I’ve been flamed to a crisp for saying this in other threads, but in Hawaii, you can’t say “Asian guy” as you’d be describing half the people passing. It has to Korean, Japanese, Chinese, etc. guy. If you’re not 100% certain, Korean looking, Japanese looking, Chinese looking, etc is a valid substitute.
I have to be announced before I head to my office at the place I’m currently working temp and one day the guy at the front politely describing me, “Dark hair, glasses”. I chimed in with “Short, fat, old!”. The guy seemed nervous, but I laughed it off.
Edit: Gook, Nip/Jap and Chink are however, unacceptable.
That’s got to be difficult if you’re not well-versed in your various Asian “looks”.
I mean, I can tell Vietnamese, Chinese, Korean and Japanese apart from each other, but it’s about on par as saying someone looks Italian, Russian, Dutch or French. There’s a lot of overlap- one person’s Dutch may actually be Belgian, and that Dutch person may be a German. Or, as has happened to me several times in Europe, that Englishman/German/Dutchman happens to be American (which is totally baffling, I’d have figured a tall, fat white guy in blue jeans would peg me indisputably as an American).
I certainly wouldn’t want to try and describe someone using such vague descriptors; it’s like when I met an old friend of mine named Maria- was she Hispanic or Filipino? Her name didn’t give it away, and neither did her looks. Turned out she was a mix of both.
Ultimately, I think the important part is to try and identify the minimum set of distinguishing characteristics and use that. If you were to describe me, you’d say tall, fat, has short dark hair and white skin. If you needed to get more descriptive, you’d add that I’m about 6’0" - 6’1", blue eyed, broad shouldered and deep voiced. In almost every situation, that would probably be enough for just about anyone to pick me out of a crowd.
Curiously, my wife was recently in the hospital. One of the doctors I spoke with was named Arkady K___. I think my wife asked me if he was Russian. Thinking of this thread, I wondered if Russian was the correct term. Sure, the name sounded right out of a Tolstoy novel, but could it be Ukrainian? From one of the “-stans”? A Ukrainian might have reasons to not wish to be called “Russian” …
Of course, when the doc came back in, my wife said, “Is your name Russian”? And he said yes.
One of her nurses’ name was Kinga. I’d never heard that name before. She readily told me it was quite common in Poland.
Yeah, I know a Kinga. The names we have in common tend to be Christian saints or religious figures. Those names “translate” I guess.
To answer the O.P. if a situation required including someone’s racial appearance in a description (picking up someone at the airport, for example, or a police report) I would most likely say something like, “He was about yay tall, short light brown hair, looked like maybe he could be Russian…?” with a questioning sound in my voice at the end.
Don’t wanna offend his mama’s ancestors if they happened to actually be Ukrainian and proud of it!
I mean, rarely (if ever) am I describing someone to that person. So they’re not going to know, or honestly care, if you’re not describing them 100% accurately. If I needed to describe someone and they were Japanese, I’d say, “they looked Asian,” because I don’t know the nuances between Japanese, Chinese, Korean, etc physical characteristics. I might say, “they looked Middle Eastern,” if they appeared Indian. I’d just say black if they have dark skin. You can be vague - it doesn’t make you racist. It’s being honest - to you, they LOOK a certain way. If you happen to get to know them and find out you were mistaken, well, you learned something. If they find out about said mistake, laugh at yourself and apologize.
My first name is used in several European countries and sounds Spanish to a lot of people. Here in heavily Hispanic Tucson when people hear/see my name before they meet me they assume I look “typically” Hispanic. They’re often very surprised when they see a pale white woman with beige hair and grey eyes instead.
It’s been a few years (like, 35) since I lived in Hawaii. Are you still allowed to describe most of those non-Asian-guys as “haole” or even “hapa haole” ?
Have the rules changed over who you can call a “malihini” or a “kamaaina”? Can you still call 51% of the population “wahine”?
Times change. If I were to visit there again, I’d probably get flamed to a crisp too.
Hah! I had a friend in college who was completely ethnically Mexican, and had an equally Hispanic name who had a similar situation.
Apparently all her European ancestry came out when she was conceived; she was pale skinned, auburn haired and green eyed. If you just saw her, you’d think she was a regular (if pretty) white girl. I admit I was surprised when I met her parents at one point, and they were clearly Mexican, and in her dad’s case, leaning more toward the Indian side of mestizo.
I worked with a guy who looked pretty much full-blooded Native American. He had a blonde, blue-eyed cousin. She took entirely after her mother’s family.
Me, I’m all Northern European and look it. People guess I’m Polish a lot. ( “You look just like my best friend’s cousin. She’s Polish. Are you related?” )
Hispanics can be pale white or dark black or anything in between. They may have American, European, African, or Asian ancestry. Manchegans do not all resemble Bolivians. “Hispanic” is useless as a description to help pick someone out of a crowd, unless you hear him speak Spanish (this may be less useful in Buenos Aires).
