Posted on Nov 2, 2014
Why was this included in the updated AR 600-20 ("Negro")?
41.1K
203
105
15
15
0
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.
Posted in these groups: 
AR 600-20
AR 600-20
Edited 10 y ago
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 40
18
18
0
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.
(18)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
When the Army segregates/classifies us by race and gender, some folks are just bound to get their feelings hurt. They are just asking for trouble.
(1)
(0)
SPC (Join to see)
Its not the classification that is bothering me, it is the term negro. I may be slightly ignorant of the term, however I am sure many would rather be referred to as african american or even black. I may be wrong, who knows. I will start a poll on this topic and approach it with dignity and respect in mind. However I will be conducting my own research on this site to see what others would refer to themselves as.
(0)
(0)
MSG John Wirts
Being "offended by the proper racial title, indicates ignorance or prejudice. It would be just as dumb to say I am offended by the title of Caucasian. I do get offended by honkey, and cracker, but Caucasian is the proper title for my race. Too many people are looking for something to complain about and/or become offended by. Get over yourselves and remember if you try to control laws and groups the Democrats made laws they thought would give them advantage, now with Republican Congress the Democrats are at a dis advantage. IF MINORITIES insist that minorities need special privilege,they are perpetuating the myth that minorities are incapable of competing with the majorities. This will backfire! This year Caucasians became a minority in California, so now are entitled to special privileges and affirmative action?
(1)
(0)
SFC Edward Sneed
MSG Wirts, apparently you are missing a lot of knowledgeable 'facts' about this issue, and what you call a racial title. Over 200 years, we as blacks were given many different names that defined us, by the Europeans who enslaved us, and by the 'Caucasian race. The military only needs to define us as soldiers. You are not a 'Caucasian soldier, you are a soldier, period. We as a black race are not insisting on special privileges. That is another 'racist' factor that has been applied to us. We are not talking racism here, we are correcting a mistake that was imprinted years ago, that needed to be changed. I'm sure that many corrections are applied to our Army regulations on a daily basis. If it's wrong, let's make it right. Pardon my abruptness, and with all due respects, your comment seems more racist, than it is a matter of military concern.
(1)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
SFC Edward Sneed you make some valid points and therefore present yourself as an intelligent person so let me ask this question.
The Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute (DEOMI) is the doctrinal proponent for all training material related to race relations in the Department of Defense. The are the ones that develop all materials used to train Equal Opportunity Advisors like myself. The majority of the employees there are Black African American or of races other than Caucasian.
So with those facts in mind, why after all these years of them being aware of the word being in the regulation and using it to train people, did they never raise an eyebrow over it?
The Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute (DEOMI) is the doctrinal proponent for all training material related to race relations in the Department of Defense. The are the ones that develop all materials used to train Equal Opportunity Advisors like myself. The majority of the employees there are Black African American or of races other than Caucasian.
So with those facts in mind, why after all these years of them being aware of the word being in the regulation and using it to train people, did they never raise an eyebrow over it?
(1)
(0)
SFC Edward Sneed
SFC (Verify To See), I would have no idea as to why it was not implemented at an earlier phase. That would have been noted and left up to those individuals of the DEOMI. As I was an EO advisor at one time in my career, we did not have the organization DEOMI, and I am unaware of their standards. But, one thing is a definite. . . .it was noted, it was presented as a questionable issue, and it was therefore, addressed, resolved, and removed. When, is not important.
(0)
(0)
SFC Edward Sneed
SFC (Verify To See), when I was a PSNCO at a unit in my last duty assignment before I retired, I had identified an error that was made in one of the Army regulations which we used on a daily basis, in my component. Who knows how long this error existed in that regulation. The point was, I identified it, brought it to the appropriate proponents attention, and with the assistance of my CSM, and Battalion CO, the error was forwarded, and the correction was made. So, if you understand my point, you know what I am talking about. It did not involve (social media), nor any civilian related organization.
