# The term "Brit"



## clipper

Seeing the title of another thread has brought me to ask other peoples' opinion on the use of the abbreviation "Brit" meaning British.

I personally don´t like it as it reminds me of the term "Brits abroad" used to describe unruly, drunken holiday makers and as such gives a derogatory feel to its use.

May I dare to compare this unsavoury abbreviation to that used to refer to natives of Pakistan, which now is commonly accepted as being offensive ? Or am I being over sensitive ?

By the way, by posting this I am not saying that the poster of the aforementioned thread used the term in a controversial way.


----------



## lampiao

Well, I do not know that... However, we have a tv show here called Britcom, so I didn't think there was a problem with that


----------



## *chica-espanglesa*

it depends i think.....british people may call _themselves _Brits, showing that they they don't see it as derogative...whereas Pakistanis wouldn't use the abbreviated version....also the same with people of black origin...the terms used in a derogatory fashion are not accepted but amongst themselves, they use it as a word of perhaps 'brothers'. so i guess it's _who_ says it to you and _how _it is said.


----------



## GenJen54

I'm curious if the person who used "Brit" was someone from the British Isles, or someone from another country. That type of context could have a lot to do with its connotation and what the word means to different people.

Over here in the states, we speak often of "Brit-Flicks," "Brit-Lit," "Brit-coms," etc. There's no derogatory meaning attached. It's a simple abbreviation for "British," and in the examples noted above, adds a bit of linguistic punch to what would otherwise be fairly common terms: British Movies, British Literature, British Sit-Coms, etc.

It's like British people using "Yanks." We rarely use it among ourselves. One could derive some derogatory meaning to it. One could not. It is totally dependent upon the user and his/her intended meaning.

I think this is a common thing. For example, natives of San Francisco shudder whenever they hear their fine city referred to as "Frisco." That doesn't mean it isn't in favor with other, non-natives as a neutral "nick name" for that fair city. Likewise, people who are not native to, or live outside of my city commonly refer to it as "Oak City." You would never hear a native say that.


----------



## WillyLandron

In Northern Ireland it can mean Protestant. Many of the Protestants there are descendants of people who came over from Scotland and many are _for _the Union with Britain. 

In that particular setting, it can been quite pejorative. But so can any adjective that describes ethnicity, race, religion, or nationality. In the United States, in most cases, Brit is just short for British.


----------



## clipper

It's like British people using "Yanks." We rarely use it among ourselves. One could derive some derogatory meaning to it. One could not. It is totally dependent upon the user and his/her intended meaning.

I find this comparison interesting as it sounds as though you personally are not offended by the use of the term Yank. I would never use that term to refer to a North American as I understand that some people could be offended by it.


----------



## GenJen54

Hey, it's what I am to some people.  I can't deny that.  Some Southerners refer to Northerners as "Yanks."  Some non-US citizens refer to all US citizens as Yanks.  It depends upon their intent whether the word is considered racist/slanderous/whatever.

I personally am not offended by being called a Yank, if to some people, that is what they call people from my country.  It carries no specific derogatory tone to me, so it's not a big deal.


----------



## WillyLandron

clipper said:
			
		

> It's like British people using "Yanks." We rarely use it among ourselves. One could derive some derogatory meaning to it. One could not. It is totally dependent upon the user and his/her intended meaning.
> 
> I find this comparison interesting as it sounds as though you personally are not offended by the use of the term Yank. I would never use that term to refer to a North American as I understand that some people could be offended by it.



Well, it's not offensive to many Americans. Neither is the term *gringo *which seems to get some Americans hot under the collar. Alot depends on the tone.

*Yank*, is a problem for some Southerners because *Yankee *to them means somebody from the North. And to a New Yorker, and we have a team with that name!, it's just plain wrong. *Yankees *live in New England.


----------



## la reine victoria

As a British person I have no objection to being called a Brit, a Limey, a Pom or any other foreign appellation.

'A rose, by any other name. would smell as sweet.'  


LRV


----------



## Outsider

I'm very glad to hear that.


----------



## fenixpollo

I agree with Jen that being called a Yank is not in any way offensive, nor is it to anyone I know. 





			
				GenJen54 said:
			
		

> Some Southerners refer to Northerners as "Yanks."


 I disagree, only in that Southerners refer to Northerners as Yankees. This one can be offensive, or might have been in bygone days, especially if used pejoratively. 

If someone calls me a "[expletive deleted] Yank" or a "[same expletive] Yankee", I might be offended. Otherwise, they are terms that are neutral: I don't use them and they don't have cultural context for me.

