Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: lqclamar
Really? Cause the OED definition you produce said absolutely nothing about Arabs. Yet you explicitly insisted it was an anti-Arab racial slur in practically every post up until then.

You mean the definition: "1921 Dialect Notes V. 111 *Raghead, a Hindu; any Asiatic. From the turbanned Asiatics who are common on the campus [of the University of California]," right? "Asiatic" was the racial term used for Arabs at this time. So while it is not necessarily exclusive to Arabs, it is a slur directed at the people of southwest Asia, inclusive of Arabs.

Please remember that you still have not provided any academically reliable (or unreliable) evidence that the term refers specifically to Muslims, as you had claimed.

264 posted on 01/15/2007 4:11:30 PM PST by zimdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies ]


To: zimdog
any Asiatic

Back to the word games, I see. Quite strange for somebody who only days ago was insisting that "Asiatic" was a racial term roughly equal to oriental. Now when it's conventient to your argument it becomes expansively geographical, including the distinctly non-oriental Middle East.

Either way though, you've proven my point that you don't know what you're talking about. If "Asiatic" includes arabs, then the term is geographical - meaning your original claim about it being "racial" is bunk. If "Asiatic" means an East Asian or Oriental hereditary characteristic, then arabs are missing from the definition - meaning your original claim about it applying to arabs is bunk. The choice is yours

303 posted on 01/17/2007 9:44:09 AM PST by lqclamar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson