"JAP" (not "JPN") as short for Japan used anywhere?
Tomoyuki Tanaka
as far as i know, at least for the last 20 years
the Olympic games (and related int'l competitions) have used
"JPN" for Japan.
does anyone know how long the history of this use is?
also, does anyone know if "JAP" as short for Japan was ever
used in the Olympic games?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
a rude, ignorant man named Eric Hildum (who apparently supports
the racial slur "Jap") said that U.C.Davis uses the three
character abbreviation JAP. (see below)
he's mistaken, of course. U.C.Davis uses the names JPN002
JPN005 JPN098 etc.
are there any schools that use the JAP abbreviation?
if so, please let me know.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
In article <3623E2F4...@Japan.NCR.COM>,
Eric Hildum <Eric....@Japan.NCR.COM> wrote:
>
> If you bother to check the course catalog at Davis, you will
> find that the Japanese language classes at Davis are also listed
> with the three character abbreviation JAP. Outside of the
> politically correct fringe in the US, it is the universally
> accepted abbreviation.
like almost all other US universities, UC Davis uses "JPN".
see below.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
http://registrar.ucdavis.edu/UCDWebCatalog/WebCatCrs/gc_eac.htm#jpncrs
UC DAVIS GENERAL CATALOG--Programs and Courses
[...]
East Asian Languages and Cultures
[...]
Courses in Japanese (JPN)
[...]
_________________________________________________________________
--
;;; TANAKA Tomoyuki ("Mr. Tanaka" or "Tomoyuki")
;;; http://www.cs.indiana.edu/hyplan/tanaka.html
Lizlynn999
be rude and ignorant had it not been for Gilda Radner's "Jap Jeans." (hail
mary)
If you want to know how many JAPs it takes to screw in a light bulb, it's two,
one to phone Daddy and the other to pour the Tab.
> a rude, ignorant man named Eric Hildum (who apparently supports
> the racial slur "Jap") said that U.C.Davis uses the three
> character abbreviation JAP. (see below)
>
> he's mistaken, of course. U.C.Davis uses the names JPN002
> JPN005 JPN098 etc.
>
> are there any schools that use the JAP abbreviation?
> if so, please let me know.
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>In article <3623E2F4...@Japan.NCR.COM>,
>Eric Hildum <Eric....@Japan.NCR.COM> wrote:
>>
>> If you bother to check the course catalog at Davis, you will
>> find that the Japanese language classes at Davis are also listed
>> with the three character abbreviation JAP. Outside of the
>> politically correct fringe in the US, it is the universally
>> accepted abbreviation.
>
>
> like almost all other US universities, UC Davis uses "JPN".
> see below.
____________________________
Lynn P
James Follett
ez07...@dilbert.ucdavis.edu "Tomoyuki Tanaka" writes:
> a rude, ignorant man named Eric Hildum (who apparently supports
> the racial slur "Jap") said that U.C.Davis uses the three
> character abbreviation JAP. (see below)
`Jap' is merely a contraction. It may be that some consider it
a slur. That's fine -- in which case they can choose to avoid
using it but they should not insist that others should share that
opinion and denigrate them if they don't.
My first motormower had a Jap engine.
--
James Follett -- novelist http://www.davew.demon.co.uk
babydoll
>
> `Jap' is merely a contraction. It may be that some consider it
> a slur. That's fine -- in which case they can choose to avoid
> using it but they should not insist that others should share that
> opinion and denigrate them if they don't.
>
> My first motormower had a Jap engine.
"Nip" is _merely a contraction_ of "Nippon", too. But when I hear either
of those terms ("Jap" and "Nip"), they carry traces of "Those damn
Japs", "those bloody Nips", and the "yellow peril". Therefore I don't
use them out of respect for others. Don't you care about how a Japanese
person might feel if confronted by terms such as these?
Being an Australian I could assert that "Abo" is merely a contraction of
"Aborigine" but I know *damn* well that it is uttered derogatorily by
many people and thus I avoid it, rather than hide behind "Well, *I*
didn't mean it that way, so *you* shouldn't take it that way".
--
babydoll 'There are no facts, only interpretations'
sydney.australia - Nietzsche
--
Rex Knepp
>
> Being an Australian I could assert that "Abo" is merely a contraction of
> "Aborigine" but I know *damn* well that it is uttered derogatorily by
> many people and thus I avoid it, rather than hide behind "Well, *I*
> didn't mean it that way, so *you* shouldn't take it that way".
>
Abo? it's just a little town in New Mexico...
-30-
rex
--
"Sometimes you're the windshield, sometimes you're the bug." Dire
Straits
James Follett
>"Nip" is _merely a contraction_ of "Nippon", too. But when I hear either
>of those terms ("Jap" and "Nip"), they carry traces of "Those damn
>Japs", "those bloody Nips", and the "yellow peril". Therefore I don't
>use them out of respect for others. Don't you care about how a Japanese
>person might feel if confronted by terms such as these?
Good Lord, no. Why should I care? If a person decides that they're
offended by being referred to in a particular manner then that's their
choice.
As I've pointed out before, the truth is that many people unconsciously
enjoy being offended. It underpins their perception of their social
status; they can turn to their peers to earn sympathy and attention when
they howl about how they've been offended.
To go out of one's way to avoid offending people and so deny them
their right to be offended is a great cruelty.
Much the same applies to insults. Insults are either lies or the
truth. The truth has never hurt a wise man, and lies aren't worth
bothering about.
False accusation, which may lead to a person being unjustly treated,
is another and more serious matter which is why the wise rabbis who
wrote the ten commandments proscribed it.
Miles Bader
> Good Lord, no. Why should I care? If a person decides that they're
> offended by being referred to in a particular manner then that's their
> choice.
Do you have any friends?
-Miles
--
Run away! Run away!
babydoll
ja...@marage.demon.co.uk (James Follett) writes:
> Good Lord, no. Why should I care? If a person decides that they're
> offended by being referred to in a particular manner then that's their
> choice.
Nice, is it, being at the top of the food chain without giving a damn
about those less privileged than yourself?
mlam...@yahoo.com
911322...@marage.demon.co.uk>,
ja...@marage.demon.co.uk wrote:
> Good Lord, no. Why should I care? If a person decides that they're
> offended by being referred to in a particular manner then that's their
> choice.
As a writer you know that words have a
shared meaning, otherwise you wouldn't be
able to communicate using them. You can't
just decide by yourself what a word is
"supposed" to mean, nor can you ignore the
effect it has on other people because you
think everyone else's interpretion is wrong.
Words intended to be communicated
publicly are public property.
Otherwise, I'm inclined to agree with you
that many people relish the idea that a word
somehow insults them. It allows you to have
a satisfying sense of righteous indignation
that is pretty hard for anyone else to
challenge.
-Marc
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
gary
Miles Bader wrote:
> ja...@marage.demon.co.uk (James Follett -- novelist) writes:
> > Good Lord, no. Why should I care? If a person decides that they're
> > offended by being referred to in a particular manner then that's their
> > choice.
> Do you have any friends?
Yes, but they are all imaginary; he's a novelist.
--gary
Ross Howard
wrote:
>
>ja...@marage.demon.co.uk (James Follett) writes:
>> Good Lord, no. Why should I care? If a person decides that they're
>> offended by being referred to in a particular manner then that's their
>> choice.
>
>Nice, is it, being at the top of the food chain without giving a damn
>about those less privileged than yourself?
Brits haven't been more privileged than Japs for at least thirty
years.
And to get back on topic, why are "Aussie" and "Brit" and "Tex" okay
(or maybe they aren't this week) while "Jap" and "Abo" and "Paki"
supposedly aren't? If the answer is that predominantly white/northern-
hemisphere/Western/Judeo-Christian/industrialised nationalities can be
abbreviated until the cows come home but woe betide anyone who tries
to do the same with countries mainly populated by "persons of color"
(ha!) or those from third-world nations, then why doesn't someone just
come out with it? Come out with it and attempt to justify it, that is.
Thoughtlessly patronising people in such a way is nearly always more
insidious than the harmless use of the purportedly "racist" epithets
that you seek to suppress.
Ross H.
a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca
Howard) wrote:
[about objectors to 'racial slurs']
>Thoughtlessly patronising people in such a way is nearly always more
>insidious than the harmless use of the purportedly "racist" epithets
>that you seek to suppress.
>
>Ross H.
>
Absolutely: as Goering said, "when I hear a Scotchman being called a
Scotchman I crawl under the table so I can see if it's true".
Brian J Goggin
wrote:
>On Wed, 18 Nov 1998 23:55:39 +1100, babydoll <baby...@tig.com.au>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>ja...@marage.demon.co.uk (James Follett) writes:
>>> Good Lord, no. Why should I care? If a person decides that they're
>>> offended by being referred to in a particular manner then that's their
>>> choice.
