Talk:Gweilo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article milestones
February 28, 2006 Articles for deletion Kept
Hong Kong Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Hong Kong, a project to coordinate efforts in improving all Hong Kong-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Hong Kong-related articles, you are invited to join this project!
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Hong Kong To-do:
edit purge
  • Clean up all MTR station pages. They are literally all over the place. Two model pages are Tsing Yi Station and Sheung Shui Station. They each describe a feature special to the station, Station layout, exit, and connections, as well as neighbouring stations and the station "box".
    • We will also need plenty of updated pictures (e.g. removing all KCR-related images except those on the KCR article). Check that all pages have basically the same language structure as Tsing Yi Station and Sheung Shui Station. Links to location maps are good too. (Should also perform these checks on Chinese Wikipedia.)
  • Clean-up pages that link with TVB, especially its series pages.
News This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. The citation is in:

Contents

[edit] Introductory Sentence

I would like to change "Gweilo (鬼佬; Jyutping: gwai2 lou2; Cantonese pronounced [kwɐ̌ɪ lə̌ʊ]; sometimes also spelt Gwailo) is a Cantonese term for Caucasian people (generally men), considered racist by some people." to "Gweilo (鬼佬; Jyutping: gwai2 lou2; Cantonese pronounced [kwɐ̌ɪ lə̌ʊ]; sometimes also spelt Gwailo) is a Cantonese term for non-Chinese people (generally men), considered racist by some people." The reason is that the term "gwailo" does not refer only to "Caucasians", which is a term already rejected by anthropologists [see Caucasian race] and replaced by the term, "European". The term can also refer to African Americans as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.239.221 (talk) 03:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Translation to "Devil"

Sorry. Didn't see the citation to "Intermediate Chinese" by Yip and Matthews. However, the book seems to be stretch the translation of the term to mean "Devil" as explained in the other part of the article. But I would like to revert the adjective "derogatory" to "racist" which is a more precise term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.239.221 (talk) 03:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gwai or Gwei

Actually, sei gweilo is still very much in use, isn't it? I have been called like that several times during my stay in HK. --84.138.180.41 09:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I moved the page becuase "gweilo" is more popular than "gwailo"

-- Jerry Crimson Mann 21:36, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What about Jau Gwai? :-D — Instantnood 04:01, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

In a sense, I would prefer "Gwei" instead "Gwai" here. :) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 04:36, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If we follow the way the government transliterate people's names and place names, it should be Chau Kwai. In Jyutping it's Zau Gwai. :-D — Instantnood 10:55, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
Well, actually there's no consensus about the translation. Both terms are fine by me, to be frank, and do it another way later on if there's a proof of a definite transliteration. ;) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 10:57, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:-P — Instantnood 11:18, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Guizi

Is the term really borrowed by Cantonese??? it seems that the term guizi was originally used to mean the Japanese, and later used to refers to the white men (洋鬼子)...--K.C. Tang 03:50, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Move to Wiktionary

I transwiki'd this article to Wiktionary and replaced the current version with a soft-redirect. user:Instantnood reverted that edit with the comment This is more than a dictionary definition. Please discuss at the talk page. Thanks.

I've read and now re-read the article. The contents of this article are a detailed discussion of the meanings, origins and usage of a word. It includes synonyms and related words. Those are components of a dictionary definition. It is not the content that I would expect to see in a truly great, unabridged encyclopedia. It is, however, the content that I would expect to see in a truly great, unabridged dictionary. I believe that the content belongs in Wiktionary, not in Wikipedia because Wikipedia is not a dictionary has been established policy since long before I joined the project.

