The origin of a slur are, once again, irrelevent. The purpose for which both terms were used were identical- the degredation of a person based on ethnicity. And the difference between race and ethnicity is also equally irrelevent, seeing as broader classifications of "race" are really arbitrary (would Afghans, for example, be considered "racially" Middle Eastern or Asian?). That being said, is an ethnic slur any different in practice than a racial one? It seems like you're splitting hairs here.
The origin is highly relevant, as is the actual meaning and context of the written and spoken word, without an understanding of the word then there really is no grounds for an argument. And in this case it presents itself very evident what the words denote, one is an abbreviation of nations name and the other is a perversion of a Latin word for a color shade here pertaining to a racial feature. When you understand this, then you can clearly see from the very origins of the words that they already have a designated meaning. You can pretend as much as you want that the words "ethnic" and "race" have no meaning and are irrelevant, that does not however change the fact that they are commonly acknowledge words with very precise, descriptive and specific meanings with which they serve as tools in understanding various subjects. With out the word "race" and a supported understanding we can not have the "racist", can we.
The two terms use and purpose were not identical, the explanation in my previous posts illustrated why and how, and the "degradation of a person" is not limited to ethnicity with the N-word, it is very apparent that it targets a whole race in spite of ethnic, cultural and national differences with those of that race,
that is what makes it racist!
Yes, the term Jap can be extremely racist, but by it self it does not carry denotations that are racist or in fact negative. It is no different than what Britt is to British. The term needs to be used in conjunction with actual racism to give it connotations that are racist, and when no racism is applied it
should be perceived no more offensive than for the fact that shortening nationals description are improper and generally seen as rude.
That is why I argue that it is not the in the same category or equal to the N-word. I'm not arguing that the term can not be a slur or perceived as offensive even when no offense or racism is intended, nor am I trying to negate the fact that people have suffered racism or ethnic injustice while being identified as "Japs". Never have I argued that slurs are not meant to be offensive.
The US troops referred to the German Axis as krauts and Jerries, they also had propaganda showing them as comical arian ubermensch with clear Northern European stereotypical features. Also, people of ethnic German ancestry were systematically discriminated against and put in detention camps, prisons and institutions during and after the war while being identified as "krauts" and "Jerries".
Do you consider the terms "Kraut" or "Jerrie" to be racist. If so, more or less than the term "Jap". If you find it not to be racist, is it because both sides were considered to be Caucasian.
Is a ethnic slur different in practice from a racial slur? Let me give you an example and let's see if you can spot the difference. Let's say you are talking to two Americans, one is whats considered a Caucasian the other is considered an African American. You say to the Caucasian "Oh, now you are being such a Yank" and then you say to the African American "Oh, and you are being such a N*****". Can you tell which slur is targeting ethnicity and which is targeting race, who do you think took the most offense by being referred to by the N-word, do you think one of them could take more offense by being called a Yank, can you recognize that there is a difference. In any case, let me tell you,
BIG DIFFERENCE!
