574
submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

Rep. Eli Crane used the derogatory phrase in describing his proposed amendment to a military bill. Democratic Rep. Joyce Beatty asked that his words be stricken from the record.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago

TIL "colored people" is offensive. Seems pretty benign to me...?

[-] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago

Context and intent is important. Faking ignorance about knowing if it was offensive is an equally important consideration.

[-] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

Honestly, this has more nuance than you’d immediately think. Dude’s lived through at least a few iterations of euphemisms that turned into pejoratives, and keeping it straight can be difficult. Depending on the time period, negro, colored, African American, and black could all be considered kind or harsh. That said, definitely racist as hell given he continues with…

“The military was never intended to be, you know, inclusive. Its strength is not its diversity. Its strength is its standards”

[-] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

“The military was never intended to be, you know, inclusive. Its strength is not its diversity. Its strength is its standards”

Ah, yeah he's a racist piece of shit. And also, unsurprisingly, 100% wrong. Speaking as a veteran (US), the diversity of our military is a HUGE source of its strength. This dumbass is literally advocating for weakening our military for the sake of being racist.

That's not just stupid, that's dangerous stupid.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Is he saying people should be denied access to the military even if they meet the miliary's standards?

[-] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Forgive my brevity. Yes. Generally, and subconsciously, people prefer to see themselves in those they put in leadership positions. This policy will exclusively make military officers paler as a result, not better. The military has been promoting people of color to higher positions in line with racial enlistment proportions for like 50 years without issue. Reduced potential for bias is always welcome.

[-] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago

Last part you quoted seems reasonable, though.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

To paraphrase, he doesn’t want all of those diverse sorts, just the good ones. It’s a dog whistle at an octave that even octogenarians can hear.

[-] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

How is the last bit racist? Sounds like he's saying it's purely based on measurable standards, that race/ethnicity is not a factor

[-] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

To paraphrase, he doesn’t want all of those diverse sorts, just the good ones. It’s a dog whistle at an octave that even octogenarians can hear.

[-] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

(Not American) yeah, I always thought it sounded dumb, but didn't know it was a slur too.

[-] [email protected] 19 points 1 year ago

It was a term du jour back in the Jim Crow (read: hyper racist) era. That particular phrasing has baggage.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Wow, TIL. As a non-American, there are many such facts I wasn't aware of, let alone many details that now seem obscure or lost (for a variety of reasons, like the attempt to erase certain stuff from history or prevent them from being taught in schools).

[-] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I do hate how history can muddy language like that. Terms like "colored people" should mean literally people who are colored... and nothing else. I've never been one to actually use that term because it's so non-specific; but I never knew it had a derogatory connotation either.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

It's been racist for several decades, and it's not benign at all.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Noted. As other posters have mentioned, it carries a lot of historical connotation... I've either never run into it or never noticed it before (again, seems benign, barring the historical context). Thankfully I've also never used it, cuz it's kind of a shitty descriptor - not specific at all.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

As a non-American I'm perplexed by this. I remember growing up and hearing the accepted euphemism 'coloured person' instead of black person. I'd worry about myself if I ever visited that I'd accidentally cause insult. PC seems to be gone nuts

[-] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Do you call white people non-colored people? No? Then why would you call a black person colored? Lol

[-] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

You never let me answer before your smarmy remark. But beleive it or not back then, yes you could. Are white people actually 'white'? Are black people actually 'black'? It was a means to denote race the same as black and white is these days. My point was I didn't realise this term was an actual insult now but it's good to know. Have off with your lol

this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2023
574 points (92.6% liked)

politics

18881 readers
3545 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS