Talk:Chinaman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Asian Americans, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Asian Americans on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Archives Archive 1

Contents 1 Chink merger discussion 2 Something of a date 3 New York Times Archives 4 Translation needed 5 Chinaman = 支那人 6 Chinaman-as-sailing-vessel 7 Chinaman's Hatand other geographic names 8 More Definitions 9 Parallel arguments re Native American 10 The Chinaman blogsite 11 Quotes from Bo Yang 12 What exactly does everyone want? 13 Link to resources/citations list

[edit] Chink merger discussion

The most recent edit on the main page was by User:Uncle G and was the placement of, of all things, a MERGE tag - "({{mergefrom}} suggestion, per the AFD discussion)" - which led to to think "which AFD?". Well, turns out there's a chink AFD and there's now an attempt to equivocate/equate that word with this one. I'd say the discussion between HGQ, Zeus and Keefer in the Dictionary section above is enough to validate that little case of mistaken identity. Rather ironic that there's an AFD for chink, which is an English word (albeit a nasty one) and not for Gweilo, which isn't an English word (and is or can be just as nasty). Whatever the case, I'll be filing "oppose" on this merger, for what are by now obvious reasons of the huge body of literature and sources involving "Chinaman", which you won't find for "Chink", and the clear and unequivocal reality that they are not identical, one even when derisive is nowhere near as derisive as the other, and so on. Perhaps User:Uncle G knows better, as the pointers on both page's merge tags come to this page, and being out of the blue and all as they have been I think we may have a clue as to the identity of Four-Point-Point. What's further curious here is that while that edit comment says there's an AFD, there isn't an AFD template on Chink, so "where's the fire?" Oh, I see, it's a made-up AFD to justify somebody's agenda to get these merged because they think/want to be as bad as the other....but I'll look at the Articles for Discussion page because maybe, who knows, some other similar term (whatever it would be) is being deleted/merged (?).Skookum1 18:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Further comment about this strangeness: I just did a "find on this page" on Chink and the word "Chinaman" isn't even on the page. And this was proposed to be merged with the Chinaman article? Kinda premature if the Chink article doesn't even use the word you'd like it merged to, isn't it?Skookum1 18:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Been going through the AFD logs; all I found so far is Beaner 2nd Nomination AFD discussion which included the following exchange involving Uncle G, whose agenda now is fairly clear:

• "...we don't have separate articles for individual slang names for classes of people." [Uncle G is being quoted]
  We don't have articles about the terms "chink," "nigger," "kike" and "spic"? —David Levy 18:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• ...yeah, was gonna say, didn't chink just come up on AfD not too long ago with a resounding keep? --Dennisthe2 02:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• And, as you'll find, we don't have separate articles for the individual slang names that can be used for those (stereotypical) classes of people. Uncle G 10:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Umm...yes, we do. Do you see those links? I'm not even arguing that Beaner should be a separate article, but your claim that "we don't have separate articles for individual slang names for classes of people" was patently incorrect. —David Levy 16:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll continue looking for other AFD discussions to see what the reference in the edit comment was (other than being spurious/nonsense/redherring material). There was apparently a Chink AFD at some point in the past, with a "keep" verdict as accounted for just above. Why do cultural censors think deleting things does away with them anyway? Sweeping things under the rug is a great way to grow HUGE dust bunnies, doncha know?Skookum1 18:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose merger. These words are not equivalent and have different etymologies and histories.Skookum1 18:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a dictionary. We don't have separate articles for subjects just because the words for them are different. Uncle G 20:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
    • They are clearly different subjects as well as diferent words; the only thing making them seem identical now is a result of the changes made by Four-Point-Zip which are now locked in. Using your logic Gweilo and Caucasian should maybe be merged as well.Skookum1 21:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
      • No, they are not "clearly" different subjects, and the part of the article that you've been edit warring over does not change that. The controversy is the same. The consequences of people using the words is the same. The attempts to avoid their use are the same. The words themselves are synonyms. This is a single subject. Uncle G 02:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose merger. Per Skookum's logic.Zeus1234 18:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - The merge proposal on the AfD for Chink was made because at the time of the AfD nomination, the Chink article was only a couple of sentences long. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Unfortunately, I can't speedy close this discussion because it'd be considered wheel-warring (Uncle G being an admin), but I'll take it up with WP:ANI'll just ask someone else to close this discussion after seven days. Xiner (talk, email) 19:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• You have an article that talks about "a derogatory ethnic slur for someone of East Asian descent, usually Chinese" that states that it is as comparable in offensiveness as "nigger" and has a laundry list of people who have got into hot water for using the word, and an article that talks about "a derogatory and offensive term referring to a Chinese man" that is "equivalent to nigger" that also has a laundry list of people who have got into hot water for using the word, and yet you apparently cannot see that you have two articles on the very same subject. I suggest reading the articles again, because it really is staring you in the face. This is an encyclopaedia, not a dictionary. The dictionary, where every word gets its own individual article is over there. Here, in the encyclopaedia, we don't discuss the same thing twice in separate articles. We merge duplicate articles. Uncle G 20:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • An encyclopedia can well have more than one article on related topics. Once a word becomes the subject of controversies and social discussions, it's not just a dictionary term anymore. It seems like most people agree with that. Xiner (talk, email) 21:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
    • The merger isn't because it's a dictionary article. It's because it's a duplicate article. Didn't the link to Wikipedia:Duplicate articles make that clear? Wiktionary has separate articles on individual words for the same thing. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, however, and does not. Once again, I suggest reading the two articles, because the fact that they are the same subject, from the discussion of how offensive people regard the word to be to the laundry list of incidents including changing the names of things that use the word, really is staring you in the face. That you've not noticed that there are two words here, both with the same problems and the same assertions over their offensiveness, and that the actual subject for encyclopaedic discussion isn't in fact a single word at all, is part of the problem that you are having with your edit war. Another part of the problem is that editors have been acting like Lost Lexicographers, wandering Wikipedia in search of a dictionary to write, and doing lexicographic primary research in an encyclopaedia.

      Here's a hint for everyone here: Stop using dictionaries as sources, and stop doing lexicography in the wrong project. Using a dictionary as a source either requires original research, of exactly the form that you've been doing earlier on this talk page (analysing raw data to try and infer whether people were racist when they have used a word), or results in a dictionary article. At the very least, start using books like ISBN 1877864978 as sources, which don't deal with these several words separately, notice. (There are at least four other words and phrases that are parts of this subject.) Once you start looking at sources other than dictionaries, and stop doing original research based upon raw data, you'll realize what the subject is, and realize how to properly cover it in a way that you won't have to edit war over. Uncle G 02:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

