dropzone, it appears your theory (“Victorian imperialism”) of the “why is it offensive” is supported by blowero’s cite (“European and American colonialistic attitudes of the past and present”).
I understand the why I suppose. Yet I’m a bit embarrassed about not being aware of the shift in attitude about the term Oriental. Ah well. I guess that’s what fighting ignorance is all about. Better late than never.
Thank God! After nearly 60 posts someone actually provides some real background info. Thanks for the post, blowero, although I can’t guarantee this’ll be the last of the anti-PC sneering, especially in light of all the self congratulatory back slapping you and your PC ilk have indulged in to get to this point.
:smack:
Jeremy Ulrey
It’s not noun vs. adjective per se, it’s people vs. objects/places. Why are you having such a hard time with this? It’s relatively straightforward.
Uh, yeah, actually. Look around. There are several people who have been posting that have a genuine interest in why the term Oriental fell out of favor, and you and several others have been (deliberately?) skirting that issue time and again to slap hands whenever someone is ignorant of the preference for “Asian” over “Oriental” or, worse yet, actually dares to question the reason why. You act as if challenging the status quo is in and of itself a crude faux pas rather than a legitimate inquiry and you wonder why you’re “painted with a broad brush”. Stop acting like a frickin’ PC stereotype then!
I’m not sure which comments you’re referring to, but any attempt at levity is welcome in my book. Some of you are so damn dry you present a downright fire hazard, and you wonder where all the flaming comes from. Lighten up.
Jeremy Ulrey
Whatever.:rolleyes: The very first 2 replies in this thread dealt exclusively with the reasons for the change in terminology. Your thread derailed after the THIRD reply, in which you hijacked your own thread with this gem:
So you’ve got nobody to blame but yourself, pal.:wally
Yes. I agree. Once you get a bunch of people aguring over what name to call a person of a particular place so as not to offend, all discussion becomes meaningless. Words cannot be dictated by committees. These matters reconcile themselves in the day-to-day discourse of person to person interaction and any laws and lofty principals and logical pronouncements are only superfluously silly constructions of the foolish.
But one thing sticks in my craw. Why do some yankees and some orientals insist in calling people from Alabama “southerners”?
The term “southerner” conjures up an image of ignorant, incestuous, snake handling, bible thumping, rednecks who run around calling black folk “nigger” and sit around all day eating grits and chitlins while waiting eagerly for the next scheduled lynching.
Hell, them weirdos in lower California are much further south than Alabama and they don’t get called “southerners”.
Me and my gun toting friends would perfer to be called “gentlemen of the gulf states.”
Would it break your alls ever-so-correct-speaking jawbones to address us as such?
Because, in my clueless majority group manner, it seems silly to me. There are so many other things in the world to get pissed about, and so many ways that Asians could be REALLY insulted, finding “Oriental” offensive sounds, I don’t know, made up because somebody wanted to feel persecuted!
Further Googling Oriental has shown that, while generally rarer than it once was, it is still used BY Asians to describe themselves, and not in the “we’re trying to defuse the word” manner that nigger is used by some blacks.
Whatever. All I know is that, even if I didn’t care that some people find it offensive, I don’t generally use it. It’s just a little too archaic, even for me, and I love archaic words. It’s been dying on its own and making a big deal out of people using it by changing laws and discussing it here is more likely to revive it.
You live in Kuwait? 
Now you’re just changing your argument. You tried to suggest that it was inconsistent, but when I pointed out that it is consistent, you change your tack to saying it’s silly. Assuming you are not Asian, I don’t know that YOU should be the arbiter of whether it’s silly or not.
I think if you take a closer look you will see that such is the case only in relatively backwater places. I imagine you could still find some holdouts who still say “Negro”, but that doesn’t make it acceptable.
Let’s see…so “Oriental” is dying out, but a few people are still using it. However, we shouldn’t inform those people about the change, because then they would be more likely not to change.
