• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

White man cuffed for walking his black grand daughter.

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
LiuKangBakinPie said:
It is a ethnic group here. Colored might not mean anything there or sound strange but here its the same as your natives. If colored is a racist word then Indian is a racist word as well.

The BC what does it say to say what is his ethnicity (ethnic affiliation)
Click to expand...

Is this ridiculous cross-purposes argument still going on?

Whether words are offensive or not depends on history, context and usage. There's no point laboriously analysing their meaning in isolation from those things.

"coloured" (as it is spelt here) is considered offensive in the US and UK. Because of how it started being used and because of the way it has historically been used.

I do sometimes meet people here who use it, usually its because they come from some 30-years-behind-the-rest-of-us rural, provincial part of the UK. It makes me cringe but I suspect most of them don't mean anything by it. But if they carry on using it after being politely corrected they are being deliberately offensive (and if they use it around black or asian people they risk getting into difficulties).

However, I know that South Africa under apartheid made 'coloured' a specific racial catagory. distinct from 'black' and 'white'. So it has a totally different meaning and history there. Whether its offfensive in a SA context today I have no idea, but even if it is I bet it isn't the same kind of offensive that it represents over here. I'd probably just take the poster's word for it that it isn't and leave it at that.
 
Why cuff the guy? He wasn't resisting and they weren't outnumbered and they hadn't ascertained the situation. Seems a little heavy handed. At least they were doing their job. Grand daughter will have funny story to tell.
 
pmv said:
Is this ridiculous cross-purposes argument still going on?

Whether words are offensive or not depends on history, context and usage. There's no point laboriously analysing their meaning in isolation from those things.

"coloured" (as it is spelt here) is considered offensive in the US and UK. Because of how it started being used and because of the way it has historically been used.

I do sometimes meet people here who use it, usually its because they come from some 30-years-behind-the-rest-of-us rural, provincial part of the UK. It makes me cringe but I suspect most of them don't mean anything by it. But if they carry on using it after being politely corrected they are being deliberately offensive (and if they use it around black or asian people they risk getting into difficulties).

However, I know that South Africa under apartheid made 'coloured' a specific racial catagory. distinct from 'black' and 'white'. So it has a totally different meaning and history there. Whether its offfensive in a SA context today I have no idea, but even if it is I bet it isn't the same kind of offensive that it represents over here. I'd probably just take the poster's word for it that it isn't and leave it at that.
Click to expand...
Classing your countries population like that make it easier for them to implement Affirmative Action unfortunately
 
pmv said:
...

"coloured" (as it is spelt here) is considered offensive in the US and UK. Because of how it started being used and because of the way it has historically been used...
Click to expand...

Speak for yourself. Just like "spastic," it was not used historically in a derogatory way in the USA. Even if it isn't politically correct here, which is debatable, it isn't "offensive" and there is no debate about that among those who know better. If you want to listen to Q-bert and assume it is because SOME ignorant people in his neighborhood think so, then you'd have to agree that the word "black" or "negro" is offensive because some black people take offense. I already mentioned the coworkers who thought it was offensive to say "black Stan" or "white Stan" to differentiate them (isn't that the point of a name in the first place?), but another coworker of mine several years ago told me that she once made her son wash his mouth out with soap when she overheard him doing his Spanish homework (negro is both Spanish and Latin for "black"). The conversation was started when she saw a wine box in my car trunk and thought it said something offensive: "El Gato Negro" with an obvious black cat logo. That's ignorance and does not reflect the society as a whole.

Anyway, reflect on this:
Carla Sims, communications director for the NAACP in Washington, D.C., said "The term 'colored' is not derogatory, [the NAACP] chose the word 'colored' because it was the most positive description commonly used at that time. It's outdated and antiquated but not offensive."
Click to expand...

"POSITIVE description." Once again, your history is no more our history than it is South Africa's history.
 
