10 ms·

I haven't seen anyone bring this up, so I will. I read through the original blog post from JeanHeyd[1] and in no way do they mention anything related to being

I haven't seen anyone bring this up, so I will. I read through the original blog post from JeanHeyd[1] and in no way do they mention anything related to being a person of color, why then does JT associate it with that? I have no idea about the inner workings of the rust leadership team and who they are even, but from the timeline described and from the original post, there's nothing the could be related to that. JeanHeyd is a technical expert and not a token, I feel like introducing the issue of being "a person of color" (as if white is not a color, but whatever) is strange IMO and also needs to be called out. I respect and enjoy JT's work and learned a lot from them, but this is also something that should not be just mentioned casually. If JeanHeyd was invited or their talk demoted because of the color of their skin then there's totally different conversation to be had (and a totally different kind of accountability). This behavior is disrespectful _regardless_ of the skin color of the expert! It doesn't change it one bit. Just because they're not white shouldn't afford them any special treatment, and I say that as a non-white person. Merit is what counts, treating experts with affordance to their biology is patronizing at the very least. My two cents. 1: https://thephd.dev/i-am-no-longer-speaking-at-rustconf-2023 https://thephd.dev/i-am-no-longer-speaking-at-rustconf-2023

mananaysiempre 3y ago
FWIW, JeanHeyd did mention the issue themselves as well after a while[1]. [1] https://twitter.com/__phantomderp/status/1662511693136637952 https://twitter.com/__phantomderp/status/1662511693136637952
- foldr 3y ago
  Only to say > I haven't even considered this angle until this [other] person's tweet.
arijun 3y ago
I agree with your statement as a whole but have a small nitpick (on your small nitpick) > as if white is not a color But ‘person of color’ doesn’t include white people in the same way that ‘anti-semitic’ doesn’t include racism against Arabs. Yes, Arabs are also of Semitic descent, and yes white is a color, the meanings are not one-to-one mapped from their components. To deny that is to deny large portions of the English language.
- tialaramex 3y ago
  Yup. The actual meaning of a composite symbol cannot in general be guessed from its constituent elements. This is pernicious in languages where the writing system has even a little of such character, and leads to stuff like e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_word_for_%22crisis%22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_word_for_%22crisis%22 It's OK to use this sort of playing with words in your stand-up routine, (e.g. Tylor Tomlinson's "Lot of my friends are settling down. Some are just settling, period, end of sentence") in a song, a book title, that sort of thing, but we shouldn't pretend we've got a serious argument here, we've got a coincidence maybe, at best.
  - ssokolow 3y ago
    Not to mention the fact that construction can be messy for other reasons. I present a bit from George Carlin's routine on airline announcements: "Here's one they just made up: Near miss. When two planes almost collide, they call it a near miss. It's a near hit! A COLLISION is a near miss. explosion sound Look, they nearly missed! YES, BUT NOT QUITE!"
  - hnfong 3y ago
    > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_word_for_%22crisis%22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_word_for_%22crisis%22 As a (somewhat) native Chinese speaker, the contents of this page is kind of confusing to me, because as far as I can tell, the original saying sounds correct, or at least not wrong. If you search online for the phrase "有危就有機" (literally meaning: where there is danger there is opportunity) you'll see many results. It's a common saying (that said this could be due to influence by the English world, who knows). It's true that "機" by itself can have different meanings, and "in isolation" probably should mean 'change point' rather than 'opportunity'... but that's kind of splitting hairs since the meanings kind of blend together. Also, in Mandarin I don't recall seeing any use of "機" "in isolation", making the claim rather contrived. In my native Cantonese, "機" in isolation usually means "機會" i.e. chance or opportunity. I also observe that the wikipedia page points to non-Chinese sources that "debunk" the myth. I have no idea why they felt the need to be so pedantic about this case... Meanwhile, on social media we routinely see quotes attributed to Confucius, and sometimes it's a fun game trying to figure out whether the quote was legit, poorly translated, or completely made up :P
parabyl 3y ago
I think moreso than specifically meaning JeanHeyd was target as such due to race, the implication was rather that since JeanHeyd had previously raised that the lack of diveristy in speakers at the conf. was an issue, some members voting on this may have held onto that. But, it's ironic (and sad) that the same person who raised the issue of diversity in speakers - who would have been the first PoC doing a keynote - was treated like rubbish and essentially pushed out to the point they no longer feel comfortable being part of it at all. It's also interesting to note that while the issues the voting body had with their talk was solely to do with the content of the talk, it begs the question of if any other participant would be treated the same way in dealing with that issue arising. In my experience it's not uncommon for that sort of irony to play out, but that's purely anecdotal. Also, of course white is a colour but I've always seen PoC as a slightly more language-open alternative to the previously commonly used "non-white" which feels notably like language from an era long past.
