Gay couple [claim] abused by Tesco cashier / (skin colour from page nine)

First topic message reminder :

A gay couple were subjected to a torrent of abuse in a London branch of Tesco after they shared a brief kiss in the store. Steve Luetchford, 28, was shopping with his 25-year-old partner Mattia Pievani at a Tesco branch in Brixton on Friday evening when, they claim, a female cashier verbally abused them. The woman is alleged to have said that the couple should be "ashamed" after she witnessed their intimate moment. When they challenged the woman on her views she continued to insult them, it is claimed.
They then requested that two other staff members refer them to the store manager so that they could lodge a complaint.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/11791755/Gay-couple-abused-by-Tesco-cashier.html

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:The term "red skin" in this context is just referring to a certain shade of skin, it's nothing to do with native indians.

Seriously Didge, get a grip. You have to be trolling more than usual.

Like I said, if he really knew and lived among blacks people, he would know that.

Last post here as I don't feed into this type of behaviour

Being rude again speaking around me

Type of behaviour is what you are doing.

You have no idea of my life Eddie, so do not even dare to come out with what I know.

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:The term "red skin" in this context is just referring to a certain shade of skin, it's nothing to do with native indians.

Seriously Didge, get a grip. You have to be trolling more than usual.

Really?

You think a term defining skin is not racial in context?

Behave, as how do you think it formed?

I love how Eddie thinks this is funny.

Maybe you need s to meet some people who do suffer discrmination and then ask if its funny to them.

I think you need to understand what other people are saying.
That's why you often get into really bad debates; I watch you do this all the time.

You don't understand what people mean half the time. And you know it.

Sorry Didge.

eddie wrote:Rags for your perusal. It's a sad fact that this happens and is even called a "privilege"

http://bougieblackgirl.com/colorism-30-privileges-light-skin-blacks-others-dont/

Bump

Laters people x

eddie wrote:Rags for your perusal. It's a sad fact that this happens and is even called a "privilege"

http://bougieblackgirl.com/colorism-30-privileges-light-skin-blacks-others-dont/

Had a glance, and that looks really interesting - it's about the things we've been discussing. The term "colorism" is interesting because it generally refers to colour within the same ethnic or racial group, and is different to racism in that respect.

So where you do not even understand what I am saying you say I do not.
Sorry but I understand what attraction  is and what your friend states is a perception that people form never understanding themselves.
Her views I found poor to be frank to describe people like this and how you went lol, he is white, its all racial in its context , when I grew up in these communities.

What I am trying to say is this is who such talk leads to divides between ethnic groups as people are describe and labelled in such poor terminology and if your friend cannot see that, then sorry, I find her very naive to say the least.

There are loads of articles about colorism out there. Here's another one.

http://www.clickondetroit.com/lifestyle/the-fight-against-colorism-in-the-black-community/31610688

Do white people have colorism? I don't think they do. They might discuss their skin tone in terms of cosmetic issues, but they don't judge each other based on how "white" they are.

Some more:

Beige people!

Actually, not all white people are beige. They might look beige if they have an olive toned skin, but not if they have that pale pinky skin.

Sorry.

Raggamuffin wrote:Beige people!

Actually, not all white people are beige. They might look beige if they have an olive toned skin, but not if they have that pale pinky skin.

Sorry.

Well she's obviously wrong because she's black and Didge knows more about blacks and how they feel than she does!

This is such a great thread!

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Beige people!

Actually, not all white people are beige. They might look beige if they have an olive toned skin, but not if they have that pale pinky skin.

Sorry.

Well she's obviously wrong because she's black and Didge knows more about blacks and how they feel than she does!

Plus he's a man, so what does he know?

Raggamuffin wrote:This is such a great thread!

There are too many posts for me to split it into another thread!
I've amended the title accordingly lol

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:This is such a great thread!

