Talk:Orientalism

Article Checklist for "Orientalism"

Workgroup category or categories	History Workgroup, Literature Workgroup [Please add or review categories]
Article status	Developing article: beyond a stub, but incomplete
Underlinked article?	Yes
Basic cleanup done?	Yes
Checklist last edited by	Russell Potter 10:12, 3 July 2007 (CDT); Richard Jensen 16:24, 3 July 2007 (CDT); drop linguistics workgroup (that applied to the spinoff Orient article, not this one]Richard Jensen 15:04, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist.

---

Reasons for this article?

As it stands, this article sourced from Wikipedia and modified by Will Nesbitt seems to be defending the use of the term 'Oriental'. Recommend some modifications. John Stephenson 05:11, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

I left this from an old Wikipedia article and culled it from some sources that I dug up. It sort of evolved into a defense of the term oriental because of a perceived (by me) assault on the term for political reasons on Wikipedia. I'm open for discussion and glad to help edit. Will Nesbitt 09:37, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

I don't think there's any problem of that here, so I'll have to agree with a notion John might have been getting at--there's no point/reason for it, unless you can justify otherwise.--Robert W King 09:56, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

Well, if it isn't edited more vigorously, we might delete it simply on grounds that it is sourced from WP without change (see Article Deletion Policy). But the topic itself is perfectly legitimate--just not a high priority, perhaps--and when did that ever stop us? --Larry Sanger 23:40, 24 June 2007 (CDT)

Edward Said has many very well know critical statements on "Oriental" and "Occidental". ---Stephen Ewen 00:11, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

This article seems to conflate the adjective "Oriental" with the substantive (noun) "an Oriental." The latter is surely both offensive, and quite dated, in almost any context, and I don't think it's fair to lump the two uses together, as the former lends an air of false legitimacy to the latter. I would propose breaking this into two entries, one for the broad term "Orient" in its historical contexts, Oriental Studies, etc., and the rest to become part of an entry on ethnic epithets generally. Russell Potter 08:29, 30 June 2007 (CDT)

Even to do so might not obviate the desirability of an article about the noun. You say, interestingly, that "an Oriental" is "offensive." When did that come about? Why? Does everyone agree with you? Who made it so? Those are matters that might be explained in an article about the noun. --Larry Sanger 09:03, 30 June 2007 (CDT)

P.S. There's a reason I care about this. I'll put it bluntly: I don't want simply to censor an article about an epithet simply because it is offensive to people and smacks of racism. If someone is able to write a good article about the noun, which explains in great detail the extent to which it is now considered offensive, and explains as well the mistakes the use encoded, etc., that would be helpful, even to the cause of political correctness. --Larry Sanger 09:13, 30 June 2007 (CDT)

I am not suggesting any sort of censorship. But if we are going to have entries about terms which are considered offensive by a great many of the persons to whom they are applied, I think we should discuss them, with full and complete neutrality, in an entry or entries about such terms, rather than using such potentially divisive terms as entry titles. "Political correctness" is a chimera, I feel, invented by those who needed something to which to object; all we are talking about here is common courtesy, and in the interests of neutrality discussing terms which many find offensive as such, rather than using them -- perhaps offensively -- as index terms in themselves. Should we have mainspace entries on Dago? Wop? Polack? Retard? The terms are used, and perhaps some people, however much they may offend some, would defend them, but does that means we ought to say they're "controversial"?? By all means, let us explain the mistakes -- which I thought I had done here -- but why need we repeat them? Russell Potter 16:04, 30 June 2007 (CDT)

Deleting Linguistics Workgroup

Not sure why R. Jensen has taken the Lingustics workgroup out of the tag lines. I would have thought it was relevant. --Thomas Simmons 19:04, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

the Linguistic workgroup was added when the article dealt with the history and usage of the word oriental. That discussion moved to Orient, which now has the linguistics tag. This article now deals with an "ism" concept that is heavily discussed by literature scholars.Richard Jensen 20:56, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

Counter Point

I'd written a fairly windy response and timed out before saving ... bummer. I'll type what I can remember from memory:

Firstly and foremostly, unlike the slurs that you mention above, the term oriental was never slang and to my knowledge has never been used in a perjorative fashion. (Ever.) Furthermore, the American Oriental Society is one of the oldest and most respected academic organizations in the US. There is no such equivalent using any of the slurs you list above. Until linguistically very recently, there has been ZERO controversy surrounding this word.

