This sounds about right - I would say stubborn old man, but hey different strokes.
I certainly consider “Oriental” to be anachronistic, but if anyone is “outraged” over its use, I think that person is overreacting. Get upset if someone calls you a gook or a chink, but Oriental? Sheesh. It wasn’t that long ago that it was common usage in the US and it’s still common in other countries. Some folks are just looking to be offended.
I personally use the term “South Asian” for Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Bhutan, and Nepal. Vietnam, Malaysia, and Indonesia is Southeast Asian, as far as I’ve always used the term. Burma can go either way. Turkmenistan I’ve always put in the Central Asian countries. (And, yes, I actually do use these terms in speech and writing, especially talking about food, one of my hobbies, but also because I deal with the South Asian community a good bit.)
That’s still a heck of a lot more specific than “Oriental”, which literally just means “Eastern”, originally referred to Egypt and thereabouts, and has been used at one time or another to refer to just about everything east of Western Europe.
When I lived in Japan I discovered that in Okayama there’s actually a museum called the Okayama Orient Museum that specializes in art and artifacts from the Middle East…which is of course west of Japan, unless you take the long route.
And the rest of the countries that were once part of British India.
[/quote]
but does it also encompass Burmans, Vietnamese, Malaysians and Indonesians? What are they- East Asians?
[/quote]
Southeast Asian
[quote{Are people from places like Turkmenistan called “West Asians”? “Central Asians?” [/quote]
Central Asian
West Asian isn’t common, but when I have seen it, it refers to Turkey and the Middle East.
-
These things rarely have to do with literal meanings or etymology. You kind of just have to take people’s word for it.
-
Etymologically, “Asian” is no better or worse than “Oriental.”
Asian probably comes for a Greek word meaning “sunrise” or “east.” It came to mean the east coast of the Aegean Sea and then a slightly larger area and then most of Anatolia and then all of Asia.
“Orient” came from “east” in Latin and then expanded to the Middle East and then shifted to the Far East.
So if you’re making an argument based on history or etymology, neither really comes out a clear winner.
Personally, when I see a museum or whatnot with the word “Oriental” in its name, I pretty much assume anything east of the Bosphorus, not exclusively East Asian, and possibly more “Near East” than “Far East.” That could be because the museums I’ve been to that have “Oriental” in their name, like the University of Chicago Oriental Institute, are particularly more concerned with the Middle East.
Just another passing reminder how lame, ineffectual and ultimately offensive it is for outsiders to tell members of an ethnic group what should or shouldn’t offend them.
A hard lesson for some to learn - but ultimately rewarding. 
What ethnicity do you think his wife is, if not East Asian?
I think the basic issue is this: for people used to traditional racial labels, “Oriental” has a specific meaning, that is, a person of a race that has X,Y, Z appearance.
One question is whether that racial category has ongoing validity.
Or, they finally stood up and expressed the offence that was there all along. It’s no coincidence that the rise in offence at the term was paralleled by decolonization and a rise in leftist intellectual thought amongst the former colonized.
I have no idea. “East Asian” isn’t an ethnicity. “Han” is an ethnicity. “Mongol” is an ethnicity. “Yamato” is an ethnicity. “Ainu” is an ethnicity. “East Asian” is a collective for a group of ethnicities. A fuzzy set, at that. Does it include the Taiwanese aborigines? They’re genetically and linguistically Austronesian.
All ethnicities are fuzzy.
Some are fuzzier than others.
That’s racist!
Perhaps you’re kidding… In case not, I think he meant that some terms explicitly refer to (more or less vague) locations, such as “East Asian.” These will be even fuzzier ethnic descriptors than, say, “Ainu,” which at least has some linguistic, genetic, etc. meaning, though still fuzzy in its way.
Sudanese?
Why is this the acceptable level of granularity? That is, why is “East Asian” not all right, but “Mongol” is all right? Can’t we get more specific and refer to folks according to their city of origin, or just by their name?
It seems to me that sometimes “east Asian” is a useful term–for example, east Asian immigrants to the United States may have commonalities in their experiences. In many cases referring to folks by a more granular term (her name is Kim) or a less granular term (she’s a person of color) is appropriate, but sometimes “east Asian” does the job fine.
Oh, it’s useful, just not generally the best or clearest way to refer to someon’s ethnicity – a fluid and multifaceted concept in itself, but that’s a different story.
I agree that geographic terms are most useful when there’s a clear geographic connection. As you said, people emigrating from a certain set of states (Japan, South Korea, and both Chinas, perhaps?) might tend to share certain experiences, because of laws or customs related to those sovereign states (or how such citizens are received in the state migrated to). But even then, usually better to be specific – list the states, or use some clear existing grouping like “ASEAN members” – than a less well defined phrase like “East Asian.”
But, yeah, I use “East Asian” sometimes. Usually in a context where it’s helpful to distinguish from, say, “South Asian” (often taken to mean the Indian subcontinent).
Because it’s the level of granularity at which the commonalities are things like shared language and culture, rather than superficialities like physical appearance.
Of course we can. And that’s always preferable.
Or serves to hide differences behind a veneer of commonality - do you think the Chinese and Japanese American experiences are at all similar? Did Japanese work on the railways? Were Chinese interned in WWII? Or that either compares to the Hmong experience?
I can only think it’s useful for lazy reasons - censuses, stereotyping, racial profiling - that kind of thing. There’s no real reason we can’t use finer granularity for any everyday data-using purpose, we have sufficient computing power to handle millions of categories for any real data.