>>
>>Nice, is it, being at the top of the food chain without giving a damn
>>about those less privileged than yourself?
>
>Thanks, babes!
>
>I was meandering along those lines, in seeking to respond to
>Certain Parties, but was finding it hopeless to bridge the
>philosophical gap.
I don't know that I am required to believe
- that there are people less privileged than I am
- that, if they do exist, their condition results from their
being referred to in particular ways
- that my referring to them in some different way is going to
improve their condition
- that I am under an obligation (legal? moral? what?) to improve
their condition
- that those to whom I might refer in ways that they dislike are
necessarily less privileged than I am
- that there is one scale on which privilege can be weighed.
And there are several other things that I'm not convinced that I
must believe ....
>These folks --and they include some surprising RRs -- do appear to
>think themselves above the common herd; thus free to make choices
>like abstaining from voting on ideological grounds.
Common herd? *Everybody* should be free to abstain from voting,
on whatever grounds they like. And I am happy to say that, in
the poorer areas of Ireland, many people do precisely that: they
have seen that the officially-approved system does nothing for
them, so they treat it with the contempt it deserves. I'm not
*above* the common herd; I am *with* it, participating in the
revolution against the comfortable bourgeoisie with its
electoral placebos.
>That most candidates are assholes doesn't make me feel any better
>about people who stand loftily outside the process and let the rest of
>us do the work of studying the issues and the candidates, and making
>often painful choices between the lesser of two evils. (Result of
>campaign financing laws.)
Perhaps some people feel that they study the issues and decide
that major issues are not resolved, nor even tackled, by the
electoral system.
>Of course they take for granted that (mostly) clean water will come
>out of the faucets; that the fire department will (generally) respond;
>that traffic lights will (mostly) work; that police will (generally)
>risk their lives to protect them; that garbage will be (mostly)
>collected; that corruption, when detected, will (often) be corrected
>and punished to some degree. Etc.
Er, no. I assume that corruption is rampant, that rich corrupt
people will not be punished, that the police are more concerned
with maximising their comfort and their income than with
protecting me, that indeed if I want protection I have to
install a burglar alarm myself, that the elected politicians
know nothing about clean water and have little or no influence
on its continued flow, that I pay for garbage collection ---
with a choice between a public-sector and a private-sector
colelctor, that many of the services provided by the local
authority could equally well be provided by others, that the
state is a system for dispensing goodies to those with most
power, that those with most power do not include most of the
voters, that the choices exercised by electors are almost
irrelevant, that there exists an entire class of people who
devote their time to thinking of new ways of taking my money and
interfering with my activities, that these people pretend that
they are devoted to improving the lot of the poor, that they
have succeeded in enriching nobody but themselves, that their
nostrums have been a complete failure ....
>All this wrought by the same public officials to whom our friends
>feel so superior. Or at least supervised by them; the real work is,
>of course carried out by civil servants, but their direction is set
>by elected officials.
My usual response, when asked why I suggest the aboliton of the
police force, is to ask those present how many have been mugged
or burgled. Then I ask in how many cases the perpetrator was
caught or the stolen goods were returned.
If the state cannot even guarantee the protection of the
property of the citizens, what is it good for?
bjg
Truly Donovan
>These folks --and they include some surprising RRs -- do appear to
>think themselves above the common herd; thus free to make choices
>like abstaining from voting on ideological grounds.
>
>That most candidates are assholes doesn't make me feel any better
>about people who stand loftily outside the process and let the rest of
>us do the work of studying the issues and the candidates, and making
>often painful choices between the lesser of two evils. (Result of
>campaign financing laws.)
I don't know how the lesser of two evils is related to campaign
financing laws. It is perfectly possible in a world that is perfect
from a campaign financing perspective that one does not consider any
candidate a positive choice.
But then that doesn't allow for any arm-waving, either, and certainly
leaves no room for sanctimony.
Actually, I am more concerned about those who vote but who cast that
vote in response to singing commercials and sound bites than I am
about those who choose, for whatever reason, lofty or not, to not vote
at all.
>
>Of course they take for granted that (mostly) clean water will come
>out of the faucets; that the fire department will (generally) respond;
>that traffic lights will (mostly) work; that police will (generally)
>risk their lives to protect them; that garbage will be (mostly)
>collected; that corruption, when detected, will (often) be corrected
>and punished to some degree. Etc.
What you're saying is that mostly clean water, etc., depends on a
democratic process where everyone votes, and that is clearly,
demonstrably, verifiably not the case. Or is two centuries of proof
not enough for you?
>
>All this wrought by the same public officials to whom our friends
>feel so superior.
Shit, you're the one who just called them painful choices, and you're
the one who has made a study of them. Not to mention that Feeling
Superior is your specialty.
>This and associated threads have been, at the very least, a
>fascinating Rorshach (sp?).
It's good to know that you haven't lost any rating points as a Human
Being of Greater Worth than Some Other People We Know.
--
Truly Donovan
reply to truly at lunemere dot com
Sam
You could have delivered your message much more succinctly with: "I
refuse to give a damn about anybody else but myself".
--
Sam (a.k.a. babydoll) "O most pernicious woman!"
Sydney.Australia - Hamlet I.5.
--
Larry Phillips
> These folks --and they include some surprising RRs -- do appear to
> think themselves above the common herd; thus free to make choices
> like abstaining from voting on ideological grounds.
I don't have to consider myself 'above the common herd' in order to
make a decision to refrain from voting. I have no idea how you justify
relating one to the other. Just what is your reasoning on this?
> That most candidates are assholes doesn't make me feel any better
> about people who stand loftily outside the process and let the rest of
> us do the work of studying the issues and the candidates, and making
> often painful choices between the lesser of two evils. (Result of
> campaign financing laws.)
And what makes you think I 'stand loftily' outside the process. If I
decide not to go out and get drunk with the guys on Friday night, amd
I 'standing loftily outside the process my friends are participating
in'?
You vote. That's your choice. You obviously have thought about it, and
have decided that it's a good thing to do. Are you of the opinion that
I have not thought about it? I too, study the issues and the candidates.
What makes you think I don't? I consider the voting for 'the lesser of
two evils' to be an evil in itself. You are voting FOR an evil. What you
will end up with IS an evil, as defined by yourself. How can you live
with yourself, having done that?
> Of course they take for granted that (mostly) clean water will come
> out of the faucets;
It bloody well better! I have plenty of cash ripped out of my wallet,
with the expresed purpose of providing said water. Right about the time
they stop providing clean water, yet still take the money, is about the
time that we put them up against the wall, figuratively or literally.
> that the fire department will (generally) respond;
Again, they bloody well better. I pay enough for the service.
> that traffic lights will (mostly) work; that police will (generally)
> risk their lives to protect them; that garbage will be (mostly)
> collected;
Same for all this. I pay as much as anyone who votes, and I'd bloody
well better be treated the same.
> that corruption, when detected, will (often) be corrected and punished
> to some degree. Etc.
Now here's where it differs in my country. Here, corruption, if it's
indulged in by governments, is neither corrected nor punished. Heck,
it's not even punished by the voters at election time. The last major
crime indulged in by the current slavers was made a non-crime by
retroactive legislation.
> All this wrought by the same public officials to whom our friends
> feel so superior.
Don't listen too well, do you? I said, explicitly and in plain language,
that they are not my superiors. I did not state that they are my
inferiors. In fact, I consider them to be my equals, and as such, to
have no dominion over me.
> Or at least supervised by them; the real work is, of course carried
> out by civil servants, but their direction is set by elected
> officials.
For the most part, the civil servants are engaged in what are
effectively make-work projects that would not be there had the elected
officials not created the jobs for them. The province I live in is
struggling mightily right now, up against the ropes, economically
speaking, due, in most part, to mismanagement and worse, of our
provincial government. At a time when we are losing jobs in the private
sector because of government policies, we are gainign jobs in the public
sector. I think the figure was 8000 private sector jobs lost, vs. 21000
public sector jobs created. Care to hazard a guess as to how many of
those are actually useful?
> This and associated threads have been, at the very least, a
> fascinating Rorshach (sp?).
Count yourself very lucky to live in a country with a constitution that
is, for the most part, adhered to. Count yourself lucky to live in a
country in which your rights are guaranteed.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
When life looks like Easy Street, there is danger at your door.
-- Grateful Dead
http://cr347197-a.surrey1.bc.wave.home.com/larry/
James Follett
s.m...@ix.netcom.com "Polar" writes:
>On Wed, 18 Nov 1998 23:55:39 +1100, babydoll <baby...@tig.com.au>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>ja...@marage.demon.co.uk (James Follett) writes:
>>> Good Lord, no. Why should I care? If a person decides that they're
>>> offended by being referred to in a particular manner then that's their
>>> choice.
