or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › Your Ancestry
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Your Ancestry - Page 3

post #31 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post
Are you Jamaican? I always thought you were from Philly or Harlem, as you speak of them often. If so, as a US native, you knew how the term would be viewed in the US, so I guess I am confused. If I were to use the N-word as say, rappers use it, would that be okay?
I'm from Hartford CT, I just wish I was a Harlemnite. As I said earlier my father is Jamaican and I grew up in a Jamaican neighborhood, so I use their terminology frequently. You can say what you like online , I wouldn't advise you to say it to my or many Blacks faces. But, if a Chinese or Indian person told me they took offense to what I said, I'd apologize. Your opinion on it doesn't matter, it is a little phony to be offended for others, especially for such a mild term. It is also silly to compare Chinamon to the N-word, highly different terms.
post #32 of 101
I've always thought tracing American "ancestry" back in this day and age a bit contrived.
Okay, so chances are that someone you never met or who died when you were 2 years old moved to the U.S. in the early 19th century. How does that have an affect on how you live your life now or what you would identify as? It's something that you should be "proud" of or make an associate claim to?
To me it just seems like a phony excuse for people to make themselves seem more interesting.
post #33 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoCal2NYC View Post
I've always thought tracing American "ancestry" back in this day and age a bit contrived.
Okay, so chances are that someone you never met or who died when you were 2 years old moved to the U.S. in the early 19th century. How does that have an affect on how you live your life now or what you would identify as? It's something that you should be "proud" of or make an associate claim to?
To me it just seems like a phony excuse for people to make themselves seem more interesting.

I believe; I am them, they are me.
post #34 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpeirpont View Post
...You can say what you like online , I wouldn't advise you to say it to my...faces... Your opinion on it doesn't matter, it is a little phony to be offended for others, especially for such a mild term. It is also silly to compare Chinamon to the N-word, highly different terms.

Really? My opinion doesn't matter on this? I kinda think it does. I am not shy to take issue with the term any time it is used in front of my wife. She happens to be 50% Chinese and she does find it offensive. Your attempts at defending the use of what most find a racially offensive term is getting lamer by the post, such as your new spelling of the term to try and soften the insult. And "highly different term"? Not through lack of history. Go educate yourself just a little bit about the history of the "Chinaman" in the West and Southwest. You know what's phony? Your lame attempt at making this "okay" by use of culture. Not as lame though as the little bit of Internet Tough Guy there for asking a parallel question. That's always a winning gambit on the 'Net, isn't it? No wait, let me guess...you learned karate from a Chinaman, right?
post #35 of 101
My grandfather on my father's side was 1/2 German, 1/4 English and as much as 1/4 native American. We don't know exactly how much because my great grandfather, born appx 1868/died 1926, was a fairly successful businessman at the time and covered up his lineage quite thoroughly.

My grandmother on my father's side was German.

My grandfather from my mother's side was Armenian, his family escaped from Turkey circa 1896.

My grandmother from my mother's side comes from an old American family that goes back about as far in this country as it can. Descended from various European settlers, and a little native American blood too. Her side of the family claims Mary Todd, Eli Whitney, John Smith and a few other notable early Americans as ancestors.
post #36 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post
Really? My opinion doesn't matter on this? I kinda think it does. I am not shy to take issue with the term any time it is used in front of my wife. She happens to be 50% Chinese and she does find it offensive. Your attempts at defending the use of what most find a racially offensive term is getting lamer by the post, such as your new spelling of the term to try and soften the insult. And "highly different term"? Not through lack of history. Go educate yourself just a little bit about the history of the "Chinaman" in the West and Southwest. You know what's phony? Your lame attempt at making this "okay" by use of culture. Not as lame though as the little bit of Internet Tough Guy there for asking a parallel question. That's always a winning gambit on the 'Net, isn't it? No wait, let me guess...you learned karate from a Chinaman, right?

