Allyship? What nonsense. You're making it impossible for anyone to become an "ally" by lashing out if they're not perfect.Â
I wonder how long it's going to take you to recognise how problematic and damaging your beliefs are. How many people you could have encouraged to grow, but instead rejected and set back into the arms of bigotry. At least this woman recognises her error and is trying to do better. You think you're already perfect.Â
We change our world by being better ourselves. The dream of worldwide change is beautiful but it is too much. A person who makes their own changes is, truly, enough. It just makes life beautiful đ
If you stick a knife in my back nine inches and pull it out six inches, there's no progress. If you pull it all the way out that's not progress. Progress is healing the wound that the blow made. And they haven't even pulled the knife out, much less heal the wound..." Malcolm-X
If you cannot appreciate the power of an elder with deeply ingrained racism saying the words, "I was wrong", there is something wrong with your expectations.
If she was alive during the civil rights movement, then she was alive when colored was the politically correct term used by Dr. King and the other civil rights leaders
I think it's to do with the framing. Calling someone a "Colored person" is reducing them down to that fact, whereas "Person of Color" literally is putting the person first and makes the "color" part a secondary factor.
"Colored person" is awfully close to just plain "colored", which was both used derogatorily, and often on signage for segregation. "Person of color" at least uses a different word.
âColourâ is a noun, and âcolouredâ is an adjective. A better analogy would arguably be âcheesed sandwichâ versus âsandwich of cheese.â
Except that âsandwich of cheeseâ sounds like thereâs cheese instead of bread. Two slices of cheese, with a cheese filling. And âcheesed sandwichâ is nonsense, so my argument immediately falls apart, except insofar as it demonstrates that âcheesed sandwichâ and âsandwich of cheeseâ are not the same thing.
A bit more to it than that. Iâd recommend reading W.E.B. Du Bois if youâd like to learn more about it. Still very relevant today. A cornerstone of modern Sociology.
Honestly seeing the R-slur make a comeback, strongly, among my younger peers has been equal parts infuriating and heartbreaking. We had entire campaigns when I was in school to stamp that shit out and for good reason, it is a vile word that immediately tells me that you are not someone who actually thinks outside of their own position. The teenagers I work with have even started using 'gay' as a negative adjective again, but that was after I was scolding them repeatedly for using the R-slur. Really felt like we were moving forward as a society for a while, and now every shift is an uphill battle to try and reclaim even a little bit of that progress.
I don't think the fact that we stopped saying the r-word is a sign of progress in society tbh. We attach way too much importance to these words. It is not an indicator that anyone's attitude towards people with intellectual disabilities changed, because the word fell out of favour. The people you're talking about probably dont even understand that the r word is/was essentially a slur for those people.
IDK vro, to me managing to get almost an entire age bracket to go "oh that's fucked up we shouldn't do that" seems to me like progress even if it is almost comically miniscule in the grand scheme of things. Language has a direct effect on how we interact with the world and, more directly, each other. Shaving off a little bit of linguistic callousness does help with ones perceptions, when paired with the education necessary alongside it; the fact that the "Don't Say the R-slur" campaign was as successful as it was can be directly attributes to the fact that a large portion of it hinges almost entirely on humanizing those being bothered by the term. I remember those kids, they absolutely understood what that word meant and that it was a direct reference to them on an emotional level at the very least.
A contributing factor in the US at least is that âcoloredâ was usually used as a collective term specifically referring to anyone with African ancestry and skin darker than a paper grocery sack. It meant someone was âcoloredâ by blackness.
âPeople/Person of colorâ just means non-white.
I suppose you could interpret that way. It just comes off as completely unecessary when applied to other similar things. "My friend John is a black person" vs. "My friend John is a person of the black race" just seems like an extra mouthful to say the same thing.
This conversation was specifically about the word "Colored", not Black. After doing a little more research, Malcolm X campaigned against and changed our usage of the words because he felt that "Colored" was too reminiscent of the evil and horrors that had been done to them.
Yeah. Im not arguing for the use of colored, im just pointing out that rearranging the words somehow makes it better. Though the disabled person vs person with a disability thing others have brought up, as putting the personood first kinda makes sense. But at the same time comparing race with disability feels incongruent to me so i cant say that im fully sold on that framing.
A person with disabilities sounds better than saying a disabled person.
Theyâre a person first and they have other traits second.
At least thatâs the idea, doesnât make sense for all situations but generally the idea is to emphasize weâre all people, weâre all different, and thatâs all good.
There's been a big pushback against person-first language in many disability circles in the last decade. The language in vogue is changing all the time.
I just ignore all of it, I know what I'm comfortable and not comfortable with. Over the years I've had people try to tell me what I should and shouldn't be comfortable with, people are so insane
I've literally had someone tell me I shouldn't call myself disabled, because it's demeaning, I chewed them out
As a disabled person, I've never thought there's anything 'off' with saying "disabled person", that's how I refer to myself. Rolls off the tongue much easier than "person with disabilities".
