Ethnic slurs -- for your own ethnicity

[libertarianjim]

Do you toss around ethnic slurs of your own ethnicity as a term of endearment, the way African-Americans toss around "Nigga" and Carlos Mencia calls Mexicans "Beaners?"

I'm of Ruthenian descent, and my whole family tosses around "Hunky" all the time. We call each others "dumb Hunkies" all the time, we refer to our churches as "Hunkies on the hill," and this week (in light of Good Friday and Easter processions) my dad said that if you want to start a parade, "just walk down the street with a cross and all the Hunkies in town will follow you."

[Nemesis]

Do you toss around ethnic slurs of your own ethnicity as a term of endearment, the way African-Americans toss around "Nigga" and Carlos Mencia calls Mexicans "Beaners?"

I'm of Ruthenian descent, and my whole family tosses around "Hunky" all the time. We call each others "dumb Hunkies" all the time, we refer to our churches as "Hunkies on the hill," and this week (in light of Good Friday and Easter processions) my dad said that if you want to start a parade, "just walk down the street with a cross and all the Hunkies in town will follow you."
I call my mother a dirty Mc all the time.

[Pooja]

When I was in 7th grade, this guy kept calling me a brown-noser. I thought it was an ethnic slur, since indians are often called "brown"... but apparently, it just means "good-2-shoes" or a "suck-up". Which was totally undeserved, btw.
I was actually kind of disappointed--I'd prefer the racial slur. THey don't bother me in the slightest, though I'm generally really PC in regards to other people's races. Except sardarjis and pakistanis--but that's every indian's right.

[Nadiar]

My favorite term is "Round-Eye." Every time I hear it I want to laugh.


Do you toss around ethnic slurs of your own ethnicity as a term of endearment, the way African-Americans toss around "Nigga" and Carlos Mencia calls Mexicans "Beaners?"

Too bad Carlos Mencia isn't Mexican. He's German and Honduran. He's just a racist asshole that pretends to be Mexican.

[attila_the_hunny]

I call my mother a spic sometimes even though she's Portuguese, not hispanic. She doesn't know the difference, anyway.

[eyebyte_atWork]

I never use ethnic slurs for my own ethnicity - cause that would not make sense since many of the people I know are not of my own ethnicity. My family is like heinz 57 and as such - any ethnic slur is one that could affect my family. The way I figure- there are plenty of people out there that dislike my family because we are a mixed family - I do not need to add any negativity.

Carlos Mencia - I never heard of this guy until someone on this forum mentioned him to me - I checked his act out - watched him on comedy central - and determined that he is a racist. Sometimes funny - but a racist non-the-less.

[booyalab]

ethnic slurs dont bother me, but only because I'm aryan and therefore perfect. :ph34r:

[Pooja]

ethnic slurs dont bother me, but only because I'm aryan and therefore perfect. :ph34r:

Technically, the only aryans are north indians of the brahmin caste-- like me. So, therefore, I'm perfect- ;)

[booyalab]

Technically, the only aryans are north indians of the brahmin caste-- like me. So, therefore, I'm perfect- ;)
The nazi version of aryans do exist, though. I have a friend whose mom was one of those whose family was bred because of their ideal aryan characteristics as part of the eugenics program. So he has an extremely high IQ and a disproportionately high number of fast twitch muscles (and white blonde hair and blue eyes) but he's also got some weird genetic abnormalities.

[euterpenc]

The nazi version of aryans do exist, though. I have a friend whose mom was one of those whose family was bred because of their ideal aryan characteristics as part of the eugenics program. So he has an extremely high IQ and a disproportionately high number of fast twitch muscles (and white blonde hair and blue eyes) but he's also got some weird genetic abnormalities.

I bet I could kick his ass...

[MacGuffin]

I don't use them because they are stupid sounding for white people.

Chris Rock did this funny bit on SNL about how racist terms for white people like "cracker" and "honky" are nowhere near as bad as ones like "nigger" and "spic".

