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

[Caeli]

That's understandable, but doesn't Asian also achieve that by referencing somewhere outside the the United Stats? Although I understand the importance of using a word that doesn't have a history of derogatory connotations? In a similar way I guess I have sometimes wondered if Africans Americans are bothered by that term, since by the same logic whites there should be called European Americans, but it seems to be regarded as the most respectful term.

It's not quite the same thing.  "Oriental" = 'East of Europe' but "Asian" = the continent of Asia.

Or more eloquently:

"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".

This explanation is very similar to how I feel as well.  I wouldn't say that Asian is specifically a term of pure geography (as I think was mentioned previously, even though India and Persia and even Russia are considered Asian countries, people from those areas are usually referred to specifically as Indian, etc.), but it is certainly less offensive and less "generalizing" in that sense.  I am not sure that I explained that very well - sorry about that.

Edited to add: I would also agree that 'Oriental' as a more general sense does carry with it a kind of monolithic generalization, while the term 'Asian' does not, though I don't have any historical texts to refer to on that one - it's more of a feeling and its connotation in usage.  Please note that I am also not a scholar in Asian-American history so I am not as familiar with anything beyond the typical arguments against the usage of 'Orient/al'.

[Ephiral]

That's understandable, but doesn't Asian also achieve that by referencing somewhere outside the the United Stats? Although I understand the importance of using a word that doesn't have a history of derogatory connotations? In a similar way I guess I have sometimes wondered if Africans Americans are bothered by that term, since by the same logic whites there should be called European Americans, but it seems to be regarded as the most respectful term.

Well, yes, it references somewhere outside. But "Asian American" and "African American" reinforce, rather than question, the legitimacy of these people as American.

I know of exactly one case in which someone publicly objected to being called "African American". It was a hockey player, who was asked in an interview if he felt that, as prominent African American, he served as a role model to others. I don't have the exact quote to hand, but the gist was "Um. I'm not African or American. I'm a black Canadian." Interestingly, the term "black" is generally acceptable here, though (as always) context matters. Which brings us to the most obvious of conclusions to this speculation: What should you call people as a group? Whatever they call themselves as a group, or tell you to call them.

[consortium11]

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.)

That's quite region specific though; in the UK the term "Asian" is just as, if not more, likely to be used to referred to people/things from India/Pakistan.

To give two recent examples (and I apologize for the Daily Mail link, but it's useful here as a sort of "how do average people speak" example) you can look here or here, both of which use the term "Asian" to refer to people of Pakistani descent.

[Ephiral]

That's quite region specific though; in the UK the term "Asian" is just as, if not more, likely to be used to referred to people/things from India/Pakistan.

To give two recent examples (and I apologize for the Daily Mail link, but it's useful here as a sort of "how do average people speak" example) you can look here or here, both of which use the term "Asian" to refer to people of Pakistani descent.

Fair point, and probably should've occurred to me when I was trying to think of examples. I'll concede the point, though not the wider argument that, regardless, there are terms that are at least as specific and way less offensive than "Oriental".

[Caeli]

I also wonder if usage of the term ("Asian") in publications would differ from its colloquial / mainstream usage in conversation. 

[consortium11]

Fair point, and probably should've occurred to me when I was trying to think of examples. I'll concede the point, though not the wider argument that, regardless, there are terms that are at least as specific and way less offensive than "Oriental".

Oh, I don't disagree at all... if I ever do use "Oriental" it's in the "things not people" sense and even then I rarely use it, largely because it's offensive due to the history and connotations.

That said, I do think it is worth acknowledging that there's somewhat of an issue with how to identify/refer to people from the various regions in Asia and because of that there's a lack of consensus around the world (hence the example above).

[LisztesFerenc]

"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".

  Okay, that makes sense. I didn't know that.

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?

  Sorry, I missed that. So we have:
Arab
Indian
Asian
South East Asian
And some other ethnic groups with no easy catchall term

  Cool, thank you. I know I could have done this with wiki, but I prefer to learn things by talking to people.

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?

  Probably not, but I still like to know this stuff.

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"?

