nba commentator refers to yi jianlian as "the chinaman" [Archive]

Leftyventricle

11-02-2009, 11:41 PM

JamStone

11-02-2009, 11:45 PM

Come now, is Irishman off limits too? That term used to have negative implication when used by specific groups as well. I'm all for racial harmony, if some guy wants to call me a Jew rather than Jewish, I don't fly off. Think we all need to grow a thicker skin towards slight racial slips when you know the offense wasn't intentional.

What about "Jewboy" instead of Jew? Or how about "blackie" for a black person? Is it cool to call Mexican a "wetback" if he really has a wet back? Not all derogatory terms are really all that offensive if you think about it, but sometimes it's not only the term but its history and how it was used and how people might take the term.

I think in certain circles, it isn't a huge deal, but this is a commentator broadcasting to possibly millions of people. If one of my buddies called me a "chink" or a "gook" as a joke, I'd have no problem with it because I'm friends with them. Now, if I'm at a crime scene and a news reporter interviews me about the accident and starts off by saying, "I have this gook here who witnessed the accident" on live local television, I'd have a problem.

Sure, some people need to not go overboard and get so easily offended, but you have to understand where politically incorrect terms are most inappropriate. It's like when the Spanish national basketball team did that "chinky" eye thing in that team picture. Had Pau just done it to Yao jokingly while they were just shooting the shit, it would have been one thing. The fact that it was a team picture representing the team and the country of Spain that could likely get mass attention, it was pretty inappropriate. I think that's the case with this situation.

BlackBellamy

11-02-2009, 11:56 PM

As for people being too sensitive, that's a matter of opinion. If you, for example, were descended from people who emigrated from Italy to the country you now live in, some people might think you "too sensitive" for getting annoyed if someone called you a Wop. However, most educated people would consider you quite right to object to being called that.

It seems to me that the point is that it's disrespectful, insensitive and basically demonstrates our ignorance if we use terms other people are uncomfortable with when we refer to them.

I'm sure that the commentator was just ignorant as to what P.C. term to use, so he wrongly used a dated and offensive term. But the intent is what I was trying to concentrate on. As a person employed as a media personality, I'm sure that it wasn't a vicious racist remark, probably more a slip of the tongue.

I'd say understanding that virtually everyone has some underlying cultural bias and just dealing with could be an attribute of an educated individual as well. That being said, I also understand your right to be upset. These (racial slurs) are sticky situations.

hater

11-03-2009, 12:00 AM

How the fuck are we supposed to know.
Not all of us are Chinese. Who cares/

I know right? same thing with wetback. Not all of us are mexican jeez

BlackBellamy

11-03-2009, 12:01 AM

What about "Jewboy" instead of Jew? Or how about "blackie" for a black person? Is it cool to call Mexican a "wetback" if he really has a wet back? Not all derogatory terms are really all that offensive if you think about it, but sometimes it's not only the term but its history and how it was used and how people might take the term.

Now we are waxing semantics. How would chinaman rank in offense vs. say, Gook or Chink? Is it the division between Jew-boy and Kike? It's no wonder out of touch sports announcers get confused.

mogrovejo

11-03-2009, 12:03 AM

Sure, some people need to not go overboard and get so easily offended, but you have to understand where politically incorrect terms are most inappropriate. It's like when the Spanish national basketball team did that "chinky" eye thing in that team picture. Had Pau just done it to Yao jokingly while they were just shooting the shit, it would have been one thing. The fact that it was a team picture representing the team and the country of Spain that could likely get mass attention, it was pretty inappropriate. I think that's the case with this situation.

Nobody else outside America cared about episode. You can't force the rest of the world to live by your ridiculous, paranoid, fascistic PC standards.

mavs>spurs2

11-03-2009, 12:06 AM

So if I call someone a shitty yellow does that make me a racist? DJohn, your thoughts?

balli

11-03-2009, 12:10 AM

fascistic PC standards.
Yes, because asking that people refrain from using well-known racial slurs on national TV immediately conjures up images of Benito Mussolini. :rolleyes

wireonfire

11-03-2009, 12:11 AM

Steve Kerr did it against Yao and ended up apologizing for it.

usdane

11-03-2009, 12:12 AM

oh oh. Watch all of China bombard this board.

oh well - as long as they stop shipping us shitty products. Believe I'm in the furniture industry and if you want children don't buy furniture made in china nobody knows what they put in there. Especially watch out for sofa's and mattresses; the foam is full of goodies.

Dex

11-03-2009, 12:13 AM

Dude, chinaman is not the preferred nomenclature.

We're not talking about the guys who built the fucking railroads.

The chinaman is not the issue here.

mogrovejo

11-03-2009, 12:41 AM

Yes, because asking that people refrain from using well-known racial slurs on national TV immediately conjures up images of Benito Mussolini. :rolleyes

Well known by whom and who defines if a certain word constitutes a racial slur?

Danny.Zhu

11-03-2009, 12:43 AM

Maybe just because the commentator is just ignorant?

balli

11-03-2009, 12:43 AM

Well known by whom
Enough people that the people who don't know look like rubes.

and who defines if a certain word constitutes a racial slur?
The people who get offended by it.

wijayas

11-03-2009, 12:51 AM

I can emphatize with the difficulties of knowing which phrase are racially sensitive and which are not. If we accept Irishman or Frenchman, why not Chinaman? But again, here is where the cultural sensitivity is needed, especially among public speakers. Chinaman is not acceptable for reasons already espoused earlier.

iggypop123

11-03-2009, 12:57 AM

1 billion influence trust me they will force an apology

mogrovejo

11-03-2009, 01:01 AM

Enough people that the people who don't know look like rubes.

The idea that if a majority thinks one way, the minorities look like rubes is just too asinine. And America is a tiny part of the world - this fact probably conflicts with your parochial ways, but it is what it is. And you still have to define what "enough people" is. Do you have a census? A poll? Or maybe it's you and your neighbours?

The people who get offended by it.

Crazy. Guys get offended because Manu knocked-out a bat. That's just metaphysical madness. In fact, if you're going to make egophany and self-sensitiveness the criterium, than it's easy to accuse you of falsely, unfairly and libelously accusing people of being racists and the game can be played forever.

mogrovejo

11-03-2009, 01:03 AM

I can emphatize with the difficulties of knowing which phrase are racially sensitive and which are not. If we accept Irishman or Frenchman, why not Chinaman?

Why do you accept Frenchman? If some people think Frenchman is an offensive word, you should stop using it. How can you be sure that for some people Frenchman isn't an offensive word?

wijayas

11-03-2009, 01:08 AM

Why do you accept Frenchman? If some people think Frenchman is an offensive word, you should stop using it. How can you be sure that for some people Frenchman isn't an offensive word?

You know when you travel wide and far enough...

Kyle Orton

11-03-2009, 01:11 AM

Ballijuana is a know it all piece of shit.

Allanon

11-03-2009, 01:18 AM

That sure is one angry asian dude.

I can see how gook, chink, nip, etc are offensive. But calling somebody from China a Chinaman?

Whatever, I sure as hell didn't know that was offensive...but I'm never politically correct anyways.

balli

11-03-2009, 01:18 AM

The idea that if a majority thinks one way, the minorities look like rubes is just too asinine. And America is a tiny part of the world - this fact probably conflicts with your parochial ways, but it is what it is. And you still have to define what "enough people" is. Do you have a census? A poll? Or maybe it's you and your neighbours?
All I know is that the word "chinaman" is known in the cultural zeitgeist as a slanderous word. I'm sorry you hadn't caught wind of it. I have. Plenty of times. Chinaman is not the preferred nomenclature.

And sorry, dumbass, I don't have hard polling data to back up what is and isn't a racial slur. It's called culture. You can start with wiki and urban dictionary if you're so uninformed.

Crazy. Guys get offended because Manu knocked-out a bat. That's just metaphysical madness. In fact, if you're going to make egophany and self-sensitiveness the criterium, than it's easy to accuse you of falsely, unfairly and libelously accusing people of being racists and the game can be played forever.
It's just very odd to me, like, your whole view on life. If I used a known racial slur, even if I didn't know it was such and somebody of such a race were offended by it, I'd say, "sorry." And I'd be sorry.

It's just very weird to me that your whole opinion is- how dare people get offended by the stupid and uninformed things I say about their race.

Ballijuana is a know it all piece of shit.

Better than a know-nothing, piece of shit.

Fillmoe

11-03-2009, 01:27 AM

update me when someone calls him the big gookistotle

IronMexican

11-03-2009, 02:03 AM

I know right? same thing with wetback. Not all of us are mexican jeez

:tu

Riverwalkman

11-03-2009, 02:18 AM

sabar

11-03-2009, 03:15 AM

I‘m a Chinese, I do know Chinaman is considered a mean nomenclature, but to be honest, I don't quite know why it is and neither do I want to. I think if the commentator was just ignorance, I won't be pissed off.

It is considered mean because 19th/20th century Americans used it as an insult, as if they were "below humans". I personally don't know how people do not know this. You don't have to watch much WW2/Korean War/Vietnam footage to realize that lots of GIs used it to describe ethic Asians as sub-human. The term as an insult predates those wars by a hundred years too.