So he tries to come up with some new ones for white people: "white nigger", "honkaloid", and "yakoo" were among the suggestions. I like "honkaloid" myself.

[faith]

I'm not really into slurs of any kind, but occasionally I'll toss around "redneck" or "white trash". I was once called a redneck in all seriousness by a West Palm Beach girl who was angry with me. I found it very amusing and mildly complimentary, which just made her more angry.

[zhang_bob]

I would not use ethnic slurs against my own group or any other one. I have never understood why black people call other balck people niggers, I think maybe they are trying to reclame the word, some times it seems like they do not respect what they had to go through.

I am interested in kendoiwan views on this.

[abathur]

Thing is, it doesn't matter what I call you, if I don't respect you--I don't respect you.

I could use a slur, or I could just call you black, or a woman, or a mexican. Is that any less derrogatory or hurtful? Does it not hurt enough when someone conveys that they hate you just because of what you were born as? I don't see how a slur makes it any more powerful.

I voted that I'm ok with racial slurs, but I always use them in jest and never to seriously label someone.

[xavierd]

I make fun of myself all the time so let's see...I've called myself and friends white trash, I am half Italian so my brother and I throw around wap(sp?), don't know if this counts but I'm a European mut since I am French, German, Italian, and Polish. I've been called a hillbilly by friends...but mostly cause my dad's side of the family not for anything in particular that I do. Cracker, honky, etc...

[Kai]

I could use a slur, or I could just call you black, or a woman, or a mexican. Is that any less derrogatory or hurtful? Does it not hurt enough when someone conveys that they hate you just because of what you were born as? I don't see how a slur makes it any more powerful.

I disagree. I see it this way:

The hating and racism is the cake and the slur is the icing on the cake. It's not about what hurts more, but rather about what completes the picture. It is the last straw, the last nail in the coffin that conveys just how much they hate you.

It is the difference between someone screaming I hate you!! and someone screaming I hate you!! and then finishing it off with a punch in the face. With the first, you figure it is offensive enough but you can deal with it, with the second, they are not just expressing their view of you, but are looking for a confrontation.

If a person is racist and keeps it to themselves it isn't as bad as someone being racist and using racial slurs to address you each time they see you. It is "playing dirty" if you will -- or dirtier. You can hate someone but not try to reduce their humanity with words. It is the hate *and* the lack of respect that really bother me.

When I was younger, I was heavily antagonized because of my race. I had people ganging up. It was HELL. Yet, it wasn't until years later, when at a bus stop on my way to school that someone yelled out a racial slur to me that it *really* pissed me off.

Once again, it's the icing on the cake.

I stay away from racial slurs period.

-Kai

[Nemesis]

Technically, the only aryans are north indians of the brahmin caste-- like me. So, therefore, I'm perfect- ;)
YOU'RE A BRAHMIN?!?!?! *intrigued*

[Xenophon]

I think the indian caste system is extremely fucked up.

That being said, I don't know of any ethnic slurs again't my "race", someone called me a half-breed once though, and I pretended to be offended for a little while, but I actually thought it was sort of funny. I think I would be sort of proud if someone called me a nigger, though I might be annoyed if someone called me a cracker. I guess I'm more proud of my black heritage than me white heritage.

[Nemesis]

I think the indian caste system is extremely fucked up.
My friends Rupesh is fresh off the boat from India. He's a Christian, and this kid in my homeroom whose a Kshatriya Hindu tells me that that most likely means that he was a Dauit, or, and Untouchable. Such a shame.

[DeadDove]

I usually don't. I don't mind when other people do either though for the most part. One of my 2nd cousins takes pride in being a "Chicano," and tosses the term around. Other Mexicans I know dislike the term "Chicano," greatly though because in it's roots it was/is derogatory. I, however, feel completely indifferent with the term. I dislike what it stood for, and understand what the Mexican movement was doing when it wanted to take pride in it as well. I prefer to be labeled as an individual and be judged as such. Some places it comes in handy to be "Chicano," yet others it is not advantagous. As such I merely go on with wanting a level playing field throughout whatever course life has set ahead for me.

