next »

[doctormommy]

I asked if I, as a faculty member in a discipline directly related to the study of culture, multiculturalism, diversity yadda yadda, should mention the problematics that apply to both the term Oriental in the title of the event _as well as_ the conceptualization of the event. My question was specific to my position and the dynamics at an institution that has little understanding of diversity issues and in some ways looks to me amongst very few others to assist in raising awareness of cultural issues on campus.  Terms might be "silly" to us, but I'm on a campus not aware of the problematization of terms. I don't care to "police" language, but do care about inspiring reflection that would lead the kids here to determine that caring about terms is silly. I'd pleased if they got that far.

Okay, I am way too sleepy to try to go back and follow all the arguments about whether this is silly or not, but for Merce:

I called my husband (the Asian) and asked him if the term "Oriental" was offensive. He said that it didn't really pack the gut punch that "Chink" or "Yellow" does, and he didn't personally find "Oriental" offensive if somebody he liked uses it, though he does find it amusing. If somebody he already dislikes uses it then that just gets added to his mental list of things he dislikes about that person. 

We would suggest that they might want to change the name of the event to "A taste of Asia" because to us "A taste of Asia" sound like they might be involving actual Asians and are likely to have tasty Asian food. "A taste of the Orient" sounds like an event put on by people who don't hang out with Asians and who are likely to serve up craptastic eggrolls and bland stirfry.

[helpful]

The world is going down the toilet and you’re arguing the merits of one-ply vs. two-ply paper.  Angels and pins.

CE

Two-ply, definitely. If you judge it via amount of paper per dollar spent versus softness....definitely.

[anthroid]

Anthroid had on hu's posting:

""Yes, but the Eskimo....""


As I probably have written before,the Inuit of Northern Canada do not use the term Eskimo because it is a Cree word for 'eater of raw meat". The Inuit term means "people".

I don't know why Americans of aboriginal descent in northern Alaska call themselves Eskimo still.

This is a quote from Margaret Mead.

[anthroid]

I don't think it's okay to equate "queer" with "b*tch," "c***," or "n*****."

Neither does the Chronicle editor, either.

There is a field called Queer Studies, for example, but no b*tch studies or c*** Studies (well, okay, but you know what I mean).

Right, but that's my point.  "Queer," which has been a pejorative term for a few decades, has been appropriated by the oppressed population to which it has been said to refer, and that population has empowered itself by redefining and revaluing the term.  The same cannot be said of the other terms, and (I would hope) it will never be said of those other terms, as they really are so patently offensive.

And, caveat_emperor, you certainly are entitled to discuss whatever you want.  To equate the experience of the colonized--subjected as they were to slavery, ethnocide, genocide--must I go on?--to the quality of toilet paper is anti-intellectual, in my view, and such comments probably don't belong here.  Why don't you start a nice lively thread in "Meet and Greet" about your feelings? 

At the same time, I have to tell you that I just adore your moniker.  So you can see I am conflicted about you.

[untenured]

This thread should never have grown past phdiva's wise response.

Email them.

Be nice about it.

If the organizers do nothing, you've tried.

Untenured

[caveat_emperor]

... To equate the experience of the colonized--subjected as they were to slavery, ethnocide, genocide--must I go on?--to the quality of toilet paper is anti-intellectual, in my view, and such comments probably don't belong here. ...

If I had done that, you'd be right.  I didn't do that.

CE

[cosmic]

I do think, mercedes, that you should say something or risk walking into a 1940s SOUTH PACIFIC trainwreck with your dean in yellowface.

But I don't understand this: "Occidental is, in English, rarely used to describe the US or its people or Western Europe."  Occidentalism, then, or occidentalisme, if you prefer, is a scholarly construct?  I think Occidental and Occidentalism are frequently applied to people who engage in Orientalism, of which one form is calling Asian/Pacific Islanders "Orientals."   

[anthroid]

[What is the purpose of “otherness” studies?  Is it just an area of scholarly interest. Does it have as a goal the development of strategies for reducing conflict among individuals and groups?  Is it performance art? Over the same twenty-five years that the “discussion has been going on” self-identified “other” groups have proliferated and conflict among them have increased. All of the attention paid to the “sensitivity” of groups to language that might be offensive doesn’t seem to have helped anything.  The world is going down the toilet and you’re arguing the merits of one-ply vs. two-ply paper.  Angels and pins.

CE

If I had done that, you'd be right.  I didn't do that.

