Arizona Republican refers to Black Americans as 'colored people' in House floor debate
Arizona Republican refers to Black Americans 'colored people' on House floor
Rep. Eli Crane used the derogatory phrase in describing his proposed amendment to a military bill. Democratic Rep. Joyce Beatty asked that his words be stricken from the record.
Word choices aside, the more telling quote is this, "You can keep playing around these games with diversity, equity and inclusion. But there are some real threats out there. And if we keep messing around and we keep lowering our standards..."
For those that can't read between the lines, POCs, LGBTQIA+, women, and anyone else that's not a white male, are "lowering...standards".
OK then.
Let's sit down and read the actual amendment instead of taking out of context a section of some news quote which is likeky already out of context by said news before you shortened it.
https://www.congress.gov/congressional-report/118th-congress/house-report/142
At the end of subtitle G of title X, insert the following:
SEC. 5__. PROTECTION OF IDEOLOGICAL FREEDOM.
Section 2001 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
(c) Protection of Ideological Freedom.--(1) No employee of the Department of Defense or of a military department, including any member of the armed forces, may compel, teach, instruct, or train any member of the armed forces, whether serving on active duty, serving in a reserve component, attending a military service academy, or attending a course conducted by a military department pursuant to a Reserve Officer Corps Training program, to believe any of the politically-based concepts referred to in paragraph (4).
(2) No employee of the Department of Defense or of a military department, including any member of the armed forces may be compelled to declare a belief in, or adherence to, or participate in training or education of any kind that promotes any of the politically-based concepts referred to in paragraph (4) a condition of recruitment, retention, promotion, transfer, assignment, or other favorable personnel action.
(3) The Department of Defense and the military departments may not promote race-based or ideological concepts that promote the differential treatment of any individual or groups of individuals based on race, color, sex, or national origin, including any of politically-based concepts referred to in paragraph (4).
(4) A politically-based concept referred to in this paragraph is any of the following:
(A) Members of one race, color, sex, or national
origin are morally superior to members of another race,
color, sex, or national origin.
(B) An individual, by virtue of his or her race,
color, sex, or national origin, is inherently racist,
sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or
unconsciously.
(C) An individual's moral character or status as
either privileged or oppressed is necessarily
determined by his or her race, color, sex, or national
origin.
(D) Members of one race, color, sex, or national
origin cannot and should not attempt to treat others
without respect to race, color, sex, or national
origin.
(E) An individual, by virtue of his or her race,
color, sex, or national origin, bears responsibility
for, or should be discriminated against or receive
adverse treatment because of, actions committed in the
past by other members of the same race, color, sex, or
national origin.
(F) An individual, by virtue of his or her race,
color, sex, or national origin, should be discriminated
against or receive adverse treatment to achieve
diversity, equity, or inclusion.
(G) An individual should feel discomfort, guilt,
anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on
account of his or her race, color, sex, or national
origin.
(H) Such virtues as merit, excellence, hard work,
fairness, neutrality, objectivity, and racial
colorblindness are racist or sexist, or were created by
members of a particular race, color, sex, or national
origin to oppress members of another race, color, sex,
or national origin.
(5) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as compelling any individual to believe or refrain from believing in any politically-based concept referred to in paragraph (4) in their private and personal capacity.''.
----------
Or you know, he's talking about actually lowering the standards which is the policy being discussed. Whether or not you think it's worth lowering admittance standards to allow more women, LGBT, POCs to join and improve diversity, at least be honest with what's being argued.
There's been ongoing debate on lowering standards, mostly for allowing more women into combat roles. While barring these groups entirely from certain roles is obviously wrong, changing and lowering requirements doesn't seem right either.
No one is lowering standards. Affirmative action means that when all other things are equal, prefer the candidate who is underrepresented in the field.
I am in favor of US reducing their military apparatus a few hundred billions.
If you find yourself agreeing with a bigot, maybe reexamine your rhetoric
“My amendment has nothing to do with whether or not colored people or Black people or anybody can serve,” said Crane, who is in his first term. “It has nothing to do with any of that stuff.”
I'm gonna give him the benefit of the doubt and say he's just a normal idiot racist who has a hard time thinking on the spot and got mixed up between "black people," "people of color," and trying really hard not to say the n-word as he would in his usual crowds.
