Ooooh, What happened to the KFC thread?

vuvuzela

Azari wrote: »

It's actually people like you who make it easier for racists.

You insist that your view is correct even when it's just your own opinion.

That takes the steam out of the argument when those of us who abhor real racism when we try and make valid points.

I'm perfectly comfortable saying something like 'the Jap's were the first to implement real high speed rail travel' just as others might say 'the Brits were the first to implement steam railways'.

You might be comfortable. However what if you knew a Japanese person who thought that was an offensive way of referring to them ? I do, and she does.

tommyknocker

goater78 wrote: »

Its because the 'P' word is used in a derogatry manner. If it was used as just a shortened version of Pakistani e.g like "Brit". Then it wouldn't be a problem, however historically it has always been used as a racial slur therefore it is unacceptable to use in polite company. Also i believe its offensive to use the word "Jap".

I don't think for one minute that the 'P' word has always been used in a derogatory manner. It's entirely dependant upon who utters it, and in what context.

Historically, it has not always been used as a racial slur. Political correctness has elevated it to that status only during the past 20 or so years.

And if you believe that 'Jap' could possibly be offensive when we call Americans 'Yanks', Australians 'Aussies' (and we are reciprocated as 'Poms'), Germans 'Krauts', and a whole range of others I could mention . . . . then you are probably the sort who would kick up a stink at being called 'goat' instead of 'goater'.

System

tommyknocker wrote: »

I don't think for one minute that the 'P' word has always been used in a derogatory manner. It's entirely dependant upon who utters it, and in what context.

Historically, it has not always been used as a racial slur. Political correctness has elevated it to that status only during the past 20 or so years.

And if you believe that 'Jap' could possibly be offensive when we call Americans 'Yanks', Australians 'Aussies' (and we are reciprocated as 'Poms'), Germans 'Krauts', and a whole range of others I could mention . . . . then you are probably the sort who would kick up a stink at being called 'goat' instead of 'goater'.

Yeah kraut is also offensive......

serious_saver

I don't think it's the words so much as the historical context in which the word is used. Personally if I thought someone would be genuinely offended by a word then I wouldn't use it.

If someone uses a word innocently, not knowing that the word could cause offence then that is a different matter. However if they are aware that the word is considered offensive then there isn't an excuse.

Azari

vuvuzela wrote: »

You might be comfortable. However what if you knew a Japanese person who thought that was an offensive way of referring to them ? I do, and she does.

The trouble is, where do you draw the line?

Suppose someone tells you that 'Brit' is now offensive? Should eveyone stop using the term?

What about 'Scot'?

Obviously if I knew someone of a certain race and they expressed some feeling on the matter I would act on that.

And as a matter of courtesy I would automatically use the full version of descriptions such as 'jap' 'swede', or 'turk' in the presence of people of that nationality. (Probably not 'aussie' or 'scot', though as these are contractions used by the natives of the respective countries.)

vuvuzela

Azari wrote: »

The trouble is, where do you draw the line?

Suppose someone tells you that 'Brit' is now offensive? Should eveyone stop using the term?

What about 'Scot'?

Obviously if I knew someone of a certain race and they expressed some feeling on the matter I would act on that.

And as a matter of courtesy I would automatically use the full version of descriptions such as 'jap' 'swede', or 'turk' in the presence of people of that nationality. (Probably not 'aussie' or 'scot', though as these are contractions used by the natives of the respective countries.)

To be honest, I agree with you. I simply draw the line at the obviously offensive ones that we are all aware of and as above, the use of Jap as I've had a conversation with a Japanese girl about it. The others, fair do.

Shevchenko01

tommyknocker wrote: »

Whilst I agree in principal that the OP was wrong, can someone explain why it's ok to refer to:

a turkish person as a turk
a british person as a brit
a swedish person as a swede
a japanese person as a jap
a scottish person as a scot
etc, etc,

but refer to a pakistani person as a paki (it's only an abbreviation after all) and it's a beheading offence.

Welcome to Britain, the world capital of political correctness.

It's not that long ago that Alf Garnett in Till Death Us Do Part, and programmes like Love Thy Neighbour, etc, on national television, cheered up millions . . . of all nationalities.

Well, want to here something else?

The suffix "-stan" means "place of". Therefor, "Afganistan" means place of the Afganis and "Kazakhstan" means the place of the Kazakhs.

What does Pakistan mean therefor?

Azari

Shevchenko01 wrote: »

What does Pakistan mean therefor?

Place of the pure, since you ask.

Micky_Mouse

I personally find the term Redneck offensive, but people who throw a hissyfit over the use of the n or p word dont seem to have a problem with it being bandied around with impunity.

Moglex

Micky_Mouse wrote: »

I personally find the term Redneck offensive, but people who throw a hissyfit over the use of the n or p word dont seem to have a problem with it being bandied around with impunity.

That's because 'redneck' is used to indicate an attitude of mind or mode of behaviour rather than a race or religion. Someone is only a redneck if they behave like one, it doesn't come automatically with their domicile.