Davkaus Posted November 10, 2020 Share Posted November 10, 2020 It all comes down to the intent behind it, IMO. If you look at Clarke's words in context, he seems to be a decent bloke trying to do the right thing, but isn't particularly adept at using the latest approved terms. There's no dog whistle nonsense going on here. "Coloured" was pretty standard when I was younger. As was "halfcast" for example, these things change and it can cause confusion. If he used it in a disparaging way, or repeatedly used it when corrected, there'd be something to talk about, but this is a non-event. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam-AVFC Posted November 10, 2020 Share Posted November 10, 2020 2 minutes ago, tomav84 said: i was surprised to be honest, because i believe 'person of colour' is fine? i dunno, he seemed to apologise at the time and gave a logical explanation. not sure i agree with the outrage He also made a really weird claim that due to differing racial interests Asians are more likely to want to work in IT in the game than be footballers. It was just another ill advised comment to add to a generally tone deaf interview. The difference from "person of colour" and "coloured" could also be viewed as the difference between saying "black people" and "blacks". 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted November 10, 2020 Share Posted November 10, 2020 How are people surprised that 'coloured' isn't ok? It means nothing. White is also a colour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomav84 Posted November 10, 2020 VT Supporter Share Posted November 10, 2020 1 minute ago, Sam-AVFC said: He also made a really weird claim that due to differing racial interests Asians are more likely to want to work in IT in the game than be footballers. It was just another ill advised comment to add to a generally tone deaf interview. The difference from "person of colour" and "coloured" could also be viewed as the difference between saying "black people" and "blacks". yeah i get any outrage around a statement like that around asians...i didn't see the full interview, but if he made such a steriotype then he should rightly apologise fair point regarding your last line...makes sense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomav84 Posted November 10, 2020 VT Supporter Share Posted November 10, 2020 1 minute ago, StefanAVFC said: How are people surprised that 'coloured' isn't ok? It means nothing. White is also a colour. i was surprised because 'person of colour' is OK... @Sam-AVFC made the valid point above why it's not, but playing devil's advocate i get why Clarke got confused and i don't quite agree with the pelters he's getting. i think he made an honest mistake personally 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam-AVFC Posted November 10, 2020 Share Posted November 10, 2020 1 minute ago, tomav84 said: i was surprised because 'person of colour' is OK... @Sam-AVFC made the valid point above why it's not, but playing devil's advocate i get why Clarke got confused and i don't quite agree with the pelters he's getting. i think he made an honest mistake personally In isolation I think it would have been forgotten pretty quickly, but questions still asked about how a guy in charge of a national institution isn't clued up considering race has been a huge issue around football for eternity. I think the other bizarre comments he made about race in the same interview mean it's going to get more scrutiny. He's also getting pelters for saying (paraphrasing) 'footballers don't have a problem with gay players, they know who they are and accept it's their choice' and people think he's saying being gay is a choice. I think it's just poor wording and wouldn't have thought anything of it. Problem is making a comment like this when you're already being criticised for using an outdated term is only going to amplify scrutiny. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyblade Posted November 10, 2020 Share Posted November 10, 2020 27 minutes ago, Sam-AVFC said: I'm 28 and I can't remember a time in my life when I didn't know not to use it. You can argue all you want over how it is less offensive than other words, but the simple fact is people have known for decades it can be seen as offensive and for someone to still use it shows they are not equipped for the modern world or being wilfully ignorant. It just hearkens back to a darker time, no pun intended. It's an obsolete term, so using it in the 21st century definitely raises eyebrows. Why do it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted November 10, 2020 Share Posted November 10, 2020 Look at the context of what he said. Quote 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." Perhaps he shouldn't have used that word, people have declared it word non grata, but is it a racist thing to say? Absolutely not. He said it, he clearly meant no offence, he was asked about it, apologised, and they moved on. That should be the end of it. A page ago we've got some prick in the Lords talking about "The Indian", but there's more discussion about a bloke being slightly clumsy while empathetically talking about the challenges facing BAME and female players. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam-AVFC Posted November 10, 2020 Share Posted November 10, 2020 3 minutes ago, Davkaus said: Look at the context of what he said. Perhaps he shouldn't have used that word, people have declared it word non grata, but is it a racist thing to say? Absolutely not. He said it, he clearly meant no offence, he was asked about it, apologised, and they moved on. That should be the end of it. A page ago we've got some prick in the Lords talking about "The Indian", but there's more discussion about a bloke being slightly clumsy while empathetically talking about the challenges facing BAME and female players. He also used lazy racial and gender stereotypes in the same interview. I don't think he did mean any offence, but ignorance is no excuse when you're leading an organisation like the FA. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted November 10, 2020 Share Posted November 10, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Demitri_C said: Is the word coloured when describing someone racist ? It is, at best, massively outdated (and thus can be used by people in that way without them knowing better) but it is often most definitely racist. Edited November 10, 2020 by snowychap 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted November 10, 2020 Share Posted November 10, 2020 Hard to believe that he's not had training on it tbh, I did about 10 years ago working for a construction company Would have thought he'd do media course and PR stuff a couple of times a year and would be well versed in stuff like this so I think the come on its an easy mistake stuff doesn't wash, it's not a simple easy mistake when you are in that position And stepping aside from it personally I think he needed to go anyway. The FA needs an overhaul, fully expecting another old white man to get the job Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted November 10, 2020 Share Posted November 10, 2020 1 hour ago, Demitri_C said: Is the word coloured when describing someone racist ? In Hollywood films when someone is referred to as coloured or Negro , invariably you know its going to end with them swinging from a tree whilst blokes hiding under bedsheets whoop and holler , so that's your clue even if you've not been following history closely 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyblade Posted November 10, 2020 Share Posted November 10, 2020 I hear the word colored and I think of segregated washrooms and the like. It's so massively antiquated, I'm surprised people even use it today. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted November 10, 2020 Moderator Share Posted November 10, 2020 Coloured - an official designation of people of mixed race in Apartheid South Africa Wrong doesn't cover it 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Follyfoot Posted November 10, 2020 VT Supporter Share Posted November 10, 2020 1 hour ago, Davkaus said: It all comes down to the intent behind it, IMO. If you look at Clarke's words in context, he seems to be a decent bloke trying to do the right thing, but isn't particularly adept at using the latest approved terms. There's no dog whistle nonsense going on here. "Coloured" was pretty standard when I was younger. As was "halfcast" for example, these things change and it can cause confusion. If he used it in a disparaging way, or repeatedly used it when corrected, there'd be something to talk about, but this is a non-event. The same here, we were actually encouraged to use the word as opposed to other more derogatory terms that were widely used in the 70’s, half caste was also also deemed more favourable than ‘touch of the tar brush about him/her’ etc. Each generation is educated on race differently from the last as the world pulls down slowly racial barriers. Who is to say the term African American will not be frowned upon in twenty years ? The guy is clearly not a racist but given his role should be more aware of current terminology Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted November 10, 2020 Share Posted November 10, 2020 3 minutes ago, Follyfoot said: The same here, we were actually encouraged to use the word as opposed to other more derogatory terms that were widely used in the 70’s, half caste was also also deemed more favourable than ‘touch of the tar brush about him/her’ etc. Each generation is educated on race differently from the last as the world pulls down slowly racial barriers. Who is to say the term African American will not be frowned upon in twenty years ? The guy is clearly not a racist but given his role should be more aware of current terminology It's not 'current terminology'. It's wording that hasn't been suitable for about the last three decades. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Follyfoot Posted November 10, 2020 VT Supporter Share Posted November 10, 2020 (edited) 1 minute ago, snowychap said: It's not 'current terminology'. It's wording that hasn't been suitable for about the last three decades. Is he a racist Edited November 10, 2020 by Follyfoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted November 10, 2020 Share Posted November 10, 2020 Just now, Follyfoot said: Is he a racist Probably not, but ignorant? Likely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted November 10, 2020 Share Posted November 10, 2020 1 minute ago, Follyfoot said: Is he a racist I don't know. What does that have to do with my criticism of your post? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Albrighton Posted November 10, 2020 VT Supporter Share Posted November 10, 2020 This story had passed me by and had to see which “Clarke” this was concerning. There’s a certain sense of deja vu here as it’s nearly ten years ago that Alan Hansen found himself apologising for saying “coloured”. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts