Amber Rudd

[sue51]

I'm seeking to understand the differences between the terms “coloured women” and “women of colour”. They sound intrinsically similar but they may well be different, and a web search didn’t help in defining the difference.

The first term was used by Amber Rudd yesterday, and she quickly apologised as it had caused offence, but was still under criticism in the main national news. If a term is offensive then it’s right that it isn’t used, and where it has been used that should be the subject of an apology.

However, the term “women of colour” was used on Radio 4 this morning, and a review of the play Richard II at the Sam Wannamaker Playhouse by the Guardian’s Michael Billington prominently used the term “women of colour”, and one would have thought, given the Guardian’s credentials, that the term would not be used if it was likely to cause offence.

So, and asked in all sincerity, can anyone explain the difference between these two terms, and why one is deemed to be offensive while the other is apparently not? I would be mortified if I used a term which caused offence to someone but am genuinely curious about the difference in this case.

Fascicle

I despair, I really do.

My post was about how difficult it can be for non native English speakers to understand the subtleties of the language. If you are from Finland or Switzerland, you do not have the longstanding multi ethnic history that we have in the UK, so you do not necessarily understand the situation.

And yes, 'people of colour' is a noun, which does appear to be acceptable. 'Coloured' as an adjective is not.

FEF1102 - I was sitting on the Tube a while back, opposite three young black guys. They were using the N word as a term of endearment "He's my N brother" about a friend. So, would a white boy in the same friendship group, using the 'N' word with his mates, be deemed to be racist or not?

I didn’t realise that Amber Rudd was not a native English speaker.

I also didn’t realise that children were not taught about the Holocaust at school. Mine certainly were-is it not on the new curriculum?

I’m quite interested in what Dianne Abbott’s political achievements are apart from being the first black woman MP. Perhaps you could enlighten us, @fascicle?

Well, at least she wasn’t the brains behind Windrush..........

And that’s all you’ve got? OK.

“People of colour” is also american in origin.

I’ve not really heard it in the UK outside of media, we use black or mixed race.

I believe people of colour became the preferred term in the US because “black” and “blacks” as a collective term was also negative.

Shouldn’t it be “cis-women of colour” if we’re going properly PC

Bertrand I wasn't talking about Amber Rudd in this instance - I was referring to an episode that Thyme mentioned where a non native English speaker used the word 'coloured'. Amber wasn't there at the time.

And yes, a lot of young people are completely unaware of the Holocaust. It may be taught in schools now but a few years' ago I worked with a girl who was then 18. She had never heard of it and had no idea about the history of Jewish persecution.

Aussie
I despair, I really do.

My post was about how difficult it can be for non native English speakers to understand the subtleties of the language.

Then your post was poorly formatted, Aussie. Had you reversed your sentence order in the final paragraph and had that paragraph been part of your response to KingHenry then your intentions would have been clearer.

And yes, 'people of colour' is a noun, which does appear to be acceptable. 'Coloured' as an adjective is not.

You previously said:

If one looks at the 'coloured / people of colour' issue, it is essentially the same word. If it is used as a noun it is acceptable ; if it's an adjective it's not.

Completely missing the point that coloured(s) (noun) is unacceptable.

Alsohuman
I suggest you do some research if you don't know much about her (which I guess you would have done already, had you been interested).

I have done some research and have found nothing of note, which is why I’d like you to tell me about Abbott’s great achievements.

Facsicle I was comparing SJ making political capital out of the SB case, through his populist response in stripping her of her passport to DA's response to the death of her baby, which, imo, is also populist in its emotive language. Both were saying what people wanted to hear, ignoring technicalities and logistics.

Much more likely that AR was concentrating on what she was saying rather than the language she used. But we will have to agree to differ.

Of course she's making political capital out of AR's gaffe. As I pointed out upthread, it was a convenient distraction, coming only hours after the EHRC news and she's milking it.

May was the brains(?) behind Windrush. AR inherited it. Imv, David Lammy was a much more effective campaigner and spokesman than DA. As Alsohuman has pointed out, one isn't exactly spoilt for choice when it comes to DA's achievements subsequent to her becoming the first woman black MP.

“And that’s all you’ve got? OK”

I think you might be mistaking me for a Diane Abbot fan.....

Sorry, from way upthread, but

@Bert I don't tolerate casual racism aimed at me or anyone else,

However, I excuse a brainfart like Rudd's when it was actually part of an - incompetent - expression of sympathy & support for Abbot
i.e. the intention was good, the execution as incompetent as I have come to expect from ministers in this government

and yes, I expect many Tory MPs will shy away from supporting Abbot in future, unless for specific racist incidents,
because of how she seized on Rudd's clumsiness

Politicians have their nice side, but they mostly put politics and their career first
and anti-racism isn't particularly high on the Tory priority list

which is why it was such a shame for Abbot & others to attack after a rare moment when a Tory actually did try to criticise the racism that prominant Women of Colour experience

Fascicle said "Then your post was poorly formatted, Aussie. Had you reversed your sentence order in the final paragraph and had that paragraph been part of your response to KingHenry then your intentions would have been clearer."

I'm so sorry that my use of English isn't quite clear enough for you, Fascicle. I am good at Maths, if that's any help.

BTW do you troll professionally, or is it just a hobby?

Knowing not to use "coloured":

Only about 3 years since I gently corrected a friend, well-educated professional woman in her 50s, liberal views.
She has never worked in public service or for big firms, never lived near London

I think language change takes decades to reach everyone
Especially if they are socially a bit isolated.

I certainly would always correct it, but I wouldn't take offence if used in ignorance
There have been enough times to take offence when it's deliberate,

I think Rudd must have brainfarted back to her time before entering Parliament
because MPs must be aware of acceptable cs unacceptable language

Still no news on Abbott’s political achievements then?

As I said- I think you may have mistakeb me for an Abbott fan. But she is, I understand an excellent constituency MP.

BetrandRussell, here’s the perfect opportunity to tell BigChocFrenzy that she is mistaken and that her views are unhelpful in societal and political terms.

I meant @fascicle.

“BetrandRussell, here’s the perfect opportunity to tell BigChocFrenzy that she is mistaken and that her views are unhelpful in societal and political terms.”

Happy to. But as she’s responded to my points, I assume she’s read my post. But if you insist I say it again, I will.

That you’re “happy” with your near stratospheric level of arrogance says everything one needs to know.

Not agreeing with someone else doesn’t make you arrogant. It just means you don’t agree with then. I am sure BigChocFrenzy is more than capable of speaking for herself-although she does have a ready champion in you!

Not agreeing with someone else doesn’t make you arrogant

No, agreed, of course it doesn’t. However, here, on a thread about a black woman being called coloured, you tell another black woman who has been called coloured that her contribution is wrong and helpful. Can you really not see the extraordinary conceit in that? Equally, do you not appreciate how condemning everyone who disagrees with you as necessarily guilty of racism is not also arrogant? And, as for being a “champion” for BigChocFrenzy, please don’t be so childishly snide.

“However, here, on a thread about a black woman being called coloured, you tell another black woman who has been called coloured that her contribution is wrong and helpful“

I didn’t say that. But feel free to respond to what you think I said.