That’s like using “Utahn” for “Mormon”. Not all Punjabis are Sikhs and not all Sikhs are Punjabis.
And I also don’t see what’s offensive about the term “Sikh”. Who takes offense at it? It’s what Sikhs themselves go by.
Except not everyone who’s Punjabi is Sikh (in fact, the vast majority of Punjabis are Muslim), and not everyone who’s Sikh is Punjabi (although most Sikhs are).
True, but that doesn’t matter here in British Columbia where pretty well all Sikhs are of Punjabi stock or the other way around.
There are plenty of British Columbians who have an aversion to Sikhs and their lifestyle. They just haven’t found a more satisfactory offensive label to describe them.
It probably does. In the US, amongst people who were born about the time of WWII or after, using the term “Jap” to refer to a person of Japanese decent just isn’t done in polite society. Now, not everyone knows this. I know it, but I don’t remember when I first knew this. My dad was in the Pacific in WWII, but I don’t remember him using the term.
I think you are more like the “Brits” who have no problem with using this term in modern times.
I dunno. The Flying Dutchman’s thing about the term “Sikh” being offensive, even though no one actually takes offense to it, suggests a deeper lack of understanding than merely being Canadian.
Count me as one who doesn’t see the problem with Jap or Paki. They are just obvious shortenings of the country name, and don’t strike me as particularly racist. The problem with Jap seems to come exclusively from WWII racism. Before than it was a benign word, and the only reason it is now considered racists is that it was used alongside racist attacks. Those racists didn’t use it for any other reason than it was an easy abbreviation, so it differs from Kraut or Keke or Chink.
The only reason that I don’t use Jap or Paki is because I know other people think they are racist epithets. So maybe that’s the only problem with them. If everyone stopped thinking they were racist, well then I guess they would be ok.
That’s correct, of course. Same as “nigger”, for that matter. But right now, the taint of racism on those terms persists; people haven’t stopped associating them with racism.
There’s a difference in my mind, but I am having trouble articulating it. To begin with, nigger doesn’t refer to anything beyond someone with dark skin, which those people don’t really identify themselves with. In other words, an American black person isn’t going to self-identify with an Ethiopian, but they’re both considered niggers. On the other hand, Jap refers to an ethnicity that exists and has a well-defined group that self-identifies as belonging to the group.
I guess my point is that there is an inheritance here. Shortening an ethnicities name to create a nickname is inherently neutral, whereas creating a separate name that no group self-identifies with has an inherent problem.
Very well, but “black” also doesn’t refer to anything beyond someone with dark skin. So why is “nigger” so much more problematic than “black”? If everyone stopped thinking it was, it wouldn’t be. But it is, because of the taint of racism.
Obviously nigger has a much worse history associated it, but I don’t think anyone is particularly pleased with the choice of “black” either. We’ve gone from nigger–> negro–> colored–> black–> African American and apparently we are back to black. All of them have the taint that I mentioned, in that these ethnicities don’t really exist. Obviously that’s a vast simplification because a lot of Americans identify as black, so I suppose that means that ethnicity exists now, but really its complicated.
I don’t know if there’s ever been a poll of Japanese-Americans on the term, but Japanese-American advocacy groups certainly think so. Google “japanese-american” and “jap” (with quotes) and you’ll find a number of articles such as this one:
It’s simple. In American English, it is considered an offensive ethnic slur. I’ve heard it used in British English without the same sort of connotation. On the other hand, “Paki” is quite loaded in British English, but I’m not sure it really would register (if used) here in the US. (I’m not aware of anyone using that term, and when I first heard it in British English, I did not recognize its level of offense.) Language is funny that way. A word can seem perfectly innocent and logical if you’re from outside the culture, but be quite vulgar and offensive within the culture.
I think “kraut” is quite offensive, too, but I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone under 60 use that word in a non-ironic or historical manner. The word “polack,” which is generally considered a slur, is simply the Polish word for “Pole,” polak. The word should be neutral but, linguistically, it’s not. It’s generally deemed offensive in the English-speaking world. I personally (being born to Polish parents) don’t always consider it a slur, but a good number of Polish-American brethren would consider it a slur on the level of spic or dago or kike, even though it comes from the Polish word they use to describe themselves. Language ain’t logical, simple as that.