I'm very happy that I learned that some British people are offended by the term Brit. I use this word liberally, because it sounds familiar, like a nickname or a pet name that one might call a friend. It is shorter than _a British person_ or _an Englishperson_ and also more accurate than the latter; and less offensive (or so I thought) than _Limey_. Now I have a better understanding of the cultural context of _Brit_.  Thanks for enlightening me.

That said, I have never heard of the term used pejoratively nor have I heard anyone call someone from the British Isles a _[expletive deleted] Brit_.  For me, it's not an insult but a title.


----------



## WillyLandron

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> That said, I have never heard of the term used pejoratively nor have I heard anyone call someone from the British Isles a _[expletive deleted] Brit_.  For me, it's not an insult but a title.



Rent _AN EVERLASTING PIECE_.


----------



## timpeac

I don't mind the term as such. However, personally being "British" means nothing to me. I would describe myself as English. However, I know that lots of people wouldn't make that distinction so I wouldn't take offence.

Quite what being "British" is is a mystery to me.

I suppose I particularly don't mind it in the linguistic sense because although culturally there may be huge differences the English, Irish, Welsh and Scottish varieties of English certainly have much more in common with each other than with American varieties (which for all their own differences are more similar to each other than with us).


----------



## rat boy

I definately wouldn't be offended by the term "Brit" in whatever tone it is used. And it couldn't offend me more if it was said after a derogatory term e.g. "stupid brit" wouldn't bother me any more than just "stupid" alone.


----------



## Outsider

timpeac said:
			
		

> I don't mind the term as such. However, personally being "British" means nothing to me. I would describe myself as English. However, I know that lots of people wouldn't make that distinction so I wouldn't take offence.
> 
> Quite what being "British" is is a mystery to me.


Perhaps the difference between British and English is more meaningful for those Brits who are not English.


----------



## timpeac

Outsider said:
			
		

> Perhaps the difference between British and English is more meaningful for Brits who are not English.


 
Yes, could be. But please note that I'm not claiming that "British" is a redundant term (as if I considered it covered by "English") simply that I don't subscribe to some supposed socio-political idea that I am more similar to the Scottish than to the French, say.

I imagine - but it's difficult to generalise such specific concepts - that it is similar to assuming the Portuguese and Spanish must think the same way because they are both Iberian.


----------



## Outsider

I see an almost perfect analogy between "Brit" and "Spaniard". Catalans, Basques, and Galicians are all Spaniards; they have the same king, and live in the same state, subject to the same laws and a common economy. But they are not Castilian.
Iberian, to me, is more a geographical term, at least nowadays. The British equivalent might be "from the British Isles", which would include Irishmen as well.


----------



## WillyLandron

timpeac said:
			
		

> I imagine - but it's difficult to generalise such specific concepts - that it is similar to assuming the Portuguese and Spanish must think the same way because they are both Iberian.


In the olympics, Portugal and Spain compete against each other. I think you have a *GB *olmypic team, right? The sun never sat on the *British *Empire. There was never an Iberian Empire. Iberian Airlines is a close as they get.


----------



## timpeac

Outsider said:
			
		

> I see an almost perfect analogy between "Brit" and "Spaniard". Catalans, Basques, and Galicians are all Spaniards; they have the same king, and live in the same state, subject to the same laws and a common economy. But they are not Castilian.


 
Yes - quite close, but of course Scotland and England, for example, are literally different countries, whereas Galicia and Murcia, say, are part of the same country.

I think a similar situation is the USA where the "states" are like the "countries" respectively making up the USA and the UK.


----------



## Outsider

WillyLandron said:
			
		

> In the olympics, Portugal and Spain compete against each other. I think you have a *GB *olmypic team, right?


But, in football, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have their own leagues. 



			
				WillyLandron said:
			
		

> The sun never sat on the *British *Empire.


That saying was actually first applied to the kingdom of Charles V, a Spanish/German monarch. 



			
				WillyLandron said:
			
		

> There was never an Iberian Empire. Iberian Airlines is a close as they get.


There was a united kingdom at one time, although it didn't last long.


----------



## Outsider

timpeac said:
			
		

> Yes - quite close, but of course Scotland and England, for example, are literally different countries, whereas Galicia and Murcia, say, are part of the same country.


What would be the difference between the two situations, in your opinion?


----------



## fenixpollo

timpeac said:
			
		

> Yes - quite close, but of course Scotland and England, for example, are literally different countries, whereas Galicia and Murcia, say, are part of the same country.
> 
> I think a similar situation is the USA where the "states" are like the "countries" respectively making up the USA and the UK.


