Greg Clark resigns after using 'racist' language.

For goodness sake, it was a slip of the tongue, he hardly used the N word.


"Chairman of the Football Association Greg Clarke has resigned after using the term "coloured" to describe footballers from different ethnic backgrounds.

Mr Clarke earlier apologised after his remarks during a select committee hearing today.

In a statement, the FA said: "We can confirm that Greg

Clarke has stepped down from his role as our chairman.

"Peter McCormick will step into the role as interim FA Chairman with immediate effect and the FA Board will begin the process of identifying and appointing a new chair in due course."

Mr Clarke had said: "If I look at what happens to high-profile female footballers, to high-profile coloured footballers, and the abuse they take on social media... social media is a free-for-all."


https://news.sky.com/story/fa-chairman-greg-clarke-resigns-after-using-term-coloured-12129420

For goodness sake, the preferred term was once - coloured, its hard to keep up.

There is a huge difference between being deliberately racist and using a word that was acceptable till relatively recently....no doubt the word black will soon be out of favour as 'people of colour' seems to be more socially favoured now.

I have an old English dictionary ...the word 'Negro' was the word of choice then.

I don't know this man, (not well up on football) but if he was well respected I think it's ridiculous he was pressured (because he was probably was) into resigning over this.

It is silly. I can understand the UK, where they have had no acculturation in slavery and related travesties, being confused over what noun to use.

Even the dreaded N-word is a contraction of negroid, the Latin word for black, as pronounced in ebonics. It's the use of the term, not the word itself. From the tongue of a white man, niggah is a derisive term, meant to mock the ignorance of the slave by using his word. So, while blacks use the term meaning no insult, when a white uses it, it is inevitably taken as derisive.

Colored is a bit more confusing. I imagine this action is the UK taking its cues from America, not knowing what term is currently correct and what is insulting. The term colored is still used in parts of America, and not in derisive manner. In rural parts of Louisiana and Mississippi it's actually a white man being polite. My wife was from the bayous south of New Orleans, where you often heard it being used in polite company (as opposed to guys on the docks and wharves, sittin’ around chugging beer).

Original Quill wrote:It is silly.  I can understand the UK, where they have had no acculturation in slavery and related travesties, being confused over what noun to use.

Even the dreaded N-word is a contraction of negroid, the Latin word for black, as pronounced in ebonics.  It's the use of the term, not the word itself.  From the tongue of a white man, niggah is a derisive term, meant to mock the ignorance of the slave by using his word.  So, while blacks use the term meaning no insult, when a white uses it, it is inevitably taken as derisive.

Colored is a bit more confusing.  I imagine this action is the UK taking its cues from America, not knowing what term is currently correct and what is insulting.  The term colored is still used in parts of America, and not in derisive manner.  In rural parts of Louisiana and Mississippi it's actually a white man being polite.  My wife was from the bayous south of New Orleans, where you often heard it being used in polite company (as opposed to guys on the docks and wharves, sittin’ around chugging beer).

It's not 1973 any more. That term hasn't been polite anywhere in the US for decades.

Please stop misrepresenting my country. That's not very polite.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:It is silly.  I can understand the UK, where they have had no acculturation in slavery and related travesties, being confused over what noun to use.

Even the dreaded N-word is a contraction of negroid, the Latin word for black, as pronounced in ebonics.  It's the use of the term, not the word itself.  From the tongue of a white man, niggah is a derisive term, meant to mock the ignorance of the slave by using his word.  So, while blacks use the term meaning no insult, when a white uses it, it is inevitably taken as derisive.

Colored is a bit more confusing.  I imagine this action is the UK taking its cues from America, not knowing what term is currently correct and what is insulting.  The term colored is still used in parts of America, and not in derisive manner.  In rural parts of Louisiana and Mississippi it's actually a white man being polite.  My wife was from the bayous south of New Orleans, where you often heard it being used in polite company (as opposed to guys on the docks and wharves, sittin’ around chugging beer).

It's not 1973 any more. That term hasn't been polite anywhere in the US for decades.

Please stop misrepresenting my country. That's not very polite.  

Nonsense. I guess you don't really get around much.

I dont think the word 'coloured' was ever used as an insult here, and it seems odd, that 30 years or so after the word coloured used in that context was deemed offensive, the term 'A person of colour' is politically correct.

