Arizona Republican refers to Black Americans as 'colored people' in House floor debate

Yeah that was rather short sided by the lady. But I don’t blame her one bit.

Reps are timed when they talk so they can amend the congressional record, because they might have wanted to say something but weren't given enough floortime. I am not a 100% but I think Senators are not allowed to amend the record.

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

32. 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:

(c) 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:

 undefined

              (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.''.

 undefined

                                  ----------


  

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.

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

10ish years ago it was the correct phrase to use. It's possible they just slipped.

It does not protect them from social consequence, just government reprisal.

To be fair, when talking about issues involving more than one group vs systemic racism that uniquely benefits white people above all other groups, then it's pointless to try and specify every group that isn't white and is harmed in some way by systemic racism separately. If you want to discuss a common issue shared by various other groups, then using shorthand to refer to those groups as a collective isn't inherently bigoted. What matters is the history of the term you use and whether said collective generally prefers it or not. A lot of non-white folks use poc/woc/etc and like that it's a unifying term that implies solidarity with other non-white groups. Some non-white folks don't like the term, and that's fine, but it's still considered better than "coloured people" because "coloured people" actually has a history of bigoted use, hence why it's viewed as offensive.

I get kind of annoyed at how non-black people are selectively included or excluded from "people of color".
When someone is trying to sound inclusive, anyone who isn't white is a "person of color".
But the second we try to assert some rights we suddenly basically white people.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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, removed, 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.

I wasn't sure about a young guys name out here and asked someone "do you know the young black man who's new in the neighborhood? I wanted to thank him for helping someone I know the other day." After I helped host an event.

holy shit this person got mad at me. Said I needed to call them african canadian or colored. I get so confused by terms these days. Same with indigenous and native. I live in an area with many, and know some, and different ones prefer different words. I call one of them one term, and other that same one, they might get offended. I try to be as respectful as I can, gets hard.

Example, my therapist goes by indigenous, but her wife goes by native. So I thanked her wife one day for helping me at a indigenous event I was at, and she said "we call it a native event".

I'm having such a hard time the past 2 years in particular, and trying really hard with all of these changes in terms, pronouns and every time I think I understand it, apparently I don't. I have one trans friend who I see occasionally and thankfully they agree with me and makes me feel a bit less nutty.

My girlfriend is considering changing her orientation to some new wording I've literally never heard of all of a sudden now too. I just found a tonne of new things, like grey sexual, demisexual, etc. People I've been in employment/training programs with have changed their name and gender 2-3 times in the past year, and each time I see them I get confused with what to say or call them. It is oddly overwhelming.

sorry this turned into a slight vent

I've been calling black people black people for 30+ years. They never liked the term "African-American" much either, in my experience. That term was made up by white people that overcorrected their racism. I have never had a single black person get offended or upset, because why should someone be offended by their own skin? I interchange "brown people" but that's more of a catch-all term for everyone that's not a shade of printer paper like myself.

Unfortunately, the chamber's usually pretty empty when it's time for floor speeches.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 removed was just a synonym for slow. But it doesn't matter what the word meant, what matters is how the word was used.

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.

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.

Context and intent is important. Faking ignorance about knowing if it was offensive is an equally important consideration.

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”

(Not American) yeah, I always thought it sounded dumb, but didn't know it was a slur too.

It's been racist for several decades, and it's not benign at all.

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

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 colour

"Colored people bad"

"People of color good"

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.

Only for the next 15 minutes.

As though what they're saying behind closed doors isn't much, much worse.

Would it have been okay if he reversed it and said People of Color?

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.

The United Negro College Fund also still exists and I'm guessing you don't call people negroes.

Personally, I think the phrase 'colored people' sounds negative and offensive today. I have to assume this wasn't always the case since it makes up 40% of the NAACP's name.

Edited to add - I should have said 'potentially offensive'. I do feel like the context in how it was used matters in this case. Our perception of things sometimes changes over time. If we have truely decided as a society to avoid the phrase entirely, then perhaps it's time to rename the NAACP?

And many black people use the n word all the time, doesn't mean it isn't ever a racist word or that anyone can just blurt out whenever they like in any context.

"colored people" is racist and if you think it's okay to say, you're racist too.

Notice how no one here is even mentioning the actual law or any issues with it, just bashing him for misspeaking.

Shhh, they are trying to outrage over previous generational terms. The same group of people that get upset if you say Indian or Native American instead of Indigenous People.

There is a set of people who are frequently subject to racism in the US. How should we refer to them?

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.