Ferguson

[Tubey]

Strange thing to be used by Dr King and in an oscar acceptance speech then.

And when was this mate? 1963 right? What was he supposed to do in that era, invent a word and call them by that in the hope it took off?

A label has to exist when speaking of the subject matter of race, but it has to be a mutually agreed one. We can talk of blacks and whites in the context of Ferguson, as you simply have to, and King had to use a label in that context too.

But do you know in an ordinary situation if I were trying to define a black person to a friend, you know what I'd call him? John. Or Afro-Carribean. Or British. Or that lad over there. Using the skin colour as an adjective to define someone disregards all other identifiers and characteristics of that person.

 

[JDL]

And when was this mate? 1963 right? What was he supposed to do in that era, invent a word and call them by that in the hope it took off?

A label has to exist when speaking of the subject matter of race, but it has to be a mutually agreed one. We can talk of blacks and whites in the context of Ferguson, as you simply have to, and King had to use a label in that context too.

But do you know in an ordinary situation if I were trying to define a black person to a friend, you know what I'd call him? John. Or Afro-Carribean. Or British. Or that lad over there. Using the skin colour as an adjective to define someone disregards all other identifiers and characteristics of that person.

The NAACP seem to think it acceptable, and how else would you define a group of people comprising one race?

 

[Tubey]

The NAACP seem to think it acceptable, and how else would you define a group of people comprising one race?

By the term mutually agreed to be non-offensive, obviously?

And NAACP was formed over 100 years ago. It's name is the same for tradition, and it probably will be changed. It's just not a pressing issue as the context of the term isn't used in an inherently negative way. Because it's part of the acronym doesn't mean every single member is a "coloured person" anymore.

Dear Rev. Barber, this is something that's always puzzled me. If the term "colored" is considered offensive, why is it still part of the NAACP's name? Thank you for your time. – Bret Chambers, Wake Forest

Great question. To be quite honest, there has been some internal wrestling with the name, but one reason it hasn’t been changed is out of respect for history and the founders.


Read more at http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/4142989/#xJjMhFuGbDYcRxtl.99

 

[toffee matt]

@JDL

Me thinks you've been out debated here

 

[JDL]

By the term mutually agreed to be non-offensive, obviously?

And NAACP was formed over 100 years ago. It's name is the same for tradition, and it probably will be changed. It's just not a pressing issue as the context of the term isn't used in an inherently negative way. Because it's part of the acronym doesn't mean every single member is a "coloured person" anymore.

I don't mean coloured, I mean the term person of colour, the one most of the screamers on here have trouble with.

 

[Woolly Blue]

I might be wrong, but there seems to be a deliberate attempt to derail this thread.

 

[RaleighBlue]

Amazing how a thread about a legitimately terrible news event relating to racial tensions, the militarization of American police forces, and a young man shot to death has become are argument over semantics.

It brings three thoughts to mind.

1) I'm glad it's not just over here that real issues become obscured by minutiae
2) Politics are toxic at this point
3) Intense sadness that this is what some people deem to be worthy of debate in light of these events.

 

[toffee matt]

I might be wrong, but there seems to be a deliberate attempt to derail this thread.

Your not wrong

 

[Woolly Blue]

Basically, get back on-topic or, as a minimum, get thread banned.

 

[JDL]

Your not wrong

It's ok Chico seems to have gone now

 

[Elong]

You know, it's not just coloured people protesting like. What I've seen on the news has been a mixture of all races and ethnicities standing in front of the police. Wouldn't want that to get in the way of a one eyed view though.

 

[Tubey]

I don't mean coloured, I mean the term person of colour, the one most of the screamers on here have trouble with.

Oh come on, it's the same damn thing... The only difference whatsoever is that one is a noun and the other is an adjective.

The reason it's racist is that it separates along the lines of "Us vs. Them" - a Europe vs. The Rest of the World type of usage where whites are allowed to stand as their own separate entity, but everyone non-white is given the ragtag label.

I'm not arsed if some people find it non-offensive for the bullcrap reason of it encompassing Hispanics et al - in the real world, it carries the same connotation as coloured. It's definition and usage is on a downward spiral for that reason, and the same reason as to why "coloured" is now an obsolete term.

 

[Elong]

Oh come on, it's the same damn thing... The only difference whatsoever is that one is a noun and the other is an adjective.

The reason it's racist is that it separates along the lines of "Us vs. Them" - a Europe vs. The Rest of the World type of usage where whites are allowed to stand as their own separate entity, but everyone non-white is given the ragtag label.

I'm not arsed if some people find it non-offensive for the bullcrap reason of it encompassing Hispanics et al - in the real world, it carries the same connotation as coloured. It's definition and usage is on a downward spiral for that reason, and the same reason as to why "coloured" is now an obsolete term.

Looks at my post above, hastily edits*

 

[peteblue]

Because they can't see anything beyond impotent rage.

Are you saying Chico suffers in the down stairs department.......no need for that like.....

 

[Tubey]

Looks at my post above, hastily edits*

Haha it happens, it's a word, it has negative connotation, but people don't always mean it in that way when just typing or speaking fast. It's not always intended as racist, like the N-word has to be.

Let's put it this way - if "person of color" is acceptable, then you'd have to stop using the term whites and use "person of non-color" - would that happen? Of course not.

It's a hierarchy:

N-Word > Coloured > Person of Color > Black

None of those words are "good" - but if one has to be used to split a subject matter like Ferguson or the wider topic of racism, it's the latter.

But in pretty much any other context, skin colour should be the last adjective used.