We are supposed to call them "people of color." Why not "colored people?"

Since when are Green people caucasian?

 

Because what we do externally is determined socially. It's the same reason that you cannot identify as anything you wish and hold other people to it.

 

It is considered offensive-- see Merriam Webster's dictionary, online (I have already posted the entry, in the thread on "Hate Speech," where this argument began).

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/hate-speech.611307/page-15#post-1074285471

Saying "Far East Asian" is just as clarifying as saying "Oriental," and has the same number of syllables. The only thing it lacks, is the potential to offend.

Depending on who you are intending to refer to, in any particular instance, you can even be more specific than "Oriental," using the "Asian" term; for example, if you were specifically talking about countries in the "golden triangle" region, you could say, "Southeast Asians." This would exclude the Japanese & Koreans, whose countries are considered part of the "Orient." And you would still be using only 4 syllables. So it is hard to see any legitimate defense of Oriental, based on it being a more accurate or pragmatic term.

 

And what is the reason that you call yourself a "Democrat," when it is clear that you are not one. Your views have not been mirrored in the Democratic Party for more than 50 years.

May I suggest a new screen name for you, that would be both shorter and more accurate? Just call yourself, "Stuck In the Past."

 

Who am I to tell you how YOU should react to a word like caucasian which is not considered offensive, but I can tell you how some people react when you call them the "n"word.

 

I am a white, male, heterosexual Christian who is not rich, and who knows that he does not benefit from Republican economic policies. When the Democratic Party advanced the economic and social interests of people like me, which is to say from 1933 to 1963, the Democrat Party dominated the United States.

I believe that the civil rights legislation and the War on Poverty were well intended mistakes that ended the Democrat coalition, and led to the domination of the United States by the Republican Party.

I continue to vote Democrat because the Republican Party only cares about rich people. Nevertheless, the Democrat Party I really like died with President Kennedy.

I am indeed stuck in the past. Before 1964 rates of crime, divorce, and illegitimacy were lower in the United States. Larger percentages of the U.S. population were affiliated with churches or synagogues.

 

Who am I to tell you how you should react to a non-offensive word like Caucasian, but I can tell you how many people do react to being called the the "n" word, like whites used to refer to their slaves.

 

How?

And is that word objectively offensive or is there some leeway in choosing to take offense?

 

Many of these words are called offensive not because a majority of people who are labeled by the word take offense to it, but because somebody has decided to do so on their behalf.

 

If you don't think think its offensive, then use it. What do I care when its you who has to deal with the reaction.

 

This has got me googling and found that "Oriental " is common part of Asian owned business names. Works for them. It's not an insult and not hateful to them. And I will take their cue.

 

Yeah, you don't care. You did not even answer my questions.

I don't see any one word as offensive. But it's nice to have such control over people as they just hand it over. - it's like hitting the enter key on a computer.

"negro!" and i just made you run your program.

 

Its a waste of time to talk to someone who understand why "ni***r" is offensive to African Americas. Good luck out there & have a nice day. I can't help you.

 

Usually best to not even bother with the racial descriptor unless absolutely necessary. Go with Morgan Freeman's advice

"I'm going to stop calling you a white man, and I'm going to ask that you stop calling me a black man"

 

Bingo. Treat pepole as individuals and don't make judgments based on race or insist people identify by race. This used to be the liberal position, but nowadays we seem to have more and more on the left trying to push us backwards into racial discrimination as not only acceptable, but as ANTI racist (which is orwellian).

 

DING! DING! DING! Spot on!

For those who haven't seen the video...well worth watching it

 

Because one is regarded as a slur, and the other isn't.

You can ask Jewish and Japanese people.

 

So, you're going to ignore the dictionary, in lieu of having noted that some businesses use the word "Oriental" in their names? Clearly that is not a serious argument-- only a poor excuse, from someone who'd already had his mind set on using the word.

But, for the viewing of other readers, I will totally destroy your argument. Firstly, of course, it has never been said that the word "Oriental," itself, is innately a slur; it is only when it is used to refer to Asian people. IOW, there is nothing offensive about using the word Oriental to describe foods, or furniture, or anything other than people. Do the businesses to which you'd alluded, sell, rent, or otherwise charge, specifically for the time of Asian people? For instance, did you see a law practice, called "Oriental Attorneys?"

I am going to assume, unless you actually correct me with the examples you'd omitted from your "argument," that the closest thing you would have seen to "Oriental" being applied to people, would be an " Oriental" massage parlor, or nail salon. Obviously, such businesses are meant to cater mostly to white Americans, who would not appreciate the word's offensiveness; they actually want to emphasize the stereotype. The only other type of business that comes to my mind is possibly an "Oriental" dating service, though more likely it would have been either an "Escort" service, or a place for the ordering, or contacting of potential "Oriental" wives. Either way, the same caveat applies, as to massage parlors. So if you want to emulate an Asian who is happy to exploit Asian stereotypes, that is of course your prerogative, but it in no way equates to your accepting the general Asian thinking, regarding the use of the word, in question.

Lastly, just because a site does deal with, let's say, women from the Far East, does not mean that it is an "Oriental" company. I doubt that anyone believes that, after seeing a business with the word Oriental, in its title, you actually researched the registered owners of the business.

 

All is context. There should not be a taboo on acknowledging race when it is pertinent. When it isn't pertinent, there is no need to mention it.

 

meh. Martin Luther King also said that we should judge man by the content of his heart and not the color of his skin but now black people judge white people on the color of their skin and want laws made based on the color of their skin.

Why does the word "literally" literally mean "literal" and "not literal"? https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/misuse-of-literally
The world is full of foolishness.

 

Yes. Agreed.

Further, we shouldn't be prejudging anybody based on their race or discriminating for or against anyone based on their race, unless their race is actually determinative of something such as melanin and vitamin D, etc. Even then, it's about the melanin and not anything else to do with the person, and will vary within a race.

Strong correlation can certainly be mentioned, such as more poor people being black rather than white, but it should not become a basis for policy, such as excluding poor white people from financial aid and providing it to poor black people.

Some policies will effect people of some races more than others too, and that can be mentioned and can be a good red flag for possible racist motivations behind the policy and lack of legitimate reason to have it. But a red flag is not itself causation. Look at the policy and determine if it has any legitimate reason to be enacted, and don't let race baiting distract you from doing so.

Speaking of people as monoliths is a root form of racism and should be avoided whenever possible. And it should be kept in mind that more people who are X suffering Y is NOT the same thing as people who are X suffering more from Y than people who are not X suffering from it. That's a very common fallacy of thinking. Being black doesn't mean you are poor, nor does it mean that black people suffer more from poverty, etc.

 

Racial discrimination is a reality, and has a history of injustice with consequences that persist.

Pretending otherwise, refusing to redress the inequality that has resulted, and attempting to eradicate that legacy from our history books is dishonest.

 

Yes.

Yes.

And you can do so without falling into the same patterns of considering races to be monoliths, race to be important or to fundamentally define a person, etc; Patterns that were and are the base of the racism you set out to fight against. If you fall into that trap then you can end up supporting rather than fighting against racism.

And the end of the day if you want to defeat racism, you need to refuse to engage in it and you need to refuse to prop up it's foundational beliefs.