I haven’t written much of anything on behalf of Bredesen, but come on. The attacks on him for a potential racial slur is a bit much, especially by some bloggers and a journalist apparently acting on behalf of those they think ought to be offended. Indignation by proxy is the most detestable kind.

Let’s do this. If the Chinese in China are offended, they will certainly take it out on Tennessee’s trade mission in Beijing. If they don’t, then hey - it must not be that offensive. I propose a new rule. If you must debate whether something is offensive, then it is not offensive, unless the person who said it meant it to be offensive, which Bredesen obviously did not. He was denouncing a stereotype he held upon arriving in a new country, and he gets blasted for doing so.

UPDATE I think what I wrote above has been misrepresented by some in the “coolie” = “insert real offensive term here” camp.

There is a two prong rule to determining whether something is offensive - 1) It must be conclusively offensive. If it is debatable whether it is offensive, then 2) One must look at the purveyor’s intent in making the remark. To use some established precedent, look at offensiveness as if it is a crime, with the same necessary parts (which is overkill, but helpful). The actus reus is the actual remark, and the state of mind of the commenter is the mens rea. To discount intent is to say we should punish murder and manslaughter the same way, or to say there’s no difference between negligence and pre-meditation. Of course, that’s not the way the American justice system operates.
The greater point, though, is that my “update” here itself is overkill. There is no consensus as to whether the term “coolie” is offensive. In fact, the overwhelming accounts I’ve found are to the contrary.