I guess you are in a fighting mood. Chinamon and N**ger are not equivalents, period. I wouldn't call your wife Chinamon as she isn't male. I'd never purposely offend anyone, so as I said, if an Asian is offended I'll explain and apologize. I do find it funny that you accusing me of racism for referring to my own family member as a Chinamen/mon( it actually his son's nickname).
As for the Internet tough guy thing. I though my comment was the opposite. I said you can say n**gger online as much as you desire, I wouldn't advise you to say it me or ANY OTHER Black in person. How you derive a threat from that, who knows. But if it will make you feel better and if you are truly offended for your wife, tell her I am sorry it wasn't malicious, there you go you win(I'm an Internet punk now, I suppose)
post #37 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpeirpont View Post
I guess you are in a fighting mood. Chinamon and N**ger are not equivalents, period. I wouldn't call your wife Chinamon as she isn't male. I'd never purposely offend anyone, so as I said, if an Asian is offended I'll explain and apologize. I do find it funny that you accusing me of racism for referring to my own family member as a Chinamen/mon( it actually his son's nickname).
As for the Internet tough guy thing. I though my comment was the opposite. I said you can say n**gger online as much as you desire, I wouldn't advise you to say it me or ANY OTHER Black in person. How you derive a threat from that, who knows. But if it will make you feel better and if you are truly offended for your wife, tell her I am sorry it wasn't malicious, there you go you win(I'm an Internet punk now, I suppose)

Maybe if you just don't use it, you won't have to apologize for it? I don't think it was malicious and I really don't think 50% of the racially offensive things people say in general are meant maliciously, they're just things said by people either not thinking or ignorant of what they're saying. I'm not trying to pick a fight, as much as it might seem. It's just that for a guy that is so cognizant of his being black, you sure defended your use of a term many find racially offensive...and kept defending it and then calling me phony!

Call it a draw until next time?
post #38 of 101
Actually, Chinaman is a colonial word in the same vein as "oriental". It's fairly backward and underscores the peculiar and often derisive lense through which westerners, especially the British, viewed east Asian culture.

So it may be a jamaican thing, but I don't think saying bati boy would be any less offensive just because you said it in your neighborhood.

This is at least the 2nd time I've seen you get into an argument over the symantics of racial words, and every time, the reasoning is highly manipulated and biased in your favor.

As for the original question; if your ancestry is the most interesting thing about you (and there are several people, like j whatever who mention it at just about every single opportunity), then you should probably try a little harder to find something real to define yourself with.
post #39 of 101
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoCal2NYC View Post
I've always thought tracing American "ancestry" back in this day and age a bit contrived.
Okay, so chances are that someone you never met or who died when you were 2 years old moved to the U.S. in the early 19th century. How does that have an affect on how you live your life now or what you would identify as? It's something that you should be "proud" of or make an associate claim to?
To me it just seems like a phony excuse for people to make themselves seem more interesting.

I'd say you should be proud of where you come from, your history. Like i said in my OP I was extremely proud of it all, it was a natural emotion to have. Are you not of yours?

I see what you are getting at with your last sentence there. That really all depends on who is truthful or not. I guess you've just got to put some kind of trust that people won't fabricate lies.
post #40 of 101
The worst are those crummy web sites that will "research" your coat of arms (and they all seem to have the helmet from a suit of armor in them) and trace your geneology all the way back to Adam for $29.95. I entered my mom's name on a lark and you'd think I was descended all the way down from King Arthur himself. I think they make most of that shit up.
post #41 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Violinist View Post
Actually, Chinaman is a colonial word in the same vein as "oriental". It's fairly backward and underscores the peculiar and often derisive lense through which westerners, especially the British, viewed east Asian culture.

So it may be a jamaican thing, but I don't think saying bati boy would be any less offensive just because you said it in your neighborhood.

This is at least the 2nd time I've seen you get into an argument over the symantics of racial words, and every time, the reasoning is highly manipulated and biased in your favor.

As for the original question; if your ancestry is the most interesting thing about you (and there are several people, like j whatever who mention it at just about every single opportunity), then you should probably try a little harder to find something real to define yourself with.

