Q.Each country has its own discriminatory terms, and it seems that there are subtle nuances that only natives can understand. For example, in Japanese, there is a difference between “gaijin” and “gaikokujin”. “Gaikokujin” is neutral, but “gaijin” has a slightly discriminatory connotation. Are there similar differences in expressions (words) in English? Please provide a few examples and explain.
ChatGPT:
Yes, English also has many terms that differ subtly in connotation, even when they refer to the same group of people. Like the Japanese distinction between “gaikokujin” (neutral) and “gaijin” (often seen as exclusionary or slightly derogatory), English includes terms where one is neutral or respectful, and the other carries a more negative or outdated nuance. Here are several examples:
1. “Black” vs. “African American”
- “Black”: A widely accepted term that emphasizes racial identity and is used in many countries (e.g., the UK, Canada). While generally neutral, it can sound blunt depending on tone or context.
- “African American”: More commonly used in the U.S., particularly in formal or official contexts. It emphasizes ethnic and historical roots.
- Nuance: “African American” may sound more respectful in some settings, but not all Black people identify as African American (e.g., Black immigrants from the Caribbean or Africa). Overusing “African American” where inappropriate can sound awkward or even insensitive.
2. “Disabled person” vs. “Person with a disability”
- “Disabled person”: Common in the UK and used in the “social model of disability,” which emphasizes societal barriers.
- “Person with a disability”: Preferred in the U.S., reflecting “person-first language” to emphasize humanity over the condition.
- Nuance: The former can sound dehumanizing to some ears (putting the disability first), while others argue it’s more empowering. Cultural context matters.
3. “Illegal alien” vs. “Undocumented immigrant”
- “Illegal alien”: A term used in older or more conservative U.S. legal and media contexts. It is now widely considered dehumanizing or xenophobic.
- “Undocumented immigrant”: A more neutral and humanizing phrase, emphasizing the lack of legal status rather than criminality.
- Nuance: The first term implies criminality and otherness; the second frames the person’s situation without judgment.
4. “Oriental” vs. “Asian”
- “Oriental”: Once common in English-speaking countries to describe people or cultures from East Asia or the Middle East. Now considered outdated and offensive, especially in the U.S.
- “Asian”: The current neutral and accepted term in the U.S. and UK, though usage varies—e.g., “Asian” in the UK often refers specifically to South Asians.
- Nuance: “Oriental” is now strongly associated with colonialism and exoticism; “Asian” is more appropriate, though region-specific context matters.
5. “Tribe” vs. “Indigenous group”/”Nation”
- “Tribe”: Still used in anthropology or in certain contexts, but considered problematic when referring to Indigenous peoples in North America.
- “Indigenous group”/”Nation”: Emphasizes sovereignty, self-identification, and respect.
- Nuance: “Tribe” may sound primitive or paternalistic, especially if not used by the group itself.
Summary Table
| Neutral/Respectful | Potentially Offensive or Outdated | Notes |
| Black / African American | Colored (U.S.) / Negro (historical) | “Negro” and “colored” are now offensive |
| Person with a disability | Handicapped / Crippled | “Handicapped” is outdated, “crippled” is offensive |
| Undocumented immigrant | Illegal alien | One emphasizes status, the other criminality |
| Asian | Oriental | “Oriental” has colonial/exoticizing overtones |
| Indigenous nation/group | Tribe (in some contexts) | Depends on self-identification and local norms |
