@Jaysmith71
Re 'uppity,' above, and being divided by a common language:
Another racist term with very different transatlantic meanings is 'Thug.'
In the US, it is code for an urban young black male in hoodie and baggiy jeans on the streets and without a job.
In the UK, its origins come from the Raj and the Thugee, allegedly anti-Western bandits (another Anglo-Indian word) who supposedly targetted white people. In realith, they were probably just ordinary decent criminals trying to earn a dishonest living. But the term stuck, and gained new currency postwar when it was applied to the very pale Teds, Mods & Rockers etc.
I'm not sure I really agree with this.
The origins are the same in both places.
In the US, because it was being used to describe gang members in inner cities, many of whom were black. Some began to complain that it was a racially charged word, and should no longer be used.
It was never exclusively used to describe black men.
Of course any word that was being regularly used to describe members of criminal gangs would, in the mind of the reading public, come to have a sort of vague association with whatever group of people tended to be in urban criminal gangs. Without necessarily applying exclusively to them - this is how all language works.
There are some people who seem to think that by controlling or eliminating such words, it will somehow help the underlying issue. I doubt they are actually a majority, and maybe more importantly, it won't work. Stopping people from using the word thug doesn't change their mental image of what a gang member looks like, and it certainly doesn't do a damn thing to address the problems that produce gangs.