Blah, Blah, Blah.
Second time? What was the other? I never manipulated I put forth my honest opinion. I was raised with it being a negative word, I never heard it used derisively so why would I assume the Chinese take issue with it, when Chinese family members go the name. Why do you continually compare things that are n9ot alike? Batty boy is an insult there Chinamon isn't. You can take issue with the term, right fully, but comparing it outright insults makes you seem manipulative.
Your problem is your not from place but feel the authority to speak on how they communicate, instead of realizing it doesn't matter what you think you likely understand little about their culture. But it is crazy some white South African is trying to school me in racial issues.
post #42 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by shoe View Post
my ancestry is pure 100% Korean

show-off!
post #43 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post
Why does that term [Chinaman] always strike me as a racial epitaph [sic]?
There were some recent incidents involving Yao Ming being referred to as a Chinaman by Steve Kerr and Ted Turner using the term "Chinaman". "Steve Kerr Apologizes for Use of Derogatory Term On January 19, 2004, Steve Kerr used the term "Chinaman" in referring to Yao Ming during a basketball game between the Houston Rockets and the Memphis Grizzlies. Grand (National) President Saykin Foo sent a letter to Mr. Kerr to express the displeasure of all the members of the Chinese American Citizens Alliance at his use of the derogatory term on national television. The following letter was sent by Grand President Foo: January 22, 2004 Mr. Steve Kerr Turner Sports One CNN Center 13 South Tower Atlanta, GA 30303 RE: Remarks about Yao Ming during TNT Broadcast of Memphis vs. Houston on January 19, 2004 Dear Mr. Kerr: As President of the Chinese American Citizens Alliance (C.A.C.A.), one of the oldest civil rights advocacy organizations in the United States, I am writing on behalf of our entire membership to voice our deepest concern and displeasure at the remarks made by you during the January 19th game between Houston and Memphis. Referring to Houston's Yao Ming as a "Chinaman" is intolerably racist and an affront to the millions of Americans who are of Chinese descent. It is our understanding that since the incident, you have issued an apology to anyone who was offended by the remark. For those who might have occasion to come across it, I believe it can be accepted at its face value since you claim ignorance to the use of the term and without malicious derogatory intent. However, this incident comes almost one year to the day that similar remarks were made by Shaquille O'Neal about Yao Ming. It appears that little has been done in the NBA and its broadcasting partners to bring education, awareness and sensitivity to the issues of culture, race and stereotyping. Racial slurs such as "Chinaman" and "chink" serve to demean an entire race and class of people. Many of us have followed your career from the University of Arizona to the Chicago Bulls and San Antonio Spurs and even know of the tragic loss of your father in the Middle East, so we respect your accomplishments. Thus, in terms of gaining and giving respect, you understand then that how you choose to respond to this incident is where the greater good can be accomplished. I have asked Commissioner David Stern to take a leadership role in cultural awareness and diversity training among the NBA players and its affiliated partners. What can you do, Mr. Kerr, as just one individual? Research for us what you can about the origins of the term "Chinaman". I believe you will gain more and be able to tell more to others about closing the racial stereotyping that seriously inflicts this great country. Would you agree to that? Even broadcasters who no longer play are role models. If I may be of further assistance, please feel free to contact our organization or me, as we exist to bring awareness and education about cultural diversity issues. Sincerely, Saykin Foo President, Chinese American Citizens Alliance Steve Kerr issued an apology in the following e-mail correspondence: Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 17:12:07 EST Subject: (no subject) Dear Mr Foo, Thank you for your letter regarding my reference to Yao Ming as a 'Chinaman' on the TNT telecast on Jan. 19th. I understand that I have offended a great many people by using that term, and I am terribly sorry and deeply embarrassed. The day after the broadcast I received several complaints from people like yourself, so I called my sister in law, who is Chinese American, and explained that I had no idea that I had used a derogatory term. She told me that the word was used as a racial slur in the 1860's to describe the Chinese workers on the Transcontinental Railroad. I learned that most of the Chinese men were treated like slaves and forced to do the most dangerous jobs while receiving very little pay. Needless to say, I am ashamed that I was unaware of this part of our country's history, and I feel awful for ignorantly using the term 'Chinaman'. I pride myself on being extremely open minded and I have great respect for people of all races, religions and backgrounds. I assure you that I used the term innocently and meant no harm by it. I called Yao Ming and apologized to him, and he was very understanding. Mr. Foo, I appreciate your letter, and I am sorry again for the unfortunate choice of words I used. Thank you for accepting my apology and best wishes to you and your constituency. Sincerely, Steve Kerr" CNN founder, Ted Turner apologizes for saying "Chinaman" Ted Turner, founder of the Cable News Network (CNN) in the US released a statement to the Chinese Community, openly apologizing for his use of the term "chinaman", On March 13. He said, "As many people know, I do not believe in any form of prejudice or discrimination and was unaware that the term 'Chinaman' was derogatory and hurtful to the Asian Pacific American community." He said he wants to increase "dialogue between different communities." On March 8, Turner was interviewed by Ronn Owens, KGO radio host of the Bay Area Council. When asked before an audience of 1,000 business and community leaders about how to get China's cooperation in reducing greenhouse gases, Turner said: "The Chinese are very smart. Just think: have you ever met a dumb Chinaman?" Community leaders and officials at the council immediately called for an apology from Turner. All parties responded quickly to the situation. The positive response of the Asian community in particular played a key role in solving this problem. Besides demanding an open apology from Turner, the Asian community asked the concerned Bay Area Council of San Francisco and Ronn Owens to invite leaders of the Asian community to explain why the term "Chinaman" was improper, and give people a better understanding of how to respect cultures of different communities."
post #44 of 101
Another instance of the racial slur "Chinaman" being used:

