# Chinaman: as offensive as "Chink"



## Mitchell Nakano

Hi teachers,

I am aware that terms such as "chink" and "chinaman" are controversial terms but I hear them often in movies. My question is if one can use the term "Chinaman" instead of saying "the Chinese guy" without estentially sounding rude. Or is it as offensive as "chink"?


----------



## london calling

_Chink_ is offensive, but _Chinaman_ isn't, in BE at least.


----------



## Copyright

It may not be as offensive as "chink," but I wouldn't use it.


----------



## london calling

A Chinaman to me is the same as a Frenchman or an Englishman. A tad old-fashioned, but certainly not offensive.


----------



## RickyFreeman

london calling said:


> _Chink_ is offensive, but _Chinaman_ isn't, in BE at least.


A Chinaman  will get offended if you call him "Chinaman" whether you are from the US or the UK. It is a controversial term.


----------



## london calling

I disagree, Ricky, from a BE perspective at least.


----------



## JustKate

I agree with Ricky. _Chinaman_ is *really* not recommended in AmE. It's not as bad as "Chink," but that doesn't make it desirable.


----------



## RickyFreeman

london calling said:


> A Chinaman to me is the same as a Frenchman or an Englishman. A tad old-fashioned, but certainly not offensive.



Although the term has no negative connotations in older dictionaries,[1][2] and the usage of such parallel compound terms asEnglishman, Frenchman and Irishman[3] remain unobjectionable,[4] the term_Chinaman_ is noted as offensive by modern dictionaries.

It is from wikipedia, london calling. Please check the following link:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinaman_(term)


----------



## natkretep

No straightforward answer for me. (I'm ethnic Chinese.) If an older English person said _Chinaman _in a matter-of-fact way, I'd think of it as being a bit quaint. If it's spat out at me, I'd understand it as an attempt to be offensive.

And over here, there are Chinese people and Chinese people. _Chinaman_ could refer to recent Chinese immigrants as opposed to those who have been around a few generations. Again, this can be matter-of-fact as well as derogatory.


----------



## london calling

An update, from a BE viewpoint. From the Oxford Dictionaries, I quote:

1. _dated_ or , _offensive_ A native of China.
FRASI DI ESEMPIO

He arrived to co-host an impressive reception for Chinese Conservatives: Chinamen living in Britain who supported the Tory Party.
He plays Lau Xing, a Chinaman who robs the Bank of England of a jade Buddha and gives the bumbling London peelers the slip by accepting the post of eccentric inventor Fogg's valet.
When the diminutive Chinaman takes on an entire judo class, armed with staves, his hard won victory carries no conviction.

Dated (my view) offensive (not in my view, but I'm not Chinese and I still find it far less offensive than _coolie_, which is how my grandparents, who lived in China in the 1930s, referred to the locals).


----------



## natkretep

london calling said:


> Dated (my view) offensive (not in my view, but I'm not Chinese and I still find it far less offensive than _coolie_, which is how my grandparents, who lived in China in the 1930s, referred to the locals).


I've never heard _coolie_ being used to refer to the Chinese in general. We use it still in historical contexts, but only to refer to manual labourers.


----------



## pob14

Will the white father of two Chinese daughters do? 

While certainly not as offensive as the other word used in the thread title (which I put on a par with the N-word, so I'm not repeating it here), "Chinaman" puts me in mind of the jump rope song that was still used in my youth ("Ching Ching Chinaman, sittin' on a fence, trying to make a dollar out of fifteen cents").  I do find it offensive.


----------



## london calling

natkretep said:


> I've never heard _coolie_ being used to refer to the Chinese in general. We use it still in historical contexts, but only to refer to manual labourers.


Well, I can assure you that my grandparents used it to mean Chinese servants, be they manual labourers or not.


----------



## pob14

natkretep said:


> I've never heard _coolie_ being used to refer to the Chinese in general. We use it still in historical contexts, but only to refer to manual labourers.


 


london calling said:


> Well, I can assure you that my grandparents used it to mean Chinese servants, be they manual labourers or not.


