I wouldn't have thought either were wrong or offensive tbh. I have used both as descriptions of people from that part of the world and never once thought or was told that I should not use either.
I would think East Asian is the term.
The races used to be described as Mongoloid, Negroid and Caucasoid. The only one in use seems to be Caucasoid. Black people don't like anything containing "Negro" and I assume East Asians don't like Mongoloid. They expressed their dislike of Downs Syndrome people being called
"Mongols" years ago. This was seen as an implied insult to East Asian people. It is not correct to use for Downs people either. So presumably, everyone is satisfied.
Good lord! Do people just go looking for it? Why is everyone terrified of speaking English? Yes Oriental is fine to say. There are no negative connotations to this word. It simply means from the Orient (an area covering East Asia). Do you not realise that this madness will only stop when you all stop being terrified of offending people? And who are you usually offending? White middle class do-gooders!!!
:mad::mad::mad:
When I was a young teenage girl in the early sixties, we used to use the terms "half caste" and "coloured" people, which are now unacceptable. They weren't used perjoratively like the other derogatory terms we all know. But eventually they were deemed politically incorrect.
Asian to me means either from India or Pakistan. Oriental being countries in the orient. I thought it was the US who said Asian for Chinese, Japanese,etc... When I fill in my ethnicity I am Mixed White and Asian.
Your right in the US Asian means Chinese, Koreans, and Japanese...not Indian/Pakistanis.
I think UK is muddled up regarding the word Asian.
I always call Orientals, Orientals they are different to Indians although Orientals are the real Asians.
I think Indians wanted to be called Asians and not black in this country.
Your right in the US Asian means Chinese, Koreans, and Japanese...not Indian/Pakistanis.
I think UK is muddled up regarding the word Asian.
I always call Orientals, Orientals they are different to Indians although Orientals are the real Asians.
I think Indians wanted to be called Asians and not black in this country.
There is no way that Indians/Pakistanis/Bangladeshis want to be called "black" in any country. They already have a system which divides them into various castes with lighter or darker skin colour. The higher caste ones set great store by "wheat coloured" skin. That's why the fuss over Shilpa Shetty, that paragon of Civil Rights was though my jaundiced eye, seen as somewhat hypocritical.
India wants to be seen as a successful global economy - yet its poor, black people regularly feature in charity appeals for clean water, food, and minor but very important operations in the same way that poor African people do. It is something of which they should be ashamed. Yet they have this religious stance which says that God has placed each man in his station....very old fashioned and convenient.
Your right in the US Asian means Chinese, Koreans, and Japanese...not Indian/Pakistanis.
I think UK is muddled up regarding the word Asian.
I always call Orientals, Orientals they are different to Indians although Orientals are the real Asians.
I think Indians wanted to be called Asians and not black in this country.
Why are they the "real asians"?
...not called black, why would they be called black? I'm Indian and last time I checked i wouldn't be called black by anyone who was white or anyone who was black. I am actually brown, although my skin tone isn't the same everywhere...is yours??
...not called black, why would they be called black? I'm Indian and last time I checked i wouldn't be called black by anyone who was white or anyone who was black. I am actually brown, although my skin tone isn't the same everywhere...is yours??
Oh Sarge.
It is politically incorrect, making a racist comment, being pig ignorant, inciting hatred........
We are simply not allowed to make any distinctions between non "white" people.
Decorum decrees, that all non white people must be put into the same classification, that is the total opposite of White, IE Black.
I am white. But it seems to me the more 'polite' people are over what is seen as a sensitive issue, the bigger the hole is dug. (like me now really answering your very sensible post.)
And no, some places are definitely paler than others :D
I think the word 'Oriental' is also frowned upon in the United States, where the word 'Asian' is also prefered
But from what I gather 'Oriental' is still acceptable in Britain, presumably because here, the word 'Asian' is used to describe people from the Indian sub-continent
In the US, things can be described as Oriental, but people are Asian. Since I live in Britain, and am used to the british definition of asian, so I refer to specific regions ie east asia, south east asia etc.... Just my 2 cents
In the US, things can be described as Oriental, but people are Asian. Since I live in Britain, and am used to the british definition of asian, so I refer to specific regions ie east asia, south east asia etc.... Just my 2 cents
I think if you're uncertain, and don't wish to offend, this is the most sensible option
It is politically incorrect, making a racist comment, being pig ignorant, inciting hatred........
We are simply not allowed to make any distinctions between non "white" people.
