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.
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.
People who are colored is the final meaning of both “colored people” and “people of color”.
Me beat isn’t a sentence and beat me is a request for either battery or sexual favors. It is in no way an apt comparison.
You’re missing the point of an analogy. People are arguing that “colored people” should have no intrinsic difference than the phrase “people of color.” But that’s not how society works. Words are not the offensive part in themselves but the meaning and connotation behind them. “Colored people” is a phrase from the American segregation era and when that ended the phrase was kept by racists and abandoned by the rest of American society. People of color called themselves a new name or names and the rest of society joined them. People in the US who insist on using the term “colored people” in 2023 are generally assumed by the public to be holding onto a 1950s mindset or racist. It’s viewed as a racist thing to say, whether done intentionally or not.
This willfully disregards the history of the terms and tries to justify itself on pedantry alone. By your logic, since it refers to people of color as well, the n-word is also perfectly fine. If you agree, there’s no hope for you here.
You may be right originally, however colored people mostly means “inferior people” or “people who shouldn’t have equal rights” since that was the usage of the term. People of color has only been used to refer to people neutrally, so it doesn’t have thar context.
N***r means black, so your exact same argument can be used to justify using that word, but we all agree it’s not ok, right? (I really hope there’s no argument about it.)
“People of color” wasn’t a term used in the Jim Crow South. They called them “colored people” to dehumanize them. The term “colored people” has a lot of hateful baggage, while the term “people of color” is them reclaiming the term, on their own terms.
The English language does not exist in a vacuum.
There’s a difference between “I helped my uncle, Jack, off his horse” and “I helped my uncle jack off his horse”. Retard used to just be a synonym for slow, but you won’t be bleeped if you call someone slow on national television. Things like context, usage, and history matter.
I think a better example is “I’m beat” vs “beats me”. Both actually mean something (“I’m tired/exhausted” vs “I don’t know”) and both mean completely different things, despite using the exact same words in a different configuration. And they mean different things because they’re used in different ways. Just because they use the same words that doesn’t mean they’re automatically the same. And even if they referred to roughly the same thing, again, how they’re used and in what context makes a big difference. One is historically used almost exclusively by racists in a derogatory manner, the other is the one the people being referred to have said they prefer 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.
I’m going to assume you aren’t American. “Colored” is an anachronistic term in the U.S., it was used during an era before civil rights laws and when discrimination was rampant. The only people who continued to use the term were racists, so the term “colored” and “negro” are no longer used in general American society. Arguing historical placement order in general English language is irrelevant when the specific phrase has a well-known connotation in the U.S.
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.
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”
I don’t get how people of colour is any better lmao
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.
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.
That’s really splitting hairs, but okay.
How do you refer to white people?
Melanin deficient.
People of whiteness of course
Ah yes, the natural counter to the widely used “People of blackness”
People of whiteness are people of rightness my uncle used to say
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.
Sure and that’s a really great response! It’s also kind of adapting the same point I was trying to make. Obviously something as complex as race relations in America is going to not have such clear boundaries with what is acceptable language and why, but saying colored people makes it a description of the noun. People of color is taking that noun and putting it first.
Man and females.
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.
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.
Meanwhile in the real world, social norms exist.
Yes, and if I could convince enough people that my ridiculous shit above was a good idea, it would become one. It would still however be just as ridiculous.
What’s more, at one time not too long ago homophobia and racism were social norms, so maybe clinging to that notion that “societal norms” are somehow an arbiter of goodness isn’t always necessarily true. Just because enough people say something, that doesn’t mean they’re right, and just because the minority or even only one person is saying something that doesn’t mean they’re wrong, either. One has to evaluate an argument (or whatever) by the argument itself, not by how many followers its speaker has nor by what one’s friends think of the speaker or his words.
Feeeeemaaaales
wrings hands Ferengily
Rule of acquisition 31 states, “Never make fun of a Ferengi’s mother. Insult something he cares about instead.”
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.
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.I definitely agree. But someone publicly speaking on the subject should probably look into it first or at least their team should give them a heads up.
I feel the same way when politicians fuck up talking about tech stuff. If I’m talking with my friends about encryption and I fuck up the terminology I don’t really care. If I’m a politician talking about it in a house floor debate I’m gonna make myself look retarded to anyone who knows anything about encryption and ruin my own credibility in the process.
person of black
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.
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
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.
Being racist is better than being ignorant?
lol that’s now how I meant it but I can see how it could be interpreted that way. I meant that the comment is clearly racist so “at worst” meaning like the OP didn’t MEAN to say something super racist but now everyone thinks they’re racist.
It’s been leaning right a bit too heavily lately which is really bumming me out tbh
It’s aggressively libbed out, what are you talking about? I’ve seen literally nothing right wing.
This is going to be natural with the federated nature of Lemmy, some instances are going to enable far right rhetoric. Block instances, communities and users you dislike. You have more power here to adjust your feed than Reddit.
