FreeMason Protestor - Parliament Sq

DonDaddyD

Actually these

sebastiandangerfield wrote:

I agree with almost all of what DDD has said other than the part about it being correct to describe people by their ethnicity. If we use that method then the point of using it as a description is totally pointless. I'm African but I'm whiter than my pale Irish girlfriend in the midst of a cruel winter.

It's always more acceptable to just ask, it also shows that you're actually interested in the heratige and culture as opposed to just pidgeon holing the person. Surprisingly, people are never offended when you don't know something but have a genuine interest, they're always offended when you just presume.

are two very valid points.

The reason why I said describing someone by their ethnicity is arguably more acceptable is because if you came across a Chinese or Japanese person, you would either describe them as that (even then you may be flying close to the wind) or Asian. You wouldn't say they were 'yellow' i.e. yellow skinned.

But irrespective of that you make two brilliant points, so framed:

I agree with almost all of what DDD has said other than the part about it being correct to describe people by their ethnicity. If we use that method then the point of using it as a description is totally pointless. I'm African but I'm whiter than my pale Irish girlfriend in the midst of a cruel winter.

The point that gets me when people describe people by thier (presumed) continent of heratage is the fact that they don't know me so they're just assuming. It's as bad as people describing black people as 'coulored' or my favorite 'jamaican'. How the fark do they assume they're Jamaican? Have the seen their passport!?

Ultimately, we don't need to be attacked by the PC croud and end up being afraid to talk so why not just use common sense and courtesy? I work with the most diverse range of people imaginable as a lawyer but never ever presume anything. It's always more acceptable to just ask, it also shows that you're actually interested in the heratige and culture as opposed to just pidgeon holing the person. Surprisingly, people are never offended when you don't know something but have a genuine interest, they're always offended when you just presume.

PBo

spen666 wrote:

As I was riding home tonight, I was thinking about some of the things said on here.

Now, please correct me if I have misunderstood some of what was posted as there are 9 pages or so of posts.

Part of the objections to the use of the word coloured seems to be because in the past it was used as a derogatory term.

Well, I then started to consider racist behaviour in particular some of the racist chanting at football matches in the past. The chants included the following

"You Black b*stard"

"Ain't no black on the Union Jack"

"Its plain to se, to see
He's blacker than you and me
He a ......."

Now, what is the relevance of these?

They all make abuse at the fact the target is BLACK. I'm not aware of any chants that make reference to somebody being COLOURED

No if I was right in my understanding as stated in 3rd paragraph of this post, then the preferred term of many of you should by considered offensive as it is clearly used in a derogatory term.

The whole idea of" banning" words because someone finds offense in them is fraught with dangers. It seems to me that a better way is to copy the behaviour used by the gay/ lesbian community and reclaiming the words rather than trying to censor people.

Duh - "you coloured bastard" wouldn't scan....!!!!

and "He's more coloured than you and me" doesn't make sense

and clearly there are colours in the Union Jack.

so what was your point again?

Porgy

wibble

tailwindhome

Porgy

You know the way 'they' bring things back like Dr Who and everyone thinks it's great

This thread isn't ones of those things

It's more like small pox

Porgy

i was just seized with an urge to say "wibble". I thought it was a fitting conclusion.