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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

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?