NewsBiscuit : What should Greg Clarke have said?

Quick links: NewsBiscuit Home • Chat Room • Writers' Room • Top Ten

What should Greg Clarke have said?

(24 posts) (12 voices)

Started 5 months ago by Walter Eagle
Latest reply from Al OPecia

Tags:

No tags yet.

Walter Eagle

offline
Member

I'm genuinely puzzled and clearly a lot more out of touch than I realised. I think of myself as supporting inclusion and diversity and yet I clearly don't have the language to express myself acceptably.
Greg Clarke, chairman of the FA, has resigned because of how he described some ethnic minority players. The reports I've seen only refer to his use of the word 'coloured'. This has been variously described by MP Alex Davies-Jones as "absolutely abhorrent" and by shadow equalities secretary, Marsha de Cordova, as “offensive and outdated"

So what term should Clarke have used to define a diverse group of people who share common problems of under-representation, suppression and disadvantages in his sport?

The same reports briefly mention 'black' players. Is this acceptable? In this case it's clearly not being used to describe a shade, hue or colour. It appears to be a label rather than a descriptor. Does the word 'black' now have two completely different meanings? (I'm not objecting if it does, many words do.) One meaning, applied to objects and things, defines and describes their colour: a black car, a black coat? The other meaning is a multi-ethnic socio-economic grouping of people, regardless of skin pigmentation but generally excluding those pink enough to be 'white'?

Confused? You bet I am. I really want to use the correct language but I don't know what it is.

Posted 5 months ago #
Doctor Chutney

offline
Member

Maybe as another pale, stale male I'm the wrong person to be commenting, but language can be an absolute minefield. I know my memory ain't what it was but I thought I could remember 'people of colour' being OK at one time. Fascinating also how certain terms are consigned to the offensive pile. There's an organic process where what was once acceptable is suddenly resignation territory. Is it society as a whole that is deciding this, or a vocal minority.

All I can say is there is the germ of an idea here for a story, and these days that's what I'm happy to do; sit back, let others slip up and then pounce with a humerous paragraph or three.

Posted 5 months ago #
Rootin Tootin

offline
Member

I do think that there are people with the fingers permanently hovering over the "outrage button". And there seems to be no middle ground - the language is either perfect or something that Hitler might have said (Sorry about that).

I think "people of colour" is the latest acceptable description of BAME, so how much difference is there between coloured and people of colour? In any case, I'm sure that coloured was preferred to black when I was at school.

Posted 5 months ago #
Walter Eagle

offline
Member

Crikey - I've just read another report on the BBC entitled, "Greg Clarke: Why FA chairman's comments are so offensive".
Ah-ha, I thought, this will clarify my muddled thinking.
No such hope.

Here's one element from it, referring to the adjective 'coloured' - "[It] was used to describe anybody who was not white, which may imply that to be white is 'normal' or default," says the charity Show Racism the Red Card. "If we consider it, every human has a skin colour, so technically we are all coloured."

Whoa, so if we are all coloured (which I agree with) why can't we use the adjective coloured?
And if we are all coloured along a spectrum from palest albino whites through pinks, tans, beiges, taupes, lattes, browns, coffees and blacks, at what point on that scale is someone entitled to call themselves 'black' and should expect other people to call them 'black'?

All the anti-racist groups I know and support still seem to need a label to define the people on whose behalf they are fighting. And the label they have chosen (today, at least) seems to me to simply perpetuate identification based on skin-tone i.e. 'black'. I almost feel they would have been better inventing a brand new word, like an IKEA desklamp, say 'Föltig', or 'Brýnk', with no pre-attached biases or judgements, and using that.

I'm not attacking the use of any specific term, I just want to be clear what that term is and what rules apply to it. If someone were to say that BLM stood for British Lives Matter, no matter whether I agreed with the sentiment or not I'd have a basis for judging who is included - for example, "do they have a British passport?" It's not so easy for an out-of-touch old pink bloke like me to understand how black/Black fits in to this. I'm clearly not included, but who exactly is? I need help, I need guidance, not in being non-racist, but in demonstrating in my language that I'm non-racist.

Posted 5 months ago #
Sinnick

offline
Member

I'm also confused

I suspect in Clarke's case that there was more to this story than a few words

Maybe the word "coloured" recalls apartheid in RSA ?

I have no problem using words such as "black", "coloured", "Asian" etc as a descriptor. If there's a group of people on TV and I want to refer to the one who isn't white but don't know their name, why should I faff about trying not to use the B-word ? I certainly won't be derogatory !