It is my opinion, and I think I can prove that the "controversy" surrounding the word oriental is a construct of a political movement that sought "victim" and "minority" status for Americans of East Asian descent. This movement has expanded unchallenged because the political math is pretty simple: there is much to lose and nothing to gain by opposing this movement. The movement, the victims and the politicians all gain something by agreeing that orientals are a persecuted people.

That said, I think that for most people, this is a fairly silly matter, of little import. Other than the politically motivated few, no one has much vested interest in the term "oriental". My oriental wife has no more attachment to this word than does her occidental husband to the term occidental. The reason this matter is important in a reference work can best be illustrated by the following example.

Some years back a politician used the word "niggardly" in his speech. There was an outcry and the black community in particular was outraged. The politician tried to explain that the speech and the word had nothing to do with African Americans. If there was any connection to the African American community, it was that he was trying to get the government to stop being so niggardly and give the poor and minorities more money. It was no use. The more he talked the worse it got. In the end he had to apologize for using the word "niggardly". He had to apologize, not because the word was wrong, but because the people who were offended were ignorant. He knew that. The reporters knew that. You and I know that, but on that day, the lexicon of the Capitol was forever changed. Never again would a politician or anyone in the public eye use the word "niggardly".

By the same token, I am quite certain that I can prove beyond any reasonable doubt that there is no reason for anyone to ever take offense to the word Oriental. On the other hand, I can also prove that some people have taken offense to the word oriental. Many people have taken offense to the word niggardly, but not because they were stingy.

This article by the way was ported over from old edits of an article I wrote at Wikipedia. I wrote most of it, researched nearly all of it. I was frustrated that Wikipedia refused to acknowledge even the possibility that Oriental could be anything less than a slur.

I think the article needs a great deal of work. I just couldn't find an editor who would enage in a realistic and fair-minded dialogue. My counter parts prefered to use ad hominem attacks and accuse me of being racist, lacking in common courtesy or otherwise deficient, rather than engaging in any type of serious dialogue.

For me, "oriental = bad" is one part urban-legend and one part political-flapdoodle. Still, I would agree and it is reportable that many people think of oriental as a bad word. But my conclusion after a great deal of research is that the offense is only taken when the listener is ignorant. It really doesn't matter how many people believe in UFO visitations. If there's no evidence of visitations, there are no visitations. It doesn't matter how many people claim they are offended by the term oriental, if the people who make the claim don't know what the term means. Will Nesbitt 18:34, 30 June 2007 (CDT)

Will --

You say "By the same token, I am quite certain that I can prove beyond any reasonable doubt that there is no reason for anyone to ever take offense to the word Oriental. On the other hand, I can also prove that some people have taken offense to the word oriental. Many people have taken offense to the word niggardly, but not because they were stingy."

Well, I know a large number of people -- from Hong Kong, Singapore, and Indonesia -- who have felt and would feel deeply offended by the term "Oriental." But you seem to contradict yourself here -- which is it to be? Offense is hard to prove in the negative. As for "niggardly," by the way, is etymologically unrelated to the "N-word" though some mistakenly think it so; it just means "stingy" and the *NIK stem is completely different Russell Potter 18:41, 30 June 2007 (CDT)

A larger number of people from Hong Kong, Singapore and Indonesia would never be offended by the term Oriental ... because they don't speak English! The Cantonese word for white guy has no impact on my life. My point is that those who are offended, are offended soley out of ignorance of the meaning of the word.

I know what niggardly means. I didn't bother to explain it, because I assumed you would know as well. You seemed to have missed my point. The point is that it is a fact that many people are offended by the term niggardly. Does that mean we should abolish the word niggardly? Who is more correct in the following instance: those who are offended by the term; or those who employ the term correctly? Do you see the connection?Will Nesbitt 18:49, 30 June 2007 (CDT)

Pt. 2--> Offense is NOT hard to prove. At the risk of offending the reader I could readily list slurs and words that are offensive. Offensive is easy to prove. It's actually hard to prove the reverse. It's quite hard to prove that the word "nigger" or the word "kike" has any use in a serious dialogue other than as example of a racial slur. The point is those who take offense aren't always justified. It's important to educate people, most especially people for whom English is a second language. Oriental has traditionally been a word that connoted a certain high-regard for Eastern cultures. Certain political elements have preyed upon the natual tendency of all minorities to feel implied persection and co-opted this word to further their aims. It's okay if you want to buy into that. But I'm not buying into it. For me, there is nothing the matter with being Oriental. Will Nesbitt 19:00, 30 June 2007 (CDT)

You say that "the Cantonese word for white guy has no impact on my life." -- well, OK, then, that just proves you are a Gwailo ! Russell Potter 21:05, 30 June 2007 (CDT)

Here's an excellent discussion on Is "Oriental" offensive; it gives some sense of reactions to the term among a variety of people.