Things are considered "wrong" based on their usage, not on whether or not people are offended by the term. Humanity has an obsession with assigning words to serve as insults to specific races. Sometimes the words don't make sense or seem innocuous, but it is what it is.

The commentator is a retard.

Bob Lanier

11-03-2009, 03:16 AM

Is it cool to call Mexican a "wetback" if he really has a wet back?
Si?

Riverwalkman

11-03-2009, 03:21 AM

It is considered mean because 19th/20th century Americans used it as an insult, as if they were "below humans". I personally don't know how people do not know this. You don't have to watch much WW2/Korean War/Vietnam footage to realize that lots of GIs used it to describe ethic Asians as sub-human. The term as an insult predates those wars by a hundred years too.

Things are considered "wrong" based on their usage, not on whether or not people are offended by the term. Humanity has an obsession with assigning words to serve as insults to specific races. Sometimes the words don't make sense or seem innocuous, but it is what it is.

The commentator is a retard.

:toast

ezau

11-03-2009, 05:55 AM

flamingdts

11-03-2009, 06:12 AM

AussieFanKurt

11-03-2009, 06:35 AM

such an irrelevant thread

Obstructed_View

11-03-2009, 07:23 AM

I‘m a Chinese, I do know Chinaman is considered a mean nomenclature, but to be honest, I don't quite know why it is and neither do I want to. I think if the commentator was just ignorance, I won't be pissed off.

Strangely, if a broadcaster referred to someone from China as "a Chinese" they'd probably get in a lot of trouble. Do we need to send you to sensitivity training, too? :)

I used to live in Taiwan, and I honestly didn't know "Chinaman" was offensive until Steve Kerr said it and got into trouble. I simply thought it was kind of an outdated term to use, but wouldn't have thought it "offensive".

And from what I've heard from black people, I thought it wasn't racist if you were the minority? People should be able to say anything they want about the Chinese and it's just funny, right?

All that said, the commentator should have learned from the Kerr example. You really have to be ignorant to be an NBA broadcaster and NOT know about that incident.

Riverwalkman

11-03-2009, 07:39 AM

Strangely, if a broadcaster referred to someone from China as "a Chinese" they'd probably get in a lot of trouble. Do we need to send you to sensitivity training, too? :)

I used to live in Taiwan, and I honestly didn't know "Chinaman" was offensive until Steve Kerr said it and got into trouble. I simply thought it was kind of an outdated term to use, but wouldn't have thought it "offensive".

And from what I've heard from black people, I thought it wasn't racist if you were the minority? People should be able to say anything they want about the Chinese and it's just funny, right?

All that said, the commentator should have learned from the Kerr example. You really have to be ignorant to be an NBA broadcaster and NOT know about that incident.
I don't know the history about Chinaman or Chinese, I simply judge people by what they act, friendly or unfriendly, that's enough for me. There is a Chinese idiom saying: The world is originally peaceful, but mediocre minds made it full of conflict.:toast

MiamiHeat

11-03-2009, 07:43 AM

Dude, chinaman is not the preferred nomenclature.
shut the fuck up donnie

Obstructed_View

11-03-2009, 08:05 AM

There is a Chinese idiom saying: The world is originally peaceful, but mediocre minds made it full of conflict.:toast

That's excellent! Committing that one to memory.

Indazone

11-03-2009, 08:27 AM

I‘m a Chinese, I do know Chinaman is considered a mean nomenclature, but to be honest, I don't quite know why it is and neither do I want to. I think if the commentator was just ignorance, I won't be pissed off.

All one has to do is watch a few episodes of Kung Fu to know how the word was was used during the early days of America and the Chinese Laundrymen and railroad builders. In fact most Chinese were banned from holding down any other type of work.

http://sun.menloschool.org/~mbrody/ushistory/angel/exclusion_act/

ElNono

11-03-2009, 08:33 AM

I've never heard of that word used as an insult... Learn something new everyday.

At least I know what to call Rogue now when he's being a douche....

wijayas

11-03-2009, 10:11 AM

Whisky Dog

11-03-2009, 10:24 AM

Getting pissed only makes the negative connotation stronger. Just ignore it and it won't bother you.

Kamnik

11-03-2009, 10:25 AM

that sure is one angry asian dude.

I can see how gook, chink, nip, etc are offensive. But calling somebody from china a chinaman?

Whatever, i sure as hell didn't know that was offensive...but i'm never politically correct anyways.

+1

Whisky Dog

11-03-2009, 10:28 AM

But it is stupid of the commentator. Trying to be cute blew up in his face

SenorSpur

11-03-2009, 10:36 AM

:nope

myhc

11-03-2009, 10:56 AM

I called this black guy a Negro one time. I have no idea why he got so pissed. It may be an outdated term, but whatever, dude just needs to grow some thicker skin.

Drachen

11-03-2009, 11:08 AM

All one has to do is watch a few episodes of Kung Fu to know how the word was was used during the early days of America and the Chinese Laundrymen and railroad builders. In fact most Chinese were banned from holding down any other type of work.

http://sun.menloschool.org/~mbrody/ushistory/angel/exclusion_act/

Ummmmm Don't you mean "dry cleaning specialists whose place of birth lies within the borders of the country called China", and "infrastructure erection specialists." How could you be so insensitive to their culture and occupation?

Geez, some people are just ignorant.

JMarkJohns

11-03-2009, 12:26 PM

Suns broadcasters used to call Diaw "Frenchman" ... they did such with every player from any country that doesn't lend itself to a nationality descriptive noun like Canadian or American or Spaniard.

Intent, man... How is Chinaman or Frenchman any different int this particular usage than man from China or France? It's simply more direct descriptive usage.

Remember Rik Smits? The Dunking Dutchman?

Political correctness run amok!

TheMACHINE

11-03-2009, 12:38 PM

sheesh...so now the commentator and spurstalk knows that "chinaman" is offensive....commentator wont use it again and we'll put it in our PC list. We shouldnt justify it...he made a mistake and its done.

/thread

Indazone

11-03-2009, 01:02 PM

yeah just like Stewardess is now politically incorrect and they all want to be called Flight Attendents. Personally I fail to see why Stewardess is not PC.

JMarkJohns

11-03-2009, 03:15 PM

yeah just like Stewardess is now politically incorrect and they all want to be called Flight Attendents. Personally I fail to see why Stewardess is not PC.

It's a movement towards gender-neutral language in this instance.

Agloco

11-03-2009, 03:26 PM

Thunder Dan

11-03-2009, 03:29 PM

what's wrong with chinaman? He is a man, and is from China. People need to stop being so upset about shit these days. If he called him a chinker or slant eyes I could see, but chinaman?

duhoh

11-03-2009, 03:59 PM

get that sand outta ur vagina. there. now i bring sex/gender into this.

jonnybravo

11-03-2009, 04:46 PM

:tu

Who is that in your sig boss?

*fap* *fap* *fap*

TheMACHINE

11-03-2009, 05:12 PM

what's wrong with chinaman? He is a man, and is from China. People need to stop being so upset about shit these days. If he called him a chinker or slant eyes I could see, but chinaman?

its the history behind the word thats offensive.

Allanon

11-03-2009, 05:24 PM

The US right now is too sensitive...we're getting insulted by people giving compliments?

WTF is this soft shit?

The broadcaster was clearly giving a compliment to the man from China. But somehow in our comfortable lives we have found a way to take offense to it.

In less significant news, un-employment rates are almost reaching Great Depression proportions, North Korea wants to make some Nukes and poverty levels in some states might rival 3rd world countries.

resistanze

11-03-2009, 05:28 PM

I bet half the people in this thread who think his comment is okay were sensitive and crying when LeBron didn't shake hands last season.

Allanon

11-03-2009, 05:46 PM

Don't forget cunt eye, zipperhead and chink. Those are way worse.

Exactly. Those are some "real" insults...even a 10 year old knows it.

You have to look up and quote a friggin' history lesson from when Railroads were the next "big thing" to find out why "Chinaman" should be offensive to some people.

JJ Hickson

11-03-2009, 05:51 PM

It's a shame you refuse to see that...

I don't think you have a Chinaman's chance of convincing him.

JamStone

11-03-2009, 05:54 PM

I don't think you have a Chinaman's chance of convincing him.

Fair point. I won't try to either...

Allanon

11-03-2009, 05:58 PM

I don't think you have a Chinaman's chance of convincing him.

I'm sure some other overly sensitive asian man will bite. :lol

mogrovejo

11-03-2009, 06:07 PM

All I know is that the word "chinaman" is known in the cultural zeitgeist as a slanderous word. I'm sorry you hadn't caught wind of it. I have. Plenty of times. Chinaman is not the preferred nomenclature.

And sorry, dumbass, I don't have hard polling data to back up what is and isn't a racial slur. It's called culture. You can start with wiki and urban dictionary if you're so uninformed.

It's just very odd to me, like, your whole view on life. If I used a known racial slur, even if I didn't know it was such and somebody of such a race were offended by it, I'd say, "sorry." And I'd be sorry.

It's just very weird to me that your whole opinion is- how dare people get offended by the stupid and uninformed things I say about their race.

Better than a know-nothing, piece of shit.

I really don't care, one way or the other, for the ad hominem remarks, especially in the form of elementary schools playground insults. Admittedly, they seed in my mind the doubt of your mental age and therefore if I'm wasting my time engaging in a conversation with a kid, but I'm going to assume that it was just a bad moment for such a civil person like yourself.

Which cultural zeitgeist are you referring to? Yours? Why are you so presumptuous to the point of wanting everybody to share it? Are those rules set in stone somewhere? Do you believe everybody should talk, act and behave accordingly to your cultural zeitgeist? Or do you believe it's universal? That's an incredibly extreme form of vanity. Do you know that in certain cultures, the "thumbs up" gesture is considered extremely rude? Like the "middle finger" one, but way worse? Are you ready to stop using it because in the cultural zeitgeist of others is such a bad thing to do?

Do you think booze is an evil thing? That's fine. Do you think homosexual sex is disgusting and unacceptable? That's also fine. Do you think the opposite? Equally fine. Just don't pretend you're riding an higher horse that those that have different cultural perspectives. It's useless and bizarre to start insulting people just because they have a different worldview and cultural zeitgeist than yours.

I'll never understand the necessity to impose behavioural patterns to orders in the name of one's self pattern of acceptable behaviours.

I, for one, will never allow people I never met to dictate what are the "acceptable" and "tabu" words of my vocabulary. Don't like it, just don't listen to me. It's in no way, shape or form an attack on your freedom. You don't like the vocabulary of the TV guy? Don't watch that channel, it's not for you. You think pornography is gross? Don't access porno sites. Nobody is forcing you to. I'd apologize if I use any word with pejorative intents. If I'm using a word that doesn't have any pejorative intent, I'm certainly not apologizing. The problem is: where to stop? The choose of those words or acts is completely arbitrary and depends mostly on local cultures. There are so many local cultures in the world that we'd never know what could we use without offending some. It's on the people who feel offended to act and not engage with the others that, from their perspective, are offending their behavioural creeds. Heck, that's exactly what the Amishes did. I respect the Amishes, but not those who want the rest of the world to behave accordingly to their "culture".

Leftyventricle

11-03-2009, 06:08 PM

he should have said 'chinaperson'
:rollin

Leftyventricle

11-03-2009, 06:10 PM

Go to your nearest chinatown and call some triads chinamen.
Bet you'll find out real quick if the term is racist or not.

mogrovejo

11-03-2009, 06:11 PM

People love to re-write history. Chinaman was the common term used to describe Chineses till the later XX century. It was never seen as a derrogative term till a Seinfeld episode and some of those "white/black/brown/yellow supremacist" organizations started complaining about it. It's mostly an American phenomenon, you go to New Zealand or Australia or Ireland and the term has no negative association.

I wonder why the rest of the world should adapt their vocabulary to fit the views of a few millions of over-sensitive Americans, living in a country, and a culture, where racial sensitivity just has an abnormal role and importance when compared to the rest of the world. Especially when "unacceptable" words or behaviours pop out pretty much every day.

Allanon

11-03-2009, 06:12 PM

Go to your nearest chinatown and call some triads chinamen.
Bet you'll find out real quick if the term is racist or not.

You don't go up to some Crips and call them black men either. You'd find out real quick if that was racist.
You don't go up to a white man and say white man. Nor would you go up to a french man and call him a french man.

It's a description used to make a distinction, not something you would normally use.

Like if you were to describe me to somebody else you would say "He's a Black man." Nothing offensive about it.

But you don't walk up to me and say "Hey Black man."

Joaquin Phoenix

11-03-2009, 06:16 PM

shut the fuck up donnie

3foXJfWlgoM&feature=related

Leftyventricle

11-03-2009, 06:17 PM

what if commentator said "good dunk by the blackman"

Allanon

11-03-2009, 06:18 PM

what if commentator said "good dunk by the blackman"

You would say "Which one?"

JJ Hickson

11-03-2009, 06:20 PM

what if commentator said "good dunk by the blackman"

Since when is black a country? Besides that wouldn't really narrow it down.

LakeShow

11-03-2009, 06:21 PM

I called this black guy a Negro one time. I have no idea why he got so pissed. It may be an outdated term, but whatever, dude just needs to grow some thicker skin.

Some blacks consider being called a Negro as a degoratory term. It can upset some. Me, I would just correct you and say, Black. I wouldn't get upset unless you used it again after I've told you not to call me that.

I didn't know the history of the term Chinaman but now that I do, I will never call a chinese man a Chinaman.

mogrovejo

11-03-2009, 06:32 PM

Should people relax and not be so uptight over someone mistakenly using the word, especially if there was no malicious intent? Sure, to a degree. But, it's also an opportunity for those who are offended by the term and would like the term not to be used to explain why it is perceived to be derogatory. .

So, go ahead and explain it. So far, I've only read some confusing things about the Vietnam War and the phallacy that "ah, it's derogatory because it was conventioned it's derogatory".

It's just very odd to me, like, your whole view on life. If I used a known racial slur, even if I didn't know it was such and somebody of such a race were offended by it, I'd say, "sorry." And I'd be sorry.

Things are considered "wrong" based on their usage, not on whether or not people are offended by the term.

PC extremists weirdos can't even agree with each other. For some, a term is wrong if someone feels offended by it; for others, it's based on its usage and not on whether people are offended by it, whatever this means. The corollary is that the words you can use are decided by a few, through completely arbitrary criteriums and using insults and social pressure to limit others people freedom and force others to behave accordingly to their own set of values. Here's a newflash for you: your set of values and acceptable behaviours is not universal and no better than others. Live with it or pull an Amish.

Agloco

11-03-2009, 07:06 PM

So, go ahead and explain it. So far, I've only read some confusing things about the Vietnam War and the phallacy that "ah, it's derogatory because it was conventioned it's derogatory".

PC extremists weirdos can't even agree with each other. For some, a term is wrong if someone feels offended by it; for others, it's based on its usage and not on whether people are offended by it, whatever this means. The corollary is that the words you can use are decided by a few, through completely arbitrary criteriums and using insults and social pressure to limit others people freedom and force others to behave accordingly to their own set of values. Here's a newflash for you: your set of values and acceptable behaviours is not universal and no better than others. Live with it or pull an Amish.

Green- Why do they need to? Individual perception. It's not about the message, but how it's received. If someone asks you to stop using a term because they find it offensive or because their perception of the way you used it wasn't kosher, what do you do? It's really no different than telling siblings to stop hitting each other. That it did or didn't really hurt is irrelevant. It's simply not a socially acceptable behavior, just as using a term that you know to be derogatory to someone isn't socially acceptable. Once you become aware, it shouldn't really be an issue.

Red- But you'd continue to use impose your set of values on me by calling me a "Black-man" even if you knew I found it offensive? Interesting logic to say the least.

Darthkiller

11-03-2009, 07:11 PM

i dont see how this is a problem. they alwasy refered to diaw, batum and tony as the frenchmen.

Allanon

11-03-2009, 07:21 PM

i dont see how this is a problem. they alwasy refered to diaw, batum and tony as the frenchmen.

It is only a problem because people want to be offended by it.

"Oh my ancestor was reduced to below human status because he was called a "China man". He did come from China and he was a man but that is besides the point...it's just disrespectful."

This is the same baloney I hear from black people and how they are oppressed into slavery by the White man. What a load of shit. You're not going to sing the national anthem because of slavery? You hate the White man because he enslaved your people?

It's 2009. Black men are no longer slaves. China men are no longer oppressed railroad workers...at least not in the USA.

JamStone

11-03-2009, 07:47 PM

So, go ahead and explain it. So far, I've only read some confusing things about the Vietnam War and the phallacy that "ah, it's derogatory because it was conventioned it's derogatory".

The notion of a "chinaman" as a derogatory term far predates the Vietnam War as an insult to depict the Chinese as sub-human.

This excerpt about Judge Roy Bean, a Justice of the Peace for Precinct 6 in Pecos County, Texas, around the late 19th century made a ruling to demonstrate just that when a Chinese person was killed by a co-worker.

http://www.qsl.net/w5www/roybean.html

One of Bean's most outrageous rulings occurred when an Irishman was accused of killing a Chinese worker. Friends of the accused threatened to destroy the Jersey Lilly if he was found guilty. Court in session, Bean browsed through his law book, turning page after page, searching for another legal precedent. Finally, rapping his pistol on the bar, he proclaimed, "Gentlemen, I find the law very explicit on murdering your fellow man, but there's nothing here about killing a Chinaman. Case dismissed."

The history of the term is not imagined, nor is it is a recent phenomenon based on a Jerry Seinfeld episode. Had there been no derogatory history behind the term, no one would have made a fuss about the Seinfeld episode.

024

11-03-2009, 07:49 PM

balli

11-03-2009, 07:56 PM

I, for one, will never allow people I never met to dictate what are the "acceptable" and "tabu" words of my vocabulary. Don't like it, just don't listen to me.
So your basic opinion is that you're free to be as big a fucking asshole and say whatever bullshit you want? That's fine. That is your right.

