Was the term already obsolete at the time of writing, as to deserve analysis beyond considering natural in context?
E.g. one would probably not consider unusual the term "indian" for native Americans in the same period, I believe.
the Diocese of the East, aka
the Diocese of Oriens, aka
Dioecesis Orientis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diocese_of_the_East ;
by the time of Kipling and later Orwell during peak British Empire it referred to everything East of the then European "Western World" .. and so included India, Burma, et al.
It later contracted somewhat to mainly be used for South East Aisa (excluding India | Pakistan) and more recently been dropped to the floor and is out of favour (it was a ridiculously broad brush).
I merely went halfway to frame out where it came from, how it has been used in history, and dodged the breakdown of how it became increasingly offensive post WWII.
Orientals can be very provoking
> So, why didn’t he omit the racist quip about “Orientals”?
This is specifically in reference to a quote from Orwell at the top of the article:
> > coolies I had hit with my fist in moments of rage (nearly everyone does these things in the East, at any rate occasionally: Orientals can be very provoking)
The author of this article is primarily objecting not to the use of the word "Orientals" but to the defense that it's ok to beat them because everyone does it and they are annoying.
I think what the author is asking is: if he has had such a change of heart, why not simply omit this excuse? Why still provide justification that it is ok for a white person to beat a colonial subject because their cultural norms are different and annoying to the white person?
This leap of conclusion gave it away. I'd be happy to be wrong but honestly the racist intent feels obvious to me.