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.
Tags
Who is online
89 visitors
Dennis Prager is a despicable human being. He masquerades as a person of faith, yet all his actions say otherwise. His "Prager University", twists the truth, and often he speaks as an "official spokesperson" for the Modern Jewish community, but he has no credit with them. In fact, he is an embarrassment to the modern orthodox community. This is just an example.
Modern Jewish Orthodoxy teaches to have respect for all people. You can see that in our NT rabbi Enoch. Respect means that if a community refers to themself in a way, that you respect that. The term "Colored" is an insult. If various colors of "white" are referred to as "white", then why not apply the same to "blacks". The reason he doesn't want to do it, is it appeals to a specific demographics of bigots that listen to his show. Now I am not saying that everyone who listens to his show are bigots, but the ones he does have he wants to keep and so he gives them this confirmation bias.
And btw, "Native Americans" is not the preferred name. That is a government designation. Indian or the first people, or indigenous people is preferred, we just don't mind Native American.
Thanks for posting this.
Thank you for your excellent comment.
So how are you supposed to distinguish people from India from Native Americans?
To me Native American is anyone whose ancestors came to North and then South America over the Bering Strait when sea levels were lower.
Hey Greg,
Indian is what Columbus called us and so we thought that is what the word was from Europeans. And I said we prefer indigenous of first people.
May I shorten that to IFP?
This upsets the type of people who think niggardly is a racial slur.
Did you actually read it in context? Or did the mere mention of the word send you into hysterics?
Not sure what you mean. I read an article about Prager's comments and I listened to the video of Pragers comments. What context would you like to include?
Prager says there is "nothing" wrong with using the term colored. I explained why there is. I wrote the article at the top.
Sean,
I know you are trying to be coy, but no niggardly doesn't send me into hysterics. Yet let's remember that most people don't know what the word means, and so it does sound nasty. Why would you use that word instead of cheap (or as the English would say "mean"). If I called you mean, you would say that you would think I was talking about your demeanor. Common usage matters.
And no, niggardly was not the word in question. It was colored or negro, both of which are offensive. To defend these terms says a lot about the person using them.
well done
I like miserly myself.
Where was the word "niggardly" in the seed?
It wasn't Trout. Sean's comment was being coy and dismissive.
Same place Ebenezer Scrooge was written about, /s
good word, I like it
Ah. I see
Guess we have to cancel Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
Negro, colored, black, or African American all mean the same thing. Prager's point is that serially changing the preferred word is a meaningless exercise that doesn't change anything.
Pretending there's some difference between the terms, other than what's in vogue today, is silly.
Well, I'm certainly not going to call some of my co-workers "The Colored Ladies"
Not only would I get counseled (and maybe even fired) but those nice young women will take me out in the parking lot and kick my ass.
Oh come on Sean. Dr. King said that in 1966 at the start of the civil rights movement. Finally, blacks were getting a chance to try and figure out who they were in context to America. You can't use a reference from then because it doesn't apply to now.
Negro and colored were pre-civil rights. It is perfectly acceptable to call someone black or African American. This should not be a big deal, yet Prager has decided for THEM what they should be called. Now that is what is beyond silly. It is demeaning to a people who have a long history of being demeaned.
Why arent white people colored? They have a color.
LMAO!!!!
“White” is a color.
My grade school art teacher told me so.
King used the terms Negro and "colored" because they were in general usage during his lifetime. I'm sure he felt that the terms used to describe his skin were less important to him at that time than desegregating schools and hotels and neighborhoods. .
Where did Prager say that?
Would calling whites "colored" change anything? I assume you would then claim that anyone calling whites, "whites" was suddenly offensive.
Of course. Were those terms offensive, or just neutral descriptors? IF someone wanted to use a slur to describe blacks back the , did other words for that?
You are talking in circles.
"White" is claimed as the normative. That is why all the others are "colored". As I said, all the races are colored, they all have melanin.
Putting one out as the norm and the rest as the opposite is pretty much what racism is based on. Also, as Perrie said, and I said in the article as well, "colored" was a term that was used pre civil rights, and as such evokes the era of blatant and open racial discrimination.
Just face it, Prager laid a big turd.
That is what this whole discussion is about, Sean. He is saying that other terms HE thinks are OK should be OK with the people who are having it applied to them. So essentially, he is trying to discredit how they feel and by doing so gets to decide for them.
Not really.
It is not abnormal at all or necessarily a bad connotation for a majority to a define minority via such terms. The intention is not necessarily nefarious. Sure for some it is but attempts to equate such a term with truly ugly words like the N word is overly PC to me.
That said, who cares really. It’s no biggie not using such terms so why make a big deal over it? In that regard I agree that Praeger is being a jackass.
If someone was introduced to you as Richard and you decided, without their approval, to just start calling them Dick, would that be acceptable? If Richard let you know he does not like that nick name and asks you not to use it, if you continue to do so, are you not intentionally provoking and insulting him? You can say "Well, Dick and Richard mean the same thing" but the reality is if you wish to show respect to fellow human beings, you refer to them by the name they wish you to.
