[Buddha-l] What's wrong with a little Dharma?

[Dan Lusthaus]

Dear Stephen,

It was not meant as a derogatory term -- how could one construe being
zealously anti-slavery as negative, unless one were pro-slavery, which I
don't think you presume me to be.

I am unaware of a "history" of the term and, as you seem to concede, it does
not generally carry any negative connotations in US usage (News media, etc.,
use the term all the time, and occasionally folks speaking the Queen's
English are heard to utter the term as well, with no negative connotation).
"Jap," on the other hand, is clearly a negative term and would be understood
that way by all (but Southern) folks. You have to realize that in the US
sensitivities run very high, and groups will quickly take any label
whatsoever as offensive. Depending on what decade you were in, each of the
following was considered the proper term: colored people, negroes, blacks,
african-americans. When, for instance, the last term entered the jargon it
soon became clear this was primarily a term by which whites (and other
non-african-americans) were expected to address african-americans. Even the
term black could provoke outraged protest, though that umbrage has receded.
In the meantime, on the streets, African-americans were addressing other
with the N word, even after Richard Pryor swore off ever using it again.
Whether someone is to be called a latino, hispanic, chicano, etc., also
depends -- they've even had conventions arguing over which should be the
identifying term (each now carries a certain set of political histories and
connotations). Of course, Canadians resent when folks from the US refer to
themselves as Americans -- they feel left out or ignored. Apparently we've
completely reversed the old adage: sticks and stones...  now it's only words
that hurt (Mike Austin would like to pretend painful sticks and stones are
only a distraction).

I'd like to know more about the "history" of Brit? Who misused the term,
under what circumstances? Off list, of course.

cheerio,
Dan