Talk:Gweilo

Introductory Sentence

I would like to change "Gweilo (鬼佬; Jyutping: gwai2 lou2; Cantonese pronounced [kwɐ̌ɪ lə̌ʊ]; sometimes also spelt Gwailo) is a Cantonese term for Caucasian people (generally men), considered racist by some people." to "Gweilo (鬼佬; Jyutping: gwai2 lou2; Cantonese pronounced [kwɐ̌ɪ lə̌ʊ]; sometimes also spelt Gwailo) is a Cantonese term for non-Chinese people (generally men), considered racist by some people." The reason is that the term "gwailo" does not refer only to "Caucasians", which is a term already rejected by anthropologists [see Caucasian race] and replaced by the term, "European". The term can also refer to African Americans as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.239.221 (talk) 03:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Gweilo refers to those of European ethnicities only, irrespective of nationality, for example some Chinese citizens are gweilo. On the other hand, black African ethnicities, irrespective of whether they happen to be American, are often given the analogous description hakgwei (black ghosts), which is usually considered to be offensive. Iancanton13 (talk) 20:29, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Translation to "Devil"

Sorry. Didn't see the citation to "Intermediate Chinese" by Yip and Matthews. However, the book seems to be stretch the translation of the term to mean "Devil" as explained in the other part of the article. But I would like to revert the adjective "derogatory" to "racist" which is a more precise term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.239.221 (talk) 03:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Gwai or Gwei

Actually, sei gweilo is still very much in use, isn't it? I have been called like that several times during my stay in HK. --84.138.180.41 09:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I moved the page becuase "gweilo" is more popular than "gwailo"

• Google results: gweilo and gwailo
• HK Magazine prefers the term "gweilo".

-- Jerry Crimson Mann 21:36, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What about Jau Gwai? :-D — Instantnood 04:01, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

In a sense, I would prefer "Gwei" instead "Gwai" here. :) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 04:36, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If we follow the way the government transliterate people's names and place names, it should be Chau Kwai. In Jyutping it's Zau Gwai. :-D — Instantnood 10:55, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Well, actually there's no consensus about the translation. Both terms are fine by me, to be frank, and do it another way later on if there's a proof of a definite transliteration. ;) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 10:57, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:-P — Instantnood 11:18, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

this isnt about preferences, it's about pronounciation. it is pronounced as gwai, and not gwei. if you said gwei to a cantonese person, he would not know what you were saying. just because "google" prefers it, does not make it correct. that's like using baidu as a guide for english pronouncation. the hk govt also regularly transliterates things incorrectly. for example, lan gwai fong is written and as lan kwai fong, but there is no "k" sound in this word at all. the location of mong kok is actually pronounced as wawng gawk. even the island of hong kong is actually pronounced hierng gawng. but the word "gwei" is definitely way off and follow no rules of transliteration — Preceding unsigned comment added by Belhaj2 (talk • contribs) 04:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Guizi

Is the term really borrowed by Cantonese??? it seems that the term guizi was originally used to mean the Japanese, and later used to refers to the white men (洋鬼子)...--K.C. Tang 03:50, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Move to Wiktionary

I transwiki'd this article to Wiktionary and replaced the current version with a soft-redirect. user:Instantnood reverted that edit with the comment This is more than a dictionary definition. Please discuss at the talk page. Thanks.

I've read and now re-read the article. The contents of this article are a detailed discussion of the meanings, origins and usage of a word. It includes synonyms and related words. Those are components of a dictionary definition. It is not the content that I would expect to see in a truly great, unabridged encyclopedia. It is, however, the content that I would expect to see in a truly great, unabridged dictionary. I believe that the content belongs in Wiktionary, not in Wikipedia because Wikipedia is not a dictionary has been established policy since long before I joined the project.

I see no possibility that this article can be expanded past a dictionary definition and into an encyclopedia article. I would be happy to be proven wrong, though. If you can show me what in this article is more than a discussion of the meanings, origins and/or usage of the word or if you can expand the article past that state, I will withdraw my objections. Rossami (talk) 01:18, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

It's been almost 4 months. The article is still a mere dictionary definition. It has some excellent discussion of the usage and connotations of the term but that is content more appropriate to a dictionary than an encyclopedia. So far, there is no encyclopedia article here. Per Wikipedia is not a dictionary, I have returned this article to it's state as a soft-redirect to Wiktionary. I strongly encourage the participants on this page to follow the link to Wiktionary and to continue to improve the definition there. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 05:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

How is that a dicdef!? enochlau (talk) 06:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

It is an article about a word. It includes the meaning (including connotations), usage (including examples), origins, antonyms, synonyms and related words. It is not an article about the underlying concept or thing. In accordance with our long-standing policy that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, an acceptable encyclopedia may begin with a definition but must go beyond that. So far, no one has described any content in this article that goes beyond the content that I would hope to see in a great, unabridged dictionary. What's here is good content but it was misplaced. It belongs in Wiktionary. Rossami (talk) 12:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

