Actually, the term “Yankee” was originally a derogatory term the Brits had for the Americans during the US Revolutionary War. It was subsequently used by Southerners to refer to Northerners during the American Civil War and through Reconstruction, and thus the modern disdain many Southerners have for the term “Yankee”. “Yanks” is a UK abbreviation for “Yankees” but applied to all of us Revolutionaries.
So would I. Unfortunately, the word has taken on a derogatory connotation for many people due to historical usage of one geographic area. Sucks, but there it is.
This is where cultural insensitivity combines with pragmatism and racial confusion. Lumping Southern Asians as a collective “race” is a natural inclination but fraught with problems. Pakistanis are likely to get irritated if you refer to them as being “Indian”, and Indians (i.e. folks from India) are likely to get ticked if you imply they are Pakistanis. Quite apart from any white supremacist baggage associated with a particular term. Many of us insulated Americans aren’t as familiar with the issues of Britain’s Asian history, as it is less relevant to us than things like, oh, the American Civil War. Thus, “Partition” is gibberish. Knowing there is a distinction between Pakistanis and Indians is a stretch.
As mentioned, “coolie” is a historical term. Not that I’m making a list of modern slurs to use.
[deleted]
Many Americans just aren’t familiar with that history.
Well, drunken racists could be using the word “Pakistani” or “Indian” as well. They aren’t too concerned with being accurate or appropriate. They are more likely to use terms that convey an inherent sense of disrespect - like picking on skin color, for instance. I just don’t think drunken racists are the standard by which we should decide what words are appropriate to use.
I think having a person who has been a victim of that usage complaining about the term is sufficient to consider the appropriateness of the usage. I wouldn’t equate that with being “holier than thou” or “pretending to be butthurt”.
Wait, you’re encouraging an Indian to start an argument with a Pakistani? Are you trying to start a war?
I think typically it refers to the British Army. I’ll have to defer to the superior knowledge of one of our NI posters though. I had always assumed it was only usually used in that context.
My observation has been that pretty much only skin colour is used to make the distinction (or, in this case, not make a distinction) by certain sections of society.
To continue earlier discussion, then - while the word “Paki” may well share four letters with the nation of “Pakistan”, may well be used within the nation of Pakistan, its primary use in my experience has been solely to refer to a skin colour, and the word has been co-opted by a lot of people to mean just that.
Your use of “Southeastern Asia” in this way confuses me. I’m not sure whom you’re talking about.
Just to be clear, these are how the terms are commonly used in the United States:
Southeast Asia: The region bounded by, but excluding, Australia, India, and China. So, that would include Burma, Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, the Philippines, Malaysia, and Indonesia.
South Asia: The Indian Subcontinent, that is, Pakistan, India, Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka.
Dr. Deth’s experience and knowledge of the world differ from mine.
“Paki” is not a derogatory term in the US – in fact, it’s just never used. It is a derogatory term in England, always.
“Jap” is a derogatory term in the US (although it seems to be losing just a bit of its sting within certain younger circles lately.) It is not so derogatory in Australia, I’m told.
What if I responded with “I tried that, but he gentiled me back up.” Clearly I’m using ‘gentile’ in an pejorative context, but perhaps I’m the first person to do so in such a manner (for the sake of argument, lets say I am). Would that be a warning? Or does it have to have a pre-existing history of pejorative use?
Without trying to speak for the Mods, let me just say that, IMHO, there is a difference when the new use of an old word is in reference to a group which has a long and deep history of being discriminated against (or worse).
To pretend otherwise is to engage in false equivalencies.
Thus, if you attempt to fashion derogatory connotation against a traditionally empowered group, it will deserve less of a rebuke than if you attempt to fashion a derogatory connotation against a traditionally oppressed group.
It’s a bigoted stereotype, yes, and I would also mod-note or warn you for that.
It’d be hard to treat that very seriously since you’re basically making up the word. But I’d tell you to stop so the thread doesn’t turn into a debate over the meaning and offensiveness of “Jewed him down.”
samclem said that he would issue a moderator note, not an official warning. That’s probably what I would do in the case of “jewed.” And I’d probably also give a mod note for the “gentiled” remark as well, especially if it was in response to “jewed.” Whatever the history of the term, using it in that context would be pretty jerkish and intended to escalate hostilities. If either came from a poster with a history of bigoted remarks, they might elicit a warning.
Look, just don’t try to game the system by screwing around. People are constantly trying to evade the rules by playing around with the letter of the law while violating the spirit. We’re not going to spell out every possible way in which someone can insult someone else, because it’s just not possible.
Just treat other posters with respect and you won’t have problems. Trying find a way to ding them while technically avoiding a warning is not a good strategy.
I concur (although out here we see it once in a great while, but that’s mainly on a Pakistani owned business or club.). But it’s also not a slur outside of GB, such as in Pakistan, etc. In other words, it is only commonly used as a slur on one small island.
“Jap” can be used as a slur in the USA, depending* heavily *on context.
I overstated my case, but “Brit” is certainly a slur on Ireland- yet another small island.
Thus, “Brit” is a slur every bit as much as “Paki” is- both are mostly used as a slur only on one small island.
As always, context matters. I’d probably give a mod note regardless, but if I thought they were really not saying anything negative about Japanese people I wouldn’t give a warning.
I don’t think it’s productive to try to come up with every possible variation of potentially offensive comments. As with anything else, how a remark like that is going to be moderated will depend on context. If that particular remark was posted by someone who was merely ignorant that “jap” was potentially offensive, I would most likely just issue a mod note to tell them to refrain in the future. If it were posted by someone with a history of bigoted remarks, who was clearly aware of the meaning, it could get a warning.
FWIW, if it’s clear from context that Jap is not being used as a slur, I think it shouldn’t even be mod noted. You perpetuate the negative connotation. That’s Jap, and American board, American slur, I don’t have much standing to discuss it. With Paki, I think I do have some, although obviously much less than Pakistanis. I think you actively propagate the negative connotation by calling out instances where Paki isn’t being used negatively. I’d request the mods to discuss this.
I should clarify that in situations like that I would probably not ding the person for using offensive word- I’d say they should avoid the word in the future because there’s a good chance it would offend someone else.
I think the history of “Jap” in the U.S. (tied to World War II, Pearl Harbor, and the internment of Japanese-Americans) probably won’t go away any time soon.
I think a more appropriate comparison to the phrase “I Jewed him down” would be “I got gyped.”
Now, the phrases both mean similar things and are based on ethnic stereotypes but I think it’s almost 100% certain that you would not get mod noted for the second phrase because it’s a far more commonly used phrased and most of the people who use the phrase are unaware of it’s origins nor do they agree with the anti-gypsy sentiments expressed within it.
I find it extremely difficult to believe that anyone who uses the phrase “Jewed him down” is unaware of it’s origins much less that they don’t agree with the sentiments expressed in it.
Similarly, had someone discussing the movie The Sum of All Fears referred to Morgan Freeman’s character, the CIA Director, as “the chief spook” and when people protested he’d claimed that he was using term because it was a common nickname for spies in both the US, the UK and other countries(In fact a few years ago there was a UK TV series about MI-5 called Spooks) not because of Morgan Freeman’s race, frankly I wouldn’t believe him and would think that he was deliberately using the term to rile people up because most people associate the term with a racial slur for blacks and I would find it preposterous that he didn’t realize how people would react to seeing him refer to a black person that way. In fact, when the aforementioned UK series was released in the US it was retitled MI-5.