      • ISBN 1877864978, which you could have bothered naming like other people do with books here, is a 1997 publication. "Books like that" - do you mean that meet your approval? That come from a time period when they have suitably vetted by the mavens of linguistic morality? Whuzzup? Does that book explore the sources that actually use the word "Chinaman", or does it only contain denunciations of it and complaints about it? Does it address official uses? Does it admit that dictionaries once included it, unabashedly, and that it evidently figured in newspaper styleguides without any discernible malicious intent in comparison/relation to the use of white man, Englishman, American, and others? No, but of course since you seem to own it why don't you be helpful and quote what it says about "chinaman" (verbatim) and also give its references for whatever actual facts there may be in those sections. Sources are verifiable also only if they are also credible, and cannot shown to be false. Barbeau and Levi-Strauss and Boas are discredited in Coastal First Nations ethnography now, too, but they still get cited and discussed. You don't want to discuss anything about having all the facts present; you want to shut them down, and keep them to books and definitions only YOU approve of. What's going on here is NOT original research, but a clarification of ALL THE POSSIBLE USES of the word, in ALL its historical contexts. Not just the modern one that you prefer, evidently because it entirely omits any legitimate past mention of the word, including dictionaries and obvious ethnonymic/generic usages which were not discriminatory in any way. No more so than calling someone a Canadian, American, or Briton, or at worse a Canuck or Cheesehead, a Yankee, or a Pommie or Brit. You want to shut this down, claiming "original research" when it's very clear by now that the assembled citations seriously challenge the current frozen wording of the article (perhaps established by yourself? or would you care to take credit for those edits?). Are you going to also ask that Gweilo and white man be merged? I bring up the Gweilo article because it's so thoroughly footnoted and researched, and in fact (ironically) helped inspired me to dig up quotes for what I knew to be the case - widespread inoffensive/casual/official use, irrespective of denuncations by publications isused in 1997.....and hell, it's not even an English word and it has its own article; "Chink" and "Chinaman" do not mean the same thing in English, evne when you're using Chinaman in a pejorative sense; the level of invective is entirely different, as are various other connotations; you may be a native English speaker, but not one who's been around people who use these words, or can't hear the difference because he/she doesn't want to....even Hong would agree with me here (I think).Skookum1 03:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
        • That entire paragraph assumes bad faith from beginning to end. I suggest that you make a proper argument that does not assume bad faith in other editors as its premise. If you cannot make a cogent counterargument without making wild unfounded assumptions about other editors and inventing a whole army of straw men, then you don't have an argument for your case. I suggest that you try to abide by our Wikipedia:Assume good faith directive. I also repeat my suggestion that you look at sources other than dictionaries. I've already given one for you to look at. Read it, and discover what the subject here actually is. Uncle G 01:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
    • If this article currently says that Chinaman is the equivalent of "nigger", that's the fault of it being locked into the POV version last achieved by Four-Point-Point, not because it's valid; "Chinaman" is clearly not the equivalent of "Nigger" - even when used self-referentially by modern Chinese North Americans, e.g. in the various book titles/studies invoking it - no more than it's equivalent to "chink". There are claims that chinaman is as vicious as nigger, but there are no good citations for that at all except for citations of people who claim that they're the same. And that's not a laundry list...(and where's the "laundry list" for the people who "got into hot water" for using the word (presumably you mean "Chinaman")?? Because there's clearly a much LONGER laundry list of people who used the word in official documents, diaries, letters, novels and more without meaning/intending to be derisive. The equivalenc might be between "Chinaman" and, perhaps", "coloured" or "black", but certainly not "nigger". That it's equivalent is certainly a position of the diehard politically-correct, but that's all that is - a position, and not a very citable or provable one either.Skookum1 22:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
      • The article said exactly the same thing about the word being "equivalent to nigger" in the version that you wanted, too. And the laundry list of people who got into hot water for using the word is the "Controversies" section of the article. It's by far the overwhelming majority of the article content, and quite hard to miss. ☺ Uncle G 02:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
        • You're insinuating that I wanted it in there, and in fact hadn't noticed its reinsertion since its having been taken out (and not just by me) previously during this (and prior, elsewhere) edit wars before you showed up. And what's in the Controversies section is hardly, as I said, a laundry list. Landry list?. More like notes saying "coupla beer, some smokes, and pick up some chips" by comparison to what's amassing in the evidence for historical and official usages, even in the bibliography of modern materials where it figures in film, book and paper titles on Chinese North American culture (and, apparently, given Bo Yang's book, on Southeast Asian Chinese-ness, although its Singapore publication site might be incidental to its actual content). And even so, all your laundry list proves is that there are organizations who've made a fuss about it; that it happens to be the bulk of the article is because of the block imposed by Xiner just after 4.x.x.x's (or "whomever's") last reintroduction of material; if I didn't take out "nigger" on that round it's because I hadn't noticed it; yes, you might find ONE or TWO sources which equate the two terms; but I know Paul Wong, wouldn't (see new stuff on Resources page) and I doubt Frank Chin would, or many others. There are enough valid citations of types of historical/official usage now available as compiled by myself, Keefer4, HongQiGong, Xiner and Zeus1234; the pressing issue at the moment, towards the unblock, is the rewrite of the opening paragraph, and I can see anything that is gonna make me happy is gonna have you freaking out and getting all capital-a Admin about, like you're trying to do here with this so-called original research red herring. I suggest if you feel the Chink article is too similar, you should try and apply similar citation/example methods on that page in order to distinguish its very obviously different meaning from that of the one in this article. Unless you live in a different reality than the rest of us, which is always possible. Anything is possible. Including that the rest of us might be right. The model here is the Gweilo article, and other lexical items around Wikipedia which transcend, as someone here (Xiner?) has pointed out transcend dictionary defintions and require full articles. On the basis of contemporary titles in Chinese-American/Canadian studies alone, there is enough justification for a distinct article on "Chinaman"; "Chink" would NEVER be used in the same contexts.Skookum1 03:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
          • It's not my laundry list, and I am not using it to prove anything. And the original research concern is very much not a red herring. You've been doing it above on this very talk page, where you took a quotation that used a word and performed your own firsthand analysis of it to attempt to determine the intent of the author when xe used a word. When you stop doing original research, and start using sources for analyses, you'll find that the sources discuss all of these words en bloc as a single subject. There are not multiple subjects here, and these two articles discussing this one single subject should be merged. Uncle G 01:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
        • later interjection than the following: the article does not say the word is "equivalent to "nigger", it quotes ONE commentator who made that equation - in the 21st Century no less. So even the following comment of mine is beside the point, as such content can remain in the article so long as it's clearly stated that it is only an opinion/a position statement; other citations for the same may turn out, but this is an extreme position (one that you've apparently bought into, to be sure). But the article doesn't make this claim, only one of the cited politicos does. There's a big difference, although moving goalposts and definitions in mid-debate and obfuscating references and who said what is something that's all too familiar to me as a tool of dissemblers and misdirectionists. In this discussion it would really help for you to drop the accusatory and hostile tone and perverse logics underway in your posts, and for the sake of this discussion please try and keep separate the content of the citations from the content of the article text per se (such as it is because of the block). That the article does not contradict the citation in question is a fault of the block; even though of course we now have lots of counter-citations, as well as other citations about its apparent offensiveness to some publishers/markets as far back as 1937 or whatever with Mr. Orwell. Those of us who speak English and have been raised in North American culture, at least those of us without a cultural axe to grind as with Maxine Hong Kingston perhaps ("evidently" is more accurate), and apparently also yourself, know full well that "chinaman" and "nigger" are not equal in tone or level of invective, even less so than "chink" and "chinaman". Pretending otherwise is just politics, and that's all Maxine Hong Kingston's comment is; and apparently the producers of Seinfeld have since backtracked on their kowtow.Skookum1 23:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
          • It is not the rest of us who have accusatory tones. It is the editor who is making personal attacks on other editors ("different reality", "freaking out", "misdirectionists", "dissemblers", "pretending", and so forth) instead of valid counterarguments. Uncle G 01:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Except one - the reduplicative compound form using both.Skookum1 03:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - per Xiner's points. It is a term with its own history, quite unique from the other term (because of the widespread historic usage in contemporary documentation such as newspapers and archival gov't records). I think we're increasingly beginning to appreciate that, with the source finding.--Keefer4 21:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• In addition, I suggest any proponents read the section 'Types of source material' at Wikipedia:Reliable sources in order to better understand what we are trying to do here. As far as I can tell, the edit war is finished here and we are now trying to find sources under the guidelines suggested at the above page to verifiably resolve the term in this article. This is absolutely not original research. And the terms are not historically synonymous based on anything that has been presented thus far.--Keefer4 | Talk 03:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • As far as I can tell, what Skookum has been complaining about is that he wants to be able to insert statements in the article that the word was used in an inoffensive manner based on the fact that it was used in "casual" or "common" manners, not based on a source that contains a credible opinion that such usage was inoffensive. This actually would be original research, as he is relying on his own assessment that the examples of usage he found were inoffensive. You seem to have readily understood the difference between a cited opinion about the offensiveness of the word, and using editors' own opinions about whether or not a word was offensively used. But I'm not sure he understands the difference still, after I've tried to explain many times about the need for sources and the fact that my preferred version of the intro does not make a blanket statement that the word is or ever was offensive, that it only attributes to Asian American organisations that they object to the use of the word. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I really, strongly, suggest that you read the book that I pointed to above, in particular pages 48–50. I also suggest reading page 137 of ISBN 1883378834. Uncle G 01:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Stop pitching the book and just quote it like everybody else is doing with other sources.Skookum1 01:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm stunned by the assertion that "chink" and "Chinaman" are synonymous. They have entirely different histories significantly different connotations. For some reason, Uncle G is unable (or unwilling) to grasp the fact that these articles are about the terms themselves, not the ethnic group that they controversially describe. (See the continued "beaner" AfD debate quoted above.) —David Levy 12:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Then you need to actually read the sources that discuss these, and the other four words that are part of what the actual subject is here, because you are significantly underinformed. Incidentally, you are creating yet more straw men, or are perhaps simply confused about who wrote what above. (Hint: Quotation marks denote reported speech.) That your straw men telling me what I want to do are markedly different to Skookum1's straw men telling me what I want to do should be a big red flag that gives you (and xem) pause for thought. I suggest that you go by what I've actually written, rather than inventing straw men. What I've actually written is that these are duplicate articles, that cover the same, single, subject — a subject that editors will find, when they actually consult sources that have analysed this subject instead of using just dictionaries as sources, encompasses both of these words and several others besides. We merge such duplicate articles. Uncle G 01:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
    • The article at the moment may discuss roughly the same topic as chink, but when it is unlocked it will cover far more, including a history of the term. As already shown through the sources here the histories of the two terms are completely different. When this section is complete, there will be little overlap other than the fact they are two terms that describe a Chinese person in a derogatory manner. Also, the source Uncle G suggested merely says that Chink and Chinaman are slang terms and nothing more. It does not suggest they are the same word. Thank god people disagree with your opinion.Zeus1234 01:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, there are many instances of people in the world who believed the way to write history was to try to erase it......Skookum1 01:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't think you know what "straw men" means; either get a better dictionary or ask Hong maybe for a better English version for whatever Chinese phrase you've evidently scansioned. If you are a native English speaker, you're using the phrase nonsensically and clearly don't know what it means. That you repeat it over and over sounds like sloganeering.Skookum1 01:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Your claim "that these are duplicate articles that cover the same, single, subject" is precisely what I'm addressing, and I haven't the foggiest notion of what imaginary argument you're responding to, Uncle G. The words "chink" and "Chinaman" have different meanings, so I disagree with your position and oppose the merger. I eagerly await your next non sequitur of a reply. —David Levy 02:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Most people I know, Asian American or not, would consider "Chinaman" just as offensive and yes, racist, as "chink." They may have different origins, but that's no reason to presume that because one sounds more official, it is less offensive. Just as there were people who thought nothing of using Chinaman, and considered it not derogatory, there were people who thought nothing of using chink, and considered it not derogatory. (There were also people who threw around words like "dago" and "wop" and "kike" as general terms for groups of people.) We'll never be able to say definitely what Asian Americans before World War II thought of terms like this because they didn't have the power to object to them. Today, as all these dictionary citations note, both chink and Chinaman are derogatory. [1] illustrates my point nicely.

