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

Hmm, I guess whenever those words are used in the law anywhere it will now seem a little less related to the negative historical contexts of the old words? Nothing wrong with that? Why thread exists?

How utterly pointless. I remember listening to Dr. King's speeches where the term "negro" was used with pride, as an alternative to the less respectful "colored". Which, as far as I can tell, was originally used as an alternative to the less respectful "n word", or so we're now expected to say, as if certain words themselves are automatically unacceptable. And yet these terms, such as "African American" are now being claimed by some to be racist, the term "people of color" being preferred as a less offensive alternative. Doesn't that sound familiar? Doesn't that make you sick? I wonder what new term we'll use in 20 years once "people of color" is decided to be racist. It is an idiotic and endless cycle of words replacing words replacing words, each time one suffering from the exact same issues of the previous ones. This kind of pointless language policing may appease the most social justice warrior-y among our government and citizens, but it absolutely does nothing to solve any issue, it is doomed to follow the example of the previous terms, and it is an utterly pointless and ridiculous thing which I'm disappointed that our elected officials have even wasted their time talking about when there are literally riots breaking out in the streets of our cities.

Does anyone want to guess what the next buzzword for dark skinned people will be? Here's for "biological human of historically African descent", since I think that would appease the language police for a few years longer than "people of color" might.

TheDude wrote: How utterly pointless. I remember listening to Dr. King's speeches where the term "negro" was used with pride, as an alternative to the less respectful "colored". Which, as far as I can tell, was originally used as an alternative to the less respectful "n word", or so we're now expected to say, as if certain words themselves are automatically unacceptable. And yet these terms, such as "African American" are now being claimed by some to be racist, the term "people of color" being preferred as a less offensive alternative. Doesn't that sound familiar? Doesn't that make you sick? I wonder what new term we'll use in 20 years once "people of color" is decided to be racist. It is an idiotic and endless cycle of words replacing words replacing words, each time one suffering from the exact same issues of the previous ones. This kind of pointless language policing may appease the most social justice warrior-y among our government and citizens, but it absolutely does nothing to solve any issue, it is doomed to follow the example of the previous terms, and it is an utterly pointless and ridiculous thing which I'm disappointed that our elected officials have even wasted their time talking about when there are literally riots breaking out in the streets of our cities.

Does anyone want to guess what the next buzzword for dark skinned people will be? Here's for "biological human of historically African descent", since I think that would appease the language police for a few years longer than "people of color" might.

In order for politicians to care, it has to have come from the people, so clearly a need was felt from the people to change the terminology.

Language evolves, and we need to evolve with it. Especially when it comes to terms that involve demeaning another group.

That's the problem with labels. They evolve and people's feelings about them evolve over time. Nobody puts baby in a corner (if that makes sense). The box called (insert particular label concerning physical, mental, emotional, geographic, and/or spiritual features) does not fit everybody, but its easie(r) to simply shove them in a box (sometimes we even put ourselves there) than look at them as a person.

This law is a millimeter towards progress when it comes to labeling racial or ethnic groups in law, but its a long way from getting rid of labels entirely, which is what should ultimately happen

The law (federal in this case) does very little to change the way people talk and interact with one another. Case and point, I have been called retarded, cripple, handcicapped, deformed, and I have heard someone be called a stupid nigger (I'll never forget it). The law says we ought not to use at least some of those words

But, people are still going to be assholes. We (the people who will not be defined by our labels) have to make a conscious decision to stop giving these people the time of day. If we have the power, we need to move away from the relationship. If we dont have the power, we need to inform someone who does, for example, the police.

The reason why racial slurs are frowned upon can be summed up by this verse: "Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks" (Luke 6:45) and its not that far of a leap from a word to an action.

presidents in the last years of their final terms do all sorts of things

im guessing the act is more of a symbolic gesture than anything

language changes, customs change, its how things are

there are white african americans btw, and many black people self identify as black
i am used to saying "black", i dont think it is offensive (i dont say it offensively, and i dont feel offended at being called white) but i defer to the preference of the individual when i learn that they have one

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/why-im-black-not-african-american-0153.html

but really, if you want to address issues, start here:

http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/more-40-low-income-schools-dont-get-fair-share-state-and-local-funds-department-

Words are how we express our ideas. The ideas recorded in the U.S Constitution and Bill of Rights were revolutionary for their time. I mean that literally. A revolution was fought in order to put these words on paper and have them mean something. The significance of these words should not be forgotten, but we are allowed to accept that our ideas have changed.

Do I believe that "Indians and Slaves are 2/3 of a person"? Nope. Is slavery acceptable in this country anymore? Nope. Do I still call them "Indians"? They're not from India, so nope. These words and ideas are in the U.S. Constitution and they will remain there for the sake of history, but that doesn't mean we must allow these words and ideas to propagate.

Updating our words to reflect our current ideas is not just some trivial exercise. Words are how we express thoughts, and changing the words can literally change the way we think. These updates are not necessarily for those of us who have internalized the old titles and used them our entire lives. Updating the language can help future generations to think about each other differently.

I quoted a line from Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburgh Address in a recent sermon that expresses this better than I can. “It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced." The work is unfinished. It is incumbent on all of us to evolve the language so that it reflects our progress.

In short, Martin Luther King, Jr. may have used the word "negro" proudly, but that doesn't mean his community still identifies with that idea today. The words must change as our ideas change, or nothing ever changes.

"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.