Despite hearing it any number of times as a child, I never knew "coolie" _had_ a more specific meaning than "Chinese person" until long after I became an adult.


----------



## natkretep

I've just looked up the OED. Interesting usage note there.


> A person (esp. a man) of Chinese birth or origin. Now _derogatory_ and _offensive_.
> 1872 Medhurst _Foreigner in Far Cathay_ xi,  John Chinaman is a most temperate creature.
> 1876 R. W. Emerson _Resources_ in _Lett. & Social Aims_ 126  The disgust of California has not been able to drive nor kick the Chinaman back to his home.
> 1907 E. J. Hardy _John Chinaman at Home_ viii. 95  A Chinaman always appears to be looking round the corner of his eyes at you.
> 2004 O. Starn _Ishi's Brain_ ii. 43  His vocabulary grew to about three hundred words (among them colloquialisms,..and also less benign terms like ‘nigger’ and ‘Chinaman’).



And here's _coolie_:


> 1 a. In India and (later also) China: a hired labourer (esp. one employed by a European); a porter (now esp. in a railway station). Hence also: an Asian labourer working abroad (now chiefly _hist._).
> ...
> b. _offensive_ (chiefly _derogatory_). An Asian person, a person of Asian descent; _spec._ _(a) U.S._ a Chinese person; an East Asian; _(b) S. Afr._ and _Caribbean_ an Indian; a South Asian.
> ...
> 2. _slang_. A person of low (social) status. Also: a soldier. _Obs._


I suppose I was thinking of sense 1a, which we will read about in texts written here (Singapore) about the past - port coolies, coolies at the godowns (= warehouses). I wasn't familiar with 1b, so many thanks to London Calling for drawing my attention to this.


----------



## PaulQ

I see "coolie", used as a racial/ethnic epithet as offensive, of a coolie, I would not (crosspost). However, back to "Chinaman": I agree with natkretep at #12 above.

I disagree with RickyFreeman at #5 as this seem to be a vicarious response.


----------



## london calling

natkretep said:


> I suppose I was thinking of sense 1a, which we will read about in texts written here (Singapore) about the past - port coolies, coolies at the godowns (= warehouses). I wasn't familiar with 1b, so many thanks to London Calling for drawing my attention to this.


My grandparents lived in Malaya and Singapore too (my grandfather was a British Army Officer who was captured when  Singapore fell and sent to Changi). I'm not saying that  'coolie' isn't offensive these days: I would never use it. However, back in the 30s it was considered normal.


----------



## Mitchell Nakano

Thank you all, teachers.


----------



## Sparky Malarky

*Chinaman *is an antiquated term that is no longer considered correct, though it started out as a polite description.  *Chink *was always intended as a slur.


----------



## Myridon

I think calling someone by a dated term can be taken as somewhat offensive even if the term itself isn't intrinsically offensive.  It has a sense of "aren't you quaint?"


----------



## Copperknickers

Why some racial terms are offensive and some aren't is never very logical. To call someone an 'oriental' might seem very dated if not offensive, but to say they had 'oriental appearance' would be unusual but not at all offensive in many contexts. 'Chinaman' shouldn't be offensive in itself, but it does sound like the kind of word only used by your racist granddad when he's had a few too many brandies. < ---->  


< ---- > Topic drift removed.  Cagey, moderator.


----------



## Parla

The _American Heritage Dictionary_ defines *Chinaman* as "a Chinese man" and labels it "_Offensive._"


----------



## sorry66

I wouldn't say 'Chinaman' but like LondonCalling I don't see that it's particularly offensive.
< Topic drift. >


----------



## Hermione Golightly

I haven't read the whole thread. I would never _ever_, not in a million years, dream of referring to somebody of Chinese origin as a 'Chinaman'.  Nor, if the person was a woman, would I say a 'Chinawoman'?
If I were Sherlock Holmes or Sir Arthur, I might.


----------



## tonyspeed

If someone uses Chinaman he either 1) doesn't know modern English or 2) intends to be slyly offensive. Chinaman will only conjure up images of days gone by and the treatment they received from Westerners.


