CRE suggest return to coloured people

By Ligali Media Network | Thu 6 October 2005

Trevor Philips has suggested that using the label coloured to describe African people is no longer offensive, that the Empire was a force for good and that British people are not naturally racist.


In a speech directed at Muslim Tories Phillips like his colleague Tony Sewell also praised the Empire for mixing ‘us’ up and used it as an example to try prove British people are not inheritantly racist. He applauded the cultural assimilation of African Britons with Caribbean heritage and said;

“There are three times as many African Caribbeans as there are Bangladeshis in the UK. The African Caribbeans are near the top of the mixing league; Bangladeshis near the bottom. And we can look at our own history to show that the British people are not by nature bigots. We created something called the empire where we mixed and mingled with people very different from those of these islands. Not on equal terms, of course”

Trevor:


Colour coding was introduced by racist Europeans

Philips comments which has gained much support from media presenters such as LBC’s Nick Ferrari has been universally condemned by those who would be branded by the colour coded scheme. Racial classification using colour coding was introduced by racist Europeans and actually made legislation in Azania (South Africa) to disinherit African people from their own identities. Back then the racist apartheid regime passed laws criminalising any African person who would dare call themselves an African because the word was too similar to the ‘Afrikanner’ label they had invented for themselves. African people with dual heritage were officially labelled ‘coloureds’ and given better privileges than those who were not. But this practice was not limited to just Azania or African people. In Australia a similar policy was ‘legally’ imposed upon the children of Aboriginal people who were bi-racial.

The roots of this practice began during the Maafa (Enslavement of Africa) when European slavers would systematically rape enslaved African women. To quell the stream of uprisings and violent revolts caused by the unrepentant African desire to return home the British and European slavers implemented a system to culturally disinherit African people held captive in the Caribbean and America. African people were severely punished if they used their own languages, religions or names. The only way to stop them from revolting with plans to return home was to convince the enslaved Africans that they were no longer African people but instead negro or ‘black’ people. England was now to be seen as the "motherland". A ‘coloured’ person was defined by the racists as a mix of a so called 'black slave' and a 'respectable' European plantation owner.


External Links
BBC - Apartheid Law


Ligali is not responsible for the content of third party sites



Speak Out!

Is Trevor Right? Was Empire good for us and should we return back to being labelled coloureds by Europeans?
Click here to speak out and share your perspective on this article.
we can look at our own history to show that the British people are not by nature bigots. We created something called the empire where we mixed and mingled with people very different from those of these islands

Trevor Phillips

See Related:





There is a multi-party strategy in the UK supported by those in power such as the Labour Party down to those in the gutter like the BNP. As a response to the increased risk of terrorism they have all ideologically banded together in an effort to culturally disinherit minority communities from their heritage by teaching them that the only culture they must subscribe to is British culture. To do this several changes have started to take place. The phrase Multi-culturalism is now effectively banned and instead has been replaced with multi-racial or the factually correct moniker multi-ethnic.

References to heritage, languages, religions or cultures that are not European are being systematically denigrated whilst English history and culture is being aggressively promoted.

The new mantra sung by all parties is that ‘we are a multi-ethnic society with one language, one culture... ours’.

Phillips has a history of pampering to the views of the wider community so his recent comments don’t come as much of a surprise. Nonetheless there is one element of Trevor’s recent speech that we believe has some merit. It is his proposed 'Highway Code to Ethnicity'. The idea which we strongly suspect to have been plagiarised from our own report ‘Race to Ethnicity’ would possible guide Britons of all ethnicity on how to respectfully refer to people of minority communities.

A typical example would be Ligali’s usage of the word African instead of the current labels ‘blacks’, coloureds, BME or urban.

Yet for such a plan to work the code would have to be written not by the CRE who have already shown how out of step they are with issues surrounding identity but grassroots organisations who have a policy of self determination. Below is an example of how Ligali’s entry would look like….

