Talk:Colored/Archive 1

Archive 1

The terms "Colored" and "Coloured" have different meanings

shouldn't this article be merged/redirected with/to coloured? --DakAD 11:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

No, because they have different meanings. "Coloured" is the South African spelling for the word as it is used in the South African context, which differs greatly to the context in which the American spelling of the word "Colored" is used in the American context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.158.128.105 (talk • contribs)

I think they should be merged; they are the same word with a different English spelling. I think if the articles are better left separate, then they could be given titles relating to what they cover e.g. "Colored (North American term)". I think that what an American or British person reads when searching the word "colored/coloured" should be the same.

Thanks, Drum guy (talk) 18:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The articles most definitely should not be merged as they are about very different things. In South Africa "coloured" was the formal designation for people of mixed racial ancestry, explicitly set apart from "black" people of exclusive African ancestry. (The term was also used in this way in some of South Africa's neighbours.) That's a very different thing from US usage. British usage in my experience is closer to the US usage, but the term is rarely used and now considered a taboo. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree entirely that the two articles should not be merged. However, there is a problem with them having the article names 'colored' and 'Coloured', because the spelling is not what distinguishes the two concepts: in many countries using the British English conventions for spelling -- definitely the U.K. and Canada, probably others -- 'coloured' was used in essentially the same (derogatory and outdated) sense as 'colored' in the U.S.

Suggestion: Move 'Coloured' to 'Coloured (ethnic group in Southern Africa)'. Create a disambig page 'coloured' that links to 'colored' and 'Coloured (ethnic group in Southern Africa)', explaining the differences in usage. --David-Sarah Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 00:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Is that necessary? How does the "for usage of 'colored' or 'coloured' outside Southern Africa, see colored" not suffice? Either way, people looking for "colored" will have to click again, but the disambig page would add an extra step for those looking for "coloured". -- Irn (talk) 01:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, you're probably right. (Note that I recently added that 'for ... see colored'.) Given that links to Coloured seem to be referring to the right article for their intended meaning, I withdraw the suggestion. --David-Sarah Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 02:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Connotation of the phrase "people of color"

The article states that the phrase "people of color" is offensive because it makes a distinction that implies being white is the benchmark. While I do understand this is true, on the other hand, when you do a Google search on that phrase, over 8 million results are found. On the first couple of pages, those results seem to indicate to me that ethnic and racial minorities use that phrase extensively to create activist organizations to support one another. Wouldn't it be a more neutral point of view to say that the phrase "people of color" is used in the positive ways of banding people together for social change and support, as well as being of a negative connotation to others?

Strikes me as challenging to both address issues for a minority group yet still remain respectful and neutral in judgements. Kind of like the hypothetical situation of a group of women of similar age, weight, height, hair color, same dress color, etc. across the room - one of them black - yet, feeling uncomfortable saying Mary is the black woman. Is it just as dis-respectful of an aspect about Mary that is an important part of her identity to omit that obvious distinction?

I appreciate any input to help me understand this important issue. Nightngle 13:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Please note that a phrase such as 'people of color' is generally not used by non-activist persons, and is considered by many to be 'snobbish'/'stuck up.' I believe the term is damaging to EVERYONE because it makes SKIN COLOR the deciding factor in dividing everyone into "White vs. People of Color." Not only that, such a division is wildly inaccurate and biased. Note, for example, African-Americans in New Orleans complaining of recent hispanic immigrants or considering the recently-deceased sheriff of Jefferson parish, who was Asian, to be 'anti-black.'Ryoung122 06:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Vestiges of "colored" in the Present Day

I'm surprized that there is no mention of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), which is very active today.

Brown Caucasians

It seems to be true that one particular trait shared by all blacks is that they they are descendants of Caucasians. Ergo, I would define them as being Brown Caucasians. There are blond Eskimos. Superslum 10:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC) The name NAACP is not a vestige of the past. It represents the true identity of the mixed-race people whom it attempts (feebly, of course) to bolster. Colored people had been produced in North America centuries ago. Why (I ask) are the multitudes of people pretending that there are no colored people? Superslum 11:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC) If you do not know how Jews were treated in Europe, click here. Superslum 15:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I changed your word 'colored' to blacks as it was inappropriate and I think what you said is completely goofy. I don't think blacks came from white people.

Actually I think you got that backwards, since Africa is believed to be the birthplace of human civilization.

Proposed merger

Since the page 'women of color' is very short and contains little encyclopaedic information, I intend to merge it into this page soon. If anyone has any objections, please make them known here. Terraxos 01:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

women of color is a specific and politicized term that is based out of a sense of organizing. i believe that it deserves its own page, however small it may be.

Double standards?

"and is now archaic and potentially derogatory, except in certain narrow circumstances such as the name of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)."

