| Cory W |
04-19-2005 12:11 PM |
Ok. The term "Oriental" is bad when applied to an Asian person.
I noticed the other thread a debate on this arose. I did not write this. But it is what I have always understood.
Quote:
Many Asians find the term "oriental," when used in reference to people, to be offensive. The reasons for this sensitivity are manifold, but some of the most important ones are listed below.
* It brings up unfortunate chapters in our global history. The terms "Orient" and "oriental" were popularized in the heyday of Western colonialism, when nations to the South and East of Europe were seen as ripe for subjugation and exploitation. As a result, usage of the term is an automatic cue for references to the British Raj, the Opium War, the occupation of the Phillipines, and other events and periods in which the inhabitants of Asian countries were enslaved, victimized, or otherwise mistreated by Europeans (and later, Americans).
* It has problematic racial and political connotations. While "Orient" translates simply as "The East," over time, an ideological paradigm emerged that spun itself around the term: The Orient was seen as the farthest point from civilization (i.e. Europe) and thus a region of barbarism, exotic custom, and strange delight. "Orientals" were conceived of as mysterious and inscrutable, with traditions and beliefs so different as to be inhuman - and thus requiring of either speculative study or religious evangelism. As social historian Edward Said detailed in his seminal book of that name, the intent and result of orientalism was the objectification of cultures in Asia and the Middle East, providing a rationale for colonial subjugation, missionary conversion, and military adventure, it later also created a context for domestic racism and xenophobia.
* It's nonspecific. As perceived by Western Europeans, "The Orient" included all of Turkey, the Middle East, Asia and to a lesser extent the Pacific Islands. An Iranian was therefore just as "Oriental" as a Chinese person, though in contemporary times, the term is never used in that manner. While "Asian" is not much more specific, it at least is a term bounded by geography, rather than paradigm. It would be difficult to argue that "Orientals" shared anything in common, other than in the feverish minds of European orientalists.
* It doesn't have an appropriate counterpart. The most subtle yet invidious problem with the term "Oriental" is that it stands alone: No one refers to Europeans as "Occidentals." Consider the term "Orient" only has meaning in the West; in the East, it is the Americas and Europe that are foreign and "outside," and most Asian cultures have similar but inverted conceptions referring to "The West." Hemispheric definitions are always problematic, since the world is, after all, round; but at least the terms East and West don't come loaded with imagery and history of "Orient" and "Occident."
* It's more appropriately used for inanimate objects. The establishment of trade routes linking the nations of Asia and the Middle East (which occurred long before the opening of Asia to the West) meant that commodities and other goods were regularly transmitted between cultures. As a result, when one refers to Oriental spices or rugs, one has a stable rationale from which to speak: spices and rugs are among the only things that the mixed bags of peoples known as "Orientals" actually had in common. In general, the use of the adjective in relation to inanimate objects or abstract concepts has largely been considered acceptable, if not embraced (there are people who still prefer speaking of Asian spices, or breaking down rugs into Persian, Indian, and Chinese carpets).
* Some people don't like it. Many Asians find the term distasteful; the term has also been eliminated from usage in journalism and entertainment. The rule of thumb is simple: rather than risk offending, just don't bother - the term "Asian" is neutral, widely accepted - and safe.
|
|
