I'm afraid I have used the term "oriental" to describe a person of approximately East Asian extraction, whose precise area of origin I haven't been able to discern from either their name or appearance. BUT I agree the racial origin of the people escaping the fire is irrelevant (unless there is an implication that there were insufficient fire notices in a language they could understand). Have I covered myself enough, or should I leave now in the sure and certain knowledge that i am a racist?
What really annoys me is the way "Asian" is used by the media and government to lump everyone from Japan to India in one large lazy category. I bet British people would be annoyed if they were lazily described as "European".
Completely irrelevant here, I think, unless they were actually illegal immigrants being exploited or overcrowded.
<<If our terminology falls short, even organisations such as the Commission for Racial Equality cannot get it quite right. Their 2004 report into ethnic minorities in football carries categories for white, black, Asian, and mixed race. A final column is titled 'Chinese & Other'. So where would you put Nourredine Naybet (Morocco) and Mido (Egypt), for example? Does 'Chinese & Other' include Koreans, Egyptians, Japanese, Iranians?>>
poppadom you said we wouldnt like it if we were classed as european but what about british as far as im concerned im scottish not british. but anyway they often describe the person in the paper as white male or back etc but not sure about oriental m not up to speed about whats "allowed" anymore