Why was this included in the updated AR 600-20 ("Negro")?

2014-11-02T18:20:31-05:00

This is in the new AR 600-20, Page 55 dtd 22 October 2014, under Equal Opportunity Policy: (c) Black or African American. A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa. Terms such as "Haitian" or "Negro" can be used in addition to "Black” or “African American”. We'll I don't believe I've ever met any black Soldiers who refer to themselves as Negro. So this new regulation allows me to refer to myself as Negro, so what's stopping every and anyone else from referring to me as Negro. This is only a couple of syllables from the other N word. What group is referring to themselves as Negro at this point in time? Why, would this ever even be included in the regulation? It think it's problematic and will only incite additional racial issues in the Army. I personally find it to be offensive! This is my opinion, what is your opinion.

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 2 at 2014 6:37 PM

2014-11-02T18:37:55-05:00

MSG Gaddy, good question. It seems archaic and out of place. One wonders why it appears since the term fell out of modern use; however, there is likely a reason and you should seek it. Otherwise, it would not be the first time someone from another culture or from older generation claimed it as valid (some who are not African-AMERICAN may still use that designation in other countries, but I do not know of any). I do know that among "indians" we have the Native American and American Indian Distinctions. Interestingly, people whom are more white usually state "Native American" whereas people on tribal rolls state American Indian, or AI. Many "Hispanics" and "Latinos" don't like that designation either, they may simply want to be Puerto Rican, Spanish, Mexican, etc. So, work it through the IG and or the proponent of the regulation to get an answer.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 2 at 2014 8:45 PM

2014-11-02T20:45:30-05:00

DA PAM 600–26 Department of the Army Affirmative Action Plan dated 1990, and yes it hasn't been updated, you will the see the racial and ethnic designation categories (REDCAT), they are still used today.

Carl Linnaeus (1707-1778), a Swedish botanist and physician, established the origin of the color scheme of races. He color coded the species red, white, yellow, and black, respectively, and assigned each a set of physical, personality, cultural, and social traits.

Same code can be found in NGB PAM 25-10 SIDPERS Data Element dictionary. The CDC has an extensive code list.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 3 at 2014 12:59 PM

2014-11-03T12:59:49-05:00

I'm not even African American and due tot days of segregation just a few decades ago, I find the term degrading. you can't declare a solider as any thing other than a soldier. We all wear the same damn uniform in one pattern or another. The way I see it, we are brothers and sisters in combat.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 3 at 2014 1:09 PM

2014-11-03T13:09:24-05:00

Wow. Didn't see that one coming. Not smart on the actual meaning and root of the word. I think it probably has some non-confrontational meaning, but the problem is that is sounds too close and has probably been used an an inflamatory way in the past...so despite it being a proper descriptor of an ethnic background as a sub-set of a race...it's probably something to avoid. I have issue with the term black or african american as well. They are both too generic. Black's a color...not a race. Same thing with white. Why don't we call hispanics "caramel?" Too broad and it belongs in a crayon box. African American is too PC and it's not correct. One people are African-American...they are the recently arrived and possibly dual citizen or just naturalized citizens. I overheard a great conversation between one of these people and a soldier about it where the person from Africa (actually born there and immigrated) was calling out the Soldier on his belief that he was African American. The terms just breed division all around, even among those inside of the race and subsets. More division = more strife and problems.

Response by COL Jean (John) F. B. made Nov 3 at 2014 1:55 PM

2014-11-03T13:55:09-05:00

I do not believe the AR 600-200 is encouraging anyone to use the term "Negro"; it is simply identifying other terms that can be used, in addition to Black and African-American. I think it is simply following suit with the action taken in 2010 with the US Census, which included the term "Negro" alongside "Black" and "African-American", because some older black Americans still identify with that term.

I, for one, do not see anything derogatory about the term "Negro". That term superseded the term "Colored" as the most polite terminology, at a time when "Black" was considered offensive. Martin Luther King used the term "Negro" to identify his own race in his famous "I Have A Dream" speech. Surely, he was not trying to be offensive by using that word.

