3 ms·

> “We are going to group you together with people you have nothing in common with economically, historically, or culturally, because you’re all ‘coloreds’ to us

> “We are going to group you together with people you have nothing in common with economically, historically, or culturally, because you’re all ‘coloreds’ to us!” Don't you think it's _describing_ this grouping, not _prescribing_ it? The truth is that racism isn't rational or know what your net worth is.

mindover 4y ago
How is it describing it though? What does a white-looking immigrant Brazilian of European ancestry have in common with a Native American? How does labeling both as PoC address any inequality?
- xyzzyz 4y ago
  Funnily enough, according to official government racial classification scheme, the white looking immigrant Brazilian of European ancestry from your example is a non-Hispanic white, whereas native Spaniard immigrant from actual Spain is Hispanic white.
  - rayiner 4y ago
    The federal government in its brilliance categorizes Afghani refugees as white and ineligible for, e.g., special small business loans, but categorizes Brahmin Indians as colored people eligible for such loans.
  - mindover 4y ago
    There is way more to race classification than the government classification. Talking to people, selecting the right choice in a questionnaire, applying for a job - no one is verifying person’s ancestry. If you are from Brazil you are a PoC by default, unless you object.
rayiner 4y ago
It would be merely descriptive if you only came across it when e.g. discussing people who can get away with skipping the sun screen. When it’s the category that gets brought up in the newspaper when someone becomes CEO then it’s prescriptive. The word is shaping how people are perceived and defining them by their skin color, instead of other characteristics that are much more relevant. It’s also just racist insofar as it makes skin color the dominant grouping to the exclusion of others. The fact that you might think you have good intentions doesn’t make it less racist. For example, the closest analogue to the Latino experience in America is the Italian American experience. From socioeconomics to food to patriotism to language to religion there are myriad parallels. Likewise the closest parallel to Indians is Jewish people—both of whom are successful in America but often the target of resentment, especially due to religious differences. But white people can’t look past skin color and insist on categorizing Latinos and Indians as “colored people” in the process erasing much more salient aspects of their experiences in America. Your point about “racism” illustrates the problem. There is no single coherent thing called “racism” that applies to all “people of color.” Indian Americans face the ordinary prejudices people of different ethnic groups have towards each other. It’s the same prejudices Indians have towards Chinese or vice versa. Jewish people almost certainly face more prejudice in America than Indian Americans. We acknowledge that prejudice, but don’t go so far as to categorize and define them based on it. Meanwhile, the “racism” faced by ADOS and indigenous people is different in kind. The prejudice is just the tip of an iceberg, and beneath that are the realities of being a minority population that was enslaved and brought to this country by the majority population or one that was nearly wiped out by the majority population in settling the country. The point is not that “racism” knows how rich you are. The point is that “racism” that isn’t accompanied by structural socioeconomic disparities isn’t meaningfully the same thing as “racism” that is. And it’s not useful to any minorities to conflate these categories. Thinking in terms of “people of color” is bad for black and indigenous people. Because fixing prejudice based on skin color won’t meaningfully fix structural problems. At the same time, it’s not good for Indian Americans to falsely believe they face structural disparities when they do not.

mindover 4y ago

How is it describing it though? What does a white-looking immigrant Brazilian of European ancestry have in common with a Native American? How does labeling both as PoC address any inequality?

xyzzyz 4y ago
Funnily enough, according to official government racial classification scheme, the white looking immigrant Brazilian of European ancestry from your example is a non-Hispanic white, whereas native Spaniard immigrant from actual Spain is Hispanic white.
- rayiner 4y ago
  The federal government in its brilliance categorizes Afghani refugees as white and ineligible for, e.g., special small business loans, but categorizes Brahmin Indians as colored people eligible for such loans.
- mindover 4y ago
  There is way more to race classification than the government classification. Talking to people, selecting the right choice in a questionnaire, applying for a job - no one is verifying person’s ancestry. If you are from Brazil you are a PoC by default, unless you object.

rayiner 4y ago

It would be merely descriptive if you only came across it when e.g. discussing people who can get away with skipping the sun screen. When it’s the category that gets brought up in the newspaper when someone becomes CEO then it’s prescriptive. The word is shaping how people are perceived and defining them by their skin color, instead of other characteristics that are much more relevant. It’s also just racist insofar as it makes skin color the dominant grouping to the exclusion of others. The fact that you might think you have good intentions doesn’t make it less racist. For example, the closest analogue to the Latino experience in America is the Italian American experience. From socioeconomics to food to patriotism to language to religion there are myriad parallels. Likewise the closest parallel to Indians is Jewish people—both of whom are successful in America but often the target of resentment, especially due to religious differences. But white people can’t look past skin color and insist on categorizing Latinos and Indians as “colored people” in the process erasing much more salient aspects of their experiences in America. Your point about “racism” illustrates the problem. There is no single coherent thing called “racism” that applies to all “people of color.” Indian Americans face the ordinary prejudices people of different ethnic groups have towards each other. It’s the same prejudices Indians have towards Chinese or vice versa. Jewish people almost certainly face more prejudice in America than Indian Americans. We acknowledge that prejudice, but don’t go so far as to categorize and define them based on it. Meanwhile, the “racism” faced by ADOS and indigenous people is different in kind. The prejudice is just the tip of an iceberg, and beneath that are the realities of being a minority population that was enslaved and brought to this country by the majority population or one that was nearly wiped out by the majority population in settling the country. The point is not that “racism” knows how rich you are. The point is that “racism” that isn’t accompanied by structural socioeconomic disparities isn’t meaningfully the same thing as “racism” that is. And it’s not useful to any minorities to conflate these categories. Thinking in terms of “people of color” is bad for black and indigenous people. Because fixing prejudice based on skin color won’t meaningfully fix structural problems. At the same time, it’s not good for Indian Americans to falsely believe they face structural disparities when they do not.