Talk:Ching Chong

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 Chinaman
2 Vandalism
3 Rose O'Donnell
4 Noncompliant
5 Orignial Research
6 What about...

[edit] Chinaman

In terms of the rhyme, Chinaman is not a slur, as it was the word used for Chinese people at the time, like Frenchman was used to indicate a peson from France. This notes the use of "man" as a general term for person, ignoring the existence of women. "Chinaman" is currently an ethnic slur, but that does not mean that because it occurs it is a slur. It's like Negro, in that its offensiveness later developed from a previously purely descriptive term.

When I was a child, my grandfather (born late 1800s) told me the rhyme, and it actualy rhymes compared to what we find on the page:

Ching-chong Chinaman Sitting on a rail Along came a white man And chopped off his tail

Note 1) this actually rhymes, and 2) "tail" refers to the long braid worn by chinese men in earlier times.

Perhaps, if found worthy, this will find its way into the article.

Just because the offensiveness of a term developed over time does not discount it being a slur. "Negro" and "chinaman" both could be considered slurs at this point, as they are derisive nicknames for an ethnic group. However, by the same reasoning, "ching chong" would be difficult to call a slur at this point. It is very rarely used as a noun nowadays, but rather just to imitate speech patterns. I really question whether "ching chong" is still a slur.

-- Actually "ching chong" is very commonly used to ridicule almost all East Asian peoples "nowadays." It is currently especially common in urban areas. Since ching chong is not an actual speech pattern and is NOT an imitation of Chinese speech (as any Chinese person, like me, would know), it is actually a slur. -Sabrina

[edit] Vandalism

This page was vandalised by some people, I edited and deleted most parts. Look out for it.
DeadAlmighty 02:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rose O'Donnell

Added a sentence referencing the Rosie O'Donnell joke on The View, and included an external link to the YouTube video. Someone added the link to Racialicious -- while Racialicious is a good blog documenting race issues in the media, I don't believe blogs qualify as valid sources on Wikipedia.

Ching Chong is actually more like "Son of the bitch". It's like the single mother's kids never be recognized as a family member.

It's a very harsh word. You can call people 'Ching Chong' because he/she either can't carry his/her father's last name or his/her mother is a 'cheater'

[edit] Noncompliant

If a Chinese national approaches white North American and says, "A-E-I-O-U" is this mockery of the English language an ethnic slur? It isn't. In fact, to claim that "ching chong" is a racial slur is equally racist in itself because it presumes that anyone that speaks Chinese is from China. That's like claiming anyone that speaks English is white with Anglo-European ancestry. Unless someone can explain how this isn't a mass vanity article, then it is and should be removed per WP:COI --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 14:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that "ching chong" is used as an adjective, non a noun to describe a person or people. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 14:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and by the same logic "wee wee wee, haw haw haw" is a racial slur for the French. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 14:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
"boot, oot, ooo, eh" is a racial slur for Canadians. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 14:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
"blot, rot, tot" is a slur for the Cockney of London. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 14:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
"el, -o" is a racial slur for Spanish speakers (the logic of this article presumes they are Hispanic). --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 14:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
"Bork, bork, bork" is a slur for Swedes. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 14:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

...not to mention the millions of combinations of Cantonese syllables that could be combined to form a similar "racial slur." --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 08:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious, how is "ching chong" analogous to "A-E-I-O-U"? Moreover, how does the claim that "ching chong" is a racial/ethnic (not nationalistic) slur presume that "anyone who speaks Chinese is from China"? schi ^talk 06:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The article claims (without a proper reference I might ad) that "ching chong" mocks the speech patterns of a Chinese national speaking Cantonese.