Syl wrote:I dont think the word 'coloured' was ever used as an insult here, and it seems odd, that 30 years or so after the word coloured used in that context was deemed offensive, the term 'A person of colour' is politically correct.

It was quite common here, as was the word negro. The C in NAACP stands for colored. but by the 70's it was no longer considered polite, no matter where you were. No doubt there were a handful of older people that used it for awhile past that.

No one uses it or Negro anymore.

Maddog wrote:

Syl wrote:I dont think the word 'coloured' was ever used as an insult here, and it seems odd, that 30 years or so after the word coloured used in that context was deemed offensive, the term 'A person of colour' is politically correct.

It was quite common here, as was the word negro. The C in NAACP stands for colored. but by the 70's it was no longer considered polite, no matter where you were. No doubt there were a handful of older people that used it for awhile past that.

No one uses it or Negro anymore.  

I think here the word negro was abandoned long before the term coloured.
Same with half caste....now considered very unpc, now the term mixed race is way more acceptable.

But words and their meanings change, I imagine people who have grown up using certain terms today, will have the odd unintentional slip up when those words are considered racist in the future.....as they surely will be.

Syl wrote:

Maddog wrote:

It was quite common here, as was the word negro. The C in NAACP stands for colored. but by the 70's it was no longer considered polite, no matter where you were. No doubt there were a handful of older people that used it for awhile past that.

No one uses it or Negro anymore.  

I think here the word negro was abandoned long before the term coloured.
Same with half caste....now considered very unpc, now the term mixed race is way more acceptable.

But words and their meanings change, I imagine people who have grown up using certain terms today, will have the odd unintentional slip up when those words are considered racist in the future.....as they surely will be.

Yes, my mom still uses Oriental. That's not PC anymore. My secretary is Asian (Vietnamese) and she says she still hears it now and then from older people. Like most Asians, she doesn't care. They tend not to be offended by honest slips or folks just not being aware of the changes in language.

I dont think I have seen or heard the word Oriental used here for decades.
Pity it's out of fashion though, I think it's a lovely sounding word.

I agree 100%, I doubt most people (other than the perpetually anally retentive) are upset or insulted by genuine slip ups.

Syl wrote:I dont think I have seen or heard the word Oriental used here for decades.
Pity it's out of fashion though, I think it's a lovely sounding word.

I agree 100%, I doubt most people (other than the perpetually anally retentive) are upset or insulted by genuine slip ups.

It sounds mysterious. I think it made more sense too because Asia is a pretty damn big place.

Over here, a guy from Pakistan would likely be called Middle Eastern even though he's from Asia.

I always think of Oriental as being more apt for people from China, Japan etc.

Asian...Indian, Pakistan, etc.

Asian is used a lot here, such a blanket term for so many different people.

There was an old white politician in Fort Worth who used the term colored openly in front of a room full of black people not too long ago.

None took offence. Some of them said they thought it sounded weird and antiquated, but black people aren't offence robots.

Middle Eastern refers to the middle of the East. It is related to Far Eastern, meaning the furthest points East.

Even people from the Near East, ie Turkey, are still Asian.

Syl wrote:I dont think I have seen or heard the word Oriental used here for decades.
Pity it's out of fashion though, I think it's a lovely sounding word.

I agree 100%, I doubt most people (other than the perpetually anally retentive) are upset or insulted by genuine slip ups.

I'd love to be called an Occidental, that sounds WELL posh

Ben Reilly wrote:There was an old white politician in Fort Worth who used the term colored openly in front of a room full of black people not too long ago.

None took offence. Some of them said they thought it sounded weird and antiquated, but black people aren't offence robots.

Use of the term 'colored' is antiquated. But that's the very reason why it still exists in the "very old" south...like bayou Louisiana and Mississippi. Those are old people, backwards in their ways.

But just because it's old does not mean that it has derogatory racial meaning. (I can't believe I'm defending southerners.) The term is used like old English...an earlier era, understood, but not in vogue today.

I think, regarding the OP story, that Brits have confused the passing of the term with the rejection of the term for racist reasons. As I said, Brits take their cues from America, where real racism, and efforts to counter it, still exists. Only this time they got lost in the translation.

Ben Reilly wrote:Middle Eastern refers to the middle of the East. It is related to Far Eastern, meaning the furthest points East.

Even people from the Near East, ie Turkey, are still Asian.

Technically they are Asian. But in practical use, Asians are what we used to call orientals.

Even Asain food means from the Far East, not India.

