Hacker News Reader

Comment by erikb | Hacker News Reader

I don't know why this is always made a topic, but I never felt offended by "gaijin" or the Chinese counterpart "laowai". No big deal.

However I also don't think that "they don't think it's offensive" has any relevance. Some people think the N-word is not offensive. It still is. Some men don't think calling a female colleague "babe" is offensive. It still is.

View on HN

I lived in China for more than 8 years. I found laowai amusing when I was in the transient long term vacation mindset when I first arrived. But after being there long enough to become fluent, marry a local, and deal with difficult situations unique to foreigners, I did find a bit of offense in the term. Not strong enough to say anything. But the subtext I heard in the term from some people was to intentionally keep this uncultured foreigner at arms length, and make sure he knows he will never fully integrate.

The word is a pun, and also means "always outside". This secondary meaning is not lost on Chinese people.

It's the same in Hawaii with the word "haole" (same meaning: foreigner). Doesn't matter if you were born and raised on the islands, lived here your entire life, married a local, and had local kids. If you're white, you're a haole. Almost always, the word is a harmless descriptor. Sometimes even white kama'aina (those born in Hawaii) use the word to describe other white people. But it can be used as a racial slur and it's immediately obvious when it's being used as a racial slur.

Sounds very similar to New Zealand, where the term Pākehā is used to describe NZ European people, both by indigenous Maori people, as well as people of European descent.

The vast majority of the time it's just used as an easier way to describe New Zealanders of European descent, it's even used on the census form, but I've heard it used on rare occasion as a pejorative.

Having lived in Hong Kong, China and Taiwan I take a pragmatic view to whether I should be offended by peoples use of the term foreigner.

The Cantonese "gweilo" (lit. "monster/ghost person") and Taiwanese "adoga" (lit. "big nose") are more clearly offensive in literal meaning.

Both are extremely casual, and in most cases no ill will is intended.

But for each I've encountered situations where it wasn't so pleasant.

Notably once in a remote guangdong town, some people stopped on a motorbike, pointed at me and said "Gweilo" before riding off laughing.

Equally at a good friends wedding, his mum kept referring to me as "adoga" in the 3rd person.

"Adoga comes from England" rather than using my name, which she'd known for the past 3 or so years.

In China, I can't think of a specific situation where I was offended by the use of "laowai".

"Hello monster/ghost person." Yes, that's me?

"big nose is from England, he's my son's good friend"

This made me think of a wonderful article titled "While Teaching in Japan, it Took an Enemy to Make Me Feel at Home" [0] which was on the HN front page at the end of 2017. [1]

That article is about the friendship/enemyship between a teacher and a child student, formed by the student’s teasing hostility toward the author as a foreigner.

[0] https://catapult.co/stories/on-campus-yuka-my-enemy-friendsh...

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15992603

EDIT: grammar, clarity, readability.

"When I told a group of kids my eyes were naturally blue (they thought I wore colored contacts), they backed away and whispered, “Scary.” The first time I went to the grocery store, my appearance alone caused a small child to burst into tears."

I spent a year abroad studying in Japan with a group of 10 westerners. At the beginning of the year some people were apprehensive when they learned about the word 'gaijin'. By the end of the year every member of the group used 'gaijin' in their regular conversation.

This was far outside of Tokyo and seeing a 'gaijin' was a genuinely rare occurrence. More than anything the word seems to fit a real communicative need. "I had an interaction with someone that was different from the norm because they did not look Japanese" is quite a mouthful and invoking the word 'gaijin' starts to happen quite naturally.

My biggest problem with the word is that it is used sloppily. It conflates race, culture, language and nationality and assumes a kind of all or nothing approach to them. My black student who was born and raised in Japan fulfilled 3 out of those 4 categories but would be considered gaijin everywhere he went.

> My biggest problem with the word is that it is used sloppily. It conflates race, culture, language and nationality and assumes a kind of all or nothing approach to them

Westerners are no better - the US does the same for everyone who is not "default" (i.e. white) where they are differentiated by a prefix, usually their heritage, which conflates "culture, language and nationality". Your black Japanese student would be considered "African American", which is beyond absurd.

> Westerners are no better - the US does the same for everyone who is not "default" (i.e. white) where they are differentiated by a prefix, usually their heritage, which conflates "culture, language and nationality". Your black Japanese student would be considered "African American", which is beyond absurd.

Isn't that the grandparent's whole point - that we at least have distinct categories for "whatever-american" and "foreigner", where "gaijin" conflates both and others.

>Your black Japanese student would be considered "African American", which is beyond absurd.

No they wouldn't, for the same reason Americans don't call Africans "African American."

