"People Of Color"

[edgeburner]

Just exactly does that term refer to?

Non whites? If so, how exactly to you brand a person/race/nationality as to whether he has 'color' or not? What is the defining criteria?

Don't mean to be a nit-picker, but, doesn't this term indicate that white people have no color?

Place the proverbial "shoe" on the other foot for a moment, dark skinned folks lack "color" and lighter skinned folks posses "color". Let's face it, literally it could go either way. What do you think the reaction would be if we 'flipped' the term?

Just curious.

[Ceruulean]

White means no pigment. Black means much pigment. This is basic color theory. So yeah, "white people have no color." Whites are the default, like regular paper, and non-whites are painted paper.

The question you're asking is like saying, "Here's a hypothetical situation: white paint is considered colorful, blue paint is considered not colorful, what would people's reaction be?"

Most people would say, "What are you trying to ask me?"

[kvnchrist]

People of color is just another politically correct way of describing people who are not white. It has no meaning to anyone other than to those who use it to feel good about themseves.

[Vagrant0]

By strictest definition, anyone who is not of pure German, or English origin. Nevermind that part about those dirty Saxons spreading their filth across Britannia. About everyone else have been considered non-white at some point based on one silly justification or another. Has nothing to do with skin pigmentation, and everything to do with trying to separate one group above everyone else who might be, at that time, deemed unfit based solely on nationality or association. Like all most other racism, this tends to be complete bulls*** used by the speaker to try and elevate their own status despite their own glaring faults, or as a justification to exclude someone based on something they have no control over.

[Vindekarr]

Stepping around the issue of race is really difficult. For me, I try to treat everybody as "people" and race-neutral, but that isn't always going to work. I don't think there really is a perfect solution; "person of colour" could easily be construed as polite or racist as much as my attitude of neutrality.

 

The same thing happens with gender identity. You can treat people as gender-neutral and eventually somebody with a particular gender identity will scream at you. Sexual identity is even worse because no matter how polite you are, no matter that you don't actually feel any conscious prejudice, some "demisexual" or "quasi-sapiosexual" is going to scream at you for refusing to acknowledge them.

 

People are a game of minesweeper even if you aren't a particularly prejudiced person. I'm a moderate, centrist person who doesn't have any prejudices that they're aware of and who's politics favour an equal society with as few borders as possible. And I get yelled at all the time-often by the exact groups people I've protested for. It's just the way life is, you can't really be universally polite however hard you try, and your actual politics rarely make any difference.

[kvnchrist]

By strictest definition, anyone who is not of pure German, or English origin. Nevermind that part about those dirty Saxons spreading their filth across Britannia. About everyone else have been considered non-white at some point based on one silly justification or another. Has nothing to do with skin pigmentation, and everything to do with trying to separate one group above everyone else who might be, at that time, deemed unfit based solely on nationality or association. Like all most other racism, this tends to be complete bulls*** used by the speaker to try and elevate their own status despite their own glaring faults, or as a justification to exclude someone based on something they have no control over.

Very well said.

[edgeburner]

 

Has nothing to do with skin pigmentation, and everything to do with trying to separate one group above everyone else who might be, at that time, deemed unfit based solely on nationality or association. Like all most other racism, this tends to be complete bulls*** used by the speaker to try and elevate their own status despite their own glaring faults, or as a justification to exclude someone based on something they have no control over.

Quite well stated. the 'group separation" is the fascinating thing to me. Why would you want to isolate one race, or, try to unite races that share a skin pigmentation against another that may or may not share the same pigmentation?

 

I guarantee you, if the term were reversed (at least here in the US) you would be accused of racism and referring to dark skinned folks as lacking in color...

 

But, then again, what would the world be without double standards based on.....

[ripple]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2014/03/30/295931070/the-journey-from-colored-to-minorities-to-people-of-color

[Nintii]

Unfortunately, the very real problem that also exists is that "people of colour" also discriminate against their very own

colour because they're either a shade too light or a shade too dark.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWafrnk-bDc

[Vagrant0]

 

 

Has nothing to do with skin pigmentation, and everything to do with trying to separate one group above everyone else who might be, at that time, deemed unfit based solely on nationality or association. Like all most other racism, this tends to be complete bulls*** used by the speaker to try and elevate their own status despite their own glaring faults, or as a justification to exclude someone based on something they have no control over.

Quite well stated. the 'group separation" is the fascinating thing to me. Why would you want to isolate one race, or, try to unite races that share a skin pigmentation against another that may or may not share the same pigmentation?

Because there are always various inequalities which exist in the world due to economic status, place of origin, language spoken, religious beliefs, or even which family you belong to. In the US, you have a large number of people from pretty much all over, and with the exception of certain very specific genetic traits, people stopped being able to identify across groups and just settled on those things which could be figured out quickly or from a distance.

 

There is no unification because people are always at odds with eachother over resources, social rights, and ability to be around others who are most like themselves. Or they are actively trying to establish themselves as being different from the majority or perceived majority as a means of creating their own group solidarity or impressing their beliefs on others. Because of this, there will always be some sort of discrimination, prejudice, or social exclusion, even if we all had the same exact skin pigmentation.

 

The only thing that might ever change along these lines is that some day people may stop being so quick to take offense to passive or conversational prejudice or atleast taking everything so personally. But, that is a long shot at best.