It all started back in 1995. Thatís when I first published an article I called The Straight FAQ. Itís a Question-and-Answer treatise about finding a mate online. Itís written in what I like to think is a blunt, no-nonsense manner, and in one part of it I explain that the term "Asian" means "Oriental."

I'd only recently heard about this new phraseology, and I didn't feel like defending it. So I just explained it in one terse line: Asian means Oriental....

I suspected someone somewhere would get mad at me over that, but there were at least a dozen other points where I had the same concern. When you write from the gut, you have to assume someone wonít like something you say.

Indeed, I did receive many letters. It's been offline for a couple of years until very recently, I'm sorry to say, but I was still getting one or two letters a week for many years. Fortunately, of the hundreds I received, only about one in 20 was ever negative or insulting.

Still, some negative letters were remarkable. I got many comments from fat-rights advocates angry at my blunt comments about weight; in one letter I was sternly informed that I was "fat-phobic" and that fat people are "sexy, desirable, and in demand!" I also heard from feminists angry with me because I described my wife as "the girl of my dreams"; never call women "girls!" was the refrain. I was probably most frequently attacked because my article was written for heterosexual men; how dare I put gay people "in the back of the bus" in this fashion?

In all that noise, I received only three comments on the "Oriental" issue. Two were from people who angrily denounced me for using the term "Oriental" at all. Amusingly, the other was from a man from western Asia (Pakistan, I seem to recall) who was furious at me for excluding people by suggesting that all Asians are Oriental. Since none of these people were rational I shrugged it all off and ignored the issue.

Then one day I received another letter on the matter, and this one was thoughtful and literate. The Asian gentleman who wrote it politely explained that he didnít like my careless use of the term "Oriental" and suggested I consider more thoughtful wording. We exchanged a couple of lengthy letters on the subject, and I finally relented. I promised to update the FAQ to use more careful phrasing.

But itís a strange business, this use of "Asian." I still meet people in the Midwestern US who are unfamiliar with it. I've also exchanged letters with people from Asia, some living there, who know exactly what "Oriental" means but are only confused by "Asian." This is, I think, because it's not very descriptive. "Asian" would include people from China to Siberia, India to Mongolia, western Russia to Japan. It is about as descriptive as referring to someone as being of "North American" extraction. Iíll never forget the Chinese girl in Hong Kong I corresponded with who did not understand what the problem was with the word "oriental."

It's true the term "oriental" is imperfect, given the wide range of peoples it encompasses. Centuries ago, "oriental" described just about anything East of Europe, including the Middle East. But I donít think anyone has used "Oriental" to mean that for many generations, and to my ear "Oriental" is at least as descriptive and easy-to-understand as the designation "Latino" or "Hispanic." Those terms compactly describe people as diverse as Mexicans, Guatemalans, Argentineans, Chileans, and Puerto Ricans. People know exactly what this means and few get up in arms about it.

My thoughtful correspondent suggested that the word "oriental" conjures up images of "everything from dragon ladies to wizened Buddhist monks." I've honestly never been sure what exactly a Dragon Lady is, but I assume it's a sort of Western corruption of Eastern folklore, some sort of oriental witch. As it's an image of power and sensuality, I suppose it has some negative connotations, but (to me) no more than many images firmly associated with Western culture. Beyond that, I'm not sure why anyone would be bothered to be associated with Eastern religions, any more than I should be bothered to be associated with Catholic priests, even though I'm not Catholic.

It's true that "oriental" can evoke images of the Far East, in terms of architecture, clothing styles, and culture. Some of these may be exaggerated or stereotyped in some minds. But some are not. I have long been interested in the culture and history of the Orient, most especially China, Japan, and Okinawa (where members of my family spent many years). I spent a few years practicing Okinawan and Japanese martial arts, and I've enjoyed reading works by or about Gichin Funakoshi, Tatsuo Shimabuku, Sun Tzu, Lao Tzu, Miyamoto Musashi, and the hilarious Rumiko Takahashi. Masayuki Suoís Shall We Dance? was one of the best movies I saw in 1998.