But that doesn't mean you're not a complete fucking asshole, who's just spewing a bunch of bullshit. And nobody wants to listen to it. Especially TV audiences.

Fucking moron.

Allanon

11-03-2009, 07:58 PM

this is kind of funny. if there is a condescending history behind a name, it shouldn't be used. i can imagine the outrage if the same commentator called kobe bryant a "negro." after all, isn't "negro" just spanish for black? and isn't kobe black? so it's a legitimate term right? obviously not because negro was used as a condescending term to separate whites from blacks.

There is nothing wrong with Negro. It's often used and may or may not be politically correct. People are bending themselves backwards on ways to not offend black people. Same with Whites or Blacks. Neither one is really "politically" correct but enough is enough.

just because chinese people are a smaller minority than blacks, it doesn't mean their history of being oppressed in america is any less important. chinaman isn't even the equivalent of frenchman. it's a made up word to use against the chinese. the equivalent of it would be "franceman," which makes no sense. the commentator should just use the phrase "chinese man" next time.

If somebody were to describe Tony as a France man, would that be offensive? Or that Luol Deng was an England man, would that be offensive?

It's the historical significance that causes overly sensitive people to be butt-hurt.

People living in the past cannot move forward.

Finperro

11-03-2009, 08:03 PM

he's chinese and a man
I don't get it
win. :toast

BTW, he doesn't need to beat that 7'6 dick to grip the "chinaman" honor since the dick is already done in fragments, that even a morbid dork like yi can easily beat or to make it more vivid, curbstomp.

TheMACHINE

11-03-2009, 08:05 PM

i dont see how this is a problem. they alwasy refered to diaw, batum and tony as the frenchmen.

because there is no historic significance that puts it in a negative light...sheesh

balli

11-03-2009, 08:07 PM

BlackSwordsMan

11-03-2009, 08:07 PM

coCo5rIX0Ww

Allanon

11-03-2009, 08:12 PM

I really can't believe how outright racist this forum is. Being so utterly obtuse is a racist act. Holy shit, I had no idea that some of you seemingly normal people were a step away from a Klan membership.

The Klan believes they are superior due to race. Racists believe they are superior due to their race.

None of that has been implied or expressed here.

My problem is with people who try to be offended in non-offensive situations. The historical significance of "China man" dates back 200 years; but people still can't move past that.

Referring back to events of 200 years ago to justify taking offense is self-induced racism.

024

11-03-2009, 08:19 PM

There is nothing wrong with Negro. It's often used and may or may not be politically correct. People are bending themselves backwards on ways to not offend black people. Same with Whites or Blacks. Neither one is really "politically" correct but enough is enough.
you may have nothing wrong with the word negro but i can guarantee you if that commentator used it, there will be a lot more outrage coming from the black community as compared to a few sentences coming from a blog.

If somebody were to describe Tony as a France man, would that be offensive? Or that Luol Deng was an England man, would that be offensive?

It's the historical significance that causes overly sensitive people to be butt-hurt.

People living in the past cannot move forward.
we don't live in a world where everyone was treated equally. can't just erase or ignore the past.

Allanon

11-03-2009, 08:28 PM

you may have nothing wrong with the word negro but i can guarantee you if that commentator used it, there will be a lot more outrage coming from the black community as compared to a few sentences coming from a blog.

It's a matter of preference. Some people are some people aren't. Just search the web for "Negro community" and there's plenty of very acceptable use of it.

we don't live in a world where everyone was treated equally. can't just erase or ignore the past.

This isn't a matter of equality/life or death/job employment/voting or anything like that.

This was a television broadcast of an NBA game.

Some Chinese dude sitting in his living room watching a basketball game felt offended that a man from China was described as a China man.

Wait until he hears that Yao is "The Great Wall" or "Ming Dynasty" because he comes from China.

People are overly sensitive these days living in their comfortable homes with big couches and LCD tvs.

BlackBellamy

11-03-2009, 08:29 PM

OK, so let's get our racial lexicon in order...
Chinaman=Negro=Jew<Gook=######=Kike. So, most everyone agrees it was a minor offense, and most of us agree that even though a person would be sensitive in order to be offended by Chinaman, they still have that right. Really we are not arguing anything other than one's own devotion to being politically correct, freedom of speech and just one's general relative sensitivity (high and low). This thread has the potential to go on for fucking ever!

ezau

11-03-2009, 08:57 PM

Hell, somebody called me that on the basketball court about 2 months ago.

Damn, now that's fucking offensive.

ezau

11-03-2009, 09:00 PM

Agloco

11-03-2009, 09:16 PM

You don't go up to some Crips and call them black men either. You'd find out real quick if that was racist.
You don't go up to a white man and say white man. Nor would you go up to a french man and call him a french man.

It's a description used to make a distinction, not something you would normally use.

Like if you were to describe me to somebody else you would say "He's a Black man." Nothing offensive about it.

But you don't walk up to me and say "Hey Black man."

It is only a problem because people want to be offended by it.

"Oh my ancestor was reduced to below human status because he was called a "China man". He did come from China and he was a man but that is besides the point...it's just disrespectful."

This is the same baloney I hear from black people and how they are oppressed into slavery by the White man. What a load of shit. You're not going to sing the national anthem because of slavery? You hate the White man because he enslaved your people?

It's 2009. Black men are no longer slaves. China men are no longer oppressed railroad workers...at least not in the USA.

:lol

Chinaman - :tu
Frenchman - :td

What's it gonna be Allanon?

Indazone

11-03-2009, 09:23 PM

Well on another note. Yi went down with a knee injury and is out indefinately.

Allanon

11-03-2009, 09:30 PM

:lol

Chinaman - :tu
Frenchman - :td

What's it gonna be Allanon?

It's different when it's in the first person or 3rd person.

You don't walk up to a black man and say "Hi Black man".

But when you describe somebody it's different. Tony Parker is a a French man. Yi is a China man. He's a black man.

lefty

11-03-2009, 09:34 PM

Does that mean Duncan and Bell are virginmen?

Allanon

11-03-2009, 09:35 PM

Does that mean Duncan and Bell are virginmen?

:lol

Indazone

11-03-2009, 09:36 PM

Perhaps naming a country in front of the man is only acceptable from Western European countries.

You don't hear anyone calling anyone a Czechman, Hungarianman, Russianman, or Yugslavman. No it's only the Western European countries it's deemed acceptable. Everywhere else it's an insult.

Western Euro Countries
Dutchman - ok this isn't even correct because it should be Hollandman
Englishman
Frenchman
Germanman - I guess since they have the man tacked onto the Ger, they shortned it.
Italianman - ugh no
Swedishman - not really
Norwegianman - no
Lichtensteinman - uhhhh no
Danishman - who says this???
Polishman - again no
Spanishman - lol

So really, the only places it's politically correct to stick a country in front of the word man is France, England, Holland. I sense a conspiracy here from the former Western Colonial powers.

Agloco

11-03-2009, 09:37 PM

It's different when it's in the first person or 3rd person.

You don't walk up to a black man and say "Hi Black man".

But when you describe somebody it's different. Tony Parker is a a French man. Yi is a China man. He's a black man.

Fail. In keeping with the convention you used to describe Tony above:

Yi is a CHINESE man.

china-man is what got this whole ball of wax rolling in the first place.

Indazone

11-03-2009, 09:39 PM

The politically correct term is Asian

Agloco

11-03-2009, 09:43 PM

The politically correct term is Asian

Yeah, I quickly found myself in no mans land when I let "oriental" slip out once. Freudian slip as I was thinking about a rug I had recently purchased, but no less akward.

BlackBellamy

11-03-2009, 09:54 PM

The politically correct term is Asian

It seems so vague to refer to an ethnicity as Asian when Indians, Pakistanis and much of the middle east are Asian too.

JJ Hickson

11-03-2009, 10:04 PM

I really can't believe how outright racist this forum is. Being so utterly obtuse is a racist act. Holy shit, I had no idea that some of you seemingly normal people were a step away from a Klan membership.

:lol The white guy from Utah telling black and hispanic people that they are one step away from the KKK. C'mon guys you should really be listening to him on subjects like these. Bali knows all about other races because he read about them in a book once.

Allanon

11-03-2009, 10:10 PM

Fail. In keeping with the convention you used to describe Tony above:

Yi is a CHINESE man.

china-man is what got this whole ball of wax rolling in the first place.

So if you say Tony Parker is a FRANCE man, is that derogatory? Or that Luol Deng is an England man?

Is that a problem?

024

11-03-2009, 11:00 PM

So if you say Tony Parker is a FRANCE man, is that derogatory? Or that Luol Deng is an England man?

Is that a problem?
it's not derogatory to use those two terms because there's no history behind it. no one ever used france man or england man as an insult. but as someone posted earlier, chinaman was used to put down chinese people. also, the outrage isn't that big. the poster of the blog just wanted to remind people that chinaman was used as a derogatory term and shouldn't be repeated.

like i said before, if the commentator instead said "nice dunk by the negro" after a dwight howard slam, it would be much much bigger news and i can almost guarantee the commentator would be fired.

