So I'm American, but currently living in Korea. I started learning Esperanto last year after I came to Korea. For the most part I think Esperanto is really great, and I've made many great friends through Esperanto, but one thing is really frustrating me, and that is the system of naming countries and nationalities. As most of you are probably already aware, some nationalities are formed in Esperanto by attaching the suffix "-ano" to the root name of a country, such as "Usonano" for American, "Kanadano" for Canadian. But other nationalities such as Korean and Japanese are simply "Koreo" and "Japano" respectively.

It was explained to me by an Esperanto teacher that the terms "Koreo" and "Japano" actually refer to race, not nationality, and that many countries are named for the primary race that inhabits them. (This explanation seems a little suspect. I might have misunderstood, so please correct me if I am wrong). I was taken aback by the explanation of the terms for nationalities, because it seems rather irregular, ambiguous, and racist. I asked the Esperanto teacher - who is possibly the most skilled and experienced Esperantist in Korea - how you would label someone who is not ethnically Korean but obtained Korean citizenship, or someone who is ethnically Korean but not a Korean citizen (e.g. - Korean-American). He didn't really have a good answer, and basically told me to just not think about it so much.

This might seem like a minor and inconsequential issue with Esperanto, but it has caused tension between me and some Korean esperantists. Although I know it is not considered "standard", I regularly use the word "koreano" to refer to Koreans. I have been corrected and even chastised several times. I was told that some Koreans (and I suppose Japanese, French, British, etc.) actually prefer the race-based terms and are somewhat offended by the use of terms ending in "-ano".

So I suppose the purpose of this post, besides rambling, is to ask the following questions:

[LISTO]
Is my understanding of the terms for nationality correct?
Am I the only one who is unhappy with this system?
Have there been any previous discussions of this issue or proposals for change?[/list]

Terms like koreo, japano etc. (and even words like nederlandano) can have different meanings depending on context. They can mean somebody who lives in that country, somebody ethnically from the main people of that country, somebody with that citizenship etc.

I guess it also depends on the country - not all people in Russia will be glad to be called rusoj, while in other countries people might not care that much.

Concerning Korea, earlier the usual system was Koreo for the country and koreanoj for the people, but the current recommendation is to use koreoj for the people and Koreujo for the country.

I will never bother to say Koreo. This is just another mix up in the need for a universal standard and allowing perhaps some provincial Esperantists in Korea to change the rules to suit themselves.

This change in the rules obviously will destroy the ability to use the said rules to create new words. If I am to have a universal language, and that language was built to have specific rules for the use of words, then changing the rules will now make us DEPENDANT on the changers of the rules.

Now I am said to be DEPENDANT on Koreans to tell me how to say something rather than the original rules that were made by Zamenhof, rules which allow me to invent the right word for something based on a standard.

You're making things harder for yourself than they need to be, rcardwell, both in terms of Esperanto as a language, and also in terms of your dealings with Korean Esperantists.

The -ujo names (koreoj live in Koreujo) are indeed based on the name of the primary ethnic group that has inhabited that country. Therefore by calling Koreans "koreanoj", it's as if to say that there is no Korean ethnicity. I think you can understand why Koreans might find that offensive, especially since Korean language and culture were so suppressed in the era of Japanese colonialism.

Ethnicity is the *origin* of the names, but people are primarily named by their citizenship, not their ethnicity. A French citizen with Moroccan ethnic heritage is still a "franco", as far as Esperanto is concerned.

You must have noticed that we do the same thing in English, and somehow we all manage to speak English just fine. The easiest thing is to call someone by their citizenship. A Chinese citizen is a 'ĉino'. An American citizen is an 'usonano'.

Some people might not like their citizenships (many people from Catalonia consider themselves Catalan, not Spanish) but they will certainly tell you if they wish to be called by a different name than what's written on their passport.

You may disagree with Esperanto's system of naming countries by the ethnicity of their historical inhabitants (I would say ethnicity rather than race - as far as I'm concerned, there's no such thing as "the French race", for example). But the best choice is to stick with Esperanto's traditional system, and if someone objects to what the traditional system calls them, they will certainly tell you, and you can modify accordingly.

