So is calling someone a person of colour different to calling someone a coloured person? This was from an article published today on the BBC website.
Yep. The difference has been explained further back up the thread.
Tbf I have not and nor wish to trawl through 10 pages of crap to find the answer but I did ask my wife, who is black that same question and she said there is no difference. I guess its down to the individual to say whats offensive to them or not.
So is calling someone a person of colour different to calling someone a coloured person? This was from an article published today on the BBC website.
Yep. The difference has been explained further back up the thread.
Tbf I have not and nor wish to trawl through 10 pages of crap to find the answer but I did ask my wife, who is black that same question and she said there is no difference. I guess its down to the individual to say whats offensive to them or not.
Guess so. But seeing as you can't know everyone personally, it's best to go with consensus, where that exists, when you are speaking publicly or to people you don't know.
Lots of information on the terminology available online if you don't fancy reading back through the thread.
So is calling someone a person of colour different to calling someone a coloured person? This was from an article published today on the BBC website.
Yep. The difference has been explained further back up the thread.
Tbf I have not and nor wish to trawl through 10 pages of crap to find the answer but I did ask my wife, who is black that same question and she said there is no difference. I guess its down to the individual to say whats offensive to them or not.
Guess so. But seeing as you can't know everyone personally, it's best to go with consensus, where that exists, when you are speaking publicly or to people you don't know.
Lots of information on the terminology available online if you don't fancy reading back through the thread.
Tbh, I do not refer to people's colour when I speak to them because, for me, it's irrelevant. They are either ok or not.
So is calling someone a person of colour different to calling someone a coloured person? This was from an article published today on the BBC website.
Yep. The difference has been explained further back up the thread.
Tbf I have not and nor wish to trawl through 10 pages of crap to find the answer but I did ask my wife, who is black that same question and she said there is no difference. I guess its down to the individual to say whats offensive to them or not.
Guess so. But seeing as you can't know everyone personally, it's best to go with consensus, where that exists, when you are speaking publicly or to people you don't know.
Lots of information on the terminology available online if you don't fancy reading back through the thread.
Tbh, I do not refer to people's colour when I speak to them because, for me, it's irrelevant. They are either ok or not.
Sure, but sometimes, especially if you're working for a business or organisation, you might have to refer to demographics, or someone's race might be an important detail (for instance in reporting a racist attack). So in those cases, I'm sure we can agree, it's best to use terminology that has been most recently agreed as appropriate by a broad consensus of the people to whom it refers.
So is calling someone a person of colour different to calling someone a coloured person? This was from an article published today on the BBC website.
Yep. The difference has been explained further back up the thread.
Tbf I have not and nor wish to trawl through 10 pages of crap to find the answer but I did ask my wife, who is black that same question and she said there is no difference. I guess its down to the individual to say whats offensive to them or not.
Guess so. But seeing as you can't know everyone personally, it's best to go with consensus, where that exists, when you are speaking publicly or to people you don't know.
Lots of information on the terminology available online if you don't fancy reading back through the thread.
Tbh, I do not refer to people's colour when I speak to them because, for me, it's irrelevant. They are either ok or not.
Sure, but sometimes, especially if you're working for a business or organisation, you might have to refer to demographics, or someone's race might be an important detail (for instance in reporting a racist attack). So in those cases, I'm sure we can agree, it's best to use terminology that has been most recently agreed as appropriate by a broad consensus of the people to whom it refers.
Totally agree but what happens after years of using the agreed terminology it then becomes wrong to do so?
So is calling someone a person of colour different to calling someone a coloured person? This was from an article published today on the BBC website.
Yep. The difference has been explained further back up the thread.
Tbf I have not and nor wish to trawl through 10 pages of crap to find the answer but I did ask my wife, who is black that same question and she said there is no difference. I guess its down to the individual to say whats offensive to them or not.
Guess so. But seeing as you can't know everyone personally, it's best to go with consensus, where that exists, when you are speaking publicly or to people you don't know.
Lots of information on the terminology available online if you don't fancy reading back through the thread.
Tbh, I do not refer to people's colour when I speak to them because, for me, it's irrelevant. They are either ok or not.
