A colourful issue............

I am somewhat bemused by the recent ruckus over some thespian wimp referring to whom Dame Edna would call ‘our little tinted friends’ as ‘coloured’ , and then publishing a grovelling and completely ott  apology.

 

The word itself it completely inappropriate, of course, because it is largely meaningless except to indicate, probably  accurately, that the person is not Caucasian.

 

Perhaps the largely (I guess) white female members of the PC classes will tell us exactly what word (or words) are appropriate to describe the such. And whilst they are at it, they might actually ask advice from a non-Caucasian in the unlikely event that they ae on conversational terms with any, although I suspect that they will get funny answers.

 

I have spent most of my working life in multi-racial countries, and each has its own vocabulary.

 

An African would be referred to as – guess what – an African. Say ‘coloured’ and you might be en route to intensive care because that is the term for person of mixed race.

 

Asians tended to be ‘Indians’ since their African settlement preceded Indian independence and the creation of Pakistan, although Goans were usually called ‘Portuguese’ because that’s what they were until India seized Goa.

 

I notice that black people tend to refer to themselves as such as in the ‘Black Police Federation’.

 

Now it gets complicated. What do we call people of other races?

 

In Jamaica Chinese were always referred to as Mr Chin; no offence intended, it was simply a stylistic convenience.

 

Americans are past masters at the art of obfuscation. ‘Afro-Americans’. ‘ Native Americans’ whereas the subjects properly call themselves ‘Indians’ on account of the fact that it’s where they came from before ‘America’ was even thought of, let alone misnamed.

 

Come to think of it why do we bother? Why not just ‘Japanese’, ‘West Indian’ etc.

 

No, it won’t catch on. It would remove the whole raison d’etre from those who  prefer a grievance to a remedy.