Are we really going to act like "people of color" and "colored people" are wildly different terms that could never be confused? He listed "black people" separately so I'd have to guess he meant to say people of color and mixed up the terms
Not saying he's not racist for other reasons, but this is gotcha journalism
Linguistically, very little difference. Contextually, when we bring in history? Huge difference.
Are we really going to act like "people of color" and "colored people" are wildly different terms that could never be confused?
In a vacuum, those are similar terms.
In the real world, one is a term used in Apartheid South Africa and in Jim Crow America that has huge racist and white supremacists connotations, while the other one is the preferred term used by the community to refer to themselves.
Yes we are. They are very different. One is racist, the other is not. And it's been that way for decades. There is no excuse.
10ish years ago it was the correct phrase to use. It's possible they just slipped.
No it wasn't.
Brother 10-ish years ago, Obama had just been elected to a second term lol
No it fucking wasn't. And if it was where you are, then you're surrounded by racists.
I am 37 and grew up in an unincorporated town in Wisconsin. Never in my life was it considered socially acceptable to use this term. Don't be a fucking moron.
Cue all the "First Amendment absolutists" who believe it's their right to call people whatever they want, as long as it's not the pronoun they prefer.
It does not protect them from social consequence, just government reprisal.
Referring to all non-white people as a single entity is bigotry in of itself.
To be fair, when talking about issues involving more than one group vs systemic racism that uniquely benefits white people above all other groups, then it's pointless to try and specify every group that isn't white and is harmed in some way by systemic racism separately. If you want to discuss a common issue shared by various other groups, then using shorthand to refer to those groups as a collective isn't inherently bigoted. What matters is the history of the term you use and whether said collective generally prefers it or not. A lot of non-white folks use poc/woc/etc and like that it's a unifying term that implies solidarity with other non-white groups. Some non-white folks don't like the term, and that's fine, but it's still considered better than "coloured people" because "coloured people" actually has a history of bigoted use, hence why it's viewed as offensive.
I get kind of annoyed at how non-black people are selectively included or excluded from "people of color".
When someone is trying to sound inclusive, anyone who isn't white is a "person of color".
But the second we try to assert some rights we suddenly basically white people.
I don't get how people of colour is any better lmao
The logic behind this change is that it puts the PERSON first. You're first and foremost a person, and then after that you're using a descriptor. Usually this terminology is used to be collective of anyone not white, because it's used in context of the unique experiences that anyone not white has to navigate all their life, at least in US. Examples such as people of color are more likely to be pulled over by police, people of color have a harder time finding makeup that suits their skin tone, etc.
If you're just talking about an individual or a group without that context it's much more common to hear them just referred to as black, or whatever ethnicity they are, if its even relevant.
I know it can all feel arbitrary when words are suddenly not okay anymore, but I think it is because these acceptable terms for marginalized people eventually get used so often in a hateful context, they may try to adopt a new term. I mean many women now cringe hard and go on alert for red flags whenever they see women referred to as female, maybe can't even stand it anymore despite the context, because it has been so consistently used by a very specific type of person.
I appreciate and agree with all you've said here, just one small thing- "female" is fine when used as an adjective, I don't think anyone is bothered by that. "The female staff member," "the author is female" etc. is not problematic. It's when it is used as a noun that flags are raised- "That female over there," "the author is a female." Then it sounds like you're talking about some other kind of creature, not a human woman.
Feeeeemaaaales
wrings hands Ferengily
Language changes over time. Sometimes it's a slow gradual adoption of new terms, sometimes it's a cool new slang, and sometimes it's word policing. I understand that, historically, a certain type of person would use the word "females" instead of "women", but I can see a shift happening where there number of people using the word "female" is on the increase. Let's say you're having a conversation and specifically want to refer to female people - you can't actually use the word women, which used to imply "female" but now includes males who transition. So depending on context, and what you need to communicate, the word female can be absolutely critical, whereas the word woman may not suffice.
That's really splitting hairs, but okay.
How do you refer to white people?
In that case, I expect to be referred to as a "person of whiteness" as I was unaware that I was being insulted all this time when called a "white person" since "person" isn't the first word.
I wasn't mad about it when I didn't know people meant to dehumanize me by saying those words in that order rather than the reversed order, but now that you have informed me, I am.
