"I am an idiot for saying "coloured"." [Benedict Cumberbatch]

[144man]

Benedict Cumberbatch has said sorry after referring to black actors as "coloured" during a TV interview in America. The Sherlock star, 38, used the term while talking about racial inequality in the UK acting industry.

He said yesterday, "I offer my sincere apologies. I am sorry to have offended people. I make no excuse for being an idiot and know the damage is done. The most shameful aspect of this is I was talking about racial inequality in the performing arts in the UK and the need for rapid improvements in our industry when I used the term."

He had told US talk-show host Tavis Smiley, "I think as far as coloured actors go, it gets really different in the UK, and a lot of my friends have had more opportunities here than in the UK. That's something that needs to change. Something's gone wrong. We're not representative in our culture of different races, and that really does need to step up a pace."

Charity "Show Racism The Red Card" said Cumberbatch highlighted a very important issue within the entertainment industry and within society. But it added "In doing so, he has inadvertently highlighted the issue of appropriate terminology and the evolution of language...the term coloured is now outdated and has the potential to cause offence due to the connotations associated with the term and its historical usage."

During his apology, Cumberbatch...added "I'm devastated to have caused offence by using this outmoded terminology. I can only hope that this will highlight the need for correct usage of terminology that is accurate and inoffensive. I feel the complete fool I am. I apologise to anyone I offended for this thoughtless use of inappropriate language."

[Daily Mirror January 27, 2015]

[144man]

My sister who is 75 years old has just read this article, and she is absolutely horrified.

She had no idea that the term "coloured" was now deemed to be offensive, and wants to know how on earth she can be expected to keep up with these changes. She takes the view that the use of the word "black" instead of "coloured" is not better, just different. She thinks that instead of being evolutionary, it is just a matter of fashion until the next word comes along. She also does not see how offence can be taken where no offence is intended.

Furthermore, she does not see why she should change something she does not accept as being wrong or outdated, and says that expecting her to do so is out-and out ageism.

Does she have a valid point?

[theboyfromxtown]

My sister who is 75 years old has just read this article, and she is absolutely horrified.

She had no idea that the term "coloured" was now deemed to be offensive, and wants to know how on earth she can be expected to keep up with these changes. She takes the view that the use of the word "black" instead of "coloured" is not better, just different. She thinks that instead of being evolutionary, it is just a matter of fashion until the next word comes along. She also does not see how offence can be taken where no offence is intended.

Furthermore, she does not see why she should change something she does not accept as being wrong or outdated, and says that expecting her to do so is out-and out ageism.

Does she have a valid point?

A lot of the older generation where I live think the same.

[antceleb12]

My sister who is 75 years old has just read this article, and she is absolutely horrified.

She had no idea that the term "coloured" was now deemed to be offensive, and wants to know how on earth she can be expected to keep up with these changes. She takes the view that the use of the word "black" instead of "coloured" is not better, just different. She thinks that instead of being evolutionary, it is just a matter of fashion until the next word comes along. She also does not see how offence can be taken where no offence is intended.

Furthermore, she does not see why she should change something she does not accept as being wrong or outdated, and says that expecting her to do so is out-and out ageism.

Does she have a valid point?

If one looks back at history when the term 'colored' was used, it was with demeaning and hateful under- and overtones. It was used to belittle and dehumanize a group of people. True, 'colored' was used by almost everybody at the time, but its negative connotations quickly outweighed the neutral connotations.

Its not 'ageist' to expect someone of an older generation to correct one's terminology. It is expected that when language and the associated connotations behind language change, our behaviors as society should change, as well. And 'colored' is certainly not the only piece of terminology that has changed over time. For example, we no longer say 'Japs,' and doing so would be incorrect. On the other hand, the word 'gay' at one time never meant 'homosexual,' but that has changed.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds as if she might be on the defensive. This is the whole argument with privilege. One who benefits from preferential treatment in society can use the word 'colored' without malice and not understand why its incorrect. The fact is that 'colored' is outdated. All you have to do is look at the social and political upheaval during the Civil Rights era to understand why.

[marv2]

My sister who is 75 years old has just read this article, and she is absolutely horrified.

She had no idea that the term "coloured" was now deemed to be offensive, and wants to know how on earth she can be expected to keep up with these changes. She takes the view that the use of the word "black" instead of "coloured" is not better, just different. She thinks that instead of being evolutionary, it is just a matter of fashion until the next word comes along. She also does not see how offence can be taken where no offence is intended.