I see no possibility that this article can be expanded past a dictionary definition and into an encyclopedia article. I would be happy to be proven wrong, though. If you can show me what in this article is more than a discussion of the meanings, origins and/or usage of the word or if you can expand the article past that state, I will withdraw my objections. Rossami (talk) 01:18, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

It's been almost 4 months. The article is still a mere dictionary definition. It has some excellent discussion of the usage and connotations of the term but that is content more appropriate to a dictionary than an encyclopedia. So far, there is no encyclopedia article here. Per Wikipedia is not a dictionary, I have returned this article to it's state as a soft-redirect to Wiktionary. I strongly encourage the participants on this page to follow the link to Wiktionary and to continue to improve the definition there. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 05:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
How is that a dicdef!? enochlau (talk) 06:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
It is an article about a word. It includes the meaning (including connotations), usage (including examples), origins, antonyms, synonyms and related words. It is not an article about the underlying concept or thing. In accordance with our long-standing policy that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, an acceptable encyclopedia may begin with a definition but must go beyond that. So far, no one has described any content in this article that goes beyond the content that I would hope to see in a great, unabridged dictionary. What's here is good content but it was misplaced. It belongs in Wiktionary. Rossami (talk) 12:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
What's the doing here then? I think if the article contains any sort of explanation as to its cultural setting (e.g. "This reflects a transformation in which an ethnic group begins referring to itself with a term which was originally considered an ethnic slur."), it has transcended the level of dicdef. Compare the article of old to the stuff you find on Wiktionary - it's far more detailed and won't fit in there at all. enochlau (talk) 14:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

This article fits under Category:Pejorative terms for people and can be more than a dictionary entry. Shawnc 14:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] derogatory

"It is used so commonly by Cantonese speakers to refer to white people and westerners in general that its use is not always derogatory." Such a statement calls for a citation, as frequent use does not automatically mean non-derogatory: could the word be casually and neutrally used to directly address a random westerner, as in "hello, gweilo" or "I remember you, you're that gweilo who.."? Shawnc 13:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with this article saying that it's mostly used as non-derogatory. Gweilo is equivalent to calling somebody "whitey" or "darkie". Some Cantonese use the term 西人, literally "Western person", eg. Westerner, as a more polite, non-derogatory term. Dyl 15:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
"Westerner" is more written language than spoken. When speaking, most HKers will use the term "gweilo" to mean "the white guy".--little Alex 01:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not disputing that Gweilo is used more often, it certainly is. The point that I'm making is that Gweilo still has a negative connotation, even if commonly used. Dyl 07:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
See my very un-p.c. edits. I'm confronted with Chinese racism and Chinese racist linguistic terms EVERY DAY and the pretense that gweilo is not derogatory is a load of crap; yet at the same time people who used it nonchalantly justify it as "well, you used to the bosses so it's OK for us to discriminate aginst you/insult you as it's our turn now" or "well, how would you know, you're not Chinese". Ditto with the old usage of Chinaman, which many North American Chinese happily use for themselves, and not even necessarily jokingly (i.e. those the new Chinese call "bananas"), and which remains in backcountry dialects of English in the Pacific Northwest without any pejorative context in the minds of the people using it; also in many Native American/First Nations language where it's also the adjectival form, e.g. "Chinese food" would be chinaman muckamuck in Chinook Jargon, though latter-day chinookology has coined the phrase china tillikum, but that's a neologism created because of p.c. sensitivities not an authentic word. What pisses "us" off so much is the endless pretense that anything racist about Chinese culture isn't actually racist, while nearly anything someone else says about the Chinese is immediately denounced as racist. We explored our double standards a long time ago, and made efforts to fix them. I'd say it's Chinese culture's term to EXPUNGE gweilo from the language in the same that "nigger" and "chink" are no longer acceptable in English. But changing the Chinese language so as to not offend non-Chinese people would no doubt constitute a "humiliation" or a "loss of face" for Chinese culture, right? yeah ,right....hypocritesSkookum1 18:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree 100% with the above. This article seems a bit POV in almost defending the term. It needs to be balanced out. It definitely isn't a non-offensive term. The CRTC ruling quote is especially absurd. Can you imagine if some Caucasian had a Chinese cooking show called "Chinaman Cooking"? The only reason this word seems to not hit the fan, seems to be that most Caucasians simply don't know Chinese language. However I bet if they knew what they were being called, they would take offense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.119.98.198 (talk) 07:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't know how much you take offense to the term "Gweilo", but if I am to insult a white guy in my native Cantonese I will definitely say something stronger than that by adding insulting suffixes. I am just pointing out the fact that nowadays the term "Gweilo" by itself doesn't carry enough weight to be insulting, at least to the person inflicting the insult. I do avoid saying these "gwei-" terms in my daily speech even when no foreigners are presence. I have had "political correctness indoctrination" in the US. Heh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.149.193.70 (talk) 17:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I must disagree with the current wordage that seeks to defend a POV interpretation of how the word is used. Common usage is not exclusive of offensiveness. The term, especially its derivative 黑鬼, is used often in a derogatory manner. Yes, I do think the term can be used in a neutral manner, and I have actually known expats in HK to use it to describe themselves. But it is also often used in a negative manner. The article needs to be edited to reflect this, instead of this description of "mostly not derogative" or "slightly pejorative". These qualifiers border on Wikipedia:Original research if they have no sources to back up the claim. At the very least, the offensiveness of 黑鬼 needs to be made clear. Hong Qi Gong 21:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

