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.

She’s shit at interviews! Then she has no business being in the Shadow Cabinet. It's an integral part of the job, like it or not. I like Diane Abbott and I especially liked her on This Week. She was articulate, personable and witty.

@derxa

I disagree actually. It’s not integral to being a good cabinet/shadow cabinet member is it? Not from the point of view of being a taxpayer.

I disagree actually. It’s not integral to being a good cabinet/shadow cabinet member is it? Not from the point of view of being a taxpayer.
We pay members of the shadow cabinet more than other MPs. We should have a strong shadow cabinet and it's their job to set out their views clearly and accurately. The medium for that is usually via interviews on television and radio.

This is slightly off topic but the word coloured" had different meanings in the US and south Africa. In South Africa it was not used as a general word for a black person as it was in the US (and as Amber rudd used it yesterday). In SA under the apartheid system a coloured person was a mixed race person who generally were decended from the Dutch settlers and their "relationships" with their slaves. They generally speak afrikaans as their first language. Under the apartheid system coloureds had more rights and privileges than blacks, although not as many as whites. Today the community is generally known as "Cape Coloured" as it recognise their distinct culture. Many people will describe themselves as "coloured" or "Cape coloured" and it is seen as a positive rather than a negative way of affirming their distinct culture and community identity.

Of course it's an integral part of being a minister of state. And if you can't deal with a broadcast interview, you're not going to cope with being heckled from all sides in the Commons. I used to rate Abbott a long time ago but she appears to have totally lost it these days.

Yes- I do think that cabinet and shadow cabinet ministers should be able to do a good, or at least an OK interview. Or if they can’t, not be put up for them.

As most of us know. Calling all people who are not 'white' either black or brown is a bit daft. Also we do know everybody has got a colour. White or black was a skin tone colour that was invented by someone you was very racist. I have not yet seen someone who is white yet...we all know how white looks like. Also the people who are categorised black are not black at all they are either light or dark brown. Black colour as we all know it is very rare. Calling someone coloured is a bit shallow minded and primitive.

I wouldn’t “set about her” either,

You’ve certainly set about her on this thread.

'You’ve certainly set about her on this thread.'

Yes, repeatedly. Minister makes a mistake and apologises. Unfortunate but these things do happen. What she was actually trying to say has got lost in people taking offence. Not an awful lot else to say. Or so you'd think..

BertrandRussell

I’m puzzled. I thought I was probably the oldest person on this thread, and “black” has been acceptable all my adult life.

I grew up with black being the accepted term, moving to coloured and then people of colour.

Seems to me that it is a circle and it depends on where you are and who you are talking to at any given time, as all three have the possibility of giving offense.

To my South African friend, it meant She was neither black enough nor white. A third class. She would be insulted in SA but here would probably, for the eleventy billionth time, try to not be. And try to explain to you why.
An MP should know better. And the irony of the topic... sigh...

The only reason for a minister to be good at interviews is for reasons of “spin”.

It doesn’t tell you how good they are at actually coming up with and implementing policy. That’s the crux for me.

Just a bunch of white people whining about how they used coloured a trillion years ago and it was all toooootally acceptable and so what’s the big deal anyway.
If someone called me coloured to my face I would be so fucking shocked and appalled I would wonder if they were mentally ill or just a massive racist.

@Faffandahalf

So would you be offended if someone called you a "person of colour"?

That’s completely twisting what people have said. Nobody’s said it’s acceptable now, we’ve all agreed it’s not. But historically, when some of us were much younger, it was not only acceptable but preferred. Nobody’s whined either.

You have to explain your policies @iggly. How are people to know about them or hold you to account if you don’t tell them?

How can you possibly explain policies properly in five minute sound bites?

You don’t have necessarily to be good at interviews and siundbites to be a good MP. You do have to be good at them to be the person who is put up to give them. They are an important part of the process of government and of opposition. So generally speaking, it should be part of the skill set of Ministers.

That Faffanahalf is why many of that bunch of white people have said we are bemused, confused and constantly awaiting clarification. It is not ours to decide what is curerntly correct, we can only wait and receive....

But the correct terminology has changed over our lifetimes. Backed and forthed a couple of times. Almost every poster has acknowledged that "coloured" is offensive these days and that Rudd should not have used it.

Is it so awful that some of us are old enough to have lived through times when it was not seen that way?

“Is it so awful that some of us are old enough to have lived through times when it was not seen that way?“
Not at all. But the proper term has been “black” for many years now. It is pretty awful that a senior public figure would not know that.

Why are you “bemused, confused and constantly awaiting clarification.”?

I’m finding this really interesting and useful

I get quite anxious about using the incorrect terms and do find it confusing as I have friends and colleagues from many different groups who use all sorts by of terms when referring to themselves that I’m not clear if I should also use or if it’s only really acceptable when discussions yourself iyswim.

I tend to use BAME bit it doesn’t trip off the tongue.
And in one area I work in i am very much the minority as a white woman so it feels patronising.

I think black has been the more acceptable UK term for a while but it always makes me a bit uncomfortable in case it offends and also doesn’t help when people are of Indian, Thai descent etc.
My friends call themselves ‘brown’ but I don’t persoanlly feel I can use this as some may be offended. You can’t also always use eg Pakistani unless you are sure someone is Pakistani etc.

It’s so difficult but not a patch on how hard it must be to face casually throwaway racism every single day.

I did once try the ‘how would you prefer me to refer to you’ in a conversation we were I thought clearly discussing ethnic categories and the person said ‘john’. So that shut me up!

But historically, when some of us were much younger, it was not only acceptable but preferred.

Preferred by whom? I have never understood 'coloured' to be acceptable.

When you consider the meaning/implications/usage/contexts in which the two terms are used, there's an enormous difference between the two.

Whereareyou- can I ask about the circumstances where you have to refer to people’s ethnicity/skin colour at all? I know you might have to sometimes, but I can’t see why you would have to often often enough to cause you anxiety.

It’s not my job to educate white people. Educate yourselves. BAME lives are not about making you feel better about the way you label us.
Google is your friend here.

‘Bemused confused awaiting clarification’
We are not your inferiors ready to do your bidding at the snap of your fingers. Sorry you are awaiting clarification. If your brain can’t grasp that coloured is not the same as people of colour (which isn’t even used in this country much) then I don’t know that there’s anything I can say to help you.

I’m 38. The word black and Asian was used exclusively in the 80’s. I define myself as British Asian. It actually really isn’t very hard to understand at all. The word BAME is sometime used (priti patel says she hates it but it’s a good umbrella term). Minority ethnic sometimes. Black British British Asian dual heritage etc etc. It’s rather easy to separate the bad phrases from the good if you try.

I’m always bemused and confused by the attitude to race on MN.

Coloured is a horrible term. It describes objects, furnishing, clothing etc - not people.