Time AGAIN to correct whites on PROPER chopsticks usage - FWD: Chopstick Hints and Etiquette
Robert Knowles
"Michael Dix" <lo...@sig.please.because.this.is.invalid> wrote in message
news:3C706A48...@sig.please.because.this.is.invalid...
> Robert Knowles wrote:
>
> > Yeah, that one always gets me. The Thai's typically use a fork
> > to place food on a spoon and eat from the spoon. Probably
> > the only Thai's who eat with chopsticks are Chinese Thai's, but
> > I've never seen it done in Thailand.
>
> I thought the Thais used their first three fingers as a scoop,
> and their thumb as a pusher.
>
Maybe if they're eating sticky rice, but in restaurants they
use knife and spoon.
>
> --
> mj...@sonic.net
Robert Knowles
"Robert Knowles" <knowl...@home.com> wrote in message
news:iydc8.60920$Ig2.16...@news1.elcjn1.sdca.home.com...
Should have been fork and spoon.
> >
> > --
> > mj...@sonic.net
>
>
Robert Knowles
"Marilyn S. Safier" <msa...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:3C701832...@prodigy.net...
> Where do they get those chopsticks? Bring them in like a bottle of
> wine?!
>
Not sure what you mean. If you mean in Thai restaurants located
in western countries, they will supply chopsticks because locals
who don't know better expect them (just like they expect fortune
cookies and sweet&sour pork in chinese restaurants).
But if you go to Thailand you mostly see knives, forks, and
spoons used for eating. And some eating with fingers, but
not typically in restaurants. I've visited Thailand over half
a dozen times (one time for 3 months) and cannot recall
ever seeing anyone use chopsticks.
They also eat pizza with a knife and fork and put ketchup
on it. At least that's what I saw in Pizza Hut.
>
> Robert Knowles wrote:
> > Yeah, that one always gets me. The Thai's typically use a fork
> > to place food on a spoon and eat from the spoon. Probably
> > the only Thai's who eat with chopsticks are Chinese Thai's, but
> > I've never seen it done in Thailand.
>
> --
> Marilyn Safier
> West Hollywood, California
> Crochet items and more!
>
http://cgi3.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewListedItems&userid=marecrochet
s
> Visit my Picture albums at:
> http://www.picturetrail.com/gallery/view?username=msafier
Tina Mongkolsmai
>
> Not sure what you mean. If you mean in Thai restaurants located
> in western countries, they will supply chopsticks because locals
> who don't know better expect them (just like they expect fortune
> cookies and sweet&sour pork in chinese restaurants).
>
> But if you go to Thailand you mostly see knives, forks, and
> spoons used for eating. And some eating with fingers, but
> not typically in restaurants. I've visited Thailand over half
> a dozen times (one time for 3 months) and cannot recall
> ever seeing anyone use chopsticks.
>
> They also eat pizza with a knife and fork and put ketchup
> on it. At least that's what I saw in Pizza Hut.
>
who eat there actually use them, especially when they eat noodle soup. A
lot of Thai people have Chinese blood and eating with chopsticks as well as
with fork and spoon is perfectly normal for eating soup noodles at any of my
relative's houses or in any restaurant I've been to. We do however use
forks and spoons at dinnertime if we're having rice (khao suay). And we do
use chopsticks and Chinese-style soup spoons if we are eating rice soup for
any meal. (the chopsticks are for picking up the shared stuff, pork, shrimp
and pickled vegetable, etc) That said, traditional restaurants with Thai
costumes (ie touristy) do not usually sell noodle soups and therefore do not
have chopsticks. They serve all middle-dishes (ie shared) with a serving
spoon.
Look, I'm Thai, and my parents lived in Thailand until they were in their
mid 20-s, and I've visited Thailand at least 12 times, for about 3-4 weeks
each time. I stay with my Thai relatives all during that time. I speak
Thai with my family and relatives, I order food in Thai, I read the Thai
menu and I most certainly enjoy Thai food, Chinese food, fine southern China
style dim sum, traditional Thai restaurants, southern and northern included.
I eat plenty of noodle soups, patongo for breakfast, fresh fruits, joke
(congee-rice soup is different from khao tom). I like Thai-style sukiyaki.
I eat all manners of spicy curries and haw mhok (fish custard), desserts,
snacks. I eat durian. I eat fishsauce. I eat salted fish with heads and
shrimp tails (used to, now allergic).
My relatives own houses in Bangkok and I've been to beach resorts and
smaller areas, hole-in-the-wall restaurants and all kinds of night markets.
I've had street vendor food and yes, I've been to Pizza Hut, McDonalds and
the like as well as very nice Chinese and Thai restaurants. (throw in some
Vietnamese-style foods and a mix of other things into that)
You know, Pizza Hut there isn't too bad, I believe the sauce is usually a
bit sweeter... I haven't been to a Pizza Hut in Thailand in years.. I
wouldn't waste my stomach space on it ever if my younger cousins hadn't
wanted it back then when they were into McDonalds and stuff. The knife-fork
thing is so that Thai people can have an Americanized experience and offer
something else than hands to eat with. NOBODY would be stupid enough to eat
pizza with chopsticks or a spoon.
I just do NOT know how you could have missed chopsticks having spent 3
months in Thailand. I really would like to know, where did you visit? What
did you do there? What did you like, did you enjoy the food?
You must NEVER EVER have eaten a bowl of noodle soup in Thailand if you've
never seen anyone use chopsticks there. That's a very lacking Thai
experience.
Oh well.
Just remember, they use invisible chopsticks to eat noodles at those street
corners and night vendors!!
Tina
Nazodesu
wrote:
> Whatever way works is correct! It all depends on how your hand is shaped
> and how your fingers bend.
It seems the whole nature of the original didactic treatise stated just
the oppisite--if it works for you it's *not good enough*. You have to
do it right or shame your entire lineage.
Oh god, the overworked waiters are secretly inwardly laughing at me!
They are secretly inwardly guffawing like adolescent youths! Oh the
SHAME of it all!
Like they've got an iota of interest in whether I eat rice with
chopsticks or off the floor. How preposterous!
Nazodesu
Drome <drome...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> And then there's those who insist on eating Thai food with chopsticks
> (assuming it's more authentic), without realizing that the Thais don't
> use chopsticks to eat their food.
The next time I'm a Thai person I'll use a fork!
Nazodesu
Michael Dix <lo...@sig.please.because.this.is.invalid> wrote:
> Robert Knowles wrote:
>
> > Yeah, that one always gets me. The Thai's typically use a fork
> > to place food on a spoon and eat from the spoon. Probably
> > the only Thai's who eat with chopsticks are Chinese Thai's, but
> > I've never seen it done in Thailand.
>
> I thought the Thais used their first three fingers as a scoop,
> and their thumb as a pusher.
Yet more inaccurate culinary info: they use their nose for the pusher.
Michael Sierchio
> The reason the restaurants would supply chopsticks is because Thai people
> who eat there actually use them, especially when they eat noodle soup. A
> lot of Thai people have Chinese blood...
More than 50% of the population of Bangkok is ethnically Chinese. It's not
at all surprising that Thai people use chopsticks. Just another example
of putative purity in dining by know nothing wanna-be sophisticates.
--
By sending unsolicited commercial email to any address in the poster's
domain, you consent to the terms set forth here:
http://www.tenebras.com/uce.html
which include a minimum processing and archiving fee of USD 500.00.
n_cr...@spampacbell.net
>[whoops] Khanom Jeen).[bam!]
Ah. Knom Jin! Aroy dii mak! Gotta get my honey to make some again (and nam
mei loo). Right now she's on a Thai sausage and 'neim' (great fried with
eggs up) kick.
--
Nick, Retired in the San Fernando Valley www.boonchoo.com
"Giving violent criminals a government guarantee that their intended
victims are defenseless is bad public policy."
- John Ross, "Unintended Consequences"
Robert Knowles
"Tina Mongkolsmai" <tina.mon...@compaq.com> wrote in message
news:0%gc8.211$YS1....@news.cpqcorp.net...
>
> >
> The reason the restaurants would supply chopsticks is because Thai people
> who eat there actually use them, especially when they eat noodle soup. A
> lot of Thai people have Chinese blood and eating with chopsticks as well
as
> with fork and spoon is perfectly normal for eating soup noodles at any of
my
> relative's houses or in any restaurant I've been to. We do however use
> forks and spoons at dinnertime if we're having rice (khao suay). And we
do
> use chopsticks and Chinese-style soup spoons if we are eating rice soup
for
> any meal. (the chopsticks are for picking up the shared stuff, pork,
shrimp
> and pickled vegetable, etc) That said, traditional restaurants with Thai
> costumes (ie touristy) do not usually sell noodle soups and therefore do
not
> have chopsticks. They serve all middle-dishes (ie shared) with a serving
> spoon.
I usually avoid the touristy restaurants with the exception of the two
"World's Largest" restaurants in Bangkok whose names I've forgotten.
>
> Look, I'm Thai, and my parents lived in Thailand until they were in their
> mid 20-s, and I've visited Thailand at least 12 times, for about 3-4 weeks
> each time. I stay with my Thai relatives all during that time. I speak
> Thai with my family and relatives, I order food in Thai, I read the Thai
> menu and I most certainly enjoy Thai food, Chinese food, fine southern
China
> style dim sum, traditional Thai restaurants, southern and northern
included.
> I eat plenty of noodle soups, patongo for breakfast, fresh fruits, joke
> (congee-rice soup is different from khao tom). I like Thai-style
sukiyaki.
> I eat all manners of spicy curries and haw mhok (fish custard), desserts,
> snacks. I eat durian. I eat fishsauce. I eat salted fish with heads and
> shrimp tails (used to, now allergic).
I'm not opposed to adventurous eating, either. I even tried the
stir-fried grasshoppers sold by street vendors (damn the DDT,
full speed ahead!).
I've had most of that as well with the exception of the Chinese food
(dim sum and such) you mentioned. I've been to Bangkok, Chiang Mai,
Chiang Rai, NongKhai, SuratThani, Udon Thani, Hat Yai, Songkhla,
and several places in between. I've even taken a few cooking classes
and know how to prepare some simple dishes. I've been to Thailand
enough to get beyond the typical tourist restaurants.
I rarely ate anything but Thai food in Thai restaurants and I just don't
recall seeing anyone use chopsticks. They certainly weren't the most widely
used utensils for eating. But I never visited the Thai Chinatown areas,
unless you want to count Hat Yai and don't care for soup, so avoid
places which specialize in noodle soups.
I know that there is a relatively large Chinese Thai community and don't
doubt that they might use chopsticks more, though.
I use chopsticks myself in Chinese restaurants and would not have
hesitated to use them if that was what I saw as the norm, but it
wasn't.
Most people used a fork to push food onto a spoon and ate from
the spoon for most dishes.
> You know, Pizza Hut there isn't too bad, I believe the sauce is usually a
> bit sweeter... I haven't been to a Pizza Hut in Thailand in years.. I
> wouldn't waste my stomach space on it ever if my younger cousins hadn't
> wanted it back then when they were into McDonalds and stuff. The
knife-fork
> thing is so that Thai people can have an Americanized experience and offer
> something else than hands to eat with. NOBODY would be stupid enough to
eat
> pizza with chopsticks or a spoon.
No, but knife and fork was odd enough. Especially with all the
ketchup they kept pouring on top.
>
> I just do NOT know how you could have missed chopsticks having spent 3
> months in Thailand. I really would like to know, where did you visit?
What
> did you do there? What did you like, did you enjoy the food?
>
> You must NEVER EVER have eaten a bowl of noodle soup in Thailand if you've
> never seen anyone use chopsticks there. That's a very lacking Thai
> experience.
>
True, I'm not much of a soup eater. A little Tom Yum goes a long way
for me. The last time I had it, I was with a Thai who didn't use chopsticks
to eat it, she used a spoon. I had something called fish ball soup (I
think)
with another Thai fellow who also used a spoon. I don't recall eating a
lot of noodle soup, so can't say much about that.
Spoons may not be the norm for noodle soup. Even this web site says
that Thai's eat noodles with chopsticks. But mentions spoon and fork
for other dishes.
And that's mostly what I saw since I didn't eat much noodle soup.
http://welcome-to.chiangmai-chiangrai.com/enjoy_eating_thai_style.htm
Robert Knowles
> (forgive me for cross-replying to clarify for readers of these posts)> news:sgTb8.60734$Ig2.16...@news1.elcjn1.sdca.home.com...
> >
> > "Daryl Drome" <drome...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:bfee19e2.02021...@posting.google.com...
> > > And then there's those who insist on eating Thai food with chopsticks
> > > use chopsticks to eat their food.
> >
> > Yeah, that one always gets me. The Thai's typically use a fork
> > to place food on a spoon and eat from the spoon. Probably
> > the only Thai's who eat with chopsticks are Chinese Thai's, but
> > I've never seen it done in Thailand.
>
> population (my family has Chinese blood too) we do use chopsticks to eat
> noodle soups. However, for plate noodles we tend to use a fork and spoon
> (ie Pad Siyiu, Lad Na, Pad Thai, Guay Teow Neur Sap, Khanom Jeen).
