Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Skookum1 (talk | contribs) at 20:21, 20 March 2007 (→Cherrypicking dictionaries). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Vandalism

User Empiredragon was responsible for putting profanity in this article and messing up the title. How do I put the title back on it from before, which is 'chinaman'? Thanks.

SEG88 00:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Origin of term

When was this term first used?

It's not documented so far as I know; it was the generic term for a Chinese person by the early 1800s, and the word "Chinese" was more of an adjective to refer to objects and state and culture etc. It may have originated in sailor pidgin, or a derivation of Chinese-English pidgin's variation on "Chinese", i.e. "Chinee". So as with Frenchman, Dutchman etc. there is a natural form in English for the "Chinese-man", which with the pidgin form becomes Chinee-man, and so contracted to "chinaman". It remains the word - for both people and in the adjectival sense - in many Northwest Plateau and Coastal languages, from Ktunaxa to Tshilhqot'in, but does not have a derogatory sense (as indeed in English for a long time, and still so in some areas, i.e. not derogatory).

I used to think an alternative origin might be in the Chinook Jargon; where the country/concept+man formation is common (Boston man, King George man, Dutchman; nb if man+{concept} it means the male of something.); but the term was in use in California during its gold rush, and appears to have originated by usage in maritime English, which was spread to the American West and British Columbia via ships' crews; it might be certainly at that time (1780s-1790s) that it first entered the native languages of the North American Coast; but I can't speak for its date of provenance on the Atlantic Seaboard or in England; I would image it was pre-extant when Australia was settled, as it's very old. I have heard of one place in northern BC named for a (wait for it) "John Chinaman", who supposedly was an Englishman whose family had made their fortune in the China trade, or dealing china anyway, or making it or something; political correctness has renamed a lake named after him as Chinese Lake, because of the modern sensitivities towards the term.

Contrary to popular allegation it was NOT "invented by whites to degrade Chinese people with", as someone posting on UseNet railed long ago; it appears either to have been derived from English as spoken by Chinese people and/or some kind of hybrid form among peoples of the North American Pacific Coast (where true enough it may have only been borrowed from English). So that's my two bits; someone may take offence but there's a difference between how a word originates and what it comes to mean, or can become to be used for, over time. In my experience it can be and is used both ways; in older frontier or native areas it's used quite casually, without overtones of how it's taken elsewhere, and not meant derisively (unles said a certain way, as with any ethnic tag). Sorry I can't document this but it's just what I've picked up; I don't know what the OED Online says about its provenance; might be interesting.Skookum1 06:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

"Chinaman" the slang

If we really wanted to, I'm certain that we can find sources on both sides of the derogatory/not derogatory argument. Maybe it deserves its own article.

But I'd like to stress to the other editors that acceptance of usage hardly equates to it being not derogatory. It's historical acceptance merely reflects the rampant racism that existed in the past. Racism has not increased since the 1800s and early 1900s. The reason that it's not acceptable now is because we're more educated about racism. The racism was always there in the past. We know now that it's racist. We did not make it racist, because racism was always there.

To argue that it was not a racist term back then, would imply that there was less racism in the past, because in modern society, it is definitely a racist term. Acceptance of usage does not mean it was not racist. Hong Qi Gong 23:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Especially in China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skookum1 (talk • contribs)

Hong Qi Gong has a fascinating theory worked out here: Words are found objects, like rocks, with set, non-alterable properties in and of themselves. Human linguistic hunter-gatherers forage around and find these objects (words) and then start using them. Sometimes the full meaning of the word isn't at first clear to them, but eventually the true nature of these unchangeable things asserts itself. Hence, his conclusion that "Chinaman" was always a racist term, but people in the past were too ignorant to see this. Society has now come to recognize the nature of the word, and put it away. Similarly, no doubt, we only now realize that it is offensive to call a woman a "dame" or a "wench." When Shakespeare has Mark Antony reply to Cleopatra: "Fare thee well, dame, whate'er becomes of me," he is obviously insulting her, because it has exactly the same meaning as when a 1930s American gangster calls a woman a "dame." Let us join hands in prayer and condemn our Elizabethan ancestors who were too ignorant to recognize the immutable properties of so many words. They used words so wrong back then, but we now use them correctly.

There is only problem with this theory, of course: It is insane. Words don't change society, society changes words. The cheapest way of gaining a false sense of superiority over another ethnic group or time period is by judging one group of cultural or linguistic practises by the standards of another. Society changes the meanings and connotations of words. The words "China" and "Man" are different though. They were never inherently offensive, and they still are not inherently offensive. If "China" and "man" were inherently racist, both words would be shunned now. They are not. "Chinaman" is not an inherently derogatory term, but it has acquired derogatory meaning by association with the history of racist treatment of the Chinese in the United States.

Let me make myself clear: "Chinaman" is an offensive term in the United States today. It was in common use in the past as a term for people of Chinese descent, but has become associated with racism against Chinese and Asians in general.

I have had my fill of mad-hatter logic from Hong Qi Gong, and no real interest in mulling over topics that are so often used to separate people rather than unite them. Hopefully someone else does, or one more corner of Misplaced Pages will have been absorbed by activists out to broadcast their Orwellian twisting of words and their history. Human Fetishist 20:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me reiterate - your logic basically renders nigger as harmless as well. The current wording right now is borrowed from the nigger article - that it's a derogatory term, and it was used casually in the past.

Also, your problem seems to have more to do with me personally than the articles in question. Hong Qi Gong 20:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with HF here. He seems to be making a coherent logical argument, and it's certainly not rendering "nigger" or "chinaman" as "harmless". heqs 15:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

His logic makes an important mistake that I've mentioned above already. He equates general acceptance of a word to that it was not derogatory or racist. Hong Qi Gong 16:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

You were replying to Skookum1, as far as I can tell. "To argue that it was not a racist term back then, would imply that there was less racism in the past, because in modern society, it is definitely a racist term." This is quite the fallacy, as HF described. heqs 17:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

To Heqs: Inane arguments have long been part of the "Chinaman controversy"; the idea that because it was not a racist term back then somehow means there was less racism is typical of the faulty and (to me) deliberately obfuscating logic used by the tub-thumpers. Never mind that the Chinese term China+person uses the same characters as would be used if you translated China+man, the "logic" is that "chinaman" is "inherently racist". There is a response I have coming (but just haven't had the stomach to bother with yet) on his talk page concerning Chinese racism and exclusionism in my city (Vancouver) in which he announces that because I'm saying that Chinese-only condo marketing is in Chinese, that I'm being racist because English-only advertising is theoretically also exclusionary; even though long-term Chinese-Canadians all speak English, and many of my generation in fact to do not at all and also are discriminated against by the New Chinese (post HK-influx). It's a long, sorry tale, but full of the twisted logics and one-sided allegations that are par for the course in culture politics; and in my city, it's not about race and never was; it was always about culture and social differences, which are not "race" unless that word is tossed around with a loosey-goosey meaning, as it all too often is.Skookum1 17:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Skookum, I understand where you're coming from on this, just remember to try and keep cool, and not say something you might regret. heqs 17:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you get a drift of the mad-hatter logic that I've been encountering from this editor: He says that because I say "Chinaman" is not derogatory, I am also claiming "nigger" is not derogatory... Only one problem with that: I explicitly do say "Chinaman" is derogatory in contemporary US English, as is "nigger." The editor is also trying to muddy the issue by equating "Chinaman" with the more historically and emotionally loaded term "nigger." Still, it is not only a red herring, but a fallacy to claim that "nigger" was always as derogatory as it is in the US today (when used by whites). I'm old enough to state from personal experience that it wasn't, but that borders on unacceptable personal research. Skookum1 has pointed out how in other dialects and languages, the word or close cognates are still acceptable today. And obviously, between African-Americans the term has a different connotation than it does when used by whites. Again, society uses words, not the other way around. Also, look at US/English literature. To claim that "nigger" had the same social function today as it did a century ago and further would be to claim that two of the most anti-racist, anti-colonialist writers of their age (Mark Twain and Joseph Conrad) were nothing but racists. Forget their actual beliefs and their actions, they were ignorant racists because the words they used then are considered unacceptable today. But apparently those who ban The Nigger of the 'Narcissus' and Adventures of Huckleberry Finn from libraries agree with this up-is-down logic. Presumably Mein Kampf is allowed because (to my knowledge) it doesn't use the word "Chinaman" or "nigger." Who reads for meaning today? Just run the spell-checker through for banned words and it passes or fails. -- Human Fetishist 18:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, what this guy is saying (and now having lived in the Midwest for 4 years I can somewhat understand), is that the people who often use the term "Chinamen" these days aren't being intentional or ironic, just ignorant: they're usually old men (or people from very insulated areas, i.e. Northern Minnesota) just blurting out a term for whatever Asian person they see in the same way I heard a Regent of the University of Minnesota call all Asians "Oriental" and people from the Middle East "Arabians" (which would be a horse, not Arabs...)). He was a nice guy, I doubt he was that intentionally stupid, but he was old enough. Another, lesser but similar example are people who call all Asians "Chinese". --Bobak 17:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

