4 of 4
4
Antisemitc soccer chants think-piece
Posted: 25 September 2013 11:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 46 ]
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  810
Joined  2007-03-01

Well, of course we English people don’t have a nickname for ourselves! Like millions of nations and ethnic groups throughout history, down to the smallest tribe of hunter-gatherers, we consider ourselves to be normal people and our language and customs normative - it’s only everyone else that is foreign, and therefore funny and meriting a nickname. The Scots and the Welsh don’t have nicknames for themselves, either; but they do have nicknames for us: Sassenach and Saesneg respectively. Once again, on the face of it there’s nothing derogatory (however doubtfully accurate) about calling an English person a ‘Saxon’, but one is given to understand that these terms are not used affectionately.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 September 2013 12:10 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 47 ]
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1365
Joined  2007-01-29

Okay, so I should have copied your entire post.  Here it is:

I mean to demean when I call a Brit a Brit, but not when I call a Japanese a Jap.
The Brits can be a bit snooty but I feel a real kinship with the shy politeness of the Nipponese people
except for that time they bombed Pearl Harbor.

- my emboldening

Let’s substitute “n word”, “Paki”, “Mick”, “Red Indian” or any other word or phrase you wish to use to demean a group, for “Brit” or “Brit"s - does that make it any clearer?  If it’s a joke it should have been made very clear that it was an attempt at humour and that distinction wasn’t made. 

And what SL said.

DNFTT

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 September 2013 04:22 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 48 ]
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1365
Joined  2007-01-29

So the rest of us render unto the conquering English by not daring to have a nickname for them.

I’ve forgotten when we English were the sole conquerors.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 September 2013 04:28 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 49 ]
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3026
Joined  2007-02-26

I won’t call ElizaD a Jaap, if that helps.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 September 2013 05:32 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 50 ]
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1365
Joined  2007-01-29

reflectively:

No, not really a good idea.  Nor skaap.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 September 2013 11:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 51 ]
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1212
Joined  2007-04-28

If only all-white teams had called themselves The Pale Faces or the The Round Eyes then we might not be in this pickle.

Has anyone ever researched racist terms for the master race in other than Celtic languages ;)?

“Gweilo” is said to mean (Caucasian) “ghost man” in Cantonese but it depends on the spirit in which it is used, I suppose. Are other languages as PC as ours is now?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 September 2013 12:33 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 52 ]
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1365
Joined  2007-01-29

I could reply with a South African example but sadly I feel your limitation of a target to “the master race” is intended to continue the trollery.

DNFTT

[ Edited: 29 September 2013 12:36 AM by ElizaD ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 October 2013 10:10 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 53 ]
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1212
Joined  2007-04-28

Drolerie not trollery.

“Humorous” Guardian summary of the controversy with lots of links I must check sometime, here.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 October 2013 03:43 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 54 ]
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  810
Joined  2007-03-01

Has anyone ever researched racist terms for the master race in other than Celtic languages ;)?

I have heard it said that pakeha, the standard Maori word for ‘Caucasian’, carries connotations of edibility, so that it means something like ‘white meat’. I don’t know if there is any truth in this; it could itself be a racist legend.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 October 2013 05:03 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 55 ]
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3026
Joined  2007-02-26

As a corollary to this drolerie, some time back I posted the interesting history of the Yolngu Matha word Balanda.

http://www.wordorigins.org/index.php/forums/viewthread/1025/

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 October 2013 09:54 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 56 ]
Avatar
Rank
Total Posts:  9
Joined  2012-02-13

In my post earlier in this thread, I linked to an ESPN story about the Redskins American football organization. The story starts with an assertion that the author’s father-in-law (who is an Indian) has no problem with the name. In discussing this elsewhere I’ve learned that isn’t true. The person in question has responded, and in no uncertain terms condemned the name.

What I actually said is that “it’s silly in this day and age that this should even be a battle—if the name offends someone, change it.” He failed to include my comments that the term “redskins” demeans Indians, and historically is insulting and offensive, and that I firmly believe the Washington Redskins should change their name.

Though other points made in the ESPN piece may be valid, I wanted to note this failure on the part of its author.

Profile
 
 
   
4 of 4
4
 
‹‹ BL: gerrymander      Hyphenation ››