What's in a name

[Arnot]

I'm sure people overseas know this, which leads me to believe that when it is used to generically refer to Americans, people know it is potentially insulting.

Some do know and apologize as soon as it comes out of their mouth. I don't bother, though, as I know they don't generally mean to insult anyone.

[neloon]

Being from a Southern state, the term "yank" or "yankee" has always been used as (and taken as) an insult. I'm sure people overseas know this, ...

I think most people in the UK are totally oblivious to these fine geographical/historical nuances. But the term "yank" is undoubtedly intended to be slightly pejorative from the WW2 days when the US GIs were not all that popular, being "Over paid, over sexed and over here"
Alan

[Tobus]

I can't disagree with any of this really. But I will point out that a person can not always assume that offence is intended, even though offence can be taken.

Of course. I usually don't assume that offence is intended unless it's obvious that the speaker is hurling an insult. But I do think that people display varying degrees of casual diminution of other groups by using slang terms such as these. It's a subtle psychological tool, and one that many people don't even realise they're utilising when they do it. Even shortening the name of a nation or region can carry a slight edge of sarcasm, like the way people here in my area often refer to "Brits". It's not necessarily meant to be insulting, but it's definitely not meant to be respectful. And adding a diminutive at the end like "Aussie" or "Frenchie" can be anywhere from casually slang to downright rude. So much depends on context that it's impossible to know whether the person/group will take offence, or to what level.

I don't give too much thought to so-called political correctness, nor do I advocate toe-tipping through life. People nowadays seem to take offence at everything and it can be impossible to communicate effectively in that sort of environment. But I've always held the position that it's better to call a person or a group by their official name out of respect, unless one is in the company of intimate friends. Resorting to slang names amongst strangers seems a bit linguistically lazy and tactless.

[Highland Logan]

Of course. I usually don't assume that offence is intended unless it's obvious that the speaker is hurling an insult. But I do think that people display varying degrees of casual diminution of other groups by using slang terms such as these. It's a subtle psychological tool, and one that many people don't even realise they're utilising when they do it. Even shortening the name of a nation or region can carry a slight edge of sarcasm, like the way people here in my area often refer to "Brits". It's not necessarily meant to be insulting, but it's definitely not meant to be respectful. And adding a diminutive at the end like "Aussie" or "Frenchie" can be anywhere from casually slang to downright rude. So much depends on context that it's impossible to know whether the person/group will take offence, or to what level.

I don't give too much thought to so-called political correctness, nor do I advocate toe-tipping through life. People nowadays seem to take offence at everything and it can be impossible to communicate effectively in that sort of environment. But I've always held the position that it's better to call a person or a group by their official name out of respect, unless one is in the company of intimate friends. Resorting to slang names amongst strangers seems a bit linguistically lazy and tactless.

I can't disagree with that either. But from personal experience as someone whom believes in and practises personal free agency, I've never used Brit, or the others as a negative, unless preceded with words inappropriate for the forum. The same would hold true for Christain names or Surnames. Without the prefix, it's just a word with no more meaning than as a description of origin.

The biggest use of a known insult on this site has always been Sassenach. Translated it is nothing more than Southerner. But it's intended meaning has always been as an insult to the English, no different than "come from away", which is common in the Atlantic Provinces of Canada.

A bit rambling and disjointed but I hope my point comes through.

Frank

[OC Richard]

How about "septic"?

Alan

I've heard Aussies call us "seppos" which must be short for that.

[OC Richard]

I think most people in the UK are totally oblivious to these fine geographical/historical nuances.

About "yankee"

To foreigners, a Yankee is an American.
To Americans, a Yankee is a Northerner.
To Northerners, a Yankee is an Easterner.
To Easterners, a Yankee is a New Englander.
To New Englanders, a Yankee is a Vermonter.
And in Vermont, a Yankee is somebody who eats pie for breakfast.

While in the US "south" it means somebody from the "north" (as per the ACW) in the north it means somebody from New England (Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island).

Within New England, Yankee appears to mean the people and the dialect from eastern New England and in particular the descendants of the original English Puritan settlers.

[grizzbass]

but like Viking is probably going to have several plausible origins.
I wasn't aware that Karen was meant as an insult until it had been around for awhile. John (with several different negatives) I learned quite quickly was.
Words meaning often are in the ear of the beholder. I've been called Jock because of my athletic accomplishments (or maybe better what were my athletic accomplishments). I never viewed it as an insult because the negative elements didn't apply. I've never been called jock because of a kilt but I'm assuming that's because most americans wouldn't know the Scottish definition but would feel kind of pleased if I was considered enough of a scot to be a jock.
My rule of thumb is to never assume the slang is meant as an insult unless the speaker clearly means it as an insult then it's more that they are insulting than the word it's self. I've had people call me a sonofabitch but they clearly meant it in endearing terms.
It's kind of like my dog grizzly. I often say "who's a big dumb dog" (dog being the only accurate description) but it's said in a tone of voice that makes him wag his tail. Call me what you like and if it's the right tone I'll wag my tail also.

[FossilHunter]

I can't disagree with that either. But from personal experience as someone whom believes in and practises personal free agency, I've never used Brit, or the others as a negative, unless preceded with words inappropriate for the forum. The same would hold true for Christain names or Surnames. Without the prefix, it's just a word with no more meaning than as a description of origin.

The biggest use of a known insult on this site has always been Sassenach. Translated it is nothing more than Southerner. But it's intended meaning has always been as an insult to the English, no different than "come from away", which is common in the Atlantic Provinces of Canada.

A bit rambling and disjointed but I hope my point comes through.

Frank

I was under the impression that Sassenach meant Saxon as in Anglo-Saxon and was just the Gaelic word for the English.

The Gaelic word for England is Sasainn.

[Highland Logan]

I was under the impression that Sassenach meant Saxon as in Anglo-Saxon and was just the Gaelic word for the English.

The Gaelic word for England is Sasainn.

Best all in one answer is this.

https://www.quora.com/Why-are-the-En...y-the-Scottish

Frank

[Laird O'the Cowcaddens]

As a former serving member of a Scottish Regt I have always taken pride in being identified as a Jock. If you could only understand what it meant to me to hear soldiers from other than Scottish Regts say "they are sending in the Jocks to sort it out", or "these guys wont know what has hit them when the Jocks are done with them". My experience has been that there is nothing that compares with seeing a Regiment of Jocks in full dress No 1 uniform on parade in all their splendour with The Colours Front and Centre.