FreeMason Protestor - Parliament Sq

woodford2barbican

DonDaddyD wrote:

It's about knowing more than what the word means, its about understanding where it comes from:

From Wiki,
Half-caste (or often mis-spelt half-cast) is a term used to describe people of mixed race or ethnicity. Caste comes from the Latin castus, meaning pure, and the dervative Portuguese and Spanish casta, meaning race. The term originates from the Indian caste system, where a person of 'lesser' or half-caste would be deemed to be of a 'lower class'. While the origins of the term are derogatory, its usage has evolved to give it the more objective meaning described above.

In Australia the term is thoroughly offensive, and was used in the past to describe Indigenous people of mixed racial parentage. The term "Aboriginal" or "Indigenous" in the Australian context no longer requires that a person described by such a term has a minimum proportion of Indigenous heritage. Terms such as "half-caste" or "part-Aboriginal" are no longer used.

Half caste is a term used in the United Kingdom (although no longer used in common parlance) and other English-speaking parts of the world. An example is a child of black African and white European parentage. The term mulatto (from Spanish "Mulato") has also been used for this particular mixture. Both terms are considered impolite and potentially offensive in the U.S., as the words have been used pejoratively in the past to ostracize and isolate the offspring of such unions. For example, "children of the plantation" (the children of African-American slaves and their European-American masters in the U.S. Southern states) were not accepted as heirs, and in most cases, the relationship was never acknowledged, and "half-caste" conveyed the deliberate exclusion.

Which is why we get politically correct terms such as 'dual heritage'.

PC can be silly sometimes, but it can also make people think about what they say and how they say it.

fenboy369

Apart from people getting upset, (which is never a nice place to put someone), this is a really thought provoking and interesting subject.
As a white guy I would feel more uncomfortable calling somebody black rather than coloured. Dont know why. Sounds a harsher word I suppose. But as DDD said its not about what it means as much as where it comes from....

DonDaddyD

woodford2barbican wrote:

Which is why we get politically correct terms such as 'dual heritage'.

PC can be silly sometimes, but it can also make people think about what they say and how they say it.

Political Correctness can go over the top in its attempts to insult no one. This is usually when it is used as a tool to protect the over-sensitive from reality.

In the end we need to decribe people as something, as long as the chosen word doesn't evoke some deep personal or cultural scar from said persons past, then the given word should do.

Agent57

DonDaddyD wrote:

It's about knowing more than what the word means, its about understanding where it comes from:

No it's not, really. I've known for 30 years or more what it means, and where it comes from. I'm still not offended by it.

glauciaregina9

spen666 wrote:

... coloured gentleman ...

Careful now, or the PC brigade will be down on you like a ton of bricks.

Unwittingly or not, you could cause tremendous offence (although probably only to the politically-correct busy-bodies who've made it their business to go around telling us all what we should be offended by...)

So, next time, think before using the word 'gentleman' so frivolously.

I suggest using the meaningless PC term 'femininely-challenged gentle-person'

DonDaddyD

Agent57 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

It's about knowing more than what the word means, its about understanding where it comes from:

No it's not, really. I've known for 30 years or more what it means, and where it comes from. I'm still not offended by it.

Well it is, how else are words deemed offensive if not by what they mean and how they came about. :roll:

You may not find the offensive, it doesn't stop the meaning and heritage of the word being so.

Boy Lard

I don't know why I'm bothering to join in with this, but anyway...

'Coloured Gentlemen' is what my Mum or Dad (62 and 75 years old respectively) would say if they were specifically NOT trying to cause offence because they are both too scared to say black.

The whole thing is a mine field.

Spen666, were you trying to cause offence? I think that's probably the most relevant point.

I hate the internet sometimes, not being able to see someone say something really screws up how we accept things, and no matter how long I spend trying to make everybody correct, some people still go and be wrong just to spite me.

Jay dubbleU

So who decides what is or is not offensive ?

Personally I don't see any harm I describing someone as coloured or black if that is their most obvious feature any more than descibing someone as ginger or blonde :roll:

notsoblue

DonDaddyD wrote:

Agent57 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

It's about knowing more than what the word means, its about understanding where it comes from:

No it's not, really. I've known for 30 years or more what it means, and where it comes from. I'm still not offended by it.

Well it is, how else are words deemed offensive if not by what they mean and how they came about. :roll:

You may not find the offensive, it doesn't stop the meaning and heritage of the word being so.

