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.
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.
People who are colored is the final meaning of both “colored people” and “people of color”.
Me beat isn’t a sentence and beat me is a request for either battery or sexual favors. It is in no way an apt comparison.
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.
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.
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.)
“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.
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.
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 “whiteness” 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.