I’ve long wondered about this and speculated that it must be, but I really have no solid evidence one way or the other. Does anybody know the history behind this name?
Rather quizzical, isn’t it, that there could also be derogatory terms and connotations to attach to the name of this product, and that in fact this terminology has its origins in archaic Dutch rather than English at all? At any rate, my presumption that it had to have some linkage to old racist ideals was the notion that this being a household product having been around nearly for a century, it could very well have been named at a time when this wouldn’t have offended Americans. After all, blackface was being done at that time and didn’t offend white America, in fact it amused them. So there is basis for my assumptions, even if they’re wrong.
The don’t have the same origin at all. The derogatory term “spic” is derived from the word “hispanic” and has no relation whatsoever to the term “spic and span”. It’s just an unfortunate coincidence that the one term contains the other
Ya know, the phrase “spic and span” does have an independent existence outside of the product name. My grandmother used it the time, for example.
Yes, I know. My link explains that, in fact.
Q.E.D. Wrote:
“The don’t have the same origin at all. The derogatory term “spic” is derived from the word “hispanic” and has no relation whatsoever to the term “spic and span”. It’s just an unfortunate coincidence that the one term contains the other”
Ummm, did you read my post at all? I was in no way, shape or form insinuating that there was a correlation between the product name and the racist terminology. Don’t be so presumptuous, Q.E.D. In fact, I was commenting on the coincidence and nothing more. I posted initially because I didn’t know the origin, and was uncertain if it did have a racist history. I read your original reply, and commented on how, ‘wow, this is a rather nifty bit of trivia, and wow, what a sad coincidence’, and somehow from that you infer that I’m either being ignorant to fact, racist myself, or bullheaded and presumptuous? Please, don’t be insulting, I’m not being such–and I know this term as I do have relations to the Hispanic community (who by the way do not like the term “Hispanic” much, either. Chicano is really the word that should be used to reference Mexicans, and Latino to reference Central and South Americans in general). Anyhow, thanks for the link. It’s interesting to see this terms history.
Color me “whooshed” but it seemed to me that that was *exactly * the purpose of your OP.
In fact, although you say
the title of OP is"Are the origins of the cleaning product name, “Spic & Span” of a racist nature?"…“I’ve long wondered about this and speculated that it must be”.
Now that seems to contradict the phrase in the quotes above, no??
This, too, seemed to imply you thought there was still a connection between the product name and the derogatory term. I was merely clarifying the point.
QED wrote:
"…The derogatory term “spic” is derived from the word “hispanic…”
I sincerely doubt this. My theory – supported by at least one source I consulted – is that the insulting use of “Spic” evolved from the mocking parrotting of the overheard phrase, “I no spic [speak] English.”
Happy to be proved wrong, though.
Duke, Q.E.D.: learn some English. To insinuate is to suggest a thing (a presumptuous manner of being, don’t y’all think?), not to speculate fellahs. To speculate, on the other hand is to be curious or doubtful of a thing, to wonder about it, as I did for a time. And you got it, I wondered for a long while about this conundrum, but didn’t ask nor inquire elsewhere heretofore because it is trivia, and I’ve usually got better things to do with my time. Having recently discovered this marvelous forum, I can be doing my important chores online AND waste time with trivia and still get shit done. Hence, speculating (what I did do)–not insinuating (what I did not do)–openly to the forum.
And Q.E.D., if it seems to imply jack sprat to you, you’re being rather knee-jerk and this is a fairly unattractive quality. Don’t read anything into what I write than what I write. A spade is a spade, guys. And if you feel like splitting hairs and being semantical, you’ve found your match.
You cannot be both doubtful and use a definitive term like “must be” at the same. A simple clarification is all that is needed here, hazy. No need to fly off the handle.
Guh??? Geeze, don’t get your panties in a bunch. You can think what you want, but I was only answering your question, and clarifying what I perceived as a misunderstanding on your part.
Ummm… Why don’t you guys break it up for a sec, and comment on my previous post instead?
Fine by me. I never wanted this verbal sparring in the first place.
Re your post, I’ve also heard the probably apocryphal story that it came from police reports where race was identified by “SPanish/Italian Caucasian” abbreviated SP.I.C. I’m sure that’s complete rot. Some cites I’ve found support your theory and some support mine. I’m not sure there is a definitive answer to this.
Thing is, QED, – based only on my own personal observation, I’ll admit – “hispanic” has only become commonly used in the past couple of decades. “Spic” has been used on the streets (at least here in NYC) long, long before that.
