A new gossip book about the 2008 election has been getting lots of press for this report about Harry Reid:
He was wowed by Obama’s oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama — a “light-skinned” African American “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one,” as he said privately.
Reid has apologized for his choice of words.
I think Matt gets to the heart of the matter:
It’s good that Reid apologized, but at the same time you can’t really apologize for being the sort of person who’d be inclined to use the phrase “negro dialect” and it’s more the idea of Reid being that kind of person that’s creepy here than anything else.
Amanda thinks this shows a need for forced retirements of our more senior Senators. In contrast, Mark can’t see why people are objecting to Reid’s quote:
Other than using an old-fashioned word to refer to African-Americans (a word which was the standard word for about the first half of Reid’s life), what did Reid do wrong?
But “Negro” isn’t just “old-fashioned”; it’s a racist epithet. It’s true that a half-century ago, “negro” was commonly used by both Blacks and whites. But things have changed since then. From Wikipedia:
During the American Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s, some African American leaders in the United States objected to the word, preferring Black, because they associated the word Negro with the long history of slavery, segregation, and discrimination that treated African Americans as second class citizens, or worse. During the 1960s Negro came to be considered an ethnic slur.
The term is now considered archaic and is not commonly used, and is widely considered a racist slur. The term is still used in some contexts for historical reasons such as in the name of the United Negro College Fund. or the Negro league in sports.
I don’t want to make too big a deal of this; this isn’t a judgement on Reid as a person, or an indictment of his entire character. A sincere anti-racist can slip up and have a racist moment.
Nonetheless, it is racist for white folks1 to casually use racial slurs as part of everyday speech, and Mark’s mistaken to think otherwise. It’s not even slightly unreasonable to expect that someone who is sharp enough to be the head of the Democrats in the Senate, who is one of the most powerful people in the world, would have learned sometime in the last four or five decades to stop using the word “negro.”
- I’m ignoring for this post the question of Black people using the word “negro” ironically, or of elderly black people using the word non-ironically, because Reid clearly isn’t in either category. [↩]
I think there’s a difference between a racist slur and a word that evokes racist history, and I’m not sure “Negro” qualifies as a slur. I mean, I can’t see the Stormfront types shouting it at me to make me feel bad, especially given that they’ve got so many “better” words to choose from. (I think if a Stormfront type yelled “Negro” at me I would laugh. Wouldn’t be able to help myself. Though I might do that anyway, given who it’s coming from.)
I find “Negro” problematic because it is a word that was applied to us, as part of the process of creating systemic racism. Which is why I prefer more-unwieldy terms like “people of color” and “African American”, even though they don’t flow as easily off the tongue and aren’t as, hmm, efficient? But they’re words we chose, which is a defiance of racism, as opposed to the old terms which accepted/enforced it. Which “Negro” certainly does.
But a slur? I dunno about that.
Not that I care what Harry Reid says. That the Democrats have a lot of unquestioned-racism issues to deal with is not new to me. I’m glad he said it, really, so maybe the Dems will start dealing with some of those issues.
What is being ignored in all the brou-haha is the sad truth of what Reid was saying about the American electorate’s phobias regarding the imagery of powerful black men. Michele, who has a darker complexion, had been targeted with the usual nasty racist crap that I don’t need to repeat here. Barack’s lighter skin tone and Midwestern dialect (with a Chicago lilt) helped him overcome a couple of barriers that confront darker skinned men who speak with a stronger “black” dialect (which, of course, is subject to regional variations, like any other dialect.) It’s stupid, but these barriers are an inherent part of a racist culture that identifies modes of speech, dress, and appearance often associated with certain aspects of white culture to be the ideal, the norm. All of us, to some extent or other, are expected to conform to these mostly arbitrary standards.
Reid has been so useless as a leader in the Senate, I frankly don’t care what takes him down. Just so’s he goes away.
******************
PS: yes comrade, but what matters most, 60 votes, or 60 votes for a plan worth HAVING?
He got 60 votes for HCR.
The only time I ever use the word ‘Negro” (I’m white btw) is when making fun of the kind of person who would use the word ‘Negro’ and think they’re being polite and PC.
I’m with nojojojo – when I read the wikipedia explanation that Negro was a racist slur, I was surprised. I’ve never thought of it as that.
Outmoded, outdated, not really welcome, yes… a slur? I had no idea and I don’t consider it one.
