4 ms·

> "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

by 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...
  - Georgelemental 3y ago
    > But afaik, no one has proffered an adequate word to describe "folks that have too much melanin to be considered white". Such a word is not necessary or desirable, because the categorization system it supports is not meaningful or useful.
    - kortex 3y ago
      Of course it's necessary and desirable. The "categorization system" in question already exists, whether it ought to or not. Bipoc have a more difficult socioeconomic situation, because of their skin color. Should "LGBTQ+" as a category not exist, because they are people just like straight people? It is useful and meaningful to talk about the plight and state of, and advocate for, "Group XYZ that has been marginalized and experienced systemic violence throughout history, specifically because they are XYZ"
      - Georgelemental 3y ago
        All of these people are "bipoc", supposedly: - Dark-skinned descendant of American slaves, living in the US - Dark-skinned recent immigrant to US from Africa, whose parents were important government officials, and one of whose distant ancestors sold slaves to Europeans - Descendant of Navajo Indians - Descendant of indigenous Hawaiians - Descendant of Japanese Hawaiians - Decendant of Japanese immigrants from turn of 20th century, who were interned in a camp during the war - Japanese immigrant who moved to US in 2005, for university - Son of migrant Mexican farmworkers - Descendant of conquistadores whose parents were top executives in a large Mexican corporation - Lebanese Muslim immigrant - Lebanese Christian immigrant - And so on… What interesting characteristic do these people all have in common, that "white" people don't also share? Absolutely nothing, other than that they don't tick the "non-Hispanic white" box on stupid USian forms.
      - tsimionescu 3y ago
        It is transient and fleeting, and it has little to do with melanin. People of Jewish descent, Italians, and even the Irish, used to be considered non-white at various points in the last 100 years in the USA. People whose skin is almost white can still be considered black if, say, one of their grandparents was black. But people whose skin is dark at the end of the summer are nevertheless white as long as it turns pale during winter.
nemo44x 3y ago
“Person of color” can be found in legal documents going back to the early 1800’s. There’s no “evolution” here. It’s all for political purposes. “Colored people” became “black ”became “African Americans” became “Black” (capital B). “People of color” is more broad and used to form a progressive coalition against “whiteness”, or rather the Western European tradition. In fact you could argue PoC doesn’t include Blacks as BIPOC is the fresh term to convince non-white people and so-called “white allies” to organize together so as to obtain power against the white oppressors. Yes, when you examine the history here it appears neurotic, paranoid, and divisive. But I’m sure a few people have been able to acquire a slice of power from exploiting it. The rest of us will just continue to politely smile and nod and then roll our eyes and smirk as we turn away.

by ericyd 3y ago

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...
- Georgelemental 3y ago
  > But afaik, no one has proffered an adequate word to describe "folks that have too much melanin to be considered white". Such a word is not necessary or desirable, because the categorization system it supports is not meaningful or useful.
  - kortex 3y ago
    Of course it's necessary and desirable. The "categorization system" in question already exists, whether it ought to or not. Bipoc have a more difficult socioeconomic situation, because of their skin color. Should "LGBTQ+" as a category not exist, because they are people just like straight people? It is useful and meaningful to talk about the plight and state of, and advocate for, "Group XYZ that has been marginalized and experienced systemic violence throughout history, specifically because they are XYZ"
    - Georgelemental 3y ago
      All of these people are "bipoc", supposedly: - Dark-skinned descendant of American slaves, living in the US - Dark-skinned recent immigrant to US from Africa, whose parents were important government officials, and one of whose distant ancestors sold slaves to Europeans - Descendant of Navajo Indians - Descendant of indigenous Hawaiians - Descendant of Japanese Hawaiians - Decendant of Japanese immigrants from turn of 20th century, who were interned in a camp during the war - Japanese immigrant who moved to US in 2005, for university - Son of migrant Mexican farmworkers - Descendant of conquistadores whose parents were top executives in a large Mexican corporation - Lebanese Muslim immigrant - Lebanese Christian immigrant - And so on… What interesting characteristic do these people all have in common, that "white" people don't also share? Absolutely nothing, other than that they don't tick the "non-Hispanic white" box on stupid USian forms.
    - tsimionescu 3y ago
      It is transient and fleeting, and it has little to do with melanin. People of Jewish descent, Italians, and even the Irish, used to be considered non-white at various points in the last 100 years in the USA. People whose skin is almost white can still be considered black if, say, one of their grandparents was black. But people whose skin is dark at the end of the summer are nevertheless white as long as it turns pale during winter.

nemo44x 3y ago

“Person of color” can be found in legal documents going back to the early 1800’s. There’s no “evolution” here. It’s all for political purposes. “Colored people” became “black ”became “African Americans” became “Black” (capital B). “People of color” is more broad and used to form a progressive coalition against “whiteness”, or rather the Western European tradition. In fact you could argue PoC doesn’t include Blacks as BIPOC is the fresh term to convince non-white people and so-called “white allies” to organize together so as to obtain power against the white oppressors. Yes, when you examine the history here it appears neurotic, paranoid, and divisive. But I’m sure a few people have been able to acquire a slice of power from exploiting it. The rest of us will just continue to politely smile and nod and then roll our eyes and smirk as we turn away.