>>
>>Nice, is it, being at the top of the food chain without giving a damn
>>about those less privileged than yourself?
>
>Thanks, babes!
>
>I was meandering along those lines, in seeking to respond to
>Certain Parties, but was finding it hopeless to bridge the
>philosophical gap.
Ah, American arrogance at work here. The attitude being that because
they've dug themselves a lemmings' leap of political correctness, that
the rest of the English-speaking world should join with them in going
over the edge.
50 million Brits do not consider Jap an offensive term. That's a
cultural difference that is worthy of respect but getting Americans
to respect other cultures is like pissing in volcano.
James Follett -- novelist
Brian J Goggin
wrote:
[...]
>> I don't know that I am required to believe
>> - that there are people less privileged than I am
>> - that, if they do exist, their condition results from their
>> being referred to in particular ways
>> - that my referring to them in some different way is going to
>> improve their condition
>> - that I am under an obligation (legal? moral? what?) to improve
>> their condition
>> - that those to whom I might refer in ways that they dislike are
>> necessarily less privileged than I am
>> - that there is one scale on which privilege can be weighed.
>You could have delivered your message much more succinctly with: "I
>refuse to give a damn about anybody else but myself".
I could not. Had I wished to say that, I would have said it. I
did not discuss what I believed; I discussed what I was, or was
not, *required* to believe. Furthermore, I did not discuss what
I do.
For all you know, I care deeply about certain people: perhaps
those whose wealth equals or exceeds mine. Or perhaps I base my
decisions --- those on whether to care about people --- on
grounds other than their level of "privilege". Or maybe I
distribute soup daily to the poor --- but only to the deserving
poor.
My response to Polar's posting listed some of the assumptions
that seemed to me to underlie her contentions. I do not share
all of those assumptions, so there is no reason why my
conclusions and my actions should match hers. It is possible
that, in certain cases, we might take the same decisions or
actions, but we might do so for different reasons.
To take a crude example, you or Polar might give money to a
beggar on the grounds that those less privileged than you are
entitled to share your wealth; I might give money to a beggar as
an act of charity --- or as insurance against being pestered.
Observing the actions, a Martian might assume that we acted on a
shared set of values, but the Martian would be wrong.
I do not dislike the existence of different sets of values; I am
happy to debate with their holders as I have, in the past,
debated with everyone from Marxist-Leninists (those who thought
that China had gone soft and that only Albania, under Hoxha,
kept to the One True Way) to fascists (who wanted me to come to
listen to speeches by Hitler and Mussolini).
But I have never liked being told what to believe or being told
that certain views are beyond the pale. I dislike it especially
when the tellers seem to me to be likely to gain from the
imposition of their beliefs. Thus, on the one hand, I question
the motives of a manufacturer who spends heavily to establish a
brand: I know that that manufacturer intends to engage in
anti-competitive activity. On the other hand, I object to the
attempts of most advertisers for the poverty industry to
convince me that their clients have (ever more) rights to my
money.
Both sets of activists are attempting to establish a hegemony,
to rig the market, to seek rent (undeserved income) by
convincing consumers (or, if you prefer, voters) that the
activists' claims are common-sensical, not-to-be-questioned,
deserving of special treatment.
You and Polar seem to have bought the message of one set of
activists. I have not bought that message; nor have I bought
that of capitalists (those well-known opponents of free
markets), although no doubt I have bought some other set.
bjg
a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca
>This and associated threads have been, at the very least, a
>fascinating Rorshach (sp?).
>Polar
Oh, I think 'ink-blots' does nicely. Jimbo can spell it too.
Rex Knepp
>
> 50 million Brits do not consider Jap an offensive term. That's a
> cultural difference that is worthy of respect but getting Americans
> to respect other cultures is like pissing in volcano.
>
Lemme see: Brits don't think "Jap" is offensive, presumably
don't give a fig whether the denizens of Japan *do* find it
offensive, and it's Americans who don't respect other cultures.
Innarestin' points, James.
-30-
rex
--
"Sam and Janet Evening: you may see a stranger." Gypsy fortune teller.
George F. Hardy
used. I guess your intent is what counts.
GFH
JMichaeI
>Ah, American arrogance at work here. The attitude being that because
>they've dug themselves a lemmings' leap of political correctness, that
>the rest of the English-speaking world should join with them in going
>over the edge.
>
>50 million Brits do not consider Jap an offensive term. That's a
>cultural difference that is worthy of respect but getting Americans
>to respect other cultures is like pissing in volcano.
You know, this shit gets old. First there's a thread berating the French for
arrogance and rudeness, now this attributing arrogance to all Americans.
Mr. Follett, not all Americans buy into the PC culture, in fact, I seriously
doubt that a majority do. As a matter of fact, one of the three major
television networks runs a daily program called "Politically Incorrect."
Getting Americans to respect other cultures. . . Indeed! How many cultures
have the English annihilated? To American eyes, the British are the ones who
mangle every culture they come in contact with. Most Brits I've encountered
make much less effort to understand and respect another culture than the
average American. You probably get your idea of what Americans are like from
WW II era films, when Americans were less sophisticated, and filmmakers even
less so.
------------------------------
<A HREF="http://members.aol.com/jmichaei/">Catch 23</A><BR>
http://members.aol.com/jmichaei/
<P>
<I>The devil loves nothing more than the intolerance of reformers. . ." James
Russell Lowell
</B></I><BR>
Ross Howard
wrote:
>James Follett wrote:
>>
>> 50 million Brits do not consider Jap an offensive term. That's a
>> cultural difference that is worthy of respect but getting Americans
>> to respect other cultures is like pissing in volcano.
>>
>
>Lemme see: Brits don't think "Jap" is offensive, presumably
>don't give a fig whether the denizens of Japan *do* find it
>offensive, and it's Americans who don't respect other cultures.
>
>Innarestin' points, James.
Japanese people have exactly the same cause to be offended by the
British use of the word "Jap" as sales representatives have to be
offended by the American use of the word "vet": none whatsoever.
Abbreviating a word does not, *per se*, make it offensive. Here are
two statements. One of them is offensively xenophobic and the other
one is quite the opposite. Which do you feel is which?
I've got a Nissan now and I love it. I'm telling you, those
Japs certainly know how to make a car, unlike that workshy
shower at Leyland or Rover or whatever they're calling it this
week in a desperate attempt to save plummeting sales.
Japanese so-called technology isn't a patch on good old
Detroit craftsmanship. And anyhow, if it hadn't been for our
handouts after the war, the sons of bitches would still be
driving around in rickshaws, most likely.
As Truly says and says and says and I hope will continue to say until
it's generally acknowledged here as an undeniable fact: context is
everything.
Ross H.
Rex Knepp
>
> As Truly says and says and says and I hope will continue to say until
> it's generally acknowledged here as an undeniable fact: context is
> everything.
I love horses. The sight of an thoroughbred cantering across
the green pastures of Kentucky will never fail to set my soul
at ease, for there is no creature on earth closer to the divine
than an Arabian stallion. I consider every detail of the equine
form unassailable in its beauty. Every time I glance beneath the
tail of such a noble beast, I gaze with awe upon its Ross Howard.
I presume you're not offended because, in the *context* of that
paragraph, I implied that a horse's ass is divine. If you are,
the I assume that you're insulted by what you perceive as my
*intent*.
Context is bullshit. Intent is horseshit. Politically correct (or
politically incorrect) is a crock of limbaugh cheese. The plain
fact is that a polite person does not insult another person out
of malice or cruelty. Likewise, when informed of insult caused
by ignorance, a polite person apologizes and doesn't do it again.
OBaue -- what's "vet" got to do with sales reps?
George F. Hardy
>50 million Brits do not consider Jap an offensive term.
How do they feel about "Limies"? Like the French feel
about "Frogs"?
GFH
Eric The Read
> Of course they take for granted that (mostly) clean water will come
> out of the faucets;
It doesn't; I have to go out and buy one of those filters that fits on
your faucet to make sure I don't get any more of that brownish stuff
coming in.
> that the fire department will (generally) respond;
Interesting. The local fire department is busy trying to shut down a
fire station located in a neighborhood of old Victorian houses so they
can build one up on the north end of town with all the expensive
high-rise apartments and expensive houses. This will increase response
times to fires in an area where a conflagration will spread much faster,
and decrease them in an area where the developers should have thought
expanded fire service was necessary.
> that traffic lights will (mostly) work;
Do you vote for the people that maintain your traffic lights? I've never
seen that on a ballot. Nor do I vote for their bosses. I occasionally
have the opportunity to vote for the guys that hire their boss' boss'
boss' boss, but that's hardly much of an impact.
