What?

[mahagonny]

1965 "colored person"

in between, a bunch of stuff

2015 "person of color"

nearly identical terms

It's not the literal meaning of the term that makes the term wrong or right according to the ones who know what is best for us. It's who's been using it. When the conservatives started saying such things as 'black person' or 'African American person' the terms needed banning.

[mamselle]

Idiot.

M.

[Anselm]

What's missing here is clearly defined property rights.

Pass a law granting ownership of certain words -- trademarks -- to specific groups -- tribes or the collective of Native Americans. They could then rent out their use if they wish.

Anybody who thought the words were offensive could buy the right to them and not use it.

We could do the same with things, such as headdress.

This is what the Hells Angels motorcycle club have done.

[jimbogumbo]

Some schools try harder than others. Miami of Ohio has worked closely with the Miami, which only have one recognized tribal council. Miami in Florida has also tried, but its situation is more complicated. BoTh universities have official MoAs, but below is the issue (in a nutshell copied and pasted from the authoritative source, Wikipedia.

"In the 1980s and 1990s, when mascots based on Native Americans became more controversial and many Native Americans and supporters protested their use, Florida State consulted with the Seminole Tribe of Florida, emphasizing that Osceola was never intended to be demeaning. Several representatives of the Seminole Tribe, including Chairman James E. Billie and Council Member Max Osceola, have given FSU their blessing to use Osceola and Seminole imagery.[2]: 143–145 [6] However, the matter remains controversial for other Florida Seminoles, as well as members of the Seminole Tribe of Oklahoma.[4][6][2]: 145–147  Critics have noted a political undercurrent in the support from Florida Seminole leaders, who are heavily involved in business ventures such as Indian casinos in the state.[4] In 2005, the NCAA added FSU to a list of schools facing potential sanctions for using "hostile and abusive" Indian mascots and names; after much deliberation, the NCAA gave FSU an exemption, citing the university's relationship with the Seminole Tribe of Florida as a major factor.[6][7]"

[dismalist]

Some schools try harder than others. Miami of Ohio has worked closely with the Miami, which only have one recognized tribal council. Miami in Florida has also tried, but its situation is more complicated. BoTh universities have official MoAs, but below is the issue (in a nutshell copied and pasted from the authoritative source, Wikipedia.

"In the 1980s and 1990s, when mascots based on Native Americans became more controversial and many Native Americans and supporters protested their use, Florida State consulted with the Seminole Tribe of Florida, emphasizing that Osceola was never intended to be demeaning. Several representatives of the Seminole Tribe, including Chairman James E. Billie and Council Member Max Osceola, have given FSU their blessing to use Osceola and Seminole imagery.[2]: 143–145 [6] However, the matter remains controversial for other Florida Seminoles, as well as members of the Seminole Tribe of Oklahoma.[4][6][2]: 145–147  Critics have noted a political undercurrent in the support from Florida Seminole leaders, who are heavily involved in business ventures such as Indian casinos in the state.[4] In 2005, the NCAA added FSU to a list of schools facing potential sanctions for using "hostile and abusive" Indian mascots and names; after much deliberation, the NCAA gave FSU an exemption, citing the university's relationship with the Seminole Tribe of Florida as a major factor.[6][7]"

Yeah, there's no ownership there, just some people trying to make nice. That's hard to work out in large group situations. It's not like a couple of friends dividing up things.

If there were ownership -- and it would take a law to do it, whereas Hells Angels worked on existing trademark law -- the Native Americans could decide if they wanted to sell, and all others if they wished to buy, including those who think the names and symbols are being used offensively. Then, things like the NCAA needn't even get involved.

My guess is that price would not be all that high, at least in general.

[kaysixteen]

He may be an idiot, possibly-- certainly his activities here are oftentimes challenging.   That said, he is not wrong that there really is no substantive linguistic difference between 'colored person' and 'person of color'.

[ciao_yall]

He may be an idiot, possibly-- certainly his activities here are oftentimes challenging.   That said, he is not wrong that there really is no substantive linguistic difference between 'colored person' and 'person of color'.

The difference is that you want to lead with the person, not their category. For example, a person with disabilities is person first. A disabled person is defined by the feature that makes them "other."

[dismalist]

Kill hypotheses, not people.

[mahagonny]

If it's not too much to ask, professor:

He They may be an idiot, possibly-- certainly his their activities here are oftentimes challenging.   That said, he is they are not wrong that there really is no substantive linguistic difference between 'colored person' and 'person of color'.

Nobody hangs that male privilege rap on me.

[Puget]

He may be an idiot, possibly-- certainly his activities here are oftentimes challenging.   That said, he is not wrong that there really is no substantive linguistic difference between 'colored person' and 'person of color'.

Call people what they want to be called (which changes over time)-- is that really so hard to understand?

What we should call people is not about "substantive linguistic difference", it's about connotation. Terms for out-groups invariably go through a cycle where what starts as a neutral term comes to be used as an epithet, and thus has to be replaced with a new term. It doesn't matter that the old term used to be fine-- once it is cooped as a slur you can't argue it is OK for the majority to use, because the meaning has changed. That's just the way language works. Of course, sometimes a term is re-claimed for use within a group, as a way of partially defanging it, which still doesn't make it OK for the majority to use.

Let's use another example that might help make this clearer (or not, I don't know). To Yiddish speakers, "yid" just means Jew-- a perfectly fine, everyday word, which made it's way into immigrant English as such. But then it got taken by anti-semites as a slur. Clearly, if a non-Jew uses it today, their connotation and intent are clear, and anything but benign. If they were to say it has "no substantive linguistic difference to "Jew, so what's the problem" everyone would hopefully easily recognize that as a bad faith argument. And, at the same time, like the n-word in the Black community, it has been reclaimed by many Jews for use within the community. So, as a non-Black Jew, I can use it, but I certainly can't use the n-word. There is no contradiction between these things, because, again, that's how language works-- connotation matters, and changes with time,  and depends on who you are.

[mahagonny]

Call people what they want to be called (which changes over time)-- is that really so hard to understand?

Of course I do that if the occasion arises, but I can't remember the last time I discussed race with anyone. I can't think of any reason to.

Find a place on the forum where I used the term 'colored person.' 3415 posts. Put the coffee on. You'll be up late.

[dismalist]

Looks like nowadays nobody really cares what word is used, except that Black has majorly survived. Negro, never meant in condescension, has not.

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=colored+people%2C+negro%2C+black%2Cafrican+american%2C+people+of+color&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2Ccolored%20people%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cnegro%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cblack%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cafrican%20american%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cpeople%20of%20color%3B%2Cc0

I infer that a small segment of the population is propagating its preferred usage, and that no one else cares.

[mahagonny]

White college educated women are the critical mass behind the woke mania. Black people care less than they do which term white people use.

ETA: ...I suspect (though I'm not proving it.)  As Dr. Shelby Steele used to explain, the  white privilege confession was never about helping black people get anywhere. It is an attempt by certain white people to feel that they are innocent about America's past.

[Parasaurolophus]

At this point there's not much substantive linguistic difference between "Republican" and "racist", either, but they sure hate one of those perfectly accurate descriptions.

Language and language use aren't neutral.

[marshwiggle]

He may be an idiot, possibly-- certainly his activities here are oftentimes challenging.   That said, he is not wrong that there really is no substantive linguistic difference between 'colored person' and 'person of color'.

The difference is that you want to lead with the person, not their category. For example, a person with disabilities is person first. A disabled person is defined by the feature that makes them "other."

So why are there still "white people", rather than "people who are white"?