"shambo" (was " Charlie")--Why "sham"?

[Cohen, Gerald Leonard]

   The sneak attack was real, of course.  The sham would be in the misleading impression prior to Dec. 7, 1941 that Japan would remain peaceful toward the U.S.
           Admittedly the word play of altering "Sambo" to "shambo" (assuming this
        actually occurred) is weak. Maybe that's why the term never caught on.

             Again, all this is speculative. Still, if a hunt through all the etymological
        nooks and crannies fails to turn up a convincing source of "shambo," maybe
        "Sambo" needs to be reconsidered. He was after all small and non-white, and
        maybe that's all that was needed to trigger the term (however the change
        of initial "s" to "sh" occurred).

        Very tentatively yours,
        Gerald Cohen

> ----------
> From:         American Dialect Society on behalf of Jonathan Lighter
> Sent:         Sunday, October 10, 2004 10:12 PM
> Subject:           Re: "shambo" (was " Charlie")--Why "sham"?
>
> No, a sham attack and a sneak attack are two different things, I'd say.
>
> "Cohen, Gerald Leonard" <gcohen at UMR.EDU> wrote:
> ---------------------- Information from the mail header -----------------------
> Sender: American Dialect Society
> Poster: "Cohen, Gerald Leonard"
> Subject: Re: "shambo" (was " Charlie")--Why "sham"?
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Still just guessing: How about "sham" (dishonest, phony), with reference to the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor? Btw, Sambo was "little black Sambo." The Japanese, while not black, are not white either, and they tend to be of shorter physical stature than many of their American counterparts.
>
> Gerald Cohen
>
        <snip>