When did Mexican become a "dirty" word?

"A" prefers to use the entire vocabulary at his/her disposal and demonstrates that s/he is non-judgmental, non-bigoted, and non-patronizing/condescending to others by not seeing them or treating them differently from everybody else.

"B" sees other people as different and in need of accommodation, and attaches connotations to words that "A" does not think or mean or intend when "A" uses those same words.

Why are "B"'s preferences/feelings more important than "A"'s preferences/feelings?

My post was in response to the editorial High Seas posted.

We will continue to use words like "queries" and "juice" in my house.

Foxfyre, you misunderstand my point. I am saying that no one's feelings (neither A or B in your example) are more important.

Let me try again.

You have the perfect right to say pretty much anything you like. I may find some of the things you choose to say offensive. I have never said that my taking offense at some of the things you say takes away any of your rights to say them.

But on the other hand, if I feel that some of the things you say are bigoted, I have the perfect right to say so.

In a free country people are allowed to disagree. In fact we are allowed to scream at each other and say all sorts of mean nasty things to each other. That's how democracy works.

Whether you choose to respect the feelings of others or not is your choice. There is no judgment about this choice (there are certainly people I choose not to respect). It just is.

I do find it funny that the people who insist on saying "Little Black Sambo" are the same people who are offended by "Happy Holidays".

I think you're still not understanding the point, ebrown, and are trying to make this into something that it is not.

Actually I grew up with "Little Black Sambo" and remember the character with fondness and remember teacher using the story as an example of resourcefulness and innovation to help us think outside the box to solve problems. He certainly did not stereotype or diminish black people in any way in my mind. I, and I think most of us kids, saw him as just another, but very smart/clever, kid who happened to be black.

I think that to be a far preferable point of view than thinking that black people are too fragile (and therefore inferior) to be referred to as black people, and that we will injure them if we do. Or that Mexican citizens must not be referred to as Mexican because that means something negative to bigots.

If I happen to think we are more likely to demean, diminish, or brand as 'inferior' Mexican people by making the word "Mexican" into some kind of perjorative, in our free country I will - and do- say that. I think people who honestly care about people will resist separating them into groups and assigning them to inferior status by assuming they need to be protected from the English language. And I think my feelings on the matter have as much validity as whatever you think is how I should actually feel about it if I was as noble and pure and ethical as you are.

It has absolutely nothing to do with being sensitive to others wants. It has to do with do-gooders making assumptions that are without rational foundation.

What I believe is the argument that Boomer is making here is that it is high time that normal and rational people begin resisting those self-presumed do-gooders from making more perfectly good normal words into perjoratives. And I 100% concur with that. If good people use pefectly good words matter-of-factly and as they were originally intended, maybe some sanity can be restored and the real bigots will be shamed.

Foxfyre... Name calling is an interesting response to people who disagree with you (i.e. the "presumptive do-gooders"). Of course, this is your right.

It seems obvious to me that Different people will be offended by different things. Can't you accept this?

Let's take some real examples; I don't know of anyone who is offended by words like "juice" and "queries". You can use these words without fear (although if a friend of mine happened to be offended, I see no reason why I shouldn't respect their feelings).

Certain words are offensive to most people. Using the word "Jew" as a verb for example... I think even Foxfyre would find this racial stereotype offensive.

Many of these terms are in beteween. Some words are offensive to some people, but not others.

Use the word "illegal" as a noun or call the daughter of friends of mine an "anchor baby" and I will be offended. Depending on the situation, I will probably give you a piece of my mind first, but if you insist, I will decide you are an ass and avoid you.

Keep in mind that no one's rights are getting infringed upon in this case. You have the right to offend me, I have the right to be offended. There is nothing that says we have to be friendly to each other... we may yell at each other, and you won't be invited into my house... but life goes on. I guess I don't see the point in offending people needlessly.

The term "Political Correctness" is interesting because it is "Political".

For you, as a private person, to insist on offending people around you doesn't cost much. You may have a few people who think you are a boor.... but this is true of most of us. For a political party to go around offending people there are bigger consequences.

Many of us, especially in the Hispanic community, have been particularly offended by the terms and rhetoric coming from the Republican party (and this includes the constant use of terms like "illegal" and "anchor baby".) Of course, offending us is completely with in the rights of Republicans.

So, now we consider the Republicans the "party of racists", and if you ask us, we will tell you as much. For us to believe this, and to say this to each other, is completely within our rights. (Ironically many African-Americans who thought Sambo a racist stereotypes think Republicans are racists too).

The end result is that the Republicans, particularly the anti-"illegal"-immigrant Republicans have been losing elections. This also is completely within their rights.

... and there is nothing wrong with that.

When you are ready to discuss the subject of the thread that I am discussing, I'll respond to your comments ebrown. Please understand that in this thread I am not interested in hijacking the thread and discussing the different subject(s) that you seem to be interested in discussing.

Political correctness is a corrosive influence on language - vast number of words that fell by the wayside during my lifetime attest to this sad phenomenon.

Eg, when I was little I was told to use "negro" in reference to a black person, this being (then) the polite term; later PC changed that to "black", first, then to "African American". And references to "gay Paris" (phonetically from the original French) have been excised from our vocabulary - seems that "Mexican" is about to follow the same fate, and get replaced by "Spanish". Too bad, I share your opposition to PC, but doubt any one of us can fight against it....

Well, maybe not quite that bad, HighSeas. It is the very nature of language that words come and go.

Might it not be that when you were little you were told things by people who weren't really in the know, really weren't able to feel the full measure of those words.

Doesn't it seem reasonable that the people who are should have some choice in what they are called.

