Because that isn't happening due to a recruitment process bias favouring men? The FA is a prime example of the "old boys club".
Greg Clarke's "Once in a Generation" FA Reforms; with added racism and sexism
- Thread starter endless_wheelies
- Start date
Damn you, you got meShould've put it in italics to highlight the sarcasm.
I do think "coloured" sounds a bit more offhand than "people of colour" for sure. But I highly doubt he meant anything by it, or that it means that he holds racist views.
Thing is, forced quotas spark rejection. Those women will have an even harder time because people will assume they're only in their position because of their gender, not their competence.
Well yeah you’re right there, to be in that job he should be more informed on acceptable terminology than joe bloggs down the pub.
Little girls don’t like having the ball kicked at them hard? Mostly true, but some don’t mind and there’s an argument that some little boys don’t like it either.
Why are you so offended by me being offended at someone being offended by the PC brigade being offended? Wait.. is that right? I...
I never understood why ‘people of colour’ is deemed okay but ‘coloured people’ is deemed racist. I'd say they are both equally ignorant as we all have colour.
Having said that I don't think someone should destroy their career because they used the incorrect language when the intent was not to offend.
He is a bit of a dinosaur though when you look at some of the other stuff he said.
Having said that I don't think someone should destroy their career because they used the incorrect language when the intent was not to offend.
He is a bit of a dinosaur though when you look at some of the other stuff he said.
Genuinely yes, was funny to read. Equivalent to me kicking off if someone called me English but I guess everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
No was genuinely someone born in India who was taking offense at being called Indian because it was too broad a term. Point is racism is awful but there are also people who might not realise a word is offensive to someone when it's not an obviously racist term. Coloured (the word in question for this OP) is a tough one - it's likely ignorance rather than malice.
Yes I agree he should be held to a higher bar. I guess that comes with the territory when you are in a senior managerial seat and in the public eye.
I think you offended me by suggesting that I was offended by you being offended by me being offended by the PC brigade.. no offence
I have no idea what is and isn’t acceptable and/or offensive these days.
I do know that in this day and age, a person of his standing in football probably shouldn’t be using any terms that might offend anyone.
Some of it is daft (not specifically referring to this one incident) but if it might cause offence, probably best to use a different term
Im guessing its a worry because he used it within a discussion specifically on 'diversity'.
And if you are leading the FA's opinion on this, you should be up to date with the appropriate and acceptable language of the day.
FairPlay, you can get killed for being gay in certain parts of the world so you’re right.
I remember someone showing me something before which was truly horrific. An African couple were caught having sex (men) and they were stoned to death in their village, everyone should see it tbh. The whole village joined in like it was normal, this was a few years ago.
I completely take back my gay point.
Being in charge of the FA is tantamount to being something like an MP. In 2020, he isn’t right for the job I’m afraid.
The 'no idea what is acceptable any more' defence is lame at best for someone in his position managing to be offensive to people of colour, women, gays and Asians in a discussion on diversity!
its seems strange that in South Africa and its multi tier system that coloured is a race group , surely South Africa doesn't discriminate after all those years of apartheid
Please don’t misconstrue what I said as a defence of his comments. Not at all.
He is clearly a bit of a dinosaur and stuck in the ‘olden days’ of what is and isn’t acceptable.
I was purely responding to those two specific posts that personally I can’t keep up with the offensive words anymore because they change all the time and the list certainly isn’t definitive, IMO.
Sounds a top bloke.
Coloured isn't a racist term in South Africa. They use it for multiracial people (not black).
And fur the bolded part... honestly you'd be surprised.
For sure, just look at some of the posts tacitly defending Clarke's comments
Not to mention his treatment of Aluko and defence of Sampson
Ah that paragon of racial harmony, still using outdated terminology.
I reckon he wanted out, no one makes that many gaffs in one go on camera at an important meeting. He knew what he was doing.
i dont think you quite got my post , if its surely ok to use the term coloured in South Africa why is it so offensive here , on my last visit to South Africa and the neighbouring countries i found the white Bores to be more racist towards me and my party of white English guys , strange world we live in
It does feel like that. Wimped out of the big finish where he was gonna call Rashford 'uppity'.
I think that's fair on its own, I am not going to jump on someone for innocently using an outdated term that they don't understand, especially if they are receptive to attempts to do something about their ignorance.
