Forum menu
Yes. Have you heard of the precautionary principle?
I'm very well aware of it, however in this situation it has no relevance.
I would hate to be any sort of public figure these days, seems too easy to trip yourself up with anything to do with race etc whether you mean it or not. Even writing this could be risky.
I'm totally fed up with all this tiptoeing around around using the right words to avoid causing sensitivity. Let's get back to what we've always called things and we'll all know where we stand.
"robust tackle" indeed.
That my friend, is, was and always will be 'a reducer'
seems too easy to trip yourself up with anything to do with race
Again... it really isn't. Its really easy to stay on top of what is and isn't acceptable. It should be glaringly obvious to anyone with a degree of empathy and even the remotest awareness of the society around them
It should be glaringly obvious to anyone with a degree of empathy and even the remotest awareness of the society around them
Not so obvious. What is the inherent difference between saying "coloured footballer" and "footballer of colour"? Some derogatory terms have clearly negative connotations, but word order?
Not so obvious
Again... it really is.
What is the inherent difference between saying “coloured footballer” and “footballer of colour”?
If you don't know the inherent difference between those two phrases then you're displaying a level of ignorance that means you shouldn't be within a million miles of a job like the one he was in.
All that is required here is a degree of cultural sensitivity and a cursory knowledge of history. Surely that shouldn't be too much to ask for someone in such a high profile position?
Most of us seem to manage it easily enough
I’m very well aware of it, however in this situation it has no relevance.
If you believe it has no relevance then you don't understand it.
Not so obvious. What is the inherent difference between saying “coloured footballer” and “footballer of colour”? Some derogatory terms have clearly negative connotations, but word order?
You'd have to have been living under a rock for the past thirty years to not know the difference. Regardless, if all he had done was misspeak on a single occasion, I think I would be much more sympathetic.
Again… it really isn’t. Its really easy to stay on top of what is and isn’t acceptable. It should be glaringly obvious to anyone with a degree of empathy and even the remotest awareness of the society around them
Sorry binners, but it isn't for some of us. I live in a 99% white area. I work in a 95% white environment. I'm not aware that I've ever said anything offensive at work, and my BAME line manager would certainly tell me if I had, but I'm certainly not confident I'm up to speed on what words are now unacceptable, because I'm not around an environment where those sort of things are discussed, and I'm not sure a quick Google every few months would be that helpful. Even the extra efforts the civil service has put in this year to raise our awareness of BLM related matters actually hasn't covered the topic of outdated language, and I'm actually feeding that back through the local diversity lead.
It's now clear to me that Clarke was out of order on way more than just race, and he should go, but for a lot of people in this country, sadly, these kind of issues don't arise in their normal everyday lives.
What is the inherent difference between saying “coloured footballer” and “footballer of colour”?
In this case he didn't need to say either. He should have said "high profile footballers who are abused for the colour of their skin". Quite easy to avoid a clumsy trip
I can understand it being easier for some than others depending on you environment.
As it stands, this man is ahead of the FA. Switch on any premiership football match. You'll notice the percentage of players who are 'of colour'. Probably higher than any other 'working environment' in the country. And you'll also have noticed all the players taking the knee as a mark of respect to the BLM movement, at the start of EVERY SINGLE MATCH. Then theres the 'Kick it out' graphics plastered everywhere round the stadiums
So, given those elements, what he said was absolutely beyond belief, and just goes to demonstrate the yawning chasm between those in the money-stuffed ivory towers at the top of the game and the grassroots and the actual players. As did pretty much everything else he had to say yesterday
Gutted, I thought this was going to be about Agents of SHIELD.
The life I lead means I have never met a black person, I would like to but I just don’t come into contact with anyone who is not white like me. It would hope it would enrich my life but I don’t see it happening anytime soon.
Binners - I absolutely agree with you about Clarke, but you've been very dismissive of some of us posting on here apparently because of our lack of life experience.
I would hate to be any sort of public figure these days, seems too easy to trip yourself up with anything to do with race etc
If you are as ignorant as those that get tripped up then yes I suppose so.
It would hope it would enrich my life but I don’t see it happening anytime soon.
