Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

rmnunez · Dec 18, 2004, 03:47 am

Gringo to me means what people from the US refer to as "American". The plural, naturally would be "gringoes", pertaining to would be "gringan" (as in "...the gringan government announced today..."), in that manner or style "gringish" or "gringoesque" ("...a gringish" (or gingoesque) celebration, with firecrackers, base-ball and hot-dogs..."). I find "The United States of America" hopelessly generic as there are 3 or 4 dozen "states" in America, more or less "united".

I considered the options:

Yankee; popular around the world, but in the US it refers to the Union side only so its not inclusive enough.

United Statian; too generic, though conforming to the most widely accepted and used designation (US).

North American; still too generic as it would technically include Canada and Mexico.

American was discounted as too generic and somewhat offensive to the majority of the actual Americans.

It is not my habit to capitalize plural or common names (hence Gringo would be incorrect unless I was refering to one individual specifically who found himself so addressed).

The terms "spic", "wetback", "greaser", and even "cholo", "beaner", "bato", "frijolero" or "mojado" do not disturb me, what does is the animus behind them. If the intent is to offend, I'm offended. Not because any of said epithets would (or could) fit me, rather than because I've been made the interlocutor of someone so simple as to intend to offend.

Zeebadee · Dec 18, 2004, 04:09 am

"If the intent is to offend, I'm offended."

So, it's possible to use these terms in a normal conversation without being offensive? Why then do we never hear any of these terms used, say, in the national media? How, other than between friends being facetious, would any of these terms ever be considered non-offensive when used in the every-day social environment? Could you provide a couple of non-offensive examples of such usage?

castille · Dec 18, 2004, 05:38 am

Quote:

Quote by: rmnunez

Castille, are you a pacifist, do you dislike the military, disapprove of US foreign policy in general, are you concerned with the proliferation of the 'entertainment industry' near US military installations, or have you (or kin) been adversely affected by US military deployment overseas?

None. I'm for the law.

rmnunez · Dec 19, 2004, 08:16 am

If you were for the law and sought simply its application, given that the US negotiates with their hosts how the law will be applied to US forces deployed there, if its been arranged crimes are to be handled by the perpetrator's commanders, where's the beef?

Dec 18, 2004, 03:47 am	#61 (permalink) (top)
rmnunez Volcanic Erupter Location: Mexico City Posts: 4,772	Gringo to me means what people from the US refer to as "American". The plural, naturally would be "gringoes", pertaining to would be "gringan" (as in "...the gringan government announced today..."), in that manner or style "gringish" or "gringoesque" ("...a gringish" (or gingoesque) celebration, with firecrackers, base-ball and hot-dogs..."). I find "The United States of America" hopelessly generic as there are 3 or 4 dozen "states" in America, more or less "united". I considered the options: Yankee; popular around the world, but in the US it refers to the Union side only so its not inclusive enough. United Statian; too generic, though conforming to the most widely accepted and used designation (US). North American; still too generic as it would technically include Canada and Mexico. American was discounted as too generic and somewhat offensive to the majority of the actual Americans. It is not my habit to capitalize plural or common names (hence Gringo would be incorrect unless I was refering to one individual specifically who found himself so addressed). The terms "spic", "wetback", "greaser", and even "cholo", "beaner", "bato", "frijolero" or "mojado" do not disturb me, what does is the animus behind them. If the intent is to offend, I'm offended. Not because any of said epithets would (or could) fit me, rather than because I've been made the interlocutor of someone so simple as to intend to offend. Last edited by rmnunez; Dec 18, 2004 at 03:57 am.

Dec 18, 2004, 04:09 am	#62 (permalink) (top)
Zeebadee Volcanic Erupter Posts: 3,836	"If the intent is to offend, I'm offended." So, it's possible to use these terms in a normal conversation without being offensive? Why then do we never hear any of these terms used, say, in the national media? How, other than between friends being facetious, would any of these terms ever be considered non-offensive when used in the every-day social environment? Could you provide a couple of non-offensive examples of such usage?

Dec 19, 2004, 08:16 am	#64 (permalink) (top)
rmnunez Volcanic Erupter Location: Mexico City Posts: 4,772	If you were for the law and sought simply its application, given that the US negotiates with their hosts how the law will be applied to US forces deployed there, if its been arranged crimes are to be handled by the perpetrator's commanders, where's the beef?