Oriental vs. Asian American
Christine R. Lee
really upset me. And to Mr. Shaw, I'd like to say that I don't
appreciate your use of profanity and directing your anger towards me:
-----
From sun!whopper.lcs.mit.edu!shaw Tue Oct 16 13:45:33 1990
Return-Path: <sun!whopper.lcs.mit.edu!shaw>
Received: by amdahl.uts.amdahl.com (/\../\ Smail3.1.14.4 #14.1)
id <m0iOyA9...@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>; Tue, 16 Oct 90 13:45 PDT
Received: from Sun.COM (sun-barr.EBay.Sun.COM) by sun.Eng.Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1)
id AA01106; Tue, 16 Oct 90 13:16:08 PDT
Received: from whopper.lcs.mit.edu by Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1)
id AA05148; Tue, 16 Oct 90 13:15:56 PDT
Received: by whopper.lcs.mit.edu; Tue, 16 Oct 90 16:10:14 EDT
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 90 16:10:14 EDT
From: sh...@whopper.lcs.mit.edu (Andy Shaw)
Message-Id: <901016201...@whopper.lcs.mit.edu>
To: chri...@uts.amdahl.com,
gatech!mailrus!uunet!wrs!yuba!hwa...@eddie.mit.edu
Cc: sh...@whopper.lcs.mit.edu
In-Reply-To: chri...@uts.amdahl.com's message of 16 Oct 90 16:03:53 GMT
Subject: Re: Oriental
From: chri...@uts.amdahl.com (Christine R. Lee)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.asian.american
Date: 16 Oct 90 16:03:53 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA
In article <12...@wrs.wrs.com>, hwa...@wrs.com (Hwa Jin Bae) writes:
> i just don't see why it's such a big deal ........ a label is a label is
> a label.
>
> ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL
> ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL
> ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL
> ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL
> ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL
> ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL
> ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL
> ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL
> ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL
> ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL
> ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL
> ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL
> ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL
> ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL
> ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL
> ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL
> ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL
> ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL
>
> --
> hwa...@wrs.com
Hey! You're back! I was wondering where you were, you've been so
*quiet*! Anyway, you took the words right out of my mouth - I was just going
to post the same thing..
-----
Christine R. Lee UTS Systems Software
chri...@uts.amdahl.com Amdahl Corporation
Sunnyvale, California
FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK
FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK
FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK
FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK
FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK
FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK
FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK
FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK
FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK
FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK
FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK
FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK
FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK
FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK
FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK
FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK
FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK
FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK
FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK
FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK
FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK
FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK
FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK
FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK
FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK
FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK
FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK
FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK
FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK
FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK
FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK
FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK
FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK
FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK
FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK
FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK
FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK
FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK
FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK
FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK
FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK
FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK
FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK
FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK
FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK
FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK
FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK
FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK
FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK
FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK
A label that has been used on me several times in the past few months
-- a label that I would prefer people would not use. When someone
calls you a "fucking chink", it looks as big as that -- everything
you've been thinking about for the past hour, and everything you were
going to think about for the next hour falls by the wayside, and those
words keep ringing in your ears, and they seem to get louder and
bigger, even if the person just whispered them at you.
Of course, it's "just a label" and I agree with you two in the respect
that I know I'm not a different or lesser person because someone chose
to hang that label on me. When a African-American is called a NIGGER,
it doesn't make him less of a person; it says more about the user of
the label than the person who is the target of the label.
That doesn't mean that labels aren't important, and that they may be
more important to other people than they are to you. To you, "FUCKIN'
CHINK" may be just a label. You may not mind being called "FUCKIN'
CHINK" -- in fact, maybe you're so used to being called "FUCKIN'
CHINK" that you'd just as soon be called "FUCKIN' CHINK" as "Oriental"
or "Asian". To you, they may be the _same_thing_.
Or perhaps you object to "FUCKIN'" -- OK, how about "CHINK"? Is
"CHINK" OK? You're tough ... you know that it's just a reflection of
the user of the word and not yourself. You're calloused ... you've
been called "CHINK" all your life, so it doesn't bother you. Or maybe
you view it as a term of affection ... you _like_ being called "CHINK"
because it has an aura of the humorous about it; you prefer to be
accepted than to just say "please don't call me that".
I'm not trying to play the martyr here, because I'm certain that you
two have been called "gook", "Jap", "chink", etc. many times in your
life. They used to call me "rice paddy" and "gook" in high school,
"affectionately". I never told them not to. They talked about
blowing my head off in Vietnam or Korea, and it was a joke to them.
"Hey gook, <KABLAM> hahahaha." "Rice Paddy ... you're alright." "Hey
gook, you're not a Commie, are you?" I thought I was _accepted_, but
looking back, it was obvious that I was just a chink to many of my
classmates, and this was their way of defusing the prejudice they had
against me. And when I accepted their label, I accepted their racism,
and I legitimized it for them.
I think that if you can honestly say that you don't mind being called
"chink", "slant eye", "slitty eyed", "gook", "Jap", or "little yellow
bastard" then you are honest when you say that you really feel that
labels aren't important to you. If what you really mean is that you
don't think "Oriental" is all that bad, you're making a statement
about your personal beliefs about the severity of that particular
label. Other people (including myself) prefer not to have that label
used. Granted ... it doesn't ring in my ears for hours, but it makes
me twinge. If you can't respect that, please don't tell me that I'm
too sensitive. Just think about how you feel when someone calls you
chink.
-Andy Shaw
PS: And if you don't react to "chink", then I've just wasted an e-mail
message.
Lui Sieh
are not as you may have it, just merely "labels" or names. That is,
"labels" can not be viewed out of context and that there is some
historical relationship to it.
While I can sympathize with your position, Andy' Shaw's position as well
as K.Y. Ilio's is just as valid and maybe more so. He wrote the e-mail
probably with the intention of upsetting you. HIs point is that he and
others like him feel anger, hurt when the word "oriental" is used just
as how the word "chink" would make the rest of us boil. I assume that
no Asian American wouldn't feel upset when called those sort of
names/labes whatever....
