Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Gook

Gook is an ethnic in denoting people of Filipino, East Asian, or Southeast Asian descent, primarily employed as military jargon by U.S. servicemen to refer to foreign nationals perceived as adversaries or subordinates during imperial interventions and wars. The term emerged in 1899 amid the Philippine-American War, likely as an onomatopoeic imitation of or other local languages' phonetic qualities, or from indigenous terms for outsiders, before being repurposed in the (1950–1953) and (1955–1975) to dehumanize combatants and civilians alike, reflecting patterns of racial othering in U.S. overseas campaigns. Popular but unsubstantiated Korean etymologies linking it to miguk ("," misheard as "me gook" by GIs) lack historical attestation and overlook its earlier Filipino roots, underscoring how wartime slang often evolves through phonetic approximation rather than direct linguistic borrowing. Its deployment facilitated psychological distancing in combat, contributing to documented atrocities by enabling soldiers to view targets as subhuman, though the slur persists in civilian contexts as a marker of enduring anti-Asian prejudice.

Etymology

Linguistic Origins

The term "gook" entered in 1899 as U.S. military jargon denoting during the Philippine-, likely derived imitatively from the perceived babbling of non-English speech or influenced by local terms like "gago" (fool). This initial application lacked specific ethnic animus toward East Asians, instead connoting any alien or incomprehensible "other" in a colonial context, and was extended by 1919 to foreigners more broadly, including non-Asians such as in a 1920 attestation. Concurrently, by 1916, "gook" emerged independently as slang for a filthy, viscous, or messy substance, akin to "guck" or "goo," reflecting onomatopoeic roots in English for sticky or unclean matter rather than foreign derivation. This non-human sense metaphorically extended to people viewed as inferior or contaminating, paralleling but distinct from the ethnic usage, and underscores the word's foundational flexibility beyond targeted racial categories. Early attestations thus emphasize "gook" as a marker of perceived foreignness or uncleanness, applied initially to Pacific Islanders like without the later concentration on or groups, distinguishing it from conflict-specific evolutions.

Proposed Derivations from Foreign Languages

One proposed derivation links "gook" to the Philippine-American War (1899–1902), during which U.S. troops applied it as slang specifically for , likely as an imitation of local speech deemed unintelligible "" or from native -influenced terms mimicking unfamiliar dialects. This usage parallels the contemporaneous term "goo-goo," employed by soldiers for or , possibly blending phonetic mimicry with references to perceived or foreign allure, as in "goo-goo eyes" for seductive gazes around 1900. colonial linguistic influences in the may have contributed to such onomatopoeic forms, though no single word like "gugu" definitively matches; instead, the slur emerged from broader cultural misinterpretation of non-English as or . A competing hypothesis attributes "gook" to the (1950–1953), positing that U.S. soldiers misheard Korean civilians calling them "miguk" (미국, literally "beautiful country," denoting America or ) as "me gook," prompting an ironic reversal where the term was redirected as a derogatory label for themselves. This phonetic gained traction post-war but lacks empirical support as the primary origin, given documented U.S. applications of "gook" to as early as 1899—over five decades prior—and its extension to by the early 20th century and Pacific Islanders during . No foreign-language source provides a definitive etymological for "gook," with linguistic analyses emphasizing its development through successive U.S. interventions as an adaptive rooted in phonetic approximation rather than direct borrowing. By the , archival records of reflect its shift from context-specific descriptors of locals in occupied territories to a generalized pejorative for Asians, driven by wartime patterns rather than isolated linguistic accidents. These proposals highlight causal patterns of miscommunication in colonial encounters but remain unverified without corroborating pre-1899 attestations or phonetic matches in languages.