Furthermore, she does not see why she should change something she does not accept as being wrong or outdated, and says that expecting her to do so is out-and out ageism.

Does she have a valid point?


No she does not have a valid point. There was a time when people used the N-word freely to describe a person of color. It is an offensive term regardless of how old the person is that uses it.

[soulster]

I had to delete my original post because antceleb12 said it all better than I ever could, and caused me to reconsider my stance on the term.

As to 144 man's sister, she obviously does not understand that Black people picked the term "Black". White people picked "colored" for us. That is one of the reasons it can be offensive to some, or could expose the mindset of the person saying it as negative.

[soulster]

No she does not have a valid point. There was a time when people used the N-word freely to describe a person of color. And, there are still people who do it constantly. Now, i'm just waiting for some White person to come in here and justify its use just because too many Black people use it too. Are they going to also defend the use of the word "fag" because I see some gay guys use it? BTW, I do not approve of the use of either of those terms, and others.

[144man]

Ms M said on this site a couple of years ago on this site that she had been called a lot of worse things in her time than "coloured". What really offended her was that she might go for a job interview, be better qualified than a white person, but lose out on the job purely because of the colour of her skin.

I wonder why "person of colour" is all right, but "coloured" isn't. They seem very similar to each other. How do you expect an older person living in another country to understand that?

[144man]

Its not 'ageist' to expect someone of an older generation to correct one's terminology. It is expected that when language and the associated connotations behind language change, our behaviors as society should change, as well.


That's news to me. Who on earth made that rule up? I was brought up to believe that the views of the older generation should be respected. When did that change?

Criticising someone for using a term that is intrinsically offensive is commendable; criticising an older person simply for using a term which is outdated certainly is ageist.

[144man]

No she does not have a valid point. There was a time when people used the N-word freely to describe a person of color. It is an offensive term regardless of how old the person is that uses it.

My sister never has and never would use the N-word simply because she is not a racist. I certainly take her point about the next word coming along. How do you know that the next generation won't decide that the use of the word "black" is offensive? If so, would you be prepared to stop using it? How do you know that you wouldn't still be thinking it and slip up inadvertently?

[antceleb12]

That's news to me. Who on earth made that rule up? I was brought up to believe that the views of the older generation should be respected. When did that change?

Criticising someone for using a term that is intrinsically offensive is commendable; criticising an older person simply for using a term which is outdated certainly is ageist.

It's not that anyone made it up. It's that over time, people have realized that some ideas, even if they do come from an older generation, simply don't work. That's precisely how we've evolved over time. In America, we used to burn people as witches for having a different religion. The medical field also used to consider homosexuality to be a psychological disorder. We also used to segregate based on race, and we all know that segregation very clearly does not work. It's the same thing with terminology. The medical field has eliminated the term 'retarded' for people with cognitive and emotional limitations because A) of its negative connotations, and B) not all people with cognitive and emotional limitations are actually retarded. So when society realizes that something doesn't work anymore - or that its never worked to begin with - we change it.

I consider ageism to be expecting older people not to be able to do something - not expecting that they can do something. Expecting an older person to be "set in their ways" is ageist. I am not criticizing anyone for not automatically adjusting to the times. However, I DO expect ANY person, whether they are older or not, to be OPEN to changing their perceptions, rather than becoming defensive and refusing to accept changing ideas.

[soulster]

That's news to me. Who on earth made that rule up? I was brought up to believe that the views of the older generation should be respected. When did that change?

They shouldn't respected if they are offensive. An older person doesn't automatically command respect. Are we to respect, say, an old neo-nazi's views just because he or she's old?

I was brought up military, and with a military father who was from the deep south. Even he taught us that age doesn't automatically command respect.

[antceleb12]

I had to delete my original post because antceleb12 said it all better than I ever could, and caused me to reconsider my stance on the term.

As to 144 man's mother, she obviously does not understand that Black people picked the term "Black". White people picked "colored" for us. That is one of the reasons it can be offensive to some, or could expose the mindset of the person saying it as negative.

Excellent point, soulster.

[soulster]

My sister never has and never would use the N-word simply because she is not a racist. I certainly take her point about the next word coming along. How do you know that the next generation won't decide that the use of the word "black" is offensive? If so, would you be prepared to stop using it? How do you know that you wouldn't still be thinking it and slip up inadvertently?