You're totally wrong about people throwing dago, wop, kike and chink around - all are used only derisively and all were coined to be derisives. Chinaman was not; wrap your head around it, it's a historical truth whether you like it or not. Emily Carr used it and she was no racist, neither was Ma Murray, at least not to the Chinese that she knew and I've never heard of her not standing up for people's rights as human, whatever "tribe" they're from; likewise Mark Twain's flattering comments using the phrase, and many more examples like his. There's any number of very interesting and in fact in some cases notable listings (Carr, Twain, and others) in the evidence presented; that this evidence happens to contradict the claims made by the "1990s arguments", that is the fault of those arguments, not of the evidence. All should be presented, because the word has its own history, and this would include the obviously widespread usages that are outside the derisive defintion. If those are official and generic-meaning usages, as well as all the adaptation-usages which derive from the word, so be it (other than the china dealer and the ship, which have their own origin, although the same etymology, though slightly different syntax in meaning I suppose - "of China" vs "to/from/with China", gen. vs dat.).

If it's racist and derisive when used to mean people, then it should also be branded racist and derisive if used to describe (or name) a figurine, or in a traveller's diary or literary passage in the days when it was the current word for a person from China (usually but not always male). At some point it picked up actively derisive connotations, perhaps because of being paired with "ugly" etc., and at some point in the 20th Century this became strong enough to become a public issue; and even as noted in the 1930s Aldous Huxley was irritated at the new expectation to have to change a word, which in ten years since first publication had become offensive somehow (he doesn't say how, either, though presumably it was at his publisher's insistence/p.r. needs). All these are facts, all must necessarily relate to any article on the word; none of them have anything to do with "chink". We don't call porcelain figurines "chinks", nobody in cricket calls a certain pitch a "chink" (in order of a West Indian player of Chinese origin), nobody would name a chinaware store "The Chink". There might be plays and books named "The Chink" or "Chink", too, and in fact probably there are some, and there may be ethnographic essays and books on Chinese American culture and the history/stereotypes of discrimination which feature "chink" in the title like there are those that feature "Chinaman" in their title. And to my knowledge, death records, immigration records, court records, and suchlike never said anything like "Ah Quong, a chink"; and correspondence to/from the Consul General of China in Canada would not feature "chink" in either its subject, text, or its filename. But should they exist, they are relevant not here, but to the Chink article. The pattern of the Gweilo article begins with an introduction of the different spellings and variations (which can include everyting from chinnish to chink, with comments on usage as citable), then discusses the controversy over its derisive meaning, then explores other aspects of it, including IIRC other cultural and literary references than Gwai Lo Cooking, which is the Toronto cooking show which touched off the controversy now cited on that page. Yes, controversy gets cited, but so does the history of the word; as well as a lot of rationalization of why it's not really derisive, despite its explicit etymology. And yet despite an indeterminate etymology and widespread use outside of any derisive intent or context, there are those including yourself who maintain that it is as explicitly derisive as "chink", which "we" use in a much harsher tone; chinaman is idle, and yes, old fashioned, although I know buddies - and I have to stress this is a multiethnic city where social groups might span five or six "colours", and then some, might say either "you f**king chinaman" or "you f**king chink" and be just joshing around (same context there as "nigger" if all parties are African American/Canadian); say it to the wrong guy, like anything else, and it's fighting words. But similarly "you f**king Irishman" and "you f**king paddy" can be used both jocularly as well as viciously derisive; but "Irishman" is standard and straightforward etymologically like "Chinaman"; whereas "paddy" is intentionally derisive and patronizing, as is also "mick" (or "mic" as you'll see it sometimes) and certain others; those are overt derisives, and were coined that way. Chinaman was not, and it has come into a wide range of adaptative uses which remain in popular culture. You can't hide that, though it seems certain people are trying to, or just can't take the blinkers off and see the truth for what it is.Skookum1 07:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, 134.173.89.223. From what I gather, no one here is equating the term 'Chinaman' today with anything other than being "usually offensive" (at a minimum). The sources and citations on this page and the subpage have made a clear historical and contextual difference between the words. It's not a simple matter, nor is it a matter of presuming the thoughts of any group of people at any point in time. It is about verifiably establishing the history of a term, and its contexts both as an instrument of racism, in everyday speech and the archival realm, and any other verifiable usages. It's important to say that the archival realm includes government and newspaper documentation, where I have thus far never come across the term "chink". This is not a discussion centring around today's usage only. Simply asserting that verifying and sourcing the term's usage before a pre-selected period of time is futile, does not change the discussion at hand, and is essentially an idea rooted in censorship principles.--Keefer4 | Talk 07:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support These anti-Chinese articles should be deleted eventually. Until then, we should merge them. 4.236.111.5 22:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Something of a date

This was on a blog, but it is quoting a book (of newspaper columns) so if someone was interested they could find the source. Anyway, you can see Orwell, who was concerned about what we would call political corectness, says this:

One's information about these matters needs to be kept up to date. I have just been carefully going through the proofs of a reprinted book of mine, cutting out the word 'Chinaman' wherever it occurred and subtituting 'Chinese'. The book was published less than a dozen years ago, but in the intervening time 'Chinaman' has become a deadly insult.[2]

The column came from the mid-1940s, I don't have the book so I don't have the exact date but he's saying that, to him, "Chinaman" was fine in the early to mid 1930's but unacceptable in the mid 1940s. Like I said, Orwell is not representative of English-speakers generally. But it might be worth some sort of inclusion if somebody was interested enough to check out the book. --JGGardiner 20:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for digging this up. I'm pretty sure we'll need more sources if we are to add to the article about when people started considering it as offensive. It's not like there's an authority that decides these things, and there are probably people who would put it at a later time period than the 1940s as when the word came to be considered offensive. However, I wouldn't object to adding specifically that Orwell placed the time period to the 1940s, as long as we attribute it in the text of the article that it was specifically Orwell's opinion. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Worth quoting Orwell here, even though it's linked:

One's information about these matters needs to be kept up to date. I have just been carefully going through the proofs of a reprinted book of mine, cutting out the word 'Chinaman' wherever it occurred and subtituting 'Chinese'. The book was published less than a dozen years ago, but in the intervening time 'Chinaman' has become a deadly insult. Even 'Mahomedan' is now beginning to be resented; one should say 'Muslim'.

