To tell friend she she shouldn't use these words?

[Clawdy]

Book group meeting last week, and one group member said she couldn't remember the name of a book she'd thought of choosing, but it was about two coloured girls and their halfcaste children. I said "Anne, you can't use those words" and she said "Why not, what words are you saying I should use?" I said "Black and mixed race" whereupon she said " Well, a mix of black and white is grey, should I say that?" and grinned at me uneasily. I turned away and started talking to someone else. Another member later said I had probably upset her, and maybe should have ignored her comments. What do you think? She was being racist, wasn't she? But I'd never heard her say anything like that in all the years I've known her.

@MrsHuntGeneNotJeremyObviously

Whether she was being racist or not is a matter of opinion though.

No. It’s really not. People like you think that you should be the one to decide what’s offensive. It is beyond arrogant.

It’s not hard to stop using a term if someone asks you to stop using it. It’s not hard to be a decent person.

The fact that ‘half-caste’ is a racist term is not up for debate, here or anywhere else.

And since you seem to be hard of understanding on this point here’s a dictionary definition for you which will remove any doubt.

Too often on these threads, the benefit of the doubt is given to the person who has said or done something racist in a way that it is rarely given to the person who has parked in front of someone's drive or who has bought a not very nice birthday present

You’re right.

@MrsHuntGeneNotJeremyObviously

Accepted terms change all the time and this term used to be the norm - unless she deliberately meant to cause offense, then I think it's actually quite rude to correct another adults speech. Especially in public.

All the time? I've known my entire life to not use certain words to describe people. No matter your age, educate yourself and don't think it's beneath you to know what the accepted terms are. There's been far too much social injustice and it's comments like this and micro-aggressions that are racist and should be tackled, not ignored.

@Itsnotover

Too often on these threads, the benefit of the doubt is given to the person who has said or done something racist in a way that it is rarely given to the person who has parked in front of someone's drive or who has bought a not very nice birthday present

You’re right.

Yep, and yet if you say anything that could be insulting to white people, those same people immediately bristle with outrage.

@MrsHuntGeneNotJeremyObviously

I think not knowing something is a reasonable defence. Not that a person is obliged to defend themselves from someone else's sanctimony anyway.

Not in a court of law. Ignorance is never an excuse. The onus is on you to educate yourself.

The fact she argued about it shows she knows full well what she was saying and is wilfully continuing to use racist terms.

^This. You can’t change ignorant people

I'm not saying that the term isn't considered offensive now by the majority, but it wasn't always. It used to be used to just mean mixed ethnicity. And yes terms are constantly changing, or aren't universally agreed as appropriate. This thread alone iirc has seen discussion about what is best re mixed race or mixed heritage or dual heritage.
If you've always known the right thing to say at all times and never put your foot in it, go you! Other people sometimes don't know things.

Not in a court of law. Ignorance is never an excuse. The onus is on you to educate yourself.
She's not in court! She's just a woman at a book club who said something outdated and was publicly shamed for it. Hence her defensive response. Many of you think that's okay to do to someone who meant no harm, I disagree.

Personally I think intention is what matters when dealing with others' behaviour. If she deliberately meant to insult, that to me is entirely different to just not knowing something and using an incorrect term.

73, and those terms made me squirm when I heard them in the 1960s. They were still used on the BBC if I remember correctly, but ‘half-caste’ particularly was, even then, nasty. It had other connotations, left over from Empire, of miscegenation and tainted blood. ‘Coloured’ was just mealy-mouthed and euphemistic because nobody quite liked to say ‘black’. Quite right to call her out op. She was testing you like a three year old saying Willy and poo.
Mind you, it’s hard to keep up these days. Sometimes I start a sentence and my mind frantically flips through a mental Rolodex to find what I hope is the most recent term.

@MrsHuntGeneNotJeremyObviously

Still here trying to argue that it’s ok to use that term? Or to minimise it?

For your information, the reason that certain terms are offensive is because of their links with oppression. For example, apartheid.

As a previous poster said, just stop thinking that you are above educating yourself on the point of these matters.

I think perhaps you didn't word it well and she was defensive. That's a recipe for disaster! Personally, I know I'm not up to speed on the current best language for a lot of things so I tend not to talk about those subjects, and I would be very grateful if someone kind let me know. I do on occasion ask someone if I think they're in the know and likely to be kind to me in response to my lack of knowledge.

@dudsville here’s a hint for you. Don’t call people ‘coloured’. HTH

I'm not arguing it's okay to use the term. I'm arguing that I don't think that Anne meant to be deliberately racist and therefore didn't deserve public embarrassment.
If OP wanted to say something, I think it would have been better to do it privately, because to me intention is key in how you respond to situations.
Sometimes the message can be right but the delivery wrong, which I think is what happened here

@MrsHuntGeneNotJeremyObviously

I'm not arguing it's okay to use the term. I'm arguing that I don't think that Anne meant to be deliberately racist and therefore didn't deserve public embarrassment. If OP wanted to say something, I think it would have been better to do it privately, because to me intention is key in how you respond to situations. Sometimes the message can be right but the delivery wrong, which I think is what happened here

So, 'Anne' is such a snowflake that she can't possibly cope with being told by someone she's known for 20 years to stop being an offensive twat.

