault suggests the use of dialectic theory to modify and challenge society. The subject is contextualised into a Lyotardist narrative that includes consciousness as a paradox."
http://www.elsewhere.org/cgi-bin/postmodern/
My favorite Pomo film is “Marginalized Subject Devoid of a Meta-Narrative,” aka “Rebel without a Cause.”
Wow! It’s like you’re channeling Libertarian.
Then why did you use “nigger” as an example in the first place? You were the one that brought it up as a comparison…
"There are certainly more hateful pejoratives than “Oriental”, but I’m not seeing as how that’s an argument for it being o.k. to use it."
Where do you see me arguing that people should use it?
I (as per the OP) was questioning how, when and why it came to be considered a pejorative term. The Washington bill wasn’t an argument that it was okay to use it - it was simply an example of the fact that even many Asians were unaware that it was offensive.
"That’s like saying it’s o.k. for me to punch you in the face because it’s not as bad as stabbing you."
Comparing words with physical violence? If you want to do that, then should I take your vehement need to “inform” people as an “assault”?
"A lot of people don’t know the name of the Vice President, and others are unable to pinpoint the location of the United States on a map of the world. I’m not sure what it proves, exactly."
I’m not sure what your analogy proves in this case either. Maybe it proves that there are many things people need to be informed about? You didn’t address my point about tangible benefits, or the continuing institutionalised racism that goes on in this country, in spite of the terminology changes, did you?
"‘Oriental’ conjures up stereotypical images of subservient people wearing cone-shaped hats and either cooking, doing laundry, or working on railroads."
In what century? I’m sure there are some people who are only able to “conjure up” outdated stereotypes as a substitute for the observable present-day world, but I’m not convinced that catering to that perceptual problem is fighting ignorance - or effectively eradicating racism.
"But what chaps my hide is people who still insist that there’s nothing wrong with saying “Oriental” even after they’ve been informed of the issue. This is not simply being “unaware”; it’s deliberate obstinacy."
FTR: I’m not advocating addressing people as anything other than what they prefer. But I’m curious about how, when, and why they came to their preferences. It’s a discussion based on a valid question asked by the OP - I’m not sure why you see any of that as hide chapping.
The pleasure is all mine, but thanks/you’re welcome. Although I didn’t say anything about your “sights”, I’m sure they are fascinating as well (being in Honolulu and all).
I was really referring more to your conspiracy/covert govt sites (signifying my own paranoid/nihilistic meta-narrative). But the pomo stuff is fun too. Here’s my fave:
L’Isle de Gilligan
The "island’’ of the title is a pastoral dystopia, but a dystopia with a difference-or, rather, a dystopia with a differance (in, of course, the Derridean sense), for this is a dystopia characterized by the free play of signifier and signified.
The key figure of "Gilligan’’ enacts a dialect of absence and presence. In his relations with the Skipper, the Millionaire, and the Professor, Gilligan is the repressed, the excluded, the Other: He is the id to the Skipper’s ego, the proletariat to the Millionaire’s bourgeoisie, Caliban to the Professor’s Prospero.
But the binarism of this duality is deconstructed by Gilligan’s relations with Ginger the movie star. Here Gilligan himself is the oppressor: under the male gaze of Gilligan, Ginger becomes the Feminine-as-Other, the interiorization of a "self’’ that is wholly constituted by the linguistic conventions of phallocratic desire (keeping in mind, of course, Saussure’s langue/parole distinction).
That Ginger is identified as a "movie star’’ even in the technologically barren confines of the desert island foreshadows Debord’s concept of the ‘‘society of the "spectacle’’, wherein events and "individuals’’ are reduced to simulacra.
Indeed, we find a stunningly prescient example of what Baudrillard has called the "depthlessness’’ of America in the apparent "stupidity’’ of Gilligan and, indeed, of the entire series.
(apologies for continuing the hijack)
In order to demonstrate that etymology is not the standard by which we judge the offensiveness of a word. The N-word is a good example of that because despite its relatively benign etymology, it is still a highly-offensive word. Clear now?
Hmmm…you certainly seemed to be making the argument that it’s not an offensive word. If you’re not trying to say it’s o.k. to say “Oriental”, then I’m baffled as to exactly what your point is.
What is with all the analogy-impaired people in this forum? Do you understand that an analogy can illustrate a point without being exactly the same in every way? The point is that if A is “not as bad” as B, it does not necessarily mean that A is acceptable. I can illustrate the point using anything I want for A and B, and it’s still a valid point. Geez, I feel like I’m having to re-invent the wheel here just to get you to comprehend what an analogy is.
No, by this point I’m figuring that you are unable to comprehend analogies at all.
Doesn’t helping a group not to feel oppressed constitute a “tangible benefit”?
19th and 20th. It wasn’t as long ago as you think. And actually, your consternation at how long ago the word “Oriental” was used only serves to point out how outdated it is.
