Is Oriental/the Orient a bad term?

[LisztesFerenc]

  So recently a couple of articles I've read seem to have suggested that terms like the Oriental and the Orient have racist connotations and should not be used. When I looked into the CancelColbert twitter thing the activist behind it did so (it turned out she did have some legitimate points and wasn't just over reacting to joke, even if I don't agree with everything she said), and apparently Biden got into trouble for referring to a diplomat as something like "the wisest Orient". That was a surprise. To me, the term has always been a legitimate if vague subset of the lands or people of the Far East, encompassing China and Japan, as well as presumable Korea and Thailand as well as maybe even Mongolian and possible even Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia (and probably some more countries I never learned about) but exuding some places like Malaysia. Did I misinterpret what was wrong here, or is this an American thing? Is the term also considered bad in Britain, because I should really know about it then.

[Kythia]

The issue as I see it is why one would ever want to refer to a:

"vague subset of the lands or people of the Far East, encompassing China and Japan, as well as presumable Korea and Thailand as well as maybe even Mongolian and possible even Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia (and probably some more countries I never learned about)"

There's a whole lot of land there, and very disparate peoples and cultures.  Further they don't form a logical geographic block like continents do.  As such, I think a lot of the racist connotations come from the assumption that anyone using terms like that is lumping a load of people together in some vaguely defined "asian" category that doesn't make a whole load of sense.

[LisztesFerenc]

  And you're from the USA? (I'm trying to determine is this applies to all English speaking countries or whether its just an American thing.)

  Basically as for why I would use, well that's because I can tell the difference between a Malaysian and a Chinese person but not a Chinese and a Japanese. I could call them Asian or Far Eastern, but Oriental narrows it down. The only other option I can think of it to ignore the fact the visual similarities between the people of the two countries, which to me seems like it is going too far to avoid possibly offending someone. I hope I didn't do so saying this.

  As for the idea that continents being "logical geographic blocks", I was always under the impression the only reason for splitting Euroasia was the divide was made by Europeans who knew they weren't Asian and so made an exception to that the rule because it was more useful to them this way. I've been told that the Western version of continents is not the only one used today in the world.

[Kythia]

No, I'm English.

I've no idea about other versions of continents, you could well be right.  Wikipedia has an article on the topic though, and it doesn't look like "Europeans who knew they weren't Asian" is strictly on the money.

[LisztesFerenc]

  I have no idea why I am just now hearing of this then.

  As for the continent thing though, I seem to have taken away something different from the article. From the Modern border paragraph: "The modern border between Asia and Europe remains a historical and cultural construct, defined only by convention". Basically the Greeks decided Asia and Europe was separate and people seem to have stuck to it.

  Sorry if I am coming off as argumentative, I'm just trying to understand this, as I said, this was a surprise.

[Kythia]

You're not coming across as argumentative.  Or not to me at least.

Greeks couldn't have known they were not Asian before they had defined what Asia was, you seem to be trying to put the cart before the horse there.  Assuming I've understood you right.

[LisztesFerenc]

  Sure, the Greeks did the best they could, but its stayed. We should have corrected to their mistake, but we didn't. As such I don't think you can claim continents are divided logically without the disclaimer that Eurasia's divide is arbitrary. There are anything from 4-7 continents, but Eurosia is the one that stands out as the illogical one, because there is no body of water between the two.

  My main point though would be: am I not meant to reference the visual similarities between Japanese and Chinese ethnicity? Because that seems to be what is being said with the objection to the term, unless there is a better word for it, which doesn't seem to be the case. I can see why Biden got into trouble, being a politician his words will be held to a higher standard, but I still think it is misguided to ignore the fact that some countries in Far East Asia have similar looking people.

[Beguile's Mistress]

When I read the question I tried to think back and determine when I first became away that Orient and Oriental were replaced with Asia and Asian and I can't come up with a reference.

I don't think Orient and Oriental are necessarily "bad" but those terms are being phased out or have been eliminated altogether.  It's easier to go with the popular flow and use Asia and Asian if that is what citizens on that continent prefer.

[Kythia]

The "visual similarities" aren't as strong as you suggest.   What you're, accidentally, referring to is called the Cross Race Effect

[LisztesFerenc]

When I read the question I tried to think back and determine when I first became away that Orient and Oriental were replaced with Asia and Asian and I can't come up with a reference.

