Which army would you fight with?

[wbs]

You know, this may be the most entertaining debate I've had on this Board since.... well, since the Political Forum was closed. And I didn't even start it.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Andreas:

To me the use of the shorthand 'jap' is different from the use of the shorthand 'Kraut', because the former is very closely connected to racist propaganda during WW II. I still think that both are showing a clear lack of respect for the group they describe, but 'Jap', to me at least, has far more aggressive undertones because of the propaganda.

Odd -- if asked to rank these in order of likely offensiveness I'd have put them the other way round, because "Jap" is merely a contraction, while "Kraut" involves making a generalisation about the cultural habits (in this case, culinary) of an entire nation. </font>

[wbs]

Just out of curiosity, do any of the Finns here object to being referred to that way instead of 'Finnish'? Based on what I've observed over 4 years on this Boad I would be surprised if any of you are. If any of you do object, why?

[Sergei]

Originally posted by wbs:

That would require you to know beforehand that they would be offended, and therefore require you to be a mind reader.

Ridiculous. You don't need to be a mind reader to intentionally offend someone, or to avoid doing so.

[Bone_Vulture]

Originally posted by wbs:

Just out of curiosity, do any of the Finns here object to being referred to that way instead of 'Finnish'? Based on what I've observed over 4 years on this Boad I would be surprised if any of you are. If any of you do object, why?

Actually, we do take offense. But being such a quiet nation, we do not wish to show our feelings. That is why we're currently collecting money for plane tickets so that we can track down every forum member who uses this derogatory term and personally smack them in the face with a shovel.

Or no, we're not offended by that. I think.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sergei:

Just remember that no-one else, absolutely NO-ONE, knows what you are thinking of when you say 'Jap'. Maybe you mean the Japanese, or the Bulgarians, or your dog, or yourself.

But unless you are a raving semiologist of the first water, you are deeply unlikely to imagine that the word could possibly be intended to convey the meaning usually associated with "bedstead", "Margrave", "pomegranate", "bivalve" or "plinth".</font>

[Sergei]

Originally posted by wbs:

You know, this may be the most entertaining debate I've had on this Board since.... well, since the Political Forum was closed. And I didn't even start it.

Yes, the good ol' fencing with words... slash, parry, THRUST!!! (Or am I supposed to slash, run & duck? I always forget.)

[GSX]

As far as Im aware the Japanese infantry were pretty much equipped for WW1, their armour was abysmal and their logistics were dire. Their navy was a diffrent kettle of fish, but after 1943 was pretty ineffective too.

[Sergei]

Tease the Boney, Part VII:

Originally posted by Bone_Vulture:

Or no, we're not offended by that. I think.

What did the Swedish teenage boy say when looking at bathroom mirror in the morning?

- EN FINNE IGEN!

(Explanation for the un-Nordic: the Swedish use the above phrase, "a Finn again", when someone has been fighting drunk - nobody knows why :confused: - but finne also means pimple)

[wbs]

From Sergei:

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by wbs:

That would require you to know beforehand that they would be offended, and therefore require you to be a mind reader.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ridiculous. You don't need to be a mind reader to intentionally offend someone, or to avoid doing so.

Is that so? Take a look at the latest uproar involving the President of Harvard University, who I think we can agree is likely to be a pretty smart guy. He recently spoke at an event which was examining why women are so underrepresented in Math and the hard Sciences.

It cannot be denied that the representation is disproportional, but no one knows why for sure. I think we can agree that males and females think and act differently from each other. A class of 15 boys and 5 girls is likely to be substancially different, behavior and discussion-wise, than a class of 15 girls and 5 boys. These diffences persist into adulthood, wouldn't you agree?

At any rate, the gentleman in question merely referenced that when he speculated that maybe the underrepresentation of women is due to innate differences between men and women. He didn't claim it as fact (that there are differences), and he didn't say anything about whether the existence of innate differences was a good thing or a bad thing.

Womens' groups chose to be offended, claiming that he was a sexist pig, and have demanded an apology, his resignation, sensitivity training for him, etc., which is all Bullcrap. Now, he didn't intend to offend anyone, and short of not speaking to the topic at hand, I don't see how he could have avoided their reaction.

