I agree with some earlier posters that the big problem with “Oriental” is that it’s dated, like “colored.” The reasons why can’t be explained simply - language is a social thing, and people’s attitudes about being described in racial/ethnic terms are going to be inherently personal and context-specific. Other old terms like “white” aren’t dated in the same way, and I think “black” has gone out of and back into fashion. It’s always contextual.
Unfortunately, the US’s - scratch that, the whole world’s - history of racial/ethnic oppression, discrimination, and just plain enmity makes it hard to figure out how to talk about this stuff. And we as white people - scratch that, as people - bristle when we’re told that we’re doing it wrong. With good reason, some of the time - it’s hard not to give offense, especially in a new social context! (And other times we give offense knowing that we’re doing so.)
My **rules of thumb when using racial/ethnic/group descriptors **are:
Make sure it’s relevant. Talking about my “Asian girlfriend” is usually not relevant, unless I’m talking about how someone assumed she was good at math or something.
1a) Try to use the most relevant/specific term. If I’m talking about my students’ issues with English fluency, “children of Mexican-American immigrants” is what I really mean, not “Latinos” or “Hispanics” (or, shudder, “Spanish people”).
Try to keep a sense of how people usually like to be described. In many cases, this changes over time, as we’ve discussed. Try to keep up as best I can.
2a) If I’m not sure what’s the “right” term, I’ll often switch or use more than one term as the conversation continues. Just had to teach some lessons about Mexican history, and when talking about pre-Spanish-conquest populations I switched between “Indians,” “Indios” (appropriating the Spanish word), “native people,” and more specific terms like “Aztec” or “Maya” when it made sense in context. When teaching about the civil rights movement, I tend to switch off between “black” and “African-American,” often using a verbal paranthetical to make clear that these are synonyms. (“Now, what MLK is saying about Negroes - what we would call black people or African-Americans - is …”)
**Try to keep a good sense of perspective **when someone takes offense, whether I think it’s justified or not. People will cut you slack if you don’t get huffy, by and large. And if they don’t, they probably would’ve gotten pissed about something else.
My wife is of Chinese heritage, but born here in Canada. Here is a copy_paste from and IM conversation we had at work today (we both work at the same company).
*Mrs. Marlonius 9:47 AM
the safety glasses I have suck, no nose piece so they really aren’t safe to wear
I went downstairs to the supply place but they have these way bigger goggles, not as nice as the ones you have.
Marlonius: 9:48 AM
Hmm.
I’ve had them a while. I picked them up off the ground.
Mrs. Marlonius:9:48 AM
so only options they have are the same crappy ones or these big goggles
wonder if they changed styles.
Is the tool crib different than the stores office downstairs?
It is that or I will have to look at buying myself a new pair with a nose piece cause I just can’t keep wearing the ones I have now.
They aren’t meant for **oriental no nose girls *with googley eyes
We are in our 40s, she obviously missed the memo of what terms are now offensive. Don’t worry, I’ve reported her to HR.
Yes, because one woman made a joke with her husband in a private conversation then it means everyone else shouldn’t have a problem with the usage no matter what context.
That logic applies fine in the singular, but breaks down when applied in the catholic. Just because one Jonathon and one Elizabeth don’t like their name to be shortened does not mean that it applies to all Jonathons and Elizabeths as a group. Just as some individuals may well be offended by a shorten name, some will be offended by words like oriental, asian, indian, etc. Others, like myself, really couldn’t give a rip less how you describe me - and that has ranged from Mexican to Native American to Indian to Middle Eastern to Caucasian. And at what point does individual offence apply to the group as a whole? It obviously happens, as is evidenced by a few words that even the media will no longer spell out in their entirety.
Describing people by their physical appearance will never go away. Unfortunately, neither will people who take offense where none is meant nor people who purposely use words to offend.
Sorry, I suck at subtle irony. My point was that these are all racial classifiers, so I see “east asian” as no great improvement over “slant-eyed”. It shows that the speaker is trying not to offend, which I guess is good, but they’re still using the same flawed reference. Good thing writing isn’t my day job.
A woman named “Maureen,” whom I have mentioned elsewhere on this board, uses the term “Asian” for the various peoples who have been classified as “Oriental” or “Far Eastern.” This comprises peoples, in Asia, of China, Mongolia, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Thailand, and possibly Burma. I could not convince her that there are ethnic groups in places such as Israel, Siberia, India, Iran, Turkey, and so on, who are Asians but do not fit into the specific “racial classification,” if you can call it that, of the Far Eastern types I listed. She is of my parents’ generation, so I don’t see that I have the latitude to correct her with the effort I would use on my own contemporaries.
(Sidelight: One of the times I had an Army Pre-Induction Physical, part of it was to fill out some kind of identification form. The proctor gave us directions, and in the “race” classification, he said to enter one of five numbers–for Caucasian, American Indian, Oriental, Negro, or Polynesian. (For the record, this was in 1969.) He added, "Don’t enter ‘Chicanos,’ or ‘Soul Brothers,’…We all laughed. :D)
But all three of those, Oriental, negro and colored, are viewed as offensive under PC. The best attempt at a rational explanation IMO would be that since they were used in the past, and since (western) society’s past views/behavior on race or nationality are now viewed as benighted, those benighted views somehow rub off onto those words, somehow imply to the listener that the speaker has or accepts those old views. A weak explanation, but I haven’t seen better.
The explanation that Oriental is ‘eurocentric’ fails IMO. The words for westerners and Asians in major Asian languages refer to the same concept that they are the ‘east’ and Europe the ‘west’. Nor is PC applied uniformly over non-English western languages either. Still acceptable non-English words sometimes translate literally to now politically incorrect English words.
Where I went to school in NY in the late 60’s the Hispanics kids were from Puerto Rico (statistically some in the City were from other Hispanic groups but Mexicans haven’t been numerous in NY until much more recently) and wanted to be called ‘Spanish’. Our teacher (liberal, virulently anti-Vietnam War, up to the minute on PC for that time) also instructed us that was the correct word and not to even say Puerto Rican.