I don't think Orient and Oriental are necessarily "bad" but those terms are being phased out or have been eliminated altogether.  It's easier to go with the popular flow and use Asia and Asian if that is what citizens on that continent prefer.

  But Asian also covers Arabs, Indians and the surrounding nations, as well as Malaysians and the Orientals. I am not meant to be more specific than Asian? It just seems weird to me.

The "visual similarities" aren't as strong as you suggest.   What you're, accidentally, referring to is called the Cross Race Effect

  That seems to be different issue, as the study was focused on specific individuals within that race. A better example for what I am trying to get at is can I tell the difference between Germans, French and English. And I'm pretty sure the answer is no, because they are all white. Once you start going to Eastern Europe I am confident I will be able to spot the Slavic traits of the local population, but I highly doubt I will be that much more accurate than a coin toss at telling the difference between Western Europeans, despite them having different cultures and histories.

[Kythia]

You couldn't tell the difference between someone of Scandinavian stock vs. someone of Iberian stock vs. someone of Celtish?  Really?

[Oniya]

  That seems to be different issue, as the study was focused on specific individuals within that race.

Actually, if you zoom in on the long image in the middle of the article, there is a (very dated and full of WWII racial slurs) 'pamphlet' that was intended to give GIs tips on distinguishing Japanese and Chinese individuals.  This would suggest that the American soldiers had difficulty in doing so.

[LisztesFerenc]

  I don't think so. Maybe Iberian based on their skin and hair colour (I don't think I'd confuse them with a Latina), but I don't think I pick out someone being of the other two stocks. Red hair tends to mean Celtic, but short of that I wouldn't know what to look for.

Actually, if you zoom in on the long image in the middle of the article, there is a (very dated and full of WWII racial slurs) 'pamphlet' that was intended to give GIs tips on distinguishing Japanese and Chinese individuals.  This would suggest that the American soldiers had difficulty in doing so.

  I wasn't debating that, and I didn't mean to imply one couldn't. I simply meant that I cannot distinguish the two and so a term (like Oriental) that covers both is useful to me.

[Trieste]

  But Asian also covers Arabs, Indians and the surrounding nations, as well as Malaysians and the Orientals. I am not meant to be more specific than Asian? It just seems weird to me.

I'm not sure why you would need to? Not to mention that several traits common in Pacific Rim ethnicities are also shared by Native Americans. So if you're trying to go for a visual descriptor for a story or some such - saying "she was of Korean descent and her heritage was prevalent in her face, with almond-shaped eyes that were the color of..." blah blah blah.

If you're talking to the police, one would hope that you could get more specific than "he looked 'Oriental'" because that's not going to do much.

I can't .... think of any other instances where you would need to distinguish eastern features without talking about specific area of origin ... which is gradually meaning less and less, given ethnic intermingling and such.

[Kythia]

Yeah, exactly Trieste.  As I understand it the problem is there's no non-offensive usage for the term, nothing you could possibly mean by it that isn't "all far eastern people are essentially the same"

[LisztesFerenc]

I'm not sure why you would need to? Not to mention that several traits common in Pacific Rim ethnicities are also shared by Native Americans. So if you're trying to go for a visual descriptor for a story or some such - saying "she was of Korean descent and her heritage was prevalent in her face, with almond-shaped eyes that were the color of..." blah blah blah.

  But I cannot tell if someone is Korean by looking at them or listening to them talk. As for why I'd want to, I prefer to say "nice Oriental lady" when recalling a meeting with someone than "Nice Asian lady".

  I know this isn't an exact science, but if a friend tells me "look for the Oriental vendor in the train station" that will help me a lot more than "Look for the Asian vendor in the train station".

[Kythia]

It sounds a little like your argument is "this term can't be offensive because I find it useful".  Or am I misunderstanding?

[Trieste]

So if you're trying to go for a visual descriptor for a story or some such - saying "she was of Korean descent and her heritage was prevalent in her face, with almond-shaped eyes that were the color of..." blah blah blah.

Sorry, I just realized that I forgot to finish this sentence. At the end, there was supposed to be a 'should be fine' or something.

  But I cannot tell if someone is Korean by looking at them or listening to them talk. As for why I'd want to, I prefer to say "nice Oriental lady" when recalling a meeting with someone than "Nice Asian lady".