Yeah, that makes sense.:rolleyes:
Hmmm, let’s see. A traditionally minority, stereotyped and discriminated against group of people fight for decades, if not centuries, to establish a cultural identity in the United States. Semantics ebb and flow, language changes, and at some point they self-refer by one name in one time period, and then another in another time period.
Why does the majority have a problem with this?
Further, at those minorities’ expense, they joke they wish to be called other names themselves, openly mocking those communities.
Why? If your point is to make yourself look like an insensitive jackass, you’re succeeding - congratulations.
And this could apply to Asians, blacks, the GLBT community, and probably quite a few others.
Esprix
I’d like to post an additional cite, but its printed.
Check out Everything You Need to Know About Asian Amercian History by Lan Cao and Himilee Novas, 1996. The Oriental/Asian debate is covered on pages xiii-xv.
Most of what they say has been summarized above. Came out of the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s. Particularly Activist and Student driven at that time. Origin of “orient” and “oriental.” The connotations the word carried and finally “oriental is a rug, not a person.”
There is no umbrella group of Asian Americans that held a vote that only Asian Americans participated to come up with this. But Asian activists have been working to transform the language for forty years and it has worked - most instutions use Asian as part of their communication guidelines, I seldom hear people refer to my son as Oriental. But there is no “Borg Mind” among Asians that mean that they are all know about this or are of the same mind - yes “many” Asians don’t care or disagree. But many more seem to have a definate preference for Asian. The language is changing - it isn’t 100% yet - and possibly never will be (I just hear someone referred to as a Papist the other day).
**Esprix: **"…Further, at those minorities’ expense, they joke they wish to be called other names themselves, openly mocking those communities.
Why? If your point is to make yourself look like an insensitive jackass, you’re succeeding - congratulations."
Fiddlestixs Esprix, no ones mocking, as you so sensitively put it, “communities”. And no one is calling other people “bad names”.
There is something very condescending about a group of people discussing about what name to call a even larger group of people. Something undemocratic and very paternalistic. Words are transitory appellations. Words become what they identify, changing the wording changes not a whit.
Only children cry when called bad names.
Your remark about southerners now wishing to be called another name directly mocks those in the Asian community who are continuing to struggle with their identity. It appalls me. What next - you’re a lesbian trapped in a straight man’s body? Please. Build a bridge and get over it.
I don’t believe anyone has said they were. We’re talking about how communities ask to be identified. I still don’t understand what the problem with this is. It’s common courtesy.
So why such a problem with people asking to be identified in a certain way? If it’s all transient anyway, why do you care? Why does it bother some people so much that more people from the Asian community have asked to be called “Asian” instead of “Oriental?” Why, why, why?
Your sensitivity and courtesy is astounding. Perhaps you should become a diplomat.
:rolleyes:
Esprix
But in this case we are talking about what only SOME members of that community are asking to be called while other members don’t see what the big deal is. That is what I find silly about this, though I was the first to say that I view it from the standpoint of the group in power. And you will note that I stopped using it many years ago, as soon as I found some people found it offensive.
However, this is not one of the heavily-loaded words like faggot or nigger that are still in wide use. It is an archaic word that has been dying from lack of use anyway. I can see why those people would want it replaced in laws, though I cannot imagine a law that is still on the books in which someone would be called Oriental. It’s so 18th century!
As for the mocking you mentioned, yeah, I’ll mock a situation if I find it silly. Some of this is just silly. And you know perfectly well that I’m an unapologetically insensitive jackass.
Blowero, I’ll grant you this - I am a clueless boob for replying to you yet again…
Originally posted by Blowero:
my quote:
In review, it’s obvious that Blowero (in particular) had no interest in why, how, or when in the first place:
For some reason, this lack of interest must be shared by everyone, or it’s a problem for… Blowero???
"Utter nonsense. I said nothing of the sort. You don’t seem very interested in my point (only your strawman characterization), but I will repeat it anyway: It’s not that I wish to forbid discussion of the etymology; I am merely pointing out that the etymology should not be used as a JUSTIFICATION for continuing to use the word “Oriental” in spite of people’s wishes to the contrary."
