Would it be disrespectful to refer to a Native American who spontaneously catches fire as an Internal Combustion Injun?
So how about instead of using the term “injun” we just refer to them as “native merkins”? And no, I’m not being a smartass. It seems to be a common practice on these boards to refer to citizens of the USA as merkins. In fact it has even been used by Colibri, the one whose warning was the impetus for this very thread. Personally I have no problem with it but if injun is so warning worthy why not merkin?
BTW- the dictionary definition of merkin might just be enough to make some people scream with indignation. Go ahead. Look it up.:eek:
Colibri’s use of a term to poke fun at the US is not even in the same ballpark as making fun of a minority group to which one does not belong. *" 'Merkin" *is more of a jab at southern Republicans (like George W) than a slur against America.
Also, the forum in which the term is used makes a difference. GQ is for factual answers, and political/racial jabs aren’t allowed. But in GD, some folks engage in race-baiting on a consistent basis. And all bets are off in the Pit, of course.
Even in the Pit hate speech is verboten.
What if—and I’m just thinking out loud here—we had a “Cesspool of Hate” forum?
Or would that divert too much traffic from ATMB?
Race-baiting is allowed without the attendant hate speech outside of GQ. In GQ, race-baiting is not allowed in any form.
Interesting link.
Tangentially related –
When my mother worked for an education organization’s journal, the publisher preferred the term “Amerind” to “Native American” or “Indian.” So much so that he’d even demand that articles by native writers be changed to use the term “Amerind,” even when the authors were referring to themselves.
I saw some letters-to-the-editor from self-identified Indians, both authors and general readers. Their response ranged from anger at his meddling to amused contempt, but none of the letters I saw indicated a preference for Amerind. Yet the officious publisher continued to insist to his editors that “Amerind” be used.
Honest Injun?
Agreed.
I don’t recall ever having used the term myself, and a search shows that the only post of mine that includes it was where I was quoting another poster. I believe you must be thinking of someone else.
In any case, “merkin” is more jocular than anything else, and is not remotely in the class of offensiveness as “injun.”
It’s dandy that Native Americans have worked it out for themselves, but as an Indian American, I wish they had worked it out such a way that “Indian” didn’t apply to both us and them.
(As an aside, my Asian Indian American circle uses “Injun” to refer to our own kind. It has endured better than “Macaca.”)
Do you know what a merkin actually is?
Of course. Memorably referenced in the 1969 movie Can Heironymus Merkin Ever Forget Mercy Humppe and Find True Happiness?
But the word is used as an abbreviation for Americans without necessarily being a derogatory reference to the original meaning, as inthis post,which is the one I mentioned quoting above.
Per the great reference Urban Dictionary it is a pubic hair wig. Apparently mercury was used to treat STD’s, which would cause pubic hair loss, hence a merkin was used as a wig to cover the now bare, um, nether region.
What’s the current thinking on “redskin”? Outside of Washington, I mean.
“Context, context, context.”
If a potato, it’s OK.
Washington football player–still OK, but contentious.
If you applied it to a current poster on the SDMB with which you have a problem, then probably not OK.
I just pray I don’t find myself accusing anyone of acting niggardly.
Blame Columbus!
Per the even greater reference, Peter Bowler’s The Completely Superior Person’s Book of Words:
another definition of merkin: A man a lesbian goes out with socially to conceal her true orientation. (IOW a male “beard”)