It is certainly the case that stereotypes can result when people hear limited things about another culture. The Irish have their leprechauns, their boxers, and their whiskey, the Germans their Nazis and their engineers, the Italians their pasta and garlic and cheap grenades, the Russians their funny fur hats and leaping dances, the Dutch their wooden shoes. To which I find myself asking, "So what?" Foreigners frequently associate Americans with baseball hats, hot dogs, and gangster movies. Really now, I'm serious: so what?

If I go to visit Mongolia, should I feel offended if someone asks if I like Michael Jordan? Iím not a basketball fan, but should I actually be bothered by this sort of thing?

Gay friends have told me that "homosexual" is an offensive term. To top that off, they are also not to be referred to collectively as "gays." "Gay people" is the only acceptable plural form of "gay," the term "gays" is bigoted and insensitive. "Fag" and "Dyke" are also acceptable if they use it, but are regarded with suspicion if anyone else does. Iím afraid to ask whether or not I'm allowed to use "queer" in their presence.

A friend of mine who was born in Scotland assures me that the term "Scotch" is deeply offensive and that only "Scot" or "Scottish" is acceptable. "Scotch is a thing, Scottish is a person," he tells me sagely. I nod and accept this. He's a man of considerable intellect and admirable temperament, and Iíd feel awful if I were to offend him. Who am I to say what Scotsmen are to be called anyway? One day I may even ask him what he thinks of the term "Scot-Free," although I suppose I wonít like the answer (which may be why I havenít asked yet).

Ralph Reed and other Christian conservatives argue that the term "Religious Right" is bigoted. After all, itís usually used in the same sort of tones that people use when they say the words "Nazi Germany." It paints all orthodox and conservative religious people with one brush, and itís leveled at only one type of politically-active religious person. No one ranted about the dangers of the "Religious Left" when Martin Luther King was advocating socialist policies like guaranteed income and free housing, or referred to Latin American "liberation theologians" who were advocating Communism as "The Religious Left." Atheism was officially part of worldwide communism and was used to justify religious persecution in Communist countries, but if you refer to "Atheist Communism" you usually get sneered at. Anyway, if the ultimate test of whether or not you can use a term is how the people being described feel about it, doesnít that clinch it?

I can't say I strongly disagree with any of this. But it all seems like a trend Iím not comfortable with.

I long for the day when people will start working on changing perceptions instead of words. Although I rarely say so, I become irritated when out of nowhere someone tells me that what I've always thought is a perfectly good word (or just a silly word) is a demarcation for ignorance and bigotry. I know I'm not the only one who feels that way. In fact, I suspect that hypersensitivity to words does more harm than good to the cause of mutual understanding and tolerance.

It's probably a lost cause; Americans are obsessed with labels. And I can't say I've never cringed when hearing insensitive language. So if American "Orientals" now want to be called "Asian," and "homosexuals" want to be called "gay people" and so on and so forth, out of politeness I accede to their wishes.

But wouldn't it be more constructive to start changing people's perceptions of what a word means?

Would anyone really have a different view of the Irish if they suddenly decided to take offense at the term "Irish" and demanded to be called "Eires" or "Northern Gaelics" instead? Would the associations we have toward Germans today be altered if Americans of German descent suddenly decided to take offense at the term "German" and demanded to be called "Deutschelanders" instead?

Does anyone seriously believe that general perception of American black people has been altered in any positive way by their changing from the term "Colored" to "Negro" to "Black" to "Afro-American" to "People of Color" to "African American" back to "Black?"

Will people stop making jokes about beans and tortillas if Hispanics one day start insisting that they don't like the term "Hispanic" and now want to be called "Latino" exclusively? And how do the Italians feel about this "Latino" business anyway?

Does huffing over labels really do anything except make us feel superior when we forbid others to use them? Shouldnít changing hearts and minds about what a word means be our real goal?

There is an interesting precedent. Many young black people now wear "Nigga" like a badge, with pride. Some find this bizarre, but I think it's wise. When you take ownership of a negative word and force it to have positive connotations of pride and independence, you may be doing more good than any amount of huffing and puffing over what is, in the end, just a word.

(This article was first published on my old web site on 18 February 1999.)