it's offensive yes but I'm not gonna call the NAACP over it.
oh wait, I don't think that's the right group.
oh wait, I don't think that's the right group.
Someone who is Japanese might take offense if they do not appreciate themselves or their cultures grouped together with Koreans for example, or whatever other eastern Asian group.
I heard that on the census they have "carpet pilot" instead of Arab. Now THAT is offensive.
Although I think it was used in Aladdin as well.
the reason some people consider the term offensive, i think, is because it carries with it generalizations, as opposed to simply a skin color descriptor.
Someone who is japanese might take offense if they do not appreciate themselves or their cultures grouped together with koreans for example, or whatever other eastern asian group.
Similarly, if you were an american who lived in japan and people referred to you as an "occident", you may find that you would be offended, because you identify with being american, not just what the word occident means, which include europeans and other countries. If someone generalized you to be an "occident", you may feel your uniquely american identifiers are overlooked and disrespected (like individuality, capitalism, english language or whatever).
Personally, if someone uses the word oriental when referring to a person, then i assume two things:
1) lower level of education or mastery of language
2) less intelligent or lower cultural enrichment
either way, i don't think people using the word mean to use it derogatorily. If they did, it would be the context that determine it.
so 'asian' is lumping them into a group too so they must get offended as well.
Not exactly. Asian is a race descriptor, which is accurate.
Oriental essentially means "Easterner", it's usage connotes that "Easterners" are all the same.
If someone says you are White or Caucasian, that describes your race. Or black or African.
If someone called you a "Westerner" and the meaning (hypothetically) lumped you together with Middle-easterners, Africans, Europeans and Americans, then you might take objection to being likened to suicide bombers or whatever else negative views you have on other cultures that are "west" of someone living in Eastern Asia.
Not exactly. Asian is a race descriptor, which is accurate.
Oriental essentially means "Easterner", it's usage connotes that "Easterners" are all the same.
If someone says you are White or Caucasian, that describes your race. Or black or African.
If someone called you a "Westerner" and the meaning (hypothetically) lumped you together with Middle-easterners, Africans, Europeans and Americans, then you might take objection to being likened to suicide bombers or whatever else negative views you have on other cultures that are "west" of someone living in Eastern Asia.
At the same time, "Asian" technially includes everyone in Asia...it traditionally doesn't encompass the middle-east and often doesn't encompass Russia and former SSRs, yet at the same time it seems much broader when "Oriental" would typically be limited to people from SE Asia/Pacific rim. If you're Japanese and don't want to be associated with Chinese, Asian should be no better than Oriental. If you're Japanese and don't want to be associated with Indians, then Oriental seems to be better than Asian.
I guess that's the weird thing. Both terms essentially lump over a billion ridiculously diverse people together into a single ethnic group. They're both not very good cultural/ethnic descriptors.
At the same time, "Asian" technially includes everyone in Asia...it traditionally doesn't encompass the middle-east and often doesn't encompass Russia and former SSRs, yet at the same time it seems much broader when "Oriental" would typically be limited to people from SE Asia/Pacific rim. If you're Japanese and don't want to be associated with Chinese, Asian should be no better than Oriental. If you're Japanese and don't want to be associated with Indians, then Oriental seems to be better than Asian.
I guess that's the weird thing. Both terms essentially lump over a billion ridiculously diverse people together into a single ethnic group. They're both not very good cultural/ethnic descriptors.
i once had someone tell me "oriental is for carpets .. i'm asian"
WOW someone who actually understands racism! Every time I enter a racism thread on ATOT I find I'm the lone guy arguing this type of point.
My fav is when I mention that racist terms have a lot to do with the historical underpinnings of the culture in which they are used and give much weight to some terms and lend very little to others. Which is why I argue that terms like cracker while technically racist don't bear anywhere near the weight of a term like great person. But every time I argue this point no one agrees with me.
Well, you are correct that the word "Asian" is technically and literally, one from Asia, but its American usage and thus most commonly definition is to mean "one from East Asia".
