Why are pronounceable, abbreviated words, regarding one s country of origin, considered offensive? i.e. "Jap" "Paki"?

The word Jap with an 's' on the end, first appeared in English (American) around the time of WW2 and very quickly entered the language following the 'dastardly and unprovoked' attack on Pearl Harbor by the 'Japs'.

I guess now it is offensive to call the Japanese 'Japs' or even worse, 'Nips' - as was once the case.

(Nips from Nippon the Japanese word for Japan).

As for the people of Pakistan, a very important ally of the UK by the way, calling them Pakis is unacceptable, insulting and racist in the extreme. However, it's okay to call a person from PK a Pakistani (full word) but not Paki or Pakis plural. But why bother using any such terms when for most of us the people we know of here in UK who are of PK origin are just Brits like the rest of us, esp,. here in London.

There is an old saying in English - "The more we know about each other, the less we have to fear."

And this one which I've stolen from the Greeks "If you want your culture to survive, share it with others."

So, where to start? Music because we can enjoy it without knowing it's home language.

Japan

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=japan...

Pakistan

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=pakis...

Finally, one more thing. At her coronation in 1953, the Queen swore an oath in which she declared she will protect the culture, way of life and so forth, of the people of Pakistan.

The simplest answer I can find is that we already have words that are socially exceptable for these people groups. We can call someone from Pakistan Pakistani as opposed to Paki. Someone from Japan is Japanese as opposed to a jap. Someone from Russia is Russian not a rusky. We dignify them with the entire country's name as opposed to shortening and making the name seem irrelevant. Often times the abbreviated form has been used as insults in the past therefore it is the job of current generations to not continue that cycle of Xenophobia or otherism.

dkdkd d kdd d dkkd

dkdkd d kdd d dkkd

Technically, "Japan" isn't even right. The name of Japan in Japanese is actually "Nippon." It's like when Beijing was called Peking, or when Mumbai was called Bombay. The only difference is we've never bothered to go back and correct the name in English when it comes to Japan. At any rate, people find exonyms, names that are not their names that other people impose on them, offensive. Would you like it if people called you an "Amy"? Maybe, maybe not.

You mean like the:

Swiss,

Danes,

Czechs,

Swedes,

Finns,

etc.?

The abbreviated form is only offensive if it is or has been used in a provocative way or as a means to dehumanize people -- especially when it is used as a label for "the enemy" in wartime propaganda. After the war, the dehumanizing attributes of the propaganda have a tendency to stick with the word.

Words don't have any inherent meaning in their sounds. It's how they're used that matters. ***** used to be a perfectly good word for black people - MLK used it many times in the I Have A Dream speech, and does things like the United ***** College Fund. If you called someone a ***** now, it would be antiquated at best, hostile at worst. It's the same word though. Same with queer, which used to be an insult to gay people, but is now seen in many contexts as a catch-all for those who don't quite fit the LGBT labels. Words evolve over time.

dkdkd d kdd d dkkd

They almost always arose and are used in a negative context. When the British call someone a "Paki," they aren't being nice. (They often aren't being nice when they call Americans "Yanks".) World War II soldiers weren't being nice when they called the Japanese "Japs".

So, they've always had negative connotations and will continue to do so.

dkdkd d kdd d dkkd