[sbw]

My friends Rupesh is fresh off the boat from India. He's a Christian, and this kid in my homeroom whose a Kshatriya Hindu tells me that that most likely means that he was a Dauit, or, and Untouchable. Such a shame.

I didn't know what an untouchable was--or anything about the caste system--so I went and looked it up. it does sound horrible, as xenophon mentioned.

how did they go about inventing this underclass; and does this system still persist?

Scott

[TelecomClone]

Thing is, it doesn't matter what I call you, if I don't respect you--I don't respect you. I think you've got it. I absolutely agree with this.

"The thing about people giving you shit about being gay isn't that they're wrong about you... it's that they're giving you shit. Get it?"
-SLC Punk

[SensEye]

I don't use them because they are stupid sounding for white people.

Chris Rock did this funny bit on SNL about how racist terms for white people like "cracker" and "honky" are nowhere near as bad as ones like "nigger" and "spic".
I agree. Non-whites have really dropped the ball on ethnic slurs for white people. At least in North America anyways. I think a few other cultures have some more derogatory terms they use in their own language.

I recall that native american school that named their team the "Fighting Whites" in an attempt to protest team names like the Braves, Chiefs, Redskins, etc. All I could think was "that's the best they could come up with?"

I would laugh my ass off if Orientals refered to us as round eyes in as Nadir mentioned.

[MacGuffin]

I recall that native american school that named their team the "Fighting Whites" in an attempt to protest team names like the Braves, Chiefs, Redskins, etc. All I could think was "that's the best they could come up with?"
LOL I'd probably buy a hat!

My ancestors are already a team - the Vikings.

[abathur]

I disagree. I see it this way:

The hating and racism is the cake and the slur is the icing on the cake. It's not about what hurts more, but rather about what completes the picture. It is the last straw, the last nail in the coffin that conveys just how much they hate you.

It is the difference between someone screaming I hate you!! and someone screaming I hate you!! and then finishing it off with a punch in the face. With the first, you figure it is offensive enough but you can deal with it, with the second, they are not just expressing their view of you, but are looking for a confrontation.

If a person is racist and keeps it to themselves it isn't as bad as someone being racist and using racial slurs to address you each time they see you. It is "playing dirty" if you will -- or dirtier. You can hate someone but not try to reduce their humanity with words. It is the hate *and* the lack of respect that really bother me.

When I was younger, I was heavily antagonized because of my race. I had people ganging up. It was HELL. Yet, it wasn't until years later, when at a bus stop on my way to school that someone yelled out a racial slur to me that it *really* pissed me off.

Once again, it's the icing on the cake.

I stay away from racial slurs period.

-Kai

I think I will contradict. We could probably come to some sort of agreement that words are not, in themselves, "ideas" but rather representative of ideas. Ideas like hate, and racism, and nationalism, and discrimination retain some intrinsic power as ideas, but words are only powerful insofar as they communicate an idea. Words are a sort of telephone line for ideas. If I call you up and tell you I hate you--it isn't the telephone that did it to you, it was me hating you. If I'm on the phone with you and we're shitting around and you tell me about how much fun you had last night while I was stuck in shittsville and I say "I hate you!" we realize the meaning, the idea, isn't the same--despite the words being so.

Thus, interpretation of words is something conscious going on inside of you. Granted, it may not be the best idea to risk the misinterpretation, but it isn't inherently my fault if you take me seriously when I'm shitting around and say I hate you, you've consciously interpreted the words I passed along to you in the way you did.