Same with "male," the term is "man," "male" is dehumanizing as well since we use it to describe animals that produce sperm. In fact, sperm is dehumanizing because animals have it too, so I expect human sperm to be renamed so that it doesn't share any commonality with nature that could suggest I'm also part of nature. Also, some people I don't like have called me "male," so I don't like it. While I'm at it some of those people have called me a sarcastic asshole, and so instead I'd like to be called a sardonic sphincter since it has alliteration and nobody I don't like has called me that yet.
The good news is that you don't need to understand. You just need to accept that this is the case because the people it hurts say so.
You can also go learn about the history and understand if you want, but I'm also all for being lazy and just trusting the people who are impacted.
this logic is so flawed honestly
people can choose to "be hurt" by literally any word and it's entirely subjective and ephemeral because what upsets them today may not tomorrow and what is ok changes just as easily
word policing is just a losing battle no matter how you try and justify it and the massive sensitivity towards words just makes people look ridiculous
Because it has a different connotation. It's generally used by a different demographic, often to refer to themselves, and doesn't have the unfortunate history that "coloured people" has. Just because they're similar that doesn't make them the same. Most people I've seen using the term "coloured people" aren't exactly known for being not-racist. Most people I've seen using "people of colour" are, well, people of colour. We sometimes need a shorthand for people who aren't white but may or may not be black, and personally I tend to go with whatever the people being referred to generally prefer.
It puts the "people" part first. This can be seen as prioritizing them as being people first and their skin color second.
That sounds awfully hair splitting to me but sure if the issue can resolved by adding "people" in the front...
It just makes me think in 2-3 years the expression "people of color" is derogatory and we evade to something else like "variety ethnic" or some such. It's dumbing a complicated issue that should be talked about down to senseless nitpicking and in-groups, which just makes the problems worse for edge case racist population groups, which should be educated and not humiliated. And being arrogant and saying "but they can educate themselves" is just as much part of the problem than the ones closing their eyes and ears and refusing to learn. But seriously we had like 5 different expressions within the past 10 years and keeping up with whatever the newest fad expression is is slowly becoming cumbersome. To me it's just like I stopped caring about the + in LGBT+. It too much hassle and really not worth it for me. If someone really cares about it then I'm open for a discussion but frankly there's enough else going on in my life than having to spend time on the problems of 0.1% of the population. Hell. some medical conditions have a higher incidence rate.
person of black
Because it's all signalling, there's nothing really there to get. The reason "people of colour" is okay and "coloured people" isn't isn't because of any real difference between the phrases, but because people who use the former are generally supportive of them, while people who use the latter aren't.
The word "colored" shouldn't be used in a race context at all.
I think a major aspect that seems to be ignored pretty often is that "people of colour" is used a lot by non-white people, while "coloured people" isn't as much. Sometimes we need a shorthand for people who aren't white but may or may not be black, and I generally think that going with the version that the people being referred to prefer is usually the more respectful choice.
I get that activists like "people-centered" language nowadays, but in essence, it is kind of weird. Maybe it's just because I have NVLD that I'm always analyzing these language things. Like in a community with which I'm more aligned, the autistic community, "person with autism" doesn't sound any better to me than "autistic person." Of course, as someone with NVLD, you're not always described as autistic to begin with. I prefer the word "minorities" to "people of color" but what are currently minority communities now are on track to become a majority in some communities, and maybe the country at large one day too, so that term may likely be rendered inaccurate soon. Of course "colored people" had been an acceptable term a few decades ago so maybe this guy is just behind on the times. Still, I do find it weird how society often tires of some words and phrases over a few generations.
An accepted term by who? Why does that matter? It's not now and you'd have to be pretty far up your own butt to miss that. Either way they should know this as politicians representing all kinds of people. There's no excuse. The fact that he said it so casually is pretty damning. People that aren't actually racist and that care about those they're discussing would never make this slip.
It's nothing inherent to the word. Words mean what people use it to mean. If racist people said "African American" and non-racist people said the n-word, then saying "African American" would basically be announcing you're racist.
I think it's just because "colored people" is an outdated term associated with more racist times. POC is "poeple first." Many would argue that POC is also white-centric. I like the term "minority," but I guess that isn't skin-color specific.
The fact that this racist-at-best, woefully-ignorant-at-worst comment is at +40 votes right now is pretty telling to me. Guess the userbase of lemmy.world is pretty bigoted.
