So saying that you think this person you describe 'is of Afro Caribbean descent, just isn't good enough as a description.
You're going to have to say something else to clarify your description - or would it be 'racist' to do so?
Well, if you were the copper and you wanted to know exactly what colour the person's skin was, I'd ask you to show me a Dulux colour chart and I'd choose one.
There is nothing racist about the word black, unless you use it in an offensive way. To describe a man as a black man is not racist, to call him a dirty black bastard would be.
Well, if you were the copper and you wanted to know exactly what colour the person's skin was, I'd ask you to show me a Dulux colour chart and I'd choose one.
You wouldn't really say - Afro Caribbean descent, really fair skinned with long curly hair?
Or Afro Caribbean descent - black guy, very dark?
How about - Afro Caribbean descent, black features pale skin?
I'm honestly trying to figure out what would be acceptable to you, without compromising political correctness.
It's an absolute minefield, and therefore I think that when it is descriptive there should be a bit of tolerance, rather than slamming people as racists if they say the 'wrong' thing.
It usually is about anything else.
Are there many descriptions where black as a prefix is used to denote something positive?
Why it was chosen as the description of choice is anybody's guess.
Take MOBO, music of black origin. In English that can have two meanings, music originated by black people, music originated from something sinister.
Now of course everybody knows what is meant, but language doesn't really care that much, especially English.
Dual meanings for all sorts of words.
At the risk of sounding very inappropriate...
I can kinda see it from both sides.
I always used to assume that "coloured" was a better term because, maybe, people who aren't actually black would be offended at being categorised that way.
Course, the problem there is that, aside from the historical use of the term, it kind of implies that you've got white people and then anybody who isn't white is "coloured" whereas I guess, if we're gonna call white people "white" then at least the term "black" is similarly arbitrary so it's all very equal.
I do tend to agree with some of the comments people have made about how it's easy to fall foul of using the "wrong" word, even when no malice is intended.
Why do us white people feel the need to describe someone by their skin colour or ethnicity? ...Do we feel some kind of superiority to other races?
I don't personally but if I am describing someone to someone else that need to find them, why pussyfoot around avoiding mentioning the bleeding obvious characteristic that they a are big 6 foot 6 black bloke working out in the yard?
Sometimes being PC goes beyond common sense.
If I was the only white/pink English bloke working where everyone else was another race, I wouldn't mind being pointed out as the white bloke or the English bloke or the non-black bloke. That's what I am! - That's totally different to racism.
Somehow there's this idea that everyone is just waiting to be offended, and liberals have taken this to absurd extremes. Sure, stop people from being deliberately offensive. But for goodness sake stop the hand wringing. Let's just call a spade a spade.
You might say:
"He was a white bloke in his mid 20s"
or
"He was a black bloke in his mid 20s"
or
"He was an Indian bloke in his mid 20s"
or
"He was an Eastern European bloke in his mid 20s"
All valid descriptions of the person the witness saw.
Personally I think the word "Black" is ridiculous as so few of the people who identify as "Black" are anything like black in colour. No friend I have ever had (who is not pink) has ever had black skin and most have been lonely coffee coloured from light coffee to dark coffee and from all over the planet. Even my friends from South Africa are dark brown at best but not black.
Yeah but white people aren't white. It's just the same kind of shorthand and I guess the idea was originally to take the colour out of it (neither white nor black being colours). This may explain why "coloured" eventually became frowned on by dark skinned people.
So unless we stop describing pale skinned people as white, I suspect that we won't stop describing dark skinned people as black (or whatever the people themselves wish to be described as).
And we haven't even got onto people from the Far East yet, how does that fit into the discussion (I've no idea!).
Yes, but it still means that a term that is considered PC to describe someone of a certain skin colour always has to exist.
Yes but a person's skin colour (whichever one) IS a massive characteristic about them. That isn't a negative. Just that some people make it out to be and claim racism where there is none.
Hair colour is another one along with sex and height.
They are only negative if someone wants them to be.
To be racist you have to know what is going on in someone's head. A word on it's own it nothing without meaning.
I could say:
"He's a black guy" - as a description of my friend with not a trace of racism.
Or I could say:
"He's a black guy" - in a distasteful way about someone and that would be racist.
So the same words said differently are entirely different.
Yeah but white people aren't white. It's just the same kind of shorthand and I guess the idea was originally to take the colour out of it (neither white nor black being colours). This may explain why "coloured" eventually became frowned on by dark skinned people.
So unless we stop describing pale skinned people as white, I suspect that we won't stop describing dark skinned people as black (or whatever the people themselves wish to be described as).
And we haven't even got onto people from the Far East yet, how does that fit into the discussion (I've no idea!).