Historical Usage

Early 20th-Century Applications

The term "gook" emerged in U.S. during the Philippine-American War (1899–1902), where soldiers applied it or closely related variants like "goo-goo" or "gu-gu" to indigenous as a derogatory label for perceived primitive or enemy natives. This usage reflected broader racialized dehumanization in colonial campaigns, with accounts from veterans such as Charles A. Freeman recalling in that troops routinely referred to as "goo-goos" to denote both the population and their languages, which Americans mocked as unintelligible "dog languages." Period compilations trace "goo-goo" to circa 1899, initially encompassing revolutionary fighters and , evolving as a catch-all for non-white locals in occupation contexts. By the 1910s and 1920s, the term extended to other U.S. interventions in the Americas, functioning as a generic epithet for indigenous or non-white populations rather than being tied to specific Asian ethnicities. U.S. Marines occupying Nicaragua from 1912 onward adopted "gook" for locals, as documented in military slang references and later veteran testimonies, including those from Lt. Col. Solis on 1920s usage amid counterinsurgency operations. Similarly, during the U.S. occupation of Haiti (1915–1934), Marines applied "gook" to Haitians, with the earliest printed record appearing in a July 10, 1920, article by Herbert J. Seligman in The Nation, describing it as a common marine slur evoking contempt for the occupied populace. These applications underscore "gook" as a versatile term for "natives" in imperial settings, often paired with qualifiers like "dirty" to emphasize filth or inferiority, per contemporary slang surveys. Linguistic evidence from the era, including H.L. Mencken's 1934 compilation in The American Language, indicates a gradual refinement by the 1930s, where "gook" began solidifying as an ethnic marker for Filipinos and other Pacific groups in U.S. discourse, distinct from its earlier, more diffuse descriptive role for any foreign underclass. This shift aligned with ongoing Pacific colonial holdings, though the term retained泛 applicability in military slang compilations until World War II.

Korean War Era

The term "gook" gained prominence among forces during the (June 25, 1950–July 27, 1953), evolving from earlier usages to specifically denote amid the conflict's outbreak. U.S. troops, upon landing in , reportedly misinterpreted Korean exclamations such as "miguk" (meaning "")—pronounced roughly as "me gook"—as self-referential, leading to its quick adoption as a catch-all for locals. Alternatively, derivations from "hanguk" (), sounding like "han gook," contributed to its phonetic appeal in combat slang. This mishearing facilitated rapid dissemination among American infantry and by late 1950, with early written attestations in soldier letters and unit logs appearing by 1951, as the war intensified with Chinese intervention in October–November 1950. Initially applied indiscriminately to South Korean civilians and allies—often in logistical interactions like dealings with "houseboys" or refugees—the term soon extended to North Korean and Chinese combatants as ground offensives escalated, such as the brutal fighting at the Pusan Perimeter (August–September 1950) and subsequent Inchon landing (September 15, 1950). This broadening reflected the war's fluid fronts, where distinguishing friend from foe proved challenging amid and civilian combatants, prompting troops to use "gook" for any perceived threat. UN coalition partners, including British and Commonwealth units, adopted similar phrasing in joint operations, though American forces drove its prevalence. In the context of savage close-quarters battles—like those at (September–October 1951) and the Iron Triangle (1951–1952)—"gook" served as a dehumanizing shorthand that psychologically distanced soldiers from killing, fostering under extreme . Veteran oral histories recount its invocation to rationalize atrocities or cope with ambushes, where the enemy's tenacity (e.g., human-wave assaults) blurred lines between and civilian. This linguistic tool aligned with tactical imperatives in a war marked by over 36,516 U.S. fatalities, including 33,739 from hostile action, as static lines and high rates (e.g., 20–30% casualty rates in some divisions) demanded for sustained operations. Declassified after-action reports from and units indirectly evidence this through euphemistic references to "local enemies," underscoring the term's embedded role in morale maintenance without explicit endorsement.

Vietnam War and Subsequent Conflicts

During the , which spanned 1955 to 1975 with peak U.S. involvement from 1965 to 1973, the term "gook" achieved widespread adoption among American troops as a for insurgents and North Army regulars, building on its Korean War precedent to dehumanize adversaries in asymmetric . U.S. Marine Corps slang compilations explicitly listed "gook" as denoting a civilian or any East Asian, underscoring its routine application in operational contexts like patrols and ambushes. This linguistic framing coincided with grueling combat conditions, including over 58,220 U.S. military fatalities, many from booby traps, snipers, and protracted engagements that eroded distinctions between fighters and noncombatants. In counterinsurgency operations, where intelligence often relied on vague indicators amid infiltration of villages, "gook" extended in some units to encompass all , rationalizing aggressive tactics like free-fire zones and search-and-destroy missions that prioritized body counts over precision. This semantic blurring correlated with elevated casualties, with U.S. subcommittee estimates citing 1.35 million total casualties, including 415,000 deaths, from 1965 to 1972—a toll amplified by aerial bombings, , and ground sweeps. The "Mere Gook Rule," an informal doctrine referenced in soldier accounts and after-action rationales, encapsulated this mindset by deeming any a presumptive , as evidenced in incidents like the on March 16, 1968, where U.S. Army troops under Lt. killed 347 to 504 unarmed villagers, later justified in some testimonies as targeting "gooks" indistinguishable from enemies. Post-1975, following U.S. withdrawal and of Saigon, "gook" faded from primary lexicon due to doctrinal shifts toward emphasizing civilian protection and broader cultural sensitivities in the all-volunteer force. Sporadic echoes appeared in later conflicts, such as the Persian Gulf War () and (2001–2021), where isolated reports noted its generic application to local or by some troops, but institutional scrutiny and training against ethnic slurs curtailed prevalence compared to Vietnam-era norms.

