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.

Someone way back on this thread described a discussion about mixed marriages that took place when they were young. 'Funny tinge' was new to me, as well, but this poster used virtually the same words. I think it must be a northern thing. 'A bit of a tinge'?

London was miles ahead of the rest of the country, largely because of the GLC. I have issues with Ken now, but he did a fantastic job with anti-racism in schools in the 70s and 80s. Mixed marriage was relatively rare outside London and big cities, rare enough to cause comment. Some people still find it difficult to accept, on both sides. White friends of mine welcomed their daughter getting together with a Jamaican and having a child. The Jamaican family were less pleased and now that the couple are splitting up there have been a lot of snide remarks about not wanting the child to be 'brought up white'.

“Someone way back on this thread described a discussion about mixed marriages that took place when they were young. 'Funny tinge' was new to me, as well, but this poster used virtually the same words. I think it must be a northern thing. 'A bit of a tinge'?
Ah. So a bit like “a touch of the tar brush”.... Which was common-and not neutral- in my youth.

Bingo! I was just waiting for that one to come up. Oh, the irony that it was you @Bertrand!

Irony?

Moi? Loving the faux innocence!

Nobody can possibly think “funny tinge” is a neutral expression!

Well, it isn't now. But go back 40/50 years, and how would ordinary people have described someone of mixed race who was neither white nor black?

You're overlooking how much things have changed in this country - and, still, not everywhere. Relatively few black people in the West Country or East Anglia. Windrush was 50's. I went to school in West London. No black girls at all. A handful of daughters of Indian doctors. A few Jewish girls. Mostly, Caribbean immigrants settled in SE London, poorer areas, like NottingHill, as it was then -the riots, Paddington. Then there was a wave of Asian refugees from Kenya and Uganda. More in Northern towns like Bradford where there was guaranteed employment in the mills.

It was all v new and people need time to adjust. They weren't bad people. They got on well with workmates or schoolmates, but they were troubled by the change in their neighbourhoods. My grandmother, as I've said, had a genuinely friendly relationship with her neighbour, but preferred Deptford as it used to be.

A bit of a tinge would be the polite way of saying a touch of the tar brush. Just as coloured was the polite version of darkie. Even in the early days of immigration, there were lots of people who were trying to be nice. I'm talking about the UK, which, obviously had a different history in this respect.

As Brexit has shown, some people like the novelty of change. Others want things to stay the same. I love the diversity of London. Not just in racial terms, but talking to Latvians at the bus stop or Ukrainians serving me coffee. But that's me. I like a change. Providing the ones who feel differently aren't mean to incomers, I'd be inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to handing out moral judgements.

Obviously I know things have changed a lot! And we’ve come a very long way. But is it really ever acceptable to use 40 year old language today? Particularly (sorry, fans!) if you are a public figure?

No, of course not. And both of them have apologised unreservedly. No 'I'm sorry if I've offended...' There are more important things that need to be done.

Thyme
And both of them have apologised unreservedly. No 'I'm sorry if I've offended...'

Once again you are being very charitable to AR. Where has she apologised unreservedly?

If you are referring to her tweet, she said she was mortified at her clumsy language and sorry to DA – that's a sparing apology. It's a carefully crafted sentence with clever use of the word 'clumsy' which gives nothing away and doesn't explain why she used the term. Half the tweet is used to reinforce the message she was trying to put across during the interview. That's fair enough but what she doesn't do is take the opportunity to reinforce that the expression 'coloured' is offensive and unsuitable. In summary: the apology is damage limitation on Rudd's part – she's does just about enough to enable her to move on.

I think you give a lot of latitude to Rudd and none to DA (who you previously said 'milked' the situation even though she made a similarly brief comment on Twitter).

Thyme
There are more important things that need to be done.

I agree with a point Bertrand made earlier - that individual incidents add up and contribute to the bigger picture. Rudd is in a position to influence the public - with a slightly different apology, she could have conveyed a much stronger message that using the word 'coloured' in relation to ethnicity is inappropriate. As things stand, people who have been using the term might just remember that Amber Rudd used it during an interview and continue to think it's acceptable.

John Barnes is unimpressed with this LBC presenter's take on this.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=AeimAnvWEA4

BadLad

THANK YOU for that. John Barnes is saying just what I've been trying to put across throughout this thread. It's particularly interesting that he confirms what I've experienced about the reluctance to use the word black in the 70s (and onwards). And the importance of context and intent.

What an interesting interview. I wonder if I’m alone in finding Fogarty’s aggressive attitude towards Barnes pretty uncomfortable?

I think John Barnes should be ashamed of himself for being so unhelpful in the societal and political sense.

What an interesting interview. I wonder if I’m alone in finding Fogarty’s aggressive attitude towards Barnes pretty uncomfortable?

Indeed. When it was clear he wasn't going to say he was offended by Amber Rudd, despite her insistence that he should, all she had left was to accuse him of getting angry, even though he clearly wasn't.