The word/term "Negro" is still used in historical context, such as in the name of the "United Negro College Fund" and the "Negro League" in sports.

The term "Negro" is just another name used to identify members of the black race, just as "Colored" was once commonly used. The "popular" terms now appear to be "Black" and "African-American". I predict that those too will change over time. Just because they change in popularity, it does not (or should not, at least) make them offensive.

None of these terms are like the "N Word" in that none were used to defame or ridicule the black race.

My recommendation, MSG Gaddy, is to not wear your heart on your sleeve and look for a subversive motive that is not there.

You asked for an opinion ... That's mine.

Response by SSG Jim Foreman made Nov 3 at 2014 2:43 PM

2014-11-03T14:43:22-05:00

Sorry if I hurt anyone's feelings but I am confused why we put anything before American. If you are an American citizens shouldn't you be called American? Not Mexican-American, Africa-American, Japanese-American...... and on and on.

Response by 1LT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 4 at 2014 4:12 AM

2014-11-04T04:12:04-05:00

This is not only offensive but still shows the ignorance in which our country was built on in racism. I'm not a negro nor am I African. I am of African orgin born in America......which makes me African American. Just as technically we all have a blank-American. Until everyone knows the truth of our history this country will continue to be confused on the difference. So I hate to say but if I was called a negro someone will have a bad day. As a professional soldier one would come with better words. So this is a problem and should be addressed!

Response by SCPO Larry Knight Sr. made Nov 4 at 2014 6:46 PM

2014-11-04T18:46:06-05:00

Being retired for many years, and seeing this still as a topic of discussion is a dam shame. Additionally I also happen to be the exceptionally proud grand father of by racial grandchildren, and I dare any man or woman to declare any out of context slur. You would meet swift justice from this immigrant form Germany, who became a proud American in 1973. I had to get a top secret clearance and that wasn't going to happen under my former status. I will say this to all, that when we took our oath upon entering the service I do not recall anything concerning ethnicity. So why does it even continue to come up now, we as the leaders in the services can and should push harder for this to change. The Military has had Regs and a Uniformed Code of Conduct as well as Justice, which has by no means been flawless. So get it fixed. Because folks it's like I used to tell my recruits in basic training, we all wear the same color uniform and bleed the same color blood! There is no other difference between us, but once you depart the military it's up to each and every one of us to continue to educate.......

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 5 at 2014 10:14 PM

2014-11-05T22:14:08-05:00

I saw that today. I have to think that someone will be losing their job in short order.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 6 at 2014 9:41 AM

2014-11-06T09:41:49-05:00

I just read about this, and this is ridiculous. While I understand the whole "we need to be progressive," or "if it makes you uncomfortable, don't say it," what about that one guy that pushes it?

That needs to be changed.

Response by SFC Lamont Womack made Nov 6 at 2014 12:26 PM

2014-11-06T12:26:35-05:00

Look the reality is this section of the regulation was never updated since the term "Negro" was "acceptable". The media keeps reporting AR 600-20 as a new regulation. This is not a new regulation. It is the regulation on how the Army conducts business. Even though this regulation is important it is not a common regulation that the average Soldier would read on a daily basis. Mostly leadership and individuals with specialty jobs (Equal Opportunity Advisors, Sexual Assault Response Coordinators, Lawyers...etc) read this regulation.

I was in the Army 13 years and never cared or had a reason to read the "race" section of the regulation until I became an Equal Opportunity Advisor and I had to read it. I remember reading it in EOA school in July 2012 and I was like "Negro...WTF??". Lol! I was told they were in the process of changing it but they were also creating a position for Sexual Assault Response Coordinator that had to be outlined in this same regulation. Sexual Assault took the focus and they forgot about changing the race section.

The race section got neglected and was never updated. If you look back as long as this regulation has basically been in existence you will see the term "Negro". This is a failure on the Army to update this part of the regulation but lets not make it seem like the Army all of a sudden just decided it is okay to call Black and African American Soldiers "Negroes".

