A 'coloured' question

Two items on the internet caught my attention this evening; one a report from Gates of Vienna and the other from the Metro. The former contains an unsubstantiated report of an attack by 'coloured' youths on Tommy Robinson who is a prominent member of the English Defense League (EDL). The second is about Alan Hansen's 'unreserved apology' for having used the word 'coloured' when describing the ethnicity of some players in English football.


The report of the attack on Tommy Robinson makes some statements that are 'questionable'; it refers to 'Asians' and 'Pakistanis' yet there is no proof that this is so. That this 'attack' seems not have made it into the media (nowt on Google) does not mean that it did not take place - yet it seems odd that Tommy Robinson only has to give a statement about 'race' or 'Islamism' and the media are swarming round him like bees round the proverbial honeypot. Whether the 'story' is true can easily be proved by a picture of this man showing his 'injuries'. That is not to say I do not believe that this 'attack' took place - purely that I am 'reserving judgement' on the truth of what occurred.


The second article deals with another aspect of the 'race' problem and Hansen's use of the word 'coloured' - which begs the question of why the 'uproar' over Hansen's use of the word - is 'black' not a colour? Would it have caused the same 'uproar' had Hansen used the word 'black' because do we not have a registered charity in this country that uses that same word? Does not the word 'black' appear on various forms asking for one's ethnicity as in the classification of 'Black Afro-Carribean'? Do we not discuss the question of 'Black and Ethnic Minorities' (BME)? Do we not refer to differences in numerous matters as being one of 'black and white'? And the difference is?


It is a well-known fact that amongst our black immigrants they refer to the indigenous white inhabitants of the UK as 'Whitey' or 'Honky' - these are but generic terms, or 'slang'. Where is the difference in the use of those terms compared to the French referring to we English as 'Les Rosbifs'? From Wikipedia we learn that it is an insult to the English because of their association with the dish. At the same time do we English not refer to the French people as 'Frogs'? I may well be mistaken, but I know of no 'charity' in existence fighting for either we English, or the French, in order to change public perception.


That our society has now reached a state in which an 'uncontroversial' comment, or term, has been seized upon by those with a 'special interest', forcing a 'grovelling apology' from the person making the remark, does not say a lot for said society nor for the individual concerned.


Whilst it is, I believe, generally accepted that it is impossible to 'force integrate' different cultures - which is exactly what our political elite have done - without tensions arising, it is also arguable that this 'problem' has been exacerbated by, dare one say, the 'Human Rights' and 'PC' brigades - but hey, everyone has to make a living................


Just saying............