Right, we’re admitting defeat. Or, to put it more correctly perhaps, we’re changing our angle of attack. It’s all to do with the word gringo and our sometimes laborious attempts to ‘correct’ numerous Colombians and other Latinos who refer to us as such.
You see, for us the word has always referred to English speaking North Americans only (which we obviously are not) and, to be honest, most locals in these parts go along with that.
However, at first glance some people here automatically think we’re from the US and hence call us gringo. We generally get a little uptight and politely tell them that we’re not gringos but Irish, so the word ‘extranjero’ (foreigner) is a more accurate label.
A bunch of foreigners. |
Yet, the ‘g-word’ is theirs (Latinos) and some do use it to describe any foreigner. So in fairness, they can apply it as they see fit.
In terms of accuracy, though, and to avoid, heaven forbid, being mistaken as a Yank, if we are called a gringo in the future we will respond by saying that if you’re using it in its broader all-foreigners sense, fine, but if not, then we must clarify.
Then, of course, many of the people here who do call us gringo or extranjero or whatever are not that far removed from the Old Continent; that's Europe if you will, or more specifically Spain.
In terms of accuracy, though, and to avoid, heaven forbid, being mistaken as a Yank, if we are called a gringo in the future we will respond by saying that if you’re using it in its broader all-foreigners sense, fine, but if not, then we must clarify.
Then, of course, many of the people here who do call us gringo or extranjero or whatever are not that far removed from the Old Continent; that's Europe if you will, or more specifically Spain.
So perhaps the only people here who have a real right to call us any of the above are the true indigenous – they could also call many of the Latinos they now share this land with the same.
In any case, they are just words, so should we really give them as much thought as we’re doing right now?
In any case, they are just words, so should we really give them as much thought as we’re doing right now?
Heck, Colombia is a country where the inhabitants regularly call their friends ‘gay’ (marica that is; for more on that see http://bit.ly/18eEfhd) and have no problem referring directly to people by their distinctive features: ‘gordo/gorda’ for a fat person; ‘negro’ for blacks; ‘mono’ for fair haired/skinned people and suchlike.
As a Dutch friend mused, because of many other, real life-or-death problems this country has recently faced (and still does), what might be seen as offensive/racist words in some other places cause little fuss here (for more on not getting too worked up about words, read http://bit.ly/NNg2E8).
What is important in the above, though – and is the case the world over – is how those words are delivered and the actions that thus follow.
Supporting minorities. |
What is important in the above, though – and is the case the world over – is how those words are delivered and the actions that thus follow.
That is to say, is there real meaning to what is uttered? Are they just throwaway, jovial remarks or is there more of, in the case of referring to people’s skin colour and the like, a racist element to it?
It will come as no surprise that we’ve witnessed racism here – you’ll find it in every corner of the globe. Very often it’s directed at the Afro-Colombians and/or the indigenous. That is, those on the peripheries, not generally part of the ruling class. They don’t quite fit in.
It will come as no surprise that we’ve witnessed racism here – you’ll find it in every corner of the globe. Very often it’s directed at the Afro-Colombians and/or the indigenous. That is, those on the peripheries, not generally part of the ruling class. They don’t quite fit in.
Of course, for different reasons, you’ll also find some anti-US sentiment here which could be considered racist too – even though, politically speaking, Colombia is the most pro-US country in South America.
What might be seen as ironic is that many Latinos, when they depart for the Western world, will encounter discrimination, suspicion and racism aimed at them for no real logical reasons other than that they’re different.* Yet, surrounded in the comfort blanket of their own, they do the same to the minorities in their midst.
What might be seen as ironic is that many Latinos, when they depart for the Western world, will encounter discrimination, suspicion and racism aimed at them for no real logical reasons other than that they’re different.* Yet, surrounded in the comfort blanket of their own, they do the same to the minorities in their midst.
At the end of it all, this is our lot ... |
Many Irish see no problem hurling, at the very least, generalisations at immigrants who seek refuge on the island – a practice that often influences government policy – while at the same time expect right of passage wherever they go in the world.
OK, some will argue this isn’t a racist tendency and more to do with protecting a small, bungling economy but that’s not always the case.
You see at certain times and in certain contexts, we can all be part of the minority, the outsider. We found it interesting to read in a newspaper in Malaysia that they referred to the West as the ‘minority world’ – the ‘haves’ versus the ‘have nots’ that is.
It can be a good practice to think outside your group – try to place yourself with the outcasts from time to time.
You see at certain times and in certain contexts, we can all be part of the minority, the outsider. We found it interesting to read in a newspaper in Malaysia that they referred to the West as the ‘minority world’ – the ‘haves’ versus the ‘have nots’ that is.
It can be a good practice to think outside your group – try to place yourself with the outcasts from time to time.
We all have prejudices – it’s part of being human. The trick is trying not to let them unduly and irrationally influence us; easier written than done, of course.
As the saying goes, ‘before you criticise someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you criticise them you’ll be a mile away and you’ll have their shoes.’ And if you’re lucky, they might be the right fit.
____________________
*Things may be changing on this front. Check out Latinos on the rise http://bit.ly/1784NCY for more on that.
You may also want to check out Phantom freedom at http://bit.ly/SOQUl0.
As the saying goes, ‘before you criticise someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you criticise them you’ll be a mile away and you’ll have their shoes.’ And if you’re lucky, they might be the right fit.
____________________
*Things may be changing on this front. Check out Latinos on the rise http://bit.ly/1784NCY for more on that.
You may also want to check out Phantom freedom at http://bit.ly/SOQUl0.
Well, Corrigan... Normally I just praise your article outright, but today I have plenty beef. In the first paragraph, you refered to "Gringo's" as Engish speaking North Americans, but as far as I've heard the word "Gringo", comes from "Green's go home". Now the green in this phrase refers to the green used by the "American" (US) Military... Being quite seperate from the Canadian. All this to say that it would have been easier for me if all of us had written United States outright, because Canadians are equally not "Gringo's" as anyone else not from the U.S. (Not to mention that it has two less letters).
ReplyDeleteP.S. On further investigation I actually saw that the use of Gringo may have actually been used for the Irish before it was used for the US peoples, but the etymology still seems a bit shrouded in mistery.
Well Robin the whole point of this is that we're learning not to get too worked up about what people call us - it's the deeds that are more important, not the words!
ReplyDeleteIn any case, we know the supposed origins of the word 'gringo' and its reference to the US military. Overtime though for many Latinos, and this is the case for us, it has become to be used for any native English speaking North Americans.
As for the Irish link to the word, no doubt if it was used in a derogatory sense then it has been aimed at us at some stage. We have our doubts though that we're the origin of the word!
Thanks as ever for taking the time to comment and give your point of view. Always appreciated!
Hello. The word yank is used in the article to describe the Americans. This word came from the USA and it is used to describe people originating from the original colonies that fought against the South. The Southerners use it as an insult when referring to people from form those states. The Southerners are then very confused when they are called the same name. Furthermore, people from states that were not existent at the time of the civil war are even more perplexed if they are called yanks by non-Americans ("California wasn't even a state then, man"). So, you, Mr. Corrigan, appear to be a black pot.
ReplyDeleteAs we say above, if there's no malice intended in it, does it really matter?!
Delete