Alcibiades73 -> RE: Old Subject: Japanese need their own victory conditions (5/9/2021 2:46:36 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wobbleguts I would like to add something to hopefully smooth the waters (and probably make things worse). I am originally from the UK. Growing up there was a word used by skinheads and racists to describe anyone descended from the sub-continent as 'Paki'. A derogatory term of abuse used by scum to intimidate 'immigrants'. Even as a child I knew this was a horrible word of disgust and disdain. As an adult, I moved to Australia and was astonished to hear this term used by everyone, including the TV,radio and newspapers - especially when their cricket team comes to play. 'Pakis have chosen to bat', 'pakis have a lot of support in the ground' etc. In Australia, the term Paki has no racist connotations at all - it just means a number of Pakistanis. If an Australian says Paki - it ain't racist. I don't think ElvisJjonesRambo was being racist. I also say 'Japs'. It means a number of Japanese and is easier to type. Not racist at all. If a real racist did start posting here, I don't think they would last long. And don't forget about the French! They call the English 'roastbif' because we go over and get sun burnt on their beaches. That is a disgusting slur. They should be thankful we go there because the beaches stink of garlic and are covered with rabid snails. And there's no soap in the hotels, just rancid soft cheese. France is a disgusting country and they are racist! You bring up several points, so let me address each of them apart: First sure, words - as is the case with everything in life (or almost everything) - must be interpreted in context. Hence, what may appear as a racial slur in one context is not in another. An example par excellence is the use of the "n-" word. It's apparently a term of endearment among blacks, so usually it is okay for blacks to use this term in American discourse - though even this is rapidly changing today. So, there is no disagreement regarding the interpretive principle that context is king. Second, nonetheless, as I've reiterated many times, the terms "Japs" and "Nips" - while perhaps initially more descriptive than pejorative - are incontestably considered racial slurs in contemporary American context. You can look up just about every reputable reference source for confirmation. Moreover, I have personal experiences where the term was used against me as a racial pejorative; and you've read that experience echoed by another poster on this thread. There should be no debate about "Japs" and "Nips." (Incidentally, I recall that MacArthur banned the use of the term "guks" during the Korean War to not offend local sensibilities. And Dougout Doug was not exactly the most progressive personality at the time. So there is ample evidence that these terms were understood as racial slurs even near the moment of their inception.) Third, as for the said poster's intent, I have a hard time agreeing with you for at least three reasons. First, unless you have been living with the Aleuts in an igloo, it is difficult for any reasonably well-informed person in the United States not to know the terms "Japs" and "Nips" are racial slurs. Second, the term "Nips" have a particularly more and longer-standing racist undertones than does the term "Japs," and the poster resorts to it often, too. Third, he seems to continue to make a joke of it. For instance, he asks me sardonically whether terms such as "GI Joes" should be prohibited as well. Really? You are equating "GI Joes" and "Japs" or "Nips"? How are we supposed to take his intent in a benign way?
|
|
|
|