There are too many posts for me to split it into another thread!
I've amended the title accordingly lol

Is it possible to split a thread from a certain post onwards?

eddie wrote:Some more:

Yet again naive
Labels are wrong, they are only used in racial sense to help fight against racism itself so we can place it as a criminal aspect, where people suffer racism. Yes I have no idea what it is like to be from such an ethnic group, but I certainly do understand what it is like to be human, as after all humans are all one biological race. I have every right to talk about an individual who labels people based on their skin tone as it does nothing to help an already bad situation where there is raciam within society. This has nothing to do with political correctness, but how you perceive people with labels which offer nothing but a poor perceived view you have of people.

Ask yourself why the labels in the first place?
There are created as a means to categorize people into your way of thinking and in a negative light.
At no point am I watering down your history but being as there are so many ethnic groups within those classified as black, shows what you say is based again on one of these groups and from one what has formed in a certain area of the Globe. I understand how and why slavery formed which formed long before in the first aspects of Civilization.
To say something is more attractive is where the problem stems from as how can you define what is attractive when nobody can contol who they are attracted to?
Its a subjective view that you are stating to me, where in each indvidual it will most certainly be different.
To me you do not combat racial issue by creating more and to defin people along the lines of skin tone does nothing to help this.
In reality we should only need to be defined by nationality which in itself is also an invention to define groups of people.
When people start to move away from such labels and classification as if we are all different based on a myth, that of races.

So whatever culture a person comes from by defining people and sterotyping them serves no purpose other than a negtaive one.
If people are being taught this is more attractive, then to who are they claiming this is attractive to?

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Beige people!

Actually, not all white people are beige. They might look beige if they have an olive toned skin, but not if they have that pale pinky skin.

Sorry.

Well she's obviously wrong because she's black and Didge knows more about blacks and how they feel than she does!

She is human, as I am human, there is only one race, that of humans, the only difference is a culture, nothing more Eddie.

Why do you keep trying to stir things up Eddie?

I am happy to have a serious debate here but your understanding of humans is where things go wrong.

I do not for one minute thing I can understand what it is like to be someone who is classed as black.

I can understand racism and discrimination from what I have suffered with though.

I would ask - why would any black person who is very aware of racial issues want to judge another black person for being darker, or condone the idea that having a lighter skin is better?

I guess this is why some black people do criticise others who lighten their skin - because they feel it's not just a cosmetic issue.

Notice I said "some" there.

Raggamuffin wrote:I would ask - why would any black person who is very aware of racial issues want to judge another black person for being darker, or condone the idea that having a lighter skin is better?

I guess this is why some black people do criticise others who lighten their skin - because they feel it's not just a cosmetic issue.

Notice I said "some" there.

Yes some are holding these which for the life of me serve no purpose as if people should not look a certain way when like I said people change their hair colour or how they dress ect.
Should it really matter?
No
The only way it would matter is if they believe people from different ethnic groups should not mix.

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I would ask - why would any black person who is very aware of racial issues want to judge another black person for being darker, or condone the idea that having a lighter skin is better?

I guess this is why some black people do criticise others who lighten their skin - because they feel it's not just a cosmetic issue.

Notice I said "some" there.

Yes some are holding these which for the life of me serve no purpose as if people should not look a certain way when like I said people change their hair colour or how they dress ect.
Should it really matter?
No
The only way it would matter is if they believe people from different ethnic groups should not mix.

At least we're on the same page now that you've seen that skin colour is indeed not just a cosmetic issue for some people, and that there is an issue with "colorism" amongst ethnic groups.

My view is the same as it's always been, and it's one I've given on this forum many times. The only way to move forward is to stop thinking so much about the past. I think that eddie's friend would disagree with me, and I totally get why some black people do have an issue with past slavery and present-day discrimination. However, if people are actually judging each other within their own ethnic or racial group re the colour of their skin, what hope is there?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Yes some are holding these which for the life of me serve no purpose as if people should not look a certain way when like I said people change their hair colour or how they dress ect.
Should it really matter?
No
The only way it would matter is if they believe people from different ethnic groups should not mix.