Sure, but sometimes, especially if you're working for a business or organisation, you might have to refer to demographics, or someone's race might be an important detail (for instance in reporting a racist attack). So in those cases, I'm sure we can agree, it's best to use terminology that has been most recently agreed as appropriate by a broad consensus of the people to whom it refers.
Totally agree but what happens after years of using the agreed terminology it then becomes wrong to do so?
It's a good question. I guess we should just be aware that these things change over time (much like scientific understanding) and maybe it's good to check in now and again to see what is most current. Of course someone might point out a change we're not aware of, which can be a helpful guide. There will always be people to explain the reasoning too. Just being aware and willing to make small changes is enough, I think.
So is calling someone a person of colour different to calling someone a coloured person? This was from an article published today on the BBC website.
Yep. The difference has been explained further back up the thread.
Tbf I have not and nor wish to trawl through 10 pages of crap to find the answer but I did ask my wife, who is black that same question and she said there is no difference. I guess its down to the individual to say whats offensive to them or not.
Guess so. But seeing as you can't know everyone personally, it's best to go with consensus, where that exists, when you are speaking publicly or to people you don't know.
Lots of information on the terminology available online if you don't fancy reading back through the thread.
Tbh, I do not refer to people's colour when I speak to them because, for me, it's irrelevant. They are either ok or not.
Sure, but sometimes, especially if you're working for a business or organisation, you might have to refer to demographics, or someone's race might be an important detail (for instance in reporting a racist attack). So in those cases, I'm sure we can agree, it's best to use terminology that has been most recently agreed as appropriate by a broad consensus of the people to whom it refers.
Totally agree but what happens after years of using the agreed terminology it then becomes wrong to do so?
It's a good question. I guess we should just be aware that these things change over time (much like scientific understanding) and maybe it's good to check in now and again to see what is most current. Of course someone might point out a change we're not aware of, which can be a helpful guide. There will always be people to explain the reasoning too. Just being aware and willing to make small changes is enough, I think.
Which is basically what Clarke done. He made a mistake and apologised for it and explained why he made the mistake.
However, his crass comment about being gay is unforgivable
I have tried to find the exact comments that Greg Clarke made regarding the “It’s a Lifestyle Choice” , this does not appear to be published any where. The comment was made regarding the lack of openly gay male players in England. I am not defending his comments in anyway.... but could he not have meant their Lifestyle choice was to not be public with their sexuality. Rather than their sexuality was the choice ?
If anybody has a copy of the exact nature of his comment or link to a recording of his speech, I am happy to be put right. I find it hard to believe that even a complete moron, would state the people choose to be Gay as Lifestyle.
An as I stated many pages back, I am genuinely putting a point forward not looking for a row.... Last time I commented I was immediately attacked and insulted by a poster on here.
Interesting debate, but bringing it back to the present day and a replacement for Clarke; who would be a progressive FA Chief who can represents the myriad of folk who play, coach, watch, ref and partake in this crazy game of football ?
Paul Elliott ? (No not Elliottt !)
No , Paul Elliott gambled “invested” some money with Rufus and lost a load and cos he didn’t like it he called Richard the “n” word in an aggressive text message , he then went on to resign as a trustee from Kick it Out
I have tried to find the exact comments that Greg Clarke made regarding the “It’s a Lifestyle Choice” , this does not appear to be published any where. The comment was made regarding the lack of openly gay male players in England. I am not defending his comments in anyway.... but could he not have meant their Lifestyle choice was to not be public with their sexuality. Rather than their sexuality was the choice ?
If anybody has a copy of the exact nature of his comment or link to a recording of his speech, I am happy to be put right. I find it hard to believe that even a complete moron, would state the people choose to be Gay as Lifestyle.
An as I stated many pages back, I am genuinely putting a point forward not looking for a row.... Last time I commented I was immediately attacked and insulted by a poster on here.
So is calling someone a person of colour different to calling someone a coloured person? This was from an article published today on the BBC website.
Yep. The difference has been explained further back up the thread.
Tbf I have not and nor wish to trawl through 10 pages of crap to find the answer but I did ask my wife, who is black that same question and she said there is no difference. I guess its down to the individual to say whats offensive to them or not.