I'm in complete agreement that some people think the word is offensive. Although online forums are not considered references, I would accept these are evidence that some people think the word is offensive. It is my position, rather, that these people are wrong and/or ignorant. It is our job to educate them. This forum is also evidence that a good many people understand that many people do not find the term offensive as well as well-reasoned rationale for why it's thought of as offensive. Will Nesbitt 12:56, 3 July 2007 (CDT)

Will, it's my view that offense is measured by how the person referred to feels -- if they do indeed feel offended, then it's simple common courtesy to find a term of reference that does not offend. It's those who feel offended about the term "Oriental" who should be educating us, not the other way around. Russell Potter 13:02, 3 July 2007 (CDT)

What if I tell you I'm offended by that statement? Will you say something different? Will Nesbitt 13:43, 4 July 2007 (CDT)

Following up on Will's points, primarily about the use of the word today, there are just too many corporations and established groups out there that are perfectly fine with the word to start saying it is a pejorative now:

The Oriental -- hotel in Bangkok (very good, stayed there some years ago)

The Oriental Singapore -- very very good, too expensive for my budget. Had lunch there though.

There are banks and insurance companies with the name.

There is a very well known theatre in Milwaukee with the name. People are quite fond of it.

Durham Universty "The Oriental Museum is the Asian art, antiquities, and material culture museum of the University of Durham."

There is a School of Oriental and African Studies with the Presbyterian Church of England Foreign Missions Committee Women's Missionary Association founded in 1879.

Cambridge also has one, The School of Oriental and African Studies [1]

And they have a faculty called the Faculty of Oriental Studies at Cambridge! [2]

University of Chicago has an Oriental Center. "The Oriental Institute is a research organization and museum devoted to the study of the ancient Near East. Founded in 1919 by James Henry Breasted, the Institute, a part of the University of Chicago, is an internationally recognized pioneer in the archaeology, philology, and history of early Near Eastern civilizations."

"Oriental City" is what the BBC refers to as London's real Chinatown. [3]

There is a town in North Carolina called Oriental.

There is more. There are breeds of animals, like say cats, with the name.

The point is, the word is not a pejorative any more than the word "American" is a pejorative. Those who use these words as such have to bring that with them. --Thomas Simmons 18:01, 6 July 2007 (CDT)

Thomas, you're missing the point. No one here is saying that "Oriental," used an an adjective in the above kinds of contexts, is prejorative. We're just observing that:

• Its use as a substantive, as in referring to a person as "an Oriental" is potentially offensive.
• The word "Oriental" is bound up with some long-standing preconceptions and prejudices about the "exotic" East which have a long history.

That's all. Russell Potter 18:42, 6 July 2007 (CDT)

OK, but I am quite sure that I got that point. Call a Canadian an "American" and see how they react. Call a New Zealander an "Aussie" and watch what they do. You have to want it. Is there any word out there that can not be construed as a denigrating label? The article can elucidate these points surely. But to say the word is in and of itself a pejorative is a stretch. --Thomas Simmons 19:41, 7 July 2007 (CDT)

Who are we afraid of offending?

It was suggested that we remove the phrase "that part of the world where both Dharmic religions are dominant and most natives of the region have an epicanthic fold." Is there something bad about Dharmic religions? Should those Eastern Asians not on the subcontinent of India be somehow ashamed that they have epicanthic folds? My arguement is that these two descriptors are much more honest and accurate. Removing them and replacing them with some vague compass points is less accurate and seems to imply that we are not comfortable mentioning religion or racial features. If religion and race are not appropriate when talking about a region of the world when would these ever be appropriate topics? Will Nesbitt 18:43, 30 June 2007 (CDT)

It's neither honest nor accurate to associate everyone in the region with Dharmic religions and epicanthic folds - there are many ethnic groups, and people of all faiths and none. (I also find fault with the word "natives".) It implies that the identity of people from the region is based on racial characteristics that others consider most obvious, i.e. their eyes, and behaviour that distinguishes 'us' from 'them' - such as a religion. There's no reason, however, why an article on East Asia couldn't discuss racial characteristics and religions in the region, but it should not identify people primarily in those terms. It would be odd, to say the least, to find an article on Europe that included early on "...that part of the world where both Judaeo-Christian religions are dominant and most natives of the region have skin relatively low in melanin." John Stephenson 04:31, 3 July 2007 (CDT)

Touch`e. I'll grant you that "early on" this phrasing would be awkward and inappropriate. I still think those terms warrant mention somewhere in the article. Long before there was an internet, I was an encyclopedia reader. Even then, I like reading about one subject, that tied to another to another. I think that there are readers who don't know what melanin, Judaeo-Christian, Dharmic and epicanthic mean. For them, I think a tie-in or mention is important.