What's the doing here then? I think if the article contains any sort of explanation as to its cultural setting (e.g. "This reflects a transformation in which an ethnic group begins referring to itself with a term which was originally considered an ethnic slur."), it has transcended the level of dicdef. Compare the article of old to the stuff you find on Wiktionary - it's far more detailed and won't fit in there at all. enochlau (talk) 14:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

This article fits under Category:Pejorative terms for people and can be more than a dictionary entry. Shawnc 14:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

derogatory

"It is used so commonly by Cantonese speakers to refer to white people and westerners in general that its use is not always derogatory." Such a statement calls for a citation, as frequent use does not automatically mean non-derogatory: could the word be casually and neutrally used to directly address a random westerner, as in "hello, gweilo" or "I remember you, you're that gweilo who.."? Shawnc 13:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with this article saying that it's mostly used as non-derogatory. Gweilo is equivalent to calling somebody "whitey" or "darkie". Some Cantonese use the term 西人, literally "Western person", eg. Westerner, as a more polite, non-derogatory term. Dyl 15:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

"Westerner" is more written language than spoken. When speaking, most HKers will use the term "gweilo" to mean "the white guy".--little Alex 01:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that Gweilo is used more often, it certainly is. The point that I'm making is that Gweilo still has a negative connotation, even if commonly used. Dyl 07:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

See my very un-p.c. edits. I'm confronted with Chinese racism and Chinese racist linguistic terms EVERY DAY and the pretense that gweilo is not derogatory is a load of crap; yet at the same time people who used it nonchalantly justify it as "well, you used to the bosses so it's OK for us to discriminate aginst you/insult you as it's our turn now" or "well, how would you know, you're not Chinese". Ditto with the old usage of Chinaman, which many North American Chinese happily use for themselves, and not even necessarily jokingly (i.e. those the new Chinese call "bananas"), and which remains in backcountry dialects of English in the Pacific Northwest without any pejorative context in the minds of the people using it; also in many Native American/First Nations language where it's also the adjectival form, e.g. "Chinese food" would be chinaman muckamuck in Chinook Jargon, though latter-day chinookology has coined the phrase china tillikum, but that's a neologism created because of p.c. sensitivities not an authentic word. What pisses "us" off so much is the endless pretense that anything racist about Chinese culture isn't actually racist, while nearly anything someone else says about the Chinese is immediately denounced as racist. We explored our double standards a long time ago, and made efforts to fix them. I'd say it's Chinese culture's term to EXPUNGE gweilo from the language in the same that "nigger" and "chink" are no longer acceptable in English. But changing the Chinese language so as to not offend non-Chinese people would no doubt constitute a "humiliation" or a "loss of face" for Chinese culture, right? yeah ,right....hypocritesSkookum1 18:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree 100% with the above. This article seems a bit POV in almost defending the term. It needs to be balanced out. It definitely isn't a non-offensive term. The CRTC ruling quote is especially absurd. Can you imagine if some Caucasian had a Chinese cooking show called "Chinaman Cooking"? The only reason this word seems to not hit the fan, seems to be that most Caucasians simply don't know Chinese language. However I bet if they knew what they were being called, they would take offense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.119.98.198 (talk) 07:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how much you take offense to the term "Gweilo", but if I am to insult a white guy in my native Cantonese I will definitely say something stronger than that by adding insulting suffixes. I am just pointing out the fact that nowadays the term "Gweilo" by itself doesn't carry enough weight to be insulting, at least to the person inflicting the insult. I do avoid saying these "gwei-" terms in my daily speech even when no foreigners are presence. I have had "political correctness indoctrination" in the US. Heh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.149.193.70 (talk) 17:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I suppose things might be getting more PC round the world but I certainly know it used to be possible a few years ago for a white person to insult the chinese person back and them both to take it good humourously. Not something that would ever be acceptable with blacks in Africa. Dmcq (talk) 00:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I must disagree with the current wordage that seeks to defend a POV interpretation of how the word is used. Common usage is not exclusive of offensiveness. The term, especially its derivative 黑鬼, is used often in a derogatory manner. Yes, I do think the term can be used in a neutral manner, and I have actually known expats in HK to use it to describe themselves. But it is also often used in a negative manner. The article needs to be edited to reflect this, instead of this description of "mostly not derogative" or "slightly pejorative". These qualifiers border on Wikipedia:Original research if they have no sources to back up the claim. At the very least, the offensiveness of 黑鬼 needs to be made clear. Hong Qi Gong 21:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

A few years ago on the web, I actually stumbled upon a group started by a local HKer that wanted to push for people to stop using this term in normal conversation, saying that it's offensive. But I just simply can't find its website anymore. If anybody know of the group I'm talking about or know of a similar group, please link it up. Hong Qi Gong 16:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I've tested whether the gwei is offensive or not a few times. Very few Hongkongers see Kong Gwei 港鬼 as acceptable and even fewer Mainlanders would accept Han Gui 汉鬼 or Zhongguo Guizi 中国鬼子. And increasing numbers of Chinese who live in the UK are telling me they will never again use gweilo or guizi to refer to whites, and will oppose any of their compatriates who do use them. 80.177.125.188 13:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC) charliecharlieecho

