coloured-jesus what year is it?

mattshrops

watching the basque tour on eurosport couldnt help laughing at magnus bakstedt and wotsisname struggling with talking about coloured riders??

its easy boys B-L-A-C-K comprenez?

suddenly felt like it was 1974 :roll:

Anonymous

I have to admit, their use of the term 'Coloured' made me a little uncomfortable. I assume the question was posed using that phrase and it set them off on the wrong foot.

The funny thing was, it seemed they were uncomfortable using that turn of phrase too!

mattshrops

it felt to me like they werent sure what to say . waiting for a sudden outburst "ive got a coloured frend you know"

Anonymous

Heh heh! Indeed!

redrobbo

I know.. I myself am coloured. At the moment it's a kind of blotchy pink, white and yellow effect. I need more sunshine, then it'll be a kind of blotchy pink, white and tanned effect. Presumably the blacker you are the less worry about cyclists tans?

Stewie Griffin

NapoleonD wrote:

I have to admit, their use of the term 'Coloured' made me a little uncomfortable. I assume the question was posed using that phrase and it set them off on the wrong foot.

The funny thing was, it seemed they were uncomfortable using that turn of phrase too!

Carlton Kirby was squirming as he was saying it, then he squirmed some more when he said it again.

giant_man

Those two, carlton kirby and magnus whatisname, are really crap at commentating. That kirby bloke has a loose style of commentary that is very irritating.

Almost as bad as David Harmon sucking up to Sean Kelly on the major tours ....

antfly

I can't see there's anything wrong with saying coloured, it's not like they used the n word.
Sounds like some white people being offended by proxy.

Stewie Griffin

antfly wrote:

I can't see there's anything wrong with saying coloured, it's not like they used the n word.
Sounds like some white people being offended by proxy.

Either you are very old or you live in Midsomer? Did anyone watch Police Academy UK the other night? The Aussie Constable saw the Zambain Deputy Commisioner get out of the car and he said "oh, he is a dark skinned fellah", marvellous

antfly

I`m not that old but we do get the occasional murder around here..it's just that not everyone knows the correct pc word of the moment and they didn't say anything remotely offensive.

Ollieda

antfly wrote:

I can't see there's anything wrong with saying coloured, it's not like they used the n word.
Sounds like some white people being offended by proxy.

I see nothing worng with saying coloured, its how I describe myself although on a ethnic background form I'm technically "White & Asian"!

I do like it when people get worried and struggle to find the right words to describe someone, then peers over at any nearby coloured people to see if they are offended! Makes me laugh a lot to see people so scared over such a minor thing.

daviesee

Stewie Griffin wrote:

The Aussie Constable saw the Zambain Deputy Commisioner get out of the car and he said "oh, he is a dark skinned fellah", marvellous

I take it this is wrong then even if technically correct :?

Can someone please file the correct rules for such things and then refrain from changing the rules.

PS:- Have any coloured or black or whatever term has been used actually been offended by any of this, or is it white people tying themselves up in knots?

rick_chasey

daviesee wrote:

Stewie Griffin wrote:

The Aussie Constable saw the Zambain Deputy Commisioner get out of the car and he said "oh, he is a dark skinned fellah", marvellous

I take it this is wrong then even if technically correct :?

Can someone please file the correct rules for such things and then refrain from changing the rules.

PS:- Have any coloured or black or whatever term has been used actually been offended by any of this, or is it white people tying themselves up in knots?

You can refer to their background or descent. "of Afro-caribbean descent" for example.

Do keep up.

You can use black & white and no-one will mind, but it's not really correct or accurate is it?

It doesn't matter who is and who isn't offended.


Either way, you'd expect a commentator, who's job it is to speak publically, to use the correct terminology.

Cleat Eastwood

it was dave harmon and not carlton kirkby wasnt it? and big mag did say it was from an email, i liked the fact it was harmon who seemed more embarrassed and backstedt as he always does focussed on the cycling aspect of the question. I like backstedt he is a diamond geezer, harmons comments on the working class origins of the sport interesting too.

daviesee

Rick Chasey wrote:

You can refer to their background or descent. "of Afro-caribbean descent" for example.

Do keep up.

You can use black & white and no-one will mind, but it's not really correct or accurate is it?

It doesn't matter who is and who isn't offended.


Either way, you'd expect a commentator, who's job it is to speak publically, to use the correct terminology.

What if they are 3rd generation English? How far do you go? Am I a Viking/Scot?