At least we're on the same page now that you've seen that skin colour is indeed not just a cosmetic issue for some people, and that there is an issue with "colorism" amongst ethnic groups.

My view is the same as it's always been, and it's one I've given on this forum many times. The only way to move forward is to stop thinking so much about the past. I think that eddie's friend would disagree with me, and I totally get why some black people do have an issue with past slavery and present-day discrimination. However, if people are actually judging each other within their own ethnic or racial group re the colour of their skin, what hope is there?

You will never be able to move from the past until people recognise the effect this still has on today's society and not just here but in the US, where in both cases there is still much discrmination. This is the reality and where it is still a belief of superiority over others based on skin tone.
Agreed on your last sentence in that such a view is racial in itself which is what I have been saying earlier on how people should look. This is no different from other cultures around the world and some religions where people are expected to dress a certain way and not mix with certain people. Its basically enforcing views onto people how they should stay within a group and not part of a much bigger group. I understand how this can form where people will want to stick together because of discrmination, but it just creates an evern worse situation.

I think though that when it comes to the subject of racial discrimination, people have to be absolutely sure that it is real in each case, and not just assumed. For example, if a person from a certain ethnic group does not get a certain job, there might be an assumption that it's because of their race.

The subject of immigration is often peppered with accusations of racism too, but it's often an assumption rather than a fact.

If people want to deal with present-day discrimination and intolerance, it must be clear that they can demonstrate that it's specific and not based on historical issues.

Raggamuffin wrote:I think though that when it comes to the subject of racial discrimination, people have to be absolutely sure that it is real in each case, and not just assumed. For example, if a person from a certain ethnic group does not get a certain job, there might be an assumption that it's because of their race.

The subject of immigration is often peppered with accusations of racism too, but it's often an assumption rather than a fact.

If people want to deal with present-day discrimination and intolerance, it must be clear that they can demonstrate that it's specific and not based on historical issues.

But many of the arguments made can be easily seen to be racial by the terminology used to describe immigrants.
The problem is and espcially in the US this racism is steeped in history, you only have to see all the recent problems over the symbol of the Confederate Flag rags.

Anyway I will be interested to what Eddi's friend replies but to me she is just one idividual who holds different views most definately to other people from her ethnic group. Even my ethnic groups I can only make assumptions based on the people I know and it will be limited as again things vary within ethnic groups.

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I think though that when it comes to the subject of racial discrimination, people have to be absolutely sure that it is real in each case, and not just assumed. For example, if a person from a certain ethnic group does not get a certain job, there might be an assumption that it's because of their race.

The subject of immigration is often peppered with accusations of racism too, but it's often an assumption rather than a fact.

If people want to deal with present-day discrimination and intolerance, it must be clear that they can demonstrate that it's specific and not based on historical issues.

But many of the arguments made can be easily seen to be racial by the terminology used to describe immigrants.
The problem is and espcially in the US this racism is steeped in history, you only have to see all the recent problems over the symbol of the Confederate Flag rags.

Anyway I will be interested to what Eddi's friend replies but to me she is just one idividual who holds different views most definately to other people from her ethnic group. Even my ethnic groups I can only make assumptions based on the people I know and it will be limited as again things vary within ethnic groups.

Well let's just look at one example on this thread Didge. You immediately assumed that the words "red skin" were somehow derogatory towards native indians, whereas I did not because I understood the context.

See what I mean? That's just a small example, but this forum is peppered with such misunderstandings.

Then there's the issue where some people claim that black people cannot be racist because they do not hold a position of "power" generally and that white people are "privileged". I've seen that said by both white and black people, and I don't subscribe to it. There can be no solution when such distinctions are made.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

But many of the arguments made can be easily seen to be racial by the terminology used to describe immigrants.
The problem is and espcially in the US this racism is steeped in history, you only have to see all the recent problems over the symbol of the Confederate Flag rags.

