|
Post by Gastafari on Nov 10, 2020 23:18:59 GMT
It's all getting pathetic now.
You can call me a "Person Of Colour" but not a "Coloured Person", Ah right.
One of the biggest civil rights organisations is called the NAACP - The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. For christs sake.
Yes Greg Clarke my be an old Dinosaur, but this has been completely blown out of proprtion.
|
|
|
Post by darkbluegas on Nov 11, 2020 1:26:23 GMT
The only person I’ve heard stand up for him today was John Barnes on Radio 4 at lunchtime. Funny how the BBC never asked for his views again later in the day
|
|
|
Post by stuartcampbell on Nov 11, 2020 1:52:46 GMT
www.amazon.co.uk/Black-Jokes-About-White-Folks-ebook/dp/B08CPJMPSNIts just too one sided. Black Lives Matter have published a book where they make jokes about white people. It's openly sold on Amazon. So I typed in the opposite, yes suprise, suprise...nothing. Everyone knows racism is abhorrent, but it will NEVER change with double standards and there are plenty of them. You know just because it says "the Black Lives Matter joke book," doesn't mean it's been published by Black Lives Matter. Crikey, gammons will really do whatever it takes to criticise a 1960s Civil Rights Movement repeat 60 years later, but oh well, in 60 years time when I'm long gone they'll be considered on the wrong side of history.
|
|
|
Post by stuartcampbell on Nov 11, 2020 1:54:55 GMT
It's all getting pathetic now. You can call me a "Person Of Colour" but not a "Coloured Person", Ah right. One of the biggest civil rights organisations is called the NAACP - The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. For christs sake. Yes Greg Clarke my be an old Dinosaur, but this has been completely blown out of proprtion. This is hardly breaking news Gastafari, it's been an unacceptable term since I was a teenager in the 80s. Also the NAACP was set up by people of colour, so they have a right to say the slurs they want to say. I mean, the "United Negro Fund," still exists; and I doubt anyone on gaschat would be fine with using that slur
|
|
|
Post by Gastafari on Nov 11, 2020 2:06:51 GMT
It's all getting pathetic now. You can call me a "Person Of Colour" but not a "Coloured Person", Ah right. One of the biggest civil rights organisations is called the NAACP - The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. For christs sake. Yes Greg Clarke my be an old Dinosaur, but this has been completely blown out of proprtion. This is hardly breaking news Gastafari, it's been an unacceptable term since I was a teenager in the 80s. Also the NAACP was set up by people of colour, so they have a right to say the slurs they want to say. I mean, the "United Negro Fund," still exists; and I doubt anyone on gaschat would be fine with using that slur My point being, you've used it yourself, "People Of Colour", this newly formed term seems absolutely fine to use, but saying "Coloured people" is deemed offensive, and worthy of resignstion if you use it. They're both the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by stuartcampbell on Nov 11, 2020 2:10:00 GMT
This is hardly breaking news Gastafari, it's been an unacceptable term since I was a teenager in the 80s. Also the NAACP was set up by people of colour, so they have a right to say the slurs they want to say. I mean, the "United Negro Fund," still exists; and I doubt anyone on gaschat would be fine with using that slur My point being, you've used it yourself, "People Of Colour", this newly formed term seems absolutely fine to use, but saying "Coloured people" is deemed offensive, and worthy of resignstion if you use it. They're both the same thing. I disagree, I feel like the term "coloured people," is very reminiscent of an awful time for people of colour, centuries and decades of racism. Also this isn't just in isolation, as someone previously pointed out he's done more things. Given his position he should also be hold to a higher standard.