Some people have made the linkage that "oriental" is as insulting as
"chink" etc and others have not. The interesting question is to find
out how and why this difference ever occurred.
-Lui
ARPA: ls2r+...@andrew.cmu.edu USnail: CMU
BITNET: ls2r+asian%andrew@cmccvb P.O Box 242
UUCP: ...!harvard!andrew.cmu.edu!ls2r+ Pittsburgh, PA 15213
Above may or may not reflect the *true* feelings of the author
Nicholas Byram
>I just wanted to share with everyone this e-mail message I just received which
>really upset me. And to Mr. Shaw, I'd like to say that I don't
>appreciate your use of profanity and directing your anger towards me:
Andy? Back? Damn. Well Christine, you have my utmost sympathies.
I've had to deal with him before.
> In article <12...@wrs.wrs.com>, hwa...@wrs.com (Hwa Jin Bae) writes:
> > i just don't see why it's such a big deal ........ a label is a label is
> > a label.
And it is not an offensive label at all, either.
> > ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL ORIENTAL
(etc.)
(Christine)
> Hey! You're back! I was wondering where you were, you've been so
> *quiet*! Anyway, you took the words right out of my mouth - I was just going
> to post the same thing..
Begin one of Andy's patented tantrums, lies and slander probably soon to
follow...
>FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK FUCKIN' CHINK
(etc.)
>A label that has been used on me several times in the past few months
>-- a label that I would prefer people would not use. When someone
>calls you a "fucking chink", it looks as big as that -- everything
>you've been thinking about for the past hour, and everything you were
>going to think about for the next hour falls by the wayside, and those
>words keep ringing in your ears, and they seem to get louder and
>bigger, even if the person just whispered them at you.
This is typical--dwelling on the irrelevant. Andy, everyone bloody well
knows what a slur is. The word "Oriental" is HARDLY a slur, although the
"New Age" liberal types may claim to have a better word now.
>Of course, it's "just a label" and I agree with you two in the respect
>that I know I'm not a different or lesser person because someone chose
>to hang that label on me. When a African-American is called a NIGGER,
>it doesn't make him less of a person; it says more about the user of
>the label than the person who is the target of the label.
As above.
>That doesn't mean that labels aren't important, and that they may be
>more important to other people than they are to you. To you, "FUCKIN'
>CHINK" may be just a label. You may not mind being called "FUCKIN'
>CHINK" -- in fact, maybe you're so used to being called "FUCKIN'
>CHINK" that you'd just as soon be called "FUCKIN' CHINK" as "Oriental"
>or "Asian". To you, they may be the _same_thing_.
My my, but this DOES stray far from the question of the propriety of the
term Oriental, doesn't it? :-)
>Or perhaps you object to "FUCKIN'" -- OK, how about "CHINK"? Is
>"CHINK" OK? You're tough ... you know that it's just a reflection of
>the user of the word and not yourself. You're calloused ... you've
>been called "CHINK" all your life, so it doesn't bother you.
And what does this have to do with the WORD "Oriental"?
>Or maybe
>you view it as a term of affection ... you _like_ being called "CHINK"
>because it has an aura of the humorous about it; you prefer to be
>accepted than to just say "please don't call me that".
Once again, the patented slandering.
>I'm not trying to play the martyr here,
Oh, really? :-)
>because I'm certain that you
>two have been called "gook", "Jap", "chink", etc. many times in your
>life. They used to call me "rice paddy" and "gook" in high school,
>"affectionately". I never told them not to. They talked about
>blowing my head off in Vietnam or Korea, and it was a joke to them.
>"Hey gook, <KABLAM> hahahaha." "Rice Paddy ... you're alright." "Hey
>gook, you're not a Commie, are you?"
Where I grew up, Andy, many of the kids were refugees--and they would
probably like to throw a punch at you for some of the radical rhetoric
you spout forth (the ones that understand politics, that is)
>If what you really mean is that you
>don't think "Oriental" is all that bad, you're making a statement
>about your personal beliefs about the severity of that particular
>label.
Bingo!
>Other people (including myself) prefer not to have that label
>used. Granted ... it doesn't ring in my ears for hours, but it makes
>me twinge. If you can't respect that, please don't tell me that I'm
>too sensitive. Just think about how you feel when someone calls you
>chink.
Sigh. I will call you just about whatever you durn well please, BUT I AM
SICK AND TIRED OF YOUR VICIOUSNESS. If you want Christine to sympathize
with you, you had better not insult her.
Nick Byram (nby...@ocf.berkeley.edu)
The views expressed in no way reflect those of the University of California,
Berkeley, and that's a damned shame.
"We don't have many important differences with the Syrians ... We think
radios should play music, they think radios should explode ..."
--American commander in Saudi Arabia, describing Syrian soldiers also
guarding the oil fields
Hwa Jin Bae
he doesn't deserve this type of abusive personal attacks.... especially
since he seems to be trying hard to communicate via e-mail rather than
carrying on flame-wars on the net as in the past. (i doubt andy will respond
to this thread albeit its obvious viciousness imbued in the subject line.)
his e-mail was more directed towards me (rather than christine who
was justly stunned by the intensity of andy's message; the e-mail in
question was sent privately to me and christine). he and i have implicit
mutual understanding on the level of sustained intensity in our conversation.
at any rate, "The Sniveling Prick" is uncalled for. calm down nick, will ya?
geeeez.....
follow-up's to alt.flame, please. thank you.
love,
hwajin
p.s. be excellent and less vicious to each other.
Nigel Tzeng
^The point which I believe Andy Shaw was illustrating is that "labels"
^are not as you may have it, just merely "labels" or names. That is,
^"labels" can not be viewed out of context and that there is some
^historical relationship to it.
Amusing...however I do not believe that all points need to be made with a
sledgehammer.
^
^While I can sympathize with your position, Andy' Shaw's position as well
^as K.Y. Ilio's is just as valid and maybe more so. He wrote the e-mail
^probably with the intention of upsetting you. HIs point is that he and
^others like him feel anger, hurt when the word "oriental" is used just
^as how the word "chink" would make the rest of us boil. I assume that
^no Asian American wouldn't feel upset when called those sort of
^names/labes whatever....