 It depends on the peoples' self-concept.  Perhaps Galicians and Murcians conceive of themselves, like many Welsh or Irish or Scottish people, as being members of a separate nationality.  People in the different states of the U.S. don't usually conceive of themselves as being citizens of their state; they are citizens of the U.S. and are Americans; they are residents of their state.  (a gross generalization, I know, and not at all true for many Texans, especially , but my point is that American identity is not as regional as British or Spanish)


----------



## timpeac

Outsider said:
			
		

> What would be the difference between the two situations, in your opinion?


 
Well, as I say - that Scotland and England are countries, whereas Galicia and Murcia are regions.

I suppose that all these "terms" have to be interpreted in the context they're in.


----------



## timpeac

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> It depends on the peoples' self-concept. Perhaps Galicians and Murcians conceive of themselves, like many Welsh or Irish or Scottish people, as being members of a separate nationality.


 
I think this is the main point. I view myself as having a separate nationality from a Scottish person (for example).


----------



## Outsider

timpeac said:
			
		

> Well, as I say - that Scotland and England are countries, whereas Galicia and Murcia are regions.
> 
> I suppose that all these "terms" have to be interpreted in the context they're in.


What about the Basque... Country?


----------



## Laia

timpeac said:
			
		

> Well, as I say - that Scotland and England are countries, whereas Galicia and Murcia are regions.


 
 You haven't chosen Catalonia and Euskadi for your example...
Here is the difference.


----------



## timpeac

Outsider said:
			
		

> What about the Basque... Country?


What about it?


----------



## Laia

timpeac said:
			
		

> What about it?


 
You gave yourself the answer some posts above:



> I suppose that all these "terms" have to be interpreted in the context they're in


----------



## timpeac

Look guys - I'm not getting drawn into Iberian nationalism.

I do not feel that I have anything more in common with a Scottish person than with a French person or with an Italian. Since the term "British" serves to represent this joining I do not subscribe to it. That's all. I am neither interested in nor qualified to talk about specific Iberian regional-country-people-state-whatever differences


----------



## GenJen54

*A bit of MOD Intervention:  Please keep to the topic of discussion - use of the word "Brit."  Is it derogatory?  If not, in what context is it used / and is it appropriate?  *

We already have plenty of threads regarding the national identity(ies) of the citizens of Spain.  Please refer to those threads to further that discussion.


----------



## eironi

I am English, but I don't mind being called British (or a "Brit") as long as whoever calls me it knows the difference between "British" and "English".
Where I live, most people have Irish (and often Welsh and Scottish) relatives (and I think this is very common in a lot of places in England) so I have no problem with being British and English.
On the other hand, I think some people in parts of South/South Easten England who live further away from the other countries in the UK may not see any real connection between England and the Celtic countries.
In my opinion, someone from Glasgow and someone from London would have much more in common than someone from Burgos and someone from Sevilla, for example, but there you go...
Just as an additional note (hoping not to be off-topic ): according to a study carried out for the BBC's "Blood of the Vikings" programme, people in the South of England are more genetically similar to those in the South of Scotland than those in the North and East of England...) link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/programmes/bloodofthevikings/
To sum up: I am fine with being called a "Brit".


----------



## cuchuflete

clipper said:
			
		

> It's like British people using "Yanks." We rarely use it among ourselves. One could derive some derogatory meaning to it. One could not. It is totally dependent upon the user and his/her intended meaning.
> 
> I find this comparison interesting as it sounds as though you personally are not offended by the use of the term Yank. I would never use that term to refer to a North American as I understand that some people could be offended by it.



Rest easy Clipper,
You may call a Yank a Yank without any risk of offense, unless of course your voice is dripping with venom, or you apply a few choice adjectives to go along with it.

I have only your distaste for the term Brit, Timpeac's indifference, and a very few other reference points to go on, but I've never heard a Yank use the term Brit as anything other than an abbreviation for British.  Most Yanks are blissfully ignorant of the subleties of English vs. British, England/Britain/UK etc.  

The point is, inevitable exceptions excepted, the term is not used with any insult intended.  Of course that doesn't prevent an insult from being perceived.


----------



## GenJen54

In a way, one could blame the BBC itself for promulgating the term among us Yanks.  Even the BBCAmerica website promotes the "Best of the Brits," the BRIT Awards, and its Brit Quiz.

I've also heard promotions refer specifically to "Brit-Coms" and the "Brit-Flick Film Fest."


----------



## timpeac

GenJen54 said:
			
		

> In a way, one could blame the BBC itself for promulgating the term among us Yanks. Even the BBCAmerica website promotes the "Best of the Brits," the BRIT Awards, and its Brit Quiz.
> 
> I've also heard promotions refer specifically to "Brit-Coms" and the "Brit-Flick Film Fest."


