Slurs don’t have to be obviously insulting or even make sense. For example, the Russians use the term khokhol demeaningly when referring to Ukranians. The word itself just refers to the topknot style of haircut that was characteristicly worn by the Cossacks. Ukranians, as a group, rather tend to regard the Cossacks as their cultural heroes. So, it isn’t what the word literally means that matters. What matters is the intent. In the 19th century, Chinaman wasn’t intended as a simple descriptor.
This is dumb. okay, what makes a word derogative is not the literal meaning of the word. It never is. It’s the connotations behind it. Any word used to imply contempt becomes pejorative, even if it would seem harmless otherwise. “Boy” may be considered insulting on certain contexts. So can the term “human” in bad science fiction. It’s the intention, not the word.
Because there’s a tradition from European Americans to disparage Asians with this term, “Chinaman” became a belittling word, and has to be used carefully and making it clear that you are not employing it with negative intentions, just like any other delicate word.
Arguing about the semantic meaning of it, is missing the point for a mile.
What happened with Celestial? Only know about that thanks to Deadwood 
Polish people call themselves polaks, but calling a person a “polack” in English is generally seen as having a negative connotation, more usually an outright pejorative like mick, spick, dago, kraut, and the like.
Also, being from Chicago, I thought the OP was going to be about the political term “chinaman,” which means something like “political patron” or “politcal mentor.”
I’ve actually read instances, like those cited above, when Chinaman was used in an intentionally disparaging manner. It’s less of a mystery than Oriental (a useful word with no exact substitute), which I had never heard used in a derogatory manner before it became verboten.
Well it’s unlucky to kill them
It can also be offensive since many Americans still consider anyone from the Far East to be Chinese (or possibly Japanese) and this is an unfortunate way to lump everyone with certain ethnic features into one big pot.
I don’t think anyone has ever referred to either of my kids as “Chinaman” but they get a lot of “What are you, Chinese?” and I know my son hates this. He actually does have some Chinese ancestry, if you go far enough back, but he considers it disparaging because the implication is “You ARE DIFFERENT”. I’d think that calling someone in the USA or UK or Australia “Chinaman” when they clearly speak English as a native is similar, probably worse.
As far as I’m concerned, it is NOT an insulting term, merely a factual one. Unless offense is meant, and some actual derogatory element is included (stupid, fat, lazy Chinaman), no term is offensive. Dragging in some argument about what somebody else did a hundred years ago is not relevant.
Unfortunately, the PC language cops have pretty much hounded my attitude out of existence. Anything is offensive if they *deem *it to be offensive. Bullshit, I say…TRM (who realizes I am in a small minority here)
I’m not disagreeing with your comments about the term “Chinaman”, but I would disagree with your extrapolation of the “-man” construct as always being belittling.
In English, through quirks of the language, for some nationalities the only way to form a singular noun to describe a person’s nationality is by putting “-man” or “-woman” to it.
You can use “Irish” or “French” or “English” as adjectives (“He’s French; she’s English.”) But those adjectives cannot be used as a singular noun. You wouldn’t say, “I met a French today.” You can say that with most other nationalities in English (“I met a German today.”), but there are exceptions, like Irish, French and English itself.
This, really. I was going to post earlier, but didn’t really know how to say it. But basically it’s - so many Chinese Americans are second or third or even more generation Americans, so much that they don’t even think of themselves as Chinese anymore. Their parents married Chinese Americans and they don’t even think of marrying only Chinese anymore…they are thoroughly American…and yet they are being called “Chinaman” or “Chinese” just because their eyes are a little different.
Not Danishmen or POlishmen, true. But Dutchmen and Frenchmen are used.
Dude, it wasn’t “PC language cops” who made “Chinaman” an offensive term. Rather, it was the generations of non-Chinese people who persisted in using it as a term of disparagement.
I completely agree with you that the essential literal meaning of “Chinaman”, signifying merely “a man from China”, is not intrinsically insulting. Likewise, the literal meaning of “Negro” (“dark [-skinned] one”) or “homo” (“homosexual”) or “Polack” (“Polish”) or “fundie” (“fundamentalist [Christian]”) is not intrinsically insulting. The fact is, though, that all those words have become offensive terms, at least in certain contexts, because they were used pejoratively by so many people.
You can’t arbitrarily divorce a word from all the connotations that it’s acquired in actual usage. And when a word’s negative/pejorative connotations overwhelm its literal meaning and make it unfit for further use in polite society, you can’t just point the finger at “PC language cops”.
