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.

Saying that it is unacceptable for me to disagree with her on this subject because she is black and I am not is extraordinarily patronising.

As I’m sure you know, BetrandRussell, I am not saying that at all.

My objection is not that you disagree with another poster but that you deny her the possibility of having any authority to contribute at the “political and societal” level of the discussion. In this, you are the absolute embodiment of crashing arrogance.

It’s also pretty funny that you - conveniently- develop scruples about talking about another poster in her absence ... before making one final comment about that poster!

I refer you to @ToxtethOGradysBogey 's post on the Linford Christie thread in Feminism Chat. It says it all

I think there are two opposing viewpoints. One group thinks that you should ignore the little things and concentrate on the bigger picture. The other thinks that the bigger picture is made up of lots of little pictures. Obviously I belong to the second group!

But you don’t because you say the way one woman handles a situation doesn’t affect the “political and societal level”, so you’re saying her “little picture” doesn’t count.

I think that every time we challenge the small examples of casual racism (or casual sexism) in public life we chip away at the entrenched racist and sexist views that still pervade our society. Ignoring/excusing them gives them validity. If nobody had challenged Rudd then other people wiuld think, either genuinely or disingenuously that it was OK to use coloured. If a 90 year old person used it in their own home then maybe it’s best ignored.But in a public forum? No- challenge every time.

The problem with your view, Bertrand, is that you have appointed yourself as arbiter of what is and is not racist or sexist. Coloured was once a polite term. How long before black woman is offensive and woman of colour is the non-racist term? This is particularly prevalent in the area of special needs.

You're operating on the margins, the grey area, where it's arguable whether someone has indeed been racist or sexist or whether it really matters. You'll find some who'll back you up in being offended and others who'll roll their eyes. Identifying micro aggressions and pulling people up on them is counter-productive.

It puts people's backs up to be accused of racism when they're not and loses the support you need it to right the wrongs in the big picture.

“You're operating on the margins, the grey area, where it's arguable whether someone has indeed been racist“
Not with the word “coloured” I’m not! I though everyone on this thread agrees that it is an unacceptable term.

Agree with Thyme, context is everything.

Context is everything when it comes to personal interactions - I don’t think it is in public life.

I think we are all showing our age here! God, so much hand wringing.
Tonight our house has been full of teenagers who are from White/Black and Indian backgrounds. It's like this several times a week as the kids invite their mates over all the time. I have no idea if I address these people by the correct terms as I tend to use their names.

I think the issue here is that if the phrases were completely different it would be hard to mix them up. It's because they are so similar it's too easy to get it wrong and get jumped on by the woke crowd for an honest mistake.

Had Rudd mixed up the terms (rather a stretch for a senior politician with her experience), you'd expect an immediate reaction and revision during the interview which would have been far less newsworthy than her delayed response.

To say the terms are similar ignores their meaning entirely. Easy enough not to use the term People of Colour if there is any confusion.

It is utterly bizarre to suggest that a
senior politician with extensive media training would mix up woman of colour and coloured woman.

You keep banging on about media training as if it were some kind of holy talisman. I've media trained numerous local politicians and senior managers, they perform excellently until they've facing a real journalist and camera at which point some of them forget everything. No amount of training can prevent an unfortunate choice of words under pressure.

“You keep banging on about media training as if it were some kind of holy talisman. ”
Well, I keep mentioning it, yes. Because other people are talking about her as if she is just an ordinary person in the street suddenly and unexpectedly thrust unprepared into the glare of the world’s media.....

Yes, people make mistakes. The man who said breakfast instead of Brexit? Trump saying Tim Apple? Me referring to my own brother by the wrong name in a Wedding speech? Slips of the tongue. A high profile politician using a term that has been considered racist for at least (authorities differ!) 10 years- not a slip of the tongue. Boris Johnstone talking about picaninnies wasn’t a slip of the tongue either. Angela Smith saying “strange tinge” and blaming it on being tired? Not a slip of the tongue.