You know what's interesting? There are now Black people who now view the term "Black" as offensive, as it was in the early part of the 20th century. But, like I said, Blacks people in the 60s adopted that term as our own "Say it loud, i'm Black and i'm proud!". Later, "African-American" would be accepted in the attempt to better associate with our ancestory. After all, if Cubans, Italians, Polish, Irish, and what-have-you Americans can hyphenate their cultural heritage, why can't Black Americans?

You avoid slipping by respecting those who wish to be called what they want, and not what YOU want to call them. By not doing that, it's like saying "I don't have to respect your wishes, or you, for that matter. I'll call you whatever I want, and you will accept it.".

[Crystaledwards]

Mr. Cumberbatch had the right sentiment but unfortunately showed an appalling lack of judgment with his choice of words; however he did give what seemed to be a genuine apology for unfortunately using an offensive and politically incorrect term. I will give him a pass on this one, but I am not trying to tell anyone else when it is okay to be offended, of course that is up to the individual.

Your sister doesn’t seem to think there is anything wrong with using the term but seems quick to play the ageism card, which is rather astonishing IMO. Perhaps you could politely explain to your sister that no, she doesn’t really have a valid point and tell her that her logic is rather outdated and potentially offensive in today’s society.

We as a society must reject racism, and teach our children, parents, grandparents, siblings and friends to do the same.

CE

[Jerry Oz]

It's funny, but 'colored' doesn't offend me in the least. Neither does 'Black', 'African [[or Afro) American', 'Nubian', or 'negro'. The other 'N' word offends me because of how it has been used toward me and others, many of whom were murdered after hearing it.

I'm growing more tired of objectifying people based on the simplest manner of identifying them. How lazy are people who want to make assumptions based on someone's skin color, hair color, manner of speech, or hair/eye color? And yet, my blood can keep the most vile racist alive if our blood types match. We're clearly more alike [[physically) than we are different.

http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll233/AURaptor/BloomCounty.jpg

[soulster]

Next time someone calls you "colored", just call 'em "pale face".

No one is calling for changing the name of The United Negro College Fund, or the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. I'm not looking to change "negro" on my birth certificate. Like Ms. M said, there are a lot of worse names out there. Shall we name them? :)

[Jerry Oz]

Nah, I'm good. I have been suggesting the Washington Redskins change their names to the Rednecks to honor a under represented people in the manner that the current name honors my native brothers. The owner of the team is honoring them by telling them that 'Redskin' is not a pejorative in spite of the fact that they're too stupid to realize it. I'm sure my Appalachian homeboy would appreciate the switch. And if they don't, screw 'em.

[soulster]

Nah, I'm good. I have been suggesting the Washington Redskins change their names to the Rednecks to honor a under represented people in the manner that the current name honors my native brothers.

They should change the name to the "Rednecks" to honor the fans of the original name.

[soulster]

http://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2015/01/27/history-of-the-word-colored-orig-mg.cnn

[Jerry Oz]

That's what I'm talking about. They wouldn't consider that, but they insist on 'honoring' people by telling them that a name that has NEVER been used in a positive exchange between Native Americans and Caucasians isn't offensive to the Native Americans. That sums up the failure in American race relations as succinctly as anything when the person calling you a 'n***er' has the balls to tell you he's doing it out of respect.

And that's the heart of this discussion that what may have been acceptable before, might never have been appropriate. And as said, language evolves as does cultural awareness. Best yet to avoid labeling people, but we'll never get away from that. Consider that Barack Obama will forever be the first 'African-American president' but he wasn't born in Africa and he has as much White blood as Black.

[144man]

I am wondering about the mechanism by which these changes take place. Obviously, it wasn't alright to say "coloured" one day and completely wrong the next day, so I presume it was a gradual process. At what stage did it become accepted as wrong, and who are the people that decided this?

[Jerry Oz]

Think about it like this: Who was it that determined that brown-skinned people should be considered 'colored' [[US) or 'coloured' [[UK)? Was it the people themselves or those of another race? Who was it that referred to Native Americans as 'Indians' or 'Redskins'? Was it them or someone else? Who chose to ignorantly refer to all East Asian peoples as 'Chinese'?

In most cases, the evolving names are chosen by free peoples who were once objectified by a dominant majority or minority of another race. Once given the choice, they decided that the classifications were not appropriate or respectful and did not accurately describe them as they chose to be described. BTW, there typically is no consensus on what they want to be called, but there is generally consensus on what is unacceptable.

If a Caucasian man calls a Black man 'boy' in 2015, there's going to be a fight. However, that is how they referred to us in the 1950s without issue, because a Black man striking a White man would have been killed back then. It is not appropriate to refer to any adult as a boy and it never was.