Besides – I don’t think Reid’s main offense was using the word Negro – had he said what he said using any other of our many and varied, new and old terms for people of African descent he still would have been in the wrong.
Kevin, yes, the substance of Reid’s statement was fine; I don’t think that’s what’s being debated here. What I get from the lines quoted from Matt is that a guy, thirty years after “Because you’re a Negro, Venus” was used as a gag to show a conservative character’s out-of-touchness on WKRP in Cincinnatti, is still that far out of touch with a pretty basic aspect of USian culture. Probably other aspects thereof too. The change from “Negro” to “black” in the late Sixties was a very important event in U.S. cultural history, among the earliest such events in which a historically oppressed group successfully asserted some agency over what the dominant group called them. This gaffe is at least as bad as Bill Richardson’s not having known which decade Roe was decided in; and I understand why Amanda associates it with agedness.
Harry Reid is a racist, nothing new here. Most whites are uncomfortable when dealing with blacks on the same level. They always have to come up with some other reason why that black person came into power. According to some whites: “There is no way that ‘Negro’ is as smart as white people. It’s not possible. If the ‘Negro’ scored higher than me on a “standardized test’ then that Negro has what we call ‘photographic memory’ or somehow cheated… Okay… if all of that is not the case then that Negro is what whites call a freak-of-nature.”
It’s sad, really. I knew there was something wrong with Harry Reid when he made the statement about “smelling the tourists before they reach the Capitol.” What a way to honor the American citizens, the folks paying his salary.
I am a woman of color and have been subjected to slurs and racism during my lifetime. However , I do not find myself offended by Sen Reid’s comment cuz he was just telling it like it is ! It was a private comment as well which I am sure all politicians are guilty of when the subject matter is a bit tacky. I think many of those declaimimg outrage are being holier- than- thou in public and thinking the same thing in private.
It’s not my norm to go around defending Democrats, but Reid is guilty only of candor, and using the wrong code word because of his age.
I use Wikipedia if I want a quick reference to some citations. But when it comes to statements such as “and is widely considered a racist slur” it’s important to remember that it’s content generally reflects the opinions of a small number of people and is not subject to any kind of rigorous review. You can’t rely on it as an authority for something like this. I’d agree that “Negro” is archaic and not in common use anymore, but “a racist slur”? Certainly Wikipedia saying so is far from definitive, and I’d disagree.
With regards to Sen. Reid’s reference to Pres. Obama’s skin color and speech, he’s not the first person I’ve heard say that Obama was electable only because of his manner of speech not being “from the ‘hood'” and because he wasn’t too dark. Remember that when his candidacy was first publicized there was a lot of talk that he might not get the “black vote” because he wasn’t “black enough”. It was in all the Chicago papers but I don’t know if it was a national story.
It may have been un-PC to say what he said but I think there’s a lot of truth to it. I’m no fan of Reid but don’t hang him for telling the truth.
An unfortunate comment.
Should he step down? Not for me to judge. Sometimes people who stay in power for extended periods feel that they aren’t accountable. His conscience will figure it out.
On the one hand, I think a lot of people have gone up the river trying to say what Reid was trying to say here, something that is hard to dispute as a fact: To many people, Obama is a “black man” only by the most technical feature of his skin color. He was raised by a globe-trotting white woman, and so had a very different life-experience than the typical man-on-the-street in New Orleans or Detroit. This affects his personality, his manner of speech, and many other features that strongly contributed to his success in politics. I tend to think this is what people mean when they use the absurdly cumbersome term “bi-racial” to refer to him… as if all the other black folks of the USA are of 100% African descent.
That being said, it is very rude to comment on this sort of thing, and doubly so to comment on it using such archaic language… because ultimately this is about stereotypes. Barack is anything but the stereotypical black man, and that’s really what people are saying when they comment on this, or refer to him as “bi-racial”. There is no nice way to say that, and the more you mince words, the worse it sounds, because in comparing him to a stereotypical black person, you show your beliefs about what a stereotypical black person is.
Contrary to Reid’s implication, Obama actually deploys the blaccent quite often, to no discernible negative effect. I was in a Harlem steakhouse when he gave the iowa speech and people were just falling off thier chairs like it was the second coming of MLK or something. He appears to veer from MLK cadence to some Malcolm X forcefullnes (“Don’t Fall for the Ol’ Okie-Doke”) mixed with contemporary hip-hop signals ( Dirt Off Ya Shoulders. Jy-z style) and back to constitutional law professor speak at will and I dare say the net effect is off the charts positive.
