When did Mexican become a "dirty" word?

No, I would call them Brazilians. If one is Brazilian and the other Mexican
I call them hispanic.

there is no logical reason that we should let the most touchy and easily offended person dictate how we talk, in fact logic suggests that this practice does harm to the collective by getting in the way of efficient communication. Mexicans who don't want to be called Mexican should suck it up and drive on....I am not interested in their offense.

"Hispanic"

You don't need to be a linguist to appreciate that the term is an extension of Spanish.

Brazilians speak Portugese.

They cannot be hispanics.

Hispania is all the Iberian peninsula .... called so since more than twothousand years. And that includes Spain, Portugal, Andorra ... and even a bit of France.

The Ibero-Romance aka Hispanic-Romance languages are Spanish and Portuguese.

Spain and Portugal are completely distinct: To describe these bitter Rivals as cultural similar is the realm of the stupid. Or American. For instance Germany and France are Neighbours. The Americans called them old Europe: To Argue France and Germany are essentially the same is idiotic.
The Iberians peninsular is not a homogenous unit. The Basques have a seperate culture. One they are still fighting for. The Galicians consider themselves celts. The Catalans also have there own culture.
To call Brazilians hispanic is STUPID. It has not been called hispania for 2000 years. You conveniently ignore the Moorish Occupation. And Alaric. Spain was made up of 6 different countries until the reconquest.

I didn't "describe these bitter rivals a cultural similar" but just pointed to the fact that the peninsuly where the countries are situated is called 'Hispania' aka Iberirian peninsula.
I didn't mention a "homogenous culture" on the Iberian peninsula neither - nor did I call Brazilians hispanic.

I didn't ignore the Moorish ocupation nor anything else you mentioned.


All that has nothing to do with the name(s) of that peninsula.
I may be quite stupid [in your opinion], but responding to something that I didn't say nor write isn't very intelligent, too, in my opinion.

Whatever! Why not just call them Brazilians, Peruvians, Argentinians, Mexicans, Mayans, etc? Why put them all in one group? They are distinct from one another. A Puerto Rican is NOT the same as a Mayan. Totally different culture and background.

I'm a Canadian, of UK extraction, if anyone bothers to ask, which they sometimes do. It's a way of placing people on the pecking order or in little boxes. It can also provide you with a bit of background in the person's life. For example, an Atlantic Canadian has most probably had a different life than someone from Nunavut. For some reason, and likely not all bad, we are wont to do this - peg people. Same thing as when you ask what they do. You know if they're a CEO they will have a different lifestyle than someone who cleans pools. Maybe that's un-PC, but it's a reality.

If a person says the word "Mexican" in a neutral way, it should be taken as such. Where I live the issue of "hispanic" vs "latino" doesn't arise. And even now, after all the name changes North American Indians have gone through, you'd think when you said "Indian" people would KNOW you're talking about East Indians. That's a bigger issue on the West Coast - they're calling themselves First Nations now (eyeball roll) - I just can't keep up.

Interesting discussion but I'm still not sure why Mexican is improper when refering to someone from Mexico.

If the USA were 50 countries instead of 50 states would anyone be insulted if someone thought they were from somewhere else? I just can't imagine being indignant about it:

"Idaho!? Why would you think I'm from Idaho? Some of my best friends are Idahoian (Idahoers?) but I'm not from Idaho."

Well, the cultures are much more distinct I think.

I just know that I got upbraided by students when I would refer to a group as "Mexican" when some in that group were Mexican, some were Guatemalan, some were Peruvian, some were El Salvadorean, etc., and I saw their point. It's lazy to call Guatemalans Mexicans -- they're not.

That said, what I was trying to say earlier is that I don't think there's anything wrong with calling someone from Mexico "Mexican." I think the sensitivity is more about mislabeling someone Mexican. (And then the sensitivity kinda spread from there, beyond where it needed to be probably. Not sure what's wrong with referring to Mexican food -- except perhaps that the Taco Bell monstrosities we call "Mexican" food here have very little relationship to real Mexican food, another point that my students energetically drove home. )

This is an interesting read. I am thinking that this process is like that of the post-civil rights process of finding a better term to address black people with. (I think of "Black People" as a more familiar term and African Americans as a more formal one.) In my experience, people all like to be called American. Once they're a few generations removed from the home country, they start to like a little ownership of their ancestery - I say I am Italian, often enough.