The stigma these words carry on is similar to being offended by a song because that was the song that was on the radio when you last got broken up with (or because it was "our song") etc. I'm not going to stop using a word like stupid, or fat, or pretentious, or asshole, or bastard, or ugly, or loser, or cracker just because I've been called these things, even if it hurts when they're said and they're said all the time, because it was an idea--a communication that hurt me, and not the word.

Now, some ideas, like saying things to intentionally hurt people and do nothing more (the turth hurts, but IMO it needs to be said, other times hateful things are said just to be hateful) is another issue. I don't agree with any words being used in this way. Some list of forbidden harmful words is like allowing murder as long as you use a knife and not a gun (to follow your analogy) or like saying you can kill someone with a granite stone but not a marble one (to assume the power of a word is only that of the idea being conveyed) and seems rather hypocritical.

Get pissed off about the crime here, not the murder weapon.

[songbird36]

I'm not aware of an ethnic slur that would apply to my group - "whitie" maybe; but I've never heard it used about me or anyone. Maybe I move in the wrong circles :)

[lbloom]

I didn't know what an untouchable was...

...and does this system still persist?

Scott

Depending on how far into rural India you travel, it varies from non-existent to fodder for public lynchings.

[shum]

my name started out as shumlucky as in:

i goshta go to da shtore and git shum lucky ( brand of beer).

indian slur.

[philonightmare]

I'm a paki, an oreo, SAT-loving, uncivilized heathen. *shrugs* I am mostly indifferent to these labels, occasionally amused.

[Pooja]

My friends Rupesh is fresh off the boat from India. He's a Christian, and this kid in my homeroom whose a Kshatriya Hindu tells me that that most likely means that he was a Dauit, or, and Untouchable. Such a shame.

The word for untouchable is "shudria". But I think that that's all just a load of crap. But your Kshatria friend is probably right. When the Christian Missionaries came to India, they first came to north india (actually, the town my grandparents came from), and were tossed out on their butts by the more arrogant, upper-caste Hindus (haha). So then, when they tried again, they decided to try converting South India, since the population there is less Aryan and more Dravidian (darker skinned), which also corresponds to being of a lower caste. They were incredibly successful there, because the shudria were only too happy to be able to get out of the Hindu system that had deemed them to be "untouchables". North/Central Indian brahmins (nobility), kshatryas (warriors), and varnyas (merchants) have resisted the missionaries, b/c they're proud of their positions in the caste system. There are also shudrias in the north, and those were converted to islam hundreds of years ago by the Syrians merchants, in a similar way.
I think, that India is the most racist country in the world. My ancestors may have had too much spare time on their hands, and so they spent it in dividing people up into castes. And within every caste, there are dozens of other castes... and even more within those.
But there's a movement in modern india to equilize the people. But the way they've been trying to do this, is through Affirmative Action. So if your a half-retarded shudria, you can be accepted into a college/job over a brilliant brahmin or kshatria. Unfortunately, this is only backfiring, and creating farther racial tensions. AND, the smarter brahmins immigrate to america to escape the affirmative action prejudices...so that results in brain drain for India.

[libertarianjim]

LOL I'd probably buy a hat!

Then here you are, my Mod freind:

http://www.cafepress.com/fightinwhite/111

[sbw]

The word for untouchable is "shudria". But I think that that's all just a load of crap. But your Kshatria friend is probably right. When the Christian Missionaries came to India, they first came to north india (actually, the town my grandparents came from), and were tossed out on their butts by the more arrogant, upper-caste Hindus (haha). So then, when they tried again, they decided to try converting South India, since the population there is less Aryan and more Dravidian (darker skinned), which also corresponds to being of a lower caste. They were incredibly successful there, because the shudria were only too happy to be able to get out of the Hindu system that had deemed them to be "untouchables". North/Central Indian brahmins (nobility), kshatryas (warriors), and varnyas (merchants) have resisted the missionaries, b/c they're proud of their positions in the caste system.

why were the shudria deemed "untouchables" in the first place?

