People on Twitter seem to think UK Black history mirrored the US, the UK had problems of course, but it was never like the US.
Labour frontbencher Diane Abbott "coloured".
- Thread starter LabR@t
- Start date
People on Twitter seem to think UK Black history mirrored the US, the UK had problems of course, but it was never like the US.
Associate
- Joined
- 3 Feb 2019
- Posts
- 747
I think this is two issues in one.
Amber Rudd should have known that coloured is completely unacceptable and has been for decades. She wouldn't accidently say the N word. It's connotations with the "coloreds only" signs during segregation is pretty clear. If she didn't then it shows a complete lack of awareness and appititude
On the flip side should she be crucified for a slip of the tongue when the overall message was in support of black women.
I don't blame for Dianne Abbott (who I am not the greatest fan of) for being offended and voicing her dislike of the word, but I would hope she would have a bit more grace about it rather than use it for political points scoring.
Amber Rudd should have known that coloured is completely unacceptable and has been for decades. She wouldn't accidently say the N word. It's connotations with the "coloreds only" signs during segregation is pretty clear. If she didn't then it shows a complete lack of awareness and appititude
On the flip side should she be crucified for a slip of the tongue when the overall message was in support of black women.
I don't blame for Dianne Abbott (who I am not the greatest fan of) for being offended and voicing her dislike of the word, but I would hope she would have a bit more grace about it rather than use it for political points scoring.
Again, in the states. Not in the UK. I'll repeat, since you seem to have missed it, we didnt have the same segregation as them.
Could you explain why black is an acceptable term?
Really not sure what this has to do with Rudd using the word in the first place.
wtf.
What word has you confused?
Associate
- Joined
- 3 Feb 2019
- Posts
- 747
Did you actually read my post?
Humour me instead of crying.
Yes, I did. Two issues in one. It's not. it's two issues. The second one has little bearing on the first.
Of course not, it's hard to do that through tears and snot bubbles!
I bet most of the people offended by it are white.
Coloured hasn't been unaccepted for decades. There as been no big incidents were someone called someone else coloured and a mini riot broke out. The only people ive seen offended is other white people who whisper "oh you shouldnt call them coloured these days...".
Coloured hasn't been unaccepted for decades. There as been no big incidents were someone called someone else coloured and a mini riot broke out. The only people ive seen offended is other white people who whisper "oh you shouldnt call them coloured these days...".
Accurate? That's obviously nonsense.
Polite and accepted (that's the same thing, not two different things)? Maybe, but that's just meaningless fashion for this week. It'll be changed again soon.
There's no consistency, either internal or external, and no reasoning involved. That's why, for example "coloured person" and "person of colour" are currently treated as if they were utterly different despite being the same words with the same meaning. The latter is currently very fashionable, the former is currently very unfashionable. Despite being the same words with the same meaning.
The only plausible purpose for this custom is to promote irrational prejudice, create a hostile environment for people "wrong" group identities and suppress their speech as they say nothing because they know this custom exists as a weapon to use against them. Why else would anyone create a custom which does those things and only those things and which requires ignoring meaning, context and intent?
Associate
- Joined
- 3 Feb 2019
- Posts
- 747
Let me break it down for you. If somebody uses a derogatory racial term through either ignorance or clumsiness, whilst speaking in support of rights for racial minorities, it makes that person an idiot, not a racist.
The correct response is to highlight the fact the word is wrong but acknowledge there wasnt some deep seated racist hatred behind it and suggest the person be more careful in the future.
Take the moral high ground and exit stage left.
I agree... IF you think it's clumsiness or ignorance. And frankly a person in Amber Rudd's position shouldn't be guilty of either.
Associate
- Joined
- 3 Feb 2019
- Posts
- 747
I don't think there's an if about it. You don't generally get racists advocating for awareness on how difficult it is for a woman to be black in society. It could be a fiendishly elaborate rouse though......
I'm 50 and I'm only aware of it because I've an interest in history and in modern group identity politics. So no, it's not certain that she's well aware of things that happened before she was born and/or before she was old enough to be aware of politics and probably not where she was living anyway, or that she's aware of current fashions in the deranged irrational prejudice that is group identity politics.
I don't recall any term being used in my childhood because I don't recall any such group identity politics in my childood. I know that group identity politics existed back then, obviously, but it was far less prevalent and publicised and the racist strains didn't impinge on me as a child. The sexist strains did, but not the racist ones. Of course there were some people with darker skin around, but nobody had conditioned me to think of "race" as a group identity. Or think of "race" at all, actually. I'm not sure when I first heard the word. Different people can have different amounts of suntan. People only care about that if they're conditioned to do so. I wasn't. Maybe Amber Rudd also wasn't conditioned that way.