"Chinaman" should be a separate page

Even though there's only two disambig items now the mutation of the main paragraph here, and the politics uderlying the word, suggests that there's a lot more that needs to be here than can be put in point-form for disambig pages. The problem is that the page will have more to do with the controversies rather than any rational discussion of the word and its various usages (racist and non-racist, historical and modern, comparisons to Chinese versions of the same phrase, comparisons to the many Chinese racist terms for other peoples etc). The problem is that that's not encyclopedic content; or could be, but for its endless politicization by defenders of Chinese racism and attackers of alleged white racism (alleged in this case, since in rural dialects around here it's still a common word used without prejudice, just as it was a century ago; no more so than saying "he's Chinese", anyway; which can and is used derisively, which is why "Asian" has become the p.c. terms in the stylebooks. Have a look at HongCouver, which I think should be deleted, for more on this kind of double-standardism....Skookum1 17:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

For now, we could just expand this article and add something like this to the top: This article is about the term. For the cricket bowling style, see Left-arm unorthodox spin, for the Danish film, see Kinamand. heqs 17:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Skookum1, no offense, but it really seems like your motivations are very biased in this case. It seems your reason for editing this article has more to do with the HongCouver and Gweilo articles. Look at your statement here:

• The problem is that that's not encyclopedic content; or could be, but for its endless politicization by defenders of Chinese racism and attackers of alleged white racism.

Nobody is trying to defend Chinese racism here. The subject hasn't been brought up and it's not even relevant. And there are no attackers here of anything. It is a statement of fact that this term is derogatory, and whether or not past usage is "neutral" is debatable, as evidenced by our disagreements here. Whatever problems you may be encountering in the HongCouver article should not have to be carried over here. Furthermore, one can very easily turn it around and say that you are "defending white racism". Should I clam that you're "defending white racism" because you disagree with me on past usage of this term? Hong Qi Gong 17:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to get you to understand that generations of non-Chinese used (and use) the term without any racist content, yet get called racist simply because someone somewhere else has decided a certain and actually rather lexically innocuous terms is racist; sure, it might be that in the US it's always been derogatory; in my area it was part of the lexicon of the Chinook Jargon, which imprinted local English heavily, such that Dutchman (meaning German), Scotchman, Boston man were equivalents and, while potentially derisive, were not necessarily. I realize you've taken the honourable stand about the noxious and ongoing term gweilo, but they're not equivalent in any way, since gweilo is lexically derisive from its roots on up and as noted china+man (Chung ren? - or am I mixing Cantonese and Mandarin) is in fact the Chinese term for a Chinese person. Chinee-man is the source of Chinaman; which the afore-cited politicians and their associated media hacks around here publicly announced was "invented by white people to humiliate Chinese people with" (that's a quote, either from VYW or JK), when in fact it's a derivative of Chinese-English pidgin and may be a result of Chinese attempts to say Chinese-man i.e. chineeman. It spread into maritime trade jargon and thence into North America, Australia, Africa and Europe, and was not used derisively (there were other words and phrases for that, notably chink and yellow dog/bastard) And, again as I've also noted, it has come into the regular lexicons of several Native American/First Nation languages without any derisive imputation at all; and that is also reflected in local native-anglo patois/argots, such as in my area, especially by natives. "Hey boston!" and "Hey chinaman!" in my area have the same tone, one no more derisive respectively; and they are often, in fact, heard in the town in question; and these are natives using them; shama is REALLY bad, and any variation of the last vowel makes it WORSE). One of the most remarkable recent usages I heard was from an elderly mixed-blood lady who said about someone back up in town "that damned chinaman told me xxx"; she herself was part Chinese, part Japanese, part Norwegian, part Irish, and part St'at'imc and part something else; I asked her if she thought the word was offensive (without the "damned" modifier) and she said "no, not at all". No more so than saying "that damned Irishman told me xxx"; she was quite old so probably spoke Chinook, but I never asked her for more (it's impolite to pester elders with questions in native/backcountry culture). Sure, we can use "Frenchman" or "Dutchman" very derisively; but we can do the same with "Chinese" equally as much as using "Chinaman". The whole politicizing of this word is, to me, a byproduct of anti-imperialist/anti-European analyses and is not rooted in history; more rooted in people's need to find things to complain about how other people talk about them. And all the more ironic because Chinese itself as a language has not purged itself of its own racist and sexist content.Skookum1 18:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

1. You keep insisting that it was not used derisively in the past because of the roots of the word. Yet I've pointed out to you that "nigger" is simply rooted in the Spanish and Portuguese word for the colour black. The roots of a word does not dictate how the word is used.
2. That there are people who consider the word not derogatory, whether they be white or Chinese (read: ), or any other races, does not conclude that the word is not derogatory. For every person who considers the word not derogatory, there is someone else, and quite possibly more than one, who considers the word derogatory indeed. At best this makes the derogatory nature of the word debatable.
3. That the Chinese language has racist terms does not justify the existence of racist terms in the English language, and vice versa. Every language has racist terms, and there are racists of every colour and creed. It makes no sense whatsoever to point and say, "look, the Chinese language has racist terms, therefore it's a political byproduct of anti-European analyses to point out the racist nature of certain English words." Racist terms in any languages are detestable.

Hong Qi Gong 18:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

And overblown allegations of racism and racist language are also detestable. The HISTORICAL FACT and cultural reality is that Chinaman was not coined as a racist term, was used widely WITHOUT racist overtones (including by Chinese themselves) and in direct-translation terms and the characters that would be used to render it is INDISTINGUISHABLE from "Chinese person" (except for the gender qualification). To say that it was ONLY racist is entirely FALSE. Is it racist that the Ktunaxa and Nuxalk have it in THEIR languages? No - because they have no other word for "Chinese". Figure it out; it's the same with at least some regional/dialect usages of English. Your argument reminds me of the logic that, since "fanny" is obscene to the English it's inherently obscene throughout the English-speaking world. This is nonsense; and so are your arguments and ongoing counter-allegations (I'll get to the issue about the Chinese-only condo marketing on your talk page; I broke out laughing when I read what you wrote - Vancouver is a city with FOUR Chinese-language dailies and Chinese-language ads appear regularly in the English-language ones; and the reporter(s) who broke that story were themselves Chinese-Canadian, as was a realtor who blew the whistle on the discriminatory sale)Skookum1 18:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, you're mistaking a term's acceptance as that it is not derogatory.

And my point remains about the Chinese-language advertising of the condos. What if condos were to be only advertised in English? Does that not exclude the Chinese? Does it not also exclude Latinos, French speakers, etc etc? You claim that the practice is racist, but really it's no more insidious than any ads that do not appear in all languages possible. So there are four Chinese-language dailies, and how many English-language dailies are there...? Hong Qi Gong 18:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Two, both owned by the same company...and for English-only advertising to be racist, that would assume that the French, Latinos, and non-Chinese speaking Chinese and other Asians do not speak English; which they do. What's remarkable about the "New Chinese" (post-influx) is that many of them have no intention of learning English any more than necessary, even to the point of demanding government services; and of course their disdain for the original Chinese-Canadian population as well as their historic Toishan-variant dialect. One agitator even wanted Mandarin to be made an official language in BC since they "shouldn't have to learn English to live here". Uh-huh. So, if I and 500,000 other anglophones moved to Shanghai and started demanding the right to take part in politics, demanding separate school boards, opening anglo-only shopping centres, saying that they had no reason to ever learn Chinese, how would that be received? Uh-huh. As racism, that's how; of course anything white people do or say is racist if you need it to be, isn't it? And you said that my comment about our own culture being "overwhelmed" was a racist statement; so again, how would the Chinese people respond if the population of Beijing or Shanghai went from 10-15% white to over 50% white in less than 20 years? Oh right - there never was 10-15% white in either city, was there? - because what few there were were either slaughtered (Boxer Rebellion) or expelled (Chinese civil wars/WWII).