Allanon

11-03-2009, 11:19 PM

it's not derogatory to use those two terms because there's no history behind it. no one ever used france man or england man as an insult. but as someone posted earlier, chinaman was used to put down chinese people. also, the outrage isn't that big. the poster of the blog just wanted to remind people that chinaman was used as a derogatory term and shouldn't be repeated.

like i said before, if the commentator instead said "nice dunk by the negro" after a dwight howard slam, it would be much much bigger news and i can almost guarantee the commentator would be fired.

I can understand that.

My point is it's only bad due to the historical implications.

Are we not far enough removed to move beyond something that happened 200 years ago and is no longer relevant today?

By raising attention to past racial issues, we are perpetuating their existence.

I don't agree with the pussy-footing around Blacks/Negros either. And I'm black, it's time to move on.

lefty

11-03-2009, 11:50 PM

What about Donna Chen, the Chinese woman?

Allanon

11-03-2009, 11:53 PM

What about Donna Chen, the Chinese woman?

Your'e a f*ckin' racist Lefty. :lol

Manu'sMagicalLeftHand

11-04-2009, 12:53 AM

Polishman

http://www.jfsc.ndu.edu/images/hlspc/police_adv_NriotGear.jpg

Or

http://www.cityviewcarwash.com/i/car_wax_polish.jpg?

JamStone

11-04-2009, 01:03 AM

It seems so vague to refer to an ethnicity as Asian when Indians, Pakistanis and much of the middle east are Asian too.

No less vague than calling someone from the United States an American when technically people from countries in South "America" and Central "America" are also American.

DJB

11-04-2009, 01:18 AM

he's chinese and a man
I don't get it

:lmao

Fpoonsie

11-04-2009, 01:18 AM

Obstructed_View

11-04-2009, 01:29 AM

Fast forward to the day that you can't call people "Mexican" because it's been used so long in a negative and hateful fashion.

lefty

11-04-2009, 09:36 AM

Your'e a f*ckin' racist Lefty. :lol
What?

That's ririculous :D

Indazone

11-04-2009, 09:36 AM

http://www.tshirthell.com/shirts/products/a625/a625_bm.gif

I suppose under this context Jewboy is ok then. Are you not male and boyish and also a Jew?

Agloco

11-04-2009, 09:37 AM

So if you say Tony Parker is a FRANCE man, is that derogatory? Or that Luol Deng is an England man?

Is that a problem?

You're missing the boat here. If Tony or Luol objected to the use of said term, then guess what? As much as you want to, you simply cannot dictate to others what they should and should not find offensive. Once you become aware that it's an issue, all you're left with is deciding whether or not your need to exercise your freedom of speech overrides your need for common decency.

Allanon

11-04-2009, 01:55 PM

You're missing the boat here. If Tony or Luol objected to the use of said term, then guess what? As much as you want to, you simply cannot dictate to others what they should and should not find offensive. Once you become aware that it's an issue, all you're left with is deciding whether or not your need to exercise your freedom of speech overrides your need for common decency.

You didn't answer the question. You've made the point that it's because it's "china" that is the problem.

I said it's because of the historical implications that makes it unacceptable and you said "Fail."

So please tell me, would calling Tony Parker a "France man" be offensive?

Fail. In keeping with the convention you used to describe Tony above:

Yi is a CHINESE man.

china-man is what got this whole ball of wax rolling in the first place.

JJ Hickson

11-04-2009, 02:07 PM

No less vague than calling someone from the United States an American when technically people from countries in South "America" and Central "America" are also American.

There are over 3 billion people living in various Asian countries, so I'm pretty sure it's more vague.

BlackBellamy

11-04-2009, 02:08 PM

I suppose under this context Jewboy is ok then. Are you not male and boyish and also a Jew?

You're kinda reaching there. Would "black-boy" be OK to use when referring to a full grown black man?

EmptyMan

11-04-2009, 02:09 PM

awww PC groupthinker is butthurt.

Höfner

11-04-2009, 02:18 PM

Im talking about drawing a line in the sand. Across this line, you DO NOT... oh and dude, chinaman is not the preferred nomenclature. Asian American, please.

EmptyMan

11-04-2009, 02:19 PM

Set up a Chinaman Scholarship and all will be well again.

Kermit

11-04-2009, 02:20 PM

I always thought that Chinaman was a really bad comedian.

I don't give a fuck what you call him, just keep him off my rug. It really ties the room together.

Bender

11-04-2009, 02:24 PM

Steve Kerr a couple of years ago also called Yao a "7 foot chinaman..."

there was a minor stink back then too.

BFD.

edit: oops, wireonfire beat me to it...

Kermit

11-04-2009, 02:27 PM

Maybe next Monday Mike Tirico will call Kyle Orton a cracker, just to even up the score.

Obstructed_View

11-04-2009, 04:11 PM

No less vague than calling someone from the United States an American when technically people from countries in South "America" and Central "America" are also American.

The term came from how the Brits referred to the people residing in the American colony. That the rest of the world has picked up on how the citizens of that former British colony identify themselves doesn't make the term vague or inaccurate.

I always laugh when people cite it as an example of how arrogant we are as a country, as though the intent all along was to somehow rob the rest of the two contintents of their identity. :lol

JamStone

11-04-2009, 04:14 PM

The term came from how the Brits referred to the people residing in the American colony. That the rest of the world has picked up on how the citizens of that former British colony identify themselves doesn't make the term vague or inaccurate.

I always laugh when people cite it as an example of how arrogant we are as a country, as though the intent all along was to somehow rob the rest of the two contintents of their identity. :lol

That wasn't my suggestion.

Regardless of origin, calling people from the U.S. "Americans" is vague like calling people from China "Asians." That's all I was saying. Had nothing to do with any notion of American arrogance or the accuracy or inaccuracy of either term.

wireonfire

11-06-2009, 01:20 AM

Rick Kamla apologizes.

http://nba.fanhouse.com/2009/11/04/nba-tv-analyst-calls-yi-jianlian-a-chinaman-later-apologizes/

JamStone

11-06-2009, 02:51 AM

Excerpt from that link in the post above.

"Chinaman" is a term first used in a derogatory fashion in the American West beginning in the late 19th century. Anti-Chinese activists in California and throughout the West used the term to classify Chinese immigrants as subhuman.

Anti-Chinese sentiment is a sad legacy of the industrial boom of California in the post-Gold Rush era. European American-dominated unions led a fight to deny Chinese families the right to emigrate to the United States, culminating in President Chester Arthur's signing of the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882. The law not only restricted entry for Chinese families, but prevented Chinese men and women already in the United States from leaving and returning at a future date. The act was not repealed until 1943, and unlimited Chinese immigration was not allowed under federal law until 1965.

YellowFever

11-06-2009, 04:07 AM

WTF is the big deal?

Just eat your watermelon and shut up.

Mad_Hatter

11-06-2009, 05:04 AM

like the chinese aren't some what racist themselves. they refer to black people as monkeys.

Im talking about drawing a line in the sand. Across this line, you DO NOT... oh and dude, chinaman is not the preferred nomenclature. Asian American, please.
Yi isn't an American.

wireonfire

11-06-2009, 05:22 AM

WTF is the big deal?

Just eat your watermelon and shut up.

That is because you dumbazz never got discriminated before. You don't know how it feels like.

mogrovejo

11-06-2009, 09:41 AM

Im talking about drawing a line in the sand. Across this line, you DO NOT... oh and dude, chinaman is not the preferred nomenclature. Asian American, please.

Why is Yi American? Because he's living there?

JJ Hickson

11-06-2009, 09:47 AM

like the chinese aren't some what racist themselves. they refer to black people as monkeys.

Somewhat? :lmao They are the most racist.

ambchang

11-06-2009, 10:16 AM

like the chinese aren't some what racist themselves. they refer to black people as monkeys.

You mean like all 1.2 billion of them refer to black people as monkeys? That's news to me.

And you are absolutely right, just because some/all of them are racist, they deserved to be discriminated against. This tactic has proven to resolve all racial discrimination in the world.

mogrovejo

11-06-2009, 10:21 AM

Green- Why do they need to? Individual perception. It's not about the message, but how it's received. If someone asks you to stop using a term because they find it offensive or because their perception of the way you used it wasn't kosher, what do you do? It's really no different than telling siblings to stop hitting each other. That it did or didn't really hurt is irrelevant. It's simply not a socially acceptable behavior, just as using a term that you know to be derogatory to someone isn't socially acceptable. Once you become aware, it shouldn't really be an issue.

Okay, you side with those that say that a word isn't socially acceptable as far as someone (how many, btw? 1 person? 12 of them? a few thousands?) thinks it's offensive. I've already explained why I think that logic is bizarre.

Once again, for millions of people the "thumbs up" gesture is tremendously offensive. Do you do it? Are you going to stop doing it?

The notion of a "chinaman" as a derogatory term far predates the Vietnam War as an insult to depict the Chinese as sub-human.

