Is the word 'coloured' offensive? 

WHO, WHAT, WHY? 
The Magazine answers... 

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/999999.gif


Bernard Jenkin

Jenkin: Offensive and out of date?

This Tory MP is in hot water for using the word coloured. But is it
offensive, and when did it become so? 

The day after Bernard Jenkin was sacked as deputy chairman of the
Conservative Party, he has sparked a race row by using the word "coloured"
in a radio interview. 

In times when commentators say the term is widely perceived as offensive, a
Labour MP lost no time in condemning it "patronising and derogatory". 

"It is shocking that in 2006 a Member of Parliament would still use the
terminology 'coloured'," said Dawn Butler. 

So is the word "coloured" offensive, or just dated? And why? 

"It's wrong," says Toyin Agbetu of Ligali, an African-British human rights
organisation. "Because it strips me of my identity and reduces me to the
most superficial physical identifier, as opposed to my African ethnicity." 

The term was common parlance in the 1960s, but its origins are the problem,
says Mr Agbetu. It comes from the ideology of racism, that white people are
white, and everyone else is somehow other coloured. It fails to recognise
that everyone has an ethnicity and is an inadequate "one-size-fits all"
description. 

Nor was it a term chosen by those it refers to, but instead imposed by the
wider - and white - society. 

Those who still use the term tend to be from older generations, he says, but
adds that if they knew the history of the word, perhaps they would think
again. 

Universal use? 

The debate is different in other countries, where the term is still widely
used. In the United States, where the struggle for racial equality has been
a huge political issue, the country's foremost human rights group is the
NAACP, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. 

Set up in 1909, and initially called the National Negro Committee, it works
to eliminate racial hatred and discrimination. The group is mostly referred
to by its initials, but the name itself has never been changed. 

So what should Bernard Jenkin have said instead? 

Mr Agbetu says he could have talked about "people of all ethnicity", or
specifically referred to African British or Asian British people. 

Would everyone be offended by the use of the word? That depends, as taking
offence is a subjective thing. 

The ideal, perhaps not practical in Mr Jenkin's case, but achievable with a
bit of foresight, is to ask people how they would like to be referred to -
who they are and how they define themselves, says Mr Agbetu. 

 


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"English Learner's Cafe" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/english_learners?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

<<inline: image001.png>>

<<inline: image002.jpg>>

Reply via email to