|
|
|
Post by Gastafari on Nov 11, 2020 2:30:46 GMT
My point being, you've used it yourself, "People Of Colour", this newly formed term seems absolutely fine to use, but saying "Coloured people" is deemed offensive, and worthy of resignstion if you use it. They're both the same thing. I disagree, I feel like the term "coloured people," is very reminiscent of an awful time for people of colour, centuries and decades of racism. Also this isn't just in isolation, as someone previously pointed out he's done more things. Given his position he should also be hold to a higher standard. That's my point. They're both the same thing. If he would of said "People of Colour" instead of "Coloured People", he wouldn't of had to resign. There's plenty of Non-Whites who don't like the term "People Of Colour" either. As I've said, Greg Dyke is an old Dinosaur and I believe the FA needs a shake up, now he's gone it might be a start, I just think this has been blown out of all proportion. On other threads in General Chat, you were talking up Joe Biden, and arguing against things he said, he said something not to different to what Dyke said, when he stated "You cannot go to a 7-11 or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have an Indian accent. I’m not joking.”.....As well as a host of other remarks. I guess he doesn't have to be held at a higher standard?
|
|
|
Post by Wembley_Gas on Nov 11, 2020 3:31:16 GMT
My point being, you've used it yourself, "People Of Colour", this newly formed term seems absolutely fine to use, but saying "Coloured people" is deemed offensive, and worthy of resignstion if you use it. They're both the same thing. I disagree, I feel like the term "coloured people," is very reminiscent of an awful time for people of colour, centuries and decades of racism. Also this isn't just in isolation, as someone previously pointed out he's done more things. Given his position he should also be hold to a higher standard. He’s made a mess of commenting on Race issues, Gender issues, sexual orientation issues etc on more than one occasion, sometimes combining the issues into one compounded mess (England women’s team issues in 2017). Yes it is a complicated minefield and we’ve probably all made a ricket of getting our point across about one or more of these subjects in our time...but it was his job to be the mouthpiece on the pertinent subjects of the day and needed to keep up with the acceptable applicable standards which he either failed to do or was ineloquent when expressing them. In fact he seemed to only open his mouth to change feet. Thus he made his position untenable by being incompetent at his representative role not once but repeatedly.
|
|
|
Post by Westy on Nov 11, 2020 4:04:45 GMT
I disagree, I feel like the term "coloured people," is very reminiscent of an awful time for people of colour, centuries and decades of racism. Also this isn't just in isolation, as someone previously pointed out he's done more things. Given his position he should also be hold to a higher standard. That's my point. They're both the same thing. If he would of said "People of Colour" instead of "Coloured People", he wouldn't of had to resign. There's plenty of Non-Whites who don't like the term "People Of Colour" either. As I've said, Greg Dyke is an old Dinosaur and I believe the FA needs a shake up, now he's gone it might be a start, I just think this has been blown out of all proportion. On other threads in General Chat, you were talking up Joe Biden, and arguing against things he said, he said something not to different to what Dyke said, when he stated "You cannot go to a 7-11 or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have an Indian accent. I’m not joking.”.....As well as a host of other remarks. I guess he doesn't have to be held at a higher standard? Just to leave some current wisdom, the difference in the 2 is that "coloured people" puts every "person of colour" into the same box, which is where the offence comes from. It's ok to recognise a black person is a person of colour, as is an Asian person, but it's diminishing to refer to non-whites collectively as "coloured". Now, I'm not claiming to be the arbiter of what is right and wrong here - just setting out the perceived difference in today's ambiguous lexicon!
|
|
|
Post by Qatar Gas on Nov 11, 2020 5:06:56 GMT
Regardless of what was said yesterday, the guy was completely out of touch and a dinosaur who should have been long gone by now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2020 7:45:24 GMT
It's all getting pathetic now. You can call me a "Person Of Colour" but not a "Coloured Person", Ah right. One of the biggest civil rights organisations is called the NAACP - The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. For christs sake. Yes Greg Clarke my be an old Dinosaur, but this has been completely blown out of proprtion. This is hardly breaking news Gastafari, it's been an unacceptable term since I was a teenager in the 80s. Also the NAACP was set up by people of colour, so they have a right to say the slurs they want to say. I mean, the "United Negro Fund," still exists; and I doubt anyone on gaschat would be fine with using that slur Is it any wonder that people like Clarke innocently use the wrong and “offensive” terminology when it seems half of the world can use a certain term and the other half can’t?