Military and Cultural Context

Role in Wartime Dehumanization

The employment of slurs like "gook" by combatants functions to psychologically distance adversaries, portraying them as subhuman entities and thereby diminishing that might otherwise inhibit lethal actions. This process aligns with broader patterns in , where epithets create cognitive barriers to recognizing shared humanity, as seen in cross-cultural examples such as "" applied to Germans and "" to forces in , enabling soldiers to frame enemies as or machines rather than individuals. Empirical analyses of wartime language confirm that such terms systematically erode compassionate responses, fostering a conducive to rapid decision-making under fire. Studies on veterans link dehumanizing rhetoric to the cultivation of a "kill-or-be-killed" orientation, where reduced hesitation correlates with heightened survival probabilities in chaotic, high-threat combat zones. Quantitative research on killing in war identifies dehumanization as a facilitator of these actions, with service members reporting that epithets lowered perceptual thresholds for engagement by neutralizing moral qualms in the moment. Post-combat data from PTSD assessments further reveal that while such language aids acute operational efficacy, it can contribute to lingering psychological strain through disrupted empathy circuits, as evidenced by neuroimaging findings on derogatory exposure dulling neural responses to others' suffering. From a causal standpoint, this emerges as a pragmatic to warfare's imperatives, prioritizing group preservation over individual reciprocity in zero-sum intergroup contests, a dynamic recurrent across historical conflicts irrespective of cultural specifics. Military training protocols that incorporate or tolerate such terms underscore their utility in forging and decisiveness, countering the paralysis of undifferentiated threat perception without implying inherent pathology. In Tim O'Brien's 1990 novel , a semi-autobiographical account of experiences, the term "gook" appears repeatedly in soldiers' dialogue, such as in the story "How to Tell a True War Story," where it describes Vietnamese civilians and combatants amid descriptions of gore and sensory overload, consistent with veteran testimonies of wartime slang derived from precedents. This usage aligns with oral histories from U.S. , where the epithet facilitated rapid in combat zones, as corroborated by analyses of narratives emphasizing its prevalence over formal . Stanley Kubrick's 1987 film incorporates "gook" extensively in boot camp chants and field operations, portraying it as embedded vernacular during the Vietnam era, drawn from interviews with veterans and period documents to evoke the psychological conditioning of recruits. The film's depiction matches historical records of in training manuals and letters home, where such terms shortened references to perceived enemies, reflecting causal patterns in group cohesion under stress rather than isolated . The 2017 film Gook, directed by , centers on Korean-American shoe store owners during the , employing the slur in interactions between Black youth and Korean proprietors to illustrate documented mutual resentments, including looting of over 2,200 Korean-owned businesses amid the unrest following the verdict. This portrayal substantiates eyewitness accounts and riot commission reports of ethnic friction, where slurs like "gook" echoed from military contexts into civilian animosities, without fabricating the era's economic and cultural divides. In the television series (1972–1983), set at a mobile army hospital, "gook" recurs in episodes to denote local Koreans, often uttered by supporting characters and met with Hawkeye's sarcasm, mirroring 1950s U.S. troop as preserved in declassified letters and unit diaries from the conflict. Such instances ground the term in historical troop-Korean interactions, including aid distributions and black market dealings, per veteran recollections that prioritize functional brevity over sensitivity.