I don't find it offensive either, and I have a clear understanding of the meaning and heritage of the word. Mulattos, Halfcaste's etc are a very distinct and important group within the history of Caribbean. Just look at figures like Robert Wedderburn who would not have accomplished what they did if it wasn't for their racial background. Personally I think its far from a derogatory term, and in fact I find the suggestion that it is quite patronising. Getting offended at the use of a word only makes that word more likely to be use by those who want to offend. And as for being offended at those who may use the words naively without understanding of their context or meaning, whats the point?

DonDaddyD

OK, I'm officially bowing out of the conversation.

I'm not going to tell someone what is or isn't offensive or should be offensive to them.

I tend to only stand up against things that are offensive to me. If someone called me "coloured" that would be offensive to me. Its what people used to call my Grandad or read outside shops and pubs in the 50s -60s England, where signs would say "No coloureds allowed".

However, my Grandad still refers to Muhammad Ali as Cassius Clay and I'm sure to him that would be seen as offensive.

I'm off to watch England.

spen666

DonDaddyD wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Get the keep net ready

They're biting

+1.

Spen666 is a prick.

He knows the word has historic offensive connotations. He is probably writing it to make some pathetic point. Why even bother.

Yes I don't object to stating the ethnicity of the person when detailing a story but the words I used, such as black, white, mixed race etc don't have their origins rooted in offense.
.....

sorry DDD you are being the Prick. You know nothing about me or my reasons for using the word.

There is absolutely no racist connotation in my using the word at all. It was used to describe the person. If you know anything about me, which you clearly don't, then you would know that I am very proud to be the descendant of a coloured slave, who subsequent to his being freed fought for his country as a volunteer on HMS Victory.

so next time before you start banding about accusations of racist- try to get even the slightest fact right.

You will not control my use of the language nor will any PC control freak
The gentleman in question was coloured (as opposed to white) and I am happy to use that word to describe him where it is appropriate.

rjsterry

True, you might come across a black person who has no problem whatsoever with outdated terms like 'coloured', but it is potentially offensive (quite likely, I'd say), for the reasons already described, so best to avoid it. It's not as though there isn't a sensible alternative.

spen666

woodford2barbican wrote:

... parliament square and seems to have little contact with the other groups

Fundamentally the skin tone of this man is irrelevant to the original question - on reading your original post I did wonder why it was necessary to mention it.

Is it because you see a 'coloured' person and not a person?

I am not trolling. It is a legitmate question.

I don't want to / won't debate it with you either, it is a question for you to consider.[/quote]


The use of the descriptor was to help identify the person in question to people reading the post

perhaps I should just have asked has anyone seen anyone anywhere and does any one know why anyone is anywhere?

That removes all possibile DESCRIPTORS or matters that may help to narrow down the individual

The term was used to help identify the person I was talking about, so that others who may have seen him may answer the question which was about the nature of the protest, not the description of the protestor

Porgy

spen666 wrote:

amnezia wrote:

coloured is racist now? :roll:

Yes apparently- describing someone to identify them from other protestors is apprently racist.

Don't worry, give it a few years and the term black will be racist and we will have to use coloured again.


BTW the coloured male was there again this morning putting up his placards about the freemasons killing various people. He is not part of the other protests in parliament square and seems to have little contact with the other groups

I'm 43 and it's been an offensive word as far as I can remember. It is not descriptive - as I asked earlier - what colour was he spen? Pink? Red? Yellow? Brown? Orange?

tailwindhome

You're going to need a bigger boat

spen666

Boy Lard wrote:

I...

Spen666, were you trying to cause offence? I think that's probably the most relevant point.

....

I was trying to identify the person making the protest so someone may enlighten me about the motive behind his protests

As I posted a few minutes ago, I am proud of my family ancestory and being the descendant of a freed slave. I am happy to describe him as coloured. It is not a term used as offensive by me.

People need to get a grip and stop trying to find offense in what people say and stop trying to control the use of words

Porgy

spen666 wrote:

People need to get a grip and stop trying to find offense in what people say and stop trying to control the use of words

Ok then - you're a c*nt :P

spen666

Porgy wrote:

....

I'm 43 and it's been an offensive word as far as I can remember. It is not descriptive - as I asked earlier - what colour was he spen? Pink? Red? Yellow? Brown? Orange?

The term was used simply to help identify the person I was referring to.