And my point about the condo sale is very clear; English advertising is accessible to anyone who meets the citizenship requirements, i.e. the ability to speak one of the two official languages. But those condos weren't even advertised in Vancouver's four Chinese dailies; they were marketed exclusively to overseas Chinese. The reporter (Chinese-Canadian) who broke the story was the one who brought up how racist it was, which of course got denial after denial from Chinese cultural organizations; but also some justifications about "people wanting to live around other people who speak the same language and have the same culture"; justifications that if WE were to use them, would be called racist. This kind of posturing and wheedling we're all to used to here, and it irks Chinese who have acclimatized to Canadian society (call them "assimilated" if you wish; my family was assimilated too - French-Irish and Norwegian - and I'm no less human for it). The assumption that Canada should bend over backwards to accommodate a whole civilization is increasingly grating on the public psyche here; multiculturalism is an official policy, not a popular one; and many of the new groups (including some new Chinese) say they only want to be Canadian, to share in a common identity; not a fractured, hyphenated one. But the diehards, one of whose terms for our city (translated from the Chinese) is the utterly colonialist "New China City", are adamant in their resistance to "assimilation". Despite all the high-sounding talk when WE opened our doors to the HK influx that they didn't want to transplant their culture but were willing to adapt to Canadian society; that tune changed pretty quick once they were here, that's for sure; the worst of it, as long-time Chinese Canadians will often complain, is that the resistance to Canadian ways has increased overall resentment against ANY Chinese; including people who are utterly Canadian by culture. And it's not just whites who feel this way; it's Filipinos, Punjabis, Persians, First Nations and others who have experienced the same. Everything from driving habits/culture to pushing people off the sidewalk or aside in the transit system "because that's our culture, it's how we are in China". So what? If I go to China, I'm expected to respect Chinese customs; say the same thing back (that they should respect our culture) and the response is "oh, but that's racist" or even "you don't have a culture"; something that's all too familiar to my First Nations friends, as that's what they were told. So don't go calling me a racist for daring to speak out about the cultural arrogance and outright racism implicit in the Chinese-only policies in workplaces, shopping and housing....free speech, after all, is part of my culture, even if it's not part of China's.Skookum1 22:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

This debate isn't really getting anywhere - what you guys need to do is write the article, citing sources, about historical and present use of the word, and let the published and verifiable info do the talking, even if those sources might happen to contradict eachother. heqs 18:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with what you're saying. A seperate article would be much better as it can incorporate opposing views. But it's questionable whether or not there's actually enough content for a seperate article. And there are also other articles I'm more interested in spending my energy on. At the very least, I want the current definition to reflect that the term is definitely racist in modern society, and that it was debatable whether or not it was racist in the past. The existence of opposing views on historic usage calls for that. To conclude that it was definitely not racist in the past is dishonest, when there are people who would disagree with that. Hong Qi Gong 19:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes Hong Qi Gong, a separate article tracing the history of the term would be quite interesting, and would hopefully help to clear up this whole debate, as long as it's done honestly, and not made a soapbox for one point of view or another. When and where did the term start? At what point did it become unacceptable in common usage? Where is it still used without derogatory intent? The Twain quote below might belong in the article.

Skookum1, I agree with a lot of what you say, but hope you don't let your (apparent) anger get the best of you. We're all human, and have our good and bad points. Cultural chauvinism of the type you describe is certainly not a trait unique to the Chinese. There are bound to be clashes when large cultural groups encounter each other. Let's hope the more moderate voices prevail.

I lived in Asia for several years, and married into an Asian family. While I experienced cultural bigotry, ignorance and chauvinism (and even occasional outright racism) over there, I was usually able to take this as a small taste of what minorities have historically experienced over here. And the good I encountered over there certainly far outweighed the bad. Human Fetishist 23:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Human Fetishist, we don't see eye-to-eye on some things, but I appreciate what you've said here about what minorities have experienced as far as racism is concerned. Hong Qi Gong 04:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

My "anger" - polemical language - was because of being called a racist simply for speaking out in defense of my own culture, which Hong Qi Gong was imputing was a racist argument; and yeah, there's definitely a widespread disctontent here, disclaimed by our government and denoucned by our media monopolies who "boost" multiculturalism at every turn, while also concocting a fictional "Canadian identity" to overlay the old regionalities and the older form of "being Canadian"; we've been "revised" in order to "help the new cultures feel welcome"; to let them be whatever it is they need to be, while short shrift is given to our own. And as I said, even my First Nations (as Native Americans are known in Canada) friends sympathize and also experience the same pushing-aside that has taken place here; the idea that our culture isn't worth respecting. Uh-huh. It's pretty much unique to Vancouver and Toronto, and in Vancouver's case it also involves the older pre-influx Chinese, who find themselves equally marginalized and no longer as integrated with the rest of us, because of official multiculturalism. We just used to be Canadians; now we're a bunch of friggin' hyphens.Skookum1 00:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

What Skookum1 is referring to is the exchange we had over at my Talk page. This took place after my first edit of this article. Apparently to Skookum1, "speaking out in defense of his own culture" means he should dismiss disagreements as "Chinese cultural insecurity" and apparently my ethnicity automatically means foreigness to him. For those who are interested, you are welcome to read and judge for yourself. By the way, I've never told him he was racist. I only think he's biased against Chinese people.

And I must seriously admit that I'm having a difficult time assuming good faith here. It seems that Skookum1 is more concerned about the racism he's experienced from the Chinese people that are "overwhelming" (his own word) "his" community, and this is the motivation for his editing of this article.

Skookum1, I'm not sure what kind of response you expect from me with your repetitive mention of Vancouver's racial tension. Should I just agree with everything you've said because you think you've experienced racism? Or maybe you want me to share with you my own stories of racism? Since you keep mentioning the racism you're experiencing, should I also attempt fruitlessly to count the number of times I've been called a chink, a Chinaman, etc etc? The number of times I've been told to "go back where I came from"? The number of times a random stranger greets me with "ching chong ching chong"? Would that make my arguments more solid in your eyes?

With all due respect: get over it. I've already said on multiple occasions that I don't condone racism in any form. Like I've said, I've never even been to Vancouver. I didn't call you a gwailo. I didn't deny you a job. I don't represent the entire Chinese population in North America, and I certainly don't represent the Chinese community in Vancouver. Your incessant mention of Vancouver is pointless to me. I can't answer for what some other Chinese person did. I can only answer for and represent myself. Should I express my frustration to you that white people have been racist against me?