- vector_spaces 3y ago
  There are a few reasons that people prefer the term nonwhite over POC in certain contexts, and I think most people using it are using it intentionally because of them. The main issue is that the latter term is homogenizing: > Political scientist Angelo Falcón argues that the use of broad terms like "person of color" is offensive because it aggregates diverse communities and projects "a false unity" that "obscure[s] the needs of Latinos and Asians".[39][40] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person_of_color https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person_of_color Another criticism I've heard is that the terminology for POC originated among black activists during the civil rights movement in the US who were reclaiming the term "colored" used in the Jim Crow/segregation era, and so it's only really appropriate for black people to use. The former term (nonwhite) is iffy too, but sometimes it's a better descriptor To be clear, I haven't heard many people voicing the second criticism -- I think most people using "nonwhite" subscribe to the former point of view
  - dj_mc_merlin 3y ago
    > The main issue is that the latter term is homogenizing: By that logic, white would be homgenizing as well, or? Someone from Prague has little in common with a person from Massachusetts or St. Petersburg.
xigoi 3y ago
[flagged]
- mcherm 3y ago
  I really don't think that is what is going on here. So far, all I have heard anyone say is "Behavior occurred which should have been unacceptable regardless of who it happened to. By the way, the optics are particularly bad because of race issues."
  - ThunderSizzle 3y ago
    Either it's a race issue or it's not. If it is, provide evidence of racism. Insinuating racism makes me believe your nothing more than a racist and miscreant yourself (you not being you you obviously)
    - drxzcl 3y ago
      This is a puerile take. If you ignore the optics of the situation you are going to step in it big time, even if your intentions are completely honorable. You need to be aware of the optics of your behavior, because that's all outside observers see. Your intentions are not something other people have access to. You going on the offensive like this on this particular point makes you look (see, optics again) either incredibly naïve or covering for some pretty bad behaviour.
      - jasmer 3y ago
        My gosh no, this toxic - it is not up to people to have contextualise or defend their behaviour given others' sensitivities. It is fundamentally bigoted to assume racism, and fundamentally up to people to provide at least some evidence or context if they suspect there is. The commentor is not going on the offensive, rather the defensive, as someone else brought the issue up. "makes you look (see, optics again) either incredibly naïve or covering for some pretty bad behaviour." You have arbitrarily (and repulsively) accused a commenter of 'covering for some crime' - typical of the social justice fanaticism that otherwise empathic people have come to loathe - you may want to contemplate why you might say such a thing. This isn't an issue of race, it's not particularly part of the dialogue, it's an issue of perceived slight and professional victimhood. Not everything is hyper intersectional.
ZephyrBlu 3y ago
I'm generally not a fan of the way people go about D&I, but the fact JeanHeyd has brought up the problem before makes it more pertinent. Whoever on the Rust team made the decision to reach out and downgrade JeanHeyd's talk seems extremely incompetent. Optics matter a lot here and a large portion of leadership roles is optics. It's careless to not take context into account, like the recent history of poor Rust-related optics (E.g. trademark thing) and JeanHeyd (The person they invited) talking about lack of black representation.
- bybybyby 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - ninepoints 3y ago
    Considering Elon an "effective leader" is certainly a take.
    - preordained 3y ago
      The media hates him, and I can understand how that can be hard to separate out from one's view of reality; but, I think whether Elon has success despite actually being terrible as some might think, or is actually really good at what he does, he's been very successful on the whole if you can be the slightest bit objective. So, given that, you would have to claim to know, really know, that it's all despite him to say he's ineffective, which is a pretty silly thing to propose unqualified.
      - ninepoints 3y ago
        Correlation != causation. It's clear that his success is in spite of himself, not because of it. I don't know anyone in my professional circle that would work under him, what with having a reputation for impulse firing people that disagree with you and other clear signs of egomania.
        3y ago
jasonwatkinspdx 3y ago
"White" is rather emphatically not like other ethnic or racial labels. Throughout the history of the US, who counts as "white" has been redefined many times to suit the political goals of the people at the time. In the era of the founding fathers, the Irish, Spaniards, Italians, all considered not white. Then during various times, often driving by waves of immigration of some other ethnicity people were freaking out about, drive a process to include them in whiteness as allies against the new threat. There's a great deal to read on this topic if you're genuinely interested. Otherwise I just want to warn you that the way you phrase this comes across as rather ignorant and stepping on the border of racism.