In cases when you want to talk about ethnicity rather than citizenship, you can certainly do it by adding an adjective, just as we do in English. My cousin is an American citizen born in Korea -- an "American", if you ask her. But if you ask whether she's Korean or Chinese, she would certainly say "Korean" (because the question here is obviously ethnicity and not citizenship). You can certainly use adjectives to make things clear. "etna koreo" (ethnic Korean) is someone of Korean ethnicity, no matter what their citizenship. or a "marok-devena franco" (a French person of Moroccan origin).

So the rules of Esperanto have to be broken to support some sort of Racial Jingoism?

Do you realize that the Ulster-Scots think they are the "real" Americans, and that most of our presidents are of Ulster Scots descent (Bill Clinton for instance). I am not an Ulster Scot, nor do I support their non-sense, but only imagine an Ulster-Scots Esperantist wanting to be called "Usono" rather than "Usonano"! I think you see the dilemma. Its as if the Koreans are right wing redneck types who want to call themselves as the racial majority.

You are opening the door for all kinds of nonsense and new-rule invention.

I want to be called Novanglo. I dont agree with citizenship with the rest of the USA. I am a New England citizen. It's laughable!

If you are in a legal entity, then that is your citizenship. You are just making things difficult for new learners by inserting your Jingoism into Esperanto.

It's not really new rules. Pretty much any country with a name that is based on an ethnic group has the name in -ujo form. Korea's name change is a reflection of that fact, rather than an arbitrary change to make someone feel good about themselves. Korea is one of the most ethnically homogenous countries on the planet (that's a fact, not a racist conspiracy), and whoever gave it its old Esperanto name was probably a European who wasn't aware of the existence of a Korean ethnicity. If France is Francujo, and Germany is Germanujo, and Japan is Japanujo, then certainly Korea should be Koreujo as well. Now that we know more, we've updated the name. Similarly, few people say "Hindujo" anymore, for India. It's a term that more accurately reflects the Indian subcontinent. Times have changed, and today India is more properly referred to as "Barato" (a name NOT based on an ethnicity).

The simple fact is that many countries are named for an ethnic group. Countries whose names aren't based on an ethnic group don't get the -ujo ending. Countries whose names are based on an ethnic group get the -ujo ending. There are more ethnicities than just Kazakhs in Kazakhstan, but it is called Kazakhstan ("Land of the Kazakhs") in English, and in Kazakh, nonetheless. Esperanto reflects that; it's "Kazaĥujo".

It's about Esperanto reflecting what countries are called internationally (and in their own languages) versus Esperanto creating its own rules about ethnic groups etc. If it turns out that the Europeans who originally came up with the names of a country made a mistake and chose a name in the wrong form, the names are occasionally updated. It has happened with Korea, India, and even Egypt (some very old texts talk about "Egipto" as a country, though for many years we have said egipto for a person, Egiptujo for the country).

I understand that Hindujo is strange, because we favor Hindus (a religious group) in the west, and it is obviously favoritism, but in the sense of the term "ano" meaning group member, I dont see the problem, since Koreans accept Korea as their name, it follows that they will be a member of a the group of Korea, "Koreano".

Zamenhof wanted to unite the different races in his little city in Poland. He didn't want to cater to racial jingoism.

It's as if the people in Japan and Korea cannot really accept the message of Esperanto in its totality.

Another very intriguing point is that Japan has a minority that was there before the Japanese. How then can you qualify a Japanese person as Japano?

http://www.hrdc.net/sahrdc/hrfeatures/HRF56.htm

http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e2244.html

komenstanto, please edit your post to remove the offensive statement about the Japanese. Those kinds of statements are against the site's terms of service.

erinja:komenstanto, please edit your post to remove the offensive statement about the Japanese. Those kinds of statements are against the site's terms of service.

I took out what I imagine was an offensive statement about the Japanese. However, I will not remove the page about the Ainu.

That page marks the Okinawans as being distinct in Language and culture from Japan, with a population of 1.3 million on the islands and 300,000 elsewhere in Japan.