Hong Qi Gong 03:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

This really is getting nowhere, Skookum seems like he'll go into his rhetoric no matter what you say, even if you say something that he agrees with. He doesn't listen to anything and doesn't seem to want to reason with anyone. Chinaman is now considered offensive, period, regardless of how the term was coined. The same can be said of Negro, Oriental, Spanish (as a reference to Latinos and Latinas), Whitey, A-rab, and similar offensive words which may or may not have been coined with malicious intent. It matters not, as they are now considered offensive. You don't really have to agree with it, but it deserves mentioning.Bethereds 03:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Mark Twain on 'Chinaman'

"They are a kindly disposed, well-meaning race, and are respected and well treated by the upper classes, all over the Pacific coast. No Californian gentleman or lady ever abuses or oppresses a Chinaman, under any circumstances, an explanation that seems to be much needed in the East. Only the scum of the population do it--they and their children; they, and, naturally and consistently, the policemen and politicians, likewise, for these are the dust-licking pimps and slaves of the scum, there as well as elsewhere in America." -- Mark Twain, Roughing It, 1870–71

What a white-supremacist racist! He said "Chinaman!" Human Fetishist 21:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Not sure how many times I've said this already - acceptance of usage does not mean a word is not derogatory. Hong Qi Gong 03:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Well then, I guess Skookum1 is 100% right. Guess it serves me right for trying to reason with a guy with a clearly offensive, stereotypically Oriental user name like "Hong Qi Gong." Just because you accept usage of it doesn't mean it's not derogatory, Hong. Pearls before swine... What a waste of time. Human Fetishist

You're welcome to write an article on my username to say that it's a derogatory term if you can find some sources to support the claim. Hong Qi Gong 05:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

"Hong" is a derogatory term for a Hong Konger, and also has made its way into regional English in my area as a generic ethnic slur. Interestingly, once again, it was coined by Chinese-Canadians rather than white ones, although became adapted by the latter. So while it may not be derogatory in Chinese, it certainly is in English. You might want to change it. (Skookum's not derogatory, btw)Skookum1 08:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Got a source for that information? Hong Qi Gong 08:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Try HongCouver; I believe it was the most recent place I've seen it; where, once again, the suposedly racist term was invented by Chinese-ethnics themselves; "Honger", a harsher form, has a connotation (to anglos) something like "booger" (from "hanger", dried snot dangling from one's nose). If it's not on HongCouver or Talk:HongCouver any more (various recent edits, and not just by me), it'll be easy enough to find later today; but I just got up.Skookum1 15:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC) it's not there anymore so must have been edited out; I'll check around as it's been on one of the Vancouver pages recently; I'm sure you could just email S.U.C.C.E.S.S. and ask them what they think of the term, although they'll probably blame it on white people "inventing" it. (United Chinese Community Enrichment Services Society); but "Hong" and "Honger" for sure are nasty words (in English). So therefore they must ALWAYS have been nasty, huh?Skookum1 15:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure. But I could always "use the word amongst myself with an ironic sense". Hong Qi Gong 15:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

But are you? No, you certainly didn't choose it from knowing that it had that connotation; and while it's a common derisive in Vancouver I've never used it heard in an ironical sense by a Chinese Vancouverite (they're more likely to use "chink" when they want to be funny/self-referential); "Honger" on the other hand is used within the Chinese/Asian communities to specify Hong Kongers, whereas "Hong" is more generic (though far less common than "chink" or "gook" as a derisive; that's not citable, I'm just telling you what I've heard in usage here). But in your case, claiming now that you "could always use it with an ironic sense", when you didn't know it was a derisive before.....well, OK, use it in an ironic sense from now on; but here it is a derisive, even if it isn't in Chinese....Skookum1 20:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean S.U.C.C.E.S.S.? I find the all this about 'hongcouver' rather amusing, as I always thought it was meant to carry positive connotations, ie. growth and... success (no joke). heqs 16:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I know; it was, as noted by the NGS, a "brag" about the "takeover" not the takeover of HK by the PRC, but the takeover of Vancouver by HKers; the swagger in those early days has been muted, and was actually advised against by the then-Lieutenant-Governor of British Columbia the Hon. David Lam. But once it became the headline, front cover in fact, of the NGS, S.U.C.C.E.S.S. and the usual coterie of degreed-but-uneducated "intellectuals" denounced it as a "racist term invented by white people to humiliate Chiense people with" yadayada ad nauseam. Fact is, as noted in the Hongcouver article, "we" only ever used it with distaste, as we didn't need our city renamed to flatter or condemn any new group; especially when the newcomers evinced a clearly-made racist attitude towards non-Chinese, and still do. But the myth is that HongCouver, like Chinaman, is an insult to Chinese people; that it was their own who coined the terms they just can't deal with......denial is a powerful pyschological force, and also inbuilt into the political-correctness newspeak-think. Have a look at History of Chinese immigration to Canada and you'll see much of the same crap repeated, although I'll be working on that one, as also on History of British Columbia; thing is so many people are brainwashed to the "official" view now that no one reads the source materials, only the modern publications which ape the positions of SUCCESS and the CCNC. And I do find it amusing that HongQiGong has asked me for a cite for 'Hong' being derisive; that's another one that SUCCESS doesn't like; partly because it addresses the discrimiation against the long-standing Chinese-Canadian community by the newcomers for being "bananas"; "Hong" is the counter-insult.Skookum1 21:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)I have similar passages to Twain's from various contemporary writings in BC, although I recently sold a goldmine for that stuff Early Vancouver by the City Archivist Skit Matthews, p.1937, which was full of first-person narratives of the times and events in question (rare book, needed groceries and the set was worth $200...); but I still have my Morley and other early histories which give examples (see refs on BC History page); these examples SUCCESS doesn't want to admit exist, or are worth anything because the sources are white. Yeah, right....Skookum1 21:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC) The most derisive form using Chinaman, btw, i.e. when it was used derisively, was "John Chinaman", which was a generic grouping,not an individual; and individual Chinese in editorial writeups and such were often simply referred to as "Johns", or "John did this". That, no doubt, must be considered "inherently racist"; but then so would be the Vietnamese term for Americans - "Joe", "Hey, Joe". And since Chinese names were largely unpronounceable to speakers of non-tonal languages "John" was a generic, as with "Joe". Conversely, during the post-Anti-Oriental Riots strike by Chinese house servants and gardeners in 1907, well-to-do Vancouver ladies bemoaned in print the loss of their "beloved chinamen" and their indispensable skills and household knowledge; but in newspeak this is simply more "evidence of endemic racism", even though the statement was in fact a flattering one, and the Chinese were respected by their employers, so much so that hiring a non-Chinese gardener or cook was unthinkable, not for monetary/payscale reasons but because of the skill levels, and the dedication; these weren't "dirty jobs white people didn't want to do"; these were jobs white people wouldn't hire other white people for. BTW if you ever get a chance to visit the Nordic Museum in Ballard, Seattle, or for that matter Ellis Island in NYC, you'll find out that Norwegian maids were paid half what Irish maids were paid, and forced to live in small closets and taken sexual advantage of by their employers; it's not just non-whites who were underpaid and exploited in North America; another big myth that needs debunking. I look forward to the day when Chinese culture and society is as self-critical and self-examining as European/British/North American societies have become; but by the look of the cant kicking around the press, the net and Wiki, it'll be a while yet.....Skookum1 21:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Skookum, you really seem to be stuck in this mentality that all Chinese people think alike, that we all share the same opinions, and that each Chinese person should answer for what any other Chinese person did. Not only that, you are also stuck in the mentality that the Chinese are always going to be foreign. This is especially evident in your statement that you "look forward to the day when Chinese culture and society is as self-critical and self-examining as European/British/North American societies have become; but by the look of the cant kicking around the press, the net and Wiki, it'll be a while yet...". This is why I think it's pointless to try to reason with you. Hong Qi Gong 02:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but you accused me or racism simply for recounting a scandal involving Chinese exclusionary business practices, i.e. racist practices, in Vancouver, suggesting even that English-only language advertising discriminated against Chinese, French, Latinos and others; but there are plenty of Vancouver Chinese who do not even speak Chinese well (these are the descendants of the original group, not the "so-called" (as you put it) "New Chinese". What you've essentially come up with here is a reason to disregard all the evidence I've put forward, without actually dealing with the evidence; and you've treated me in the mode "all white people think alike"; deal is I was raised to be a liberal, tolerant accepting Canadian and was actually very pro-Oriental in many ways growing up, partly because the town I came from as a rich Asian heritage (Chinese and Japanese) and also because I took the time to study East Asian history and philosophy; but like so many others here my views have been hardened by the negative treatment and slander directed against the history of the place I've grown up in, which isn't anywhere near as ugly or single-minded as the simplistic ethnocentric histories consistently paint it. My family only moved here in 1946, in fact, but I learned about ALL the cultures here in BC, not just my own group (which happens to be multi-ethnic, albeit white); I didn't focus on the persecution of the Irish, French and "Scandahoovians" in the course of gaining an identity; but when you're pigeonholed and insulted and you have to read rank distortions of history concocted to flatter a newly-arrived and overtly wealthy group, it's pretty nauseating. I'm not expecting you to reason with me, because many of your own responses have shown no reason at all; only reaction and redirection and evasion. I'm not saying it's because you're Chinese; I'm saying it's because you're unwilling to consider that "Chinese versions" of my province's history should be challenged as UNTRUE.Skookum1 07:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Read the last thing that I wrote in the section above this one. Once again, I did not accuse you of being racist. I only think you are biased against Chinese people - not for what you've wrote regarding what you perceive as discrimination from the so-called "New Chinese", but for the comments you've left in your edits. They are borderline racist.