> Everywhere in Thailand chopsticks and the typical Chinese soup spoon are
> provided for eating soup noodles. I mean noodle soups (it's that Mandarin
> translation thing getting to me, in Chinese it's tang mian, tang = soup)
Okay, so I didn't visit any noodle soup shops, so missed all the
chopsticks. It's not that I'm chopstick-blind because I certainly
noticed that everyone used chopsticks almost all the time in Beijing.
Not so in Thailand, though.
I don't see how anyone could say that chopsticks are the predominant
eating utensils in Thailand for most Thai foods or why they would insist
on eating their entire meal with chopsticks thinking it was more "authentic"
(unless they were Chinese).
Most people who go to Thai restaurants in the U.S. are going to
be eating dishes like Pad Thai and various beef and chicken
curries which are not eaten with chopsticks in Thailand (for
the most part, recognizing that "all" "not" "ever", etc. rarely
apply anywhere for anything).
So using chopsticks to eat most Thai dishes does not seem
"authentic" to me, while a spoon and fork do.
Yet many U.S. diners insist on using chopsticks to eat their
entire Thai meal. I think that's more Chinese than Thai and
that most people do this because they do not understand the
difference.
>
> Thais believe that if you live in Thailand long enough, you are Thai. The
> culture is not just traditional Thai anymore; so it is normal for Thais to
> use chopsticks to eat. My family has Chinese blood, maybe some Vietnamese
> (who most likely also came from China)... it's no different than the
> wonderful cultures coming together in the United States.
>
> I consider myself Thai, I consider myself Ameican, and I have dual
> citizenship (born in Philadelphia, PA). I'm first generation born in the
> U.S. in my family. My first language is (American) English. I speak,
read
> and write Thai. I've spent plenty of time in Thailand, and I consider
that
> I know enough about Thai culture and food habits to speak knowledgeably.
>
> But anyway, depending on what food people are eating, chopsticks are
> authentic enough. If you've never seen chopsticks in Thailand you are not
> eating at the right places! They even have street vendors selling
noodles.
> Where in Thailand were you?
All around.
>
> Tina
>
>
louisguys
since it is American, as I said in my previous posting. I visited China last
May to meet my penpal of over two years (through Yahoo) and married her.
They laughed in ShenZhen when her daughter and her friends took me out
because I hadn't figured out yet that it was my deformity of my fingers that
kept me from doing it "properly".
When I got to Wuhan, I figured it out and when her daughter came up for our
wedding, she was very impressed that I had figured out a way to use them
especially when I physically showed her the finger pulling in problem by
barely pushing on the ligament in the hand.
My wife's family and all of her friends didn't seem to mind, but they put
their chopsticks across their bowls when not eating and told me that was
their tradition, so I think it's like the Chinese language, in that the
traditions are different from region to region because of the many "tribes"
or clans that make up China as a whole. I won't comment on Japanese or Thai
customs since I have no experience in those departments. I just know my way
works for me, and most Chinese, when once shown that I have a disability in
my hand, understand why I use them that way. As for others, who cares?
louisguys
--
The present day composer refuses to die!
"Nazodesu" <222...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:180220021640189739%222...@adelphia.net...
axlq.soc.culture.usa
louisguys <loui...@nothotmail.com> wrote:
>My wife's family ... put their chopsticks across their bowls when
>not eating and told me that was their tradition, so I think it's
>like the Chinese language, in that the traditions are different
>from region to region because of the many "tribes" or clans that
>make up China as a whole. I won't comment on Japanese or Thai
>customs since I have no experience in those departments.
My fiancee is Singaporean. She tells me that laying the chopsticks
across the bowl when not eating is traditional there too. It's
apparently considered rude to do what I'm accustomed to doing; i.e.
rest the chopsticks on the edge of the bowl with the pointy ends
sticking into the food.
-Alex
Michael Sierchio
> My fiancee is Singaporean. She tells me that laying the chopsticks
> across the bowl when not eating is traditional there too. It's
> apparently considered rude to do what I'm accustomed to doing; i.e.
> rest the chopsticks on the edge of the bowl with the pointy ends
> sticking into the food.
Sticking chopsticks into the rice makes it an offering for the dead.
"Say-y-y... you gonna eat that?"
Robert Knowles
"axlq.soc.culture.usa" <ax...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:a4vefe$mms$1...@samba.rahul.net...
>
> My fiancee is Singaporean. She tells me that laying the chopsticks
> across the bowl when not eating is traditional there too. It's
> apparently considered rude to do what I'm accustomed to doing; i.e.
> rest the chopsticks on the edge of the bowl with the pointy ends
> sticking into the food.
>
If you stick the chopsticks into the bowl standing up, it looks like
an incense offering to the dead. Bad form.
> -Alex
Ron Bacardi
> Yes, it's time AGAIN to visit the subject that seems to be
> incomprehensible to white americans eating at a chinese - or ANY asian
> restaurant - YOU DON'T EAT RICE WITH CHOPSTICKS!
>
> Note especially the last paragraph! The one stating: "....eat rice from
> a bowl the way the Chinese do...."
>
<chop>
I know a chinaman who eats rice with his fingers and insists his way is
proper etiquette.
Not sure what part of china he's from though.
Dawn Yancy
> I know a chinaman who eats rice with his fingers
Ann now I know someone who still uses the offensive term 'chinaman.'
Geoff Miller
Dawn Yancy <Da...@FakoAddresso.com> writes:
> Ann now I know someone who still uses the offensive term 'chinaman.'
Why would "Chinaman" be offensive? All it means is "man from China";
there's nothing remotely pejorative about it. People don't consider
"Frenchman" or "Englishman" to be offensive, so why would anyone feel
any differently about "Chinaman?" Just remember to capitalize it...
Geoff
--
"Remember, kids: vary your route. The more predictable your habits, the more
likely you are to spend your last days/weeks/months chained up in a darkened
basement while a 35-year-old transvestite with an ear necklace masturbates
to your screams." -- Glubdammit
Tina Mongkolsmai
>
> Okay, so I didn't visit any noodle soup shops, so missed all the
> chopsticks. It's not that I'm chopstick-blind because I certainly
> noticed that everyone used chopsticks almost all the time in Beijing.
>
> eating utensils in Thailand for most Thai foods or why they would insist
> on eating their entire meal with chopsticks thinking it was more
"authentic"
> (unless they were Chinese).
>
> Most people who go to Thai restaurants in the U.S. are going to
> be eating dishes like Pad Thai and various beef and chicken
> curries which are not eaten with chopsticks in Thailand (for
> the most part, recognizing that "all" "not" "ever", etc. rarely
> apply anywhere for anything).
>
> So using chopsticks to eat most Thai dishes does not seem
> "authentic" to me, while a spoon and fork do.
>
> Yet many U.S. diners insist on using chopsticks to eat their
> entire Thai meal. I think that's more Chinese than Thai and
> that most people do this because they do not understand the
> difference.
>
> >
who don't know that fork and spoon is predominant (with the exception of
noodle soups and in more Chinese-blood households) just see the chopsticks
there and assume it's appropriate to use.
Soups without noodles such as Tom Yum X, Tom Kha Gai, Gaeng Jeurd (a broth),
or Geow Nam (dumplings in soup) do not require chopsticks. You can eat
these with just a spoon.
If you even went to eat noodle soups anywhere you should have seen
chopsticks being used. If you didn't, then either there were no people
there using chopsticks that day or your memory is fuzzy or you just didn't
turn around to stare at other people because you were enjoying your own food
:) I would bet that last reason has a good chance of being true. I
certainly wouldn't notice anyone else using whatever utensils.
If you ate with Thai people and they were having noodle soup and they were
sitting across the table from you, then I'd be really surprised if you
didn't notice any. Did the Thai people you ate with use chopsticks?
Hey, did you learn some Thai? :) Three months is a long time to be in
Thailand. Was it for work?
Tina
Tina Mongkolsmai
"Geoff Miller" <geo...@u1.netgate.net> wrote in message
news:a50t97$b...@u1.netgate.net...
>
>
> Dawn Yancy <Da...@FakoAddresso.com> writes:
>
> > Ann now I know someone who still uses the offensive term 'chinaman.'
>
>
> Why would "Chinaman" be offensive? All it means is "man from China";
> there's nothing remotely pejorative about it. People don't consider
> "Frenchman" or "Englishman" to be offensive, so why would anyone feel
> any differently about "Chinaman?" Just remember to capitalize it...
>
>
Maybe it's because it's "Chinaman" and not "Chineseman"
How about Franceman or Englandman? Do people feel better about being
grouped by culture or grouped by country?
The reason "Chinaman," capitalized or not, is offensive, is because it is
said in an offensive way, as in (heard in war movies) "Go back to where you
came from, Chinaman". I know someone who has gotten this before once by a
really idiot person who tried to run him off the road. Of course, it was
because the idiot cut in front of him very badly and then the someone I know
flicked him off. hehe. Funny but not.
Tina
Eric Chang ~{VY
not "Chinaman".
Eric
----
From WordNet (r) 1.6 [wn]:
Chinaman
n 1: offensive terms for a person of Chinese descent [syn: {chink},
{Chinaman}]
---
In article <a50t97$b...@u1.netgate.net>,
Dawn Yancy
> > Ann now I know someone who still uses the offensive term 'chinaman.'
>
>
> Why would "Chinaman" be offensive? All it means is "man from China"
No it doesn't; it's as inappropriate as calling someone from Japanese a
'Nip' while claiming it's just short for 'Nipon' (which is the way Japan
pronouces its country's name).
It has a history of being an offensive, diminuitive term.
More, one doesn't call someone from Bermuda a Bermudaman, and it's
equally incorrect, in addition to being offensive, to call someone from
China 'chinaman.'
S Banta
> And then there's those who insist on eating Thai food with chopsticks
> (assuming it's more authentic), without realizing that the Thais don't
> use chopsticks to eat their food.
From the response to this thread, I think it's more accurate to say
that Thai people don't traditionally use chopsticks for the kind of
food that we typically find in Thai restaurants in the US. So if
you're in a Thai restaurant and are OFFERED chopsticks without asking
for them (this happened to me on Monday at Lanna Thai in Everett),
they possibly do so because they have been conditioned to do so by
their customers.
S Banta
So to be consistent with your own logic, we'd say Chineseman, which
although a bit unusual, probably wouldn't offend anyone. But I really
have a feeling that "Chinaman" would be found offensive. I'll defer to
others, though.
geo...@u1.netgate.net (Geoff Miller) wrote in message news:<a50t97$b...@u1.netgate.net>...
Geoff Miller
Tina Mongkolsmai <tina.mon...@compaq.com> writes:
> Maybe it's because it's "Chinaman" and not "Chineseman"
If the worst thing that somebody can say about the word is that it's
ungrammatical, they haven't got much of a case.
> How about Franceman or Englandman? Do people feel better about being
> grouped by culture or grouped by country?
Since culture is congruent with country, I'd have to say that anybody
with a preference for one over the other is overly sensitive and has
way too much time on his hands.
Besides, grouping people by culture in unflattering ways doesn't seem
to shield them from accusations racism, and race is a disjoint concept
from that of culture.
> The reason "Chinaman," capitalized or not, is offensive, is because
> it is said in an offensive way, as in (heard in war movies) "Go back
> to where you came from, Chinaman".
The word is either inherently offensive, or it's not. Genuine offensive-
ness has no bearing on the sort of context in which the word is used.
If that weren't the case, it'd be socially acceptable to refer to people
with terms like "nigger" or "chink" or "honky" as long as one smiled when
uttering them, or at least used a pleasant tone of voice.
As a matter of fact, I've heard "Chinaman" used in a neutral context a
lot more times than I've heard it used pejoratively. And cannot innocuous
words like "Chinese" be used in disparaging ways? For example, consider
the sentence "Those Chinese can't drive worth a damn." Compare it to
"Those Chinamen can't drive worth a damn." The salient insult is the
allegation of poor driving ability, not the term by which the people in
question are identified.
> I know someone who has gotten this before once by a really idiot person
> who tried to run him off the road.
"Idiot" is a noun, not an adjective. Your not perceiving that throws your
grasp of the language into question, which undermines your credibility
where assertions like that above are concerned.
> Of course, it was because the idiot cut in front of him very badly and
> then the someone I know flicked him off.
Er, I believe you'll find that the expression is "FLIPPED him off."
Felis Concolor
>Why would "Chinaman" be offensive? All it means is "man from China";
>there's nothing remotely pejorative about it. People don't consider
>"Frenchman" or "Englishman" to be offensive, so why would anyone feel
>any differently about "Chinaman?"
There's no logical reason why the term "Chinaman" should be offensive,
any more than there's a logical reason why "Chinaman," and not "child
molester," should mean a man from China. However, once a term has
indeed acquired such baggage, it would be ingenous to ignore it.
Lenore Levine
--
"By then, the arrival of a gang of unemployed Roto Rooter
technicians moonlighting as attack proctologists would have
been a welcome diversion." -- Stephen L. Burns
D. Gerasimatos
S Banta <shb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>From the response to this thread, I think it's more accurate to say
>that Thai people don't traditionally use chopsticks for the kind of
>food that we typically find in Thai restaurants in the US. So if
>you're in a Thai restaurant and are OFFERED chopsticks without asking
>for them (this happened to me on Monday at Lanna Thai in Everett),
>they possibly do so because they have been conditioned to do so by
>their customers.
Maybe the Thai restaurant is run by Chinese? That is very common,
especially in locales that don't have a large Thai population.
