coloured-jesus what year is it?

2»

Comments

  • EKIMIKE
    EKIMIKE Posts: 2,232
    Ultimately the terminology you use DOES matter and it DOES change over time. However I don't like the occasions where there is someone pedalling some sort of agenda behind it.

    For example the use of the term 'Nitty Gritty' hit the headlines as offensive at right about the same time the agenda for slavery compensation was was hitting headlines. Rightly or wrongly, i don't know, but it seems to happen. In reality most African-Caribbean people weren't offended by the term nitty-gritty nor did they care, nor did anyone else.

    The offence taken to the use of 'Afro-____' really does seem odd considering as Rick pointed out the similar reference to 'Anglo-____'. It was new to me when i saw last year on TV a lady have a severely sarcastic rant at a politician about how it's AF-RI-CAN - Caribbean not AF-RO - Caribbean. In the context it appeared to be playing the racism card in a really in-appropriate context, just to get at someone. Why does it have to be offensive? Why not simply wrong? Lack of correctness and causing offence are really very different things.

    Of course that doesn't mean that terms aren't used with derogatory intentions but there are plenty of situations where people are accused to racist intentions when they're simply just using the wrong terminology. Surely someone can point out such an error without attaching the racism label.

    Cultural references are definitely preferable but even those can be dangerous territory.

    That link is nothing short of idiotic in some cases. 'Developing world' patronising? 'Third world' certainly is (as it bears no factual basis) but 'developing world/nation' is factually accurate on many levels. In fact what i don't get is that the word 'developing' is fundamentally a positive word. Perhaps here the agenda is to find a word that matches the true intentions of us 'developed' (i assume that's patronising to developing countries) nations which is to suppress/control their development in order to suit our needs. It's in line with such cynical agenda's as 'free trade' agreements between 'developed' and 'developing' nations - market control > wealth suppression of the masses > devaluation of labour power > cheap commodities.

    Anyway i've digressed quite substantially :? How did that happen?
    Canyon Endurace CF 2014 | Canyon Ultimate CF 2010
  • daviesee
    daviesee Posts: 6,386
    EKIMIKE wrote:
    Anyway i've digressed quite substantially :? How did that happen?

    It's the t'internet innit?

    How's that for a stereotype against Yorkshiremen/people and cockneys :wink:
    Don't take it too seriously, really.
    None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.
  • Stewie Griffin
    Stewie Griffin Posts: 4,330
    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classifi ... ed_Kingdom
  • Squillinossett
    Squillinossett Posts: 1,678
    For me Coloured sounds a bit colonial, like "china-man"

    What I have found, is as long as you do not use any of the derogatory terms, no one really takes offence, as one can usually tell if it is been said with malice or in general innocence.

    Its is much like calling someone who is homosexual "gay" this can be said to be both a non-offencie term, or as an insult.
  • Ollieda
    Ollieda Posts: 1,010
    What about calling someone "the painted man!" like in robin hood, I always thought that was a good one!
  • snailracer
    snailracer Posts: 968
    Tom Butcher wrote:
    ...
    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.
    NAACP = "National Association for the Advancement of Colored People"
    It would be rather ironic if they declared "color" (sic) to be offensive.
  • Stewie Griffin
    Stewie Griffin Posts: 4,330
    snailracer wrote:
    Tom Butcher wrote:
    ...
    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.
    NAACP = "National Association for the Advancement of Colored People"
    It would be rather ironic if they declared "color" (sic) to be offensive.

    So the US and South Africa still use coloured. Hhmm :lol:

Categories