Decorum decrees, that all non white people must be put into the same classification, that is the total opposite of White, IE Black.
I am white. But it seems to me the more 'polite' people are over what is seen as a sensitive issue, the bigger the hole is dug. (like me now really answering your very sensible post.)
And no, some places are definitely paler than others :D
IN this case my perceived "Naivety" was actually fishing...
We do actually, more so in the UK and actually in places like the US too (southern states vs. Mexicans). If South Asians have to describe their skin colour in the UK they will say brown, considering the places they migrated from in the Indian Subcontinent - the majority of British Asians in the UK can call themselves "brown", which is why I asked the poster why they should call themselves black, when they don't have a historical or cultural reason to do so.
IN the UK, white is merely reserved for all Western Europeans and hardly extends to people from the Mediterranean (who often call themselves olive and brown) - so I'm not actually naive to who white Brits think is white and who isn't...and the Portuguese certainly don't cut it where I live. Certainly many Chinese and East Asians in general have the similar skin-tones to western Europeans, but they aren't included as being white because the definition is a cultural and a social one, which evolved from a description.
As for South Asia though - The People now inhabiting the Indian Subcontinent - well their ancestors historically migrated from the Middle East, the Iranian Plateau, Central Asia The Tibetan Plateau, South East Asia - some people have not a clue about "Indians" except what they read on sites designed to portray a certain bias about their "race" :rolleyes::D - - which is why you shouldn't generalise about Indians or any other ethnic group for that matter.
Asia is the most diverse part of Eurasia. The people are categorized into large geographic areas based on perceived, cultural, racial-ethnic, linguistic, religious backgrounds etc... Some people are perhaps too boxed in when they describe a "two-fold Asia" - what they mean is the "Caucasoid part" and the "Mongoloid part" - there someone actually said it.. :rolleyes: :yawn:
In the UK " Asian" is a socio-cultural definition, which also applies to other areas of the Commonwealth with large South Asian Diasporas (Africa, The Caribbean) , outside of that Anglophone world - the definition changes.
Haven't read thru all the pages but my classmate refers to herself as Oriental (she is South Korean) and that surprised me coz I thought she would find that term offensive.
But I only found out about 5 years ago that the term Oriental could be deemed offensive by a Black friend.
...not called black, why would they be called black? I'm Indian and last time I checked i wouldn't be called black by anyone who was white or anyone who was black. I am actually brown, although my skin tone isn't the same everywhere...is yours??
Indians whether they like it or not come in all different shade like black people of African descent and are in fact BLACK.
I am of African descent happy with being BLACK!. not ashamed.
You have just confirmed what I said in my post! Indian's don't like being called black and would rather be called Asian.
Indians whether they like it or not come in all different shade like black people of African descent and are in fact BLACK.
I am of African descent happy with being BLACK!. not ashamed.
You have just confirmed what I said in my post! Indian's don't like being called black and would rather be called Asian.
"Asian" as in from Asia, as in NOT a racial designation like you perceive the word to be...
I agree with you, Indians come in all shades - some are black skinned, others brown, others even lighter and every shade in between. I think you glossed over the part where I said Indians and people from the Indian Subcontinent in general vary to much to be labelled the way you think others should label them.
How much do you actually know about India? and the different ethnic groups that inhabitat it? At a guess, I would say very little. Like i said, the States from which Indians migrated from to the UK - The Punjab/North West India and Gujarat/West India - the majority of the people are brown skinned, in the UK these people call themselves; Asians, Punjabis, Gujarati's/Gujjus and Desi - they don't need to refer to those who are darker or lighter skinned.
Comments
I would think East Asian is the term.
The races used to be described as Mongoloid, Negroid and Caucasoid. The only one in use seems to be Caucasoid. Black people don't like anything containing "Negro" and I assume East Asians don't like Mongoloid. They expressed their dislike of Downs Syndrome people being called
"Mongols" years ago. This was seen as an implied insult to East Asian people. It is not correct to use for Downs people either. So presumably, everyone is satisfied.
When I was a young teenage girl in the early sixties, we used to use the terms "half caste" and "coloured" people, which are now unacceptable. They weren't used perjoratively like the other derogatory terms we all know. But eventually they were deemed politically incorrect.
You'll have to do a huge lurch to the right, to grasp that volume! No doubt he has mellowed with age.....
Your right in the US Asian means Chinese, Koreans, and Japanese...not Indian/Pakistanis.