I wouldn't know what the heck you're talking about if you called me 港鬼. Never heard the term before. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Much of this article seems apologetic of the term, which is generally considered derogatory. Acknowledging its derogatory connotation is not an attack on Chinese people or culture. All cultures have derogatory words for foreigners, and there's nothing (academically) wrong with recognizing that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.125.134.42 (talk) 11:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

"Gweilo" is not a cute "ghost" like Casper. It also refers to the most evil "devil". Proof: When the Japanese raped Chinese family's mother, killed her before their eyes and draged their daughters to forced prostitution what did the Chinese refer to them as? What word epitomized the pures hate they could garne? They chose the lowest most derogatory word in existence, i.e., "Gwei" (鬼）as in "Gweizi Bing" (鬼子兵）and also "Gwielo"(鬼佬）. Gweizi Bing, or Guizi Bing as it is usually transliterated, doesn't stand for "Cute Casper Warrier who killed my mother". It stands for "Lowest devil in existence who should be killed Satan Warrier". Let's not turn Wikipedia into a pulpit for racists who use racist terms. (Cheerful Eric (talk) 21:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC))

"Gweilo" is one of the most racist terms on the earth. Dosteyevsky once said that the purest racist is the one who is completely unaware that they're racist. They think what they see is a fact of the world, and not their racism. If a caucasian speaks Cantonese, except for on TV or as a singer or nun or priest, many Hong Kong people refuse to talk to them in Cantonese. Particularly in a company. Native Hong Kong people can speak Cantonese in a Hong Kong office, but a caucasian is often strictly forbidden. And this apartheid is accompanied with the use of the term "foreign devil" as a set. The racism and exclusion added together with the use of this word show the true actual power of the "gweilo" (devil man) term in practice. By the people in Hong Kong who do this say "It's not racism. We don't talk to you because you're a gweilo. Cantonese is for Hong Kong people to speak." The racism is completely unconscious to them. It's the result of several hundred years of living under British rule. Many now believe there are actually several different categories of human being and that they're not racist in thinking so, but the world is actually made that way. (Cheerful Eric (talk) 21:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC))

Hey you know, Eric, that's interesting. After reading your reply about how it's a the result of several hundred years of living under British rule, I came to think, is this the result of Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis? I want to point out that "feilo" ("肥佬", meaning "fat man") is a very common word for calling males fat. It's systematic, and by that I mean that it is regularly used; some people are actually called Fat Man "肥佬", or people use it as a nickname, or people refer to these fat men as "Fat Man" "肥佬", in the way that they would say "Hey, Fat Man, come here.". This is seen in movies. Another example is Lydia Shum. In the article, it says "She was affectionately known to peers and fans as Feifei (肥肥) ...." (肥 meaning fat). If I were her, I would never let anyone call me that. And this is public.

There are other names that people call each other, but maybe someone can list them. So light of these phenomena, are these phenomena the result of

• Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis
• The opposite of Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, where culture affects the language (we and others (people) use)
• Linguistics (where the rules of Cantonese grammer and syntax require Cantonese people to be so forward with names)
• Anthropology (where Cantonese culture does not mind insulting names)?174.3.111.148 (talk) 18:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Inline commenting

I don't know if there are any official policies against it, but personally I just find inline commenting annoying. Can we not do this? If you want to make a comment on specific texts in the article, just do it here in the Talk page. Hong Qi Gong 17:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

What Skookum1 has to say about the Opium War

I'm going to delete the inline commenting that Skookum1 did, but I'm re-posting it here. This is what he had to say about the Opium War in relations to this term:

"really? and what did they call us before the Opium Wars? What are the older words, then?"

Hong Qi Gong 18:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, HongQiGong ("flowery/perfume yoga", I'm guessing, if "hong" is the same as in HK); where's the cite to prove that "gweilo" was a creation of the Opium Wars period? If there's no cite, that shouldn't be said, as it gives a trumped-up justification for what is clearly a racist term, by any standard. And if it was created during the Opium Wars, what was the word for white people before the Opium Wars? Surely we didn't not-exist; even if we were illegal in China, that is...(which was pretty much the case, since China was/is patently racist towards non-Chinese).Skookum1 18:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

You're incredibly far off on the translation of my username.

1. It's not Cantonese.
2. "Hong Kong" is a badly romanised name that was just kept in usage. "Heung" is a better romanisation for 香, or "fragrant".
3. Thinking "QiGong" means yoga, you've first mixed Cantonese with Mandarin, thinking my name means "perfume yoga". Secondly, 氣功, or qigong is nothing like yoga.
4. My username is in Mandarin. It's the name of a famous character in kungfu novel 射鵰英雄傳, or The Legend of the Condor Heroes, written by Jinyong.

Anyway, the only reason I moved your comment here is that I'm personally annoyed by inline comments inserted in the article itself. Plus, this way, we can actually have a discussion about your concern. Hong Qi Gong 18:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

gwei or gwai

it should be gwai because in cantonese its pronounced gwai. in mandarin its pronounced gui. so gwei is definitely wrong. i dont know who is the drunk fool that came up with that spelling.