(apology in advance--I'm intrigued by how these sorts of systems are structured in different cultures, but unfamiliar with this one)

Scott

[MacGuffin]

Then here you are, my Mod freind:

http://www.cafepress.com/fightinwhite/111
I don't know, I think Notre Dame has that covered already.

[libertarianjim]

I don't know, I think Notre Dame has that covered already.

Yeah, but I wouldn't be caught dead in Notre Dame gear.

[Kai]

Get pissed off about the crime here, not the murder weapon.

If you tell people it is acceptable to carry around a weapon, eventually they are going to think it acceptable to use it. Words are tools and they can be used as weapons. It is a cop out to say that offense rests solely on the recipient. I can say anything and eventually end up with "Just kidding!" and say it was your fault for misinterpreting or I could just be changing my mind or lying or . . . the list goes on.

As you notice from my example as well, I said that the offense was the cake and the words were the icing. It completes the job. You may feel like killing someone, but your weapon completes the job. In other words, in my previous post I wasn't looking at one or the other, either the offense or the words. I was saying that they both come together, they shouldn't be separated. And that it is when both are together, that I find it the *most* offensive. As I said, racism itself is bad but going out and using the racial slurs as expression finishes it off. You can be racist and keep it to yourself. You can hate me and keep it to yourself.

Edit: I should also add that one of the major reasons I don't use racial slurs is because they focus on the differences between people. Using it to express yourself is to draw attention to your ethnicity. It is to say this is what I am, who I am. You are telling people it is an important part of who you are otherwise you wouldn't mention it. I don't think my ethnicity is important, this is why I don't mention it in racial slurs or usually at all. I would rather be known as Kai the human instead of Kai the specific kind of human that was born here specifically, and whose parents were born there specifically et cetera.


-Kai

[Pooja]

why were the shudria deemed "untouchables" in the first place?

(apology in advance--I'm intrigued by how these sorts of systems are structured in different cultures, but unfamiliar with this one)

Scott

Because of the Aryans, who were a pale-skinned indo-european group of nomads. They invaded the indigenous people of India (the agrarian, dark-skinned Dravidians) in around 3000-2000 BC. THe Aryans dominated the north, integraded with the Dravidians in the central regions, and let the Dravidians dominate the south. And as the "dominant" people, established the caste systems and religions. The Aryans threw out most of the Dravidians' gods, except for a few. Those are the ones that are depicted as "blue" in pictures (by "blue", the artists really meant that they're very very dark skinned), like Krishna.
Anyway, b/c the Aryans made up the system, of course they skewed it so that the more Aryan one was, the higher up on the caste ladder they are.
note:
The Aryan Invasion Theory is heavily debated, and there's proof both for and against it.

[KuJo]

the only one i use is redneck. because i can throw it around easily in Alabama. dun hur wur ull redneks!

[Nemesis]

Because of the Aryans, who were a pale-skinned indo-european group of nomads. They invaded the indigenous people of India (the agrarian, dark-skinned Dravidians) in around 3000-2000 BC. THe Aryans dominated the north, integraded with the Dravidians in the central regions, and let the Dravidians dominate the south. And as the "dominant" people, established the caste systems and religions. The Aryans threw out most of the Dravidians' gods, except for a few. Those are the ones that are depicted as "blue" in pictures (by "blue", the artists really meant that they're very very dark skinned), like Krishna.
Anyway, b/c the Aryans made up the system, of course they skewed it so that the more Aryan one was, the higher up on the caste ladder they are.
note:
The Aryan Invasion Theory is heavily debated, and there's proof both for and against it.
Can you tell me anything about that holiday where people can do whatever they want and the caste system becomes completely irrelavant? I was told that, for instance, on this day, a Brahmin and a Dalit could conceivably have sex and have it not be taboo, but only on this day.

[LuridLemur]

I use white trash and redneck infrequently, and don't give a shit about ethnic slurs. When I was in middle school a kid was suspended for saying 'Jap' when talking about pokemon cards. That's just stupid.