(1)
(0)
CPL Ashley Gochneaur
SFC Sneed, I agree with everything stated above, with one exception. In the first reply, you stated:
"MSG Wirts, apparently you are missing a lot of knowledgeable 'facts' about this issue, and what you call a racial title. Over 200 years, we as blacks were given many different names that defined us, by the Europeans who enslaved us, and by the 'Caucasian race."
Maybe I am reading too much into the wording you used, but I think your knowledgable facts needed a bit more clarification. In doing this, I am assuming you are referencing the Atlantic Slave Trade as we are discussing an issue regarding verbage in an AR that directly references African-Americans. The majority of slaves from Africa to the United States involved Europeans buying slaves from African slavers. These slaves were often members of other conquered tribes or criminals. So the verbage used stating "the Europeans who enslaved us" wouldn't be entirely factual.
But again, I might just be getting caught up on the words used.
"MSG Wirts, apparently you are missing a lot of knowledgeable 'facts' about this issue, and what you call a racial title. Over 200 years, we as blacks were given many different names that defined us, by the Europeans who enslaved us, and by the 'Caucasian race."
Maybe I am reading too much into the wording you used, but I think your knowledgable facts needed a bit more clarification. In doing this, I am assuming you are referencing the Atlantic Slave Trade as we are discussing an issue regarding verbage in an AR that directly references African-Americans. The majority of slaves from Africa to the United States involved Europeans buying slaves from African slavers. These slaves were often members of other conquered tribes or criminals. So the verbage used stating "the Europeans who enslaved us" wouldn't be entirely factual.
But again, I might just be getting caught up on the words used.
(0)
(0)
13
13
0
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.
(13)
(0)
SFC Edward Sneed
Exactly, SSG Foreman. We are American Soldiers and nothing else. I never understood that either.
(4)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
I am an a American... But still a SOLDIER.. I was taught the only color in the military is green.. A good friend of mine is from South African and she gets offend when people say that they are African American.. She says.. everyone leaves their Country to become AMERICAN.. so just be AMERICAN...
(5)
(0)
12
12
0
MSG Darren Gaddy
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.
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.
(12)
(0)
PO3 Shaun Taylor
SFC Clark Adams I know you were being sarcastic but I really do think race should be removed from the publications.
(2)
(0)
SFC Clark Adams
I was being more sardonic than sarcastic, but remove one racial category, remove them all. I think one's race needs to only be in medical records, no DA pictures, no ethnic group identifies in any personnel documents other than medical files.
(2)
(0)
7
7
0
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".
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".
(7)
(0)
MSG Darren Gaddy
Correct, however all this time no one spoke up or chose to say anything about it that caused any type of action and allowed it to remain unchanged. Sometimes having knowlege of something and simply bringing it to light is enough to cause change. If you had knowlege of it and you chose not to question or say anything, does that indicate it was acceptable to you? That of course is a rhetorical question to express a point. When we continue to allow things to go unchallenged, they become the norm and acceptable. Not all things are acceptable.
(2)
(0)
6
5
1
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!
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!
(6)
(1)
4
4
0
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
Use of word 'Negro' removed from new Army reg
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
MSG John Wirts
How About The Black Republican Caucus? The Citadel was forced to admit females, but Mills Womens College was allowed to continue excluding men despite the fact this was the same discrimination that was deemed unconstitutional for the Citadel, is sexual discrimination!
(0)
(0)
1LT (Join to see)
SSG,
What should an organization that prides itself in supporting middle & low income students of all ethnic groups be ashamed exactly? Founded in 1944, negro was the preferred term over being called ni****, today it's a brand name no different than the Washington Redskins, the point being it's not intended to offend or harm a person or persons.
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, but honestly, in what situation would you need to call a solider under your command a negro, SSG?
What should an organization that prides itself in supporting middle & low income students of all ethnic groups be ashamed exactly? Founded in 1944, negro was the preferred term over being called ni****, today it's a brand name no different than the Washington Redskins, the point being it's not intended to offend or harm a person or persons.
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, but honestly, in what situation would you need to call a solider under your command a negro, SSG?
(3)
(0)
SFC Michael Hasbun
You hit the nail on the head, and managed to express my point while failing to realize I was making it.