Last edited:
CZroe said:
Speak for yourself. Just like "spastic," it was not used historically in a derogatory way in the USA. Even if it isn't politically correct here, which is debatable, it isn't "offensive" and there is no debate about that among those who know better. If you want to listen to Q-bert and assume it is because SOME ignorant people in his neighborhood think so, then you'd have to agree that the word "black" or "negro" is offensive because some black people take offense. I already mentioned the coworkers who thought it was offensive to say "black Stan" or "white Stan" to differentiate them (isn't that the point of a name in the first place?), but another coworker of mine several years ago told me that she once made her son wash his mouth out with soap when she overheard him doing his Spanish homework (negro is both Spanish and Latin for "black"). The conversation was started when she saw a wine box in my car trunk and though it said something offensive: "El Gato Negro" with an obvious black cat logo. That's ignorance and does not reflect the society as a whole.

Anyway, reflect on this:


"POSITIVE description." Once again, your history is no more our history than it is South Africa's history.
Click to expand...

I forgot who said it, I think I heard it on the radio, but I once heard a theory that, and, again, this is a paraphrase of the theory I heard, not my words, there is no correct way to refer to the population that has been referred to as black, colored, negro, African American, etc. because that population cannot agree on which term is correct vs. non-offesnive vs. offensive. Whether on purpose or by splintering of the group, they have made it difficult for anyone to even refer to that group without fear of offending someone in the group, i.e. even saying a name of the group can start a controversy without even addressing the context of the reference.

It sure makes it hard to discuss a group when you cannot even figure out how to refer to them.

MotionMan
 
MotionMan said:
I forgot who said it, I think I heard it on the radio, but I once heard a theory that, and, again, this is a paraphrase of the theory I heard, not my words, there is no correct way to refer to the population that has been referred to as black, colored, negro, African American, etc. because that population cannot agree on which term is correct vs. non-offesnive vs. offensive. Whether on purpose or by splintering of the group, they have made it difficult for anyone to even refer to that group without fear of offending someone in the group, i.e. even saying a name of the group can start a controversy without even addressing the context of the reference.

It sure makes it hard to discuss a group when you cannot even figure out how to refer to them.

MotionMan
Click to expand...
In the South African, Namibian, Zambian, Botswana and Zimbabwean context, the term Coloured (also known as Bruinmense, Kleurlinge or Bruin Afrikaners in Afrikaans) refers to an heterogenous ethnic group who possess ancestry from Europe, various Khoisan and Bantu tribes of Southern Africa, West Africa, Indonesia, Madagascar, Malaya, India, Mozambique, Mauritius, and Saint Helena. Besides the extensive combining of these diverse heritages in the Western Cape — in which a distinctive 'Cape Coloured' and affiliated Cape Malay culture developed — in other parts of Southern Africa, their development has usually been the result of the meeting of two distinct groups. Genetic studies suggest the group has the highest levels of mixed ancestry in the world. However, the maternal (female) contribution to the Coloured population, measured by mitochondrial DNA studies, was found to come mostly from the Khoisan population.
Click to expand...

The American English term (spelled as colored) had a related but different meaning. It was primarily used to refer to people of African descent, except in the state of Louisiana, where "Free people of color" legally denoted people of mixed European and sub-Saharan African ancestry. The use of the term to describe people of African descent is now considered archaic and offensive in most contexts. It remains part of the title of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, a prominent African-American organisation established in 1909. In addition, some members of the African-American community use "colored" as a legitimate ethnic/racial label when intentionally self-chosen and used in a respectful manner. 'People of color' is currently used more frequently than 'colored'. In the United States usage, the phrase refers more generally to all people who do not describe themselves as 'white', including people of Asian, Native American and African descent. In Great Britain, 'coloured' has also been used to refer to anyone who could not describe themselves as white.
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coloured

Hope that settles it
 
CZroe said:
Looks like we have conflicting Wikipedia articles. The one for "Colored" states:

It MAY or may NOT be PC, but it certainly is not "offensive" (then it would be undeniably non-PC).
Click to expand...

Blame the spell checker for that mistake I think. Because Coloured is not in its dictionary and corrects it to colored.

But in the US it gets spelled colored vs the british coloured. So it is the same word
 
LiuKangBakinPie said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coloured

Hope that settles it
Click to expand...

Yes, if we were having a logical, intelligent, non-emotional, non-PC discussion of the proper use of the words. Unfortunately, not everyone in the group in question defers to dictionaries or Wikipedia.

Some of them find the term "Colored" offensive and prefer "African American". Some find "African American" offensive. There is just no way of knowing the correct term to use.