Which seems ample demonstration that, yes, there was a time when the word was not offensive, as also Mahomedan [sic]. The 1947 date is interesting in comparison to the 1954 Fowler's, and does point us to some time in the 1930s when the word began to be condemned. But by who, and where?Skookum1 21:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

And is it just me, or does anyone else here find it ironic that the man who coined the name "Newspeak" and the idea of wilfully censored/politicized language also turns out to have spent time censoring/"re-speaking" his own words to suit emergent politicization of terms in "unofficial Newspeak" (which is what p.c. language near-invariably always is).Skookum1 21:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I should have also noted that he is bemoaning that the terms are still commonly used as standard. In the same book there is this quote which can be found on Wikiquote:

But is it really necessary, in 1947, to teach children to use expressions like "native" and "Chinaman"? [3]

If I recall correctly, he is talking about a children's book which had a "C is for Chinaman" entry. Orwell obviously doesn't speak for everyone. But I think this does show something of a date and it also shows the difference between an slur and a common word which is seen as offensive without the intent to offend. Somewhat like the word "gypsy" today. A lot of people don't even realize that it is considered offensive. --JGGardiner 21:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New York Times Archives

Don't worry I'm not going to cite all NYT usages, but I did run a search on their archives and it turned up this. I can't afford to join - probably a very interesting resource, no? - but the result "We found 64,176 newspaper articles that match your search for chinaman! Read them all right now with a plan that fits your budget." is no doubt a bit of a revelation; it would be interesting to locate the first article where condemnation of the term is the context, or included in the context; regular-inoffensive uses before that date would of course be legion. In the tens of thousands in point of fact.Skookum1 22:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and for "chinamen" (pl.) there are 37,304 newspaper articles in the Newspaper Archive....Skookum1 22:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

There are 36,786 articles containing "chink" but of course that word has a large number of other potential meanings that are likely to have turned up in newspaper articles.Skookum1 22:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I have access to the NYT archives if you want me to try and dig something up. Skookum, if you want to find something that you can access, consider Google Books or MSN Book Search. Google Books has lovely titles like this [4] or this [5].Zeus1234 23:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, for sure I thought of something. X-ref "Chinaman" with "William Safire" and see what we come up with....Skookum1 03:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

And actually, on a separate subject, any NYT or other big-Yank coverage of BC political and/or anything else April 1-Dec 31 1983 would be very interesting to see. You don't have Globe & Mail Archives acces do you (same era/question)?Skookum1 03:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Another NYT Archives search parameter that will probably find something pertinent: search for >use of the word "Chinaman"< as a phrase, or also >using "Chinaman"< and other equivalents. The reason for searching for this phrase is to look for any articles which may discuss the use of the word, and those phrases are the most likely to turn up such articles; I think they'll have quotes on "Chinaman" in the context desired too, rather than without, so that may be necessary for the search parameter, i.e. for that phrase.Skookum1 19:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Google Books turns out to be a goldmine for that idea of a bibliography of titles/articles, huh? Also probably for illustrative passages. As for the NYT, hard to say what exactly to look for out of those tens of thousands...certainly any article about it becoming taboo, in whatever year that might be (?), but also coverage of things like the riots in Vancouver, Wyoming, and coverage of the gold rushes and railway construction maybe. Obviously a ton of material; I'll give it some thought and see if there's anything more specific we might look for in the NYT Archive, vast as it is....Guess I might as well try the Gutenberg Project and maybe WikiSource also.Skookum1 23:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll be back later today about the very interesting discussions in the translation sections following, but just popping a note here that I just finished items from the Nat'l Archives of Canada and there were a number of items there either addressed to or BY the Consul General of China, in which "chinamen" is in the subject header, and presumably in the text. If the word was so offensive on the dates of those letters, I daresay it wouldn't have been used in diplomatic correspondence to someone who would allegedly find the word offensive; and even more it wouldn't have been used by the Consul General....but the original documents aren't online so you can't see with the Consul General of China himself used. Interesting question, though, and not a red herring (unlike other tangential "gee, I don't know what you mean" disingenuity going on around here).Skookum1 18:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Translation needed

Here's one for you Hong, a book that's turned up twice already, in the resources section in a couple of places; it turns out it was originally in Chinese, which poses the question "how is "Chinaman" translated into "Chinese". I'm not sure, but the answer would appear to be zhongguo ren:

• The ugly Chinaman and the crisis of Chinese culture / Bo Yang ; translated and edited by Don J. Cohn and Jing Qing (Chou lou de Zhongguo renin the original Chinese title -

NB the equivalency of "Chinaman" and "Zhongguo ren", if that's what is; if Hong could help break down the translation it might be helpful, i.e. if Chou lou turns out to be the Chinaman equivalent here (??), and zhongguo ren in syntactical contexts if the ref to Chinese culture overall). I dont' have that link open; seem to me it's quite early, e.g. 1920 but I'll look once I close the edit.....nope that's his birth year, publication date was 1992. What's the literal tranlation of the Chinese title?Skookum1 01:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I speak a bit of Chinese, and the translation is literally "The Ugly Chinese Person." 'Zhongguo Ren" means Chinese person, and is still used today. It is not in anyway insulting.Zeus1234 01:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

So the title, directly translated, is "The Ugly Chinese Person" or "The Ugly Chinese", if we drop the nominal person that's not always required in English; and the choice of "Chinaman" was that of the editors. Not much different from The Ugly American, the Ugly Japanese, or the Ugly Canadian or whomever, huh? But the editorial choice of using the rebranded now-pejorative "Chinaman" when it's absent in the original Chinese is in and of itself interesting; a little bit of salesmanship no doubt, also (sensation/controversy always sells, like sex) but to me more of a political choice. Unless Bo Yang himself chose the title, which may also be likely of course. But still, it's a curiosity that even though it's a straightforward lexical equation in the one language it's offensive, in the other it's not. How's that again, and why? Oh sorry, I forgot - "why" is original research...I'm curious; if he discusses in Chinese the word "chinaman" as one of the forms/manifestations of discrimination etc, what characters are used to write it in Chinese, i.e. to distinguish it from "Chinese person"? Which, IIRC, directly means "person from the Middle/Centre Realm", no? Skookum1 01:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Zhong guo ren = Central Kingdom Person (literally). I have no idea if there is a different way to write 'Chinaman' in Chinese, but I really doubt it. Why would there be as it essentially meant the same thing as Chinese person until quite recently?Zeus1234 03:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a source that discuss whether or not the translation of "zhong guo ren" to "Chinaman" in 1985 is offensive or done with the intend to offend? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Skookum1, what is your point? That the word is more likely to offend now than it was in the 1920's? We all agree on that, in case you haven't noticed.

As for this translation, let me do a better job for you. "Chou lou" means ugly. "Zhongguo ren" means "person/people from China", depending on the context. It is also non-gender-specific. That the translators decided to use "Chinaman" in this context is very interesting. Perhaps they wanted to emphasize the ugliness of the Chinese!

Of course, that is original research, and it shouldn't appear in the article. But so is your interpretation of the non-racist nature of the translation. Mine is more sound than yours, though, don't you think? 4.236.111.15 15:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chinaman = 支那人

Chinaman = 支那人, and 支那 is the old Chinese for CHINA, or SINA the word CHINA comes from. Today, you have SINA.com for example, the leading Chinese website. Now, modern Chinese find 支那 (CHINA=SINA) offensive, who knows why, but they do. So the word CHINA, since it is derived from 支那 SINA is itself offensive. Not being able to bann the use of CHINA (支那) they are able however to get away with claiming CHINAMAN (支那人) is offensive. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.22.218.194 (talk) 09:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

Err... where did you get that 支那人 specifically translates to "Chinaman"? It is considered offensive like "Chinaman", but that doesn't mean it's the translation. The common translation of specifically "Chinaman" is 中國佬. Also, 支那 and 支那人 has been offensive terms for decades because this is how Japan referred to China when it was an imperialist power in Asia in the late 1800s and first half of the 1900s. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Implying that Chinese resentment of the English term "Chinaman" is rooted, at least partly, in the Japanese choice of Chinese characters...but as noted on my comments about Nat'l Archives items on the resources page, what might have been the Chinese government/diplomatic corps' own usages, either in English or in Chinese? The cites on the Nat'l Archives page re the Consul General of China in Canada may perhaps be from the Manchukuo period, but I'm not sure that Canada recognized the Manchukuo and the correspondence is in English anyway. But it's interesting a bit perturbing that linguistic logics that "支那 and 支那人 [have] been offensive terms for decades because this is how Japan referred to China when it was an imperialist power in Asia" is really quite a revelation, y'know. It may be that the Japanese Empire chose 支那人 because of its parallel to "Chinaman" as an offensive term; but supposedly (according to the doctrine) "Chinaman" was already offensive before the Japanese Empire invaded/colonized/imperialized in China; so the equation of 支那人 to "Chinaman" (as opposed to "person from/citizen of 支那") just doesn't figure if the usages of the Japanese Empire is why "Chinaman" is now considered discriminatory in English; but I'm curious now - you said " The common translation of specifically "Chinaman" is 中國佬" and that was my original question, after you (ahem) tried to change the subject and put words in my mouth no less - what is the meaning of 中國佬 if that is "specifically "Chinaman"? Is it offensive in Chinese? i.e. why "佬" vs. "人"??Skookum1 20:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I never implied anything, did not put words in your mouth, and I have no idea how I "changed the subject". How long are you going to continue your bad faith assumption? 中國佬 is a term derived from "Chinaman", not the other way around. And as far as I know, the term 支那人 has nothing to do with "Chinaman", though both terms are considered offensive. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you please answer questions directly instead of pretending you either didn't hear them or didn't answer them? If 中國佬 is "derived" from chinaman, how is it derived from Chinaman? Is it phonetic? A certain set of meanings? How is "chinaman" vs "chinese man" written in Chinese when the word is discussed, i.e. in Chinese? What does "中國佬" literally mean, likewise (since it's here) "支那人"? It's a very straightforward question and you'd save yourself from further loss of face simply by answering it directly.Skookum1 00:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, Sina.com does not call itself 支那. It calls itself 新浪. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Sina is the old Latin name for China; it was unknown in Alexander's time (IIRC there was Khitai, under whatever spelling, i.e. Cathay) so I don't think it exists in ancient Greek; maybe Roman-era Greek, certainly Byzantine; in modern Greek it's still sina but that may have been a reverse-borrowing from Latin, I'm not sure. Ultimately the word might have been a borrowing from Persian or another language with contact to/knowledge of China.Skookum1 20:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chinaman-as-sailing-vessel

