>I think the main problem is that "Oriental" is just another
>byproduct of colonialism during the 18th and 19th centuries.
>In other words, you would've never went to some of the
>countries that one might consider "oriental" and here people
>from those countries use that term or any equivalent--
>'cause no equivalent existed. They didn't see themselves as
>oriental, European empires did.

well, and they didn't see noodles as noodles, pasta as pasta, rice as rice, rugs as rugs, trees as trees, water as water, or anything else as the words another language uses to describe something, so i don't understand the issue with europeans having their own words for something, and those who speak european languages (you and i) using european words.

>"Oriental" is just one of
>many terms that European imperial powers (especially Britain
>in this case) used to identify other peoples and nations as
>exotic and different from the mother country.

i read this somewhere. but then, if it was used to describe everywhere far and different from europe, why do we automatically know, when someone refers to something or something being "oriental" that it's talking about so-called "asian" people and places, and not kenya, india, etc? when did the change occur? not that it really matters, i'm just curious.


>If you look
>briefly through 19th century novels (Jane Eyre, Bleak House,
>etc etc) you'll see that terms like "Oriental" are thrown
>around to try to make sense of citizens of Englishman and
>Englishwoman in relation to Asian colonies.

not sure if i understood this sentence the way you structured it. oh well.

>Basically, some of the people who don't want to be called
>'Oriental' don't want that colonial label to monopolize
>their identity anymore.

i admit i'm not as up on world history as some people here, but i did the english even colonize much of that part of the world?

also, any comments on today's use of the word "asian", making it exclusively an almost exact synonym for what less informed people still call "oriental"?