I'm sure some are wondering why it is not cool any more and when it changed. Well, it never was. And that's the point of 'colored' being a thing of the past.

[soulster]

At what stage did it become accepted as wrong, and who are the people that decided this?

Black people, that's who. Even back in the early 70s it was offensive. In the TV show "All In The Family", the Archie Bunker character was always saying "colored", and everyone else jumped on his case for it.

[144man]

Jerry, you've hit on what I'm really asking in your second paragraph. I understand how language changes. People will hear more people saying "black" instead of "coloured" and follow suit. What I don't understand is how people reach a consensus that something is unacceptable and how they know that a consensus has been reached when we're talking about millions of people.

[Jerry Oz]

Most just find out by listening, 144man. The last time most heard the word colored used in any capacity [[in the States, at least) was when Ms. Jane Pittman drank from the 'Whites Only' water fountain in the 1970s. There are no 'colored' designations on census forms or job applications because it's not exactly a secret that the word is no longer acceptable. There wasn't a convention where everybody of color decided they were going to change how they were to be described, if that's what you're wondering. But society evolved and given time and a voice, the people who are being described decided at least that they weren't going to accept the connotations that come with the word 'colored'.

[144man]

Black people, that's who. Even back in the early 70s it was offensive. In the TV show "All In The Family", the Archie Bunker character was always saying "colored", and everyone else jumped on his case for it.

What I'm really asking is how you get from "a few black people" to "most black people". How societies change through new ideas is not a subject I'm familiar with, and I'd like to learn something about it. It sounds very interesting.

[144man]

Most just find out by listening, 144man. The last time most heard the word colored used in any capacity [[in the States, at least) was when Ms. Jane Pittman drank from the 'Whites Only' water fountain in the 1970s. There are no 'colored' designations on census forms or job applications because it's not exactly a secret that the word is no longer acceptable. There wasn't a convention where everybody of color decided they were going to change how they were to be described, if that's what you're wondering. But society evolved and given time and a voice, the people who are being described decided at least that they weren't going to accept the connotations that come with the word 'colored'.

Do you think any changes are as a result of words used in newspapers and on television?

[Jerry Oz]

144man: How do you prefer to consider yourself? Are you an Anglo-Saxon, Brit, Englishman, or Caucasian? Or something else? I'll wager that there was some tag once placed upon your people that will make you wince to hear it, even today. It may not be racial; it might have to do with social class or cultural/ethnic background. If someone was to refer to you by that tag, would it make you react emotionally, even if they did it meaning no offense?

[144man]

I consider myself as someone who doesn't want to have any labels put on him.

[144man]

I'm not seeing my sister again till the weekend. I doubt if she'll be too happy when I show her this thread.

[Jerry Oz]

That's all of us. Unfortunately, labels are more for others than ourselves. Like I stated earlier, the president is called 'African-American' even though he never lived in Africa. If he's not that, then he's Black even though his mother was White. I have a confusing mix of Black, White, and Cherokee blood in my veins. But in the eyes of others, I'm 'Black' because my skin is brown.

If labels must be applied, I prefer to decide which I want to be applied to myself. It's not just race. Gay people have brought LGBT into popular usage for their communities and advocates for the disabled have removed 'retarded' from acceptability. If we must use labels, let's at least give ownership to those being labeled.

[Jerry Oz]

I'm not seeing my sister again till the weekend. I doubt if she'll be too happy when I show her this thread.Ask her if she wouldn't mind being called something that she considered offensive, even if it wasn't done to hurt her feelings. I'm interested in her response.

[144man]

Ask her if she wouldn't mind being called something that she considered offensive, even if it wasn't done to hurt her feelings. I'm interested in her response.

She had a guest staying with her recently who kept calling her "young lady". She didn't like that at all.

[Jerry Oz]

Then please tell her it's like that to have someone call you something that makes you chafe. And let her know that the chafing is not relatively new. Few, if any, ever wanted to be called 'coloured'.

[soulster]

How societies change through new ideas is not a subject I'm familiar with...

That is a very interesting statement!

Change always starts with youth, and those who are willing to rethink old notions, and are willing to change. I suppose some older people find it hard to change their way of thinking, and, instead, rely on crystallized thinking. Perhaps some of it comes from certain degrees of dementia. Perhaps, for others, it comes from stubbornness, and at worst, hostility.