CE

Yup.  You did.  You are saying that this discussion is irrelevant, and whether it's one-ply or two-ply, it simply doesn't matter.  That's toilet paper.  You have equated the very serious discussion of the concept of the "Other" with what kind of toilet paper ought to be chosen.  Now, you may not have meant to trivialize the discussion, but, in point of fact, you argue that the discussion is as meaningless as the choice of toilet paper.  I do get that you don't know the literature.  Fair enough.  Certainly OP has raised an important question.  You don't agree.  Fair enough as well.  Your argument, however, lacks seriousness given both your lack of knowledge of the intellectual problem with which OP presents us as well as your (probably well-intentioned) flippancy.  This really is a serious discussion and, by invoking toilet paper, you become hard to take seriously.

Even for an emporer.  Good luck, though.

[merce]

I do think, mercedes, that you should say something or risk walking into a 1940s SOUTH PACIFIC trainwreck with your dean in yellowface


But I don't understand this: "Occidental is, in English, rarely used to describe the US or its people or Western Europe."  Occidentalism, then, or occidentalisme, if you prefer, is a scholarly construct?  I think Occidental and Occidentalism are frequently applied to people who engage in Orientalism, of which one form is calling Asian/Pacific Islanders "Orientals."  

I didn't know that people use "Occidental" and "Occidentalism" in the way you describe and in non-enlightened/scholarly circles.  When I said English doesn't rely heavily on the word "occidental" I was thinking of Spanish and French usage of occidental to say western and oriental to mean eastern (not east asian or asian just, North Philly, west philly, east philly which could be  parte occidental de philly and philly oriental).

[caveat_emperor]

[What is the purpose of “otherness” studies?  Is it just an area of scholarly interest. Does it have as a goal the development of strategies for reducing conflict among individuals and groups?  Is it performance art? Over the same twenty-five years that the “discussion has been going on” self-identified “other” groups have proliferated and conflict among them have increased. All of the attention paid to the “sensitivity” of groups to language that might be offensive doesn’t seem to have helped anything.  The world is going down the toilet and you’re arguing the merits of one-ply vs. two-ply paper.  Angels and pins.

CE

If I had done that, you'd be right.  I didn't do that.

CE

Yup.  You did.  You are saying that this discussion is irrelevant, and whether it's one-ply or two-ply, it simply doesn't matter.  That's toilet paper.  You have equated the very serious discussion of the concept of the "Other" with what kind of toilet paper ought to be chosen.  Now, you may not have meant to trivialize the discussion, but, in point of fact, you argue that the discussion is as meaningless as the choice of toilet paper.  I do get that you don't know the literature.  Fair enough.  Certainly OP has raised an important question.  You don't agree.  Fair enough as well.  Your argument, however, lacks seriousness given both your lack of knowledge of the intellectual problem with which OP presents us as well as your (probably well-intentioned) flippancy.  This really is a serious discussion and, by invoking toilet paper, you become hard to take seriously.

Even for an emporer.  Good luck, though.

Nope. I didn’t.  Your earlier post accused me of an attempt “….  To equate the experience of the colonized--subjected as they were to slavery, ethnocide, genocide--must I go on?--to the quality of toilet paper..”,  and I most certainly did not do that.  In your last post, you altered you accusation to “…You are saying that this discussion is irrelevant, and whether it's one-ply or two-ply, it simply doesn't matter…”.  Not the same thing, at all.  (Nope. It’s not).  Of course, an understanding of how (consciously or not) specifying groups as “other” facilitates the horrors that are laid upon them is important. But the origin of this thread (whether using “Oriental” rather than the currently preferred “Asian” is outrageous) trivializes the reality of those horrors.  It comes across as merely “academic” – in the worst sense of the word.

As you point out, I don’t know the literature. Educate me.  Please, list five (or four or three) examples where “otherness” studies have helped to reduce the conflict among groups.  Until then, I will continue to have difficulty not “trivializing” such discussions.  I guess it's just a problem of neither of us being able to take the other (wait, there's that word, again) one seriously.

CE

Good luck is always welcome.

[anthroid]

[  I guess it's just a problem of neither of us being able to take the other (wait, there's that word, again) one seriously.

CE

Good luck is always welcome.

Right.  See ya!

[warmaiden]

This discussion has been going on for the last 25 years or so in the social sciences, in many of the disciplines in the humanities, and in history.  The notion of the Other is not something we just made up yesterday, and the discussion is a serious and important one.  It is not silly and it is not "sudden."

No, it is neither silly nor sudden. but denying that "Other" is a useful topic is NOT silly. It gives a point of reference, and oriental or occidental, it means "over there," so far as I can understand. What is silly is attempting to use language to the point where we rid ourselves of all distinction in the name of political correctness.

[arnaudine]

All I can say is WOW.
I'm not from North America. I am a South Asian living in a former British Colony outside of my country of birth. NO ONE uses the word Oriental here, unless they are engaging in sketch comedy, where you're meant to laugh at the moron using the word 'oriental'. It is an old fashioned, racist term. I said WOW at the begining because I can't believe that it has to be explained why this is offensive.