Guess so. But seeing as you can't know everyone personally, it's best to go with consensus, where that exists, when you are speaking publicly or to people you don't know.
Lots of information on the terminology available online if you don't fancy reading back through the thread.
Tbh, I do not refer to people's colour when I speak to them because, for me, it's irrelevant. They are either ok or not.
I have tried to find the exact comments that Greg Clarke made regarding the “It’s a Lifestyle Choice” , this does not appear to be published any where. The comment was made regarding the lack of openly gay male players in England. I am not defending his comments in anyway.... but could he not have meant their Lifestyle choice was to not be public with their sexuality. Rather than their sexuality was the choice ?
If anybody has a copy of the exact nature of his comment or link to a recording of his speech, I am happy to be put right. I find it hard to believe that even a complete moron, would state the people choose to be Gay as Lifestyle.
An as I stated many pages back, I am genuinely putting a point forward not looking for a row.... Last time I commented I was immediately attacked and insulted by a poster on here.
I really don't see much difference honestly.
Completely different, one is stating the “ Lifestyle Choice” is privacy about ones personal life, and no desire to be public with sexual preference. The other is the choice is to be Gay.
I have tried to find the exact comments that Greg Clarke made regarding the “It’s a Lifestyle Choice” , this does not appear to be published any where. The comment was made regarding the lack of openly gay male players in England. I am not defending his comments in anyway.... but could he not have meant their Lifestyle choice was to not be public with their sexuality. Rather than their sexuality was the choice ?
If anybody has a copy of the exact nature of his comment or link to a recording of his speech, I am happy to be put right. I find it hard to believe that even a complete moron, would state the people choose to be Gay as Lifestyle.
An as I stated many pages back, I am genuinely putting a point forward not looking for a row.... Last time I commented I was immediately attacked and insulted by a poster on here.
"The real issue is once you run out in front of 60,000 people and you decided on Monday that you wanted to disclose your sexuality - and I would never pressure anybody to disclose their sexuality - what I would want to do is to know that anybody who runs out onto the pitch and says, 'I'm gay. I'm proud of it and I'm happy. It's a life choice, and I've made it because my life is a better place', I'd like to believe and I do believe they would have the support of their mates in the changing room," Clarke said.
If you sit on a board of directors of some sorts, you should know the stakeholders you’re dealing with, regardless of your age, and therefore know that throwing around “coloured”, which seems harmless to me (a white geeza) is not acceptable these days, use it in the boozer with your pals whatever I’m sure no one will care, but use it on tele, you’ve had one and deserve what’s coming.
As for the appointment, and the pressure to appoint a black member to replace him. Well the entire board is currently white, correct me if I’m wrong. And to quote my boring ACCA textbooks which I’m currently studying day in day out, of the FTSE350 companies, the ones with a board that has a mixture of women and BAME’s, out-perform ones that are all male and all white.
So the regular point that “it should be the best person for the job” is easy on the tongue and I fully get and understand it, you’re actually arguing against independent studies on board diversity. Which you’re free to do of course, but don’t be surprised when people opt for proven studies rather than feelings.
If you sit on a board of directors of some sorts, you should know the stakeholders you’re dealing with, regardless of your age, and therefore know that throwing around “coloured”, which seems harmless to me (a white geeza) is not acceptable these days, use it in the boozer with your pals whatever I’m sure no one will care, but use it on tele, you’ve had one and deserve what’s coming.
As for the appointment, and the pressure to appoint a black member to replace him. Well the entire board is currently white, correct me if I’m wrong. And to quote my boring ACCA textbooks which I’m currently studying day in day out, of the FTSE350 companies, the ones with a board that has a mixture of women and BAME’s, out-perform ones that are all male and all white.
So the regular point that “it should be the best person for the job” is easy on the tongue and I fully get and understand it, you’re actually arguing against independent studies on board diversity. Which you’re free to do of course, but don’t be surprised when people opt for proven studies rather than feelings.