> that police will (generally) risk their lives to protect them;
Hah! No offense to police-types, but my uncle's a state patrolman in
Kentucky; I know whereof I speak here. The police aren't required to do
diddly-squat to protect you. If they see you being menaced by a stranger
in the middle of the town in broad daylight their only obligation is to
make some vague attempt to arrest the perpetrator-- after he's finished
with you, and when they feel they're safe enough to do so. They are
under no obligation to "protect" you; just to try and find the person who
did it, and try to arrest him, if they think they can do it without
getting hurt too badly.
> that garbage will be (mostly) collected;
The only relationship government has to garbage collection around here is
fining people who leave the trash lying around. You're in no wise
required to have it collected; for all they care, you can make daily
trips to the dump yourself. And there are several companies that would
be glad to pick it up for you on a weekly basis.
> that corruption, when detected, will (often) be corrected
> and punished to some degree. Etc.
Punished by re-election, eh? What a powerful thing that is.
-=Eric
K1912
[...]
>>Thanks, babes!
>>
>>I was meandering along those lines, in seeking to respond to
>>Certain Parties, but was finding it hopeless to bridge the
>>philosophical gap.
>
>Ah, American arrogance at work here. The attitude being that because
>they've dug themselves a lemmings' leap of political correctness, that
>the rest of the English-speaking world should join with them in going
>over the edge.
>
Why is it "American arrogance," if it is arrogance, rather than just Polar's
arrogance? How does what one American say become representitive of the
arrogance of an entire country? Who's the "they've" digging "a lemmings' leap
of political correctness"? I thought babydoll (Sam) was Australian. Is babydoll
exhibiting Australian arrogance by agreeing with Polar?
>50 million Brits do not consider Jap an offensive term. That's a
>cultural difference that is worthy of respect but getting Americans
>to respect other cultures is like pissing in volcano.
>
First Polar represents 265 million Americans and now you represent 50 million
Brits. You know for a fact that 50 million Brits "do not consider Jap an
offensive term"? Was a poll taken establishing that as a fact? It would be
quite an astonishing fact, if it were a fact, that 50 million people could all
agree on anything, Brits or anyone else. Be that as it may, that's not the
point anyways, is it? The point isn't whether 50 million Brits consider "Jap"
an offensive term. The point is whether the Japanese themselves consider it
offensive. The same 50 million Brits might not consider "nigger" or "kike" or
"wop" or "gook" offensive terms either, but many more other people do.
And when you say "getting Americans to respect other cultures is like pissing
in volcano," how many Americans do you have in mind--50 million, 100 million,
200 million or do you mean all Americans? No exceptions to your opinion, which
is based on just what exactly ... your experience of pissing in a volcano? It
seems to me the arrogance displayed here is that of one Brit who has the
effrontery to insult an entire population. "Ah, American arrogance at work
here" and "Getting Americans to respect other cultures is like pissing in
volcano" indeed!
George
K1912
Chris Price
Chris Price
Mimi Kahn wrote:
> <snip>
> "Jap" was used as a pejorative during World War II, and many of the
> feelings associated with that usage still linger, especially here in
> California where so many Japanese-Americans lost their freedom and
> property for no reason other than their ancestry.
>
> The expression was usually "dirty Jap," and the posters that were part
>
> of our own propaganda to ourselves showed little buck-toothed people
> wearing glasses, sometimes bayonetting babies.
>
> "Jap," like "Chink," "kike," "spic," and the rest of its cousins, is a
>
> word (loosely speaking) best allowed to fall into disuse. It's not
> necessary to communication, it does not enrich our language, and it
> offends. I don't see the point in deliberately using an offensive
> term when you can deliver the same message without offense.
>
> No, I'm not gung-ho politically correct -- I'm perfectly capable of
> saying "blind" and "disabled" and "deaf" -- but, having been subjected
>
> to them, even in threads in this newsgroup, I don't like ethnic and
> racial slurs. I suspect I wouldn't like them even if I hadn't ever
> been on the receiving end of them.
>
> --
> Mimi
> http://www.merriewood.com
>
> (to respond via e-mail, call me anything but spamfree --
> but please don't send me e-mail copies of Usenet posts)
Chris Price
and the intention is usually clear from the context. Otherwise I would
be continually offended in this and other news groups by the
over-the-top American style.
Chris Price
Chris Price
Chris Price
George F. Hardy wrote:
> In article <911551...@marage.demon.co.uk>, ja...@marage.demon.co.uk
> (James Follett) says:
>
> >50 million Brits do not consider Jap an offensive term.
>
Rex Knepp
>
> But not everyone lives in California.
>
> Chris Price
>
> Mimi Kahn wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> > "Jap" was used as a pejorative during World War II, and many of the
> > feelings associated with that usage still linger, especially here in
> > California where so many Japanese-Americans lost their freedom and
> > property for no reason other than their ancestry.
> >
Oh, I see. Mimi's opinion doesn't count 'cause she lives in
the "land of fruits and nuts." Or were you implying that
only Californians of Japanese ancestry are insulted by the
term "jap"? Or was it something entirely different -- do
the millions of British citizens of Japanese descent consider
it a term of endearment, shouting across the village green
to their little tykes, "Now mind you don't get lost, you
little jap"?
Enlightenment, please?
Skitt
Mimi Kahn <spam...@merriewood.com> wrote in message
news:3656ccda...@news.mindspring.com...
>The City of Oakland, in its infinite wisdom, requires you to pay for
>garbage collection whether you have any garbage to collect or not
>(e.g., from unoccupied buildings). If you don't pay, the City pays --
>and slaps a lien on your property. They pay your bill and slap a lien
>on your property if your payment is late, for that matter.
I think, most cities in California do that. Livermore certainly does (I
lived there before moving to Florida). Here, in Florida, garbage service
is assessed with real estate taxes. There is unlimited pickup twice a week
for garbage, once a week for yard trash.
--
Skitt http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/5537/
Central Florida CAUTION: My opinion may vary.
Brian J Goggin
wrote:
[...]
>If I may be allowed to speak for myself? See below.
Certainly. It was just an illustration.
[...]
>Ahem. If I may be allowed ever so briefly to speak for myself?
>I was born into a 4-millennial tradition of social justice as the
>basic requirement of a moral life.
Good.
Now all we need to do is to establish the meanings of "social
justice", "basic requirement" and "moral life". Once we've
agreed on those, we could show that
- everybody should vote
- everybody should uphold the same political system (even though
it is an artefact of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries)
- everybody should pay for publicly-provided water supplies
- those who disobey the first three rules can be dismissed as
"think[ing] themselves above the common herd" and "standing
loiftily outside the process"; they can be charged with taking
public services for granted and feeling superior to public
officials.
bjg
Aaron J. Dinkin
> Japanese people have exactly the same cause to be offended by the
> British use of the word "Jap" as sales representatives have to be
> offended by the American use of the word "vet": none whatsoever.
The only sense I can make out of this comparison is to interpret that the
British use of the word "Jap" does not mean "Japanese", which does not
agree with what you wrote later. What do you mean? ("Vet" means either
"veteran" or "veterinarian", but not "sales representative", in the US.)
-Aaron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom
Truly Donovan
>Brian J Goggin wrote:
>> I don't know that I am required to believe
>>
>> - that there are people less privileged than I am
>> - that, if they do exist, their condition results from their
>> being referred to in particular ways
>> - that my referring to them in some different way is going to
>> improve their condition
>> - that I am under an obligation (legal? moral? what?) to improve
>> their condition
>> - that those to whom I might refer in ways that they dislike are
>> necessarily less privileged than I am
>> - that there is one scale on which privilege can be weighed.
>
>
>You could have delivered your message much more succinctly with: "I
>refuse to give a damn about anybody else but myself".
Except that's not what he said. What he said was that he didn't know
that he was required to believe that he must give a damn about the
sensibilities of anybody that *you* happen to consider less privileged
than he is.
You Moral Superiorians should stop looking under rocks for things to
be morally superior about; it diminishes the entire society.
Truly Donovan
wrote:
>The plain
>fact is that a polite person does not insult another person out
>of malice or cruelty.
Right. We do it out of a sense of justice and the fitness of things.
Truly Donovan
Follett) wrote:
>. . . getting Americans
>to respect other cultures is like pissing in volcano.
Well, we certainly came by it honestly; it's part of our cultural
heritage from you-know-where.
Evan Kirshenbaum
> On 20 Nov 1998 12:16:46 -0700, "Eric The Read"
> <emsc...@mail.uccs.edu> wrote:
>
> >> that police will (generally) risk their lives to protect them;
> >
> >Hah! No offense to police-types, but my uncle's a state patrolman
> >in Kentucky; I know whereof I speak here. The police aren't
> >required to do diddly-squat to protect you. If they see you being
> >menaced by a stranger in the middle of the town in broad daylight
> >their only obligation is to make some vague attempt to arrest the
> >perpetrator-- after he's finished with you, and when they feel
> >they're safe enough to do so. They are under no obligation to
> >"protect" you; just to try and find the person who did it, and try
> >to arrest him, if they think they can do it without getting hurt
> >too badly.
