My understanding–and someone can correct me if I’m wrong–is that it doesn’t have to do with different cultural senseitivities, but rather with demographics.
The way it was explained to me involved an analogy dealing with the people of Great Britain. There are three major groups: Welsh, Scots, and English. The English dominate both politically and in terms of numbers, and so people (in North America anyway) sometimes refer to anyone from Great Britain as “English.” Which annoys people from Scotland and Wales, because while they accept being “British” they most certainly do not feel themselves to be “English.”
Just like in GB, the Arctic peoples who are spread from Greenland to Siberia are not all the same but rather form different groups. The most numerous would be the Inuit, and indeed in Canada just about everyone who is an “Eskimo” is also an Inuit. So it’s perfectly reasonable to use that term. However, in Alaska there are other groups who are as eager to avoid being identified as Inuit as the Welsh and Scots are to avoid being identified as English. Thus, “Inuit” is not accurate and not really acceptable if we are talking about these groups.
Might be nice if there was a different term than “Eskimo”–“people of the Arctic from Greenland to Siberia” doesn’t quite roll trippingly off the tongue–but till one comes up “Inuit” is a bit problematic in the US, for this reason.
Again, if I’ve been misled on this I will be happy to be corrected!
The use of the terms “Jap” and “Chinaman” as derogatory terms pre-date WWII, at least in Canada. They were both used consistently as derogatory terms, particularly in western Canada. Once a term becomes thoroughly entrenched as a racial insult, it’s very difficult to wash it clean and say it’s a neutral term.
But at that time people hated the Japanese and Chinese. ANY description of them had a negative connotation. It doesn’t follow that the terms used to describe them are equally bad (unless, for example, they had objectively bad qualifiers).
My understanding, and I could be wrong is that all the Eskimos in Canada are Inuit, but not all the Eskimos in Alaska are.
So, apparently Canucks don’t use the term “Eskimo” but Yanks do.
As for “Alaskans”, there are Eskimo (of various ethnicities) and Indians (who are not any kind of Eskimo). I think they are sometimes referred to as “Native Alaskans”, but only if you’re a lumper.
Canuck is a pretty neutral term, and an often mediocre hockey team from Vancouver.
I know many Newfoundlanders who use the term Newfie. Context is everything, but I was surprised at the flustered feathers when Anthony Bourdain went there.
In a business context, I probably wouldn’t use it, but I see nothing wrong with it.
Well, for a start, it’s nothing like seventy years since it was used as a slur. My cousin’s other Grandpa, who was a POW, was using it up til his death 20 years ago and I’ll bet he wasn’t the last. It’s the same word, referring to the same people, within living memory, of course it’s going to have the same connotations.
Plus, just on the simplest level, if someone introduces themselves to you as William, you say ‘Hi Bill!’ and they tell you they prefer to be called William, do you turn round and say ‘Well, Bill’s not a slur, it’s the established short form, I don’t see why you get to decide it’s not acceptable’?
I’m sure that your family member, much like my grandfather, used the word “Jap” along with other words and the other words were what were insulting and offensive.
I remember as a young kid when the Japanese were buying many American institutions my grandfather said, “I wish we could get a big bag, round up all of those Japs, and throw the bag in the Pacific Ocean.” Was Jap the offensive part of that sentence?
The individual William has every right to insist that I refer to him by the name he prefers to be called. My objection is that self-appointed “leaders” of groups state their outrage by the use of certain terms when they are not objectively offensive and many members of the group state that they think the outrage is overblown. It would be as if some guy named William started his own group and self-declared that Bill was offensive and that from henceforth anyone who used the name Bill to refer to William is offensive. It matters not that most people named William do not care if they are referred to as Bill and are then “told” by the self-appointed leader that they should not allow themselves to be referred to as Bill.
You don’t need a black person to tell you that the “n” word is offensive. Anyone with a basic knowledge of history knows that, without needing to be told.
I enjoy being called a Yankee, or a Yank. To me it is inoffensive and sounds friendly, as in “You Yanks certainly pulled our asses of of the shit last century, in those two World Wars!”
As someone who’s spent his entire life in the North — Cleveland 1960-1978, New Haven 1978-1982, New York City 1982- — I get called Yankee by Alabamans, but not Vermonters.
In the 1970s, the National Lampoon ran a regular column called “Canadian Corner.” “Canuck” was innocuous. When they wanted to be offensive, they used “frostback.”
To me it’s just curiosity and makes for a good ice breaker, so I don’t mind it at all, although once physical violence between about a dozen people followed. A hanky spanky party in the USA. It all comes down to context: condescension – bad, but amusing social interaction – good. Let’s play with language – vive la différence.