Imagine if a portion of a population found the term "White" offensive and preferred "Caucasian", where others found "Caucasian" to be wildly offensive (right or wrong - it is just a fact). Oh, and by the way, everyone in that group finds "beloved patriot" offensive, but call each other "beloved patriot" all the time. When talking in a group of those individuals, without any prior knowledge of their preference, which term would you use?

MotionMan
 
You guys realize you are trying to prove to a guy he was using an offenseive term, when he used it to describe his own wife?

Really, it was just a chance to divert from the rest of the discussion, which wasnt going his way. Typical troll behavior is to change the argument to something else entirely.
 
Train said:
You guys realize you are trying to prove to a guy he was using an offenseive term, when he used it to describe his own wife
Click to expand...

Which, quite honestly, proves my point regarding what term people can use to refer to people in that group.

MotionMan
 
Train said:
You guys realize you are trying to prove to a guy he was using an offenseive term, when he used it to describe his own wife?

Really, it was just a chance to divert from the rest of the discussion, which wasnt going his way. Typical troll behavior is to change the argument to something else entirely.
Click to expand...

So back to topic, this blogger must have planned the whole thing, right? That similar incident which happened two years ago also was his trick to get traffic to his blog as well.
 
http://www.policeone.com/chiefs-she...futes-bloggers-babysitting-while-white-story/

Police chief: Video refutes blogger's 'babysitting while white' story
Blogger Scott Henson admits errors in a post he published about APD officers responding to a kidnapping call

AUSTIN, Texas — Dash cam video contradicts an Austin blogger's claims that officers responding to a kidnapping call drew TASERs and roughly handcuffed him as he walked with his granddaughter.

On Feb. 10, police detained Scott Henson while responding to a call about a kidnapping involving a white man and a black girl at a youth complex, according to the Austin American-Statesman. The post on Henson's "Grits for Breakfast" blog, which garnered international attention, said a Travis County deputy questioned Henson's relationship with his granddaughter, who he was walking with. The deputy released them after questioning, and a short time later, APD officers approached.

"The officers got out with Tasers drawn demanding I raise my hands and step away from the child," he wrote. "I complied, and they roughly cuffed me, jerking my arms up behind me needlessly. Nine police cars plus the deputy constable all showing up to investigate the heinous crime of 'baby-sitting while white.'"

During a news conference Tuesday Police Chief Art Acevedo said officers responded appropriately, and video shows an officer calmly trying to ascertain if a kidnapping occurred. Henson refused to identify himself to the first responding officer, Acevedo said, which led to officers stopping him later.

In an email Friday, Henson asked police not to release the video.

Acevedo replied: "Scott, unfortunately we can't put the toothpaste back into the tube. You called us out on our response and I am in a position that I must show those interested that our officers not only reacted properly, but in an outstanding manner."

Henson watched the video last week and said his blog post had errors, but he still felt threatened by police.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Damn...troll got pawned...looks like several of us called it though

Now they just need to investigate who called it in and trace it back to his lying ass
 
Last edited:
So none of the haters are gonna come back and admit they're wrong huh...guess it shouldn't be too surprising:hmm:
 
de8212 said:
Of course they aren't. they're trolls. I doubt they even really believe the BS they spewed defending the liar.
Click to expand...

This thread should be linked in every SandEagle cop-hating thread from now on.

Shocking that a citizen would lie about the actions of a cop, no?

MotionMan
 
no surprise the guy lied.

this is why EVERY time a cop talks to someone they should do it in front of a video and the cops should be happy if someone tapes it.
 
LiuKangBakinPie said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coloured

Hope that settles it
Click to expand...

Of course it doesn't settle it.

If I walk out of my house and a few blocks down the street, and refer to someone, or they overhear me saying "colored," they are likely going to be offended.

The point that MM is making is that not everyone in this community will agree on one single term.

The average person on the street isn't going to care what the NAACP or Wikipedia says, as if they even know there is some official stance by someone that really does nothing for them in their personal life.

Fact is, I can almost guarantee you that "colored" is probably more offensive to black people than not--And I would argue that it is because for the older generation that grew up before Civil Rights, it reminds them of a time that was very, very, very bad. I can imagine that hearing that term for someone who knows that time could cause a PTSD-like reaction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top