Why is it that whites are "white"...

[Drake Tungsten]

For one thing, it gets rid of the Eurocentric problem, where we're described on the basis of the location where our ancestry is from in relation to you: "from the East", and described instead where our ancestry is from: "from Asia".

This is retarded. Asia isn't called "the East" because of its location in relation to Europe. It's called "the East" because it's located on the eastern part of the Eurasian continent, just as Europe is called "the West" because it's located on the western part of the Eurasian continent.

Seriously, Korean people should never be allowed to have any input in the naming of geographical areas. You can take your "East Sea" (talk about ethnocentrism!) and shove it up your ass...

[Kitschum]

Amusingly enough, Iranians are not Arabs. But yes, they're included in the Asian-American umbrella.

You're right, that is amusing. I can out-pedant you, though. Persians, Kurds, Lors, Balochis, Azaris, the Turkoman tribes, Arabs (most numerous in Khuzestan), Jews (before they all moved to Beverly Hills) - they are all irani in Iran. Iranians are a mongrel people since the time of Elam. There's no need to propagate Aryanist bigotry more than necessary.

My impression is that Kurds are the most likely to define themselves as "not Iranian", but on the other hand they'd also be more likely to consider themselves the "most pure" Iranians, so who can tell. They seem to be in a permanent identity crisis, although that's not all their fault.

I think it would be silly for anyone to get offended by the term "Oriental" - it's not an explicit perjorative. Personally, I'm used to saying "Asian", and have never used the "Oriental" term. That's just because it's what I'm used to though.

"Oriental" is a strange term. On one hand it could be less offensive because it's a geographical term and has a plain analogue in Occidental. On the other hand it unavoidably draws from Orientalism in the sense of a colonial project, a looking from without on the Other or what have you. It could be argued whether that is true, but it is popular usage.

I also think there's something to the idea that it feels like more of a West European term, rather than American.

"Asian" (never mind the etymology) seems like more of a "racial" term in everyday usage in the US analogous to White and Black. The association of Asian in the US with "Chinese-looking" people could conceivably a source of the resistance to apply the term to West/Central/South Asians. I mean I can watch the "men and women of law enforcement" on "Cops" talking about an Asian male suspect and have a pretty good idea what they're looking for.

Really, looking for perfect logic in language usage seems futile, or even just keeping up with political trends without a little lag.

There's no good reason for people to be offended by such things. I'm originally from New Zealand, and although we have a healthy rivalry with Australians I would never be offended by someone mistaking me for one.

The point is still good. It doesn't seem as though South Asians have as much of a common identity in US, but it seems that East Asians do. South Asians to me seem culturally closer to West/Central Asia where the Asian/not Asian line in the US blurs considerably.

[Caligastia]

Yet Canadians are offended when they are mistaken for Americans. Go figure.

And there are plenty of NZers who are offended when they are mistaken for Australians, but I'm not one of those silly people.

[Thoth]

And there are plenty of NZers who are offended when they are mistaken for Australians, but I'm not one of those silly people.

?? What's the difference?

[Theben]

They only shag high-quality sheep, Aussies go for anything in a wool coat.

[Thoth]

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

[Q Classic]

I think it would be silly for anyone to get offended by the term "Oriental" - it's not an explicit perjorative. Personally, I'm used to saying "Asian", and have never used the "Oriental" term. That's just because it's what I'm used to though.

There's no good reason for people to be offended by such things. I'm originally from New Zealand, and although we have a healthy rivalry with Australians I would never be offended by someone mistaking me for one.

*shrugs* It's not your place to decide what people should be offended by. I assume you're white, and thus receive all of the blessings of that white privilege, so I'm not wholly surprised that you'd find all of this silly and completely irrelevant.

Words do have meaning, and even in American society, ethnicity and skin tone do matter. Suggesting that they be ignored is likewise problematic, because you'd be telling people to throw away part of themselves simply to make the white majority feel better about the whole race thing by sweeping it under the rug. Fact is, we're not all the same; to suggest we are is a profoundly Soviet notion.

