As the sort-of-target of the OP, I would just like to point out that:
(1) I am not outraged.
(2) Except at Yogsosoth, who needs to shut the fuck up.
This is what comes down to, right?
Who is Paul? He’s that white guy who sits next to the copier.
Who is Dawayne? He’s that black guy who sits next to the water cooler.
Who is Chang? He’s that yellow-skinned, slanty-eyed guy who sits next to the pantry.
The folks who want to keep “Oriental” as a valid descriptor want it because they need that term to fill out the options for race-based categories.
[Moderating]
“Hottentot” isn’t a very well known slur outside of South Africa, so normally I wouldn’t give more than a mod note for something like this. However, given the fact that you managed to use it in a reply to, as far as I know, the only poster on the board to whom it could apply, and that it’s otherwise a complete non-sequitor, I’m upgrading this to the full warning.
Don’t do this again.
[/Moderating]
I probably shan’t, no.
A rather oddly phrased response?
I take it Malacandra is continuing with the “pretending to be a Victorian-era colonialist European racist,” to underline what I see as a valid point. I did the same thing in a post (“you, sir, have the cranial capacity of an Ethiope!”), so I might be in trouble as well. I’ll say no more.
So things like language are shared by all Chinese folks, and culture is shared by all Japanese folks, but, say, Buddhism isn’t a significant influence across east Asia?
Nonsense. It’s absolutely appropriate for me to say that the Stone Bowl is a Korean restaurant that employs a Korean chef; that gives more, not less, information than if I say the Stone Bowl is a Korean restaurant that employs Kim Lee.
No, of course not. Do you think that the experience of an east Asian immigrant from Japan is likely to be more similar to the experience of an east Asian immigrant from China, or an immigrant from Poland? Are Americans likely to treat the dude from China more like they treat the dude from Korea or the dude from Barbados?
Of course there are plenty of different experiences. But there are also similar experiences. Increasing granularity is not always appropriate.
Yesterday I went to hear some folks talk about the experience of desegregating schools in my town. Lots of the folks speaking were African American, and two were white. In that context, categorizing the speakers by race was absolutely appropriate, because their experiences were signficantly shaped by their race. I could also have categorized them in other ways–by gender, by neighborhood, by age (within a few years of one another)–but in that context the appropriate level of granularity was their perceived race at the time of desegregation.
That’s not the argument I was making, though. My point was that while “Asian” may be vague, at least “Asia” is the current, accepted English name for a geographic region. “Oriental” doesn’t even have that going for it.
Nope. “Chinese” is no more of an ethnicity than “Asian”
Nope. “Japanese” is no more of an ethnicity than “Asian”
Do you think there’s sufficient commonality between, say, Tibetan Buddhism and Fuke Zen to use it as a point in favour of shared ethnicity?
It does not give more information. Just different information. And somewhat less, if I was actually looking for Kim Lee.
Mmm, whose grandparents were more likely to have been interned in a WWII concentration camp?
So your argument for shared experience is “They were treated the same by ignorant racists”?
How they were treated by racists is only a small part of shared experience. Culture, history, these play a larger part IMO.
Note that we don’t do this lumping of European ethnicities. “He’s European” would never be considered granular enough of a descriptor to nail down someone in one’s head. But “He’s East Asian” or “She’s African” is considered just fine.
I differ. When dealing with individuals, specificity is always preferable to stereotypes.
And you would have missed the “African American” who was raised in a non-segregated British school. Or the White person raised in a mixed-race Dutch school.
Like I said, it’s lazy classification - and in your case, I fail to see why you need to categorize them at all - you’re already presupposing that all the African-Americans have a shared experience, and the Whites have a different one, before you’ve even heard them speak. That’s the very definition of prejudice.
The appropriate level of granularity there is the individual, I’d think. I mean, what if some of the A-As were bused, some weren’t, and others went to a desegregated private school that one of the Whites also went to. And the other White guy was homeschooled, but so were two of the Blacks. How does your way help find those sorts of commonalities or differences. Better to let each person speak for themselves, I’d think.
I do not find oriental offensive. Neither would most in my family. We would eschew Asian as to us it would imply Chinese or Korean. Neither is Jap or Nip offensive, being considered rather quaint or to to refer to National Japanese.
The Oriental Institute in Chicago is a research center for ancient Near Eastern studies.
Yeah, they study ancient Gary, Indiana culture, like the Jackson 5. 
And GrumpyBunny is the *really *white girl who’s in the last cube on the right. The cube with the fake rats on it. 
Anyway, exactly what Acsenray said above. The people who use “Asian” think the same, just that “Oriental” isn’t acceptable anymore, for whatever reason.
Generally speaking, we can’t drill down into exact country or ethnicity anyway. It’s not likely that I’ll know the exact ethnic/national origin(s) of Paul, Dwayne, or Chang, unless they’ve mentioned it.
Going to have to disagree with you on that. While there is a rather small ethnic group, Ainu, in Japan who happen to also be citizens of Japan and are therefore Japanese using the term for their nationality, there is still a rather large ethnic group, Japanese, in Japan. The latter group happens to be the majority ethnic group in that country.
There are many more ethnic minorities in Japan besides the Ainu. Okinawans ( Ryukyuans) for instance are not the same ethnicity as main island Japanese (and are way more numerous than the Ainu). Zainichi Koreans are also more numerous. Yes, the term “Japanese” *is *used to mean the ethnicity of main island Japanese. This is not, however, correct. It marginalizes the Ryukyuans, the Ainu, the Zainichi, and all the other minority ethnicities of Japan. It confuses nationality with ethnicity. There’s a better word for what you mean by “Japanese”, and I’ve already used it in this thread. “Yamato” is the majority Japanese ethnicity (the same way people usually really mean “Han” when they say “Chinese”)
Nut true at all, especially in the US where folks have mixed heritages. Not everyone has just one cultural heritage.
“Eurotrash”, “Europop”, hell “she’s Eastern European” isn’t any different from “he’s East Asian”.
That’s not been my experience. People feel a need to be more specific - e.g Italians don’t get lumped in with Russians.
Note, I’m not talking about Americans of European extraction, I’m talking about the way Americans refer to Europeans, in media and the like.
…other than the relative sizes and populations of the two supposedly equivalent sets.
You’ll have to tell all the Japanese in Japan that their usage is incorrect. Good luck with gaining traction on that.
P.S.: Oh, and before you decide to tell me I don’t know what I’m talking about, I lived just outside Tokyo for over five years.
Chicago is a notoriously racist town.