The NAACP announced Monday the group will not invite President Donald Trump to its national convention next month in Charlotte, North Carolina, the first time the prominent civil rights organization has opted to exclude a sitting president in its 116-year history.
NAACP President Derrick Johnson announced the move at an afternoon press conference, accusing Trump of working against its mission.
“This has nothing to do with political party,” Johnson said in a statement. “Our mission is to advance civil rights, and the current president has made clear that his mission is to eliminate civil rights.”
The surprising thing to me, if this is the first time in history, is that this means they invited him every year of his first term.
Ok, perhaps it’s because I’m not American but it’s ridiculous that they not once wrote what NAACP stands for.
It’s a an old name that contains a deprecated and often insulting term for black folks: National Association for the Advancement of Colored people.
However, it’s not quite a slur. If you’re under the age of 70 and using it, you’re almost certainly using it as a slur. Plenty of old black and white folk in the south still use it as it was the polite term when they were kids.
My mom’s first cousin never said anything but “colored” and she traveled to Nigeria to marry her second husband who was black and spent many years with him.
Some things I heard her say, “oh they just don’t like me because my husband is colored.” “If you see a colored man in a yellow shirt that says reading rainbow on it, tell him to get to the car or I’m leaving him here.” “I’ve never seen a white man more handsome than the ugliest colored man.”
“People of color” is also pretty much the same thing, and it’s almost universally used these days. What’s the difference between person of color and colored person?
I don’t know. Language changes and evolves, and it’s definitely falling out of fashion, I’ve never personally heard “colored” as an insult. If someone wants to be insulting they generally wear their hate on their sleeve.
I have a stamp that says, “Retarded children can be helped.” and it really isn’t that old. When it came out I doubt it shocked anyone, but when I first seen it my jaw hit the floor.
The main reason I’ve heard for why “person of color” is more acceptable than “colored person” is that the former focuses on their personhood first, the latter focuses on the color of their skin first. It’s somewhat similar to how it’s acceptable to say “the black man in the yellow shirt” to describe someone but not “the black in the yellow shirt.” Without the word “man” you’re reducing him to just the color of his skin
On the one hand, these minor language changes can seem extra and unnecessary, like people are just trying to find ways to say they’re better than you because they’re using the right words, but often it comes from people either studying the historical usage of words in relation to power structures or people speaking about how those words actually affect them when they’re used to describe them. In one of my college classes, the professor gave us an article to read describing why we should use the term “enslaved people” rather than “slaves” and she said she expected us to use the former in our essay. I thought it was kinda silly and unnecessary, but the author of the article explained that “enslaved people” calls attention to the fact that they’ve been forced into this. They weren’t born as slaves, as some creature whose only purpose is to serve and be owned, but as people who were then immediately enslaved. It also calls attention to the fact that other people did this to them. It focuses on the action of the people that participated in enslaving others. Since taking that class, I haven’t switched to only using “enslaved people” vs “slaves” but it made me think a lot about how the language reflects how people viewed slavery at that time, and even how some people view it today
Of course the most important thing at the end of the day is respecting those actually involved. If an old person says “colored” because that’s what they learned was polite then they’re doing their best to be polite. They shouldn’t be burned at the stake for using an older term. However if someone told them “hey I’d prefer you use person of color” to describe me instead and the old person refused because they’ve always said “colored person” then the old person is being a disrespectful asshole
Tl;dr usually these shifts in languages are about changing the focus or perspective of the original term. Some people use old terms bc that’s what they learned is respectful which is fine as long as they don’t use that excuse to disrespect people directly asking them to use other terms
Yeah, that tracks. She sounds like a sweetheart . It’s deprecated, but it’s not like a memo went out. It was much more common when I was a kid, I remember my grandfather griping about it and trying to make the change.
We moved North recently and I’m having the same problem with a different term. Lots of Italian in the area. I’ve always pronounced it eye-talian, it’s not a racist thing, I’m just a redneck and that’s what I learned. Some people find it offensive, so I’m trying to change it.
Well, I guess they find it offensive when they can understand me. Feels like I’m speakig a different language from everyone around here a lot of the time. I have an easier time talking to black folks than I do white, dialect is much closer. I regularly get jaw-drop suprise when I’m in public and say something.
Also having a hell of a time with Yes Ma’am/Yes Sir as there is high trans/enby representation in my social scene. I just apologize and move on. Southern charm and politness is a huge help.