My feeling is that it'll take a couple decades to settle on good phrasology.

Its a matter of manners and consideration. If you call say a Brazillian Hispanic, you are saying I have no interest in you or your culture.
Personally I think only Americans make the distinction: partly so they can persecute their neighbours.
Hispanics and latinos are not a racial group in Britain or Europe generally. Only in the US.

Mexican= from Mexico. If one is a citizen, or recently was but became an American, the term "Mexican" is accurate thus usable no matter what the individual would prefer to be classed as. The only correction that I would take seriously is if I called someone a Mexican and they responded "no, I am an American". In that instance I would apologize for the offense.

I get that its lazy, soz, but I don't get the insult aspect of it.

If I went out and got in my car right now I could be in Canada this afternoon. I would never think someone was insulting me if they suggested I was from Canada.

Does anyone remember all the hub-bub when Theresa Kerry said she was African? She is African, she's from Africa but everyone was like "oh no, she's white, not African."

I think it's one of those context things. Like, if a woman traveling on public transportation alone is freaked out by a guy staring at her, a guy might say, "I don't get it -- I'd LOVE it if some woman was checking me out."

It's not the sort of thing that happens only once to the people I have in mind. Again and again they're called "Mexican," and if they correct the person who calls them that, again and again they get a "OK, whatever, Mexican, Guatemalan, same diff" sort of a reaction. It's NOT an irrelevant distinction to them, and they get annoyed by the continuing lack of respect that shows. That then leads up to being insulted when it happens yet again.

Take a look at the jokes on this site and perhaps you will have a better understanding of why some view it as an insult. The term itself is not a disparaging insult, the stereotype and how it is often used is what is insulting.

Mexicans take great pride in their country and culture.

http://www.mexicanjokes.net/

This is a very person specific thing regarding the use of Jew, Jewish, or Jewish people (let us even say Hebrew), I believe.

Many Jews that are non-religious, I believe, prefer the "Jewish person/people" phraseology, since "Jew" historically was an epithet.

However, I believe, those that are pro-Israel, might just like the term "Jew," since it gives credence to them being a "people" with a right to a homeland.

In my mind, in NYC, many people who happen to identify with being Jewish, prefer Jewish. I hear this as the standard use by non-Jews, regardless of age.

I have heard that in some regions in the country it is acceptable by non-Jews to not us the phrase, for example, "Oh, you are a Jew?", but use the phrase "Oh, you are Jew? (the "a" is omitted.). In NYC this is considered somewhat offensive by many. Note that one would not use the article "a" for a Catholic or Protestant?

In the 1950's the attempt to be non offensive was achieved by saying of the Jewish persuasion, or the Hebrew persuasion by some.

The truth is that there is no such thing as a Jew, I believe, since there is no Jewland. Jewish just refers to a person, or people, that identify with Judaism as a religion or ethnicity. I mean like if there was something that was a "Jew," then if a Jew marries a non-Jew, would a child of the union be a half-Jew (perhaps used by some, but incorrect, I believe). The child can choose a religion, and would then be either Jewish, or not.

Also, I never heard of a Jew Cemetery. I do not even remember seeing a Jewish Cemetery, even though that must be used somewhere?. They tend, I believe, to be titled, Hebrew Cemetery.

Perhaps, when dead it is nice to wax nostalgic?

Ugh.

Recently we were having dinner with some friends of ours who are Polish and we were talking about how when we (E.G. and I) were kids there were tons of Polish jokes and who the new Poles are (in terms of being the butt of jokes). I nominated Mexicans, the guys weren't really buying it. I just forwarded that site to them as evidence.

Bleh.

I am sure that has something to do with it, as I have heard similar from Mexicans. They say that the ones that have come north are by and large rural poor or otherwise underclass, that we have a false impression on the negative side about what a typical Mexican is like. It would be like a Canadian calling someone an American when the only Americans they have even known are trailer trash or rednecks. To be called an American in that situation could be construed as being tagged with a negative label.

Who says Mexican is improper when referring to someone from Mexico?

This is just a guess but is not incosistant with similar situations. Possibly those descended from the Spanish conquerors consider themselves (unjustifiably in my opinion) superior to the defeated aborigines (Aztec, Toltec, Mayan) and consider the term Mexican only appropriate for the latter.