It's all about the intent of the speaker of the word, not the word itself. A word is no more good or evil than the meaning we ascribe to it.
This was a complete non issue.
It's all about the intent of the speaker of the word, not the word itself. A word is no more good or evil than the meaning we ascribe to it.
This was a complete non issue.
(2)
(0)
4
4
0
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!
(4)
(0)
1LT(P) (Join to see)
I been saying they need to change the name of United Negro College Fund because to me it's no different than saying the other word. There are so many issues to point out about black history it would be a new book written. I'm even upset that we call it black history because last I checked it was American history just a different category of specifics. In order to do better we have to understand where we came from and that is the issue. Cultural self hate is real especially when you have no knowledge or truth of it. "Morgan Freeman" said it best......"In order to get rid of racism we address people by their names and not a color category."
(2)
(0)
1LT(P) (Join to see)
SSG John Erny, I'm a human being and a man before anything....I earn my stripes and respect just like anybody else. Respect is given in the military but it is also earned.....
Negro is the latin word for "niger", pronounced "ni**er". So yeah no matter who say it don't make it right. Remember those who made those organization names with negro in them didn't know better. So yeah I have a big problem with that, reading is fundamental and as we see policy still lacks intelligence and common sense.
Negro is the latin word for "niger", pronounced "ni**er". So yeah no matter who say it don't make it right. Remember those who made those organization names with negro in them didn't know better. So yeah I have a big problem with that, reading is fundamental and as we see policy still lacks intelligence and common sense.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
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.
(3)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
I fear we're giving Social Media too much power over our policies and regulations.
(1)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
I agree and disagree. Social Media is a platform for people to let themselves be heard on subjects such as this. However my initial point still stands. The word is arcaic and has no use but the fact that it has been in the same reg for so many years without concern raises eyebrows. Why bring it up now? Isnt there enough racial tension in the military without someone digging up things to cause a ruckus?
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
Social Media allowed misinformation to be spread. A: it wasn't an addition. B: most people don't understand the context of why racial classification codes exist in a military regulation. C: is not "negro" the oxford dictionary appropriate term? We're not talking about what people would prefer to be called, or even what other more derogatory terms came about after butchering the pronunciation.
Truly the only thing that this regulation allowed was for certain people to identify THEMSELVES as such.
Truly the only thing that this regulation allowed was for certain people to identify THEMSELVES as such.
(1)
(0)
SFC Edward Sneed
What a lot of people 'don't' understand and may refuse to accept, is the fact that there is always a time for 'change'. Whether it was a hundred years, ten years, or yesterday. If it weren't for change, we'd still be in the past, trying to figure out how to get to the moon. Just because someone years ago, classified a name, it does not mean that it can't be reclassified, hence the word. Change can drastically 'improve' a situation for the better. AR 600-20, on page 55, pertaining to race, is only for descriptive purposes. Therefore, change was deemed necessary for identification purposes, on this matter that we are discussing currently. I see, that we are bringing up a lot of unnecessary concerns, to a simple request to make a change in an Army regulation, and nothing more. The change WAS implemented, it took affect on November 4, 2014, and for all future purposes, will remain as such, until another necessary change is made. Too many people are thinking 'outside' the box, when it is not an outside issue, it a military issue and we resolved it. This has nothing to do with any (Negro) named organization, or any social media concerns. It's simply, the military. I say we keep it that way.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
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
http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/r600_20.pdf
(3)
(0)
1LT(P) (Join to see)
SGT Richard Hanner, thanks for pointing that out cause it's obvious they saw the same issue for what the term negro means. It's no different than saying the racist comment of "ni**er".
(1)
(0)
SGT Richard H.
Totally agree, 1LT(P) (Join to see). What's more, the oldest version I can find of AR 600-20 is 1984....long after words like that should have been put in our past and moved on from.
(1)
(0)
SFC Edward Sneed
It is a good thing that this phrase was removed from the AR. I read through your link and did not see it either. It was unlike the military to cause a problematic issue like that.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google