I’m mostly self educated and my speech patterns are so stereotypically deep southern that most people assume I’m backwards. I was mostly raised in a Sundown town. All those inbred jokes and such. Black folks pick up that I’m not backwards faster than white because they understand me better. I find language and dialect fascinating, do a lot of involuntary code switching. When bullshitting with a group of white men around here, when I get comfortable, I unconsciously drop into full redneck speech and they really have a hard time understanding me.
As for colored, the below image is a good representation of why the term is problematic, it was used on Jim Crow signs. Calling a black man, “colored boy” is fighting words and roughly equivalent to the N word. I refer to white men as boys all the time but unless it is a mixed race group, I do not refer to black men as boy.
“People of color” is also pretty much the same thing, and it’s almost universally used these days. What’s the difference between person of color and colored person?
Left aiming to be holier than thou. Idea is to put “people” before their defining trait. Which is admirable, but in this specific case achieves nothing.
Feels like to a degree, at some point you just have to accept reality as facts and no fancy language is going to get around that.
Some people are white, some are tan, some are olive, some are black. We have different colored skin. In an area predominantly of white folk, asking for a black or colored man just makes sense.
Frankly the only problem with color in the situation at hand is it could also refer to a tan or maybe a darker olive toned man.
It’s just a descriptor of obvious usefulness given the context.
Plenty of words are bad given history as it is. And best avoided with out reason. But we do still need some words to use and using the simplest words is best. Leaves little room to brook an argument over the intention.
This term definitely isn’t deprecated or insulting? Most colleges in my state have an NAACP branch. They have career fairs and all sorts of events under the name. This may be regional though. I suppose anything can be considered an insult if you say it in a certain way.
I dare you to call a group of black guys colored or Negro. Hell, get video if you can.
Keep in mind, Jim Crow is still in living memory and i grew up with the double water fountains everywhere.
Colored is Jim Crow and Negro is a racial category that goes back to phrenology. Negroid was still used in anthropology as recently as the 90s, still may be a technical term, IDK. But, unless you’re talking about college funds or forensics, you have a good chance of getting your ass beat in the right crowd.
Unless you’re old as dirt and polite.
I’m just wondering, not attacking - what do you call a general group of races which are discriminated against?
I was working retail one time and this guy left his hat at the counter, coworker said “who’s hat is that?”
I said “the black gentleman there” and nodded toward him
“You can’t say that!”
“Why? I’m not using it in a negative way, it’s an adjective.”
I called the man over and said “sir, I just described you as a black gentleman. Does that offend you?”
“Hell naw! That’s what I am!”
Was hilarious.
It’s especially funny hearing stories of black Europeans dealing with Americans figuring out you can’t call them African Americans.
The standard in the US seems to be “People Of Color” is fine and “colored people” is a slur.
The NAACP retains its name for historic reasons.
Minority is probably the best term when you’re talking about not-white.
In general, African American is seen as silly just like Latinx is. Caucasian American is used ironically as a mild insult: “That boy is such a Caucasian American that he keeps a loaf of whitebread in the glovebox.”
Brown people is also useful shorthand but you have to be careful as it can be insulting without proper irony. “Those rich old white guys sure do love killing brown people for oil.”
Yeah, it’s never been about what you say but what you mean.
My neighbour is black - fine.
Ugh, my neighbour is black - not fine.
I guess “minority” could work when you’re talking about the US, but in Europe I’ve heard it used more when talking about nationality, not race.
For example, the largest minority group in Eastern Europe is usually Russians.
Yeah, it’s all going to be regional. I’m a redneck, and, to some extent, queer. However, call me those things with the wrong tone and we have a problem.
Minority is nice because it’s relatively short compared to groups-other-than-white and similar clunky terms.
“Minorities,” is now sometimes used in an insulting way, but it’s usualy obvious when someone is being a racist shithead.
At the end of the day it comes down to respect, intent, and tone. Basically, don’t be a fuckhead and be polite, folks will tell you how they want be called.
Now you added an insulting term to drive home your point, you seem a little nuts imho.
You went from “colored is an insult” to “call 'm negro”…ffs dude get a grip.
Re-read and climb off that high horse before you hurt yourself. I was also referring to the UNCF, Unitrd Negro College Fund. Goes hand in hand with the NAACP.
Both colored and Negro occur in these names as the organiztions are so old that those were the correct terms at the time.
Example not involving race:
Moron -> retard -> special as in special needs -> intellectually disabled
It’s called the Euphemism Treadmill. Moron was a medical term defining the degeee of impairment lile a hundred years ago and is used as a pejorative to this day.
It’s a word, being talked about as a word. Not directed at anyone. Not being used to insult someone. Stop giving mere words so much power and worry about what’s actually being said.
Winning?