Original Quill wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:There was an old white politician in Fort Worth who used the term colored openly in front of a room full of black people not too long ago.

None took offence. Some of them said they thought it sounded weird and antiquated, but black people aren't offence robots.

Use of the term 'colored' is antiquated.  But that's the very reason why it still exists in the "very old" south...like bayou Louisiana and Mississippi.  Those are old people, backwards in their ways.

But just because it's old does not mean that it has derogatory racial meaning.  (I can't believe I'm defending southerners.)  The term is used like old English...an earlier era, understood, but not in vogue today.

I think, regarding the OP story, that Brits have confused the passing of the term with the rejection of the term for racist reasons.  As I said, Brits take their cues from America, where real racism, and efforts to counter it, still exists.  Only this time they got lost in the translation.

How antiquated is the term "full of shit"?

Original Quill wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:There was an old white politician in Fort Worth who used the term colored openly in front of a room full of black people not too long ago.

None took offence. Some of them said they thought it sounded weird and antiquated, but black people aren't offence robots.

Use of the term 'colored' is antiquated.  But that's the very reason why it still exists in the "very old" south...like bayou Louisiana and Mississippi.  Those are old people, backwards in their ways.

But just because it's old does not mean that it has derogatory racial meaning.  (I can't believe I'm defending southerners.)  The term is used like old English...an earlier era, understood, but not in vogue today.

I think, regarding the OP story, that Brits have confused the passing of the term with the rejection of the term for racist reasons.  As I said, Brits take their cues from America, where real racism, and efforts to counter it, still exists.  Only this time they got lost in the translation.

I don't actually think Brits take their cues from the US re language, be it the correct Queens English, antiquated terms, or downright racist language.

After all Quill, the language you all speak over there has taken all it's cues from us....which is why you speak ENGLISH.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Use of the term 'colored' is antiquated.  But that's the very reason why it still exists in the "very old" south...like bayou Louisiana and Mississippi.  Those are old people, backwards in their ways.

But just because it's old does not mean that it has derogatory racial meaning.  (I can't believe I'm defending southerners.)  The term is used like old English...an earlier era, understood, but not in vogue today.

I think, regarding the OP story, that Brits have confused the passing of the term with the rejection of the term for racist reasons.  As I said, Brits take their cues from America, where real racism, and efforts to counter it, still exists.  Only this time they got lost in the translation.

I don't actually think Brits take their cues from the US re language, be it the correct Queens English, antiquated terms, or downright racist language.

After all Quill, the language you all speak over there has taken all it's cues from us....which is why you speak ENGLISH.

Agreed.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Use of the term 'colored' is antiquated.  But that's the very reason why it still exists in the "very old" south...like bayou Louisiana and Mississippi.  Those are old people, backwards in their ways.

But just because it's old does not mean that it has derogatory racial meaning.  (I can't believe I'm defending southerners.)  The term is used like old English...an earlier era, understood, but not in vogue today.

I think, regarding the OP story, that Brits have confused the passing of the term with the rejection of the term for racist reasons.  As I said, Brits take their cues from America, where real racism, and efforts to counter it, still exists.  Only this time they got lost in the translation.

How antiquated is the term "full of shit"?

That's greaseball southernism. But you're the one whose wife abandoned him. What are we to expect?

This is a witch hunt... Probably nothing to do with him saying "coloured" at all...

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Use of the term 'colored' is antiquated.  But that's the very reason why it still exists in the "very old" south...like bayou Louisiana and Mississippi.  Those are old people, backwards in their ways.

But just because it's old does not mean that it has derogatory racial meaning.  (I can't believe I'm defending southerners.)  The term is used like old English...an earlier era, understood, but not in vogue today.

I think, regarding the OP story, that Brits have confused the passing of the term with the rejection of the term for racist reasons.  As I said, Brits take their cues from America, where real racism, and efforts to counter it, still exists.  Only this time they got lost in the translation.

I don't actually think Brits take their cues from the US re language, be it the correct Queens English, antiquated terms, or downright racist language.

After all Quill, the language you all speak over there has taken all it's cues from us....which is why you speak ENGLISH.

C'mon, Syl.  I didn’t say Brits take their cues from the US re language; I said they take their cues from the US re things the US is more familiar with.  The US is a post-slavery nation.

