ITV offends with coloured remark

[Seagull58]

No I don't. White people clearly aren't white. They're yellow/red. Black is as colourless as white. The idea of calling someone coloured is to start with the assumption that one race is the normal, and that the others aren't. It's a shit term coined by racist (ignorant) white people.

That's rubbish. If one person is described as white and another is described as black why would "white" be the normal race. Where I live 80% of the population is black and quite happy to be described as such. 10% is Indian and equally happy to be described as such. The rest fall into categories including white, chinese and coloured (which has a particular connotation here of being mixed race). These are racial descriptions and there is nothing to suggest one is any more normal than another. Those connotations were consigned to history with the ending of apartheidt

 

[Seagull58]

There is no such thing as a black person or a white person.

Some people have dark skin, some people have light skin (and many in between). Some people are tall, some people are short. Some people are blonde, some people are brunette. etc etc

I think the Americans have the right idea by identifying "black" people as African-Americans. Because really, it's not so much about skin colour - it's about ethnic origin - and "black people" are only "black" when they are of African descent. For example there are "black" people who are have paler skin than some hispanic people who are not considered "black".

One day "black" will be as offensive as "coloured" is. They are both very archaic descriptions that are offensive because they single out certain peoples as if they are different types of person.

Black is a simple term to describe people of African descent as White is a simple term to describe people of Caucasian descent. I dread the day, should it ever arrive, when the PC brigade mandate that Black is an offensive term. On that day the lunatics will have taken over the asylum. It is not the term "black" which is offensive (and it never will be). Any offense is caused by the way the term is used.

 

[Seagull58]

I do find your position on the matter quite racist. I am not calling you a racist, nor do I blame you for it, you just share a dated view on what "race" actually is and how to approach it.

You shouldn't be asking "What do blacks want to be called?" or stating "first we called them coloured, now we call them black".

it is not us and them. People of African descent don't want to be seen as a "them" who are different from everyone else in the country they were born in. It is this dated attitude that is responsible for racism. They are simply British people of African descent, and like everyone else they have different features to their appearance.

There is no word to group short people, people with blue eyes, blonde people etc. Why do you need a word to describe all people with darker skin or of African descent?

If you really want to group people with darker skin, or African descent, maybe think of a way you can phrase it without grouping them as if they are a different "type" of person.

They are a differnt type of person. They are people of African descent, commonly called "black", whereas people of caucasian descent are commonly called white. There is nothing wrong with using either of those terms and that does not imply one is better than the other. They are simple words that broadly describe different racial groups. You can subdivide those racial groups further into African American, Congolese, Zulu, Afro-carribean, scandinavian, greek etc.but it doesn't make "black" or "white" racist terms in themselves.

 

[sydney]

That's rubbish. If one person is described as white and another is described as black why would "white" be the normal race. Where I live 80% of the population is black and quite happy to be described as such. 10% is Indian and equally happy to be described as such. The rest fall into categories including white, chinese and coloured (which has a particular connotation here of being mixed race). These are racial descriptions and there is nothing to suggest one is any more normal than another. Those connotations were consigned to history with the ending of apartheidt

*choke* this guy sounds like he knows what he's on aboiut to be honest....

 

[Seagull58]

I understand from a Police Inspector friend that the term should be "dual heritage" now.

He kept banging on about a "dual heritage" lad playing football, and I could not understand what he was going on about. Then I twigged and asked if it was it was the "coloured lad" he was talking about - apparently it was but they are no longer allowed to refer to than as that. What a load of bollox! We were both talking about him in very complementary terms, and there was no malice involved, so what is wrong with that?

PC madness. I can assure you that the African boys trying to get football apprenticeships with European clubs are very happy to be described as "promising black footballers".

 

[Seagull58]

Neither. He is South African.

I'm fairly certain he would describe himself as Black and that he wouldn't have a problem doing so. If he also has Indian or other asian ancestry then he would say so.

 

[KZNSeagull]

I'm fairly certain he would describe himself as Black and that he wouldn't have a problem doing so. If he also has Indian or other asian ancestry then he would say so.

I see what you are saying, but I don't necessarily agree. I do totally agree what you are saying with regards to whether the label is offensive to the person being labelled.

Because Steven Pienaar has an Afrikaans surname, one could assume that he is of mixed race, possibly a "Cape Coloured". If this is the case, calling him black may be offensive to him. Equally, if this is not the case, calling him coloured could be equally offensive to him. Personally, not wishing to offend him, I would label him South African.

The government refer to black Africans all of the time and it is clearly not offensive. I have been told by a Zulu woman that she would rather be labelled brown, because to her, Africans with very dark skin are usually untrustworthy (which puts her in a very difficult situation as her son has very dark skin! He is extremely trustworthy, by the way!).

This is the problem with labels. Someone may be quite happy with a label whilst someone else will not. For this reason, I try to avoid using them.