Why don't they change it? Is it like the term "nigger" - you can only refer to a black guy as "nigger" if you are black? I don't understand why it's fine for some, yet for others it's completely outrageous to use the term. 82.163.182.119 10:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Split "People of Color" from "Colored"

"People of Color" is generally used in the U.S. to as a catch-all term for various non-white groups. It isn't interchangeable, and most people using it (1) mean something different (not just African descent) and (2) would only "colored" in a historical or ironic sense as a synonym. I would post a formal split proposal, but if there are no objections, I'll just modify the redirect.--Carwil 01:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't check the talk page first, and I created a new page for person of color. Then I saw this "discussion" (which hardly counts as a discussion). Anyway, I clearly support splitting the two (as I already created the other page) because it makes no sense to keep it here when the two are such different terms. I would also suggest completely eliminating the section in this article and maybe including a redirect at the top? If anyone objects to my splitting, I apologize and would be more than willing to discuss it at greater length.--Irn (talk) 03:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I have always found this confusing. I always figured "colored" referred to "people of color" considering facilities where listed as for "whites" or "Colored," and I'm sure the U.S. consisted of more than just white and black people back then. Was it just common knowledge that Native-Americans, Asians, Hispanics etc., were to use the "colored" facilities even though they were not colored or were they considered colored? I know many miscegenation laws applied to relationships between whites and nonwhites even though they referred to colored people and many nonwhite/nonblack people were not allowed to use white facilities. It seems that back then the term was a catch all until around the civil rights movement when it referred to just blacks. In general would an Asian or a Hispanic with dark skin be allowed in the white section of a train or would they have to sit with blacks? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.24.213.41 (talk) 22:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Quite a few points to think about!

Hello everyone!

I've written a comment on Talk:Coloured, and I think a lot of the ideas might relate to this article as well.

Thanks very much, Drum guy (talk) 18:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Proper?

'The term colored in particular (along with Negro) has fallen into more popular usage in the United States last third of the 20th century, and is quite proper, such as the name of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP).'

Surely this is incorrect. Fallen into more popular usage? Surely it has fallen out of popular usage. Also the NAACP can't really be used as evidence for use of the word in the last third of the 20th Century considering it was created in 1909. Since this talk page is so seldom visited I'm changing it now simply to avoid confusion. If there is disagreement there is no harm in changing it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EttaLove (talk • contribs) 14:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

"Euphemism"

The article opens with this: "Colored (also coloured in Canadian spelling) is a North American euphemism...". What's the logic behind calling it a euphemism? --MQDuck 03:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

British usage

(Coloured) is not uniformly thought of as offensive as it's context-sensitive and a fairly innocent way of referring to groups of various ethnicities (should you have a good reason for doing so), despite some overreactive coverage by the media. I say this as someone who's usually a PC bore but if I heard this term used I wouldn't immediately ring any alarm bells (Obviously "the coloureds" preceding a bigoted rant would be an inappropriate use etc... but as a conversational alternative to "persons of several non-Caucasian ethnicities" it's difficult to take offense unless you're trying to). Harshmustard (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Owen 'Alik Shahadah

A discussion thread about the reliability and notability of this author and his pages is taking place at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Owen 'Alik Shahadah, please comment there so we can get a final consensus. Rupert Loup (talk) 12:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

1970s source

"The term now has essentially the same meaning in the United Kingdom, with 'coloured' thus equivalent to 'people of colour'."

This is obviously not true. The book cited is fifty years old. I will change it, and maybe somebody can find some better sources to cite here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.248.39 (talk) 21:51, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Colored People / People of Color

Do not feed trolling that is obviously intended to turn this into a debate forum.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:17, 28 November 2020 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
These are both rather stupid phrases. They imply that caucasians are colorless, which is silly. Everybody is some color or other. Neither so-called white people nor so-called black people are any more colored or uncolored than anybody else. Nor is anybody really white or black; some people's skin is lighter or darker than other's, but not even the skin of a so-called albino is actually white. So-called white people are actually closer to being pink or reddish-yellow than "white". Somebody should invent terms for people of European ancestry and for people of African ancestry and for people of Asian ancestry that aren't based on this ridiculous color-coding. We've got terms like "Native American" and "Hispanic" for two of our ethnicities, and those aren't color-coded, so we should invent similar terms for so-called black and white people.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.93.17.229 (talk) 20:40, August 7, 2007 While I'm inclined to agree with you, this is nonetheless an existing term, which has a life of its own among many non-white peoples. It has great cultural significance. I am wondering why "People Of Color" is defined within the article "Colored". Shouldn't these be two separate articles?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.141.118.215‎ (talk) ‎16:43, February 12, 2008‎ You all from Wikipedia should delete this article. It's so silly and dumb. At least should change everything. This political correctness is turning people so hypocrite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.241.63.192 (talk) 13:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Colored is a French term meaning mixed black and white used previous French territories such as our American south. colored doesn't mean non-white, because no one referred to other ethnic groups as colored. Recently a group from a black college have tried to promote the use of color to mean non-white, but that is just racist. Black and white both represent all colors scientifically, so one could say colored mean non-black people, it that racist? yes. Keep the meaning of colored as mixed white-black like it was from the beginning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.29.26 (talk) 20:50, 10 December 2017 (UTC)