Defence or unwanted interference?

I don't think 'non-white' is acceptable, soon because it suggests that 'white' is the standard. It is a minefield and as bags says, the acceptable terms keep changing. A brief history: in the ignorant 1970s us teachers used to talk about EFL (English as a foreign language) and then it was pointed out that people resident in this country weren't foreigners so we started to say ESL (English as a second language). Then it was pointed out that many of the learners actually spoke several languages so that term devalued their heritage. So we started saying ESOL (English for speakers of other languages). Other terms have gone through similar processes but I won't go there because some of the obsolete words are now actually offensive. The really awful thing is that we are all, constantly, labelling and categorising other people to establish difference.

I thought we were talking about an article written by one woman about one particular situation. I should have realised that it would soon stray off into "political correctness gone mad" territory.

It's funny how often black people are described as having "chips on their shoulders" when they express a view that is different from the white population or when they try to stand up for themselves. My husband was thought to have a "chip on his shoulder" because he refused to answer to the English name that his white colleagues had assigned to him.

I personally feel that the woman who wrote the article was being unnecessarily unpleasant in her choice of words and general tone. However, I don't understand why her expressing such an opinion should then be seen as an opportunity to start banging on about political correctness.

And *soontobe" I'm not quite sure what you mean by "the racial situation in this country is becoming over egged". If you mean that you think racism isn't really much of an issue, I wonder what qualifies you to make that pronouncement since you are white and are unlikely to have experienced it.

I quite agree again.

Yes, Lilygran We label and categorise so as to establish the difference, not to ignore it and treat everyone the same.

It is the government who has got things wrong.
They want everyone labelled into little boxes.
I refuse to do those tick box things at the end of some government forms.
[not sure if they still have them?]

Insofar as a grading according to skin colour may be necessary for some purposes a neutral system is required that does not imply that e.g. white or black is the norm.

How about something based on the Pantone colour system?

Why do we need to 'establish difference'? It's usually perfectly obvious! There are times when treating everyone the same is perfectly appropriate and times when it's discriminatory. Playing games with terminology doesn't assist in either case.

Good morning Petallus (I'm in the U.S.)

I agree people should be free to write articles, as long as they don't incite hatred etc as defined by the law.
But other people are free to criticise what the author has written.

I don't think the scenario I envisaged - of a white person being threatened or abused by a non-white person - is that unlikely.
My DS was once taunted by a group of Asian youths in East London, but got on the DLR before anything worse happened.
He and a friend, when they were about 21, were also attacked by a larger gang of 15 year old Caucasian youths, on their way home from the pub in the Northumberland village where we live.
In this instance, they were rescued by a group of girls who called the police on their mobiles, just in time to save my son from having his head kicked in.

Was that patronising behaviour on the part of the girls? Of course not.
You used the word patronising, I didn't, because I don't think the woman in the Sydney case was patronising.
Should the girls who rescued DS and his friend have stood back because their feelings might have been hurt at being rescued by girls? Of course not.

I'm really sorry that this thread has descended into bickering about political correctness, when really it should have been about being a Good Samaritan and helping our fellow men no matter what.

Let's not forget that the Rochdale child sex abuse situation came about because people were too afraid of crossing cultural lines to take the right and appropriate action at the right time.

Hi all, been out for a late breakfast (at a garden center - but that is another thread). I am pleased that most think "people of colour" is not an acceptable term. It can be difficult to describe ethnic groups without appearing racist, non-white is just as bad as it implies a division. I try to use terms like European, African, Asian etc as these are correct and should not cause any offence. But I would only use these terms if I need ed to differentiate between ethnic groups for non racist reason.

As STB says, perception of racism can be a very personal view. We also see positive racism where people are in job (often in the public eye) just to balance things up. Similarly we get a call for more women in politics etc, surely it should be the best people regardless of race, sex etc.

Pompa will put his soapbox away for a while, XXX & to everyone - except Grumppa, he only gets the

I agree with all of that, pompa.

Eleothan's last sentence 'I wonder what qualifies you to make that pronouncement since you are white and are unlikely to have experienced it' is apt.

A thread with posts by predominately white people who think they know better than someone who is not white about people of colour feeling patronised by 'helpful' white people! Maybe just a little patronising? .

janeainsworth may well be a different situation in the U.S.

Where a lone person is being attacked by a gang of youths (regardless of ethnic origin of any of the parties) and is in danger of losing their life, help would be welcome from any quarter since the person being attacked would be heavily outnumbered. A phone call to the police or wading in would be entirely appropriate, especially if the rescuer did not video the whole incident and post it on the social media afterwards.

pompa "Positive discrimination" for women and minority groups in this country is not enshrined in law. To suggest that black people have in some cases been given jobs "just to balance things up" is, I think, insulting. I have already mentioned on another thread that various pieces of research have clearly demonstrated that black people are discriminated against in the employment and housing market and within the judicial system

Women and black people are poorly represented in politics and are significantly less likely to hold high level positions in private and public organisations. By saying the criteria that should be used is that the "best people" are selected, you are in effect saying that because women and black people are not represented at these high levels this indicates that, on the whole, they are just not up to it.

petallus I think the article raised some important issues and, of course, the person that wrote it has every right to put her point of view. However, it is just her opinion and perhaps there are other black people who have a different point of view. I think the writer was making unfounded assumptions about the attitude and character of the young woman who intervened. As I said before, if the people who were being abused had felt her involvement was patronising or unhelpful, why would they thank her? In an atmosphere where Muslim people have reported being abused, spat at and even assaulted in public areas, surely somebody intervening - even if that intervention could be perceived as heavy handed, is better than just ignoring what is happening?

