h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

A Japanese-American (p.c. - wheeee!) friend once corrected me that Oriental was a no-no, that she much preferred Asian, for the same reason mentioned earlier -- that rugs and dinners are Oriental, people are not.

SC

I thought that coming from a commonwealth country made people automatically British. In some way atleast even if it had no affect on your nationality.

I was probably wrong.

to Kea and any other NZers of whatever ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation for any offence caused

one love

" Certainly Senegalese people would be mor confused by being called Asian as they are from a country in the west of Africa."

The term as originally conceived (according to this bloke) covered the West African provinces as well.

No worries blicky I wasn't offended.

NZ does still have Elizabeth Windsor as head of state but only in a symbolic way - the NZ govt appoints a Governer General here to be the Queen's representative. We also used the English Privy Council as our highest court until fairly recently. I'm not sure when NZ actually stopped being a British colony - various dates are the 1907 or 1947, although we've had our own parliament since the 1850s.

I'm not sure what other 'benefits' being part of the Commonwealth involves (attending the Commonwealth Games...) but being British isn't one of them . I guess it's about time someone wrote a Guide Entry on New Zealand

It's all how you choose to identify yourself, or how others presume to identify you. The famous Duke of Wellington was born in Ireland but when accused of being Irish he retorted "If a man is born in a stable that doesn't make him a horse".

The proper adjective taken from the name of a continent can hardly be a term of abuse. However if people born or naturalised in England wish to emphasise their Englishness, that's their right. Wonderful moment in "The Deer Hunter" -- Chevotarevich recovering in hospital is asked "Is that a Russian name?" -- "No, American."

<<"If a man is born in a stable that doesn't make him a horse".>>



Coming from the 'cultural mosaic' that is Canada, I grew up thinking it was totally normal to be 'Canadian plus whatever'. It felt a bit odd moving to Spain where most people are SPANISH.

I've never really understood strong nationalistic tendencies. I mean, getting born somewhere isn't exactly a personal achievement, is it?


az

Good point.

Spanishness has a chequered history too; I got the impression that after the Madrid train bombings people were starting to be proud of their various strands of Spanish descent for the first time.

Since the fifteenth century it was (disgracefully) a matter of pride in Spain to have all-Christian blood, that is, no trace of Jewish or Islamic descent; and that after the Jews and Muslims had been forcibly converted. Those who refused to convert were exiled or killed. Despite their conversion those that remained were not accepted, but actively and legally discriminated against.

My : (well, three cents, actually)

1) Why don't we all go all someone of Asian origin?

2) Admittedly 'Asian' is not a geographically useful word. In the UK, it applies to the Indian Subcontinent only. However, unlike the n-word and other abusive terms, there is nothing *inherently* offensive about it. We should, however, endeavour to differentiate between those of Pakistani, Indian and Bangladeshi origin wherever this is relevant.

3) Context is all:

Are we talking about:

A Pakistani greengrocer who advertises that s/he sells "Asian Foods" ?

Saying that "British Asians have made a valuable contribution to the economic and ciltural life of our country" ?

People proclaiming their dual British/Asian heritage?

If were talking about issues that disproportionately effect British people of Asian origin?

BNP scum contrasting "Those Asians" vs "Us British" ?

An Asian football supporter?

I'd suggest that, of these, only the 2nd last is *definitely* unacceptable, and the last one is impolite, careless and probably irrelevant. (If we were talking about increased divcersity in the football audience, I'd suggest 'British Asian')


A diversion: I asked a German/Puerto Rican friend recently about terminology for 'Latino' Americans. He suggested that they would normally be, collectively, Hispanic-Americans - which would include Spanish speakers from Texas, Arizona etc, otherwise indicated by country (Mexican-Amaericans, Cuban Ameicans). HOWEVER - not 'Puerto Rican Americans', because Puerto Ricans are automatically US citizens.

Hi Az
I'm right with you on this and I think John Lennon was too. Are there any PhyscoGeographers out there to give us a take on why nationality, tribe, religion etc was so important. If it was originally to secure the basics such as food and shelter why haven't modern levels of production and communication began to decay global differences rather than magnify them as seems to be happening. Is differnce being exploited for profit....

Schools in the UK certainly teach that Asia is more than the Indian subcontinent.

Otherwise what is the Orient, eastern Russia, the Middle East, the bit north of Oceania/Australasia etc.?

Interesting responses. I think I can understand where the bloke was coming from, same place where you find people saying that they are not European but English, or whatever.
And the bit about Asia covering the Orient and so forth is one I always wondered about.
And anyway, I suppose you could go one better and use Eurasian (is Eurasia still not generally accepted by geographers and mapmakers? Or is OK nowadays?)

The modern definition of Occident is 'The hemisphere that includes North and South America'. But the Websters 1913 definition was 'The part of the horizon where the sun last appears in the sky' It is interesting how perceptions change over time.

If you look at a typical pocket diary map of the world, with 0 degrees longitude i.e. London centred, then Britain's Occident would have extended as far west as Alaska. Everything to the east would have been the Orient.

Today if you take Washigton as the centre then America's Occident includes the USA, most of China and Australia. The rest including Europe becomes it's Orient.....

The Websters definition is the technical term for the occident, not the Occident. Similarly the orient is the 'part of the horizon where the sun first appears in the sky'. Naturally, sailing East would have you sailing towards the rising sun or orient. I suggest that this became known (presumably around three thousand years ago and well before America was discovered by Europeans) as the Orient. The Occident eventually came to mean pretty well everything else.

This is also the root of the word 'orientation' as the position of the sun is a valuable tool in determining direction. The rising or setting sun - particularly at the solstice - gave a more precise direction of true East or West. Ancient people would set large stones in the ground (because they weren't easily disturbed) to mark these directions as they were useful for measuring the seasons, amongst other things. The Vikings are known to have used an elegant navigation device called a sun compass and these things had to be calibrated somewhere.

The position of the horizon is not at lattitude 90 degrees but depends on the height of the observer from the ground. You can't use the lines of lattitude to define the Orient. In the days of the trade routes the Orient was essentially everything in the known world east of the Mediterranean.

F

Hi Fathom

I agree and being an ex-seafarer I understand the navigatioal aspects. My point was more PhyscoGeographic in that the locus of the Occidental and Oriental Hemispheres of influemce have changed, and will continue to do so, over the years. When Asia is the industrial and scientific power house of the Earth being called Asian may well be considered a complement, if it isn't so already....