Not very long ago, an Irishman was considered a “Paddy,” and to call a man “Irish” was to provoke a fight in which blood was spilled. To call an Irishman a “Flannel mouth” meant a broken head to the speaker. It was a term of reproach. The Irishman also was caricatured on the theatrical stage and held up to derision. “O, he is only an Irishman,” was an explanation for every outburst of disorder. We find that these opprobrious epithets are now limited to certain Irishmen, and not to the entire nation or race of Irish. To call an Irishman a “Mick” does not hurt his feelings as it once did, because he knows it does not apply to him as a member of the Irish race. The Italian “Dago,” and the Chinese “Chink,” were epithets applied to the entire nation or race of Italians or Chinese. But a change has come over the situation. There are Italians who are not “Dagos,” Chinese who are not “Chinks.” Epithets cruel and vulgar have been and still are applied to Colored men, and we often hear our Colored Americans styled “Niggers.” Of course this is slang for Negro, and although the word “Negro,” means a high type of Ethiopian, nevertheless it hurts the Colored American. Why should it hurt his feelings? BECAUSE HE ALWAYS APPLIES THE VULGAR EPITHET TO HIS RACE That is what the Jew used to do when he was called a “Sheeney,” and it hurt the whole Irish race of people to call one of their number a “Flannel mouth.” The Italian did not like to be called a “Dago,” and he always felt for his dagger intending to kill for this insult to his whole people. So too, the Chinaman does not mind being called a “Chink,” because he now understands that the opprobrious word does not mean the whole race of Chinamen. When one white man calls another a “liar,” a “scoundrel,” a “thief,” a “briber,” or other vulgar epithet, the whole white race of Americans do not rush to arms to wipe out the insult to the nation, because such epithets have nothing but a personal application, and the white man, who is none of the things covered by the vulgar word, merely laughs. Let us extend the idea to religion: If a wayward boy or man casts a rock through a church window, he is charged with sacrilege and an enemy of religion. If a man even on provocation slaps the face of a clergyman, he is also a desecrator of religion, and an enemy of God. This is ridiculous, and we begin to see how ridiculous it is to attach to an entire system a mere petty detail of local or personal insult. Religion can not be harmed by breaking a church window, nor is the majesty of God insulted by an assault upon a clergyman. If that does happen, then it is mighty poor religion that can not stand so small a thing. Applying the idea to racial epithets: You do not offend a Jew now, by speaking of “Sheenies,” because he knows that there are Jews who are Sheenies, that is, disreputable Jews, and he is as anxious to get rid of them as you are.