"It's the Thing that counts..."

The trouble with some substitutions (e.g. 'of dual heritage' for 'mixed race' - KatyK 29 Jan, 1736) is that the meaning gets diluted. It could be argued that anyone born of a non-incestuous relationship is of dual heritage.

'Of dual community'?

Mishap My DH referred to someone as a Jew and was pulled up sharp by DGS. Calling someone a Jew is anti-Semitic, we have to say Jewish these days. Shylock is a Jewish money lender now, not Shylock the Jew...DH googled it. DGS is sixteen, we tend to bow to his superior knowledge these days just so we can keep up to speed in this ever changing world.

Like the stick. Should all sticks be burnt because some anti-social people have used them to hurt someone?

What about the word Jew? - some people use it as an insult, but in other contexts it is perfectly acceptable. No-one has suggested abandoning the word just because some people are crass enough to use it as an insult.

But the rules vary from person to person - one person's insult is entirely acceptable to another. Who decides these rules? Someone decides to use an acceptable word as an insult and it gradually filters through to more and more people - that's not a proper rule. It's a minefield!

Can't agree. Slippery slopes and all that.

We need some rules.

Heavens above - all that matters is the intention of the words. No-one can keep up with the latest PC and should not be denigrated for that. The state of what is and what is not acceptable is variable and personal - there is no way that I or anyone else can know an individual's word preferences.

If someone is being intentionally insulting or racist that will be clear from the content of what they are saying. If it is of good intent then the use of a word that some might dislike should be neither here nor there.

Says on Wiki that it's name is "retained in accordance with tradition".

You ok with that absent?

I would agree with Riverwalk here. The name would be historical. It is oviously an admirable association, doing a lot of good work, so naturally they would be reluctant to give up the name they started out with. I think that's fine.

'unlike lots of other posters here' ..... sorry folks, withdraw immediately.

You have been told ....again

It doesn't bother me and, clearly, it doesn't bother those people it was set up to help. I am not doing a storm in a teacup, unlike lots of other posters here.

The NAACP I presume, kept 'Colored' for historical reasons - I don't know.

Why don't you ask them absent as it seems to bother you!

I hate spell check. I must switch it off. And, not sand, and years, not hers.

The Association still exists and is still working – in the twenty-first century Anya. Civil rights is still a contemporary issue in many countries. One of the problems in the George W election was people disenfranchised illegally – and surprising many of them were black sand likely Democrat voters. Also, there were signs put up in black communities reminding them to vote –but the date was the day after the election. A few hers ago, not "history".

All very well but that's history. We're talking about today, the 21st century.

bags I just thought her surname was ironic. I think she was an extraordinary and rather wonderful woman from what I know about her, although that isn't much. It was very brave to set up a civil rights group for coloured people (and that is the term that was chosen and it included both back and white peoples initiators) to oppose the Jim Crow laws and other disgusting racist abuses. I am full of admiration for their foresight and courage.

The fictional character, Eugenia 'Skeeter' Phelan is another such woman. I expect there were quite a few such in the fight against slavery and racism.

Sorry I misunderstood you, GT. It happens.

White people were among the first to challenge racism so I don't think an apology is required for the founding 'white' Elizabeth of the Nat Assoc for the Advancement of Colored People. She presumably saw that something was wrong and tried to do something about it, just like Cumberbatch.

Just in case anyone wants to get angry about me defending a white person's role in the association absent has mentioned, the most important word in my first sentence above is "among". I'm puzzled that you thought her skin colour was worthy of remark, absent. She was a woman who tried to do something useful. Why do we need to know her skin colour? I compare her in my mind to prison reformers. Same kind of social conscience at work, I think. The sort of conscience that just regards people as people.

I think there is a difference of attitude and usage about the word colored in the US and coloured in the UK. I should still like someone to respond to my question about the civil rights group The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, founded, I think, in 1909, and still going strong. (Mind you, I still find it gently ironic that one of the founder members was called [Elizabeth?] White and was, I think, a white person. Just an unfortunate coincidence of name.)

Mamacaz - there are plenty fb people who use offensive words in a totally offensive way and then pretend to be shocked when you say you have found it offensive. It's not my responsibility to sort out who is being deliberately offensive or otherwise but it's their responsibility to know how to behave in society. I would only make exceptions for really old people - over 80(?) and the very young who would be naturally curious. Then I have a simple explanation for them.

Thatbags - your post of 16.28 is, to coin a word, crap. In respect of asking people about their disability, I qualified my comments with the words appropriate/relevant. Thus I would expect someone to ask me if I were taking part in a physical activity or if I were seeking medical attention - but not at a bloody social occasion or sitting on a train or whatever ir at a concert

I don't know how many posters on this thread are personally affected by this issue. I'm always amazed at how often people decide that a particular term is perfectly OK and not at all offensive, when that term is not one that will ever be used to describe them.

I agree that some people actually relish being "offended" but I believe they are in the minority. I think it is reasonable to say that if it appears that the majority of a particular group prefers not to be referred to in a certain way, it is right that their feelings be respected. My husband and all the non-white people I know do not like to be referred to as coloured because of its associations.

We already know that for people in the US, the term "colored" is associated with a time when black people, under the ridiculous facade of "separate but equal development", were denied any semblance of dignity and basic human rights.

In apartheid South Africa, people were sorted into different categories - white, coloured, Indian and black. "Coloured" and "Indian" people had more rights than "Black" people. Perhaps therefore the term "coloured" is also unconsciously associated with a system that "sorted" people by degrees of colour and encouraged them to see themselves as either superior or inferior, dependent on what particular shade they happened to be.

It does, on the face of it, seem a bit contrary to object to the term "coloured woman" and yet find the term "woman of colour" acceptable. But how language is used changes all the time and similar precedents had already been set (e.g. when it became more acceptable to refer to "people with disabilities" than "disabled people"). I do see the reasoning behind it but feel that it takes some time for everybody to get used to the changes, and I don't think that using an old fashioned term necessarily indicates disrespect.

I am, like many others, surprised that a person of Cumberbatch's age is not aware that the term "coloured" has not been in favour for many years.

On the point of making personal comments about a person's disability, would it be acceptable to ask a stranger or casual acquaintance what caused the serious scar on her face?

I've often wondered: who exactly decides what is the latest "acceptable" term, and effectively outlaws the previous one? Does it happen naturally, or is most of it filtered to us down from public bodies who feel they have to change things for the sake of it, in an attempt to justify their existence?

Surely, most of us would not deliberately insult anyone, but perhaps I'm very naïve, because I don't see why the average person would be offended by the use of an "out of fashion" word or expression used in a non-offensive way. I'm very much in the camp that thinks that it is the sentiment that is important, not the word itself.

My Irish dad never objected to being called Paddy, Mick, Bogtrotter, people coming up to him and saying 'top of the morning' and 'begorrah' 'seen any leprechauns today Seamus' etc. In fact he thought it was funny. He used to tell Irish jokes. Times have moved on.