You're more sophisticated than that.  Language comes in hues, and passes by with each fad.  When we were kids people used to say that's bitchin'.  Kids today wouldn't know what to make of such a contradiction.  In the 1880's, they used to challenge someone by saying, you're a daisy if you do...  What does that mean?

Language is constantly moving.  And people who only look at it from the window, miss much of the nuance.  That's Brits, looking at America and American racism, and trying to determine which fad is popular, which is not, sometimes missing whole segments of it, and coming out in the end with a complete misunderstanding.

In the OP we have Clarke apologizing for using language that is passé, thinking it is a breach and he is wrong for using it.  It's not a breach, and he is not wrong for using it.  It's just outdated.

I've actually heard more and more Brits using Americanisms like apartment, sweater, etc. Some say things like "three strikes an you're out" or "out of left field" or "right off the bat" even though baseball isn't popular over here.

I think it's because so many American TV programs and movies are popular over here. And it's fine! There are young American kids who sound more British thanks to the popularity of Peppa Pig, and every Brit entertainment phenomenon, from the Beatles to Harry Potter, didn't truly become massive until Americans jumped on the fan bandwagon.

There are also plenty of words the English use that originated or were coined in America. "Talented" and "influential" are great adjectives that originated in the U.S.

Likewise, more Americans are now using terms that originated in the UK, such as gobsmacked, went missing, dodgy and gutted.

I think use of language is part of the totally unique relationship between England and America. I've told eddie that a lot of Americans will use terms that sound more English to come across as sophisticated (in their minds -- pretentious is what they sound like to others).

Or we might just use an English-sounding term to spice things up -- much like saying "adios" has a bit more panache than saying "bye," we might substitue "nick" for "steal."

I'm actually surprised when I hear the English use words I'm unfamiliar with, simply because I am so familiar with so many English-isms.

And now I am, to use a great English phrase, really nattering on. Ta ra!

The word “coloured” referring to black people is NOT racist, perhaps out of date, at best.

PC cunts being cuntish, once again.

And for fuck's sake, he was talking about the abuse that minority and female footballers can encounter on social media. He was speaking out against racism and sexism!

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

I don't actually think Brits take their cues from the US re language, be it the correct Queens English, antiquated terms, or downright racist language.

After all Quill, the language you all speak over there has taken all it's cues from us....which is why you speak ENGLISH.

C'mon, Syl.  I didn’t say Brits take their cues from the US re language; I said they take their cues from the US re things the US is more familiar with.  The US is a post-slavery nation.

You're more sophisticated than that.  Language comes in hues, and passes by with each fad.  When we were kids people used to say that's bitchin'.  Kids today wouldn't know what to make of such a contradiction.  In the 1880's, they used to challenge someone by saying, you're a daisy if you do...  What does that mean?

Language is constantly moving.  And people who only look at it from the window, miss much of the nuance.  That's Brits, looking at America and American racism, and trying to determine which fad is popular, which is not, sometimes missing whole segments of it, and coming out in the end with a complete misunderstanding.

In the OP we have Clarke apologizing for using language that is passé, thinking it is a breach and he is wrong for using it.  It's not a breach, and he is not wrong for using it.  It's just outdated.

I dont agree Quill, we have had racism here just as you have it there, maybe not as obvious, but the Brits have had their fair share of trying to stamp down racism and racist language, especially in sport, for decades.


Greg Clark is not the first public figure to use the term coloured and be pilloried for it, sometimes the overly pc people get it totally wrong, they should concentrate of the real racism in sport, not the social blunder of a man who made a slip up, apologised, but still felt the need to resign in shame.
We both agree though it is a total over reaction.

Ben Reilly wrote:And for fuck's sake, he was talking about the abuse that minority and female footballers can encounter on social media. He was speaking out against racism and sexism!

That's kind of what got me. He was speaking for those with less power and got popped for the wrong word.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

How antiquated is the term "full of shit"?

That's greaseball southernism.  But you're the one whose wife abandoned him.  What are we to expect?

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:And for fuck's sake, he was talking about the abuse that minority and female footballers can encounter on social media. He was speaking out against racism and sexism!

That's kind of what got me. He was speaking for those with less power and got popped for the wrong word.

Blame the PC do-gooders who do more damage than good, mostly.

eddie wrote:

Maddog wrote:

That's kind of what got me. He was speaking for those with less power and got popped for the wrong word.

Blame the PC do-gooders who do more damage than good, mostly.