I love the fact that they didn’t just not invite him, they held a press conference to announce it: “We’re having a big party, and you can’t come, because you’re a big poopyhead.”
As it should be. They will lock you up, deport you, tread on your rights unless you’re rich or powerful or pose a threat.
Politeness should have gone out the window long ago.
Don’t worry, he probably already has an invitation to a KKK or Proud Boys meeting that day.
What a weird scheduling mixup, the KKK rally and the proud boys meetup are being held at the same time, at the same place
At four seasons landscaping!
And next year will be 117 years, then 118, then 119…
Somehow, this is going to be Obama’s fault.
Biden too since the fat, orange monkey just can’t get over losing the 2020 election to him.
Not from the USA so don’t know much about the inner political situation, but from the outside point of view it was Obama who started the tradition to kiss Putin’s ass.
What the actual fuck are you talking about lmao
Appreciate the laugh. Needed this today.
The group also noted that Republican President Ronald Reagan accepted its invitation during his first year in office. Civil rights leaders had criticized Reagan’s use during the 1980 campaign of the term “welfare queen” to refer to people abusing federal aid. The term was viewed by many as coded racial language for Black women.
He certainly meant all the white welfare queens! /s
I will now quote Lee Atwater in 1981, apologies for the offensive terminology, but these shitheads speak this way:
You start out in 1954 by saying, “
N----r, n----r, n----r.” By 1968 you can’t say “n----r”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “N----r, n----r.”Gosh, I wonder if they’re (repubs) racist…?
This comment was reported for containing racial slurs. First off, thanks, good call.
That said, taking things into context and the fact that they’re part of a direct quote providing historical context, I’m allowing the comment to remain for now for that reason.
@some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org If you wouldn’t mind masking out the slurs (e.g. n----r), I think that might satisfy any potential concerns with regard to automods, content filters, or misunderstandings without diluting the gravity of the context it’s providing.
That’s why I used the strikethrough, but you’re right. I could do better. Amended.
You did fine before the edit. Nothing wrong quoting ass holes showing they’re ass holes and shitty ways of thinking.
I prefer quotes to be as close to the original as possible. Hurtful as it is. That’s kind of the point here.
Censoring the bad shit that happened before is a sure way to repeat it. See holocaust denial for the extreme. Don’t deny talking about the past just because it hurts.
Yep, I totally agree with you. Just trying to address it head on while also appeasing as many viewpoints as possible.
Just FYI, that report from the automod is just that, a report, it’s up to the human moderators to decide whether it’s fine in the context or not, it wasn’t meant as something that should be taken action on in each and every case.
Good call Mr. Johnson. Although, listening to Krasnov’s speech would be entertaining and humiliating at the same time.
Exclusion will annoy him more than criticism.
Man… i had someone ask subreddit suggestions last night like wtf. Told them about lemmy and all but also pointed out why reddit might still be usefull but the way it is, is unhealthy. I pointed to r/conservative as one of many examples and saw this news sooner. The comments, jfc they just dont care, they think it’s funny the NAACP has stooped so low, and the sheer lack of post about the parade was even more telling.
I still use old.Reddit for a few niche pocket of things as it still has some value to me. But instead of spending hours on it like I used to, I only spend like 20 mins on it and then I just get the fuck off.
“This has nothing to do with political party,” Johnson said in a statement. “Our mission is to advance civil rights, and the current president has made clear that his mission is to eliminate civil rights.”
Narrator:
It had everything to do with political party, as the GOP had made a primary part of their national platform and brand about ignoring racial injustice and the legacy of slavery, in addition to overt, callous racism.
Good. It’s the only logical decision
Did they invite him during his first term?
They invited all the presidents. You try to bring in those with the power to change things and convince them that their actions have meaning, even symbolic ones. So, they probably tried his first term. It’s clear now that he doesn’t care and is in no way willing to help. I suspect that the reason they’re not inviting him goes beyond that. They’re making a statement. They’re signalling to those who support their mission.
I looked through a different article and it said this: “Trump will be the first president since Herbert Hoover in 1932 not to speak at the conference at all, skipping it entirely in 2016 as the presidential nominee and again in 2017 and 2018.”
So your man was invited but didn’t come.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/naacp-breaks-with-116-years-of-history-to-snub-trump/
Not my man. I consider him to be about as abhorrent of a person as a person can be. He should be in jail for so many crimes.
I think you and I think of different meanings for “your man”. Never said that Trump wasn’t a gombeen piece of shit.
Well, I’m glad for the misunderstanding! A unique experience for me!
Every day we learn something is a happy day for us
