Read on Twitter
I see a lot of people in the comments genuinely asking why this is offensive. I hope my thread can provide some clarity, but even more so, I hope it provides the urge to learn why something is found offensive on your own merit in the future. We can always keep learning. https://twitter.com/skynews/status/1326193490187968513
Mr. Clarke is using “Coloured footballers” to describe anybody who is not white. This is implying that white is the norm because this is implying that white is not a color. This is also lumping all non-white people in box & assuming it is fine.
If Mr. Clarke was attempting to address the treatment of black footballers, then he should just say black footballers. Using another descriptor is evading the issue specifically whereas black footballers addresses the problem directly & properly centralizes the concerns.
If Mr. Clarke wanted to address inclusion & diversity in the sport, then the term person of colour is preferred. Mr. Clarke tries to explain that he knows this with his apology, saying that it was the required diction when he was in diversity training in the U.S. Okay, but why ?
I’ve always learned better when I knew the why of things not just do it because it’s required. So why else is “Coloured people“ a hard no? “Coloured people” was literally used to label what bus, what water fountain, what restaurant, etc black people could use in the U.S during
segregation. Its context in history is terrible, and this is why there’s understandable sensitivity around the word.