This really is why people like you, Bertrand, shouldn't go round calling people out on casual racism. On this thread you've already condemned as racist a poem written in the vernacular - a totally knee-jerk reaction. On a previous one, I can think of 2 other examples. I don't trust your judgement.

So Smith and Rudd didn't suffer a slip of the tongue, in your opinion. So they deliberately used a racist term? Or didn't realise it was racist? Or they are closet racists who often use racist language in private and on this occasion the mask slipped? Which do you think is the most likely reason?

I have no problem believing they made slips of the tongue because it's something I often do myself, tho' so far not in such an embarrassing way. I use the word I was first taught to use, and its imprint is stronger than later corrections. Like an old address book with crossed out entries. And the context of both examples was that they were making anti-racist points.

But I've explained myself often enough. How about you?

Good think you don’t have to then!

Incidentally, I reserve judgement about that poem. It has been around a very long time- longer than the “African child” has been around! But google didn’t help, so I withdrew my very mild objection (hardly a condemnation). But hey ho.

Bertram I think you’re quite enjoying the whole saga - after all, it’s an opportunity for you to repeatedly berate a Tory politician.

“Bertram I think you’re quite enjoying the whole saga - after all, it’s an opportunity for you to repeatedly berate a Tory politician”
Of course I’m enjoying it-I wouldn’t be here if I didn’t. But it’s not because she’s a Tory. If the thread had been about Angela
Smith I would have said exacrly the same things.

But Angela Smith did realise that she'd slipped up in the interview. You can hear her hesitation on the tape. She was struggling to say that Jews were treated differently because they didn't look minority ethnic. They weren't black and then she lost herself in trying to translate AME from the BAME acronym. She also comes from an area where 'funny tinge' would have been a neutral way of describing a non-white, or mixed race person in her youth, tho' it sounds dreadful now.

How did you get on with your Jewish friend? Did he agree that Jews are an ethnic group?

“She also comes from an area where 'funny tinge' would have been a neutral way of describing a non-white, or mixed race person in her youth” Honestly? Blimey! I thought coloured was bad!

He said he ticks white British or white other depending on his mood and who is going to look at the form.

Any other 58 year olds on here used “funny tinge” as a neutral way to describe a non white person in their youth? That would be in the late 1960s/1970s.

Or is it a specific Grimsby thing?

I’ve never said or heard it so it could easily be a local thing.

Alsohuman
No amount of training can prevent an unfortunate choice of words under pressure.

Under pressure? She had a platform to talk about women in politics with the non-threatening and disarming Jeremy Vine. This was not a pressurised grilling where she was required to explain a difficult policy or produce lots of facts and figures.

Thyme
So Smith and Rudd didn't suffer a slip of the tongue, in your opinion. So they deliberately used a racist term? Or didn't realise it was racist? Or they are closet racists who often use racist language in private and on this occasion the mask slipped? Which do you think is the most likely reason?

With a slip of the tongue, you correct it there and then. There were occasions during Rudd's interview where she stumbled over ordinary, non-contentious words and immediately corrected herself. She didn't stumble over 'a coloured woman' and she didn't correct herself.

As to an explanation - on paper, no doubt Rudd would have recognised the term as completely inappropriate. I would put it down to a degree of ignorance on her part that she had not properly assimilated the impact of the term (years ago), to the point where she should have been incapable of coming out with it. There are plenty of rules and behaviours that become embedded in people's minds at a sub-conscious level and prevent them from doing certain things that are e.g. particularly inappropriate or offensive. Another possible explanation is that she has recently spent time with other people, who for whatever reason, have used the term.

I use the word I was first taught to use, and its imprint is stronger than later corrections.

No idea whether you're talking generally or about terms relating to this discussion – if the latter, that might be an excuse for people considerably older than Rudd without a job like hers. But humans update their knowledge all the time and it's not complicated to take the time to understand and assimilate what is and isn't appropriate to say when language is important.