- chillbill 3y ago
  I think your comment shows a level of ignorance on the matter that's not warranted. This is exactly what I'm talking about. You seem to genuinely care but you have not done enough work to understand the intricacies of the topic. It's a difficult one, and you don't have to if you don't want to, but to lecture me on my phrasing shows a deep level of ideological holding that you may have, I would advise you to listen/read more, and always steelman your arguments.
- mafribe 3y ago
  > Throughout the history of the US Is the US the world's only country? Throughout the history of the world, who counts as XYZ has been redefined many times to suit the political goals of the people at the time. I recall when we stopped being Yugoslavian, and started shooting at each other, as Serbs or Croats. The Russian guy sitting next me married a Ukrainian woman a decade ago. Recently Russians and Ukrainians started shooting at each other. There's a great deal to read on this topic if you're genuinely interested. “The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.”
  - jasonwatkinspdx 3y ago
    Of course not, but the context is a conference in the US.
vector_spaces 3y ago
They actually speak to this somewhat (rting + acknowledging someone else's commentary on the issue mentioning the same) on Twitter. If you view their tweet history and linked tweet, you'll see that they speak a bit to the sorry state of representation at these conferences in general https://twitter.com/__phantomderp/status/1662511693136637952 https://twitter.com/__phantomderp/status/1662511693136637952 I'm not disagreeing with your overall point, to be clear, but in my mind, leaving the burden of pointing out inequity to victims of it isn't great either. I guess a less problematic approach would be reaching out to that person directly to see if they feel like that's what happened, and how they'd like others to respond if so
qwery 3y ago
It was a small part of the post and I think it was explained fairly. It's part of the context, and they don't think it should be ignored. JeanHeyd doesn't have to have mentioned it (or even thought about it) for it to be considered relevant by someone else. The behaviour is disrespectful regardless of colour, yes. But someone's skin colour does influence other people's behaviour.
ajross 3y ago
Can we not? That point you're picking on was one sentence in the post ("As my buddy Aman pointed out, the context that this would have also been the first keynote by a person of color at RustConf should not be lost here.") Trying to expand it into a giant anti-anti-anti-woke frame is a little distasteful. Even if you're one of the people who thinks any discussion of race is racist, can't you just accept that some people view lack of diversity as a problem worth noting and leave it at that? It's evidence, right? Certainly "Rust has never had a non-white speaker" seems like a problem, even if it's not. It's not wrong to note it in passing in the context of another argument.
ericyd 3y ago
> "a person of color" (as if white is not a color, but whatever) You might want to look into the historical basis for this term before you make snarky comments about it. It comes across as dismissive. My understanding is the term "person of color" evolved from "colored" (which originally just meant black (in America at least)) and now encompasses non-white people.
- Georgelemental 3y ago
  "Colored" is now considered offensive by most, so why isn't "person of color" also viewed the same way? Both terms describe the same opressive system of nonsense racial hierarchy, after all.
  - jjgreen 3y ago
    This strange dichotomy caught-out Benedict Cumberbatch some years back https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2015/jan/26/benedict-cumberbatch-apologises-after-calling-black-actors-coloured https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2015/jan/26/benedict-cum...
  - ericyd 3y ago
    I don't have a great answer to this other than "language evolves". Your comment could also be extended to other terms that have gone out of favor, such as "Negro" being replaced by "African American" and more recently "Black". I'm not a linguist nor a historian so I can't comment extensively on the "why" of this evolution.
  - kortex 3y ago
    It's complex but the reductionist explanation is that it is in part due to the euphemism treadmill, and in part etymological origin. "Colored" comes from the era of segregation, while "people of color" comes after. But don't get too comfortable, as "people of color" will probably phase out soon as well. My money is first on "BIPOC" (as an initialism, usually sounding out the letters), giving way to "bipoc" (as an acronym, lower case, pronounced /baı-pok/). But I'm too white to make that call, just a guess based on linguistics patterns. Even "BIPOC" is not without controversy. But afaik, no one has proffered an adequate word to describe "folks that have too much melanin to be considered white". https://slate.com/human-interest/2016/08/colored-person-versus-person-of-color-how-does-society-decide-which-racial-terms-are-acceptable.html https://slate.com/human-interest/2016/08/colored-person-vers... https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/918418825/is-it-time-to-say-r-i-p-to-p-o-c https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/918418825/is-it-time-to-say-r...