|
|
|
Post by William Wilson on Nov 11, 2020 8:12:09 GMT
That's my point. They're both the same thing. If he would of said "People of Colour" instead of "Coloured People", he wouldn't of had to resign. There's plenty of Non-Whites who don't like the term "People Of Colour" either. As I've said, Greg Dyke is an old Dinosaur and I believe the FA needs a shake up, now he's gone it might be a start, I just think this has been blown out of all proportion. On other threads in General Chat, you were talking up Joe Biden, and arguing against things he said, he said something not to different to what Dyke said, when he stated "You cannot go to a 7-11 or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have an Indian accent. I’m not joking.”.....As well as a host of other remarks. I guess he doesn't have to be held at a higher standard? Just to leave some current wisdom, the difference in the 2 is that "coloured people" puts every "person of colour" into the same box, which is where the offence comes from. It's ok to recognise a black person is a person of colour, as is an Asian person, but it's diminishing to refer to non-whites collectively as "coloured". Now, I'm not claiming to be the arbiter of what is right and wrong here - just setting out the perceived difference in today's ambiguous lexicon! Whether either term is offensive or not, to me it`s ridiculous. I`m both a coloured person and a person of colour. I`m pink. Pink`s a colour.
|
|
|
Post by gasandelectricity on Nov 11, 2020 9:55:34 GMT
Seems to me we live in a day and age where it’s possible to offend someone by using a turn of phrase you had no idea had offensive connotations unless you had a doctorate in offensive terminology or a specific branch of history. More complicating is it appears to evolve and change year on year.
We’re in a situation where people are afraid to discuss complicated matters because if they don’t get their wording right, there is outrage over the words used rather than the intent of those words.
This only proves to drive wedges between people and create an us and them mindset, when we need to move towards a more cohesive world where we can confront and overcome the differences between us.
Having one group of people able to use a turn of phrase yet another allowed to use it fosters confusion. So if something is considered racist we need to shut out it’s use full stop and stop parading ownership badges around.
Moreso, when someone gets something wrong maybe as society we should stop creating villains and outcasts of those who’ve made that mistake we should embrace them and educate them.
I don’t really know who Greg Clarke is, and I don’t really care, but it does sound as if he was on pretty shaky ground already having said some shady stuff.
However, the madness has to stop.
|
|
|
Post by warehamgas on Nov 11, 2020 10:01:31 GMT
Well done gasandelectricity, summed it up well, I think. I hope whoever replaces him is able to deal with the real inequalities surrounding racism. UTG!
|
|
|
Post by Gassy on Nov 11, 2020 10:24:39 GMT
My point being, you've used it yourself, "People Of Colour", this newly formed term seems absolutely fine to use, but saying "Coloured people" is deemed offensive, and worthy of resignstion if you use it. They're both the same thing. I disagree, I feel like the term "coloured people," is very reminiscent of an awful time for people of colour, centuries and decades of racism. Also this isn't just in isolation, as someone previously pointed out he's done more things. Given his position he should also be hold to a higher standard. Don’t forget as well that this is when he’s on the job, being professional too. He’s made stupid comments on two issues now - if this is him in a professional setting, what is he like when not on camera? Probably even worse. Like you say, those in high positions should be held to a higher standard.