This excerpt about Judge Roy Bean, a Justice of the Peace for Precinct 6 in Pecos County, Texas, around the late 19th century made a ruling to demonstrate just that when a Chinese person was killed by a co-worker.

http://www.qsl.net/w5www/roybean.html

The history of the term is not imagined, nor is it is a recent phenomenon based on a Jerry Seinfeld episode. Had there been no derogatory history behind the term, no one would have made a fuss about the Seinfeld episode.

How is that excerpt relevant? Nobody is arguing that Chinamen weren't perceived as infra-human at some points in history. Just like blacks, hispanics, indians, jews and whites. But that alone doesn't make those words derogatory. How many times similar things were wrote about jews? By the same reasoning, jew should be a forbidden word as well.

The problem with that excerpt is that the judge implies the sub-humanity of the Asians, not the usage of the word "Chinaman". Chinaman was the word used to describe people with origin in China, the word used in government documents, census, etc., so it's natural the judge used it. It's like saying that "latino" is a derogatory term because some racists guys can write "I hate latinos, they aren't even humans". Just like the Judge used Chinaman in that sentence, people were using it in absolutely neutral ways, like "Mom, I'm going to marry Wu. Who? Wu, you know, the Chinaman that works for uncle Tim. I love him" or "Wang, the Chinaman who won the elections to the city council, announced..." or "Hi, my name is Yang and I'm a 20 years old Chinaman living in New York".

There was never an inherent pejorative meaning to the word, and only in the the late 20th century that myth was created. That's the point here. Not if there was racism or hate directed towards people from China. I still can't understand why is the Vietnam War relevant to this at all.

I really can't believe how outright racist this forum is. Being so utterly obtuse is a racist act. Holy shit, I had no idea that some of you seemingly normal people were a step away from a Klan membership.

Typical procedure of PC weirdos: if you don't want to conform to my cultural zeitgeist and my set of behaviours, then you're an obtuse racist.

You're missing the boat here. If Tony or Luol objected to the use of said term, then guess what? As much as you want to, you simply cannot dictate to others what they should and should not find offensive. Once you become aware that it's an issue, all you're left with is deciding whether or not your need to exercise your freedom of speech overrides your need for common decency.

You don't even make sense. You say that Tony and Luol can dictate to me what is offensive or not, then in the following sentence you say they cannot dictate to others what is offensive or not.

Acting with common decency is to understand that if a word, gesture or whatever is seen as offensive by you it may not be by people with a different culture, so it's wrong to accuse them of lack of decency just because they don't follow your codes.

Fast forward to the day that you can't call people "Mexican" because it's been used so long in a negative and hateful fashion.

That's a brilliant analogy.

Agloco

11-06-2009, 10:24 AM

You didn't answer the question. You've made the point that it's because it's "china" that is the problem.

I said it's because of the historical implications that makes it unacceptable and you said "Fail."

So please tell me, would calling Tony Parker a "France man" be offensive?

You're missing the boat here. If Tony or Luol objected to the use of said term, then guess what? As much as you want to, you simply cannot dictate to others what they should and should not find offensive. Once you become aware that it's an issue, all you're left with is deciding whether or not your need to exercise your freedom of speech overrides your need for common decency.

Red- That was really weak Allanon. I'd expect better stuff from you.

Don't hide behind the "You didn't explicitly state...." argument. You're a bright person and I find it really hard to believe that you couldn't logically deduce what I meant........

So you don't hide again:

In the scenario I outlined above it would indeed be offensive and discretion should become the better part of valor for you at that point, at least when you're in the presence of Tony or Luol.

Green- Again, you missed the point. Regardless of the term or historical implications (you could substitute the word pancake if you care to), the problem arises when the person you're addressing voices an objection to the use of said term. It might seem a bit irrational to you (as it does to me btw...), but you don't walk in their shoes either and have no perspective on what effect that term my have had on or in their lives. To say that the term unequivocally shouldn't offend a Chinese person is tantamount to me saying "Allanon, you really shouldn't be offended when I call you a n****r in public from time to time." Uncouple the use of the term and it's historical/archaic status as in the end it's irrelevant to most of the people who would receive your message. So you're left with walking away or respecting their wishes while laughing under your breath.

Are you attempting to justify the use of a term the someone might find offensive because you find that the term is archaic and there's no longer a historical basis for that person to feel offended? If that's the case I'd strongly urge you to put down the gavel and robes for a second and consider the message you send with that stance.

As someone else stated succinctly earlier: To me the term (china man, France man, etc.) isn't offensive at all, but now that I know a Chinese person might find it offensive, I'll strive to avoid it's use in everyday conversation with a Chinese person. Simple logic for some, difficult pride for others.

Agloco

11-06-2009, 10:32 AM

Okay, you side with those that say that a word isn't socially acceptable as far as someone (how many, btw? 1 person? 12 of them? a few thousands?) thinks it's offensive. I've already explained why I think that logic is bizarre.

Once again, for millions of people the "thumbs up" gesture is tremendously offensive. Do you do it? Are you going to stop doing it?

Bizzare or not, if it's offensive to said person, what are you left with? Read what I posted to Allanon above.

When in the presence of someone who I know finds it offensive, then yes I won't do it. It's something called common decency. Your posts indicate indignation at the thought of having to conform to someone else's societal norms, especially if they constitute the minority, yet you wouldn't afford someone the common decency of not having to hear you use a term that you know to be offensive to them? Give me mine, but you can't have yours....... Again, interesting logic indeed.

Agloco

11-06-2009, 10:39 AM

You don't even make sense. You say that Tony and Luol can dictate to me what is offensive or not, then in the following sentence you say they cannot dictate to others what is offensive or not.

Acting with common decency is to understand that if a word, gesture or whatever is seen as offensive by you it may not be by people with a different culture, so it's wrong to accuse them of lack of decency just because they don't follow your codes.

Green- Wrong. I say that Tony and Luol can dictate you what THEY find offensive. At that point your response to their objections would tell most people all they needed to know about your character.

Red- So this is your excuse to continue the use of a term known to be offensive to someone, in their presence no less? It doesn't seem you're one to compromise much. I'd be interested in taking a trip with you to any part of the world where the thumbs up gesture is seen as offensive. How long do those strong convictions last I wonder? You'll no doubt respond with some passage containing much bravado, but in the end I believe that your logic chip would kick in.

You speak of conforming to societal norms, yet you'd refuse to exercise one of the most basic norms (common decency)?

mogrovejo

11-06-2009, 10:48 AM

Bizzare or not, if it's offensive to said person, what are you left with? Read what I posted to Allanon above.

When in the presence of someone who I know finds it offensive, then yes I won't do it. It's something called common decency. Your posts indicate indignation at the thought of having to conform to someone else's societal norms, especially if they constitute the minority, yet you wouldn't afford someone the common decency of not having to hear you use a term that you know to be offensive to them? Give me mine, but you can't have yours....... Again, interesting logic indeed.

I have no problem with conforming to societal norms as long as they're reasonable. Let me try to explain it to you: your idea that if Luol announces that he finds the word "Englishman" offensive we should stop using that word is absolutely scary. It's on Deng to prove that's he's reasonable motives to find the word offensive. If I don't find his reasons compelling, then surely not I won't stop using the word. And being a Kantian, of course I'd never apologize for using a word if I meant no offence or ill, no matter how much others feel offended.

Word are precious things and its usage or not usage is a common heritage, that doesn't belong to the arbitrary reasons of a group of individuals.

Agloco

11-06-2009, 11:01 AM

I have no problem with conforming to societal norms as long as they're reasonable. Let me try to explain it to you: your idea that if Luol announces that he finds the word "Englishman" offensive we should stop using that word is absolutely scary. It's on Deng to prove that's he's reasonable motives to find the word offensive. If I don't find his reasons compelling, then surely not I won't stop using the word. And being a Kantian, of course I'd never apologize for using a word if I meant no offence or ill, no matter how much others feel offended.

Word are precious things and its usage or not usage is a common heritage, that doesn't belong to the arbitrary reasons of a group of individuals.

Green- I'm certainly not advocating that you stop the use of the term altogether. If you look closely at all of my posts, they clearly state "In the presence of <insert person here>". What exactly would you do if Luol asked you to stop using the term (whatever it might be...)?

Red- You have this confused with a court of law. Neither Luol nor anyone else need prove a thing to anyone except themselves in the court of social perception. It's a big part of what makes communication one of the hardest things to be effective at, much less master. As much as I'd love to agree with your logic, I disconnect when you insist on the continued use of a term which someone finds to be offensive while in their presence.

mogrovejo

11-06-2009, 11:10 AM

Green- I'm certainly not advocating that you stop the use of the term altogether. If you look closely at all of my posts, they clearly state "In the presence of <insert person here>". What exactly would you do if Luol asked you to stop using the term (whatever it might be...)?

I'd ask him "Huh? Why?"

Red- You have this confused with a court of law. Neither Luol nor anyone else need prove a thing to anyone except themselves in the court of social perception. It's a big part of what makes communication one of the hardest things to be effective at, much less master. As much as I'd love to agree with your logic, I disconnect when you insist on the continued use of a term which someone finds to be offensive while in their presence.