I'm sorry if you find the use of a non offensively used word offensive, but if so, you need to get a life and stop trying to control what is or is not said by others

alfablue

Words become offensive to people when their use is associated with groups of people who are discriminated against, disliked by a more powerful majority, or in some other way, devalued. Terms that once didn't cause offence later become offensive because of their usage to discriminate against, put down, incite hatred for etc.

Whilst some individuals may not find terms offensive that others, in significant numbers do, is no defence. We know what words cause offence, we need to modify our use of language to avoid these unless one's intent is to offend. Of course, such an intent cannot be condoned in decent society.

Those who are unaware of, or who are naive about the offensive use of the word need some polite feedback . . . anyone can learn.

DonDaddyD

Spen666 I've seen your photo. You've also stated that the BNP are a legitimate and legal party and you will defend their right to say even though you don't necessarily agree with it. I take what you've said above with the same amount of dismissive respect you've shown to many who have said and explained why they find the word coloured offensive

I'll make this short. As a black person who is a descendant of afro-carribbean slaves the word coloured is as offensive to me as it is to the grandchildren of those slaves, i.e. my grandparents and great grandparents (possibly great great grandparents). Needless to say I have many afro-carribbean family members past and present who I am extremely proud of (MBE's, Justice of the Peace, Farm land/former plantation owners,) all who have had to experience prejudice and outright racism to achieve what they have achieved in life. And as an educated Black person I am telling you that the term coloured can be considered offensive due to its historical connotations. However, what language you choose to use after this point is entirely up to you.

I will add that I am not calling you out as a racist, but you are a prick for your intolerance, inability to take on any view other than your own and lack of compassion for others. Even I have the capacity to show humility and a willingness to understand.

Porgy

spen666 wrote:

Porgy wrote:

....

I'm 43 and it's been an offensive word as far as I can remember. It is not descriptive - as I asked earlier - what colour was he spen? Pink? Red? Yellow? Brown? Orange?

The term was used simply to help identify the person I was referring to.

I'm sorry if you find the use of a non offensively used word offensive, but if so, you need to get a life and stop trying to control what is or is not said by others

What colour was he then? that would be more descripitve surely? Would "nigger" be just as descripitve?

Noone agrees with you on this Spen you old racist dinosaur.

Telling me to get a life means you've no argument.

and coming from you - "stop trying to control what is or is not said by others" - is abslutely hilarious.

spen666

rjsterry wrote:

True, you might come across a black person who has no problem whatsoever with outdated terms like 'coloured', but it is potentially offensive (quite likely, I'd say), for the reasons already described, so best to avoid it. It's not as though there isn't a sensible alternative.

FFS No body had better ever say anything then as somebosdy MAY find offense in it.

The people finding offense where non was meant are the ones who need to look at themselves instead of trying to bully people into using the current PC words.



Incidentally in the 1980s when I was involved in writing a number of articles for newspapers to do with racism in football, the term "black" was not allowed to be used in the articles as it was considered offensive, and had to be replaced by the term "coloured". Now the PC brigade have decided it time to control people again by changing it back.

I still have the original drafts of the article and the instructions from the Race Relations Board to change the term to coloured!!!!!

Porgy

DonDaddyD wrote:

you are a prick for your intolerance, inability to take on any view other than your own and lack of compassion for others.

+1

Porgy

spen666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

True, you might come across a black person who has no problem whatsoever with outdated terms like 'coloured', but it is potentially offensive (quite likely, I'd say), for the reasons already described, so best to avoid it. It's not as though there isn't a sensible alternative.

FFS No body had better ever say anything then as somebosdy MAY find offense in it.

The people finding offense where non was meant are the ones who need to look at themselves instead of trying to bully people into using the current PC words.



Incidentally in the 1980s when I was involved in writing a number of articles for newspapers to do with racism in football, the term "black" was not allowed to be used in the articles as it was considered offensive, and had to be replaced by the term "coloured". Now the PC brigade have decided it time to control people again by changing it back.

I still have the original drafts of the article and the instructions from the Race Relations Board to change the term to coloured!!!!!

PC Brigade - LOL - I always knew you were a nutcase Spen. this proves it.

alfablue

spen666 wrote:

Incidentally in the 1980s when I was involved in writing a number of articles for newspapers to do with racism in football, the term "black" was not allowed to be used in the articles as it was considered offensive, and had to be replaced by the term "coloured". Now the PC brigade have decided it time to control people again by changing it back.

I still have the original drafts of the article and the instructions from the Race Relations Board to change the term to coloured!!!!!