I think UK is muddled up regarding the word Asian.
I always call Orientals, Orientals they are different to Indians although Orientals are the real Asians.
I think Indians wanted to be called Asians and not black in this country.
There is no way that Indians/Pakistanis/Bangladeshis want to be called "black" in any country. They already have a system which divides them into various castes with lighter or darker skin colour. The higher caste ones set great store by "wheat coloured" skin. That's why the fuss over Shilpa Shetty, that paragon of Civil Rights was though my jaundiced eye, seen as somewhat hypocritical.
India wants to be seen as a successful global economy - yet its poor, black people regularly feature in charity appeals for clean water, food, and minor but very important operations in the same way that poor African people do. It is something of which they should be ashamed. Yet they have this religious stance which says that God has placed each man in his station....very old fashioned and convenient.
Why are they the "real asians"?
...not called black, why would they be called black? I'm Indian and last time I checked i wouldn't be called black by anyone who was white or anyone who was black. I am actually brown, although my skin tone isn't the same everywhere...is yours??
Oh Sarge.
It is politically incorrect, making a racist comment, being pig ignorant, inciting hatred........
We are simply not allowed to make any distinctions between non "white" people.
Decorum decrees, that all non white people must be put into the same classification, that is the total opposite of White, IE Black.
I am white. But it seems to me the more 'polite' people are over what is seen as a sensitive issue, the bigger the hole is dug. (like me now really answering your very sensible post.)
And no, some places are definitely paler than others
In the US, things can be described as Oriental, but people are Asian. Since I live in Britain, and am used to the british definition of asian, so I refer to specific regions ie east asia, south east asia etc.... Just my 2 cents
IN this case my perceived "Naivety" was actually fishing...
We do actually, more so in the UK and actually in places like the US too (southern states vs. Mexicans). If South Asians have to describe their skin colour in the UK they will say brown, considering the places they migrated from in the Indian Subcontinent - the majority of British Asians in the UK can call themselves "brown", which is why I asked the poster why they should call themselves black, when they don't have a historical or cultural reason to do so.
IN the UK, white is merely reserved for all Western Europeans and hardly extends to people from the Mediterranean (who often call themselves olive and brown) - so I'm not actually naive to who white Brits think is white and who isn't...and the Portuguese certainly don't cut it where I live. Certainly many Chinese and East Asians in general have the similar skin-tones to western Europeans, but they aren't included as being white because the definition is a cultural and a social one, which evolved from a description.
As for South Asia though - The People now inhabiting the Indian Subcontinent - well their ancestors historically migrated from the Middle East, the Iranian Plateau, Central Asia The Tibetan Plateau, South East Asia - some people have not a clue about "Indians" except what they read on sites designed to portray a certain bias about their "race" :rolleyes::D - - which is why you shouldn't generalise about Indians or any other ethnic group for that matter.
Asia is the most diverse part of Eurasia. The people are categorized into large geographic areas based on perceived, cultural, racial-ethnic, linguistic, religious backgrounds etc... Some people are perhaps too boxed in when they describe a "two-fold Asia" - what they mean is the "Caucasoid part" and the "Mongoloid part" - there someone actually said it.. :rolleyes: :yawn:
In the UK " Asian" is a socio-cultural definition, which also applies to other areas of the Commonwealth with large South Asian Diasporas (Africa, The Caribbean) , outside of that Anglophone world - the definition changes.
But I only found out about 5 years ago that the term Oriental could be deemed offensive by a Black friend.
Come again? I don't understand that!
Indians whether they like it or not come in all different shade like black people of African descent and are in fact BLACK.
I am of African descent happy with being BLACK!. not ashamed.
You have just confirmed what I said in my post! Indian's don't like being called black and would rather be called Asian.
"Asian" as in from Asia, as in NOT a racial designation like you perceive the word to be...
I agree with you, Indians come in all shades - some are black skinned, others brown, others even lighter and every shade in between. I think you glossed over the part where I said Indians and people from the Indian Subcontinent in general vary to much to be labelled the way you think others should label them.
How much do you actually know about India? and the different ethnic groups that inhabitat it? At a guess, I would say very little. Like i said, the States from which Indians migrated from to the UK - The Punjab/North West India and Gujarat/West India - the majority of the people are brown skinned, in the UK these people call themselves; Asians, Punjabis, Gujarati's/Gujjus and Desi - they don't need to refer to those who are darker or lighter skinned.