Forigite

lingvokapablo:I seem to remember a teacher in highschool saying that the word Indian was a misnomer and that Native American was proper.

My policy is to call people what they prefer to be called, and to ask if there's a doubt. It's the same with African American versus Black. If someone is not American, then they are clearly not an African American, so "black" may be the preferred term in that case. But if someone is American, they may prefer "African American".

lingvokapablo:Interestingly enough, I slightly cringe when I hear the word "Jew" as well. Unfortantely, I have heard the word used in more derogatory contexts, so that naturally does influence me. As such, I tend to avoid that word as well, and just stick to "Jewish" rather than "Jew."

Unfortunately, if you stick to "Jewish person", that can be understood as being derogatory, because it implies that there's something wrong or offensive with the word "Jew". When I meet someone who insists on always referring to Jews as "Jewish people", I cringe, because I tend to assume that the person thinks that there was something wrong with being Jewish.

The word Jew is not offensive or derogatory if it is spoken in a normal tone of voice (not disparaging) and used to refer to Jewish people - as a noun. Obviously if you used it as an adjective, that would be offensive (a "Jew woman" versus a Jewish woman, for example)

Similarly, I can call Christians, "Christians", a noun. I wouldn't insist on calling them "Christian people". Obviously it would be offensive if I said the word in an offensive way, "That man is a *Christian*" (in a disparaging tone), etc.

Hyperboreus:Same thing with Americans imagining all Germans wearing leather shorts, hats and drinking beer. And these characteristics aren't even German, but Bavarian... Or that all Mexicans use large sombreros... etc pp

I dont know if Americans imagine Germans that way. I think the German that has entered into American consciousness now is probably a fast car driving type with sunglasses on. Of course those Bavarian schuplattler types are amusing.

I really see mainstream Germans as specifically money driven, potentially wearing business suits with button up shirt tucked in neatly and receding hairlines.

Otherwise I can point out fairly diverse groups of people in Germany that have nothing to do with banks, politics, or business.

With Mexicans as well, we have so many in the USA, it is hard to think of them as stereotypes. I was sitting in a bar and a Mexican wearing a baseball hat came in and sat next to me, then ordered a Corona.

Forigite

Hyperboreus:

komenstanto:With Mexicans as well, we have so many in the USA, it is hard to think of them as stereotypes. I was sitting in a bar and a Mexican wearing a baseball hat came in and sat next to me, then ordered a Corona.

The first time I went to Texas, I was positively surprised that during my 16 days stay, I didn't need to speak a single word in English. Car rental, hotel reservation, shopping, buying a prepaid celphone, etc all in Spanish. Well after all, most of the US states with Spanish names (like Tejas y Casillas, although this state defected early and started the whole kerfuffle) were Mexican until the day when Gnrl Santa Ana screwed it up.

I would probably go to New Mexico rather than Texas. It's more low-key. Plus it has mountains, cold air, and pueblo architecture.

Yes, we took all those other areas from Mexico due to our manifest destiny and for the Ulster Scots! When you go out west, you are really entering the territory that the Ulster Scots broke into when they disobeyed the British rule about going west.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walker_(film)

komenstanto:I am always slightly appalled by the European's dream of the USA and the west. Something about it used to really rile me. It's like Albrecht Durer's rhinoceros, mostly fantasy. Even one of the Esperanto songs from Kajto vaguely annoyed me: "Melankolia Trajn-kanzono" about some supposed contact Kajto members had with a freight train on a visit to the USA that filled them with images of Woody Guthrie. No doubt in reality it was an Amtrak!

Not unlike portraits of "Oriental" (i.e. Middle-Eastern) culture in Classical and Mediaeval times.

vejktoro:

Hyperboreus:Thank you very much. So my (spanishly infused) doubts about "indiano" were unnecessary.

Btw: If you ever talk in Spanish about or to indians, do NOT use "indio".

It ain't cool in Canada either... just so ya know.

A fun list of dos and do nots if it helps:

- In UK, wog = bad, in Australia*, wog = normal/familial (intonation/context is important of course) (meaning shifts too! Australian "wogs" are Greek, Italian and Lebanese, not sure about the UK but I know it's bad to say)

- In Canada, eskimo = bad, in the rest of the artic, eskimo = normal (I believe "inuit" is preferred in Canada, with ironically offensive consequences elsewhere, since some canadians/inuits/politically correct people force foreigners to use "inuit" when talking to all indigenous artic populations, thus offending the other artic aborigines because they're not inuit. Best thing to do in such cases is to just remember that Canda's different and not to try and change it )

Apparently now we can add:
- In the Hispanosphere, indian = bad, in the anglosphere, indian = normal.

These sorts of words always amuse me.
"Indo" is another funny one. In Australia it refers to Indonesia or Indonesians, in Indonesia and the Netherlands I *believe* it refers to half Indonesian half Dutch people (which is practically its own ethnicity in some ways).

(* Australia might seem relaxed in this regard, but we make up for it by being hypercorrective to the point of collective stupidity elsewhere in ethnic issues, e.g. "Aborigine" vs. "Aboriginal" vs. "Indigenous", and fighting over which one causes the most offence (FYI, no one knows).)

ceigered:

vejktoro:

Hyperboreus:Thank you very much. So my (spanishly infused) doubts about "indiano" were unnecessary.

Btw: If you ever talk in Spanish about or to indians, do NOT use "indio".

It ain't cool in Canada either... just so ya know.

A fun list of dos and do nots if it helps:

...

To me this brings up the consideration that a mere list of words may not be sufficiently effective for satisfactory international or cross-cultural communication, merely because a term in one language / culture may be acceptable, but if that term is adapted into an auxiliary language, it may have an undesirable connotation in another language / culture. ceigered pointed out the example of "Eskimo," which Wells glosses as "eskimo." To the best of my understanding (I am not of Arctic peoples heritage), the term is permissible among the Arctic peoples of the USA (Alaska) but deprecated among the Arctic peoples of Canada, just next door. (Fortunately Wells also glosses "Inuk/Inuit.")

Again, I suspect that a mere word list is not in and of itself adequate for an international auxiliary language. Even vocabulary needs to be nuanced in order not to give offense.

Asking someone what they want to be called is always the best policy. Normally this happens when members of a certain community learn Esperanto and tell other Esperanto speakers what they want to be called. I am not aware of any Esperanto speakers among the northern peoples but I'm sure that Esperanto speakers would be happy to call them whatever they prefer.

The problem with the term Inuit is that it doesn't cover Yupik peoples (who live in Alaska and Russia, but not Canada). Canadians can feel safe in saying "Inuit" because all of Canada's northern peoples come from the Inupiat ethnicity that the word "inuit" refers to.

"Eskimo" has perhaps been retained in the US because we have more than one ethnicity that we need to refer to.

erinja:

The problem with the term Inuit is that it doesn't cover Yupik peoples (who live in Alaska and Russia, but not Canada). Canadians can feel safe in saying "Inuit" because all of Canada's northern peoples come from the Inupiat ethnicity that the word "inuit" refers to.

"Eskimo" has perhaps been retained in the US because we have more than one ethnicity that we need to refer to.

Seeing as how we are talking about being careful, If you should ever find yourself in Canada's Arctic, the people there are NOT all the same. In my home province there are two groups.. one group calls themselves Inuit, the other Innu; they are descended from different cultures/migrations. Close by is another group who call themselves the Dene. These are the names we call them by. If you must toss them all in the same pile for some reason, you can call them Northern First Nations.

I've been from one end of the Arctic to the other, and yes, one should always ask! I imagine it's a good idea wherever you end up.