Whether or not Japanese, Koreans, or Chinese want to be associated with each other, Asian is an accurate description within its definition. The word is not meant to describe any more or less than that, while the term Oriental is not an objective descriptor, it is a relative one that consequently carry with it possibly unwelcome generalizations.
The word Caucasian does the same thing. It lumps together Americans who are white, Europeans who speak many different languages and cultures etc. But it is also an objective race descriptor.
Of course, I'll qualify all of the above that the classifications of race being controversial is notwithstanding.
Well, you are correct that the word "Asian" is technically and literally, one from Asia, but its American usage and thus most commonly definition is to mean "one from East Asia".
Whether or not Japanese, Koreans, or Chinese want to be associated with each other, Asian is an accurate description within its definition. The word is not meant to describe any more or less than that, while the term Oriental is not an objective descriptor, it is a relative one that consequently carry with it possibly unwelcome generalizations.
The word Caucasian does the same thing. It lumps together Americans who are white, Europeans who speak many different languages and cultures etc. But it is also an objective race descriptor.
Of course, I'll qualify all of the above that the classifications of race being controversial is notwithstanding.
I'm gonna be honest with you....The "relative" vs "objective" idea just doesn't work for me since they still both fundamentally refer to the same group of people. We still use the conventional, colonialist euro-centric world map, and I don't think caucasians consider "westerner" to be offensive unless it's explicitly used that way (which it sometimes is).
I'm much more satisfied with the idea that it simply has hundreds of years worth of using it as a racial phrase to demean, isolate and dehumanize people, so it's no longer the preferred nomenclature.
I had no idea that "oriental" was considered at all offensive. In fact I see the word all over the place on TV ads, at the supermarket, restaurants, etc. Do I live in the most racist place in the world or something? Is this why the coffee isle at my supermarket says "November Juliet" now?
Do you not see the irony here?
Oriental is a geographical term that became a racial descriptor. It's not acceptable.
Asian is a geographical term that became a racial descriptor. It is acceptable.
This is because Oriental is a relative geographical term, while Asian is now an accepted objective geographical term. You demonstrated that you understood this below.
You're on the wrong track with this stuff about lumping people together. And as a side note, I don't think any white people would object to being called "western." We don't expect non-white people to be able to figure out where we're from. We don't even expect white people to be able to figure out where we're from for the most part. It's silly to get offended over being grouped with similar people. We use the most specific word we are sure is accurate. If I know a person is Korean I'll call him Korean; if I think he's Korean but don't know, I'll cal him Asian. The same would be true for oriental - you'd use it if you weren't sure.
You live in America. But if you were a minority in Japan, I *would* think if hypothetically, "Westerner" lumps everyone West of Japan, then you would take offense.
Asian and oriental are not different in the way you seem to think they are. As I explained above, both are geographic terms, and both describe a race.
One is an objective geographical term, and one is not. Asia is Longitude/Lattidue Degree, Minute, and Second. That doesn't change. See world map below.
They are different in the ways I described in my previous post -
1. Oriental is an old term that was used at a time when racism was more prevalent; just like 'colored' and 'negro.' Neither is inherently offensive, but they fell out of favor because of the time when they were used.
2. To say that someone is "Eastern" implies that they are east of something that is more important than whatever is to its east (or to its west). That is, it implies a Euro-centric view of the world.
1) Agreed, I think that is why some people will take offense to its use.
2) Correct, and this is why others may take offense. China is called to its' own people as the center of the World, it is literally what the word means. "Center Country".
I had no idea that "oriental" was considered at all offensive. In fact I see the word all over the place on TV ads, at the supermarket, restaurants, etc. Do I live in the most racist place in the world or something? Is this why the coffee isle at my supermarket says "November Juliet" now?
Meh...the Orient is a particular part of Asia...and Orientals are people from that region.
Dammed overly sensitive Ornamentals anyway...
Ornamentals... heh... I propose we use this as the new word for describing Asians.
By the way, why do you have an Ornamental with 4 eyes as your avatar?
Because I can...
Haven't you ever heard the term "4-eyes" before?