But not Brit--British. Then again, one can turn *anything* into a slur. Haters will pick up on anything and do it because changing the labels doesn't change the minds. Several years ago in a bar, some friends and I tested it out by being bigoted toward each other for totally non-political things. We called each other Pink Shirt and Baseb…
But not Brit--British. Then again, one can turn *anything* into a slur. Haters will pick up on anything and do it because changing the labels doesn't change the minds. Several years ago in a bar, some friends and I tested it out by being bigoted toward each other for totally non-political things. We called each other Pink Shirt and Baseball Cap and and hurled those labels as though they were the n-word. We were in hysterics. It's why I'm not in favour of constantly rendering new neutral words 'offensive'. It's just silly that you can say 'people of colour' now rather than 'coloured people'. I asked my black roommate in college why you can't say 'coloured people' anymore (which was acceptable ten years prior) and she said she wasn't sure, maybe making reference to skin colour at all? Then there's Negro, which is merely the Spanish word for black; yeah, that's where the verboten n-word comes from, but pronounced properly there's nothing offensive about it. The only thing that ever confused me as a kid was calling folks 'black people', since none of them were black. Until I saw some Original Africans who truly were black-skinned.
"I asked my black roommate in college why you can't say 'coloured people' anymore (which was acceptable ten years prior) and she said she wasn't sure"
The "logic"behind this is that it was considered dehumanising to put anything in front of the "people" part. It's why it became "people of colour." Somehow, black people remained acceptable though. Maybe "people of blackness" was too ridiculous even for the language police.
Others objected to "coloured" because it separated humanity into white people and everybody else. Which is exactly what "BIPOC" does now. Basically, what I'm saying is, you will find no internal logical consistency. It's just people for whom taking offence is a hobby.
But not Brit--British. Then again, one can turn *anything* into a slur. Haters will pick up on anything and do it because changing the labels doesn't change the minds. Several years ago in a bar, some friends and I tested it out by being bigoted toward each other for totally non-political things. We called each other Pink Shirt and Baseball Cap and and hurled those labels as though they were the n-word. We were in hysterics. It's why I'm not in favour of constantly rendering new neutral words 'offensive'. It's just silly that you can say 'people of colour' now rather than 'coloured people'. I asked my black roommate in college why you can't say 'coloured people' anymore (which was acceptable ten years prior) and she said she wasn't sure, maybe making reference to skin colour at all? Then there's Negro, which is merely the Spanish word for black; yeah, that's where the verboten n-word comes from, but pronounced properly there's nothing offensive about it. The only thing that ever confused me as a kid was calling folks 'black people', since none of them were black. Until I saw some Original Africans who truly were black-skinned.
"I asked my black roommate in college why you can't say 'coloured people' anymore (which was acceptable ten years prior) and she said she wasn't sure"
The "logic"behind this is that it was considered dehumanising to put anything in front of the "people" part. It's why it became "people of colour." Somehow, black people remained acceptable though. Maybe "people of blackness" was too ridiculous even for the language police.
Others objected to "coloured" because it separated humanity into white people and everybody else. Which is exactly what "BIPOC" does now. Basically, what I'm saying is, you will find no internal logical consistency. It's just people for whom taking offence is a hobby.