Response by SGT Richard H. made Nov 6 at 2014 1:18 PM

2014-11-06T13:18:26-05:00

Apparently you aren't the only one that noticed...there's a new update out with today's date (6 NOV 2014) that no longer has that verbiage on page 55.

http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/r600_20.pdf

Response by 1LT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 6 at 2014 1:18 PM

2014-11-06T13:18:27-05:00

Human would also be an acceptable write in. Identifying by melanin content on any form is inherently racist. Some argue that eliminating this would make police investigations more difficult. To that I say simply add a column just like hair and eye color. Simple as that. Let's get rid of terms like negro, African American, black, Latino, Hispanic, Arab, middle eastern, Caucasian, white, etc. These identifiers serve to do nothing more than segregate us all. Technically we born in this country but we all are blank-American cause our origin is not from here. So respect of your ancestors would make me African-American.....I'm not the color black nor a negro which by the way is latin for "niger", pronounced "ni**er".

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 6 at 2014 2:13 PM

2014-11-06T14:13:54-05:00

Ok since this seems to be making its rounds on social media and causing quite a buzz let me put a few points out there.
The word Negro is the word for Black (the color) in several languages and it has been in the regulation for decades so why is it just now an issue?
Did all of the "I'm the omnipotent leaders" not read the regulation?
Every single EO rep and advisor in the Army is well aware that this term is and has been in the reg but none of them seem to have an issue with it, I wonder why?
Why is term considered offensive? Has anyone every heard of the United Negro College Fund?
Or is it only offensive when someone outside the racial group uses it? Because that is racist.

Response by CPL David Martin made Nov 6 at 2014 2:46 PM

2014-11-06T14:46:31-05:00

Why do we need an Army Reg to let us know what we can call people.... We are not idiots. Micro-managing at its best! I personally do not like that term and would never use it. Just my .02.

Response by CPT Aaron Kletzing made Nov 6 at 2014 3:13 PM

2014-11-06T15:13:26-05:00

I am obviously Caucasian, but there is something about the word "Negro" that feels demeaning and offensive in terms of how others may interpret it. Honestly, the reg could have been just as clear if they used other language that may not have been so sensitive. As we all know, it's not whether YOU intended to offend someone, but whether THEY reasonably took offense to it. Just my two cents.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 6 at 2014 4:25 PM

2014-11-06T16:25:24-05:00

feels like the army just took 5 steps back as far as equal opertunites go hopefully this gets changed, its still a slap on the face of the army as a whole

Response by MSgt Curtis Ellis made Nov 6 at 2014 4:44 PM

2014-11-06T16:44:51-05:00

Simply put, If you are referring to a "Black American" or an "African American", why can't you just say "Black American" or an "African American"... Why re-introduce a word that really is offensive to most that it is referred to as well as most it isn't referred to? Just because it is now in AR 600-20 doesn't make it right, or legal... Oh well... I guess I'm going to have to select "Other" on future applications...

Response by SPC Brandon Bare made Nov 6 at 2014 6:06 PM

2014-11-06T18:06:13-05:00

There is a new published AR 600-20 as of November 6, 2014 (today). I believe that it no longer includes the phrase that you were concerned about. Perhaps someone had a "how'd that get in there, you're fired" moment. As for me, I am sensitive to how I might come across when discussing race, the last thing I would want to do is offend someone inadvertently (although I know I have). I feel that most don't really focus on race beyond that realization to be sensitive not to offend. Although there are a few in our ranks who harbor negative feelings and even fewer who would dare act on them, I hope they continue to diminish. Perhaps one day when they ask us what color we are upon our enlistment forms we can simply say 'red', which is the color we are all willing to bleed for our country and fellow soldiers.

Response by MSG Brad Sand made Nov 6 at 2014 6:21 PM

2014-11-06T18:21:39-05:00

You may want to speak with those with Spanish as a first or second language, or from a Latin culture?

Response by SGT Greg Gold made Nov 6 at 2014 7:27 PM

2014-11-06T19:27:26-05:00

I always preferred light green and dark green, but that's just me. I find the term 'negro' to be a throw back to segregation and therefore unacceptable as a modern term, never mind as part of an Army regulation. I realize that different people are going to want to be called different things, but I've yet to meet a dark green Soldier who called themselves a negro.

