Why it’s wrong to criticise Fiona Bruce for describing a black man as ‘black’
While working as a presenter at Sky TV 15 years ago, i wanted to thank one of the production crew who had been particularly helpful on my evening show.
i knew her name was Karen — and as i would shortly discover, she was the only other black person in the studio that night. And yet, when i asked my colleagues if someone could point her out, what followed was an excruciating comedy of verbal gymnastics as they tried to think of any other identifying description than the colour of her skin.
it fell to me to ask whether they meant the ‘young black woman’. You could sense the awkwardness as they nodded their assent.
This episode came back to me this week, following the outcry over presenter Fiona Bruce referring to a member of the BBC Question Time audience as ‘the black guy in the middle’.
She used the term to direct the microphone towards 35-year- old Roberto Gocan so that he might ask the panel a question. While the remark was broadcast on BBC One, it was later deemed offensive enough by the panjandrums at the Beeb to require its removal from the programme when released on iPlayer.
On social media, left-wing ideologues were out in force: Bruce soon stood accused of deploying a horrendous racial slur in referencing Gocan by his skin colour while identifying white members of the audience by what they were wearing.
She has since sincerely apologised — both via a BBC statement and in person over the phone to Gocan — pointing out that, as Gocan was partly obscured from view, she had used the term merely as a reference point because she could not see the colour of his clothing. in other words, she was using the word ‘black’ as a descriptive adjective. Nothing more, nothing less. What exactly is wrong with that? After all, the art of description is saying what you see, and what Bruce saw at that moment was a black man — a perfectly reasonable identifier when she could not see much else.
if she had pointed out a white woman in a row of black people, would there have been a similar outcry? i doubt it. indeed, if like my dear old Sky colleagues, she had danced around trying to reference anything other than his skin colour, people would probably have laughed their socks off.
i am also sure that if i—a black woman — had been chairing the meeting and referred to Gocan as ‘the black man’, this would have passed unremarked.
This all leads to only one conclusion: that the word ‘black’ is somehow always pejorative when deployed by a white person. Not only is this obviously untrue, it’s a very dangerous and discomforting worldview. ironically, this only reinforces the impression that to be black is to be ‘other’ or even ‘inferior’. To ban the word black is to transform a neutral adjective into a slur.
So what is the etiquette around racial descriptors? it seems unfortunate to have to ask the question, but such are the times we live in. in most normal situations, it’s perfectly acceptable to describe somebody as black, or any other colour, provided you are remarking on their appearance and not their personality. it only becomes an insult in a context whereby the user is trying to cause offence or, worse still, align someone’s race with their character.
Many years ago, someone called me ‘Blackie’ — a word that has always been loaded with derogatory meaning, just like other racial slurs. They are intended to wound, and to undermine.
And make no mistake, there are some descriptive words that
This reinforces that to be black is to be ‘other’ or ‘inferior’
To ban the word transforms it into a slur
should not be used, even if they are accurate. Bruce wouldn’t, after all, refer to somebody by the size of their waistline or the shape of their breasts.
But, as a pure descriptor, ‘black’ should have no negative connotations — and it is misguided at best, counterproductive at worst, of those attacking Bruce to suggest otherwise.
Underpinning all this manufactured horror is an inherent contradiction. We live in a world in which there are regular events celebrating black culture, like Black history Month this October. There are also job adverts — particularly from the BBC — which specifically call for applicants from the ‘ BAMe’ community, meaning Black, Asian or Minority ethnic.
One is allowed to identify someone’s skin colour, then, but only up to a point, only in certain situations and only when the individual you’re describing says so.
it is patently absurd. The reality is that those attacking Fiona Bruce are tying themselves up in knots. They want to pretend colour doesn’t exist, but it does — and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that.