Ditto this. I’m from Upstate New York, and to me, Yankee means a New Englander, or someone whose family has been here for generations, of British or Dutch descent. I don’t think of the term as referring to me, since I’m of a different ethnicity, and also one that came to the US long after the Civil War. As someone else said, “Yank” sounds like it’s out of a WWII movie.
Canuck doesn’t seem that offensive but I was working in Florida once with this French Canadian guy and he and another dude got into an argument and said dude called him a fucking frog and it broke out into an all out melee.
In Ireland, “yank” (poncán) can refer to an Irish person who had emigrated to America and later returned to Ireland (a “returned yank”). There used to be a whole set of cultural stereotypes about the returned yank. I think it’s similar to “indios” in Spain.
In RI, we call the rural types “Swamp Yankees”. I have never heard that term used by folks outside New England, and I’m not sure if I’ve ever heard it outside RI and southern Mass. If you’ve never driven around RI, you might be surprised how much swamp land there is.
The worst thing I can say about the term Canuck in a work email (in my opinion) is that it’s kind of like referring to your company’s offices in Frisco, Gotham or the Windy City.
I’m not overly fond of it. It’s more silly than insulting, I suppose.
So Scot and Brit are fine, but Jap and Paki are not. No wonder why people get pissed at political correctness when there are such arbitrary and senseless rules.
All words are arbitrary, if we that them as mere sounds or mere syllables. If being arbitrary removed the insult, then no word would be insulting. But the thing is, we attach meaning and context to words, which determines whether they are insulting or not.
This. Canuck is a derogatory term for French Canadians, that used to have some currency in the United States, especially in New England where many francophones moved to in the 19th century. I don’t know if it was very much used in Canada itself to refer to French Canadians, but it’s not impossible.
Now it seems to be used as a (non-derogatory) way for (English) Canadians to refer to themselves. There is something to be said about the tendency of English Canadian culture to appropriate French Canadian symbols.
Just a quick add. I just looked it up in the OED and it says “In U.S. usage, gen. derogatory.” So there you go.
Emphasis added. When I was living in New England, never. Having moved away, I often use the term when I’m with people originally from the South. Generally I say “I’m a damn Yankee”, just to make it especially clear. 
Meh. YMMV, of course, but calling someone here in Georgia a “Yankee” would probably get you nothing more than a 
.
I have heard “Yankee” used derogatorily, usually on the lines of “Damn Yankee drivers, comin’ down here and messin’ up our roads! Don’t they know we have more 'n enough native-born idiots behind the wheel?” It’s a pretty mild slur - “liberal” is much more offensive, outside Atlanta. But yes, it does mean “person from the Northeast or Midwest”.
It doesn’t really need any “meaning and context” beyond “this is intended to be insulting”. Any word which is commonly use as a pejorative, even if there’s no pejorative meaning besides “hey, I’m mocking you”, has that connotation.
In my experience in the United States, it’s a lot more common to hear, “So you’re Canadian? Let’s hear you say, 'aboot” or “hoose.”
Such statements and questions are, to me as a Canadian, derogatory. Americans must realize that the majority of us do not speak with a Bob and Doug McKenzie accent. Most of us speak pretty much like Peter Jennings did on the ABC News–standard North American. There are some variations, such as in Nova Scotia or Newfoundland, but otherwise, we’re pretty normal.
“Canuck” by itself doesn’t hurt. But, “Hey, Canuck–let’s hear you say ‘aboot.’ And speak some French while you’re at it.”
There are no words to describe just how insulting this is.
I agree that in a large sense they are arbitrary in that this syllable or that has been assigned that meaning by speakers of the language. However, there should be some consistency in what constitutes an insult.
If “colored person” is an insult but “person of color” is not, then there had better be a good reason for that. Likewise, if it is insulting to shorten a person’s race or ethnicity from Japanese to “Jap” then one should wonder why British or Scottish people are not equally insulted.
I am all for people being addressed with respect and not being insulted, but I am equally opposed to the most militant of any group being given carte blanche to define and indeed change at will what terms they demand to be addressed by. It stifles speech and blunts an otherwise good message by getting sidetracked into these issues.
There is consistency, but the consistency doesn’t arise from structural rules, but rather from the fact that a historical pattern of usage has become associated with derogatory meaning. That’s a very real thing, and it doesn’t matter if it seems syntactically “arbitrary”. The word “negro”, after all, is plainly derived from the Latin and Latin-based languages version of “black”, which “shouldn’t” be insulting, but derogatory usage has made it so. Similarly the word “eskimo” has become demeaning, and naming the specific indigenous community such as “Inuit” is now the norm. “Scot” for a person from Scotland is not demeaning, but “Jap” is, again because of past usage.
And I disagree with you about a group’s right to decide such things – who else but the group affected has the right to be arbiter of whether it’s insulting or not? “Militancy” is rarely a good thing, more or less by definition, but feeling slighted or insulted by the use of a term is a real thing. Granted that it’s possible for this to be stretched to the point of silliness by militant extremism, but I think generally one should respect the right of an ethnic, national, or racial group to be arbiters of what they should be called.
Well put. But note that this is further complicated in the case of Eskimo, if I am not mistaken. You are correct about Canadian usage, but in Alaska Eskimo is not necessarily seen as derogatory and is still commonly used. Same with Indian/Native American in the US. Some folks think “Indian” is out of favor, but it seems that most Native Americans don’t care so much. They don’t like “Redskin”, and I don’t blame them, but “Indian” has not gone the way of “Negro”.
What is the difference? Because we have always said that the Brits or Scots would do X, Y, or Z and did so in a friendly manner, but when we referred to Japs it was in WWII and we didn’t like them?
Yes, in fact I was going to mention that for some reason my impression is indeed that “Eskimo” isn’t as derogatory in the US context as it is in Canada. I’m not sure why – perhaps because of different cultural sensitivities. To me “Eskimo” sounds like a word that belongs in a tasteless joke involving an igloo. Whereas “Inuit” is a respectful term for an indigenous people.
Exactly. The syntax of the short form is the same, but the cultural connotation is completely different. Why does that seem strange? That’s the nature of language.
I’m not trying to be obtuse. The term implies no hatred. If in WWII we said:
“Those dirty Japs sneak attacked us! We hate the Japs!”
could we then not say:
“Seventy years have passed. The Japs are now part of the world community and our allies”?
Why is the second use of the word equal or connected to the first? Because “they” (who?) say so?