[Open Discussions] "Negro" and "Oriental" removed from (US) Federal Laws

"Often misinterpreted to mean that African Americans as individuals are considered three-fifths of a person or that they are three-fifths of a citizen of the U.S., the three-fifths clause (Article I, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution of 1787) in fact declared that for purposes of representation in Congress, enslaved blacks in a state would be counted as three-fifths of the number of white inhabitants of that state.
The three-fifths clause was part of a series of compromises enacted by the Constitutional Convention of 1787. The most notable other clauses prohibited slavery in the Northwest Territories and ended U.S. participation in the international slave trade in 1807. These compromises reflected Virginia Constitutional Convention delegate (and future U.S. President) James Madison’s observation that “…the States were divided into different interests not by their…size…but principally from their having or not having slaves.”

When Constitutional Convention delegate Roger Sherman of Connecticut proposed that congressional representation be based on the total number of inhabitants of a state, delegate Charles Pinckney of South Carolina agreed saying “blacks ought to stand on an equality with whites….” Pinckney’s statement was disingenuous since at the time he knew most blacks were enslaved in his state and none, slave or free, could vote or were considered equals of white South Carolinians. Other delegates including most notably Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania argued that he could not support equal representation because he “could never agree to give such encouragement to the slave trade…by allowing them [Southern states] a representation for their negroes.”

With the convention seemingly at an impasse Charles Pinckney proposed a compromise: “Three-fifths of the number of slaves in any particular state would be added to the total number of free white persons, including bond servants, but not Indians, to the estimated number of congressmen each state would send to the House of Representatives.” The Pinckney compromise was not completely original. This ratio had already been established by the Congress which adopted the Articles of Confederation in 1781 as the basis for national taxation."

- See more at: http://www.blackpast.org/aah/three-fifths-clause-united-states-constitution-1787#sthash.U8ptaRmd.dpuf

it could be argued that the point of the law was so that slave owning states didnt get even more political power as a result of having more slaves

--

does this law change the way anyone alive today uses language? or is it only changing the language of people who are already dead and dont quite matter anymore?

Rosalyn J wrote: Negro will become African American
Oriental will become Asian-American
Spanish-speaking will become Hispanic
Indian will become Native American
Eskimo and Aluet will become Alaska Natives

Forgive my ignorance, it may be a cultural difference (ie, UK culture is different to American) but what is offensive about the term 'Oriental'?

Also, I'm not sure 'Asian-American' is a particularly good descriptive (again maybe due to a cultural difference) as 'Asian' in the UK traditionally refers to people from the 'Indian Region' of Asia rather than those from the 'Far East' of Asia who were traditionally called 'Oriental' (granted this is changing due to us watching a lot more American TV shows in which people from Far East Asia are referred to as 'Asian').

*Apologies, if any of the terms I used caused offence, but its difficult to explain what I mean without using those words*

OB1Shinobi wrote: "Often misinterpreted to mean that African Americans as individuals are considered three-fifths of a person or that they are three-fifths of a citizen of the U.S., the three-fifths clause (Article I, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution of 1787) in fact declared that for purposes of representation in Congress, enslaved blacks in a state would be counted as three-fifths of the number of white inhabitants of that state.

Yep, that's the part I was referencing even if my old man memory got the fraction wrong. Thanks for clarifying.

OB1Shinobi wrote: does this law change the way anyone alive today uses language? or is it only changing the language of people who are already dead and dont quite matter anymore?

It will dictate the language of any federal laws going forward as well as adjust the language of some legislation that has been passed. We're not talking about taking a Sharpie Marker to the Constitution. It simply states that the federal government will no longer use the previous terms in official legislation. It doesn't apply to state or local legislation. It also doesn't make using these words in everyday writing and conversation illegal in anyway. Nobody is stomping on the First Amendment with this one. If I insist on calling Native Americans "Indians", I still can.

The point of this is that whatever the reasons for using the language in the past, those reasons no longer apply today. Going forward, the language of our legislation should reflect the society writing it just as the legislation itself changes to reflect the society writing it.

Brick wrote: Forgive my ignorance, it may be a cultural difference (ie, UK culture is different to American) but what is offensive about the term 'Oriental'?

I definitely think it is a cultural difference. We are very found of using "____-American" to label stuff in the U.S. I imagine "Asian American" was selected because the people in the U.S. that this term could apply to simply prefer it over "Oriental".