----------



## Andygc

tonyspeed said:


> If someone uses Chinaman he either 1) doesn't know modern English or 2) intends to be slyly offensive.


or 3) is describing a left arm spin bowler delivering an off break. Nothing to do with race or offensiveness, but a perfectly valid use of the word. Context is all.


----------



## ewie

_Chinaman_ comes up in this long old thread too


----------



## bennymix

Oxford as already quoted says 'dated or offensive';  that's true both sides of the Atlantic.

I disagree with london calling that there is a parallel between Chinaman and Frenchman.  "Chinese man" is the obvious
and non offensive parallel.  "Chinaman" now is no better, in my opinion, than_ Paki _if one wants an equally offensive term.




Hermione Golightly said:


> I haven't read the whole thread. I would never _ever_, not in a million years, dream of referring to somebody of Chinese origin as a 'Chinaman'.  Nor, if the person was a woman, would I say a 'Chinawoman'?
> If I were Sherlock Holmes or Sir Arthur, I might.


----------



## london calling

RickyFreeman said:


> Although the term has no negative connotations in older dictionaries,[1][2] and the usage of such parallel compound terms asEnglishman, Frenchman and Irishman[3] remain unobjectionable,[4] the term_Chinaman_ is noted as offensive by modern dictionaries.
> 
> It is from wikipedia, london calling. Please check the following link:
> Chinaman (term) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I checked the link. It also says:

While usage of the term _Chinaman_ is nowadays strongly discouraged by Asian American organizations, the term has been used by English speakers of Chinese descent and others, without offensive intent, and has also been used as a self-referential archetype by authors and artists of Asian descent.


----------



## Copyright

london calling said:


> I checked the link. It also says:
> 
> While usage of the term _Chinaman_ is nowadays strongly discouraged by Asian American organizations, the term has been used by English speakers of Chinese descent and others, without offensive intent, and has also been used as a self-referential archetype by authors and artists of Asian descent.


This is a typical pattern: those inside a particular group can call themselves whatever they like, including terms they would consider offensive if used by someone outside their group.


----------



## Skatinginbc

<Added to this thread. Nat, Moderator>

The term _Chinaman_ is considered an offensive word (e.g., Urban dictionary, Wikipedea, Free Dictionary, Dictionary.com, etc.), especially as a reference to an American of Chinese descent (e.g., _I didn't know that Chinaman was born in the U.S._).  My question: Is the word _Chinaman_ intrinsically prejudicial? (I mean: Does its morphology automatically imply a derogatory sense when it is used to refer to a person of Chinese descent?)

Why do I suspect it might be morphologically prejudicial:
Noun (place name) + suffix -_man_ = demonym (i.e., an inhabitant of a place; a man from a place, e.g., _Yorkshireman_, _Kerryman_, _Ulsterman_; cf. _caveman_ "a man who lives in the cave", _bushman _"a man who lives in the bush").  The word _Chinaman_, by morphology, means "an inhabitant of China, or a man from China" and is therefore a misnomer to call a Chinese American who was born and grew up in the U.S.  It reflects a preconceived judgment: "You look like someone from China.  You don't seem to belong here."

Compare:
Adjective (nation/people) + suffix -_man_ = ethnonym (i.e., a native of a place, a person of a certain nationality or ethnic background; e.g., _Englishman_, _Frenchman_, _Scotsman_, _Dutchman_, _Irishman_)

So, am I correct to conclude that Chinaman is morphologically a demonym and, as a consequence, its use as an enthonym (a person of Chinese descent) sounds "weird" and therefore offensive?


----------



## bennymix

(I mean: Does its morphology automatically imply a derogatory sense when it is used to refer to a person of Chinese descent?)

You cannot use morphology, phonology, descriptive grammar, etc. to tell of a word or phrase is derogatory.   It's a matter of usage, who the utterer is and her intention, common perception and context ( time and place), etc.   If lots of Chinese men (and others) are not happy with 'Chinaman', then it's derogatory, even if  Yorkshireman is not.