The same goes for collective groups of ethnic and racial groups. This even extends to the pronouns we wish to be referred to as. I have a transgender client named Katherine but she goes by Kate, so I refer to her as a her and call her Kate, and if she were black and I would use whatever term she preferred out of respect for her as a human being. It's not that complicated. Only self-centered half-witted xenophobes have trouble wrapping their tiny minds around this simple concept and think it's all about them getting to label, insult and disrespect anyone they want to under the facade of 'free speech'.
Yes, people are free to insult and disrespect others, that is their right, that is free speech, but is it productive? Is it helpful? Does it make them feel better about themselves? Is it the only pleasure some can elicit from their own miserable existence?
I've heard many conservatives whine about having to be 'politically correct'. But what does it actually mean to be 'PC'?
Political Correctness: noun - the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against
Is it really so hard for some to attempt to be respectful? To choose not to incite conflict by using insulting language?
I can only conclude that for some, like Prager, respect and kindness must be physically painful. They go so far out of their way to do the opposite.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I wonder when the last time Prager spoke to an indigenous person. Probably never but he is an expert.
Exactly Kavika. But he knows it all!
Reminds me of a lieutenant I worked for in Texas. He was originally from Michigan so I don't know where he got his bigotry...
Anyway he was telling story about his black neighbors who kept a pig in an abandoned car (personally I think that's brilliant, it keeps the pig from going anywhere) but he used the term "colored"...in front of a black tech sergeant and a black staff sergeant! Then he saw the look on their faces and sputtered "black...African-American...whatever you're calling yourselves these days"
He also did that when talking about the Rodney King riots. He was a dickless tool
Sure sounds that way.
And at the moment I'm not flesh colored....I'm a nice sienna color
I'm a brilliant bronze myself.
I'm ruddy white. My kids are brilliant bronze
Someone did say I was a pale peachy colour once.
Shoot. I've been inside so long, I glow in the dark.
huminahuminahuminahumina...
Just as an aside in the artistic sense neither black nor white are colours, they are actually shades.
I thought white was the absence of colour while black was all colour.
I remember it the opposite. Black is the absence of color that's why it doesn't reflect sun or heat very well. White is the presence of all colors and feels cool on a hot summer day.
I could very well be wrong
Maybe so, I was just going by what my artist uncle told me years ago
True, in the art world!
Well, some people are pieces of work...
True, in the artistic sense.
What we call African Americans keeps changing with the generations, like some kind of fashion choice. It's not based in any rational analysis. It just seems be a continuing impulse for people to make their own cultural choice about what they want to be called. That's fine, but acting like the new term (or terms) is objectively acceptable while the old term was objectively offensive is ridiculous.
Negro, colored, black have all been pretty neutral terms for describing people of African ancestry. But at some point, social leaders "decided" that they wanted to be called something else and that announcement usually comes with the unsupported declaration that the old term is somehow demeaning.
So "negro" is the n-word we're talking about? I hope not because all negro means is black. You might construe or interpret it as offensive in these times, but all it ever meant was black. There is another n-word- which we all know - that was always a term of derision and humiliation, but it wasn't negro. If you want to say that any term was objectively offensive, that is the one.
The idea today - and for the last several years - has been that "African American" works the same as Italian American or Russian American. It doesn't quite, though, and the reasons should be obvious. Italy and Russia are countries. Countries with specific languages and cultures, and immigrants from those places had citizenship and ancestry in those countries.
By contrast, Africa is a continent composed of many countries, languages, and of course races. Lumping everyone together as African is a stereotype that ignores many different people. The same is done with Asian American, too. Not all Africans are the same, and not all Asians are the same.
The goal of the terms is - or should be - different. "Italian American" is not a term designed to describe what someone looks like. Negro, colored, black, brown, white, asian, and so on are terms of physical description, not cultural. We look like whatever it is we look like. There's no point being offended by it. If no other reason than police work, we need useful descriptors.
Ironically, the preferred political term today seems to be "person of color," which of course is no different than saying "colored." Some people don't like this term now because it brings in everyone who isn't obviously of northwest European ancestry.
There is no self esteem to be found in the term. No pride. It's hard to be defiantly proud or inspired by being in the majority. Because basically, most of the planet is a person of color.
Utter nonsense. Yes, it is true that saying "a colored person" robbed me would be a basic either or description to the police, but that is not the objection to the term
The worst implications of racism stem from its usage to categorize people as "the other". That is what separating the world into "white" and "colored" does. White is the norm for the society, and colored is, well, not white (normal).
"People of color" is an organizational term, which indicates a solidarity in opposition to "white". I doubt very much that would be a preferred way for non whites to describe themselves, but it is sometimes used out of necessity.
I dream of a day when people can express with themselves or disagree without being so rude. You use this offensive descriptor but then you don’t actually describe something I said that was actually nonsensical.
That is a problem with people, not with the terminology. You can come up with a new term every year to describe people, but it won’t undo the most dedicated racism. And just because you use a new term, that does not mean the old term was any more or less racist than your new one.
Is it really necessary to for people of color to be in opposition to white people all the time and in all situations? I don’t think so. There isn’t a need for so much politics to be wrapped up in what have been simple descriptive terms. Black and white and brown seemed pretty appropriate and egalitarian to me. I don’t know why we had to go changing it.
Why dont you explain for me why you think whites are not "colored" but blacks and American Indians and hispanics are.
You probably lost everyone with that diversion.
Slavery pretty much erased the roots of many African Americans for 2 centuries.
They aren't, but that's a wonderful example of projection.
Let's try it this way:
Is it really necessary for white people to be in opposition to black people all the time and in all situations?
Who says they are?
I didn’t say that, but thanks for putting words in my mouth. Why do that?
Then what is your point? If all racial groups are "colored", why would we call only some of them colored? This is not a trivial distinction, it is the heart of the matter. Many people have never considered whites as being "colored", they would find the idea absurd, but the same people have no problem referring to minority groups as colored.
This is not a biological thing, it's a sociological thing.
We don’t have to. I don’t care how we describe people so long as it’s a useful description people understand. My objection is to changing it every 20 years or so because some random activist decided that what we have been doing is suddenly offensive when no one ever thought it was before.
If you want to say that “colored” is too vague, that’s fine with me. I agree. But I don’t think white people were the ones who decided that we would refer to people as “people of color.” They did that themselves. Creating that distinctive terminology for themselves was part of the point.
I think it would be more useful to just stick with colors and shades, i.e. black, brown, tan, white, pink, whatever.
Prager is just a piece of crap that likes to stir the pot.
I think there could be a new take on the Foxworthy skit...You might be a racist if...
I think the more pressing question is...is it ok that I like the song Cherokee People.
I use to have it on a 45.
Mark Lindsay - Wikipedia
Lindsay was born in Eugene, Oregon, and was the second of eight children of George and Esther Ellis Lindsay. The family moved to Idaho when he was young, where he attended Wilder High School for a short time. By his own account, Lindsay is one-eighth Cherokee.
Lindsay began performing at age 15 with local bands that played local venues. He was tapped to sing in a band called Freddy Chapman and the Idaho Playboys after he won a local talent contest. After Chapma…
I don't know why but for some reason I always thought he was British.
It's fine, Ender.
Cherokee People by Paul Revere and the Raiders was, IMO, a pop group trying to tell a story of the Cherokee. They did a fairly good job of it. The original was sung in 1959 by Marvin Rainwater and was entitled ''Cherokee Reservation''..
During that time period, a popular group named ''Redbone'' who were actual Indians recorded a number of hits. One song, in particular, was, IMO, a classic and it tells the story of a true factual event in US and Indian history.
I guess that I should add the rest of the story that belongs to this song. I'm sure that everyone is aware of ''Wounded Knee'' this song was released in 1973 against the advice of many people but Redbone wanted it to hit the American public since the 2nd Wounded Knee, ''The Siege of Wounded Knee'' was taking place on the same land that the original was. The song was highly charged. Some radio stations refused to play it. In the end, it was released and accepted by many and it did not hurt their careers.
Kinda my theme song.
No, 'colored' is never acceptable when referring to blacks.
It's an ignorant word. What color are they?
"Look mom, I colored him"
Why do you get to say that when people are referring to themselves as “people of color?” Plus we have white politicians all over the place talking about how they want to help people of color. What’s the difference?
Why are blacks, asians, Indians, and hispanics people of color, and whites arent?
How is that different from “people of color” which is accepted these days?
I never use the term "white" as I am not white. I would be if I were an albino though. I just use Caucasian.
“No, 'colored' is never acceptable when referring to blacks.”
what about the naacp? National Association for the Advancement of Colored People?
and how is that any different than “people of color” as another comment mentioned?
Good point. They make the rules.
The NAACP was founded in 1909 and the term colored people was one of the few dignified descriptions for them. They are a history-making organization and have over the last 100 years done one hell of a lot of good. If I were to guess I would think that the name has stayed the same, although outdated, to one, honor the organization and many of its founding members. Second, the name is known throughout the world, and changing it would, IMO, take something away from the organization.
I would imagine that there has been many conversations among the members as to the name. Should they change it or leave it the same.
JMO
Well, it's an honorable, time tested traditional name.
Saw some crap on Quora that it was founded by white people to fight all racial injustice.
I'm sure Mr Dubois and Ms Wells would disagree.
While the focus has been on black Americans, the mission statement says they fight all discrimination based on race.
On numerous occasions, the NAACP has aided American Indians. Dr. King was a strong supporter of American Indians and the 1963 march on Washington there was a sizeable contingent of AI's there.
The Native Ameican Rights Fund (NARF) was patterned after the NAACP.