I wouldn't get your hopes up too high - we are all just people.
but you’ve been very dismissive of some of us posting on here apparently because of our lack of life experience.
I'm not being dismissive. I just can't see how living in such a culturally diverse country, you can't have enough awareness of what is and isn't acceptable on this score. It's not hard to pick up on.
Unless you're the head of the FA, apparently.
What is the inherent difference between saying “coloured footballer” and “footballer of colour”?
The correct term in the context of his speech should have been "black footballer", according to the guy on Radio 4 this morning. (the one that said he used to be called "Chalky" by his coach).
Did all those accusing others of being ignorant know that?
I just can’t see how living in such a culturally diverse country, you can’t have enough awareness of what is and isn’t acceptable on this score. It’s not hard to pick up on.
Tend to agree but I will give you literally millions of pensioners who haven't managed to.
Did all those accusing others of being ignorant know that?
Its not a quiz
It may come as a shock to learn that there is more than one acceptable term. We have a whole host of non-racist language available to us. Who knew?
And 'the guy on Radio 4' was Andy Cole BTW
We have a whole host of non-racist language available to us.
And it such a shame some people can't discuss it without coming across as aggressive and arrogant.
If you believe it has no relevance then you don’t understand it.
Go on then, explain it to me, specifically in the context of what we've been talking about.
And it such a shame some people can’t discuss it without coming across as aggressive and arrogant.
I'm not being either. I'm just absolutely mystified by the lack of awareness when living in a society as multicultural as the modern day UK.
Its been quite eye-opening
If you don’t know the inherent difference between those two phrases then you’re displaying a level of ignorance that means you shouldn’t be within a million miles of a job like the one he was in.
Ok. You're probably right. But for my edification, please could you spell out the difference as it's something that has confused me for ages and I have never summoned up the courage to ask.
Genuine question BTW. Not taking the piss.
Been educating myself -
https://talkradio.co.uk/features/diane-abbott-debate-why-coloured-offensive-19030830185
If Amber Rudd and James Cleverly are on the opposite side, you know you're doing something right!
Edit: But - if you don't like "coloured person" because it assumes that white is the default colour (as opposed to not liking it because of the association with apartheid), then presumably you don't like "person of colour" either?
Go on then, explain it to me
I'm pretty sure that you're not interested in a good-faith debate, because:
I haven’t a clue and I really don’t care.
But for my edification, please could you spell out the difference as it’s something that has confused me for ages and I have never summoned up the courage to ask.
It's to do with the history of the expression 'coloured' and its associations with the slave trade, colonialism and segregation.
The use of the term 'of colour' subverts that and takes back possession and ownership of the word 'colour', in much the same way as the gay community did with the word queer. Subtle but important difference.
It's that simple. The head of the FA should know the difference
Deleted, as binners has answered exactly.
Thanks
Correct me if I'm wrong, but "person of colour" is an American-ism which is socially acceptable there but not widely used here.
"Coloured person" is archaic racist nan terminology, tainted by it's association with segregated America.
I had to look it up myself when Benedict Cumberbatch made a similar faux pas a few years ago, the BBC did a handy piece on it...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/30999175/warning-why-using-the-term-coloured-is-offensive
Presumably he's still working because he didn't have an extensive history of other gaffes and is reasonably good at his job.
Bloody hell, this thread, quite eye opening
He also made a statement that there are no good female keepers because “girls don’t like having footballs kicked at them”
He didn't say this.
He described homosexuality as a ‘lifestyle choice’
Or this.
Well, I'm feeling slightly better educated now.
Cheers
Some of the points in this thread chime with a really great essay written by Trevor Philips (ex Head of the EHRC) in last weekend's Times:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-march-of-wokeism-is-an-all-pervasive-new-oppression-s7dw3s5lr
Well worth a read if you can see beyond the Times paywall.
Do you believe that’s due to an innate characteristic of their race?