This says something about our culture.
You’re a better man than me Robert. After Reid’s inane slavery/opposing HCR equivilization, I’m thrilled to see him get bit by his own snake. Perhaps he was projecting?
Though, Bil Clinton’s comments were actually more interesting.
Nojojo and Nannette, I agree that the word “slur” in my original post was too strong. But the word negro is… racially coded? It carries racist baggage, in my view, especially when said by a white person.
“Negro” is a word that some White people know perfectly well is rude, and so won’t use it in public or where a Black person is listening. But they’ll use it in private among White people.
Robert and others:
I agree that Reid’s statements were by and large true, and I think they were probably made more in the sense of “acknowledging a racist reality” than “approving of a racist reality.”
But as for the “he only used the word negro because he’s old” argument:
Can anyone point to a single example from the last thirty years of Harry Reid using the word “negro” in public, as opposed to when he thought he was speaking off the record? Because I bet that there are multiple examples of him using either “Black” or “African American” in public.
Do the folks saying that Reid only said it because he’s old, honestly believe that Reid would have used the word “negro” if he had been the same age, but speaking off-the-record, face-to-face with several Black constituents and reporters?
It is difficult, but to confront the stereotype and hopefully destroy it or at least render it ineffective, it is necessary to speak about it truthfully. List the attributes. Point, cite, criticize. It should be no poor reflection on you for speaking about it — “shooting the messenger” — because it’s in our air, our daily bread, we ingest it through the culture we live in. Reid did not do it effectively, obviously, but then again, he was in a private conversation for which there doesn’t seem to be an audio record. I can totally see using “Negro dialect” with an inflection that implies irony quotes — throw in a roll of the eyes and wiggle the fingers, it would come off differently. Not exactly a habit of Reid’s generation, of course.
I agree with Manju. How the hell is the Clenis getting off so lightly?
Ampersand: A slip of the tongue? In a private conversation? Is that more important than the substance of what he was saying?
Again, we don’t have an audio record. Who knows how he was saying it? Sarcastically? Sincerely? Just a poor choice of words? Brain fart?
Rev. Al Sharpton got it down: there were far worse things said about Obama during 2008. Reid was saying something positive about Obama while commenting on the mentality of the electorate, albeit in a poor choice of words. Meh.
Kevin, I made it very clear in my original post that I don’t consider this a big deal. But there’s a lot of space between “Harry Reid is a racist, and that’s all he is!” and “there’s nothing at all worth criticizing about the second most powerful person in the country being the sort of white person who uses the word ‘negro’ in private conversations.” I think the best view lies between these two extremes.
I’m also not down with the “you shouldn’t criticize racism unless you can prove it absolutely in a court of law, with audio recordings and truth established beyond any possibility of doubt” approach, which is where you seem to be going by pointing out the lack of an audio record. (And don’t we need a video record, too, so we can know for sure that he didn’t make air quotes with his fingers?)
Apart from KKK rallies and the like, racism in real life is almost never provable beyond any doubt. But Reid is not being accused of a crime, and this is not a court of law; it’s appropriate to use lesser standards of evidence in this sort of discussion. Especially since the alternative is to virtually never acknowledge racism at all, except in its most extreme and obvious forms.
P.S. With all due respect, how about some links, dude? Which remarks of Clinton’s are you talking about, and how about a link to Sharpton, too? Pretty-please?
Pingback: Reid and Lott | Blog of the Moderate Left
The Clenis thing hasn’t gotten any traction because (a) he hasn’t acknowledged saying it the way Reid did, and (b) it’s like ninth-hand reporting.
(Amp, according to the book, according to someone who knows Ted Kennedy, Ted Kennedy said that Bill Clinton called him trying to get his endorsement for Hillary, and Clinton allegedly said something along the lines of “a few years back this guy would be getting us coffee.”) Kennedy apparently thought this was a horrible racial slur and it hardened his reluctance to endorse Hillary to the point that he went to the O camp.
I could be wrong, but I don’t think Clinton would have meant that as a racial slur; it sounds a lot more like him saying “this guy has no knowledge/experience”.