"The issue in this matter is whether the reference to a Chinese person as a "Chinaman" amounts to hate speech. On SABC3, during a regular overnight TV feed from BBC World, a sports presenter from an independent (non-BBC) production house was heard to comment that a Chinese person, who was taking part in a golf tournament, was the first "Chinaman" to have taken part in such an international golfing event. The comment was not made by a BBC presenter. [2] Dr Tam, a South Africa citizen of Chinese descent, argued that the term was extremely derogatory and that the broadcast amounted to hate speech based on race. The SABC argued that the use of the term was not attributable to the SABC, since it had no control over the content of the BBC programme and, in fact, the person who had uttered the word was not a BBC presenter either. [3] The question is whether the material, judged within context, amounted to the advocacy of hatred based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion and that constituted incitement to cause harm. Our approach to derogatory racial terms has been a strict one. Racial peace in this country, where racial oppression and superiority were part of the Apartheid policy and legislation of the past, demands that race should not, in any manner, form the basis of discrimination or be used to insult. In fact, the test for incitement is that even if the person addressed did not hear the derogatory word, the language nevertheless amounts to incitement if the words were directed at him or her. The mere fact that such a word is broadcast, already supports a prima facie case which should be answered by a broadcaster Where public interest requires that derogatory language be broadcast, for example in news items directed at informing the public of racial abuse, such broadcasts have been held not to have amounted to a contravention of the Code - see Williams, Snyman, Logie & Others v SABC 54/2003. This approach is based on an instructive judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Jersild v Denmark (36/1993/431/510), where the Court held that a journalist, Jersild, had been wrongly convicted by Danish Courts for furthering racial hostility by broadcasting an interview with racists. The interview included racially derogatory language of the worst kind - coarse language and terminology that also directly accused immigrants from Africa as intellectually inferior. The Court held that it had been in the public interest to reveal the shocking attitude of the group interviewed and that the public had the right to be informed thereof. Compare Johanessen 1995 South African Journal of Human Rights 123. [4] In Islamic Unity Convention v Independent Broadcasting Authority and Others the Constitutional Court emphasised that expression should not be allowed to impair the exercise and enjoyment of other important rights, such as the right to dignity, other state interests and the pursuit of national unity and reconciliation. Furthermore, on other occasions, it has been emphasised by the Constitutional Court that the protection of the rights of minorities is an integral part of our new democracy. The fact that such a minority is constituted by a small group is irrelevant. It is entitled to equal protection in terms of the Constitution. Compare Christian Education South Africa v Minister of Education Prince v President Cape Law Society, and Others where the majority states: "The fact that they are a very small group within the larger South African community [the Court was referring to members of the Rastafarian religion] is no reason to deprive them of the protection to which they are entitled under the Bill of Rights. On the contrary their vulnerability as a small and marginalised group means that the Bill of Rights has particular significance for them. The interest protected [in that case by s 15(1) and s 31 of the Constitution] is "˜not a statistical one dependent on a counter-balancing of numbers, but a qualitative one based on respect for diversity'." [5] I have referred to these judgments, not to equate the Chinese community with any marginalised group, which it is not, but to accentuate the importance of the recognition of diversity and the protection of a minority in the pursuit of national unity and reconciliation. The dignity and vulnerability of members of any minority must, at all times, be protected against derogatory language. This principle is, of course, also applicable to a majority. Inherent in dignity also lies the right to security of the person. Security of the person is explicitly protected by section 14 of the Bill of Rights, where the right to privacy is stated to include " to be free from all forms of