Anyway I will be interested to what Eddi's friend replies but to me she is just one idividual who holds different views most definately to other people from her ethnic group. Even my ethnic groups I can only make assumptions based on the people I know and it will be limited as again things vary within ethnic groups.

Well let's just look at one example on this thread Didge. You immediately assumed that the words "red skin" were somehow derogatory towards native indians, whereas I did not because I understood the context.

See what I mean? That's just a small example, but this forum is peppered with such misunderstandings.

Then there's the issue where some people claim that black people cannot be racist because they do not hold a position of "power" generally and that white people are "privileged". I've seen that said by both white and black people, and I don't subscribe to it. There can be no solution when such distinctions are made.

To me it is derogatory, as it is again yet another label to describe a group of people.
Why on earth would you label a group of people based on colourisation of the skin?
So to me I still thinks its origins is based it a poor way to describe people
labels in general are bad to use, though sometimes can be for good.
I have never said those classed as black cannot be racist and you will find some people even from the afro caribbean be racist towards those from Africa and in reverse.

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well let's just look at one example on this thread Didge. You immediately assumed that the words "red skin" were somehow derogatory towards native indians, whereas I did not because I understood the context.

See what I mean? That's just a small example, but this forum is peppered with such misunderstandings.

Then there's the issue where some people claim that black people cannot be racist because they do not hold a position of "power" generally and that white people are "privileged". I've seen that said by both white and black people, and I don't subscribe to it. There can be no solution when such distinctions are made.

To me it is derogatory, as it is again yet another label to describe a group of people.
Why on earth would you label a group of people based on colourisation of the skin?
So to me I still thinks its origins is based it a poor way to describe people
labels in general are bad to use, though sometimes can be for good.
I have never said those classed as black cannot be racist and you will find some people even from the afro caribbean be racist towards those from Africa.

So you think that saying someone has red skin is racially derogatory? You only think that because of historical connotations. The term was not used in that context. If a white person was described as having "red skin" - as in a ruddy complexion or inflamed skin - would you also consider that to be racial?

Are we to avoid saying things like "yellow" skin when talking about someone with jaundice, in case something thinks it's derogatory against Asian people?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

To me it is derogatory, as it is again yet another label to describe a group of people.
Why on earth would you label a group of people based on colourisation of the skin?
So to me I still thinks its origins is based it a poor way to describe people
labels in general are bad to use, though sometimes can be for good.
I have never said those classed as black cannot be racist and you will find some people even from the afro caribbean be racist towards those from Africa.

So you think that saying someone has red skin is racially derogatory? You only think that because of historical connotations. The term was not used in that context. If a white person was described as having "red skin" - as in a ruddy complexion or inflamed skin - would you also consider that to be racial?

For a start, does anyone have red skin?
No.
Its used to describe a group of people racially is it not those classed as mixed race is it not?
Its defining a group of people racially based of the skin tone produced by a mixed union.
I am sure people do not think of it racially but it is certainly formed racially.

Raggamuffin wrote:Are we to avoid saying things like "yellow" skin when talking about someone with jaundice, in case something thinks it's derogatory against Asian people?

That is an illness is it not?

Are people of a mixed union now an illness?

Raggamuffin wrote:I would ask - why would any black person who is very aware of racial issues want to judge another black person for being darker, or condone the idea that having a lighter skin is better?

I guess this is why some black people do criticise others who lighten their skin - because they feel it's not just a cosmetic issue.

Notice I said "some" there.

No idea rags. I find all sorts of people to be beautiful and I'm sure most people in different races would say the same.
It's a shame we can't all be happy with the skin we are in x

I have ended up smoking two cigarettes today now from a work mate, after months without.
Am gutted.

Cuchulain wrote:I have ended up smoking two cigarettes today now from a work mate, after months without.
Am gutted.

