Wonderful words and wonderful message. Thank you, Ah-chie.

Wow…  what a great reply from Asante.  (also hating how people/media blows up little details)  Good words, guys.

Watching it, it seemed completely obvious that he was going for "people of color" but his mouth couldn't keep up with his brain (that seems to happen a lot), so it came out shorter--just a tongue slip. 

Ah-chie wrote:

This has appeared on Reuters News Service - Selma” star David Oyelowo has defended Benedict Cumberbatch after the Oscar-nominated star referred to black actors as ‘coloured’ on a US talk show.

Speaking at the UK premiere of “Selma,” in which Oyelowo gives a critically acclaimed performance as iconic civil rights leader Martin Luther King, the actor said: “I think people need to focus on what he (Cumberbatch) was actually saying which was a beautiful thing. He was talking about a lack of representation in terms of TV and film here, and if you read that article or if you saw that interview or if you know Benedict you’ll know that he meant nothing negative, he’s a dear dear friend of mine. I have been speaking to him about it today, he feels terrible that this is the reaction it’s getting but for me personally, I think focus on what he was actually saying rather than the terminology.”

And here's the video of David Oyelowo making a statement on this topic which is much the same: http://vimeo.com/117960102

I think eloquent statements like this and the previous one from Amma Asante will go a long way to help calm down any temptation by the social media sites and tabloid press to "pile on" more purposeful misinterpretation into what he said.  In a couple of days it will just be "old news" and they will move on to someone or something else to rake over the coals. 

I love that both Oyelowo and Asante both put the emphasis back on Ben's initial comment that the lack of diversity in acting choices in the UK is something that should be addressed - while also making it clear that Ben is someone who is repected and/or cherished  by his colleagues in a way that cuts across racial/ethnic boundaries because of what he stands for.  Bravo for them to come forward when he needs the support.

-Val

Beautifully put.

Well, some newspapers rag - I think it was The Mirror - made the poll whether Benedict should or shouldn´t apologise for the slip of his tongue. And this was the result:



Most people were not buying into this clicky-baity shaming campaign. Propably because they actually saw the interview and noticed what Benedict was really saying.

Last edited by nakahara (January 28, 2015 8:23 am)

This is good news, that people seem to understand what he meant and not keep getting caught up in just the world-slip.

From what I read from the Norwegian comments, it wasn't so much about people defending or liking Benedict, it was more that a lot of Norwegians are quite tired of people getting offended for every little thing. You have to start walking on egg shells because anything you say can possibly end up offending someone somewhere, and they will make a big fuss about it.

I think "to put one's foot in one's mouth" comes closest

I read both this one and the original Telegraph one when they came out and found the Spectator one interesting enough that I read it out loud to my husband. 

I feel the writer's castigation of the Telegraph column was certainly warrented (the opinion piece by Radhika Sanghani was a dung pile of nonsense) and I enjoyed Nick Cohn's skewering of it on it's own incongerious approach to common sense. 

His sentiments of "actions speak louder than words" and "context is everything" echoes David Oyelowo and Amma Asante's eloquent comments about what happened to BC in the aftermath of discussing inequality in the acting world with Tavis Smiley. 

But I do think that a correct amount of emphasis should be placed on the fact that this isn't merely a case of PC-ness run amuck.  It is, as you say, nakahara, more of an example of a fake scandal, manufactured by greedy tabloids "scum rags" that use trigger words (especially in headlines) to whip up so-called righteous indignation (some real but a large portion fabricated by people who look for offense as a way of gaining attention for their own personal agenda) as click-bait.

More than any of the "leftists" sputtering about proper terms (who IMO the writer wrongly hints at being the main source that caused BC's problem), the "chip wrapping" papers (and the right-wing, moneyed patricians behind them) are way more to blame for being instigators and propagators of the public cruxifiction of good people like Benedict, who make an occassional mistake when speaking noble and enlightened ideas.  They do it for the crassest of all reasons to rile folks up - for money in their pocket. 

I do wish the writer would have at least acknowledged the tabloids massive role in all this, instead of trying to lay the lionshare of criticism of the unfair vituperation of BC at the feet of "lefties" alone.

-Val

 

Absolutely REReader. 

It is a lot easier for those in a media position of money and/or power (like Paul Dacre or Rupert Murdoch) who stir up this sort of thing on a regular basis, if the focus is on the blurting out a particular word (or casting aspersions on someone like BC by dredging up creeky stories about ancestors with wink-wink, nod-nods and all that) rather than address the serious idea of inequality in any form.  If you keep the spotlight on the misuse of a word then you can avoid the examination of the real issue.

Recently I listened and read several different older interviews where Benedict was pointedly critical of Dacre and Murdoch (he cited the disgraceful DM's stories on Ralph Milibrand in one instant but there were several example he gave).  

I think these came out about the time BC was filming The Fifth Estate and he was talking about a balanced approach to freedom of the press vs. wanton disregard for decency in publishing but I have no doubt he is consistent in his feelings in this regard.  He certainly has no love for Dacre or Murdoch and perhaps (this is just my personal feelings) since he has made these views quite clear on more than one occassion, this current piling on by certain newspapers (ie. the reappearance of an old "ancestors" story, the "new" body guard story that tried to connect this to his recent "race row" incident, etc.) is a type of pay-back directed towards him.  They just don't like his enlightened stand on many social issues.  And I think they are always on high alert to jump all over any slip he may make. 

I have to say though I think Benedict is a very principled, passionate person so I don't think he will back down saying what he believes in.  

-Val

Very probable - interesting thoughts.