The Brits, the Scots , the Finns, the Danes, the Swedes,

are all short form references for citizen based on the name of their country. These names basically end on hard consonants with minimum syllables.

And there is also the Swiss, the Irish.

If the name of a country is not conducive to a shortened name for a citizen we may adopt a name such as the Canucks or the Yanks.

None of the above terms are considered as offensive even though the terms are used occasionally in a derogatory manner.

I recently came across this post.

I find it very difficult to read any intended offence when the word "Jap’ is used . The abreviation is so in line with other names of nationalities. I can’t see how the word is racist either, since the Japanese people are not a race unto themselves.

I would consider the name “Nip”, an abreviation of the actual name of Japan, as deliberately offensive given the implication of the Japanese’s smaller stature. This particular term is on the same level as “Chinks” which gives the implication not only of smaller stature, but imperfection as well.

Back during WWII, the Marine Corps wasn’t exactly satisfied with the use of “Japs” as a derogatory term. They tried to introduce the word “Japes”. They didn’t think “Japs” was derogatory enough.

So why am I bringing all this up ? Because I don’t think the term is offensive to the Japanese people and it is only misguided anti-racist sentries in some English speaking countries that keep the idea of the term as offensive alive. And venues of discourse such as the SDMB will apply sanctions for its usage. Its high time that we eliminate the discomfort in the usage of the word “Japs” and return to the usage in the same manner that we employ for other friendly nationalities.

It is interesting to note that the Engish speaking countries that were occupied or threatened with occupation by the Japanese in WWII do not regard the term as offensive.

Seems as if the Japanese couldn’t care less.

Japanese living in Japan may not care about the phrase one way or the other. Japanese descended Americans, on the other hand, generally consider the term offensive, due to the history of it being used as a racial slur in this country. It doesn’t particularly matter that there’s a pattern of similar diminutives for other nations, as this specific term has a specific history of racist usage, and that’s what makes it offensive.

So go ahead and call them Japs if that makes you feel good. Nobody’s stopping you.

How do you come up with “racist”? Since when are the Japanese a race unto themselves?

Can you provide a cite that suggests that Japanese-Americans are offended by the term?

What, you want to see me banned? Unlike you, I do try to get along. Any usage of the word on my part would be contrived anyway given the climate of sensitivity that exists at the moment.

It’s considered an ethnic slur. The difference between that and “racist” is pure semantics. Read the wikipedia article if you want to learn something.

The Flying Dutchman - are you a non American? If you are, I’d suggest introducing where you grew up, if youLve lived in the US, etc.

If an american, this premise is practically trolling. If not, I could uderstand how Jap for Japanese doesn’t seem logical.

Note - having lived in hong kong, you would be wrong that Jap is common. You’d also be wrong in believing it is a non-derogatory term.

Also Nip is a demunitive for of Nippon. Nippon being the name for Japan that the Japanese use themselves. It’s got just as much baggqge.

FWIW, m father is a WW2 pacific theater combat vet. Jap and Nip are slurs.

Would “Yellow Devils” be better?

Yeah, it’s considered racist up here, too.

The word “Paki” has been a derogatory for Pakistanis for forty odd years in the UK. Aussie (a non derogatory term for the Old Lags the rest of the world calls Australian) cricket commentators used the word well into the eighties. To them it was an abbreviation, no more offensive than ‘Afghan’. The usage of the word, rather than the word itself, is what makes it derogatory.

the word “Jap” is rarely used over here except in reference to motorbikes.
And a “Chinaman” is a left-handed googlie

Go on… Google Googlie

I’m Canadian, not that it should make much of a difference in this case.

As far as usage in Hong Kong is concerned , you should take that up with Wikipedia. I rely on them as much as John Mace who relies on Wikipedia to point out that Japanese-Americans are particularly offended. I missed that one.

One thing I’ve just taken note of is that the term comes up more publicly when the speaker in question refers to the Japanese of WWII. Its seems to be a counterpart of the word Nazis which is not regarded as an ethnic slur.