Well, I guess your own quotes that I cited from this thread (that you conveniently edited out of the quote above) were misleading. But I also read the earlier threads that squink cited, and you appear there saying the same things.
Are you really denying that your attitude is: Everyone should know this by now, and if (incredibly!), they do not, they should just do as they’re told (as they are now “educated”) without asking any questions. To ask questions is “deliberate obstinancy”, or possibly worse (whatever you’re implying by your cross-examination of my posts and “motives”)…
my quote:
The “So, what’s your point/problem?” attitude quotes are on display in this thread. I say, what’s the point of someone contributing to this thread if the question posed by the OP (and a few others) is of no significance to him/her. If anyone sees racist or hate speech in this thread I can only suggest they report the post in question. Otherwise, why isn’t this a valid topic for debate?
"What the hell are you talking about now? Who accused you of hate speech?"
Where does my quote say I’m personally being accused of hate speech? I was making a general statement, to counter the “implications” put forth by some posters that some other posters might have less than “innocent” motivations for discussing this.
"I believe Aholibah has already pointed out how the OP got the ball rolling as far as this debate exceeding the boundaries of a purely etymological discussion. It quickly turned into a diatribe against those awful “PC” people; your false protests to the contrary notwithstanding."
“False” protests? I quoted the OP, and offered my perception (clearly stated as such). I clearly stated my personal feelings about PC too. You can point to Ahibolah, and I can point to the people who echo my “protests” against the “holier than thou” attitude. As I said, it’s a matter of subjective perception. In any case, you’re not even the OP, so why are you monitoring “the boundaries” of this discussion? Is there no limit to your self-appointed authoritarian impulses?
"In spite of your continued disclaimers that you are only interested in discussing the origin of the term, you have, and continue to, post commentary that exceeds those bounds:"
Wow, I guess there really is no limit. I hope you’re attempting parody here because this would be frightening if you were serious.
First of all: My only “disclaimers” were to the “courtesy and consideration” advocates. Again: No one is or was questioning the idea that courtesy and consideration shouldn’t be a factor of how to address people. And yet, it keeps coming up as some kind of implied accusation. It’s pretty ironic that your idea of encouraging courtesy to groups so often requires insulting individuals.
This third degree business is way out of bounds though. If you think I’m “guilty” of something, I suggest you either report me, or vent it in the pit (I have no desire to join you; hurling scatological insults and putz smileys don’t do it for me). I will however, provide you with the GD-rated “entertainment” you requested earlier:
your quote:
“Doesn’t helping a group not to feel oppressed constitute a “tangible benefit”?”
my quote 1:
I’m sure all the African-American men in prison appreciate your linguistic efforts on their behalf… How’s that for an “analogy”?
my quote 2:
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”.
"Yet another argument as to your perceived ineffectiveness of the change, rather than its origin."
Well, no. The first quote was “sarcasm”. Did you think “How’s that for an ‘analogy’” was seriously asked? I was making a point based on your use of inappropriate analogies. Sorry I didn’t use a smiley instead of just putting the word analogy in quotes (I was angry, and I don’t use smileys for angry sarcasm). But I thought it would be clear in the context of the post (it was preceded by my point about your comparisons (logical fallacies), i.e. violence to words, “nigger” to “oriental”). Maybe by that time you were just scanning for opportunities to ridicule me and didn’t read context properly.
The second quote was the “serious” reply to you regarding your example of tangible benefits. Are you really trying to say that I can only respond to “origin”(?) statements, but that you (and others) are allowed to post outside that “boundary”? Please point out the rule that says discussions can’t and don’t evolve or tangent. Oh, and then show me some fake ID, since you’re impersonating an authority figure here.
quote:
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.
"Here you appear to be arguing that discouraging the use of “Oriental” is somehow an affront to free-speech, although I am somewhat perplexed as to how you could come to such a conclusion. At any rate, it’s most certainly not sticking to your self-proclaimed boundaries of discussion."
