Use of the adjective Asian in the US

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.