But do keep in mind that the term "colored" was once OK (witness NAACP). But then that was bad, and you had to say "black". But then that was bad, and you had to say "African American". They keep changing the rules so that what you say is wrong, whatever it is you say.
Usage Note: Asian is now strongly preferred in place of Oriental for persons native to Asia or descended from an Asian people. The usual objection to OrientalSource: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.meaning eastern
is that it identifies Asian countries and peoples in terms of their location relative to Europe. However, this objection is not generally made of other Eurocentric terms such as Near and Middle Eastern. The real problem with Oriental is more likely its connotations stemming from an earlier era when Europeans viewed the regions east of the Mediterranean as exotic lands full of romance and intrigue, the home of despotic empires and inscrutable customs. At the least these associations can give Oriental a dated feel, and as a noun in contemporary contexts (as in the first Oriental to be elected from the district) it is now widely taken to be offensive. However, Oriental should not be thought of as an ethnic slur to be avoided in all situations. As with Asiatic, its use other than as an ethnonym, in phrases such as Oriental cuisine or Oriental medicine, is not usually considered objectionable.
So let me understand this. It's ok to refer to someone as "African American" , referring to the continent of Africa, (even if they originate from the West Indies), but it's not ok to refer to the continent of Asia?
Is it still ok to say "European?" And I wonder if Canadians and South Americans (is it ok to call them South Americans??) object to the term something-American (as in Italian-American). After all, they are Americans too, in a way.