With all due respect, I don’t imagine that Asian-Americans really give a rat’s ass whether YOU think it’s helpful or not.
I don’t see why you think the quote above refers to you specifically; it doesn’t.
"Hmmm…you certainly seemed to be making the argument that it’s not an offensive word. If you’re not trying to say it’s o.k. to say “Oriental”, then I’m baffled as to exactly what your point is."
Gee, I’m sorry you “missed it”:
Clear now?
"What is with all the analogy-impaired people in this forum? Do you understand that an analogy can illustrate a point without being exactly the same in every way? The point is that if A is “not as bad” as B, it does not necessarily mean that A is acceptable. I can illustrate the point using anything I want for A and B, and it’s still a valid point. Geez, I feel like I’m having to re-invent the wheel here just to get you to comprehend what an analogy is."
I know what an analogy is. I also know what an illogical fallacy is, and why people resort to using them in lieu of responding to what’s actually being said.
"Doesn’t helping a group not to feel oppressed constitute a “tangible benefit”?"
I’m sure all the African-American men in prison appreciate your linguistic efforts on their behalf… How’s that for an “analogy”?
Actually, I think the only way to “help” a group not to feel oppressed is to not oppress them. I can’t control how people “feel”, or what images they “conjure up”. I would certainly “feel” better if you would stop posting sarky comments, responding to out of context quotes, and using strawman analogy - in place of dialogue - but that’s not your problem, is it?
"With all due respect, I don’t imagine that Asian-Americans really give a rat’s ass whether YOU think it’s helpful or not."
Well, there’s a good point. They shouldn’t give a rat’s ass what someone else thinks… or what words they choose to use. Nor should anyone. When free speech is pre-empted, everyone is oppressed.
I don’t need to stress the point that, by your own logic, what YOU think is also not worth a rat’s ass - or do I?
-
If people have to be told something is offensive before they know, perhaps it wasn’t offensive.
-
There is major difference between the European and American words Oriental, apparently. In America, it refers only to the east-Asian cultures, usually those east of the Himalayas, and not all of them.
-
Personally, I think Said was full of it. I see no similarity, nor do I draw a connection between any of the major people of the Asian continent. His evidence was more or less old and decrepit when he first looked at it, and thats not even counting the fact that he already was rather liberal, and is prone to looking for racism against “his” Palestinians.
I forget who said it (possibly Asimov), but the Magi (“We Three Kings of Orient Are”) were not shoguns…
But, as Bandit said, American usage has moved the Orient eastward from where it was when that song was written.
Huh?
I have discovered that I can work for a man who pays me well, thinks I do a great job, but if he insists on referring to me as “Babe” after I let him know I don’t appreciate being referred to in unprofessional terms, he is not chosing to respect me and therefore, I’m not interested in working for him. He may not be oppressing me by calling me “babe” but he isn’t showing respect either.
As I have discovered as well that I “catch more flies with honey” I choose to talk to people in a manner which makes them believe I like and respect them (and generally speaking, I really try to like and respect them as well - it isn’t an insincere effort). Thus, when talking to people, I don’t use nicknames unless I know that the person enjoys being “Dave” instead of “David.”
Using “Asian” rather than “Oriental” is an extention of this.
Sorry to have started a thread and run off without contributing, but my employers have unfortunately decided I should earn my bread the last couple of days. The quote above essentially summarizes my puzzlement with the whole “Oriental” issue. It’s not enough to say that SE Asians have decided they’d rather not be called Oriental. What is the reasoning behind it? Did they all get together and decide to stick it to the white man by introducing confusion into his verbiage? Of course not. My point in starting this thread wasn’t to encourage the use of the term Oriental but to understand why the hell it’s considered a racial slur in the first place. The only people I’ve ever encountered who’ve given me looks when the word Oriental has been used are Asian-Americans. But if the term is offensive why haven’t I ever once heard any of the so-called oppressors use it in a disparaging manner?
So far, from what I’ve read I agree with those who say the uproar must come from a false need for empowerment over oppression that doesn’t exist. An inflammatory statement, I’m sure, but hopefully it’ll light a fire under somebody’s ass to state a genuine reason why I should feel guilty for using the term Oriental when referring to a person I’m pretty sure is not Russian or Afghani, but then again I’m not sure what area of SE Asia they originated from. Is this the main gist? That I’m an evil white American because I can’t differentiate between a Cambodian and a Vietnamese by sight alone? Inquiring minds…
Jeremy Ulrey
The gist, if you’ve been reading, is that if a small person who spins straw into gold asks you to refer to him as “Dave,” you don’t ask him when “Rumplestiltskin” became offensive, and, not getting a satisfactory answer, continue to call him “Rumplestiltskin” out of some kind of principle. That’s rude. Call people what they ask you to call them - how hard is that, and how much of a reason or explanation do you need before you’ll accommodate that civil and simple reqest?