Pingback: Alas, a blog » Blog Archive » Reid and Lott
Bear in mind, Amp, he didn’t say “negro”. He said “negro dialect”. And yes, I think he might have said that in front of black people, depending on the black people. A younger person might have said “he doesn’t talk black, unless he wants to”.
I don’t know a way offhand to briefly say “he doesn’t habitually utilize the idiom, grammar, intonation and vocabulary of a certain class of economically dispossessed African-Americans” WITHOUT making an implicit or explicit racial reference; “talking black” or “negro dialect” or “talking urban”.
I think I’m leaving room for reasonable doubt, to use your court of law analogy. But it’s like this: his private comments were entered into a big book on the 2008 campaign by two high profile political reporters; those comments are among many “revelations” that will keep the news cycle churning with glee (I have CNN on right now; they are breathless about this issue); Republicans see payback time for Trent Lott and jump on this to call Democrats hypocrites and demand a resignation. Thus we have The Big Distraction, the usual partisan tit-for-tat, and nothing learned.
Against this I simply suggest room for nuance. On the one hand, the substance of Reid’s comments, discussed by me and others above, seem more important than the particular words he has used. So far the media face of the white power structure is doing a fine job of ignoring the implications Reid’s comments have for the racist reality of the American electorate. On the other hand, I am not requiring an audio record, but I am suggesting different ways of understanding Reid’s choice of words. There are different ways of thinking about this that have some bearing on the conversation.
As a side note: Had Reid used “blaccent” (cf. Manju above) instead, I doubt he would have avoided the controversy he finds himself in over “Negro dialect.”
Citations as requested:
Bill Clinton told Ted Kennedy he was endorsing Obama only because he’s black. From NY Daily News.
I can’t find the Sharpton one. CNN has replayed the video a few times, however.
But “Negro” isn’t just “old-fashioned”; it’s a racist epithet. It’s true that a half-century ago, “negro” was commonly used by both Blacks and whites.
This is the first time I have ever heard that “negro” was racist. In fact, when I was growing up (and Harry Reid is oler than me), there was a big push from groups like the NAACP to get people to use the word “Negro” as the respectful term for . (Its predecessor, IIRC, was “Colored.”) I can still remember when the young radicals started promoting the term “black,” which was still pretty edgy, as if gay men were to promote the word “queer”.
In using the word, it seems to me that Harry Reid did nothing worse than to fail to keep up with the latest in politically correct terminology. I myself (now 56) managed to make the transition to “black” (its being one syllable instead of 2 helped), but have not bothered to correctify myself to use the word African-American on a regular basis. (No doubt there are even newer, PC-er terms, which I haven’t bothered to even put in my memory.)
For one thing, the whole PC terminology thing ends up being an excuse for playing “gotcha!” as a substitute for any substantive discussion; if you’re mainly interested in scoring points, I’d just as soon know up front so I needn’t waste my time talking to you.
For another, these words are really just code words for the real problem: that people categorize people as “white” and “black” and make assumptions on that basis, mostly to the detriment of the people in the “black” category. Coming up with a new term for the deprecated category every decade doesn’t do a thing to solve the underlying problem. I’m pretty sick of the whole pile of stupidity (esp. the stuff I’ve internalized), and I imagine a lot of negro/black/whatever people are even sicker of it than I am, since they have to live with it every day in a way I don’t.
BTW, if you’re looking for the common term for colored/negros/blacks/African-Americans that was at one time widely and freely used by all races, without necessarily any racist intent, you’d have to go back to that hoary old term — which we now call the “N” word.
Here’s someone else commenting on the issue of how America overall sees black people with regards to their skin color and speech patterns. From an article about Colin Powell from 11/5/2001:
AMM, your comment reminds me of a local gubernatorial candidate who used the term “people of color” in a speech. An older Somali guy called it offensive to use the term. He hadn’t gotten the memo that POC is the fashionable term.
And while I know plenty of people who use negro to try and be clever (“What; that’s not racist!”), I’m not sure Reid’s use of “negro dialect” had the same intention behind it.
I refuse to use the term “people of color” because I have yet to hear anyone give any kind of a specific definition. I’ve asked, only to have my motives for asking called into question rather than giving me an answer. I don’t use “African-American” for the same reason I don’t use “Irish-American” or “Italian-American” or “Mexican-American”. For one thing, it’s just dumb. For another, it makes me think that it’s describing someone of divided loyalties.
“People of color”: Catchall term for all people who are neither Caucasian nor Latino or Latina Caucasian.
If you believe “that’s just dumb” is a legitimate argument that it makes sense to bring up in a forum where not everyone agrees with you, then you’d be better off not discussing it at all.
When it comes to ethic identifications, I call people what they want to be called, as long as they’re not obviously being disingenuous and the term isn’t overtly, over-the-top ridiculous (like if someone wanted to be called a “Barryissougly-American”). To me, that seems respectful and polite.
Ampersand, I really appreciate this post. It makes a smart point very succinctly, and a point that does a nice job of clarifying the difference between being respectful in speech and the sort of cynical double-talk that liberals are often accused of by those who don’t want to bother being respectful.
I’d also like to jump on the “it’s not a slur” bus. I’m black (and whether and how much that should matter is up for debate) and I’ve done a fair amount of reading about blackness (I like to think that matters), and I think non-ironic usage of the word Negro is more anachronistic than offensive. In my thinking, Negro, like colored, were preferred terms to nigger and other obvious slurs. If we think about important moments of racial consciousness across the Diaspora like the international Negritude movement and about the fact that Negro moves across into the romantic languages (bringing in my brothers and sisters operating in the Latin world), I particularly like Negro.
But then I also prefer Black to African American for lots of reasons. And I’ve been trying to advocate the use of “colored people” or “black and brown people” instead of “people of color”, but that hasn’t gotten too far.
Steve Dallas’ Mom: “Look, there’s the most adorable little colored child playing in the yard.”
Steve Dallas: “MA! We don’t say colored anymore! It’s person of color!”
SDM: “Person of color.”
Steve Dallas: “Yes.”
SDM: “Colored person.”
Steve Dallas: “NO!!!”
I understand the resistance to intentionalism, and even to some degree buy the argument that in a racist society the intentions of a person cannot in fairness be the final arbiter of whether an action or statement is racist in effect.
But when there are no context clues in the language itself that indicate acceptability – and I defy anyone to point out any meaningful *linguistic* difference between “colored person” and “person of color” – one can certainly see the appeal of interrogating intent as a first line of demarcation.
Every country deals with race differently. The two biggest mistakes in American history once one gets beyond slavery: (1) forced integration by court rulings – you can’t force people to want to associate with, get along with, or respect you; and (2) affirmative action – no matter how one looks at it, it smacks of unfairness and does not make people respect you.
What we have today are simply the long-term ramifications of bad racial policies. What is perhaps more fascinating is that many think that 50 years of legal integration has somehow negated or counterbalanced the treatment afforded blacks prior thereto.
The reason that society is incapable of addressing the racial issue is because we view it from a perspective which is not conducive to real analysis. We talk all around the fundamental, underlying reasons for racism, and make it an emotional issue. How does one expect to cure the cancer without focusing on the cancerous cells and the biological reasons for cancer? Focusing on the symptoms is an ineffective mechanism to employ. Racism serves a far more complex pragmatic function than we are generally willing to acknowledge.
Far more disturbing than Reid’s comment itself is that elected officials, paid with taxpayer dollars, would spend valuable time criticizing Reid, or any other politician who just happened to say something offensive, inappropriate, or stupid, instead of tending to the important business of the nation. And this applies to members of ALL political parties.
And why do they do it? To advance the long-term positive and material interests of the nation? No. They’re grandstanding for their political purposes, which are not necessarily in the interests of the nation.
They ALL should arguably be voted out at the next available opportunity. As for we citizens, we should never underestimate the power of laughter, and ignoring people.
When it comes to ethic identifications, I call people what they want to be called — Ampersand
Fair enough, but I’m reminded of the Miss Manners rule about people who keep changing the name they want to be called: you can demand that somebody handle one name change, but you’re not allowed to feel insulted if they don’t keep up after that.
I made the transition from “negro” (as used, with pride, by the likes of Martin Luther King, Jr.) to “black,” and can make it to “African American” on a good day. It wouldn’t surprise me if Harry Reid had to go from “Colored” to “Negro,” and hasn’t managed to make a more modern term a natural part of his informal vocabulary.
As for individuals: while I’m usually aware of what race the people I meet are likely to be pigeon-holed into (I grew up in the USA, after all), it’s not something I find myself discussing with them. I mean, it’s not generally something that would come up naturally when talking with coworkers or neighbors. So I generally don’t know what my black acquaintances’ preferred terms are.
I think non-ironic usage of the word Negro is more anachronistic than offensive. — Michelle
A good point. I’d agree that it sounds old-fashioned.
As for “non-ironic”: I can’t say I’ve had much contact with “ironic” uses of the word Negro. Maybe I’ve had a sheltered life.
Nah, “That’s just dumb” was more of a joke than anything. But more seriously, I find that one of our previous Presidents put it well:
The language bears the marks of the time; this is President Theodore Roosevelt speaking to the Knights of Columbus in New York in October of 1915. But I think that there are people in general and politicians in particular that seem to have divided loyalties, and they are expressed when they define themselves as Mexican-American or African-American or Irish-American or any such construction.
Far more disturbing than Reid’s comment itself is that elected officials, paid with taxpayer dollars, would spend valuable time criticizing Reid, or any other politician who just happened to say something offensive, inappropriate, or stupid, instead of tending to the important business of the nation. And this applies to members of ALL political parties.
Which is why even I, hardly a liberal Democrat, couldn’t get excited about the whole “Did Clinton get a blow job in the Oval Office?” thing. Yeah, probably. Like he was the first. How about we spend some time talking about something important, now.
I’ve heard “Negro” used as a slightly more category to place yourself in than the racist slur. Meaning someone was ranting to a group of people who were primarily African-American picketing the DA’s office that there were “n—-rs” and there were “Negros” and that the target of her rants was the former, not the latter. But I doubt that either was a positive reflection in her mind, or meant to be.
I do because he’s a member of Congress and thus welds considerable power and that what he said is offensive. But it’s offensive in more than one way, and in ways separate from him too.
But yes, in my opinion it’s time for the Dems to deal with their own issues on race and racism rather than always pointing fingers at the Repubs or engaging in tit for that. Each side will have its apologists when these “gaffes” come up and nothing’s an accidental slip really and Congress will continue to remind many people in this Constitution that a country steeped in racism is going to be represented by a political entity as much or more so steeped in racism.
But it’s nice to know he deftly sidestepped both the “n” word and the “E” word in his comments.
This is what we call “privilege” – the ability to not talk or think about race.
Race comes up all the time between myself and my friends of color. Same with my students, clients, and colleagues. I find the easiest way to ask is something like “I don’t know what label you prefer for yourself…?” and let them fill in the blank or not, as they choose. I choked on it about the first 50 times I asked, but it gets a little easier over time.
(A similar open-ended and curious phrase works in terms of sexual and gender identity too.)
Really, though, all this “debate” over whether someone should have to make some effort to call people what they want to be called is just another facet of the rhetoric around “being PC.” Which, as anybody who’s read Zuky’s essay knows, is just a sloppy way of complaining about having to change your ways to suit people who are less powerful than you.
“Simply put, the great “PC” cliché, as commonly deployed in mainstream discourse, is cultural propaganda designed to befuddle and misdirect while defending the current power structure. All politics deal with power relations, and in the debate over America’s alleged climate of “political correctness”, there’s a stark asymmetry of power between the defiant megaphone-wielders who complain of being constrained by humorless hypersensitivity from below, and the under-represented people of color, women, LGBT, disabled, poor, and otherwise marginalized or dispossessed people who have no choice but to absorb the linguistic, cultural, and physical barbs of the ruling class. The former feel psycho-emotionally oppressed by their inability to crack puerile ethnic jokes without criticism; the latter simply are oppressed.”
“People of color”: Catchall term for all people who are neither Caucasian nor Latino or Latina Caucasian.
Which gets you into defining what Caucasian is. Is it the “one drop” rule? Or is there a particular limit of non-Caucasian ancestry percentage? Or is it simply a matter of perception – if you “look white” you’re not a Person of Color regardless of your actual ancestry. And then whose perception of whether or not you “look white” rules?
“Latino/a Caucasian” is not a construction I’ve seen previously. What’s that as opposed to simply “Latino/a”?
Which in turn reminds me; talk about archaic usages, the sex distinction in racial names was as far as I can see long ago abandoned (e.g., negro and negress). So why is it in common use on the left for Central and South American ethnicities? Even though it’s kind of absurd to call it Latin anyway.
Radfem, there’s a long way from the (after all, limited) example you cite to in general characterizing “Negro” as a racial slur. Do you really think that there’s a general perception among either whites or blacks that this is the case?
