Asian = Oriental, etc.

[Laurence Horn]

>"Mongoloid":
>
>So what is the term for this "type"? In scientific writing, "Mongoloid" is
>still used (there is no confusion with trisomy 13 or Down's syndrome here
>because this is never referred to as "Mongoloid" in a scientific context).
>In forensics, a hair found at a crime scene might very well be reliably
>classified as "Mongoloid" by microscopic examination -- but never as
>"Japanese" or "Navajo". A 10,000-year-old-skull found in central Asia is
>trivially Asian, but its dentition might or might not be typically
>Mongoloid, and the distinction might be of anthropological interest.
>[Cavalli-Sforza's gene-frequency studies distinguish northern and southern
>Mongoloid "clusters" (one might say "races"): I'm not sure whether the
>southern one should be included in these contexts.]
>
Well, the AHD4's authorities saw fit to declare that "Mongoloid" is
no longer used as a racial or typological classification in
scientific writing.  Maybe it depends on your local scientist.  (I
agree that "Asian" is not a substitute, and perhaps the point is that
those scientists who abjure "Mongoloid" avoid all such
classifications, for better or worse.)

larry