These groups chose to be offended where none was meant, and this type of response is innappropriate. Should he never make that statement again because someone might be offended, when the evidence (that there are behavioral/thought processing differences)supporting his speculation is right before his eyes and has been documented in scientific studies? Even if the cause of the differences is not known, the existence itself is known.

How would he know these women would be offended beforehand unless he was a mindreader, Sergei?

And even if he could, why should he be under any obligation to modify his remarks if they are truthful?

Getting back to the "Jap" issue for a moment, why should I be under any obligation to refrain from using a term which is widely used in this country without malice aforethought? If you don't want to use the term, then don't use it. But what business is it of yours what terminology I or others may use? You don't have any authority to make that decision for others.

[Andreas]

Yet you claim the authority to judge that the womens groups' protest was/is inappropriate and bullcrap. I am sure the groups don't see their demands as bullcrap, and probably don't think that they would offend you when they make them. Therefore, according to your logic, it is just you as the listener who has a problem, not they as the ones making the staement, and following your logic, you have no business deriding them for their choice of demands from/statements about the president of Harvard. Why should they be under any obligation to pander to your taste?

Sweet irony.

[wbs]

From Andreas:

Yet you claim the authority to judge that the womens groups' protest was/is inappropriate and bullcrap. I am sure the groups don't see their demands as bullcrap, and probably don't think that they would offend you when they make them. Therefore, according to your logic, it is just you as the listener who has a problem, not they as the ones making the staement, and following your logic, you have no business deriding them for their choice of demands from/statements about the president of Harvard. Why should they be under any obligation to pander to your taste?

Sweet irony.

Interesting comment, Andreas. The difference, as I see it, is that he wasn't trying to offend them, and in fact was speculating on the issue only because it was the scientific topic at hand. He didn't say anything to indicate that he was being insulting, and for these women to call for him to be punished is to call for a punishment where no offence was intended. IF none is intended, then none should be taken.

There was no malice aforethought here.

My comment is consistent with my previous statements, in that if these women want to believe that there are no innate differences between men and women, or at least believe that innate differences are not the reason for the disproportionate representation, they can do so. But it is not their place to tell other people, such as me or the president of Harvard, that he is not allowed to express such beliefs and if he does then he must be punished.

I don't see anyone calling for these women to be punished for expressing their beliefs even though many in the scientific community disagree with them, do you?

That being the case, there is nothing inconsistent or ironic about my previous comment.

[Andreas]

So you would (contrary to your previous post) say that they calling him a 'sexist pig' is not bullcrap? Since that is not asking for punishment, it is merely a statement of honest opinion, no doubt offered with no malice aforethought.

BTW - why are you so convinced that the Harvard president was engaged in scientific speculation, and why do you assume he was surprised by the reaction? I would be surprised if either was the case. To me it looks like he was deliberatly trying to provoke this reaction. He can not possibly be so naive that he would not know what he would reap?

[wbs]

From Andreas:

So you would (contrary to your previous post) say that they calling him a 'sexist pig' is not bullcrap? Since that is not asking for punishment, it is merely a statement of honest opinion, no doubt offered with no malice aforethought.

BTW - why are you so convinced that the Harvard president was engaged in scientific speculation, and why do you assume he was surprised by the reaction? I would be surprised if either was the case. To me it looks like he was deliberatly trying to provoke this reaction. He can not possibly be so naive that he would not know what he would reap?

I'm sorry Andreas, I must not have clarified one point. These women in question were demanding his forced resignation, i.e. that he be forced to step down from his job. They also were demanding that he undergo mandatory sensitivity training if he wasn't required to resign. That sounds like a call for punishment, don't you think?

I saw a news conference that he held a few days later, after the reaction hit, and I have kept abreast of developments in the newspaper starting as soon as it was reported, which was the day after he spoke.

All I can say is that he clearly was surprised by the reaction, because (a) he was speculating, and said so, when he made the comments, and ( he was commenting on something that is established fact--that there is disproportionate representation.