Why are her feelings more important than the people who she's insulting and making slurs against?

Also, it has already been made clear that Anne knew full well that she was being offensive. By her derisive behaviour that followed.

I know the term is black and not coloured but didn't know wasn't allowed to use half caste! I've never felt the need to describe anyone by their skin tone so I plead ignorance..I think you couldhave told her a bit nicer though.

I'm not saying that the term isn't considered offensive now by the majority, but it wasn't always. It used to be used to just mean mixed ethnicity

Wrong again. It was always offensive, it was offensive ab initio, when it was coined by white colonialists to classify the natives in the countries they stole and plundered. It was offensive the very first time it was said, and it's offensive now.

Caste from castus, meaning pure. Half caste meaning only half pure, or white, and half impure. Was that not offensive?

Etymology is interesting and almost makes the racism/wrongness of some words worse.

Uptrend someone said the n word came from Nigeria. It doesn't, it comes from the Latin Niger for black which sends one down a rabbit hole that says that's harmless but when one considers that atra is another latin word for black and forms the root of atrocious and refers to darkness in evil form, the message is altogether more subversive. It's hard to believe that the n word would have been originally used by the uneducated bearing in mind the Latin root, and therefore it is difficult to perceive it was ever used in a way that ever fell short of pejorative.

Caste is similar - ghastly reference to an innocent child born impure in the eyes of those using it.

MIL who was a deputy head and absolutely knew better at school will often try to hide behind the slydom of either innocence or intellect when she is being malicious about others.

@MrsHuntGeneNotJeremyObviously

I'm not arguing it's okay to use the term. I'm arguing that I don't think that Anne meant to be deliberately racist and therefore didn't deserve public embarrassment. If OP wanted to say something, I think it would have been better to do it privately, because to me intention is key in how you respond to situations. Sometimes the message can be right but the delivery wrong, which I think is what happened here

Fgs! OP has said so many times that there was no "public embarrassment" but you seem to know better. This seems to be the sole aim of your argument since yesterday but you won't take OP's word for it. Perhaps you were there? Or is it a case of 'God forbid someone corrects a white woman about race because we'll make it out to be as aggressive as possible'?

I think her behaviour afterwards was defensive which led to her being derisive. She was reacting to the public criticism. The OP mentioned that she and Anne have contact outside the group - if she was the type to be deliberately nasty I the nk the OP wouldn't socialise with her and would have mentioned it. People aren't perfect, especially when they feel embarrassed or attacked, even though that probably wasn't the OPs intention. I do believe in benefit of the doubt.

I don't consider it 'snowflake' behaviour to not want to be publicly embarrassed. Her feelings, if she's not being intentionally nasty, matter as much, not more, not less.
OP might have had a better response of she'd spoken to Anne privately. And in the end, it's the outcome that should matter most - do you want Anne to take away from this the feeling of being shown up in front of a group or would you rather she wasn't embarrassed and therefore more likely to consider the OPs point?
I'm going to bow out now because I'm getting repetitive and there's nothing more I can add.

@MrsHuntGeneNotJeremyObviously

I think her behaviour afterwards was defensive which led to her being derisive. She was reacting to the public criticism. The OP mentioned that she and Anne have contact outside the group - if she was the type to be deliberately nasty I the nk the OP wouldn't socialise with her and would have mentioned it. People aren't perfect, especially when they feel embarrassed or attacked, even though that probably wasn't the OPs intention. I do believe in benefit of the doubt.

I don't consider it 'snowflake' behaviour to not want to be publicly embarrassed. Her feelings, if she's not being intentionally nasty, matter as much, not more, not less.
OP might have had a better response of she'd spoken to Anne privately. And in the end, it's the outcome that should matter most - do you want Anne to take away from this the feeling of being shown up in front of a group or would you rather she wasn't embarrassed and therefore more likely to consider the OPs point?
I'm going to bow out now because I'm getting repetitive and there's nothing more I can add.

Just stop. There is no 'consider' about this. If she was embarrassed about being an offensive twat in public, then good. She deserved it.

MrsHunt Oh hold on, one more question: Do you give this same benefit of doubt to men who use sexist or misogynistic words, both in public and private? Do you correct a man "nicely" and privately? Do you also understand and support them when they tell women to do the same?

Sorry that was 3 questions but they're similar. If your answer is yes to all, then here's a "well done" for you. I'll accept your "intention" excuses here. You're a much better person than I am.

There's a difference between something being offensive and people knowing it's offensive, especially if they a) don't know the roots of a word and b) if that word used to be used as a socially acceptable description rather than a deliberate insult.

Here honestly I really do go by intention and what I know of a man. If I know he's basically a decent person and wouldn't be aiming to upset me I'd probably let it slide. If I thought he was deliberately trying to insult I wouldn't.

I'm rubbish at examples but off the top of my head wolf whistling might be a comparison to using outdated language. Loads of men used to do it and wouldn't have considered for one minute that the woman on the receiving end may have felt threatened. Some men of course knew full well it could be intimidating. Some women liked wolf whistling, others hated it. It's now considered unacceptable (or becoming that way). It's a change in societal thinking. Now if a man wolf whistled at me it could be he intended to be intimidating or he might just be someone who doesn't think about things much.

You're talking nonsense.