Talk:Orientalism

Article Checklist for "Orientalism"

Workgroup category or categories	Linguistics Workgroup, Sociology Workgroup, History 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)

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)

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)

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)