uring one of my early recording sessions at KUOP-FM, the radio station that broadcast my commentary for a number of years, I was informed that one of the listeners had called in to ask why I had used the word "Oriental" rather than the word "Asian" in a previous piece to refer to one of the indigenous peoples of the Orient.

Why, indeed.

First, the person to whom I referred is Chinese. Second, China is located in the Orient. So therefore, for the same reason that I would refer to someone from Arkansas as an Arkansan, and someone from Texas as a Texan, I referred to that person as an Oriental.

"But wait," I can almost hear the person who made the comment say, "China is also in Asia. Why didn’t you then refer to him as an Asian?"

Good question. And here’s a good answer.

While it’s true that the Orient is part of Asia, the whole of Asia includes India, Thailand, Burma, Laos, Mongolia, Sumatra, Borneo, the old USSR, Korea, Vietnam, Indonesia, New Guinea, the Philippine Islands, Israel, Jordan, Saudia Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Kuwait, Aden, Afghanistan, and a host of others.

So which is more precise — referring to someone from China as an Oriental or referring to him as an Asian?

But I’ll tell you what. I’m easy to get along with. So I’ll agree to refer to all Chinese and Japanese as "Asians" if the one who made that comment agrees to refer to all the people from Asia as Asians — you know, like Golda Meir, Ferdinand Marcos, the Ayatollah Khomeini, Nikita Khrushchev, Mahatma Ghandi, Sukarno, King Faisal . . . . Weeeell, you get the idea.

Deal?

Think about it.