From: YOUNG@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (Charles Young)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.hongkong
Subject: Re: For those of you that HATE japaneses
Date: 26 Aug 92 20:29:35 GMT
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

In article <17g9mlINNhsi@grapevine.EBay.Sun.COM>, martinb@uk.sun.com (Martin
Baines - Sun UK - SE Manager Cambridge) says:
>
>In article 4I4@world.std.com, cmr@world.std.com (Charles M Richmond) writes:
>>dht@cs.mu.OZ.AU (Joyous Dave baby) writes:
>>
>>>ntetsuya@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Nishimura) writes:
>>>I don't understand why it's considered offensive to call Japanese "Japs".
>>>When I talk to my fellow Australian friends, they are happy to use *that
>>>term*.  It wasn't until reading the net that I found out people get offended
>>>by it.
>>
>>>Now why is it offensive?
>>
>>
>>....because it was historically (at least recent history) used in a
>>purposefully offensive fashion, just as "chink" , "spic" , "hun",
>>"frog" , etc ...... The Brits and the Yanks (I can claim to be both)
>>are lucky in that they assigned their own nicknames in a preemptive
>>strike, of sorts.  Of course if the American Revolution had been lost
>>by the colonists, then "yank" would probably also be a term of approbation.
>
>The dreaded North American idea of Politically Correct
>double think strikes again!
>
>I am English (but born in Hong Kong, which is why I read this thread),
>did any Americans consult me before refering to me as a Limey? No.
>
>Did any Australian consult me before refering to me as a Pom? No.
>
>Did any Chinese consult me before refering to me as a Gwilo (sp?)? No.
>
>Do I object to these terms? No.
>
>Does the fact Americans/Australians/Chinese use these terms make
>them automatically racist? No.
>
>What matters is peoples' attitudes and behaviour, the language
>they choose to use is (as often as not) just a reflection
>of their cultural baggage, not necessarily deep routed
>prejudice.
>
>Martin
>
>---
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>"You might say that, but I couldn't possibly comment"
>
>Martin Baines, Sales Support Manager,
>Sun Microsystems Ltd, 306 Science Park, Cambridge, CB4 4WG, UK
>Phone: +44 223 420421                 Fax: +44 223 420257
>JANET:     Martin.Baines@uk.co.sun    Other UK:  Martin.Baines@sun.co.uk
>Internet:  Martin.Baines@UK.sun.com
>X.400:     g=martin s=baines prmd=sunir admd=mci c=us


Martin, you are so right that it's attitude that counts. However, I have
to disagree that language does not reflect prejudice.

I have never seen an American who refers to blacks as "niggers" that is
not prejudiced against blacks. I have never been called a "chink" by
people who do not have a consistently negative attitude towards all
(well, most) things Chinese. When terms are generally perceived to be
and regarded as unacceptable, its use often reflects deep seated
prejudice. On the other hand, terms which are becoming recently
politically incorrect do not so often carry the same baggage.

I should also note that some words become less prejudicial with time.
An example is "Gwilo". It certainly started out as a derogatory
phrase. Over the years, it has become synonymous with simply foreigner,
its literal meaning not withstanding. I have heard "Gwilo" used by
many many people. When there is derogatory intent, people felt compelled
to use other words or phrases to make it plain.

By the way, I am not arguing that choice of words _necessarily_ implies
prejudice, just that there are some obvious cases where it does.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.hongkong