Why is "a Japanese" offensive?

Question

When talking about a person from Japan, why is it offensive to say "a Japanese" rather than "a Japanese person"?

The English language Wiktionary says

(person in or from Japan): The singular “a Japanese” is less common than locutions using the adjective, such as “a Japanese person”, and is considered potentially offensive by many speakers.

but doesn't explain why it is offensive.

Allwords.com says

Note: many people object to the usage of this sense in singular form, and it is now more frequent to see a person in or from Japan referred to by using the adjective Japanese. Rather than "a Japanese," you will frequently see "a Japanese person."''

but again, there's no explanation.

Answer 1

I found an answer in this article: 「私は日本人です」は、I am a Japanese. それとも"I am Japanese?

In English there is a distinction between nationalities that end in 'ian' like Canadian or Italian and those that end in 'ese' like Japanese or Burmese.

Those that have the 'ian' can say 'I am Canadian' or 'I am a Canadian' interchangeably, but usually in English the 'ese' ones don't use the 'a' when they're referring to people--unless it is being used as an adjective.

You could say "That is a Japanese person" (where Japanese is an adjective describing the word 'person')

This convention also applies to nationalities that end in 'ish' as well, as in 'I am British' or 'I am Scottish' --though Scotland is a different case because they could say, "I am Scottish" or "I am a Scot".

I don't really know why this convention exists, but saying 'I am a Chinese' to a native speaker would be very strange for them.

Answer 2

Because apparently there is a factoid on the Internet, either based on or sustained by an article in China Daily, (viewable here) that claims that the ending -ese is used in English only for certain Asian peoples (examples include Japanese, Chinese, Vietnamese) and it then makes an unfounded historical argument to assert that this shows that English and/or English speakers (and other Europeans, by using the corresponding ending in their languages) are "racist" towards these peoples.

However this claim can be rebutted by showing that the ending -ese is used for non-Asian peoples, including Portuguese, Maltese, Viennese, Milanese, etc.

And, anyway, the usage note at Wikitionary lacked any verifiable citation and has been changed to something more sensible:

Usage notes
As with all nouns formed from -ese, the countable singular form ("I am a Japanese") is uncommon and often taken as incorrect, although it is rather frequent in East Asia as a translation for the demonyms written 日本人 in Chinese characters (Japanese kanji).

Answer 3

Here is another theory based on historical linguistics: I think the offense partly comes from it not being grammatical. The same is true for "French", "English" or "Welsh". These are older nationality adjectives. (Slightly over-simplifying, the -ish/sh/ch ending is Old English; the -ese ending is French; the -ian/an is Latin, which, counter-intuitively, is often used more recently to make nationality adjectives in English.)

The older words (-ish/-ese) are adjectives, nouns referring to the language, or collective nouns referring to the people (eg the English, the Portuguese, the Japanese). Many of these have different words for individuals (eg a Spaniard, a Scot, a Swede). The newer words (-ian/an) are adjectives, nouns referring to the language, or nouns referring to individuals (eg an American, a German, an Ethiopian). So referring to "a Japanese" would be like talking about "a furniture".

Also, there is a derogatory sense of words ending in "-ese", as we can see in words like "legalese", "officialese" or "educationese", but it's difficult to say whether the suffix "ese" is intrinsically derogatory, or whether it became derogatory because of anti-asian discrimination.

To add confusion, some of these adjectives have come into English from other languages (French or Late Latin) and some have been made in English. When countries have appeared or come into view needing an adjective, using Latin has been the default. Also adding an "n" may be natural for countries ending in "a" such as Korea or Malaysia. But Asian countries have often had "ese" applied, such as Taiwanese (who used to be called Formosan) and Vietnamese.

More interesting still is Congolese, which used to be Congoese, but was replaced by the French word Congolais.

Answer 4

'A Japanese' implies the Japanese person is a thing, and not a person. This is what deems it offensive.

'A Japanese Person' implies the Japanese person is just that - a person, and is therefore considered fine for use.

If the race requires an an, it is no longer offensive - due to the lack of bluntness in the phrase. 'An American' isn't offensive.

As well as this, a native speaker would think that 'He is a Japanese' sounds incorrect - it fails to flow, whereas 'He is a Japanese person' does.

Answer 5

While the majority of top rated answers here describe the grammatical reasons this is the case correctly, they don’t specifically address why it is unacceptable socially (I.e. why it sounds inherently racist to native English speakers) and those that do address this fail to do so adequately.

To understand why this is, you have to understand that it is common (for complicated historical, cultural, and linguistic reasons) for native English speakers to lightly modify grammatical structure in their own language as a form of contempt or derision, especially when said phrasing refers to a group that can be considered ‘other’.

When said ‘other’ is being referred to in racial or ethnic terms, or as in this case, by a nationality that can also double as an ethnic group from the perspective of native English speakers, this practice can result in seemingly innocuous phrases or those not intended to be racist coming off as racist. This is because native English speakers are conditioned to perceive obvious grammatical mistakes from their perspective, especially when race or ethnicity is involved, to be intentional.

Context is also important. Take, for instance, the following example; it would be very uncomfortable in a polite or neutral/serious context such as describing a person to a stranger for a native English speaker to have another native English speaker describe a third person of Jewish descent as ‘a Jew’. In this case, a religion that can also be an ethnicity in proper singular noun form is used as a descriptive adjective.

Referring to said person in such a singular, direct, and obviously strange sounding (to native English speakers, as explained well in other answers) way implies that the speaker is referring to the person’s ethnicity rather than their religious beliefs, that this status of ‘Jew’ is of particular importance, and that the speaker considers that type of person to have negative characteristics because they have not made the effort to refer to the fact that they are of Jewish descent correctly.

So, within the context of a conversation between two native English speakers who are mostly unfamiliar with each other personally, this misuse of grammar strongly implies that the speaker holds contempt for Jewish people and have either subconsciously revealed such or are revealing such intentionally.

An analogous example related to lifestyle would be referring to someone who is gay as ‘a gay’, although because of the increased grammatical incorrectness of referring to someone collectively as a member of a particular sexuality this could be considered a politically incorrect or offcolor joke, and the Jewish example could fly under the radar if the people in conversation are at least acquaintances.

However, both would undoubtedly be considered to demonstrate racism/homophobia, respectively, within the context of a conversation between strangers.

Answer 6

The real reason is that "Are you a Japanese?" signals stereotypical thinking. It suggests that you have a shelf in your mind for "the Japanese" and you want to make sure you're putting them where they belong. It sounds discriminatory and hence offensive in a world increasingly affected by political correctness.

Answer 7

It's offensive in English because it's offensive in Japanese. A Japanese person would be translated as 'nihonjin' where 'jin' means person. Omitting the word 'jin' makes the phrase at best meaningless, at worst rude and incorrect. Rather like saying "He's an Irish". As the Japanese people are possibly the most polite in the world, we should respect their language and culture.