Dimitri
Geoff Miller
Eric Chang ~{VY <ecc...@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU> top-posts:
> The equivalent for "Frenchman" or "Englishman" should be "Chineseman",
> not "Chinaman".
As I pointed out to Tina, if the worst thing anybody can say about the
word "Chinaman" is that it's ungrammatical, they haven't got much of a
case. A word's being ungrammatical doesn't make it offensive.
Of course, if I were to refer to someone as a "Chineseman," I'm sure
somebody would still find an excuse to take offense...even if only
unconsciously, on the mere basis of the word's being unusual.
Tina Mongkolsmai
"S Banta" <shb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> From the response to this thread, I think it's more accurate to say
> that Thai people don't traditionally use chopsticks for the kind of
> food that we typically find in Thai restaurants in the US. So if
> you're in a Thai restaurant and are OFFERED chopsticks without asking
> for them (this happened to me on Monday at Lanna Thai in Everett),
> they possibly do so because they have been conditioned to do so by
> their customers.
I would say chopsticks are provided:
1) because it's an Asian restaurant and the majority of Asian restaurants in
the US are Chinese restaurants, at which it is traditional and expected to
offer chopsticks
and
2) because they are expected to be available in Thailand, with its heavy
Chinese blood in the population.
I suppose you could say the first groups of people to eat in Chinese
restaurants could have been larger populations of Chinese and other cultural
groups who asked, "Do you have chopsticks?" So in that way it's a
conditioning by patrons of the restaurants. But I'd say these days it's
more likely reason #1.
Tina
Eric Chang ~{VY
I used to call a colleague of mine "Tom". Later, I noticed
he always signs his emails as Thomas, and answers the phone
with "This is Thomas ...", so now I call him "Thomas".
I have never heard a Chinese person refers to himself as
"Chinaman". Many find it offensive. Did your mom sing
"Chinaman" lullabies to you when you are young that you
hold the word so dear?
Eric
In article <a515gd$i...@u1.netgate.net>,
Geoff Miller
Dawn Yancy <Da...@FakoAddresso.com> writes:
: Why would "Chinaman" be offensive? All it means is "man from China"
> No it doesn't; it's as inappropriate as calling someone from Japanese a
> 'Nip' while claiming it's just short for 'Nipon' (which is the way Japan
> pronouces its country's name).
But "China" isn't what the Chinese call the country in their native tongues,
and it's not short for anything. A far more accurate analogy would be
calling Chinese people "Chins," as short for "Chinese." But since nobody
does, your reasoning above reaches an intellectual dead end.
(As an aside, I've always gotten a chuckle out of the expression "more
chins than a Chinese phone book," as used to describe fat people. I
suppose that now somebody's going to add alt.support.big-folks into
the distribution...)
> It has a history of being an offensive, diminuitive term.
I contend that it has a much greater history of being a neutral descriptor,
and that any offensiveness had to do with context, not with anything
inherent to the word itself. Can you not tell the difference in tone and
intent between, say, "Chinaman" and "goddam Chinaman?"
> More, one doesn't call someone from Bermuda a Bermudaman, and it's
> equally incorrect, in addition to being offensive, to call someone from
> China 'chinaman.'
It's not incorrect to call someone from Bermuda a Bermudaman; it's merely
unusual -- much like calling someone a Britisher instead of an Englishman
is unusual. But being unusual doesn't make a word offensive. And that
seems to be what sets people off about stuff like this much of the time.
There's this all too common knee-jerk attitude that referring to people
by unusual or archaic terms is automatically disparaging. I'm sorry,
folks, but that's just plain silly. Why do people go to such ridiculous
lengths to take offense over nothing?
Eric Chang ~{VY
used perjoratively?
Eric
In article <a5161j$j...@u1.netgate.net>,
Eric Chang ~{VY
Actually, the question is why do you go into such ridiculous lengths to
insist on using a term many people find offensive. That's what I call
being silly.
Eric
Geoff Miller
S Banta <shb...@yahoo.com> writes:
> um, do you see the fallacy here? We don't say Englandman or Franceman.
No, I'm afraid I don't. While it's true that we don't say "Englandman"
or "Franceman," that doesn't mean it'd be wrong if somebody did; merely
that it'd be unusual. And "unusual" != "offensive. Where did you ever
get the idea that usage had to be consistent across the length and breadth
of the English language?
> So to be consistent with your own logic, we'd say Chineseman, which
> although a bit unusual, probably wouldn't offend anyone. But I really
> have a feeling that "Chinaman" would be found offensive. I'll defer to
> others, though.
There's way too much deferring to others in matters of this sort, and
far too little rational thinking.
I suspect that the reason nobody says "Chineseman" is simply that it's
awkward; "Chinaman" rolls off the tongue more easily. The same applies
to "Frenchman" and "Englishman" versus "Franceman" and "Englandman."
The reason for this is probably the fact that "China" ends in a vowel
sound, making it feel more natural to English speakers to append the
"-man" suffix than in the case of "France" or "England" -- both of
which end with consonant sounds if not a literal consonant. (The "-ce"
in "France" is pronounced like the letter "s.")
Bottom line: It's just an accident of phonics that we say "Frenchman"
and "Englishman" instead of "Franceman" or "Englandman." And phonics
is a rather silly basis on which to take offense at a word, don't you
think?
Eric Chang ~{VY
In article <a51862$l...@u1.netgate.net>,
Geoff Miller <geo...@netgate.net> wrote:
>
>
>S Banta <shb...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> um, do you see the fallacy here? We don't say Englandman or Franceman.
>
>No, I'm afraid I don't. While it's true that we don't say "Englandman"
>or "Franceman," that doesn't mean it'd be wrong if somebody did; merely
>that it'd be unusual. And "unusual" != "offensive. Where did you ever
>get the idea that usage had to be consistent across the length and breadth
>of the English language?
>
>
>> So to be consistent with your own logic, we'd say Chineseman, which
>> although a bit unusual, probably wouldn't offend anyone. But I really
>> have a feeling that "Chinaman" would be found offensive. I'll defer to
>> others, though.
>
>There's way too much deferring to others in matters of this sort, and
>far too little rational thinking.
>
>I suspect that the reason nobody says "Chineseman" is simply that it's
>awkward; "Chinaman" rolls off the tongue more easily. The same applies
>to "Frenchman" and "Englishman" versus "Franceman" and "Englandman."
>
>The reason for this is probably the fact that "China" ends in a vowel
>sound, making it feel more natural to English speakers to append the
>"-man" suffix than in the case of "France" or "England" -- both of
>which end with consonant sounds if not a literal consonant. (The "-ce"
>in "France" is pronounced like the letter "s.")
Homework1:
Think of an equivalent of "Chinaman" for another country.
As for ending with vowel sounds and consonant sounds, how about:
Americaman, Russiaman, Germanyman, Italyman
By the way, are you English, or American?
Eric
Robert Buxbaum
<conc...@rahul.net> wrote:
> In <a50t97$b...@u1.netgate.net> geo...@u1.netgate.net (Geoff Miller) writes:
>
> >Why would "Chinaman" be offensive? All it means is "man from China";
> >there's nothing remotely pejorative about it. People don't consider
> >"Frenchman" or "Englishman" to be offensive, so why would anyone feel
> >any differently about "Chinaman?"
>
> There's no logical reason why the term "Chinaman" should be offensive,
> any more than there's a logical reason why "Chinaman," and not "child
> molester," should mean a man from China. However, once a term has
> indeed acquired such baggage, it would be ingenous to ignore it.
One might also notice the the comparative trems would be Franceman and
Englandman. I don't think Chinese man would be offensive. Small difference?
Maybe not.
--
Food/Wine/Travel website with a French focus <http://www.worldtable.com>
Paris, July 2001 <http://www.worldtable.com/reports/paris.jul.2001.html>
France/food - eGullet <http://www.egullet.com/ib3/cgi-bin/ikonboard.cgi>
axlq.soc.culture.usa
Robert Knowles <knowl...@homeless.com> wrote:
>
>If you stick the chopsticks into the bowl standing up, it looks like
>an incense offering to the dead. Bad form.
I know that. I stick them into the bowl leaning against the edge.
Still bad form, I am told.
-A
Geoff Miller
Eric Chang ~{VY <ecc...@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU> writes:
> This topic has been discussed and debated countless times.
Not by me, it hasn't. I'm pleased to be able to offer a definitive
take on the topic at long last.
> I used to call a colleague of mine "Tom". Later, I noticed
> he always signs his emails as Thomas, and answers the phone
> with "This is Thomas ...", so now I call him "Thomas".
Bad analogy. Having a preference for a particular version of one's
Christian name isn't the same thing as finding other versions of it
offensive. For example, while I go by "Geoff," I don't get all het
up when people occasionally address me as "Geoffrey." It's my name,
after all.
> I have never heard a Chinese person refers to himself as "Chinaman".
As we've already seen, a word's being unusual doesn't make it offensive.
> Many find it offensive.
Many find things offensive for silly reasons.
> Did your mom sing "Chinaman" lullabies to you when you are young that
> you hold the word so dear?
Not that I can remember. But then, that was a long time ago.
My holding the word dear has nothing to do with it. If someone tells me
that a certain word is offensive, they're implicitly demanding that I not
use that word. And if someone's going to demand that I adjust my use of
the language in deference to their sensibilities, I don't think it's
unreasonable of me to expect that they be prepared to rationally artic-
ulate their reasons. Or that they abandon their demands if their reasons
are exposed as unsound.
Since I haven't seen a single compelling argument as to why "Chinaman"
should be considered offensive by any rational and emotionally stable
person, I don't honor demands (implicit or explicit) that I not use the
word. And admittedly, I take a certain amount of pleasure in debunking
the idea that the word is pejorative.
Sea Oxen
>
> > Ann now I know someone who still uses the offensive term 'chinaman.'
> Why would "Chinaman" be offensive? All it means is "man from China";
> there's nothing remotely pejorative about it. People don't consider
> "Frenchman" or "Englishman" to be offensive, so why would anyone feel
> any differently about "Chinaman?" Just remember to capitalize it...
> Geoff
Ah, well, then following this rule, let's say "Chineseman", or
"Chinee" for short. After all, over here we call Americans "Amis".
ISTR that's guailo to them.
Oxen
Geoff Miller
Eric Chang ~{VY <ecc...@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU> challenges:
> Why don't you post a few URLs where the term "Chinaman" is not
> used perjoratively?
Two reasons:
1. You're trying to make me jump though hoops, and I don't *do*
hoops;
2. You're the one who's insisting that the word is necessarily
pejorative, and that means that the burden of proof is on
you, not on me. Thus far, you've failed to demonstrate
the veracity of your position in anything resembling a
convincing manner.
Robert Buxbaum
> Tina Mongkolsmai <tina.mon...@compaq.com> writes:
>
> > Maybe it's because it's "Chinaman" and not "Chineseman"
>
> If the worst thing that somebody can say about the word is that it's
> ungrammatical, they haven't got much of a case.
>
>
> > How about Franceman or Englandman? Do people feel better about being
> > grouped by culture or grouped by country?
>
> Since culture is congruent with country, I'd have to say that anybody
> with a preference for one over the other is overly sensitive and has
> way too much time on his hands.
>
> Besides, grouping people by culture in unflattering ways doesn't seem
> to shield them from accusations racism, and race is a disjoint concept
> from that of culture.
>
>
> > The reason "Chinaman," capitalized or not, is offensive, is because
> > it is said in an offensive way, as in (heard in war movies) "Go back
> > to where you came from, Chinaman".
>
> The word is either inherently offensive, or it's not. Genuine offensive-
> ness has no bearing on the sort of context in which the word is used.
> If that weren't the case, it'd be socially acceptable to refer to people
> with terms like "nigger" or "chink" or "honky" as long as one smiled when
> uttering them, or at least used a pleasant tone of voice.
I'm not sure if it's to your credit or discredit that you are unaware that
the word in question is as offensive to many as are the other words you use
in the paragraph above. It's not a socially acceptable word. Earlier posts
merely pointed out how it was different from Englishman and the rest. It
should suffice for you to know that many find it offensive for you to
consider eliminating it from your vocabulary. If you need a reason why it's
offensive, It's the same reason why the other words are offensive--a history
of use as a disparaging term. If you're unware of that, you've learned
something. If you continue to play naive, you're just being offensive to
some people.
> As a matter of fact, I've heard "Chinaman" used in a neutral context a
> lot more times than I've heard it used pejoratively. And cannot innocuous
> words like "Chinese" be used in disparaging ways? For example, consider
> the sentence "Those Chinese can't drive worth a damn." Compare it to
> "Those Chinamen can't drive worth a damn." The salient insult is the
> allegation of poor driving ability, not the term by which the people in
> question are identified.
You're rather dense or offensively cute, but I'll bet you don't hear "those
Chinamen make good doctors."
Eric Chang ~{VY
thought you would be able strongly bolster your case if you can find
good examples of actual cases where the term is not used perjoratively.
Eric
In article <a51a6g$n...@u1.netgate.net>,
Geoff Miller
Eric Chang ~{VY <ecc...@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU> writes:
> Actually, the question is why do you go into such ridiculous lengths to
> insist on using a term many people find offensive. That's what I call
> being silly.
Matters of principle are never silly as long as they can be rationally
justified, and I've done that quite well. And I'll point out that I've
managed to do so without stooping to the sort of snide tone that you
resorted to when you brought up the irrelevant matter of my mother and
whatever lullabies she may have sung.