If you saw the movie _Hidden Figures,_ you see, for example, that the Black people in the 1950s, US, do not seem to mind being called Negroes.   Now they mostly do, so the rest of us generally, out of respect, avoid the term.


----------



## Myridon

Skatinginbc said:


> Compare:
> Adjective (nation/people) + suffix -_man_ = ethnonym (i.e., a native of a place, a person of a certain nationality or ethnic background; e.g., _Englishman_, _Frenchman_, _Scotsman_, _Dutchman_, _Irishman_)


Note that "China" is not the adjective ("Chinese") so these are not comparable.  I can't think of a case where "X-ese" is combined as a single word with "man". 
Onelook allows you to search for patterns.
Searching for *eseman finds no nationalities (mostly hits for cheeseman).  Words that match the pattern "*eseman" - OneLook Dictionary Search
Searching for *chman and *shman only finds the ones already mentioned plus Welshman and Cornishman.  It's not really that common a pattern.


----------



## bennymix

Good points, Myr.   But would you agree that the unusualness of the type of construction in 'Chinaman' cannot be the basis for inferring that the word is derogatory?  That is my view.



Myridon said:


> Note that "China" is not the adjective ("Chinese") so these are not comparable.  I can't think of a case where "X-ese" is combined as a single word with "man".
> Onelook allows you to search for patterns.
> Searching for *eseman finds no nationalities (mostly hits for cheeseman).  Words that match the pattern "*eseman" - OneLook Dictionary Search
> Searching for *chman and *shman only finds the ones already mentioned plus Welshman and Cornishman.  It's not really that common a pattern.


----------



## dojibear

A large number of words (almost anything defining a group of people) are slurs if you "call someone that" while speaking to them in anger: 

"You lousy, no-good <word>!"
"You're nothing but a two-bit <word>!"

Those same words are inoffensive in normal conversation, speaking about people in general who are not present:

"I don't know many <word> but the ones I've met were nice."

Yes, there are exceptions. But not many. 

I think "chinaman" is archaic in AE. I think it was in common use before the 1950s. When it was in common use, it was used both ways: as an insult word in anger (directed at someone, combined with a negative or profane word), and as a neutral word in conversation.


----------



## GreenWhiteBlue

bennymix said:


> Good points, Myr.   But would you agree that the unusualness of the type of construction in 'Chinaman' cannot be the basis for inferring that the word is derogatory?



I would agree, and I would also point out that the same construction is found in, for example, a number of terms that describe the natives of various parts of Ireland, including _Kerryman, Ulsterman, Connaughtman, _and _Leinsterman._

I will also mention that I remember that, in his 1951 novel _The Foundlin_g, Cardinal Spellman (born 1889, Archbishop of New York from 1939 to 1967) created a scene in which a Sister of Charity at the New York Foundling Hospital is talking about how the institution takes care of parentless children of all races and religions.  She points to a crib containing an infant of Chinese parentage (which would have been rare in the New York of 1918, when the scene takes place) and says "We even have a little Chinaboy."  I remember being startled by the term when I read it some 40 years ago; I had certainly heard the term "Chinaman" before, but never the juvenile form.  It was also clear that it never occurred either to the archepiscopal author or to his fictional character that the term could ever be regarded as anything remotely derogatory.


----------



## Esca

dojibear said:


> I think "chinaman" is archaic in AE. I think it was in common use before the 1950s. When it was in common use, it was used both ways: as an insult word in anger (directed at someone, combined with a negative or profane word), and as a neutral word in conversation.


I agree. I'd put it in the same category as calling an African-American person "negro" or "colored" today. At the time of the words' common use, they were not primarily intended to be insulting. However, continuing to use those archaic words when we know the population in question does not prefer it, and finds them offensive, is -- well -- offensive.


----------



## Skatinginbc

Myridon said:


> Note that "China" is not the adjective ("Chinese") so these are not comparable.


