'Sherlock' actor latest victim of political correctness witch-hunt

ireland.man

reprise wrote: »

"I feel the complete fool I am and while I am sorry to have offended people and to learn from my mistakes in such a public manner, please be assured I have.
"I apologise again to anyone who I offended for this thoughtless use of inappropriate language about an issue which affects friends of mine and which I care about deeply

I'll try again...

This actor is popular. The media want to exploit his popularity. He uses an outdated word and apologises for it. No significant political group or individual called for him to be punished or were outraged at him.

The media continue the story because of who he is, not what he said. Others who are less savvy about how the media works assume there exists massive outrage and abuse directed at the actor and jump to defend him because they want the freedom to use words which offend other people themselves.

The King of Moo

reprise wrote: »

I see plenty of evidence of the perennial menacing undertone and self righteousness that clearly prompted such a wildly over the top apology.

A mans gotta eat.

Yeah, I'll make things up too.

Benedict Cumberpottle has been literally killed by SJWs!!! They burned him at the stake!! They're going to kill all white people because of their liberal guilt!!!

NachoBusiness

Where are all these black people that have been offended by Cumberbatch using the word coloured anyway? As all I have seen so far are Guardian types getting offended on behalf of others, as is their want. One particular Guardian journalist in fact saying that Cumberbatch's use of the word was evidence to him of just how "white" (read 'racist') the British film industry is, as if it wasn't, he would never have used the word to begin with.

reprise

ireland.man wrote: »

I'll try again...

I won't.

You've simply repeated yourself so to save time, you can read my reply again.

The King of Moo wrote: »

Yeah, I'll make things up too.

Benedict Cumberpottle has been literally killed by SJWs!!! They burned him at the stake!! They're going to kill all white people because of their liberal guilt!!!

But that's not entirely true. Pre-empting your rage, he burned himself at the stake and following your brief but deadly serious sermon, you pseudo absolved him, leaving him with his tail smoking between his legs. But not before you hilariously bastardised his name several times for sport because let's be honest, he's a little too white to be pissing and moaning about taking offence himself.

Still, a mans gotta eat.

FloatingVoter

Benny Cabbagepatch said wha...?


Right we'll start with the downright offensive "******"
Nope. Ends your career and me talking to you with that one.

We'll move to the language of Martin Luther King and say "Negro"
Nope...that went out with ehmm the 1960s..****.


its the 1970s now...."coloured". "I am a person of colour. I will now sing you a folk song."
I'm sorry....clock is moving on.

and now its "Black". But not in an offensive blacklisted kind of way. Maybe we'll ebonylist the racists.

All you PC people had better keep watching that clock and the fashion pages because it keeps changing.


Now I'm back to my Richard Pryor DVD and I'll see what the man is using....

...ohhhhhhh.....;)

BlaasForRafa

reprise wrote: »

Apologised politely? Don't make me laugh.

I see plenty of evidence of the perennial menacing undertone and self righteousness that clearly prompted such a wildly over the top apology.

A mans gotta eat.

Agreed, the apology was way over the top. All he needed to say was "I meant to say person of colour but I said coloured by mistake. Sorry" and that's it.

It was a simple mistake, he wasn't setting out to offend anyone but the way he apologised he made it sound far worse than it actually was.

bjork

Venus In Furs wrote: »

No they wouldn't. "Black" is not deemed offensive. It's no different to "white".

I´m not white, I´m pink. I find this white remark very racist, please apologise to me, I´m offended.

BBDBB

Hey Cumberbatch, Say 'coloured' again. Say 'coloured' again, I dare you, I double dare you mother****er, say 'coloured' one more Goddamn time!

BeerWolf

This whole PC bullsh!t is going to be the death of society, because certain groups take absolute total fecking advantage of it...

Teyla Emmagan

Teyla Emmagan wrote: »

Yeah, one of his grandfathers was a slave owner in the Caribbean, back in the day. That's why a lot of he Cumberbatches out there are 'persons of colour' - they took the names of their owner back then. He's very mortified by it by the interviews I've read (I may have an unhealthy interest in Mr Cumberbatch).

On a tangent maybe, but it's a little more than having a relative who 'happened' to be a slave owner.

The Cumberbatches were one of the biggest plantation owning families in Barbados, and the family fortune was essentially based on sugar and by extension slavery.

I am sure Benedict is a nice guy, and I don't really believe that the son inherits the sins of the father. On the other hand he sure inherits the money without too many qualms...

conorhal

The King of Moo wrote: »

You can't just ignore the entire history of the word "coloured!" It's not just a neutral, innocent way to describe anyone non-white. It has negative connotations for African Americans, particularly in relation to segregation.

Hence why some people pointed out that what he said might be offensive to some, and why he apologised politely.