Law enforcement agencies and
personnel have no duty to protect
individuals from the criminal acts
of others; instead their duty is to
preserve the peace and arrest law
breakers for the protection of the
general public.
Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247
(N.C. App. 1989)
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |The mystery of government is not how
1501 Page Mill Road, Building 1U |Washington works, but how to make it
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |stop.
| P.J. O'Rourke
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
Eric The Read
> Some folks see the cup as half-full; others as half-empty.
Some folks respond to points raised with reasoned arguments; some with
meaningless platitudes.
-=Eric
JB
Since their own name for their country is Nippon, maybe they should be
called Nips. Nonpejoratively, of course. It's sure easier to pronounce
than Jpn.
--JB
Jeff Pack
> What evidence do you have that many people in Japan find the term
> offensive?
Many of them probably don't, just as many people in the U.S. don't find
"gaijin" offensive.
> Or maybe one of our Japanese readers could enlighten us? When
> you say "...a lot of people live elsewhere in the world and find it
> offensive as well" are you referring solely to people of Japanese
> descent? Surely they are the only ones with a legitimate right to
> express an opinion?
Surely this is sarcasm? I hope it is, but I fear it isn't, as I've spent
the last few years on a university campus where establishing your "right"
to your opinion (by group identification) is taken *very* seriously. Of
course, as a heterosexual white male I'm entitled to very few opinions.
Jeff
Albert Marshall
>In article <911551...@marage.demon.co.uk>, ja...@marage.demon.co.uk (James
>Follett) says:
>
>>50 million Brits do not consider Jap an offensive term.
>
>How do they feel about "Limies"? Like the French feel
>about "Frogs"?
>
The email address I post from is that of my wife's business, and is
based on the company name in the second line of my .sig (Executive
French).
Madame Frédérique Marshall appears to have no major problem with "Frog".
Similarly I have no objection to a Yank calling me a Limey.
--
Albert Marshall
Executive French
Language Training for Businesses in Kent
01634 400902
Chris Price
with that usage still linger, especially here in California where so
many Japanese-Americans lost their freedom and property for no reason
in California") before getting yourself all hot and excited.
Chris Price
Sam
> Truly Donovan
> reply to truly at lunemere dot com
I never said anything about who was less privileged than bjg. He wrote
this treatise off his own bat. All I ever said was that it was
insensitive to assume that just because one means nothing derogatory by
using an expression, *especially* when describing another race of
people, one can't assume that that impression will not have a
resoundingly negative reception by representatives of that race.
I don't consider myself morally superior. I'm just aware of the power of
ignorant statements and try not to be insensitive to the feelings of
others by using them.
You reveal the weakness of your argument by naively believing that there
is a single society. I ain't a member of your society, lady, and you
ain't no member of mine.
--
Sam (a.k.a. babydoll) "O most pernicious woman!"
Sydney.Australia - Hamlet I.5.
--
Chris Price
you say "...a lot of people live elsewhere in the world and find it
offensive as well" are you referring solely to people of Japanese
descent? Surely they are the only ones with a legitimate right to
express an opinion?
Chris Price
Mimi Kahn wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Nov 1998 20:24:05 +0000, Chris Price
> <christop...@mail.btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> >But not everyone lives in California.
>
> No, but a lot of people live in Japan and find the term
> offensive...and a lot of people live elsewhere in the world and find
> it offensive as well. World War II propaganda extended far beyond
> California, even though the Japanese relocation was a West Coast
> phenomenon (not just California, BTW).
> <snip>
Chris Price
1. If I, through ignorance, call a man with black skin a "nigger" and
he tells me that he and other people with his skin colour find it
insulting then, yes, if I continue to use the term I am being rude. If
someone else, with a white skin, says that black people find it
insulting then I would like to know where they get that information. For
example, I have sometimes heard "Limey" being used with intent to
insult: very few Brits find it insulting and I would hate to think that,
across the breadth of North America, people were being warned "Don't say
someone from Britain is a Limey - it's insulting".
2. I ccannot see how you make the logical leap from my statement that
I am offended by some American's style of posting to saying that I find
Americans offensive. It is well-known - and has been discussed in this
group - that there are differences between British and American styles
of humour. American over-the-top style is offensive, or sounds silly, to
many British ears: British sardonic style is apparently impenetrable and
unfunny to many Americans. Perhaps you should have read more carefully
the post by Rex Knepp to which I was replying as it contained "Context
is bullshit. Intent is horseshit. Politically correct (or politically
incorrect) is a crock of limbaugh cheese." which is a perfect example of
the American over-the-top style, as well as the repitition of "shit"
being offensive.
It seems to me that you are the one who is Brit-bashing, not me
American-bashing
Chris Price
Mimi Kahn wrote:
> <snip>
>
> Equally a polite person does not *give* offense when told that a
> particular term is derogatory. Call me "kike" once, and I may tell
> you why "kike" is not the preferred term. Call me "kike" again, and
> I'll consider you a rude and insensitive bastard.
>
> I'm sorry you find our American style something you have to train
> yourself to ignore lest you find it, and presumably us, offensive.
> But what the hell -- there are a lot more of us than there are of you.
>
> I have been amazed by the amount of American-bashing that goes on in
> this newsgroup, largely from some of the Brits. We don't seem to
> return fire. I guess we're a lot more secure than you are. Or a lot
> more civilized.
>
Larry Phillips
>
> No, I'm not gung-ho politically correct -- I'm perfectly capable of
> saying "blind" and "disabled" and "deaf" -- but, having been subjected
> to them, even in threads in this newsgroup, I don't like ethnic and
> racial slurs. I suspect I wouldn't like them even if I hadn't ever
> been on the receiving end of them.
But that's his whole point, that it isn't, in his culture, considered
offensive. That you claim it to be is a reflection of your point of view
as shaped by your culture. Personally, I think that the Japanese would
have thought nothing of it, if Americans hadn't suddenly got a big case
of the guilts and decided they should be offended. Mr. Herr Senor
Tanaka-san excepted, of course.
Consider this. If you had, during the war, done all the same things,
propoganda-wise, yet had not used the term 'Jap', using instead 'Dirty
Japanese', would the term 'Japanese' now be considered racist or
derogatory? It bears thinking about.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
When life looks like Easy Street, there is danger at your door.
-- Grateful Dead
http://cr347197-a.surrey1.bc.wave.home.com/larry/
Larry Phillips
> No, but a lot of people live in Japan and find the term
> offensive...and a lot of people live elsewhere in the world and find
> it offensive as well. World War II propaganda extended far beyond
> California, even though the Japanese relocation was a West Coast
> phenomenon (not just California, BTW).
And not just in the US, but the fact of relocation camps does not bear
on the offensiveness of the word 'Jap'.
Larry Phillips
> I'm sorry you find our American style something you have to train
> yourself to ignore lest you find it, and presumably us, offensive.
> But what the hell -- there are a lot more of us than there are of you.
Yeah, what the hell. Might makes right, I guess.
> I have been amazed by the amount of American-bashing that goes on in
> this newsgroup, largely from some of the Brits.
You call it 'bashing' to make the observation that Americans are
excessive in their political correctness? I guess we have different
feelings about the word 'bashing'.
> We don't seem to return fire.
Bull.
Larry Phillips
>> 50 million Brits do not consider Jap an offensive term.
>
> How do they feel about "Limies"? Like the French feel
> about "Frogs"?
'Limey', like 'Canuck' is not considered offensive by the people it
refers to. I should qualify that by saying that yes, there are probably
a few who do find it offensive, but they are likely to be offended by
the universe in general.
Larry Phillips
> Some folks see the cup as half-full; others as half-empty.
And some of us think that the cup is the wrong size, or that it's the
wrong container altogether.
Bun Mui
Comments?
Bun Mui
Sean Holland
>'Limey', like 'Canuck' is not considered offensive by the people it
>refers to. I should qualify that by saying that yes, there are probably
>a few who do find it offensive, but they are likely to be offended by
>the universe in general.
I wonder if this has something to do with winning and losing in the
great conflict of this century. Limey, Yankee, Canuck, Aussie...these
don't seem to bother anyone, including those to whom the terms refer. Jap
and Kraut do bother those to whom those terms refer.
Some years ago a group of housewives I was teaching in Japan spent an
hour discussing what would be a good nickname for the Japanese. Their idea
was that most of the "members of the club" of developed nations had some
nickname, and that it was time for the Japanese to join the club. "Jap"
was not one of their preferred terms. Most Japanese do not care for the
term. The housewives seemed to like my facetiously offered "rice-burners",
but I had to confess to them that it was sometimes used with less than
kindly intent in Canada.