^
^Some people have made the linkage that "oriental" is as insulting as
^"chink" etc and others have not. The interesting question is to find
Fine. They may lead an exciting life crusading against the evils of the word
oriental or cabbages or whatever. Annoying and abusive email is childish and
inappropriate. (No, I am not net.police or net.emily.post so don't bother with
such tired responses)
^out how and why this difference ever occurred.
^
^-Lui
^
Pontification time:
There is an amusing story of a man who once went up to Budda with the sole
purpose of upsetting him. After a few hours of his yelling obscenities,
insults and anything else he could think of (all of which were met with a
smile) Budda asked him a simple question:
"If you give someone a gift and he refuses who owns the gift?"
To which the man answered: "The person who gave it of course."
(all you bright people can figure out where this is leading ;-)
Budda then asked: "So if I do not accept your anger and insults to whom do they
belong?"
End Pontification mode:
Don't get me wrong. I can get pissed off at name calling and outright
hostility but a lot of times I gotta ask why bother.
My $.02 about the issue (you knew I couldn't resist). The major difference
between F*cking Chink and Oriental is that one is quite obviously a derrogatory
term used by smurfs (Southern Maryland Uneducated Redneck F*ckhead - yes, I can
use labels too ;-) and the other an accepted term that was at least at one time
"correct". There is of course no use in trying to reason with a smurf and as
to the other...do you sound a little like you may simply have a chip on your
shoulder? "So sorry old chap...but the politically correct term today is not
oriental but rutabega". Hmmm...or better than rutabega (which I am sure that I
am not spelling correctly anyway) how about just plain American.
Oh, but wait you ask, don't we need a term to describe this unique and
important sub-culture? No.
Before my mailer is flooded with "Why aren't you proud to be Asian? You must
be ashamed...or worse a bannana" mail. The point is not that the
Asian-American experience (or sub-culture, what have you) is unimportant but
that the mere application of ANY label should be mildly insulting. Especially
in the cases where membership is somewhat obvious.
The perpetuation of any specific label delimiting on the basis of color sets a
precedence for continued racism and is the root of the problems with offensive
terminology. (Wow, he can use big words too...even if misspelled) After all,
if the group itself delimits on that basis it must be allright. It is hardly
difficult to see the progression from Asian-American to Oriental to F*cking
Chink. Using a new label only adds a slightly less tarnished veneer over
F*cking Chink. Given the choice, if someone is going to view me as a F*cking
Chink I'd prefer he or she use just than and not "Asian-American". If the
person wants to view me as just a person then a label is hardly needed at all.
I suppose the real usefullness of intermediate terms is so I can gauge the
degree of prejudice ;-). Or is that a :-(?
Is the American population (that happens to be of a tannish color) going to
upset with the term Asian-American 50 years from now? I certainly hope not.
They would certainly have better things to do with their time.
NT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
// | Nigel Tzeng - STX Inc - NASA/GSFC COBE Project
\X/ | xr...@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov
|
Amiga | Standard Disclaimer Applies: The opinions expressed are my own.
Lui Sieh
xr...@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Nigel Tzeng) writes:
> In article <wb7_2EW00...@andrew.cmu.edu>, ls...@andrew.cmu.edu
> (Lui Sieh) writes...
> ^The point which I believe Andy Shaw was illustrating is that "labels"
> ^are not as you may have it, just merely "labels" or names. That is,
> ^"labels" can not be viewed out of context and that there is some
> ^historical relationship to it.
> Amusing...however I do not believe that all points need to be made with a
> sledgehammer.
Obviously not. And nor was I condoning it. But you also obviously
aren't familiar with Andy Shaw.
> My $.02 about the issue (you knew I couldn't resist). The major difference
between F*cking Chink and Oriental is that one is quite obviously a
> derrogatory term used by smurfs (Southern Maryland Uneducated Redneck
> F*ckhead - yes, I can use labels too ;-) and the other an accepted term
> that was at least at one time "correct". There is of course no use in
> trying to reason with a smurf and as to the other...do you sound a
> little like you may simply have a chip on your shoulder? "So sorry old
> chap...but the politically correct term today is not oriental but
> rutabega". Hmmm...or better than rutabega (which I am sure that I am
> not spelling correctly anyway) how about just plain American.
Ok but what if Andy had not written "fucking" and just said that
"oriental" = "chink"? Would that change your statement? You and I
don't have any disagreement with the issue (I think) so why the above?
The case is that Chris had written that labels exist in a vacuum and
Andy's point is that it is not. But, Andy is correct to say that in the
sense that words such as "oriental" have a "history" to it that needs to
be acknowledged. Andy (and for others also) says that "oriental" to him
*is* obviously a derogatory statement. You obviously disagree. I do
too.
> Before my mailer is flooded with "Why aren't you proud to be Asian? You must
> be ashamed...or worse a bannana" mail. The point is not that the
> Asian-American experience (or sub-culture, what have you) is unimportant but
> that the mere application of ANY label should be mildly insulting. Especially
> in the cases where membership is somewhat obvious.
I know about all that "banana"/"twinkie" stuff from the "more Asians".
However, labels are not by definition insulting. They serve a purpose
of identification. For example, the word "Jew" can have both negative
and postive connotations. You can't tell if a White person is a Jew or
not so you would say (or they would say) that they were a Jew or Jewish.
Is this mindly insulting? Hardly.
> The perpetuation of any specific label delimiting on the basis of color sets a
> precedence for continued racism and is the root of the problems with offensive
> terminology.
Yes.
> It is hardly difficult to see the progression from Asian-American to
> Oriental to F*cking Chink. Using a new label only adds a slightly less
> tarnished veneer over F*cking Chink.
No, I don't think so for the above reasons. The term "Asian-American"
by itself isn't the same as "chink". However, I would prefer to known
as an American and if people are interested to know my roots, I would
say Chinese. My cultural background is a combination of Chinese and
American values and my "ethnicity" is Chinese-American. But for all
intent and purposes, American would suffice.