Compare: to note the similarities or differences of
Obviously, I was comparing the _dissimilarity_ between Noun + -man and Adjective + -man.
(1) Noun + -man: For example, _Yorkshireman_, _Kerryman_, _Ulsterman_, _Connaughtman, _and _Leinsterman_, etc.  Note that _Yorkshire_, _Kerry_, _Ulster_, _Connaught_, and _Leinster_ are all administrative divisions (e.g., district, county, province, region, etc.) of a greater nation.  None of them are names of a nation or ethnic group.  This makes "_Chinaman_" an exception (if you consider China a nation).
(2) Adjective + -man: For example,_ Englishman_, _Frenchman_, _Scotsman_, _Dutchman_, _Irishman_, _Welshman_, and _Cornishman_.  Note that _English_, _French_, _Scots_, _Dutch_, _Irish_, _Welsh_, and _Cornish _are all adjective forms of a nation or ethnic group.  For instance, the Cornish people are an ethnic group associated with Cornwall and a recognized national minority in the United Kingdom. The Welsh are a nation and ethnic group native to or associated with Wales and the Welsh language.
My point: Chinaman, which is morphologically a demonym, seems odd when used as an ethnonym.


bennymix said:


> would you agree that the unusualness of the type of construction in 'Chinaman' cannot be the basis for inferring that the word is derogatory?


I think it is exactly the oddity of the type of construction in "Chinaman" (when used as an ethnonym) that brings forth derogatory overtones.  Its morphology implies that the person's place of origin is China.  It of course sounds offensive to Chinese Americans who were born in the US.


----------



## DonnyB

"Chinaman" is not used much anymore in BE, not these days.  I think that outside of a purely historical context it would just sound quaintly old-fashioned.

Going back to the OP's question, "Chink" would generally come across as as offensive, but "a Chinky" is quite widely and innocuously used over here as a slang synonym for a Chinese takeaway meal.


----------



## Skatinginbc

Some forum members have mentioned "historical contexts", but what exactly are the contexts in those antiquated texts where the word "_Chinaman_" was used?  Norman Asing, a leader in San Francisco's Chinese community, wrote in a 1852 letter to Governor of California John Bigler: "Sir: I am a _Chinaman_, a republican, and a lover of free institutions." Who was that Norman Asing?  He came to US in 1820.  China was his place of origin.  _Chinaman_, as a demonym (i.e., a man from China, a native of China), makes sense in that context.  It is when _Chinaman_ is used as an ethnonym (a person of Chinese descent) that makes it morphologically "weird".

I suspect Chinaman was originally a literal translation of the Chinese word zhong-guo-ren "a Chinese national" (zhong-guo "China", ren "human").  In Chinese minds, it is different from hua-yi "a person of Chinese descent" (hua "Chinese", yi "descent") or hua-ren "Chinese person" (hua "Chinese", ren "human").  The use of Chinaman as an ethnonym (a person of Chinese descent, a Chinese person) is clearly a misnomer.


----------



## Esca

Skatinginbc said:


> The use of Chinaman as an ethnonym (a person of Chinese descent, a Chinese person) is clearly a misnomer.


Yes -- I would also add that one of the things that makes the use of this word more offensive is how frequently it is used to apply universally, and derogatorily, to ANY person who appears to have East Asian heritage -- regardless of their personal nation of origin AND regardless of where their ancestors are actually from (China, Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Thailand, etc).


----------



## GreenWhiteBlue

Skatinginbc said:


> (1) Noun + -man: For example, _Yorkshireman_, _Kerryman_, _Ulsterman_, _Connaughtman, _and _Leinsterman_, etc.  Note that _Yorkshire_, _Kerry_, _Ulster_, _Connaught_, and _Leinster_ are all administrative divisions (e.g., district, county, province, region, etc.) of a greater nation.  None of them are names of a nation or ethnic group.  This makes "_Chinaman_" an exception (if you consider China a nation).



One might also note "Indiaman", which is a word built the same way -- but which refers to a ship involved in trade with India and the East Indies, and not a human being.


----------



## Skatinginbc

bennymix said:


> You cannot use morphology, phonology, descriptive grammar, etc. to tell of a word or phrase is derogatory.