I've never seen "gwei" used either, so it's definitely not standard, though there are obviously many examples. Either way, "gwai" seems to be more common, and it is supported by both romanization laws and the standard Cantonese pronunciation, so if nobody objects I'm going to make the changes within 24 hours. 218.229.72.173 (talk) 19:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a German version of the pronunciation

Factual errors: 鬼佬 / 白鬼

The article sounds like the author was a little resentful of us whities while writing it, but aside from the tone, there're some facts that dont jibe well, certainly not without citation.

-Never heard of 黑鬼. I didn't they were an imposing enough presence to merit the slur. -The mainland term is 白鬼, and only occasionally, if the context is known, 鬼子. That's bai2 gui3. I don't think this is an HK term. -The term is considered by anyone I've ever met to be quite obviously offensive. It's picked up some light-hearted intention, but still only in safe company. -What the hell is the author citing with 紅鬚綠眼? Is that supposed to be a reference to dragons or something? It sounds made-up. spetz 68.44.192.170 23:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about 紅鬚綠眼 ("red-whisker, green-eye"), but the epithet 金髮碧眼 ("gold-hair, jade-eye") has historically often been used to describe people who (probably) had Western Eurasian genetic heritage. According to the common European understanding, "red-whisker, green-eye" would seem rather like a description of some Celtic people, whereas "gold-hair, jade-eye" seems like an epithet that would be much more appropriate for a Slavic or Germanic group. However, Chinese people (at least historically) did not make a clear distinction between "red hair" and "golden (i.e., blond) hair," and the linguistic distinction between "green" and "blue" is also a rather recent invention in most of the world's languages, including Chinese, so it is often impossible to tell whether a particular historical quotation was referring to a thing that would be labeled as "green" or rather to a thing that would be labeled as "blue" according to our modern understanding. Ebizur 17:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The terms "black/white devil" are used mostly in oversea Chinese community. "Black devil" is also what the N-word translates into in imported Hollywood movies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.149.193.70 (talk) 17:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Recent removal of material

There have been several instances of removal of material, much of which already has citations, from the article without discussion by User:HKYAN. See:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gweilo&diff=193457309&oldid=192884215
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gweilo&diff=193666410&oldid=193485891
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gweilo&diff=194139904&oldid=194113613
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gweilo&diff=195330732&oldid=195237814

Although I agree that much of the article is in bad need of cleanup and that several passages appear to be uncited original research, there has been no consensus to remove such large swaths of material. In addition, replacing it with statements saying that the term is always derogatory despite citations indicating otherwise appears to be POV. I invite HKYAN (and anyone else for that matter) to share their concerns here before making such big changes. —Umofomia (talk) 20:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I will start by sharing my concerns (based on this version of the article). I especially don't like the 3rd paragraph (the one that starts off as "Nowadays, term is often exploited by some ...") because it appears to speculate on why the term might not be derogatory and the reasons for the inaccurate foreign devil translation. The fact of the matter is that we really don't know how the translation came about. There are elements of this in the 2nd paragraph as well (in addition to uncited claims). The 4th paragaph appears to be mostly irrelevant; the use of 死 isn't really relevant to the base meaning of gweilo. The rest of the article appears to be mostly cited, and I have no big qualms about those portions, though they could always be better. —Umofomia (talk) 21:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

"Gweilo"

The term "gweilo" is not only perjorative, but also offensive. In addition, I would like to state that many of the links in the initial entry do not work and the references, where cited, appear to have little or no acadmic value. Furthermore, the current wording of the article also leads people to believe, or readily gives the impression, that the term "gweilo" is today a completely acceptable term to describe caucasian males.

If such an article was written about the use of terms to describe Chinese people in the same manner, many people would label it racist. Although I appreciate that the term "gweilo" was once originally considered derogatory and that we are now told by some native Cantonese speaking Chinese that it is not, there is again very little factual evidence of this.

As such, this does not alter the fact that the original article is not only incorrect but seems to have been written by someone with a certain amount of personal vengence agianst caucasians and has therfore written it in such a ways as to convince readers that it is authentic. A poper revision of this article should be undertaken, until such time it will continue to be a matter of contention.