Obviously, “hispanics” differ in appearance, but I disagree that it is useless as a descriptor.
If we showed a group of average persons an array of photos, I am confident there would be considerable overlap WRT the ones most commonly identified as hispanic. Sure, they would include some Filipinos and (US) Native Americans, and would likely exclude some paler, more “Spanish” folk. But there is SOME commonly understood understanding of hispanic appearance, which, if I said someone “appeared hispanic,” that COULD provide useful information in some situations. In the past, I believe I have specified that someone had a very “Indian” appearance - which I’m sure is offensive - to suggest an appearance more suggestive of Aztec/Mayan… heritage than European.
Around our parts, the majority of yardwork is done by people of Mexicans heritage. Can anyone honestly tell me that if I said the folk working in my neighbor’s yard were Mexican or hispanic, that you would not form ANY impression of what they looked like? And such a description MIGHT be useful - if we were discussing immigration, nationalization, who is willing to perform what jobs, etc.
My grandfather’s second wife was Mexican. She had red hair. By appearance, I would never have described her as Hispanic, but if I were referring to her speaking/behavior, I might. And she was born and lived in Mexico - so she definitely WAS Mexican. (It has been a long time and I never knew her well, but as I recall, she personally considered herself and her “European” family and associates quite different than her more “Indian” countrymen.)
Yes, technically, for the people who actually know what the word means. To the average Joe, it connotes something different, so I wouldn’t say it’s “useless.” Dinsdale is correct as to what the average person associated with a description of “Hispanic.” It can be problematic for some reasons, but when somebody describes a person as looking “Hispanic” it’s not because they were speaking Spanish. I feel the same way about “Indian.” (Which, to me these days, is South Asian, not Native American.) Indians run the gamut in skin color and look, but when somebody describes somebody as “looking Indian,” I have an idea of what they’re trying to convey.
I would have thought that I’m about as American looking as I could be (tall, fat white guy usually wearing jeans), but it seems like every time I go to Europe, I get mistaken by some local for being German, Dutch or British. Not sure how that happens exactly.
Sorry for lack of okinas which can’t aren’t available without a Hawaiian language font anyway!
Yep! Despite PC pressure, haole (actually anyone not native Hawaii) and hapa haole (a tricky one, defined well in this article: 'Half Asian'? 'Half White'? No — 'Hapa' : Code Switch : NPR) or just hapa are perfectly acceptable, at least in my non-PC circle. Personally, I think white or caucasian is more demeaning.
As for malahini (newcomer to the islands) and kamaaina (native born, regardless of race), these too are perfectly acceptable. Yesterday I bought some chocolate covered strawberries and the casher asked if I had a local ID. I thought it was because I had to hand her my CC, but she said I got a kamaaina discount. Win! Don’t call someone a kanaka (native Hawaiian) unless you know for sure they’re Hawaiian though.
Wahine (female) or kane (male)? Well, it’s written on bathroom doors, so perfectly acceptable. Yes, I know an odd justification, but an example of it not being non PC. Just as with any gender descriptive, the tone and how you use is can make all the difference. “I’m going to be in the wahine department” is perfectly fine. “That wahine was soooo rude!” is not. YMMV
Some of the comments here are reminding me of a thread here years ago where an argument ensued over what it means to “look black”. Some folks were quick to point out the vastness of Africa and the wide variety of looks, depending on specific region, etc. I wanted to ask " are you trying to tell me if I described someone to you and used the descriptor “black” you wouldn’t have any idea what I meant?".
I’ve encountered this spurious “grain-of-sand-continuum fallacy” in discussions of race as well. Some people arguing, in bad faith, that just because you can’t easily tell a light-skinned African and a dark-skinned Caucasian apart, that therefore the whole concept of race doesn’t exist.
That is not quite what I am saying, at any rate. Many regions arguably have a distinctive local look. But I would not be so sure that people far away can reliably identify it. Moreover, keeping in mind the goal is to describe someone, quite possibly a stranger, to someone who does not know them, it seems to me superfluous to try to figure out whether the black or brown guy is African or Indian or maybe from somewhere else, just say he has nut-brown skin. In situations where that hardly narrows it down, you may well need to add more details anyway (height, hairstyle, and so on, even if we stipulate he is known to be from, let’s say, Gambia).
In the US, at least, people of color can get quite touchy about references to shades of skin color. A person with dark skin color can allege that as a basis for a charge of discrimination by lighter skinned persons.
No one except crazy people get offended by neutral skin tone descriptions. “Light-skinned”, “medium brown”, and “dark brown” are perfectly valid ways of describing skin tone. “High yellow”, “blue black”, “shit brown”, etc. are not.