1. How do I refer to an African person?
Wherever you would have previously said the label ‘black’ or ‘coloured’ simply use the word African unless you are referring to an Asian in which case simply say Asian.
Eg. India Arie’s song Brown Skin was a song about love between African people.

2.How do I differentiate between an African from the Diaspora and one from the Continent?
You should not need to. It should always be apparent from the context in which you’re using the word African.
Eg. When Peter Tosh and Bob Marley said all ‘black’ people are Africans they were not just referring to African Caribbean’s.

3. Why should I use African British?
You don’t have to, but sometimes it is necessary to differentiate between African people of differing nationalities. In which case the format is more appropriate and accurate.
Eg. Many people within the African British community felt aggrieved at the media reporting of our African American cousins in New Orleans.

4. Doesn’t saying African exclude my Caribbean heritage?
No. Not any more than the label ‘black’ does. If you didn’t have an issue calling yourself ‘black’ British then why should the more accurate and respectful term African British offend you especially as it ensures you are not confused with other minority groups such as Asians and the Irish. The label 'black' British deliberately breaks all links with the heritage and ancestry of your parents and ancestors. Today it may not seem that big an issue, ten years from now your children will not even know who they are.
Eg. Many people within the African British community have Caribbean heritage.

5. Is it really so wrong to call ourselves coloureds?
Yes. It’s not only wrong but incredibly stupid. If we use common sense then we know that everybody is actually ‘coloured’ so what is the point unless we are siding with the racists who introduced the terminology and agreeing that coloured means ‘coloured in’. This asserts that white is the ‘normal’ state and everybody else is an anomalous version hence we have black (African) people, brown (Asian) people, yellow (Chinese) people, red (Amerindians) and normal (white) people. Why should African people be the only ones to help keep this racist system alive.

6. But what about saying people of colour?
The phrase is an oxymoron. There is absolutely no difference in meaning from the label ‘coloured’ and usage merely indicates that the person using the phrase is either culturally ignorant or lacks pride or in-depth knowledge of their own ancestry and heritage.
Eg. As a person of colour I find being called coloured offensive??????

7. But what about the label ‘black’ shouldn’t we just be ‘black and proud’?
When Malcolm X, Marcus Garvey, Kwame Nkrumah, Muhammad Ali and John Henrik Clarke said that ‘black’ people are African people they knew exactly what they were talking about. They worked and in some cases sacrificed their lives to empower the lives of African people worldwide. If we want something to be proud off then we should honour the work of our elders and instead of seeking a European label to describe ourselves. Build on the work of our great ancestors say African and proud.

8. Are Asian people also ‘black’?
Yes. Anybody can be ‘black’, Irish, Asian, Kurdish eve David Beckham. That’s what happens when you define yourself using a social-political construct and not a name based on fact. Anybody can be black but only an African is African. Quite obvious when you think about it.

9. Why not a ‘black’ person of African descent?
This is another discriminatory construct. Do we have brown people of Asian descent? Yellow people of Chinese descent? White people of European descent? The answer is no. The reason why is because the phrase ‘black’ people is social political construct designed solely to disconnect African people from their languages, religions, history and culture. Where do all ‘black’ people come from? Blackistan?

10. What about ‘white’ Africans like in Zimbabwe and Azania (South Africa)?
There is no such thing as a ‘white’ African. This is another social-political construct used to try legitimise the status of Europeans who continue to exploit the legacy left by their ancestors after the forced colonisation of Africa. There are Europeans with African nationality.
Eg. John was a British-Zimbabwean.

11. What about ‘black’ African?
This is another discriminatory construct. Have you ever heard of a yellow European? A white Asian? A red African? The answer is no. The label ‘black’ African only exists to facilitate the construct ‘white African’. Do not use it.

12. Why don’t we just call ourselves urban and British?
Don’t make us laugh.
Eg. Tim Westwood is an offensive urban wannabe.

Get involved and help change our world