mananaysiempre 3y ago

FWIW, JeanHeyd did mention the issue themselves as well after a while[1]. [1] https://twitter.com/__phantomderp/status/1662511693136637952 https://twitter.com/__phantomderp/status/1662511693136637952

foldr 3y ago
Only to say > I haven't even considered this angle until this [other] person's tweet.

arijun 3y ago

I agree with your statement as a whole but have a small nitpick (on your small nitpick) > as if white is not a color But ‘person of color’ doesn’t include white people in the same way that ‘anti-semitic’ doesn’t include racism against Arabs. Yes, Arabs are also of Semitic descent, and yes white is a color, the meanings are not one-to-one mapped from their components. To deny that is to deny large portions of the English language.

tialaramex 3y ago
Yup. The actual meaning of a composite symbol cannot in general be guessed from its constituent elements. This is pernicious in languages where the writing system has even a little of such character, and leads to stuff like e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_word_for_%22crisis%22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_word_for_%22crisis%22 It's OK to use this sort of playing with words in your stand-up routine, (e.g. Tylor Tomlinson's "Lot of my friends are settling down. Some are just settling, period, end of sentence") in a song, a book title, that sort of thing, but we shouldn't pretend we've got a serious argument here, we've got a coincidence maybe, at best.
- ssokolow 3y ago
  Not to mention the fact that construction can be messy for other reasons. I present a bit from George Carlin's routine on airline announcements: "Here's one they just made up: Near miss. When two planes almost collide, they call it a near miss. It's a near hit! A COLLISION is a near miss. explosion sound Look, they nearly missed! YES, BUT NOT QUITE!"
- hnfong 3y ago
  > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_word_for_%22crisis%22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_word_for_%22crisis%22 As a (somewhat) native Chinese speaker, the contents of this page is kind of confusing to me, because as far as I can tell, the original saying sounds correct, or at least not wrong. If you search online for the phrase "有危就有機" (literally meaning: where there is danger there is opportunity) you'll see many results. It's a common saying (that said this could be due to influence by the English world, who knows). It's true that "機" by itself can have different meanings, and "in isolation" probably should mean 'change point' rather than 'opportunity'... but that's kind of splitting hairs since the meanings kind of blend together. Also, in Mandarin I don't recall seeing any use of "機" "in isolation", making the claim rather contrived. In my native Cantonese, "機" in isolation usually means "機會" i.e. chance or opportunity. I also observe that the wikipedia page points to non-Chinese sources that "debunk" the myth. I have no idea why they felt the need to be so pedantic about this case... Meanwhile, on social media we routinely see quotes attributed to Confucius, and sometimes it's a fun game trying to figure out whether the quote was legit, poorly translated, or completely made up :P

parabyl 3y ago

I think moreso than specifically meaning JeanHeyd was target as such due to race, the implication was rather that since JeanHeyd had previously raised that the lack of diveristy in speakers at the conf. was an issue, some members voting on this may have held onto that. But, it's ironic (and sad) that the same person who raised the issue of diversity in speakers - who would have been the first PoC doing a keynote - was treated like rubbish and essentially pushed out to the point they no longer feel comfortable being part of it at all. It's also interesting to note that while the issues the voting body had with their talk was solely to do with the content of the talk, it begs the question of if any other participant would be treated the same way in dealing with that issue arising. In my experience it's not uncommon for that sort of irony to play out, but that's purely anecdotal. Also, of course white is a colour but I've always seen PoC as a slightly more language-open alternative to the previously commonly used "non-white" which feels notably like language from an era long past.

