Coloured - racist or just a word

[Oneeyedvic]

So people get annoyed with words - sticks and stones obviously doesn't apply anymore.

So what is racist, what is ofefnsive and at what point do we stop.

Listening to 5 live quite a while ago, I remember a woman saying that she found the word "miss" offensive. Obviously TCL and j_bug find coloured offensive - or do they?

Do they actually find it offensive, or do they not like the use of the term in case some people do find it offensive?

How many people does it take to take offense at a word before it gets banned?

Best quote I ever heard was from a member of the dyslexic association. When asked if dyslexics found the term "brain storming" offensive she replied in the negative and added that they actually took offense at the word "dyslexic"

[hannah333]

Surely a word can only be described as offensive if it actually causes offence to the people it refers to? Surely this means that it is certainly a grey area because some people will be offended and others not. For example, I live in a poor community in Italy which is highly influenced by the hip hop and rap music written and performed mostly by black Americans. Many of my friends have learnt English through this music, and so often come out with sentances such as "lets holla that n1gga we met last week and see if he wanna come chill in our crib" (actually quite amusing with an italian accent) however no offence is intended, and none is taken because anyone who is black who meets them learns to understand how the word has come to be used. In fact, the word has become so commonly used that I must remember not to use it on returning to England, as I could cause offence.

[SarCaustic]

Searchme - I said in my previous post "we are all Homo sapiens and there is LITTLE need to differentiate between us" - notice the use of the word "little". The example I cited of the irrelevance of categorising people was clearly within the context of media reporting - do keep up. I maintain that there is LITTLE need to differentiate between people of different ethnicity and skin colour; I would have thought that the exceptions would be obvious. Evidently they were not, seeing that you deigned to highlight one of them as a means of rebuttal to my argument. Surely, you can do better?

[Octavius]

Of course nobody likes to be labelled and categorised, but that is life. Using the 'we are all humans' is rather lame. You are forgetting those people who want to be identified for their ethnicity and rightly so. People look at me and would realise that I am a white European, but they don't know I am an English white European of Irish descent and often I would point this out.

As you refer back to the original question, some people are offended by the word coloured, I don't particularly consider this any more racist than calling my dad (RIP) a paddy. But people will take offence and we ned to respect that, in whatever medium we express identity.

[SarCaustic]

Octavius, you make a good point and not one that I would refute. However, I was questioning the NECESSITY of labelling categorising people, I didn't not pass comment on people who CHOOSE to be recognised by their ethnicity. There is a difference. A muslim woman wearing the hijab is identifying herself as a muslim, leaving no room for her identity to be mistaken - but it isn't always so clear cut. The Asian people I know often tell me how they are misplaced by the misjudgement of others- i.e. they are assumed to be Muslims/Hindus/Sikhs when they are not. I recently made a friend in college, whom others assumed to be Chinese when she was in fact Malaysian. These mistakes may seem trivial to some, but they can cause offence. My point is, it is fine to identify yourself by whichever characteristic you choose, but the room for error and offence with the judgement of other people makes it somewhat less acceptable to me.

[Octavius]

My future father-in-law is bald. One day I called him Mr Baldy Head and he was a bit offended, so I didn't do that again.

Your point about confusing Malaysian & Chinese is hardly riotous, much the same as confusing someone from Wales with someone from England. Perhaps the welshman or the englishman might be more offended than the Malaysian you met, but that is a very narrow argument.

We are talking here about grand categorisation of 'coloureds' which many people would associate with all people who are perhaps .. not white or are maybe of mixed race. There are some people who wish to display their identity and if they want to be called coloured then that is up to them, but we shouldn't label all people the same way.

I think I remember when I was at school calling someone coloured was acceptable if they were mixed race, I also remember using the word half-caste which were acceptable then, but I doubt very much they are today so I don't use them. In the early 90's saying 'black coffee' was banned in many local authorities, you had to say 'coffee without milk' but I think this has been largely forgotten now.

Times change, we all need to keep up.

[SarCaustic]

Firstly, I cited the anecdote of my malaysian friend as an example, to illustrate my point, not an argument. Secondly, do you honestly believe that anyone would choose to identify themselves as 'coloured'; that anyone would describe themselves as 'coloured' in day to day life, that anyone would tick the box 'coloured' (if there was one) on any sort of form where asked to identify ethnicity? Wouldn't an Asian person rather be called Asian (or something more specific even)? wouldn't a black person choose to be identified as black (or West Indian, Jamaican or African etc)? Times do change and we change with them, but somethings might need questioning. You are right, we shouldn't label people the same way (if at all). The lowest courtesy we can pay our fellow human beings is to put some thought into it.

[Octavius]

If you read one of my posts above, you will see that people who were 'coloured' did indeed subsequently wish to demonstrate their identiy.