Quick sidebar: this discussion causes me to observe, and perhaps it is a silly observation, that in the US these days we are more uptight talking about race than we are talking about sex. Will Nesbitt 06:35, 3 July 2007 (CDT)

I was so busy agreeing with you, I forgot to mention a few points of total disagreement. I don't think "native" is a derogatory word. Everyone on the planet is a native ... of somewhere. Secondly and more importantly, I know you bristle under the idea of classifying people by race, culture or religion. I see such classifications useful for understanding our world. Furthermore, the identity of a people is generally based on racial and cultural characteristics that others find most obvious. There is little if any difference between the racial and cultural differences of people in western North America and Eastern North America. But there are significant racial differences between people of western Eurasia and eastern Eurasia. It doesn't make sense to me to categorize people by compass points so that we can dance around the issues of race and religion. (See above, sex.)

Is your point that no people should ever be categorized by race and culture? If so, why? Additionally, why shall we ban the word "native"? Lastly, do you find that there is any linguistic or cultural loss by banning words that might possibly offend someone when used in certain contexts? Will Nesbitt 06:44, 3 July 2007 (CDT)

Food for Thought

Could the Orient be considered a sub-continent? In fact, is Eurasia so large that it has several sub-continents: Europe, the Orient, India and the Middle East? Will Nesbitt 13:27, 3 July 2007 (CDT)

Is this encyclopedic??

CZ is not the place for polemical debates. The article is now heavily POV and not encyclopedic. Who does it offend? It offends a scholar like myself. I have tried to remove some of the more contentious parts and added some scholarship. The fact that groups keep old names (like the U Chicago "Oriental Institute" (1919) is NOT evidence for current usage. The article needs a full coverage of Edward Said and his role in this major debate. Richard Jensen 16:19, 3 July 2007 (CDT)

Edward Said represents one POV in this debate. 1000 years of usage represents another side of this debate. To ignore usage because Edward Said writes a few essays does not represent reality. Will Nesbitt 13:45, 4 July 2007 (CDT)

Said set the terms of the debate, and he is covered--and sharply criticized in this article. His treatment of Disraeli, for example, is refuted at length. There is now a full bibliography of recent scholarship. The old version made litle mention of European ideas, which are now covered in some depth (eg Voltaire, Schlegel, Disraeli). What's the problem? Richard Jensen 14:10, 4 July 2007 (CDT)

Not evidence of current usage? How can these people be involved in research today at the Center and feel it is not current usage? Can't stipulate to this assessment at all. 'America' is an old term. 'Europe' is an old term. 'Scotland' as well and on and on. 'Old' can not possibly mean not current. --Thomas Simmons 18:19, 6 July 2007 (CDT)

This article now represents one narrow point of view

I encourage argument by refutation or an argument of reason. I reject an argument by deletion or an argument of authority. I'm quite taken aback by the brazen PC POV this article now represents. Will Nesbitt 13:52, 4 July 2007 (CDT)

Not sure what the problem is...the article was full of irrelevant stuff and was not encyclopedic. I cleaned it up by 1) dropping everything not on topic; 2) adding the latest scholarship. Richard Jensen 14:03, 4 July 2007 (CDT)

A comment here was deleted by The Constabulary on grounds of making complaints about fellow Citizens. If you have a complaint about the behavior of another Citizen, e-mail constables@citizendium.org. It is contrary to Citizendium policy to air your complaints on the wiki. See also CZ:Professionalism.

Edward Said represents one point of view (an important one) on this issue, but he certainly is not the only point of view. I'm quite sure Robert Bork and Diane Ravitch, both respected scholars, would represent a different point of view. How does one politely counter an argument by deletion rather than an argument by refutation? Will Nesbitt 07:59, 5 July 2007 (CDT)

Robert Bork and Diane Ravitch have written on Orentalism??? The citations originally from them said nothing about Orientalism and were general complaints that have no bearing on this article. Richard Jensen 16:33, 5 July 2007 (CDT)

I think Russell's original Intro was a superior lede, see here.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 01:24, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

we have the word "oriental" covered in "Orient"; Orientalism has become a technical term, with hundreds of scholarly articles and books on the subject. Richard Jensen 03:21, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

This article reads like Edward Said wrote the definitive work on Orientalism. He did not. He is interesting and unique and important because he stands in opposition to all Oriental scholars who came before him. Opposition is interesting and important, but not defining. Said himself has number strident and academic critics and detractors: Ernest Gellner, Albert Hourani, Robert Graham Irwin, Nikki Keddie, Bernard Lewis, Kanan Makiya, Maxime Rodinson, Jacques Berque, Malcolm Kerr, Aijaz Ahmad, William Montgomery Watt, Gustave Flaubert, and Edward William Lane. Countering Said's arguments are an endeavor in themselves.

