Rep. Eli Crane, R-Ariz. referred to Black people as "colored people" Thursday in floor debate over his proposed amendment to an annual defense policy bill, prompting a stern rebuke from the former chair of the Congressional Black Caucus. Lawmakers were debating a series of GOP-backed amendments to the National Defense Authorization Act, which the House aims to pass by the end of the week.
As a non-American, my confusion with this issue is that “coloured people” and “people of colour” are functionally identical phrases in the English language. Using coloured as an adjective vs a noun with “of” gets you to the exact same spot.
I appreciate that there is historical context, but I can’t help but feel that the difference between offence and no offence essentially boils down to grammatical semantics. In my mind, barring slurs or perjoratives, the intention behind the phrase is really what matters.
It’s kind of a dialect type thing where certain phrases or wording gives more information than just what’s been stated. Whether the speaker actually means those things is different than what the listener hears and understands based on their cultural experience.
In this particular case the usual implication is, “I’m trying to be polite but if I could I would use the N word instead.”.
It tends to be true because it’s an older term.
I do agree that it can be confusing, even for Americans.
Racists used ‘colored people’ as part of their terminology during slavery and while continuing to discriminate after the Civil War. Hearing the same dehumanizing specific word order is the important part, not the grammar.
Yes, I agree it’s a loaded term. Perhaps my disconnect is more how: (a) the loaded term and the acceptable term (in 2023, at least) are functionally identical, with only marginal grammatical separation; and (b) there is such a wide tabboo gap between those margins.
Grammar is not relevant. Racists used the term ‘colored people’ during segregation, and they still use it in place of even worse slurs like the N word, which is why it has a negative connotation that is not shared by people of color.
As an example of how racism is still an ongoing issue, a legislator using the term while opposing diversity measures prompted this whole thread.
I would argue that grammar is the most relevant bit; it’s the only thing separating the acceptable phrase from the unacceptable phrase, which are otherwise identical.
Maybe since the topic is specifically race relations and racial sensitivity in the context of the USA, this isn’t an argument for a “non-American” to make?
No, I don’t think you do.
I was hopeful that we would have fewer low effort comments like this on Lemmy since I moved from Reddit.
It’s an offensive, racist phrase with a history of usage by racists. Black people will punch you if you call them that. What else is there to consider? It’s a slur. Don’t use it. End of story.
deleted by creator
I dare you to walk up to a Black person in modern America and call them ‘coloured’. See how it goes for you.
To be fair, I would bet that not all black people are cool with being called a “person of colour” either.
The vast majority would not care about “person of color”.
Have any of you ever actually met a Black person? What kind of sheltered white hell is this?
Mate, you’re the one who’s arguing that all black people have the same opinion on this issue and purporting to speak on their collective behalf.
Just the vast majority, but yes. Why are you so against this?
Quote the part of my comment I wrote that I am against the phrase.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions
If you weren’t against it, you would have listened the first time someone explained.