West Africans dominate some olympic disciplines whichever country the athletes might come from. That's just being objective. It's about the ACTN3 "sprint gene". Have a read:
https://www.france24.com/en/20120805-france-usain-bolt-black-sprinters-dominate-olympics
So noting athletes/footballers of different origins have different running ability shouldn't be taboo. However, using language you know you shouldn't isn't a good idea.
The life I lead means I have never met a black person, I would like to but I just don’t come into contact with anyone who is not white like me
I can totally see how this happens (but it still blows my mind) I moved to Wales when I was 12 from Hounslow and was absolutely amazed how everyone was white. I always remember my first day in school and asking one of the teachers why everyone was white they just laughed and said you are not in London any more.
<span style="font-size: 0.8rem;">So noting athletes/footballers of different origins have different running ability shouldn’t be taboo</span>
there might be probabilistic predictions you could make about ethnicity and sporting prowess based on genetics, but you’d be on shaky ground. Genetics and sports is massively complex and just saying actn3 is simplistic. You still have to take account of other physiological elements and psychological ones as well.
There’s a slight population wide advantage to African American athletes but that doesn’t come close to explaining the difference between their ( and white runners) respective success rates. If it was just down to that gene the balance would be something like 6 black elite athletes to 5 white ones.
If it was just down to that gene the balance would be something like 6 black elite athletes to 5 white ones.
More explanation please with some context and a link to back it up. I assume you've read my link on the previous page:
The last 25 holders of the world record for the 100-metre race have all been black and data compiled in 2007 revealed that 494 out of the 500 best-ever 100-metre sprint times are held by athletes primarily of West African origin.
Oh good, the Edukator rabbit-hole.
Well, I've learnt valuable background information on inappropriate terms today, so it hasn't been wasted.
Are you allowed to use the word "Moron" in the thread title?
Good point, Spekkie the irony is perhaps lost on the OP but have a read:
https://www.teenvogue.com/story/the-sinister-history-of-the-word-moron-explained
If you're wondering how I posted that in less than 30 seconds it's because I'd already got it open in a browser window ready. 😉
Are you allowed to use the word “Moron” in the thread title?
If my use of the word moron has offended you im very sorry. But if you want to challenge the use of the word moron when using it to describe someone who has made racist, homophobic and sexist remarks thats cool you can pick that hill to die on.
Have a read, Joepud:
Those labeled "moron" could be institutionalized, deported, or sterilized in order to create a race of humans deemed superior by those in positions of influence and power, according to a New Yorker piece on the history of eugenics. Eugenics was widely embraced in academia and even celebrated at the World's Fair. In the first half of the 20th century, this movement in the U.S. led to the involuntary sterilization of around 60,000 people, mostly women of child-bearing age, who were subjectively deemed unfit to reproduce.
Federally funded sterilization programs were legalized in 32 states. The state of Virginia passed its Eugenical Sterilization Act in 1924, and to test the legality of the law, Carrie Buck, a poor 17-year-old girl from Charlottesville, was sent to the Virginia Colony for Epileptics and Feeble-Minded — an asylum for those deemed so-called "morons" where her mother, Emma, had been admitted just a few years prior. Carrie was pregnant as the result of rape and, after giving birth, was sterilized at the colony with no understanding of what was happening to her. The move was backed by law and further supported by the Supreme Court, as demonstrated in the 1927 Buck v. Bell case, in which the court ruled that the sterilization of the "unfit" — including the intellectually disabled — did not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. After observing Buck, her mother, and her grandmother — all poor white women — Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. delivered the opinion of the court, writing, "three generations of imbeciles was enough." This decision has never been overturned.
This is why some people don't like to admit that any differences in ethnic group traits are down to genetics, because in the past it's been used very badly. There are differences though that can't and shouldn't be ignored because health care choices have to be made and made on the scale of a population. There's no point screening everybody for some disorders, only those susceptible to have the disease.
I was asking the question is all.....
These thread are dreadful, Spekkie, the very same people who condemn teaching creationism in schools pipe up with crap about West Africans dominating running having little or nothing to do with genetics. Accept Darwinism and genetics and it's hyprocritical not to accept that there are genetic differences between ethnic groups that make some groups better than others in various athletic disciplines.
Don't put money on a Percheron at the Grand National.