I don't know. I mean it is a relevant comment. Is Lemmy supposed to be like Reddit where you only upvote relevant content that contributes to the conversation and downvote irrelevant comments, trolling, etc. It doesn't mean up/downvote on whether or not you agree. So in that case it's a matter of interpretation. If you think this person really doesn't know, then it's relevant. If you think they're trolling, then downvote. But even if they are racist, it does contribute that to the conversation and allow for education. Just my opinion on the workings of the community, but that's how a lot of communities worked in Reddit and was the originally intended functionality if not how it was always used.
tbf, it's definitely a thing that is genuinely being discussed about in a non-"why can't I just say the slur" way
edit: and by "discussed" I mean people who aren't white discussing it
Being racist is better than being ignorant?
It's been leaning right a bit too heavily lately which is really bumming me out tbh
The politically correct word changes every decade. "Black people" used to be more offensive than "colored people"
Euphemism treadmill.
In any sensitive, socially fraught context, terminology will just change faster than in other areas of life.
That's why we no longer use terms like idiot, retard, cripple, imbecile, etc. as neutral, objective terminology. Instead, terms that where initially used as objective, clinical terminology are now exclusively used as slurs and insults.
It's just that when it comes to race, some people (and it's often people not affected by it) have a hard time accepting that concept.
To be fair, if I heared someone say "colored people" I would not be at all surprised to later hear them say "retard" in the same setting.
As we've seen over the past decade (well, past few decades, tbh), changing the word only moves the objectionable meaning onto the new word. The goal is to address the meaning, but it feels like so much energy is being spent on addressing the words themselves that the meaning never gets dealt with...
...which I guess is understandable for those who have given up hope of the meaning being addressed, but then why spend the effort on the word?
It would help if people would stop being aholes and turning terms into offensive ones by intentionally using them insult. "autism" is being used online sometimes in place of "retard" now as an insult. Won't be long before those of us on the spectrum need a new term because of these clowns.
Every insult word to call someone stupid was once a clinical term (including stupid). I am not kidding look it up that's quite a long history of doing this, people suck.
I wasn't sure about a young guys name out here and asked someone "do you know the young black man who's new in the neighborhood? I wanted to thank him for helping someone I know the other day." After I helped host an event.
holy shit this person got mad at me. Said I needed to call them african canadian or colored. I get so confused by terms these days. Same with indigenous and native. I live in an area with many, and know some, and different ones prefer different words. I call one of them one term, and other that same one, they might get offended. I try to be as respectful as I can, gets hard.
Example, my therapist goes by indigenous, but her wife goes by native. So I thanked her wife one day for helping me at a indigenous event I was at, and she said "we call it a native event".
I'm having such a hard time the past 2 years in particular, and trying really hard with all of these changes in terms, pronouns and every time I think I understand it, apparently I don't. I have one trans friend who I see occasionally and thankfully they agree with me and makes me feel a bit less nutty.
My girlfriend is considering changing her orientation to some new wording I've literally never heard of all of a sudden now too. I just found a tonne of new things, like grey sexual, demisexual, etc. People I've been in employment/training programs with have changed their name and gender 2-3 times in the past year, and each time I see them I get confused with what to say or call them. It is oddly overwhelming.
sorry this turned into a slight vent
I think if you wanna make things easier you could just be more generic with your wording. If you don't know someone's gender you can say they, and unless you're doing so many events that you gotta be specific, you can just say the event.
I understand getting frustrated with the confusion, although I think if you're approaching it with good intentions then no one should be upset with you.
I've been calling black people black people for 30+ years. They never liked the term "African-American" much either, in my experience. That term was made up by white people that overcorrected their racism. I have never had a single black person get offended or upset, because why should someone be offended by their own skin? I interchange "brown people" but that's more of a catch-all term for everyone that's not a shade of printer paper like myself.
I know black people who aren't from anywhere near africa (caribbean) and white people from south africa. Also met plenty of black brits who are neither african nor american! POC is definitely an upgrade from than absurdity. But they drilled it into us for so long it'll take a while for society to drop it.
Disgusting, but I don't really see the point in having it stricken from the record. Keep it on record so it's part of Crane's legacy. I mean, why hide that he's a racist?
Unfortunately, the chamber's usually pretty empty when it's time for floor speeches.
Not a native English speaker here. I had to scroll comments to even understand what's the problem. i still don't understand what's that "mega substantial difference" between "colored people" and "people of color". That's like, literally, grammatically the same. Sorry guys you are just trying hard to set yourself apart from that moron.
