According to English language dictionaries, Orient has a much wider definition. You might want to check a dictionary rather than Wikipedia when you look up the meaning of a word.

_________________
My blog about Macs and more: Kirkville

I haven't really talked much on this topic, yet, but since it is so active, I'll share my opinion.

The point of trying to be politically correct, to me, is to accommodate for others' feelings. There is no "requirement" to be "politically correct", and the definition of "correct behavior" can change from individual to individual.

Inherently, there is nothing wrong with using racial terms, except that they can typically make certain groups of people feel bad. However, the idea of what makes somebody feel bad is typically just a generalization, and is only a first step that you can take to accommodate someone's feelings.

---

When I was in Japan, I was a minority. I studied Japanese a lot, to the point where I thought that I could communicate decently. However, when people in Japan met me for the first time, because of my appearance, it was assumed that I'd want to speak in English rather than Japanese.

I don't know why, but I would get upset by this. I studied Japanese a lot, but they were trying to speak to me in English.

Rationally, there was no reason for me to be upset. By speaking to me in English, in fact, perhaps these people from Japan were trying to be "politically correct" and make me feel better.

However, once they got to know me better, they understood the things that bothered me. If they cared about my feelings, then they might not speak to me in English as much anymore...

---

So to me, the point is, looking at "politically correct" behavior is a starting point for which you can identify types of things that typically irk people.

But that's only a starting point. If you really care about somebody's feelings, you must get to know them better, and come to understand the things that they like and dislike. Only after you've come to know somebody well can you really know their preferences well.

Of course, it is never a requirement to accommodate somebody's feelings. But if they're somebody that's important to you, it might be a good idea to try. If there is some conflict in feelings between two individuals, to resolve the conflict, at least one person must change. The only person you can really control is yourself.

So for me, if I care about a relationship with somebody, I try to get to know them better. When I get to know them better, I can know what types of things they like or dislike. That can have an effect on how I behave.

Politically correct definitions are only guidelines for certain groups that may have been established by common tendencies or preferences of said group.

_________________
be immersed

Several people, most notably Bantari, have said that there's no point in changing the words we use because it's ideas that matter. But really, we know that they don't really think that.

After all, what word do you use for Black people? For gays? For Chinese people?

There are words far more offensive than Oriental could possibly be, if it is offensive at all. And you do not use those words, because you are a decent person. You do not say "oh, that's silly that we don't call them Chinamen, after all, it's just a word."

Btw: let me be clear, I think that if Oriental is offensive, it's very mildly so--after all, most east asians don't mind the word! My earlier comment doesn't mean I think people who say "oriental" are not decent people.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

@kirkmc
I don't get your point.
@hyperpape
How about calling them black, gay and Chinese?

_________________
Sanity is for the weak.

Yes, they do. at least - I do.


This is why I said that there are some offensive words out there.
But these are usually words which were DESIGNED to be offensive and/or derogatory to begin with.
Some were not, but these are very few and very specific exceptions. And those words would probably stop being offensive (given enough time) once the ideas and attitudes change.

I see absolutely no reason to examine every word we use under a microscope for maybe possibly potentially it might offend somebody out there, and then avoid it just in case. And make a fuss over people using this word.

From my observation, in 99% of the cases of such 'forbid-this-word-crusades', the instigators are the ones who are not really personally involved but rather want to receive attention and exposure to further their own goals, stroke their own egos, boost their own insecurities, or all of the above. And I think we see a lot of that in this thread.

I simply refuse to cater to such foolishness until I hear repeatedly from the PERTINENT group that THEY dislike a given word.
From my conversations with the Orientals around me, they don't seem to mind.
So what's the fuss all about?!?

PS.
I can admit that there are certain situations in which such word-crusades can be a tool to reach a particular goal. Example? The word 'Negro' during the Civil Rights Movement era in the US. Making fuss about the word made sense because it rallied people behind a larger goal and gave them a tangible target, which was very worthwhile. But I don't think it was about the word itself for the sake of the word itself.