• I look forward to the day when Chinese culture and society is as self-critical and self-examining as European/British/North American societies have become; but by the look of the cant kicking around the press, the net and Wiki, it'll be a while yet.....
• "Celestial" is in reference to "subject of the Son of Heaven" and is somewhat akin on context to "British subject", and was meant in a complimentary, even respectful fashion; but Chinese insecurities demand that it be pronounced "racist". Fix your own language's many racist and sexual biases before demanding other cultures kowtow to your need to rewrite history to suit yourselves.
• it was a racist response to racist times; natural enough, but don't pretend it's not based in racism and the attached insecurity; the clue here is that word "humiliation", apparently one of the driving forces of the Chinese cultural ego.
• gag; more sinothink newspeak distortions of reality; gag, gag, gag

--- Hong Qi Gong 14:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The gag, gag, gag is because of the constant sense of vomit from the lies and distortions found on sinocentric history pages; not because I"M racist, but because they are. And as for what you perceive as discrimination from the so-called "New Chinese" you'd better give your head a shake; it's not only me, it's the "old Chinese" who "perceive" this discrimination as well as members of other non-New Chinese ethnicities. I'm only the messenger. East Indians, Filipinos and Afro-Canadians have all experienced the same biases and discriminations, whether it's at Yaohan or Aberdeen or in the workplace or housing. Accusing me of "borderline racism" for pointing out that the New Chinese are more than just borderline racist is just doublespeak, and it's tiresome. Gag, gag, gag. And if "face" weren't a principle in Chinese culture, it wouldn't have had to have been mentioned; but it's not from me that the term "humiliation" keeps on being wielded like it was a crime against humanity. One postscript: at the height of the influx, a certain Chinese zillionaire who can't be named for obvious reasons got five-sheets drunk at an uppercrust party in what are called the Endowment Lands, in front of members of Vancouver's establishment and "moneyed intelligentsia" (patrons of the arts, charities etc; mostly white at the time (mid-80s) but not entirely; he got very loud and started yelling about how "we've taken over, you stupid fools. We're going to make slaves out of all you!!" (this from more than one person who was at that party); oh, and there's the off-the-cuff comments you hear about how stupid white people were for selling their country out from underneath them, and how this is a Chinese colony now, and how "lazy and shiftless" native-born Canadians (of any race) are; there's so much more that you cannot comprehend, from wherever else on the continent you are at present; my Japanese-Canadian and Indo-Canadian and First Nations and Latino friends and acquaintances have all the same experiences and have heard all the same crap; and all of this is common conversation at the city's thousands of coffee shops. Yup, borderline racist all right, as judged by a closed mind, just for daring to tell the truth. Par for the course...and we're so used to hearing it now we just don't care...given that the implicit racism of those denouncing us, all we can do is either grin or spit.Skookum1 15:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I keep telling you and you can't seem to grasp this - I or any random Chinese person can't answer for what some other Chinese person do. Some Chinese person called you a gweilo or denied you a job, or some fat cat Chinese guy got drunk and acted like a fool, etc etc. So now you're leaving comments saying, for example, that humiliation is one of the driving forces of the Chinese cultural ego. This is why I say I think you're biased. You've attributed all these things that you've mentioned to Chinese people in general. What do the above-mentioned incidents have to do with all the other Chinese people that have never done anything wrong against you? Did the entire global Chinese population get together just to call you a gweilo?

How do you expect other editors to assume good faith when you're deleting sentences in articles because they're what you call "sinothink", or when you dismiss certain edits as "Chinese insecurities"? I'm done with this conversation. But let me remind you one thing - Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox to vent your frustration. --- Hong Qi Gong 15:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

How can one reason with someone who bullheadedly leans all the way to the political far-right? Can't be done I reckon. Obviously he/she perceives all the Chinese, as a mass group, as a threat and he/she is here on Misplaced Pages to settle some vendettas against Chinese. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.191.20.175 (talk • contribs)

No; I'm preventing you from getting away with perpetrating your lies about supposed discrimination built-in to words that it's not built into. And I'm not right-wing, not in the slightest; what's right-wing is the attitude that every word that white people use for Chinese is inherently bigoted, as is anything they say. But I see Hong just couldn't keep his mouth shut; he must have missed me giving him an earful of TRUTH on his talk page. Hi Hong (now in my dialect of English, that IS a racist term but apparently you're comfortable with it, so who cares?). Anyway, be advised: white people are sick and fed up of having Chinese people rewrite our history and redefine our language for us. Either tell both sides of the story or be prepared to have your lies challenged, as they should be.Skookum1 08:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping me in your thoughts, but unfortunately, that IP address is not me. Whoever he or she is, it looks like he probably followed you here from your beloved Hongcouver article. --- Hong Qi Gong 09:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I am a casual browser of Misplaced Pages but not yet a full-time contributor (I'm getting turned off at this concept very quickly). I get a laugh at some of the (yawn) angry tirades by this guy as well as some of the non-related ongoing disagreements and disputes on other articles over what to call or label something.

What I wanted to say is this: If "Chinamen" or other immigrants arrive poor, they are perceived as passive and with utmost condescension. If "Chinamen" immigrants come with money and/or advanced education, they are perceived with much envy and disgust and as power-hungry. Quite the dilemma. Whites in the US (don't know about Canada) are always boasting about competition as the way to go in society, just as long they remain on top and the winner (as US society is divided between supposed "winners" and "losers"). But if they lose - or perceive to have lost - to minorities (especially by "weak" Asians), then they start complaining of unfair competition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.195.71.136 (talk • contribs)

That still doesn't qualify the MYTH that the word is "inherently" or "obviously" racist or discriminatory, and avoids the point that it was in common usage WITHOUT DERISIVE MEANING for a very, very long time; and remains so in some areas, and also in other languages (First Nations and Native American languages). And anger is really the only response to seeing so many lies and distortions posted over and over again, and the same circular, childish justifications for "waaaaha, we were oppressed" and general falsifications of Canadian history; the whole mess of the way CAnadian history has been systematically bad-mouthed by Chinese propagandists smacks to me of the same alternate-history propagandization of Tibet (see Talk:Tibet). There are too many myths and outright LIES about BC and Canadian history that ethno-specific historical whining gets away with; and this being a consensual environment, if there's another side to the story it's going to get told. Whether YOU like it or not, and no matter how much you can point to SOME white people having behaved this or that way; the point is that Chinaman, Celestial and Oriental were NOT coined as racist terms, unlike more overtly racist terms like gweilo and "chink"; that they have been decided to NOW be considered racist does not mean that they always were, which is Hong's contention; as for the shoddy historical claims on so many other Chinese-Canadian-relevant pages (and not just in Wiki), they should be something that conscientious Chinese/Chinese-CAndaian historical types should consider as having merit, not dismissing out of hand on the basis of some long-gone argument about envy and resentment. Sounds to me like you've only read the modern rehashes, and none of the original materials.....Skookum1 20:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

This my last time I post here since talking to you is getting me nowhere and nothing useful and constructive is to be learned anyway, and you'll just respond with another boring, repetitve, and longish diatribe after diatribe. Hitler was denied entry into art school so he hated the Jewish people, Timothy McVeigh didn’t make the cut for the elite US Army Rangers so he hated the US federal government for good, you couldn’t get a lousy job at a hotel so you blame the Chinese (or "Chinamen" in seemingly less offensive terms). Sounds to me like a making of a disgruntled white guy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.195.71.136 (talk • contribs)