To further break it down, I would prefer if people just recognized each
other based on their individual personalities rather than physical
traits such as color. Race ought to be irrrelevant but it isn't in this
society...or in many societies for that matter.
> Is the American population (that happens to be of a tannish color) going to
> upset with the term Asian-American 50 years from now? I certainly hope not.
> They would certainly have better things to do with their time.
Agreed.
-Lui
ARPA: ls2r+...@andrew.cmu.edu USnail: CMU
BITNET: ls2r+asian%andrew@CARNEGIE P.O Box 242
Nigel Tzeng
^In article <38...@dftsrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> dated 6-Nov-90,
^xr...@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Nigel Tzeng) writes:
^> In article <wb7_2EW00...@andrew.cmu.edu>, ls...@andrew.cmu.edu
^> (Lui Sieh) writes...
[some things deleted]
^
^
^> My $.02 about the issue (you knew I couldn't resist). The major difference
^> between F*cking Chink and Oriental is that one is quite obviously a
^> derrogatory term used by smurfs (Southern Maryland Uneducated Redneck
^> F*ckhead - yes, I can use labels too ;-) and the other an accepted term
^> that was at least at one time "correct". There is of course no use in
^> trying to reason with a smurf and as to the other...do you sound a
^> little like you may simply have a chip on your shoulder? "So sorry old
^> chap...but the politically correct term today is not oriental but
^> rutabega". Hmmm...or better than rutabega (which I am sure that I am
^> not spelling correctly anyway) how about just plain American.
^
^Ok but what if Andy had not written "fucking" and just said that
^"oriental" = "chink"? Would that change your statement? You and I
^don't have any disagreement with the issue (I think) so why the above?
I'm not sure. Perhaps Andy rubbed me the wrong way. In any case you are
correct that I am in agreement with you about the issue in general.
^The case is that Chris had written that labels exist in a vacuum and
^Andy's point is that it is not. But, Andy is correct to say that in the
^sense that words such as "oriental" have a "history" to it that needs to
^be acknowledged. Andy (and for others also) says that "oriental" to him
^*is* obviously a derogatory statement. You obviously disagree. I do
^too.
^
Given that I now know that the term oriental is offensive to some I probably
wont use it (except perhaps accidentally). Not a big deal unless a person
makes it one. Perhaps that is the problem here. Are we creating problems
based on history? Yes, it would be insensitive to state that because it is
silly that it is a non-problem. The problem is that it really is a non-problem
if people choose not to accept "oriental" as an insult. People may not have a
choice in making that association (oriental == insult) but they do have choice
in determining whether or not they wish to keep such associations. Especially
once they know that the association exist.
Warning: Radio Talk Show Psych Analysis Ahead
I noticed that in Andy's letter that he stated that when he is called chink
that he does spent quite a bit of time running that though over and over again.
Letting it eat at him though repetition. It may be simple to just say don't do
that but "Don't do that". Interrupt the pattern by saying or doing something
totally odd. While your brain is shifting gears try doing erasure techniques
such as rerunning the incident backwards and forwards each time making it more
and more bizzare (add flashing neon lights whatever). Sooner or later your
brain can't run through the incident without thinking of the hopefully humorous
bizzare version.
It is a "survival" technique that works for me. Note that I am not suggesting
that being called chink is humorous or fun but that to let it affect you in
such a negative way really allows the assh*le to win. If you can laugh you
win. Now some might say that laughing off such an incident is
counterproductive but I'd really like to know why engaging in destructive
behavior would be better? Letting it get to you IS the reason some neanderthal
called you a bad name in the first place.
End Radio Talk Show Psych Analysis
^
[my stuff deleted]
^I know about all that "banana"/"twinkie" stuff from the "more Asians".
^However, labels are not by definition insulting. They serve a purpose
^of identification. For example, the word "Jew" can have both negative
^and postive connotations. You can't tell if a White person is a Jew or
^not so you would say (or they would say) that they were a Jew or Jewish.
^ Is this mindly insulting? Hardly.
Yes, poor choice of words on my part. The actual observation that this or that
person is of asian decent is not at all insulting. After all it is true ;-).
Perhaps it is the importance that we place on such classification of people
that is the insulting part. I doubt that anyone would disagree here and it is
hardly a profound or new statement. What is occationally amusing is that often
the people that decry such classification (and the subsequent rejection by the
dominant culture) go out of their way to keep it alive.
This is good in that this happens as a different perspective is preserved. On
the other hand it is somewhat unrealistic to assume that deliberate seperation
has no cost. In an ideal world there would not be any cost. We all know what
kind of world it is though.
^
[more deleted]
^
^> It is hardly difficult to see the progression from Asian-American to
^> Oriental to F*cking Chink. Using a new label only adds a slightly less
^> tarnished veneer over F*cking Chink.
^
^No, I don't think so for the above reasons. The term "Asian-American"
^by itself isn't the same as "chink". However, I would prefer to known
^as an American and if people are interested to know my roots, I would
^say Chinese. My cultural background is a combination of Chinese and
^American values and my "ethnicity" is Chinese-American. But for all
^intent and purposes, American would suffice.
^
^To further break it down, I would prefer if people just recognized each
^other based on their individual personalities rather than physical
^traits such as color. Race ought to be irrrelevant but it isn't in this
^society...or in many societies for that matter.
No disagreement here. Except that you still have this "history" problem. If
people insist on carrying along this excess baggage then the term
Asian-American can indeed become yet another word to describe "alien"...which
is why some people have a problem with "oriental". It is technically as
neutral as "asian" in as much as it is a description of origin. Say "asian
american" with a sneer and it too can be insulting.
Perhaps the point of this post (which is somewhat longer than intended) is that
the solution to the problem is not to outlaw the word "oriental" as much as to
change the associations with that word. While difficult it is IMHO worthwhile
and ultimately more satisfying.
^
^> Is the American population (that happens to be of a tannish color) going to
^> upset with the term Asian-American 50 years from now? I certainly hope not.
^> They would certainly have better things to do with their time.
^
^Agreed.
^
^-Lui
^
^ARPA: ls2r+...@andrew.cmu.edu USnail: CMU
^Above may or may not reflect the *true* feelings of the author
Sorry about the length people.