Telling someone what they can or cannot say involves a free speech issue. Obviously, people must live with the consequences of what they say, so being deliberately rude to people doesn’t come without a price. I actually “get” that part of it, okay? (hint: sarcasm) But it also applies to this discussion in that most of these terminology changes are a result of identity politics (the sub-category being PCism, or free speech v. “selective” free speech). I’ll cite, if you’re really interested.
Believe it or not, I’m very concerned about oppression (I used the incarceration example the first time as a very serious issue). If the PC element of identity politics isn’t effectively reducing or eliminating real oppression, I think it’s worth re-examining. In some cases, the PC gloss-over of “oppressive images” might very well “mask” real discrimination (read: my sarcastic “celebrating diversity” comment).
That’s why I’m a little cynical about third party motives (not you in particular; more like govt and advocacy groups). And I always want to know “why”, and prefer to hear it from the actual group in question.
As more people become oversensitive to their own group’s hurt feelings over just about anything (and you know this is happening), perception/priority suffers, and honest dialogue suffers. As it is now, people have a hard time perceiving intentions (i.e. the difference between a clueless remark, local slang, humour, and real hate speech). I’m certainly not saying Asian Americans don’t deserve respect for their feelings on this, but your attitude here as a third party doesn’t promote that. Are you sure all this is just about you helping them? Yes, the OP mentioned PC before you posted - but you played right into that stereotype and then some. Respect goes both ways. Maybe you were aware of this change many years ago, but you also know by now that many people were not. Implying they are out of the loop or stupid isn’t helpful. Impatience over the questions isn’t helpful. Implying sinister intentions isn’t helpful. I’d also avoid using words like “informed” or “educated”. It also “conjures up” bad images. I’m serious about this.
I know it’s outside the “original” OP topic, but it does apply to “why”, and the question of pre-empting free speech in favour of avoiding “offensiveness” is always a factor of these changes. No group has an exclusive on “hurt feelings”, and there is no way to completely eliminate that. As we have proven in some of our posts in this thread, it’s still very easy to insult someone without resorting to ethnic or racial terms.
As for “topic boundaries”: How is telling someone “what YOU think isn’t relevant” within the boundaries of any public forum discussion? You’ve said this to the OP, to me, and to someone on one of the other threads. I assume you are applying this concept to everyone (“equality”, right?), but then it effectively kills any real dialogue, or mutual understanding, doesn’t it? Is that your goal?
For some reason, you’ve confused a discussion about terminology changes with a sinister committee meeting to justify the use of a word in order to deliberately hurt people. You’re reading motives into this discussion - but at the same time - you question why the motives of the change should be significant to someone else. Be consistent yourself: Are motives significant or not?
"Shall I go on, or is that enough?"
I said it was enough before you posted this last one, so why bother to ask now? Whatever.
quote:
<hijack>
[ranting snipped]
If you don’t think responding to a cite snipped in mid-sentence (disregarding the explanatory text that precedes or follows) is quoting out of context, there’s no point arguing/deconstructing the rest.
"Don’t know what you’re talking about; please reference the quote in question, or withdraw your accusation."
Well here’s the snipped mid-sentence quotes:
Your reply to the first part was a logical fallacy (tu quoque). Many of the “full sentence” quotes are replied to out of context:
me: “I’m not sure what your analogy proves in this case either.” (snip)
you: “No, by this point I’m figuring that you are unable to comprehend analogies at all.” (appeal to mockery; ad hominem)
me: “In what century?” (snip)
you: “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.” (out of context: my “consternation” was not about the “long ago” use of the word, but at the idea that people today would have images to conjure up from before their lifetime).
me: “Apparently, a lot of people “missed it”.” (snip/disregard cite that proves this)
you: “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.” (ad lapidem; and yet another inappropriate analogy, implying - for the second time in the thread - that only stupid people would be unaware that “oriental” is offensive. Especially disingenuous since you knew from the previous thread that many people were unaware of the change - even Cecil Adams, according to one poster.)
me: “Where do you see me arguing that people should use it?”
you: “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.” (hypothesis contrary to fact; distorted active listening, disingenuous bs)…Imply it often enough and other people will believe it, right?