Anonymous loser-poster: you're getting nowhere because you're refusing to consider that the much-cherished myths of Chinese history in Canada might actually be wrong; I've yet to see one of the people calling me an angry white men, in various words, actually address the inconsistences and distortions that are stated matter-of-fact, uncited, on so many Misplaced Pages pages and on many webpages; despite the existence of obvious contradictions and obvious exaggerations; like the "one dead per foot of Fraser Canyon"; or always avoiding the fact that the Chinese did well during the gold rush - better than most whites in many areas - or that the early Governors protected their rights. But of course you're just interested debunking the bearer of this uncomfortable truths, and calling me a disgruntled white man is just an easy out. The rebels of the Boxer Rebellion were disgruntled, too; and the news for you to consider about me is that I'm a relatively liberal, tolerant Canadian compared to many people out there who are genuinely hostile and don't know the history like I do; but what I know about the history is this: the politically-correct rehash of BC in the last twenty years is a near-complete fabrication as it omits so much of the full context and makes HUGE GENERALIZATIONS about whites/white politicians/white culture. But it's OK to slag white culture, isn't it? And if they speak up to defend themselves, just call them disgruntled or racists. Right, so the Head Tax Redressees weren't disgruntled, and the root causes were the same; endemic discrimination, such as you now find in modern Vancouver, whether YOU are capable of dealing with injustice and false history perpetrated by a self-serving Chinese-Canadian political agenda, or you're not. Protecting lies is by denouncing the person telling the truth is a too-familiar tactic. And the fake history about BC, as said above, is starting to smack more and more of the fake history perpetrated about Tibet all the time.Skookum1 18:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest that if Hong Qi Gong wishes to assert that the use of the term was considered offensive in the 19th century, he or she should produce a reference to back up the claim. Note that Misplaced Pages isn't in the business of deciding whether it actually is or actually was or should have been offensive; we're only in the business of documenting things. In this case, that means we document whether it was or was not considered offensive at the time. Several sources produced here indicate that it was used as a generic term without derogatory connotations at the time, but if alternate sources claim otherwise they would be useful to know about. --Delirium 06:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Right back at you. I'd suggest you provide references that say it wasn't offensive, instead of using your own conjecture. Note that Misplaced Pages is only in the business of documenting things. General usage is just that - general usage. Let's see some sources that claim it was not offensive. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, "right back at you" from Delirium's last sentence:

Several sources produced here indicate that it was used as a generic term without derogatory connotations at the time.

Can you not read? Or do you only choose to read what you want, and decide the rest for yourself?Skookum1 20:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Literal translation of China-Man?

HongQiGong - regarding your edit of today: Good point, but 'china-man' can also be derived from either Hua ren or Tang ren. I would include this information along with reverting to the prior entry. Twalls 21:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there any supporting evidence to say that "Chinaman" derived from 華人 or 唐人? If none can be found, we should not invent this information for the article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

A disambig with a POV template?

I've now used my two-out-of-three reversions to oppose Hong Qi Gong's POV edits of what had stood on this page for a very long time, to whit that it would be POV to say otherwise than that there are some who regard it as offensive and derogatory; there are others including North Americans of Chinese descent, who do not share this position, and still others who use the term quite innocently because it's part of their dialect (and/or local indigenous language...as is often the case, in fact). The pretense that it is ALWAYS derogatory, and is inherently archaic, is decidedly subjective and obviously POV as an p.c.-ideology position. A wikipedian in far-away hong kong may not like it, but the reality is that not all people on this planet share his perspectives and particular subjectivity. Neutrality of POV requires neutrality of language; making a blanket condemnation in the way that HGQ's generalizing edit is doing is clearly not a neutral action, nor is it neutral language that results. But it's important enough that, failing any common sense about respecting other people's views and experiences, that this disambiguation might need a POV template; I'm surprised, given the p.c.-ism, that the "non-discriminatory" use of "chinaman" as a majordomo/batman by politivians is not considered derogatory, too, and has not yet been deleted or altered to HGQ's condemnatory POV as well.Skookum1 05:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Sources please. Otherwise it would be WP:Original research and use of WP:Weasel words. And as always, please don't use WP as a soapbox. Please read WP:NOT#SOAP. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

And since you've chosen to invoke one of your pet phrases - "weasel words", which is inherently derisive by the way, and also meant at a personal attack (as I know all too well from previous experience with you) - I decided to quote from that page:

Weasel words are words or phrases that seemingly support statements without attributing opinions to verifiable sources, lending them the force of authority without letting the reader decide whether the source of the opinion is reliable.

Which is exactly what you've done by claiming that the absence of the qualifying phrase somehow obscures the verifiable resources (which as examined do not themselves say "always", and spend some time in qualifying contexts...). You're invoking "weasel words" as if you were some kind of moral/cultural judge, and the irony (as so often with you) is that you're guilty of what you're denouncing the other viewpoint/person for. Misplaced Pages is about integration, not deletion; and especially not about censorship. Maybe you should learn that, finally.....Skookum1 18:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Sources for your generalization that it's ALWAYS derisive/archaic are what's required; you're asking for negative evidence, rather than offering assertive evidence of your own POV claims. Please be wary of masking soapboxed content as if it were authoritative/neutral, which your edits typically are not.Skookum1 08:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Even the sources cited by this disambiguation do not support the claim that "chinaman" is always offensive. The fact is any racial description can be offensive. "Jew" has been offensive to some for 10,000 years, but Jews don't fear or walk away from their name/appellation. Jews refuse to accept "jew" as a slur despite the fact that a wrong-headed minority that opposes the best interests of jews and all mankind believes "jew" to be a slur. Similarly there are those who think that chinaman is not a slur and to admit that it is a slur is to somehow admit that chinamen are not on par with frenchmen or englishmen.