--
Sean
Due to spam filtering, mail from hotmail or prodigy will not reach me.
Sean Holland
<Bun...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>"jp" as short for Japan used in e-mail address domain ending.
>
>Comments?
>
Tanaka-san uses "jp" as an abbreviation for Japanese.
Larry Phillips
> The housewives seemed to like my facetiously offered "rice-burners",
> but I had to confess to them that it was sometimes used with less than
> kindly intent in Canada.
The only way I've heard it used (in Canada or otherwise) is when used
to describe a Japanese motorcycle. In that, it has been used
derogatorially, but not specifically against the Japanese, only against
the bike, in comparison to a British or American bike.
John Doherty
seho...@islandnet.com (Sean Holland) wrote:
| Some years ago a group of housewives I was teaching in Japan spent an
| hour discussing what would be a good nickname for the Japanese. Their idea
| was that most of the "members of the club" of developed nations had some
| nickname, and that it was time for the Japanese to join the club. "Jap"
| was not one of their preferred terms. Most Japanese do not care for the
| term. The housewives seemed to like my facetiously offered "rice-burners",
| but I had to confess to them that it was sometimes used with less than
| kindly intent in Canada.
"Rice-burners" refers to "motorcycles", not people.
"Motorcycles" is in scare quotes because "motorcycles" that aren't Harleys
aren't really motorcycles at all.
Charles Riggs
Howard) wrote:
>
>Japanese people have exactly the same cause to be offended by the
>British use of the word "Jap" as sales representatives have to be
>offended by the American use of the word "vet": none whatsoever.
>
>Abbreviating a word does not, *per se*, make it offensive.
When some words are abbreviated they do become offensive: Japanese is
one of them. If the Japanese find Jap offensive, and they do, then it
is offensive for whatever the reason.
Charles
Sam
Succinctly put, Charles. I would add the generic "he" to that list as
well.
Chris Price
that your experience lies with Japanese-Americans. Should I ever meet
one I will certainly take your advice on board. You have not shown that
you are qualified to advise on the feelings of Japanese in Tokyo, or
London, and that I should cease to use what I have always regarded as
useful, non-pejorative term - I would regard "nip" as the pejorative
term.
Chris Price
Mimi Kahn wrote:
> <snip>
>
> I don't believe that you discounted my opinion because *I* live in
> California (FWIW, I didn't at the time), but do you believe that
> "especially" and "exclusively" are synonymous?
>
> I think you'll find that every Japanese-American who lived through the
>
> relocation, and their children and grandchildren, share that feeling.
> Many of them were in California at the time of their internment -- but
>
> the relocation was not restricted to California's Japanese-Americans.
> And the feelings engendered were, as far as I have been able to
> determine through Nisei of my acquaintance, damned near universal
> among Japanese-Americans. (S. I. Hayakawa was in a class by himself.)
>
> I got an education from my Nisei dentist through 25 years of listening
>
> to him with my mouth open.
>
> You might also be interested in the autobiography of George Takei, who
>
> played Sulu on the original "Star Trek," because he goes into great
> detail about his family's internment and their hardships during and
> after World War II.
>
> I don't think any of them would be happy being called a "Jap."
>
>
Chris Price
useful, succinct, and non-insulting because, you claim, the group to
which it applies find it insulting. Your experience, judging from your
previous posts, lies solely with Japanese-Americans and, as I said in
another post, I will take it board should I meet one. However, you are
not, so far as I know, Japanese yourself, nor have you claimed any
special experience with Japan or members of the Japanese community
overseas, other than Japanese-Americans. Thus I must question your
competence to act as their spokesperson. I don't see why this is
ridiculous.
Mimi Kahn wrote:
> <snip>
>
> See my previous post for some of my sources. I would certainly
> welcome a response from any Japanese or Japanese-American among us.
>
> And, no, I don't think that people of Japanese descent are the only
> ones who have a legitimate right to express an opinion. In fact, I
> think that statement is ridiculous.
>
Chris Price
not, hitherto, been considered insulting, and as you are not,
apparently, Japanese yourself what evidence do you have that the
Japanese (other than Japanese-Americans) find it insulting? If you have
none then it is purely your opinion against mine. If you have some then
please produce it.
For your second point I cannot see that "the over-the-top American
style" [of posting] stereotypes all Americans anymore than saying "jazz
is an American style of music" implies that all Americans like jazz.
Some Scots dislike bagpipes, some English dislike tea: I don't think
either group would deny that bagpipes and tea are part of their
respective national images.
Chris Price
Mimi Kahn wrote:
> <snip>
>
> I disagree. A person doesn't have to be Chinese to know that "Chink"
> is an offensive term. Same with the others. As for "Limey," it isn't
>
> a term I've ever used.
>
> <snip>
>
> It sounds to me as though you have to make a mental leap to avoid
> being offended by "over-the-top American style," which is somehow
> offensive to you if you *don't* make this mental leap.
>
> What I find offensive is your tacit assumption that all of us -- and
> this is a big country -- share this style that would be so offensive
> were it not for your politeness. There are a lot of us, and we're
> *not* all alike. The underlying assumption that we're all alike is
> stereotyping. I don't feel that way about Brits. I find many of you
> very likeable. Others not. And I certainly don't find you all alike.
>
> Above you say "some American's style of posting" (let's not get into
> the placement of the apostrophe since I know what you intended to
> write), but that's *not* what you said in your original post, is it?
> If you had said that, I wouldn't have responded with an objection to
> your stereotyping of all of us.
>
> >It seems to me that you are the one who is Brit-bashing, not me
> >American-bashing
>
> I'm not Brit-bashing. If I'm bashing anyone, I'm bashing you as an
> individual. (Actually, I'm simply disagreeing with you, however
> strenuously.) I try to avoid bashing entire groups of people because
> I don't think of them as peas in a pod.
>
> --
> Mimi
> http://www.merriewood.com
>
> (to respond via e-mail, call me anything but spamfree --
> but please don't send me e-mail copies of Usenet posts)
Ross Howard
wrote:
>The plain
>fact is that a polite person does not insult another person out
>of malice or cruelty. Likewise, when informed of insult caused
>by ignorance, a polite person apologizes and doesn't do it again.
As soon as I am informed by Japanese long-term residents of the UK
(Tanaka-san need not apply) that they are offended by being referred
to as "Japs", by "African-Americans" that they are offended by being
called "black", and by "members of the indigenous tribal peoples of
North America" that they are offended by being called "Indians",
rather than being told repeatedly -- and exclusively -- by
middle-class white Americans that those terms are offensive, then I
will gladly stop using them. Until then, tough.
Jim Follett is quite right; "Jap" is *not* generally offensive in
Britain. It is therefore -- as Our Leader would have it -- "in English
usage" as it is used in the historical centre of all English-speaking
culture a perfectly normal, neutral colloquial word.
What, then, can there possibly be to apologise-and-not-do-it-again
about? Or do you want to start apologising-and-not-doing-it-again for
"hospitalize" and "normalcy" and other perfectly normal American words
that make most Brits put on their best lemon-sucky faces? Idiom is
idiom, and I respect it and adhere to it far more than I respect or
adhere to the arbitrary dictates of some white American (or even
Australian) self-styled advocate of the alleged interests of the
world's underprivileged who has no argument other than the stick up
his or her me.
>OBaue -- what's "vet" got to do with sales reps?
See reply to Aaron's puzzlement over the same thing.
Ross H.
Ross Howard
Dinkin) wrote:
>In article <36559db6...@news.iddeo.es>, rossh...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
>> Japanese people have exactly the same cause to be offended by the
>> British use of the word "Jap" as sales representatives have to be
>> offended by the American use of the word "vet": none whatsoever.
>
>The only sense I can make out of this comparison is to interpret that the
>British use of the word "Jap" does not mean "Japanese", which does not
>agree with what you wrote later. What do you mean? ("Vet" means either
>"veteran" or "veterinarian", but not "sales representative", in the US.)
It was the result of changing similes in midstream and not cleaning up
afterwards. I was claiming that the abbreviation of "Japanese person"
to "Jap" was parallel to and -- at least in the U.K. -- no more
offensive than the abbreviation of "U.S. armed-services veteran" and
"veterinary surgeon" to "vet" or of "sales representative" to "rep".
Then I changed everything all around and inadvertently dragged and
dropped my brain onto my wastebasket icon. Then, as usual, I smiled
inanely and hit "Send".
Sorry for any head-scratching caused.
Ross H.
Simon R. Hughes
> I don't consider myself morally superior. I'm just aware of the power of
> ignorant statements and try not to be insensitive to the feelings of
> others by using them.
