Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Because "Asian" is both non-specific and unfairly lumps Orientals with other, violent, Asian cultures. The fast majority of Russia is in Asia, but we rarely refer to Russians as Asian. Do you put the same effort to describe someone as Norwegen, British, German, etc? Or do you describe the region (northern European)?
Excuse me?
I don't think someone who lives in a country which worships firearms and suffers over 30,000 deaths/year from firearms has any standing to lecture other cultures or countries about being violent.
I might be wrong about what I think he looks like. That's my opinion.
But the fact remains that describing someone as Asian is akin to describing someone as North American.
Not really. The term "Asian" has come to mean not just someone from the continent of Asia, but someone whose racial ancestry derives from the original peoples of that continent. In Great Britain, "Asian" means South Asian, such as Pakistani. (Or so I've been told.) In America, "Asian" means East Asian, i.e. Chinese or Korean or Japanese, and also Southeast Asian, such as Vietnamese or Cambodian.
I agree that the term is awfully imprecise and it would be helpful if society agreed to refer to East Asian, South Asian, etc. But it is what it is.
There is no race called "North American." It is a continental descriptor only. A North American can be white, black, Asian, Hispanic, or anything else.
Merkel says she wants them in Germany, and Trudeau says he'll pay them millions if they come to Canada! California will take them, but they must be illegal.
Instead of getting all worked up about not being PC or liberal this or that, and knee-jerk opposing something just because of its identification with an ideology, why don't you just ask one of us what's appropriate?
I'm Chinese American, and to refer to someone of my ethnicity/heritage as "Oriental" is akin to calling black or African Americans "Negroes". It's not necessarily really offensive but it is archaic and outdated. If you insist on using that after advisement that you should use another term - it speaks poorly about your consideration of how other people prefer to be called or referred as.
A general rule - Oriental refers to rugs and inanimate objects. You call people by what they want to be called. Common courtesy.
I totally agree with this, and don't personally use the term "Oriental." I just was trying to point out that it was silly to drop it. It was dropped because some liberals thought it was offensive, but as you point out is "not necessarily really offensive."
I don't think someone who lives in a country which worships firearms and suffers over 30,000 deaths/year from firearms has any standing to lecture other cultures or countries about being violent.
Over half of U.S. firearms deaths are suicides. Gun control would have virtually no effect on that. Japan has almost no guns in private hands. Their Olympic athletes in shooting sports have to go offshore just to practice. Yet Japans suicide rate is significantly higher than in the U.S.
This reminds me of those horrible things that happened to British little girls in Rotherham and a bunch of other English cities, where thousands young girls were raped repeatedly over decades while UK authorities looked the other way or even helped with the coverup. There were a lot of reasons for it, but it was partly due to political correctness and fear of being called "racist", so England sacrificed its own daughters on the PC altar. Note these were not just teens, thousands of the victims were preteen girls to add to the horror, and one official in the United Kingdom central government suggested that over a million girls may have been raped or molested by these scum in just the past 2 decades.
Rotherham: In the face of such evil, who is the racist now? - Telegraph
Rotherham was just tip of iceberg in England, there was also Telford, Bristol, Derby, Rochdale, Oxford, Peterborough and tons of other British cities. And while working-class girls were certainly severely affected, in many cities it was middle-class and even upper-class girls who were victimized, indicating there's been a general breakdown of British culture and protection of its own kids.
The BBC had a very gripping drama about one of the rape and grooming rings (in Rochdale) BTW which is worth watching. BBC One - Three Girls
Britain isn't alone in this but it's by far the worst effected of any Western or even non-Western country with these grooming horrors and the mass rape of British little girls. This doesn't even happen in wartime, as nasty as it can be when a city falls after a siege, the commanders of the invading armies tend to force the looting soldiers into garrison towns to minimize this sort of thing. (Many Union generals actually executed any of their soldiers who raped the women in fallen Southern towns during the US Civil War, let alone little girls).
What's happening in Britain, as a contrast, is the systematic brutalizing of their girls, with cases like this one on the CCTV camera heaped on top of atrocities like Rotherham and Derby. And the British authorities just throw up their hands and act passively. A pathetic demise for a once proud people.
Last edited by Corascant; 08-09-2017 at 06:30 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
