Use of the adjective Asian in the US

Last summer, I was in both Bangladesh and Nepal where there are people of Chinese features and also Indian features. My friend in Bangladesh (well educated and very articulate in English) refers to himself as a Mongoloid. In Nepal, people of similar backgrounds, refer to themselfs as Mongolian (when speaking English). While in India, I was chastised by a Canadian when I used the term Oriental. He said that they were ASIAN!! -- trying to put me in my place. I in turn pointed out how ignorant he was for completely excluding the billion Asians surrounding us who were not Oriental.

I don't wish to be disrespectful, nor do I wish to be exclusive of anyone. However, I believe that if your ancestors were in an area for generations, you should be able to use that term. The Middle East is in Asia and they are distinguished as Middle Easterners. South Asia is in Asia and they are viewed as South Asians. In "Asian" Siberia has many Caucasians living there. But in the US, Asian is considered the correct way to refer to the people of only one region of the continent.

Without ignoring the other groups, is there a "PC" way of referring to the collective peoples of Japan, Korea, China, Laos., etc. OBVIOUSLY, if you know a persons national origin, that would be the most appropriate. However, if you had to describe someone (say in the case of witnessing a crime), Chinese would be too specific, Asian too exclusive and, at least in the US, Oriental is viewed as racist by many.

Thanks,
Kendrick

I was chastised by a Canadian when I used the term Oriental. He said that they were ASIAN!! -- trying to put me in my place. I in turn pointed out how ignorant he was for completely excluding the billion Asians surrounding us who were not Oriental.

How was he excluding anyone? If, as you suggest, all Orientals are Asian but not all Asians are Oriental, then calling someone Asian when they are from Asia will always be correct, while calling them Oriental may or may not be, right?

On topic: I've been told that "Oriental" is out of date and considered offensive these days, but I'm not qualified to have an opinion on this, so I'll leave it to someone else to answer your question.

Have you thought about the reason why Oriental could be considered offensive?

#2 was for the OP.

I'm a bit puzzled by the OP, was it intended to be a question? Discussion? It seems like a declaration but the "thanks" makes it seem like a request.

Without ignoring the other groups, is there a "PC" way of referring to the collective peoples of Japan, Korea, China, Laos., etc.

DiannaHaddad, Although I forgot the question mark, you will see that the above is structured as an interrogative sentence. That being said, the above is the actual question.

As for your question in #2, I have thought about it and heard the arguments, so that's why I'm looking for a better term.

Asian sounds perfectly appropriate to me; Oriental sounds odd. It seems that here in the United States, where African-American is considered a proper term for persons of African heritage, Asian-American is probably equally proper for persons whose origins are in Asia, regardless of the particular country on that continent they may come from.

I should add that what I think is appropriate is based on my living in the midwestern part of the United States. Oriental may sound perfectly fine in other parts of this country, but I think it would get some strange looks if used here.

Edited by: NorthAmerican

Oriental is definitely considered un PC/incorrect/offensive here in New Zealand and you would certainly be looked at strangely if you said it.

Asian is definitely the word we would use to describe those people from Japan, Korea, China, Laos., etc.

Regarding what we would call people from India, Pakistan etc, we actually would probably refer to them by their country of origin. When it comes to census information all the countries of Asia (Japan, Korea, China, Pakistan, India etc) are included under the blanket heading of "Asian". However, in most cases we specify.

Other than in the census example, Indian itself is generally a separate listing. So, if a person of Indian descent completes a form which asks for ethnicity he/she would tick the "Indian" box (ie not subcontinent, not Asian, Indian).

However, I think that the best thing to do is to use the same terms as the locals wherever appropriate. A friend of mine is Indian (but born and raised in NZ) and when she moved to the UK used to find it very disconcerting hearing that she was suddenly Asian. Finding out that she was now from a completely different area of the world was a bit of a surprise to her! But she learned that when in Europe she was Asian.

I am not entirely sure why Oriental is offensive but it appears from my brief google search that the term originated as a means of classifying an entire group of people which wasn't actually used by the people themselves. Even if that isn't quite correct I can understand how a word which isn't actually that which the people use themselves is possibly a bit contentious. There are similar debates in New Zealand about the words of Maori & Pakeha (indigenous and white settlers).

Edited by: sneaker_fish

The Middle East is in Asia and they are distinguished as Middle Easterners. South Asia is in Asia and they are viewed as South Asians. In "Asian" Siberia has many Caucasians living there. But in the US, Asian is considered the correct way to refer to the people of only one region of the continent.