  This kind of aggressive demand is what almost made me write off most of what you had to say. I sensed a hostility in your post that I judged undue, and one that I certainly didn't sense when reading Caeli's posts. In fact it was only because she praised one of your points for eloquence that I re-read your posts with an open mind. I had never heard of any negative connotations of the word "Oriental" before, neither did the first replies mention this, instead they talked about lack of differentation, without the difference between the two words you supplied. Hence my confusion on why Asian was considered better (along the different use consortium11 showed which I couldn't quite get my finger on).

Daily Mail

  Asylum Seekers Carry New Type of Aids that Lowers House Prices (what is generally assume to happen if you merge all Daily Mail headlines)

I also wonder if usage of the term ("Asian") in publications would differ from its colloquial / mainstream usage in conversation.

  Possible, but then according to wikipedia this is what the British Asian population looks like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Asian

Also note from the article:
This is reflected in the "ethnic group" section of UK census forms and other government paperwork, which treat "Asian" and "Chinese" as separate categories.

[Ephiral]

Sorry, I missed that. So we have:
Arab
Indian
Asian
South East Asian
And some other ethnic groups with no easy catchall term

It really depends on how deep you want to drill - I can guarantee you there are hundreds of ethnicities you've never heard of before. Which brings us back to the simple "What do they call themselves?" rule.

This kind of aggressive demand is what almost made me write off most of what you had to say. I sensed a hostility in your post that I judged undue, and one that I certainly didn't sense when reading Caeli's posts. In fact it was only because she praised one of your points for eloquence that I re-read your posts with an open mind. I had never heard of any negative connotations of the word "Oriental" before, neither did the first replies mention this, instead they talked about lack of differentation, without the difference between the two words you supplied. Hence my confusion on why Asian was considered better (along the different use consortium11 showed which I couldn't quite get my finger on).

I apologize. I was responding to something I saw in your posts - something which, given the rest of this conversation, wasn't actually there. This was wrong.

[Oniya]

Actually, you do have to be careful with the 'what do they call themselves' rule.  There are situations where it's okay for 'insiders' to use a catch-all, but not 'outsiders'.  Much better to ask the individual what labels they prefer.

[LisztesFerenc]

It really depends on how deep you want to drill - I can guarantee you there are hundreds of ethnicities you've never heard of before. Which brings us back to the simple "What do they call themselves?" rule.

  That's obviously the safest bet, but I do like to know, and I feel that especially in a foreign country talking to a local who knows your ethnicity, it can make them feel welcomed as they are recognized as more than just "not us, a foreigner". I was talking to a Japanese girl once and she was seemed quite happy when in response to her saying her parents followed traditional Japanese religion I asked "Buddhist or Shinto?"

I apologize. I was responding to something I saw in your posts - something which, given the rest of this conversation, wasn't actually there. This was wrong.

  No problem. I took a step back and saw that in the barest essence what I had said is "I refer to (x people) by (y term. I don't see what could possibly be wrong with that". So it wasn't exactly hard to misinterpret my intention.

[Ephiral]

Actually, you do have to be careful with the 'what do they call themselves' rule.  There are situations where it's okay for 'insiders' to use a catch-all, but not 'outsiders'.  Much better to ask the individual what labels they prefer.

True. Given my teal tag, I'm pretty much obligated to point out that asking people what terms they prefer is not offensive! (Well, unless it's "What do I call you people?" or "Is (insert slur) okay?".) Rather the opposite: You're expressing a desire to learn about things that are important to them, without bringing any baggage along.

[Inkidu]

In general no.

I consider Oriental like saying European, or Scandinavian, or African, or Middle Eastern, Polynesian, etc.

I suppose you could use Asian.

I'd never call a specific person an Oriental or even an Asian, I'd endeavor to learn from which nation they actually hail.

[LisztesFerenc]

I suppose you could use Asian.

I'd never call a specific person an Oriental or even an Asian, I'd endeavor to learn from which nation they actually hail.

  I'm not quite sure I understand this. Would you also never call a specific person Black, European or even Scandinavian? Obviously knowing someones nation is better, but at the same time these words that denote racial/ethnic groups do exist for valid reasons.