Since I've demonstrated that there's no defensible basis for believing
that the word "Chinaman" is in fact pejorative, it's you who's being
silly by insisting that *I'm* being silly.
As for going to ridiculous lengths, you may have heard an old expression
about it taking two to tango. Since you're determined to respond to each
and every one of my posts in this thread (even the ones that weren't
addressed to you), I'd say the lengths you're going to are far more ridi-
culous than those that I'm going to.
Eric Chang ~{VY
Geoff Miller <geo...@netgate.net> wrote:
>
>
>Eric Chang ~{VY <ecc...@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU> writes:
>
>> Actually, the question is why do you go into such ridiculous lengths to
>> insist on using a term many people find offensive. That's what I call
>> being silly.
>Matters of principle are never silly as long as they can be rationally
>justified, and I've done that quite well. And I'll point out that I've
>managed to do so without stooping to the sort of snide tone that you
>resorted to when you brought up the irrelevant matter of my mother and
>whatever lullabies she may have sung.
You are the one who started using words like "silly", "ridiculous" and
"knee-jerk".
>Since I've demonstrated that there's no defensible basis for believing
>that the word "Chinaman" is in fact pejorative, it's you who's being
>silly by insisting that *I'm* being silly.
Geoff Miller wrote:
"The word is either inherently offensive, or it's not. Genuine offensive-
ness has no bearing on the sort of context in which the word is used.
If that weren't the case, it'd be socially acceptable to refer to people
with terms like "nigger" or "chink" or "honky" as long as one smiled when
uttering them, or at least used a pleasant tone of voice."
Can you explain to me why "nigger", "chink" or "honky" are inherently
offensive, and "Chinaman" is not inherently offensive?
>As for going to ridiculous lengths, you may have heard an old expression
>about it taking two to tango. Since you're determined to respond to each
>and every one of my posts in this thread (even the ones that weren't
>addressed to you), I'd say the lengths you're going to are far more ridi-
>culous than those that I'm going to.
I am just questioning why you are using the adjectives "silly",
"ridiculous", "knee-jerk" when you are the one who insist on banging
your head on the wall in a matter as basic as common courtesy and
good will.
Eric
Tina Mongkolsmai
> Tina Mongkolsmai <tina.mon...@compaq.com> writes:
>
> > Maybe it's because it's "Chinaman" and not "Chineseman"
>
> If the worst thing that somebody can say about the word is that it's
> ungrammatical, they haven't got much of a case.
-----------As Chester said, the point is NOT grammatical. It's a matter of
being conscientious and considerate enough not to say it to those who might
be offended by it.
> The word is either inherently offensive, or it's not.
>
I'm sure you could try the same argument on the word "bitch" or "ass" or
"turd". The original word may not have been offensive, but as the word has
been used as slang, I assure you, there are people who will be offended by
this, particularly if you are referring to someone other than yourself. Of
course, if you are in company accustomed to using these words without
feeling offended, you might easily tell your mother, "You're such a bitch."
and she might not care. However, my mother certainly would.
> > I know someone who has gotten this before once by a really idiot person
> > who tried to run him off the road.
>
> "Idiot" is a noun, not an adjective. Your not perceiving that throws your
> grasp of the language into question, which undermines your credibility
> where assertions like that above are concerned.
>
This I knew, but typed while my brain was soft. It should have been:
Idiotic person. A real idiot.
>
> > then the someone I know flicked him off.
>
> Er, I believe you'll find that the expression is "FLIPPED him off."
>
I remembered that wrong, then; because I had never even heard the term
before that and I don't use this term myself. I'd just say.. gave him the
finger. But what do I know?
Here's some dictionary definitions for "chinaman." You might note that 2 of
3 mention offensiveness. I have no idea how the word got into bowling or
what the bowling definition really means. But, since you were not
discussion bowling, that is entirely beside the point. It's the usage that
matters.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Chi·na·man Pronunciation Key (chn-mn)
n. Offensive
A Chinese man.
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth
Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
chinaman
\Chi"na*man\, n.; pl. Chinamen. A native of China; a Chinese.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
chinaman
n 1: offensive terms for a person of Chinese descent [syn: chink, Chinaman]
2: a ball bowled by a left-handed bowler to a right-handed batsman that
spins from off to leg [syn: Chinaman]
Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
My point is that it is important to be conscientious and considerate about
how your words affect other people. What you say and how you say it is tied
together. Any decent human being cares whether or not he/she offends
others. If you really do not care if you offend other people, then I
consider you at the low end of the human scale.
Tina
Tina Mongkolsmai
"Tina Mongkolsmai" <tina.mon...@compaq.com> wrote in message
news:C3Xc8.1$fL6...@news.cpqcorp.net...
>
> Here's some dictionary definitions for "chinaman." You might note that 2
of
> 3 mention offensiveness. I have no idea how the word got into bowling or
> what the bowling definition really means. But, since you were not
> discussion bowling, that is entirely beside the point. It's the usage
that
> matters.
Oh, look. A grammatical error. How awful. It should have been
'discussing.'
Can you just feel the sarcasm here?
I'm just one person who believes that being nice is more important than
being grammatically correct.
But then again, I'm not really being nice to Geoff, now am I?
It's all fair play in the newsgroup sandbox.
Tina
ObFood: Today I had Cream of Rice (made with chicken broth, a bit of soy,
sugar and dried cilantro) and some salmon out of a can. So, for dinner I'll
have the vegetable soup that I accidentally let get slightly burned on the
bottom. Or not. Maybe instead I'll do the frozen thing. Recently I've
been using a lot of canned items... I can't wait until summer farmer's
markets.
Eric Chang ~{VY
Geoff Miller <geo...@netgate.net> wrote:
>
>Eric Chang ~{VY <ecc...@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU> writes:
>
>> This topic has been discussed and debated countless times.
>
>Not by me, it hasn't. I'm pleased to be able to offer a definitive
>take on the topic at long last.
You haven't offered anything new so far.
I hope that doesn't hurt your ego.
>> I used to call a colleague of mine "Tom". Later, I noticed
>> he always signs his emails as Thomas, and answers the phone
>> with "This is Thomas ...", so now I call him "Thomas".
>
>Bad analogy. Having a preference for a particular version of one's
>Christian name isn't the same thing as finding other versions of it
>offensive. For example, while I go by "Geoff," I don't get all het
>up when people occasionally address me as "Geoffrey." It's my name,
>after all.
If someone tells you he prefers to be called "Thomas" instead of "Tom",
what do you do?
>> I have never heard a Chinese person refers to himself as "Chinaman".
>
>As we've already seen, a word's being unusual doesn't make it offensive.
Unfortunately, it's not unusual to see it being used pejoratively.
>> Did your mom sing "Chinaman" lullabies to you when you are young that
>> you hold the word so dear?
>
>Not that I can remember. But then, that was a long time ago.
>
>My holding the word dear has nothing to do with it. If someone tells me
>that a certain word is offensive, they're implicitly demanding that I not
>use that word. And if someone's going to demand that I adjust my use of
>the language in deference to their sensibilities, I don't think it's
>unreasonable of me to expect that they be prepared to rationally artic-
>ulate their reasons. Or that they abandon their demands if their reasons
>are exposed as unsound.
>
>Since I haven't seen a single compelling argument as to why "Chinaman"
>should be considered offensive by any rational and emotionally stable
>person, I don't honor demands (implicit or explicit) that I not use the
>word. And admittedly, I take a certain amount of pleasure in debunking
>the idea that the word is pejorative.
The reason is simple: For many people, "Chinaman" has been used exclusively
as a pejorative term. That is why it is considered offensive.
Eric
Eric Chang ~{VY
>> Think of an equivalent of "Chinaman" for another country.
>
>thing I can think of is the way that the ships of the old British East
>India Company were known as "East Indiamen."
>
>So how do you get from there to the idea that because "Chinaman" is
>structurally unique, it's therefore offensive? That doesn't logically
>follow. I'm reminded of that Far Side cartoon in which a scientist is
>covering a blackboard with complex equations, in the midst of which it
>says "...and then a miracle happens..."
>
>
>> As for ending with vowel sounds and consonant sounds, how about:
>> Americaman, Russiaman, Germanyman, Italyman
>
>natural for English speakers to append the "-man" suffix to them.
>It doesn't follow that we're therefore compelled to append "-man"
>to all country names ending in vowels in the name of some bizarre
>quest for uniformity. Ease of pronunciation trumps consistency,
>and the examples you gave above are obviously quite cumbersome.
I was just saying that what you previously said didn't add
any value to the discussion since they don't explain anything.
>> By the way, are you English, or American?
>
>I'm an Americaman.
Geoff Miller
Eric Chang ~{VY <ecc...@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU> writes:
> Homework1:
> Think of an equivalent of "Chinaman" for another country.
There isn't one, at least that I can think of offhand. The closest
thing I can think of is the way that the ships of the old British East
India Company were known as "East Indiamen."
So how do you get from there to the idea that because "Chinaman" is
structurally unique, it's therefore offensive? That doesn't logically
follow. I'm reminded of that Far Side cartoon in which a scientist is
covering a blackboard with complex equations, in the midst of which it
says "...and then a miracle happens..."
> As for ending with vowel sounds and consonant sounds, how about:
> Americaman, Russiaman, Germanyman, Italyman
I said earlier that country names ending in consonants make it less
natural for English speakers to append the "-man" suffix to them.
It doesn't follow that we're therefore compelled to append "-man"
to all country names ending in vowels in the name of some bizarre
quest for uniformity. Ease of pronunciation trumps consistency,
and the examples you gave above are obviously quite cumbersome.
> By the way, are you English, or American?
I'm an Americaman.
Paul Tauger
I would think common courtesy would be sufficient -- if someone finds the
term offensive when applied to them, avoid it.
However, if that reason is not sufficiently compelling, consider the history
of the term "Chinaman." Its use in the U.S. dates back to the 19th and
early 20th centuries, when Chinese were brought to this country as virtual
slaves, and subject to the most heinous forms of de facto and de jure
discrimination, culminating in the infamous Chinese Exclusion Act. The
literal meaning of the term Chinaman may not give offense; it's historical
meaning certainly does, as it was used to describe someone once viewed as
less than human, not eligible for citizenship or any of the most fundamental
rights reserved for "real" Americans, etc. There used to be an expression
in the U.S.: "He doesn't stand a Chinaman's chance," which was an express
acknowledgment of the pervasiveness of anti-Chinese discrimination in this
country.
Here's an analogy: The word "kike," as a derogatory term for a Jew, had its
origins in the beginning of the 20th century at New York's Ellis Island, the
port of entry for eastern European immigrants. All immigrants' paper work
was marked to indicate their religion -- Christians got a cross, "others"
got an "O." Virtually all of the "others" at that time were Jewish. The
immigration inspectors got into the habit of referring to people as
"crosses" if they were Christians and "Circles" if they were Jews, as in,
"Oh, this one's a 'Circle'." "Circle," in Yiddish, is "kirkel," which was
mispronounced and shortened to "kike." "Kike" was thus an invented word,
derived from the low German for "circle," with absolutely no inherent
meaning, either malignant or benign. However, it acquired a meaning which
is offensive, pejorative and insulting.
Like "kike," "Chinaman" acquired a meaning which is offensive, pejorative
and insulting.
In New York, there once were help-wanted signs that said, "No Jews, Irish or
dogs need apply." San Francisco had more than its share of "No Chinamen
need apply" signs as well.
Obviously, most people of Chinese ancestry would find the term "Chinaman"
insulting.
> And admittedly, I take a certain amount of pleasure in debunking
> the idea that the word is pejorative.
And I trust that, knowing a bit about the history of these words, you'll
find your pleasure elsewhere.
Bob Jewett
> ... I have no idea how the word got into bowling or
> what the bowling definition really means. But, since you were not
> discussion bowling, that is entirely beside the point. It's the usage that
> matters.
...
> chinaman
> n 1: offensive terms for a person of Chinese descent [syn: chink, Chinaman]
> 2: a ball bowled by a left-handed bowler to a right-handed batsman that
> spins from off to leg [syn: Chinaman]
The game is cricket, not ten-pin bowling. From the official cricket FAQ:
Subject: What is a chinaman ?
Stock delivery of left-arm leg-spinner, spinning into a RHB. It
is the leg-spin of a left-armer and not a left-armer's googly as
many wrongly believe.
Was this information obtained by googly means? You bet!
ObFood: Crickets fried and dipped in hot Chinese mustard.
Ron Bacardi
> Eric Chang ~{VY <ecc...@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU> writes:
>
> > This topic has been discussed and debated countless times.
>
> Not by me, it hasn't. I'm pleased to be able to offer a definitive
> take on the topic at long last.
>
> > I used to call a colleague of mine "Tom". Later, I noticed
> > he always signs his emails as Thomas, and answers the phone
> > with "This is Thomas ...", so now I call him "Thomas".
>
> Bad analogy. Having a preference for a particular version of one's
> Christian name isn't the same thing as finding other versions of it
> offensive. For example, while I go by "Geoff," I don't get all het
> up when people occasionally address me as "Geoffrey." It's my name,
> after all.
>
> > I have never heard a Chinese person refers to himself as "Chinaman".
>
<wack>
The guy I refereed to @ the beginning of this thread refers to himself as a
Chinaman.
