I thought “negro” was old hat, with its connotations of slavery and Uncle Tom. So why is this word still used in this organization, which, for those whose thirst for knowledge is incurable, I found advertising at dictionary.com?
The term is definitely socially unacceptable today. The UNCF was created in 1944, and that was the term at the time. The fund’s Web site doesn’t address your question, although I think this quote makes it clear that they just didn’t want to lose name recognition.
Not only is the term “Negro” no longer used, but the UNCF helps non-black people, so it’s outdated in two ways.
The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), founded in 1909, is another civil-rights organization whose name includes a term that is now considered outdated and derogatory in the US.
“Yauh haih chihn”, as the Chinese say; or, “It’s always about money”. UNCF is going to get confused with UNICEF. Maybe that’s considered a good thing too…
Also Montenegro has resisted changing its name to “MonteAfrican-American.”
“This sweltering summer of the Negro’s legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. Nineteen sixty-three is not an end, but a beginning. And those who hope that the Negro needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual. And there will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights.”
— Martin Luther King, Jr., I Have a Dream
“The history of America is that working-class whites have been just as much against not only working-class Negroes, but all Negroes, period, because all Negroes are working class within the caste system. The richest Negro is treated like a working-class Negro. There never has been any good relationship between the working-class Negro and the working-class whites.”
— Malcolm X, interviewed in 1964
Quoting King and Malcom X from 1964 proves nothing: at the time, Negro was the preferred term. By the end of the 60s, “Black” was preferred, and now there’s a battle between “Black” and “African-American” as to which is preferred.
As an aside, Montenegrans call their country Crna Gora.
Every term is socially unacceptable to someone today. Some hate “African-Americans” pointing out that all Blacks aren’t from Africa, and some whites are. Some don’t like Black as the skin color is rarely black.
And, of course, there’s Negro League Baseball still thriving after many years.
It’s all in the intent. If the intent of the word is not to demean, then there’s nothing at all wrong with using it. Nigger, negro and colored are perfectly acceptable words, when used in the right social context.
It dispels that idea that the word “Negro” was associated with slavery and Uncle Tom. That wasn’t true in the 1960s, nor is it true now. “Negro” is archaic, but certainly not derogatory.
Generally, name changes are undertaken by organizations or institutions that are trying to either radically change their mission (or to recognize that their mission has already changed) or who wish to pick a neutral name that will no longer carry connotations from earlier periods. Names provide continuity and bring the (mixed) benefits of legacy. There is simply no reason for any of the various “Negro” or “colored” organizations to sever their ties with their past.
By maintainiing their “old fashioned” names, they are announcing that they are proud of their traditions and accomplishments and are not simply following trendy practices. (They are also, of course, making sure that contributors who grew up in the past do not get confused and send donations to some other outfit after failing to recognize the new names.)
Neither “Negro” nor “colored” is actually considered a pejorative; they are simply terms that have fallen out of use.
Sure, but that doesn’t mean all terms are equally unacceptable. I think you’d find very few people saying it should be the preferred term. The other names have their flaws, but like tomndebb notes, of African-America, black and Negro, only Negro is considered archaic.
One point to remember about King, and especially his very carefully crafted speech of August 1963, was that he wished to present himself as “the moral leader of the nation”. One way he did this was by using (archaic) Biblical imagery, another by repetition, another by rythm, another by ironic use of words like “negro”, a word - and indeed a notion - that had been deep in meaning, even by its very absence, since the Declaration of Independence. Remember that Stephen Douglas, in his famous debates with Lincoln, had poured scorn on the latter’s attempt to declare that “the negro and the white man are made equal by the Declaration of Independence and by Divine Providence”, dismissing it as heresy, and accusing Lincoln of charging the signers of the Declaration of Independence with hypocrisy by claiming, opportunistically, with hindsight, that the Declaration “included the negro”.
Good take on Mr. King’s “I Have a Dream” planned set-piece “rousements” here:
'Lincoln Memorial on August 28, 1963. More than 200,000 people, about one quarter of them white, had converged on the nation’s capital in an orderly, well-planned March on Washington to protest discrimination and unemployment and to hasten the passage of pending civil rights legislation. The formal program, which included ten major addresses interspersed with freedom songs, continued for hours. By late afternoon the immense crowd, packed together in the humid August heat, had become weary and restless. Revived momentarily by Mahalia Jackson’s singing of “I’ve Been 'Buked and I’ve been Scorned,” they awaited the final speech of the day. The climactic position on the program had been assigned to the Reverend Martin Luther King, president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, to provide the “rousements,” as Roy Wilkins had put it.
The rousements were duly provided. Introduced as “the moral leader of the nation,” King used the occasion to deliver the sermon of an aroused southern Baptist preacher - rhythmic, repetitive, biblical in flavor, rich in the imagery of patriotism and religion. America, he said, has defaulted on its promissory note in the Declaration of Independence; Negroes have come to Washington to cash a check. As he proceeded, his listeners began to participate. His repetition of the phrase “Now is the time” brought echoing shouts of “now,” “now,” from the audience. When he spoke of transforming “this sweltering summer of the Negro’s legitimate discontent” into “an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality,” they cried “yes, yes.” And later as the now-famous “I have a dream” peroration moved steadily toward a climax, his listeners punctuated its successive images with “Dream on,” “Keep dreamin’,” and “I see it!” In the tumult that followed his final sentence, “Thank God almighty, we’re free at last!” Mrs. King, seated on the platform, felt that “for that brief moment the Kingdom of God seemed to have come on earth”.’
Interesting, Roger, but beside the point. Negro was the correct term in the early 1960s. That’s why King used it. Sensibilities changed at a dizzying speed during that decade,
That’s very nice, roger, but what’s your point?
…if you don’t count the fact that the Negro Leagues haven’t existed since 1952, according to that site.
Point is that by 1963, “black” had already begun to replace “negro”. So. King’s use of the word “negro”, as with Malcolm X’s (who would sometimes repeat “negro” in his speeches for more often than was required, or indeed normal), was quite deliberate, when at least one other term could have been used. One might say that he was reclaiming the word, as feminists were later to reclaim words like “gossip”, or one may say he was manipulating his largely white, guilt-prone audience by using a word associated so strongly with slavery.
That makes no difference in terms of the possible benefical effects of the latter on the former.