  I've been looking around, now that I know the connotations of Orient I'm surprise how common the word still is. Here's a major company only considering in February of this year that maybe Oriental Express is an outdated name (but then again maybe I shouldn't be surprised given how long the Redskins team has been around):

  http://skift.com/2014/02/26/the-curious-rebranding-of-orient-express-hotels-into-the-belmond-brand/

[Inkidu]

Sure maybe if I was describing someone to another.

No I wouldn't just call someone a European, nor would I say you're an Oriental. Europe is made up of a dozen distinct nations and cultures and to call someone simple European like they're all one people is crass to me at best.

[Oniya]

I suspect that the 'Oriental Express' hotels may have been banking on some of the mystique of the famous Christie novel/movie for some time.

[LisztesFerenc]

No I wouldn't just call someone a European, nor would I say you're an Oriental. Europe is made up of a dozen distinct nations and cultures and to call someone simple European like they're all one people is crass to me at best.

  As a European, I disagree. Sure I would expect friends to learn which nation I am from eventually, but I would not be offended if a non-European friend introduced me to their friends or family as "This is Zoltan, he's European" nor would I mind if someone told me that a person I had talked to in the library recounted the event as "I talked to a European guy in the library".

  I don't get why you assume the term European can only mean that you think they're all one people, and if that is what you think, wouldn't the same logic calling someone German imply you think all 80 million German's are one and the same? I understand the need for cultural sensitivity, especially if your nation and/or race has a long history of exploiting and brutalizing those other cultures, but it just seems to me you are taking it too far.

I suspect that the 'Oriental Express' hotels may have been banking on some of the mystique of the famous Christie novel/movie for some time.

  I'm sure they were, I'm just surprised that "for some time" has lasted until 2014, when the negative connotations of the word Oriental were being discussed in the 1970s.

[Sho]

I think the offensiveness of the term varies from place to place. Where I live, one would probably be considered at least a bit racist for using that term in referring to people (it strongly brings to mind an 80-year-old white man who grew up in a more racist time). The 'things not people' rule is pretty good. You can have an Oriental design on something, an Oriental rug, etc. As far as people? Asian.

My general understanding (pardon the broad strokes here) is that China, Japan, and Korea fall under 'Asia', and the rest of what you think of 'Oriental' falls under Southeast Asia. Arab covers pretty much everyone who looks vaguely Middle Eastern, and Indian covers...well, Indians. When in doubt, just use your best guess. I certainly wouldn't use the term Oriental, though. As far as why not...what the others said was true. It really brings to mind an era when Asians were treated as second-class citizens and it brings to mind the fetishization of an entire race by a euro-centric point of view.

At the end of the day, what you think of as Oriental is colloquially known as Asian nowadays. In any situation where you would use Oriental you can use Asian - I've never met someone who was referring to Southeast Asia or India or Russia or wherever that used 'Asian' instead. Asian pretty much means Oriental, as far as its general usage.

At the end of the day, whoever told you not to use it was probably right. It's a fairly outdated term - usable, but definitely questionable. Asian is the go-to term nowadays.

[consortium11]

At the end of the day, what you think of as Oriental is colloquially known as Asian nowadays. In any situation where you would use Oriental you can use Asian - I've never met someone who was referring to Southeast Asia or India or Russia or wherever that used 'Asian' instead. Asian pretty much means Oriental, as far as its general usage.

Again, I'd stress this is very region dependent; in the UK (and a number of heavily UK influenced countries) "Asian" is just as likely (and I'd suggest actually more likely) to refer to someone or something of Pakistani and/or Middle Eastern appearance as it is to someone from China/Japan.

[Valthazar]

My general understanding (pardon the broad strokes here) is that China, Japan, and Korea fall under 'Asia', and the rest of what you think of 'Oriental' falls under Southeast Asia. Arab covers pretty much everyone who looks vaguely Middle Eastern, and Indian covers...well, Indians.

To corroborate what consortium11 is saying, here is the Wikipedia article about British Asians.  To quote the article, "British Asians are British citizens of South Asian descent, also known as South Asians in the United Kingdom, Asian British people or Asian Britons. In British English usage, the term 'Asian' usually does not include East Asians, North Asians, or Southeast Asians."