Same could be said right now for words being objected to by the Gay Activists.

So again - it is never about words themselves as much as it is about wider issues. And the initiative usually comes from the specific group, not from some unrelated PC-zealots.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

Eurocentric? Isn't Europe Occidental?

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

I think this is unreasonable if you are not willing to name names. Either specific people are acting over-dramatically, or there is no point in making the generalization.

What bothers me most in these discussions is the implicit resistance to being challenged. Since most Asians don't find 'oriental' offensive, I can't make too much of a fuss. However, I think everyone should realize that they might not know everything, and that sometimes, they might offend without meaning to. I suspect there's a lot of things that can offend that I simply don't know about. Until I was 16, I'd never even encountered the idea that 'Gypsy' or 'Eskimo' could offend, or heard the real names of those groups. I am ignorant of a lot, and if someone tells me that I have offended, I hope I would react carefully, rather than just dismissing them.

Similarly, I think many people have no idea about the history of Western depictions and stereotypes about the Orient. I don't know how many people in this thread that characterizes (to take the obvious, surely it doesn't characterize John F), but I hear too much of the tone of "how dare you suggest something I say is offensive!" Are you that certain of yourself?

Nor do I understand the attitude that this is all some crusade that's itself offensive. I recently heard from (I hope) reliable sources that the Czechs greatly prefer to have their country called 'Czechia' as opposed to its formal name of the 'Czech Republic' (in the same way that we refer to China and Taiwan, not the whatever republic of whatever). There is no skin off my back when I change my usage. It is at worst an inconvenience. It seems over-dramatic to cry out with horror when someone suggests you use a different word.

If someone says "you say 'oriental', you are racist" you can be offended. If someone says "you shouldn't say 'oriental'" or even "I cringe when I hear 'oriental'" I think it is extremely petty to be offended.

P.S. Many older Blacks refer to themselves as Negros on census forms. I have no idea what to make of that.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

No, you may not. The proper term is Zulu.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

No problem.
Peter, Suzy, Adam, Coltrane, Wayne, Mary, Pete, Tom, Paul, Bob, Jerry, Darcy, just to name a few.
I could go on like forever.


We love being challengeed! At least - I know I do.
However, for the challenge to be interesting it needs to be valid.
You can't just say 'something is offensive' without giving any reasons why it should be so. Without giving any people who support your view. Without anybody being actually offended, it seems. And then expect everybody to not their heads wisely, agree with you, and change their ways.

Challenge in general is good, but it needs to be a well thought-out challenge, supported by at least some facts. Insisting on a challenge that seems baseless is not challenge but an attempt at bullying and forcing your own views on others without much justification. And I guess this is what we object to. We have enough of that in the world, with all the silly PC crap. Why add more if its not really needed?

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

I am puzzled over the flap about calling people "Oriental". I have never heard anyone use the term in a derogatory manner. (Maybe I do not run in right -- err, wrong circles.) Nor have I met anyone from the Orient who objected to it. Plainly, some people object, but I do not know why.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Let me just say that while I can find almost zero reliable information on the history of people complaining about the term, I think it is the case that the people who first complained were East Asians living in the US. It never became something that a majority of them were bothered by (I think--it's not like I've read a poll), but it's not something that was just made up by some white dude sitting somewhere.

Actually, if anyone has a serious history of the subject, that'll be ten times as worthwhile as anything most of us, especially me, might write on this thread

Edit: more concretely, several legislators behind the Washington law that prohibited government documents from using 'oriental' were Asians.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

People can be very sensitive on both sides of these questions.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

The whole "PC" thing is often ridiculous. I have to laugh that. in the USA, it is wrong to call someone "colored" but OK to say "person of color"

i am thinking oriental has good meaning behind.
i have no idea why it should be politically incorrect.

also..calling black people black is politically incorrect.
we have to call them aferican-american even if they were born in united states.

personally i wanna be called oriental and call myself oriental.

black people call themself "niXXX" and they dont mind that.
if the persone dont mind being called whatever then i think it is ok to call them with whatever name.