Socially speaking, this is more a problem with your recognition than it is with the lexicon. And "nice lady" works just fine in most contexts, honestly.

  I know this isn't an exact science, but if a friend tells me "look for the Oriental vendor in the train station" that will help me a lot more than "Look for the Asian vendor in the train station".

... is there only one single vendor of Asian descent in your town? O_o

That's also ignoring the fact that while, as an example, India is technically part of Asia, in common parlance you're going to hear "Asian vendor" and think of eastern Asia. If someone means an Indian vendor, they will usually say "Indian vendor".

I mean, I s'pose you could adopt 'east Asia' instead of leaning more about the various races you're trying to discuss... ... I s'pose.

[Ephiral]

The problem with "Oriental" is that it's a very Eurocentric term, the use of which was most prevalent in an extremely racist era - so it has a lot of baggage associated with it. Canadian here, and the way I learned it growing up is that "things are Oriental, people are Asian" - but even that use seems to be fading if not gone. If you really need to specify-but-keep-it-broad, I'd go with "southeast Asian" as the best fit. Do note that specifically calling out that Chinese, Japanese, and Korean people all look the same to you (or their languages all sound the same) does have uncomfortable racist connotations to it.

In colloquial use, your argument against "Asian" is a non-starter, at least everywhere I've seen the term used; it's generally understood to imply southeast Asian. People of Indian or Arabic descent are generally referred to as such (and Persians generally get awkwardly filed under 'Arab', because a) most people can't tell the difference and b) society as a whole tends not to give a shit about being really damn offensive to them.)

[LisztesFerenc]

  Okay, if Asia means what the thing as I meant with Oriental but isn't considered offense, then I will happily use it. But I really do not understand the logic behind that, nor how calling them "Asians" is meant to remedy the fact that calling them "Orientals" implied you thought they were all the same. You're still brushing them under an umbrella term, but I can appreciate the clean slate aspect of the word.

  Although what are Malaysians considered then?

Do note that specifically calling out that Chinese, Japanese, and Korean people all look the same to you (or their languages all sound the same) does have uncomfortable racist connotations to it.

  I am very much aware of this, but I mean no offense by it. I am aware of the many of the difference between them, having studied 2oth century history and had an interest in Samurai and Oriental weaponry (its a thing, it works!), and as I said I have little faith in my ability to tell whites apart by nation. Still, for obvious reasons its not something I advertise, but it was relevant to this discussion.

... is there only one single vendor of Asian descent in your town? O_o

  In a Hungarian train station? I'm pretty sure the average is less than one.

[Ephiral]

  Okay, if Asia means what the thing as I meant with Oriental but isn't considered offense, then I will happily use it. But I really do not understand the logic behind that, nor how calling them "Asians" is meant to remedy the fact that calling them "Orientals" implied you thought they were all the same. You're still brushing them under an umbrella term, but I can appreciate the clean slate aspect of the word.

Well, for one thing, "the Orient" is a much more monolithic concept than "Asia" ever was - so it's acknowledging that the only thing they really have in common is geography. For another, it shows that you aren't mired in the kind of yellow-panic thinking that was popular around the time "Oriental" as a term for people was.

Although what are Malaysians considered then?

...general category southeast Asian, specifically Malay (though you may want to be sure you're talking about a Muslim, as I understand there's a whole bundle of religious baggage loaded in)? I... don't understand the confusion.

[LisztesFerenc]

Well, for one thing, "the Orient" is a much more monolithic concept than "Asia" ever was - so it's acknowledging that the only thing they really have in common is geography. For another, it shows that you aren't mired in the kind of yellow-panic thinking that was popular around the time "Oriental" as a term for people was.

  Hence the clean slate aspect of the word, I get that. But how does "Asian" in any way acknowledge the different cultures of those people, which was an objection to the word Oriental?

...general category southeast Asian, specifically Malay (though you may want to be sure you're talking about a Muslim, as I understand there's a whole bundle of religious baggage loaded in)? I... don't understand the confusion.

  I'm trying to understand how we have decided it is acceptable to refer to the various peoples of Asia, because I find it strange still at this point. You mentioned three general term: Arab, Indian and Asian. Arab seems to work reasonable well, although I wasn't aware of the Persian issue. I thought that was just an older term for Iraq? India though would presumable encompass several other countries outside India, like Pakistan and Afghanistan. Does Indian cover these people as well? Asian works (although I cannot see the difference apart from the clean slate, which again I do acknowledge as important), but then you have Malaysians, Indonisians, Sumatra ect. Is there a collective word for them?