And he refers to me as Cheeriman (I think he means Chileman).
Is he offending me and I don't know it?
He says it with such sincerity and it doesn't sound offensive to me.
BTW, I sure can think of worse things to call someone from China if I wanted
to offend them.
Thanks for starting this thread in the first place..........Slippery SLOPE!
Kung Fu Messiah
> Why don't you post a few URLs where the term "Chinaman" is not
> used perjoratively?
http://www.gotcrack.com/biography.html
Now it's your turn to post a pejorative link.
Bill Woodcock
> Eric Chang ~{VY <ecc...@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU> writes:
> Think of an equivalent of "Chinaman" for another country.
geo...@u1.netgate.net (Geoff Miller) wrote:
> There isn't one, at least that I can think of offhand.
Roman, Norman. Englishman, Dutchman, Irishman, Scotsman, Frenchman.
-Bill
Michael Sierchio
> I'm sure you could try the same argument on the word "bitch" or "ass" or
> "turd".
Uh, okay, we part company here. The terms you describe are devised
as insults, and are quite different from "chinaman" -- synecdoche and
metonymy (asshole, prick, schmuck, cunt, turd, tightwad) and animal
terms (bitch, dog, pig, cow) are metaphors. Chinaman is an
archaic category term (like negro, which was once the PC term for
darkie, which then became black, and now the silly, vague, continent-wide
brush of African-American).
Chinese -- there's no such thing, right? I mean, unless you mean
the creeping hegemony of the Han people and the subjugation, exploitation
and in some cases genocide of the many native peoples in what is now
the PRC. Don't even get me started on what was once called the Peoples
Autonomous [sic] Region of Tibet.
China -- a country with one -- ONE! -- time zone.
Now, was Hop Sing on Bonanza a Chinaman, or what? ;-)
--
By sending unsolicited commercial email to any address in the poster's
domain, you consent to the terms set forth here:
http://www.tenebras.com/uce.html
which include a minimum processing and archiving fee of USD 500.00.
Robert Buxbaum
<wo...@pch.net> wrote:
Englandman, Hollandman, Irelandman, Scotlandman, Franceman?
Limniting myself to current societies.
Ian Mac Lure
[snip]
> My fiancee is Singaporean. She tells me that laying the chopsticks
> across the bowl when not eating is traditional there too. It's
Hmmm, well it always seemed to me that laying the sticks across
the top of the bow was inherently more stable than sticking the
bizness ends into the rice. Cultural considerations not-
withstanding.
> apparently considered rude to do what I'm accustomed to doing; i.e.
> rest the chopsticks on the edge of the bowl with the pointy ends
> sticking into the food.
Rude is a matter of perception. Having the sticks fall out
of the bowl a couple of times particularly if you are using
the tapered variety should tell you something purely from
the mechanics.
As to being correct, well, I'm irredemably left handed.
Can't write or use chopsticks with my right hand worth a
damn. Many years ago, the little old lady who ran the
corner cafe where I lived had this little ritual we
went through. I'd order, it would arrive, I'd catch her
attention and do the rice bowl/chopsticks pantomime (
which works remarkably well in any restaurant I've ever
been in by the way ) . She'd hussle over with a bowl and
chopsticks and place them for a right handed diner.
I'd go through the motions right handed then pantomime
giving up and continue left handed.
--
* Ian B MacLure ********* Hampton, VA ******* Engineer/Archer *****
* No Times Like The Maritimes *************************************
* Opinions Expressed Here Are Mine. That's Mine , Mine, MINE ******
* VR Level=3/Holding ***************** former sbay.linux henchman *
Robert Buxbaum
> Eric Chang ~{VY <ecc...@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU> writes:
>
> > Homework1:
> > Think of an equivalent of "Chinaman" for another country.
>
> There isn't one, at least that I can think of offhand. The closest
> thing I can think of is the way that the ships of the old British East
> India Company were known as "East Indiamen."
>
> So how do you get from there to the idea that because "Chinaman" is
> structurally unique, it's therefore offensive? That doesn't logically
> follow. I'm reminded of that Far Side cartoon in which a scientist is
> covering a blackboard with complex equations, in the midst of which it
> says "...and then a miracle happens..."
Sorry about any misunderstanding. It's offensive because it offends. It's
understandable that it offends as it's been used a derogatory term. It's not
necessarily offensive because of its structure, but the fact that the
structure is not used elsewhere is telling about the consideration inherent
in the formation of the world. Accept that it is offensive to some because
this is not an argument you can win. When a large part of a society agrees
the word is offensive, there are no technical arguments you can use to prove
otherwise.
> > As for ending with vowel sounds and consonant sounds, how about:
> > Americaman, Russiaman, Germanyman, Italyman
>
> I said earlier that country names ending in consonants make it less
> natural for English speakers to append the "-man" suffix to them.
> It doesn't follow that we're therefore compelled to append "-man"
> to all country names ending in vowels in the name of some bizarre
> quest for uniformity. Ease of pronunciation trumps consistency,
> and the examples you gave above are obviously quite cumbersome.
>
>
> > By the way, are you English, or American?
>
> I'm an Americaman.
>
>
>
>
> Geoff
--
Robert Buxbaum
> Eric Chang ~{VY <ecc...@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU> writes:
>
> > Actually, the question is why do you go into such ridiculous lengths to
> > insist on using a term many people find offensive. That's what I call
> > being silly.
>
>
> Matters of principle are never silly as long as they can be rationally
> justified, and I've done that quite well. And I'll point out that I've
> managed to do so without stooping to the sort of snide tone that you
> resorted to when you brought up the irrelevant matter of my mother and
> whatever lullabies she may have sung.
Pray tell, what principles are invloved in using a term that society as a
whole has come to view as offensive. If you were ignorant of this fact, it
may or may not be a moral excuse. You are no longer ignorant of the fact
that many people here have told you they are offended by the word. I'm
offended by your use of the word online.
> Since I've demonstrated that there's no defensible basis for believing
> that the word "Chinaman" is in fact pejorative, it's you who's being
> silly by insisting that *I'm* being silly.
What does that mean? The word is perjorative as commonly understood.
Dictionaries have been cited as defining the word as derogatory. There's no
defensible basis for believing the sky is blue, until enough people agree on
it. Same with derogatory ethnic terms.
> As for going to ridiculous lengths, you may have heard an old expression
> about it taking two to tango. Since you're determined to respond to each
> and every one of my posts in this thread (even the ones that weren't
> addressed to you), I'd say the lengths you're going to are far more ridi-
> culous than those that I'm going to.
Perhaps he takes your continued defense of using a term he finds derogatory
as a personal insult. What is your intent on defending your use of a word he
finds insulting. From my point of view it would only appear that your
interest is in insulting him and possibly his family.
Ian Mac Lure
[snip]
>> CHOPSTICK HINTS AND ETIQUETTE
>>
>> Dina Gan & Jeff Yang
[snip]
>> Don't place your chopsticks across your plate or directly on the table
>> when they're at rest. Lean the tips against the side of the plate,
>> letting the bottoms rest on the table. Japanese restaurants often
>> provide chopstick rests, called hashigaki or hashioki, which are made of
>> wood, glass, or ceramic, and can add a decorative touch to the dinner
>> table.
Or you can do what a Taiwanese ( by way of Joisy ) acquaintance
of mine does. Make yourself an origami chopstick rest out of the
sleeve the chopsticks ( disposable usually ) arrive in.
[snip]
>> Japanese food, such as pickles or dumplings, may be speared with a
>> chopstick, but it is bad form to stab pieces of Chinese food, which is
>> generally served cut up into bite-size pieces.
Spearing indicates a lack of manual dexterity as far as I am
concerned. I only do it to allow sauces to penetrate bao/gao/
etc.
>> In the case of soups, eat solid pieces with chopsticks, then sip or
>> spoon the liquid from the bowl.
How about salads? I find it easier to deal with them with
sticks than a fork.
[snip]
Robert Buxbaum
Well then do some debunking. You haven't made a single post that does that
even one bit. Words are offensive because of their connotations, not because
of their structure or numerology or your pleasure. We've already had
definitions posted from minline dictionaries noting that the word is
derogatory. There's really not much more anyone can do to prove this and
you've done nothing but repeat your belief as if they had value to anyone
else but your mother.
Ian Mac Lure
[snip]
> The next time I'm a Thai person I'll use a fork!
You'll probably get the opportunity every now and zen :)
Robert Buxbaum
<ptauger...@earthlink.net> wrote:
We've crossed swords from time to time, but I hope always as gentlemen. Nice
to be on the same side for once and I suppose in this case it's the only one
open to a gentleman. I never knew the derivation of the word Kike. I'm not
usually fond of seeing it in print (or online) but I appreciate the
scholarly information and the applicable use.
Ian Mac Lure
> Geoff Miller <geo...@u1.netgate.net> wrote:
>> > Ann now I know someone who still uses the offensive term 'chinaman.'
>>
>>
>> Why would "Chinaman" be offensive? All it means is "man from China"
I dare say most Chinese would find it offensive.
> No it doesn't; it's as inappropriate as calling someone from Japanese a
> 'Nip' while claiming it's just short for 'Nipon' (which is the way Japan
> pronouces its country's name).
Niponjin might be correct. Nip isn't. Words with agendas
tend to be that way.
Michael Dix
>
> Ron Bacardi <ne...@eleven.com> wrote:
>
> > I know a chinaman who eats rice with his fingers
>
> Ann now I know someone who still uses the offensive term 'chinaman.'
Where is Geoff when we need him?
Eric Chang ~{VY
Michael Dix
Man, I spoke too soon. Geoff was merely lurking.
In my time I have been called a honky, a hunkie, a peckerwood, and
a mackeral snapper. I somehow managed to bear and forbear. I advise
others to do the same.
Anyways, next they're gonna tell us that "Oriental" is
pejorative.
SlipperySlope
Geoff Miller wrote:
> Dawn Yancy <Da...@FakoAddresso.com> writes:
>
> > Ann now I know someone who still uses the offensive term 'chinaman.'
>
> Why would "Chinaman" be offensive? All it means is "man from China";
> there's nothing remotely pejorative about it. People don't consider
> "Frenchman" or "Englishman" to be offensive, so why would anyone feel
> any differently about "Chinaman?" Just remember to capitalize it...
>
Whatever you say white-devil barbarian (THAT'S WHAT THE CHINESE REFER TO
WHITE-SCUM SO I KNOW YOU KNOW I DON'T MEAN IT ANY OFFENSIVE WAY RIGHT
WHITE-TRASH?)
SlipperySlope
Alright people, no use taking offense from this white-scum-cracker.
I know that WHITE-devil-barbarian "geoff" finds it's not offensive that IT is
referred to as white-trash-garbage as IT knows it's only the vernacular the
"gooks" (WHITE-SCUM-TRASH geoffs term) use in referring to the
ONLY-GOOD-WHITE-SCUM-TRASH-IS-ONE-THAT-IS-DEAD-PARTICULARLY-WHITE-REDNECK-RIGHT-WING-ASSHOLES-LIKE-WHITE-SCUM-GEOFF-MILLER.
Right WHITE-SCUM-ASSHOLE geoff?
Geoff Miller wrote:
> Eric Chang ~{VY <ecc...@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU> writes:
>
> > This topic has been discussed and debated countless times.
>
> Not by me, it hasn't. I'm pleased to be able to offer a definitive
> take on the topic at long last.
>
> > I used to call a colleague of mine "Tom". Later, I noticed
> > he always signs his emails as Thomas, and answers the phone
> > with "This is Thomas ...", so now I call him "Thomas".
>
> Bad analogy. Having a preference for a particular version of one's
> Christian name isn't the same thing as finding other versions of it
> offensive. For example, while I go by "Geoff," I don't get all het
> up when people occasionally address me as "Geoffrey." It's my name,
> after all.
>
> > I have never heard a Chinese person refers to himself as "Chinaman".
>
> As we've already seen, a word's being unusual doesn't make it offensive.
>
> > Many find it offensive.
>
> Many find things offensive for silly reasons.
>
> > Did your mom sing "Chinaman" lullabies to you when you are young that
> > you hold the word so dear?
>
> Not that I can remember. But then, that was a long time ago.
>
> My holding the word dear has nothing to do with it. If someone tells me
> that a certain word is offensive, they're implicitly demanding that I not
> use that word. And if someone's going to demand that I adjust my use of
> the language in deference to their sensibilities, I don't think it's
> unreasonable of me to expect that they be prepared to rationally artic-
> ulate their reasons. Or that they abandon their demands if their reasons
> are exposed as unsound.
>
> Since I haven't seen a single compelling argument as to why "Chinaman"
> should be considered offensive by any rational and emotionally stable
> person, I don't honor demands (implicit or explicit) that I not use the
> word. And admittedly, I take a certain amount of pleasure in debunking
> the idea that the word is pejorative.
>
SlipperySlope
Since in the vernacular the chinese refer to RIGHT-WING-ASSHOLES (ISN'T
RIGHT-WING & ASSHOLE REDUNDANT?) LIKE WHITE-SCUM THINGS like geoff miller as
WHITE-DEVIL-BARBARIAN-SCUM, then surely we have no problems here right?
Geoff Miller wrote:
> Dawn Yancy <Da...@FakoAddresso.com> writes:
>
> > Ann now I know someone who still uses the offensive term 'chinaman.'
