652
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2023
652 points (100.0% liked)
politics
19089 readers
3431 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
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
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
"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.
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 "white" 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.
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.