Considering JTT's comment, the issue really isn't in respecting a person's request re what he or she is called, however. I think all of us--well, at least most of us--would respect such a request out of natural courtesy. If a feminist doesn't want to be called a 'chairman' for instance, I don't call her that. Another is perfectly happy being referred to as a 'chairman' and resents the implication that she is too emotionally fragile to be able to translate the word into an office rather than a gender. Such a person I happily called Madam Chairman or whatever. There is certainly no good reason to make 'chairman' into a perjorative.

And yes language does change over time and some old fashioned expressions fall into disuse while Webster continually updates the dictionary to include new words that are coined.

That is quite different from arbitrarily attaching negative or offensive connotations to perfectly good words. The issue here is in not allowing a few PC police with sticks up their butts to make another perfectly good descriptive value-neutral word into a perjorative.

I would hope we could have some control over that and, if enough of us care, we can simply not allow it to happen.

You do, Foxy, but only for the limited time, in a language sense, that you have left on this planet.

'gay Paris' can still be gay Paree to me with no connection to what HS seems to be intimating.

Language isn't being made for the likes of us. We're the deadwood of the language tree.

Perhaps you would kindly speak for yourself only - from all I've seen of your linguistic ability your own description seems dead-on

Question. Will WASP (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant) ever become politically incorrect? I do not think it is currently politically incorrect, and I do not think it is likely to be so in the foreseeable future, since I believe it is usually someone that perceives their respective group to be some sort of "victim," to perceive specific terminology to be politically incorrect, if I understand what makes a term politically incorrect. My point being WASP's do not perceive themselves to be victims, and as cultural traits go, I believe, they would not admit that if it ever became so.

Actually WASP has been used a perjorative from time to time, but I think it isn't used commonly enough that it is likely to become a universally accepted slur. "Negro" or 'negroid' were once a perfectly good and commonly used value-neutral words to identify people of a particular biological race sharing certain characteristics. Okay, I can see that 'Negro" was corrupted into a word that was coined as a perjorative and, while not personally thinking it necessary, I will respect that most people now prefer to avoid the word 'Negro'.

That same race of people, however, includes mostly dark skinned people, so 'black' is also a perfectly good value-neutral word to identify the same group of people scattered over the planet and in fact made sense just as "Caucasian' or light skinned people referred to themselves as 'white'. In my opinion, "African-American" is not nearly as accurate as many, if not most, black people have never been to Africa, much less were they ever natives of that country and makes no more sense than referring to me as a 'European-American" because I have some ancesters, many generations removed, who resided in what is now Europe.

'Mexican' refers to people who are citizens of Mexico or recently descended from people from Mexico. It should denote nothing more--good or bad--than that. The only ones who would use the word 'Mexican' as a perjorative are bigots who may or may not admit that they see Mexican people as different from and therefore inferior to themselves.

It is my desire that non-bigots not allow the bigots to be the ones to make a word acceptable or non-acceptable. I don't want to give the bigots that kind of power.

Foxie, It's not for you to determine who is labeled a bigot or who interprets such.

Cicerone - what on earth does that mean?

Boomerang, Foxfyre, or anyone else here can have no opinion on bigoted expression? You actually know WHO determines these things? If so, can you let the rest of us know his/her/its/their name(s)?

I was actually quite clear on the term.

The word "Bigot" simply means; someone who disagrees with Foxfyre.

Question out of serious personal curiosity about people's perceptions here:

It has been universally announced/reported/discussed the last few days that the USA has just reached a milestone of great historical significance by electing the first 'black' or 'African-American' president.

Okay, I agree 100% re the historical significance, and I have no quarrel with these two labels attached to our President. Despite one's preference for the label used, both terms are value-neutral and non-offensive.

But then now and then during radio discussions I have heard a few people to say that we have a "half black" President.

Is 'half-black' offensive? Why or why not?

And I have heard a few say that the President is also 'half-white".

Is 'half-white' offensive? Why or why not?

Foxfyre said:


I think it depends on the context and intent. I can imagine someone who's white correcting someone who's said, 'We have a black president,' because they want to note and comment on the fact that he's only half-black- which means (in this particular case) he's half-white- which maybe makes them feel more able to identify with and claim a point of similarity with him.
I don't think they'd feel led to do that if they wanted to be disparaging about his race.
It seems an effort to draw closer by emphasizing the shared similarity instead of pushing away by emphasizing the difference.

But I think it's an inaccurate simplification of who Obama is.

I think you can choose to take offense at anything. My father who is one of the least racist people I know told me a story about one of his racist relatives who said to him, when he was at a family reunion in Texas - ' they should have kept them n***** at the back of the bus.'
He said, 'Rebecca - I told that man to shut his ignorant mouth. Didn't he know that I have two colored grandchildren?'
This was last year. I could have gotten offended - and said, 'Dad - you shouldn't call them colored - they're interracial.'
But I knew exactly what he meant and moreso why he said it- and I loved him for it.
I took it to mean that he felt very strongly about the matter and protective of his grandchildren to the point that he forgot to monitor or guard his speech and returned to the term he'd grown up saying.
I think, if I remember correctly, that he usually says black.

On the other hand, I would never say colored - but only because I never have.
But here in England, colored is still the accepted terminology.
I try only to take offense when I think offense is meant. That's another thing my father taught me - he said,'There's enough prejudice in the world-don't ever go looking for it.

I agree completely with your answer aidan.

I do a question for Foxfyre... are the people on radio talk shows who are referring to Obama as "half-black" generally positive about the Obama administration?

If everyone who used the term was also strongly opposed the ides of the Obama administration, I would be highly suspicious of their intent.

The radio shows I listen to are generally positive toward Obama and his administration. I have never heard either of these terms used.