|
|
|
Post by gashead1981 on Nov 11, 2020 10:47:47 GMT
I know people who would say coloured people as a slip of the tongue, no malice in it. Just a simple mistake. However they aren't in charge of an organisation that has never got a grip on racism in the sport. He is rightly held to a higher standard. The term "coloured people" became inappropriate when I was at school in the 80s. Whilst there may be some understanding in terms of age, he held a position which should either have briefed him better by now or he should have sought clarity. Not only that, the other phrases mentioned in the posts above are not what you want to hear from an organisation trying to project an inclusive message. He didn't really have any choice. Exactly this. I can remember being about 9 when I said the coloured term to one of my mums friends who is from Jamaica. I remember her very kindly saying to me that black people dont like that term being used and where did I hear it from? It was actually from my old school headmaster who was about 70 at the time using it during an assembly. This was circa 1988. Since my sister has married someone who hails from Jamaica and we've had some in depth convos over the years about racism towards him and use of what is racist language and he has told me that the term coloured, just like the n word has always been used by white people predominately as an offensive term. Also the term coloured was coined to include all people with dark or brown skin including people from Asia and the Middle East. Not only are the cultural differences incomparably different but there has also been tensions between groups where they dont want to be associated by term with each other (fair enough its like stereo typing an Englishman and an American where our only real connection is a variant of language and for a closer comparison, look how offended the Canadians get when you brand them Americans and vice versa). Whether you think it may be petty terminology or not, it absolutely has to be understood and never used. I dont understand the complication in anyone educating themselves on it and adjusting their vocabulary to not use it. I've seen first hand with my bro in law out and out racist language used towards him for no given reason and also seen the effects of it to know I would never want to say such things, even in jest. People like Greg Clarke are only in their 60s. My dad is 67, I've never heard my father utter a racist or any other term listed as a minefield, ever and he welcomed our Jamaican in laws into our family with no suspicion, wariness or preconceptions. And why should he? So the excuse that he's a bit of a dinosaur is complete nonsense. Its nothing more than being bothered to educate his own vocabulary.
|
|
|
Post by gashead1981 on Nov 11, 2020 10:57:55 GMT
This is hardly breaking news Gastafari, it's been an unacceptable term since I was a teenager in the 80s. Also the NAACP was set up by people of colour, so they have a right to say the slurs they want to say. I mean, the "United Negro Fund," still exists; and I doubt anyone on gaschat would be fine with using that slur Is it any wonder that people like Clarke innocently use the wrong and “offensive” terminology when it seems half of the world can use a certain term and the other half can’t? Its called education and being bothered to understand and educate yourself then ridding your brain to use such terms. Pure and simple and its really not difficult if you can be bothered.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2020 11:49:37 GMT
Is it any wonder that people like Clarke innocently use the wrong and “offensive” terminology when it seems half of the world can use a certain term and the other half can’t? Its called education and being bothered to understand and educate yourself then ridding your brain to use such terms. Pure and simple and its really not difficult if you can be bothered. My point was that SC is suggesting it’s ok to have a split system where BAME are able to use certain terms which everyone else is prohibited from using. Surely there has to be some consistency otherwise we will never move forward?
|
|
|
Post by Westy on Nov 11, 2020 11:54:45 GMT
Its called education and being bothered to understand and educate yourself then ridding your brain to use such terms. Pure and simple and its really not difficult if you can be bothered. My point was that SC is suggesting it’s ok to have a split system where BAME are able to use certain terms which everyone else is prohibited from using. Surely there has to be some consistency otherwise we will never move forward? There's this whole concept of "punching up/down", i.e. in jokes for example, a Disabled person can get away with making a disabled joke, than an abled person. Same thing with language and inclusion such as we're talking about. I think it comes down to *if you're a minority and don't like being called something because of X/Y/Z, then it should be respected by the majority who aren't able to fully comprehend the cultural relevances* Language isn't uniform over the world, hence why people in France speak French. So the cultural nuances shouldn't be added into the discussion - aluminium / aluminum anybody?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2020 11:57:07 GMT
Is it any wonder that people like Clarke innocently use the wrong and “offensive” terminology when it seems half of the world can use a certain term and the other half can’t? Its called education and being bothered to understand and educate yourself then ridding your brain to use such terms. Pure and simple and its really not difficult if you can be bothered. It seems to change fairly regularly though- who is the arbiter of what is right and wrong? Perhaps there needs to be an IEEE like institute regulating these things with standards for language and what words are in and what words are out. It sounds ridiculous and it is, but that’s what’s being expected of people these days trying to keep up with what words affects which group with the result that people’s actual intentions are being taken out of context and otherwise well meaning people losing their jobs. It’s getting similar to the gender pro-noun stuff- language being used to create obstruction and division between people, giving people tools to take offence like never before and the actual *intention* is lost in the noise. All because there is a lot of focus on making everyone feel special and included through the use of language, an endeavour that goes against our human nature which is to abbreviate and otherwise shorten our language for brevity. We’d all get along much better if there was more of a focus on intention and education rather than punitive reaction.
|
|