Is It Okay To Describe Non-Whites As 'Colored'?
The "conservative" ideologue pundit Dennis Prager got in some trouble, so to speak, last week, when he made some statements on his radio show about race.
"How many names have Blacks gone through in my lifetime?...What was wrong with Negro? What was wrong with colored? None of them, there's no problem with any of them"
You might wonder how such a topic comes up so often on a radio show in 2020 (in another recent show Prager bemoaned to a caller that "it is idiotic that you cannot say the "n" word" because the left has made it socially impossible), but we have to realize that this is life for people like Dennis Prager. His entire shtick as a successful media personality is to carry the banner for white christians and their endless array of grievances. To Prager , not being able to say the n word without being criticized socially is an infringement on his god given rights to fetishize old dead white men ( the founders). To people like Prager, everything good there is to know or learn about the world was complete before the 19th century. For some odd reason that corresponds to the periods in history when white Europe ruled the world.
"What was wrong with Negro?"
Essentially , "negro" is a pre civil rights era term, although the term did continue on with diminishing usage well into the 1960's , truthfully for most of the 60's. But it phased out for most people with the aftermath of the passage of civil rights legislation. It is an anachronistic term in modern America. It has an association with eras of blatant racial discrimination, so why would anyone want to use the term? Maybe Prager would like to use it to annoy "leftists".
What was wrong with "colored"?
Colored and Negro were both used prior to 1970 or so, so I dont think one evolved into the other, as Prager seems to suggest. But there is something wrong with the term "colored".
It implies that there is something "different" about blacks or other non-white people. This is ignorance, based on the idea that whites are the "norm" that need no color designation and the other races are somewhere away from the norm.
All the "races" have melanin in their skin, the pigment that causes skin color. That includes the white "race". Yes, white people are "colored" too. Their color is what was known in the crayon box as "flesh" , a light pinkish/tan shade. Not white. Not "neutral". Saying non whites are "colored" but whites are not is a form of "othering" those other groups and placing them outside the norm.
Prager also mentioned how sad it is to have to use the term "native American", and said, presumably jokingly, that he would give America's indigenous people a new name. I have learned on Newstalkers that "American Indian" is also a preferred term for North American natives , so maybe Prager will be happy he has two choices.
Prager is the typical pseudo-intellectual right wing ideologue. He is out of touch with post 1800 America.