Why people in this thread have imagined a completely non-existent wild liberal outrage against Cumberbottom that they keep referring to despite providing no evidence for its existence is truly baffling.

Have the primary advocacy group for black civil rights in America, the NAACP (The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) released a condemnation of his poorly worded statement yet?

Grayson

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Where are all these black people that have been offended by Cumberbatch using the word coloured anyway? As all I have seen so far are Guardian types getting offended on behalf of others, as is their want. One particular Guardian journalist in fact saying that Cumberbatch's use of the word was evidence to him of just how "white" (read 'racist') the British film industry is, as if it wasn't, he would never have used the word to begin with.

If you don't know any black people then that says something about you

:pac:

Teyla Emmagan

Deleted User wrote: »

On a tangent maybe, but it's a little more than having a relative who 'happened' to be a slave owner.

The Cumberbatches were one of the biggest plantation owning families in Barbados, and the family fortune was essentially based on sugar and by extension slavery.

I am sure Benedict is a nice guy, and I don't really believe that the son inherits the sins of the father. On the other hand he sure inherits the money without too many qualms...

No, his family (father, mother), weren't very well off. He did go to Harrow, but that was paid for by a rich aunt. And she may well have been rolling in slavery money, but she may also have been self made, I don't know. He had a very normal upbringing, bar the posh school. Like I said, I have spent far too much time stalking the man.

Teyla Emmagan

Teyla Emmagan wrote: »

No, his family (father, mother), weren't very well off. He did go to Harrow, but that was paid for by a rich aunt. And she may well have been rolling in slavery money, but she may also have been self made, I don't know. He had a very normal upbringing, bar the posh school. Like I said, I have spent far too much time stalking the man.

I am sure he wants us all to think he is awfully normal but a quick glance at wikipedia is enough to scupper that idea.

Fees at Harrow - something like 30k a year (and that's sterling). So an education there costs something in the area of a quarter of a million euros.

Like I say, he is quite likely to be a lovely guy and he does come across that way, but his dubious family history is a fact and it's not one rogue distant relative, it's how - as a family - they made their money.

the groutch

is it not a bit hypocritical that they're calling the term "colored" offensive and outdated, yet the NAACP have no problem using it in the organization's name.

RWCNT

I'm really impressed at the ratio of people here that can see what a non-issue this is compared to the SJW-phobic weirdos ranting away about this imaginary PC bridgade. AH is definitely getting better.

jmayo

Deleted User wrote: »

I am sure he wants us all to think he is awfully normal but a quick glance at wikipedia is enough to scupper that idea.

Fees at Harrow - something like 30k a year (and that's sterling). So an education there costs something in the area of a quarter of a million euros.

Like I say, he is quite likely to be a lovely guy and he does come across that way, but his dubious family history is a fact and it's not one rogue distant relative, it's how - as a family - they made their money.

A good chunk of white America made their money out of slavery.
Liverpool became a major city and port because of slavery.
Lancashire became a major industrial complex because of slavery.
Hell the industrial revolution took off because of slavery.

Yes the industrial revolution grew out of the cotton mills and the cotton came from slave owning plantations in America.

So becasue we have all benefited from the industrial revolution we could say we all benefitted from slavery if you take it to extremes.

Karl Stein

Teyla Emmagan wrote: »

Like I said, I have spent far too much time stalking the man.

12 years a stalker.

Beefy78

Deleted User wrote: »

I am sure Benedict is a nice guy, and I don't really believe that the son inherits the sins of the father. On the other hand he sure inherits the money without too many qualms...

I'm pretty sure he's doing ok in his own right.

spikeS

Beefy78 wrote: »

I'm pretty sure he's doing ok in his own right.

He got a leg up from that money to get where he is and now he is using terms that hurt the same people his ancestors used for the money.

Beefy78

spikeS wrote: »

He got a leg up from that money to get where he is and now he is using terms that hurt the same people his ancestors used for the money.

He is where he is because he is one of the best actors in the World. He has no reason whatsoever to apologise for any of the actions of his ancestors just as I don't and you don't. Slavery has been going on for thousands of years.

You seem the only person "hurt" by his use of a perfectly innocent word in the context that he used it in.

spikeS

Beefy78 wrote: »

He is where he is because he is one of the best actors in the World. He has no reason whatsoever to apologise for any of the actions of his ancestors just as I don't and you don't. Slavery has been going on for thousands of years.

You seem the only person "hurt" by his use of a perfectly innocent word in the context that he used it in.

