Path: world!uunet!usc!rpi!bu.edu!csa!sakai
   From: sakai@csa.bu.edu (Tsutomu Sakai)
   Newsgroups: soc.culture.japan
   Date: 23 Nov 92 07:40:39 GMT
   References: <MS-C.722493658.1103527590.mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU>
   Sender: news@bu.edu
   Organization: Computer Science Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA
   Lines: 52

   In article <MS-C.722493658.1103527590.mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU> mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU (Mark Crispin) writes:
   >Sakimura-san -
   >
   >     Do you know the word ``Jap'' or the word ``Nip''?  Both words are
   >contractions meaning ``Japanese person''.  However, both words are ``warui
   >kotoba'' in English.

	So, that's why many English-speaking people think that the purpose for
   contracting a word is to add some offensive meanings?  You are judging
   Japanese (language) on the basis of another language, aren't you?
	I failed to see your point.  You say those words are "warui kotoba" in
   ENGLISH.  Fine.  Does that mean "gaijin" is "warui kotoba" in JAPANESE?
   Not necessarily, even though these words are all contractions.

   >     ``Japs'' and ``Nips'' are sneaky.  They are dishonest.  They are tricky.
   >They are liars.  They commit ``harry-carry'' (hara-kiri) if you defeat them.
   >In spite of their sneakiness and cleverness, they are rather stupid.
   >
   >     Pretty offensive, eh?  That is why Nikkeijin in North America hate those
   >words.  But it works in another way.

	What is offensive is the "image" attached to the words.  "Sneaky",
   "dishonest", "tricky" ... are offensive words in some context, I agree.  If
   the speaker thinks Japanese are such and such, what is offensive is the way
   he/she thinks, not the words by themselves.  The word "Japanese" could mean
   the same thing, if the speaker had a stereotypical image of the Japanese
   characteristics described above.

   >     ``Gaijin'' are big, noisy, and stupid.  They all have AIDS.  All they
   >think about is sex with rather plain-looking Japanese women.  They are lazy.
   >They are dirty and smell bad.  They walk on tatami in their shoes and even lay
   >their wet clothes to dry on the tatami.

	Is that your opinion, or the Japanese people's?  If it's the latter,
   how did you know?  I don't think most Japanese can agree on all of the
   Japanese-image of gaijin you stated above.  Some people do on some of them,
   though.   But then, how come it's not OK for the Japanese to generalize the
   image of "gaijin", while it's OK for you to generalize how the Japanese
   people think about gaijin?  (What I mean is they are both not OK, in case
   it's not clear from what I said).
       It's like someone's saying "Japanese are racist", while fighting against
   racism.  The statement is itself racist, at least it seems to me.  Sorry if
   this is a bad example.

   >     We find that pretty offensive, which is why we hate to be called
   >``gaijin''.

	What would you like to be called, then?  Choose any Japanese word you
   think most appropriate for referring to non-Japanese.  I think I can
   demonstrate you that the word you choose can be used as a swearword, in
   some circumstances.  Does that mean the word is inherently offensive?  Not!
   Or, are you saying that calling non-Japanese "non-Japanese" is offensive?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
How about referring to them by their country of national origin? In my case I  would not mind being called "Amerikajin" or even "Beikokujin." Similarly, I don't think other nationalities would have a problem with "Doitsujin" "Huransujin" and so on. It is certainly preferable to a word meaning, in essence, "foreigners."

RB
-- 
===============================================================================
  "The truth is cruel, but it can be loved, and it makes free those who have
  loved it." -- George Santayana                 Reply to: rhb@world.std.com
===============================================================================
Newsgroups: soc.culture.japan