1. In the English speaking world outside the US, are Israelis, Yemenis, and ethnic Russians from Novosibirsk commonly referred to as Asians? And while I'm on the subject, are Egyptians and Moroccans commonly referred to as Africans? (We already know from sneakerfish that people like her friend are not commonly referred to as New Zealanders.)

2. I think most Americans would think of Indians and Pakistanis as Asian, if asked. (That is, if asked: "Are Indians and Pakistanis Asian?" or something along those lines.) As DianaHaddad said, we'd probably call an Indian an Indian and a Pakistani a Pakistani, rather than calling them Asians, but I don't think you'd be corrected if you called them Asian here. So to say that "Asian is considered the correct way to refer to the people of only one region of the continent" here isn't quite right.

VinnyD - I think in regards to my friend I would regard her as a New Zealander but when it comes to ethnicity I suppose Indian.

I would also say that like my friend who was surprised she came from a different part of the the continent (Asian vs Indian) I think most people would recognise that India was part of Asia whe questioned but wouldn't necessarily categorise people from the subcontinent as Asian. Gosh, I'm as ineloquent as ever.

Edited by: sneaker_fish

I think, but don't know for certain, that people would object to Oriental as meaning eastern, which to an Asian might have Eurocentric implications. People would rather be classified as coming from where they come from rather than from east of where someone else comes from.

Blame Edward Said for the demise of the word "Oriental"; before he published Orientalism I don't think it crossed anybody's mind that the word was in any way pejorative or some kind of value judgment (at least when used as an adjective, not a noun).

The OP seems muddled, however, in that "oriental" (literally meaning "of the east") was always an even vaguer term than "Asian," and was routinely applied to anything from Turkish carpets to Ming vases to Indian spices. As applied to people, therefore, it wasn't and isn't a terribly useful term. This sentence

I in turn pointed out how ignorant he was for completely excluding the billion Asians surrounding us who were not Oriental.

then, is close to complete nonsense. India was considered as "oriental" as China from a European point of view.

I think it's still more or less acceptable to use "oriental" to refer to an objet d'art, but in today's world I would never use it for a person. Use "Asian" to refer to anyone from Asia, and add a directional modifier if you want to narrow it down (e.g. "East Asian" is generally understood to refer to Japan, China and Korea; "Southeast Asian" to Vietnam, Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia).

Although Japan, China, Korea can also be called North Asia...

Zashibis, In as much as you don't state where you are from, my sentence might seem complete nonsense to you. However, in the US, I have NEVER heard Oriental used to refer to Asians who didn't resemble Chinese looking nationalities. That appears to be more of a British reference.

Several of you have mentioned that saying Japanese, Thai, Korean is more appropriate. I said the same: OBVIOUSLY, if you know a persons national origin, that would be the most appropriate.

It also appears that I wasn't so clear. So, I'll see if the following extreme scenario helps to clarify things.

You are witness to a murder. You are only 25 meters away with an unobstructed view of the culprits-- you see them perfectly. Luckily, they are so preocupied with killing and fleeing so they don't see you. Since they don't identify themselves to you, you don't know that they were both born and raised in Nepal and are ethnic Nepalis. However, one looks Chinese and the other looks Indian. You want to help out, so when the police come, you give them a description. You can't say what their specific nationalities are since they didn't identify themselves. So, what do you say: "One looked Asian and the other looked Asian?" That might be PC, but it's a lousy description. So, in this scenario, what general description of their individual characteristics (in regards to their ethnic looks) would you give to the police so that they could put out an all points bulletin to catch the culprits?

Hopefully, this is less muttled.
kendrick

what general description of their individual characteristics (in regards to their ethnic looks) would you give to the police so that they could put out an all points bulletin to catch the culprits?

"One looked like he might have been Chinese, the other was possibly Indian".

OP, as it happens I'm American as well, so if you're imagining that the distinction you're trying to invent between "Asian" and "Oriental" is common in the USA, you'll have to produce some evidence. Not in my neck of the woods, bub.

And I do use the word invent advisedly. No dictionary I have in my study supports your notion that "Oriental" is now or ever was restricted to mean "a person with Mongoloid racial characteristics" as you imply. On the contrary, all the definitions in my various dictionaries are similar to this one found in Merriam-Webster's: "of, relating to, or situated in Asia."