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Nov 6 at 2014 7:43 PM

2014-11-06T19:43:50-05:00

I suppose the United Negro College Fund should be ashamed of itself...

Response by CW2 Geoff Lachance made Nov 6 at 2014 9:32 PM

2014-11-06T21:32:07-05:00

What's wrong with name and rank! We wear the same uniform and bleed the same color! This brings us back a few years!

Response by MSG Karl Arrington made Nov 6 at 2014 10:55 PM

2014-11-06T22:55:18-05:00

Negro is an old term and has been out of "vogue" for years. I don't understand why Haitian was included in the definition, so it may have been related to that. This also brings up another issue: why was Haitian included but Cuban, Dominican Jamaican, etc. not included. Being referred to as an African American hasn't stopped racism and there are still people out there that would refer to me with the "other N word", including other African Americans. Also, I have just read AR 600-20 dtd 6 November 2014 and that definition has been changed already with the offending portion removed.

Response by SGT Patrick McCullough made Nov 7 at 2014 12:48 AM

2014-11-07T00:48:51-05:00

I love how vernacular Etymology is always portrayed as a slur especially around election times. I know plenty of people who wouldn't blink an eye and use the term on the reg. Latin Nigrum root of Negro. Negro, Negra=black. Eat some Turkey and STFU. Nothing better then righteous indignation based on ignorance.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 7 at 2014 7:30 AM

2014-11-07T07:30:24-05:00

The good news is that the Army Times reported this morning that it was removed. It never should have been there in the first place.

Use of word 'Negro' removed from new Army reg

Response by CPL Jay Strickland made Nov 7 at 2014 7:15 PM

2014-11-07T19:15:34-05:00

My guess is they copied and pasted the same words from the 1960's when that was considered the nice term. Much like most of our NCOers.

Response by 1SG Steven Stankovich made Nov 8 at 2014 12:05 PM

2014-11-08T12:05:30-05:00

Looks like the Army fixed itself...

http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/2014/11/06/use-of-word-negro-removed-from-new-army-reg/18617965/?sf33428338=1

Use of word 'Negro' removed from new Army reg

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 8 at 2014 12:54 PM

2014-11-08T12:54:20-05:00

Are you insinuating that people that prefer the term negro are somehow antiquated? I believe it to be more of a genuine term than african american to a population that has no ties to Africa. I also feel the use of dark and light green to refer to the color of Soldiers is disingenuous because it is based on the argument that you are color blind. If that is the case than all are green, not shades of. I dont believe it to be an oversight, more so allowing a once widely used term to survive without it being stigmatized.

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 8 at 2014 3:54 PM

2014-11-08T15:54:27-05:00

Okay, people really need to stop getting in a tizzy over the word 'Negro'. There are two different N words, of which that one is only the first.

As a black man, I say if you call me THAT, I'm not going to get offended, I'm going to laugh at you for being fifty years out of date.

If you call me the other N-word, then we have an issue, and you'll be seeing the business end of an EO complaint.

Plus, I'm not a hyphenated anything. I was born in 1967 in Providence, Rhode Island. The first time I saw Africa, I was 35 years old, and it was for work. Calling me African-American implies ties to Africa that just aren't there. I am an American!

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 8 at 2014 7:21 PM

2014-11-08T19:21:58-05:00

I don't know if it was mentioned already in the answers, but the term has since been removed from the Reg.

http://news.yahoo.com/u-army-apologizes-drop-term-negro-policy-document-172912135.html;_ylt=A0LEVxLbsl5UxvkAhXdXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEzcnAzOTk4BHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDNARjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkA1ZJUDA3N18x?pt=tAD4SCT8P7

U.S. Army apologizes, will drop term 'Negro' from policy document

(Reuters) - The U.S. Army has issued an apology and will no longer use the term "Negro" in a document on policies and procedures as an acceptable alternative to African American. The Army Command Policy, known as AR 600-20, said "terms such as 'Haitian' or 'Negro' could be used in addition to 'Black' or 'African American.'" The issue was first reported by CNN on Thursday. The Army dropped the term the same day and issued the apology. "The U.S....