Modern Perceptions and Debates

Post-1970s Evolution and Decline

Following the withdrawal of U.S. forces from in 1975, the term "gook" experienced a substantial decline in documented usage, particularly in and contexts, as reflected in reduced appearances in print corpora and government publications tracking the post-war period. This shift aligned with the U.S. 's transition to an all-volunteer force in and subsequent emphasis on professional conduct amid public backlash against Vietnam-era dehumanizing , which contributed to broader institutional efforts to curb derogatory . Civilian applications remained sporadic through the and , often confined to isolated verbal incidents or cultural references rather than widespread vernacular, with linguistic analyses noting its archaic status compared to more contemporaneous slurs. For instance, the term surfaced in rare reports, such as a 2005 case involving where "gook" was invoked alongside other epithets, but such events were outliers amid overall rarity in media and everyday speech. A temporary uptick in verbal uses occurred during the , coinciding with a reported 77% increase in anti-Asian hate crimes from 2019 to 2020 per FBI Uniform Crime Reporting data, though "gook" appeared primarily in anecdotal assaults rather than dominant patterns of . Examples include a 2020 New York City incident where an assailant yelled "gook" during a physical on an Asian man, and similar isolated reports documented by advocacy groups, underscoring the term's resurgence in fringe, stress-induced but not its normalization. Sociolinguistic studies confirm no evidence of reclamation by Asian American communities, distinguishing "gook" from slurs like "queer" or intra-group terms that have undergone reappropriation; surveys and semantic analyses consistently classify it as a tool of derogation without neutral or empowering in-group adoption. This lack of reclamation, coupled with its historical military baggage, has reinforced its marginalization in contemporary discourse, with usage largely limited to explicit hate expressions tracked by law enforcement.

Controversies Over Classification as Hate Speech

Advocacy organizations such as Stop AAPI Hate have characterized "gook" as an irredeemable ethnic slur rooted in U.S. imperialism during 20th-century conflicts, arguing that its resurgence in modern hate incidents necessitates zero-tolerance policies in public discourse, workplaces, and media to combat anti-Asian racism. These groups report the term's inclusion in documented anti-Asian harassment, linking it to broader patterns of verbal aggression that contribute to a climate of fear, though their data collection relies on self-reported incidents which may amplify selective narratives influenced by institutional biases toward emphasizing victimhood over contextual mutuality in conflicts. Counterarguments posit that "gook" originated as contextual military jargon for enemy combatants, akin to ubiquitous dehumanizing terms in warfare across history—such as "" or "" in —serving functional roles in high-stress environments rather than originating from inherent , and that rigid classification as overlooks reciprocal slurs employed by adversaries, including Vietnamese terms like "mắt tròn" (round eyes) for or Korean War-era epithets derogatory toward Westerners, reflecting bilateral wartime rather than unilateral . Critics of over-policing, often from free speech and realist perspectives, contend that equating such terms with actionable hate diverts attention from empirical threats like geopolitical economic competition with , while ignoring how slurs emerge causally from zero-sum conflicts where aids survival decisions, a pattern observed universally rather than pathologically in American actions. Empirically, criminal prosecutions solely for uttering "gook" remain exceedingly rare, with U.S. courts upholding First Amendment protections that prioritize speaker intent, context, and incitement over mere offensive language, as established in precedents like (1969) requiring for unprotected speech; isolated workplace cases invoke it as evidence of discrimination under Title VII but demand proof of hostile environment, not isolated usage. This legal restraint underscores a distinction between social opprobrium and enforceable prohibitions, with advocacy-driven narratives sometimes presuming equivalence despite the scarcity of standalone convictions, potentially reflecting broader institutional tendencies to inflate verbal offenses amid declining tangible violence metrics.