Also, why do Indians apparently have their own category of "Indians"?  India itself is an enormous conglomeration of ethnic groups.  There are Dravidians, Afro-Indians, Tibetan-Indians, Parsi Indians, Kashmiri, etc.  Often times, one ethnic group of Indians looks absolutely nothing like the other, and it's usually easy to tell an Indian from Tamil Nadu (South India) from a Punjabi or Gujarati.

It's like calling all Brazilians as "Brazilians" as an ethnic group, not a nationality.

[Kythia]

Also, why do Indians apparently have their own category of "Indians"?  India itself is an enormous conglomeration of ethnic groups.  There are Dravidians, Afro-Indians, Tibetan-Indians, Parsi Indians, Kashmiri, etc.  Often times, one ethnic group of Indians looks absolutely nothing like the other, and it's usually easy to tell an Indian from Tamil Nadu (South India) from a Punjabi or Gujarati.

Because India is a country.

[Valthazar]

Because India is a country.

I was referring to Sho's statement where she was choosing names for ethnic groups based on appearance:

Arab covers pretty much everyone who looks vaguely Middle Eastern, and Indian covers...well, Indians.

If we are deciding terms based on nationality, then yes, all would be "Indians."

But if we using phenotype, then one's ethnicity also ties into how we describe them.  There are Brazilians of pure Germanic descent with blonde hair and blue eyes, just as there are Brazilians with much darker skin.  Nationality wise, they are all Brazilian, but ethnicity wise, and racially, they are not.

[Kythia]

I missed the "looks vaguely".  Fair enough.

I agree - Sho's wildly, almost impressively, incorrect there.  I'm honestly not certain what "looks vaguely middle eastern" could mean.

EDIT: Or, rather, I suspect I am sure and hope I'm wrong.

[Sho]

I'm sorry if I offended anyone - I was simply answering the OP's question with what I've experienced in my particular region.

It seemed to me like the question was '"how do you describe a particular person who looks Asian/Oriental" and which term is correct', as far as the OP put it. I may have misunderstood, but that's what I gathered. As such, going off OP's example of how to describe someone in a train station, I was saying how people are described based on the particularities of their appearance.

Thank you, everyone, for jumping down my throat. Truly appreciate it when I was just trying to answer something honestly. I am fully aware that people who look very different from their supposed ethnicity exist - taking Brazil as an example, citizens can range the gamut of looks. Frankly, they can in every country. The only reason I said 'looks vaguely Middle Eastern' was because I find that it's the region with some of the most variety in terms of looks and it's one of the few regions that doesn't have a particularly strongly defined ethnic image that comes to mind in terms of looks (whereas 'Asian/White/Black/Native America' call to mind fairly distinct images), at least in my mind.

I believe the OP was asking how you would refer to a group based on appearance, and I was trying to clarify.

Editted to add that I don't think it's a great idea to identify someone based solely on apperance (when referring to a vendor, you're better off saying 'that girl/boy by the east exit of the station who sells magazines'), but if for some reason you feel a burning need to do so, that's how I would do it. In my region the ways I've listed are considered non-offensive. Take it as you will.

A secondary note is that the term 'black' is often swapped with 'African-American', though many of my friends have pointed out that they prefer black because they are neither African nor American, or if they are, they simply prefer the term 'black'. That's something that changes from person to person, so it's something you want to listen out for and figure out what the people around you prefer.

[LisztesFerenc]

I believe the OP was asking how you would refer to a group based on appearance, and I was trying to clarify.

  Pretty much. Its understandable why people can get the wrong idea when asked how to categories someone based on their looks, but at the same time I don't think pretending not to notice that the ethnic population of Ethiopia more closely resembles that of Nigeria than say France is really going to be a good thing.

[Valthazar]

I am fully aware that people who look very different from their supposed ethnicity exist - taking Brazil as an example, citizens can range the gamut of looks.

I just wanted to emphasize the difference between ethnicity and nationality.

I don't know if saying there are people "who look very different from their supposed ethnicity" is entirely accurate, and the only reason this should occur is if we are not defining ethnicity specifically enough.