Even if “hispanic” was used earlier than I noticed it, it was certainly not used as street venacular. Maybe it was common among social scientists or pols, but not by blue-collar joes who woudn’t think twice calling someone a spic.
Another thing, how do you get “spic” from “hispanic” anyway? Your mouth has to do a lot of difficult contortions to bury that “n.”
Sorry, I still don’t buy it.
I would have thought it was from “Hispanic”, but FWIWDictionary dot com claims it’s a variation of the obsolete “spig”, short for “spiggoty”, perhaps from “No spiggoty English”.
A preliminary answer.
]
The term spiggoty or spiggotie shows up in American English around 1910-14, just after the Panama Canal was built. The assumption that is currently accepted by most etymologist is that “spic” is a shortening of the term.
I’m doing more on it right now. I’ll try to post later.
By the way, “spick and span” was a common term in the US in the mid-1800’s, well before the cleaning product.
Aye, aye aye and oy vey! Okay, I see what you’re saying stuyguy. This is clearly one of those cases of misinterpretation. See, I’m a fairly exaggerative fellow, and I tend to be both dramatic in speech and in my writing. Now, to say “you cannot be both doubtful and use a definitive term like “must be” at the same” is simply inaccurate. One may take an objective stance on a query, while maintaining a hunch, but still doubt this hunch and speculate other possibilities. If I didn’t doubt it, I would’ve gone on to believe this notion for years to come. Yes, I did have a strong predilection that my hunch was correct, but I didn’t go so far as to assume it was–again, you can even be a skeptic of the things you most strongly believe, like some religious folks I’ve known. That’s why I asked the more well-informed members in here about it, as Q.E.D. is in spite of how smug it appeared you were being with me. Seriously to all involved, splitting hairs is not really fun, cut it out. I asked a question, and if the nomenclature, grammar, word choices, etc. I used were confusing: sorry, that’s just the way I write, speak and think. But honestly, my feathers are the least ruffled, I just REALLY want to maintain clarity that I’m not coming in here to split hairs, start or be in fights, be poked at, be accused of evil sheit like being a biggot, or have nerd wars over semantics–that stuff isn’t fun to me. It’s just a question guys, and I asked it, therefore I obviously didn’t know the answer until post-tense. I’m not flying off the handle, I’m just exemplifying the fact that my word choice is one accurate way of stating what I did, and instead of assuming reader’s assuming what my position is regarding a thing, simply ask me for clarification, don’t interject your opinions. This message board is about facts, not opinions. This is what tons of journalists get buckets of hate mail concerning. Readers don’t understand the journalists views, use of the language, etc. and attack them either snidely or directly. I have no hard feelings, but come on, nobody has to be a smarty pants.
Aye, aye aye and oy vey! Okay, I see what you’re saying stuyguy. This is clearly one of those cases of misinterpretation. See, I’m a fairly exaggerative fellow, and I tend to be both dramatic in speech and in my writing. Now, to say “you cannot be both doubtful and use a definitive term like “must be” at the same” is simply inaccurate. One may take an objective stance on a query, while maintaining a hunch, but still doubt this hunch and speculate other possibilities. If I didn’t doubt it, I would’ve gone on to believe this notion for years to come. Yes, I did have a strong predilection that my hunch was correct, but I didn’t go so far as to assume it was–again, you can even be a skeptic of the things you most strongly believe, like some religious folks I’ve known. That’s why I asked the more well-informed members in here about it, as Q.E.D. is in spite of how smug it appeared you were being with me. Seriously to all involved, splitting hairs is not really fun, cut it out. I asked a question, and if the nomenclature, grammar, word choices, etc. I used were confusing: sorry, that’s just the way I write, speak and think. But honestly, my feathers are the least ruffled, I just REALLY want to maintain clarity that I’m not coming in here to split hairs, start or be in fights, be poked at, be accused of evil sheit like being a biggot, or have nerd wars over semantics–that stuff isn’t fun to me. It’s just a question guys, and I asked it, therefore I obviously didn’t know the answer until post-tense. I’m not flying off the handle, I’m just exemplifying the fact that my word choice is one accurate way of stating what I stated, and instead of reader’s assuming what my position is regarding a thing, simply ask me for clarification, don’t interject your opinions. This message board is about facts, not opinions. This is what tons of journalists get buckets of hate mail concerning. Readers don’t understand the journalists views, use of the language, etc. and attack them either snidely or directly. I have no hard feelings, but come on, nobody has to be a smarty pants.