HKYAN (talk) 12:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello your edits were reverted earlier due to a request put in to monitor this page due to heavy deletion. Have you ever considered "not" using English sources for this one. The problem is that you are asking English sources whether this term is offensive to Caucasians/English speakers. Of course the answer is always going to be yes. This is equivalent to doing a research in Chinese asking whether Chinaman is offensive?? That answer is also going to be yes. Benjwong (talk) 04:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but as I recall from somewhere in Talk:Chinaman or its archives if any there was a discussion of the Chinese translations of Chinaman and Chinese person in various forms, with the upshot that the characters and words themselves were chosen to represent offensiveness, as if it were contained in the English syntax. So much so that Bo Yang's book title in English has to add the adjective "uglyl" to convey the sense of the Chinese characters, as "Chinaman" clearly does not contain anything explicitly derisive in teh way gweilo is. And while I don't mean to equivocate, only clarify, if offensiveness is to be decided by those offended, which runs the p.c. argument about Chinaman being offensive even if it was widely used without offensive intent (i.e. by non-Chinese; Chinese themselves used it without any self-derogation intended, other than humour/irony as the negative associations developed...)...anyway, if that's the case, then as one of the race targeted in the term gweilo and also raised around it, used in offensive ways, I do find it offensive and know it's used that way. Yet rationalizations about how Chinese speakers do not find it offensive, and because of that the racist sign in Toronto was tolerated by Canada's supposedly strict anti-hate laws; yet non-Chinese opinions about and usages of "Chinaman" are dismissed as being irrelevant and an expression of ignorance. You can't have it both ways, although both ways certainly are out there on both sides, and concerning both words. yeah, it's hard to find cites from non-Chinese about whether or not gweilo is offensive; although passages in literature and travelogues abound, as well as in movie scripts etc. But that's because most non-Chinese are unaware of the word; if they were, they'd be offended. Nobody likes to be called a hairy barbarian, filthy ghost or any of the other various translations offered up over the years (since Kipling's time; I'd imagine he has a usage somewhere...but not spelled gweilo, usually I've seeen it "gwai lo" - old-style English renderings of Chinese words weren't usually bisyllabic, the syllables were all laid out seperately...except when adapted into English like typhoon....).Skookum1 (talk) 04:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok I have not gotten involved in slurs related articles before, so I cannot tell you where your previous arguments have been. What I will say is that this term can be offensive, but not entirely. A simple example. Before 1997 when HK was a British territory, this term was found in many 70s-80s movies that were rated as suitable for all ages. You would think this is not possible given the British government administrations was mostly caucasians. But that goes to show just how socially accepted the phrase was. Movies made for kids contained this phrase. Do I agree the term is offensive today? Yes, absolutely. But the preferred term "western person" (西人) isn't necessarily a safe alternative either. What if the caucasian person was from Russia or Australia, then they aren't really from the west. "white person" is equally as ackward. That is why this term historically have lasted so long. Whether any legit native-English source would ever openly accept that history? I have no idea. But I can tell you from reading this article, the people who previously put this page together stayed pretty close to reality. And that's despite the page being tagged as containing original research. Benjwong (talk) 06:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Meaning/connotations of 鬼

The description, not to say denunciation, of choosing to translate Gwai Lou as "foreign devil" was a nigh-hilarious display of cultural illiteracy--whoever wrote it presumed mightily on their knowledge of the meaning of the word "devil" in the West, and the connotations of same. Similarly, they didn't seem to have a terribly firm grasp of what ghosts are like in China.

See, the word 鬼 does mean, often, "(evil) spirit of a dead person", but the behavior and attributes are nothing like those of a Western ghost, unless vampires count. They are, in fact, much more akin to the Western idea of "devil" (which is a very general term, anyway)--they're an unclean spirit, and they're the things you're getting rid of when you do an exorcism in Chinese traditional religion. Hmm, what do Westerners usually exorcise? (Gee, Davy, do you think it might be devils?)

Besides which the term gwai is sometimes used for Buddhist demons that punish evildoers in the Hells...gee, what on earth does that sound like?

Foreign devil looks like a pretty accurate translation to me.

And then there's the tendentious attempt to divine the motives of writers who died three centuries ago--"They tried to make it sound like the Chinese were racist!" Well, A) the fact any Westerner going to China would have been killed probably did that, without any need for propaganda, and B) if someone calls you "a guy that resembles the spirit of the unquiet dead," you and he are not on cordial terms. 71.223.172.153 (talk) 07:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean Mogwai. Benjwong (talk) 02:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

No, if you'd actually bothered to read what I wrote, I was referring to the ghost-type, straight-up Gwai--who are responsible for hauntings and ill-luck and all that fun stuff, and have to be exorcised from the houses or people they're tormenting. Mogwai are more like fairies or goblins--or, well, Gremlins, not coincidentally. 71.223.181.222 (talk) 10:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

equivocating horse apples

It is pejorative only when the term is delibrately prefaced by the Chinese word sei (死,

What a crock; I've heard it LOTS without the 'sei' and it's just as offensive; it's offensive NO MATTER WHAT THE INTENT. Fine equivocate all you want about how white people aren't capable of translating it and try to dodge the other Chinese who admit its origins and use are clearly derisive; go pretending it's the fault of the person victimized that they don't understand that it doesn't mean how they take it to. The same is true historically of Chinaman but that doesn't stop linguistic-policeman from denouncing anyone who uses it as a racist pig. Gwei lo IS OFFENSIVE it doesn't need "sei" in front of it; unless you buy the artgument that "damned Chinaman" is derisive while "Chinaman" isn't....This whole article is so full of speculations and suppositions and equivocations, plus digressions to discuss other Chinese words/characters; it's all fluff and doesn't need to be this long it also sholuldn't pander to C'hinese linguistic apologists who want to "white wash" this term...Skookum1 (talk) 14:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Lo fan