I consider myself as someone who doesn't want to have any labels put on him.
That's fine, but realize that others are doing it for you whether you like it or not. Are you going to let them do it, or will you take control over it?

When you do the annual census, you do check a box, no? What do you call yourself on applications? Do you like or accept the options that are provided for you?

[soulster]

I'm not seeing my sister again till the weekend. I doubt if she'll be too happy when I show her this thread.

You have told us volumes with that confession, and that doesn't sound positive. If your sister isn't a racist, or have racist feelings, she shouldn't be upset about it.

[soulster]

That's all of us. Unfortunately, labels are more for others than ourselves. Like I stated earlier, the president is called 'African-American' even though he never lived in Africa. If he's not that, then he's Black even though his mother was White. I have a confusing mix of Black, White, and Cherokee blood in my veins. But in the eyes of others, I'm 'Black' because my skin is brown.
Exactly! We may see ourselves as one thing, and may in fact not be what we appear to be on the surface, but society sees what they want to see. It is a shame that President Obama is of mixes race, heritage, and culture, but most people thing of him as "African-American", and he also sees himself as that. It's that damn slave-era one-drop-rule mentality at play again. By calling himself Black, it's like he's not acknowledging his mother, sister, and his White grandparents.

[soulster]

She had a guest staying with her recently who kept calling her "young lady". She didn't like that at all.

See! There ya go! That's exactly how Blacks feel when you call them "colored". Many younger people get mighty upset when you call them "sir" or "m'am". Just call people what they want to be calls. It's about respect!

[144man]

You have told us volumes with that confession, and that doesn't sound positive. If your sister isn't a racist, or have racist feelings, she shouldn't be upset about it.

No. That's not what I meant. She'll be upset that she has upset anyone.

[Crystaledwards]

No. That's not what I meant. She'll be upset that she has upset anyone.

Then hopefully your sister will learn from this.

CE

[144man]

All,

Do you think I was wrong to start this thread?

[Crystaledwards]

All,

Do you think I was wrong to start this thread?

No. Your thread opened up a dialog about race which is very much needed in today's society.

CE

[antceleb12]

All,

Do you think I was wrong to start this thread?

Not at all. All of this dialogue is very valuable. A lot can be learned from the conversations taking place here.

[Methuselah2]

Past & Present:

9003

9004

[Jerry Oz]

All,

Do you think I was wrong to start this thread?
This thread and the 'Je Suis Charlie' thread are two of the best posts on this forum in the last year, IMO. Dialogue is good and it's good to see issues from all sides.

[soulster]

All,

Do you think I was wrong to start this thread?

No. It's totally fine.

[soulster]

No. That's not what I meant. She'll be upset that she has upset anyone. She hasn't upset anyone.

[roger]

Hasn't it occured to anyone here that when Mr Cumberbatch was talking about "inequality in The U.K. acting industry" he wouldn't specifically have been talking about people who are "Black", but rather people who are "Non-White"? The vast majority of people in The U.K. who are "Non-White" are of South-Asian descent [[Indian/Pakistani/Bangladeshi etc.) and many of them would probably not like being referred to as being "Black".

As to the word "Coloured", in my experience [[growing up in 1960s/70s England) it was used as a general term to describe "non-white" people, and some people would use it in preference to terms such as "Black" [[even if referring to someone who would consider themselves as being "Black") as they thought the term "Coloured" was more polite.

I'm a bit surprised that Mr Cumberbatch used the term "Coloured" as to me it sounds somewhat patronising and old-fashioned, but I'm also surprised that anyone actually finds it "offensive" and I suspect the motives of those who claim that they do. Does anyone, for example, find "offence" in this hit record from 1973 where the term is used?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KaWSOlASWc

I'm wondering how much distaste of the use of the word "Coloured" by "African-Americans" [[or in The U.K. by "Afro-Caribbeans") is down to its usage in Apartheid Era South Africa where the term "Coloured" meant "Mixed-Race" and was a designated racial-category [["Coloured" people had their own neighbourhoods that they were allowed to live in, schools they were allowed to attend, etc. etc. etc.) and "Black" people and "Indian" people were decidedly NOT "Coloured".

This is the current entry on Wikipedia about "South African Coloured People" ..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coloured

Roger

[soulster]

Hasn't it occured to anyone here that when Mr Cumberbatch was talking about "inequality in The U.K. acting industry" he wouldn't specifically have been talking about people who are "Black", but rather people who are "Non-White"? The vast majority of people in The U.K. who are "Non-White" are of South-Asian descent [[Indian/Pakistani/Bangladeshi etc.) and many of them would probably not like being referred to as being "Black".