Bryan Wu
I've been following this thread for a while and thought I'd
interject similar situations that different minority groups have with
labels.
Ok. Which is the more acceptable label?
"Homosexual" or "Gay/Lesbian"?
"Negro" or "Black" or "African-American"?
"Oriental" or "Asian-American"?
"Chick", "Babe", "Girl" or "Woman"
What I hear people arguing about is that there is no difference
between the labels - and so there is no issue here.
But I think it's always preferable to label yourself than to be
labeled by others. I'd like to point out that the labels on the right
are what some people have a preference to.. in particular, the people to
who those labels refer to.. _Because those are the labels they use to
refer to themselves. The labels on the left are common and acceptable
usage in mainstream America - and oftentimes, those labels have
conotations that affect these minority groups in not to obvious ways.
Here are a few brief, selective examples.
'Asian-American' and 'African-American' makes it unquestionable that
that person is an _American while 'Oriental' (I've never heard
'Oriental-American') and 'Black' does not. If 'xxx-American' becomes
the common usage (which it is not now) then people will be acknoledging
explicitly the fact that all Asians they meet aren't foreigners. I
believe that it also shows the general public that Asians are often just
as American as Polish-Americans or Italian-Americans.
The word 'Homosexual', while being a technically correct usage, also
seems to leave a bad 'taste' behind it. Because of it's usage
historically, our society, and it's common use by people who have no
respect for the people the word describes, the word 'Homosexual' has
aquired conotations of being 'dirty', 'abnormal' and in general not a
nice thing to be. But what comes to mind when 'gay' or 'lesbian' is
used? Certainly a lot less negative baggage than 'Homosexual' brings..
In addition, gays and lesbians don't usally refer to themselves as
'homosexuals' - why should the American public? (ie. Not "I'm
homosexual.", but rather "I'm gay")
I think this parallels more or less the terms 'Oriental' and
'Asian-American'. I also think the situation is very similar with the
common use of slurs in America i.e. 'chink', 'chinaman', 'jap', etc.,
'faggot', 'dyke', etc.
I wince whenever I hear an Asian use the word 'faggot' not only
because it is a slur and reeks of homophobia, but also because in the
reverse situation, how would that Asian feel about being refered to as a
'chink' or a 'gook'?
'Babe' or 'Girl' or 'Woman' - this is rather obvious, and again, most
people don't care one way or another, but doesn't 'babe' or 'girl' imply
lower levels or competence and maturity? I doubt any woman will be
offended by being called a 'Woman'. That, however, does not go for
'babe' or 'girl'.
Doesn't 'Oriental' imply a greater level of 'exotic-ness' or
'foreign-ness'?
The examples above are maybe not so obvious - the difference in
labels is sometimes subtle, but when it comes to terminology, I think
it's only right for me to call people by the labels they want to be
called by. So while you may not be offended by 'Oriental', others may,
which is enough reason to avoid using it for me - besides, there are
other terms available which are not offensive in any way. I see it as a
direct application of the 'do(label) unto others as you'd have them
do(label) unto you' rule.
-Bryan Wu
Bryan Wu
>I noticed that in Andy's letter that he stated that when he is called chink
>that he does spent quite a bit of time running that though over and
over again.
>Letting it eat at him though repetition. It may be simple to just say
don't do
>that but "Don't do that". Interrupt the pattern by saying or doing something
>totally odd. While your brain is shifting gears try doing erasure techniques
>such as rerunning the incident backwards and forwards each time making it more
>and more bizzare (add flashing neon lights whatever). Sooner or later your
>brain can't run through the incident without thinking of the hopefully
humorous
>bizzare version.
>
>It is a "survival" technique that works for me. Note that I am not suggesting
>that being called chink is humorous or fun but that to let it affect you in
>such a negative way really allows the assh*le to win. If you can laugh you
>win. Now some might say that laughing off such an incident is
>counterproductive but I'd really like to know why engaging in destructive
>behavior would be better? Letting it get to you IS the reason some
neanderthal
>called you a bad name in the first place.
While I'd like to think that the above is the right thing to do..
but sometimes I'm not so sure. I mean, I Feel like beating the guy's
head in because he's trying to hurt me. But then I think, it's better
to absorb the insult and not let myself be affected by it. But
sometimes I wonder, if I strike back, doesn't that demonstrate that I
will not allow someone to hurt me and he will think twice next time? I
mean, if someone calls me a 'chink' then whether or not I show it, it
hurts. Is it really better to 'not stoop down to his level' and act
unaffected or is it better to strike back?
The reason I wonder is because in my past two incidents, I've been
feeling like it's time I did something to hurt the person back. Both
times I suppressed that feeling, but maybe in the long run, it might be
better that I fight back and show that I(we/Asians) won't take it
anymore. Think about it, in Howard Beach, NYC (Af-Am (black) teenager
going to look at a used car in white neighborhood gets chased to his
death by white teenaged mob) for example, if the incident and trial and
harsh sentencing were ignored, then it would most likely happen again -
right?
I do admit though that there are certain situations where it is
possible to confront the person with what he said and in that case,
that's what I should do, but in cases where it's not possible, what is
really the 'right' thing to do?
-Bryan Wu
tim...@public.btr.com
|
| I've been following this thread for a while and thought I'd
|interject similar situations that different minority groups have with
|labels.
|
| Ok. Which is the more acceptable label?
|
| "Homosexual" or "Gay/Lesbian"?
| "Negro" or "Black" or "African-American"?
| "Oriental" or "Asian-American"?
| "Chick", "Babe", "Girl" or "Woman"
|
| What I hear people arguing about is that there is no difference
|between the labels - and so there is no issue here.
| But I think it's always preferable to label yourself than to be
|labeled by others. I'd like to point out that the labels on the right
|are what some people have a preference to.. in particular, the people to
|who those labels refer to.. _Because those are the labels they use to
|refer to themselves.
Not necessarily. Not all persons of a given group will use the same label
to describe themselves. The use of "oriental" as a self-descriptive
label is still quite common. The use of "negro" as a self-descriptive
term is occasionally heard amongst older people.