Don't be too hard on yourself Didge. It's hard giving up x
Tomorrow's another day

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So you think that saying someone has red skin is racially derogatory? You only think that because of historical connotations. The term was not used in that context. If a white person was described as having "red skin" - as in a ruddy complexion or inflamed skin - would you also consider that to be racial?

For a start, does anyone have red skin?
No.
Its used to describe a group of people racially is it not those classed as mixed race is it not?
Its defining a group of people racially based of the skin tone produced by a mixed union.
I am sure people do not think of it racially but it is certainly formed racially.

Yes, some people have red skin on their face. It might not be a uniform red, but the general appearance is red.

In the context of black people, it probably doesn't look red as such, much like "red" hair is often not really red as such.

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Are we to avoid saying things like "yellow" skin when talking about someone with jaundice, in case something thinks it's derogatory against Asian people?

That is an illness is it not?

Are people of a mixed union now an illness?

Yes, it's a medical condition, but that's not the point. You objected to the use of the word "red" when describing skin colour because of the racial connotations, so do you object to the word "yellow" for the same reason?

Your second question is a total red herring. It's nothing to do with mixed race or unions of any kind, it's to do with "yellow" sometimes being used as a derogatory term for Asian people. I would say "oriental" people, but apparently that's a derogatory word in the US too.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

For a start, does anyone have red skin?
No.
Its used to describe a group of people racially is it not those classed as mixed race is it not?
Its defining a group of people racially based of the skin tone produced by a mixed union.
I am sure people do not think of it racially but it is certainly formed racially.

Yes, some people have red skin on their face. It might not be a uniform red, but the general appearance is red.

In the context of black people, it probably doesn't look red as such, much like "red" hair is often not really red as such.

I would question your ability to distinguish colours as who mixed race has red skin?
Nobody does.
It will all be shades of brown
Again this is being used to describe those of mixed race.
Again it is the colourization racially of people

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:


That is an illness is it not?

Are people of a mixed union now an illness?

Yes, it's a medical condition, but that's not the point. You objected to the use of the word "red" when describing skin colour because of the racial connotations, so do you object to the word "yellow" for the same reason?

Your second question is a total red herring. It's nothing to do with mixed race or unions of any kind, it's to do with "yellow" sometimes being used as a derogatory term for Asian people. I would say "oriental" people, but apparently that's a derogatory word in the US too.

I objected because it is colourizing mixed race people.
They are not surring an illness because of their skin tone.
Whereas jaundice is, can you not see the difference and if someone used yellow to describe asian it would be racial
No My point is the use of the term "Red skin" which is describe mixed race people, I suggest you look back.
To me we should not even use black or white, but we need to classify to protect people from racism

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes, it's a medical condition, but that's not the point. You objected to the use of the word "red" when describing skin colour because of the racial connotations, so do you object to the word "yellow" for the same reason?

Your second question is a total red herring. It's nothing to do with mixed race or unions of any kind, it's to do with "yellow" sometimes being used as a derogatory term for Asian people. I would say "oriental" people, but apparently that's a derogatory word in the US too.

I objected because it is colourizing mixed race people.
They are not surring an illness because of their skin tone.
Whereas jaundice is, can you not see the difference and if someone used yellow to describe asian it would be racial
No My point is the use of the term "Red skin" which is describe mixed race people, I suggest you look back.
To me we should not even use black or white, but we need to classify to protect people from racism

It's nothing to do with mixed race people Didge.

The point is - was the lady referring to "red skin" in a derogatory way? No, I don't think so. First of all, she referred to it as a good thing in the eyes of some black women, and secondly, I think she was referring to skin tone. Perhaps she could explain if eddie could ask her. You're thinking of "redskin".

Honestly Didge, don't you know anything about women's make up? Women don't just look for lightness or darkness, they look for the right underlying colour too. That could be yellow or it could be pink, depending on what tone their skin is.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:




I objected because it is colourizing mixed race people.
They are not surring an illness because of their skin tone.
Whereas jaundice is, can you not see the difference and if someone used yellow to describe asian it would be racial
No My point is the use of the term "Red skin" which is describe mixed race people, I suggest you look back.
To me we should not even use black or white, but we need to classify to protect people from racism

It's nothing to do with mixed race people Didge.