As to the word "Coloured", in my experience [[growing up in 1960s/70s England) it was used as a general term to describe "non-white" people, and some people would use it in preference to terms such as "Black" [[even if referring to someone who would consider themselves as being "Black") as they thought the term "Coloured" was more polite.

I'm a bit surprised that Mr Cumberbatch used the term "Coloured" as to me it sounds somewhat patronising and old-fashioned, but I'm also surprised that anyone actually finds it "offensive" and I suspect the motives of those who claim that they do. Does anyone, for example, find "offence" in this hit record from 1973 where the term is used?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KaWSOlASWc

I'm wondering how much distaste of the use of the word "Coloured" by "African-Americans" [[or in The U.K. by "Afro-Caribbeans") is down to its usage in Apartheid Era South Africa where the term "Coloured" meant "Mixed-Race" and was a designated racial-category [["Coloured" people had their own neighbourhoods that they were allowed to live in, schools they were allowed to attend, etc. etc. etc.) and "Black" people and "Indian" people were decidedly NOT "Coloured".

This is the current entry on Wikipedia about "South African Coloured People" ..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coloured

Roger Well, there very well may be cultural differences at work here. AS you point out, Blacks and "coloureds" can mean anyone who is not white in the U.K. [[is that right?) . Here, in the U.S., it specifically means those with African ancestry. They do not call Mexicans, Indians, or American Indians [[so-called Native Americans) "colored" if they have brown skin.

Why did no one get upset over Lou Reed using the term? Because his use of the term fit in with the context of the song. After all, Lou Reed is gay, and he's talking about a transvestite prostitute. The lyrics were designed to amuse and shock. We know he didn't use the term in a derisive manner.

[roger]

Well, there very well may be cultural differences at work here. AS you point out, Blacks and "coloureds" can mean anyone who is not white in the U.K. [[is that right?) . Here, in the U.S., it specifically means those with African ancestry. They do not call Mexicans, Indians, or American Indians [[so-called Native Americans) "colored" if they have brown skin.

Well, I was talking specifically about 1960s and 1970s England Soulster. There were plenty of derogatory terms around used by the ignorant when talking about "non-white" people but "coloured" was considered to be polite.

Nowadays the preferred terms are "Black" to describe Africans or people of African origin who have links with The Caribbean, or "Asian" to describe people who have South Asian origin. Those two groupings would account for the overwhelming majority of "Non-White" residents here.

The term "Coloured" has generally gone out of common useage as the way of describing "Non-White" people in Britain, but if I hear someone older than me use it then I am not too surprised and I would not consider them to be using it to be derogatory.

Interesting that you state that the term "Colored" in The U.S. always meant "those with African ancestry" as in The U.K. it did include other groups.


Why did no one get upset over Lou Reed using the term? Because his use of the term fit in with the context of the song. After all, Lou Reed is gay, and he's talking about a transvestite prostitute. The lyrics were designed to amuse and shock. We know he didn't use the term in a derisive manner.

Well then, can I assume that if Mr Cumberbatch had revealed in that interview a taste for dressing up in womens' clothes and a secret attraction to one of the cameramen then his usage of the term "coloured" would have gone unnoticed!! :)

Roger

[soulster]

[QUOTE]... but if I hear someone older than me use it then I am not too surprised and I would not consider them to be using it to be derogatory.

As pointed out before, it says that they have a certain underlying negative mentality toward those races. BTW, did you ever show this thread to your sister?


Interesting that you state that the term "Colored" in The U.S. always meant "those with African ancestry" as in The U.K. it did include other groups.

That is why there seems to be a stronger reaction about this from we Americans.




Well then, can I assume that if Mr Cumberbatch had revealed in that interview a taste for dressing up in womens' clothes and a secret attraction to one of the cameramen then his usage of the term "coloured" would have gone unnoticed!! :)

Yup! There's nothing we Americans hate more than those socialist, atheist, cross-dressing homos who prey on our innocent, god-fearing youth and lead them a lifestyle of depraved homosexual sin. :)

[roger]

As pointed out before, it says that they have a certain underlying negative mentality toward those races. BTW, did you ever show this thread to your sister?

I think you are confusing me with 144man Soulster.

Actually I think it is a very strange world we live in where people presume to be able to judge "what people are really thinking" from their usage of terms such as the one under discussion. I would have thought that the only person who would know whether "they have a certain underlying negative mentality" would be the person actually uttering the words.

