(03-18-2017, 04:44 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Why is it considered bad form to refer to people from SE Asia as Oriental?  I understand that Asian is now the preferred term of reference, but I'm not sure it means what everyone intends it to mean.  When a person says "Asian", the common thought is a person of Chinese, Japanese, Korean, etc. decent.  But alas, there are more Countries in Asia, and those people look nothing like the stereotypical "Asian" person.  I mean you have people from Russia, India, and many more, and they look nothing like the people commonly associated as being Asian.

So, why can't we still use "Oriental" to differentiate?

(03-18-2017, 04:49 PM)GMDino Wrote: I usually just ask them their name.  

(03-18-2017, 04:51 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: How very polite of you.  Still doesn't answer my question.

(03-18-2017, 04:55 PM)GMDino Wrote: I have always said Asian.  Manly because, to me, Oriental was just too wordy and most people don't understand what it means.

Basically dumbing it down to get the point across.

Happy now??!?!  

(03-18-2017, 05:20 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's actually very simple.  People are Asian, Oriental refers to objects, as my sister says, "rugs and spices".  While not definitive, that's the gist of it.

(03-18-2017, 05:20 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's actually very simple.  People are Asian, Oriental refers to objects, as my sister says, "rugs and spices".  While not definitive, that's the gist of it.

(03-18-2017, 05:45 PM)wildcats forever Wrote: Indeed. This will provide a little more depth to the reasoning behind this: https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1PRFB_enUS624US624&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=asian+or+oriental?&*

(03-18-2017, 06:02 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: That is just some BS line of crap off of NPR..




Yes, it was informative.  The Orient is East and Southeast Asia, thus making people from that region Orientals.

When referring to Asians, it is a much broader connotation that is implied.  The person in question could be Russian, Indian, Ukrainian, Mongolian, or any number of cultures.  Like I said previously, it's just as wrong as labeling all Black people "African American", as they could be from Jamaica, Trinidad, any South American Nation, or a whole host of places.  Labeling people based on their appearance is just, wrong..

(03-18-2017, 05:07 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: No, not really.  Just the same as all Black people are referred to as "African American".  What happens if their from Trinidad, or South America?

(03-18-2017, 06:02 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: That is just some BS line of crap off of NPR..




Yes, it was informative.  The Orient is East and Southeast Asia, thus making people from that region Orientals.

When referring to Asians, it is a much broader connotation that is implied.  The person in question could be Russian, Indian, Ukrainian, Mongolian, or any number of cultures.  Like I said previously, it's just as wrong as labeling all Black people "African American", as they could be from Jamaica, Trinidad, any South American Nation, or a whole host of places.  Labeling people based on their appearance is just, wrong..

(03-18-2017, 06:17 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Descriptive and labeling aren't the same thing.  If I say I'm of European ancestry that's more specific than saying I'm Caucasian.  Asian has been understood as referring to people from the Asian continent that would have fallen under the previous term of oriental.  Indians, while part of the continent are referred to as Indians and Afghani's and Pakistani's are referred to as Middle Eastern.  These terms weren't pulled out of a hat, they evolved and they really aren't PC, they're just descriptors.  We use them to describe people because the definitions are shared and thus easily understood. African-American is not the same thing, it is an invented term that you rightfully label as PC.  Not that it's wrong or bad, but it certainly didn't evolve organically and it is not a shared descriptor for many people.  You are quite correct that the term would be misapplied to Jamaicans, South American blacks or actual African blacks.


Essentially the point being made is that descriptors help you do exactly that, describe.  

(03-18-2017, 07:12 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Thanks for all of the insight and information on the topic, but I'm still not convinced that using Asian to describe people from East or Southeastern Asia is proper.  Why should only a portion of the Continent gain all of the use of the descriptor?  Isn't that unfair to the billions of other Asian peoples?

Let's just all go back to what worked, Oriental.  Orient refers to a specific part of Asia, so why not describe people from that region as Oriental?

(03-18-2017, 07:18 PM)GMDino Wrote: Why we called Americans and Mexicans and Canadians are not?

We all live in North America.

(03-18-2017, 07:22 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Exactly, we're not referred to as North Americans.  However, we are The United States of America.  So, referring to us as Americans is actually proper.

(03-18-2017, 07:27 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: But why?