The point is - was the lady referring to "red skin" in a derogatory way? No, I don't think so. First of all, she referred to it as a good thing in the eyes of some black women, and secondly, I think she was referring to skin tone. Perhaps she could explain if eddie could ask her. You're thinking of "redskin".

I suggest you read back again as who is being descirbed as "red skin"
It does not matter what some people perceive it to be good or bad, its a racial way of defining people through colourization

Raggamuffin wrote:Honestly Didge, don't you know anything about women's make up? Women don't just look for lightness or darkness, they look for the right underlying colour too. That could be yellow or it could be pink, depending on what tone their skin is.

That has nothing to do with describing groups of people racially through colourization.
Again I suggest you read back.

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's nothing to do with mixed race people Didge.

The point is - was the lady referring to "red skin" in a derogatory way? No, I don't think so. First of all, she referred to it as a good thing in the eyes of some black women, and secondly, I think she was referring to skin tone. Perhaps she could explain if eddie could ask her. You're thinking of "redskin".

I suggest you read back again as who is being descirbed as "red skin"
It does not matter what some people perceive it to be good or bad, its a racial way of defining people through colourization

Eddie's friend said this:

"The lighter the skin or even redder (Red skin).

Please explain what is offensive about that.

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Honestly Didge, don't you know anything about women's make up? Women don't just look for lightness or darkness, they look for the right underlying colour too. That could be yellow or it could be pink, depending on what tone their skin is.

That has nothing to do with describing groups of people racially through colourization.
Again I suggest you read back.

I suggest you read back yourself.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

I suggest you read back again as who is being descirbed as "red skin"
It does not matter what some people perceive it to be good or bad, its a racial way of defining people through colourization

Eddie's friend said this:

"The lighter the skin or even redder (Red skin).

Please explain what is offensive about that.

Wrong:

There's a certain colour within black communities called "red-skin"
It's actually a sort of "tanned looking" mixed race colour? That is always strived to achieve

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Eddie's friend said this:

"The lighter the skin or even redder (Red skin).

Please explain what is offensive about that.

Wrong:

There's a certain colour within black communities called "red-skin"
It's actually a sort of "tanned looking" mixed race colour? That is always strived to achieve

And? Why is that offensive?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Wrong:

There's a certain colour within black communities called "red-skin"
It's actually a sort of "tanned looking" mixed race colour? That is always strived to achieve

And? Why is that offensive?

So you think its acceptable to define people racially through colourization?

Hahahahaha if you want to argue about black people's use of their own lingo or language Didge then you're the one seeing a racial issue?

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

And? Why is that offensive?

So you think its acceptable to define people racially through colourization?

Eh? It's referring to a tone of skin Didge.

eddie wrote:Hahahahaha if you want to argue about black people's use of their own lingo or language Didge then you're the one seeing a racial issue?

Eddie do you understand what a label is?

So if people who are human with different skin tones but basically the same culture as me growing up in the UK with some slight differences uses a word which colourizes people who are mixed race its me making it racial now, when they are the ones placing a label racially onto people by defining them red skin?

Interesting, please explain that to me

There aren't as many variations in white people are there? One can be a bit darker, or have a yellow or pink base to your skin, but it's not as varied.

Oh Didge leave off please.

You put labels on people all the time!!!

Listen up. If my three year old daughter is trying to explain about a boy or girl in her class she will say "the boy with the brown skin mummy'

Okay? She's not being racist.
He has bloody brown skin and that's that.

I'm described as white and my mate who's ripped you to racial shreds, calls herself black, her Hubble is white and her kids are half-caste or "mixed race" if you have to be so PC

Get over it! We see ourselves by colour when we have to and by how short or tall we are when we have to or by hair colour when we have to....etc bloody etc