It can get very specific depending on the region as well. In Southern California we are a very mixed population and it results in all sorts of very specific titles. Even "Hispanic" is considered too broad here. I know people who identify as Mexican, Hispanic, Latino or Chicano depending on where they were born and what country their family is from. The "Asian American" community subdivides into Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Filipino, Vietnamese, Thai, etc. It makes my head spin.

Brick wrote: Forgive my ignorance, it may be a cultural difference (ie, UK culture is different to American) but what is offensive about the term 'Oriental'?

I was always told that we used oriental for things (food, weapons, etc) and Asian for people. You can use Asian for both but not oriental. I've never really heard a reason why.

Funny I was stationed with a many ethnicity types. All were extremely different in beliefs and practices. The sooner we learned each other and the sooner we meshed the better it was for the group. Dr King had a dream, not a plan. Do not forget. The dream... is possible. Each of us has our own circles. Our own life's. Regardless of what law is passed or what we can "officially" say, as Jedi it is only up to us how to pursue these dreams and happiness as they are available to all. Cultural differences to me are lines drawn with markers only those who use see. It keeps those who draw them in absolutes. As every Jedi knows... say it with me.... ONLY sith Deal in absolutes. I personally don't take orders from the collective whole aka the government when it comes to how I speak and where I go. Land laws... yea I drive the speed limit and look both ways before crossing the street. I do. Other than that let these silly people pass laws that show where the hurt still exist while in my opinion we Jedi live our convictions. People who live their own conviction, don't really worry about laws to much like this one.
* my son is 3 and doesn't know that the words can hurt yet... why... he hasn't seen it yet. He's learning, but not from me. Instead I teach and pass ways to grow and build. When we r hurt...we need comfort and healing, not laws and judgment. Has America down anything to mesh or bring together ethnicity? They sure have drawn obvious no s... a lot.
The best defense I have found is to plant a new bred. New hearts. Make new feelings. Our 3 tenants are there to help... better our self and those around you... just my 2 cents. Problem? Give solutions. !

Senan wrote:

OB1Shinobi wrote: "Often misinterpreted to mean that African Americans as individuals are considered three-fifths of a person or that they are three-fifths of a citizen of the U.S., the three-fifths clause (Article I, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution of 1787) in fact declared that for purposes of representation in Congress, enslaved blacks in a state would be counted as three-fifths of the number of white inhabitants of that state.

Yep, that's the part I was referencing even if my old man memory got the fraction wrong. Thanks for clarifying.

OB1Shinobi wrote: does this law change the way anyone alive today uses language? or is it only changing the language of people who are already dead and dont quite matter anymore?

It will dictate the language of any federal laws going forward as well as adjust the language of some legislation that has been passed. We're not talking about taking a Sharpie Marker to the Constitution. It simply states that the federal government will no longer use the previous terms in official legislation. It doesn't apply to state or local legislation. It also doesn't make using these words in everyday writing and conversation illegal in anyway. Nobody is stomping on the First Amendment with this one. If I insist on calling Native Americans "Indians", I still can.

The point of this is that whatever the reasons for using the language in the past, those reasons no longer apply today. Going forward, the language of our legislation should reflect the society writing it just as the legislation itself changes to reflect the society writing it.

to be perfectly honest i dont think it matters in the least if someone gets the fraction wrong in this sort of conversation; what i am pointing out is that the american govt never took the postion that slaves only count as "such and such" percentage of a human - as if to say they were not fully developed human beings

the govt never did that
each state is allowed to send x number of people to congress

the exact number depends on the states population: the more people who live in the state, the more people that the state can send to congress

the more people a state has in congress, the more congressional influence that particular state will have

the idea is that the people of the state elect the state representatives, and these representatives then go to congress and represent the will of the people who elected them

southern slave owners wanted their slaves to count so that their states could have more congressmen, and therefore more political influence, but northern states argued that slaves dont elect their masters, nor do the masters represent the slaves interest - the accountability isnt there

this "such and such percentage" compromise was enacted to keep slave owners from havingmore congressional power as a consequence of having more slaves

im not saying that you, Senan, dont understand all this btw, i just want to be sure and spell it out very clearly because this is one of those history moments that people often misunderstand and misrepresent (and it is actually a little weird) to mean something more nefarious than what the real motivations behind it actually were

anyway, i still consider this new bill to be a token gesture, because no one in america says says "negro" or "oriental" anymore so its not changing anything, really

all the bill does is officially acknowledge a change that has already happened

and those terms were not offensive in their time, anyway

now, i do agree with the sentiment behind the gesture- i hope no one misunderstands me about that- so i am supportive of this.
but i would much rather see better funding for schools in low income neighborhoods or a resolution to build organic community gardens in districts living below the poverty line

those are things that would actually help to improve peoples lives

FTPC wrote: yes it will Because when I get pissed a racist remark will fly and cuss words, verbally
and I hope trumps burn the bill because it takes away my FREEDOM of speech

