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

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".

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

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!

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.

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

You have been told ....again

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.

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

You ok with that absent?

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.

Can't agree. Slippery slopes and all that.

We need some rules.

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!

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.

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

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.

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'?

Perhaps calling someone 'a Jew' rather than Jewish, is similar to calling someone 'a diabetic' rather than saying someone 'has diabetes' ? It's not the whole defining part of that person, rather just one aspect of them?

Yes Grumpa.
Two of my DGCs have dual heritage - American/British.
To muddy the waters still further, DS was born in Hongkong and is therefore a Hongkong belonger, and American DiL's great-grandmother was French, something in which she takes pride, and she has visited the ancestral village in NE France.
But I suppose you would say that the DGCs are white caucasian, if you had to categorise them.
Complicated, isn't it?

Anya what DH couldn't understand was that he could refer to someone as a Muslim and that was acceptable, but is it? Egg shells all over the place.

With Jew, is it the race or the religion to which you are referring?

A Muslim is simply a follower of Islam and can be of any ethnic group.

Muslim is a regions description not racial.

It's relatively easy to keep up with changes in meaning, and acceptability or otherwise of certain phrases, if you want to. And if you think it's important.

They don't change that often - as I said earlier and even Rod Liddle (not very PC he!) in the Spectator article also said, it's decades since Coloured People was acceptable.

How many grans would like a grandchild to be referred to as 'Retarded'? That description was in common usage not so long ago - I doubt if many of us had trouble dropping that one.

Ipad! Religious not region

xd posts Galen!

As Jonathan Miller said in Beyond the Fringe: "Actually I'm not a Jew, just Jewish: not the whole hog."

I don't understand why inverted snobbishness has to rear it's ugly head as the word/term coloured is not the bastion of any one class (hate the term class more than coloured)

I am getting almighty tired of treading on egg shells over what I can or cannot say, what is or is not politically correct because there is simply so much hypocrisy and abuse of what is or is not upsetting to an individual.

Labour peer Oona King upset 'some' because she joked about Culture Secretary Ed Vaizy running late for a BAFTA lecture which was all about the how to get more minority and ethnic groups acting parts. Lenny Henry had been quite vocal at the time as to why there were so few parts for 'black'' actors. Oona King said " He is a different type of Minister, he runs on 'black people time, so welcome Ed". Lenny Henry said "What's that? I don't know why she said that". He then did the right thing by not making a song and dance but turned it into a joke and said " I was on time , 'the white guy was late".

Singer Pixie Lott was branded a racist 'by some' because she had a fancy dress birthday party and went as Tiger Lilly from Peter Pan. She was pounced on for wearing war paint and an Indian headdress calling her ignorant and racial stereotyping.

She is not the first and won't be the last to be called a racist but that in itself has a serious side. When the use of words/terms such as black,white,coloured, are seen to be offensive, degrading, racist then they will inevitably be seen as 'no go areas' and I find that quite a dangerous situation and I believe does actually have the reverse effect and people will feel so confused, worried to be able to use them it will be easier not to mix,integrate with people for fear of a backlash or being called racist where nothing was further from the truth.

I have many friends from various backgrounds. Not one of them cannot differentiate between when a comment is made with no malice what so ever, as with Benedict Cumberbatch, as opposed to when it is used with malice. They, like myself, do not find the words/terms an issue but the way they were used and the intention is.

I went to a friends house for Diwali. Her dear aged Uncle said 'Are any more of your White Friends coming'. That would count as being racist if the boot was on the other foot but it wasn't, it was just stating/asking a fact. I had a lot of people mentioning my 'white ethnicity' during the day/night and I found no issue with it all.