Roger

[soulster]

[QUOTE]I think you are confusing me with 144man Soulster. Oops! You're right.


Actually I think it is a very strange world we live in where people presume to be able to judge "what people are really thinking" from their usage of terms such as the one under discussion. I would have thought that the only person who would know whether "they have a certain underlying negative mentality" would be the person actually uttering the words.
Well, i've seen the pattern.

[Jerry Oz]

Circling back, it's very clear that Cumberbatch meant no offense with the term. If he did, he had his pick from many, less obscure phrases that he could drop. Oh, and he wouldn't have apologized which actually called attention to it. If someone called me colored, they'd probably get a 'f*ck you if you think I'm colored' response from me. If they then smiled, then so would I; no harm, no foul. If they called me the N-word or it's derivatives, it's probably cause to fight.

[144man]

"Selma star David Oyelowo,...the British actor [who] plays Martin Luther King in the civil rights drama has said he would not have secured the role if it had been for a non-colour-specific character.

"...He also defended Benedict Cumberbatch's use of the word "coloured" in a recent television interview.

"He said "Everyone has ended up ignoring the issue Benedict was talking about and focusing on that one word. It's actually stopped us talking about race. Look, Benedict is a good friend. He was simply expressing, as someone who has no dog in the fight, that his friends are getting better opportunities in the US than here. That's something worth examining. Instead, we get hung up on terminology"."

[Evening Standard, 2 February]

[Jerry Oz]

I noticed that there are a few actors who have obtained colorless roles. Many of Denzel Washington and Morgan Freeman's roles were likely written with White actors in mind. There's definitely not a level playing field but some are able to overcome the prejudices exhibited by studio executives like the Sony vice-president who suggested that Washington's films don't do well in the U.S. [[although he earns very well overseas). His last film exceeded expectations domestically.

[soulster]

I noticed that there are a few actors who have obtained colorless roles. Many of Denzel Washington and Morgan Freeman's roles were likely written with White actors in mind. There's definitely not a level playing field but some are able to overcome the prejudices exhibited by studio executives like the Sony vice-president who suggested that Washington's films don't do well in the U.S. [[although he earns very well overseas). His last film exceeded expectations domestically. Even though it was panned by the "critics".

[Jerry Oz]

Even though it was panned by the "critics".
And that'll be the executive's excuse the next time. If he exceeds projections at the box office [[in spite of limited promotion and releasing it during the annually slow period), they complain that he didn't do well domestically. If he does well domestically, they'll complain that he didn't do well with the critics. If he does well at the box office AND with the critics, they'll find something else.

[soulster]

And that'll be the executive's excuse the next time. If he exceeds projections at the box office [[in spite of limited promotion and releasing it during the annually slow period), they complain that he didn't do well domestically. If he does well domestically, they'll complain that he didn't do well with the critics. If he does well at the box office AND with the critics, they'll find something else.

Yet, their favorite whipping boy Adam Sandler continues to enjoy big theatrical releases despite how terrible the movies are, and the bad reviews they get. They always hold Black people to a different, harsher, standard.

[Jerry Oz]

Yet, their favorite whipping boy Adam Sandler continues to enjoy big theatrical releases despite how terrible the movies are, and the bad reviews they get. They always hold Black people to a different, harsher, standard.
Think about the love stories that have Black leads in them. After 'The Best Man' and 'Love Jones', I have to think really hard to come up with something. If it wasn't for Tyler Perry, productions with Black lead actors would probably be half of what they are. And even then - dear Lord! - those are Tyler Perry movies. His heart's in the right place, I guess.

Apparently, our stories aren't compelling. And somebody will make the argument that if we want to star in movies, then we need to produce them ourselves. My response to that is that Black folks probably spend a larger share of their dollars on movies than any other demographic. So the success or failure of these movies depends heavily on how many of us get out to see them. Consequently, we are producing them, although only for a couple of hours of escapism, not for any true return on investment.

[soulster]

Think about the love stories that have Black leads in them. After 'The Best Man' and 'Love Jones', I have to think really hard to come up with something. If it wasn't for Tyler Perry, productions with Black lead actors would probably be half of what they are. And even then - dear Lord! - those are Tyler Perry movies. His heart's in the right place, I guess.

Apparently, our stories aren't compelling. And somebody will make the argument that if we want to star in movies, then we need to produce them ourselves. My response to that is that Black folks probably spend a larger share of their dollars on movies than any other demographic. So the success or failure of these movies depends heavily on how many of us get out to see them. Consequently, we are producing them, although only for a couple of hours of escapism, not for any true return on investment.

