Yes, we should also start calling black people a term they used to be called because it used to be okay. Why is it that some people lack the miniscule amount of decency required to respect a person's or group's preferences on what they like to be called? What kind of insignificant life does someone have to lead to have the time or energy to question a small change in vocabulary that relates to respecting another's preferences?

>Yes, we should also start calling black people a term they used to be called because it used to be okay.

Actually we're not all US-based here, and we don't have any historical baggage with our black people like that.

Plus, instead of worrying about words, maybe people should focus on stopping cop shootings, mass incarcerations, red-lining and other, non-trivial matters, affecting black people?

And yes, one does preclude the other. One is hypocritical theater, the other is actual change -- opportunity costs and all.

>What kind of insignificant life does someone have to lead to have the time or energy to question a small change in vocabulary that relates to respecting another's preferences?

There was no "respecting another's preferences". It was mostly due to people having insignificant lives (sic) and compensating by being worried about words on behalf of another. Nobody actually asked the Chinese...

The issue is that Chinaman became a slur and was also used to refer to all people from Asia.

In this case it was an actual Chinaman -- not some non-Chinese person of Asia.

And there are 3 billion people that speak English. Not all carry the same baggage the US have with respect to racial slurs.

Even if it's the same language, in other places Chinaman just means "a man from China", no slur intended or transmitted.

Even so, I doubt an English language newspaper would still use "negro" to describe a black person, even if no slur was intended or transmitted.

Or can you imagine if they just used "Jew man" to mean a "Jewish man?"

Is it really that hard to use Chinese man?