I have no problem saying sorry for what my ancestors did, what they did was wrong and I cannot just wash that hurt away

Iranoutofideas

**** me.

superfurry1

spikeS wrote: »

I have no problem saying sorry for what my ancestors did, what they did was wrong and I cannot just wash that hurt away

You need new Cillit Bang and the dirt is gone:D

reprise

RWCNT wrote: »

I'm really impressed at the ratio of people here that can see what a non-issue this is compared to the SJW-phobic weirdos ranting away about this imaginary PC bridgade. AH is definitely getting better.

Aren't you the genius that said putting your country's flag on your home was racism or something equally wired? Maybe you could tip the ratio further by not posting.

RobYourBuilder

Very well written opening piece. Deserved a like for the alliteration alone.

ireland.man

It's a non-issue for leftists. To all those here frothing at the mouth about the 'liberal media' and 'pc brigade', you're confusing media saturation of a popular actor with a genuine political issue. There's no serious or reputable organisation or individual outraged by his use of language.

The media's coverage of this has all the political depth of Kim Kardashian's arse.

Beefy78

Beefy78 wrote: »

I'm pretty sure he's doing ok in his own right.

Of course he is and more power to him.

Doesn't change the fact that the Cumberbatches are very much an establishment family and their fortune was made in the sugar plantations of Barbados.

What happened on those plantations was pretty horrific by any standards. I realise that there is no real practical way to address the situation, but his education and connections were ultimately paid for with slave trade money.

I suppose this is a political thing. Suggest you are going to take land from a man and he'll indignantly tell you you don't have the right. So what gives him the right to it? "my father gave it to me". Where did he get it? "his father gave it to him". Keep asking that question (in England anyway) and sooner or later somebody stole it.

btw wrt the OP I couldn't give a damn about him using the word 'coloured'

jmayo

jmayo wrote: »

A good chunk of white America made their money out of slavery.
Liverpool became a major city and port because of slavery.
Lancashire became a major industrial complex because of slavery.
Hell the industrial revolution took off because of slavery.

Yes the industrial revolution grew out of the cotton mills and the cotton came from slave owning plantations in America.

So becasue we have all benefited from the industrial revolution we could say we all benefitted from slavery if you take it to extremes.

Not really extremes - Marx said the same thing a long time ago (and was basically right).

But of course there is a difference between a docker in Liverpool getting a job and a family that owned the land, bought the slaves, ran them into the ground and pocketed the profits.

A difference that makes a tangible difference today, as I doubt you see many kids from Toxteth going to Harrow

Skullface McGubbin

Since White is a colour too, technically, you could say we're all coloured people in a sense :pac:

Also, if what the defensive lefty types on this thread are saying is true then there would be no BBC Newsbeat article on the subject.

ireland.man

Skullface McGubbin wrote: »

Since White is a colour too, technically, you could say we're all coloured people in a sense :pac:

Also, if what the defensive lefty types on this thread are saying is true then there would be no BBC Newsbeat article on the subject.

What do you mean?

southstar

PC gone mad.......not me I just wash and go.

fizzypish

Skullface McGubbin wrote: »

Since White is a colour too, technically, you could say we're all coloured people in a sense :pac:

White is the absence of color.

strobe

fizzypish wrote: »

White is the absence of color.

That's black, white is what you get when you mix all the primary colours at the same ratio.

jimgoose

Skullface McGubbin wrote: »

Since White is a colour too, technically, you could say we're all coloured people in a sense :pac:

Also, if what the defensive lefty types on this thread are saying is true then there would be no BBC Newsbeat article on the subject.

Nobody is white anyway, unless they're dead. Most "white" people seem to be a sort of brownish-pink.

RWCNT

Skullface McGubbin wrote: »

Also, if what the defensive lefty types on this thread are saying is true then there would be no BBC Newsbeat article on the subject.

Did you read the newsbeat article? It wasn't full of outrage and Cumberbatch being called a racist at all.

RobYourBuilder

People of colour is a stupid term. Whites aren't translucent. Anyway, it groups all non Whites together and reinforces an us versus them mentality.

fizzypish

strobe wrote: »

That's black, white is what you get when you mix all the primary colours at the same ratio.

Can't really find a flaw in this. I'll bow to your knowledge and apt user name.

Generic Dreadhead

El Guapo! wrote: »

I got a good laugh out of that OP. Funny stuff.
You should start a blog or whatever the kids are into nowadays.

Waterford Whispers News maybe?

RWCNT

RobYourBuilder wrote: »

People of colour is a stupid term. Whites aren't translucent. Anyway, it groups all non Whites together and reinforces an us versus them mentality.

I have to admit that I thought the whole issue with the term "coloured" was that it lumped everyone together but after reading the thread I can see there was more to it than I thought.

Since I'm white I don't think it's my place to make calls like the one you just did. We're all entitled to our opinion but I wouldn't blame a black person for not caring about mine regarding what they'd like to be referred to as.