 
Why would it be something to be blamed for? Personally I just view it as a colloquial variant of the term "British". Whether one appreciates the term "British" or even knows what it means, or means to certain people, I don't view it as adding any further nuance than colloquialism.


----------



## clipper

So what we've decided is that "Brit" on its own does not have any detrimental sentiments about it. OK, so perhaps I am a little over sensitive about it (I maintain the right to think that it sounds terrible though !).

But at what point does an innocent abbreviation, such the example used regarding Pakistani nationals in my original post, become automatically associated with derogatory undertones and hence become regarded as unacceptable ?


----------



## timpeac

clipper said:
			
		

> So what we've decided is that "Brit" on its own does not have any detrimental sentiments about it. OK, so perhaps I am a little over sensitive about it (I maintain the right to think that it sounds terrible though !).
> 
> But at what point does an innocent abbreviation, such the example used regarding Pakistani nationals in my original post, become automatically associated with derogatory undertones and hence become regarded as unacceptable ?


 
Ultimately when it's perceived as such, but ranging up to that time from the first time it was meant as such.


----------



## fenixpollo

Was the term in question for Pakistanis _ever_ used as a neutral label, with no pejorative implication?

Willy Landron's comment above about the word *gringo* offers an interesting parallel.  When it is used to refer to people from the U.S., some Americans choose to be offended, while many do not find it offensive at all.


----------



## la reine victoria

clipper said:
			
		

> So what we've decided is that "Brit" on its own does not have any detrimental sentiments about it. OK, so perhaps I am a little over sensitive about it (I maintain the right to think that it sounds terrible though !).
> 
> But at what point does an innocent abbreviation, such the example used regarding Pakistani nationals in my original post, become automatically associated with derogatory undertones and hence become regarded as unacceptable ?


 
In our *exceedingly politically correct *Britain of today the use of such a term would be considered as incitement to racial hatred.  It should never have been used anyway as it extremely offensive.

I shall mourn the loss of our old 'comfort food' stodgy pudding, *Spotted Dick*.  The political correctness brigade are lobbying to have its name changed to *Spotted Richard*.*  *


LRV


----------



## WillyLandron

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> Was the term in question for Pakistanis _ever_ used as a neutral label, with no pejorative implication?
> 
> Willy Landron's comment above about the word *gringo* offers an interesting parallel.  When it is used to refer to people from the U.S., some Americans choose to be offended, while many do not find it offensive at all.



I find your spelling of my name with no space between Willy and Landron highly offensive. I shall now boycott the Sonora Desert. In fact, let me be boycott all deserts! And all desserts!

See? It's only offensive, by definition, if people get offended. It's just a bunch of sounds.

P.S. No, I don't find spelling my nick as two words offensive. That was just a funny.


----------



## fenixpollo

The fact that you were offended by my misspelling of your username is offensive to me. 





			
				Willy space Landron said:
			
		

> I shall now boycott the Sonora Desert. In fact, let me be boycott all deserts! And all desserts!


 I am offended by your misspelling of the Sonoran Desert, and by your deprecation of its arid beauty by misspelling desert as _dessert_. May camels give birth in your tent, sir!

Seriously, I'm not trying to make light of the offense (or mild indignation, or whatever degree of each person's irritation) that Britons feel when the term _Brit_ is applied to them. In fact, we can't dismiss these names as "a bunch of sounds". 





> It's just a bunch of sounds.


 Every name has a social implication that can't be overlooked. We're social animals, after all. We should be aware when some people dislike a name applied to them, and we should be careful in using it.


----------



## panjandrum

WillyLandron said:
			
		

> In Northern Ireland it can mean Protestant. [...]
> In that particular setting, it can been quite pejorative. [...]


Generally speaking, "Brits" in Northern Ireland refers directly to the British Army.  This is not the case in other parts of Europe - for example Brittany - that are being invaded by Brits buying holiday homes.

As far as I can tell, there is no particular emotional distinction between Brit and British.  Brit is simply a convenient short form, not deliberately pejorative. Some may use it pejoratively, but they also use British with the same sentiment.

Brit is used because it takes less time and space spray-painting Brits Out than British Out, and it sounds so much more macho


----------



## WillyLandron

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> Seriously, I'm not trying to make light of the offense (or mild indignation, or whatever degree of each person's irritation) that Britons feel when the term _Brit_ is applied to them. In fact, we can't dismiss these names as "a bunch of sounds".  Every name has a social implication that can't be overlooked. We're social animals, after all. We should be aware when some people dislike a name applied to them, and we should be careful in using it.



