Greg Clarke and my confusion.... (1 Viewer)

Skyblueweeman said:

I don't want this thread to be controversial in any way but I wondered if someone could clear something up. Greg Clarke has obviously left his post as Chairman of the FA for some poor comments - the main one being used in the media being the word 'coloured':

Greg Clarke: Why FA chairman's comments are so offensive

Greg Clarke quits after using an offensive term to describe black players.

www.bbc.co.uk

However, I was reading another article on the beeb this morning and a young Brentford player says the words 'woman of colour':

Brentford: The women of power at the club aiming to be ‘most inclusive in UK’

How Brentford are leading the way with appointments breaking the status quo in football club offices.

www.bbc.co.uk

Isn't this a massive case of double standards? I get that Clarke said some other things but the media are mainly taking him to account on the word 'coloured'.

What's peoples thoughts on this?

Click to expand...

Don’t know enough about the semantics of what was said and how it was deemed offensive, but I believe he may have used the phrase “colourful people”. If that’s the case, sounds a bit dodgy.

Skyblueweeman said:

I don't want this thread to be controversial in any way but I wondered if someone could clear something up. Greg Clarke has obviously left his post as Chairman of the FA for some poor comments - the main one being used in the media being the word 'coloured':

Greg Clarke: Why FA chairman's comments are so offensive

Greg Clarke quits after using an offensive term to describe black players.

www.bbc.co.uk

However, I was reading another article on the beeb this morning and a young Brentford player says the words 'woman of colour':

Brentford: The women of power at the club aiming to be ‘most inclusive in UK’

How Brentford are leading the way with appointments breaking the status quo in football club offices.

www.bbc.co.uk

Isn't this a massive case of double standards? I get that Clarke said some other things but the media are mainly taking him to account on the word 'coloured'.

What's peoples thoughts on this?

Click to expand...

People / person / male or female of colour is a different expression from just calling somebody coloured. I think the former is probably seen as a more humane term as it refers to POC as people.

fernandopartridge said:

People / person / male or female of colour is a different expression from just calling somebody coloured. I think the former is probably seen as a more humane term as it refers to POC as people.

Click to expand...

Didn't he also say asians are more likely to do IT jobs than black people and something about female players not wanting the ball kicked at them hard? I have not read it all tbh

Grendel said:

Didn't he also say asians are more likely to do IT jobs than black people and something about female players not wanting the ball kicked at them hard? I have not read it all tbh

Click to expand...

Not read any of it tbh with you just replied to the question

Grendel said:

Didn't he also say asians are more likely to do IT jobs than black people and something about female players not wanting the ball kicked at them hard? I have not read it all tbh

Click to expand...

Yes. And that being gay is a life choice.

Won’t comment too much other than to say it is well known that “coloured” is deemed offensive by black and “people/person of colour” is not. This is common knowledge and he should have known better. In the current climate he was inevitably going to get pushed if he didn’t jump.

The difference between "People of Colour" (acceptable) and "Coloured people" (offensive) is that Coloured was used as a means of discrimination particularly during the years they suffered segregation in the USA. That's the basis of it.
I was having a candid discussion with a colleague from India a few weeks ago, as she had used the term "coloured" in that conversation. She told me "sorry, i let that slip - but i never knew coloured was offensive until i worked in America". It is used as a term of affection, almost, in South Africa, of all places!
I think Clarke was extremely unfortunate, but the FA should review the uptake of their Diversity training course!

Skyblueweeman said:

I have to disagree with your point about the difference being common knowledge. A couple of friends I've spoken to about it also said the same that it's a grey area - well those two examples are anyway.

You're (not you - I mean generally) referring to someone as being coloured or as a person of colour. I can see why some would question how one can be deemed ok and one not.

Honestly, I'm confused and would struggle to comfortably say how I would describe someone of African heritage for example, without offending someone.

Click to expand...

Offenham covers the history and reasoning well. It may then not be common knowledge for every single white person but be sure it is/should be to any high ranking person in a diverse industry.

Probably all irrelevant anyway as his other comments were enough to see him gone in this day and age.

You could comfortably describe someone of African heritage as black without offending.

stay_up_skyblues said:

Offenham covers the history and reasoning well. It may then not be common knowledge for every single white person but be sure it is/should be to any high ranking person in a diverse industry.

Probably all irrelevant anyway as his other comments were enough to see him gone in this day and age.

You could comfortably describe someone of African heritage as black without offending.

Click to expand...

... but by the same tone, someone of South Asian (i.e. Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Sri Lankan) MIGHT be offended by being called black. Hence black people using the term BME rather than the accepted BAME is actually being quite offensive!

It's a minefield for us honkies, even if we have the best of intentions and respect.

OffenhamSkyBlue said:

It's a minefield for us honkies, even if we have the best of intentions and respect.

Click to expand...

Ha. Honky also deemed an offensive racial slur by some.....

I like the way you're reclaiming it....whitey...

My confusion with this thread, by the way, is that my mind keeps seeing it as "George Clarke" the chubby faced geordie architect fella......

Skyblueweeman said:

I have to disagree with your point about the difference being common knowledge. A couple of friends I've spoken to about it also said the same that it's a grey area - well those two examples are anyway.

You're (not you - I mean generally) referring to someone as being coloured or as a person of colour. I can see why some would question how one can be deemed ok and one not.

Honestly, I'm confused and would struggle to comfortably say how I would describe someone of African heritage for example, without offending someone.

Click to expand...

For as long as I can remember the term 'coloured' has been deemed offensive and rightly so, I've not heard anyone I know ever use that term and I'd pull them up on it if they did. That said, the whole #BLM campaign is about learning and bettering yourself so the conversation is a good one and fair play for mentioning it. At least now you have taken something from this and have gained knowledge that you can perhaps pass on to friends in the future.

OffenhamSkyBlue said:

... but by the same tone, someone of South Asian (i.e. Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Sri Lankan) MIGHT be offended by being called black. Hence black people using the term BME rather than the accepted BAME is actually being quite offensive!

It's a minefield for us honkies, even if we have the best of intentions and respect.

Click to expand...

I agree with this. It would appear on the face of it to appear to be a tiny difference between 'person of colour' and 'coloured' but at the same time I know that the first is acceptable and the second isn't. But at the same time the organisation is the NAACP with is the term 'coloured people'.

It's also a phrase that could be taken as a means to basically say anyone not white, as they don't seem to consider that a 'colour'. So it many ways it could be seen as a discriminatory, even racist, term designed to solely exclude white people. Just as the racists of the past would blame problems on the blacks/Irish/Jews etc this effectively gives the opportunity to blame societies ills solely on white people. In an historic context I can understand why many communities would make that association but just like it was unfair of white people to blame entire sections of society it's also unfair for the reverse to be done now as most white people are decent people who don't deserve the associated stigma of being racists or oppressors.