It doesn't seem fair all perspectives to relegate the criticism of Said to a line or two, but hold up Said as the defining Orientalist? I would strongly urge that this material be moved to an article about Said, and a more balanced approach with a broader representation of political perspectives be documented in this article. Will Nesbitt 10:16, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

Said has clearly dominated the field, as a look at the bibliographies will indicate. A discussion of Orienatlism will have to start with that fact of history. If a CZ author want to add material please do so. However, the goal of "refuting" Said is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. The job is rather to show the issues that are in debate. Richard Jensen 15:02, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

Bibliographies do not indicate that Said has dominated the field. Rather, they are indicative that he has dominated criticism of the field. On one hand there is Said, and on the other hand there is the wealth of knowledge against which he rails. Like all important critics, his voice should be heard.

Furthermore, I agree that the point of the article is not to refute Said or anyone else. Where I disagree is in the postulation that Said defines the field. Will Nesbitt 18:18, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

Is this encyclopedic? Does it represent one point of view? I take the points personally. It is, in my opinion, one sided but not for what it contains. It is one sided for what it does not contain. The article as it stands forms only a part of the issue and that is what should be amended. I don't see that it should be deleted for being incomplete. There are certainly others here who could present the opposing views from scholarly sources and achieve encyclopedicality (can I use a made up word here?) and balance. Including the meanings of words, their history and socio-ethnological impact is surely a constructive realm for a good encyclopedia. Basically, this is an in depth work in theoretical lexicography, a field that has its own well refereed journals. --Thomas Simmons 18:49, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

The article does not represent "one point of view." It is a critical look at a major topic (with hundreds of books and articles in scholarly journals).Richard Jensen 08:15, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

Richard, we are in complete agreement on this point:

It is a critical look at a major topic (with hundreds of books and articles in scholarly journals).

We also agree that "critical look" is an important viewpoint. Shouldn't the view which is criticized be primary to the "critical look"? Additionally, do the theses of the many scholars who have criticized Said's "critical look" deserve mention? Perhaps all this could be solved/avoided, if the scope of the article were narrowed to represent Said's thesis, rather than pretending to represent all viewpoints about "Orientalism"?

Also, in other sociological fields of study (Roman Empire, Native Americans, Spanish Inquisition) how common is it to highlight 100 to 200 year old works of fiction as part of serious discussion about a topic? The "harem literature" is about as relevant to this topic as sensationalized cowboy pulp-fiction is when talking about the American West. Sensationalist literature is not unique to the Orient. Is this an essay about the Orient, or is it an essay about how ill-informed the public was in the 1880's? Will Nesbitt 16:50, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

Observation

I don't have time at the moment to dig up a scholarly reference to back up this claim, but I have an observation about this statement that is almost self-evident.

He repeatedly complained the Orientalists saw the Orient as unchanging and without an internal dynamic; it lacked internal potential for growth, unless it westernized. Said suggested that the repeated image of a static Orient is what made the Orient static with respect to the West.

Thirty years later, this statement is now as outmoded as the scholars against which Said originally railed. It's perfectly obvious that present-day scholars and students of the Orient do not seek to westernize, i.e. modernize, the Orient. There is no general sentiment, in the public, in academia, in government or anywhere else, that the Orient is a mysterious backward land. It's the contention of some of Said's criticisms that this way of thought never existed among orientalists, even when it may have existed in the general public. Will Nesbitt 08:25, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

I think a look at American efforts to modernize Iraq are pretty relevant here. Richard Jensen 08:36, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

I think I don't understand your usage of the word "modernize" in this context. Can you please point to a reference that reports westernization of Iraq, Afghanistan or North Korea as a goal of the US or UK? I can point to a good many references which will claim that American foreign policy aims in Iraq revolve around a handful of big and obvious issues: Middle Eastern geopolitics (i.e. Israel), the War against Islamofascim (i.e. Terrorism), and U.S. strategic interests (i.e. oil). Outdated information found in an 18th Century academic study of the Orient play no part in U.S. strategic thinking in Iraq, or China or elsewhere east of the Euphrates. Will Nesbitt 16:42, 16 July 2007 (CDT)