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

How about 'a person of pallor' soontobe?

Have you not lived through times when 'coloured people' was used disparagingly? Or read any books when the same kind of terminology was used by people looking down on black people?

Galen - I thought the issue wasn't about being described as a disabled person but that someone could feel free ask you about it and that if you minded this it meant you were ashamed or embarrassed about your disability

I would have thought anyone with any emotional intelligence at all would be able to appreciate that 'coloured people' is offensive, whilst 'people of colour' is simply descriptive. If you don't see that then.... [shrug]

Cumberbatch must have been raised in the ark.

Elegan-why on earth would anyone ask a total stranger with a leg in plaster what had happened? Offer to help yes if appropriate eg offer a seat, hold a door open. I am not in the slightest ashamed or embarrassed about my disability but WTF should anyone feel they can ask me about it? It's my disability to mention or not as I see fit. I accept necessary help, I ask for necessary help but I don't have to explain the cause to anyone and none should be asking.

Lets mix it up.
I dont actually like being called white much.
I know I am pale, but not that pale.
And white is just so wrong.

If mixed marriages were compulsory, rather than voluntary and often frowned upon, all offspring would be lovely toasty colours and then perhaps the need for all this angst would disappear.

Anyone who wanted to be insulting (or be insulted) would then find some other little detail to seize upon.

elegran as a disabled person I have no objection to being so called! ( particularly when it means I can skip the queue for the ladies and go straight to the disabled one! Well there must be some compensations)
I must say I like being one of retiredguy's 'Hell's grannies' it fits what my darling daughter says about my scooter driving.

Id rather be brown, that'd mean it was lovely warm and sunny. Which it certainly isn't.
Surely man of colour is ungrammatical?

GranntTwice If you break a leg and go around with it in plaster, then even a stranger will ask you how you did it without you being embarrassed.

There is nothing to be ashamed or embarrassed about in having a chronic disability which causes you to walk as unevenly as a plastered leg. Having people treat it as something not to be mentioned is to make it something to hide, to be ashamed of.

Reminds me of an old joke about Paddy and his friend Mick (there you are, it is racist even before it starts! Substitute Kevin and Dick if you like)

They went to the horse sales and each bought a horse, which they planned to keep in the same small field.

Kevin -"But how shall we tell them apart?"

Dick - "We'll tie a ribbon on the tail of mine" So they did. but the ribbon fell off, so they were back to the drawing board.

Kevin - We could paint a green patch onto the back of mine." so they did. but the rain washed off the paint.

Dick - "How about cutting the mane of one of them into a pattern?"

Kevin - "Oh what a good idea! Shall we cut the mane of the black or the grey?"

Not either - I meant with

Elegran - was your point about the use of the word cripple? In that case, I take your point because I accept that people either no ill intent will use what is now an unacceptable word. However, if it is also about mentioning the disability , then that's a different point.

There isn't a ruling to give, NotTooOld That is what makes it difficult. A word may be fine with some people and offend others, who would themselves be perfectly OK with something that the first one doesn't like. Something may be a bland description one week, and taken up by bullies the next as an insult.

It's as bad as clothes fashions.

The only defence is never to mention skin colour at all - but if you are describing someone and give details of everything they are wearing and carrying, how can you miss out the most obvious characteristic of all - their skin, hair, type of features, shape of eyes . . .

An excellent article.

My sister who lived in London was horrified when I used 'coloured' a few years ago. She accused me of being ignorant. I was. Most of us are. we don't keep up with the latest slang and latest terms for ANYTHING let alone what to call 'people of colour' (apparently the latest term, but she prefers black, so is she now ignorant?).

I was asked how to identify a friend of my son's to a local lately. I really had to think hard. Could I say 'curly black hair'? Or 'big brown eyes'? In the end, I settled for 'Really good-looking, with the most beautiful skin the colour of milk chocolate'.

To which she replied 'Oh, he's coloured then?'.

I read a comment on another forum last night to the effect that 'person of colour' is more respectful than 'coloured person' because it puts the person before the colour in the same way that Downs children are now referred to as 'children with Downs Syndrome' which puts the child before the syndrome.

I wish I could figure out why it is okay to describe someone as white but not black.

Can someone give us a ruling on this? I'm terrified to open my mouth in front of a black/coloured/ethnic person of colour now, except I guess most of them would laugh at me whichever I chose to use - we are all just 'people' aren't we? Yeah, let's stick to that.

Incidentally,should firms be asking for ethnic background any more? (see loopylou's post above). I know they do, but I'm surprised it has not become illegal.

By the way are all questions requesting ethnic origin going to be changed?
They clearly state ' black' when filling in recruitment paperwork!

I thought too that 'black' was PC, as was 'coloured', clearly not!

It's all rubbish. Coloured man, man of colour - what's the difference? I thought it was PC to refer to 'black man' currently? Anyone can call me a 'white woman' if they wish. Why would I care, even though I'm actually more pink than white?

As a pretty well-educated individual I do struggle to keep up Grannytwice.
Who the heck spends their time thinking up these 'changes', and then imposes them on everyone else?
So long as a word is not used as an insult, as sunseeker says, then why change?
A friend of mine from Trinidad says the world's gone bonkers, there are far, far more serious issues needing solutions.

I do like sunseeker's black friend's comment - "some people will walk a mile over broken glass in their bare feet to have their feelings hurt"

We've all met 'em.

You forgot codswallop, bags

So can the peely-wally ones among us be referred to as "the persons lacking colour", please, just to make things fair and equal y'know.

What a minefield of claptrap it all is!

If anyone prefers one of these words to claptrap, I will not be offended if you insert them in place of it: bilge, tripe, poppycock, hogwash, shite, bollocks, rubbish, nonsense, outright silliness.

That'll do for starters. Other suggestions welcome.

You miss my point, Grannytwice

He is happy for anyone to know that he has always had these problems - they could hardly avoid knowing he has them now, as he staggers around the place.

He had a bad time at school, but now he makes use of it by being on the accessibility advisory group at work, and getting things improved for others, physical access improvements, tolerance for mental/ psychological illness and so on. He is positive about it. He jokes about how difficult it is to carry two full glasses from the bar to the table.

Being offended that anyone should mention his disability would not help anyone. A term which was the common one when she was young was not an insult, it was a genuine enquiry into how long he had had it, using a word which described the condition clearly to her, and was not intended to put down the hearer.

It was treating him as a sensible human being who could talk for himself, not a victim to be pitied,or whose obvious disability must be ignored.

Why feel insulted when no insult is intended?.