A few years ago on the web, I actually stumbled upon a group started by a local HKer that wanted to push for people to stop using this term in normal conversation, saying that it's offensive. But I just simply can't find its website anymore. If anybody know of the group I'm talking about or know of a similar group, please link it up. Hong Qi Gong 16:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I've tested whether the gwei is offensive or not a few times. Very few Hongkongers see Kong Gwei 港鬼 as acceptable and even fewer Mainlanders would accept Han Gui 汉鬼 or Zhongguo Guizi 中国鬼子. And increasing numbers of Chinese who live in the UK are telling me they will never again use gweilo or guizi to refer to whites, and will oppose any of their compatriates who do use them. 80.177.125.188 13:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC) charliecharlieecho

I wouldn't know what the heck you're talking about if you called me 港鬼. Never heard the term before. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Much of this article seems apologetic of the term, which is generally considered derogatory. Acknowledging its derogatory connotation is not an attack on Chinese people or culture. All cultures have derogatory words for foreigners, and there's nothing (academically) wrong with recognizing that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.125.134.42 (talk) 11:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

"Gweilo" is not a cute "ghost" like Casper. It also refers to the most evil "devil". Proof: When the Japanese raped Chinese family's mother, killed her before their eyes and draged their daughters to forced prostitution what did the Chinese refer to them as? What word epitomized the pures hate they could garne? They chose the lowest most derogatory word in existence, i.e., "Gwei" (鬼）as in "Gweizi Bing" (鬼子兵）and also "Gwielo"(鬼佬）. Gweizi Bing, or Guizi Bing as it is usually transliterated, doesn't stand for "Cute Casper Warrier who killed my mother". It stands for "Lowest devil in existence who should be killed Satan Warrier". Let's not turn Wikipedia into a pulpit for racists who use racist terms. (Cheerful Eric (talk) 21:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC))

"Gweilo" is one of the most racist terms on the earth. Dosteyevsky once said that the purest racist is the one who is completely unaware that they're racist. They think what they see is a fact of the world, and not their racism. If a caucasian speaks Cantonese, except for on TV or as a singer or nun or priest, many Hong Kong people refuse to talk to them in Cantonese. Particularly in a company. Native Hong Kong people can speak Cantonese in a Hong Kong office, but a caucasian is often strictly forbidden. And this apartheid is accompanied with the use of the term "foreign devil" as a set. The racism and exclusion added together with the use of this word show the true actual power of the "gweilo" (devil man) term in practice. By the people in Hong Kong who do this say "It's not racism. We don't talk to you because you're a gweilo. Cantonese is for Hong Kong people to speak." The racism is completely unconscious to them. It's the result of several hundred years of living under British rule. Many now believe there are actually several different categories of human being and that they're not racist in thinking so, but the world is actually made that way. (Cheerful Eric (talk) 21:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Inline commenting

I don't know if there are any official policies against it, but personally I just find inline commenting annoying. Can we not do this? If you want to make a comment on specific texts in the article, just do it here in the Talk page. Hong Qi Gong 17:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What Skookum1 has to say about the Opium War

I'm going to delete the inline commenting that Skookum1 did, but I'm re-posting it here. This is what he had to say about the Opium War in relations to this term:

"really? and what did they call us before the Opium Wars? What are the older words, then?"