It isn’t a lot better and has a lot of the “brown people” problems with respect to grouping together wildly different groups with different experiences in ways that mostly just come down to “You aren’t a real person of color/minority/whatever” stupidity
But the big difference is that “colored people” has historically been used in an oppressive and derogatory manner. Whereas “people of color” is at least associated with making an effort. And when it comes to referring to people: if it pisses them off, don’t do it. You don’t need to do a deep analysis to understand why “blacks” is generally okay (even if it makes white folk uncomfortable to say) but “negroes” will get you some strong side eye even though “it is just the spanish word for ‘black’”.
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.
I’d seen speeches of Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, etc and other civil rights leaders use the term before. But it is out of fashion now. Yeah, I guess being a politician and not knowing language stylistics is dumb. But political rhetoric and legalese is filled with antiquities. Between stuff like this and politicians who don’t know know how new technology works is frustrating and embarrassing. Sometimes I try to think wishfully about it but when they repeated make the same mistakes it can be hard.
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.
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.
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.
That would only be true if we gave every single hurt feeling equal weight, but PoC in America have a long history of pretty blatant discrimination, specifically using the term “colored people”, so I don’t see much wrong with not using the phrase because they’ve asked you not to. It’s not like we’re entertaining every person that wants to be referred to as a “Hylian Deku scrub” or something.
Native Americans have it worse but no one talks about them
Cuts both ways. You’re right now word policing by saying that phrases like “people of color” doesn’t conform to how you want words to be used and it upsets your sensibilities.
And what’s the point of communicating if you aren’t going to make considerations about the people you’re communicating with? Just like to hear the sound of your own voice, or think the words you’re writing look pretty on your screen? If you want people to care about what you’re saying you need to make an effort to learn how to use words effectively. It’s not up to the rest of the world to conform to your word preferences.
So then why don’t you stop word policing and refer to groups based on their preferences?
Or is the reality here that you’re annoyed that you can’t say bigoted, offensive things with impunity?
When are we going to realize that these groups are not homogenous groups full of people with different opinions and different sensitivities
I think activists often take things way further than the affected people themselves even want
deleted by creator
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.
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.
deleted by creator
“Colored people” is a specific term that was used during the time of racial segregation in America,
And after segregation up to this very day. It is neither a ‘slur’ nor ‘shocking’, merely old fashioned.
NAACP - National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People.
The NAACP predates modern terminology and I believe chose to maintain the name out of historic context.
It’s frequently used as a replacement for the N-word, and ignoring that is just being willfully ignorant.
Old Fashioned is not an excuse for racist language. This isn’t something that a younger person uses by accident. If this was some 80 year old white man I’d maybe believe that he got it mixed up. But it hasn’t been an accepted term for the majority of his lifetime and it’s not wrong to expect our representatives to not use racist language to describe their constituents.
It’s frequently used as a replacement for the N-word, and ignoring that is just being willfully ignorant.
It’s not at all like the N-word, and pretending that it is is just being willfully ignorant.
think of it like the N-word. You (assuming you’re not black) can’t say it. I can’t say it. But there are those who can. Ice Cube explained it really well. He said, “It’s OUR word. You don’t get to use it.”
It’s not the N word. It is one of the politically correct terms.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The term is POC now you insensitive clod. I have white friends from south africa and black friends from the caribbean so it’s inaccurate to call either of them african american. Ever met a black british person? Try calling them african american and you’ll get laughed out of the country.
Say again.
I was born in London to Jamaican parents. Age of five I moved to Jamaica and lived there for eight years before moving to the States. I am now a black American. You came at the wrong guy with that bullshit Sonny Jim. Plus I get to block your dumb ass.
…so you are NOT an african american and we agree. I don’t understand what the conflict is.
He’s referring, very specifically, to understanding the difference in the US betweenthe terms poc and colored people.
“You’re probably not African American” meaning you’re prob not a black person in America descended from slavery directly impacted by this incident and therefore don’t understand the exact argument here.
He wasn’t saying all black people are African Americans 🙄
deleted by creator
People of Color sounds suspiciously like Colored People. Where I’m from it’s just Black, Latino, and Asian. African/Asian/Latin American if you are patriotic.
Yes, I would very much like to simply use those descriptors and move on with our lives. This whole discussion is so absurd.
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
Yup.
It’s really bizarre how we all know what’s going on here, but people insist on playing dumb about it.
“Please explain to me why using terminology that brings back memories about segregation is bad when the other terminology refers to the same group of people? I Just don’t get it! It’s not logical!”
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
context matters, a white congress person is using a phrase in Congress that historically was used in Congress to deny people’s rights. these politicians want to “make America great again” they want to undo civil rights.