“Jew” is an acceptable term for a person of Jewish descent, whereas “Jew” is a damnable slur.
If you were going to clip off the suffix on the model of the examples you cited, none of which includes the linking vowel -i-, it would be simply Pak, not Paki. The words *Turkmeni, *Kazakhi, *Uzbeki just do not exist.
And in fact, what do you know, Pak is the abbreviation that the Paks use for themselves and seem fairly comfortable with. A word apparently unknown to non-Desis.
(I was thinking purely of morphology there, not etymology. Of course, there was never an actual ethnic group named “Pak” that gave its name to a nation, unlike the other examples. It’s just a back-formation.)
Is the use of “Pak” as a noun to describe Pakistanis really that common? Perhaps my experience is too limited, but it sounds quite odd to my ears.
I actually hear Uzbeki, Afghani, etc fairly often. Or maybe I am just imagining it.
First, to echo what several others have already said, words mean what we all agree they mean. There is no inherent reason why the sound represented as “dog” should refer to the small furry quadruped which goes “arf, arf” and “cat” should refer to the small furry quadruped which goes “meow, meow” instead of the other way around–it’s essentially arbitrary (or, if there is any ultimate reason why one word wound up with one meaning, it’s lost in the mists of Indo-European pre-history). “Black” is a basically neutral description of people of mostly or partly African ancestry because that’s what we all agree on (even if most of them have skin that’s actually some shade of brown, even pretty light brown). “Negro” was once perfectly acceptable and is now old-fashioned at best, and possibly even vaguely offensive, because that’s what the word means to 21st Century speakers of the English language–of course, in Spanish or Portuguese, it’s a different story. “Nigger”, whatever its etymology, is rude enough that you might get punched in the jaw if you use it to the wrong person. We could just as easily use the word “cunt” to refer to the woman who gives birth to you and raises and nurtures you, and celebrate “Cunt’s Day” at the behest of the greeting card industry, while using the sound “mother” as a vile insult–but we don’t.
Second, more of a nitpick, but several of the words in the OP are not like the others: “Scots” , “Finns”, “Danes” and “Swedes” aren’t really slang terms at all, and if anything, it’s the words like “Scottish” and “Swedish” which are lengthenings of the original words, rather than shortenings like “Jap” or “Paki”. Only “Brit” belongs in the same category. And “Brit” isn’t usually taken as an insult because, well, see point one. It isn’t used as an insult (or not by anone to speak of).
Well, actually “black” still seems to be the most common self-identification of “African-Americans”. And at least some American black people have self-identified with Ethiopians (and other African nationalities)–see Marcus Garvey, the Rastafari movementand the Nation of Islam, Afrocentrism, or the overwhelming support by black Americans for the presidency of Barack Obama. I think–I’m a white guy myself, I should add–that it’s a complicated sort of relationship, and African-Americans (as opposed to first generation Nigerian-Americans or Kenyan-Americans) may not identify with any particular modern African nationality, and probably have all sorts of mixed feelings about Africa and Africans, but there definitely seems to be a lot of self-identification going on there.
jeez you septics sure can’t take a joke, you are as bad as a bunch of whingeing poms! 
I am often called a wog, which was a term guaranteed to get you a kick up the arse but these days due to a bunch of people taking the name back it is considered a term on endearment.
I’m not sure about this. I’m a Canadian too, and lived for many years in British Columbia. Most people I knew there were very aware that Japanese Internment camps existed in Canada as well as the US, and the Japanese were vilified and persecuted here just like they were in the US.
Honestly, I can’t imagine anyone I know using the term ‘Jap’ without knowing it was a slur. I believe The Flying Dutchman when he says he doesn’t see it that way, but if someone used that term to describe, say, sushi, I would find that really unusual and fairly offensive.
Anymore, I’m convinced that topics like this are for people who just want to use racial slurs – and are trying to convince themselves that they’re not really offensive.