References

  1. [1]
    Gook - Etymology, Origin & Meaning
    gook(n.) 1899, U.S. military slang for "Filipino" during the insurrection there, probably from a native word, or imitative of the babbling ...Missing: Philippines | Show results with:Philippines
  2. [2]
    GOOK Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
    The meaning of GOOK is —used as an insulting and contemptuous term for a non-white, non-American person and especially for an Asian person.Missing: ethnic | Show results with:ethnic
  3. [3]
    Gook: the short history of an Americanism - Document - Gale
    'Gook' is a pejorative term that came into being in the 20th century. Military men involved in foreign interventions used 'gook' as a slur to refer to the ...
  4. [4]
    Genealogy of the “Gook”: From Anti-Asian | Korea Policy Institute
    Korean Americans are weaned on an apocryphal tale around the term "gook.” When sighting U.S. soldiers, our ancestors excitedly shouted, “미국!
  5. [5]
    Fighting “Gooks”: Asian Americans and the Vietnam War - DOI
    The term “gook,” David Roediger reminds us, has a long pedigree in the history of U. S. imperial wars, and it circulated widely among U. S. troops in ...
  6. [6]
    The Origins of “gook” - Race Files
    Aug 22, 2013 · “gook” is a distinctly American word. OED cites its first usage in the Philippines in 1935, and then later by US troops in Korea and Vietnam as “a term of ...Missing: evidence | Show results with:evidence
  7. [7]
    6/14 Arty: Origin of the word "Gook".
    DICTIONARY OF AMERICAN SLANG traces "gook" back before Korea, with the first written use being in THE NATION in 1920, referring to Haitians." Despite these ...
  8. [8]
  9. [9]
    Gook: The Short History of an Americanism - Articles - David Roediger
    If so, gook developed among troops who were probably connecting contempt for natives with contempt for "promiscuous" women and for poor people generally. An ...Missing: glossary etymology
  10. [10]
    Race-Making and Colonial Violence in the U.S. Empire
    Jun 1, 2006 · It was strikingly illustrated by the appearance of a new term, “gu-gu” or “goo-goo,” in U.S. soldiers' discourse, almost certainly the ...
  11. [11]
    Paul A. Kramer: The Philippine-American War as Race War
    Up until the very brink of war, American soldiers frequented Filipino ... U.S. soldiers' discourse, almost certainly the linguistic ancestor of "gook.
  12. [12]
    goo-goo, n.¹ - Green's Dictionary of Slang
    1899, [US], New Oxford Item (Gettysburg, PA) 7/1: A 'goo-goo' is a Filipino who follows the cause of the revolution. ; 1900, [US], Star and Sentinel (Gettysburg, ...
  13. [13]
  14. [14]
    1952. "Korea: Our Biggest Military Lesson"
    Sep 16, 2023 · First they called the enemy "Gooks." Marines and soldiers soon learned that the derisive term "gook" did not adequately describe the well ...
  15. [15]
    Don't You Hear Her? | Online Only - N+1
    Aug 18, 2017 · ... Koreans. The Korean War was where the term “gook”—previously a pan-racial epithet—became attached to Asian bodies. Again and again in ...Missing: first records
  16. [16]
    The U.S. military's long history of anti-Asian dehumanization
    Apr 18, 2021 · After the Korean war, the slur “gook” was merely recycled to use on the Vietnamese. The quick succession of World War II, Korea, Vietnam ...Missing: etymology | Show results with:etymology
  17. [17]
    The U.S. Military's Long History of Anti-Asian Dehumanization - GEN
    Mar 21, 2021 · After the Korean war, the slur “gook” was merely recycled to use on the Vietnamese. The quick succession of World War II, Korea, Vietnam ...
  18. [18]
    Korean War - Defense Casualty Analysis System
    U.S. Military Casualties - Korean War - Casualty Summary ; Captured - Declared Dead, 2,849, 2,792 ; TOTAL HOSTILE DEATHS, 33,739, 27,731 ; Missing - Presumed Dead ...Missing: exact | Show results with:exact
  19. [19]
    Savage Wars and Conflict Dehumanization | Request PDF
    ... dehumanization and othering of the enemy's race often accompanies warfare [21] . The popularization of the dehumanizing slur "gook" during the Korean War ...
  20. [20]
    Glossary of Military Terms & Slang from the Vietnam War D-J
    Usually refers to an American soldier. Glad bag: slang term for body bag; GOLF: military phonetic for the letter 'G'; gook: derogatory term for an Asian; ...Missing: etymology | Show results with:etymology
  21. [21]
    Jarhead (Marine Corps) Jargon - USMC Hangout
    Gook - A Vietnamese civilian, expanded to include any oriental. NOTE FROM A READER: The term "Gook" is not from Vietnam. It is from the Korean war. I lived ...Missing: glossary | Show results with:glossary
  22. [22]
    Vietnam War U.S. Military Fatal Casualty Statistics | National Archives
    Aug 23, 2022 · The Vietnam Conflict Extract Data File of the Defense Casualty Analysis System (DCAS) Extract Files contains records of 58,220 U.S. military ...
  23. [23]
    [PDF] THE ROAD TO MY LAI - ScholarWorks
    The killing of Vietnamese had become so common that it was justified with the reasoning of “The Mere Gook Rule”, which meant that any Vietnamese person was a ...
  24. [24]
    Cost of the Vietnam War - VAORRC