How about expending a little of your righteous indignation in preventing acceptable words from becoming offensive insults due to pejorative usage, instead of just whining and sulking once the damage is already done?
For instance, the next time you hear a pre-teen kid saying “That’s so gay!”, why not take a moment to explain to him that “gay” is not an insult, and he shouldn’t use it in a derogatory sense, or eventually polite people will have to stop using it because it’s become de facto offensive? That would actually be doing something constructive to halt the pejorative contamination of non-offensive terms, rather than just griping about not being able to use terms that are already contaminated.
Named after Ellis Achong, one of the first to bowl such a delivery in Test cricket. Achong was of Chinese ancestry. The term wasn’t meant to be flattering to Achong, by the way. One of the first to be out to it muttered about being out to “a bloody Chinaman” and the term stuck to the delivery.
The caricature John Chinaman would often appear in Victorian-era political cartoons. These caricatures were not very flattering:
http://www.victorianweb.org/periodicals/punch/35.html
http://www.victorianweb.org/periodicals/punch/41.html
http://immigrants.harpweek.com/chineseamericans/Illustrations/019JohnChinamanInSanFranMain.htm
My grandpa uses the word “chinaman” (it cracks me the hell up…he just said it out of the blue one day in normal conversation). I am pretty sure he uses it like ShibbOleth describes - to talk about ANYONE of Asian origin.
I don’t think he’s trying to be mean or sensitive. I think he’s just being old and ignorant.
Not always belittling, but pretty often. I did say it wasn’t a hard and fast rule. In any case, I would say: I met a man from France today. I also said that context and usage are everything. I’ve rarely heard the term Frenchman used other than in somewhat insulting fashion.
My grandfather used to use the term “that Chinee fella”, which, I gather, would be insulting.
“Chinaman”, when directed at an Asian-American, is insulting because:
-
If the person is not ethnically Chinese, you’ve not only demonstrated you can’t tell the difference between Asians, but you’re also saying there’s no significant difference. That not only do all Asians look alike, they are culturally the same.
-
If the person is ethnically Chinese but identifies as American, you’ve told them that their ethnicity will always separate them from Americans no matter how long ago their ancestors came here or how immersed they are in American culture.
-
“Chinaman” implies a person from China, not just of Chinese ancestry, which implies that to you, no matter how Americanized they are or what their citizenship is or anything, they will always be an outsider who doesn’t belong in America.
It’s most definitely not a term whose degree of offensiveness is dictated by usage or context. I cannot think of any situation in which an Asian-American being called a Chinaman would be inoffensive. It’s true that anyone using the term “Chinaman” reveals a lot more about himself than it insults the speaker, but that doesn’t take away from the negative connotations of the term.
If you’re going to ignore the connotations of words caused by years of historic use then you will be in trouble, since nothing will have any meaning whatsoever. You may as well have typed in random letters. You’re really creating a special case for offensive connotations, and I’m not sure why. I’ll agree that there is a tendency for certain people to be overly sensitive “PC language cops”, but that has nothing to do with this. “Chinaman” isn’t offensive because over zealous sensitive types crafted a new safe word to avoid offending people, it is offensive because there is a real history of it being used in a derogatory way and the word is still associated with that. This is how language and communications works. It is no different to the words “relevant” or “somebody”, yet you had no problems using these words with an expectation that people would understand the associations behind them.
So fair warning, the association behind “Chinaman” is not “a neutral indication that a person is originally from the country called China” but rather “a person who looks Asian, who I think ought to be mocked because they look funny and drive badly, etc”. If you use the word people will assume you harbor these negative feelings and believe these negative stereotypes. This will not have been caused by overly PC people, but rather poor communications skills on your part.
I happen to think that this is a great feature of language. It is very easy for words to be associated with complex ideas such that practically everyone around you knows what you mean without lengthy explanations. This can be used for good (I can say “I’ll call you” instead of describing what device I will be using and how, and why I will be calling, etc) and bad (if I am bigoted and having a party with my bigoted neighbors I can say “These Chinamen are really taking over the neighborhood” without going in details about the specific bad things about that).
“Gay” used not to mean “homosexual” either. In time it could end up meaning “stupid, lame, foolish” and lose its other meaning entirely. The mere fact that one group of people chose to co-opt the word doesn’t mean that they now get to play prescriptivist with it. The wheel of idiom will continue to turn regardless. “Polite” people had to stop talking about “a gay old bachelor” years ago; now it gets to be someone else’s turn to stop using the word as they’d like.