Introduction
In 1493 Nuremberg saw the publication of a book authored by a German humanist named Hartmann Schedel (1493). The book, known as Liber Chronicarum, or
the Nuremberg Chronicle, offers a description of the history of the world from its
creation to the ‘present day’. It also includes a geographical account of the known
world (with a focus on central Europe), accompanied by woodcut illustrations of
cities and provinces, ranging from England and Portugal to Lithuania and Turkey.
Interestingly, the chronicle – in its totality – provides a description of the unknown
world as well. In particular, two of its folios are devoted to human-like creatures
inhabiting distant lands, such as India, Scythia, Libya, Ethiopia and [sic] Sicily.
Among the twenty one types described in the chronicle some are without a nose
or head, others have a single eye or foot, yet others have four eyes or six arms
(see Figure 0.1). There are also figures with a dog’s head, horse’s legs or reversed
feet, and many other peculiarities. Although we cannot state with certainty to what
extent Schedel and his readers believed in the existence of the above-mentioned
menagerie,1 the mere fact that the author of Liber Chronicarum saw it fit to include the account in his book illustrates the feeling of curiosity or even fascination
that ‘the unknown’ has always inspired in humans. In this case, we might argue,
the feeling was strengthened by the fact that the object of description were other
people. Obviously, to say that otherness inspires only positive emotions would be
to paint an idyllic and very much untrue picture of reality. More often than not,
interest is lined with fear (which can actually make the whole experience more
thrilling); quite often, the proportions are reversed.
Figure 0.1: A selection of human-like creatures depicted in Liber Chronicarum2
1 In his description, Schedel (1493) cites ancient authors, such as Pliny and Augustine; this
might be an indication that he did not take the existence of the said creatures for granted.
2 Illustration mine (based on Schedel 1493).
25
Whatever the motives, however, it is beyond doubt that one thing remains crucial while confronting others – the recognition of the division into us and them.
Indeed, humans display a remarkable instinctive need to compare and contrast
their own group with other groups, at the expense of the latter. A good example
illustrating this line of reasoning is the period of European exploration of other
continents, started by the voyages of Columbus, da Gama and other adventurers.
By way of illustration, let us take a look at two passages describing the impressions
of Europeans and Asians about each other in the sixteenth century. The first is
an opinion voiced by an Italian Jesuit missionary, who rejected the possibility of
recruiting native Asians for his order, because all these dusky races were stupid and
vicious, and of the basest spirit (ctd in Boxer 1951:81). The second opinion, which –
curiously enough – parallels the previous quote in some of its conclusions, comes
from a Chinese Confucian scholar and refers to Jesuit priests:
These ‘Ocean Men’ are tall beasts with deep sunken eyes and beak-like noses […] Although
undoubtedly men, they seem to possess none of the mental faculties of men. The most bestial
of peasants is far more human […] It is quite possible that they are susceptible to training,
and could with patience be taught the modes of conduct proper to a human being (ctd in
Vaughan 1988:1).
The merit of the above comparison is that it shows two groups, largely ignorant
of the target culture, whose perceptions of each other are strikingly similar; as a
matter of fact, they could easily be substituted. The mechanism which underlies
the above-quoted attitudes is known as ethnocentrism, which may be defined
as a belief that one’s own culture is the best, most refined, ideal, etc., and serves
as a standard for measuring and assessing other cultures. Consequently, any deviations from the norms set by the in-group are seen as anomalous (see Sumner
1906, SE).
Virtually every aspect of human life, be it clothing, cuisine, language or anatomical features, may be used as a dimension along which other cultures are measured.
This can be seen very clearly in terms which describe foreign ethnic groups. By way
of illustration, let us take a country which is located to the south of the United States
of America. The Americans (and other English-speaking people, for that matter)
call the country in question Mexico, and its inhabitants – ­Mexicans. However, a
closer inspection of American English will reveal that besides the standard, official
ethnonym, the Americans employ a number of nonstandard terms to describe their
neighbours – terms which can be found mainly in dictionaries of slang and colloquial language. For example, SAE lists thirty four synonyms and near-synonyms
of Mexican in American English. These are: bean, bean-eater, beaner, bracero, ­bravo,
brown, Chicano, chilli, chilli-chomper, chilli-eater, dino, ­enchilada-eater, grease-ball,
26
grease gut, greaser, hombre, Mex, Mexicano, Mexie, mick, never-sweat, oiler, ­paisano,
pepper, pepper-belly, shuck, spic, spig, sun-grinner, taco, taco-bender, tamale and wetback. Even if we take into account the fact that individual terms display differences in the range of usage3 and meaning,4 and that some of them are derivatives
of others,5 they still constitute a stunning variety, which raises a number of important questions. Among others, these are: Why do language-users allow for so much
redundancy in language? Are these terms born out of need or out of whim? Do they
play any role in the in-group? Are all of them negatively-loaded? Does the attitude of
the target out-group towards them differ from the attitude of the in-group? If so, why?
To what extent do these terms reflect the reality? Is it an accident that one third of
the terms are related to food? What are the mechanisms that govern the formation of
particular terms – are there any generalisations possible? It is with these questions in
mind that the present study has been projected and written.
Since some of the questions formulated above clearly reach beyond language,
it should not come as a surprise that this work, while adopting language as its
primary object of research, will attempt to incorporate a number of phenomena
which are usually associated with other disciplines, such as anthropology, sociology, psychology, and even philosophy. In particular, it may be observed that most
of the above-mentioned ethnic terms ascribe a particular attribute to the target
group6 and thus may be described as attributive ethnonyms.7 It is these terms that
constitute the main focus of the present study. At the same time, however, it has
to be stated that the phenomenon of attributive ethnonyms cannot be fully understood without taking into account the beliefs that lead to the formation of these
terms, that is stereotypes. These, in turn, reflect the way humans tend to perceive
others (that is, members of out-groups), with ethnicity as one of the dimensions
along which people are ascribed into categories.
Bearing the above in mind, the present study has been divided into two chapters.
The first chapter is devoted to the notion of categorisation. It is divided into three
3 For example, the word Mex has been in use since the beginning of the 20th century,
while bravo is about half a century newer (SAE).
4 For example, the meaning of the term Chicano has a slightly narrower scope than the
remaining examples – it refers to ‘a person of Mexican birth or descent resident in the
U.S.’ (the OED). On the other hand, the term grease-ball may refer to any person of
Latin descent (SAE).
5 For example, Mex and Mexie come from Mexican.
6 For example, bean-eater, chilli-chomper and pepper-belly suggest that Mexicans are fond
of particular foodstuffs.
7 The term was first used in Kudła (2010).
27