Hong Qi Gong 18:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, HongQiGong ("flowery/perfume yoga", I'm guessing, if "hong" is the same as in HK); where's the cite to prove that "gweilo" was a creation of the Opium Wars period? If there's no cite, that shouldn't be said, as it gives a trumped-up justification for what is clearly a racist term, by any standard. And if it was created during the Opium Wars, what was the word for white people before the Opium Wars? Surely we didn't not-exist; even if we were illegal in China, that is...(which was pretty much the case, since China was/is patently racist towards non-Chinese).Skookum1 18:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

You're incredibly far off on the translation of my username.
  1. It's not Cantonese.
  2. "Hong Kong" is a badly romanised name that was just kept in usage. "Heung" is a better romanisation for 香, or "fragrant".
  3. Thinking "QiGong" means yoga, you've first mixed Cantonese with Mandarin, thinking my name means "perfume yoga". Secondly, 氣功, or qigong is nothing like yoga.
  4. My username is in Mandarin. It's the name of a famous character in kungfu novel 射鵰英雄傳, or The Legend of the Condor Heroes, written by Jinyong.
Anyway, the only reason I moved your comment here is that I'm personally annoyed by inline comments inserted in the article itself. Plus, this way, we can actually have a discussion about your concern. Hong Qi Gong 18:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] gwei or gwai

it should be gwai because in cantonese its pronounced gwai. in mandarin its pronounced gui. so gwei is definitely wrong. i dont know who is the drunk fool that came up with that spelling.

I've never seen "gwei" used either, so it's definitely not standard, though there are obviously many examples. Either way, "gwai" seems to be more common, and it is supported by both romanization laws and the standard Cantonese pronunciation, so if nobody objects I'm going to make the changes within 24 hours. 218.229.72.173 (talk) 19:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Factual errors: 鬼佬 / 白鬼

The article sounds like the author was a little resentful of us whities while writing it, but aside from the tone, there're some facts that dont jibe well, certainly not without citation.

-Never heard of 黑鬼. I didn't they were an imposing enough presence to merit the slur. -The mainland term is 白鬼, and only occasionally, if the context is known, 鬼子. That's bai2 gui3. I don't think this is an HK term. -The term is considered by anyone I've ever met to be quite obviously offensive. It's picked up some light-hearted intention, but still only in safe company. -What the hell is the author citing with 紅鬚綠眼? Is that supposed to be a reference to dragons or something? It sounds made-up. spetz 68.44.192.170 23:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about 紅鬚綠眼 ("red-whisker, green-eye"), but the epithet 金髮碧眼 ("gold-hair, jade-eye") has historically often been used to describe people who (probably) had Western Eurasian genetic heritage. According to the common European understanding, "red-whisker, green-eye" would seem rather like a description of some Celtic people, whereas "gold-hair, jade-eye" seems like an epithet that would be much more appropriate for a Slavic or Germanic group. However, Chinese people (at least historically) did not make a clear distinction between "red hair" and "golden (i.e., blond) hair," and the linguistic distinction between "green" and "blue" is also a rather recent invention in most of the world's languages, including Chinese, so it is often impossible to tell whether a particular historical quotation was referring to a thing that would be labeled as "green" or rather to a thing that would be labeled as "blue" according to our modern understanding. Ebizur 17:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The terms "black/white devil" are used mostly in oversea Chinese community. "Black devil" is also what the N-word translates into in imported Hollywood movies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.149.193.70 (talk) 17:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent removal of material