violence from either public or private sources." This would include derogatory language, which could be defined as a form of verbal violence. In our judgment in South African Human Rights Commission v SABC we held that "harm" in the hate speech provision is a subjective requirement and that the likely emotional harm should be serious. The "harm" in the hate speech provision includes harm to dignity. [6] The evidence before us is that the term "Chinaman" is a seriously derogatory term - comparable to the word "kaffir", which is utterly unacceptable - base on race and that, in the circumstances, there was no justification for the use of the word. It amounted to hate speech within the definition and although the "advocacy" was not explicit and pronounced, the mere reference to a person as a "Chinaman" amounts to hate speech as a result of its likely serious impact on the dignity of a Chinese person. Of course, there would be circumstances where the term would not be derogatory as a result of the context. There was nothing in the broadcast which suggested that the term was contextually used otherwise than in its derogatory sense. Whether the person who used it knew that it was derogatory is unknown. Nevertheless, objectively it is derogatory and is not the kind of language which should be used in broadcasts, unless the broadcast is in the public interest or the word is dramatically or documentarily justified. [7] We accordingly hold that the term amounted to hate speech. The question is, however, whether the SABC should be held responsible for this hate speech. Is it not too far removed from its sphere of control? The term was used by an independent presenter commenting on the BBC about the unique event. In the circumstances we have decided that it would be unfair to hold the SABC responsible for what had been said by an outsider on a BBC broadcast. It is true that a South African broadcaster must, in principle, accept responsibility for all the material it broadcasts, and that an absence of negligence would not always exonerate the broadcaster, but in the present case it seems utterly unfair to hold the SABC responsible for what happened. It was not forewarned of what could be said, and the nature of the programme did not require pre-broadcast steps to be taken so as to ensure compliance with the Code. A broadcast concerning a sport event is usually innocuous. We accordingly hold that the SABC has not contravened the Code. We accept that the SABC will convey this judgment to the BBC, which obviously does not fall within our jurisdiction. Whether the person who said the word was malicious, or simply ill-informed as to the term's derogatory nature, remains open. We simply do not have evidence before us of his intention or motive. We do not have the authority, either, to subpoena such a person to appear before us or relate his intention to us. We, in any case, do not issue subpoenas. A written apology was extended by the BBC via the SABC to the complainant. The complainant was not happy with the letter since it had not been signed. The SABC's representative undertook to obtain the signed apology and send it to the Complainant."
post #45 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpeirpont View Post
Chinamon and N**ger are not equivalents, period.
On 1998-04-09, television sitcom show Seinfeld aired an episode in which a character referred to opium as "the Chinaman's nightcap". The episode prompted many Asian American viewers, including author Maxine Hong Kingston, to send letters of protest. In her letter, Kingston wrote that the term [Chinamon] is "equivalent to niggers for blacks and kikes for Jews". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinaman For you, from your perspective, they are not equivalents. But to a Chinese person or to a person of Asian descent, being called "Chinaman" can be every bit as hurtful as being called "Nigger" can be to a person of African descent. Both words are racial slurs, and they both appear on this list of racial ethnic slurs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_slurs If your relative doesn't object to being called "Chinamon" and it's a term of endearment for him or her and no malice is intended whatsoever -- kind of like when black men call each other "niggers" or "niggahs" or whatever -- then by all means keep using the term when you're with that relative but we must be very careful not to use that term -- or any racial slur -- in public. Heck, I'm not even Asian but I cringe when I hear the term "Chinaman" or "Chinamon" or "Cinnamon" or whatever...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Chat
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › Your Ancestry