vector_spaces 3y ago
There are a few reasons that people prefer the term nonwhite over POC in certain contexts, and I think most people using it are using it intentionally because of them. The main issue is that the latter term is homogenizing: > Political scientist Angelo Falcón argues that the use of broad terms like "person of color" is offensive because it aggregates diverse communities and projects "a false unity" that "obscure[s] the needs of Latinos and Asians".[39][40] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person_of_color https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person_of_color Another criticism I've heard is that the terminology for POC originated among black activists during the civil rights movement in the US who were reclaiming the term "colored" used in the Jim Crow/segregation era, and so it's only really appropriate for black people to use. The former term (nonwhite) is iffy too, but sometimes it's a better descriptor To be clear, I haven't heard many people voicing the second criticism -- I think most people using "nonwhite" subscribe to the former point of view
- dj_mc_merlin 3y ago
  > The main issue is that the latter term is homogenizing: By that logic, white would be homgenizing as well, or? Someone from Prague has little in common with a person from Massachusetts or St. Petersburg.

xigoi 3y ago

[flagged]

mcherm 3y ago
I really don't think that is what is going on here. So far, all I have heard anyone say is "Behavior occurred which should have been unacceptable regardless of who it happened to. By the way, the optics are particularly bad because of race issues."
- ThunderSizzle 3y ago
  Either it's a race issue or it's not. If it is, provide evidence of racism. Insinuating racism makes me believe your nothing more than a racist and miscreant yourself (you not being you you obviously)
  - drxzcl 3y ago
    This is a puerile take. If you ignore the optics of the situation you are going to step in it big time, even if your intentions are completely honorable. You need to be aware of the optics of your behavior, because that's all outside observers see. Your intentions are not something other people have access to. You going on the offensive like this on this particular point makes you look (see, optics again) either incredibly naïve or covering for some pretty bad behaviour.
    - jasmer 3y ago
      My gosh no, this toxic - it is not up to people to have contextualise or defend their behaviour given others' sensitivities. It is fundamentally bigoted to assume racism, and fundamentally up to people to provide at least some evidence or context if they suspect there is. The commentor is not going on the offensive, rather the defensive, as someone else brought the issue up. "makes you look (see, optics again) either incredibly naïve or covering for some pretty bad behaviour." You have arbitrarily (and repulsively) accused a commenter of 'covering for some crime' - typical of the social justice fanaticism that otherwise empathic people have come to loathe - you may want to contemplate why you might say such a thing. This isn't an issue of race, it's not particularly part of the dialogue, it's an issue of perceived slight and professional victimhood. Not everything is hyper intersectional.

ZephyrBlu 3y ago

I'm generally not a fan of the way people go about D&I, but the fact JeanHeyd has brought up the problem before makes it more pertinent. Whoever on the Rust team made the decision to reach out and downgrade JeanHeyd's talk seems extremely incompetent. Optics matter a lot here and a large portion of leadership roles is optics. It's careless to not take context into account, like the recent history of poor Rust-related optics (E.g. trademark thing) and JeanHeyd (The person they invited) talking about lack of black representation.

bybybyby 3y ago
[flagged]
- ninepoints 3y ago
  Considering Elon an "effective leader" is certainly a take.
  - preordained 3y ago
    The media hates him, and I can understand how that can be hard to separate out from one's view of reality; but, I think whether Elon has success despite actually being terrible as some might think, or is actually really good at what he does, he's been very successful on the whole if you can be the slightest bit objective. So, given that, you would have to claim to know, really know, that it's all despite him to say he's ineffective, which is a pretty silly thing to propose unqualified.
    - ninepoints 3y ago
      Correlation != causation. It's clear that his success is in spite of himself, not because of it. I don't know anyone in my professional circle that would work under him, what with having a reputation for impulse firing people that disagree with you and other clear signs of egomania.
      - 3y ago

jasonwatkinspdx 3y ago

"White" is rather emphatically not like other ethnic or racial labels. Throughout the history of the US, who counts as "white" has been redefined many times to suit the political goals of the people at the time. In the era of the founding fathers, the Irish, Spaniards, Italians, all considered not white. Then during various times, often driving by waves of immigration of some other ethnicity people were freaking out about, drive a process to include them in whiteness as allies against the new threat. There's a great deal to read on this topic if you're genuinely interested. Otherwise I just want to warn you that the way you phrase this comes across as rather ignorant and stepping on the border of racism.