    A U.S. Senate subcommittee report estimated 1,350,000 civilian casualties, including 415,000 killed, for the same period. “Enemy soldiers” killed were at ...
  25. [25]
    [PDF] The Impact of War and Service on Veterans Attending College
    Nov 1, 2013 · In spite of this error, the name stuck, and the term gook is often still used as a derogatory term, referring to cultures of Asian descent (Lee ...
  26. [26]
    'Because it's easier to kill that way': Dehumanizing epithets ...
    Aug 12, 2021 · My argument thus suggests underexplored connections between dehumanizing slurs used about and by American military recruits (or draftees). I ...
  27. [27]
    Dehumanization in Combat | Kill Talk - Oxford Academic
    Apr 1, 2025 · “Dehumanization in Combat” focuses on slurs and epithets that create a distance from enemy combatants while positioning them as less than fully human.
  28. [28]
    Treatment for Moral Injury: Impact of Killing in War - PMC - NIH
    May 7, 2022 · Initial quantitative research examined mental health outcomes associated with killing ... dehumanization that often facilitates killing). The ...Missing: mindset | Show results with:mindset
  29. [29]
    Neuroimaging study reveals hate speech dulls brain's empathy ...
    Sep 27, 2023 · This makes them more likely to use derogatory language themselves and to engage in other forms of discrimination against other groups. In a ...
  30. [30]
    The enemy as animal: Symmetric dehumanization during ...
    Jul 26, 2017 · Although we expected that advantaged group members would blatantly dehumanize the 'enemy' during wartime, the degree of dehumanization, the ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  31. [31]
  32. [32]
    Telling a True War Story - | Lapham's Quarterly
    And every night they keep hearing that crazy-ass gook concert. All kinds of ... From The Things They Carried. Both of O'Brien's parents were involved ...
  33. [33]
    Racist Language In Literature - 702 Words - Bartleby.com
    ... gook” (O'Brien 44). While this racial slur is extremely offensive and ... The Things They Carried by Tim O'Brien, portrays his experience in the war ...
  34. [34]
    [PDF] Durham E-Theses - Translating Racial Slurs - CORE
    portrayed in Full Metal jacket (1987) where the translations for both 'gook' and. 'zipperhead' are in fact 'muso giallo'. We can surmise that target culture ...
  35. [35]
    Let Them Eat Democracy | Proceedings - U.S. Naval Institute
    "We are here to help the Vietnamese. Because inside every gook is an American trying to get out." The quote above—from Stanley Kubrick's film, ...
  36. [36]
    Justin Chon aims for cross-cultural understanding with 1992 L.A. ...
    Aug 17, 2017 · The word's loaded history as an ugly slur is painfully well known to Koreans, particularly those living in Los Angeles during the 1992 riots — ...<|separator|>
  37. [37]
    Reclaiming 'Gook': new film tackles racial tensions during '92 riots
    The film is called "Gook," which is, of course, a racial epithet used against Asian Americans. The slur first came into use during the Korean war. But in spite ...
  38. [38]
    Why is the word 'gook' censored in Mash? - Facebook
    Mar 5, 2021 · I dont think "gook" was derogatory in the Korean war. It is a derivative of the word "Hanguk". The official name of Korea and how soldiers ...Not one of my regular features, but I hope you enjoy. - FacebookA Virtual Symposium With The Ending The Korean War Collective ...More results from www.facebook.com
  39. [39]
    Korean Memories of the Vietnam and Korean Wars: A Counter-History
    Apr 12, 2007 · 'Gook' is the label American soldiers picked up in the Korean War from the word 'Hanguk,' mispronouncing it 'Han-gook.' Americans used it ...
  40. [40]
    It's 2019 and the Pentagon only now just got around to removing ...
    Jul 25, 2019 · A new report from Roll Call found that the Department of Defense continued to use offensive and racist terms on official government forms.
  41. [41]
    A Need for More from Asian American Legal Studies - jstor
    hunters had allegedly used racial slurs, including "gook" and "chink."2 In the Cha. Vang case, the white hunter's animosity towards Hmong Americans was a ...
  42. [42]
    NYC Man Called Racial Slur, Told Asians Don't Belong in Racist ...
    Jun 19, 2020 · “This incident is a show of disgusting behavior by a violent hateful racist physically attacking Sungmin while calling him 'gook', a racial ...Missing: anti- | Show results with:anti-
  43. [43]
  44. [44]
    Keeping Count | Let's Talk About Anti-Asian Slurs - Stop AAPI Hate
    Sep 11, 2025 · Though the racial slur derives from the fictional character, “Baljeet” is a real Indian name. Behind the surge in anti-South Asian slurs like “ ...
  45. [45]
    [PDF] Stop AAPI Hate National Report
    The racial slur “gook,” initially used against Filipino “natives” during the Philippine-American War before reappearing as a general anti-Asian epithet during ...Missing: statistics | Show results with:statistics
  46. [46]
  47. [47]
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ...
    Li testified that there was a period of silence after Sheltzer made the “gook statement.” See id. at 72:11-14. The period of silence was one second in duration.