I don't imagine for one moment that there is one person here that
willfully offends others in day to day life by using words that are
known to be offensive to the intended audience. Perhaps some of the
words that we avoid aren't even offensive to the audience, but we
avoid them anyway, Just in Case.
In Britain, "Jap" is not a term that offends, nor one that is
(generally) used with offensive intent. Perhaps American and
Australian usage differs on this point of usage, but that has no
bearing on how Brits/ Limeys/ whatever (should) use their own
language. (Having said that, it must be noted that no polite Briton
would refer to a German as a "Hun" or "Jerry".)
> You reveal the weakness of your argument by naively believing that there
> is a single society. I ain't a member of your society, lady, and you
> ain't no member of mine.
Then the member of one society has no business telling the members of
the other what is and what isn't offensive.
--
Simon R. Hughes -- http://skrik.home.ml.org
For ever the latter end of joye is wo.
God woot that worldly joye is sone ago
Simon R. Hughes
> Charles Riggs wrote:
> > When some words are abbreviated they do become offensive: Japanese is
> > one of them. If the Japanese find Jap offensive, and they do, then it
> > is offensive for whatever the reason.
> >
> > Charles
>
> Succinctly put, Charles. I would add the generic "he" to that list as
> well.
What is "generic he" abbreviated from?
Rhialto
George F. Hardy wrote in message <3655b...@news.rlc.net>...
When did you conduct ths particular survey?
>How do they feel about "Limies"? Like the French feel
>about "Frogs"?
Im curious. What is teh etymology of this particular (limie) word?
---
Rhialto
What makes a curse is simply the view,
A blessing to some is a curse unto you,
But acceptance can conquer that fear you hold high,
Through acceptance comes peace... are you willing to try?
Mark Odegard
seho...@islandnet.com (Sean Holland) in
<sehollan-211...@199-175-106-162.islandnet.com> wrote
| I wonder if this has something to do with winning and losing in the
|great conflict of this century. Limey, Yankee, Canuck, Aussie...these
|don't seem to bother anyone, including those to whom the terms refer. Jap
|and Kraut do bother those to whom those terms refer.
Here in the US, we are mostly amused when some foreign tinpot
hurls invective towards us. The Chinese called us running dogs,
paper tigers, hegemonistic lackies. In times past, we've seen
pissed-off demonstrators trying to turn 'Yankee' into some kind
of curse. The mullahs more recently have called us the Great
Satan.
Our responses are, for the most part, either supercilious
shrug-offs or the kind of things you do with ill-behaved
children. Nothing in the world more offends someone than to have
their own bad, attention-getting behavior dismissed as a
toddler's tantrum.
When a nation which has been high-flying gets cast down (as did
Japan and Germany, and more recently as has Russia), and finds
itself fighting with the rest of the world for crumbs from the
table of the elite, the inferiority complex is even more acute,
and even after economic and political prowess have been
regained, hypersensitivity remains. Like so many things, it's a
matter of self-image.
A final thing remains. The fact that our culture is dominant, to
the point that all other cultures are threatened. Here in the
first world, we have an economic and social heaven here on
earth, while the rest of the world can only look around at the
corrupt squalor being delivered to them by their own leaders.
This paragraph might be supercilious in its delivery, but it
remains true nonetheless. When looking at the rest of the world,
all evidences point to the fact that God is on Our Side.
--
Mark Odegard. (Omit OMIT to email)
Emailed copies of responses are very much appreciated.
Murray Arnow
<...>
>A final thing remains. The fact that our culture is dominant, to
>the point that all other cultures are threatened. Here in the
>first world, we have an economic and social heaven here on
>earth, while the rest of the world can only look around at the
>corrupt squalor being delivered to them by their own leaders.
>This paragraph might be supercilious in its delivery, but it
>remains true nonetheless. When looking at the rest of the world,
>all evidences point to the fact that God is on Our Side.
How good of Him. After all, He is English.
Ross Howard
wrote:
>do
>the millions of British citizens of Japanese descent
Is that an example of that American hyperbole I've heard so much
about? *If* the U.K. -- pop. 58,000,000; pop. of Japanese descent: so
small that I can find no demographic data detailed enough to be able
to quantify it -- happened to have a Japanese community worth
identifying as such, and *if* that Japanese community worth
identifying as such got up and said, "Oy, please don't call us 'Japs'
any more because we find it offensive," then most other Brits would
just shrug and say, "If that's what you want, fine." But until such
time as those millions you mention manage to lobby Parliament to
change the immigration laws so that, *en masse*, they can take up
residence in the U.K., and until such time as a representative
spokesman for those hypothetical millions makes such a complaint, then
they'll be called what they've always been called *in the UK*: "Japs".
You've now had four British posters telling you that your assertion
that the use of "Jap" by Brits is xenophobically loaded is an utterly
false one, while the only people who've seconded your claim are not
British but, like you, are from cultures *in which* that word
apparently is so loaded and therefore is indeed offensive. You might
consider taking your own advice to those who cause offence through
their complete ignorance of other cultures: just apologise and don't
do it again.
Ross H.
George F. Hardy
>
>What evidence do you have that many people in Japan find the term
>offensive?
25 years of doing business in Japan.
GFH
George F. Hardy
>Since their own name for their country is Nippon, maybe they
>should be called Nips.
Nips and Nippers were commonly used. They were not thrilled with
these words either, but they considered them FAR better than Japs.
GFH
George F. Hardy
GFH
Mark Odegard
ar...@iname.com (Murray Arnow) in <736gtc$nc1$2...@hirame.wwa.com>
wrote
|How good of Him. After all, He is English.
Yes, He is, but He speaks with an American accent.
a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca
Howard) wrote:
[ ]
> Idiom is
>idiom, and I respect it and adhere to it far more than I respect or
>adhere to the arbitrary dictates of some white American (or even
>Australian) self-styled advocate of the alleged interests of the
>world's underprivileged who has no argument other than the stick up
>his or her me.
>
>Ross H.
>
That's a rare idiom you have there!
I wonder whether 'Jap' Profumo knows what it means, assuming that the
poor chap isn't dead.
Messing with Mandy-with-the-Welch-hyphen-name was much more damaging
for him than his own very non-English name, given to him -- at Eton I
think -- on account of his equally non-English phizz.
Foreigners on the make are common in British politics -- look at
Disraeli and Gladstone. Without them and the ditching of Palmerston's
(and Pitt's) ideas neither Denmark nor France would have suffered from
Prussian aggrandizement. With worse to come.
So, to our cost, I would say that the English are pretty broadminded
-- or thick-skinned if you like --about this sort of stuff. A Jap is
not a bloody Hun. Mind you, once or twice -- again to our cost --
we've had the French as allies and though we are are forbidden (by
our mothers) to call them Frogs, we do; but we don't mean anything by
it.
a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca
>How good of Him. After all, He is English.
Blowing again, Murray me lad? Choosing your people?
Murray Arnow
The song of the anonymous castrato, snipe and whine and never be known.
If this is your best rejoinder, then playing with you is hardly worth the
effort. I'll let you continue to play with yourself. At least that source of
self-gratification doesn't require you to share your identity. Oops, I forgot,
can you eunuchs achieve gratification?
a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca
wrote:
>JAP also stands for Jewish American Princess.
>
>GFH
Well, that's all right then -- as everybody has been saying.
a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca
a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca
wrote:
> a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca wrote:
>> ar...@iname.com (Murray Arnow)wrote:
>>
>>> OMITo...@means.net wrote:
>>>>A final thing remains. The fact that our culture is dominant, to
>>>>the point that all other cultures are threatened. Here in the
>>>>first world, we have an economic and social heaven here on
>>>>earth, while the rest of the world can only look around at the
>>>>corrupt squalor being delivered to them by their own leaders.
>>>>This paragraph might be supercilious in its delivery, but it
>>>>remains true nonetheless. When looking at the rest of the world,
>>>>all evidences point to the fact that God is on Our Side.
>>>
>>>How good of Him. After all, He is English.
>>
>>
>>Blowing again, Murray me lad? Choosing your people?
>
>The song of the anonymous castrato, snipe and whine and never be known.
>If this is your best rejoinder, then playing with you is hardly worth the
>effort. I'll let you continue to play with yourself. At least that source of
>self-gratification doesn't require you to share your identity. Oops, I forgot,
>can you eunuchs achieve gratification?
Do you suffer from some sort of sexual dysfunction, Murray? People
who talk like that often do; but take heart, for therapy is as near as
your concerned a1a, who blubbers not nor wails.
Murray Arnow
If you are speaking from first hand knowledge, you better get a refund for
your therapy. Your shrink didn't have any success with your identity crisis or
your sniveling cowardice.
Sean Holland
>
>The only way I've heard it used (in Canada or otherwise) is when used
>to describe a Japanese motorcycle. In that, it has been used
>derogatorially, but not specifically against the Japanese, only against
>the bike, in comparison to a British or American bike.
