Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
“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
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.
Yet another complete piece of shit I don’t like this regression to outspoken racism being okay.
Would it have been okay if he reversed it and said People of Color?
Yes, that is an accepted phrase today.
That's what I thought.
What's the point you're trying to make?
It's a question. Nothing more than that.
So if you already thought that the accepted phrase today was "People of Color," then what was the purpose of asking that question?
Progressives change the name of the cohort every few years, I was just checking.
Does that mean you're opposed to calling people how they state they prefer to be called because you perceive it as a progressive ploy and you don't like progressives?
Not at all. It was just a question.
Then what makes you believe that it's "progressives" that are responsible for changing the "name of the cohort every few years?"
It's been one of the traits of the movement since the 1970s.
What if progressives are just more accepting of the notion that groups of people should be able to decide what they like to be called?
That isn't the point, it is about smugness. They want to feel superior to others by changing the cohort name and shaming those who don't follow their changes. It's been studied if you would like to look more into it. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2749204
Alright.
I've gone to the trouble to download that article. Just for reference, here's the abstract:
Labels plays an important role in defining groups and individuals who belong to the groups. This has been especially true for racial and ethnic groups in general and for Blacks in particular. Over the past century the standard term for Blacks has shifted from "Colored" to "Negro" to "Black" and now perhaps to "African American." The changes can be seen as attempts by Blacks to redefine themselves and to gain respect and standing in a society that has held them to be subordinate and inferior.
and I see nothing in the article itself that would say otherwise.
In other words: this is talking about the Black community deciding for itself what they wish to use as preferred terminology to refer to themselves.
There's nothing in there about "progressives." There's nothing in there about progressives "feeling superior to others." There's nothing in there about progressives "shaming those who don't follow their changes."
That article is from 1992 and shows the history of the progression of the cohort names. I invite you to go down that rabbit hole, it is very interesting. Good Luck!
That article is from 1992 and shows the history of the progression of the cohort names.
Yes, it is, and it describes how the Black community has moved through various iterations of preferred terminology.
What it doesn't support is the claims you've made: that these terms were invented by "progressives" (rather than by the community itself), that "progressives" came up with those new terms in order to feel superior, that "progressives" came up with those new terms in order to shame those who don’t follow their changes.
You've also implied that you don't have a problem referring to a community using the terminology they themselves decide to use in order to refer to themselves.
So on the one hand it would appear that you perceive changing etymology as an attack by progressive on you, on the other hand you claim you're okay with a community deciding for itself what terminology to use (and presumably also to change that terminology).
Those two things seem contradictory.
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.
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.
Linguistically? Sure.
Historically? Well, "colored people" is the term used in Apartheid South Africa and in Jim Crow America by racists and white supremacists and people longing for the slavery era in order to refer to people that were regarded and treated as inferior, while "People of Color" is the term that a large majority seems to prefer as the term to refer to themselves.
Not even Linguistically. Colored people implies, that people are originally without color, and then some people have been painted. Hence, implying that no color is the norm.
Well, it implies "whiteness" as the norm - i.e. that it's not even necessary to mention that somebody is "white" (as in "a man was seen at the station") because the default assumption is that a certain ethnicity that a society was built for is the "norm," and it's only worth mentioning race as a qualifier (as in "a colored man was seen at the station") when referring to a member of the outside group.
However, I'd still argue that this, too, is a sociological rather than a linguistical concept.
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.
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?
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.
It's been going on for much longer. Just look up all the clinical terms that came into use in the Victorian era. There's been an ongoing effort to come up with better terminology. Words came into existence in an effort to have neutral terminology to refer to certain symptoms or conditions or to categorize people or chronic illnesses or ethnicities etc.
It's just that we no longer use terms like "moron" or "lunatic" or "retard" or "fool" or "insane" or "Mongol" as neutral, objective, clinical terminology.
I think many people get used (and attached) to the terminology that they learned when growing up, unaware that this terminology has been changing at a rapid pace for centuries now, and then get all bent out of shape when they're being told that the words they were taught as kids are no longer the preferred way of referring to certain conditions/ethnicities/demographic groups etc.
And of course, then there are people who use those expressions with the full intention to insult and malign, only to feign ignorance when called out: "But that's the word people have always been using! Why are you getting so upset?"
I don't get how people of colour is any better lmao
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
Hey look, it's someone who doesn't have a horse in the race and who can't recognize their privilege.
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.
Feeeeemaaaales
wrings hands Ferengily
Rule of acquisition 31 states, "Never make fun of a Ferengi's mother. Insult something he cares about instead."