[Sackanaka]

I'm against sounding unthoughtfully rude. I'd probably be more fine with it if the slurs weren't so often used as quick jabs of mean spirited humor. Successful comedians are funny because they seem to use them "appropriately", considering context and timing, whereas most people put far more emphasis on the feeling of degrading a group. Then it's not just unfunny, it's a direct report of the slanderer's lack of regard for both norms of respect and understanding of cleverness.

edit:

I do find it funny to joke with my Chinese friend how Japanese are sickly perverted and that they steal ideas from China and make them better.

[abathur]

If you tell people it is acceptable to carry around a weapon, eventually they are going to think it acceptable to use it.
Yet they also have legitimate uses (like the candlestick!). Cops carry weapons around and don't suddenly find it necessary to start using them maliciously, for example.


Words are tools and they can be used as weapons. As can just about any tool. I could probably go all MacGyver and kill you with a box of condoms and a handfull of jellybeans if I was so inclined.


It is a cop out to say that offense rests solely on the recipient. I can say anything and eventually end up with "Just kidding!" and say it was your fault for misinterpreting or I could just be changing my mind or lying or . . . the list goes on. I don't know that I said it was entirely the fault of the listener, but interpretation is still your choice. It's not like the word would hurt you if you didn't know what it meant. But yes, certain things hurt many people, and I'm not making excuses for people who mean to do so, but you don't have to have malicious intent to use a tool, or even a weapon.


As you notice from my example as well, I said that the offense was the cake and the words were the icing. It completes the job. You may feel like killing someone, but your weapon completes the job. In other words, in my previous post I wasn't looking at one or the other, either the offense or the words. I was saying that they both come together, they shouldn't be separated. And that it is when both are together, that I find it the *most* offensive. As I said, racism itself is bad but going out and using the racial slurs as expression finishes it off. You can be racist and keep it to yourself. You can hate me and keep it to yourself.

I just don't agree with that. Hatred can be communicated with or without words and can be just as poigniant. Perhaps your priorities are different than mine but my deepest hatred is generally felt and not heard. Not that a racial slur is the deepest hatred, but rather, that an extreme hatred can be communicated without words, without "icing" because it is, in fact, just a communication (and needs no idea/word pairing to exist rather powerfully.

The differences between people are what make life worth living. To deny the differences between us all is to deny what we are. Hating people for what they were born as is silly, but hating someone for what they consciously are seems pretty reasonable. Hating any speech used to hate is pretty reasonable, but hating words irregardless of how they are used has got to be totally wordist or something. :p

[Kai]

Yet they also have legitimate uses (like the candlestick!). Cops carry weapons around and don't suddenly find it necessary to start using them maliciously, for example.

Most people aren't cops. They are not trained to handle weapons.


As can just about any tool. I could probably go all MacGyver and kill you with a box of condoms and a handfull of jellybeans if I was so inclined.

That sounds kinky. :whoop:


It's not like the word would hurt you if you didn't know what it meant.

Tone of voice has a lot to do with it. Verbal abuse is devastating.


But yes, certain things hurt many people, and I'm not making excuses for people who mean to do so, but you don't have to have malicious intent to use a tool, or even a weapon.

No, my point in the example was that they did and used it as icing on the cake.


I just don't agree with that. Hatred can be communicated with or without words and can be just as poigniant. Perhaps your priorities are different than mine but my deepest hatred is generally felt and not heard.

I'm not talking about deepest hatred. Words are symbols. They symbolize what we feel and express it to others. For this reason, what we FEEL is going to be stronger than any WORD we choose to use, but that doesn't take away the significance of the word. Again, I'm not arguing about what hurts more, the feeling or the tool, I'm saying that when *both* are used I find it unacceptable. It is the last straw for me.

I simply abhor the wrongful use of words to inflict harm. This is coming because I spent years in a verbally abusive environment I couldn't get out of. I understand the power of words.

-Kai