>I Can OTOH see that from an historical viewpoint (suppression of blacks in the 20th century) see that some expression carries an extra emotional meaning. However, though this might enfore the insult, it by definition is not discrimination yet.

Not discrimination in my view, but more offensive than the insulting term alone. Depending on the statement, possibly racist, but that doesn't necessarily make it discrimination, which I'd say requires an act, not just words.

>>I don't know any stereotypes about Dutch people, so I can't come up with a realistic analogy here, but suppose for a moment that the Dutch were said to be prone to fighting. Saying "Boy, Walter sure is belligerent" is clearly just about you, but if I said "Walter's just a belligerent Dutchman," it takes on an additional connotation, playing on the expectation that the listener knows that all Dutchman are belligerent.
>
>Again, I cannot draw that conclusion. If you say "belligerent Dutchman", you specifying a type of dutchman, not that all Dutchman are belligerent nor that all belligerent are dutchman.


As I said, to get the implied context, there'd need to be a known stereotype of the Dutch as prone to fighting (which, to my knowledge, there is not). It's the reinforcement of the stereotype that broadens the statement from being about an individual to being about a group.


>I'm well aware that your viewpoint might be cultural to american language, but the way I learned and practise english and dutch (In dutch those rules are the same) I cannot view it this way.

I can accept that your understanding of English differs, but as a native speaker of American English, I can also tell you that I'm pretty certain my view is how it works in this country.

Tamar