As I’ve said many, many times, I consider “PC” to mean “Plain Courtesy.”
Esprix
It’s not considered a racial slur, as posters above have already spelled out at some length. It is considered an outdated term for Asians that is at least mildly offensive, mainly due to the obvious Eurocentric assumptions that underlay its coining and its use. All of this was also admirably elucidated in an earlier post.
If you insist on using the term Oriental to refer to Asian people, you will not be mistaken for an oppressor or oppressor-wannabe. You will be correctly identified as a disrespectful and/or pathetically clueless boob. The correct response to this state of affairs is not to feel guilt. It is to feel crass and stupid.
Not in the least. As to your first point, you claim you are only questioning how it became a pejorative term, yet you continue to throw out arguments about how the Washington bill was just a political stunt, how some people don’t consider it an insult, and how it doesn’t change anything to use “Asian”, because people are still oppressed. These are not arguments as to etymology, buy rather are arguments against using “Asian” in place of “Oriental”. You’re all over the map on this.
As to your second point, I already addressed it in an extremely clear and concise manner. I have not maligned anyone for being ignorant of the issue - only for continuing to demonstrate a lack of respect for the Asian community after they have been educated.
First of all, it’s called a LOGICAL fallacy, not an illogical fallacy. Second, please tell me what logical fallacy I have committed. (This ought to be entertaining.)
How’s that for an analogy? In a word - terrible. My previous analogy showed how B being “worse” than A does not mean that B is acceptable. Applying the idea to the present argument, you appear to be arguing thus:
-
Helping Asian-Americans to not feel oppressed by respecting their wishes is beneficial.
-
Large numbers of African-American men being incarcerated is worse than the problem being addressed in (1).
Therefore, (1) is not beneficial <- DOES NOT FOLLOW.
Nobody is asking you to do so; only to stop using the word that conjures up those images. I can’t control what people think of when I call them “Negro”, but I can refrain from doing so. It’s hardly rocket science.
You are just as guilty of that as I.
Nope, because I haven’t done any of those things.
And here you make yet another argument against opting for “Asian” in place of “Oriental”, while continuing your false protest of “Gosh, I’m only asking an innocent question about how it came about”. You continue to contradict yourself.
Once again, you fail to comprehend what I have said. I said that Asians probably are not interested in YOUR assessment of the benefits of using the word “Asian”; they are in fact motivated by how it affects THEM. I never said they “don’t care what you think”.
If you call people “Orientals”, the relevant question is not whether YOU think it’s a slur, it’s whether THEY think it is. I’m loathe to use another analogy, given your track record of totally missing the point, but let’s say I happen to think that “Kraut” is a perfectly acceptable way to address a person of German descent, and go around addressing German people that way. Should MY opinion on the matter really be the deciding factor? I say no - I should respect the wishes of the German people who are affected by my actions.
I still think there is something a little odd about all of this. However, I know that labels and descriptions do change over time, and if there are Asians who prefer to be called Asians rather than Orientals, then I certainly have no problem calling them Asians. In fact, that’s what I already call them.
What is the analog term for white people? Is our “outdated” term Caucasian? If so, it certainly carries no negative baggage for me at all.
Well, maybe not pathetically clueless. If you are older (and I’m looking at you - which I can’t do over the phone or on a message board), quaint and old fashioned. If you are younger than 50 and older than 30, slightly clueless and out of touch. Anyone under 30, hopefully out of touch - unless context in any of these cases paints you as disrespectful in which case I hesitate to use the loaded term racist - but it crosses the mind.
But the point is well founded - calling someone Oriental does not reflect poorly on them - it reflects poorly on you.
What’s with the holier than thou attitude? Is this subject too taboo to discuss without being shouted down for asking about it? Obviously no one here is going to walk around calling people Oriental after this thread. I’ve been using Asian since about 1990 when someone mentioned that Oriental was no good anymore.
But there is a legitimate linguistic/cultural question here. Why the change?
Are there any records to track when the backlash against this word began? I imagine the word gave Asians a bad taste just because it was used for many years while they were discriminated against. Is that it (was just a guess)? If so, who suggested Asian? Was it a collective decision, did the decision against Oriental start with one guy speaking out in Fisherman’s Wharf in San Fran, or was there some sort of group consciousness happening?
If the answers to these questions are lost in time, so be it, but there’s no need to belittle people for asking them. I’ve often wondered how these PC name changes come about. The extremely diverse group of people in NY that I know certainly don’t care enough to change this stuff, but it must be coming from somewhere.
As an aside, what do you think if a group decides it would prefer to be called Brains or Rulers or something like that? “He’s Puerto Rican” - “shhh, they prefer to be called Sun Lords now”. Is there a limit to the amount of change you’re willing to make regarding categorization?
PeeQueue