If you sit on a board of directors of some sorts, you should know the stakeholders you’re dealing with, regardless of your age, and therefore know that throwing around “coloured”, which seems harmless to me (a white geeza) is not acceptable these days, use it in the boozer with your pals whatever I’m sure no one will care, but use it on tele, you’ve had one and deserve what’s coming.
As for the appointment, and the pressure to appoint a black member to replace him. Well the entire board is currently white, correct me if I’m wrong. And to quote my boring ACCA textbooks which I’m currently studying day in day out, of the FTSE350 companies, the ones with a board that has a mixture of women and BAME’s, out-perform ones that are all male and all white.
So the regular point that “it should be the best person for the job” is easy on the tongue and I fully get and understand it, you’re actually arguing against independent studies on board diversity. Which you’re free to do of course, but don’t be surprised when people opt for proven studies rather than feelings.
If you sit on a board of directors of some sorts, you should know the stakeholders you’re dealing with, regardless of your age, and therefore know that throwing around “coloured”, which seems harmless to me (a white geeza) is not acceptable these days, use it in the boozer with your pals whatever I’m sure no one will care, but use it on tele, you’ve had one and deserve what’s coming.
As for the appointment, and the pressure to appoint a black member to replace him. Well the entire board is currently white, correct me if I’m wrong. And to quote my boring ACCA textbooks which I’m currently studying day in day out, of the FTSE350 companies, the ones with a board that has a mixture of women and BAME’s, out-perform ones that are all male and all white.
So the regular point that “it should be the best person for the job” is easy on the tongue and I fully get and understand it, you’re actually arguing against independent studies on board diversity. Which you’re free to do of course, but don’t be surprised when people opt for proven studies rather than feelings.
Thing is, I can see why BAME could be offensive. It's basically saying non-white. There's no subtlety, or nuance, it's a clear delimitation, there's white people and there's everyone else in one big heterogeneous block.
As always, it's the inherent difficulty, in a society dominated my the Anglo-Saxon population, in how do you do do you discuss the lack of representation of the various different minority groups without lumping them altogether, with inevitably disregarding and therefore silencing many of the voices within those minorities.
First opened this the other day when it had 10-15 posts. Can't believe some of the posts I've read since.
Being a good person isn't hard. If you really are struggling to know the right thing to say and you unintentionally use a dated term; if someone pulls you up on it (it'll probably happen to all of us at some point) then apologise and make a mental note to not do it again. Again, being a good person isn't hard.
Comments
So is calling someone a person of colour different to calling someone a coloured person? This was from an article published today on the BBC website.
Lots of information on the terminology available online if you don't fancy reading back through the thread.
However, his crass comment about being gay is unforgivable
If anybody has a copy of the exact nature of his comment or link to a recording of his speech, I am happy to be put right. I find it hard to believe that even a complete moron, would state the people choose to be Gay as Lifestyle.
You couldn't make it up, you really couldn't.
If you sit on a board of directors of some sorts, you should know the stakeholders you’re dealing with, regardless of your age, and therefore know that throwing around “coloured”, which seems harmless to me (a white geeza) is not acceptable these days, use it in the boozer with your pals whatever I’m sure no one will care, but use it on tele, you’ve had one and deserve what’s coming.
As for the appointment, and the pressure to appoint a black member to replace him. Well the entire board is currently white, correct me if I’m wrong. And to quote my boring ACCA textbooks which I’m currently studying day in day out, of the FTSE350 companies, the ones with a board that has a mixture of women and BAME’s, out-perform ones that are all male and all white.
So the regular point that “it should be the best person for the job” is easy on the tongue and I fully get and understand it, you’re actually arguing against independent studies on board diversity. Which you’re free to do of course, but don’t be surprised when people opt for proven studies rather than feelings.
As always, it's the inherent difficulty, in a society dominated my the Anglo-Saxon population, in how do you do do you discuss the lack of representation of the various different minority groups without lumping them altogether, with inevitably disregarding and therefore silencing many of the voices within those minorities.
Being a good person isn't hard. If you really are struggling to know the right thing to say and you unintentionally use a dated term; if someone pulls you up on it (it'll probably happen to all of us at some point) then apologise and make a mental note to not do it again. Again, being a good person isn't hard.