Oooh... *grabs popcorn*
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
People of color.
- Thread starter Kfox
- Start date
Do you disagree with anything I've said thus far? If so, what?
Your entire approach to the OP.
Both have suffered at the hands of a system that was designed to benefit certain groups over others.
BIPOC refers to Black, Indigenous, and any marginalized POC in the US.
Can you be a little more specific?
So...... Native Americans are not considered People of Color? Why not?
I know that. But when you say indigenous and people of color, it implies Indigenous are not people of color. However; what is it about the OP that you disagree with?
No, it actually doesn't. It is grouping then together, as a unity.
I'm not here to play your semantics games.
He isn't wrong. Neither are you, but when discussing racism, White is only a color inasmuch as their problems line up with "colored people's". Race exists because the system has designed it to exist.
Doesn't really matter how the term was used 300+ years ago.
Some of them sure. But most of them have done enough reading to understand it's usage.
Why not Mexicans and People of Color? Or Asians and People of Color? Or Blacks and People of Color?
What does that mean? Are you saying white is only a color if white people experience racism?
What system are you speaking of that designed racism to exist?
True! But I also pointed out it was brought back in the 45 years ago and is still used that way today.
In the US they all fall under the designation of POC. Again. Not getting your point here.
In this instance when people are discussing POC, it is meant towards those that have experienced racism due to not being traditionally white. White people have experienced racism, but when that was happening, they weren't called white. They were Irish, Catholic, Protestant, etc. When those groups took over the majority, they branded themselves as "white", and this eventually got built into a system where "white is right".
The legislature, judicial, and societal system.
Can't really get any clearer.
So do Native Americans.
I’m not talking about 300 years ago, I’m talking about today! Today white people experience racism just like everybody else, and today white is not considered right.
Can you give examples of the Legislature, Judicial system, and Societal systems designating racism existing today?
Ella S.
Well-Known Member
Each statement in your reply is a straw man.
People who champion BIPOC seem to think that there are issues that minority races all face across the board, even if you do not.
Focusing predominantly on issues that affect people of color is not the same as saying you only care about people of color.
No, saying you want to help fight racial inequality is not the same as promoting racial supremacy. I have trouble believing you're asking this question in good faith.
"Pro-white" movements have a history of being dog whistles for white supremacism, so I would indeed suspect a movement calling itself "pro-white" of being racist.
If you're going to have a discussion, I would prefer if you did so logically, rather than taking the least charitable interpretation of what I say that you can and trying to twist my words into rhetorical "gotchas." I see no utility in your appeals to emotion, especially when they distort what is actually being said.
Ella S.
Well-Known Member
This was my first thought as well, but this would not be the first time I saw a black person unwittingly parroting the talking points of white nationalism, so there is a non-zero chance that they're black like they claim. I don't think it really matters one way or the other, though.
So rather than address what I said, you just call everything I said a straw man. How convenient!
I recognize the issues minority races face, but that has nothing to do with the question I asked
IMO the problem with your logic is you insist on having one standard for minority races, and a completely different standard for white people. I find this unfair.
I agree! And pro-black and pro-brown movements have a history of being dog whistles for black and brown racist movements. But your biased standards seem to prevent you from seeing this. The reality is, all pro-racial movements have a history of being bigoted and racist movements. Unfortunately this reality seems to elude you.
The problem with some of you guys is; you seem to think all black people think alike. That if you are black, your views will reflect specific social ideologies and political views, and any black person whose views dare to venture outside of the box you have determined all black people are supposed to remain confined, are not really black, or if they are, there is something very wrong with them. Meanwhile, if you are white….. you can think any way you want, because only white people are allowed to be diverse in their way of thinking. The reality is; all black people do not think the same, and when a black person has a view that does not align perfectly with your preconceived notions of how you have determined black people are supposed to think, you assume they must be a white person pretending to be black because a real black man is incapable of thinking this way. I think it was George Bush who spoke of "the soft bigotry of low expectations". I don't know if this fits that category, but it does appear to be a soft bigotry of sort.
Ella S.
Well-Known Member
You are clearly too emotionally invested in this topic to have a logical discussion about it, because all you have responded with are more pointed misrepresentations wrapped in implicit emotional appeals. You don't have a single valid counter-argument to anything that I've actually said. You just want to attack and berate an image of my arguments that you've made up in your own head.
That's alright, but you don't need me around for that. Keep arguing with your fictional interlocutor. Don't let me keep you.
I think you've gotten that backwards my friend; I have responded to everything you've said; (if you disagree, point to something you've said that I did not respond to and I will give a response) but it is you who refuse to respond to what I actually say and instead accuse me of straw manning or of pretending to be black.
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
I match colors all the time. I have never seen a white or black person, if, by the book, color accuracy is important. The colors needed to match the skin tones of "black and white", people, are both blends of the same three colors. Both can be made with black/blue, yellow oxide; mustard yellow, and iron oxide; rustic potato red. You can get both skin colors by blending these three colorants in various proportions.
Black people are technically shades of brown and contain more black/blue and less yellow and red. White people are not white, but also also blends of the same colorants. They tend to have more yellow and red, but less black/blue. Fake news and Propaganda tend to lie about things, even as simple as color matching. The layman, who does not know how colors match tend to recite the meme, to run with the fad herd.
When I was a teen, having a good tan was in style. Back then, people were less whiny about the sun. A good summer tan would make my skin more golden brown; fried chicken. The sun and its impact on my skin is adding more black/blue. It would also add extra red, to my skin, in late spring, if I burned my base tan toward lobster red. The tan made one looked healthier and it sort of bridges the gap between the human color blends. Lefty marketing made people paranoid of the sun; Big Brother is needed, thereby keeping "black and white", more separated.
I myself wouldn't use the term as I see no value in it.