Arizona Republican refers to Black Americans as 'colored people' in House floor debate
Arizona Republican refers to Black Americans as 'colored people' in House floor debate
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.
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.
You're viewing a single thread.
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.
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.
Feeeeemaaaales
wrings hands Ferengily
Rule of acquisition 31 states, "Never make fun of a Ferengi's mother. Insult something he cares about instead."
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?
People of whiteness of course
People of whiteness are people of rightness my uncle used to say
Ah yes, the natural counter to the widely used "People of blackness"
Melanin deficient.
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.
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
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
Hey look, it's someone who doesn't have a horse in the race and who can't recognize their privilege.
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.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
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 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.
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?
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.