If you need to call someone by a label, use the one that s/he wants you
to use, whether or not it coincides with what other members of his/her
group call themselves.
| The labels on the left are common and acceptable
|usage in mainstream America - and oftentimes, those labels have
|conotations that affect these minority groups in not to obvious ways.
I'd say that "negro" is close to defunct as only a few old people use
it in a nonhistorical context. "Oriental" and "homosexual" are still
fairly common and do not necessarily connote insulting or offensive
intent on the part of the speaker (though that may be changing with
respect to "homosexual").
| Here are a few brief, selective examples.
|
| 'Asian-American' and 'African-American' makes it unquestionable that
|that person is an _American while 'Oriental' (I've never heard
|'Oriental-American') and 'Black' does not. If 'xxx-American' becomes
|the common usage (which it is not now) then people will be acknoledging
|explicitly the fact that all Asians they meet aren't foreigners. I
|believe that it also shows the general public that Asians are often just
|as American as Polish-Americans or Italian-Americans.
However, the common shorthand terms "black", "asian", "latino", etc.
as used by the "politically correct" crowd don't necessarily give
the connotation of being just as American as anyone else. The shorthand
terms are far more common than the "xxx-American" terms are, especially
in speech. (I don't hear "African-American" much in speech except from
the mouths of nonblack people trying to be as "politically correct" as
possible. It's more common in writing, though.)
Nigel Tzeng
[my stuff deleted]
^
^ While I'd like to think that the above is the right thing to do..
^but sometimes I'm not so sure. I mean, I Feel like beating the guy's
^head in because he's trying to hurt me. But then I think, it's better
^to absorb the insult and not let myself be affected by it. But
^sometimes I wonder, if I strike back, doesn't that demonstrate that I
^will not allow someone to hurt me and he will think twice next time? I
Depend on whether or not you think you can take them ;-). No, no that was a
joke.
^mean, if someone calls me a 'chink' then whether or not I show it, it
^hurts. Is it really better to 'not stoop down to his level' and act
^unaffected or is it better to strike back?
Don't know. Could go either way. The problem with beating the snot out of
someone is that it tends to polarize the issue. Otherwise ambivalent people
are "forced" to take sides. Some say this is good. Other say this is bad. I
say it depends on whether or not it works. My gut feeling is that the more it
becomes a non-issue the more likely you will see long term positive results.
The only other alternative that I see "working" is to erase these people from
the gene pool. This of course has somewhat negative connotations ;-) and
you're not likely to succeed anyway.
^
^ The reason I wonder is because in my past two incidents, I've been
^feeling like it's time I did something to hurt the person back. Both
^times I suppressed that feeling, but maybe in the long run, it might be
^better that I fight back and show that I(we/Asians) won't take it
^anymore. Think about it, in Howard Beach, NYC (Af-Am (black) teenager
^going to look at a used car in white neighborhood gets chased to his
^death by white teenaged mob) for example, if the incident and trial and
^harsh sentencing were ignored, then it would most likely happen again -
^right?
Yes. However, the level of fighting has changed. In one case you personally
hurt the person. In the other the system hurts the person. Granted that it
would be you applying the pressure to the system to hurt the person but I think
the message would be different.
^
^ I do admit though that there are certain situations where it is
^possible to confront the person with what he said and in that case,
^that's what I should do, but in cases where it's not possible, what is
^really the 'right' thing to do?
^
^ -Bryan Wu
Don't know. Probably because there is no one right answer. But you knew that
already.
Eric Holeman
> Ok. Which is the more acceptable label?
For me and many of my friends, it depends on how you're packing it.
> "Homosexual" or "Gay/Lesbian"?
"Homosexual" is clinical; about as accurate as "negroid" or "mongoloid"
and generally just about as sensitive. I use it now and again, but
generally, it's best left to the likes of Jesse Helms, who use the word
to label imaginary bogeymen. Note how the pronunciation changes:
"The Ho-mo-SEX-shewalls want to steal your children." Contrast that
with my usage of the word when a friend was about to be admitted to the
hospital. I held his hand and said, "Congratulations! You're going to
be an admitted homosexual!".
"Gay" is still okay; though, as the automated soc.motss postings
suggests, it's better used as an adjective ("Gosh, are all gay people
as nice as you are?") than a noun. ("Quick!!! Sell the house, Morris!!!
The gays are moving in!!!)
"Queer" is presntly being refurbished as an all-purpose word. It has
the advantage of being infinitely easier to say than the equivalent
"Lesbiangayandbisexual". Alas, it has the disadvantage of not-at-all
universal acceptance. Use at your own risk.
> "Negro" or "Black" or "African-American"?
> "Oriental" or "Asian-American"?
Pick a word that's comfortable for you and comfortable for your friends,
and don't be afraid to ask which ones they like. I generally use
"Asian" as an assumed abbreviation for "Asian-American", and haven't
heard any complaints about it yet. "Black" doesn't seem to have been
discarded by the Black/AfAm folks; as its easier to say, I tend to use
it more often than African-American, though I use that one too.
Negro is out unless you're talking about a college fund. A few of
my more leftish acquaintances seem to like the term "people of color";
I find it very difficult to say without sounding extremely patronizing,
though I have used the abbreviation POC (pronounced "poke") with my
significant-other-of-color. ("Soak"?)
> "Chick", "Babe", "Girl" or "Woman"
Happily, we've gone far enough that if one attempts an inappropriate
usage, one will very soon be corrected. I occasionally use "girl",
but only when I'm also referring to "boys".
> The word 'Homosexual', while being a technically correct usage, also
>seems to leave a bad 'taste' behind it.
Dare I say that rather than homosexuals with good taste, I'd
prefer homosexuals who taste good? :)
> I wince whenever I hear an Asian use the word 'faggot' not only
>because it is a slur and reeks of homophobia, but also because in the
>reverse situation, how would that Asian feel about being refered to as a
>'chink' or a 'gook'?
Likely about the same. Is it unfair of me to use this exact same
argument to convince Asian people not to call me a faggot? It's
worked at least once; and I'd probably use any other handy example
(religious, ethnic, etc.) if a specific racial epithet were
inappropriate.
