So we're trying to get back to that old game of games, World in Flames, when one of my sons asked something that I thought was a good question. He asked why is it that 'Jap' is considered a racist term, and 'kraut' is merely considered a derogatory term? After all, Jap is really just short for Japanese. Yet that's racist. While kraut is a term digging at that particular cuisine preference common in parts of Germany and Austria. Yet it's not racist. Why is that? Heck, why is Jap offensive at all when we called our own closest allies Limeys? A term, once again, merely described as either slang or perhaps derogatory, but not racist.
I told him I can't say, but I can sure guess.
Anyway, I will be out and about over the next few days. God willing, I'll be back to answer comments and see what other mischief the World is getting into. Until then, Pax.
(Tom New Poster)
ReplyDeleteDave, it may be context. Americans knew lots of people of German ancestry long before we fought them in WWI, and "limey" was British slang for their own sailors long before it became a word here, but in 1941, unless you lived in Hawaii or parts of California, you'd be unlikely to know anyone whose roots lay in the Far East.
Sometimes there's no apparent logic. In Britain, it seems to be ok to call working-class folks from central London, Liverpool or the Northeast "Cockney", "Scouser" or "Geordie", at least if you're from the same class. But if you value your looks, don't call a Glasgow Scot "Weegie", a Welshman "Taffy" or a Derryman "bogsider".
Heh. I'm sure there are plenty of terms used for various groups that could amount to fighting words. I think his observation was that only Jap seems to be described as a racist term, when it seems, at least in terms of its root, merely a shortened version of Japanese, though no doubt used without much love during the war. While other terms, specifically kraut, which are derogatory and a dig at German society and culture, and would appear more racially based, is nonetheless merely regarded as offensive or derogatory, but not racist.
DeleteSimplest answer: It's "racist" because academic and cultural elites say so.
ReplyDeleteMore involved:
Never forget that many in academia and in the wider culture detest that many/most Americans live by Judeo-Christian principles, not secular progressive. So, many in academia will use available means to either undermine our principles... or exercise them against us. They know that charity toward your neighbor is (in essence) a commandment, and so seek to chastise us for failing in that fashion. As many of us are descended from German or European peoples, "kraut" may not be positive, yet it can still be construed as ...generations disgusted with ancestors. Not much to work with there.
In contrast, well, we fought part of World War II against Japan, and later fought in Korea and Vietnam. So...a greater degree of personal malice towards those of far-eastern descent, Japanese especially, that becomes more plausible. Mind you, they don't have much admiration for Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, or other Far Eastern cultures either. Yet this doesn't matter for these purposes. What matters is... they can be pointed out as a group which is different enough from "us" to be plausible "enemies", therefore we must be chastised for not embracing them.
...Yes, it's a mess. It's not intended to make sense.
..If they intended making sense, most of the diatribe over "racism" wouldn't work at all. Most minorities have long demonstrated their own intense prejudice against those of us of the majority population.
Mostly, "racism" is a nebulous term which may be used to berate us all for not being secular.
Incidentally, we have similar difficulties with "sexist". I hate to guess how many typical practices or uses of language had "need" to be changed back in the 90s or early 2000s. If something didn't immediately promote a woman being successful in something, it had to be changed to be "more accommodating". Never mind that the practice or concern originally had nothing to do with women being successful or not. ..And this only reflects the changes I witnessed during college and on duty. Title IX occurred in the 70s because groups of women decided that lack of women in various roles constituted "discrimination".
ReplyDeleteWe have, sadly, lost lives in combat and badly hindered other concerns to address these views.