A-E-I-O-U are English vowel sounds and would therefore 'mock' the English language in the same way that "ching chong" would Cantonese. The point of the example is ridicule; "ching chong" is no more racist (not racist at all) than "A-E-I-O-U" or whatever speech pattern one wants to mock.
Not everyone that speaks Chinese is a Chinese national. That's about as ignorant as saying English speakers are all white. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 06:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the bits from the article that claimed "nationality". I don't think the use of the term has anything to do with nationality. I'm trying to find some good cites for this, as much of the article is without references. That does not, however, make it a "mass vanity article".

Your "logic" is funny, but is wholly ignorant of context. "A-E-I-O-U" would in no way mock an English speaker - for one thing, because these are actual letters of the English alphabet. In Chinese, "ching chong" is utter nonsense - it's pure ridicule. Obviously, and as with any racial slur, racism comes into play through the context and history of the term's use, not the so-called "logic" that may motivate it. schi ^talk 07:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice try, but I provided six examples and you're taking issue with, count them, one. Instead of "A-E-I-O-U" which is already perfectly acceptable because they are common syllable sounds, let's make the example "the-and-like." You're probably going to side-step that example too claiming that those are actual words - once again missing the point entirely: "Ching chong" is mocking the speech pattern, it doesn't matter if they happen to be actual words or not. In a globalized world, mocking a speech pattern is not racist. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 08:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

In Chinese, "ching chong" is utter nonsense - it's pure ridicule.

To an English speaker, "aeiou!" (ay-ee-aye-oh-you) wouldn't be utter nonsense and pure ridicule? It would be (of the languange), but it wouldn't be racist. Thank you for agreeing with me. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 08:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

How do you define a "speech pattern" such that "ching chong" could possibly be construed as that of Chinese (Cantonese or Mandarin), and also such that the same definition would apply to your other examples? Thanks for agreeing with me that A-E-I-O-U and "the-and-like" are both actual features of the English language; not only is "ching chong" not a feature of Chinese language(s), it is simply wholly-fabricated, yellowface-caricature-based mocking. "Ching chong" has no "real" relationship to the Chinese language. The slur is not about mocking the speech patterns, so your six examples are rendered utterly moot. Further, none of your examples come burdened with the same (or similar) historic context that "ching chong" has - like other racial slurs, as I mentioned above. Nice try, but next time consider thinking about the actual issue, which is context. "In a globalized world", there is still such thing as history. schi ^talk 23:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm waiting for the moment in which you realize you aren't making any sense; you currently aren't even agreeing with the article. Your argument is based on "ching" and "chong" not being part of Chinese in any way. This simply isn't true in itself, and by virtue of the definition of "mockery," a derisive, imitative action or speech. How can "ching chong" be a mockery of Chinese yet not related to it either? You can't have it both ways. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 01:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm also still waiting for you to address the issue, which is context. Of course I disagree with the article; I thought that was clear. The slur is indeed mocking - which is derisive, and imitative - that is, a mimicry, a counterfeit example. Also note that mocking != "exact recreation"; and derisive means "the use of ridicule or scorn to show contempt". I didn't say it is not related, I said it is not about mocking the "speech patterns" (which you fail to explain) and has no "real" relationship - that is, if you listen to someone speaking Chinese, the sounds they are making don't sound like "ching chong", etc. There is a relationship, but it is indirect (yellowface-caricature, etc.) schi ^talk 23:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

What is "ching chong" mocking then? You're saying it isn't the Chinese language, and I'm saying that it isn't Chinese nationals. If it's neither, then this article has no reason to exist. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 08:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I know enough about linguistics to know that non-speakers of Chinese do not hear the same sounds as native/fluent speakers. If you grew up with the language, you won't be able to understand said differences because you are able to perceive them without thought. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 08:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