Dan Berleant
> For example, the word "Jew" can have both negative
>and postive connotations.
Please explain. Can the term "Asian American" have both negative and
positive connotations?
Dan
Dan Berleant
> I think
>it's only right for me to call people by the labels they want to be
>called by.
- Anyone who insists on taking offense by the term "oriental" is
perhaps someone who is overly anxious to take offense. Is this a way
of driving a wedge between the Asian-American community and the rest
of American society, by telling people they should take offense even
though none was intended? A way of enforcing clannishness, perhaps.
But ok, I'll avoid the term. Or maybe it is a way of driving a
wedge between Asians (who often use the term Oriental) and Asian-
Americans.
> I think
>it's only right for me to call people by the labels they want to be
>called by.
- This from the guy who insists on calling people in inter-ethnic
relationships "fetishists".
Dan
Evelyn C. Leeper
The word "Jew" when used as a verb or an adjective definitely has
negative connotations. Note that connotation is what is implied by
the word's use, while denotation is the dictionary definition. Or
would you contend that the phrase "to jew someone down" down not
contain a negative connotation in its use of the word "Jew"?
Parallel idea: "Irish" usually has a neutral connotation, but in the
phrase "to get one's Irish up" there is a definite negative
connotation.
Evelyn C. Leeper | +1 908-957-2070 | att!mtgzy!ecl or e...@mtgzy.att.com
--
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
-Edmund Burke
Stacy Lynn Maltzman
How is the word Jew ever used as a verb? *to Jew*? I never heard of
such a thing. Do people go around saying *I Jewed Yesterday* ?!!
What does THAT mean??
Stacy
mark
> In article <4...@rodan.cs.utexas.edu>, berl...@cs.utexas.edu (Dan Berleant) writes:
> > In article <EbC5tSu00...@andrew.cmu.edu> ls2r+...@andrew.cmu.edu writes:
> >
> > > For example, the word "Jew" can have both negative
> > >and postive connotations.
> >
> > Please explain. Can the term "Asian American" have both negative and
> > positive connotations?
>
> The word "Jew" when used as a verb or an adjective definitely has
> negative connotations. Note that connotation is what is implied by
> the word's use, while denotation is the dictionary definition. Or
> would you contend that the phrase "to jew someone down" down not
> contain a negative connotation in its use of the word "Jew"?
>
> Parallel idea: "Irish" usually has a neutral connotation, but in the
> phrase "to get one's Irish up" there is a definite negative
> connotation.
Except that Ireland is a country and Jews are a religious
(cultural ?, national ?) group. I believe that of all religions,
Judaism has had the most 'negative connotations'. If fact, I can't
think of ANY 'negative connotations' for Christians, Buddhists,
Hindus, etc..
David N. Blank
> such a thing. Do people go around saying *I Jewed Yesterday* ?!!
> What does THAT mean??
It's a wonderfuly anti-semetic term used to indicate that you
bargained in cheap, money-hungry way. (ie. I jewed him down to $350
from $500). It's as wonderful as the verb "to gyp", as in "I gyped
him by selling him an empty box." which is an ethnic slur against the
Gypsies.
Peace,
dNb
P.S. I always wondered about this: where does the name "Jew harp" (the
mouth harp, an instrument which is plucked right over the mount to
make music) originate?
Alan Hu
>Brian "racial purity" Wu writes:
>> I think
>>it's only right for me to call people by the labels they want to be
>>called by.
>
>- Anyone who insists on taking offense by the term "oriental" is
>perhaps someone who is overly anxious to take offense. Is this a way
>of driving a wedge between the Asian-American community and the rest
>of American society, by telling people they should take offense even
>though none was intended? A way of enforcing clannishness, perhaps.
>But ok, I'll avoid the term. Or maybe it is a way of driving a
>wedge between Asians (who often use the term Oriental) and Asian-
>Americans.
Enforcing clannishness (Is that a word?) is probably the right answer.
"Asian-American" downplays (real or imagined) cultural differences
between various immigrant groups and emphasizes that the group as a whole
is a group of Americans with a unique ethnic experience in the America.
Obviously, there are strong political motivations involved. On the other
hand, the concept makes some sense. My life experience, for example, is
much closer to that of a nisei Japanese-American than it is to anyone living
in China. And as a group, Asian-Americans have for too long been marginalized
by the American mainstream, which insists that either we don't exist,
we're insignificant foreigners, or we're foriegners buying up and taking over.
And we've been too silent for too long. I'm not encouraging racial
terror/power groups, nor am I advocating marching behind the banner of
political correctness. But silently pretending that racism doesn't exist
is a fast way to get stepped on. (I wonder if as a nation we've progressed
enough that, when war breaks out in Iraq, we won't see calls to ship all
them AY-rabs and eye-RAIN-ians off to internment centers in the desert.
For their own protection, of course.)
>
>> I think
>>it's only right for me to call people by the labels they want to be
>>called by.
>
>- This from the guy who insists on calling people in inter-ethnic
>relationships "fetishists".
Come on! Bryan used that in reference to the periodic "I'm fascinated
by Asian culture and really, really, really want to meet some Oriental
(or do you want to be called Asian) girl on the net. Please send me a photo."
postings. And I know you're sufficiently intelligent to distinguish
those types of relationships from healthy ones.
>
>Dan
--Alan J. Hu
Mike Mahler
(Evelyn C. Leeper) writes:
>The word "Jew" when used as a verb or an adjective definitely has
>negative connotations. Note that connotation is what is implied by
>the word's use, while denotation is the dictionary definition. Or
>would you contend that the phrase "to jew someone down" down not
>contain a negative connotation in its use of the word "Jew"?
>Parallel idea: "Irish" usually has a neutral connotation, but in the
>phrase "to get one's Irish up" there is a definite negative
>connotation.
Ok, I see your point.
Like, when someone is about to jump off a building and
they point up and say, "Look a LEEPER!"
Thanks for clearing that up.
--
Taking action is a choice.
Taking NO action is a choice as well.
