Bill Spight wrote:
FWIW, colored person was my late wife's term for herself. 
Bill I think this statement is very apropos because it highlights a key difference in the function of language that seems to be driving this disagreement. Broadly, I hear you and John focusing on the "intent" of the label. To simplify (I hope not too much), I hear you and John arguing that John's use of the term was not made with the intent of being offensive and conversely interpreting the word as necessarily implying offense is incorrect. This argument is then buttressed by the fact that there many other uses of the term that clearly have no offensive intent -- i.e. "oriental rug" or, in your wife's case, that members of the group choose to apply the label to themselves. Everything you are saying is completely reasonable and I would be shocked if anyone thought that John intended offense.
I think (and others should correct me if I've gotten this wrong) the argument that Kirby and others are making is a bit different. To use your statement, the key issue is not the term that your wife used to describe herself but rather the fact that it was she who chose the term. Words are powerful. And names and labels particularly are particularly powerful. The argument as I understand it is that historically marginalized populations have had labels applied to them. The act of choosing (or excluding) a label for self-reference is a statement that the historical position of the group is being rejected -- it is an act of empowerment. In this context, refusing to abide by that's groups choice not to use a particular name repudiates their right to choose their own labels. Conversely, abiding by the group's label communicates that you understand and acknowledge their right to choose what they are called.
And at an important level, the right to choose one's label is a basic social convention. Imagine that I am introduced to someone who calls himself "Bob", but I insist on calling him "Chris". The first time I call him "Chris" he'll likely say, "I'm sorry, but I think you misunderstood. My name is 'Bob'. Please do not call me 'Chris'." If at that point, I then intentionally persist in calling him "Chris", this would be quite offensive. Same principle applies to continuing to use a nickname for someone after they have let it be known that they dislike it. This example, of course, removes the larger political and historical context that terms like "Oriental" have from the discussion. But in doing so, I think it highlights the contravention of the basic social norm and the importance of having the right to choose one's own labels.
Here is another example that I think begins to incorporate some of the historical elements and illustrates why the context can amplify the offense. (I've modified the names and changed some details to ensure privacy.) I have a cousin whose given name is Jim. I grew up calling him Jim, and it was the name that everyone in our larger family used for him. Jim struggled with some very severe health issues for a few decades and when he got them under control, he felt like a completely new person. To affirm this dramatic change, he decided that he wanted to be called "Charles". To him, "Jim" represented someone with whom he no longer identified. To be sure, remembering to call him "Charles" after having called him "Jim" for 30+ years was extremely hard (family members still slip up!). But if someone had refused his request and insisted on calling him "Jim" -- even after being told the basis for the request -- it is hard to see that refusal as anything other than a challenge to his perceptions of how significantly his life had changed.