In a Bill Moyers PBS documentary about the Chinese Americans, an old Chinese American uses the term "lo fan" to refer to a white interrogator at Angel Island. Does anyone have an idea of the hanzi for this term? Badagnani (talk) 11:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

My Uncle, Shing Heng Ah, would often use the term guailo and cackle. He said it meant 'white devil'. Lo fan was a bit kinder: 'white rice'. 2603:7000:8000:3579:591E:B463:99D4:932A (talk) 12:38, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Looks like it's 老番. Badagnani (talk) 23:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Lo Fan is a term the Chinese used to refer to Americans meant as (Barbarian) due to the lack of patience and discipline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.27.230.202 (talk) 14:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

lo fan (the Chinese above is correct) is the pejorative term, equivalent to gwailo in Sze-yap/Toysan dialect, which was the main dialect of Cantonese immigrants to the US until the 1960s. My Boston Chinatown friends who grew up there in the 1960s used this term rather than guailo. Fan (or faan?), fan in Mandarin, hoan in Southern Min/Hokkien means "uncivilized barbarian." Thus in Hokkien foreigners were derogated as ang-mo hoan, red-haired barbarians, or simply as hoan-a, barbarians (the epithet hoan-a is now used in Taiwan as a racist epithet for the Austronesian-speaking aborigines). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.218.176.182 (talk) 20:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

1800's?

The reason for calling Caucasians "hateful living dead" probably arose during the 1800s, when the Chinese first saw fair-skinned Caucasians, they mistook the Europeans for dead corpses that had come back to life

Chinese people came into contact with people of the Caucasian race long before the 1800's, see the Cultural exchanges section in the Tarim mummies article, for example. --67.149.150.252 (talk) 12:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Gweilos' view of 'gweilo'

Surely it is also important how the term is received? As a Hong Kong-based gweilo, I use the term all the time to refer to 'our lot', as do most gweilos I know (perhaps as 'nigger' and other terms have been co-opted by the described group, as discussed at Pejorative). The article should make more of this (it is mentioned under Cultural reference).

When it is used by Chinese, it is often in an annoying generalisation, but usually well meant. If someone is being critical of a 'foreigner', they will certainly use the term, but along with other language and tone that make it an attack.Earthlyreason (talk) 11:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I think part of the question is what ARE we to call ourselves? I am of European ancestry but I am from HK, I am a HK'er. There are easily explainable terms for other minority people like if you say that someone is Hakka we all know what it means. CyntWorkStuff (talk) 16:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

If you want to expand on the derogatory-ness, feel free. Preferably with some sources to make this more encyclopedic. Benjwong (talk) 18:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I am married to a Cantonese lady. My mother-in-law was told off by my late father-in-law for referring to me as "gweilo"! Personally, I find it amusing; especially as I don't see it as anything but a habitual usage that was once abusive but is no longer so. I am not a Cantonese speaker, but it is clear that at least amongst older people (my father-in-law lived through the Japanese occupation) it still has bad overtones. --APRCooper (talk) 10:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Chinese can be gwei gwei de!

Please not to forget that Gweilo are two words put together; Gwei + lo. The word LO in chinese means male figure. There are sayings such as taxi-LO, bus-LO, dim sum LO, etc. Some wives call their husband my-LO. Gweipor are for female spieces. POR means mature women such as Ah-POR or Ah-mah. Gweitau would mean gweilo head ie gweilo boss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.40.137.197 (talk) 04:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Gweitau should be added to the article but I don't have the hanzi for it.174.3.111.148 (talk) 21:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Dubious edit

Removed this line from the "etymology section" until it can be properly referenced:

Hence foreigners were referred to as foreign devils.

The passage starts by saying that 鬼佬 literally means "ghost man", ignoring first the ambiguity with the character 鬼, next it mentions how it is sometimes translated as "foreign devil", stating the above cut passage as a reason (using an angle of attack I have no idea how to explain). How can "they are referred as foreign devils" be a logical explanation for how the characters for "ghost/etc." and "old man" are sometimes translated as "foreign devils"? Do the Chinese speak English when they are speaking Chinese or what? Am I the only one who sees how little sense this makes?

Later on, the article states, "The term gwei (鬼) in gweilo (鬼佬) is an adjective". So which is it, a "term", or an "adjective", and can someone please reference that? Thanks! 210.254.117.186 (talk) 08:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Sei

The colloquial meaning of 'sei' leans more towards 'bloody' than dead to me, as in "sei che!" (bloody car). There's very little vituperative significance left in calling someone 'dead', though this was perhaps one heck of a curse in ancient times. Can any other native speakers back me up on this?