For example, English is a nationality while Anglo-Saxon is an ethnicity.  On the same token, Indian is a nationality, while Dravidian, Parsi, etc.  are ethnicities.  As such, if ethnicities are defined specifically enough, and not confused with nationality, there is significant phenotype and genotype similarities among a shared ethnic background. 

[Ephiral]

I've seen "Desi" used as a self-applied term for the peoples of the Indian subcontinent; I'd say this might be a better approach than "Indian". And yes, I screwed this up earlier. Mea culpa.

[Kythia]

The issues, Sho, are that

"looks vaguely Middle Eastern" is, as you say, an incredibly wide grouping and, given the current situation, its difficult to view a phrase like that neutrally.  While, sure, you might think that "That guy over there looks vaguely Middle Eastern to me" carries no connotations and is simply a description of reality, I think you can see how the phrase could be viewed badly.

"Arab", pace what you claimed, isn't an ethnicity.  It's a social/cultural grouping.  Using "Arab" for anyone who "looks vaguely Middle Eastern" (from now on: lvME) is incorrect and wildly offensive to large swathes of people - semites to use a somewhat old fashioned word, berbers, etc.

Ethiopia, Sudan, Morocco, Libya, etc are both Arab nations, and the inhabitants certainly don't lvME - Lisztes specifically makes that point in a different context wrt to Ethipia.  The Arab World

It is possible to "[try] to answer something honestly" and still be very and offensively wrong - the fact that you tried to answer honestly is in no way a shield.  I'm sorry you feel people "jumped down your throat" but equally this is the closest E has to a pure debate section.  Your statement - and, again, the fact that you tried to be honest is utterly irrelevant - was wrong and potentially offensive, hence people challenging it.

[Sho]

It is possible to "[try] to answer something honestly" and still be very and offensively wrong - the fact that you tried to answer honestly is in no way a shield.  I'm sorry you feel people "jumped down your throat" but equally this is the closest E has to a pure debate section.  Your statement - and, again, the fact that you tried to be honest is utterly irrelevant - was wrong and potentially offensive, hence people challenging it.

In that case I apologize. You're right, it is a debate section. I was answering early in the morning after a hard day of work and with another hard day ahead of me - I was more sensitive than I should have been, particularly having been around E for as long as I have been.

What I'd ask, then, would be: How would you refer to someone who hailed from what is typically considered the Middle East, at least in responding to the OP's request of how to refer to someone? This does, of course, digress somewhat from the question of the term 'Oriental' and is now focusing on the Middle East. I say Middle East in reference to what I consider the Middle East (I Googled 'Middle East' and this image came up, which encompasses the countries I would generally be referring to: http://www.travelnotes.org/MiddleEast/images/middle_east2.gif).

Being American, the term "Middle Eastern" is generally used to refer to those countries. In response to your saying that the term "Arab" can be wildly offensive, I've had a different experience. From my friends who are Middle Eastern - though some prefer the term 'Middle Eastern' and some prefer 'Arab' and some prefer 'Arab-American' - I've never thought saying someone was Middle Eastern was particularly offensive. I'm not saying that it isn't offensive, of course, just that amongst my friends who hail from Iraq, Iran, and Saudi Arabia it is what they use and how they refer to themselves (and are fine with being referred to). Given your opinion that it's offensive, though, it's certainly something for me to keep in mind - it may well be more offensive than I had ever thought of it being.

I do think that a good portion of the offense is in how it's used; saying "Oh, look at that Arab over there" would be something I would find highly offensive, whereas someone saying "Oh, him? Yeah, he's Arab; he comes from Saudia Arabia/Iraq/Iran" wouldn't particularly bother me. I also think that the grammar is important; in the same way that someone someone is "a black" as opposed to "black" is HUGELY offensive, I think the same applies to 'Arab'..."He's an Arab" is very different from "He is Arab", at least where I've lived and worked. That could very much be a regional/social thing where I am, though, so that may be very open to interpretation and I may well be wrong. Also, I absolutely am aware that the term is now (given the political situation) far more charged than it would be otherwise, but I won't get into that since I feel like this might well be derailing the OP's initial question and thread, I'm happy to respond here but perhaps it might be better to take it to PM or to another topic?