I won't have to keep up if somebody doesn't keep changing the rules. Who makes the rules? What is the correct terminology and who decided? Is Mariah Carey really black?Too many questions. My head hurts.

It only matters who is offended when they are offended and I just want to be able to avoid unintentionally doing so. And yes, I am serious. That's where the problems begin for the innocent.

rick_chasey

daviesee wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

You can refer to their background or descent. "of Afro-caribbean descent" for example.

Do keep up.

You can use black & white and no-one will mind, but it's not really correct or accurate is it?

It doesn't matter who is and who isn't offended.


Either way, you'd expect a commentator, who's job it is to speak publically, to use the correct terminology.

What if they are 3rd generation English? How far do you go? Am I a Viking/Scot?

I won't have to keep up if somebody doesn't keep changing the rules. Who makes the rules? What is the correct terminology and who decided? Is Mariah Carey really black?Too many questions. My head hurts.

It only matters who is offended when they are offended and I just want to be able to avoid unintentionally doing so. And yes, I am serious. That's where the problems begin for the innocent.

Look, if you want to define people by their race, your head should be hurting, since you shouldn't be doing it.

If you must, it's best to use terms that do not have any historical context behind them. For a 'black' person, 'of African descen't is correct - since, eventually, that's where it goes to and people will know what you mean, and it has no context of use as a derrogatory term. It also moves away from visual definitions and general 'racial' definitions ala 19th century and moves it towards a cultural reference, which is what counts anyway

People are not 'innocent' if they are ignorant. If you feel your language means you are landed in hot water from time to time, then change your language.

mattshrops

i actually quite like those two as a commentary team, pretty tough job waffling on for 3 or 4 hours trying to be informative to "experts" and people watching their first ever race.
on top of that with the picture break up it got even harder.
just found that moment a little strained shallwe say/
all this changing the rules argument is complete b@llsh@t- simple question , would you use the word n@gg@r ?? answer is no ooh why are you changing the rules on me :roll: it used to be ok- now it aint ,case closed your honour

Tom Butcher

Yeah it was Harmon not Kirby. Must admit I'd have no idea if coloured is offensive or not - which is why I probably wouldn't use it.

daviesee

Rick Chasey wrote:

[
Look, if you want to define people by their race, your head should be hurting, since you shouldn't be doing it.

People are not 'innocent' if they are ignorant. If you feel your language means you are landed in hot water from time to time, then change your language.

How else would someone start the debate about the lack of professional cyclists that are not white - how the debate started.
Even then that could be confusing as a high percentage are actually olive-skinned.

My language has never got me in any bother but I keep reading about people getting in a tizzy about the subject. I am asking the question so as not to be ignorant. How else am I supposed to learn?

Devil's advocate time - are we not all of African descent anyway?

rick_chasey

daviesee wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

[
Look, if you want to define people by their race, your head should be hurting, since you shouldn't be doing it.

People are not 'innocent' if they are ignorant. If you feel your language means you are landed in hot water from time to time, then change your language.

How else would someone start the debate about the lack of professional cyclists that are not white - how the debate started.
Even then that could be confusing as a high percentage are actually olive-skinned.

My language has never got me in any bother but I keep reading about people getting in a tizzy about the subject. I am asking the question so as not to be ignorant. How else am I supposed to learn?

Devil's advocate time - are we not all of African descent anyway?

Cuturally? Probably not no.

Your confusion about what is white and what isn't points towards the fundamental issue with the 'black and white' defintion - in that it might as well be "us and them". Various boring people (like me) have written essays and articles and even books (not me) about that particular language construction and what its role it has in the existence of racism etc - hence why people like myself prefer cultural references, since it plays a considerable role.

Ultimately because race has been used to define people for so long, it's fundamentally ingrained in cultures and cultural identity - so the way around the said issues above is to reference the culture (an afro-american is likely to have a different identity experience to say, an african).

bails87

daviesee wrote:

Devil's advocate time - are we not all of African descent anyway?

That's what I was thinking

Now, speaking as a 'coloured' person, I do find the term, not offensive necessarily, but a bit archaic, and it makes me cringe when I hear people say it. It might be the suggestion that it's white or 'something else...we don't know what, but it's not white''. Coloured seems to mean 'not white' as opposed to 'black' or 'of Chinese descent' or 'British-Asian' which don't just lump all the 'non-whites' in together. If you wanted to know what colour people's bikes were you wouldn't just give them the choice between 'white' and 'coloured' would you!

