Did you know the U.S. House votes to remove two instances of the word 'Oriental' from Federal Law? Do you feel this was needed?

MSgt Curtis Ellis — Fri, 04 Dec 2015 08:20:52 -0500

Do you feel this was needed?

The U.S. House of Representatives voted unanimously on Wednesday to remove two instances of the word "Oriental," along with other dated references to minorities, from federal legislation. The proposal was co-sponsored by Reps. Grace Meng (D-NY) and Ed Royce (R-CA).

Meng co-authored a similar law in 2009 as a member of the New York State Assembly.

"We're technically 'AAPI,' so we're replacing it with all those four words: Asian American Pacific Islanders," Meng told NBC News. "We want to be as inclusive as possible…As far as we know these are the only two remaining sections of the code that have these terms, so hopefully that will take care of that."

The language in the legislation that would be removed by Meng and Royce's amendment, which is contained in the North American Energy Security and Infrastructure Act, goes beyond just Asian Americans. The instances in the U.S. Code relate to attempts in the late '70s to define the term "minority."

In Title 42, section 7141, on minority economic impact, the definition reads: "(A)ny individual who is a citizen of the United States and who is a Negro, Puerto Rican, American Indian, Eskimo, Oriental, or Aleut or is a Spanish speaking individual of Spanish descent."

In Title 42, section 6705 on land grants, minority is defined as "Negroes, Spanish-speaking, Orientals, Indians, Eskimos, and Aleuts."

"Our ethnicity, our identity cannot be described as 'oriental,'" Meng said. "That essentially means nothing about ones origin. And it's not about being politically correct. There are some people who use the term without bad intent. The point is to make sure that federal law as it is written is using accurate and factual terms and labels."

The Obama administration has said it would veto the North American Energy Security and Infrastructure Act, sponsored by Republican Congressman Fred Upton, "because it would undermine already successful initiatives designed to modernize the nation's energy infrastructure and increase our energy efficiency," according to a White House memo.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/u-s-house-votes-remove-word-oriental-federal-law-n473861

U.S. House Votes to Remove the Word 'Oriental' from Federal Law

The instances in the U.S. Code relate to attempts in the late '70s to define the term "minority."

Response by SGT David T. made Dec 4 at 2015 8:27 AM

SGT David T. — Fri, 04 Dec 2015 08:27:27 -0500

Can we blame this on climate change somehow? Ok I am kidding, in all seriousness updating the wording is very important in law. It helps to remove offensive or no longer useful terms. Also words change meaning over time so updating it keeps things relevant in today's world.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 4 at 2015 9:26 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 04 Dec 2015 09:26:25 -0500

Why is everything so politically correct nowadays? I personally have never been offeneded by mere words. It's the actions that hurt. Like a duck.... just let it roll off your back!

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Dec 4 at 2015 11:45 AM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Fri, 04 Dec 2015 11:45:23 -0500

"Needed" isn't the correct word. Appropriate is more apt. Should we really be using outdated and potentially offensive terms like "Yellow" "Red" or "Oriental?" if they are not correct (the major argument).

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 4 at 2015 12:07 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 04 Dec 2015 12:07:21 -0500

They must have run out of post offices to rename.
Words are important, but even Congress doesn't read those old laws.

Response by MSgt Curtis Ellis made Dec 4 at 2015 12:15 PM

MSgt Curtis Ellis — Fri, 04 Dec 2015 12:15:05 -0500

I chose the word "needed" in my question as the word "Oriental" was the only word selected for change. I will admit, this change for the word "Oriental" was driven by a single, motivated and insightful individual with a vested interest in this change; but if this change is "appropriate" and was not driven about being politically correct, then why doesn't the US House make the point to ensure that federal law, as it is written, is using accurate and factual terms and labels "appropriate" for everyone? Or is the only way the government consider this important is if someone rallies for the cause (one race at a time will ensure the Government appears to be busy)? Or... Am I just reading waaaaay too much into this? Just a thought...

Response by LTC Kevin B. made Dec 4 at 2015 12:41 PM

LTC Kevin B. — Fri, 04 Dec 2015 12:41:03 -0500

It was needed only to demonstrate that Congress is doing something, anything, other than campaigning, fundraising, and chasing down TV cameras.

Response by SSG Warren Swan made Dec 4 at 2015 12:41 PM

SSG Warren Swan — Fri, 04 Dec 2015 12:41:08 -0500

Oriental is a rug. Not a nationality or skin color. I see nothing wrong with it

Response by PO2 Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 4 at 2015 12:51 PM

PO2 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 04 Dec 2015 12:51:00 -0500

You want to be as inclusive as possible? Americans. We're all Americans. Nothing more or less to be said about it.