close
Days ago, someone in Amsterdam sent me a message. The message was quite friendly, so I thought I’d check out his profile. However, when I read through his profile, I felt quite uncomfortable with his description of the likes of ‘coloured men’. So I told him what I thought regarding that term.

Later that day, I discussed with Dan about the usage of ‘Coloured Men’ in general. I asked whether it is a discriminative term. Dan told me, it was ok in the 80’s, but it’s not politically correct anymore. That confirmed my thoughts.

And I also discussed with Dustin about it. Dustin told me, he would never use that term to refer to anyone. In his opinion, this term, ‘Coloured’ actually derogates a status other than ‘Pure’. Then, who is authorised to derogate others only because of the colours of the skin? No one is, obviously.

My argument is quite simple. My physics was never good when in school, but as I was taught, ‘white’ is also a kind of colour. Thus, white people are also ‘coloured’. If anyone of them considers being non-couloured, then it’s his/her arrogance and prejudice. And that term is therefore intrinsically discriminative.

Back to that ‘someone in Amsterdam’, he then asked me which term he could use. I said just ‘non-caucasian’ would be good. He considered it too formal. I pointed out that being formal is better than being discriminative. He then updated it his profile to ‘non-White’.
arrow
arrow
    全站熱搜

    bryan1974 發表在 痞客邦 留言(8) 人氣()