Take _Chink _"a Chinese person" as an example.  The root _Chin-_ (or spelled as _qin _in Mandarin Pinyin as in "Qin Dynasty") in itself is not offensive.  What makes it terribly offensive to my ear is the extra -k, which does not make linguistic sense to Chinese speakers, and which makes it a homophone of _chink _"a crack, a weak or vulnerable spot"--a word with negative connotations (cf., dink, gink, kink, stink, etc.).


----------



## london calling

Skatinginbc said:


> Take _Chink _"a Chinese person" as an example.  The root _Chin-_ (or spelled as _qin _in Mandarin Pinyin as in "Qin Dynasty") in itself is not offensive.  What makes it terribly offensive to my ear is the extra -k, which does not make linguistic sense to Chinese speakers, and which makes it a homophone of _chink _"a crack, a weak or vulnerable spot"--a word with negative connotations (cf., dink, gink, kink, stink, etc.).


Interesting. I'm not Chinese but, as I said in my post 2, 'chink' to me is offensive (and belittling) but obviously not for the reasons you state, as I don't speak Chinese.


----------



## Orble

I can’t see any Australian English speakers commenting here and so I will add my bit.

There are a great many Australians of Chinese origin, and many Chinese tourists here too. The use of “Chinaman” would be taken *in any context at all *as either downright racially offensive or, at best, woefully culturally insensitive. As would “chink” or “a takeaway chinky “. It would be taken this way if a white Australian used it when talking to other white Australians, it would not have to be used *to* a person of Chinese heritage to attract offence.

Australians have a dark racist past to distance ourselves from, based in the myth of the superiority of the “British race”. The very strong cultural distaste now felt for words like “Chinaman” is one of the ways we achieve that distance and support our now valued national diversity.

For example, I recently saw an Australian episode of the Family History documentary series “_Who do you think you are?”_ where the (otherwise white) movie star subject of the program discovered his ancestor was a Chinese man working the 19th century goldfields. He was appalled by the racist opinions expressed by the white colonists. As he read one newspaper clipping aloud he read, “Chinese person” where the old document clearly said “Chinaman”.


----------



## natkretep

Thanks, Orble. I just wanted to ask if you think there is any tension between between the ethnic Chinese population who have been around for a few generations and newer Chinese immigrants, and how do they refer to each other? There is some resentment here, and I hear _Chinaman_ and _chink_ use by the established ethnic Chinese people to refer to other Chinese  people. As I said in post 9, _Chinaman_ (as used by an ethnic Chinese person) is not necessarily a slur, but it could well be.


----------



## Orble

I’m not sure, but I haven’t heard that anything like that happens here. 

Yes, I read (and was surprised by) your post 9. It’s one of the reasons I posted. It is quite strange that the Australian distaste for the term is actually greater than in a nation like Singapore and my post is somewhat of an attempt to explain why that might be.


----------



## natkretep

Thank you for that, Orble.


----------



## Pertinax

natkretep said:


> I just wanted to ask if you think there is any tension between between the ethnic Chinese population who have been around for a few generations and newer Chinese immigrants, and how do they refer to each other? There is some resentment here, and I hear _Chinaman_ and _chink_ use by the established ethnic Chinese people to refer to other Chinese  people.


My wife has enough Chinese (and other) blood in her to be taken as a non-white Australian; she shops in Chinatown, and has many Chinese friends.  Neither of us has heard the term "Chinaman" used here for at least 30 years, and its use would come across as droll rather than derogatory (though of course any expression can be used in a derogatory way).

There can be tension between the older Chinese immigrants (especially those who arrived shortly after 1989) and the more recent, much more nationalistic arrivals.  A senior tutor at the University of Sydney (Wu Wei) felt obliged to reign after he was "outed" for blogging about his Chinese students in scathing terms under a pseudonym.  But I cannot imagine the terms "Chinaman" or "Chink" being bandied around here in this kind of internecine conflict.


----------



## natkretep

Thanks, Pertinax. Ah, there is some tension, but the terms are not used.