Oriental does, even to my ears, have a somewhat negative connotation. It's not starkly offensive, like "chinaman", but it is problematic in the same way that "colored" or "negro" is, at least in the United States. It smacks of othering, of forcibly saying that we are not as American, because it's a word that has never been used in conjunction with "American". It's always "The Orient", usually linked with other words like "exotic", "foreign", "mysterious". "Orientals" are "inscrutable" and "devious", blessed with a kind of strange "mysticism", and so on. It excludes South Asians, as well. In other words, it's got a lot of baggage in the US, which is why Asian-American is the preferred term.

As far as Chinese/Japanese/Korean, or Pakistani/Indian/Bengali. I'm no expert in A-NZ history, but I'm willing to bet that there's less hatred between those two nations than between C/J/K and P/I/B. I don't recall a long history of bloody wars that ravaged each nation and inspired ethnically-based hatred between them, nor centuries of distrust and backstabbing.

In my case, no, If someone called me an Oriental, I wouldn't be offended, but I'd respect them a little less. I wouldn't be offended if someone mistook me for Chinese or Japanese. They would fall greatly in esteem in my eyes, however; the cultures and the peoples are not interchangeable, even if to your round eyes we all look the same.

I doubt I'd be able to convince you of any of this anyway, so.

[Q Classic]

For one thing, it gets rid of the Eurocentric problem, where we're described on the basis of the location where our ancestry is from in relation to you: "from the East", and described instead where our ancestry is from: "from Asia".

This is retarded. Asia isn't called "the East" because of its location in relation to Europe. It's called "the East" because it's located on the eastern part of the Eurasian continent, just as Europe is called "the West" because it's located on the western part of the Eurasian continent.

Not quite. Oriental is exclusively used by Europeans because Asia is east of them; as time went on, the "Orient" went further and further east. Hence, "Oriental Rugs" and "Oriental Harems" were primarily from and linked to the Arab and Persian areas, which are, after all, east of Europe but in the center of the Eurasian landmass; only more recently was it more linked to the "Far East" (which should rather be known as East Asia).

Seriously, Korean people should never be allowed to have any input in the naming of geographical areas. You can take your "East Sea" (talk about ethnocentrism!) and shove it up your ass...

Drake, it's not just Koreans or me pointing this out. Besides, East Sea is perfectly valid; after all, Germany has the North Sea (talk about ethnocentrism!).

But again, I don't know why I bother to try to explain these things to you.

[onodera]

Q, by the way, is there anything Korean that is instantly recognisable as being part of the Korean culture? I recognise the unique shapes of hangul, but is there anything more material? I've taken a look at Korean sections in both V&A in London and Moscow Museum of Asian Art, and compared to India, China, Japan, or even Vietnam as presented there, Korea there completely lacked its own... essence?

[Drake Tungsten]

I don't know why I bother to try to explain these things to you.

I wish you'd try harder to make a logically convincing argument if you're going to bother at all...

Oriental is exclusively used by Europeans

No, it isn't.

as time went on, the "Orient" went further and further east.

No ****. As the boundary of the known world moved farther and farther east, it makes complete sense that "the East" moved with it.

Your belief that the terms "Orient" and "the East" are reflective of European ethnocentrism doesn't make any sense when you consider that the terms "Occident" and "the West" exist to refer to Europe. If Europeans were really so ethnocentric as to bend geographic terminology to their chauvinistic whims, Europe would surely have been labeled as the center of the world. As an Asian, you really should understand what real geographic chauvinism looks like, what with China's claims to be the "Middle Kingdom" of the world and Korea's ridiculous crusade to rename the Sea of Japan...

Germany has the North Sea

The North Sea is north of the Netherlands, genius; if the Germans had named it, it would be the Northwest Sea.

[Kitschum]

Sweden calls the Baltic the "East Sea" though.

And don't start me on the "Arabian Gulf" stupidity.

[Drake Tungsten]

And don't start me on the "Arabian Gulf" stupidity.

It's soooo ****ing stupid.

As for the Swedes, everyone already knows they're racist monsters.

[Q Classic]

I wish you'd try harder to make a logically convincing argument if you're going to bother at all...

Just because you refuse to see the logic in it does not make the argument illogical. To wit, my argument has been: some people find it offensive. I find it an antiquated term that probably shouldn't be used in the US. Why? It's been superseded by a more generic, catch-all term that doesn't bear the weight of negative connotations.