[Caeli]

Ephiral has a good overall answer for why Oriental/the Orient are no longer considered politically correct when referring to people of Asian descent and East Asia/Asia in general - mainly that it's an antiquated and Eurocentric term, and though the term itself is not specifically offensive, there are a few things to consider about its origin and historical usage:

• Etymologically-speaking, “oriental” is derived from a French term which basically translates to “Eastern” (and still exists as French orientale).  Eastern is relative (if you keep going east, eventually you'll end up west), but as mentioned previously, it holds a meaning of "Eastern in relation to Europe/United States/the Western world".  It elevates Europe to the default/the norm and Asia as foreign and other.  Asian people also do/did not use 'Oriental' to describe themselves, because it is what other people called them
• From Wikipedia (and from what I've read/studied in history/social sciences classes and texts): John Kuo Wei Tchen, director of the Asian/Pacific/American Studies Program and Institute at New York University, said the basic critique of the term developed in the 1970s. Tchen has said, “With the anti-war movement in the ’60s and early ’70s, many Asian Americans identified the term ‘’Oriental’’ with a Western process of racializing Asians as forever opposite ‘others’.”
• 'Oriental' also conjures up an era.  This term is associated with a time period when Asians had a subordinate status, to old stereotypes about Asians, to a time period when the American government was passing exclusionary acts to keep Asian people from entering the United States.  From an Asian-American standpoint, at least, being called an Oriental challenges my legitimacy as an American citizen/to be fully accepted as an American, because it implies that I am a perpetual foreigner despite the fact that I was born and raised in the United States and have stronger cultural ties to the United States than I do to my country of descent.

I would not consider Oriental offensive because it is a blanket term - as you say, 'Asian' might also be considered a blanket term in a way, though I would liken it more to it being vague/overly general rather than a blanket term.

Obviously, the way you use the word is also important.  Simply referring to someone as an Asian because they are of Asian descent is not an issue, but saying "all Asians are the same" is quite different.

[Ephiral]

  Hence the clean slate aspect of the word, I get that. But how does "Asian" in any way acknowledge the different cultures of those people, which was an objection to the word Oriental?

"The Orient" was generally viewed as a single monolithic thing - it actively denied dthat cultural differences were of any importance (if it even acknowledged their existence at all). "Asian" is a term of pure geography; the only thing it links these people by is "likely to be found together in this part of a map of the world". It doesn't exactly acknowledge cultural differences, but it also doesn't erase them, which was an issue with "Oriental".

I'm trying to understand how we have decided it is acceptable to refer to the various peoples of Asia, because I find it strange still at this point. You mentioned three general term: Arab, Indian and Asian.

I was responding to your claim that "Asian" as a term is confusing because Indians and Arabs.

Arab seems to work reasonable well, although I wasn't aware of the Persian issue. I thought that was just an older term for Iraq? India though would presumable encompass several other countries outside India, like Pakistan and Afghanistan. Does Indian cover these people as well?

Well, both Afghanistan and Pakistan are actually pretty ethnically diverse, but what you're thinking of as "a Pakistani person" is likely Punjabi, which is a subset of Indian, yes (though there's just a few political issues with calling a Pakistani person an Indian to their face). The primary ethnic group in Afghanistan is Pashtun, which is an Iranian ethnicity - more closely related to Persians than to the Punjabi or other Indian-subcontinent groups.

Seriously, this is all one five-second glance at Wikipedia away.

Asian works (although I cannot see the difference apart from the clean slate, which again I do acknowledge as important), but then you have Malaysians, Indonisians, Sumatra ect. Is there a collective word for them?

The difference is that it is generally considered by Asian people to be less offensive. Is this not a big deal? As for your other examples: South. East. Asian. What is so confusing about this term? Is there really a situation in which you would be told about an Asian person, see someone of Batak descent, and say "Nope, can't possibly be them!"? Could you cite an example? For bonus points: Could you please explain how "Oriental" is any better at describing the multitude of different people in southeastern Asia than "southeast Asian"?

[LisztesFerenc]

Oops, accidentally copy pasted over this reply