"Negro" in the historical context.
 

How do people feel about the use of the term Negro as part of a description of an event which occured at a time when Negro was the preferred non-offensive term (prior to 1960(?)).

For example in a history of golf in Los Angeles.

In 1932, Snooty Golf Club changed its by-laws and admitted its first Negro member, however it wasn't until 1935 that it admitted its first Jew.

Not a big deal to me :shrugs:

I still use the word every now and then and do not mind it.

Was the history written in 1950 or 2005?

I have no problem with the world. Honestly it is the context that makes all the difference. Never understood the big deal of it honestly. It is just the word for Black in Spanish. I still use it from time to time since it is the only non offensive way to refer specifically to Black people. The world Moreno which is usually used literally just means a dark haired person.

Not just dark-haired. 'Moreno' and the contrary term 'guero' both can be used to mean a dark-skinned/light-skinned person.

I was taught that it meant dark haired. Though it was probably corrupted I guess for lack of a better term to mean skin tone. I honestly don't know.

Also I would be considered a Moreno in both sense though I would never be called Black.

Not the only one.

That's how I learned it, too.

I doubt it was 'corrupted'...I think it just has different connotations, whether we were taught them or not.

A person is usually referred to as 'moreno' (at least with Mexicans, idk about others) when they are darker skinned, but not of African-American heritage.

I don't care about the term Negro in any context except for hateful ones. And if somebody is trying to be hateful, there's usually words worse than Negro to use.

I've been known to say and answer to "colored" when it's used lovingly.

Assume 1950, in a book that was re-issued on 2005.

Funny you brought this up. I was at the post office wanting to take a look at the new stamps coming out this year. The clerk (who is Latina) showed me the page that had the stamps. I was pretty excited to see one being issued of the Negro Leagues Baseball.

I said, "I love the Negro leagues one". She said, "I was going to ask my supervisor why they had it listed as Negro leagues. I didn't think it was correct, and I didn't want to offend if someone asked about the stamp".

I broke it down, gave her a brief history of the league and told her it was cool. So if the book was written in 1950s or 60s, no biggie.

In fact, I had to get a certified copy of my birth certificate from the state of Florida and yes, my race is listed as Negro on there. Yeah, I was amused :rolleyes: DH was floored :D

Are you asking because of the census?

It's a shame that a lot of people don't even know about the Negro Leagues. I saw a kid wearing a jacket with patches from the various teams and i asked him if he even knew what the Negro Leagues were. He said no.

If it's a regular book (as opposed to a textbook) I think that the original wording should stand. If nothing else, it will sound kind of odd for the rest of the book to be in 1950ese and then inserting verbiage from the last half of the 20th century in there. In other words, trying to be "up to date" or "politically correct" will compromise the overall effectiveness of the piece if it's the only thing that's updated.

Don't get me started on Judy Blume pulling this isht in the latest printings of her books. :mad: