AIBU to ask how "coloured" and "of colour" differ?

[JohnAndMichaelsSister]

I've hesitated all day before posting this, because it's a sensitive subject and I don't want to offend anyone. But I need to know the answer, so as not to unintentionally offend anyone in future!

I turned on the radio this morning (Today on Radio 4) to hear that the FA chairman Greg Clarke has had to resign for using the term “coloured footballers”. Then Dame Heather Rabbatts, in talking about it, used the phrase “person of colour”.

How can “coloured” be offensive and “of colour” not be?

To me, logically, both seem offensive. Both imply that to be white is “the norm”, and lump together everyone else in the world who is of any other colour as somehow departing from this “norm”.

And any physicist will tell you that white is formed by combining all the colours of the spectrum, while black is an absence of colour. So actually it's white people who are coloured!

Yet for a while now we have been told that “... of colour” is the correct term for everyone who isn't white.

I'm in the UK, but I know that in the US the main organisation that campaigns for the rights of black people is called The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

So I'm totally confused. I'd like some guidance (especially from black British people - I'm white) on what is offensive and what isn't.

YANBU = “coloured” and “of colour” are as offensive or inoffensive as each other.
YABU = there really is some difference between the two terms.

When they go through a divorce and they have a solicitor from a BAME background who they see going home in their three year old Ford Focus to their detached house in the suburbs, they're hardly going to understand how it is that they're the ones with 'privilege' of any sort.

Also, we live in a world where the biggest popstar is Beyonce, the biggest sports stars are Mo Farah and Usain Bolt. The most popular president, Barack Obama.
When you grow up non-racist and see black success so frequently, I think that can make the concept of lack of opportunity a bit confusing to people who don't understand that it's about everyday micro challenges.

Micro challenges and micro aggressions hold no weight with people who have actual real, big, serious problems, understandably. That goes for every race.

That's probably a social media thing though , blowing it up out of proportion, social media has a way of doing that and stoking irritation etc.

To put this another way, I live in a rural community with hardly any BAME population. This isn't because of racism (organisations I've worked for have run unconscious bias courses, diversity courses. But we never had BAME people apply for any vacancies, except for one or two).

So all the children here are white, near enough. Their main exposure to black people is through the extraordinary success they see through their music, sporting and acting heroes. So explaining cultural privilege is a strange concept because all they see is black people enjoying the highest levels of success.

Agreed @7Days

I always wonder this, as a makeup artist. I’m so afraid of saying the wrong thing. I think very rarely should anybody have to described by race - we are all human, but sometimes I actually need to describe a complexion or reference it. I would usually say a ‘darker complexion’ - is this ok?

I’m ‘of colour’ I don’t like that term, but it’s the one that’s in fashion now, especially in the US and amongst younger people.

Coloured was used in the 50s/60s, it has connotations for me of the signs that landlords put up at the time saying ‘no Irish, no coloureds, no dogs’. It’s been decades since black and brown people actively worked to get rid of the use of the word ‘coloured’, so using it now sounds super outdated. It would be like calling someone unmarried a spinster or an old maid or someone’s child whose parents weren’t married a bastard....technically correct, but language use changes and we just don’t use those terms now.

NAACP is a particular case because it’s a historical organisation from TGE days when the word coloured was used by black people about themselves. Given the historical significance of the organisation I can see why that’s still being used.

But in answer to your question ‘Coloured’ alone doesn’t offend me, but when it’s used as it has been this week by a senior executive who is speaking about black and brown people on behalf of a national organisation, in the context of the abuse faced by those people on their watch...someone who should have been briefed and trained and who is representing their industry in public and in front of MPs in a political context and they are using this outdated language it is appallingly lax and unprofessional, and it gives no confidence that their organisations much trumped ‘equality and inclusion initiative’ launched in recent weeks is anything more than window dressing.

@FloraButterCookie
Probably not because the insinuation is darker than what..
."the NORM????!!!!"

It's the same reason why we no longer use what I consider to be the most straightforward and inclusive term which is "ethnic minority"

I think the massive elephant in the room is that the country and continent is majority white. For some reason that's supposed to be something that is implicitly denied

[quote AllByMySelfDontWannaBe]@FloraButterCookie
Probably not because the insinuation is darker than what..
."the NORM????!!!!"

It's the same reason why we no longer use what I consider to be the most straightforward and inclusive term which is "ethnic minority"

I think the massive elephant in the room is that the country and continent is majority white. For some reason that's supposed to be something that is implicitly denied[/quote]
The “ME” in BAME stands for “Minority Ethnic” though, doesn’t my it?

@CheetasOnFajitas

😯 I thought it was Middle Eastern!!!

Office of Mayor of London definition here

@AllByMySelfDontWannaBe thank you for your input ❤️ If it makes a difference I also talk about paler complexions? It’s not a darker than or paler than any other colour, it’s about which part of the spectrum someone is. Maybe it doesn’t make a difference but I’m just thinking out loud ?

Brown76

Thank you for your post – it's exactly the kind of reply I was hoping for when I started this thread.

I never expected the thread to take off the way it did, and I was dismayed by a few earlier responses, saying I must have some weird agenda, etc. But since then there has been a lot of constructive discussion, some misunderstandings have been aired and cleared up, and people have seen other people's point of view. So maybe it has been a constructive thread after all. I hope so anyway.

