9 ms·
I'm a bit puzzled by the bit about "orientals". Was the term already obsolete at the time of writing, as to deserve analysis beyond considering natural in cont
by riffraff 3y ago
I'm a bit puzzled by the bit about "orientals".
Was the term already obsolete at the time of writing, as to deserve analysis beyond considering natural in context?
E.g. one would probably not consider unusual the term "indian" for native Americans in the same period, I believe.
- defrost 3y agoIt originates from the regions of the Roman Empire, the Diocese of the East, aka the Diocese of Oriens, aka Dioecesis Orientis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diocese_of_the_East https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diocese_of_the_East ; by the time of Kipling and later Orwell during peak British Empire it referred to everything East of the then European "Western World" .. and so included India, Burma, et al. It later contracted somewhat to mainly be used for South East Aisa (excluding India | Pakistan) and more recently been dropped to the floor and is out of favour (it was a ridiculously broad brush). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orient https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orient
- mellosouls 3y agoThe question I think was more about why the dig against Orwell for a word which was presumably not considered offensive at the time.
- defrost 3y agoAgreed. I merely went halfway to frame out where it came from, how it has been used in history, and dodged the breakdown of how it became increasingly offensive post WWII.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- zilti 3y agoI don't think it being too broad was the reason. "Asian" is just as broad, and the silly "PoC" is even worse.
- goodcanadian 3y agoI don't think the author was commenting on the word. I think the author was commenting on the trait that was attributed to the people: Orientals can be very provoking
- thatloststudent 3y agoThis is what I assumed as a non-native speaker. He didn't really care about the word "Oriental", rather about the way he seemingly justifies punching people presumably beneath him.
- riffraff 3y agoAh yeah that makes more sense indeed, thanks
- asolove 3y agoI think you are talking about this line in the article: > So, why didn’t he omit the racist quip about “Orientals”? This is specifically in reference to a quote from Orwell at the top of the article: > > coolies I had hit with my fist in moments of rage (nearly everyone does these things in the East, at any rate occasionally: Orientals can be very provoking) The author of this article is primarily objecting not to the use of the word "Orientals" but to the defense that it's ok to beat them because everyone does it and they are annoying. I think what the author is asking is: if he has had such a change of heart, why not simply omit this excuse? Why still provide justification that it is ok for a white person to beat a colonial subject because their cultural norms are different and annoying to the white person?
- mcmcmc 3y agoI read it as more of “Everyone hits each other here so it’s cool”, implying a culture of violence rather than saying they make great punching bags.
- deodar 3y agoThat's reaching rather far to defend violence against human beings just for the color of their skin.
- mcmcmc 3y agoAnd it’s equally a reach to say they were being beaten just for the color of their skin. Unless you’ve perfected both the arts of mind reading and time travel. Why are you assuming that I’m defending something rather than merely offering a different interpretation?
- deodar 3y ago> “Everyone hits each other here so it’s cool” This leap of conclusion gave it away. I'd be happy to be wrong but honestly the racist intent feels obvious to me.
- zilti 3y agoPeople still don't consider "indian" unusual, and the "native Americans" insist on being called Indians officially