>
> Why would "Chinaman" be offensive? All it means is "man from China";
> there's nothing remotely pejorative about it. People don't consider
> "Frenchman" or "Englishman" to be offensive, so why would anyone feel
> any differently about "Chinaman?" Just remember to capitalize it...
>
SlipperySlope
Geoff Miller wrote:
> Eric Chang ~{VY <ecc...@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU> writes:
>
> > Actually, the question is why do you go into such ridiculous lengths to
> > insist on using a term many people find offensive. That's what I call
> > being silly.
>
> Matters of principle are never silly as long as they can be rationally
> justified, and I've done that quite well. And I'll point out that I've
> managed to do so without stooping to the sort of snide tone that you
> resorted to when you brought up the irrelevant matter of my mother and
> whatever lullabies she may have sung.
>
> Since I've demonstrated that there's no defensible basis for believing
> that the word "Chinaman" is in fact pejorative, it's you who's being
> silly by insisting that *I'm* being silly.
>
> As for going to ridiculous lengths, you may have heard an old expression
> about it taking two to tango. Since you're determined to respond to each
> and every one of my posts in this thread (even the ones that weren't
> addressed to you), I'd say the lengths you're going to are far more ridi-
> culous than those that I'm going to.
>
There is nothing in my mind I find offensive in referring to
RIGHT-WING-ASSHOLES as BEING COMPLETELY DESERVING TO BE VICIOUSLY TORTURED
AND MURDERED.
I think that makes my VIEWPOINT on the treatment of RIGHT-WING-ASSHOLES as
being logically correct.
SlipperySlope
Geoff Miller wrote:
> S Banta <shb...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> > um, do you see the fallacy here? We don't say Englandman or Franceman.
>
> No, I'm afraid I don't. While it's true that we don't say "Englandman"
> or "Franceman," that doesn't mean it'd be wrong if somebody did; merely
> that it'd be unusual. And "unusual" != "offensive. Where did you ever
> get the idea that usage had to be consistent across the length and breadth
> of the English language?
>
> > So to be consistent with your own logic, we'd say Chineseman, which
> > although a bit unusual, probably wouldn't offend anyone. But I really
> > have a feeling that "Chinaman" would be found offensive. I'll defer to
> > others, though.
>
> There's way too much deferring to others in matters of this sort, and
> far too little rational thinking.
>
> I suspect that the reason nobody says "Chineseman" is simply that it's
> awkward; "Chinaman" rolls off the tongue more easily. The same applies
> to "Frenchman" and "Englishman" versus "Franceman" and "Englandman."
>
I find that when I SAY: "SUBHUMAN GEOFF MILLER
RIGHT-WING-ASSHOLE-EX-MILITARY-WHITE-SCUM
SHOULD BE VICIOUSLY TORTURED AND SHOULD HAVE HIS MIDDLE-AGED BEARDED
OVERWEIGHT ASS DISEMBOWELLED AND THE SCUM CARCASS BURNED IN AN OVEN" I find
there's nothing awkward in the way it's said and thus surely there's nothing
wrong in saying it.
Thus I believe we should all join together and say: "SUBHUMAN GEOFF MILLER
RIGHT-WING-ASSHOLE-EX-MILITARY-WHITE-SCUM
SHOULD BE VICIOUSLY TORTURED AND SHOULD HAVE HIS MIDDLE-AGED BEARDED
OVERWEIGHT ASS DISEMBOWELLED AND THE SCUM CARCASS BURNED IN AN OVEN"
>
> The reason for this is probably the fact that "China" ends in a vowel
> sound, making it feel more natural to English speakers to append the
> "-man" suffix than in the case of "France" or "England" -- both of
> which end with consonant sounds if not a literal consonant. (The "-ce"
> in "France" is pronounced like the letter "s.")
>
> Bottom line: It's just an accident of phonics that we say "Frenchman"
> and "Englishman" instead of "Franceman" or "Englandman." And phonics
> is a rather silly basis on which to take offense at a word, don't you
> think?
SlipperySlope
Geoff Miller wrote:
> Eric Chang ~{VY <ecc...@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU> challenges:
>
> > Why don't you post a few URLs where the term "Chinaman" is not
> > used perjoratively?
>
> Two reasons:
>
> 1. You're trying to make me jump though hoops, and I don't *do*
> hoops;
>
> 2. You're the one who's insisting that the word is necessarily
> pejorative, and that means that the burden of proof is on
> you, not on me. Thus far, you've failed to demonstrate
> the veracity of your position in anything resembling a
> convincing manner.
>
I completely agree.
As someone that finds nothing offensive nor perjorative with "GEOFF MILLER
IS A RIGHT-WING-ASSHOLE-EX-MILITARY-WHITE-SCUM THAT IS WORKING FOR ITS "BA"
FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX AND SHOULD BE VICIOUSLY TORTURED AND SHOULD
HAVE HIS MIDDLE-AGED BEARDED OVERWEIGHT ASS DISEMBOWELLED AND THE SCUM
CARCASS BURNED IN AN OVEN" as well I think all those fucking whiney
RIGHT-WING-EX-MILITARY-ASSHOLES SHOULD SHUT THE FUCK UP and accept that
there's nothing wrong with one states.
SlipperySlope
Geoff Miller wrote:
> Dawn Yancy <Da...@FakoAddresso.com> writes:
>
> : Why would "Chinaman" be offensive? All it means is "man from China"
>
I completely agree.
Why should
FAT-WHITE-AMERICAN-SCUM-LIKE-RIGHT-WING-ASSHOLE-SCUM-LIKE-GEOFF-MILLER be
considered offensive?
It aptly describes americans does it not?
>
> > No it doesn't; it's as inappropriate as calling someone from Japanese a
> > 'Nip' while claiming it's just short for 'Nipon' (which is the way Japan
> > pronouces its country's name).
>
> But "China" isn't what the Chinese call the country in their native tongues,
> and it's not short for anything. A far more accurate analogy would be
> calling Chinese people "Chins," as short for "Chinese." But since nobody
> does, your reasoning above reaches an intellectual dead end.
>
I also completely agree.
Since the rest of the world tends to call "U.S.A." as the
"LAND-OF-FAT-WHITE-AMERICAN-SCUM-LIKE-RIGHT-WING-ASSHOLE-SCUM-LIKE-GEOFF-MILLER"
then that term is quite acceptable since it fits.
>
> (As an aside, I've always gotten a chuckle out of the expression "more
> chins than a Chinese phone book," as used to describe fat people. I
> suppose that now somebody's going to add alt.support.big-folks into
> the distribution...)
>
> > It has a history of being an offensive, diminuitive term.
>
> I contend that it has a much greater history of being a neutral descriptor,
> and that any offensiveness had to do with context, not with anything
> inherent to the word itself. Can you not tell the difference in tone and
> intent between, say, "Chinaman" and "goddam Chinaman?"
>
> > More, one doesn't call someone from Bermuda a Bermudaman, and it's
> > equally incorrect, in addition to being offensive, to call someone from
> > China 'chinaman.'
>
> It's not incorrect to call someone from Bermuda a Bermudaman; it's merely
> unusual -- much like calling someone a Britisher instead of an Englishman
> is unusual. But being unusual doesn't make a word offensive. And that
> seems to be what sets people off about stuff like this much of the time.
> There's this all too common knee-jerk attitude that referring to people
> by unusual or archaic terms is automatically disparaging. I'm sorry,
> folks, but that's just plain silly. Why do people go to such ridiculous
> lengths to take offense over nothing?
Gerald Sylvester
>> Yes, it's time AGAIN to visit the subject that seems to be
>> incomprehensible to white americans eating at a chinese -
>> or ANY asian restaurant - YOU DON'T EAT RICE WITH
>> CHOPSTICKS!
I agree 100%. It looks absolutely foolish. Try using
"modern" utensils like a fork, spoon and knife.
<grin>
Gerald
Allan Schaffer
>FAT-WHITE-AMERICAN-SCUM-LIKE-RIGHT-WING-ASSHOLE-SCUM-LIKE-GEOFF-MILLER
Uh-oh, have we gone off our meds again? mm, there you go..
Allan
--
Allan Schaffer al...@sgi.com
Silicon Graphics http://www.sgi.com
Don't send mail to: aaan...@sgi.com, midw...@sgi.com, zedw...@sgi.com
Icono Clast
ancestry from Singapore resident as a Queen's Prosecutor in London.
She consistently referred to "Orientals". I let her do so without
comment.
Ian Mac Lure <i...@svpal.org> wrote in message news:<a51qdr$293e$4...@borg.svpal.org>...
Chester
>Geoff Miller wrote:
>
>> Dawn Yancy <Da...@FakoAddresso.com> writes:
>>
>> : Why would "Chinaman" be offensive? All it means is "man from China"
>>
>I completely agree.
>
>Why should
>FAT-WHITE-AMERICAN-SCUM-LIKE-RIGHT-WING-ASSHOLE-SCUM-LIKE-GEOFF-MILLER be
>considered offensive?
>
>It aptly describes americans does it not?
Geez, shut up already. No need to respond to Geoff being offensive by
being offensive *and* stupid *and* boring. Stick with your demented
lambastings of Americanized restaurants. Those were at least humorous.
The above puts you in the intellectual league of Kent-tard. Please don't
drag our people down to those depths.
No need to respond to this message. I'll save you the hassle and
pre-empt you:
SHUT UP YOU STUPID-YELLOW-BANANA-SCUM-SELLOUT-FUCKER-FUCK
ObFood: Dinner was pizza in the fridge, of unknown origin. It seems
that, the thicker the pizza, the more unsuitable it is for reheating. I
looked high and low for ingredients to make a bechamel sauce in order to
improve it, but apparently I *do* live in a ticky-tacky house, for I
found none. Don't even have a whisk, fercryingoutloud.
Chester
Tim May
Michael Dix <lo...@sig.please.because.this.is.invalid> wrote:
I know a Frenchman who thinks this controversy over "Chinaman" is
overdone.
BTW, I also know a Chinese who doesn't like being called "a Chinese."
Which leaves what as their name? A PC monstrosity like "An Eastern
Asian persyn"?
This as blacks are increasingly calling themselves niggers, niggaz, and
niggah hoes. Go figure.
--Tim May
Bubbadude
eating with chopsticks so as not to offend the locals when I ate out
with them. But I discovered that chopsticks are considered primitive
and backward by modern Singaporeans who much prefer to eat rice with a
fork.
Now, when to we get to explain to Asians that it's not proper to drive
35 miles an hour on the freeway?
Bubba
"Robert Knowles" <knowl...@home.com> wrote:
>
>"axlq.soc.culture.usa" <ax...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
>news:a4vefe$mms$1...@samba.rahul.net...
>>
>> My fiancee is Singaporean. She tells me that laying the chopsticks
>> across the bowl when not eating is traditional there too. It's
>> apparently considered rude to do what I'm accustomed to doing; i.e.
>> rest the chopsticks on the edge of the bowl with the pointy ends
>> sticking into the food.
>>
>
>If you stick the chopsticks into the bowl standing up, it looks like
>an incense offering to the dead. Bad form.
>
>> -Alex
>
Brian Damage
OK. Now if we call the Frenchmen, France Men and the Englishmen,
England Men then all will be equal right???
Brian Damage says "Do not try to justify your ignorance because it'll
never change a thing in the eyes of others."
geo...@u1.netgate.net (Geoff Miller) wrote in message news:<a51b0h$o...@u1.netgate.net>...
> Eric Chang ~{VY <ecc...@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU> writes:
>
> > Actually, the question is why do you go into such ridiculous lengths to
> > insist on using a term many people find offensive. That's what I call
> > being silly.
>
>
> Matters of principle are never silly as long as they can be rationally
> justified, and I've done that quite well. And I'll point out that I've
> managed to do so without stooping to the sort of snide tone that you
> resorted to when you brought up the irrelevant matter of my mother and
> whatever lullabies she may have sung.
>
> Since I've demonstrated that there's no defensible basis for believing
> that the word "Chinaman" is in fact pejorative, it's you who's being
> silly by insisting that *I'm* being silly.
>
> As for going to ridiculous lengths, you may have heard an old expression
> about it taking two to tango. Since you're determined to respond to each
> and every one of my posts in this thread (even the ones that weren't
> addressed to you), I'd say the lengths you're going to are far more ridi-
> culous than those that I'm going to.
>
>
>
>
> Geoff
Steve Wertz
> RIGHT-WING-ASSHOLES
> WHITE-SCUM THINGS
> WHITE-DEVIL-BARBARIAN-SCUM
Aren't these english translations of popular chinese dishes?
-sw
Michael Dix
>
> If it was Chinese Men instead of Chinamen then it'll be
> OK. Now if we call the Frenchmen, France Men and the Englishmen,
> England Men then all will be equal right???
And what about the Baha Men? How soon we forget:
"Who let the dogs out?
Who? Who? Who? Who? Who?"
Robert Knowles
"Tina Mongkolsmai" <tina.mon...@compaq.com> wrote in message
news:ETSc8.307$YS1....@news.cpqcorp.net...
>
> "Robert Knowles" <knowl...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:2iEc8.61283$Ig2.16...@news1.elcjn1.sdca.home.com...
> >
> > Yet many U.S. diners insist on using chopsticks to eat their
> > entire Thai meal. I think that's more Chinese than Thai and
> > that most people do this because they do not understand the
> > difference.
