# Kolorowy



## Szkot

> From a German police story:  *Dwukolorowi funkcjonariusze w  mundurach siedzieli z przodu*.



Two French policemen are driving two German detectives to a rendezvous.   One smokes a cigarette (tut-tut) en route, but otherwise they contribute nothing  to the story.

I assume this means that one policeman was white, the other not.  In  today's English, coloured is not normally used about someone's race.    Is kolorowy acceptable  in contemporary Polish to describe a person?


----------



## majlo

Szkot said:


> I assume this means that one policeman was white, the other not.



Most probably, but without further context we can't be absolutely sure.



Szkot said:


> Is kolorowy acceptable  in contemporary Polish to describe a person?


Nope, just as in English it's regarded offensive. The politically correct expression is "czarnoskóry" (black-skinned), and the normal expression is simply "czarny" (Black). There is also the word "Murzyn" which is regarded offensive by some people too. I myself though see nothing unacceptable about it.


----------



## ><FISH'>

majlo said:


> Most probably, but without further context we can't be absolutely sure.
> 
> 
> Nope, just as in English it's regarded offensive. The politically correct expression is "czarnoskóry" (black-skinned), and the normal expression is simply "czarny" (Black). There is also the word "Murzyn" which is regarded offensive by some people too. I myself though see nothing unacceptable about it.


What is the general view of the word "Czarnuch"? I've heard mixed opinions about this. Some people insist that the Polish language has no racist words towards blacks at all, but I find that hard to believe.


----------



## Thomas1

I'm wondering if none of the policmen was white. Kolorowy, a disparaging word, connotes someone of a different race than the white.


><FISH'> said:


> What is the general view of the word "Czarnuch"? I've heard mixed opinions about this. Some people insist that the Polish language has no racist words towards blacks at all, but I find that hard to believe.


The word you quote is very disparaging, and I would guess it may equal to the English 'nigger'. As for the second part of your message, well... that's just a will-o'-the-wisp.


----------



## Trauer

><FISH'> said:


> Some people insist that the Polish language has no racist words towards blacks at all, but I find that hard to believe.



Well, that's so not true... There's lots of rascist words towards blacks and others, however I don't think that writing them down is a good idea.


----------



## dn88

It's really hard to tell... But given the sentence as it stands, I would assume it's a reference to their outfits rather than their skin color.


----------



## Thomas1

dn88 said:


> It's really hard to tell... But given the sentence as it stands, I would assume it's a reference to their outfits rather than their skin color.


This is what occured to me too, Dn. But I think that it would have been better to phrase the sentence in the following way:
*Funkcjonariusze w  dwukolorowych mundurach siedzieli z przodu*. 			 		
This way it sounds way smoother, don't you think? As it is, i.e. _Dwukolorowi funkcjonariusze w  mundurach siedzieli z przodu._, 			 		 it sounds clunky to me, because 'dwukolorowy' seems to modify people, whereas it is an adjetive normally used to modify things. That may be one of the reasons for its being desparaging when used for people. Anyway, I think we need more context.


----------



## Szkot

Thanks everybody.  Unfortunately there is no further context; the policemen appear and then disappear.  Certainly it seemed strange to mention their race when it had nothing to do with the story, but that was what the grammar suggested, as T1 says.  Also I think German police generally have two-tone uniforms, so why would a German author mention it?


----------



## Thomas1

Did the German author write the book in Polish?
What is the story about? (And what is this particular chapter about, if there are any?)
Where and when does the action take place?
Are there any mentions of mixing cutlures in the story?


----------



## Ben Jamin

majlo said:


> Most probably, but without further context we can't be absolutely sure.
> 
> 
> Nope, just as in English it's regarded offensive. The politically correct expression is "czarnoskóry" (black-skinned), and the normal expression is simply "czarny" (Black). There is also the word "Murzyn" which is regarded offensive by some people too. I myself though see nothing unacceptable about it.


 Czarny is rather offensive, or at least condescending. Murzyn principally is not, though it can be (as any name of nationality or race pronounced with a certain intonation or attitude). Speaking about soomebody's race is tricky, and should not be done without a good reason. Many foreigners who do not speak Polish or have little knowlegde of the Polish customs look up the word Murzyn in a dictionary, find the English word "Negro" and conclude that Murzyn must be offensive, which is wrong. It should be remembered that 50 years ago "Afroamericans" called themselves Negroes.
(Afroamerican is regarded offensive by some people already now "I'm not Afroamerican, I'm American".


----------



## majlo

Ben Jamin said:


> Czarny is rather offensive, or at least condescending.


I do not agree with that.



Ben Jamin said:


> Speaking about soomebody's race is tricky, and should not be done without a good reason.



Well, when someone happens to be speaking about race, I think it automatically means that they have a good reason to do it.



Ben Jamin said:


> It should be remembered that 50 years ago "Afroamericans" called themselves Negroes.



That's right. Today some of them call themselves "Niggas".



