Read my post again. “I am OK with using the term to refer to the Imperial Armed Forces only.” Not “Japanese people”. Get the difference? Or do you think to call the German People of the WWII era all Nazis?
Very well. Same problem - it’s a very different thing. And please don’t try and shift this onto me.
Do you not get that you appear to be the only one, or one of only a very few people, who have ever used the term that way? As Miller showed, the term does not, and never has, meant what you assert its “historical context” to be. Its historical context in the US was the same thing as its current context: racist remark, ethnic slur.
It was also common during WWII to use the ethnic slurs “wops” and “dagoes” to refer to the Italian armed forces fighting for the Axis. Would you be OK with using those terms nowadays, even if you limited them to refer only to the Royal Italian military under Mussolini?
ISTM that allowing such “grandfather clauses” for specific historical applications of ethnic derogatory terms to particular military adversaries isn’t really worth the confusion and resentment it’s likely to cause. Is it really that important to you to call the Imperial Japanese military “Japs”, even when it requires elaborate explanations about how you’re only using the word to refer to a particular Japanese military organization in a particular historical period despite the fact that most users of the word during that same historical period used it to refer to Japanese people in general?
I can’t help feeling it would be a lot simpler and more straightforward for us modern non-racists just to eschew all use of such obviously derogatory ethnic slurs, except when directly quoting historical sources. That way, nobody has to bother with silly stuff like censoring words in 1940’s newspaper headlines, and nobody runs the risk of looking like a racist bigot.
Also “faggot”!
You said it, Miller. DrDeth, seriously, do you form your opinions by picking them out of a Bingo ball bouncer? Your brain feels weird inside.
And Lemur…the only thing to “debate” is how pig ignorant somebody has to be to spout off about how in their personal opinion “Jap” isn’t a really bad insult like “kike” because it’s just an abbreviation. Hey jackass, read a history book – read the fucking thread, the information you need to understand the truth is all here – and stop assuming you can deduce everything you need to know about the world by relying solely on the meager contents of your skull with no reference to reality.
NDITF, but are you suggesting the teeth were meant to imply ‘jap’ rather than ‘bunny’? Seems a stretch to me.
In this case, you’re right. Those don’t look like the stereotypical “Jap” buck teeth, which tend to be longer, exaggerated for effect, and often crooked or chipped. Those are cute little bunny teeth. The fucking hat WHEN combined with the haiku and font is obviously a nod to a stereotype, but I’m not sure how offensive it is even in that framework.
Dude, no one is denying what Imperial Japan did. My family is Korean; I grew up half my life in Korea, where Japan is still considered Public Enemy No. 1. Koreans still hate Japan as if the colonization had happened yesterday. But it’s already been pointed out in this thread that Japs has never been used to refer merely to Imperial Japan. Japs referred to the entire race, Japanese and Japanese-Americans alike, even the niisei (second-generation) Japanese Americans who had never even seen Japan. The propaganda at the time (of WWII) proclaimed that the Japanese could not be trusted because it was *inherent in their race * to be traitorous and cold-blooded. That’s the historical context of the term “Jap”: it reduces every person of Japanese descent to being members of a herd, unable to think for themselves because they are genetically predisposed to be treacherous. You can’t use it to refer to just Imperial Japan and expect everyone to be okay with that.
Now look what you’ve made me do. I’ve actually defended the Japanese! They’ll never let me back into Korea again.
We promise we won’t tell. 
It’s also offensive because it confuses Japanese and Chinese. Because, you know, we all look alike.
You tried to shift it onto me.
Really, so those headlines “Japs bomb Pearl Harbor” “Japs surrender”- they were not referring to the Miltitary and/or government of WWII Japan? They meant the Japanese people? Bullshit.
I appreciate your unique point of view. Thanks. But two things. The OP was only about soldiers in the Imperial Japanese Army: " Quartz: I believe this happenned in WW2 quite a bit with the Japanese. …*
( Lemur866 :I dispute that “fake surrenders” occured frequently in the Pacific front. Surrender itself was pretty infrequent, Japanese soldiers famously refused to surrender even when their death had absolutely no military value. Surrounded hopeless units would frequently simply charge the enemy so they could be killed rather than face the disgrace of capture.*
)…** Quartz: **Cite? I’ve heard differently, that Japs sometimes surrendered only to blow themselves up, but can’t back it up with a cite of my own."
Thus, in just the case we are talking about "Japs’ clearly refered only to soldiers in the Imperial Japanese Army.
- I said, that in that historical context- and only in that historical context- is the use of “Japs” OK.
Now, if you claim it is never used in that historical context and never refers to the Imperial Japanese military, then of course, the term should not be used.
Like I said—is it really worth it to you to go through this kind of tiresome extended quibbling about exactly what a particular use of “Jap” means in a particular historical context, just so that you can be entitled to use the term “Jap” yourself from time to time?
No, people in the 1940’s who used the word “Jap” did not make any careful distinction between the Japanese government, the Japanese military, the Japanese nation, and the Japanese ethnic group when using the term. They were all called “Japs” indiscriminately. Which is why it seems so absurdly futile for you to attempt to set up such a careful distinction retroactively.
Just face the fact that you can’t rehabilitate the word “Jap”, at least not in modern American usage. It is so widely recognized as an unacceptable ethnic slur that polite people simply do not use it. You don’t have to censor examples of its use in historical sources, of course, but you simply can’t expect to use it yourself and not offend people, no matter what weird-ass anachronistic specifications you try to establish for its use to make it more palatable.
But this is incorrect. This debate alone proves you are wrong.
Your logic fails. Game Over. Please enter 25 cents.
I think most people in the US will agree that Japs is offensive. The OP is not from the US and has already acknowledge that they were ignorant of the connotations of the term.
Look, I get what you are saying. But the thing is that historically such a distinction has never been made, as Kimstu has already pointed out. The term Japs was used to tie anyone of Japanese descent into one category - the whole point was that people believed there was no difference between those who bombed Pearl Harbor and those born in the US. In this context, it’s ironic that you are insisting that it’s okay to use this term when referring only to the former.
If you have any interest at all in fighting your ignorance on this subject, read War Without Mercy by John W. Dower. It documents quite thoroughly the systematic racist propaganda used in the US against the Japanese during WWII.
Or perhaps what it “proves” is merely that you’re not familiar with the manners of polite people? :dubious:
I repeat: would you consider it acceptable nowadays to refer to the Royal Italian armed forces under Mussolini as “wops” or “dagoes”, because that’s how they were often referred to at that time? Do you consider it acceptable to call Kim Il Sung’s North Korean soldiers “gooks”, because that was a common name for them back then?
This sort of tortured retroactive rationalization for using ethnic slurs in carefully circumscribed contexts—which you nonetheless have to spend multiple posts explaining to other people, because they’re so unfamiliar and counterintuitive—just seems to be way more trouble than it’s worth. Again, why are you willing to expend all this time and effort just to be able to use the term “Jap” without criticism?
I think you’ll find you did that yourself. Or are you prepared to take back your “We can call the Japs Japs!” argument yet? Or drop your specious analogy to the Nazis?
I don’t believe I have ever heard Jap used as a slur (not that I am denying that people may do so) but it is commonly used in Australia (and Britain) as a contraction of Japanese. Most bikies refer to Japanese bikes as Jap bikes and you will even see signs for car used parts proclaiming Jap Parts or Jap Wreckers like these people Jap Parts or these JapParts