Conall Cernach

strobe wrote: »

That's black, white is what you get when you mix all the primary colours at the same ratio.

Only if you're talking about light. If you mix all the primary colours using paint you end up with some brownish mess.

reprise

ireland.man wrote: »

It's a non-issue for leftists. To all those here frothing at the mouth about the 'liberal media' and 'pc brigade', you're confusing media saturation of a popular actor with a genuine political issue. There's no serious or reputable organisation or individual outraged by his use of language.

The media's coverage of this has all the political depth of Kim Kardashian's arse.

Any chance you might take a break from the hysterics and link to the posts berating the "liberal media" and the "pc brigade"?

Pumpkinseeds

I'm so tired of the PC brigade. On the one hand we are encouraged to celebrate black heritage and there's a Music of Black Origin award every year. I don't accept that the majority of black people are offended by the terms 'black' or 'colour'. If so perhaps someone could issue a pamphlet on whatever descriptive term is currently acceptable. Honestly, all this PC ****e is achieving is to annoy people and create more racism.

DeadHand

spikeS wrote: »

I have no problem saying sorry for what my ancestors did, what they did was wrong and I cannot just wash that hurt away

Right, let's take this to it's obvious conclusion.

Native, black Africans were also eager participants in the slave trade and profited handsomely from it. It was seen as a way to eliminate rival tribes and make a few bob in the process, round them up and sell them to the Europeans.

Point being, the average person of west African ancestry is about as likely as the average person of Irish ancestry to have been culpable in the slave trade.

Should black people, therefore, apologise to, er, each other?

The Arabs were probably history's greatest slave traders. During the over 1,000 years of the Arab slave trade they enslaved millions of Europeans and far more Africans. Slavery was still legal in Saudi Arabia as recently as 1962.

Should anyone of Arab background now apologise to white Europeans?

Or maybe some of us should come off the stage and stop attempting to assume guilt for events that happened hundreds of years before any of us was born.


Incidentally, there are still millions of slaves in the world today, almost none of them are being kept by white Europeans.

Boring username

So, is black the preferred term now, or is it African-American? There was a shift away from 'black' a few years ago to 'African-American'. Some people feel this is a racist term though: http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/05/20/why-african-american-is-a-patronizing-even-racist-term/

NegativeCreep

African American doesn't really apply to us though does it? Most black people in Ireland probably have no connection to America whatsoever.

The King of Moo

Boring username wrote: »

So, is black the preferred term now, or is it African-American? There was a shift away from 'black' a few years ago to 'African-American'. Some people feel this is a racist term though: http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/05/20/why-african-american-is-a-patronizing-even-racist-term/

"Black" is still quite acceptable. I get how some people consider it can help to maintain a false binary opposition between black and white as opposites, but it's still fairly widely used as it's not so commonly used with a negative meaning.
Calling someone "a black" might get you into trouble though, as it's very reductive.

It's pretty common knowledge that "African American" is fine.
For Americans.

Boring username

The King of Moo wrote: »

"Black" is still quite acceptable. I get how some people consider it can help to maintain a false binary opposition between black and white as opposites, but it's still fairly widely used as it's not so commonly used with a negative meaning.
Calling someone "a black" might get you into trouble though, as it's very reductive.

It's pretty common knowledge that "African American" is fine.
For Americans.

I get what you mean about black having potential negative connotations, but you have to understand how terrified people are of using the 'wrong' phrase and being leapt on by those with an axe to grind.
Take this article for example-this chap has managed to gain paid employment by screaming that 'black', or any label at all, is 'racist'. (so according to him, you and I are both racist!) Although he does defend Cumberbatch to an extent also.

This is the kind of hysterical nonsense I spoke of when I described an out of control, multi million dollar political correctness industry. I can't see him losing his job here for whipping up the flames of hysteria. And therein lies the problem.

Incidentally, I found an article here that supports my original suggestion that accusations of racism are spiralling out of control: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/racist-is-the-new-black-lets-only-call-it-racism-when-it-really-is-racist-8215515.html

bjork

Pictured: Brutal Barbados slave plantation where Benedict Cumberbatch's ancestors built their multimillion pound fortune on backs of '250 negroes'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2930172/Benedict-Cumberbatch-s-slave-owning-ancestors-plantation.html#ixzz3QErrJcF9
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

´

DeadHand

bjork wrote: »

Pictured: Brutal Barbados slave plantation where Benedict Cumberbatch's ancestors built their multimillion pound fortune on backs of '250 negroes'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2930172/Benedict-Cumberbatch-s-slave-owning-ancestors-plantation.html#ixzz3QErrJcF9
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

´

What a total non-story.

If we were all to be made to answer for the crimes of our ancestors not one of us would remain unhanged.