I agree with you. Sei does literally mean to die, dead, or death, but it can also mean damn or bloody, depending on the context or situation. In the case of this article, "Sei gwai lou" is more like "That bloody foreign devil." However, I think it is hard to translate some Chinese words because they might not have the exact concept in English. That is why you can't take each character word for word. There are some characters that needs to accompanied by another character to form a word or meaning. 68.183.228.247 (talk) 07:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

"Sei gwai lou" is definitely meaning "That bloody foreigner." and is insulting, but note the most insulting part is the "sei", there is very limited overtone to actually refer to devil or anything religious. Putting "sei" in front of man "sei ren" can be use as an insult "that bloody man",Interesting enough "sei che" actually means dead, a dead car= an parked/immobile car at side of road or as a verb car failure.

As a Cantonese speaker, Gweilo is a murky word. It is is kind of a mirror of Chinaman (or maybe Yankee?), Gweilo definitely had a derogatory background, but in sharp contrast of "Chinaman", local foreigners in Hong Kong had much more acceptance on the use of the term than Chinese on "Chinaman", and over time the word has lost much of the barbness and becoming a impolite but causal way to refer as foreigner , may be well-meaning but best avoided in formal/business setting.

So something like "Gao Gweilo hao charming wo" = "that foreigner is very charming" is actually a valid sentence in local Cantonese slang as a praise. But you would NOT see "English menu for Gweilo is provided" in a restaurant.

The most polite/formal way is to refer them as 外國人, usable in daily talk but this is a bit formal and do not roll off the tongue.

西人 is probably even more insulting than Gweilo and not a common way to address a foreigner 218.188.197.158 (talk) 06:56, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Gwailo v. Gweilo

I versed User:Kiminatheguardian's attempt to fix the anomalous title of this article by making it a redirect to Gwailo and copying all the content here to that title. I support that title, but the move has to be done via an AFD, so the talkpage and article history is moved properly; this requires admin intervention because of the 2005-vintage re-naming of this article to the current "Gweilo". Most common spelling of this word in English, however, is in the form gwai lo....in fact other than In Wikiepdia I don't think I've ever seen it with gwei, and I'm not sure I've ever seen it anywhere but in Wikipedia as being presented as one word; always two. But an AFD is required to resolve this, not unilateral action without proper procedure.Skookum1 (talk) 02:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Footnote 6

The sentence referencing the footnotes states "... which some members of the Caucasian community resent.".

The link is dead right now, but I found this. Is this link the footnote references? Now I've read this commentary, and it's actually an op-ed.

In the op-ed, nowhere does it mention that some members of the Caucasian community resent the term Gweilo. We need to delete the phrase or rewrite the sentence.174.3.117.120 (talk) 15:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

While it may be op-ed (it is a letter to the editor, or seems to be), it does mention that MP Raymond Chan believes it to be offensive, so it can be used to add that to the article. While Chan may have not said white people find it offensive, I believe MLA Jenny Kwan's comments about it do make reference to whites finding it offensive, but I wouldn't know where to look for those comments on-line (not easily anyway). As for Irene Yu's argument that because she doesn't think it's offensive and "most people" don't use it offensively, the same is very true about white users of "Chinaman", which is significantly less derogatory than "chink" (which is the comparison that Mr. Chan made). To claim that "foreign ghost" is innocuous because white people seemed ghost-like in complexion is all too equivalent to claiming that "yellow man" or "yellow race" or more pointedly "yellow devil" is acceptable because of Chinese skin complexions (as noted by a long-ago teacher, part of the reason for the term "yellow" is that jaundice was prevalent in pre-20th Century China because of the use of night soils (human excrement) for fertilizer....Skookum1 (talk) 19:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

西人 (sai1 jan4) - polite?

The article claims that 西人 is a more polite word for a Westerner. The citation is a book to which I don't have access, so I can't check it up, but I was always under the impression that 西人 still has derogatory connotations. I don't want to change it, because I'm not sure I'm right, and I don't have a source, but does anyone else know if that's right? 86.179.223.109 (talk) 15:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The standard term for a person from any place is to name that place and then 人. There is no more neutral way you could call someone a westerner. Anyone with strong feeling for or against westerners will no doubt show that feeling in any reference, and in that sense 西人 could have derogatory connotations or connotations of curiosity or friendship or whatever. The term itself could not be more neutral.Colin McLarty (talk) 19:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

neutral word

外國人 is a neutral word, any other authors can add it in article?--Player23 (talk) 05:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Neutral but it's way too formal. No way you would say this in regular conversation

And Gora Too

The Indians and Pakistanis call white European people Gora. I'm white and don't mind at all. Same with Gweilo. I don't mind in the least. On the contrary I rather like it - 'White ghost' has a rather exotic ring to it. Factually whether either is pejorative is clearly highly subjective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.10.176 (talk) 10:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

In Popular Culture, Literature: possible addition + spelling 'quai loh'

Addition?The first entry in Literature is a 1975 reference. But I remembered clearly, and why I looked at this article, there's a possibly related term used frequently in two James Clavell novels, Tai-Pan (1966) and Noble House (1981). Disambiguation?Clavell uses the spelling "quai loh" in both books set in Hong Kong. This is probably the same phrase (foreign devil). This might be a disambiguation entry...? If you search the phrase: clavell tai pan "quai loh" it can be seen that Clavell's spelling is well known.Tonedeaf1 (talk) 07:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

change English translation of 老外?