chillbill 3y ago
I think your comment shows a level of ignorance on the matter that's not warranted. This is exactly what I'm talking about. You seem to genuinely care but you have not done enough work to understand the intricacies of the topic. It's a difficult one, and you don't have to if you don't want to, but to lecture me on my phrasing shows a deep level of ideological holding that you may have, I would advise you to listen/read more, and always steelman your arguments.
mafribe 3y ago
> Throughout the history of the US Is the US the world's only country? Throughout the history of the world, who counts as XYZ has been redefined many times to suit the political goals of the people at the time. I recall when we stopped being Yugoslavian, and started shooting at each other, as Serbs or Croats. The Russian guy sitting next me married a Ukrainian woman a decade ago. Recently Russians and Ukrainians started shooting at each other. There's a great deal to read on this topic if you're genuinely interested. “The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.”
- jasonwatkinspdx 3y ago
  Of course not, but the context is a conference in the US.

vector_spaces 3y ago

They actually speak to this somewhat (rting + acknowledging someone else's commentary on the issue mentioning the same) on Twitter. If you view their tweet history and linked tweet, you'll see that they speak a bit to the sorry state of representation at these conferences in general https://twitter.com/__phantomderp/status/1662511693136637952 https://twitter.com/__phantomderp/status/1662511693136637952 I'm not disagreeing with your overall point, to be clear, but in my mind, leaving the burden of pointing out inequity to victims of it isn't great either. I guess a less problematic approach would be reaching out to that person directly to see if they feel like that's what happened, and how they'd like others to respond if so

qwery 3y ago

It was a small part of the post and I think it was explained fairly. It's part of the context, and they don't think it should be ignored. JeanHeyd doesn't have to have mentioned it (or even thought about it) for it to be considered relevant by someone else. The behaviour is disrespectful regardless of colour, yes. But someone's skin colour does influence other people's behaviour.

ajross 3y ago

Can we not? That point you're picking on was one sentence in the post ("As my buddy Aman pointed out, the context that this would have also been the first keynote by a person of color at RustConf should not be lost here.") Trying to expand it into a giant anti-anti-anti-woke frame is a little distasteful. Even if you're one of the people who thinks any discussion of race is racist, can't you just accept that some people view lack of diversity as a problem worth noting and leave it at that? It's evidence, right? Certainly "Rust has never had a non-white speaker" seems like a problem, even if it's not. It's not wrong to note it in passing in the context of another argument.

ericyd 3y ago

> "a person of color" (as if white is not a color, but whatever) You might want to look into the historical basis for this term before you make snarky comments about it. It comes across as dismissive. My understanding is the term "person of color" evolved from "colored" (which originally just meant black (in America at least)) and now encompasses non-white people.

Georgelemental 3y ago
"Colored" is now considered offensive by most, so why isn't "person of color" also viewed the same way? Both terms describe the same opressive system of nonsense racial hierarchy, after all.
- jjgreen 3y ago
  This strange dichotomy caught-out Benedict Cumberbatch some years back https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2015/jan/26/benedict-cumberbatch-apologises-after-calling-black-actors-coloured https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2015/jan/26/benedict-cum...
- ericyd 3y ago
  I don't have a great answer to this other than "language evolves". Your comment could also be extended to other terms that have gone out of favor, such as "Negro" being replaced by "African American" and more recently "Black". I'm not a linguist nor a historian so I can't comment extensively on the "why" of this evolution.
- kortex 3y ago
  It's complex but the reductionist explanation is that it is in part due to the euphemism treadmill, and in part etymological origin. "Colored" comes from the era of segregation, while "people of color" comes after. But don't get too comfortable, as "people of color" will probably phase out soon as well. My money is first on "BIPOC" (as an initialism, usually sounding out the letters), giving way to "bipoc" (as an acronym, lower case, pronounced /baı-pok/). But I'm too white to make that call, just a guess based on linguistics patterns. Even "BIPOC" is not without controversy. But afaik, no one has proffered an adequate word to describe "folks that have too much melanin to be considered white". https://slate.com/human-interest/2016/08/colored-person-versus-person-of-color-how-does-society-decide-which-racial-terms-are-acceptable.html https://slate.com/human-interest/2016/08/colored-person-vers... https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/918418825/is-it-time-to-say-r-i-p-to-p-o-c https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/918418825/is-it-time-to-say-r...