You clearly don't care about those negative connotations. If you cannot see the logic in empathizing with other people, and how those negative connotations could possibly be offensive, then there's really no argument that I could give you that would convince you. Thus... it's not worth it to really try and explain it all that much to you.

Oriental is exclusively used by Europeans

No, it isn't.

Yes and no. You're right, there are instances of where Asians describe themselves as "Orientals". Immigrants to Western countries, for instance. And in some Asian countries, occasionally they will use the native term for "Easterners" to refer to themselves. That native term, however, does not carry the same negative connotation as "Oriental" does in the US.

as time went on, the "Orient" went further and further east.

No ****. As the boundary of the known world moved farther and farther east, it makes complete sense that "the East" moved with it.

Yes, except for the fact that now "The East" is directly west of the United States, and most Asian-American immigrants have settled on the west coast, and the first Asian immigrants to this country came through the west and built the railroads from the west eastwards.

Your belief that the terms "Orient" and "the East" are reflective of European ethnocentrism doesn't make any sense when you consider that the terms "Occident" and "the West" exist to refer to Europe.

I'm well aware of that term, but "Occidental" is almost never used to refer to people (aside from my jokes about "Occidental" births), but items. "Occidental" does not have the negative connotations of foreignness, of otherness, of exoticism that lend itself so well to the dehumanization and objectification of entire groups of people.

If Europeans were really so ethnocentric as to bend geographic terminology to their chauvinistic whims, Europe would surely have been labeled as the center of the world.

For the longest time, they did consider themselves that. Greenwich Mean Time, for example, and the Prime Meridian are the center: 0 East/West.

As an Asian, you really should understand what real geographic chauvinism looks like, what with China's claims to be the "Middle Kingdom" of the world...

Just because someone else does it doesn't make Europeans doing it okay, and to assert that is a fallacious argument below you. Nowhere have I defended China's "Middle Kingdom" bull****; there's a very good reason why I'm not really giving a spirited defense of "East Sea/Sea of Japan" or the ethnocentrism prevalent in East Asia. It is, in short, just as indefensible, but more to the point, not the original question asked of me: "Why is 'Oriental' considered offensive?"

...and Korea's ridiculous crusade to rename the Sea of Japan... The North Sea is north of the Netherlands, genius; if the Germans had named it, it would be the Northwest Sea.

Yes, nitpick on that. Note that I'm not one of the ones who cares whether it's the "East Sea" or the "Sea of Japan", and therefore am not really defending it in any real fashion. As far as I'm concerned, in Korea, it already is the "East Sea" (that's the literal name), and the rest of the world can call it whatever it wants.

Takeshima/Tokdo is a different beast, but that's only because it's disputed who owns it. Once that's settled, whatever it's named, I'm fine with, no different than the renaming of Bombay to Mumbai, Koenigsberg to Kaliningrad, and so on.

[Drake Tungsten]

Jesus, your position is retarded. I don't even want to finish reading that illogical tripe...

[Q Classic]

Q, by the way, is there anything Korean that is instantly recognisable as being part of the Korean culture? I recognise the unique shapes of hangul, but is there anything more material? I've taken a look at Korean sections in both V&A in London and Moscow Museum of Asian Art, and compared to India, China, Japan, or even Vietnam as presented there, Korea there completely lacked its own... essence?

What exactly are you asking? If "art" is the definition of culture, then yes, there are things unique: the process for making celadon was different; less green, more bluish in most cases, but they did something with the glaze (I honestly don't remember what it's called, or what it is exactly, I'm sure the wikipedia could answer that). There are also things with how dragons are drawn (specifically the number of talons), and architectural points. If "language" is the definition, then yes, hangeul is one, as is the fact that it's completely unrelated to the the Sinitic languages; any similarities are merely because of the influence of China which created the East Asian sprachbund, no different than how Romanian has taken on many Slavic terms and characteristics even if it is a Romance language. If "food" is the definition, then yes, that too; Japanese tends to be less marinated, Chinese tends to have more sauce.

There is, however, a reason why you don't see much Korean art outside of East Asia, and a lot of that has to do with, well, the Japanese.