I still say your “nigger” analogy was disingenuous, to say the least (especially considering your post in the previous thread where you use “negro” instead; and then of course you backpedaled to “negro” here). And yet you keep implying that I have less than “innocent” motives?
I cited the mid-sentence because it seemed particularly ironic at the time, considering it was followed by your comment:
No big deal on its own (the mid-sentence snip), and I understand that most people can’t avoid using these tactics to some degree (I’m not excluding myself), but a person who highlights typo errors in order to belittle a person (nit-pick; appeal to mockery; ad hominem) should really be more careful before demanding a retraction (false indignation).
quote:
The bottom line is: You’re not interested in understanding what I’m saying. I accept that now, okay? I’m sorry I replied to you in the first place.
"I’m not sure you understand what you’re saying."
Ad hominem again?!! Surely you could have constructed a more sensitively worded reply. Courtesy costs so little, doesn’t it? (yes, more sarcasm)
Personally, I’ll accept some ridicule as the price I have to pay to maintain the privilege of free speech. Hope you were sufficiently “entertained”. Next time, bring pie.
Dropzone: pomo = post modernist. Nihilism? There’s nothing to it. :rolleyes:
Memo to the Oppressors:
We former Caucasians are now also former Sex Gods, Kings of the Universe. That term was co-opted by the evil scum minority and led to us being called deniggerating terms, such as “Porno-Americans.”
We now wish to be called “Idiomatically Disarming, Idealistically Overachieving Type” Americans. That should put an end to all this mockery of our heritage!
Remember, if you call us Sex Gods, Kings of the Universe, you are an oppressor and a racist bigot! The correct term is now Idiomatically Disarming, Idealistically Overachieving Type Americans. If you will use this term to identify us, we will think you slightly less racist and bigoted than we did before.
More questions:
Earth is roughly spherical and any direction east and west is relative to the starting location. Is calling one area the East and the other the West Eurocentric? After all, from where I’m sitting I would travel west to get to the East and east to get to most of the West. The only place where this is different is on the border between Europe and Asia which, if you look at Russia, turns out to be pretty arbitrary, anyway.
The Universal Coordinated Time system and 0 longitude are both based on the location of the Greenwich Observatory in England. Does that make them Anglocentric or Eurocentric, now that England is a part of the EU?
And my REAL question, and one that has NOT been answered:
On the bright side, “wai lo,” or “foreign devil,” appears to be losing favor in China in favor of somewhat less offensive terms for Westerners. I’m fond of “da bi,” or “big nose.”
I disagree** Dropzone**. I am also a former “foreign devil” and I kinda liked the term because it held an element of truth. Not so with “big nose”. Some westerners have little noses. These damn slant eyes want to paint all of us with the same damn broad brush.
This is a affront and I am offended.
I assure you I don’t ever edit things out to be misleading. Were I to include everything you and I have posted to each other in this thread, it would easily take up a page or two. In fact, your post is already way too long - hint, hint.
Oh, that’s cute - you make a false characterization of my point, and then when I point out your mistake, you say “Er, um…well you did it in another thread.” Of course you fail to include these alleged quotes from the other thread. I’m sure you just misinterpreted what I said, as you seem to like to do.
There’s a difference between asking innocent questions and saying, “I shouldn’t have to use their word unless they prove to me that it is etymologically valid.” The latter is just bullshit. My point is, why not just use the word that Asians prefer for you to use? How is that any skin off your nose?
IMO, there’s a whole lot of misleading arguments being presented here. You all want to have your cake and eat it too - if you understand the issue well enough to present arguments as to why you don’t like the term “Asian”, then you can’t SIMULTANEOUSLY claim “Gee, I didn’t know it was an unfavorable word - Gosh, when did that happen?”
HUH, WHAAAAAAA!!! 
YOU, my dear, are the one who lambasted ME for breaching YOUR self-appointed rule that this is only a discussion of “how, when and why”, as you put it. But as I pointed out, you flagrantly violate your own rule throughout this thread. And now you want to turn it around and say I was the one who insisted on “how, when and why”? My God, is there no deception to which you will not resort?