It's because of historical context. When it was no longer ok to call black people the N word, they switched gears. In and of itself, the phrase isn't that bad, but you have to understand the context.
In recent times we generally think we should use the nomenclature that an ethnic group chooses for itself.
Yeah, it's not a precise thing because an ethnic group isn't just one person and so there will be disagreement within that group itself.
"Colored people" was a term applied to an ethnic group by others outside that group and is generally looked up unfavorably. It was commonly used during a time period where there was segregation, and brings up some bad memories.
"People of color" was a term chosen by that group so should be used.
It's a respect thing. Sort of like if I deliberately mispronounced your name just to put you in your place. I may be saying all the syllables, maybe just emphasizing the wrong ones. Everyone understand what I mean, so where's the problem? The problem is that if I know the proper way to say your name and intentionally don't to disrespect you, well that's an asshole move isn't it?
That's exactly the point. The reason "coloured people" isn't okay is precisely because people like that moron use it.
You just admitted that English isn't your native language, and you probably aren't an African American. So this is one of those things you are just not going to get. It comes down to more than just the language, it's the shared history that gives those words the weight they carry. And you can choose to privately be insensitive to that history, but publicly you don't have to say everything you think.
It's just very dated and has come to be seen as a non-politically correct slur, even though originally it WAS the politically correct language. I agree with you personally and feel like there are much bigger things to worry about than someone using an outdated politically correct euphemism. There have been so many, it's easy to get confused: negro, colored, minority, people of color, etc. I don't feel strongly about any of this and just say whatever I'm told is acceptable now, so it's not a big deal to me. I do think it would be cool if we could just say black white/asian/hispanic/whatever.
Problem is, when you let people like him slide when he's playing his little games, the games keep getting a little more grand. That's all it is to him. And now he gets to go "What??" When knows damn well semantics matter. He knows the little republican signals matter. They all know what they're doing.
Stand back and stand by
It’s just very dated
Exactly. It used to be the common politically correct terminology. I don't see how it can suddenly be called a "slur" any more than 'black' is a slur.
NAACP - National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People
The difference is the history of the terms and which demographics use them. "coloured people" has historically been used in a derogatory way by racists. "people of colour" has historically been used by English speaking non-white people or allies of non-white people and is generally preferred by non-white people. Just because they're grammatically the same that doesn't mean they were used the same. At one point the word retarded was just a synonym for slow. But it doesn't matter what the word meant, what matters is how the word was used.
“coloured people” has historically been used in a derogatory way by racists.
Nope. Racists of 100 years ago used the N word or the C..n word. Historically "coloured people" was the politically correct term used by non racists. The proof is that NAACP, the famous civil rights organization, chose to use the word when it was formed and still proudly uses the word.
It's just word policing. It's a bigger thing in America because that country is basically split down the middle into two groups that fucking hate each other. Republicans think Democrats (or "liberals") or morons who don't believe in biology (eg: sex) and they want to abolish the police, but yet they are fascists who want to police your thoughts. Democrats think that Republicans (or "nazis") are morons who don't believe in biology (eg: evolution) and they want everybody to own 100 automatic weapons and infinite ammo, but don't believe climate change is real.
Pretty much everything that everybody in America thinks and says it's polarised by this filter. If you accidentally say something remotely centrist, both sides will call you a fascist and throw you into the bin. People are desperately trying to signal membership of their group, so they latch onto bullshit like "Which word-de-jour do you use to refer to dried crickets?" (Wait for the answer to this question, pitchfork in hand). You hesitated! You are a literal Nazi!
You can see it throughout this thread. People kinda admitting that they're just words and that they change over time BUT don't use the wrong one or else.
Unfortunately this bullshit has worked it's way into other countries, even those that don't have the same underlying political polarising filter.
It's because liberal politicians here in the U.S. love to play games with words. When a word or phrase doesn't fit their political motives, they change the word or the definition of the word. There are literally words that we can't say in the US due to "politically correct" pressures, but if you were in any other part of the world, the same words would be perfectly acceptable. The "negative connotations" are completely overblown by the same people who wield the power of cancel culture.
Yeah! Kinda like how those liberals try to cancel people for wearing make-up and putting on a wig! Or for kneeling! Or for playing Dungeons and Dragons! Or reading Harry Potter! Or going to the bathroom! Or eating mustard! Or wearing beige suits!
These damn liberals!!!
people who wield the power of cancel culture
You couldn't have possibly typed that with a straight face.