It's mostly white people with too much time on their hands, or black people like Dianne Abbott who uses the race card at every opportunity who make such a bloody song and dance about a word used in error.

He didn't shout the N word FGS, he just used a word he was brought up using....when it was considered perfectly respectable.

We're all colored people. I'm a pale shade of pink with some tan undertones. Raggamuffin is pasty white, but white's still a color

Ben Reilly wrote:We're all colored people. I'm a pale shade of pink with some tan undertones. Raggamuffin is pasty white, but white's still a color

I'm sort of brownish, I don't mind being called coloured at all.....but then again I dont have a broom stuck up my arse.

Is there no voice of reason in all of this, pointing out he was sticking up for minorities?

This was probably more about his opposition to the proposed new "EU league"...


I reckon the plan is they get rid of him and get a stooge appointed who will support this EU league proposal...

After reading more about Clarke, I'm really pissed off on his behalf. He's done a lot to stand up for the rights of minorities, women, gays -- and because a few groups arbitrarily decide he didn't use the exact right words, in spite of the obvious message he was trying to convey -- he's forced to resign with his tail between his legs. He deserves better.

Tommy Monk wrote:


This was probably more about his opposition to the proposed new "EU league"...


I reckon the plan is they get rid of him and get a stooge appointed who will support this EU league proposal...

I haven't heard anything about that, and a quick Google search leads me to stuff that seems unrelated -- could you give me more info?

I'm not a follower of football... But it seems he was involved in some "project big picture" plan which proposed big changes and big money was involved... Then he was trying to claim that he no longer had anything to do with it when he was still involved...


And recently there has also been this talk of creating a new EU league with a couple of top teams from each EU country being in it...


My guess is that his departure has nothing to do with him saying "coloured"... But everything to do with the above I mentioned...

I've a lot to learn about football over here -- some of my friends start talking to me about it and I expect them to go into stats and the sort of stuff we talk about it America, and they instead go into team politics and players' personal lives -- not at all what I'm used to.

At any rate, Clarke has been treated disgracefully, and shame on the FA if nobody will stand up and say it. Bunch of "1984" bullshit.

Ben Reilly wrote:After reading more about Clarke, I'm really pissed off on his behalf. He's done a lot to stand up for the rights of minorities, women, gays -- and because a few groups arbitrarily decide he didn't use the exact right words, in spite of the obvious message he was trying to convey -- he's forced to resign with his tail between his legs. He deserves better.

Ain't cancel culture great?

Syl wrote:I dont agree Quill, we have had racism here just as you have it there, maybe not as obvious, but the Brits have had their fair share of trying to stamp down racism and racist language, especially in sport, for decades.

Really? Britain had slavery? Black slave labor working the tobacco fields of Sheffield and Nottingham...the cotton fields of Cardiff and Bristol? Nonsense.

Britain takes her cues from real people, of real experience with a culture of slavery and post-slavery peonage, Jim Crow laws, separate-but-equal and segregation. My take on the attitude of Britain is: Oh yeah, us too...we think black people...um, people of color...ya know, African-Americans, got a raw deal. Brits have only 2nd-hand knowledge of what it was like, and what it is like today living in the south.

Y'all talk a good game, but don't try to convince me you know what it's like. Y'all are waiting for your 2nd-cousin to return from the US so he can tell you all the latest slang, music, fads, and the latest stories about racial injustice happening in the south.

Ben Reilly wrote:Is there no voice of reason in all of this, pointing out he was sticking up for minorities?

It's wrong-headed pc, misunderstood and self-righteous, run amuck.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:I dont agree Quill, we have had racism here just as you have it there, maybe not as obvious, but the Brits have had their fair share of trying to stamp down racism and racist language, especially in sport, for decades.

Really?  Britain had slavery?  Black slave labor working the tobacco fields of Sheffield and Nottingham...the cotton fields of Cardiff and Bristol?  Nonsense.

Britain takes her cues from real people, of real experience with a culture of slavery and post-slavery peonage, Jim Crow laws, separate-but-equal and segregation.  My take on the attitude of Britain is: Oh yeah, us too...we think black people...um, people of color...ya know, African-Americans, got a raw deal.  Brits have only 2nd-hand knowledge of what it was like, and what it is like today living in the south.

Y'all talk a good game, but don't try to convince me you know what it's like.  Y'all are waiting for your 2nd-cousin to return from the US so he can tell you all the latest slang, music, fads, and the latest stories about racial injustice happening in the south.