> >
> > >
> Nobody has said chopsticks were predominant overall; it may be that people
> who don't know that fork and spoon is predominant (with the exception of
> noodle soups and in more Chinese-blood households) just see the chopsticks
> there and assume it's appropriate to use.
I probably ate more in food courts and open air food stalls and such
in Thailand. Especially after my first trip or so.
It's in the U.S. where I see so many people in Thai restaurants
eating nearly everything with chopsticks. I think it looks odd
because I never saw Thais do that.
>
> Soups without noodles such as Tom Yum X, Tom Kha Gai, Gaeng Jeurd (a
broth),
> or Geow Nam (dumplings in soup) do not require chopsticks. You can eat
> these with just a spoon.
>
> If you even went to eat noodle soups anywhere you should have seen
> chopsticks being used. If you didn't, then either there were no people
> there using chopsticks that day or your memory is fuzzy or you just didn't
> turn around to stare at other people because you were enjoying your own
food
> :) I would bet that last reason has a good chance of being true. I
> certainly wouldn't notice anyone else using whatever utensils.
Didn't see that many noodle soups being eaten that I'm aware
of. And I mostly ate soups without noodles when I had soup.
>
> If you ate with Thai people and they were having noodle soup and they were
> sitting across the table from you, then I'd be really surprised if you
> didn't notice any. Did the Thai people you ate with use chopsticks?
No. But I don't recall them eating noodle soups, either. I remember
one being Tom Yum and the other was fishball. The other soups I
either didn't ask about or didn't remember.
>
> Hey, did you learn some Thai? :) Three months is a long time to be in
> Thailand. Was it for work?
Mostly vacation. I worked in Indonesia for a year and visited Thailand
on my breaks. Started visiting in 1984. My last visit was in 1997 (that
was 3 months). Altogether, probably a total of 5-6 months.
I did learn to speak some Thai, but not read/write. In fact, while on my
longer trip, I spent 5 weeks in Chiang Mai and studied spoken Thai
at AUA under a tutor (Khun Oranute), so I did learn some very basic
Thai (enough to be a source of amusement to the locals, at least). Like
most westerners, I slaughtered the tones when I spoke, but it made the
trip much more interesting.
Robert Knowles
<Bubbam...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vrk77uggm18t8d09j...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2002 02:59:10 GMT, "Robert Knowles"
> <knowl...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Yet many U.S. diners insist on using chopsticks to eat their
> >entire Thai meal. I think that's more Chinese than Thai and
> >that most people do this because they do not understand the
> >difference.
>
> Thailand and is it worth eating. Also do they get upset if someone
> asks if it is any good?
>
They do serve squid pizza at Pizza Hut.
I tried it and thought it was a nice change.
> Bubba
Robert Knowles
> > Geoff Miller <geo...@u1.netgate.net> wrote:
>
> >> > Ann now I know someone who still uses the offensive term 'chinaman.'
> >>
> >>
> >> Why would "Chinaman" be offensive? All it means is "man from China"
>
> I dare say most Chinese would find it offensive.
They call themselves Zhonguoren, which, roughly translated,
means Chinese people (or Middle Country People, some
times called Middle Kingdom People).
Robert Knowles
"S Banta" <shb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:237bf5a.02022...@posting.google.com...
> drome...@yahoo.com (Daryl Drome) wrote in message
news:<bfee19e2.02021...@posting.google.com>...
> > And then there's those who insist on eating Thai food with chopsticks
> > (assuming it's more authentic), without realizing that the Thais don't
> > use chopsticks to eat their food.
>
>
> From the response to this thread, I think it's more accurate to say
> that Thai people don't traditionally use chopsticks for the kind of
> food that we typically find in Thai restaurants in the US. So if
> you're in a Thai restaurant and are OFFERED chopsticks without asking
> for them (this happened to me on Monday at Lanna Thai in Everett),
> they possibly do so because they have been conditioned to do so by
> their customers.
That's what I think.
Michael Dix
Marilyn S. Safier
therapist and let's get back to food!!
Marcio Watanabe wrote:
>
--
Marilyn Safier
West Hollywood, California
Crochet items and more!
http://cgi3.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewListedItems&userid=marecrochets
Visit my Picture albums at:
http://www.picturetrail.com/gallery/view?username=msafier
Tina Mongkolsmai
>
> I probably ate more in food courts and open air food stalls and such
> in Thailand. Especially after my first trip or so.
>
> It's in the U.S. where I see so many people in Thai restaurants
> eating nearly everything with chopsticks. I think it looks odd
> because I never saw Thais do that.
>
> of. And I mostly ate soups without noodles when I had soup.
>
> one being Tom Yum and the other was fishball. The other soups I
> either didn't ask about or didn't remember.
>
> on my breaks. Started visiting in 1984. My last visit was in 1997 (that
> was 3 months). Altogether, probably a total of 5-6 months.
>
> I did learn to speak some Thai, but not read/write. In fact, while on my
> longer trip, I spent 5 weeks in Chiang Mai and studied spoken Thai
> at AUA under a tutor (Khun Oranute), so I did learn some very basic
> Thai (enough to be a source of amusement to the locals, at least). Like
> most westerners, I slaughtered the tones when I spoke, but it made the
> trip much more interesting.
>
That's great, Thai is not an easy language to learn :) Some of my aunties
went to AUA for English courses.
I'm still amazed that you ate mostly in food courts and hole-in-the-wall
vendors and still didn't see chopsticks :) But chopsticks are definitely a
noodle thing to me.. I can use chopsticks with a bowl but I dislike using
them if I don't have a personal bowl. I can use them to get items off a
central plate but then have trouble picking up rice from my own plate,
especially when it gets saucy.
My husband still thinks eating with spoon and fork is weird; but it's way
more effective and time-efficient for certain things. He just opts for
chopsticks or a fork... the Chinese and the American in him :)
Fishball soup without noodles would be called "gao-lao". It means the
non-noodle version of the soup that usually is offered with noodles; the
same would be the case for dumplings or pork or beef meatballs, or any "guay
teow nam" without the guay teow.
I spent time during the summer in Thailand with family, so about 3 to 3 1/2
weeks each time. My parents, brother and I would stay with her family; near
the center of Bangkok they have land with many houses on it. This is
because my grandpa, who came from China, and his friend, bought land
together a long time ago, before my mom was born. My grandpa's friend sold
him the land, so the family could all stay together. My eldest uncle has
one house, second uncle has another house, and youngest uncle another house.
Then, there's a teeny sort of cottage that my grandma and one of my aunties
live in, and my eldest girl cousin has her own house now (very new), and my
second-oldest boy cousin was married last year and lives in another very
very new house. So all told there are 5 houses on the land.
OK. I am really getting off-topic here. I should talk more about what we
eat while I'm there.
The main thing is that our family, relatives and all, are very close.
Whenever myself or my family is there visiting, they prepare a welcome meal.
We usually arrived late at night; but even when we had daytime flights, they
had this meal ready. It is always served on the porch area of the house
where my mother grew up. My eldest uncle and family still eats there. (of
course 5 of his 6 children are married; only the eldest cousin is not and
she is around 37 years old now, and lives in her own house on the premises,
and the youngest of his 6, a boy, is in the newest house on the premises).
I'm pretty sure they just walk across the pavement (probably less than 20
feet away porch step to porch step) to have breakfast. Anyway, the dinner
usually included two kinds of khao tom. One shrimp rice soup, the other
just plain rice soup. Then, there was a shrimp and pickled vegetable dish,
some kind of pork dish (sometimes with a sweet/salty coating, other times a
ground pork dish). At least 1-2 kind of vegetable dishes, including bean
sprouts, swamp cabbage (pak boong).. what else... they usually had some
fresh fruit cut up, most often guava. Sometimes they had good, fresh
durian too :) and even if we arrived past midnight, we'd eat first and talk
awhile, before going to sleep. Our family is big on eating and talking
continuously :)
Besides the big Chinese dinners at restaurants where my eldest uncle usually
takes us, we really like MK Suki. MK Suki offers Thai-style hotpot and dim
sum at lunch. We live really close to one of the oldest MK Suki restaurants
so we just walk there. We've done the dim sum lunch thing, but usually we
get sukiyaki and then have the roasted duck (just meat with skin and sauce),
poh pia (spring rolls), custard and bbq pork buns (in Mandarin, bao zi, in
Thai, salapao)... Hmm, well before I went to Thailand last time I found the
MK Suki website and salivated at all the stuff I wanted to eat. Check it
out: http://www.mk-suki.com Enough of it is in English (they even have
English menus) so you can sit and feel your mouth water..
I won't even get into Thai desserts and snacks right now. I'm gaining
weight just thinking about Thai food.
Tina
Geoff Miller
Robert Buxbaum <b...@worldtable.com> writes:
[ *way* too much quoted text ]
> I'm not sure if it's to your credit or discredit that you are unaware
> that the word in question is as offensive to many as are the other
> words you use in the paragraph above.
It's to my credit. Glad to be able to set you straight on that.
I know that *some* people find the word offensive. My point is that they
shouldn't, because there's nothing inherently offensive about it. Words
like "chink" and "nigger" were *coined* as racial epithets; but "Chinaman"
just means "man from China." Objecting to the use of the word is just as
stupid as objecting to the phrase "colored people" while approving of the
phrase "people of color." After all, if there's nothing *wrong* with being
a man from China, then on what basis would any rational person take offense
at the word?
If people spent a fraction of the energy they spend on finding excuses to
be offended on things that actually mattered, we'd have paradise on Earth
by next Tuesday.
> It's not a socially acceptable word.
I disagree, and my ongoing use of the word reflects that.
> Earlier posts merely pointed out how it was different from Englishman
> and the rest.
As we've seen, it's not different in any relevant way.
> It should suffice for you to know that many find it offensive for you to
> consider eliminating it from your vocabulary.
I'm tired of being expected to defer to other people's irrational feelings.
If someone can't articulate specifically *why* they consider a word offen-
sive, then they should withdraw their objection to the use of the word and
go on their way, chastened but wiser.
> If you need a reason why it's offensive, It's the same reason why the
> other words are offensive--a history of use as a disparaging term.
But that's *not good enough.* If someone uses the word in a context
that's clearly not intended to cause offense, then how the word may
have been used in the past is immaterial.
> If you're unware of that, you've learned something. If you continue to
> play naive, you're just being offensive to some people.
I'm not "playing naive"; I'm coming right out and saying that you're
*wrong.*
> You're rather dense or offensively cute, but I'll bet you don't hear
> "those Chinamen make good doctors."
Probably because their skill in the medical profession isn't noteworthy
enough to stand out.
Geoff
--
"I know there's a difference between an actor and the roles they
play, but this was like witnessing Mister Rogers slitting open
a biker with a straight-razor in a bar fight." -- Furplay
Geoff Miller
Eric Chang ~{VY <ecc...@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU> writes:
> You have been spending the time posting rather long responses. I just
> thought you would be able strongly bolster your case if you can find
> good examples of actual cases where the term is not used perjoratively.
Thanks for your consideration, but posting rather long responses is no
hardship at all, I assure you.
More to the point, my case doesn't need bolstering because it's not me
who's making the salient assertion. Time and again, you've failed to
show how a word meaning "man from China" should be considered offensive
by any rational, emotionally stable person. You haven't given me a
single valid reason why I shouldn't use the term. Not one. At this
point, the honorable thing for you to do would be to concede defeat
and move on.
Geoff Miller
Earlier I wrote:
: Matters of principle are never silly as long as they can be rationally
: justified, and I've done that quite well. And I'll point out that I've
: managed to do so without stooping to the sort of snide tone that you
: resorted to when you brought up the irrelevant matter of my mother and
: whatever lullabies she may have sung.
Eric Chang ~{VY <ecc...@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU> replies:
> You are the one who started using words like "silly", "ridiculous" and
> "knee-jerk".
I was describing ideas and manners of thinking, not insulting people.
If you can't tell the difference, well, that's not really my problem,
is it? Maybe you should work on trying to become a little thicker-
skinned. That way you could talk about things like this without getting
bogged down in meta-discussions of this sort.
> Can you explain to me why "nigger", "chink" or "honky" are inherently
> offensive, and "Chinaman" is not inherently offensive?
Absolutely. Those words were *coined* as disparaging racial epithets,
whereas "Chinaman" just means "man from China." I'd have thought that
you'd have been able to figure that out for yourself.
> I am just questioning why you are using the adjectives "silly",
> "ridiculous", "knee-jerk" when you are the one who insist on banging
> your head on the wall in a matter as basic as common courtesy and
> good will.
You're trying to change the subject. This isn't about common courtesy
and good will; it's about whether a certain word is inherently offensive.
It would appear that you're starting to realize you can't win this argu-
ment, and so you're trying to shift the focus of the discussion onto
safer ground. Do let's endeavor to stay on track.
ObFood: Chinese chicken. Take a few bites and your brain starts clickin'.
Tina Mongkolsmai
I'm not particularly offended by the term Chinaman. Really, I'm not. I do
have Chinese blood; my grandfather came from China. But, I am not offended
by the word when it is said to mean someone from China and not have negative
connotations.
The point is not whether people are offended. The point is not whether they
should or should not be offended. The point is not even if people have the
right to be offended or if you have the right to offend other people.
The problem I have with your thinking is this... I feel that you have a
stubborn streak about being right to the point that you would offend people
in order to prove that they have no right to be offended. This is what
people do when they care more about the intellectual than they care for the
people around them.