Just made a comment on Talk:Chinaman about this, which is yet another meaning/context, but posting here to notify anyone who's taking the time to read the various citations that I've completed items from R. Kipling for their general cultural/contemporary interest; I didn't do one-line citations but whole passages to give context to the usage/flavour and of course also Kipling's own attitudes and his times. There's passages on BC in specific, btw, and re "Chinamen" as contrasted to "Japanese" (not "Japs").Skookum1 20:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chinaman's Hatand other geographic names

This is more about the Chinaman DAB page (which I think should be Chinaman (disambiguation) as discussed above somewhere), but because of all the geographic placenames using "Chinaman" a listing of those seems required as on other disambiguation pages given geographic and also compound usages; Mokolii used to be Chinaman's Hat, and there are three other "Chinamans Hat" locations in Idaho, Washington and Montana as well as three "Chinaman Hat" locations (not "Chinaman's Hat", though), two in Oregon, one in Texas, as well as the other Chinaman-placenames already listed (here or on the resources page, whichever); none seem article worthy, except for Chinamans Arch (no apostrophe) in Utah or Chinaman Spring somewhere on the USGS quad titled Old Faithful, so therefore in Yellowstone National Park although possibly only a subfeature listing on the Old Faithful page as it doesn't show up much on the actual topo...hmm it's in the index, but not on the topos, so must have been expunged, although many other similar names have not been; could be because it's in a national park? (the county is Teton so I'd thought it was Grand Teton Natl' Park originally) - oh, and Chinamans Dinner Dam in Montana....hmmm Chinamans Canyon in Colorado may also be article-worthy, and there's a Chinaman Trail in the Blue Mountains or Oregon which doesn't seem likely to get a htrail article via WikiProject Oregon unless there's a heritage story or featured-trail status for it (? - obscure on maps, but maybe in hiking/camping guides)...and Chinaman Cove Campground next to Canyon Ferry Dam in Montana, also obscure but y'never know maybe popular and will wind up with a local-recreation facilities article, or a mention in the Canyon Ferry Dam/Reservoir articles. Not sure how or if to list them all, but certainly some seem warranted for a listing of geographic-name usages, including the old one for Mokolii as a historical usage. These comments made here because they are in the context of ongoing usage, irrespective of condemnations/controversies, but also because much of the discussion here is relevant to content at Talk:Chinaman anyway. A note has also bee nplaced on Talk:Mokolii about possible dab'ing of the Chinaman(s) Hat placenames.Skookum1 21:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Just had a look at a search for "China" in the Canadian Geographical Names Database and even more cumbersome to copy-paste than the topozone one, but a few seem obviously to previously have been "Chinaman placenames" - China Nose Mountain, "China Beach, China Ridge, China Reef, the various China Lakes, maybe China Gulch and others; one I know that's not as China Head Mountain, near Lillooet, which is "head" in the sense of a "headland" although there's also a feature on this small plateau (which is what China Head is - it's usually just called China Head, "+Mountain" is the official map-name) and relates to the Chinese rancher/settler there, who was one of the main merchants in Lillooet right up until WWII (Wo Hing, who needs an article one day); it was a hog ranch and another mountain in the area gets its name, Hogback Mountain not because it's a hogback (hogsback?) but because it's where Mr. Wo used to graze his pigs (dangerous country, lots of cougar, wolves...but I suspect full-size mountain-grazed boars and sows guarding piglets might be more than able to take care of themselves, at least in one-on-one - unlike cattle...). Anyway, historical names that have been changed should also be listed; Chinaman's Peak/Ha Ling Peak isn't the only one; they all can be documented, and like Mokolii there should be a mention somewhere (on this page or the dab) of those places whose names used to contain "Chinaman". History is history, and you can't undo what things used to be called, if you're really wanting to be fully encyclopedic.Skookum1 21:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More Definitions

I made a trip to the library today and searched some dictionaries, all of which said 'Chinaman' was derogatory. I did however find some alternate meanings, which are not derogatory.

From the New Partridge Dictionary of Slang: Chinaman, noun

• 1) an addiction to heroin or another opiate (1948)

'Is getting that Chinaman off his back, too.' Jack Kerouac, Letter to Neal Cassady, P 175, December 8, 1948.

• 2) a numbing substance put on the penis to forestall ejaculation. Trinidad & Tobago (2003)
• 3) In politics a mentor or protector. (1973)

Chinaman (polit) - Political Sponsor. Your personal clout, your man upstairs. - Bill Reilly, Big Al's Official Guide to Chicagoese, P 21, 1982.

• 4) An Irishman. UK, 1956
• 5) In cricket, a left-handed bowler's leg-break to a right-handed batsman. UK, 1937

Homage to Elliss 'puss' Achong, a 1930s West Indian cricketer of Chinese ancestry.

'He batted shrewdly and creatively and his left-arm chinaman and googly bowling is improving at a pace. - The Guardian, 27th January, 2003.

• 6) An unshorn lock on a sheep's rump. (because it resembles a pigtail) New Zealand

The cricket and politics usages here, especially seeing their examples and the origin of the cricketing term, are examples of "complimentary adaptation" as maybe with certain other uses (like that detailing/polish job if I'm right about it, a flattering compliment to Chinese cleaning skills/meticulousness); another slang cite below seems to indicate the "wily oriental" image, but then so does mandarin in its UK/Canada (/Oz/NZ?) political sense, which is another "complimentary borrowing/adaptation. Even though these have been consigned to the disambig page, they deserve mention here as "complimentary adaptation", whatever wording for that would make people happy (and not all people are obviously going to be happy about the idea of explaining such information on this page, but it would be unencylopedic not to do so....).Skookum1 00:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to add I know I've heard and seen No. 2, the penile numbing substance; same tone as mickey finn for spiking a drink (and that's an Irish derisive n.b.)Skookum1 00:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind the penile numbing substance is called 'Chinaman' only in Trinidad & Tobago...

Zeus1234 00:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It's only cited as an example from Trinidad and Tobago, but I know I've heard it here in Vancouver, although from who I can't recall; there are old links from here to Trinidad and the rest of the West Indies, though not as tightly as Toronto's and for different reasons; it may go right back to the railway/gold rush times here, when there were West Indians already here; or it may have come about independently, maybe because of something you could buy in one of nearly any BC city/town in those days - wherever there was a Chinese apothecary with who-knows-what. Just guessing as to where it came from, but I know it's used in that context in these parts. Keefer4, you ever heard it?Skookum1 00:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Coulda been a guy from Toronto, given how many there are here....Skookum1 00:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

There are lots of examples of the words from the New partridge that I can write down if requested.

Sounds like an interesting list; please continue. One thing noted so far is the regional variation in meaning/adaptation that I was referring to before, as connotations and applications are going to vary from culture and region to culture and region, even or especially within the anglosphere; perhaps in the community Maxine Wong Kingston was raised in it was just as bad as "nigger"; it certainly wasn't in BC, and still isn't. But the list of other slang uses would be very interesting and, to me, a propos (I saw Xiner's out-take); I've heard: "have/having a chinaman" myself in the context of an overdose, or behaving as though you were anyway (prob. connected to "sick like a Chinaman", which I've also heard, which is yes derogatory but rooted somewhat in fact because of the high levels of jaundice and other poor health among early immigrants (from whatever cause). Aside from such halfway-ethnic references I know there's a few other (inanimate) things around here simply sometimes called "a chinaman", but it'll take some headscratching to remember where I've heard them (and obviously they're uncitable, but similar to those you've raised here) as they're maybe in various trades, e.g. a certain kind of knot or winch maybe in marine jargon, although I'm not saying that's it; just that kind of thing, or a certain way of tuning an engine - in fact, I know there's an automotive reference, maybe it's to a standard of detailing/meticulousness, all polished up like lacquerware/porcelain.... I know I've heard "doing a chinaman" too and it wasn't about behaving like a Chinese person, whatever it did mean (I've forgotten the context); seems to me it was up in Lillooet, where there's a lot of specialized and often arcane/antique local expressions/idioms/slang (including the continued use of "chinaman" by townspeople, including those of part-Chinese descent...and p.c. or not I know people around town, native, white, East Indian and maybe also the remaining Japanese, don't flinch on using it. That's not citable, but it is typical in some communities here; but again, the point is that it's a word that does find other uses than in reference to Chinese people, and there's probably more than the slang dictionaries can even compile, as with other kinds of slang (esp. localized stuff like in Lillooet). Skookum1 00:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