No, I don't. The idea that we should restrain from using some words and label those words as derogatory because an individual says he's offended by them is totally unreasonable and unacceptable in a civilized society.

Agloco

11-06-2009, 12:17 PM

I'd ask him "Huh? Why?"

No, I don't. The idea that we should restrain from using some words and label those words as derogatory because an individual says he's offended by them is totally unreasonable and unacceptable in a civilized society.

I believe you are avoiding an absolute commitment to your position. I'd be lying if I said I wasn't curious as to why at this point. So, I put it to you again:

Of course you'd ask him why, but then after his explanation what would you do? WOULD YOU CONTINUE TO USE THE TERM IN HIS PRESENCE? For purposes of answering my question, you can assume that his explanation was in no way satisfactory to you. A simple yes or no will suffice here. Afterwards, I'd also be interested in hearing what would constitute an adequate explanation in your eyes.

Red- I would counter that the continued use of that word (in that person's presence), after you become aware that it is offensive to that person, is equally if not more unreasonable and unacceptable in a civilized society. I think you be hard pressed to fight the notion that you are acting as an instigator in that instance, regardless of how correct you are about language and speech rights in general.

mogrovejo

11-06-2009, 01:59 PM

I believe you are avoiding an absolute commitment to your position. I'd be lying if I said I wasn't curious as to why at this point. So, I put it to you again:

Of course you'd ask him why, but then after his explanation what would you do? WOULD YOU CONTINUE TO USE THE TERM IN HIS PRESENCE? For purposes of answering my question, you can assume that his explanation was in no way satisfactory to you. A simple yes or no will suffice here. Afterwards, I'd also be interested in hearing what would constitute an adequate explanation in your eyes.

Red- I would counter that the continued use of that word (in that person's presence), after you become aware that it is offensive to that person, is equally if not more unreasonable and unacceptable in a civilized society. I think you be hard pressed to fight the notion that you are acting as an instigator in that instance, regardless of how correct you are about language and speech rights in general.

Me: Hey Luol, how do you, as an Englishman, feel about monarchy?

Deng: Don't call me an Englishman, please.

Me: Huh? Why?

Deng: Because I don't like to be called an Englishman?

Me: Eh... Weren't you born in England? Aren't you English?

Deng: Yes.

Me: So, you're an Englishman.

Deng: Don't call me that.

Me: Why not?

Deng: I find that word offensive?

Me: Englishman?

Deng: Yeah.

Me: Why?

Deng: Because I do.

Me: Are you serious? Is this some Monty Python sketch? Since when Englishman is a derogatory word?

Deng: I think it is.

Me: For any particular reason?

Deng: Not really.

Me: Yeah, sorry pal, you're an Englishman. We can't change the meaning of the words because we feel like it. If you have a paranoia about being called an Englishman despite the fact you are actually one, you should seek medical care as soon as possible.

Bob Lanier

11-06-2009, 02:18 PM

:lol at mogrovejo: Common decency is allowing me to do whatever I feel like and not take any responsibility for my actions!

Very fashionable thinking, very politically correct these days. Rude child.

mogrovejo

11-06-2009, 02:19 PM

Agloco

11-06-2009, 02:31 PM

Me: Yeah, sorry pal, you're an Englishman. We can't change the meaning of the words because we feel like it. If you have a paranoia about being called an Englishman despite the fact you are actually one, you should seek medical care as soon as possible.

Thought so. I rest my case.

Afterwards, I'd also be interested in hearing what would constitute an adequate explanation in your eyes.

An intentional omission or just an oversight?

mogrovejo

11-06-2009, 02:40 PM

Thought so. I rest my case.

So, Deng isn't an Englishman?

An intentional omission or just an oversight?

It's on Deng to provide a reasonable explanation, not on me. That's why I've been asking people to provide explanations on why X word is derogatory. Saying "I just feel it's derogatory and therefore you shouldn't use it and if you do you're a racist unable to act decently" isn't a reasonable explanation. It's just the typical discourse of PC fascistic weirdos who want to insult other people and look more sophisticated than the others. This thread is very emblematic of that.

Agloco

11-06-2009, 03:19 PM

So, Deng isn't an Englishman?

He is in fact an Englishman; however, that's not congruent with the original line of questioning:

WOULD YOU CONTINUE TO USE THE TERM IN HIS PRESENCE?

Me: Yeah, sorry pal, you're an Englishman. We can't change the meaning of the words because we feel like it. If you have a paranoia about being called an Englishman despite the fact you are actually one, you should seek medical care as soon as possible.

You did quite explicitly state that you would.

Admittedly, this is quite an extreme example, but the point is no less valid.

It's on Deng to provide a reasonable explanation, not on me. That's why I've been asking people to provide explanations on why X word is derogatory. Saying "I just feel it's derogatory and therefore you shouldn't use it and if you do you're a racist unable to act decently" isn't a reasonable explanation. It's just the typical discourse of PC fascistic weirdos who want to insult other people and look more sophisticated than the others. This thread is very emblematic of that.

Green - I'd be careful here. Given your position some might argue this statement describes you quite well. Your continued agitation of Deng in this case would do nothing to help further your argument.

Red - Who decides this exactly? You? Since it's only you and Deng, I'm led to believe that you would necessarily don the black robes, fetch a gavel and rule on the spot. Where's Deng's robe and gavel though?

Bob Lanier

11-06-2009, 03:23 PM

Deny, deny, deny personal responsibility and dignity. Typically discourse of the modern politics. Very PC.

mogrovejo

11-06-2009, 03:34 PM

He is in fact an Englishman; however, that's not congruent with the original line of questioning:

You did quite explicitly state that you would.

Admittedly, this is quite an extreme example, but the point is no less valid.

Green - I'd be careful here. Given your position some might argue this statement describes you quite well. Your continued agitation of Deng in this case would do nothing to help further your argument.

Red - Who decides this exactly? You? Since it's only you and Deng, I'm led to believe that you would necessarily don the black robes, fetch a gavel and rule on the spot. Where's Deng's robe and gavel though?

What do you mean by continuing agitation of Deng? I wasn't the one coming up with Deng.

Who decides what? Look, [assuming you're American] if now you decide that you find being called an American offensive and that "American" is a derogatory word and that people using it are either ignorant or are trying to belittle you, that's you prerogative.

However, you'd need to present arguments to convince me that American is a derogatory word that I should stop using, at least in your presence. If you don't,

What you have to do is to present reasonable arguments on why would be derogatory to say that Deng is an Englishman - the fact you are unable to do it is very telling. Englishman is a perfectly fine word.

Controlling one's over-sensitiveness and egolatry is also part of acting with common decency, don't you agree?

Agloco

11-06-2009, 04:59 PM

What do you mean by continuing agitation of Deng? I wasn't the one coming up with Deng.

What you have to do is to present reasonable arguments on why would be derogatory to say that Deng is an Englishman - the fact you are unable to do it is very telling. Englishman is a perfectly fine word.

Controlling one's over-sensitiveness and egolatry is also part of acting with common decency, don't you agree?

Red- In case you missed it, I was presenting a hypothetical case. It's not my argument to make as I agree that "Englishman" is quite reasonable. So is the term "chinaman", IN MY VIEW. What you don't get is that once you say something, your perception of the message no longer matters, it's on the receiver at that point. If they choose act in a fashion that we deem irrational, then so be it. What I do disagree with is the notion that it's ok, in your view to continue to use a term you know to be perceived as derogatory to whomever you happen to be interacting with. Is it really so hard for you to simply walk away or respect a persons wishes while interacting with them?

Green- I'd agree, and in fact there are many instances where people bite their tongue. My issue is with you imposing this standard on others while not holding yourself to the same. That would be a double standard good sir, and I simply cannot reconcile or compute such nonsense.

JamStone

11-06-2009, 05:01 PM

What I do disagree with is the notion that it's ok, in your view to continue to use a term you know to be perceived as derogatory to whomever you happen to be interacting with. Is it really so hard for you to simply walk away or respect a persons wishes while interacting with them?

This is something I agree with wholeheartedly.

And, it's something that I'm trying to get across as well.

Agree or disagree that it's derogatory, but why not respect the opinion that it's derogatory to some?

mogrovejo

11-06-2009, 07:05 PM

Jamstone, it's amazing you're still unable to understand the point. Nobody is saying that Chinamen weren't victims of racism (or guilty of it, by that matter).

Some poster made a very good analogy. You can find people today saying "Mexicans must go" or "All Mexicans are savage". Does this makes "Mexican" a racial slur? Of course not. I can't explain it better than this.

mogrovejo

11-06-2009, 07:13 PM

Red- In case you missed it, I was presenting a hypothetical case. It's not my argument to make as I agree that "Englishman" is quite reasonable. So is the term "chinaman", IN MY VIEW. What you don't get is that once you say something, your perception of the message no longer matters, it's on the receiver at that point. If they choose act in a fashion that we deem irrational, then so be it. What I do disagree with is the notion that it's ok, in your view to continue to use a term you know to be perceived as derogatory to whomever you happen to be interacting with. Is it really so hard for you to simply walk away or respect a persons wishes while interacting with them?

