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.