Zev Sero
Stacy> How is the word Jew ever used as a verb? *to Jew*? I never heard of
Stacy> such a thing. Do people go around saying *I Jewed Yesterday* ?!!
Stacy> What does THAT mean??
Look it up in a dictionary. The word `jew' (lower case) is a verb.
That's why it can be used in Scrabble (tm). To use the word in
contexts other than word games can be very offensive, but it is
nevertheless a word. And no, I don't think anyone says `I jewed
someone yesterday', but some people do say `I was jewed yesterday'.
At least, they say it when they think there are no Jews (capitalised,
proper noun) listening.
Jun Lee
As derogatory as it sounds, I've heard some people say something like:
"I *JEWED* him down."
when refering to how he got a better price in a deal.
--
AMIGAMIGAMIGAMIGAMIGAMIGAMIGAMIGAMIGAMIGAMIGAMIGAMIGAMIGAMIGAMIGAMIGAMIGAMIGAMIG
J @@ j...@sei.cmu.edu //
U \/ (412) 268-7602 \\ //
N LEE SEI, Carnegie Mellon University \X/
vic...@arnor.uucp
heard a gentile acquaintance of mine use the term "Jew down". Even though she
knew that I was Jewish, I don't think that she realized that the term would
be offensive. Nevertheless, I was offended.
--
Victor S. Miller (vic...@ibm.com)
itinerant Number Theorist
IBM, TJ Watson Research Center
Lui Sieh
berl...@cs.utexas.edu (Dan Berleant) writes:
That's a good question. Right now, I would probably say I don't know
for sure. However, there are some individuals such as myself who
consider the term "Asian American" to be "offensive". If the term
"oriental" has become an offensive term for its implications to
colonialism etc then probably there will be a time when "Asian American"
would be outmoded etc. Who knows whatever for but I would bet the
mortgage on the house that this may most likely happen.
In fact, at the recent MAASU conference, in two of the workshops, many
of the participants were quite adamant in calling themselves "Americans"
*without* the identifier "Asian". It was interesting then to observe
how the speakers and many others continued to use the term.
tim...@public.btr.com
Both "Jew" and "Asian American" are neutral in and of themselves;
positive and negative connotations depend entirely on what the speaker
or listener thinks of Jews or Asian Americans.
Clinton M. Hawkins
To which I replied:
>>Very insightful and very good advice not only for Asian-Americans but
>>for other racial minority groups in this country as well who encounter
>>similar problems.
For purposes of clarification on my earlier post I should add the
following:
I kinda endorsed the position of the person who sent the original post
on "Oriental vs. Asian American" with regard to the question of how
one should handle a slur. But I would not suggest that protests and
other such actions are not in order concerning issues which people can
rally around and issues which will raise the public consciousness. I
was thinking more in terms of the psychological level of all of this.
Obviously I don't like it when someone (who is white) calls me a
"Nigger" but in most cases it is not to my advantage to confront them on
the issue; they won't change and they will know that they have found
something to bother me. I don't like, for that matter to see the
flag of the "Confederate States" on trucks and cars (these flags are
still used by Nazis and Klansmen to promote everything from white
supremacy to homophobia). The hapless driver who may have the flag on
his car because he thinks it means being a "rebel" anti-establishment
sort of guy who drinks Jack Daniels whiskey usually pretends not to
understand this. He'll just claim, in most cases, that I was being too
picky. The neo-Nazi, on the other hand, just wouldn't give a sh*t
because he would consider offending blacks his best revenge for
affirmative action and enhanced equal opportunities over the years. My
point is that most of the times when these offenses occur they come from
crude people in crude environments. The most effective retaliation for
me is that I'll make a mental note to increase my social activism since,
clearly, the barbarians are at the gates. But this does not stop the
word or the symbol (the confederate flag) from eating away at me for
the next few hours (possibly the rest of the evening). The advice given
in the post was constructive advice, in my opinion, in killing the pain
that is caused by these things so that one might be able to divert one's
attention along more constructive lines. It may well be that killing
the pain is the wrong thing to do. If we don't feel the pain we may be
less inclined to fight against racism. But if we WANT to kill the pain
and we are sure that in so doing we will not slacken in our
determination to fight against racism, sexism, and homophobia then the
suggestions of the writer seem pretty good to me (although I have yet to
try them and I have my doubts about whether or not they would really
work). One thing is certain, the person who does the name-calling has
no idea of how deeply the words can cut into the other person's spirit.
To him it is just a word and he can forget about it in less than an
hour. Not so for the victim of the attack who knows that these words do
not stand alone. They are a reminder of a much deeper social reality
that the victim must deal with each day.
Matt Hawkins (Pittsburgh)
Dan Berleant
[regarding the phrase "Brian 'racial purity' Wu"]
>Come on! Bryan used [fetishist] in reference to the periodic "I ...
> really, really, really want to meet some Oriental
>(or do you want to be called Asian) girl on the net. Please send me a photo."
>postings.
Actually, Wu has stated that persons in inter-ethnic relationships are
generally "fetishists" because such relationships are "unusual". (The
same way Asian-Americans are 'unusual' as Americans?). If he wishes to
dispute this he is welcome to -- I forwarded him a copy of this
posting.
Dan
ar...@mom.intel.com.ogi.edu
Stacey asks about the verb "to Jew."
I've heard this in the phrase "to jew down." This means to bargain
someone down. Referring, I guess, to the stereotypical Jewish love of
money and a good bargain.
I had heard that this phrase existed when I lived in Illinois, but I'd
never heard it actually used I moved to Oregon. The phrase is
still quite actively used by people who were raised in smaller towns
and rural areas of Oregon.
When I was dating a man who's family is from very rural Oregon, I was
the first Jew who most of them met. The fact that I'm Jewish was
cause for "gentle" teasing to my face. These people also used the
phrase "to jew down" often, but not to my face after the first time...
I have had to inform people I've associated with socially and in the
course of volunteer work that the phrase is offensive. I don't know
whether this stops them from using the phrase, or only stops them from
using it in front of me.
Ariel (I didn't believe it until I'd heard it myself) Shattan
ar...@mom.intel.com
------
Disclaimer: Intel has nothing to do with this post