What was the point of presenting the hypothetical case if now you're saying it's invalid?

Don't you understand the dangers of that theory? Language and vocabulary are precious common heritages, anyone who wants to arbitrarly deem certain words as proper or not, acceptable or derogatory, shall not be tolerated - even if they do it with the best intentions. I'd recommend Prof. Magda Stroinska works or, at the very least, George Orwell's books.

Green- I'd agree, and in fact there are many instances where people bite their tongue. My issue is with you imposing this standard on others while not holding yourself to the same. That would be a double standard good sir, and I simply cannot reconcile or compute such nonsense.

What exactly am I trying to impose on others? Can you be more specific?

mogrovejo

11-06-2009, 07:14 PM

So, is Mexican a racial slur as well? People use "mexican" to refer to other people of hispanic origins as well, they use it in hateful fashion, etc.

Why isn't Mexican a racial slur?

mavs>spurs2

11-06-2009, 07:15 PM

i dare someone to call me an "american man"

ill get really offended and wish i could do something about it!

JamStone

11-06-2009, 07:20 PM

So, is Mexican a racial slur as well? People use "mexican" to refer to other people of hispanic origins as well, they use it in hateful fashion, etc.

Why isn't Mexican a racial slur?

"Mexican" is the proper term to call a person from Mexico.

"Chinese" is the proper term to call a person from China.

"Chinaman" is not a proper term. It's a made-up word. If when there was racist things happening to the Chinese but the term "chinaman" was not made up, the Chinese wouldn't be upset at the term "Chinese." But because a made-up, improper term exists, that improper term associates with the racism against the Chinese.

But, what other country in American vocabulary have been coined differently from the proper term? "Englandman," "Franceman," "Indiaman," "Iraqman," "Thailandman," "Koreaman?"

None other. The fact that it is really the only case where it was improperly coined indicates the notion that it was made up to degrade, to be an insulting term. Why is it "chinaman" and not "Chinese man?" Why?

If the plight of racism against Mexicans also came with some slang to call them that isn't necessarily offensive but actually has a definitional origin in "Mexico," say something like "Mexis," I'd understand if they found that term offensive.

"Chinaman" is one word. It's not two words. And, it's not really all that accurate. China is a noun, not an adjective that can describe a man, woman, or person. The connecting of it to make it one word, "chinaman" is exactly the same thing as connecting "wet" and "back" in that it's a made-up word.

JamStone

11-06-2009, 07:23 PM

i dare someone to call me an "american man"

ill get really offended and wish i could do something about it!

Except that wouldn't be congruent to "chinaman."

"Americaman" would be and in and of itself it's no big deal, but its use accompanied blatant racism against people from America, you could understand it eventually considered a derogatory term.

mavs>spurs2

11-06-2009, 07:26 PM

Except that wouldn't be congruent to "chinaman."

"Americaman" would be and in and of itself it's no big deal, but its use accompanied blatant racism against people from America, you could understand it eventually considered a derogatory term.

So you're saying it's a good thing to be an american man, not a big deal at all, but being a man from china is somehow shameful?

jdev82

11-06-2009, 07:27 PM

who cares? can the chinaman play ball? no? well fuck him.

JamStone

11-06-2009, 07:28 PM

So you're saying it's a good thing to be an american man, not a big deal at all, but being a man from china is somehow shameful?

Didn't say that at all.

How did you interpret what I said as suggesting that?

mogrovejo

11-06-2009, 07:29 PM

Chinaman is a made-up word only in the sense that every word is made up. It's as made up as Mexican or Spaniard.

Chinaman is the literal translation of the Chinese word for a person from China: 中國人.

It could be found in virtually every dictionary to describe a native from China. It was the most used word, in official documents or in the daily routine, to describe a native from China. You can find it in Robert Louis Stevenson or Joseph Conrad books, for example. It's still used with no pejorative connotations outside the US.

The idea that "Chinaman" was made up with the intent to be offensive to people from China is a pure LIE. I guess this settles the discussion.

mavs>spurs2

11-06-2009, 07:31 PM

Didn't say that at all.

How did you interpret what I said as suggesting that?

If you feel it's okay to be an "american man" but not okay to be a "china man," then you're the racist

JamStone

11-06-2009, 07:39 PM

When you translate from another language, you translate to what is proper in the language you're translating it to.

In Tagalog (Filipino), the term "ako ito" literally means "I this."

When you translate "ako ito," you don't translate it to "I this."

You translate it to "It's me."

The Chinese script that would be literally translated to "person from China" should be translated to "Chinese man" in English because you translate it to be proper in English, not how it "literally" is in Chinese.

"Chinaman" is a made up word in English because that's not how you would describe a person from China IN ENGLISH.

JamStone

11-06-2009, 07:39 PM

If you feel it's okay to be an "american man" but not okay to be a "china man," then you're the racist

I don't feel that way.

mavs>spurs2

11-06-2009, 07:45 PM

I don't feel that way.

I'm just fucking with you because I "feel" this thread is 8 pages of nonsense. Political correctness and everyone walking on eggshells so not to "offend" anyone is a major pet peeve of mine. China man, Chinese, Gook, it's all the same to me I don't give a shit

JamStone

11-06-2009, 07:51 PM

I'm just fucking with you because I "feel" this thread is 8 pages of nonsense. Political correctness and everyone walking on eggshells so not to "offend" anyone is a major pet peeve of mine. China man, Chinese, Gook, it's all the same to me I don't give a shit

I know you were just antagonizing. But, you're catching me in the mode of seriousness while I'm arguing my points.

I actually don't take offense to the term. My point for a while now is that if someone finds offense with it, just respect that.

Allanon

11-06-2009, 07:55 PM

France man is not inherently offensive. England man is not inherently offensive.

Therefore, China man is not inherently offensive.

Only when you bring in a 19th Century history lesson does "China man" suddenly become offensive.

mavs>spurs2

11-06-2009, 07:58 PM

I know you were just antagonizing. But, you're catching me in the mode of seriousness while I'm arguing my points.

I actually don't take offense to the term. My point for a while now is that if someone finds offense with it, just respect that.

:lmao I could tell that you were serious, that's why I thought about baiting you into a meltdown for a second, but I decided against it. You're one of the best posters on the site most of the time, I got more respect for you than most

JamStone

11-06-2009, 08:00 PM

JamStone

11-06-2009, 08:02 PM

:lmao I could tell that you were serious, that's why I thought about baiting you into a meltdown for a second, but I decided against it. You're one of the best posters on the site most of the time, I got more respect for you than most

Lol thanks for mercy. Don't think I'd go full blown meltdown, but I would definitely keep responding to your posts with seriousness even though I know what you're trying to do...

I'm an ass when it comes to certain debates. I can be a stubborn bitch. Several posters here already know that. Plus, I'm drinking beers right now. You could have caught me at a very weak moment... You still might be able to.

haha

Allanon

11-06-2009, 08:06 PM

Exactly. Which is why it's offensive.

I understand why it's offensive due to historical implications.

I just don't agree with people trying to be offended by something as ancient as the 19th century.

They find it offensive, I find them to be sissified overly-sensitive people living in the past.

To each his own.

mavs>spurs2

11-06-2009, 08:07 PM

I understand why it's offensive due to historical implications.

I just don't agree with people finding offense in something as ancient as the 19th century.

They find it offensive, I find them to be sissified overly-sensitive people living in the past.

To each his own.

it's only offensive if you're chinese and/or have a small cock. usually the two go hand in hand. how's that for offensive?

Agloco

11-06-2009, 08:11 PM

.........

Agloco

11-06-2009, 08:11 PM

What exactly am I trying to impose on others? Can you be more specific?

Sure....

Controlling one's over-sensitiveness and egolatry is also part of acting with common decency, don't you agree?

To which I responded:

Green- I'd agree, and in fact there are many instances where people bite their tongue. My issue is with you imposing this standard on others while not holding yourself to the same. That would be a double standard good sir, and I simply cannot reconcile or compute such nonsense.

i.e.- you'd ask someone to control their emotions, but you cannot reciprocate by ceasing to use your term after its been established that someone finds it offensive.

What was the point of presenting the hypothetical case if now you're saying it's invalid?

Don't you understand the dangers of that theory? Language and vocabulary are precious common heritages, anyone who wants to arbitrarly deem certain words as proper or not, acceptable or derogatory, shall not be tolerated - even if they do it with the best intentions. I'd recommend Prof. Magda Stroinska works or, at the very least, George Orwell's books.

Red- It's only invalid for people who don't find those terms offensive or even unreasonable (ie you and me). For people like the OP, it's very much valid. In my hypothetical scenario, I asked what your response would be to what you would call an "overly-sensitive" person.

Green - I understand the dangers of not respecting someone's feelings on a matter which might be quite sensitive to them. It need not meet the same criteria for you.

Purple- Well now, we've come to the heart of the matter finally. It took long enough for me to dredge it out of you, but you came clean in the end. I'll let your statement speak for itself.

Have a good evening sir.