It gets trickier when talking about behavioural or social things (as Clarke seems to have tried). Ask yourself if Asians or black people (etc) generally have the same outlook as white westerners - well, not necessarily. Different arguably, not better or worse, just different. But trying to apply generalisations in a conversation is very problematic

It's the same argument as with sexuality. Gay people want to be accepted for what they are. It shouldn't be a hidden aspect of their character, or something to boast about - it's just normal

Hope I've explained my thoughts clearly! Vive la difference

Posted 5 months ago #
Terry Bunn

offline
Member

I do think that there are people with the fingers permanently hovering over the "outrage button".

There always have been - from witch hunters to net curtain twitchers. What makes it appear worse now is the rise of 24 hour news (I mean how on earth are you going to fill all that space without asking virtually everybody in the country for their view on something or other) and the advent of social media which appears to give importance on the world stage to what would previously have been classified as gossip and rant aimed at a very small audience.

Posted 5 months ago #
Walter Eagle

offline
Member

I have no problem using words such as "black", "coloured", "Asian" etc as a descriptor.

Well, that's just the problem - neither did Clarke. He genuinely thought he was alert and woke and explained as much in his resignation. And yet the MP bloke said it was "absolutely abhorrent". It's not a matter of what the speaker thinks, it's all to do with what the hearer hears. And yet I can't find hearers anywhere who will tell me what they want me use instead.

(I think the 'absolutely abhorrent' is an example of yet another language development I dislike - red-shifted spectrum-compressing opinions. I'm conscious of people using what I consider to be extremes of language to describe mildly irritating conditions. When my daughter was younger she'd say something like, "I hate tomatoes", and I'd correct her, "No, you don't really hate them. You might not like their taste or texture, but that's a long way from hatred. Hatred is an incredibly strong emotion. If you apply hate to tomatoes, what's left when you want to describe how you feel about something really serious and important? You've already used up the most extreme word on a fruit." I can imagine things more abhorrent than the wrong word being used.)

Posted 5 months ago #
Al OPecia

offline
Member

The straightforward answer is "BAME" as outlined above.

In response to the general discussion above, agreed things keep moving and it's sometimes hard to keep up. However, if you are leading an organisation tackling racism very publicly for a number of years (with a plethora of well documented examples, in print, sound and video), there is no excuse whatsoever. Simples.

Posted 5 months ago #
Wrenfoe

offline
Member

Al is right. Given Clarke's role, he should have been more up to date than 1972.

However, the other deeper concern is that this 'outrage' just prompts a superficial change, rather than meaningful change. Clarke steps down, but the FA remains the same. Optics become more important than actual progress.

Posted 5 months ago #
Walter Eagle

offline
Member

@Al

The straightforward answer is "BAME" as outlined above.

So why have none of the people or organisations criticising Clarke used this?
I'd have been really happy if they did. It meets my IKEA desklamp test, and it would have explained exactly Clarke did wrong. However, everyone I've read has said he shouldn't have referred to 'black' players as 'coloured' - they didn't say he shouldn't have referred to BAME players as 'coloured'.
Don't worry, I'm not really expecting you to explain or defend these people. (Unless you really want to.)

And the misrepresentation of Clarke's remarks on the problems experienced by gay players is another matter. He used the expression 'life choice' when referring to the problems these players have in deciding whether to come out and be openly gay. However he's been pounced on and criticised by people implying he'd said being gay was a life choice.

Finally, his so-called sexist comment about girls/women not liking have a ball kicked at them is misreporting as well. He was asked about female involvement in the game. His response, actually emphasising the misogynist attitudes that used to exist, was quoting a coach who once offered this to him as an explanation. There was no suggestion he agreed with it.

I don't think Greg Clarke was a particularly effective FA Chairman for lots of other reasons and I think it will be improved by his moving on. But the accusations of racism, homophobia and sexism aren't clear cut. There must have been something else we've not heard.

Posted 5 months ago #
granger

offline
Member

There must have been something else we've not heard.
Wouldn't be so sure of that, Walter, as Ron Atkinson was sacked for accidentally using the n word in reference to his friend George Weah, despite the latter's defense that Ron was NOT racist.

Posted 5 months ago #
Midfield Diamond

offline
Member

But 'arry stayed in a job after saying "The lad went home to the Ivory Coast and got a bit of food poisoning. He must have eaten a dodgy missionary or something". Pure Love Thy Neighbour style humour, considered funny at the time but deeply offensive now.

I get the impression that it wasn’t the words themselves but the attitude behind them in Clarke’s case. Referring to ‘them’ and ‘their’ values, etc is at best clumsy and not suitable for someone in his position. I’m not for tokenism at all but I wonder if Clarke’s replacement will be a white male heterosexual.

Posted 5 months ago #
Walter Eagle

offline
Member

Yeah, OK, he's a wrong 'un. And now I know how to stop sounding like a wrong 'un myself. So henceforth, or at least until the next change of the lights, anyone darker than me will be BAME or black.

Posted 5 months ago #
Wrenfoe

offline
Member

It's very true that we are selective in our outrage. Some people are clearly given a free pass - which leads to accusations that attacks are politically motivated rather than genuine.

