Army says word "Negro" OK to use


Hmmmmmmmmm. Wonder how the folks here feel about this?

Comments welcome. :thumbsup::thumbsup:


No way.

Though it would be okay in Spanish as that is the word for black.

The word to refer to African Americans has changed often through the years; or we can say blacks. NAACP is National Association for the Advancement of Colored People but I don’t think we hear people use the term of the NAACP either.

In a questionnaire to list one’s race, maybe it would be okay. I mean the word Caucasians is listed for whites and one usually doesn’t hear Caucasians. I suppose if Negro can be used, then Caucasians should be used also.


“What’s in a word?” as Shakespeare wrote. Apparently quite a bit. The fashionable term today is “people of color,” which includes more than African Americans, in fact all non-White people. I think it depends on what is acceptable to the ingroup, which is based, I suppose, on the way the word has been used in the past. I believe most indigenous people are all right with both Native American and American Indian. OTOH I don’t believe Negro is currently an acceptable term for Black American.


Doesn’t the Army have better things to do than police soldiers for politically incorrect speech? And we wonder why our grandfathers could defeat Germany and Japan and we can’t defeat Iraq and Afghanistan. :shrug:


Believe it or not, the Venerable Fulton J. Sheen used the word “Negro” back in the day.


Anthropologists have long classified humans into three races: Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid. Sometimes a fourth race is added: Australoid. These aren’t derogatory words. They are just normal words to describe types of people. Personally, I think Negro is the most accurate description. Black people aren’t truly black. Almost no one on earth is truly “black”. Colored? Everyone is “colored”, unless you are an albino. African-American? How many black Americans have ever set foot on the African continent?

“White” is not a good description either. A Negro albino is “white”. Japanese people have white skin. Neither is Caucasoid.

Many residents of India have skin as dark as any American Negro, but they are not Negroid. Australian aborigines used to be called “archaic Caucasians” I don’t know if they are still called that. They don’t look obviously Caucasian, but some anthropologists say they are. It’s a subject rife with minefields and misunderstandings. But I say if “Negro” causes black people grief, it should not be used.


Why not just get super technical and say Caucasoid, Negroid, and Mongoloid? Solves the problem.


To be offended where no offense was intended is pretty wimpy and thin skinned.

Historically the word Negro for blacks simply was borrowed from Spanish as it was the Spanish and Portugese traders that brought most blacks to the states. They called their black slaves ‘Negroes’ so that is what other people called them.

I will avoid using words that offend people if they tell me but I am not assuming that the PC mavens have that right.


Hoo boy!!

All rise for the sensitivity patrol!!!

How long before someone raises heqq over the racial undertones of the country name of Montenegro???



When I was a child, the term was acceptable.

Read this, from the Oxford English Dictionary:


The word Negro was adopted from Spanish and Portuguese and first recorded from the mid 16th century. It remained the standard term throughout the 17th-19th centuries and was used by prominent black American campaigners such as W. E. B. DuBois and Booker T. Washington in the early 20th century. Since the Black Power movement of the 1960s, however, when the term black was favoured as the term to express racial pride, Negro (together with related words such as Negress) has dropped out of favour and now seems out of date or even offensive in both British and US English.


I wouldn’t be surprised if Bishop Sheen was a contributor to the above. That’s what they called it back in the day.

And NOW in fact. :smiley:

Currently listed as member colleges per the United Negro College Fund are:

Allen University
Benedict College
Bennett College for Women
Bethune-Cookman University
Claflin University
Clark Atlanta University
Dillard University
Edward Waters College
Fisk University
Florida Memorial University
Huston-Tillotson University
Interdenominational Theological Center
Jarvis Christian College
Johnson C. Smith University
Lane College
LeMoyne-Owen College
Livingstone College
Miles College
Morehouse College
Morris College
Oakwood University
Paine College

Philander Smith College
Rust College
Saint Augustine’s University
Shaw University
Spelman College
Stillman College
Talladega College
Texas College
Tougaloo College
Tuskegee University
Virginia Union University
Voorhees College
Wilberforce University
Wiley College
Xavier University of Louisiana

AND: yes, the Spanish equivalent for the English word black is … “Negro”. < pronunciation varies per person. :frighten:

As some of it members might want to use their G.I. bill monies to go to one of these schools upon serving their hitch … it makes sense not to ban them talking about them … even if the critical word is (or must be) used.

PS: Personally I don’t use the term when I’m not talking about that fund. Which is … well almost never. In fact I think reference to peoples’ ethnicity is often an arcane obsession. In America (and the Catholic Church come to think of it) we’re all friends and neighbors. Not to ignore the obvious, but I prefer a chosen color-blindness to a super-color-or-ethnic-emphasis in my relationships with people. :hug1:


It seems like a silly debate for the Army to be engaging in. “African-American” seems to be the currently correct term just as “Negro” used to be.
But I’ve noticed that people of African descent whose families immigrated here recently seem to dislike the “African-American” label and prefer to identify as Nigerian-American or Haitian-American or whatever – which makes sense. My folks are Irish, I’d never call myself European-American.


:tiphat: “No offense!” :tiphat: “None taken!”


What I have trouble understanding is that “colored people” (except when used by the NAACP) is considered a perjorarive slur, but “people of color” is politically correct. What is it about the “of?” I feel manipulated when the language is kidnapped this way. I’m also eager for a court case challenging the fact that some ethnicities have the dignity of being characterized by their places of origin (as in all the “hyphenated” designations out there), whereas many of us are labeled just by our skin color.


How about the term “chocolate.” Our little girls want to be chocolate (dark skin color) princesses because chocolate is yummy.


Apparently, they’ve changed their position.

The U.S. Army changed the regulation Friday and issued an apology “to anyone we offended.”

The new policy states that “Black or African-American” are the only acceptable terms


“Colored” has racist connotations from the days of slavery and segregation, so it is definitely NOT acceptable for most blacks, AFAIK.

It would be (from their point of view, at least), like calling a male black “Boy.” :eek:

And “Mongoloid,” has negative, offensive associations with “metally retarded” people, so that is not kosher, these days.

Good post, but just telling you the truth like I see it.:slight_smile:

Good show. :thumbsup::thumbsup:




Whats so offensive about colored or boy? I’ve only seen “boy” used in a racist way against white males. But since they are white nobody in the pc police cares.


One can see the way the water fountains were separated back in the day:

Though we’d have to study it, I’m going to say “colored” was largely acceptable in the civil rights era, I don’t know about ties to slavery. I don’t know if saying “colored” is a pejorative but it may well not be “politically correct” at that;

In the 21st century, colored is generally not regarded as a politically correct term.[citation needed] It lives on in the association name National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, generally called just NAACP, without actually enunciating the word for which each letter stands.

In 2008 Carla Sims, communications director for the NAACP in Washington, D.C., said “the term ‘colored’ is not derogatory, [the NAACP] chose the word ‘colored’ because it was the most positive description commonly used [in 1909, when the association was founded]. It’s outdated and antiquated but not offensive.”[9] To date, there has not been a movement to change the name of the organization to a more politically correct term such as the “National Association for the Advancement of African-Americans”.

Sometimes one can know people, often from another generation who use words and imho, they just don’t know better, it is hard to say they are wrong. Notice, there is not a movement to change NAACP to a more politically correct term.

I agree that “boy” is used for all kinds of occasions but towards an African American male, generally, I’d say it is a negative.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit