Quote:
Originally Posted by lagtight
If the United Negro College Fund is cool with the word, who I am to argue? It hasn't "lost its meaning" to them, apparently.
I view the United Negro College Fund as being more of a name holding over through history than it is defining a standalone word. The reason that Negro is in the name is strictly historical at this point. And there are very real ways in which the word *has* lost its meaning.
It has moved from being a term with a "neutral" connotation to one with a negative connotation in most contexts. The original meaning has been lost because the word is no longer interpreted in the way it was when the name was originally created.
The *only* contexts in which the connotation is not neutral are ones that hold historical significance, such as the UNCF or negro spirituals. But in both of those settings, the word is in place for historical reasons and that historical context acknowledges that history. But using the word outside of that context means something entirely different.
That's simply how language works. Words are not stable objects that hold singular meaning in all places and at all times. Language is dynamic and constantly changing with the cultural setting that it finds itself in.
Quote:
I guess I can't refer to blacks as "colored" either, even though the leading black rights organization in the U.S. is the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People?
It's not that you can't. You can use whatever words you want to use. But there would be consequences to that word choice as well.
Quote:
For the record: I never use the words "colored" or "negro" to refer to black people. I use "black" or "African-American."
So why don't you?