From Cassel's Dictionary of Slang:

• 1) A cup of tea. Late 19th century
• 2) An Irishman. Late 19th century
• 3) In dice, a 5. Australia, 1900s
• 4) Withdrawal from narcotic use, US, 1930s.
• 5) A farthing (like the stereotyped Chinese, the coin is small). 1940s-1950s
• 6) One who has political influence, thus 'have a chinaman,' to have political influence. [the image of the 'wily oriental,' now derog] 1970sZeus1234 23:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Parallel arguments re Native American

There's actually a whole page North American native name controversy (think I've got that name right; maybe Native American name controversy, but I found the following points as summarized by User:Kevin Myers on Talk:Indian Wars in the section titled "Naming"; there is no equivalent poll here but the context of the debate is related to the points summarized below in a sometimes-similar discussion (see the "controversy" article; I'll probably have to fix its title as that was by memory).

• By the most recent poll I've seen (here), American Indians prefer "American Indian" to "Native American." Indeed, browse through the popular newspaper Indian Country Today and you'll see that American Indian journalists regularly refer to their brethren as "Indians." Yet you say that we should not use "Indian" because "some people consider this word to be offensive." Which people?

• If most American Indians do indeed prefer "Indian" or "American Indian" to "Native American," would that make a difference in your opinion?

• You write "White historians ... are still largely ignorant of the points of view of various Native American peoples on the events." Which historians? Do you have a reference for this sweeping statement?

I've heard much the same thing said, over and over, on CBC radio and in its documentaries and in newspaper/magazine writeups about the same situation re historians and Asians in BC, and also First Nations. As a result, all we have are shows about them, often largely talking about how there haven't been any shows/exposure for them, and how "this one" is going to make a difference, and what historians there are from before the politically correct period are blanket-dismissed and only the rejigged versions of history are welcome. I'd venture that Asian historians, and Asian North American historians, are also at least guilty of the same about non-Asian North Americans and their society and culture, or for that matter concerning European history and culture. Perspective is always a two-way street, as a certain First Nations Wikipedian Keefer4 and I know of has been now-patiently learning through actually talking to some of the enemy and finding out why they think/say what they do, instead of just howling at them as if they were some kind of monster (the usual p.c./protest movement tactics for confronting different realities). I actually think Hong's learned quite a bit in the course of what's gone in in what is now not a content dispute but a content development discussion (Uncle G's "contributions" notwithstanding) and an exploration of the culture-history of the word (hopefully more than myself and Keefer4 are keeping the resources page on their watchlists, as it continues to grow). The comparison of the Native American name controversy with this one is not meant as a snipe, just a matter-of-fact reality about the politics of language; in which this word is, evidently from the citations overleaf, an important part, albeit rather more symbolic than having anything to actually do with etymology as such; more to do with shifting contexts and cultures/values over time and place. Like it or not, this word is part of North American culture, and because perhaps it's more non-Asians who have used it, there should also be some other templates than the Asian American one already in place; the US and Canada WPs don't seem right, but there might be something suitable (in order to attract others than just from the one WP adn the perspectives that might be expected from there - though not necessarily expected, as I think we've already seen in the characters discussion). Thought about WPBC but that's not right either....Skookum1 02:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

What I've "learnt" is that all this blind guessing about the offensive nature of the term is quickly becoming irrelevant without sources that actually discuss its offensive nature. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You're equivocating. Citations of "both" (all) kinds of usage are emerging, including more books that use the title to address the issue of discrimination; I would have thought you would have been happy about that. And yes, without sources that actually discuss its offensive nature in the 19th Century, you can't presume to claim in the weight of mounting and overwhelming evidence that it was offensive in the 19th Century. You only have statements from 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s people who condemn the term but, to my knowledge, not one of them discusses WHY the term is offensive. Especially when many people THEN and many people STILL NOW do not think it is offensive, although they may not use it. There is evidence (Orwell) the tide against the word's acceptability as the generic word for a Chinese person (even a female, quite often, in fact) seems to have been turning in the 1930s - but even as late as 1954 a mainstream dictionary of English usage says it is the more common usage for small numbers of people, with "Chinese" tending to be reserved. But it is long after that that Maxine Hong whatsername equated the word with "nigger" (the equivalent tone, at worst, might be "coloured") and you have all the hysterics and diversions and deflections and non sequiturs from guys like Uncle G, and of course a couple of curve balls thrown by you that, sadly for you, bounced right back (will you answer me about those issues with the characters or not?). Anyway, none of this is irrelevant - it's all highly irrelevant; what's irrelevant are any of the objections you're raising. And in the case of the logic you've just field, you've raised the point that there are in fact a lot of sources in a certain time period which use it as the main word for a Chinese person, and NONE in that time period which say it is offensive. Yes, it became offensive, and became (to some people only) hotly offensive (like Maxine and Uncle G) but the full range of meanings, and the evolution of the various adaptations (as well as the separate china trade meanings, which you'll note in OED include one that's given as the primary meaning...); all this is a "history of a word article". That it contains a lot of facts inconvenient to the faction that wants to think like Maxine Wong and rant and scream about, instead of be rational and try and document the word and its history....as with Gweilo. Whatever. A friend just arrived so I'm going to go deal with real-world conversation. You're tying yourself in knots, Hong, and trying to change topics, trying to insist on irrelevance only to render yourself more and more irrelevant in the process. You're just digging the hole deeper; it was you who asked for citations about inoffensiveness vs offensivenesss, after all. You can have your cake and eat it too. But you have to eat all of it, if you're going to be polite.Skookum1 06:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

And I'm repeating for the nth time - my preferred version of the intro, and really of the entire article itself, would not say that it was offensive, period - regardless of what time period; and not as a blanket statement. Not unless sources can be provided to actually back that up, that is. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 08:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, gee, if you'd said that a week a ago, then we wouldn't have had to quibble about qualifying "offensive" with either "usually", "often", "sometimes". I can deal with the latest text that Xiner did on Chinaman in the wake of me taking out "offensive" (which IMO shouldn't have still been there), so now it mentions that it was common usage but is now often derogatory, that's fine for that page. And yes, sources that actually discuss its offensive nature would be helpful; denunciations and condemnations are not discussions or studies; they're political tracts; if there's a sociolinguistics paper or anything else out there on the history of the word and its origins and how it became derisive, and there may be (it may be in some of those ones that use it in their titles), that's great; but so far all there is are wild-eyed claims by types like Maxine W. Kingston and Uncle G., and no actual rational discussion. I could hold a press conference and loudly scream that "honky" or even "Caucasian" are negative words with incorrect and demeaning histories, and scream and rant at Ted Turner and Jerry Seinfeld too; that doesn't mean I'd be write. I'd get a lot of news copy, and if I were from the right group I could get the NAACP to cluck their tongues and approve, too. But I still wouldn't be right, and there still wouldn't be citations proving the emotional position I'd taken. Because you can't prove emotions - you can only act them out (if you do, many don't). And perceptions based in what someone thinks another people is meaning by a word fall into the category of "emotions" as well as, by definition, being incredibly subjective.Skookum1 18:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I said this four days ago, and I've repeated it many many times. You are the only one here that haven't understood that I don't want the article to state in a blanket statement that the word is offensive. Look at my numerous responses to you where I said, "my preferred version does not say that the word is offensive, period." Everybody else seemed to have readily understood what I've said. And the fact that Asian American organisations objected to this term is a fact. If you manage to hold a conference on the offensiveness of "honky" and prominent figures participated, then by all means, add that tidbit into the article about the word "honky". Heck, I'd do it myself. That's completely irrelevant to this discussion. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Chinaman blogsite

Not sure who this guy is, but it's clearly his choice of personal nickname (even though his surname appears to be Olmstead...). But it's another instance of a North American person using the word as a self-referential nickname; presumably he's part-Chinese (or not?).Skookum1 19:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes from Bo Yang

Found a speech by Bo Yang about his book given at Ohio University and it's interestingly self-critical of Chinese culture, which is why "Ugly Chinaman" is featured in the title, as he explores the negative images/behaviours of the Chinese vs. other groups. "Ugly Chinaman" occurs as the paradigm repeatedly, but sometimes he uses "Chinaman" or "Chinamen" in standalone contexts:

• Chinese people are notorious for quarrelling and squabbling among themselves. A Japanese person all by himself is no better than a pig, but three Japanese together are as awesome as a dragon. The Japanese people's ability to co-operate makes them nearly invincible, and in neither commerce nor war can the Chinese ever dream of competing with them. If three Japanese people in the same business are in Taipei together, they will take turns making sales. Chinese businessmen in the same situation would act like perfect Ugly Chinamen. If Li is selling something for $50, Ma will offer it for $40; if Li lowers the price to $30, Ma will cut it to $20. Every Chinaman is a dragon in his own right.
• Chinese people simply don't understand the importance of cooperation. But if you tell a Chinaman he doesn't understand, he will sit down and write a book just for you entitled "The Importance of Co-operation".
• Those of you who live in the United States know that the people who harass Chinese people the most are other Chinese, not Yankees. It takes a Chinaman to betray a Chinaman; only a Chinaman would have a good reason to frame or slander another Chinaman.