But, all we get about Blacks are those stupid romantic comedies, or action adventure, where someone always plays a cop. It's like years ago when the only movies with Blacks were "hood" movies, or "Blaxploitation" films.

[Jerry Oz]

Don't forget the hard-assed Black police lieutenants that pop up in every cop flick to give the good guy a tongue-lashing. Usually, the 'good guy' is a White smart-ass with little respect for authority or rule of law, making the lieutenant look silly by laughing off threats to 'bounce his ass off the force' if he doesn't straighten out.

And if you watch television, I'm curious as to whether there are nearly as many young Black female medical examiners in the US as there are on the three networks. Usually that's a way to 'diversify' the cast with somebody who is not critical to the ensemble.

[westgrandboulevard]

Apart from acting appearances in movies and on TV, do you feel that Blacks/African-Americans are given a fair proportional representation on national US TV as presenters?

[marv2]

Apart from acting appearances in movies and on TV, do you feel that Blacks/African-Americans are given a fair proportional representation on national US TV as presenters?

I do feel there is proportional representation in the area local television news programs for instance. That took years to accomplish, but I feel it is now more representative of the general population and viewing audience.

[westgrandboulevard]

That's good to hear. Over here in the UK, there would seem to be a real effort to represent many different races, particularly Black, Caribbean and Asian, on television programmes. There will also be many who have a mixed-race background, which apparently is the fastest growing ethnic group in the UK.

Clive Myrie [[English born, to Jamaican parents) is now a journalist and foreign correspondent with a distinguished career, and who is also a presenter on BBC News Channel, and often presents BBC1 primetime news at weekends.

You also may be familiar with Sir Trevor McDonald's career.

However, there appear to be no black people here with the media profile of Oprah Winfrey. She is clearly exceptionally successful,and being black did not appear to hold her back. Maybe it was even an advantage....

[soulster]

Apart from acting appearances in movies and on TV, do you feel that Blacks/African-Americans are given a fair proportional representation on national US TV as presenters?

I seriously do, especially on local news outlets. But, in the movies, not so much. But, here's the catch: many are bi-racial, or light-skinned. It is still rare to see a dark-skinned Black person on TV.

Here in the U.S., there has been a major effort to include other ethnic and racial minorities on TV. And, as Marv says, they may actually be over-represented in some cases. Be that as it may, there is still a pay disparity, and a glass ceiling. And, finally, the people who are in power are still mostly White males.

[144man]

David Oyelowo also said, "The only way I get a leading role in a studio picture is if Ryan Gosling can't play it, which is clearly the case with "Selma". If this was a non-colour specific character, it wouldn't be me. It just wouldn't."

[Jerry Oz]

When Fox started their network in the '90s, they were only broadcasting on Sunday nights for two hours or week. Their shows? 'Roc', 'In Living Colour', 'Herman's Head', and 'Martin'. Three of those shows had predominately Black casts. Over the next few years, they scored hits with 'Living Single', 'The Jamie Foxx Show', '21 Jump Street', and 'New York Undercover', each of which featured Black actors in lead roles.

They also snagged viewers with late night talk shows starring Arsenio Hall and Keenan Ivory Wayans. The only show on Fox in the last five years that features a Black lead is this year's 'Empire'; the only other one with a non-White lead is 'The Mindy Project'. So, even though they proved that shows with Black leads and subject matter succeed, they are few and far between on Fox.

When my Dad wonders why there are no 'White Entertainment TV' channels to rival BET, my brother reminds him that NBC, ABC, CBS, CW, and Fox already are WET in this country.

[Jerry Oz]

David Oyelowo also said, "The only way I get a leading role in a studio picture is if Ryan Gosling can't play it, which is clearly the case with "Selma". If this was a non-colour specific character, it wouldn't be me. It just wouldn't."
There was a post on the main forum a few months ago that highlighted an article that suggested that a White woman may play Whitney Houston in a few years. If that's the case, then even the 'race-specific' roles may be featuring Caucasian actors.

[soulster]

There was a post on the main forum a few months ago that highlighted an article that suggested that a White woman may play Whitney Houston in a few years. If that's the case, then even the 'race-specific' roles may be featuring Caucasian actors.

That's not surprising. Whites and other non-Black people have been playing roles meant for Blacks forever. They just don't wear blackface paint.