Talk:Chinaman (term)/Archive 1

message: User Empiredragon was responsible for putting profanity in this article and messing up the title. How do I put the title back on it from before, which is 'chinaman'? Thanks.
SEG88 00:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: When was this term first used?
:It's not documented so far as I know; it was the generic term for a Chinese person by the early 1800s, and the word "Chinese" was more of an adjective to refer to objects and state and culture etc.  It may have originated in sailor pidgin, or a derivation of Chinese-English pidgin's variation on "Chinese", i.e. "Chinee".  So as with Frenchman, Dutchman etc. there is a natural form in English for the "Chinese-man", which with the pidgin form becomes Chinee-man, and so contracted to "chinaman".  It remains the word - for both people and in the adjectival sense - in many Northwest Plateau and Coastal languages, from Ktunaxa to Tshilhqot'in, but does not have a derogatory sense (as indeed in English for a long time, and still so in some areas, i.e. not derogatory).  
:I used to think an alternative origin might be in the Chinook Jargon; where the country/concept+man formation is common (Boston man, King George man, Dutchman; nb if man+{concept} it means the male of something.); but the term was in use in California during its gold rush, and appears to have originated by usage in maritime English, which was spread to the American West and British Columbia via ships' crews; it might be certainly at that time (1780s-1790s) that it first entered the native languages of the North American Coast; but I can't speak for its date of provenance on the Atlantic Seaboard or in England; I would image it was pre-extant when Australia was settled, as it's very old.  I have heard of one place in northern BC named for a (wait for it) "John Chinaman", who supposedly was an Englishman whose family had made their fortune in the China trade, or dealing china anyway, or making it or something; political correctness has renamed a lake named after him as Chinese Lake, because of the modern sensitivities towards the term.  
:Contrary to popular allegation it was NOT "invented by whites to degrade Chinese people with", as someone posting on UseNet railed long ago; it appears either to have been derived from English as spoken by Chinese people and/or some kind of hybrid form among peoples of the North American Pacific Coast (where true enough it may have only been borrowed from English).  So that's my two bits; someone may take offence but there's a difference between how a word originates and what it comes to mean, or can become to be used for, over time.  In my experience it can be and is used both ways; in older frontier or native areas it's used quite casually, without overtones of how it's taken elsewhere, and not meant derisively (unles said a certain way, as with any ethnic tag).  Sorry I can't document this but it's just what I've picked up; I don't know what the OED Online says about its provenance; might be interesting.Skookum1 06:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of term 

message: HongQiGong - regarding your edit of today: Good point, but 'china-man' can also be derived from either Hua ren or Tang ren. I would include this information along with reverting to the prior entry. Twalls 21:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any supporting evidence to say that "Chinaman" derived from 華人 or 唐人?  If none can be found, we should not invent this information for the article.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Literal translation of China-Man?

message: What's with that Hong?  Elder Statesman's contribution of the Ravick book has been deleted each time it's placed here, most lately deleted by you.  Weasel words, weasel edits - what's next?Skookum1 16:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume you're talking about Diane Ravitch as a reference.  That was an accident and I've re-inserted it.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe you, as I just looked back over that edit and others like it, where Ravich was taken out before; there were clear syntactical changes in the surrounding sentence showing you were paying attention to what you were doing.  I think you only put it back in and claimed "accident" because you got caught: I'm not prepared - not with YOU, at any rate, to "Accept Good Faith", because I don't think you have any yourself (being as you never show any to anyone else).  To sum up, Hong: this latest round of nonsense from you prompts me to render a personal judgement on you: you're dishonest and also a hypocrite about what you think others should abide by when you feel no compunction to observe the very same themselves.  Being unable to be self-critical is one thing, but I don't think it's just vanity on your part; I think you're inherently dishonest.  That's not an attack, it's an observation, backed up by your various dodges and inconsitences here and elsewhere.  Open thing that leads me to adjudge you that is that because, in my culture, it is widely recognized that those that feel the need to lecture and hector others are generally those who should be listening to their own sermons.  But I don't think it's self-deception with you; I think you're deliberately dishonest.Skookum1 16:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please WP:Assume good faith.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hiding behind WP:This and WP:That is SO typical of you, Hong.  Why don't you try WP:Assume good faith on yourself sometime, as you should have done on this page, instead of deleting content and then defending your deletions with cites that don't even support what you say; even though clear demonstrations of "sometimes" are the other entries on the disambig page (still haven't checked that spectacles thing, yet, though, have you?).  WP Good Faith?  Geez, you're a terrible hypocrite, HQG, you know that?  Assume Good Faith?  When you have you ever done that yourself?Skookum1 17:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who cares? It's back in there now. I think the current edit is as fair as possible. ElderStatesman 14:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: None of the sources actually say that "some people" consider it offensive.  I've editted it to make it more specific.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: HQG deleting citations