As Johnny Mathis might say, "Black, white, yellow...no one knows"
While we're at it, I'll throw "chalkboard" into the equation. Another ridiculous one - it's a board that's black, therefore it's a blackboard. How a description of something designed to be written on in a classroom can be considered to have any racial connotations is baffling.
While we're at it, I'll throw "chalkboard" into the equation. Another ridiculous one - it's a board that's black, therefore it's a blackboard. How a description of something designed to be written on in a classroom can be considered to have any racial connotations is baffling.
Black market, blackmail, black mark, black sheep, black day, etc.
Lots of negative things tagged as "black" so maybe an entire race (including mixtures thereof) should have a more accurate term.
So do you find black people to be negative? If you meant black as in evil I'd agree, but as in skin colour, not at all. There is nothing evil about having black skin and the two terms mean very different things.
Comments
So what?
So saying that you think this person you describe 'is of Afro Caribbean descent, just isn't good enough as a description.
You're going to have to say something else to clarify your description - or would it be 'racist' to do so?
That term would piss off my parents.
You wouldn't really say - Afro Caribbean descent, really fair skinned with long curly hair?
Or Afro Caribbean descent - black guy, very dark?
How about - Afro Caribbean descent, black features pale skin?
I'm honestly trying to figure out what would be acceptable to you, without compromising political correctness.
It's an absolute minefield, and therefore I think that when it is descriptive there should be a bit of tolerance, rather than slamming people as racists if they say the 'wrong' thing.
It usually is about anything else.
Are there many descriptions where black as a prefix is used to denote something positive?
Why it was chosen as the description of choice is anybody's guess.
Take MOBO, music of black origin. In English that can have two meanings, music originated by black people, music originated from something sinister.
Now of course everybody knows what is meant, but language doesn't really care that much, especially English.
Dual meanings for all sorts of words.
http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1769217
At the risk of sounding very inappropriate...
I can kinda see it from both sides.
I always used to assume that "coloured" was a better term because, maybe, people who aren't actually black would be offended at being categorised that way.
Course, the problem there is that, aside from the historical use of the term, it kind of implies that you've got white people and then anybody who isn't white is "coloured" whereas I guess, if we're gonna call white people "white" then at least the term "black" is similarly arbitrary so it's all very equal.
I do tend to agree with some of the comments people have made about how it's easy to fall foul of using the "wrong" word, even when no malice is intended.
I don't personally but if I am describing someone to someone else that need to find them, why pussyfoot around avoiding mentioning the bleeding obvious characteristic that they a are big 6 foot 6 black bloke working out in the yard?
Sometimes being PC goes beyond common sense.
If I was the only white/pink English bloke working where everyone else was another race, I wouldn't mind being pointed out as the white bloke or the English bloke or the non-black bloke. That's what I am! - That's totally different to racism.
Double
A person you have seen doing a crime.
You might say:
"He was a white bloke in his mid 20s"
or
"He was a black bloke in his mid 20s"
or
"He was an Indian bloke in his mid 20s"
or
"He was an Eastern European bloke in his mid 20s"
All valid descriptions of the person the witness saw.
I've never heard of this one before :eek:
Yeah but white people aren't white. It's just the same kind of shorthand and I guess the idea was originally to take the colour out of it (neither white nor black being colours). This may explain why "coloured" eventually became frowned on by dark skinned people.
So unless we stop describing pale skinned people as white, I suspect that we won't stop describing dark skinned people as black (or whatever the people themselves wish to be described as).
And we haven't even got onto people from the Far East yet, how does that fit into the discussion (I've no idea!).
Yes but a person's skin colour (whichever one) IS a massive characteristic about them. That isn't a negative. Just that some people make it out to be and claim racism where there is none.
Hair colour is another one along with sex and height.
They are only negative if someone wants them to be.
To be racist you have to know what is going on in someone's head. A word on it's own it nothing without meaning.
I could say:
"He's a black guy" - as a description of my friend with not a trace of racism.
Or I could say:
"He's a black guy" - in a distasteful way about someone and that would be racist.
So the same words said differently are entirely different.
seriously
As Johnny Mathis might say, "Black, white, yellow...no one knows"
Has that ever been "allowed"? To my knowledge, it's always been an offensive term.
While we're at it, I'll throw "chalkboard" into the equation. Another ridiculous one - it's a board that's black, therefore it's a blackboard. How a description of something designed to be written on in a classroom can be considered to have any racial connotations is baffling.
Whiteboards are most often used now.
No one seems to be worried.
Black market, blackmail, black mark, black sheep, black day, etc.
Lots of negative things tagged as "black" so maybe an entire race (including mixtures thereof) should have a more accurate term.
So do you find black people to be negative? If you meant black as in evil I'd agree, but as in skin colour, not at all. There is nothing evil about having black skin and the two terms mean very different things.