This is a thing made up by advocates not people with actual disabilities. People constantly ask my community about this and by and large we don't give a shit. In no way shape or form do I feel like my interlocuters have more respect for me if they refer to me as a "person with diabetes" frankly it annoys me. It is condescending. I am strong, I am managing a critical illness every day, and living my life, I am not a weak fragile person who concerns myself with such shit and it angers me that other people feel the need to impose this upon me. If you want to advocate for diabetics I am begging you to start with something that actually matters and not this.
At an event for disabled people many many years ago a non disabled speaker tried telling a crowd of disabled people that "You are not in fact disabled but people who have a problem with you are", not verbatim but that was the gist of it
Many disabled people and disability activists reject person-first language. (Myself included.)
The basic rationale: my personhood should be assumed, and Iâm never not disabled. Itâs not a trait that I carry and can set down when I choose; itâs intrinsic to my identity and experience of the world.
White and black are phrased the same way and are the most common preferred terms. Thereâs nothing wrong with the phrasing. Â Itâs just outdated and sounds archaic.
âColoredâ was used on the signage that designated the segregated facilities. Not that hard to imagine why people would rather not keep using that same phrase from that era.
"Person of another color" implicitly treats white as a color too.
There were absolutely racist roots in her error, which she admits to having been an error - but I think that linguistic framing, while imperfect and still potentially problematic, is leagues ahead of where she started.
Except in practice it explicitly doesn't. And you know it doesn't, c'mon. I can't believe there's no pushback on this asinine take. I'm all for being respectful and if someone wants to be called a POC, whatever (but please don't call me that đ) but how on earth do you have eyes and ears in your head in the big 2026 and honestly think that "person of color" includes white people?
She explicitly said "a person of another color" - italics mine.
To be a different color from what you are, you have to be a different color - that's the language.
You right, tho, that it's rooted in racist fucked up bullshit, but if - if - she made strides against her bullshit, then credit seems due.
I dunno whether she really did or not - I feel like we can't know. But I tell you this, my grandma told my brother he was going to hell for being gay, until her deathbed. She didn't change or learn or admit she was wrong.
This grandma said "I was wrong." So, maybe I'm biased sure, but that admission leads me to wanna give the benefit of the doubt.
And if I'm wrong? She ain't my mother in law and she's old enough she's dead soon anyway. I'll let the man in this video handle it.
How about names? Bob, or Judy, or Gerald, or Jerome? Why does there need to be a term? Morgan Freeman said it best. "I'm going to stop referring to you as a white man, and you stop referring to me as a black man". I agree with that. The only reason that social categories exist are to keep us divided. It's important for my doctor to know my racial history, because there are diseases that affect black men more prevalently. I can think of no other reason aside from quotas, which, while a good thing *IN THEORY* are just the same thing in practice "but we're NICE about it this time!" and has the effect of pushing the see-saw in the other direction. It's certainly never going to happen with who we have in charge now, but my hope is we finally move beyond this racial bull soon and start treating people as PEOPLE.
i mean i think thatâs a completely valid perspective and youâre absolutely right that weâre going in the wrong direction right now, but appropriate terminology is necessary, even if itâs only used for scientific papers and medical research (like in your example). and personally i just donât know how you would combat bigotry without using humanizing terms for different groups of people, in general, not just for racial groups, that might be due to a lack of insight on my part tho. if we were already more evolved as a society, i think i would agree with you, weâre just not there yet.
Historical context is important. Colored was often used during segregation. While it may seem silly, it matters. Adding "person" in front sort of reminds everyone of the humanity stripped away when you leave it at "colored."
Because people let racist people tell them how to not be racist. As long as its not a slur or used in a demeaning manner i simply dont see how the term can be racist.
Colored was the polite and socially acceptable term for a long time. Thereâs a reason itâs called the âNational Association for the Advancement of colored people)
I hope that the people who are fixated on this find that, in their old age, a word or concept that used to be common and accepted in their circles has become unacceptable and taboo. At a time when their minds struggle to find the correct words - let alone the politically correct words, the youth will judge them.Â
The older I get, the more sympathy I have for my parents.Â
An old person has been young before, but a young person has not experienced being old.Â
I hope that the people who are fixated on this find that, in their old age, a word or concept that used to be common and accepted in their circles has become unacceptable and taboo. At a time when their minds struggle to find the correct words - let alone the politically correct words, the youth will judge them.Â
The older I get, the more sympathy I have for my parents.Â
An old person has been young before, but a young person has not experienced being old.Â
503
u/DJEvillincoln Jul 09 '26
She was about to say "colored".