...As opposed to people who care more about the people around them... who
would leave the desire to be right behind, who puts others ahead of
him/herself, who would go out of their way to show consideration for other
people's feelings.
Really, I don't know you. But, I am being stubborn about expressing my
point, because I would like you to understand what other people might think
about you. Maybe it doesn't bother you, but I would rather that you care
what people think. I would rather interact with people in the newsgroups
who are as kind and considerate as the people I choose to call friends I
have in person.
I think I would feel satisfied if I knew you understood the concept that how
you choose your words does define how you treat other people. If you
continue to use offensive terms after someone has spoken up about it, then
readers will killfile you if they have to. I'd rather not do that though,
since you know a lot of stuff and I learn from you as I do from others in
the newsgroups.
I suppose it's possible that you feel the newsgroups are just an
intellectual word and a place to argue with people you'll never meet. I
suppose it would be nice to know that you don't argue this way with your
friends and family (except under the right pretenses).
I feel though, that the newsgroups are a community and a place to share,
learn, and make friends. So, I'd put my intellectual argument away if it
would detract from the community. I would listen to others if they thought
I wasn't playing nicely. It's to my benefit to give and take in these
newsgroups.
So, I hope that everyone who reads this at least understands one reader's
perspective. I also hope there are others out there that feel the same
way.
Tina
Geoff Miller
Tina Mongkolsmai <tina.mon...@compaq.com> writes:
> As Chester said, the point is NOT grammatical. It's a matter of
> being conscientious and considerate enough not to say it to those
> who might be offended by it.
I feel no need to choose my words on the basis of other people possibly
taking offense, unless they can provide a valid explanation as to *why*
they take offense. The burden is on their shoulders.
> I'm sure you could try the same argument on the word "bitch" or "ass"
> or "turd".
It wouldn't occur to me to do so. I can understand why someone wouldn't
appreciate being called a "bitch"; even apart from the connotations of
being nasty and difficult and unpleasant, who'd want to be likened to a
dog? So that one's easy to explain, and I therefore don't go around
casually calling people "bitches."
I don't see why "ass" should be offensive. Well, maybe to the sort of
bluenoses who'd object to someone's saying "damn," but such people are
obviously a bit loonynd are not to be taken seriously.
As for "turd," the very subject of excrement is generally avoided in
polite company, so that one's not at all difficult to figure out.
Especially since "turd" denotes not just the abstract concept of ex-
crement, but the image of an actual piece of it.
ObFood: a chocolate-covered banana.
See? Figuring this stuff out isn't difficult. The secret is to think,
not to emote.
> Here's some dictionary definitions for "chinaman." You might note
> that 2 of 3 mention offensiveness.
Your trotting out dictionary definitions misses the point. I'm not
contending that nobody finds the word offensive; some obviously do,
as this very discussion has demonstrated. My position is that they
shouldn't.
By the way, there's a small island near Honolulu called Chinaman's
Hat. It's called that because it resembles a conical coolie hat.
I've never heard of anyone being offended by the name, and I spent
several years living nearby.
> My point is that it is important to be conscientious and considerate
> about how your words affect other people.
The problem with such things being driven by what people consider
offensive is that it becomes a classic case of "if you give 'em
an inch, they'll take a mile." The more we kowtow to this sort of
oversensitivity, the more said oversensitivity will feed on itself.
Witness the way that in the past decade and a half or so, people have
begun objecting to the previously innocuous words "black" and
"Oriental." "Black" isn't offensive, merely descriptive. And I'd
think that anyone who objects to "Oriental" is consistent enough to
reject the very notion of geographic longitude, based as it is on
a reference line that's not only in Europe, but is drawn through that
most imperialist of countries, England. (Besides, "Oriental" confers
a greater specificity and sense of identity than "Asian" does. An
Asian could be a Turk, an Indian, a Kazakh, or one of any number of
other types of people. When you say "Oriental," though, it's clear
that you mean someone with straight black hair and epicanthic folds.)
And heaven help you if you refer to someone as a "secretary" rather
than as an "administrative assistant." What the hell is pejorative
about "secretary?" Nothing. It could only be pejorative if there
were something dishonorable about the work itself. If "administrative
assistant" describes than same type of job as "secretary," and if
"administrative assistant" isn't considered demeaning, then why
should "secretary" be considered so?
When it comes to getting along with other people, being careful not
to *cause* offense is only half of it. The obverse is to not go out
of one's way to *take* offense. I think our society has gone as far
with the "not causing offense" part as it really should, and that now
it's time for the pendulum to start swinging back the other way -- for
the burden to be on the shoulders of the offendees to explain *why*
they're offended. And to duly abandon their being offended if they're
unable to do so.
> What you say and how you say it is tied together. Any decent human
> being cares whether or not he/she offends others. If you really do
> not care if you offend other people, then I consider you at the low
> end of the human scale.
And you believe I should care what you think of me because...?
Cripes, I'd never even *heard* of you until two or three days ago...
Tina Mongkolsmai
"Geoff Miller" <geo...@u1.netgate.net> wrote in message
news:a56aq2$3...@u1.netgate.net...
> > "ridiculous", "knee-jerk" when you are the one who insist on banging
> > your head on the wall in a matter as basic as common courtesy and
> > good will.
>
> You're trying to change the subject. This isn't about common courtesy
> and good will; it's about whether a certain word is inherently offensive.
> It would appear that you're starting to realize you can't win this argu-
> ment, and so you're trying to shift the focus of the discussion onto
> safer ground. Do let's endeavor to stay on track.
>
The track can change; discussions can move. Don't stay lost in the intial
point you were making and instead listen now to the point a lot of others
are making.
Most of the posts here don't mention whether or not it's offensive; they're
more concerned that you don't seem to care whether or not you offend.
It's not a matter of irrational emotions. People can become irrational
anytime. Emotions are never rational in the intellectual sense.
It's a matter of whether or not YOU care. People like to deal with people
who care about how they feel. If you behave as if you don't care, their
reaction is to see if they can encourage you to care. If you make it clear
that you don't care, people might not listen to you anymore.
Tina
Tina Mongkolsmai
>
> I feel no need to choose my words on the basis of other people possibly
> taking offense, unless they can provide a valid explanation as to *why*
> they take offense. The burden is on their shoulders.
>
> bluenoses who'd object to someone's saying "damn," but such people are
> obviously a bit loonynd are not to be taken seriously.
>
> As for "turd," the very subject of excrement is generally avoided in
> polite company, so that one's not at all difficult to figure out.
> Especially since "turd" denotes not just the abstract concept of ex-
> crement, but the image of an actual piece of it.
>
> not to emote.
> >
> Cripes, I'd never even *heard* of you until two or three days ago...
>
when something bugs me, hence my post after post on this subject. I don't
believe you should care what I think of you. And I've been posting in this
newsgroup since I moved to the Bay Area in 95, so if you haven't noticed or
heard of me, then oh well. I don't feel especially significant in this
newsgroup, I'm just a reader and occasional poster. However, tons of people
know your name, but it depends on what you're popular for. I'd rather be
insignificant me, and I'm sure you're fine with who you are.
There are a lot of people who are more gentle and easily offended and I see
nothing wrong with them. I see that the culture has accepted a lot of words
that used to offend as now ordinary. I try to stick with polite words and
avoid anything that offends people, because I care about others around me
enough to do so.
Your argument is to let people fend for themselves and stop being
oversensitive, right? You're an intellectual, really. I'm certainly not
where kindess and consideration are compromised. I've heard your argument
before, so I'll just say I strongly disagree and stop there.
Have a fun life.
Tina
Geoff Miller
Robert Buxbaum <b...@worldtable.com> writes:
> Pray tell, what principles are invloved in using a term that society
> as a whole has come to view as offensive.
Who do you mean by "society as a whole," kemosabe? I'm living proof
that "society as a whole" isn't exactly monolithic on this matter.
> If you were ignorant of this fact, it may or may not be a moral excuse.
May or may not? Heaven forefend that a liberal be <ghasp!> *judgmental.*
(Like the man said, if God were a liberal, we'd have the Ten Suggestions.)
> You are no longer ignorant of the fact that many people here have told
> you they are offended by the word. I'm offended by your use of the word
> online.
Yeah? Well, *I'm* offended that *you're* offended. Advantage: Miller.
Why do you feel that your being offended should be the driving factor
here? You seem to believe that being offended should work like some
sort of moral trump card, taking precedence over all other consider-
ations. Why should the rest of us defer to the weakest link?
And what "use" of the word was this? I didn't "use" the word; I
*mentioned* it. I even put quotes around it. It's rather difficult
to discuss a word without mentioning it, don't you think?
Tell me, Robert: We know you don't approve of the word "Chinaman"; so
what's your position on "slopehead?"
How about "spearchucker?"
Or "Christ-killing chopcock?"
Just for the record, I mean. I endeavor to find some common ground
here. I'd like to think that my reaching out in this way will make
you want to dance a jig.
> What does that mean? The word is perjorative as commonly understood.
Some words are -- to some people. Too many words, I think. If you're
going to insist that a word meaning "man from China" is offensive, you
have along row to hoe.
> Dictionaries have been cited as defining the word as derogatory.
Dictionaries will often caution that some people find certain words to
be derogatory. Other people often disagree. And dictionaries are
sometimes even wrong, compiled as they are by fallible human beings
who inevitably have their own biases.
> There's no defensible basis for believing the sky is blue, until enough
> people agree on it. Same with derogatory ethnic terms.
What?! The sky is *demonstrably and inherently* blue. It's not a matter
of polite, democratic consensus. The atmosphere reflects light of the
wavelengths that are explicitly defined as "blue." You could stand on a
streetcorner all day long railing at the unfairness of it all and insist
that you saw it as green, but all that'd get you is a room in a padded
cell.
> Perhaps he takes your continued defense of using a term he finds
> derogatory as a personal insult.
Perhaps he should endeavor not to take himself so bloody seriously.
Better yet, perhaps you should let him explain his motives himself.
> What is your intent on defending your use of a word he finds insulting.
Haven't you been paying attention? It's that I don't like seeing people
taken to take for being offensive when they aren't.
> From my point of view it would only appear that your interest is in
> insulting him and possibly his family.
How do you get from my insisting that "Chinaman" isn't offensive, to
insulting Chang (or Chung, or whatever his name is)? And how exactly
does his family enter into it? I don't recall mentioning them at all.
(With quotes around them or otherwise.)
"Darkies? Water cannon? Why be PC when you can be right?
Geoff, you are wrong. You are *completely* wrong. You're
as wrong as you can be!" -- har...@informix.com
Tina Mongkolsmai
>
>
> Robert Buxbaum <b...@worldtable.com> writes:
>
> > You are no longer ignorant of the fact that many people here have told
> > you they are offended by the word. I'm offended by your use of the word
> > online.
>
> Yeah? Well, *I'm* offended that *you're* offended. Advantage: Miller.
>
Since when is it an advantage to be offended?
That's funny...
Tina
Eric Chang ~{VY
Geoff Miller <geo...@netgate.net> wrote:
>
>Earlier I wrote:
>
>: Matters of principle are never silly as long as they can be rationally
>: justified, and I've done that quite well. And I'll point out that I've
>: managed to do so without stooping to the sort of snide tone that you
>: resorted to when you brought up the irrelevant matter of my mother and
>: whatever lullabies she may have sung.
>Eric Chang ~{VY <ecc...@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU> replies:
>> You are the one who started using words like "silly", "ridiculous" and
>> "knee-jerk".
>
>I was describing ideas and manners of thinking, not insulting people.
>If you can't tell the difference, well, that's not really my problem,
>is it? Maybe you should work on trying to become a little thicker-
>skinned. That way you could talk about things like this without getting
>bogged down in meta-discussions of this sort.
Hmm ... talking about being thicker-skinned, you are the one who
could not take a friendly little jab on your persistent need on
using the term "Chinaman".
>> Can you explain to me why "nigger", "chink" or "honky" are inherently
>> offensive, and "Chinaman" is not inherently offensive?
>
>Absolutely. Those words were *coined* as disparaging racial epithets,
>whereas "Chinaman" just means "man from China." I'd have thought that
>you'd have been able to figure that out for yourself.
Meanings of words evolve over time. "Nigger" is now often used among
African-Americans in a friendly manner, yet it would be inappropriate
to use it in a public forum as a general reference for African-Americans.
Many feel the same in regard to the term "Chinaman". Why does it
matter whether the word was coined with a pejorative meaning or not?
>> I am just questioning why you are using the adjectives "silly",
>> "ridiculous", "knee-jerk" when you are the one who insist on banging
>> your head on the wall in a matter as basic as common courtesy and
>> good will.
>You're trying to change the subject. This isn't about common courtesy
>and good will; it's about whether a certain word is inherently offensive.
>It would appear that you're starting to realize you can't win this argu-
>ment, and so you're trying to shift the focus of the discussion onto
>safer ground. Do let's endeavor to stay on track.
No, I have never stated a position as to whether I think "Chinaman" is
"inherently" offensive or not. Mostly, I have been questioning your
need to insist on using the term in a forum where many find the term
offensive.
>ObFood: Chinese chicken. Take a few bites and your brain starts clickin'.
Isn't it interesting that someone who insist on using the term
"Chinaman" also making fun of Chinese food?
Eric