TIL "colored people" is offensive. Seems pretty benign to me...?
Context and intent is important. Faking ignorance about knowing if it was offensive is an equally important consideration.
Honestly, this has more nuance than you’d immediately think. Dude’s lived through at least a few iterations of euphemisms that turned into pejoratives, and keeping it straight can be difficult. Depending on the time period, negro, colored, African American, and black could all be considered kind or harsh. That said, definitely racist as hell given he continues with…
“The military was never intended to be, you know, inclusive. Its strength is not its diversity. Its strength is its standards”
“The military was never intended to be, you know, inclusive. Its strength is not its diversity. Its strength is its standards”
Ah, yeah he's a racist piece of shit. And also, unsurprisingly, 100% wrong. Speaking as a veteran (US), the diversity of our military is a HUGE source of its strength. This dumbass is literally advocating for weakening our military for the sake of being racist.
That's not just stupid, that's dangerous stupid.
Is he saying people should be denied access to the military even if they meet the miliary's standards?
Last part you quoted seems reasonable, though.
How is the last bit racist? Sounds like he's saying it's purely based on measurable standards, that race/ethnicity is not a factor
It's been racist for several decades, and it's not benign at all.
Noted. As other posters have mentioned, it carries a lot of historical connotation... I've either never run into it or never noticed it before (again, seems benign, barring the historical context). Thankfully I've also never used it, cuz it's kind of a shitty descriptor - not specific at all.
As a non-American I'm perplexed by this. I remember growing up and hearing the accepted euphemism 'coloured person' instead of black person. I'd worry about myself if I ever visited that I'd accidentally cause insult. PC seems to be gone nuts
I had several coworkers at Best Buy that called black people colored. I got into so many arguments. Like dude, that's racist as fuck. The sad thing is most folks at that store didn't see the problem with it.
What is the difference between term "coloured people" and "black people"? For a foreigner.
Because they sounds similar for me: both describe a group of people by their skin colour
The issue comes from context. Historically, in the US, "colored people" WAS the term used to discuss black people in a derogatory fashion. Especially during segregation "no colored people allowed" for bathrooms, or for the the water fountain blacks were allowed to use. "Colored people allowed"
Its not just pedantic semantic, word choice matters. Language is fluid and mutable, acting like the meaning and context behind one phrase is the same as the other is ignorant to the current state of the US and its history.
For example, each of these sentence read differently depending on each word you emphasize, but the all say "the same thing".
I have a cookie, not you.
I have a cookie, not you.
I have a cookie, not you.
I have a cookie, not you.
I have a cookie, not you.
I have a cookie, not you.
Back in the Jim Crow days there were plenty of "Colored People" signs, but no "People of Color Signs".
Word choice matters.
I'm not reading the responses. Sorry not sorry.
Off topic but my go to sentence for showing how emphasis changes the meaning is "I never said she stole my money". Emphasizing any word gives a unique meaning.
Wow that's crazy. I guess my brain just kinda took care of the interpretation for me. I never really thought about it that way before, but it's crazy just how much meaning can change just based on context alone.
Late to the party but my go-to example is "I didn't kill my mother". Really gets the point across.
You can tell that he knows he shouldn't say it because he immediately self-corrects and says, "black people". It's just that the slip already happened and he knows it can't be undone, so he keeps going to try to minimize the impact.
Openly saying what they’ve been saying behind closed doors.
As though what they're saying behind closed doors isn't much, much worse.
When pressed on his remarks he clarified: "I meant to say them nigros are real good at pickin cotton. It's a compliment!"
Can someone explain how colored people is anymore racist than people of color?
I mean, I'm not claiming it's not racist, I'm white so I'm not subjected to these terminologies myself, I just can't wrap my head around why one is different.
Times change, and people are slow. 'Colored people' used to be the most PC, now it's an insult. Because it could, in any old fart's brain, be either the most PC thing or an insult, you never know if the person is doing so intentionally or not, which sucks because:
..the divide just grows until people resolve it inside themselves.
So, as an experiment, I deleted my comment immediately after making it, yet you commented several hours after I deleted it.
I'm curious how comment deletion actually works on Lemmy, because this isn't showing up in my account page, and yet it's still tied to my account because Im getting notifications for it.
What the fuck is wrong with the GOP right now?