[Kythia]

Your image doesn't work for me for some reason, but I can imagine vaguely what it encompasses.  One would assume it includes Israel?  Which is pretty emphatically not an Arab nation - without opening that colossal can of worms.  Ethiopia, as I say, is an Arab nation but probably not in your map of the Middle East.  The two terms, the point is, aren't the same.

Being American, the term "Middle Eastern" is generally used to refer to those countries. In response to your saying that the term "Arab" can be wildly offensive, I've had a different experience. From my friends who are Middle Eastern - though some prefer the term 'Middle Eastern' and some prefer 'Arab' and some prefer 'Arab-American' - I've never thought saying someone was Middle Eastern was particularly offensive. I'm not saying that it isn't offensive, of course, just that amongst my friends who hail from Iraq, Iran, and Saudi Arabia it is what they use and how they refer to themselves (and are fine with being referred to). Given your opinion that it's offensive, though, it's certainly something for me to keep in mind - it may well be more offensive than I had ever thought of it being.

I don't believe saying someone is Middle Eastern is offensive, I was referring solely to usage of "Arab".  "Middle Eastern" is a geographic term that I think most people would accept - though it is of course Eurocentric (east of where?) and might be worth avoiding for that reason.

[Sho]

Hmph. Can't seem to get that to work in my original post, so I'll just drop the relevant link here for people to copy/paste if they'd like:   http://www.travelnotes.org/MiddleEast/images/middle_east2.gif

It includes: Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, UAE, Oman, Saudia Arabia, Gaza, Jordan, Cyprus, Lebanon, and the West Bank.

Yeah, let's not get into the whole Israel thing - I agree with you that it wouldn't be considered an Arab nation, but as you said, that's a whole can of worms not worth getting into given how complicated it is.

[Ephiral]

Looking at that list of countries, I'd say... there's actually nothing but geography tying the people it covers together. Five of those nations are not majority-Arab; two have no significant Arab population. One is majority-Asian, one has citizens as a minority, and two have no reliable data. Pretty much all of them that do have data are wildly multiethnic.

So... yeah, looks like a geographic term would be best, and "Middle Eastern" would be the best I've seen (though, as Kythia mentions, it does have issues.)

Man, ethnology is hard.

[Timeless]

Let me just say firstly. I'm an Asian and I live in South East Asia.

It's very funny for me, because I actually used the word 'Oriental' to describe my Asian characters from time to time, until a fellow roleplayer brought it up to me that the term 'Oriental' to describe an Asian is actually considered offensive. How he described it was that people used the term 'oriental' for objects, and 'asian' for people.

I have to ask the OP on what he meant about Malaysians though. Because you see, Malaysia is made up of three main races which is the Chinese, Indian and the Malays (Not to say there aren't any other races, of course). If you mean the Malays, they would still be categorized as just as Malays and would prefer to be called that way. I feel that 'Asian' is a loose term, and could be accepted by anybody within Asia.

For me, personally, I think the word 'Oriental' is not an offensive term but would be very peculiar to be used or to be called as one. I wouldn't be offended, mind you, but it's a term where nobody really use it unless they want to describe an object. To describe a person though? Just stick with the term 'Asian', and you're good, in my honest opinion.

If you want to make certain you do not offend anybody? Go with the proper ethnic group. From Malaysians, Chinese, Koreans and etc etc.

[LisztesFerenc]

I have to ask the OP on what he meant about Malaysians though. Because you see, Malaysia is made up of three main races which is the Chinese, Indian and the Malays (Not to say there aren't any other races, of course). If you mean the Malays, they would still be categorized as just as Malays and would prefer to be called that way.

  I guess maybe Malay is the word then. I was wondering how to refer to the the island nations of South East Asia like Malaysia and Indonesia, as they seem visually dissimilar to other ethnicity and culturally different due to the importance of Islam in their society.

I feel that 'Asian' is a loose term, and could be accepted by anybody within Asia.

  It should do yes, its just strange how it has also come to mean a specific part of the Asian people in different countries (Chinese, Japanese and Korean in the USA and Indian and Pakistani in the UK).