The thing is that I see very little evidence today of any sense of antagonism towards the Japanese people. Same goes for the Germans. Here on the west coast of Canada we do a tremendous amount of business with Japan. The atrocities committed by the Japanese in WWII are much more forgotten than those committed by the Germans. I certainly harbour no ill feelings and have a great deal of respect for the country .

But when I’m amongst people who are not all uptight I may use the word in reference to Japanese imports and cuisine, both of which I value. And the word is not all that uncommon in benign verbal conversation about Japanese whatever without a recording device nearby.

It’s just like the word ‘Paki’, now you do sometimes see it used by mistake. After all ‘Paki’ is just following the form of ‘Turkmen’, ‘Kazakh’, ‘Uzbek’, etc, etc and just about every other way of forming a demonym from the ‘-stan’. However for various reasons the correct demonym is considered to be ‘Pakistani’.

‘Paki’ itself is considered to be highly offensive on par with epitaphs like ‘Nigger’ and ‘Kike’ (to name two of the most offensive racial epitaphs that spring to my mind), particularly in the UK. This is entirely down to the way the word has been used in this country (i.e. thre UK) rather than any quibbles about it’s correctness.

Beat me to it.

Nazi is an ideology, not an ethnic group. The corresponding word is for Germans “Kraut”.

Why on earth would think that language has to be logical? It isn’t. Just because the word “Jap” fits a pattern doesn’t mean that it can’t be offensive. It’s offensive because it’s generally used offensively. At least in the U.S.

The wiki article evidence for this is really weak… the “2004 study” it cites is an 2004 article that refers to “a recent survey in Japan” with no details. Based on my personal experiences, I’d say that most Japanese are aware of the term and have a negative but not visceral reaction to it. The concept of ethnic slurs is a little foreign for the Japanese.

This conversation has come up a few times before on the SDMB and is a perennial favorite on gaming sites and the like. The key to the issue is the question of what makes something a slur. The reasoning I generally come across is “it’s not racist because I’m not racist and I use it.” I note you make mention of “intended offence” in your OP. I think this is natural, as most people generally do use the word as a handy abbreviation, especially on-line.

But, in my opinion, the intention of the person using a phrase is generally less important than the reaction of the group that the phrase is directed towards. And there’s absolutely no doubt in my mind that Japanese-Americans consider it a slur, not just because of the historical WW2 usage but also because of its contemporary usage as such. Now, this can obviously vary by locality. I have no idea what Japanese-Canadians think about the term, though I’d be surprised if it varied that much.

There is a reason why contraction for nationalities are so popular. The term “Jap” was used long before it was used offensively as a result of WWII.

So. It is used offensively for Yanks as well.

More often The word “Sikh” is used offensively for Sikhs around here, but no one’s complaining.

The word “nigger” is just a slightly evolved pronunciation of the Romance languages’ word for the color “black”. If calling black people “black” isn’t offensive, and the usage history of a word is irrelevant to whether it is offensive so long as it has an innocuous etymology, then calling black people “niggers” isn’t offensive.

Of course, the usage history of a word actually is overwhelmingly relevant to whether it is offensive, regardless of how innocuous the original etymology is.

And yet, I don’t think that “Kraut” carries quite as much baggage as “Jap” does. I think that Germans (or German-Americans, maybe) wouldn’t find it quite as offensive as Japanese-Americans do “Jap”. It’s something that I recognize as a slur, but I don’t have the same visceral reaction to it that I do to “Jap”.* I can’t think of a better example for Germans, though. I think “Hun” is the WWI counterpart, isn’t it?

*I realize this sort of implies that I am either Japanese-American or German- I am neither. Just reacting.

First, Sikhs self-identify as “Sikh”, don’t they? It’s a word they’d use to describe themselves. Second, if “Sikh” is offensive, then is there a more politically correct term? Third, who does this? Can you give an example?

Yes

Perhaps. “Punjabi” comes to mind.

“Punjabi” will get you 24,000,000 hits.