Can't work in daytime because of hair

poet123

It is useful for people to know because in many occupations use of incorrect terms whether through ignorance, or choice, would result in disciplinary action. Whether those in your social circle accept any given term is irrelevant, if it is considered derogatory by some/most/many then to use it is a risk. It is not always about being PC, it is sometimes about covering yourself.

wontfallforit

Did anyone else wonder about the health & safety implications of having a large afro, working in a petrol station

That's not a 'PC gone mad' comment, but seriously, if anything was to happen, like a fire, the man would be very bald, very quickly!

Of course, that doesn't explain why he's allowed to work the evening shift, but not the daytime shift.

Getting into the mind of a racist for a minute (which I am not), if I was at all concerned about the colour of one's skin, I'd be more concerned during the darker, lonlier hours than during the daytime.

As for the term half-caste...it's cringeworthy, and it's not something I'd say in a million years, but I can understand why people use it. Old-fashioned as it may be, there are some people who genuinely use it without intending to cause offence. I don't think such people should be jumped all over, rather just reminded that it's an old term to which the majority of "half castes" might take offence. Using it in the company of mixed-race friends who do not object to the term (and perhaps use it themselves) isn't such an issue. As with all things though, caution should be exercised when addressing the entire nation (or the population of MSE ).

In regards to people who are "fully" black, I don't understand why the word black ever fell out of use. It's accurate (well, as accurate as white is, given that whites are not actually white in colour, and blacks are not actually black), straight to the point, and is a good substitute when one's exact racial heritage is not known (be that Nigerian, Jamaican, Somali, or whatever).

And it beats "coloured" (:mad:) any day.

Oldernotwiser

wontfallforit wrote: »

ever).

And it beats "coloured" (:mad:) any day.

Many years ago it would have been considered very rude to call a person black (don't forget that the "n word" is basically derived from the word for black) and coloured was considered the polite term to use. To this day, one of the main civil rights organisations in the USA is the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People).

wontfallforit

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Many years ago it would have been considered very rude to call a person black (don't forget that the "n word" is basically derived from the word for black) and coloured was considered the polite term to use. To this day, one of the main civil rights organisations in the USA is the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People).

Yeah, I understand. I'm a sociology graduate (for my sins!). I never understood why the NAACP hasn't changed its name over the years, but I guess it's down to the different way in which the term 'coloured' is perceived Stateside, as opposed to elsewhere. "Person of colour" is also popular, and somewhat acceptable, in the US.

I guess it's because the NAACP was founded during a time when even the word "negro" was considered relatively mild, "coloured" was no doubt considered very PC and progressive! Not to mention that at the time the NAACP was founded, being black was still tantamount to a death sentence for many people.

Here in Europe, though, the racial situation has been (marginally) better, and the host populations have been somewhat more progressive in many cases.

Academically speaking, "black" is acceptable in the UK (and elsewhere - let's not forget the "Black Power" movements) when referring to somebody of Black African heritage. "Coloured" is not, as it implies whiteness as generic, yet every other race as somehow distorted (not to mention, it's not race specific...anyone non-white could be lumped under the term "coloured"). Heritage-specific terms are better (e.g. Black-African, Black-Other, White-British, Asian-Indian, Asian-Chinese, etc.), though obviously this can prove quite cumbersome, not to mention the fact that one's race cannot always be simply ascertained.

Oldernotwiser

wontfallforit wrote: »

Academically speaking, "black" is acceptable in the UK (and elsewhere - let's not forget the "Black Power" movements) when referring to somebody of Black African heritage. "Coloured" is not, as it implies whiteness as generic, yet every other race as somehow distorted (not to mention, it's not race specific...anyone non-white could be lumped under the term "coloured"). Heritage-specific terms are better (e.g. Black-African, Black-Other, White-British, Asian-Indian, Asian-Chinese, etc.), though obviously this can prove quite cumbersome, not to mention the fact that one's race cannot always be simply ascertained.

I think that it was the Black Power movement that made the word acceptable, actually; it certainly became so at about the same time.

viktory

pendulum wrote: »

Well, even you admitted you had your suspicions she was a troll at first......Believe it or not I was trying to help, but I wish I hadn't bothered now.

Yes, as I said, I had concerns but was happy to accept that the OP was telling the truth. I certainly did not need 'evidence'. I wish you hadn't bothered as well.

pendulum wrote: »

I had a quick look through the previous posts and there are no previous examples of trolling that I can see <snip> It's good enough for me.....

This (taken from post #59) was rude and patronising.

elfen

Very stupid, but maybe they feel that cos of his hair he will be seen as black and people will treat him as such (very suspiciously) during the day. Whereas at night, he may be seen as a scary figure and people are less likely to thieve. Also, what build is your bf, as that may have a bearing on it too

poet123

elfen wrote: »

Very stupid, but maybe they feel that cos of his hair he will be seen as black and people will treat him as such (very suspiciously) during the day. Whereas at night, he may be seen as a scary figure and people are less likely to thieve. Also, what build is your bf, as that may have a bearing on it too

why would this be the case?

Lil_Me_2

Off topic in terms of advice, but this thread reminded me of a poem that I had to learn about for GCSE english. It's still in the syllabus for AQA so it's worth having a read here to see what children in school are being taught about the term half-caste.

Personally I think it's quite a dated term, I've certainly never heard anyone say it, but then I understand that for other generations it may be considered "normal".

Savvy_Sue

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

It can be considered a derogatory term by some people; the 'correct' description would be 'mixed race'.

Although I once worked for the CAB, who insisted that 'mixed race' was also derogatory, and anyone who isn't white should be referred to as 'black'. My assistant, who had an indian mother and a variety of heritages on her father's side took complete offence to that - she declared she was a Heinz and proud of it!

It depends on whether the person concerned finds the term half caste offensive - Delilah's bf doesn't appear to, but some people do, so it is much less commonly used now.

We had a very irate phone call at work once - we send out descriptions of 'incidents' and their perpetrators which affect our clients and those using other agencies. We take a description from the person, and we use their words - we have to, because these descriptions may end up in court.

Well, one of our clients had described the perpetrator as 'mixed race'. You would think she'd used the N-word from the vitriol we got from another agency. Did we not know how offensive that was? The word to use was 'dual heritage'.

Except that's not a description our clients use or recognise!

Getting back on topic, Delilah, only your bf can find out what the problem is, and what he could do to rectify that. It may be that the manager wants to move shifts around and is using this as an excuse, which is a pretty dumb thing to do, far better to come out and SAY that's what they need to do IMO. Or it may be that the owner HAS seen your bf, IS a racist bigot, and only wants him working when it's quiet. We can only speculate ...