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.

'Coloured' is how white people described black people, at a time when segregation was the societal norm and to be black meant to you were considered inferior/dirty/stupid/a servant. Of colour is respectful, and it is a modern term not originating in the era of segregation.

Most African Americans come from families that have been in the US longer than most white Americans. Trump is a classic example of someone who is the first generation born in the US on his mother's side and only about the second or third on his father's side.

While we have ethnic minority families who have been here a long time, I am not aware of any that can trace their roots in the UK back 350+ years like in America. Most families still retain a link to another country or region, so it seems much better to describe people according to that eg Nigerian / West African, which is completely different from being from a Jamaican family or a Xhosa family. Ditto, we describe people from a French, Polish, Indian or Chinese family. That will probably change quite soon as people lose contact with their parents or grandparents' country of origin, but I would hope that by that point they would just be British and, if picking them out of the crowd you use whatever feature is most distinguishing - red jumper, very tall...

BAME has its place for things like statistics when it's too revealing to break down into sub groups. If you wanted to report opinions of black people in an organisation's senior management for example, if you break it down into sub groups it will reveal who you are talking about because usually there are so few black people at that level (i.e. 1-2%) So widening the category to BAME allows some protection for those individuals. Although obviously in the future this would hopefully be unnecessary!

pinkearedcow

I mean, if you can’t move your arms and legs, you can’t move your arms and legs. No amount of the world changing around you will compensate for that.

pinkearedcow Don’t apologise. I was quite glad to see someone else have the same thought.

@Lazt

I don’t know OP, but I hope I don’t sound facetious to say I long for the day when it’s not even necessary to use any term to describe people on the basis of their race, ethnicity or skin colour.

Same here

Also don’t get the difference

I am a “person of colour”.

@PatriciaPerch

'coloured' has been an outdated term for about TWENTY FIVE PLUS YEARS FFS do you live in a cave?

That’s exactly why I was stunned when “person of colour” came in!

I’m not white, I find coloured very offensive.

Don’t forget that he was also sexist and homophobic.

I distinctly remember sitting in a lesson at secondary school being taught that "coloured" was the correct term to use, and if we said "black" we were racist.

Mind you, we had our doubts about this terminology even then.

My Dcs and their friends (we live in a very multicultural area) tend to say "black" or "brown" for skin colour, or country of origin for other stuff.

I think "person of colour" is a dreadful expression

Years ago when my parents were young, calling anyone black was offensive and they had to say 'coloured'.

Very confusing.

I'm in my 50s and we were taught at school (and by our parents actually) not to ever refer to another person by skin colour or ethnicity - you could say 'the boy with the ball' or 'the girl with the red jumper' if you didn't know their name.

I don't see how the idea of 'centering the person' is relevant here. Otherwise it would be offensive to describe someone as a 'black man' or a 'black woman', but it isn't.

I think it's just that 'coloured' is an outdated term, used at a time when racist views went unchallenged. These things change all the time though. I bet 'person of colour' will be viewed as an offensive term in 20 years time.

Surely it would be more offensive to not acknowledge one's ethnicity! Are people not proud of their ancestry and heritage? I'm white and Yorkshire and if people ignored that then I would be offended because it's part of who I am and my heritage forms part of my personality. BAME is a ridiculous term of which to describe a person-it say's nothing about them other than they they are not white. It wasn't ever intended as a description of an individual!

@JinglingHellsBells

Years ago when my parents were young, calling anyone black was offensive and they had to say 'coloured'.

Very confusing.

I don't really see how it's confusing - times change and acceptable language changes. It's the same whether you're talking about sexuality, gender, race or whatever. Most people manage to keep up especially when something is so outdated as the term 'coloured'

@flaviaritt

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?

I sometimes see people described as black, and am surprised when they are then described as black. I think I see the facial features rather than the skin colour. So if a person has ‘white’ features, but black skin, I tend to see the features rather than the skin colour. I’m not not talking about about the obviously black people, but the lighter or mixed race skin colours. I think I assume they’re Spanish or Latin American, rather than black as such.

He wasn’t fired for using the word coloured. He was fired for making generalisations about people based on their ethnicity that showed his underlying attitudes. It’s a word I hear from older people sometimes. It’s of its time and that time has gone but intentions and actions matter more so I wouldn’t necessarily think badly of an older person using it. It depends what is being said and in this case it what was being said.

What a bullshit thread.

Using the word coloured to refer to people has been unacceptable in the UK for decades as everyone knows.

The term Person of Colour has been (broadly) considered an acceptable alternative for years now.

Drop the faux nativité and at least own the racist shit stirring.

I think in these cases we have to take our lead from the BAME communities and use whatever they decide is correct. I think our culture is still so racist that things are easily corrupted and become hurtful that terminology shifts overtime. Basically its not up to white people to say what ok or not in this area.

@flaviaritt

pinkearedcow

I mean, if you can’t move your arms and legs, you can’t move your arms and legs. No amount of the world changing around you will compensate for that.

No nothing is going to change the fact that a person has quadriplegia, but how the external world is designed and built will determine how far that person can fully participate in society in the same way as a non disabled person.

For example, my DH has paraplegia.Whenever we go on holiday, to eat out, to a venue etc etc, we have to ring and check whether everything is wheelchair accessible. It's not my DH's paraplegia that means we have to do that, it is because so many venues and business still only bother to cater for non disabled people.

Sorry, going right off topic there!

@dementedma same. It sounds grammatically incorrect and forced. We don't say "person of height" we say "tall person". And the only acceptable place for "coloured" in relation to race / ethnicity is when referring to the Cape Coloured people of South Africa who call themselves that. Otherwise I think geographical terminology is much better. Eg a South Londoner with Ghanaian heritage or a half-Vietnamese Bristolian. But how often is any of this stuff needed? Surely Maths teacher / Plumber / Lawyer / Builder / Accountant / Landscape Gardener / Doctor is a better way of describing someone.