@divegeester
She felt the need to apologize because she thought she had offended him. So she called him and he accepted the apology. That should be the end of it.
@torunn saidBut that might appear to deprive the man of his own identity, as if he is only there in relation to the person sitting beside him, and imply that she was embarrased or reluctant to describe him by his most and very obvious identifying feature. It's a minefield...
"... the gentleman sitting next to the lady in the red coat" would be enough, I think.
@very-rusty saidThere are other ways of describing a person - we shouldn't use 'black' or 'white'.
Not IF there was a white man on the other side of the lady in the red coat.
-VR
@indonesia-phil said"... sitting left or right of the lady in the red coat". We shouldn't make it too complicated but 'black man' sounds wrong to me.
But that might appear to deprive the man of his own identity, as if he is only there in relation to the person sitting beside him, and imply that she was embarrased or reluctant to describe him by his most and very obvious identifying feature. It's a minefield...
@torunn saidI can understand why she apologised. We're in a time where identifying somebody by their skin colour is unwise. (Not that there was ever a good time to do that). There is always an alternative way to single somebody out in an audience.
There are other ways of describing a person - we shouldn't use 'black' or 'white'.
That said, I hope that's the end of the matter. Clearly no harm was intended.
I think this sense that many people now have that they have a right to not be offended by what someone else says has been mostly an unfortunate socio-psychological change in countries like Britain in the last 30 or so years.
In parallel to that has been the growing sense that many seem to have that "I don't like that" and "I am offended by that" mean the same thing. It is a lazy normalizing of victimhood.
I'm all for my own sense of decency and common courtesy, but I don't feel I should be pretending to be personally offended by people whose common courtesies are not identical to mine.
@fmf saidI don't disagree with that, though don't think it really applies to the case being discussed. Singling somebody out by their skin colour is inappropriate, especially in this context. It's not about common courtesy.
I think this sense that many people now have that they have a right to not be offended by what someone else says has been mostly an unfortunate socio-psychological change in countries like Britain in the last 30 or so years.
In parallel to that has been the growing sense that many seem to have that "I don't like that" and "I am offended by that" mean the same thing. It is a l ...[text shortened]... e pretending to be personally offended by people whose common courtesies are not identical to mine.
1 edit
@ghost-of-a-duke saidPersonally, I wouldn't have done it. I would have seen it as being inappropriate in so far as it was lacking in common courtesy.
I don't disagree with that, though don't think it really applies to the case being discussed. Singling somebody out by their skin colour is inappropriate, especially in this context. It's not about common courtesy.
If it actually breaks some kind of 'rule' about what is and isn't appropriate in an objective sense, then that's something for you to apply your subjectivity to.
The broadcaster apologized and "the black guy" accepted it.
It's hard to frame it as if any real harm was done by referring to his ethnicity.
It's a bit of a mountain-out-of-a-molehill, methinks.
1 edit
-Removed-As the C20th century wound down and the C21st has worn on, identifying oneself as offended has become a political act, in many instances.
It's understandable if the guy in question, along with other Black Britons, feel offended by the broadcaster's indiscretion or even by some possible underlying disrespect that gave rise to it, but I think if I were to claim I was offended too, it'd only serve to dilute the meaning of the word.
Remember, the expression 'to clutch one's pearls' dates back only as far as 1987. It has a relative newness about it.