This seems to be your answer for everything. Whenever I call you on your disingenuous debating, you say “Well, why don’t you report me then?” I assure you, the moderators have better things to do then arbitrate over whether you are a lousy debater.
But my analogy was appropriate, as I already explained.
I’m sorry you have a blind spot for how an analogy works, but I don’t really think it’s appropriate to vent your frustration at me when you fail to understand something.
And now you are repeating your misinterpretations. I already explained to you how an analogy works, and that I did not make those comparisons. Once again, my analogy was to show that etymology is not the standard by which to judge the offensiveness of a word. To best illustrate the point, one should take a very offensive word (like “nigger”), which has a very benign etymology. That way, it demonstrates that etymology and offensiveness are not necessarily related. By continuing to suggest that I was making any other kind of comparison, I can only assume at this point that you are deliberately trying to misrepresent what I have said.
Again, YOU are the one who claimed you were only here to discuss how the term “Oriental” came about. I merely pointed out that it was untrue. Please stop trying to turn it around. Your flagrant mischaracterizations are becoming extremely tiresome.
For what it’s worth, that’s actually a well-stated, reasonable point. I wish you could have just said that in the first place. I happen to disagree, though, because I don’t see how changing language would necessarily supplant other anti-discrimination progress. I would think a change in language would tend to raise awareness, rather than “mask” anything.
But I don’t think that’s the case here. This is not some obscure issue that just happened. I practically can’t even remember when “Oriental” was in common usage - that’s how obsolete it is. I have a vague recollection of there being an Oriental Student Union when I was in Junior High in the 70s. After that, I can only remember the word “Asian”. It’s kind of sad that a few people never heard about it, but I certainly wouldn’t judge anyone harshly for not knowing about it. But again, it galls me when people in this day and age, 20-30 years after the fact, are informed of the change that they have missed by being in their own little world, and then proceed to stamp their feet and angrily shout about how silly and “PC” the world is becoming. Or even worse is the attitude of “I personally didn’t hear about it, so it must not be true”.
I would suggest that one way to avoid misundersandings is to refrain from using obsolete words like “Oriental”.
Please - I have no such lofty goals. I’m just here to fight ignorance.
If you want to talk about “helpful”, I submit that questioning the etymology of “Asian”, arguing about its appropriateness, and implying that it’s some sort of PC triviality is EXTREMELY unhelpful.
I’m sorry, but there’s nothing discriminatory about either of those words. An Asian person cannot become anything other than Asian, but an uninformed person can become informed.
That is so far out of context that I won’t even bother to respond, except to say that it’s complete bullshit.
You’re right, that was just a cheap shot, but you deserved it.
I hardly think that warrants an accusation of taking something out of context. Besides which, your assertion that words cannot evoke images from times past is patently absurd. Does not “knight in shining armour” evoke images? How about “Great Depression”?, or “Wooly Mammoth”?, or “dinosaur”?
Oh my God - you seriously aren’t upset because I didn’t include your lengthy cite in my reply, are you? I cut things for brevity, not for any sinister motives. Are you for real? Do you have any idea how muddled these threads would get if everyone re-posted every quote made by anyone? I’m already embarrassed that this post is so long, yet you would have me make it even longer.
Hogwash. First of all, that is by no stretch of the imagination ad lapidem. Second, YOU used the word stupid, and that in fact constitutes a strawman. Third, the analogy is quite appropriate, and the only thing you have demonstrated is (yet again) your ignorance as to how analogies work.
And that constitutes both argumentum ad populum and appeal to authority.
So are you just making up your own “illogical fallacies” [snicker] now? Maybe I was guilty of Publius Homogenous, eh?
Oh, God - not THIS again. I have explained it 2 or 3 times now. There was no backpedalling. At this point you’re just displaying your (willful?) ignorance.
[rest of petty rant snipped]
Thanks for proving my point, Evil Captor.
Esprix