There have been several instances of removal of material, much of which already has citations, from the article without discussion by User:HKYAN. See:

Although I agree that much of the article is in bad need of cleanup and that several passages appear to be uncited original research, there has been no consensus to remove such large swaths of material. In addition, replacing it with statements saying that the term is always derogatory despite citations indicating otherwise appears to be POV. I invite HKYAN (and anyone else for that matter) to share their concerns here before making such big changes. —Umofomia (talk) 20:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I will start by sharing my concerns (based on this version of the article). I especially don't like the 3rd paragraph (the one that starts off as "Nowadays, term is often exploited by some ...") because it appears to speculate on why the term might not be derogatory and the reasons for the inaccurate foreign devil translation. The fact of the matter is that we really don't know how the translation came about. There are elements of this in the 2nd paragraph as well (in addition to uncited claims). The 4th paragaph appears to be mostly irrelevant; the use of 死 isn't really relevant to the base meaning of gweilo. The rest of the article appears to be mostly cited, and I have no big qualms about those portions, though they could always be better. —Umofomia (talk) 21:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Gweilo"

The term "gweilo" is not only perjorative, but also offensive. In addition, I would like to state that many of the links in the initial entry do not work and the references, where cited, appear to have little or no acadmic value. Furthermore, the current wording of the article also leads people to believe, or readily gives the impression, that the term "gweilo" is today a completely acceptable term to describe caucasian males.

If such an article was written about the use of terms to describe Chinese people in the same manner, many people would label it racist. Although I appreciate that the term "gweilo" was once originally considered derogatory and that we are now told by some native Cantonese speaking Chinese that it is not, there is again very little factual evidence of this.

As such, this does not alter the fact that the original article is not only incorrect but seems to have been written by someone with a certain amount of personal vengence agianst caucasians and has therfore written it in such a ways as to convince readers that it is authentic. A poper revision of this article should be undertaken, until such time it will continue to be a matter of contention.

HKYAN (talk) 12:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello your edits were reverted earlier due to a request put in to monitor this page due to heavy deletion. Have you ever considered "not" using English sources for this one. The problem is that you are asking English sources whether this term is offensive to Caucasians/English speakers. Of course the answer is always going to be yes. This is equivalent to doing a research in Chinese asking whether Chinaman is offensive?? That answer is also going to be yes. Benjwong (talk) 04:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but as I recall from somewhere in Talk:Chinaman or its archives if any there was a discussion of the Chinese translations of Chinaman and Chinese person in various forms, with the upshot that the characters and words themselves were chosen to represent offensiveness, as if it were contained in the English syntax. So much so that Bo Yang's book title in English has to add the adjective "uglyl" to convey the sense of the Chinese characters, as "Chinaman" clearly does not contain anything explicitly derisive in teh way gweilo is. And while I don't mean to equivocate, only clarify, if offensiveness is to be decided by those offended, which runs the p.c. argument about Chinaman being offensive even if it was widely used without offensive intent (i.e. by non-Chinese; Chinese themselves used it without any self-derogation intended, other than humour/irony as the negative associations developed...)...anyway, if that's the case, then as one of the race targeted in the term gweilo and also raised around it, used in offensive ways, I do find it offensive and know it's used that way. Yet rationalizations about how Chinese speakers do not find it offensive, and because of that the racist sign in Toronto was tolerated by Canada's supposedly strict anti-hate laws; yet non-Chinese opinions about and usages of "Chinaman" are dismissed as being irrelevant and an expression of ignorance. You can't have it both ways, although both ways certainly are out there on both sides, and concerning both words. yeah, it's hard to find cites from non-Chinese about whether or not gweilo is offensive; although passages in literature and travelogues abound, as well as in movie scripts etc. But that's because most non-Chinese are unaware of the word; if they were, they'd be offended. Nobody likes to be called a hairy barbarian, filthy ghost or any of the other various translations offered up over the years (since Kipling's time; I'd imagine he has a usage somewhere...but not spelled gweilo, usually I've seeen it "gwai lo" - old-style English renderings of Chinese words weren't usually bisyllabic, the syllables were all laid out seperately...except when adapted into English like typhoon....).Skookum1 (talk) 04:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok I have not gotten involved in slurs related articles before, so I cannot tell you where your previous arguments have been. What I will say is that this term can be offensive, but not entirely. A simple example. Before 1997 when HK was a British territory, this term was found in many 70s-80s movies that were rated as suitable for all ages. You would think this is not possible given the British government administrations was mostly caucasians. But that goes to show just how socially accepted the phrase was. Movies made for kids contained this phrase. Do I agree the term is offensive today? Yes, absolutely. But the preferred term "western person" (西人) isn't necessarily a safe alternative either. What if the caucasian person was from Russia or Australia, then they aren't really from the west. "white person" is equally as ackward. That is why this term historically have lasted so long. Whether any legit native-English source would ever openly accept that history? I have no idea. But I can tell you from reading this article, the people who previously put this page together stayed pretty close to reality. And that's despite the page being tagged as containing original research. Benjwong (talk) 06:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Meaning/connotations of 鬼

