Herr Ing Gull
Active member
- Sep 3, 2014
- 78
I am sure Miss Rudd will be more careful in the future when referencing diversity .
Careful avoidance of calling her Amber, I see.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I am sure Miss Rudd will be more careful in the future when referencing diversity .
The term’ coloured’ was used as a derogatory racist term in the US. It was also used in South Africa to describe racial groups who weren’t Black or White, therefore it is seen as derogatory to use it against any person of colour today. If you’re a White person and can’t understand why this is seen as offensive by non-White people, perhaps, just don’t use that term.
Unless, of course you want to offend.
Sadly, for a lot of people on here Abbott is correct.
Just out of interest, what should Rudd have said to differentiate between ethnic backgrounds?
So if we all decide that we’ve had enough of being called white, all those using the term will have stop doing it and call us Caucasians instead.
Where does that end?
Why can we not use black and white to differentiate between two people who may otherwise be the same age, height and build?
I’m totally fed up with everyone taking offence at everything. Who, exactly is using these terms in a derogatory way?
I have a cousin called Gaye. Should she change her name? If so, what is acceptable?
I can’t believe this whole thread started because an MP dared to suggest that racist abuse was wrong!
I think Diane Abbott's reaction is revealing.Shadow home secretary Diane Abbott criticised the use of the term, saying it was "outdated", "offensive" and a "revealing choice of words".
But that would have required Abbott not being a polical flat track bully, a lazy self-indulgent hypocrital intellectual and cultural pygmy.
I think Diane Abbott's reaction is revealing.
"women of colour" or "coloured women" what`s the difference ?
Yes, because the race of someone we're addressing is not usually the important bit. In your example we'd say 'No, not the woman with the jacket, the woman with the glasses next to her', rather than say what race they are. That's not relevant to Amber's point, as she was intending to stand up for woman from ethnic minorities. Her mistake was to say coloured woman, instead of black woman, or woman of colour.I suspect most people on here, regardless of whether they think the reaction is pathetic, or justified, wouldn't address a black or any other person as coloured. If you were picking out a person you wouldn't say, "not the white women, the coloured women next to her..." think about it, I suspect most of us wouldn't, because faux outrage or not, we know it's not a thing to say.
Careful avoidance of calling her Amber, I see.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
What is racist about Rudds comment ? Using the word coloured ? Would it have been ok if she had said black instead of coloured ?
I've no love for Rudd or the Tories, and narrow distinctions between words do matter and we should be careful with them ..... but Rudd for me is completely off the hook. There was clearly no intention to offend or whip up fervent far right groups. She made a mistake which I think is fairly easy to make. It's actually not that easy to reference ethnicity in a sentence.... I mean you can say the correct terms, "people of African origin", "people of colour" "BAME" etc, but none of them really fit neatly into a sentence. Certainly not if you're trying to make (in this case an anti-racist) point in a short interview.
She should have constructed a longer sentence to convey her point. No doubt she will in the future.
Dianne Abbott, showed why she rubs people up the wrong way by clearly implying that Amber Rudd is a racist. I think very few would have heard it like that. Abbott could have won a lot more respect by coming out and saying she didn't think there was any intent (given that the point being made was actually to defend her).
More people every day ....
Equalities and Human Rights Commission announces it believes Labour might have broken the law by unlawfully discriminating against Jewish people - so ‘considering using statutory enforcement powers’ - party now has chance to respond - v serious indeed
— Laura Kuenssberg (@bbclaurak) March 7, 2019
If you were picking out a person you wouldn't say, "not the white women, the coloured women next to her..." think about it, I suspect most of us wouldn't, because faux outrage or not, we know it's not a thing to say.
Except in the historical context
View attachment 105450
View attachment 105451
View attachment 105452
Not 'white' maybe, but 'whitey' certainly has. As has 'honky'; no prosecutions or outrage about that though.I think black is okay, as is gay for homosexual people.
The point is that ‘ white has historically never been used as a general term of abuse.