A word does not deny anybody’s rights. “Coloured Person” is just as politically correct as “black” or “African American”. In fact “Coloured Person” is the most accurate of the 3 politically correct terms.
deleted by creator
Just because racist used a thing does not make the thing itself bad. Racists used phones also. So phones are bad?
The N word was also once politically correct
It’s such an odd word. Not like “fuck” or “cunt” or something like that. You are literally not allowed to write it or say it. I’m not even sure people let themselves think it, instead thinking “n word” inside their heads. I can’t think of any other word that is so much like actual god-fearing blasphemy. And yet, you can buy a random rap album and the word will be all over it. It’s even used as a term of endearment between black men who grew up together.
Can anyone think of any other word that is treated almost as if it has magical powers?
How old are you? LOL
People suffering from neuroticism make up things to get angry about.
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!!!
Oh. I didn’t realize the term for pedophilic perversion had changed to “wearing makeup”. My bad. I wasn’t keeping up with the latest terminology. Please don’t cancel me.
people who wield the power of cancel culture
You couldn’t have possibly typed that with a straight face.
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:
- if someone uses it unintentionally and people jump on them, that just makes them bitter
- someone who is racist can use not knowing as a smoke screen
- people who are really “with it” on social issues can also be quick to blame, and low on tolerance, and high on trauma or virtue signaling.
…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.
He’s going to prison for this, isn’t he?
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”
[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.]
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 colourThe 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”
“Colored people bad”
“People of color good”
Hey look everybody, this guy doesn’t understand nuance!
This is a good user name :) TMV forever!
Thank you! Caught them last fall finally, and seeing them again in September!
lol
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
- An Amendment To Be Offered by Representative Crane of Arizona or His Designee, Debatable for 10 Minutes
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:
© 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.
This is not about affirmative action. There are efforts to lower standards, separate from affirmative action. Maybe not for LGBT or POC but women are held to different physical standards in the military.
Edit: For Ranger School, standards were lowered so women could graduate. For some positions who cares, but pushing people through positions they aren’t capable for in the name of equality is dangerous both for them and their fellow soldiers
but women are held to different physical standards in the military.
When women can hold combat positions, that might matter.
Women have been allowed in combat positions since around 2015. It’s been a slow integration and there’s very few, because of the exact point I made that the physical standards and training are very difficult for most women.
So they are held to the same physical standards when it’s a combat position? I’m not seeing the problem then.
As of right now they are. There are efforts to lower standards to raise numbers, and that is what I’m saying is wrong.
If they’re held to the same standards, of course that’s not an issue.
How often do they get two candidates that are exactly equal? If they’re giving a benefit to people underrepresented, it needs to be worth something.
And we’ve been constantly lowering standards, unrelated to affirmative action. There was a time when being a high-school graduate meant something. Now it’s easy to get through college, and completely necessary because if you don’t people will assume you’re the sort of person who can’t even get through college.
If you find yourself agreeing with a bigot, maybe reexamine your rhetoric
I am in favor of US reducing their military apparatus a few hundred billions.
perhaps they can do more than that, even
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.
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.
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.
TIL “colored people” is offensive. Seems pretty benign to me…?
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”
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
To paraphrase, he doesn’t want all of those diverse sorts, just the good ones. It’s a dog whistle at an octave that even octogenarians can hear.
Is he saying people should be denied access to the military even if they meet the miliary’s standards?
Forgive my brevity. Yes. Generally, and subconsciously, people prefer to see themselves in those they put in leadership positions. This policy will exclusively make military officers paler as a result, not better. The military has been promoting people of color to higher positions in line with racial enlistment proportions for like 50 years without issue. Reduced potential for bias is always welcome.
“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.
Last part you quoted seems reasonable, though.
To paraphrase, he doesn’t want all of those diverse sorts, just the good ones. It’s a dog whistle at an octave that even octogenarians can hear.
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
Do you call white people non-colored people? No? Then why would you call a black person colored? Lol
You never let me answer before your smarmy remark. But beleive it or not back then, yes you could. Are white people actually ‘white’? Are black people actually ‘black’? It was a means to denote race the same as black and white is these days. My point was I didn’t realise this term was an actual insult now but it’s good to know. Have off with your lol
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.
(Not American) yeah, I always thought it sounded dumb, but didn’t know it was a slur too.
It was a term du jour back in the Jim Crow (read: hyper racist) era. That particular phrasing has baggage.
I do hate how history can muddy language like that. Terms like “colored people” should mean literally people who are colored… and nothing else. I’ve never been one to actually use that term because it’s so non-specific; but I never knew it had a derogatory connotation either.
Wow, TIL. As a non-American, there are many such facts I wasn’t aware of, let alone many details that now seem obscure or lost (for a variety of reasons, like the attempt to erase certain stuff from history or prevent them from being taught in schools).
Context and intent is important. Faking ignorance about knowing if it was offensive is an equally important consideration.
