Yeah, but you see my point. Asia is a specific continenet, but people use the word “asian” to mean someone from a specific part of that continent, hence the confusion. A person from siberia is technically asian, but we don’t often use the word like that.
Not really a problem, if people start glaring at me when I use oriental then I’m sure I’ll switch to using east asian. My problem is that, unlike words like niggar or spick (sp?) oriental was never ment to be an insult. It seems rather bizarre that a bunch of people would up and decide it’s offensive, when the people using it never ment it that way.
When I know someone well enough to actually know what specific country their from, then I’d use that. I usually just use oriental if I need to give someone a quick physical description of the person. If your looking for your wife in a crowd, I’m sure you don’t ask if anyone has seen a Ningboese (which I can’t even find in the dictionary) women.
Again the problem is that I don’t necessarily know if someone is an Asian-American. In college there were a lot of asians that came to study here, but weren’t necessarily Americans. I have the same problem with African-Americans, as there were a lot of Africans who were only there to attend college for a few years, and I felt silly calling them African Americans.
Eh, Cleveland is pretty far east from where I’m sitting.
The department has lots of students from India, China, and Japan, with Indians and Chinese predominating in non-American students. Other countries are represented (Israel, Thailand come to mind) but generally if someone isn’t from the US they’re from one of the three countries listed above.
And I’ve never been good at telling the difference between lots of ethnicites and nationalities visually. If I hear the language I can make a better guess, even more so with the written word. If someone tells me their name I can take a shot at their nationality/ethnicity and generally be right.
I think it depends if the person is born in North America vs. China or Japan or Korea.
My sister in law is Japanese, born, raised, etc - moved to Canada 10 years ago.
When I asked her about the whole “Oriental is offensive” thing she rolled her eyes and told me not to be absurd - it’s not in the least bit offensive.
On the other hand, a girlfriend of mine is born in Canada from Chinese parents, and she thinks Oriental is a bit dodgie. However, she also said if the person using it seemed to be using it in a non-offensive way, she wouldn’t be bothered.
It is rarely used as an overt insult. Certainly nothing as obvious or offensive as words such as nigger or chink. And I agree that those brought up in American culture are more likely to percieve it in a negative light - the US being so PC conscious these past few decades and all.
I’ll say this again: the Orient is not a specific geographical location. It is a concept. What countries are included in the Orient? What decides whether or not a country is part of the so-called Orient? Nobody really has a list of specific countries in mind when they use the word Orient. They have a certain image - of chopsticks, of silk robes, of carpets, etc. One of the main reasons that Oriental is considered an offensive term is that it carries with it all these conotations, even if the user is not consciously aware of it. It’s like a stereotype, and one that many Asian-Americans are particularly resentful of.
Granted, this “awareness” of Oriental being a negative term is relatively new. I don’t feel insulted if the person using the term is not doing it in an offensive way, but I’d rather they didn’t, is all.
Actually, they’re the specific ethnic group everyone thinks of when they think of “Hungarian.” The Magyars were the ones with the original non-Indo-European language and the ones who don’t fit into the category of either Slavs or Germans.
As a good guide, take a look at a history book that shows the large chunks of the eastern part of the Austro-Hungarian empire that went to countries like Romania and Poland. See the small blob that’s left? That’s the Magyars.
While no normal person would want to offend anybody, why would anybody “want” to be a shallow koolaid drinker…er, I mean worship pc foolishness? Now, on to the topic of discussion: I much prefer the term “Oriental” for eastern asians because it merely means eastern, and is far more accurate than citing a huge continent that begins in Istanbul Turkey.
When I was in 3rd grade, my teacher visited South America, and the South Americans were insulted because she, being from the USA referred to herself as being American. They felt, “what are we, chopped liver?” “We are also American!”
How do you think an Indian or a Saudi might feel about this mistake of PC-ism we have made in the USA? There isn’t and never was anything wrong with the term “Oriental.”:rolleyes:
Just to set you straight here, none of this has anything to do with race, just geographical origin. There is nothing offensive about the term oriental. Way too many folks have drunk the koolaid.
Once again it isn’t about RACE unless one is a racist. Oriental is more accurate. A Turk is Asian too. Equating eastern asians, a/k/a orientals with the generic term of “asian” is wrong and can be seen as racist if you really think about it.
Problem with modern day USA is people don’t THINK before drinking the left wing koolaid
Hey, if we are going to generalize the HUGE continent of Asia we may as well expand it to the entire globe and just refer to everybody as “Earthian”
I prefer to be specific; the term “asian” is certainly not!
Still “Oriental” is less preferred. I generally use “Southeast Asian”, if for no reason other than it gets confusing when people from different cultures are using different regional variations of who “Asian” refers to. (I’m actually not sure what a far eastern Russian looks like, maybe I should use use “East Asian”? Are far east Russians appreciably different looking from, say, Mongolian people?)
Maybe wifey needs a Xanax. Being more specific as to which part of Asia does the opposite of lumping people together. Referring to Orientals as Asians pretends there is nobody living west of the Himalayas all the way to the Bosporus. How insulting to all those people living on a “ghost continent.”
Curious how other things come full circle. “Colored” is a benign word, certainly more benign than black. Yet it is shunned, while adding a noun and a preposition makes it the current favorite: “People of color” When will we wise up and stop acting like children with these silly word games? PC is for pinheads…sorry but true.
Disagree with ya Hazel. If you are astute to the etymology you’d know that oriental means eastern. Anyone familiar with geographical terms knows where the far east is. Bingo, “oriental” is far more accurate and correct than “asian”. If anybody is offended by my decidedly accurate use of the term “oriental” (and I am the farthest thing from racist - I love all people except pinhrads annoy me) then they just need to get over it and be an adult and stop making mountains out of molehills.
Look, if you want to speak out against the fact that people too often substitute taking offense for critical thinking – that is, being offended at a word rather than taking the effort to decide rather the person speaking them is actually prejudices or not, fine, I’m on board with you.
But intentionally using an undesirable despite widespread cultural objections is dickish behavior. Are the words patently, inherently ill intentioned? No, we aren’t witches, words don’t have inherent cosmic power to do harm. However, people, rationally or not take offense to them – and often for at least decent reasons related to the term’s historical baggage. There’s simply no good reason to make people uncomfortable and offend them just to make a minor political point.
To me, insisting that there’s “nothing wrong” with using a term that the great majority of the populace has decided is wrong is like being one of those people who takes pride in “telling it like it is.” They just want the excuse to say whatever they want carte blanch, regardless of how it makes others feel, and frame it as the other person’s fault for reacting to the statement rather than the speaker’s fault for avoiding something they damn well know most people don’t like.
Again, if you want to argue that the term shouldn’t be hated. Fine, I’m with you. But you still shouldn’t use it until the time comes that most people actually agree with you.
Also, words aren’t purely a function of some detached academic etymology. Language is a cultural medium. Words mean what the language’s speakers use them to mean (or interpret them to mean, or think they mean). That means that regardless of the dictionary definition of a word, its actual definition includes “An offensive term for…” if most of the language’s (or dialect’s) users believe it to be so.