_Chinaman_ is partly kept alive here because 'Mad Chinaman' is the stage name of singer composer Dick Lee:
Dick Lee to bring back The Adventures of the Mad Chinaman

Here is an example of current (2018) use in an online forum:


> His looks stupid with the socks so high plus tattoo ...
> So what did the chinaman do? ...
> Maybe the chinaman did some lj thing first leh
> [_lj _= penis, here just a negative label; _leh_ = you see]


commotion in the bus...local vs chinaman


----------



## Normal WHite Guy

Ricky & SkatinginBC,
Thanks this is the first time I have ever bothered posting anything since my old BBS.
Finally a silent majority who disagrees with Californians telling the rest of the world how and when to be offended.

Just like Scotsman, Frenchman. No one from mainland China, or Hong Kong is offended by the term Chinaman. Moreover, when Americans rarely venture outside our borders (usually arriving via a Carnival Cruise ship). On the off chance they actually interact with the English speaking local populace. These I'll informed individuals are so smugly telling others how and when to be offended that they have lost site of the obvious. They will tell anyone who will listen, that all peoples with epicanthal folds (slant eyes) must be addressed as "Asian".  So wrong. Once again this shows an appalling ignorance for geography and etiquette. Although "Asian" can apply to nearly all those from the Far East or Orient. The majority of the continent Asia are not those few nations. How about; Russia, the Ukraine, India, Pakistan, Iran, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Oman Bahrain, & Qatar.

So, liberals and the US West Coast, lets stop referring to the nation of China as the only asians. Chinamen are Chinamen, Indians are Indians, and Cambodians, guess what... they're Cambodians.

-Hopefully after the apocalypse, this can go back to normal.
J


----------



## Steven David

london calling said:


> A Chinaman to me is the same as a Frenchman or an Englishman. A tad old-fashioned, but certainly not offensive.



I would say "Chinese man", not "Chinaman".

"Chinese man" is like saying "English man" or "French man".

"Chinaman" is like saying "Englandman" or "Franceman".

So just as I would not say "Englandman" and "Franceman", I would not say "Chinaman".

And just as I would say English man and French man, I would say Chinese man.

The same thing applies to American. I would not say "Americaman", but I would say "American man".

That said or not said, the word "Chinaman" has a negative overtone to it, at least, to me it does. I would never refer to someone from China with that word.


----------



## dojibear

Welcome to the forum, Normal White Guy!

You make a good point, that many people act offended "on behalf of" someone else (the handicapped, a race, a religion, etc.) when it is not appropriate - the real people may not be offended by the same things. The common term for "rules" like this is "political correctness".

I only see the word "asian" as a racial category in some discussions about Americans: discussions comparing groups in terms of test scores, income, college admissions, school grades, etc. Those discussions break down the whole country into "whites", "blacks", "hispanics" and "asians", which is very simplistic. You are right that in that breakdown "asians" means Americans of Chinese/Korean/Vietnam/Thai ancestry. Indian-Americans are not included. Russian-Americans are "white". All the other groups are too small (as a percent of US population) to be part of the discussion.

I have not heard anyone say that people who actually live in China or Korea should be called "asians".


----------



## dojibear

Steven David said:


> That said or not said, the word "Chinaman" has a negative overtone to it, at least, to me it does. I would never refer to someone from China with that word.



I would not either, but my reason is different. To me "chinaman" is an archaic (obsolete) word. It was a normal word, 30 years before I was born. I also don't say "twenty-three skidoo" or call women "dames" or "dolls". 

But I don't disagree with Steven. Some time between 1919 and 2019, "Chinaman" developed negative overtones in AE.


----------



## Steven David

dojibear said:


> I would not either, but my reason is different. To me "chinaman" is an archaic (obsolete) word. It was a normal word, 30 years before I was born. I also don't say "twenty-three skidoo" or call women "dames" or "dolls".
> 
> But I don't disagree with Steven. Some time between 1919 and 2019, "Chinaman" developed negative overtones in AE.



