Rep. Eli Crane used the derogatory phrase in describing his proposed amendment to a military bill. Democratic Rep. Joyce Beatty asked that his words be stricken from the record.

    • dezmd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      1 year ago

      Context and intent is important. Faking ignorance about knowing if it was offensive is an equally important consideration.

    • gullible@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Honestly, this has more nuance than you’d immediately think. Dude’s lived through at least a few iterations of euphemisms that turned into pejoratives, and keeping it straight can be difficult. Depending on the time period, negro, colored, African American, and black could all be considered kind or harsh. That said, definitely racist as hell given he continues with…

      “The military was never intended to be, you know, inclusive. Its strength is not its diversity. Its strength is its standards”

      • Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        “The military was never intended to be, you know, inclusive. Its strength is not its diversity. Its strength is its standards”

        Ah, yeah he’s a racist piece of shit. And also, unsurprisingly, 100% wrong. Speaking as a veteran (US), the diversity of our military is a HUGE source of its strength. This dumbass is literally advocating for weakening our military for the sake of being racist.

        That’s not just stupid, that’s dangerous stupid.

      • dudebro@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Is he saying people should be denied access to the military even if they meet the miliary’s standards?

        • Gullible@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Forgive my brevity. Yes. Generally, and subconsciously, people prefer to see themselves in those they put in leadership positions. This policy will exclusively make military officers paler as a result, not better. The military has been promoting people of color to higher positions in line with racial enlistment proportions for like 50 years without issue. Reduced potential for bias is always welcome.

        • gullible@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          To paraphrase, he doesn’t want all of those diverse sorts, just the good ones. It’s a dog whistle at an octave that even octogenarians can hear.

      • crossal@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        How is the last bit racist? Sounds like he’s saying it’s purely based on measurable standards, that race/ethnicity is not a factor

        • gullible@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          To paraphrase, he doesn’t want all of those diverse sorts, just the good ones. It’s a dog whistle at an octave that even octogenarians can hear.

    • victron@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      (Not American) yeah, I always thought it sounded dumb, but didn’t know it was a slur too.

      • maniclucky@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        1 year ago

        It was a term du jour back in the Jim Crow (read: hyper racist) era. That particular phrasing has baggage.

        • victron@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Wow, TIL. As a non-American, there are many such facts I wasn’t aware of, let alone many details that now seem obscure or lost (for a variety of reasons, like the attempt to erase certain stuff from history or prevent them from being taught in schools).

        • Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I do hate how history can muddy language like that. Terms like “colored people” should mean literally people who are colored… and nothing else. I’ve never been one to actually use that term because it’s so non-specific; but I never knew it had a derogatory connotation either.

      • Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Noted. As other posters have mentioned, it carries a lot of historical connotation… I’ve either never run into it or never noticed it before (again, seems benign, barring the historical context). Thankfully I’ve also never used it, cuz it’s kind of a shitty descriptor - not specific at all.

    • ProffessionalAmateur@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      As a non-American I’m perplexed by this. I remember growing up and hearing the accepted euphemism ‘coloured person’ instead of black person. I’d worry about myself if I ever visited that I’d accidentally cause insult. PC seems to be gone nuts

        • ProffessionalAmateur@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          You never let me answer before your smarmy remark. But beleive it or not back then, yes you could. Are white people actually ‘white’? Are black people actually ‘black’? It was a means to denote race the same as black and white is these days. My point was I didn’t realise this term was an actual insult now but it’s good to know. Have off with your lol