I agree with you. Even though the word is just a bunch of sounds I don't think you should go around saying things that offend people just for the hell of it. 

But on the other  hand, these things can be taken to the extreme. Stoning people to death for saying Jehovah, example. "Why *her*pes? Why not* him*pes?" Says John Leguizamo in a stand-up act.

But I think you can safely use *Brit *in NYC with no problem. In fact, you can even jokingly use *limey bastard*. The thing is, Brits in NY don't feel they are being treated unfairly. They might feel a little homesick but that's about it. I think most Britons will feel kind of surprised that you even know what a *limey *is. Most Americans don't have a clue.

When names are used to add insult to injury is when they become really touchy. It's no suprise to me that the place where that term is most insulting is where there is are feelings, on both sides, that people are being treated unfairly.


----------



## WillyLandron

panjandrum said:
			
		

> Brit is used because it takes less time and space spray-painting Brits Out than British Out, and it sounds so much more macho



Yes! A short sharp shock.


----------



## WillyLandron

panjandrum said:
			
		

> Generally speaking, "Brits" in Northern Ireland refers directly to the British Army.



However, in the film "An Everlasting Piece" a Catholic man refers tells a Protestant man, who is from the same town he is from and not at all in the army that he's wrong and will always be wrong because he's a "Brit."

In fact, this word is used to describe Catholics who were less than enthusiastic about cooperating with the IRA. I don't want to get into the politics of the area because it's something I know *very *little about but the term was used for people who lived in Northern Ireland not just British soldiers stationed there.

I have heard that term used that way in other contexts. But I have heard it used in a positive ways too. I've heard people *from *Northern Ireland say: "I'm not Irish, I'm British."


----------



## panjandrum

WillyLandron said:
			
		

> In fact, this word is used to describe Catholics who were less than enthusiastic about cooperating with the IRA. I don't want to get into the politics of the area because it's something I know *very *little about but the term was used for people who lived in Northern Ireland not just British soldiers stationed there.[...]


I think you are picking up an extension of the "Brit=occupation forces" term from the military to the political and from the literal to the metaphorical - you may not be wearing the uniform but you might as well be, and if you keep on behaving like that you will be treated as if you were.

A Sinn Féin public representative:





> When we say "Brits out" we are not talking about the people who inhabit this part of the island; we are talking about the institutions of British governance on this part of the island.


 Such intellectual subtlety has often been lost on those for whom intellect has two too many syllables


----------



## WillyLandron

panjandrum said:
			
		

> A Sinn Féin public representative: Such intellectual subtlety has often been lost on those for whom intellect has two too many syllables



Intawha? Hahaha.


----------



## vlazlo

GenJen54 said:
			
		

> Hey, it's what I am to some people. I can't deny that. Some Southerners refer to Northerners as "Yanks." Some non-US citizens refer to all US citizens as Yanks. It depends upon their intent whether the word is considered racist/slanderous/whatever.
> 
> I personally am not offended by being called a Yank, if to some people, that is what they call people from my country. It carries no specific derogatory tone to me, so it's not a big deal.


 
we in the south don't refer to northerners as yanks, its damn yankees if you please  i've got lots of british friends and we have a good time "taking the piss" out of each other and have pretty thick skins. anyway, i have been called much worse things than yank.


----------



## maxiogee

I hadn't noticed this thread before now. My take on this whole thing about 'nicknames' is that the offensiveness depends on the way these words are used. 
I have often heard British people refer to themselves as "Brits", not just to those who might be covered by the "Brits abroad" usage. But as an Irishman I would need to be very careful how and where I would use the word. I can use it with British people I know, or who know my sense of humour. They than know that I would never use it disparagingly.
The reverse applies to the term "Paddy" - we Irish don't often use it about ourselves, but we do occasionally. But I would be wary of anyone I don't know well using it about me.


----------



## bernik

The real Brits are the Welsh and the people from Cornwall. Because they are still speaking the language spoken by the Bretons, before the island was invaded by Angles, Saxons, Vikings, Normans, etc.


----------



## maxiogee

You don't 'know' that bernik, we can never know what language was spoken by the 'original' Britons.


----------



## bernik

It depends who it is you call original Briton.
We can never know what language was spoken in Britain 5.000 years ago, before the Celts arrived in the island. But the name "Briton" belong to the Celts who were living there before the Roman conquest. When the Romans left Britain, I think Latin had not yet managed to replace the Celtic language. The island was later invaded by the Anglo-Saxons, who imposed their own language. I suppose there was a fusion between the local population and the invaders from Germany. Maybe the English should be called: Brito-Anglo-Saxons... But the true Brits are in Wales, Cornwall, and Brittany.


----------