I think that the whole thing comes down to what the people who were being abused wanted to happen in that situation.
That is partly what I mean about overegging.
Why cant the two people who were being abused, be allowed to stand up for themselves. They have a voice. They are capable.

I realise that my kids work and live with other professionals.
I dont really want to make a distinction between professionals and non professionals, but perhaps people think outcomes in situations are different depending on who is being abused?

Elothane, I agree it is insulting, but I believe is was (and may still be) happening especially in the media. All jobs should be filled on merit alone, but my experience and observation tells me that this is not always the case. One would hope that this situation will improve, but I suspect slowly.

Also "By saying the criteria that should be used is that the "best people" are selected, you are in effect saying that because women and black people are not represented at these high levels this indicates that, on the whole, they are just not up to it."
You are making your own assumptions regarding what I am saying, that is NOT my view. Colour, race or creed should never be a consideration when choosing the best candidate for any position.

pompa I agree, colour/race/creed should never be considered - but unfortunately the evidence shows that it is. So those that do achieve high office are not necessarily "the best". Since it is clear that anti-discriminatory legislation has not prevented discriminatory practices, it's hardly surprising that some people feel more pro-active measures should be considered in order to level the playing field.

In what areas of the media do you think people have been employed, in effect, "for show". Your comment implies that, had they been white, they would not have been considered good enough to do the job. Any examples?

I think you used one important word "has" (not hat I'm implying that all you other words are of lesser importance)

Many (if not most) of the people in power are white (and I do mean this as a racist term).
This IMO is because, in recent history (last 60 years or so) those that came from the red brick universities like OxBridge, got there via the public school system. Apart from a very few, this cost their parents a lot of money.
At that time immigrants into this country were not in a financial position to send their children tp public school ( even if they would have been accepted because of their colour)
The result of this is only a minority of non-whites achieved an educational standard to aspire to higher positions, this was due to the system and racism.
The result of this is what we saw until much more recent years.
WE then went through several years where non-whites WERE discriminated against purely because of colour regardless of their ability.
In recent years things have changed, non-whites get equality in education and progress to university and achieve in their chosen career.
The public school system is I believe slow to make this change and it's output is still predominantly white.
Where are we now - all those capable can get to university regardless of colour, race or creed. Those young people will replace the old school over the next few years.
There was also another form of racism, regional, only recently do we hear regional accents on TV.

Things are changing it has been a slow exponential process but we are on the upper part of the curve today.

I have used terms like non-white & colour because I could not think of a better way to describe the situation that existed and they would have been the terms at the time. I do not like them.

Agree, Pompa, but I don't think that "red-brick" means Oxbridge. Redbrick is the newer ones that were founded (comparatively) recently, and whose alumni were for a long time regarded by some as second-class scholars who would not have got into Oxbridge. That has been/is changing as well, so perhaps the future will see more of the establishment not mostly being not white Oxbridge graduates?

An extra not crept in there, making a double negative. Ignore it.

The future certainly will, elegran. The northern "redbricks", Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle, to name but three, have been very well respected universities for several generations, and there have been and are plenty of graduates from and clever students at them who are not "people of no colour" like you and me.

A couple of points pompa.

When I was at Oxbridge 50 years ago the public school undergrads. in my college were outnumbered by those from grammar and direct grant schools, and this was not untypical. There was a change when a lot of grammar and direct grant schools went private, and this tipped the scales the other way in a relatively short time.

And a lot of independent schools in urban areas which are former direct grants and/or firmly in the public school tradition are day schools which reflect the local mix of population and their aspirations. Certainly true in my part of London, and I have heard it said of the West Midlands as well.

A lot of ground-breaking research is done in "provincial" universities, by people of all backgrounds. The image of them as glorified polytechnics is way out of date - as is the image of any university as full of languid socialites living high in the hog with unlimited access to a bottomless family moneypit. It takes hard work to get a decent degree, and dedication to go on to post-grad work when you could be earning and settling down.

Further education is open to all those who want to learn, and entry to degree courses to all have proved that they ^can" learn.

Traditionally, the "ruling classes" have sent their scions to Oxbridge. The one thing they do gain there is that they mix with others who believe that their destiny is as leaders of the country, which encourages them to go into politics. Perhaps sending William to St Andrews was a key move in widening this concentration? I don't know the percentage of non-WASPS in St Andrews (not very high I imagine but I could be wrong) but it can't do any harm.

I went to Oxbridge from a provincial grammar school in 1960. The school took about 10% of the local kids based on the 11+ which everyone took. It sent about five a year to Oxbridge and about 20 to other universities out of a total school population of 600+. It cost my parents very little because I got a grant, as everyone did who passed their A levels and was offered a place.No tuition fees and a contribution towards living costs. A few days ago, I spoke to a young man who is in his first year at my old college (women only when I was there!) and he said he had never expected 'someone like me' would end up at Oxbridge. That makes me so . So many prejudices and misunderstandings! And I agree with grumppa about the balance of independent and state schools. When my DS and DDiL went to Oxbridge, in the 1980s, there seemed to be a lot fewer from state schools.

I find it worrying that this racist rant incident happened in Australia, where not so long ago the slogan was 'I'll ride with you' after the dreadful café siege.

Stacey has obviously taken on board that slogan.
Good for her.

Hi all , I stand corrected regarding my description of red brick unis. I meant it to include all the established unis rather than those that have converted in recent years.
I am pleasantly surprised that so many ex state school students got to OxBridge back in the 60's.
I am reliably informed by my daughter, who works in this sector, that the current term for non-whites in statistics is BME (black, minority, ethnic). IMO this is not an improvement.