Times change Spen, we used to hang people as well.

Coriander

DonDaddyD wrote:

Spen666 I've seen your photo. You've also stated that the BNP are a legitimate and legal party and you will defend their right to say even though you don't necessarily agree with it. I take what you've said above with the same amount of dismissive respect you've shown to many who have said and explained why they find the word coloured offensive

I'll make this short. As a black person who is a descendant of afro-carribbean slaves the word coloured is as offensive to me as it is to the grandchildren of those slaves, i.e. my grandparents and great grandparents. Needless to say I have many afro-carribbean family members past and present who I am extremely proud of (MBE's, Justice of the Peace, Farm land/former plantation owners,) all who have had to experience prejudice and outright racism to achieve what they have achieved in life. And as an educated Black person I am telling you that the term coloured can be considered offensive due to its historical connotations. However, what language you choose to use after this point is entirely up to you.

I will add that I am not calling you out as a racist, but you are a prick for your intolerance, inability to take on any view other than your own and lack of compassion for others. Even I have the capacity to show humility and a willingness to understand.

For someone who is so willing to dictate other's use of words, you are very free at bandying around accusations at people, regardless of the offence you may cause.

Spen is right - the BNP is a legal and legitimate party. They exist within the legal framework of this country. Their views while obnoxious are not yet entirely illegal, therefore, they are a legal and legitimate party. That you not agree with them is neither here or there.

And doubtless Spen will apologise later to you that he is evidently not black enough looking for you, but to question what he has just written about his own ancestry because you have decided (as you almost explictily state) it can't be so is much more offensive than anything he may have said earlier in this thread.

And for someone so keen on correct terminology, I'd have thought you'd realise that an Afro is a hairstyle, but people with either or both African and Carribean hertiage are African-Carribean.

DDD - please will you start to act your age and learn that it is both permissible and acceptable for people to hold different views from you.

spen666

DonDaddyD wrote:

Spen666 I've seen your photo. You've also stated that the BNP are a legitimate and legal party and you will defend their right to say even though you don't necessarily agree with it. I take what you've said above with the same amount of dismissive respect you've shown to many who have said and explained why they find the word coloured offensive

I'll make this short. As a black person who is a descendant of afro-carribbean slaves the word coloured is as offensive to me as it is to the grandchildren of those slaves, i.e. my grandparents and great grandparents. Needless to say I have many afro-carribbean family members past and present who I am extremely proud of (MBE's, Justice of the Peace, Farm land/former plantation owners,) all who have had to experience prejudice and outright racism to achieve what they have achieved in life. And as an educated Black person I am telling you that the term coloured can be considered offensive due to its historical connotations. However, what language you choose to use after this point is entirely up to you.

I will add that I am not calling you out as a racist, but you are a prick for your intolerance, inability to take on any view other than your own and lack of compassion for others. Even I have the capacity to show humility and a willingness to understand.

Sadly DDD , your narrow minded prejudice shows through here

Firstly, I'm glad you've seen my photo. I presume though you have neither seen my ancestors, not the photos and historical records I have of them. Doubt it all you like. PM me and arrange to come to visit my home and I'll prove you scepticism misplaiced. Hoipefully then you will be big enough to admit to those on here what I posted is correct about my ancestory

Secondly, the BNP are a legitimate political party. I'm not sure if you are aware we recently had an election and in a number of constituencies, there were candidates on the ballot paper representing the BNP. Now if they are not a legitimate political party, can you explain how they found their way on to the ballot papers? You see, only legitimate political parties can stand for election. Hence why banned or illegal organisations like the IRA are not able to field candidates. So once again it would seem I am right.

I would defend the right of the BNP to express their views as long as those views are not inciting violence. Its the same with muslim extremist groups, and other unpopular groups. As soon as you have control on free speech, you are into a totalitarian society.


As for intolerance, it seems that I'm espousing freedom for people to express non violent views wherwas you are not prepared to tolerate those people being able to express their views. Sadly DDD you are a hippocrit and the intolerant one. You are trying to control what people can say

spen666

alfablue wrote:

...Times change Spen, we used to hang people as well.

I'll hazard a guess that many of those who disagree with me here will also disagree with me on my views on hanging, but that's another debate

amnezia

alfablue wrote:

Times change Spen, we used to hang people as well.

We are not allowed to hang people any more? :shock: BRB

Porgy

But the BNP do incite violence. Always have done. It is a major injustice that they still exist as a legal party.