Ben Jamin said:


> (Afroamerican is regarded offensive by some people already now "I'm not Afroamerican, I'm American".


It's the first time I've heard that.


----------



## NotNow

Ben Jamin said:


> (Afroamerican is regarded offensive by some people already now "I'm not Afroamerican, I'm American".


 
I live in the U.S., and I have never, ever heard that.

BTW Afro-American is always hyphenated.


----------



## Ben Jamin

NotNow said:


> I live in the U.S., and I have never, ever heard that.
> 
> BTW Afro-American is always hyphenated.


But I did read an interview with a man angry because he was called Afro-American. I presume, that he is not the only one, but I did not say that there are many such people. Have you, by the way, heard about Euphemism treadmill?


----------



## Ben Jamin

majlo said:


> I do not agree with that.
> 
> It's taken ad notam.
> 
> 
> Well, when someone happens to be speaking about race, I think it automatically means that they have a good reason to do it.
> 
> Not really. People often use a race term, because they consider the race as the most characteristic property of a person, which also can be described in many other ways, all from "a passer by", to "father of my schoolmate", but they choose a racial connotation. And this is offensive.
> 
> That's right. Today some of them call themselves "Niggas".
> 
> 50 years ago Negro was not an offensive term, Nigger was.
> 
> It's the first time I've heard that.


 
Ther must always be a first time.


----------



## Rusak963

Ben Jamin, I believe that "Nigger" is still offensive. Furthermore, there is a difference between "Nigger" and "Nigga".


----------



## majlo

Ben Jamin said:


> Ther must always be a first time.


It would be better if you addressed the matter factually because you are misleading people. If you bring up a controversial, possibly untrue opinion, then it behoves you to at least provide some source which would prop it up.


----------



## Ben Jamin

majlo said:


> ... because you are misleading people...


Strong words. Are you so sure of your case?


----------



## majlo

Ben Jamin said:


> Strong words.



Strong as they may be, there are more important ones:



majlo said:


> It would be better if you addressed the matter  factually [...]


----------



## Ben Jamin

majlo said:


> Strong as they may be, there are more important ones:


 It depends of what you call facts. Seek for the words "I´m not an African-American" in the internet, and you´ll find hundreds of utterances about the controversies about that name. It is usually criticized for being excluding for some other groups that belong to the group "blacks", some people, for instance James Meredith, find as stigmatizing as any other name from the "euphemism threadmill". They just do not want to be classified as members of a race. The majority however, choose the strategy of grouping around a racial flag. If you are interested in finding statistics, take the pain and find out what you need, but do not attack people for "misleading".


----------



## Ben Jamin

Rusak963 said:


> Ben Jamin, I believe that "Nigger" is still offensive. Furthermore, there is a difference between "Nigger" and "Nigga".


 Have I said anything to the contrary of that?


----------



## Rusak963

Ben Jamin said:


> Have I said anything to the contrary of that?


 
I believe you have.


Ben Jamin said:


> 50 years ago Negro was not an offensive term, Nigger was.


----------



## Ben Jamin

Rusak963 said:


> I believe you have.


 Yes, but did I say "but now it is not"?


----------



## Rusak963

Ben Jamin said:


> Yes, but did I say "but now it is not"?



No, you haven't, but if you say that it was, it means, to me at least, that it no longer is.


----------



## majlo

Ben Jamin said:


> It depends of what you call facts. Seek for the words "I´m not an African-American" in the internet, and you´ll find hundreds of utterances about the controversies about that name. It is usually criticized for being excluding for some other groups that belong to the group "blacks", some people, for instance James Meredith, find as stigmatizing as any other name from the "euphemism threadmill". They just do not want to be classified as members of a race.



Just because someone doesn't want to be classified as a member of a race doesn't mean that it's a rule. As for seeking these words, I also have a suggestion: try seeking "Santa Claus exists" on the Internet.  To me a group of eccentrics isn't an assessing factor. I respect their opinion; I myself have my eccentricities, but that doesn't change the way the world is.


----------



## ><FISH'>

Ben Jamin said:


> It depends of what you call facts. Seek for the words "I´m not an African-American" in the internet, and you´ll find hundreds of utterances about the controversies about that name. It is usually criticized for being excluding for some other groups that belong to the group "blacks", some people, for instance James Meredith, find as stigmatizing as any other name from the "euphemism threadmill". They just do not want to be classified as members of a race. The majority however, choose the strategy of grouping around a racial flag. If you are interested in finding statistics, take the pain and find out what you need, but do not attack people for "misleading".


"African-American" is not just an ethnic designation; to many it is actually a proclamation of which culture they belong to, of which some people can be very defensive about. Hundreds of years of living in a place and undergoing vast segregation will undoubtedly form a culture of its own, and that culture will still persist for decades, maybe centuries, to come. Someone like, for example, the current U.S President can ethnically call himself "African-American", but based on culture he would not be considered so, since his parents are white American and first generation Kenyan.


----------