I realize this comment is from early in the conversation but I feel like I can address the original issue of this topic by addressing this.

First, by changing legislative language it does not curtail your ability to use racial slurs or culturally insensitive language. Saying it does or will curtail your 'rights' and crying, "First Amendment!" doesn't change that. The bill only changes the language in legislation to better reflect the progressive language used today. There is no punishment behind this change in language.

Secondly, the First Amendment is not a "say whatever you want and get away with it"-card. That's foolishness. If you call me a tranny to my face, I will break your nose and then some. The First Amendment is there to protect the people, press, and other institutions from being censored by the government. It's meant to allow criticism and dialogue about the government happen without fear of reprisal from the government.

Jamie Stick wrote: [
Secondly, the First Amendment is not a "say whatever you want and get away with it"-card. That's foolishness. If you call me a tranny to my face, I will break your nose and then some. The First Amendment is there to protect the people, press, and other institutions from being censored by the government. It's meant to allow criticism and dialogue about the government happen without fear of reprisal from the government.

Yes you are right the first amendment protects from government intervention only. However simply because someone says something you find offensive does not give you the right to enact violence. To do so shows a lack of emotional control and is criminal. Too many people wish to criminalize language or respond to things they do not like with violence to allow such a statement to stand uncontested.

OB1Shinobi wrote: to be perfectly honest i dont think it matters in the least if someone gets the fraction wrong in this sort of conversation; what i am pointing out is that the american govt never took the postion that slaves only count as "such and such" percentage of a human - as if to say they were not fully developed human beings

the govt never did that
each state is allowed to send x number of people to congress

the exact number depends on the states population: the more people who live in the state, the more people that the state can send to congress

the more people a state has in congress, the more congressional influence that particular state will have

the idea is that the people of the state elect the state representatives, and these representatives then go to congress and represent the will of the people who elected them

southern slave owners wanted their slaves to count so that their states could have more congressmen, and therefore more political influence, but northern states argued that slaves dont elect their masters, nor do the masters represent the slaves interest - the accountability isnt there

this "such and such percentage" compromise was enacted to keep slave owners from havingmore congressional power as a consequence of having more slaves

im not saying that you, Senan, dont understand all this btw, i just want to be sure and spell it out very clearly because this is one of those history moments that people often misunderstand and misrepresent (and it is actually a little weird) to mean something more nefarious than what the real motivations behind it actually were

anyway, i still consider this new bill to be a token gesture, because no one in america says says "negro" or "oriental" anymore so its not changing anything, really

all the bill does is officially acknowledge a change that has already happened

and those terms were not offensive in their time, anyway

now, i do agree with the sentiment behind the gesture- i hope no one misunderstands me about that- so i am supportive of this.
but i would much rather see better funding for schools in low income neighborhoods or a resolution to build organic community gardens in districts living below the poverty line

those are things that would actually help to improve peoples lives

This is an accurate description of what happened and I agree that I made it sound like it was intended to be uber-racist when at the time it probably had more to do with economics and politics. I will be more careful when trying to use thios example in the future.

Looking back on it from my perspective now though, there is something to be learned from it about how we can be racist without intending to be. I feel like these men were overlooking a very important dynamic of that conversation. It took place in a room full of rich white men who were considering human beings as things to be counted. The things being counted were not represented in the room, nor would they have any representation in Congress. If slaves were to be considered less valuable than a white person and have no right to vote anyway, why count them at all? They needed to be because it would impact the power balance between the states. They had to decide who would get to send the most rich white people to Congress. This was a necessary part of the debate at the time, but the entire debate was framed by the obvious systemic racism that allowed slavery to even exist in the first place.

I don't think those delegates would have any reason to think the way I do considering their time and circumstances, but I hope we can learn the lessons from it.

Thank you, OB1, for making me clarify the point I've been failing to make