You're right. My experience with the term was different. Many years ago
I worked for a Japanese mineral exploration company in the Northwest
Territories. I quickly learned that if I sat with the Japanese geologists
in the kitchen tent I would get more potatos since they preferred the
rice. The Canadian workers started calling them rice burners. This usage
was limited to a community of about twenty men.
--
Sean
Due to spam filtering, mail from hotmail or prodigy will not reach me.
Sean Holland
christop...@virtualplus.co.uk wrote:
>Your latest post, and the one on which I originally commented, suggest
>that your experience lies with Japanese-Americans. Should I ever meet
>one I will certainly take your advice on board. You have not shown that
>you are qualified to advise on the feelings of Japanese in Tokyo, or
>London, and that I should cease to use what I have always regarded as
>useful, non-pejorative term - I would regard "nip" as the pejorative
>term.
I lived in Japan for eight years. I teach the Japanese language. I speak
with a variety of Japanese people every day. I can assure you that most
Japanese consider the term "Jap" to be the equivalent of terms like
"nigger", "wog" or "kike".
Sean Holland
wrote:
>(snip) The Japanese I have known have been unfailingly polite,
>unlike you and I.
....unlike you and me. !!!!!!!
(But I agree with your opinion on the word "Jap".)
Richard Fontana
>
> George F. Hardy wrote in message <3655b...@news.rlc.net>...
> >In article <911551...@marage.demon.co.uk>, ja...@marage.demon.co.uk
> (James Follett) says:
> >
> >>50 million Brits do not consider Jap an offensive term.
>
> When did you conduct ths particular survey?
>
> >How do they feel about "Limies"? Like the French feel
> >about "Frogs"?
>
> Im curious. What is teh etymology of this particular (limie) word?
I believe it dates from the time (late 18th/early 19th century?) when
British sailors were encouraged to eat citrus fruits to avoid getting
scurvy.
jsee...@gte.net
"Rhialto" <rhi...@chikyuujin.earthling.net> wrote:
> Im curious. What is teh etymology of this particular (limie) word?
>
I *believe* it has to do with British sailors eating lots of limes in order to
prevent getting scurvy(?)
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca
Tut, tut, Murray.
Do not be such a JAP. No amount of such stuff will compensate even
you for not being English, you know.
Sean Holland
wrote:
>"...unlike you and I are..." (the "are" understood)?
Of course I thought of that interpretation one second after I hit
"send". Similarly, there are those who say "bigger than I" (the "am" is
understood), and those who say "bigger than me" ("than" seems to work like
a preposition, forcing the objective case). I am of the latter persuasion,
but I do not hate those of the former persuasion.
Brian J Goggin
wrote:
[...]
>I never said anything about who was less privileged than bjg. He wrote
>this treatise off his own bat. All I ever said was that it was
>insensitive to assume that just because one means nothing derogatory by
>using an expression, *especially* when describing another race of
>people, one can't assume that that impression will not have a
>resoundingly negative reception by representatives of that race.
Eh? I understood that you write this:
>> >You could have delivered your message much more succinctly with: "I
>> >refuse to give a damn about anybody else but myself".
That sentence (the only one you wrote in your posting) has (as
far as I can see) nothing whatsoever to do with derogatory
expressions, races or resoundingly negative receptions. You
wrote in response to a posting of mine about compulsory voting
and state services, in discussion with Polar about those
matters.
Is it possible that you did not read the whole of my posting
before you replied to it? Or is there some other source of
misunderstanding? I do apologise if I have contributed to it.
bjg
Brian J Goggin
Goggin) wrote:
[...]
>Good.
[...]
That was rather a pugnacious posting; I apologise.
bjg
Brian J Goggin
wrote:
[...]
>I wonder whether 'Jap' Profumo knows what it means, assuming that the
>poor chap isn't dead.
Not according to Hoyle. Sorry; Chambers. *Biographical
Dictionary.* Still with us.
>Messing with Mandy-with-the-Welch-hyphen-name was much more damaging
>for him than his own very non-English name, given to him -- at Eton I
>think -- on account of his equally non-English phizz.
Harrow, perhaps?
The first element of Mandy's name might be significant.
>Foreigners on the make are common in British politics
[...]
Some of us have noted that Britons on the make were common in
foreign politics.
bjg
khann
>
> Sean Holland wrote:
>
> > The housewives seemed to like my facetiously offered "rice-burners",
> > but I had to confess to them that it was sometimes used with less than
> > kindly intent in Canada.
>
> The only way I've heard it used (in Canada or otherwise) is when used
> to describe a Japanese motorcycle. In that, it has been used
> derogatorially, but not specifically against the Japanese, only against
> the bike, in comparison to a British or American bike.
>
We always called Nipponese _cars_ "rice-burners," their bikes were known
as "ring-a-dings" due to the tinny sound that their engines made.
JB
> I wonder if this has something to do with winning and losing in the
> great conflict of this century. Limey, Yankee, Canuck, Aussie...these
> don't seem to bother anyone, including those to whom the terms refer.
Many people in the southern US will take strenuous exception to being
called Yankee.
--JB
Sean Holland
>
>Many people in the southern US will take strenuous exception to being
>called Yankee.
>--JB
the term does correctly refer seem not to mind it.
Charles Riggs
>Charles Riggs wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 20 Nov 1998 16:50:08 GMT, rossh...@my-dejanews.com (Ross
>> Howard) wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Japanese people have exactly the same cause to be offended by the
>> >British use of the word "Jap" as sales representatives have to be
>> >offended by the American use of the word "vet": none whatsoever.
>> >
>> >Abbreviating a word does not, *per se*, make it offensive.
>>
>> When some words are abbreviated they do become offensive: Japanese is
>> one of them. If the Japanese find Jap offensive, and they do, then it
>> is offensive for whatever the reason.
>>
>> Charles
>
>Succinctly put, Charles. I would add the generic "he" to that list as
>well.
To a degree I would too. There was a lengthy thread on the subject
recently and I believe the upshot was that there is no good word to
substitute for it in many cases.
Charles
Charles Riggs
wrote:
>George F. Hardy wrote:
>>> 50 million Brits do not consider Jap an offensive term.
>>
>> How do they feel about "Limies"? Like the French feel
>> about "Frogs"?
>
>'Limey', like 'Canuck' is not considered offensive by the people it
>refers to. I should qualify that by saying that yes, there are probably
>a few who do find it offensive, but they are likely to be offended by
>the universe in general.
I don't like being called a Yank and I wouldn't call a Briton a Limey.
Canuck is definitely considered offensive by Canadians.
Charles
Charles Riggs
Doherty) wrote:
>"Motorcycles" is in scare quotes because "motorcycles" that aren't Harleys
>aren't really motorcycles at all.
Harleys are motorcicles, the true motorcycle today is the BMW.
Charles
Mark Odegard
ri...@anu.ie (Charles Riggs) in <365da276....@news.anu.ie>
wrote
|Canuck is definitely considered offensive by Canadians.
No, it's not, as the Canadian contingent here will testify. As
the US has Uncle Sam, and England has John Bull, so Canada has
Johnny Canuck.
Aaron J. Dinkin
seho...@islandnet.com (Sean Holland) wrote:
> In article <365765AD...@flash.net>, JB
> <EMAILADDR...@flash.net> wrote:
> >
> >Many people in the southern US will take strenuous exception to being
> >called Yankee.
> >--JB
> Yes, because the term does not correctly refer to them. Those to whom
> the term does correctly refer seem not to mind it.
The question of whom the term does in fact refer to, however, is an open
one. It is said that outside the US, a Yankee is someone from the US; in
the southern US, a Yankee is someone from the North; in the North, a Yankee
is someone from New England; in New England, a Yankee is someone whose
ancestors back several generations were also from New England.
-Aaron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom
Larry Phillips
> I don't like being called a Yank and I wouldn't call a Briton a Limey.
> Canuck is definitely considered offensive by Canadians.
Listen up, Yank. I'ma Canuck, and I cheer for the Vancouver Canucks
hockey team. I'll thank you to post a retraction of your erroneous
posting.
There may be a few Canadians that are offended by the term, but for the
most part, we aren't.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
When life looks like Easy Street, there is danger at your door.
-- Grateful Dead
http://cr347197-a.surrey1.bc.wave.home.com/larry/
Larry Phillips
> Alas, though the facts were known (other foods, such as fresh meat,
> could also help avert scurvy) , many, many seamen still died because
> the fat-assed, obtuse Royal Navy types continued to sing "I'll do it
> My Way." As late as the Scott expedition to the South Pole, early
> 20th century, men died because of this mind-set.
Except for Scott himself, of course, who was a victim of his own
ignorance of the coriolis force.