The article currently defines the Mainland Mandarin term 老外 as "always foreigner". While 老 can mean always (although only with a negative sense as in "Why do you always do that?"), I think it's much more likely that it means "old" here. The 老 prefix meaning old originally was a sort of honorific like in 老師 (teacher - "old master") or 老王 (old man Wang) but in some words has lost both the "old" denotation and the honorific connotation, e.g. 老鼠 (mouse) or 老虎 (tiger). I'm not a native Mandarin speaker, but I'm pretty sure the 老 in 老外 functions identically to the 老 in those last two examples. Dsrguru (talk) 16:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes indeed. It is an honorific term. It means "thou who art borne before me" ie older and wiser than me. The 老 in the mouse and tiger construction is pronounced with a different tone to the 老 in "old". It remains in spoken Chinese probably because words in spoken Chinese are generally disyllabolic whereas Written Chinese uses monosyllabolic characters, so an extra sound had to be added to make it conform. 86.149.134.79 (talk) 02:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

the real gweilos

the article does a good job defining the term "gweilo," but it doesn't define the most frequent SPECIALIZED use of the word (the use of "gweilo" to mean a foreign actor appearing in an asian martial arts film) and it doesn't give any information on the history of the involvement of western actors in asian "kung fu" films. i came to this article seeking information about this topic and was sorely disappointed when i didn't find any. the use of caucasian performers (as well as african american performers) in films from hong kong and other places in asia is a time honored tradition and deserves an article all to itself. hopefully, someone will write that article or restructure the "gweilo" article to include this information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.127.228.117 (talk) 17:00, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Very poor translation

The term Gweilo is very poorly translated in this article. The Cantonese consists of two Chinese characters 鬼 and 佬, and given in the article as "ghost-man" and variations. This is in fact incorrect. The noun in this two character construction is 佬, meaning an elder, or senior, or respected man, as in the Cantonese term Dai-lo meaning "senior brother" or the leader of a gang. The character 鬼 precedes the character 佬, and is therefore an adjective qualifying the noun that follows. Therefore it does not mean ghost but ghostly. 鬼佬 is therefore a adjectival noun meaning a ghostly-looking respected man. Ghostly looking perhaps because he is white and pale- ie a northern European, or ghostly-looking because his face is covered in thick dark hair as in Southern Europeans. 鬼佬 as a Cantonese term is generally used to refer to people who are not of Mongoloid features and not just the non-Chinese, and depending on context not generally a derogatory term but an identity term. 86.149.134.79 (talk) 02:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

White?

"For example, a 17th-century writer from Canton Qu Dajun wrote that Africans "look like ghosts", and gui nu (ghost slave) was once used to describe African slaves." This seems odd to me. I always thought the term referred to white people because they were "white as ghosts". Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 08:20, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Never understood this. Most Hong Kong people are as pale as Europeans. Often more so as Europeans generally spend more time in the sun by choice. Maybe 200 years ago when more local Chinese were working on farms or on fishing boats, certainly not now. 123.208.236.31 (talk) 13:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gweilo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.orientexpat.com/expatriates/gaijin-farang-gweilo.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110807090728/http://www.cbsc.ca/english/decisions/2000/000809.php to http://www.cbsc.ca/english/decisions/2000/000809.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080528114456/http://www.cbsc.ca/english/decisions/2000/000809appendix.pdf to http://www.cbsc.ca/english/decisions/2000/000809appendix.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:19, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

"Caucasians"

The use of the word "Caucasians" in this article refers to the American (USA) meaning of the term (ie. "European"), not the anthropological meaning (Caucasian (race), that is not very precise and may cover a wider group of people. It should be changed to "Europeans" or "Westerners". Regards, Şÿℵדαχ₮ɘɼɾ๏ʁ 18:57, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Old/inaccurate translation

"Ghost" in Chinese does not solely refer to spirits. It is somewhat equivalent to the word "alien" in English. "Alien" can mean something that is foreign or unknown, not necessarily something extraterrestrial. Thus the phrase "ghost-man" is more correctly interpreted as "alien man" aka "foreigner". That is the whole of what the phrase means. But like English, "foreigner" may have discriminatory connotations associated with it, such as "invader" or "immigrant" and the sentiments towards them that individuals may hold. Most of the perceptions that the phrase gwailo may be intrinsically racist or derogatory is rooted in the misunderstanding that "gwai" literally refers to a ghost or demon. Like many classical translations of Chinese, there is a bit of double-translating that happens. The phrase "foreign devil" for example, is simply taking both meanings from "gwai" and putting them together, which in actuality is not a translation of "gwailo" but of "gwai gwai". Ham Pastrami (talk) 18:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Also Welsh?

I am not a fluent Welsh speaker, but I saw the word Gweilo and thought that it absolutely looks Welsh. I typed it into Google Translate and it said: Welsh detected and gave the translation as 'Serve' Middle More Rider (talk) 14:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC)