Thursday, November 13, 2008

More on "colored"

In the previously mentioned discussion on the use of the term "colored person," one person offered the following mindnumbingly stupid response:

"If mere humans can name the president, a fact that changes far more rapidly, then mere humans can follow what terms are preferred by a substantial portion of the US population--terms that haven't changed in years. The "you can't complain because it all changes all the tiiiiime" excuse is ridiculous.... "


This person was owned by the following reply:

" #44 Yesterday, 11:36 PM
JThunder
Charter Member Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 9,624

Quote:
Originally Posted by jsgoddess
If mere humans can name the president, a fact that changes far more rapidly, then mere humans can follow what terms are preferred by a substantial portion of the US population--terms that haven't changed in years.

You can't be serious.

"First of all, the name of the President is an objective fact, easily looked up. The same cannot be said about preferred terminology. Just ask the Trekkers and the Trekkies.

Second, this isn't merely a question about which term is 'preferred.' Even if a term is not 'preferred,' that doesn't automatically make it offensive, outdated, or otherwise inappropriate.

And third, this very thread demonstrates that there is disagreement about the degree of propriety in using the term 'colored.' Heck, as I've pointed out, the majority of the respondents in this thread apparently disagree with you. What does that say about the ease of following whichever terms are preferred?

Again, I've known people to take offense at the term black, preferring the term 'African American.' I've known people who expressed the opposite preference instead. Which one of these groups is more worthy of your criticism?"