well i never walked up and called them coloured, just how are you supposed to decsribe them? thats the biggest problem, to much emphasis on mere words.
“Coloured” is bad, “coloureds” is worse. Using their actual ethnicity might be a good idea. “Non-white” at a push, though even this strikes me as a bit iffy.
I’ve posted to these boards before to say pretty much the same thing myself - too much emphasis on vocabulary in place of improvements in sentiment/attitude. However, it seems no more than a common courtesy to use the words that people themselves use when you’re trying to describe them.
So here are a few links to relevant websites. You’ll see that words like “black”, “African-Caribbean”, “Asian” or something more specific are generally used. “Coloured” makes you sound like a retired army officer of the 1950s talking down your nose about uppity colonials in a blimpish letter to The Times.
Black Britain
Black and Asian History Map - Channel 4 article
Black Search - community and directory site
Asian Network - BBC page
British Born Chinese site
By the way, as you can see, you don’t need to press Submit Reply twice when you’re posting a quote here - just keep typing beneath the “quote” tag. Press the Quote button again to see what it looks like.
Black flight and white flight are spurned by two different motives. Black flight is usually the result of involuntary displacement (as you said, gentrification). White flight is usually the result fear. Fear of crime. Fear of lowering property values. White flight is always voluntary and is driven by racism. Unfortunately, it results in self-fulfilling prophesies because what happens is that massive flight from any community will drive property values down, inviting ne’er-do-wells into the community, causing crime rates to skyrocket, causing property values to plummet further. But people are blind since they will use this fact to justify–rather than condemn–white flight.
There’s a myth that the south is more segregated than the north, but this isn’t the case.
I’ve never been to the UK, but I have been to other places in Europe. In Amsterdam, I was the object of stares (which–although unsettling–wasn’t a big deal). Two stores that I had approached mysteriously “closed”, only to “reopen” after I had passed. This had never happened to me in the States before.
I don’t know if the UK is more egalitarian than the US when it comes to race, but if it is, I bet it would have less to do with how wonderfully liberal the place is and more to do with the horrible history of the US when it comes to race. It would be like if we were to compare the level of overt anti-semitism in Germany to that of the US. There are lower levels in the US only because Germany’s historical treatment of Jews is so horrible. That doesn’t make the US special or completely immune to anti-semitism, however.
I can’t let this slip without asking for a cite, dude.
Because these shows mirror–to some extent–what happens in the real world. It may shock people, but it is quite possible for black people to have more black people than white people in their families and social circles. The same goes for white people. When a sitcom is focused on a family or a social circle (e.g, The Cosby Show, Roseanne, Friends, Martin), you tend to have racial homogeniety. When a sitcom is based on a working environment (e.g., ER, Law & Order, Boston Public) you tend to have a more diverse cast.
Having predominately all-white or all-black shows does not bother me (except when they become unrealistically homogenous). It’s bothersome only when your choices are limited to all-white or all-black shows.
I can’t think of any show that features a mixed-race couple, but then again I don’t have any cool premium channels on my TV. But lately I’ve been seeing mixed-raced couples on the big screen.
No, the problem is feeling like you can call anyone anything without offense being taken. And if “coloureds” is the only thing you can come up with, you’re in the market for a good thesarus.
if being called coloured is the biggest problem they have then they have no problems. im white, if im called white it dosnt bother me, its the colour i am. i dont see coloured as a problem, some people should get a life
But following that logic, if “white” is the “colour” you are, then you’re “coloured” too. Why is it so difficult for you to understand the simple courtesy of referring to people as they would prefer? It’s really not your place to tell people to get a life if you’re too lazy to avoid language that they find insulting.
While you’re at it, you might want to learn the basics of grammar and punctuation if you don’t want to create a bad impression of yourself here; and you still haven’t got the hang of that “quote” function. It’s evident that you’re a newcomer, but I’m afraid you haven’t made a very good start.
My sister has this (admittedly hackneyed) poem on her wall. Might help you to get your head round the concept, rogue4007:
Its like do i get benefits if im a 8th of a american indian or do i have to be atleast % like most beneficiaries…
ignore previous post…lol grabbed wrong quote: heres is the right one to my reply…
Its like do i get benefits if im a 8th of a american indian or do i have to be atleast % like most beneficiaries…
Cites? What data have you to claim that “black flight” is “usually” driven by gentrification? Are generalizations the new standard in GD?
Since personal observation and broadbrushed characterizations are your standards, let me offer this:
Are you familiar with the phenomenon of black flight as a function of fear of urban crime and lowered property values? My observation is that black flight is often–not always–driven by the same phenomena as white flight.
You can argue cause and effect all day long, but a rational player must safeguard her/his investment(s). Person A deciding to move because s/he fears that the infusion of a population historically associated with the lowering of property values and increased crime is not racism. It is rational decision-making. Again, we can argue cause and effect, but to remain and allow one’s investment’s to depreciate (and this is the historic pattern) is imprudent.
huh???
It sounds like you’re confusing “middle-class” flight with “white” flight. Although they may overlap one another significantly and both have similar long-term consequences, they are not the same. I’m talking about families leaving a community as soon as a few black families moves into it. This is something black people simply do not do (for the obvious reasons).
And this happens more often than people are willing to admit.
Your observation is just as valid as mine. However, I think there is a difference between fleeing a neighborhood because property values are dropping and fleeing a neighborhood because you FEAR property values are dropping just because your neighbors look different than you. Middle class folks of any hue will tend to share the former view. My parents moved out of their intown neighborhood because they wanted to spend their retirement in the quiet suburbs. But only racist people will equate changing racial demographics with lowering values.
There is a stigma attached to predominately black neighborhoods. They could be working-class, middle-class, upper-middle class–it doesn’t matter–ignorant people will label them as “bad” neighborhoods. The “hood”. Even good-hearted white people make these aspersions sometimes without meaning to. It’s racism, clear and simple. And it’s the driving force behind white flight. Black = bad. White = good.
Explain what you’re confused about and maybe I can help.