You continue to fail to grasp key distinctions. Obviously, the term is mocking, but that doesn't mean that it in anyway remotely accurately recreates the phonemes in Chinese languages. Your second comment is irrelevant. I do not speak a lot of languages, but can still distinguish phonetic differences in such languages. What's your point? schi ^talk 01:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The origin of the phrase is not known with certainty. However, since syllables sounding like what an English speaker would pronounce as "ching" or "chong" are relatively common in Cantonese, the expression is likely an attempt to mock Chinese speech patterns. So reference.com is making this up? If they aren't, then I once again assert that mocking a speech pattern is not racist. If they are making this up, I suggest you take it up with them. [1] --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 03:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, the term is mocking, but that doesn't mean that it in anyway remotely accurately recreates the phonemes in Chinese languages. Even though reference.com doesn't seem to agree with you, I'll further the argument by saying that the mockery need not "accurately recreate the phonems in Chinese languages." You're implied premise is that said mockery is racist because it doesn't accurately mock the language. Come on. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 03:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not speak a lot of languages, but can still distinguish phonetic differences in such languages. That's easy for you to say. There are at least two ways to say "Chee" (as it sounds to the English ear). If not exposed these differences at a very early age, they become nearly imperceptable. These articles touch on what I'm talking about: [2] [3] --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 03:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

What then Ivy League, what then? The article as it stands now completely shuts down your argument. What then Dartmouth, what then? --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 10:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Uh, wow. I never said I support the current (or any past) version of the article, and I've made that clear above. Also, my premise is not that the mockery is racist because it doesn't accurately "mock" the language. Nice try.

Check out WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL (which I'll admit I may have been goaded into violating myself here). I don't think I can work with you, Haizum, in a civil manner on this article, so I'm taking it off my watchlist, and I regret that I tried to engage you in a discussion. schi ^talk 01:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Suit yourself. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 01:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

On an already established wikipedia article: "A slur can be anything from an insinuation or critical remark to an insult. The following is a list of ethnic slurs that are, or have been, used as insinuations or allegations about members of a given ethnicity or to refer to them in a derogatory (critical or disrespectful), pejorative (disapproving or contemptuous), or downright insulting manner in the English-speaking world." This is from wikipedia. It is already established. Ching Chong is all of the above, insinuation, critical remark and an insult to the ENGLISH SPEAKING WORLD. This means that whether English speakers are "understandable" or not for butchering a language for an insult, that those terms still apply as derogatory under disrespectful, especially if it is historically so. Anyone can say that they as a person cannot tell the difference between ching chong and real chinese, that doesn't make this term any more respectful. And if it is commonly used for long periods of time in a derogatory manner, there is no justifiable reason you can have to say that it is not a slur. There are published stories of people being mocked by the term as already posted in the ching chong article and obviously offensive songs that use this in lyrics. What more is necessary to make this compliant? --Sabrina165.106.111.192 01:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Read. This is my suggestion: read. I never claimed that this wasn't a slur. I'm saying it isn't an ethnic slur. Not everyone that speaks Chinese (any form) is a Chinese national. Get a grip; I just about removed your comment because it's so incoherent it could be mistaken for vandalism. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 10:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW, try and cite Wikipedia in any academic setting and you will get laughed out of the room. If it's a graded assignment, expect to receive a failing grade. Everyone knows Wikipedia is garbage. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 10:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

In Mandarin alone, there are more than 27 different characters (or words) that are pronounced as qing/ching. These include: 清, 请, 庆, 情, 青, 轻, 晴, 卿, 倾, 氢, 擎, 氰, 箐, 顷, 磬, 罄, 苘, 鲭, 蜻, 亲, 勍, 圊, 庼, 檠, 綮, 謦, and 黥. Additionally, non-native speakers do not understand that tonal languages, as many East Asian languages are, generally have fewer sounds but differentiate these based on tones. Stop trying to suppress the facts. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 00:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, if it's not a racial slur, why no one would say it to anyone who's NOT Asian?

[edit] Orignial Research

There need to be reputable references for any statement with ^{[citation needed]} per WP:NOR. This is not optional. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 14:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. It seems there is far too much original research. Many Chinese are not offended by this. --Proficient 21:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Your premise: If a group of people is offended, rules regarding orginial research do not apply. Try again. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 07:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)