There have been quite a few recent posts really trying to answer my questions, and yours has answered them most fully, and explained every point as I needed it explained. I'm really grateful. Thank you!

@Mittens030869

The hostility some people show towards the term 'white privilege' comes from a misunderstanding. They associate the word 'privilege' with having the good things in life, as in 'wealth and privilege'. That we know isn't the case for a white person on a deprived estate with a lot of crime, who has to use food banks.

When they go through a divorce and they have a solicitor from a BAME background who they see going home in their three year old Ford Focus to their detached house in the suburbs, they're hardly going to understand how it is that they're the ones with 'privilege' of any sort. They won't understand that the solicitor will have had to really work their butt off to get where they are and will be facing racist attitudes on a daily basis.

No, I actually think it's because they think that the concept doesn't work.

It comes out of critical race theory, and lots of people just don't subscribe to that. In facts is largely a philosophy held by white middle class people.

So why would you expect them to accept it?

The use of the word "ethnic" to mean non-white is particularly weird, I have to say.

It’s nonsense to say coloured was considered offensive in the 60s & 70s. It was the term that was used in preference to black which was considered highly offensive. Black wouldn’t have been used by anyone unless they were being deliberately racist.

Now interestingly Coloured/s according to Google is an accepted term in South Africa due its history of immigration. Apparently it would be too complicated to work out what folks would be so this umbrella term is used. I would imagine that the US demographic would be similar not long from now.

A lions den!

With friends I tend to note their language and use that or refer to ethnicity/heritage if I’m unsure.

I’ve got a friend who refers to herself and her kids as “because my kids are brown” so I refer to them as brown whereas another friend I tend to say “Indian complexion” and both seem happy with that.

I don’t get the coloured/person of colour thing. It’s a minefield.

I also find the term 'white privelage' offensive. But I don't suppose that's allowed is it.

well I find the USE of white privilege to put white women (it's always women) back in their box offensive. White privilege is often used in a sexist way imo.

Don't care if I'm allowed to say that or not, i'm saying it. All this karen bullshit.

In my opinion, “white privilege” is the latest in a series of words/phrases used to put people down, be condescending, belittle and most importantly stifle debate. It’s a bit of a conversation stopper.

It’s akin to gammon, Karen, boomer etc and is usually used in an offensive way, with added prejudice and generalisation.

Because of this I tend to switch off completely when I hear it now.

It seems that most white people are vocal about equality and acceptance of different races colours and cultures and in response have 'white privilege' shoved back. Apparently it seems its OK to label maliciously a group of whites in the name of 'facts' and that has to be tolerated. Its also OK to be 'anti' white children for innocent remarks to identify a child's skin colour that stands out as a non offensive identifier. Is it equality or superiority some are striving for? Me and my DH got married in a wealthy European country (we're not rich we organised it ourselves and it cost a measly couple of grand - outfits included - my dress was the most expensive bit!) anyway.... We had to have interviews with the embassy where we were tirelessly quizzed on our intentions not to live there once married. We were told in no uncertain terms we would not be welcome to live there (both professional, British passport holders) we married in a village. We were told by a friend we had come to know in that village that no villagers would be turning up to the wedding (as is tradition) as we were, 'foreigners'. We respected them as we were in their country and had the most beautiful wedding. They're also a country that has little to no BAME members and next to non existent numbers of refugees. Yet the UK strives for equality has a large number of BAME people and is one of the most accepting and tolerant countries in the world and yet this seems where the angriest voices are. I think we're all 'privileged' regardless of colour in the UK.

yes, long before I heard the words white privilege i believed th

@Savourysenorita

It seems that most white people are vocal about equality and acceptance of different races colours and cultures and in response have 'white privilege' shoved back. Apparently it seems its OK to label maliciously a group of whites in the name of 'facts' and that has to be tolerated. Its also OK to be 'anti' white children for innocent remarks to identify a child's skin colour that stands out as a non offensive identifier. Is it equality or superiority some are striving for? Me and my DH got married in a wealthy European country (we're not rich we organised it ourselves and it cost a measly couple of grand - outfits included - my dress was the most expensive bit!) anyway.... We had to have interviews with the embassy where we were tirelessly quizzed on our intentions not to live there once married. We were told in no uncertain terms we would not be welcome to live there (both professional, British passport holders) we married in a village. We were told by a friend we had come to know in that village that no villagers would be turning up to the wedding (as is tradition) as we were, 'foreigners'. We respected them as we were in their country and had the most beautiful wedding. They're also a country that has little to no BAME members and next to non existent numbers of refugees. Yet the UK strives for equality has a large number of BAME people and is one of the most accepting and tolerant countries in the world and yet this seems where the angriest voices are. I think we're all 'privileged' regardless of colour in the UK.

Bit of a stretch to make this thread about immigration policies.

If Britain never allowed migrant settlement we wouldn't have a BAME community. I'm proud our country is so diverse and inclusive. Other neighbouring countries are not. Regardless of colour

Lol...you do know Britain's colonial history right? Don't think they're doing anyone a favour by "allowing migrant settlement".

On the contrary, the chicken is coming home to roost.