_________________
"The more we think we know about
The greater the unknown"
Words by neil peart, music by geddy lee and alex lifeson

In this case, it might be that you are barking up a completely wrong tree.

These people might not have objected to the term 'Oriental' because they find this term offensive, but they simply wanted to be called 'Americans' instead and accepted as such. I met Poles with Canadian citizenships objecting to being called 'Poles', but this absolutely did not mean they find the word offensive. Its just that they have the need to get accepted instead of singled out. And I can certainly sympathize with THAT, even though I think some of that is unavoidable once you emigrate (and a lot of it is driven by the isolationist attitudes of the newcomers themselves.)

In the context of this thread, the only 'factual' objection I heard was that the word is not 'well defined'.
But that goes for a LOT of terms we use, and it does not seem to bother nobody. For example: Occidental, Westerner, American, America, Go Player, European Go Player, Professional Go Player, 1 DAN, and so on...

So why is 'Oriental' an issue?

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

I am not endorsing this point of view, I am simply trying to explain it.

We all have differences, we are all of a given race, or from a given continent, or have other characteristics that can be described.

For Asian people, particularly in the U.S, I believe Oriental is objected too because it suggests an additional boundary from inclusion. I may be German, I may be Chinese, but we are all Americans.

But Oriental puts a layer of otherness, of exotic difference. The Orient is not the name of a specific place, it puts the Oriental east of here.

I think this is the objection, regardless of whether such exotic difference is meant or not, or even meant and highly valued.

Personally, while I can think of better things to be upset about, I can understand not liking being defined as coming from East of the important people. I find it easy to say "Asian" myself.

When I was a child, during the 70's, I was told that the word Negro is the one that we should use, as it is neutral, while the word that is replaced on this forum by "melanin enhanced gentleman" is pejorative and we should not use that. (or, actually, the corresponding words in Finnish, naturally)

When I look at my grandmother's old school book from 1910's, it tells about "negros" in a condescending way that sounds ridiculous in my more modern ears. I can see that even if it uses the currently banned word. On the other hand, I can imagine a lot of appreciative or neutral sentences could be written using the same banned word (such as "Most of the best sprinters in the world are negros."), so I don't really understand this word banning phenomenon.

The Negro -> Black -> African American (do these people really consider themselves African?) -> Tanned (?) sequence is not the only example. In a few years, we will run out of words, as more and more subjects are subject to terminology changes.

yours,
Ignorant white guy.

@Bantari: It was 'oriental' in contexts where race was being referred to. So the point was "call us Japanese/Chinese/Korean/Fillipino, etc, or 'Asian', not 'Oriental'."

Mostly, the "just call us American" crowd consists of Whites. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotch-Iri ... stribution (see the comment about the census).



Just for the record, I'm pasty pasty pasty white, and I say 'Black' except in formal contexts where I might say "African-American" or "African" depending on which term applies. African American means "American descended from Africans" to point out the obvious.

I do not remember anyone ever correcting me. For awhile, "African American" was more popular, but it seems to coexist with 'Black'. As far as I know, the only person to use tanned as a racial designation was Silvio Berlusconi.

My point is that contrary to people's bizarre fears, we're not headed for a dystopian future where we run out of words for Black people.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

The point is, some people get offended by things. You might think that their taking offense is silly or irrational.

If you care about their feeling, you try to come to a resolution - whatever it may be. If you don't care, then... there you go.

That's all there is to it.

_________________
be immersed

Yes, you have seen someone using it in a derogatory manner - Richard Mullens, upthread, referring to the "exotic mystique of Oriental women". And Hyperpape has admirably explained why this is a derogatory usage.

Further, you have seen someone being offended by it - cdybeijing, who lives in Beijing (I have no information about his/her ethnicity) who said s/he cringed when s/he heard the word.

_________________
My European rating.