The reason you won't find this long drawn out explanation in most references, is because chinaman is and always has been acceptable English. It's only a silly notion of political correctness which has somehow tainted this word. For an enlighting history of how words are banned read the respected author and Clinton-appointee Dept. of Education Diane Ravitch. Inform yourself about how easily words and thoughts are banned and take a quick look at the growing list of Oriental related so-called "banned" words and images before you facilitate the banishment of thoughts and words. 70.108.101.57 10:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The three sources provided says that it is "offensive", "usually offensive", and "often offensive". None of them say that they are considered offensive by "some". The article also does not say that it is "always" offensive - just that it is offensive. And the fact that it is an "acceptable" term is not incompatible with that it is offensive. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Three sources are not ALL sources, and that you like those sources is fine; you know perfectly well from previous discussions here and eslwhere, and through ongoing controversy about this term (and others like it like The Orient) that there is NOT a consensus, except among sources that agree with each other. Pretending that this is not the case is dishonest and misrepresentational; selective approval of cites which agree with your prejudices does not make them valid. And you DO have prejudices, among them resisting the idea that YOUR definition of a word is the ONLY definition of a word. I've seen other "snips" you've made on this page, including the removal of the American comic who toured as "Chinaman" (Dave Chinaman as I recall, though I never did see his act). Rather than look for a source, you just deleted him. Rather than acknowledge that an American-Chinese could proudly, ir sarcastically, use Chinaman as a stagename, you had to actually delete him from the page because his existence offends your sense of dignity. Even in English, this is NOT consistently a derisive word, nor would the many rural/smalltown people I know who use it consider it "archaic", and in transmitted form in a good dozen native languages, where it's the ONLY word for a Chinese person, it has no derisive context at all. Fine, way on the other side of the Pacific, you've decided you have a right to pass judgement on North Americans and no North American English; you were grossly wrong (and continue) to be on various issues of Canadian history, and on this count you're playing "morality policeman", "language cop" etc., and that it is only SOME people who regard this term as derisive, and only SOME who clasify it as archaic. Pretending otherwise is making an overly sweeping and false generalzation, inheretnly unencylclopedia by dint of being implicitly subjective (being a judgement and all), and because you know better, i.e that there are people who disagee, it is completely disingenuous and dishonest to pretend that the sources you like, all of which share your prejudices and perspective, are valid. They are not, not without other sources which dispute their absolutist judgement on what was originally "just a word". The choice here is between a full article on the history of the word Chinaman and whether or not it's derisive/archaic, or simply having NPOV language on this disambig page to avoid having to discuss it; pretending that there is no discussion, or that an absolute judgement can be made, is pretentious and arrogant and bigoted; either deal with NPOV language here, or be prepared to address the long and thorny history of this word and the politics surrounding it; IMO what you've done here is assert original research, i.e. pass the strict judgment as if there were no other; maintaining that it is ALWAYS derisive and ALWAYS archaic is in fact "original research", or can be shown to be so since the only sources which corroborate what you claim are dismissive (like you) towards others who do not share their values, i.e. their subjectivity. Skookum1 18:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, find some sources to support that only "some" think it's offensive. It shouldn't be difficult if everything you're saying is true. Also, again, WP should not be used as a soapbox. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem as soon as you find "some" sources who specifically state that "white" is not offensive when used to describe caucasians. Guess what? You won't find those sources because they don't exist. The fact that less than "all" of your own references describe the term as "offensive" is evidence that the term is not considered offensive by some and perhaps most. 68.100.207.219 20:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Would someone just find some non 'dictionary.com'-type sources for anything that's being asserted here (ie: sources with context)? It is getting quite nauseating around here, and seems likely to only get worse. All I can say is you wouldn't hear the term in the modern North American press (barring the Economist issue a while back. Personally I don't (and quite probably can't) consider it offensive, being Caucasian. Does that mean that only "some" do, speaking globally-- I'd say so. But of Chinese people, how many do and don't? I couldn't say with accuracy, and there are doubtless people here more qualified to. My experience has been that it is an uncommonly used term now, but I have heard it in use. Mostly from Caucasian people over 45 or so, but NOT exclusively, and not always with an offensive connotation. And I fully acknowledge that statement is original research. Perhaps "most Chinese people" consider it offensive would be a prudent wording. The term, in most instances seems obvious to be interpreted as racist, and a mere google search will verify that. I do wish people would stop throwing WP:this and WP:that around and just start doing some homework though. Either way, that's all I plan on leaving on this particular subject, regardless of the tone of any responses.--Keefer4 22:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't actually think your observation is "original research", except in the sense that discussions of differing views on certain subjects are rare in journalism and especially academia, which enjoy citability though often ignoring large bodies of opinion/observation, or just condemning them/dismissing them as is so often the case. But in this case, the existence of the controversy itself indicates that there is material, i.e. the material of the controversy, which follows this word around the internet and the media when it surfaces, that indicates that the claims in some sources that it is exclusively discriminatory and pejorative are false citations which fly in the face of the facts which they are busy admitting at the same time as condemning. And you're right that most white users of the term, are yes, mostly over 45 (except, I'd venture, in rural/native BC where it's quite common in some towns, especially among families who are part-Chinese in fact...part-Chinese, part-Japanese, part-native, part-Norwegian in one case of an elderly lady I had the pleasure of working with on a project; the lady in mind also refers to herself as "Norhoogian", which is an "archaic and derisive" but also self-humorous terms affected by/upon Norwegian-Canadians; my Dad used it, too....citations for Ktunaxa, Carrier, Nez Perce, Shoshone, Okanagan and other languages which have derivitives of chinaman can also be assembled, but I haven't bothered because those aren't English lexicons; but again, not something that academia chooses to study. You're also right that "Chinaman" is not used when derision is the intent (as with "Jew", "Chinese" works all by itself in most contexts when applied with a certain tone of voice, as is also the case with "Hey, Frenchman!" and "Hey, Englishman!", which are obviously aggressive in tone, or easily can be....and of course there's certain harsher terms than "Chinaman" available in modern English slang, also...). It's the sweeping condemnation of the term that's implicit in HQG's edit that's so shockingly POV, while pretending to, as you say, principles of WP:This or WP:That, which actually don't apply. What applies is that HQG is among the "some" who find it offensive, who are determined that all others should see their POV, and that anything less is "not cited" or "original research". It's not original research; it's obvious fact. People who play with definitions, or apply them strictly, are generally people whose positions are inherently weak and need to be backed up/promoted by application of technicalities; negative citations are among those tactics, which I view like negative billing, the application of a fee by a service co. that you have to ask/apply to not be subject to, as happened here with the cablecos a few years ago...taking advantage of passivity, and presenting a POV with limited and only supportive citations as if it were the only POV: that's not NPOV, clearly.....Skookum1 23:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

All I ask is sources to say that only "some" believe the word to be offensive. It's not an unreasonable request. Instead of spending the time to write long and drawn out replies here, maybe one of you should look for such a source. If no sources are found, then it's an unfounded claim. Again, please read WP:Original research and WP:Weasel words. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Cites one and three of the second bunch say "sometimes offensive" and "often offensive". "Sometimes" and "often" are not words that are synonymous with "always"; Similarly "Chinaman's Chance" is not blanket-offensive, but "sometimes", and a read of that page's talkpage will demonstrate that it's origins are clear-and-cut-out like ethnobiased history likes to pretend it to be. And If "Chinaman's Chance" is offensive, why isn't a "chinaman" in cricket; the origin is the same, it's the same word; how can one usage be offensive when the other is not. Clearly there's no supporting evidence for it being always offensive. And as for citations of modern non-offensive usage, hmm, that's nice, because when reporters visit places where the word is in use, they "edit" peoples' speech when they put it into print - substituting "Chinese" or "Chinese person" when someone might have said "chinaman", in the same way that (because of gender-neutral styleguides now in force in the CBC) they'd say "fisher" instead of "fishermen". Similarly, book editors will change things to suit modern political sensitivities (i.e. of those who bitch, who are not the majority anywhere). I can dig up historical usages that are clearly non-defamatory, non-degrading, but they're interestingly quite often accompanied by sophomoric notes from p.c.=academics tryhing to rationalize the use, i.e. if it's not clearly defamatory then what is it? What it is is the truth, which doesn't fit to the reality that ethno-historical biases have tried to rejigger it into. Back to the point - the three cites (all dictionaries) - do NOT state that it is always offensive; the words "sometimes" and "usually" are clearly stated there. Why are you pretending that they are not? Oh, never mind, I already know the answer....Skookum1 17:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

From what I'm reading, the first source says "usually" offensive, not "sometimes". Neither of which says that only "some" consider it offensive. Also, the second source does not qualify who or how often it is considered offensive, just that it is. And none of the sources qualify it to say that only Asian or Chinese people consider it offensive. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

See WP:Weasel words, which you should apply to yourself before condemning others for same. Try picking up your little dictionary and look up "equivocation", which is what your post just above really is.Skookum1 19:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Quite simply, people who are not offended don't post articles or write references to defend standard English usage. By your standard, EVERY noun could be considered offensive because of the criteria that you have established. Namely, dictionaries and references don't explicit say which words are NOT considered offensive. The standard definition of Dutchman, Englishman and Frenchman does NOT implicitly say that these are not offensive terms. Furthermore, no one ever writes a news article about some using a noun in which no one was offended. But you better believe if a fringe minority of kookie Dutchmen slammed Ted Turner for accusing the Dutch of being smart, good businessmen and making good cigars, then you'd better believe there would an article about this cock-and-bull.

Just to explain "Dutchman" in frontier-Northwest and old Californian/Wild West usage meant "German" or most other non-French, non-English pioneers; could be Slovak or Ukrainian as well as Dutch or Danish (there were few Dutch in the old days; Scandinavians were usually distinguished by specifics, i.e. "a Dane", "a Swede"....btw "Swede" can also be derisive, as can also be "Dutchman"). "Dutchman" from "Deutsch" y'see....Skookum1

Thus, your references are nothing more than original research to push your narrow POV. Looking back at the history of this article it appears that you've worn out the patience of a good many other editors. Since your war of attrition has work so far, I assume you will continue with your tactics, rather than submit to the consensus view. This type of "editor" is what is quickly disillusioning me with Misplaced Pages. ElderStatesman 18:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm going by the "standard" of the references we have, and those references do not state that every noun is offensive. And also please read WP:Consensus. Consensus in editing WP articles means unanimous support. There is no consensus here in this article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Pretentious moralizing in edit comments

Hong, don't pretend like you won, or keep on tossing out that "weasel words" accusation you're so fond of (like a kindergartner who's found a new word and uses it over and over - like "soapboxing" was or a while for you as well, and again ironically or pathetically it's one of your own worst habits). You've been forced to concede "usually" and "often" (which yes, aren't synonyms for "sometimes" but are IMO less accurate) and you've also been forced to live with Keefer4's observations that when it's offensive it's offensive to Chinese/Asian people (although some non-Asians do take offence, as in the tut-tut church-lady politically-correct brigade), and you haven't reinserted the POV comment about Chinaman's Chance you made a point of a while back. Claiming that citations are needed for "sometimes" is like asking for a citation on last week's weather forecast. Point is, your POV change here, and the weasel words that accompanied it, have been shot down in flames. But I imagine a few months down the line, you're going to try and do the same thing agan, when you think no one's looking, as you did this time. And while you're digging around for citations, you might want to look for that American comedian whose mention here you deleted. Who knows maybe he'll play a club in HK and you can ask him for a citation. IMO your use of "weasel words" is tantamount to calling the person you're dealing with a weasel. And THAT is a personal attack, and YOU do it all the time (while complaining about other people attacking you).Skookum1 16:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Hong:Plus, please don't use weasel words without reference.