As for the use of "Oriental" to refer to the people of the Indian subcontinent, this will be familiar to anyone versed in 19th century or early 20th century novels referring to or set in the British Raj. See Kipling's Kim for a typical example.

As for the unlikely scenario you present, you provide the answer yourself:

However, one looks Chinese and the other looks Indian.

Do you really imagine that if you said "One looks Oriental and one looks Asian" that you'd be providing the police officer with clearer information? Even if one accepted your completely idiosyncratic notion that "Oriental" means "Mongoloid-featured," then you're still stuck with "Asian," which is completely vague. Nobody would have the least idea what you meant, in America or anywhere else.

#8 -- I misunderstood. And perhaps I still misunderstand. I thought she was surprised to be classed as Asian rather than New Zealander. I guess you're saying she was surprised to be classed as Asian, which to her meant Chinese/Japanese/Korean etc, rather than as south Asian or Indian. Is that right?

VinnyD - correct. I was unclear on that. I was one of those cases where I knew what I meant and assumed other people did!

My friend thought of herself as Indian. To her, people from South East Asia, North Asia etc (hmmm...'Pacific Rim Asia?') were Asian. Therefore, she 'corrected' people that no, she wasn't Asian, she was Indian.

She stopped doing that after a few blank looks.

OP - I see your point. I suspect that in most cases in this country NZ we would say Asian vs Indian or Pakistani. Or, further to that I could imagine: "possibly of Indian or Pakistani descent"

Obviously India and Pakistan aren't the only countries in the region and it may not be a correct description of them. However, as the majority of people living here - who have come from that region - come from either India or Pakistan it's probably a situation of 'close enough'. Not the best, and it certainly isn't used when completing forms or official information where self identification is required. But in the case of a crime - where you don't know the exact ethnicity - it is how the viewer or observer would understand the definition. Using 'Asian' would instantly make people think of South East Asia. Not the subcontinent.

Using your example of a crime committed by someone perhaps from India, referring to that person as Asian would confuse the hell out of people and wouldn't be an effective tool of identification.

Edited by: sneaker_fish who edited the post then had a multitude of problems with firefox

Hong Kongers have a tendency to label anyone white as Western and lump together evrything western as one amorphous mass without distinguishing between very different ethnicities and cultures. This is annoying. I expect Asians get annoyed at being lumped together in the same way.

In the UK it is OK to refer to East Asians as oriental. Being Chinese myself I am not offended by it. It is used to distinguish East Asian from South Asians who in the UK have adopted the term Asian exclusively for people coming from South Asia.

lealing:
I was relieved to see your post as I ("Caucasian") have used "Oriental" as a descriptor (in the UK) on occasion, & I'm glad to have it confirmed that (at least in rthe UK) it is not seen as derogatory.

Also, if "Asian" is not specific enough, I've heard "Subcontinental" (ie from the Indian sub-continent but not known whether specifically from India/ Pakistan/ Bangladesh etc.) as a descriptor.
Actually, I've heard that term used by Subcontinentals themselves.

Crazyeddie:

I think that it's only in the UK that the term oriental is deemed OK to refer to East Asians. I've discussed this subject before on another Board and Asian-Americans find it un pc and offensive. They thought that the term "oriental" was used more to desribe objects such as furniture.

I've heard of the term subcontinent to describe the area but never subcontintentals to describe the people. I find it annoying that South Asians in the UK have adopted the word Asian exclusively for South Asians but then again there are more South Asians than East Asians in the UK.

#20

n the past, this was used to describe a native Asian who had studied the English language and go on to be a successful professional (doctor, lawyer, etc).

Or who hadn't.

I can't tell whether you believe that etymology or not. But it's bogus, as are nearly all etymologies from acronyms. It's from "gollywog".

I don't disagree entirely with lealing, but being British myself I would never use the word 'Oriental' as a noun. Not because it is offensive, but just because it is archaic- I've never heard it used by anyone under the age of 50 or so. The term 'East Asian' isn't really very common here, and people instead tend to refer to anyone from that part of the world as 'Chinese' unless their ethnicity is known- something I know to be an annoyance for ethnic Korean and southeast Asian friends of mine. I agree that the term 'Asian' almost exclusively refers to people from the Indian subcontinent unless qualified. If the police reported that they were looking for an 'Asian suspect' then she would be of Indian, Pakistani or Bangladeshi origin.