Of course " coloured is archaic and now replaced with " people/person of colour". But you forget that this conversation started when you pretended that you did not know the term "person of colour" and asked someone "who is colourless then". To which I pointed you to Urban dictionary.
I didn't pretend I didn't know the term, it's a term which isn't used here. Colourless isn't used to refer to those with less pigment in the UK, I already told you that.
Then you took offence that someone defined that, to which I pointed that it was result of the phrase "people of colour".
Of course I took offence because it's not how we define things.
To which you replied it was an American thing To which I pointed to British uses of it. And Britain does use the phrase " people of colour"
It isn't, I partially allowed for the possibility it was used more commonly in the past, post slavery. But, it's not now even if there's an attempt by the PC brigade to make it common.
"
It’s an understatement to say that over the past eight years, people of colour in this country have had it rough. We turn on the news to hear the dog-whistle racism of Boris Johnson, with high-ranking Tories long invoking dehumanising imagery of
You must be registered for see links
. Austerity is
You must be registered for see links
, while policies have been explicitly designed to create a “hostile environment” for migrants and black and minority ethnic (BAME) people living in Britain. "[/QUOTE]
The first papers a PC leftist and trying to introduce terminology which is foreign. They tend to show try and show their moral superiority. The second referred to black people as black not people of colour. "Minority ethnic people" isn't grammatically correct, but even if it was it described them as people based off of ethnicity and not colour.
You must be registered for see links
, The Guardian.
I've already addressed the Guardian and their agenda above.
You must be registered for see links
Your newspapers don't seem to have gotten that memo you are trying to sell me.
The second one says "people of colour" is an American export. It may have been used in her office, but it's not in ours. Nobody would ever say that women of colour here, not even in a hospital(the place where you would expect PC). I can see why she found it uncomfortable, because it is inherently flawed.
Besides articles like this
You must be registered for see links
tell that the phrase is in use in UK.
So he quotes a left wing paper and wants to introduce a new term/definition because he feels it's correct. When a term is introduced it requires traction and should itself not come from a flawed principle, his "term" clearly does.
Right now you are just chasing your own tail, you know. & You walked right in to it.
If you had a point back there, you need to use a different approach.
My approach is solid, we identify by ethnicity and colour here. The police, the courts, schools, hospitals etc do it. I do know the PC brigade want to introduce new definitions like they're trying to do in France. That in no way makes the flawed definiton right.
Ps. There's no need to be aggressive, Ira?