The most awkward TV appearance has got to be Angela 'funny tinge' Smith.

Posted 5 months ago #
Scroat

offline
Member

It does seem that people have over-reacted. 'Coloured' does have a specific meaning in South Africa. All very confusing.

BAME is so clumsy. Why not just BA, meaning Black/Asian? Or does this leave out other skin shades/nationalities – e.g. Polish, Chinese?

He made a gaffe, but I don't think it was a resignation issue? Trying not to say it's political correctness gone mad, because once I start saying this it will be confirmation that I'm really old and totally out of touch. (Which I secretly know I am, of course).

Posted 5 months ago #
Rootin Tootin

offline
Member

You have to feel sorry for the Chinese. There are never any campaigns to get more premier league footballers from the Han community, or making sure they have more representation on the boardrooms up and down the country. And as for the House of Commons - where are all the Chinese?

Posted 5 months ago #
Rootin Tootin

offline
Member

STOP PRESS: Just seen a BBC article about the US elections - apparently 47 of the new representatives are WOMEN OF COLOUR.

Posted 5 months ago #
Benvoleo

offline
Member

Coloured invokes the Jim Crow laws in the States (or colored,I suppose), and apartheid S.Africa, and is generally considered offensive now.

Of colour is usually alright in the US, though a common complaint is that we are all of colour, just different ones, so there are implications if you're saying that some are coloured whereas others are not. Not sure if this is offensive in the UK, but it sounds weird to me so I'm guessing it's not very common.

As it's 2020, although it is definitely not up to the person who felt insulted to decide who should be insulted by which words, whether or not they were accidental or spoken by a racist, and to what extent...we are obliged to apologise if any idiot snowflakes incorrectly feel insulted, the twats that they are.

Posted 5 months ago #
Al OPecia

offline
Member

@Walter

I don't think Greg Clarke was a particularly effective FA Chairman for lots of other reasons and I think it will be improved by his moving on. But the accusations of racism, homophobia and sexism aren't clear cut. There must have been something else we've not heard.

I haven't seen anyone suggesting that Clarke is a racist, I certainly don't - the point is someone in that position being so out of touch.

@Scroat

Firstly - great to see you!

BAME is so clumsy. Why not just BA, meaning Black/Asian? Or does this leave out other skin shades/nationalities – e.g. Polish, Chinese?

"BA" is difficult to use in spoken word - "I think that we need to consider - "Bah!" - followed by "humbug"?

Posted 5 months ago #
Al OPecia

offline
Member

@ Rootin Tootin

STOP PRESS: Just seen a BBC article about the US elections - apparently 47 of the new representatives are WOMEN OF COLOUR.

1. We don't live in America where the term was first used
2. Not everybody uses it, or likes it: https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/black-women-people-colour-racism-beyonce-coachella-black-lives-matter-a8316561.html
3. The biggest social movement is called "Black Lives Matter" not "People of Colour Matter".
4. Is the BBC some kind of special protective cloak, like in a video game?

Posted 5 months ago #
Ironduke

offline
Member

I think it is very unfortunate that terminology - 'People of Colour' and 'Coloured' is so closely related yet veers between acceptable and anathema. I get the difference, but its undeniably a very close distinction and especially for older people, they will recall when 'coloured' was a more acceptable/politer term than 'black'. I accept someone in a position such as Greg Clarke should have known the difference (though the background to the reporting given above is quite concerning and sounds out of context/looking for a dramatic headline. However, regular older generation people I think we do have to cut some slack - it should be the intent behind language that is most relevant, not a benign slip up or an unawareness of language evolution.

Posted 5 months ago #
Walter Eagle

offline
Member

So, just to recap ...

Greg Clarke said something unacceptable ("coloured"). Someone in his position should have known better than to say such a thing. A few hours later he resigned his position. Right?

Twatrabbit Johnson says something unacceptable ("devolution has been a disaster"). Someone in his position should have known better than to say such a thing. Why hasn't he resigned?

What a twisted world, where the FA ex-Chairman represents the honourable and moral standard that we expect the Prime Minister to observe.

Posted 5 months ago #
Rootin Tootin

offline
Member

Darren Harriott was on the Now Show and said that he now hates the term "coloured" although he wasn't particularly concerned about it when he was younger. He tended to refer to himself as black.

But when it came to BAME, he felt that the term was TOO all encompassing stating that the Asian experience is different from the black experience. He didn't really touch on the -ME part of BAME.

I know it was a comedy routine but still it managed to show what a minefield racial language is at the moment.

Posted 5 months ago #
Al OPecia

offline
Member

What a twisted world, where the FA ex-Chairman represents the honourable and moral standard that we expect the Prime Minister to observe.

Aye to that.

Posted 5 months ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.