The description, not to say denunciation, of choosing to translate Gwai Lou as "foreign devil" was a nigh-hilarious display of cultural illiteracy--whoever wrote it presumed mightily on their knowledge of the meaning of the word "devil" in the West, and the connotations of same. Similarly, they didn't seem to have a terribly firm grasp of what ghosts are like in China.

See, the word 鬼 does mean, often, "(evil) spirit of a dead person", but the behavior and attributes are nothing like those of a Western ghost, unless vampires count. They are, in fact, much more akin to the Western idea of "devil" (which is a very general term, anyway)--they're an unclean spirit, and they're the things you're getting rid of when you do an exorcism in Chinese traditional religion. Hmm, what do Westerners usually exorcise? (Gee, Davy, do you think it might be devils?)

Besides which the term gwai is sometimes used for Buddhist demons that punish evildoers in the Hells...gee, what on earth does that sound like?

Foreign devil looks like a pretty accurate translation to me.

And then there's the tendentious attempt to divine the motives of writers who died three centuries ago--"They tried to make it sound like the Chinese were racist!" Well, A) the fact any Westerner going to China would have been killed probably did that, without any need for propaganda, and B) if someone calls you "a guy that resembles the spirit of the unquiet dead," you and he are not on cordial terms. 71.223.172.153 (talk) 07:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean Mogwai. Benjwong (talk) 02:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
No, if you'd actually bothered to read what I wrote, I was referring to the ghost-type, straight-up Gwai--who are responsible for hauntings and ill-luck and all that fun stuff, and have to be exorcised from the houses or people they're tormenting. Mogwai are more like fairies or goblins--or, well, Gremlins, not coincidentally. 71.223.181.222 (talk) 10:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] equivocating horse apples

It is pejorative only when the term is delibrately prefaced by the Chinese word sei (死,

What a crock; I've heard it LOTS without the 'sei' and it's just as offensive; it's offensive NO MATTER WHAT THE INTENT. Fine equivocate all you want about how white people aren't capable of translating it and try to dodge the other Chinese who admit its origins and use are clearly derisive; go pretending it's the fault of the person victimized that they don't understand that it doesn't mean how they take it to. The same is true historically of Chinaman but that doesn't stop linguistic-policeman from denouncing anyone who uses it as a racist pig. Gwei lo IS OFFENSIVE it doesn't need "sei" in front of it; unless you buy the artgument that "damned Chinaman" is derisive while "Chinaman" isn't....This whole article is so full of speculations and suppositions and equivocations, plus digressions to discuss other Chinese words/characters; it's all fluff and doesn't need to be this long it also sholuldn't pander to C'hinese linguistic apologists who want to "white wash" this term...Skookum1 (talk) 14:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)