 

[piersa]

I think your view is that of a closed minded and ignorant bigot, However I intend no offence. I am merely stating what i read. Consequently by your standards you have no right to be offended and if you are the issue is yourself.

I am not offended, I just pity your stupidity.

 

[Wazzetta]

Trying to be too clever!

I think your view is that of a closed minded and ignorant bigot, However I intend no offence. I am merely stating what i read. Consequently by your standards you have no right to be offended and if you are the issue is yourself.

Me thinks you are far too clever for your own good Castello! Failing to appreciate intent and therefore context is a slippery slope. Surely black people using the word ****** is all about context and intent? Are they narrow minded bigots?

 

[Seagull58]

I see what you are saying, but I don't necessarily agree. I do totally agree what you are saying with regards to whether the label is offensive to the person being labelled.

Because Steven Pienaar has an Afrikaans surname, one could assume that he is of mixed race, possibly a "Cape Coloured". If this is the case, calling him black may be offensive to him. Equally, if this is not the case, calling him coloured could be equally offensive to him. Personally, not wishing to offend him, I would label him South African.

The government refer to black Africans all of the time and it is clearly not offensive. I have been told by a Zulu woman that she would rather be labelled brown, because to her, Africans with very dark skin are usually untrustworthy (which puts her in a very difficult situation as her son has very dark skin! He is extremely trustworthy, by the way!).

This is the problem with labels. Someone may be quite happy with a label whilst someone else will not. For this reason, I try to avoid using them.

And this is where context comes into it. The Zulu woman considers Nigerians and Congolese, for example, to be untrustworthy and their skins are blacker than hers'. Pienaar was brought up by a single black mother in a black township outside Joburg (and was beaten up as a kid by white kids from a neighbouring white area) and so would probably consider himself to be black but I may be wrong. My girlfriend, who is a black zimbabwean, is quite comfortable to be called black, as are all her friends. She is also happy to be described as "big boobed ebony" in private but I'm not sure if that would catch on in the UK as an alternative description for some of the black female population!

 

[Tricky Dicky]

'big nose twat'

Oi ! You talking to me, moosh ?

 

[Wazzetta]

Until we all accept that description words are just adjectives and nothing more, this argument will rage. Describing an individual is impossible without using words that some narrow minded fool consider offensive. We use short, tall, fat, thin, big, small, blonde, dark, ginger, pale, olive, hairy, bald etc etc, what is wrong with black, white, brown, yellow, grey? The answer is NOTHING, unless of course you subscribe to and adhere this notion that people are so sensitive that their ears can't be exposed to such words. Racism, sexism, ageism etc will only die when we all embrace the concept of EQUALITY, then and only then will we enjoy the freedom to utilise adjectives without fear of reprisal!

 

[BadFish]

My Grandma still refers to blacks/Asians with pretty outdated words that are now deemed hugely offensive. Does it mean she approves of slavery? No. Does it mean she dislikes ethnic minorities? No. Because racism is such a minefield today, people look for it and point the finger at others, so to prove their own innocence. Obviously saying 'coloured' to millions of people is very tactless and such terms should be avoided. But it is getting to the point when you wonder what term CAN you use without someone pointing the finger.

Gareth??

 

[BadFish]

Words are not just words, names are not just names. they carry a weight of historical and cultural significance with them.

That is why you don't get many kids called Adolf or Judas.

 

[maltaseagull]

I preferred Charles Kennedy's "Ich bin ein Binliner".

Charles?

 

[Seagull58]

Charles?

Context is SO important!
Read the earlier posts about Martin Luther King and Enoch Powell and you'll get it.

 

[maltaseagull]

Context is SO important!
Read the earlier posts about Martin Luther King and Enoch Powell and you'll get it.

Think I had better go to the Palace site then. This is far too subtle for me. Got too much else to do to troll through all these posts.

Bye now

 

[Wazzetta]

Words!

Words are not just words, names are not just names. they carry a weight of historical and cultural significance with them.

That is why you don't get many kids called Adolf or Judas.

Neither Adolf or Judas are Adjectives, they are "Proper nouns" so your argument is questionable, very questionable!

 

[Bold Seagull]

Neither Adolf or Judas are Adjectives, they are "Proper nouns" so your argument is questionable, very questionable!

I think you'll find judas is in modern english language an adjective to describe treacherous or betraying.

 

[Triggaaar]

That's rubbish. If one person is described as white and another is described as black why would "white" be the normal race.

I didn't say that.

Where I live 80% of the population is black and quite happy to be described as such. 10% is Indian and equally happy to be described as such. The rest fall into categories including white, chinese and coloured (which has a particular connotation here of being mixed race). These are racial descriptions and there is nothing to suggest one is any more normal than another.

I didn't say otherwise.

I said that the white people in Britain that called black people coloured, and assumed that they themselves were of no colour, were ignorant/racist.