My nephew surprised me the other day when he took me to task for using a term that has been in my vocabulary for decades. Since this is Black History Month, I thought it might be interesting to discuss it now.
During our conversation, I said (paraphrasing since I don't recall exactly), "I was talking to this colored man...." At this point he interrupted to say that usage was racist. I was surprised because this is someone who still refers to immigrants from Europe as greenhorns. I asked what the proper term was and he said people of color. Last night, on MSNBC, several participants used that term discussing Obama's newest initiative for minorities. Thus, it appears my nephew may be correct, or at least politically correct, to use that phrase.
But the problem is that particular segment of society cannot agree on what they want to be labelled. During my lifetime, blacks (hopefully a term I'm allowed to use in this context) have applied to themselves a plethora of names -- appellations of their own choosing and not forced on them. For example, they insisted on being called black, African-American, persons of color, Negro (and its unpleasant derivatives), as well as other less common words at various times in recent years. But each year that which was once acceptable becomes taboo as one minority group or faction finds some fault with that particular terminology and demands a substitute no one else agrees with.
But my basic question is, what is the difference between "colored man" and "person of color"? Isn't it merely an inversion of acceptable words? How can one be fine but the other verboten?
There is an inevitable drift with such language. I guarantee that at some stage in the future "person of colour" will have become unacceptable and been replaced by another term. The trouble is that people aren't actually against the words as such but the labelling itself.
There is a theory that as each new word becomes mainstream it begins to be used in an insulting way by the people who used the old term in an insulting way and so a new non-offensive variation replaces it.
I believe this is true to an extent but I am convinced that the underlying problem is the labelling itself. As there is need for non-offensive descriptive words for these concepts (else how could we ever describe anyone?) the semantic problem will never go away.
I am reminded of an example from my teacher training when we discussed the word "spastic" as used to refer to sufferers of cerebral palsy. The word was originally inoffensive enough that the charity that supported sufferers was called The Spastic Society. By the time I was at school about fifteen years after the society was founded it was already a widespread offensive term to the extent that my school had three football pitches - the small one, where the useless players like me played, being dubbed "the spazzers" pitch. The organisation subsequently changed its name to Scope. The word itself is one of the most taboo in British English and neither "spastic" nor "spaz" is commonly heard nowadays. It has actually become shocking to hear them at all.
Unusually there appears to be no direct replacement and the phrase "person with cerebral palsy" is used officially by Scope.
*I understand that the word "spaz" does not have the extreme offensiveness in the US that it does in the UK where a survey showed that in regard to the disabled (itself now an unacceptable term) it is considered to be second only to "retard" in offensiveness.This message has been edited. Last edited by: BobHale,
"No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money." Samuel Johnson.
But to answer the question, I suspect that it is for the same reason that "people with disabilities" is preferred to "disabled people" - the perception that the first word is the important defining one - hence "coloured" or "disabled" are seen as the defining words in the older versions and "people" as the defining word" in the newer ones.
"No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money." Samuel Johnson.
*I understand that the word "spaz" does not have the extreme offensiveness in the US that it does in the UK where a survey showed that in regard to the disabled (itself now an unacceptable term) it is considered to be second only to "retard" in offensiveness.
While it's hard to rate the level of "extremeness," certainly we in the US consider "spaz" to be offensive.
For some reason, and maybe it's the reason Bob states above, I consider "colored people" to be offensive, though not "people of color." My grandmother used to say "colored people" and at the same time she called African Amercians "coons" (I am very sorry to admit!) - so that may be why.
I remember once I was working with the Nurses with Disabilities group, and I was writing some policies or something. At one point my hand was slapped for saying "These people." I certainly can understand it when I think about it, but I just hadn't thought when I'd written it.
Originally posted by Proofreader: ... they insisted on being called black, African-American, persons of color, Negro (and its unpleasant derivatives), as well as other less common words at various times in recent years.
"Colored people" was used in America to refer to black people of African ancestry. "People of color" refers to all non-whites. The term "non-white" is not acceptable because it describes a group in a negative way. "Minorities" is not acceptable because somehow it is supposed to imply inferiority. "People of color" is preferred because it is a more positive term and because "people of color" lumps all non-whites together and thus makes them a majority. And it is subtly derogatory towards whites because it implies they are colorless (except for "rednecks," which still seems to be acceptable).
At some level, "colored" must still be acceptable to black people, or else the NAACP would have changed its name. Negro must still be OK with some, or the United Negro College Fund would not still use it. I guess it depends on who says it, and how. Me, I just consider myself melanin-deprived.
Side question: How come we melanin-deficient types get called "Caucasian?" Who of us comes from Tblisi?
But the problem is that particular segment of society cannot agree on what they want to be labelled.
I think that's a bit unfair. It's not that people can't agree, it's that meanings change.
quote:
Originally posted by Proofreader: How can one be fine but the other verboten?
I don't think there is a rational explanation as to why certain words and phrases are offensive. They are offensive because people find them offensive. That is enough.