They would. Listen closely to how you and your friends tell stories next time. Race and gender are almost always used to describe people. "My landlord, who's a black guy, <STORY DETAIL THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING BLACK OR BEING A MAN>"

>Race and gender are almost always used to describe people. "My landlord, who's a black guy, <STORY DETAIL THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING BLACK OR BEING A MAN>"

I don't refer to people primarily by their race, and I don't recall my friends doing so. While I don't deny that sort of conversation happens, it's probably not as idiomatic as you seem to believe.

I'm sure you can understand how easily a stereotype like that can fail when applied to a country as populous and diverse as the US.

Hm, in China black people, Indians and other Asians are all not considered "laowai" but have their distinct terms. Not sure about latinos. They might be mixed with either laowai or black people into one category.

I think the speaker's intent and beliefs about the meanings of the words they're using is relevant. Context is everything in language.

I think the issue that sort of overlaps what you are talking about is sometimes when people assert things "aren't offensive", what they really mean is that they think they should be free to use derogatory language without others being upset.

When Japanese friends refer to me as gaijin, I never feel offended. When some teen punk at a metro station in Tokyo shoved me and yelled "GAIJIN" in my ear, somehow it upset me. Go figure.

Calling a female colleague `babe` is not definitely offensive. Using the word `nigger` is not definitely offensive.

Offence is the position the interpreter. ie offence is taken, not given. This is not to say that offence is not to be expected, nor is it to say the person who offends should be exempted from all repercussions - but it does temper what a reasonable repercussion is (in a society that deems it viable to censor through offence).

It should be noted that words like nigger did not always hold their current offensive status (especially not outside of America) [1].

It should also be noted that words have geographical offense, the term 'lass' was one that I grew up hearing and using - appropriate when referring to a person to their face in an informal manner regardless of age (note that if you don't already know this usage then you are unlikely to be on informal enough terms with someone who would accept it to use it) - yet if I were to say this in the south of England I would be being patronising.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigger#British_usages

I cannot think of any office situation where a man calling a woman a `babe` is acceptable. It’s patronizing at best, and sexist at worst. Note that parent comment specifically said calling a woman that. Not merely using the word itself.

I gave some thought as to cultures where it might be acceptable when writing the first comment, but I am a victim to my own experience here and so turn up nothing.

I have heard comments that surprised me from women in the small company construction trades, haulage, F1, and darts; I also expect that what was acceptable with respect to `babe` has changed over time.

It should be noted that the post I replied to referred to 'calling a female colleague', and you are talking about an 'office situation'. Certain kinds of businesses make less use of offices and hire different kinds of workers - it is not much of a stretch to expect them to harbour different language standards.

It is also notable that you introduced the specification of a 'man calling a woman'. This is the situation I had been considering, yet when I open it to women calling women I know I hear the term `babe` used between women at work all the time - I also hear women calling men `babe`.

I didn't introduce the specification of a man calling a woman. The parent comment did. Specifically, when a man calls a woman a `babe` or a pet name like that, in my opinion it's a tad sexist, unless they have a friendship close enough for pet names, etc.

I also don't think it's appropriate for a woman to call a man a pet name like that either, but in a different sense.

I shouldn't have assumed an office environment, but it still stands for the most part. I can't think of any situation where I'd call a colleague `babe`, even if I've known them for many years.

In England, it's quite common to use informal affectionate terms. They vary regionally - love, pet, hinny, babs, duck, cock, hen, flower, petal, princess etc. Their use isn't uncontroversial, but they're widely accepted by a large proportion of the population and frequently used in many offices.

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2012/02/08/being-called-babe-offen...

Fair enough, as with most things in life, it's context dependent. I'm speaking from an American perspective, and even in an endearing manner I would never use `babe` because that's something you'd call your significant other. Not a professional colleague.

Anecdotally, I hear babe from female to male coworkers much more often than the converse. That or 'hon'.

Its common to use informal affectionate terms in the US too.

This is a valid point and you are right to rise it!

However, we need to add that there are people who both know a word might be offensive and still decide to use it. I believe this is the critical distinction OP was trying to make with his point

No, I don’t think most people think of it in the same sense that we do.

I lived in Korea, not Japan, but they also have a word for foreigner—외국인. I never got the sense that a Korean person found the term offensive to us and still used the word. Korea, like Japan, is just so highly homogenized as a society that it’s common to refer to foreigners that way.

I think we find offense in the term, because as many people come to realize, foreigners generally get treated like a second class citizen. So then, being called a 외국인 is a reminder that we look different, and thus Koreans have premade assumptions (like that we don’t and won’t speak Korean). Which isn’t exactly wrong though, as many foreigners / expats / sexpats don’t bother to learn Korean.

Again, I don’t think Koreans are intentionally using the term to be offensive to us. It’s just a descriptor.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com