While we may have some common ground on this topic and while over a hundred years ago this term may have been accepted as a term without derogatory meaning, I still have to say that this term was disrespectful over a hundred years ago just as it's disrespectful now.

Whatever anyone's nationality is or whatever anyone's national background is, using a compound word to say where someone is from as opposed to "adjective + man" or "adjective + woman" can only be heard as less than respectful and belittling. That such a term may have been accepted over a hundred years ago does not mean that such a term was still good or right over a hundred years ago. Other things that were wrong were also accepted over a hundred years ago, but that did not and does not mean that these things were good or right.

That said, I have only to refer to my first post here in order to refer to the relevant phrase formation and word formation comparison.

my previous post in this thread


----------



## Skatinginbc

Normal WHite Guy said:


> No one from mainland China, or Hong Kong is offended by the term Chinaman.


(1) I don't believe you know everyone from Mainland China or Hong Kong.
(2) A non-Chinese member once used the term "Chinaman" in the Chinese forum.  It was a poster from Mainland China who first mentioned that it might sound offensive. 
(3) As I have mentioned previously, those who find the term "Chinaman" offensive seem to be mostly American-born Chinese.


----------



## velisarius

As a speaker of BE who also reads many articles in AE journals, I would be surprised to find "Chinaman" used today by any native speaker of English unless they meant it in a derogatory way or to evoke an out-dated stereotype. 

It's a negatively-charged term, unlike _Scotsman_ or _Frenchman,_ and logic doesn't enter into it.


----------



## Andygc

Steven David said:


> Whatever anyone's nationality is or whatever anyone's national background is, using a compound word to say where someone is from as opposed to "adjective + man" or "adjective + woman" can only be heard as less than respectful and belittling.


What is belittling about Frenchman, Englishman, Scotsman, and Welshman? As an example, _The Scotsman_ is the proud title of a national newspaper. 



Steven David said:


> can only be heard as


And if you hear a word, how can you tell if it is a compound or two words?


----------



## Steven David

Andygc said:


> What is belittling about Frenchman, Englishman, Scotsman, and Welshman? As an example, _The Scotsman_ is the proud title of a national newspaper.
> 
> And if you hear a word, how can you tell if it is a compound or two words?



There is nothing belittling about those words at all. They are not parallel to the word "Chinaman". Those words name a nationality followed by the word "man". They do not name a country followed by the word "man". Those are two different things.

_______________

We can tell that a word is a compound word by the intonation and the rhythm of the word.

I have answered your question about compound words as it pertains and relates to the words in question for this thread. However, to continue on about compound words would be another topic.


----------



## Skatinginbc

CBC News: A U.S. man wanted in connection with the early morning death of a woman in Washington state crossed the border and was arrested at Peace Arch Hospital in White Rock, B.C., Monday afternoon. ==> A man from the U.S.
Fox News: Canada man gets prison time for smuggling guns in library on border ==> A man from Canada

Like "_U.S. man_" and "_Canada man_", the term "_China man_" is not offensive if properly used.  It becomes offensive when used as a misnomer for a person who is not a Chinese national or not from China (e.g., American-born Chinese, a person of perceived East Asian race who has nothing to do with China, etc.).  Arguing that the term "_Chinaman_" is not offensive without giving any context (i.e., how it is used) seems meaningless to me.

When prejudice or stereotypization is the norm, one may get so used to it that they don't even sense the discriminatory mentality behind the use of an indiscriminate term (e.g., using "Chinaman" to refer to any person that looks like a Chinese).


----------



## Normal WHite Guy

Great feedback guys, thanks.
It seems in my rant against California I failed to even bring up one of the most offensive terms still widely used. At least in my experience as an ex-pat; the term that was found most offensive (by non-orientals at least) was actually "Asian". I vividly recall my chess buddies Bogdon (Russian) & Ramesh (Indian) going on and on about how all those people from the far-east don't get to claim the entire continent for themselves. The Chinese occupy only about 20% of Asia, and yet Americans these days seem to ascribe that entire continent to the Orient.


----------

