'Negro' on Census Form Offends Some.....

It was enough to put "negro" on the 2010 Census form.

Obviously not, since so many people are offended by it. It was a huge misjudgment.
 
I'm curious - when did they put "Negro" on the form....

edit - just saw kokonut's post that it's in 2010 Census form. now that's a huge error in judgment
 
Obviously not, since so many people are offended by it. It was a huge misjudgment.

Do you have actual numbers of those who objected to it? Seems like Al Sharpton didn't seem to mind since he brushed off Reid's negro comment.
 
Do you have actual numbers of those who objected to it? Seems like Al Sharpton didn't seem to mind since he brushed off Reid's negro comment.

Actual numbers, no. But you seem to only be able to list a handful of people that didn't mind, and yet every person I have asked about it, in person or online, has been shocked. I discussed with my family and with friends and they all seemed to find it pretty offensive.

I consider it be pretty common knowledge that the term "negro" is considered offensive by most in this day and age. I'm shocked the census forum writers didn't know that.
 
Actual numbers, no. But you seem to only be able to list a handful of people that didn't mind, and yet every person I have asked about it, in person or online, has been shocked. I discussed with my family and with friends and they all seemed to find it pretty offensive.

I consider it be pretty common knowledge that the term "negro" is considered offensive by most in this day and age. I'm shocked the census forum writers didn't know that.

Surreal, isn't it? :roll:
 
The bottom line is, some people still prefer to be called "Negro" and some prefer not to be called "Negro." The current census form allows for both choices.
 
1) 50,000 people out of how many?

2) How old were these people? Chances are they are grandparents and older parents.

3) Context. Who was saying it? Dr. King, in a speech about the integration of races. This is a very different context from a 2010 consensus forum.
Don't 50,000 people have rights, too? Maybe more would have checked "Negro" if they had the option.

Don't "old" people count, too? Don't "old" people have rights, too? That sounds like an "ageist" remark.

What kind of "context" does the census form (not "consensus forum") have that makes a word more offensive?
 
The bottom line is, some people still prefer to be called "Negro" and some prefer not to be called "Negro." The current census form allows for both choices.

:hmm: good point!
 
Don't 50,000 people have rights, too? Maybe more would have checked "Negro" if they had the option.

Don't "old" people count, too? Don't "old" people have rights, too? That sounds like an "ageist" remark.

What kind of "context" does the census form (not "consensus forum") have that makes a word more offensive?

Exactly my point, too. Thanks.
 
The bottom line is, some people still prefer to be called "Negro" and some prefer not to be called "Negro." The current census form allows for both choices.

If we put them into Caesar's Palace, could I get dibs on the popcorn sales? :P
 
Don't 50,000 people have rights, too? Maybe more would have checked "Negro" if they had the option.

Don't "old" people count, too? Don't "old" people have rights, too? That sounds like an "ageist" remark.

What kind of "context" does the census form (not "consensus forum") have that makes a word more offensive?

Did I ever say they don't have rights or don't count? No. I'm just saying the older generation is the most likely demographic to vote a word like "negro" as non-offensive given that it's a word that was much more widely used 50 years ago.

And sorry, I mistyped. Census not consensus.
 
Did I ever say they don't have rights or don't count? No. I'm just saying the older generation is the most likely demographic to vote a word like "negro" as non-offensive given that it's a word that was much more widely used 50 years ago.

And sorry, I mistyped. Census not consensus.

Nor consensual.
 
Back
Top