Is the term "racism" being stretched too far, applied to too many things?

[Janx]

If your biggest problem is that you object to using "people of colour" rather than "coloured people", I envy you.

no, I object to people getting called out on it and made to look bad over something that shouldn't matter.

It's making enemies out of potential allies. Who cares if I use the word "colored people" if I'm reducing the headcount of KKK members on a nightly basis*?

It's not the change of words. It's the insistence of offense where none is intended for the goal to further a cause.

Ultimately, all I've learned from this thread is that it is downright dangerous to talk about race. Ever. Good luck fixing a problem when people are afraid to talk about it.


* (no, I am not personally Dexterizing nazis by night)

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

It's making enemies out of potential allies. Who cares if I use the word "colored people" if I'm reducing the headcount of KKK members on a nightly basis*?

People care because that phrase has baggage, and using it obfuscates your motives in Dexterizing (excellent term, BTW) racists. One cannot be 100% sure if you are an ally or pruning the hate-garden of the ideologically impure.

Just substitute one of the more obvious racial epithets in your sentence there and see how it sounds...

 

[Janx]

Sometimes nuance can get in the way. There's a clip out there of a sports commentator talking about a player on the field during the World Cup. He referred to him as African-American... which might be OK if it he wasn't a French player. He would have been better off saying he was black rather than African-American - but the point arises, and I wonder, why he felt the need to bring up his race at all. And that's where the effect of racism gets you and can't be escaped. He's not just a soccer player. Or a French soccer player. He's a black soccer player.

Who knows. I'd consider that a commentator's job is to fill the channel with chatter. So he has to keep babbling, describing the game play and the players.

At some point his wires got crossed on what word to use "African American" vs. "black" and that likely jumped over a circuit on why race even mattered. I doubt he even realized it happened until some furor arose over it.

I separate saying something stupid from actually trying to hurt somebody. If we focused on the actual harm being done, and less on making the stupid things people say be part of the problem, the people saying stupid things would have an easier time adjusting.

 

[Janx]

People care because that phrase has baggage, and using it obfuscates your motives in Dexterizing (excellent term, BTW) racists. One cannot be 100% sure if you are an ally or pruning the hate-garden of the ideologically impure.

Just substitute one of the more obvious racial epithets in your sentence there and see how it sounds...

Fair enough. And to be clear, I don't think I've ever used the phrase "colored people" outside of this conversation (aka in the real world). I've had a feeling it wasn't kosher for plenty of time. Honestly, people of color seems just as bad.

So don't confuse my arguing a point with defending a specific thing.

I don't think there's any word or phrasing that is safe to use to describe the descendants of native Africans in America. Somebody's going to get tetchy over it no matter what.

 

[Umbran]

People care because that phrase has baggage, and using it obfuscates your motives in Dexterizing (excellent term, BTW) racists. One cannot be 100% sure if you are an ally or pruning the hate-garden of the ideologically impure.

This is true, but....

In the context of discussions between people, "You failed to use the right word," should not become the basis of an attack. It should be the basis of a *question*, the start of a discussion, rather than a tirade.

 

[Ryujin]

As I understand it 'coloured people' has a history of being used in discriminatory, racist contexts, a term used by white people against black people. 'People of colour' is a term that was specifically created by the people it is used to describe, supposedly because it's preferable to the term 'non-white' as 'non-white' suggests that white people are the default people and any variations from that are in some way abnormal. 'People of colour' describes people by what they are rather than what they aren't.

I don't think anyone was outraged by what he said. It was only an issue in the sense that his gaffe was pointed out, he recognised it as such and apologised and then moved on. The only people who were outraged were the people who then jumped in and claimed that it was 'political correctness gone mad', that he was being censored, etc.

I'm white so it's not really my position to tell people of colour how they should be referring to themselves. I'd much rather sit back and listen and correct myself when I make mistakes.

Both are terms that were typically used by genteel Caucasians, to describe non-Caucasians, and were frequently (though not always) meant as derogatory terms. They fall in the same class of expressions as things like "those people."

 

[Janx]

This is true, but....

In the context of discussions between people, "You failed to use the right word," should not become the basis of an attack. It should be the basis of a *question*, the start of a discussion, rather than a tirade.

This is a good way to phrase what I'm talking about.

Barring the extremes, how a message is delivered is less important than the message. This is more true for some people than others. I am engineer type of person. I always try to ignore the presentation of the message and find the facts and meat of the matter. Bickering and arguing over the presentation are considered bad behavior in my culture because it detracts from solving actual problems and creates defensiveness. If there is no intent to cause harm, then a crudely delivered message should be shrugged off and the point of the message attended to.

 

[Janx]

Both are terms that were typically used by genteel Caucasians, to describe non-Caucasians, and were frequently (though not always) meant as derogatory terms. They fall in the same class of expressions as things like "those people."

yeah, it's basically the same meaning. Somebody fetch an English Major to correct us all, but adjectives go in front of the noun under common usage. moving the Adjective to the back with an "of" connector still parses to the same meaning.

So "people of hairiness" is still functionally the same as "hairy people". Putting the noun in front does not change the accentuation. We're still talking about wookies. If somebody doesn't want to be implied as being a wookie, it's still offensive, one is just wrapping bacon around a turd to try to make it seem dignified.

 

[Tonguez]

This is true, but....

In the context of discussions between people, "You failed to use the right word," should not become the basis of an attack. It should be the basis of a *question*, the start of a discussion, rather than a tirade.

I think in most social context this is the case, its only when media -and these days twitter - gets involved that the big furor arises.

But then I agree witj Morrus' point that this is the nature of social change.
Some of us are old enough to remember the debates about the use of the N word. Where you had some arguing that it was 'just' a spanish word for Black despite its history and derogatory use. Then you have Richard Pryor and subsequent comedians use of the word. I think today every reasonable person under the age of 65 has come to terms with the use of the N word even in light of its 'reclamation" by the likes of NWA.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

This is true, but....

In the context of discussions between people, "You failed to use the right word," should not become the basis of an attack. It should be the basis of a *question*, the start of a discussion, rather than a tirade.

This is true, but...

"Colored" has been a term of offense for 50+ years. At least in this particular case- as well as for other well-known epithets- there shouldn't even be a question of appropriateness of usage, except in the case of foreigners.