[kylie]

       I think in the US, it really depends who you ask.  University departments sometimes distinguish East Asia (China, Japan, Korea if they can afford people to actually study it ahem) from Southeast (usually covering at least Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia I believe - but sometimes more).  Some outfits speak of Central Asia as being more the neighborhood of Kazakhstan.  Or you can even hear "Southwest Asia" referring to possibly Iran or even maybe, Turkey.  Quite a few people do have clearer ideas of these. 

        But in folk usage, when you say "Asia," it's amazing how people on the street still assume it must mean one very particular area.  That gets silly enough to begin with if you worry about it though, as quite a few people are not all that clear on geography and they tend to simply neglect a country or two.  Or confuse some.  If you stop using precise terms over that sort of problem, then pretty soon you'll have to struggle with words like "Oklahoma" whenever one of the parties to the conversation grew up too far away and never became interested in geography.

       I still see Oriental used quite a lot on hotel titles, advertising, and business letterhead.  Particularly I think in more conservative countries such as China, Pakistan, Malaysia, etc.  It's ironic because one faction of the same countries tends to be very busy (or even overactive) in shouting about foreign intervention or application of Western standards to local situations.  I'm not sure how much of using the term is just for advertising exoticism, and how much is a celebration of claimed in-group history and "uniqueness."  At some level, the conservative take and the entrepreneurial take go together rather well.  It could also be partly because British English still has a great deal of influence in these areas -- that, and language education tends to lag behind the social trends that may have changed certain usages in the West more often?

       Oriental often rings as rather antiquated by now in the US...  People in academia tend to think immediately of Said's Orientalism and some will get nervous about anything that sounds vaguely similar, regardless of intention.  Then again, I think in more pulp novels and even Western advertising, it's still fairly common as an exoticism and entertainment trope.  Enough people may realize that some people really do mean to use it as a way of identifying with a particular setting.  In my own book, it could even have some relationship to how Western academics still regularly write many Asian names with surname first (I mean while writing analyses otherwise largely in English), in the style of the languages they are translating -- that's still considered quite normal, though I find it pretty incongruous myself. 

        Anyway, speaking of individual persons or from a distance of customs, Asian generally comes off better than Oriental.  At least, I would say that's true in the US in communities that are sensitive about race and colonialism.  But there's some room for more exotic advertising, literary, or perhaps personal renditions of Oriental I think.  It hasn't completely gone away and I wouldn't go quite so far as to insist it should.  So it's sometimes a trick of the situation and relationship involved. 

        From one angle, it could be rather like knowing when it might be safe to use Black.  Or let's say more, precisely what context and tone of saying Black -- the word itself is quite common, but getting it across well is perhaps not so simple.  Or even the much more troublesome and by now, historically burdened word "nigger."  Yes some people do use it, though it's usually accepted mainly among Blacks in their own dialects which is a very exclusive game.  Unless I suppose, just maybe you are living in the ghetto yourself day to day or perhaps in deep with a clique of people who have adopted more sort of Eminem style.  Something where you are feeling pretty darn sure you won't get your head bashed over it. 

        Even then I think I'd be a little worried about hitting the note just right...  I tend to think the cocky people on such scores often enough run into someone not from the same background and make them think, "Wow aren't they racist [or sometimes, playing it up awfully hard for no good reason]"  And we do get plenty of people -- who often enough appear to be somehow or other biased btw -- trying the "I've got some [insert minority] friends, so clearly I can use this otherwise volatile word and everyone should know I couldn't possibly have the wrong idea anywhere in my life no way no how."  Which can quickly get ridiculous the more it's played, if it isn't actually a cheap excuse to begin with.  So...  Oriental, I would say, is not at quite that level of controversy.  We don't so vehemently say, generally "Just don't play around with it" with quite that same sense of terror.  It's not subjected to quite the same level of scrutiny or the same general presumption of ignorance or hate.  But there are situations where it could really go amiss for similar reasons.

          Again, it doesn't quite infuriate me to see Oriental in a hotel title, although I may smirk and roll my eyes slightly.  Especially if I feel they are overplaying it or taking themselves too seriously about supposedly knowing esoteric things I have reason to suspect they are clueless about.  It's more when it gets applied to individual people, I might sooner perk up and ask why now.