A little oblique WRT the foregoing: Of late I've heard "actress" used commonly, whereas for some time gyne-thespians used "actor," just as andro-thespians do. What's with that?
That's probably because it's awards season; the various awarding bodies have for years split the awards into "Best Actor" and "Best Actress" (plus those for supporting roles) along lines of sex, partly because it wasn't non-PC when the awards were instituted. It's also simpler than saying the award is for the "Best Male Actor" or "Best Female Actor" or similar.
Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Many people object to being lumped together with other people having one common characteristic, "We're all individuals, dammit!"
Many persons who are deaf, for instance, don't like being called "the deaf"; they prefer "deaf people". Gay persons don't like being called "the gays" or similar; black persons dislike "blacks".
Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Many persons who are deaf, for instance, don't like being called "the deaf"; they prefer "deaf people". Gay persons don't like being called "the gays" or similar; black persons dislike "blacks".
What follows isn't from me, so don't take umbrage.
I don't know if anyone has seen Louis CK's stand-up but it is much funnier and explosive than his TV sitcom. During one routine he mentions that he hates the "N-word." Not the actual word nigger, but the term N-word. He said when someone one uses N-word, it really irritates him because that person hasn't said the derogatory term but has instead forced Louis, is his head, to supply it for them.
The routine goes on uproariously from there but he has a point. All you're doing is disguising the fact that you are still using a term that many consider taboo.
my brother never developed mentally beyond around seven or eight years and was once called "retarded." Then there were various phases where other terms were chosen to describe his condition. Last I heard he was a "mental health client." None of the new terms helped to alleviate his condition and they never will.
This morning I saw some news story about soldiers not getting medical services for mental illnesses. Among those illnesses it included ADD. I have ADD, according to the last shrink I visited, so it seems I have a mental illness. So, to the next person who tells me I'm crazy, I'll have to say, "So tell me something new."
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: thanks to language, communication is impossible!
George Carlin actually addressed this issue once, if in more general terms. I forget the show, but it was the one where he remarked on how the blunt, two-syllable term "shell shock" from World War I had mutated into the almost emotionless four-syllable (and hyphenated!) "post-traumatic stress disorder".
So, the big difference between "colored people" and "people of color" (and the other changes since remarked in this thread) is that rephrasing a term to give it more words, syllables or letters shifts it into a more passive voice and leeches it of emotive impact.
the blunt, two-syllable term "shell shock" from World War I had mutated into the almost emotionless four-syllable (and hyphenated!) "post-traumatic stress disorder".
In between was "battle fatigue", which is probably the four-syl term that's missing. Wives can give it, too.
Yesterday Donald Sterling, owner of the LA Clippers basketball team, was heard in an audio tape ranting at his half-black, half-Mexican girlfriend about her habit of consorting with blacks and requesting that she not bring any to "his" games. Naturally, festivities ensued.
One interesting bit is that the owner was slated to receive a lifetime achievement award from, of all places, the NAACP (National Association of Colored People). They subsequently declined to offer it.
But there are several things inherent in this story that relate to the thread. First, there's a group calling itself "colored people", and second, Sterling is referred to as a "wealthy person" and not a "person of wealth." So it appears that they higher you are in society, the likelier it is you'll enjoy proper syntax used to describe you. Although I don't recall anyone ever being described as a "person of poorness" but rather as a "poor person." Where is the dividing line or the rule that determines when to throw in the unnecessary "of"?
As for Sterling, I think it's funny (and word related) that the Commissioner of the NBA banned Sterling for life from going to NBA games - and the Commissioner's name is Silver.
On the subject of bad language, here is a story I read recently.
Wellma “Tootie” Shafer, 46, was fired as a cashier at the Last Chance Market in Russell, Iowa, after a customer reported her engaging in “sexual” banter at the register. Her boss Rick Braaksma explained, “We cannot . . . talk about adult situations in front of other customers,” and when Shafer sought unemployment compensation, Braaksma challenged her application. However, among the items Last Chance sells are “Wake The [F-word] Up Coffee,” “The Hottest [F-word]ing Sauce” (noted, the label states, for its “ass-burning quality”), and “The Hottest [F-word]ing Nuts,” and a state administrative judge granted Shafer benefits, showing (according to an April Des Moines Register report) little sympathy for the store’s contradictory policy. [Des Moines Register, 4-24-2014]
Every once in awhile the judicial system gets it right. Not often.
Has anyone besides me noticed that we (in the U.S.) no longer seem to operate with the "innocent until proven guilty" principle? Everyone seems to be presumed guilty unless DNA can prove otherwise, and even then, sometimes the prosecutors don't give up. Here is an example, if you can access it.
It is obvious that the police only arrest the guilty because the innocent wouldn't venture near a crime scene. Police seldom make a mistake (OJ and his ilk being the exceptions). That prosecutor has the right attitude - the poorer the suspect, the more likely the guilt.