The rest of the paper contains similar contents, either using "Chinese" or "Ugly Chinaman". Evidently this work by Bo Yang is not a critique of the discrimination/colonialist experience but of the traits of Chinese culture/personality which give rise to the "Ugly Chinaman" image; he makes also reference to the Ugly American and Ugly Japanese.Skookum1 20:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What exactly does everyone want?

There are too many asides here to follow and I think that we should start with the basic issues first. So I'm going to put up Xiner's previous compromise edit and please say what your objections are to this edit. I would like for us to figure out what should be in the opening and what should not be there. Thanks everyone. Xiner's edit:

"Chinaman" is an archaic term that refers to a Chinese man. It was at one time a standard English term similar to Dutchman or Welshman, and was not defined as offensive by the Webster's Dictionary of 1913. However, modern dictionaries do find it as offensive, and controversies have arisen even when it is used without an intent to offend." --JGGardiner 23:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I was actually fairly happy with Xiner's terse phrasing on what is now the formally-named disambig page in the wake of my (yet again) taking out "offensive and derogatory" planted by our little "nameless" crusader against us "fascists" (that would appear to be a personal attack on all of us; I suggest a sockpuppet inquiry/report as it's clear this person is another Wikipedian and not an idle visitor. Anyway, this was Xiner's "fix":

Chinaman (racial term), an outdated term used to refer to a Chinese man, now often derogatory.

I don't like "archaic" vs "outdated" as it's not fully archaic; "largely outdated" would be even better, considering its use in political essays to represent the stereotype either of white discrimination or, as in Bo Yang and Paul Wong's work, to epitomize the Chinese person/culture/image/archetype in general (to whatever end); it should also be noted that it was sometimes also used to describe women, usually in the singular (examples can be found, of course...). And on the tails of the phrase:

It was at one time a standard English term similar to Dutchman or Welshman and was used in official contexts such as censuses, death records as well as in general journalistic and literary use. It was not defined as offensive by the Webster's Dictionary of 1913 and as late as 1956 ["as late as" may be POV?] remained in standard English usage [here quote Fowler's]. Modern dictionaries usually define it as derogatory or offensive, but it has a wide range of adapted/derived uses from porcelain figurines, political backers and in cricketing slang. Controveries have arisen even when it is used without an intent to offend, with some claiming it is as vulgar as "chink" or "nigger", but it remains a common feature of Asian-American/Canadian political and social writing as an archetype/image and also features in title of other literature such as plays and in song titles, and in names adopted by artists and others of Asian descent in North America. An identical word is used in a different context, without any reference to Chinese persons but to China, and generally only heard in the United Kingdom and mostly archaic in usage, and can refer to a dealer in chinaware, or a 18th-19th Century ship engaged in the china trade. Skookum1

That's largely a summary of the disambig page, but it's important to give an idea of the penetration of the term into other areas of culture/life/language, despite the protestations of those who seemingly want to ban the term outright (and here, as we have seen, to even ban its history so the latter-day judgement has no challenge from the truth/evidence). Other than the Webster's and Fowler's, wherever it fits in I think the Orwell quote is important to demonstrate the era in which it began to become acceptable in publishing, even though it remained in Fowler's (as well as newspaper styleguides, as per various archives into the '60s). I know that's long but it has to lay out everything - so as to not be POV. The next passages/section after that, modelling this on Gweilo and other similar word-history/culture pages, should be the etymology of the word and a sampling of some of the earlier uses and variations, including the derisive compound forms (John Chinaman, Chinky Chinky Chinaman, Ugly Chinaman etc - "Chin Chin Chinaman" is a song title and popularized chinoiserie in the '20s and maybe where Chinky chinky chinaman came from, but wasn't written to be derisive - no more than Limehouse Blues, which was written about London's Chinatown Limehouse in the same period. On the other hand, that same decade saw the book Dr. Fu Manchu and the Evil Chinaman, which maybe was like Bo Yang's book, or maybe it was an anti-Chinese tract in the guise of a Sherlockian murder mystery; I haven't looked at it yet...But yes, let's collaborate on a draft intro, and then on the structure of the page and we'll all pick good examples of all the usages to illustrate the word's hisory. I'd say it's also important to get it protected once the new copy/intro is in place, at least semi-protected to keep out IP address users and new account-SPAs from ravaging it once we've got it all somewhere it's actually credible....Skookum1 00:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

This is what I prefer:

Chinaman is an outdated term that refers to a Chinese man. At one time a casual English term similar to Dutchman and Welshman, it was not defined as offensive by the Webster's Dictionary of 1913. Today, Asian American organisations and others have objected to the use of the term as offensive, and it has been defined as such by current dictionaries. However, the term has been used without a stated intent to offend or knowledge of its offensive nature.

It's to-the-point and clear. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

We could do a lot worse than that intro for now. Incorporating some of the other stuff Skookum mentioned above prominently in the article too, of course. I still think we're eventually going to find some type of news piece or archival document which advises the term as offensive beyond dictionaries.. but that will take time. Later.--Keefer4 | Talk 02:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. And I'm going to work on a section for "Usage" or "Historic usage" in the next few days. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Fowler's is just as credible a ref, and more recent, than the 1913 Websters; I see no reason why it shouldn't be mentioned instead; to "counterbalance" it could be a phrase that George Orwell wrote about having to change his drafts over in 1937, etc. but if it's a dictionary def. then one of "English usage" is a lot more pertinent anyway than a mere definition, esp. one without examples; whatever it's date; that it happens to be 1956 is a side issue.Skookum1 02:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

In addition to the model of the Gweilo and similar articles the aforementioned Native American name controversy includes layout considerations, and a range of coverage of material and viewpoints (most uncited albeit) that may prove useful for "design" here.Skookum1 03:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Link to resources/citations list