Plus, please don't delete content without reference, as you did when this whole discussion got launched; and then deleted it again, AGAIN without reference, and then did something as if the sources that were there supported it which they didn't, and then accuse the other people of weasel words for pointing this out, and then weaseling around your own failure to represent the sources by again accusing the other side of weasel word and demanding something be cited but which can't be even though it's obvious fact, even within the context of things already written on the page ("chinaman" when used in cricket is not, apparently, offensive, nor in Indiana politics; that validates the phrase "sometimes"). Also your claim to be a native speaker of English is no doubt something you're very proud of; but you make basic Chinese-guy mistakes all the time, including dropping the plural in the above phrase; yes it makes sense with "reference" in the singular but it's not idiomatic English. "Please don't use weasel words without reference" - you're a laugh a minute Hong; here's one for you to try on for yourself "Please don't use weasel words". You might try repeating that a few times before every single post in Misplaced Pages you make.Skookum1 16:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

HQG deleting citations

What's with that Hong? Elder Statesman's contribution of the Ravick book has been deleted each time it's placed here, most lately deleted by you. Weasel words, weasel edits - what's next?Skookum1 16:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about Diane Ravitch as a reference. That was an accident and I've re-inserted it. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)\

I don't believe you, as I just looked back over that edit and others like it, where Ravich was taken out before; there were clear syntactical changes in the surrounding sentence showing you were paying attention to what you were doing. I think you only put it back in and claimed "accident" because you got caught: I'm not prepared - not with YOU, at any rate, to "Accept Good Faith", because I don't think you have any yourself (being as you never show any to anyone else). To sum up, Hong: this latest round of nonsense from you prompts me to render a personal judgement on you: you're dishonest and also a hypocrite about what you think others should abide by when you feel no compunction to observe the very same themselves. Being unable to be self-critical is one thing, but I don't think it's just vanity on your part; I think you're inherently dishonest. That's not an attack, it's an observation, backed up by your various dodges and inconsitences here and elsewhere. Open thing that leads me to adjudge you that is that because, in my culture, it is widely recognized that those that feel the need to lecture and hector others are generally those who should be listening to their own sermons. But I don't think it's self-deception with you; I think you're deliberately dishonest.Skookum1 16:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Please WP:Assume good faith. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Hiding behind WP:This and WP:That is SO typical of you, Hong. Why don't you try WP:Assume good faith on yourself sometime, as you should have done on this page, instead of deleting content and then defending your deletions with cites that don't even support what you say; even though clear demonstrations of "sometimes" are the other entries on the disambig page (still haven't checked that spectacles thing, yet, though, have you?). WP Good Faith? Geez, you're a terrible hypocrite, HQG, you know that? Assume Good Faith? When you have you ever done that yourself?Skookum1 17:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Who cares? It's back in there now. I think the current edit is as fair as possible. ElderStatesman 14:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

None of the sources actually say that "some people" consider it offensive. I've editted it to make it more specific. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Cherrypicking dictionaries

As I've said elsewhere, a reliance on dictionaries and definitions is the last redoubt of the morally weak, but since the game of dictionary-cites is being played, it seems that (as before) not the whole truth is being brought forth; one problem with dictionaries is that they're all written "off each other", such that what one says the other one will tend to parrot (much like academics and journalists, as well as grade nine students). That all dictionaries cited are modern ones where they have had the p.c.-ite brush go over them to make sure all sensitivities are in place, to me, invalidates them as useful cites for how people do speak, not how they should. That these dictionaries cited by HQG baldly state either "offensive" or even the qualified "usually offensive" (implicitly meaning that it is sometimes not, but that logic apparently doesn't satisfy HQG) without accounting for the word's origins or how it became derisive (China+man is a standard Germanic neutral-person formation, as well as being standard pidgin formation) makes them highly suspect and not representative of anything but current usage/acceptability. I tried to get into OED but I don't have a subscription so couldn't look there (and I'd expect its entry to contain a lot of etymological info as well as examples of varying usages) so I tried to google up some alternates - more than HQG's "at least four" (his preference for American dictionaries is telling...):

Most useful as been from http://www.onelook.com/?loc=pub&w=chinaman which lists various dictionary entries, including the "at least four"; interestingly there were some dictionaries (Cambridge) which didn't have the word at all.

• Enc4 Encarta - "an offensive term for a man of Chinese origin (dated)" (no other definitions, e.g. cricket)
• Concise OED - "noun, chiefly archaic or derogatory, a native of China." (no other definitions)
• Rhymezone.com -" noun: a ball bowled by a left-handed bowler to a right-handed batsman that spins from off to leg; noun: offensive terms for a person of Chinese descent
• Allwords.com 1. derog, old use, A Chinese man. 2. cricket - A ball bowled by a left-handed bowler to a right-handed batsman, which spins from the off to the leg side.

And so on; that some of these have only the "offensive" meaning and none of the other "non-offensive ones" indicates the degree to which they are incomplete and hence non-authoritative

Most interesting among these were the two vintage dictionaries, though:

• Webster's Dictionary, 1913 - "Chi"na*man (?), n.; pl. Chinamen (). A native of China; a Chinese."
• Bibliomania.com copy of Brewers' Reader's Guide - "Chinaman (John), a man of China."

Neither of these historical English sources make any mention of "offensive"; if the term had been offensive in 1913, Webster surely would have said so, huh? As for the other source, it's more a lexicon than dictionary; it's interesting that it used the full-derisive form, though ("John Chinaman" - again without any suggestion of its putative offensiveness at the time) The most full set of defintions of the lot is at;

• Infoplease.com:

1. Usually Offensive.a Chinese or a person of Chinese descent.

2. (l.c.) a person who imports or sells china.

3. (often l.c.) Political Slang. a person regarded as one's benefactor, sponsor, or protector: to see one's chinaman about a favor.

4. a Chinaman's chance, Usually Offensive.the slightest chance: He hasn't a Chinaman's chance of getting that job.

Note:infoplease.com is I think a derivative of Misplaced Pages, so doesn't count, but definition #2 is interesting here as another archaic usage; it was, in fact, the namesake of a particular lake in the Peace River Country of BC that had been Chinaman's Lake and is now China Lake; story is the settler on that lake had actually been a Mr. Chinaman from England, and that had been the family profession...that may even be citable but the debate where this surfaced in local papers was back in the early '90s

So we now also have the "derogatory" and "archaic" usages, and also dictionary evidence with doesn't say "not offensive" but also doesn't say "offensive". Other than that, HQG's suggestion/citation request that examples of non-derisive use by citable is a red herring, as there are no modern-era publishers or academics who could or ever do work on such a topic; in fact, it would be interesting to find out if there was an academic paper on this word's origins and how it became perceived/branded as being offensive. That there are undocumented uses that "official" sources like dictionaries and academics choose to ignore does not mean they aren't there; it's a general problem with citability issues on many topics - wrong, incomplete, or fallacious research/findings are still citable and also repeatable by other sources; dictionary listings are viral and definitions "spread unquestioningly", while whole other definitions and contexts are ignored. But, as before, dictionaries are not rulebooks, nor even signposts; they're meant to be a measure of a language, not a prescription as they're often invoked as by people with inferior lexical/logical skills.Skookum1 20:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

1. http://www.freewebs.com/bannedwords/