I certainly wouldn't want to be described as 'coloured' and I'd never (seriously) describe myself or someone else as such.

As for the colour of athletes, surely it's as much to do with their backgrounds, the fact that certain groups might be over represented in lower socio-economic groups probably accounts for a lot of their under representation in 'expensive' sports such as cycling, motor-racing, etc

daviesee

Rick Chasey wrote:

Cuturally? Probably not no.

See. I have a problem with that but not one likely to cause offence. I would consider it very arrogant or condesending to assume the culture of someone I don't know.

PS:- I enjoy these little debates. It breaks up the tedium of actually doing work

rick_chasey

daviesee wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Cuturally? Probably not no.

See. I have a problem with that but not one likely to cause offence. I would consider it very arrogant or condesending to assume the culture of someone I don't know.

PS:- I enjoy these little debates. It breaks up the tedium of actually doing work

Yeah I probably am arrogant - certainly when it comes to language and race (or indeed gender, or any other minority).

It's a big bug bear of mine. Ended up doing a lot of it at uni - colonial history from a literary analysis perspective - and it really made a big impact on me.

Tom Butcher

But they weren't talking about whether there were many cyclists who were culturally from an African background (is there such think as an African culture anyway - I'm sure it's pretty diverse?) - they were talking about why there weren't many black cyclists.

To show that you can't please everyone all of the time this website
http://www.ligali.org/terminology/mediaguidelines.htm suggests your use of Afro is offensive Rick.

You can no more assume there are defined distinct cultural backgrounds than you can assume there are distinct racial backgrounds. If anything using skin colour makes fewer presumptions than lumping people into a common culture when what you are really talking about is skin colour anyway.

edit - couple of crossed posts there - fwiw the NAACP take the same view as that expressed above - that coloured is archaic but not derogatory. I suppose the fact that the phrase "people of colour" has entered usage (though not mine) has probably meant some people have started using coloured again when they otherwise wouldn't.

rick_chasey

Tom Butcher wrote:

To show that you can't please everyone all of the time this website
http://www.ligali.org/terminology/mediaguidelines.htm suggests your use of Afro is offensive Rick.

Fair enough. I understood it as a very literal term - rather like referring, to, say, "anglo-german" or "Franco-Dutch". Edit: I have never come across anything that uses "afro" in a derogatory sense, unless perhaps referring to hair.

People very very rarely refer to literally a "skin" colour, in which case, they can be more precise and refer to the pigmants.

bobtbuilder

I actually read the thread title as "Coloured Jeans - what year is this?" :oops: :oops:

mattshrops

to be honest i think youre over thinking it. times change language changes. this is obviously more sensitive because of the weight of history. im certainly not responsible for the sins of my forebears (especially when they were paupers and had no say anyway).

edit not you bob youre not overthinking

antfly

At the end of the day it's all just semantics and relevant mainly to scholars and academics.

rick_chasey

antfly wrote:

At the end of the day it's all just semantics and relevant mainly to scholars and academics.

Ah but it's not. That's why people like me get all worked up.

daviesee

Tom Butcher wrote:

To show that you can't please everyone all of the time this website
http://www.ligali.org/terminology/mediaguidelines.htm suggests your use of Afro is offensive Rick.

Just goes to show how confusing this can be.

Calling black men Brothas and black women Sistas is okay :?

Drug mules is offensive? I thought it referred to the animal.

Saying "the n-word" is okay even if that means everyone knows the intent :? How about not referring to it at all?

We better tell the fashion and music industries to stop referring to Urban.

We better tell the West Indian cricket team that they are the Caribbean cricket team.

Confused? You will be..................

CyclingBantam

Rick, out of interest, how would you pick out a black man from a line of 4 other white men if you didn't know his name. Probably not explained my point well:

I rememberwatching question time, years ago and Dimbleby was wanting to get a question from a guy in the audience. The camera panned across and there was 1 black guy surrounded by 20 white guys, quite a few had their hands up. Hwe spent about 30 seconds describing what he was wearing etc with plenty of confusion with other people thinking he ment them before he finally managed to make it clear who he wanted to ask the question.

Why shouldn't he have said, when he first couldn't get across who he wanted the question from, "The black gentleman please".

I fail to see what is wrong with that. If I was in a room full of black guys, it would make sense to descriibe me as the white guy. I wouldn't take offence that I was being 'lumped in' with german's, swedes etc.