Neither Keefer nor I appreciated having this stuff put "out of sight, out of mind", although for the reasons of sheer volume we agree with the practicality of it, especially as those pages continue to grow. There's a lot of important material there which newcomers to this debate, such as David Levy and others, may not have noticed beforehand, and which others here have denounced as "irrelevant" and called us "fascists" and such for talking about. Whatever; here's the link to the amassed citations/usages and other resources, which I'm re-posting here because the original notice, low-key as it was, is now archived and semi-invisible. No doubt there are some who would prefer that it was invisible, but that's just not the case; so there's a link on the Talk:Chinaman (disambiguation) page to this debate page, also.Skookum1 00:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Am I missing something here? When was the word "fascist" ever thrown around? Did "Four Point Kid" say that? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 23:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Look at the edit history; it was 4.236.111.5 (3 contributions only, mar 28, also NYC) in this edit (on the right).Skookum1 00:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright, but I would appreciate it if you point the finger at the one person that's responsible. Nobody else here called anybody a fascist, to the best of my knowledge. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Both you and "he" called all the evidence/material you don't like irrelevant; the sentence continued from there even there was only the one "fascists" denunciation; perhaps more careful syntax would have been "and which others here have denounced as "irrelevant" and one who called us 'fascists'...." if that would have made you happier; I'm not sure if the other "irrelevant" comments were by 4.zero.zero or Uncle G. Skookum1 03:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Correction, I said that your blind guessing about the offensive nature of the term is irrelevant, and I said that whether or not you personally hold a conference on the word "honky" is also irrelevant. I never said any evidence or material are irrelevant. Please don't put words in my mouth. Thanks. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no "blind guessing", and it's not me that wants to talk about only the offensive aspects of the term and its history; - what there is, is the evidence such as the Fowler's and the 1913 Webster's establishing hte validity of the historical usages that you were denouncing as being uncitable, or at best uncited. Now they're cited, and the issues do not have to do with the term's well-established offensiveness in some quarters/contexts, but with the many non-derogatory ways it was used and the non-derogatory secondary applications (well, in the case of the cricketing term it turns it out may have been derogatory in context to start with, although now it's "just a term"). It also has to do with the dynamics of why/when it came to be/is perceived as derogatory offensive; we can't do original research but we can point to Orwell's letter as well as the counter-example Fowler's, and we can show examples of census and court docket records and snippets of passages by notable literary/historical writers/people - to show examples of its varying usage in different contexts (which was my point about NA Name Controversy, i.e. the different modes of using it should all be explored, including the latter-day one attempting to equate it to nigger, kike, etc. and also its use by Bo Yang, Paul Wong, Frank Chin and other artists/writers of either Chinese-American/Canadian origin or non-Chinese in ethnicity as in the case of Mamet and Frayn. All are different kinds of usage, even though the "it's always offensive" crowd can't come to grips with that and nobody else seems to be paying attention to them; especially when you look at the way Bo Yang embraced the term to make it his own critique's vehicle, instead of a critique on white colonialism/domination as political essays using it/on it have largely been before. There is no "blind guessing" in the relevance of any of this, or with any of it having to do with it being "offensive". There was no blind guessing about any of this; the variety and range of types of usages and possible citations are standard fare if you've read any early North American history in sources, as it's common knowledge it was the standard word for a (usually male) person from China and that people did and do use it casually, no matter what the political correct lobby or Asian-American politicos scream into the media, or how many dictionaries acknowlede that the term is now "offensive" - but those dictionary definitions don't seem to embrace all the other wide range of its meanins. The Slang dictionaries do, as does Fowler's, and there's no "blind guessing" in any of this. The "blind guessing" going on is you trying to figure out how to backpedal; I'm not the one who wants to talk about the offensive nature of the word; as you may recall, I've been the one trying to establish, and document, all the ways in which it is not offensive, as well as bibilgraphical materials embracing point of view. What have you beeing doing? Asking circular, evasive questions and picking apart things instead of contributing to debate; when are you going to answer my questions about the character-renderings? Do you care in the slightest that 4.x.x. has been launching personal attacks, or are you only concerned about those when you allege that I do them? C'mon, Hong, the rest of us are trying to work with you here; stop posting comments critical of the other editors and what you SAY their positions are, so you can criticize them for positions they don't even hold (like me trying to estalbish the offensiveness of the word - ?!); why not just work with the material and be a good Wikipedian instead of a dissembler?Skookum1 07:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Curious how you spent you energy here attacking me re my comments about 4.x.x's nastiness, intsead of attacking him for being rude/incivil etc as well as defiant of the consensus; you don't seem to say much back to him; in this case, given your prior invocation of the Wikipedia principles so loudly, I would have expected you to lead the charge. But instead of dealing with him you pick apart what you think I said, reword it so it seems I said something you want me to have said, and criticize me. Instead of him. What's with that anyway? See No. 2 in the Bo Yang section, maybe...although this is a bit more twisted than the kind of thing Bo Yang is talking about, which in fact I do recognize all too well.Skookum1 07:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

And instead of "attacking back" why don't you take this on the chin and either answer questions instead of moving their meanings around, and also work on the aspects of the article you now admit are needed. And you might also pay attention to Chickenmonkey about not needing cites on disambiguation pages, which blows your former position there - so hard held to and ruthlessly applied - completely out of the water. I'm not going to be the one to take out the cites; I suggest it's your place to tidy up after yourself, instead of defraying here in so many ways; you said you were going to write the historical usages section, and I'm curious to see what you'll come up with; out of courtesy I've been waiting for you to begin, but it seems you're more interested in defending yourself from being too closely associated with 4.x.x. . . . while also avoiding criticizing him. Just work on the article, Hong, and crop the cultural and personal paranoia, OK? WE're all trying to work with you for a change; why not respect that?Skookum1

All I'm saying is that you accuse those that actually did the deed, and don't put words in my mouth. That's all. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, for Pete's sake, Hong. I didn't put words in YOUR mouth, you put them in mine; you do it all the time; as here AGAIN with imputing I said you'd called us racists; that's not the syntax of my sentence at all; I wasn't being specific as to who made which allegation and that's standard English. I really do wonder about your eomprehension skills, seriously, but then I think it's just more defraying tactic; you're looking for persecution, looking for insults, always have been throughout this; while making them right and left, as you just have here, by insulting my intelligence as to what it is you say I said that I DIDN'T say, and as above where you're now pretending that it's me that's obsessed with the "offensive" position and that it's you that's been in support of the inclusion of the historical usages. Would you please give your head a shake? If you're trying to confuse the conversation (lots of which you've tried to rule out of order, at least you did before) adn, you're only makin yourself look confused and none of the rest of us are fooled. New visitors to this page might be misled by your ongoing circumnambulating, but the rest of us know you too well to not be able to see right through you. Here yet again, you've tried to turn this into a criticism of me, but YOU are the one who's always screaming about Wikipedia guidelines and principles; have YOU filed a sock report or a WP/ANI something-or-other on 4.x.x because of his abuses, and his hostility/inanity/obstructionism around here? What about an invocation of WP:Civil against the little blighter? No, you haven't; you're just concerned with how YOU look and with what you think you're been called, or what to pretend you've been called. Have you removed the citation footnotes from the disambig page you insisted on but turn out to be not in Wiki format principles? Have you answered my questions about the Chinese renderins of Chinaman and what they EXACTLY mean? Have you begun compiling those historical instances and situations that will go in the historical usages section? No, all you've done is quibble about what you CLAIM you've been called, which you haven't been called. I don't think you realize quite how ridiculous you're making yourself look to anyone who's been following this (well, except for 4.x.x and Uncle G - you're probably their hero or something). So get on with it - fix the pages, work on the content, read through the citations/examples and LEARN SOMETHING. Stop trying to cover your own back; it's too late for that now.Skookum1 20:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You said that I called evidence and materials I didn't like irrelevant. That's not what I did. What I called irrelevant was your guesswork on the offensiveness of the term. And specifically, when I did that, I was responding to your making this term a parrallel to the Native American naming controversy. That was your own personal opinion, with no sources that place these two issues as parallel, and not admissible to the article itself. Other comments include your frequent writing of about 2000 words "wondering" why so-and-so used the word "Chinaman". Another thing I called irrelevant is the possibility of you personally holding a conference on the word "honky". This article is not about that word, so whether or not you hold a conference on it is also irrelevant. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I was suggesting the structure and range of the article, which explores all angles and is meant to; there are no parallels re derisives although there are parallels concerning conflicting sensitivities. YOu seem to want to find fault with everything, instead of doing something proactive. And as for my ability to write and greater length (and make more sense) than yourself, stop whining; those emendations were necessary in context; not a context you care about, and which you overtly tried to shove under the carpet until thwarted by the others around here. Are you going to actually try and be helpful or are you here just to complain about what other people have said; "why" doesn't have to be in the ariticle about those sources; but the sources legitimately do and despite all yuour protestations they are highly relevant; readers of Wikipedia themselves can make up their minds whether the usages conform to Maxine Wong Kingston's raving and ranting about the word being like "nigger" and "kike". Sure, we'll have her quote her; but we'll also have examples that intelligent readers can read for themselves and decide whether she's a nutbar or not; which is my opinion, to be sure, and it won't be on the article page. But lots of examples that will clearly stand outside and beyond her ridiculous condemnation, which is not proof of offensiveness, but again proof that some people need to find thins offensive, and will fabricate realities to complement their emotions. Nothing here is irelevant Hong - except your continuous wheedling trying to put fault on others for things they either haven't even done or which you have misinterpreted or misunderstood; smarten up and get down to work. Have you removed those citations from the disambig page you demanded be placed there as if you were WikiGod? Have you tried to help those of who don't speak Chinese what the issues with the Chinese characters used to convey the term are? I know I'd translate Norwegian or Icelandic for you if you asked, as best I could anyway, or French or Spanish depending.....so why are you being so cagey with your own language? It's a simple question; you have been misdirecting the conversation with this lastest exchange instead of being useful in the slightest. What's up? Why not improve the article, and work with the others here, instead of complaining if someone dresses you down (at length) for being continuously redundant, evasive, misdirecting, and worse. You hvae great creds on your userpage, so you know how to work on articles; if you don't have anything left to contribute to this article then you should ask yourself what you're doing here. Either be helpful, or.....stick around and continue to be evasive and make yourself look foolish; it's sorta entertaining, in fact....but I really wish you'd learn to read things straight, instead of reading into them whatever it is you need in order to find a counterattack/attack.Skookum1 00:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

And as for your nonsensical whine about my JOKE about a conference on Honky, when the hell are you going to get a sense of humour? Got anything else to complain about that has nothing to do with anything - it was a sarcastic joke, fer chrissake. And if you didn't get the point of the sarcasm, I can't help you; you're on your own if you have no sense of humour in this world. High and dry. Learn what's important in the world, Hong, and learn to treat others with respect; they may learn you're worth being treated with respect in return.Skookum1 00:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)