His speculation for why this is so has never been seriously disputed--that there are differences between men and women as a whole, either because of biology or socialization or differing priorities or something else.

OK, fine, there are differences. Any parent or elementary school teacher could tell you that. He made no claim or comment as to the cause of the differences--just that there were some. I would say that this meets the criteria for not intending to offend anyone. If he meant to be offensive, he could well have championed a reason behind the differences, such as "women are inherently less intelligent than men (or whatever cause you want to substitute)

This discussion reminds me of Dirtweasle's sig:

With the same honest views, the most honest men often form different conclusions. --Thomas Jefferson

[ February 11, 2005, 06:50 AM: Message edited by: wbs ]

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by John D Salt:

[QB] ]Odd -- if asked to rank these in order of likely offensiveness

Odd, I don't recall anyone asking you to... </font>

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Sergei:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by John D Salt:

But unless you are a raving semiologist of the first water, you are deeply unlikely to imagine that the word could possibly be intended to convey the meaning usually associated with "bedstead", "Margrave", "pomegranate", "bivalve" or "plinth".

Or some positive connotation.

</font>

[wbs]

From John D. Salt:

Now let's have an argument about whether we should call it Bombay or Mumbai...

I've always thought that "Bombay" was a very cool name for a city. Since we're discussing this on a website devoted to all things military I will cast one vote for "Bombay".

Besides, it rolls off my tongue better

[ErikinWest]

Oh sorry I used the word Japs. It just I was refering to the WW2 slang. Like crouts, germies, limies and what not. I would never call someone a 'jap' in a conversation regarding a non ww2 conversation.

Sorry for the cafuffal,

Erik

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by John D Salt:

[QB] ]Odd -- if asked to rank these in order of likely offensiveness

Odd, I don't recall anyone asking you to... </font>

[Wisbech_lad]

The correct English derogatory term for Japanese is, of course "Nip". "Jap" is an americanism I think.

[Wisbech_lad]

And who wants to hazard a guess why Asian group names mostly end in -ese (Siamese, Chinese etc) rather than the more common -an and -sh? Apparrantly it's the portuguese ending - and as they were the first Europeans to meet most asians, English borrowed their words.

Once had long argument in HK with someone who was convinced -ese endings were racist. Sheesh.

Aren't finns called after an SMG? Suomi or sumfink?

[Wisbech_lad]

As for the original question - RN/RAF military attache at Washington embassy. Far enough away from danger & rationing, but a sharp uniform and cute English accent to help comfort those Southern belles whose menfolk are off fighting the war...

[Leopard_2]

Wehrmacht, preferrably Fallschirmpioniere, with all the usual disclaimers about blissfully ignoring the dark side of the war and judging only by "style", and the guts it took to pull off stunts like Eben Emael, making a real difference.

[A.E.B]

Hi all

The obvious choice would be any elite military unit - paratroopers, SAS, Brandenbergs, Submariner, Fighter jockey, etc - but you only turn 18 in 1945: time to be trained and deployed but not time to see combat.

That way you can claim the glory without the danger/blame.

On the Jap word front - people do realise that JAP can also stand for Jewish American Princess?

Most dictionaries have two listings for JAP (a) an abreviation of Japanese, and ( a derogatory term. NIP is either an abreviation of Nippon or again a derogatory term.

But the same applies to BRIT or any other shorthand for a national group. It is the words/context in which the term is used.

"Hey Brit" or "Hey Yank" are hardly offensive. But add the word stupid, or ignorant, or dumb to it and it becomes offensive.

In fact members of a group often use the same terms themselves - hence the widespread use of the N word among African-Americans (and I once offended someone {not a African-American} by using that term as I was seperating out Americans by race).

Hell, when I say FRENCH I mean it as an insult!

The simple fact is that many people want and even need to take offense, regardless of the intentions of the so-labelled offender, due to their own internal pathologies. You can offend people by your clothing, your sexual orientation, your colour, your nationality, your religion, or occassional for just being born.

Regards

A.E.B

[Shmavis]

EDIT: Sorry. Double post here.

[ February 03, 2005, 12:25 AM: Message edited by: Shmavis ]