 
I dont have a second cousin due back from America.

Unlike you Quill, I dont always  equate  racism to slavery, or how the white man of today should be forever trying to compensate for something they had no part of.

Racism, especially in context of this thread, is far more subtle.
I can remember when i was a kid certain places had signs in their windows...NO BLACKS OR IRISH.....that's the sort of racism that was common here....I am not talking of 200 years ago.

Ben Reilly wrote:After reading more about Clarke, I'm really pissed off on his behalf. He's done a lot to stand up for the rights of minorities, women, gays -- and because a few groups arbitrarily decide he didn't use the exact right words, in spite of the obvious message he was trying to convey -- he's forced to resign with his tail between his legs. He deserves better.

If you read what he said about gays, I think his words have been totally misconstrued.

It sounds to me as if he wasn't saying being gay was a lifechoice, but coming out was....which it is.

Syl wrote:how the white man of today should be forever trying to compensate for something they had no part of.

Life is unfair, Syl.  How fair was it when the white man kidnapped the black out of Africa and made him endure 400 years of being the beast-of-burden.  So why should we give a shit about the white man today?

If you're going to be inequitable, make sure you distribute it equally.  I see no moral injustice in affirmative action or any kind of compensation whatsoever.  As the white slave master told the black man in 1619: Fook ya if ya can't take a joke.

But that's not the point of this thread.  This thread is about a complete fook-up in the British understanding of words.  Colored is an antiquated term, and only the ignorant will group it in with the N-word or other derogatory terms for blacks.  It's just old and out-of-date.

A lesson in history for quill...

https://m.dw.com/en/east-africas-forgotten-slave-trade/a-50126759

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:how the white man of today should be forever trying to compensate for something they had no part of.

Life is unfair, Syl.  How fair was it when the white man kidnapped the black out of Africa and made him endure 400 years of being the beast-of-burden.  So why should we give a shit about the white man today?

If you're going to be inequitable, make sure you distribute it equally.  I see no moral injustice in affirmative action or any kind of compensation whatsoever.  As the white slave master told the black man in 1619: Fook ya if ya can't take a joke.

But that's not the point of this thread.  This thread is about a complete fook-up in the British understanding of words.  Colored is an antiquated term, and only the ignorant will group it in with the N-word or other derogatory terms for blacks.  It's just old and out-of-date.

Gawd you're an embarrassment.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:how the white man of today should be forever trying to compensate for something they had no part of.

Life is unfair, Syl.  How fair was it when the white man kidnapped the black out of Africa and made him endure 400 years of being the beast-of-burden.  So why should we give a shit about the white man today?

If you're going to be inequitable, make sure you distribute it equally.  I see no moral injustice in affirmative action or any kind of compensation whatsoever.  As the white slave master told the black man in 1619: Fook ya if ya can't take a joke.

But that's not the point of this thread.  This thread is about a complete fook-up in the British understanding of words.  Colored is an antiquated term, and only the ignorant will group it in with the N-word or other derogatory terms for blacks.  It's just old and out-of-date.

Yes life is unfair, for some more than others.
And the best way to combat that is to face the problems we have now and try to fix them, not forever be raking up the wrongs of the past causing guilt and resentment......wrongs will never be put right that way.

Yes the point of the thread is to point out how life has been unfair to someone now, in the present day, and I don't see anyone arguing that point....so we at least agree on that.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:how the white man of today should be forever trying to compensate for something they had no part of.

Life is unfair, Syl.  How fair was it when the white man kidnapped the black out of Africa and made him endure 400 years of being the beast-of-burden.  So why should we give a shit about the white man today?

If you're going to be inequitable, make sure you distribute it equally.  I see no moral injustice in affirmative action or any kind of compensation whatsoever.  As the white slave master told the black man in 1619: Fook ya if ya can't take a joke.

But that's not the point of this thread.  This thread is about a complete fook-up in the British understanding of words.  Colored is an antiquated term, and only the ignorant will group it in with the N-word or other derogatory terms for blacks.  It's just old and out-of-date.

You're right. Life isn't fair. It never was and never will be. Good job most people don't hate the Germans for what they did in the war. Good job the Irish and Scots don't hate the English now. Good job the whole world doesn't hate Italy for what the Romans did. Good job the Catholics aren't hated because of the Inquisition. Hell, I'm sure the world doesn't hate China for letting Covid loose.