Response by SSG (ret) William Martin made Nov 9 at 2014 3:56 AM

2014-11-09T03:56:02-05:00

Did someone get lazy and copy and paste from an AR created in 1953?

Response by SFC Oranthal Smith made Nov 10 at 2014 5:31 AM

2014-11-10T05:31:05-05:00

Soldiers, brothers and sisters in Arms, the Update is out there dated 6 NOV 2014.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 12 at 2014 4:34 AM

2014-11-12T04:34:43-05:00

I grew up in a racially segregated neighborhood in Texas. The term is too close to other words of the same general spelling and it offends me. Taking the high road means considering things from people to be from people aside from Irish-German-Polish-Italian-Cuban-Russian-Greek-Spanish-American or any of that disturbing silliness.

Response by Sgt Rich Mooney made Nov 15 at 2014 10:16 AM

2014-11-15T10:16:49-05:00

I'll go one step further than you have in your questioning of any words we use to describe differences in appearance; Why do we call it a "Race" when it's just a description of a different physical appearance? The only RACE I belive exists is the HUMAN RACE and until our cultures buy into that concept, the differences of physical appearance will always be used to separate and divide all people (and ideology but don't get me started there..).

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 22 at 2015 12:20 PM

2015-02-22T12:20:28-05:00

MSG Darren Gaddy I know that this is off topic. I wonder how they would categorize Russian. As far as I know, Russia is not part of the Middle East or Europe. If China is part of the Far East, I would say that Russia is also part of the Far East.

The underlying problem is more of the cultural state of mind. Can anybody really classify a person's race without a genetic or DNA testing? People would be surprised of the result of such testing.

I would highly encourage people to watch The Human Family Tree and question the validity of the very definition of race itself.

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/human-family-tree/

The Human Family Tree

On a single day on a single street, with the DNA of just a couple of hundred random people, National Geographic Channel sets out to trace the ancestral...

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made May 23 at 2015 10:19 PM

2015-05-23T22:19:19-04:00

Touchy subject for me to reply to. But most of the brown people (as most kids under 12 refer to African Americans) I work with do on a regular basis refer to themselves and other brown people by the notorious "N" word. Maybe it's just around me because they know I dated a brown girl for a while but still very common nontheless.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made May 23 at 2015 10:42 PM

2015-05-23T22:42:31-04:00

What is the right term? There is someone who is offended by everyone on that list. Where is the line drawn. I'm surprised there isn't a DA Pam that lists thing I can be offended over and things I can't.

Whatever the next word is will eventually be derogatory. I work with people with intellectual disabilities which used to be Special Needs which used to be Mental Retardations which used to to Invalids and so on.

Whatever term is used there will always be a group that will discriminate. It's the world we live in.

And furthermore if you are offended by "Negro" I challenge you to count how many times you call something or someone "retarded" in a day. Even though "retarded" is still used as A medical diagnosis. The use of this outside of that is "offensive". This is a crutch word just like the "N" word I hear so much at work.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 22 at 2018 12:54 AM

2018-10-22T00:54:18-04:00

I don't even have a race or color, its' "Pacific Islander". Lol
O, I forgot, we even can't vote, Obama said we on Guam aren't real citizens, We's a US Colony.

Response by SGM Erik Marquez made Oct 22 at 2018 8:04 AM

2018-10-22T08:04:13-04:00

Putting aside for a moment the need to modify the term American with anything else...

Perhaps the inclusion of the term "Negro" is do to the fact people from all races, county's, places, groups, tribes, cities, are allowed to Serve (under some conditions) and term "Negro" is still used, acceptable and normal for some locals. Denying the serving Soldier the right to be referred to by what they know, culturally grew up with, find normal and agreeable would be as wrong as allowing the term "cracker" be required as the term of reference for any Caucasian Soldier.

Or Perhaps its an oversight that it was left in.....

A better question though ..... who is offended? Is it the Soldier who's race is being referred to as "Negro" or is it a third party having ZERO standing being offended for that SM?