““People of color”: Catchall term for all people who are neither Caucasian nor Latino or Latina Caucasian.”
Or in other words, a fancy way of saying “anything other than white”.
It really stops making sense when you try to process it and end up with anomalies like “white” people who have darker skin than some people considered “of color”, or people “of color” who are as pale or paler than a “white” person.
So tell me, Ron, do you also refuse to use the term “Caucasian”? After all, by your standards, that can’t be specifically defined either.
I don’t view it as much of a racial slur but in the case I stated, I think both terms, the slur and the not-slur were used to define two different views of African-Americans as viewed by a racist view point (including from an institutional perspective). I think the intended meaning by this individual of both words is probably offensive and not just one of them because racism particularly institutional racism is much bigger than one word or both of them. I was trying to get at how the words even the so-called more benign ones can be defined in ways that are offensive.
As far as whether African-Americans think one or the other is offensive, it’s not my role to say. But when working for a newspaper that’s used both words, the known slur is more of an issue of whether or not to include it. There was some discussion about putting it in the headline when I wrote the article describing the incident I wrote about above. And what was offensive as despite getting inhouse tips about repeated racist behavior by this women and the tacit approval of the security firm which employed her (which was contracted with both my city and county governmental and court buildings for security purposes) and then finding out that after a brief reassignment, some “sensitivity training” , she was promoted over an African-American with more seniority. That and the fact that two county deputies might have encouraged her to behave that way and then laughed when she did it.
A “n—-r” might be a “bad” African-American as a racist or institutional racism defines it. A “Negro” would be also in that light, because the way that a racist or racist institution would view a “good” African-American might in itself be racist as well.
AMM – here’s a good ironic use of the anachronistic term “Negro” – Mark Stewart, aka Stew and his old band. Stew is a member of the ethnic group described in the band’s name. Amy introduced me to his music, which takes snark to the highest level possible.
If I were a Russian, I would not want to be called “Caucasian” – the Russians do not like Chechens, Georgians, or Dagestanis, who are Caucasian people.
Anyway, what Reid said a while ago isn’t as timely as what Pat Robertson and Rush Limbaugh have spewed recently about Haiti. There’s two people who should keep their fool mouths shut…
Not often. I actually manage to live most of my life without referring to other people’s race at all. In fact, I actively seek to avoid it. It seems to me that a lot of people throw in someone’s race when they are talking about them for no reason I can discern, and to me it smacks of racism.
If I am forced by circumstance to refer to someone’s race I’ll use terms like “white” (rarely “Caucasian”), “black”, “Asian”, etc. working solely off of someone’s appearance without worrying about the details of their ancestry. And of course most black people aren’t black, they’re brown. In fact, most of the actual blackest people I’ve ever met are from the southern end of the Indian sub-continent, not Africa.
But that’s just me. I’m not the one using the term “people of color” and I’m trying to get to the bottom of what people mean by it. If they mean “people who don’t look white” then fine. But so far that’s not what I’m being told.
“Sensitivity training”? Yeah, I’ll buy the irony quotes around that. Few people actually learn something from what they’ll view as a punishment. They’ll just sit through it, parrot back what they know they’re expected to say, and then go their merry way filled with resentment. You can lead a horse to water ….
RonF@35:
I don’t think President Theodore Roosevelt’s 1915 complaint about “hyphenated Americanism” is relevant today (and I have my doubts about the validity of his complaint even back then).
I use the term “Italian-American” to describe myself whenever my ethnicity is relevant for whatever reason. It does not imply any loyalty whatsoever to Italy, or any particular loyalty to Italian-Americans as a group. At most it may imply a sense of connection or pride in my particular background, but that is not at all equivalent to a “divided loyalty.” In my entire life, I have never heard anyone use a similar hyphenated descriptor in any other way.
That said, I am also troubled by the notion that one’s consciousness of being a member of a particular demographic within American society means that one has “divided loyalty.” American history has often been the story of marginalization of or discrimination against certain categories of its own population, including Italian-Americans, African-Americans, women, and on and on. Seeing yourself as a member of a particular group of Americans is hardly “disloyal,” especially when American culture and political institutions have often been responsible for categorizing and segregating people based precisely on their membership in such groups. It is tough not to see yourself as defined by your ethnicity when, as in 1915, you are likely to be greeted during your job search by signs proclaiming that Irish and Italians need not apply (to give just one example).