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.

I don’t know any black people that use the word ‘coloured’ to describe themselves.

I do know some black people and ethnic minorities that describe themselves and others as people “of colour”.

As a black woman, I think coloured should never be used as it has too many roots in Jim Crow America and apartheid South Africa. However, ‘of colour’ in my view is a term that is acceptable to call oneself if you belong to that community, but shouldn’t be used by other people about other people. Kind of like how a gay person can call themselves queer but a straight person shouldn’t use that word as a description.

I agree with @DickBastardly (love the name BTW ) I don't like being referred to as a person of colour or BAME.

And "coloured" has been used as a derogatory term for as long as I can remember. So I don't really see them as being very different from one another to be honest, although "people of colour" seems to be considered politically correct these days.

@Raceless I don't know what you mean by:

Some people like those terms, some don't. You can't listen to one side without listening to the other. Who am I kidding? Yes you can.

I understand what you are saying about people not just being one group. But I was thinking in terms of barriers to opportunity there's an overall disadvantage. Which is then experienced specifically.

What do you think would be preferable?

Both is offensive.

The ‘disabled person’ vs. ‘Person with a disability’ thing is not that straightforward. Many disability activists subscribe to the social model of disability and use the term ‘disabled people’. They believe that it is barriers within our society that disable people, not their impairment. Using ‘person with a disability’ suggests that it is their impairment that disables them. Not all disabled people subscribe to the social model, but plenty do. An example can be found here from Scope.
www.scope.org.uk/about-us/social-model-of-disability/

On the question in the OP. The main difference between the two terms is the history of their usage.

As some posters have said, it's about the context of the way the two terms have developed that makes one ok and the other not. I do wonder how someone in Greg Clarke's position who says he learned to use people of colour in the US could not understand this difference. However he has also expressed the view that girls don't kick footballs hard because they don't want to get hurt and that being gay is a lifestyle choice. I think that tells us all we need to know.

If Tyrone Mings was at the end of his football career rather than his prime, he'd make a great successor.

Person of colour is used a lot in the US but you don't really hear it in the UK. I know that "coloured" was used negatively in the past. In general most of us have no reason to single someone out due to their ethnicity. In his position I would be surprised if he hadnt had extensive training on the importance of language and what is acceptable to say. He made other remarks about female footballers (not wanting to be hit with heavy balls) and gay men (lifestyle choice apparently).

“Of colour” could refer to any non white ethnicity though.

To me as a descriptor it is useless, i could mean Latino, chinese, korean, some Asian Russians, malay, native american, aborigine, indian, pakistani, south sea islander....

Basically “of colour” is a much bigger, far more diverse, ethnic group than white, which generally means northern european and those descended from NE.

It just seems a bit weird to lump so many cultures together and label them as not Northern European.

@Raceless

But 'not seeing race' also means not seeing either the institutional racism in society or acknowledging the experiences that one part of society have which others do not.

By that, do you mean anyone (including children) who sets their eyes on a person with brown skin (regardless of the individual's ethnicity/heritage and culture) should automatically see oppression, racism, underprivilege and mustn't forget that is what the brown-skinned person represents?

Sorry, I replied to your post when it wasn't really the right post to reply to having read your post again. It was more a response to people who claim not to see skin colour rather than not to see race (but I think it's important to acknowledge how race influences people's identity and that will be different for everyone).

I don't think POC (person of colour) is being used for black people any more. The new preferred term seems to be BIPOC (black, indigenous, person of colour).

Here is a good article explaining:
www.healthline.com/health/bipoc-meaning

I’m never really sure what people when they say they don’t “see” skin colour. I mean, of course we can see it. I suppose they mean they don’t read anything into it, or care about it?

Dh is South African and coloured. His ethnicity is Cape-coloured. I found this really bad when we met but he, and all his friends, refer to each other as coloured. As does everyone in Cape Town where the ethnic majority is coloured. That’s what they are and no amount of me telling him how wrong it is will make him change his mind. It’s what they’ve always been. Whatever the roots of the word may be, Capetonians have embraced it and are proud of their culture. I’ll never forget my midwives face when dh insisted she put coloured down as his ethnicity at my booking appointment.

It’s a bit like “disabled person” and “person with a disability”. “Disabled person” makes it all about the disability, while “person with a disability” puts the person at the centre

I am not sure about this. A person who has for,, example paraplegia, is a person with paraplegia not a person with a disability. They aren't disabled because of their condition, but because the world is not designed in a way that takes into account their needs. Therefore they are a disabled person, because barriers (building design, lack of accessible transport etc) disable them.

Once again, "people of colour" have different experiences so no, you don't need ONE word to lump everyone in one group and decide they've all experienced the same things and all think alike.

But by this reasoning you can never refer to any group of people collectively.

What’s the use in the word ‘women’? After all, the world’s 3.5 billion women don’t all have the same experiences and think alike. Same goes for children. Or gay people. Or disabled people. Of course none of those groups are homogenous in their experiences and views.

But clearly it is necessary to be able to define those groups of people, while recognising that they are made up of individuals. In the U.K., a white majority country, people of colour (regardless of their ethnicity) are more likely to be discriminated against. It’s an inclusive term that enables us to recognise that.

I’m never really sure what people when they say they don’t “see” skin colour. I mean, of course we can see it. I suppose they mean they don’t read anything into it, or care about it?

Usually it means they tie themselves in knots trying to describe the new family next door without using any references to skin colour or hair type.

I call a white, white, a black black and a brown, brown.

Coloured and "people of colour" just sounds as if I am referring to people with the rainbow painted on their skin.

Like the op I’m very confused by this. If ‘coloured people’ is unacceptable because you put the description first. Surely then the terms ‘white people’ or ‘black people’ are also wrong ?? Perhaps we should be described as pale brown, mid brown or dark brown ? That should cover everyone. Hoping for enlightenment here ....

They aren't disabled because of their condition, but because the world is not designed in a way that takes into account their needs. Therefore they are a disabled person, because barriers (building design, lack of accessible transport etc) disable them.

I remember being ‘taught’ this idea, and thinking it was in some ways a useful idea, but the reality is so different, isn’t it?

@Germolenequeen

Coloured is a racist and offensive term full stop - I can't believe anyone with half a brain would think otherwise 🙄

Absolutely this

I cannot believe this thread ... what was OP thinking?

CookL That's not why "coloured" is unacceptable. Various posters have explained the historical and cultural reasons why, on this thread.

Sorry, MadameMinimes has already pointed all that out!

When thinking long and hard about posting did you find time to do a quick google on the history of the term ‘coloured’?

Assuming you’re not old enough to recall how it was used during Apartheid.

I’m never really sure what people when they say they don’t “see” skin colour. I mean, of course we can see it. I suppose they mean they don’t read anything into it, or care about it?

It’s the closeted racist’s cliche. There’s been quite a lot written about it recently, like this article:

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/26/do-not-see-race-ignoring-racism-not-helping

@Ellieboolou33

I call a white, white, a black black and a brown, brown. Coloured and "people of colour" just sounds as if I am referring to people with the rainbow painted on their skin.

A brown??

@flaviaritt

They aren't disabled because of their condition, but because the world is not designed in a way that takes into account their needs. Therefore they are a disabled person, because barriers (building design, lack of accessible transport etc) disable them.

I remember being ‘taught’ this idea, and thinking it was in some ways a useful idea, but the reality is so different, isn’t it?

What do you mean flaviaritt?