How hard is it to not slip a racial slur or try to say that white nationalism isn't racist on national TV?
surprisedpikachu.jpg
He probably meant to say, "people of color," but "accidentally" --or maybe on purpose-- slipped up as a signaling mechanism to his base.
That said, I am entirely on board with the idea that "POC" is a problematic term in the sense that all it is, is a socially acceptable inversion of "colored people," that still draws the same phony distinction between white people and everyone else.
I don't for a moment argue that there aren't valid reasons for talking about "racial" categories when it comes to things like diversity equity and inclusion, since those are the phony constructs upon which our society is built, rather, my point is that we need to move away from terminology that supports these phony distinctions, and that as such, using terms that basically mean "non-white," is a habit we should try to grow out of since they are based on phony bullshit ideas about race that don't actually have any currency in reality.
There is a set of people who are frequently subject to racism in the US. How should we refer to them?
"Those guys"
NAACP literally stands for National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.
There are actual real issues to get angry about. Pick your fights. This is literally another media concocted nothing-burger.
The United Negro College Fund also still exists and I'm guessing you don't call people negroes.
Personally, I think the phrase 'colored people' sounds negative and offensive today. I have to assume this wasn't always the case since it makes up 40% of the NAACP's name.
Edited to add - I should have said 'potentially offensive'. I do feel like the context in how it was used matters in this case. Our perception of things sometimes changes over time. If we have truely decided as a society to avoid the phrase entirely, then perhaps it's time to rename the NAACP?
And many black people use the n word all the time, doesn't mean it isn't ever a racist word or that anyone can just blurt out whenever they like in any context.
"colored people" is racist and if you think it's okay to say, you're racist too.
https://www.evnaacp.org/leadership/
Executive committee of the NAACP. I guess all these people are racist, according to you.
Notice how no one here is even mentioning the actual law or any issues with it, just bashing him for misspeaking.
Shhh, they are trying to outrage over previous generational terms. The same group of people that get upset if you say Indian or Native American instead of Indigenous People.
In 10 years it will be some OTHER word that all of a sudden the media decides is considered a "bad" word. And then in another 10 years it will be something else. It is an endless stream of utter bullshit - people getting offended for utterly no reason other than to get offended. It is exhausting putting up with this nonsense.
The question should really be, how did everyone react to this? Yes one was upset, but there must be a good amount of people there, lets see their faces and what they did, let them show their true colors, not in the ads they sell, but their actions in this moment.
Some of these comments are super disappointing. Language is constantly changing, why wouldn't the words minority groups use change as well? Especially considering bigoted slang is also constantly changing.
[Can I just inject a meta comment that the threading system makes is nearly impossible to see who is replying to whom, and in discussions like this (and the one with the question about Sealioning and Tankies) it is important.]
not a lot of difference between "colored people" and "people of color"
That’s like saying there’s not a lot of difference between saying “me beat” or “beat me.”
Simple words aside, there’s a big difference in meaning between the two.
Yeah, I'm really disappointed in this comment section right now. I had no idea this was something still up for debate.
That’s like saying there’s not a lot of difference between saying “me beat” or “beat me.”
no, that's not the same thing. the difference between "colored people" and "people of color" is similar to the difference between "a red apple" and "an apple that is red". In English, an adjective can be placed before a noun or after a noun, with the latter formatted with a preposition such as "of".
Edit: not sure why i'm being downvoted here - do you all not speak English? If you give a comparison it should be apples to apples, not apples to pineapples.
He's going to prison for this, isn't he?
I mean, racists overwhelmingly also deny anthropogenic climate change. It seems silly to be upset at people who are voting against a candidate you want then to vote against, just because they're not doing it for the reason you want them to.
Ohpresshawn!
That's fucking hilarious. Dude probably meant to say "people of color" but who knows that might even be offensive these days. It probably should be if "colored people" is considered offensive. They keep changing terms for shit and normal people can't keep up with everything. Get over it.
Keep up with everything.... Colored hasn't been an inappropriate way to refer to black people since 1970's. If fifty plus years is too short for you to figure it out maybe you're just a racist. Maybe work on getting over that puto.
"these days" aka "has been offensive for at least 30 years"
Keep the words in the record. Posterity should know.
Yeah that was rather short sided by the lady. But I don’t blame her one bit.
Just fyi, it's short-sighted.
Reps are timed when they talk so they can amend the congressional record, because they might have wanted to say something but weren't given enough floortime. I am not a 100% but I think Senators are not allowed to amend the record.