However, a man like Greg Dyke, in an office like the one he has, shouldn't have to learn these things on the job; up-to-date knowledge of social issues have to be embedded in the requirements of the role. It does nothing to mitigate the notion that the people running the game are out of touch with everyday issues and nomenclature.
Replacing his last name with a homophobic slur is doing nothing to help the issue here. Reported.
I'm old enough to remember when the acceptable term was "coloured", but I clearly remember that changing in the 1980s as a person I knew got corrected for referring to someone that way at work - so it's not a recent change.
Terminology changes should be determined by the communities that are affected by the terminology. I'm not sure if a consensus could be reached as black people in America or the UK may feel differently from black people in other countries, particularly those where black people are in the majority. Cultural norms are geographical, of course.
Back in the 1960s my (white) gran used to refer to black men as "coloured gentlemen" - never just men. Even she (born at the turn of the century) was trying not to offend in her choice of words, although it sounds daft nowadays. It's not hard to respect other people's preferred nomenclature.
Terminology changes should be determined by the communities that are affected by the terminology. I'm not sure if a consensus could be reached as black people in America or the UK may feel differently from black people in other countries, particularly those where black people are in the majority. Cultural norms are geographical, of course.
Back in the 1960s my (white) gran used to refer to black men as "coloured gentlemen" - never just men. Even she (born at the turn of the century) was trying not to offend in her choice of words, although it sounds daft nowadays. It's not hard to respect other people's preferred nomenclature.
White on white racism? Certainly a most pernicious scourge of the modern age
There's so much wtf in this thread.
Couldn’t he have just, you know, resigned?
It changes from day to day. I might start calling myself melanin deficient since white refers to my skin colour. Might be able to claim benefits for it.....
Not really, the guys a bit of a bellend and should know better.
Clearly the use of the term coloured instead of person of colour shows he’s unfit for job. But anyone calling him racist is unhinged and needs their head checked.
Last edited:
I've gone over this again and again. I suppose Greg Clarke comes across as a bit of a dinosaur. Clearly not in touch with the times. Not helped by a history of calling institutional racism 'fluff'. But I've read the quotes, so I can have context, and I honestly don't think he was offensive. He's fallen foul of today's hypersensitive world of political correctness. I don't enjoy this trend personally. He used 'coloured footballers' in a context that I can't possibly find offensive. And he said 'coming out as gay' was a lifestyle choice, not being gay itself. Indeed the context was while expressing sympathy for why they wouldn't want to come out. I have nothing particularly for or against Mr Clarke, but my opinion is that this is being blown wildly out of proportion and context. And I'm a black man...
I know but to make that many huge errors of judgement just seems odd to me.
In this modern age, it's all about what new terms people who don't even belong to that specific group think is offensive rather than what the actual potentially effected person thinks is offensive. I have been called things which society thinks are offensive to me but I don't actually find offensive at all and a lot of people share this thought.
Judging an action depending on its outcome and intention has completely gone out of the window and has been replaced by assumption as well which does not help.
Why is one deemed more politically correct than the other? Genuine question so I don't feck up
Look at the rest of crap he said. It's clear he's a complete dinosaur
I don’t know tbh, maybe because it brackets all non white people into the same category but then that doesn’t explain why it’s ok to say person of colour. I just know not to use it. I feel uncomfortable labelling people by ethnicity anyway as it can only be used against you.
I mean all of that proved that he wasn't suitable for his job. What's blown out of proportion in that?
I'd love to know what sort of intelligent, positive, in-tune statement you could make about diversity that doesn't in any way preclude saying a load of stupid shit that anyone even vaguely aware of the language around diversity would know not to say.
Because unless he pulled off that particular magic trick, he effectively demonstrated why he shouldn't have that job even as he was doing that job. You could literally use him as an example in the next statement on diversity in football.
Because unless he pulled off that particular magic trick, he effectively demonstrated why he shouldn't have that job even as he was doing that job. You could literally use him as an example in the next statement on diversity in football.
Historical context of using that term was created and used by white people during a time of oppression against black people.
The term "person of colour" is a term created and used by black people as a term of powerment.
Historical context is the thing that matters most with anything like this. Just do a little googling and you'll quickly understand why one is OK and why the other isn't.