• 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!

To "People of Color": The Limitations of the Term and Its Problems

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
When I come across the term "people of color," I can't help but note that it's disconnected from the reality of ethnic and cultural identities outside most countries that are not the U.S. I acknowledge its usefulness in American culture and history, but it is when people treat it as the default or politically correct way to refer to non-white people that I start to take issue with it.

First, the idea of "people of color" is intrinsically centered around the notion that white skin color is the "default." There is no logical reason that non-black skin tones aren't considered "of color" instead of non-white ones, for instance, aside from the usage of white skin as the basis for the term--something I find self-defeating considering that the term is often implied to be inclusive and anti-racist.

Second, the whole concept of categorizing various ethnic groups based on skin color or whether or not they are "of color" seems to me quite simplistic, arguably racially charged, and potentially dismissive of the multifaceted aspects of ethnicity and culture. I'm Arab and African, and my skin tone is quite pale to the point where it may pass off as "white" in some countries. I don't identify as a "person of color"; I identify with my ethnicity and cultural, linguistic, and historical heritage. My skin color could be purple with golden stripes and I'd still identify the same way as I do now as far as ethnicity went.

Third, trying to use a term that largely originated and developed in a markedly American context to refer to people from other countries and group them into "colored" categories based on that is, again rather self-defeatingly, ethnocentric in an American-focused way. The term may be useful in the context of American politics and culture, but it's not even remotely relevant in many other countries. Yet due to the global influence of American media and public figures, the term has gained a bit of ground even in some countries where it is not useful, accurate, or germane to the reality of ethnic identities and public discourse.

What are your thoughts on the above points, as a fellow non-American who would be categorized as a "person of color" in the U.S. or as an American who would fall under the umbrella of the term?
 
Last edited:

MikeF

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
When I come across the term "people of color," I can't help but note that it's disconnected from the reality of ethnic and cultural identities outside most countries that are not the U.S. i acknowledge its usefulness in American culture and history, but it is when people treat it as the default or politically correct way to refer to non-white people that I start to take issue with it.

First, the idea of "people of color" is intrinsically centered around the notion that white skin color is the "default." There is no logical reason that non-black skin tones aren't considered "of color" instead of non-white ones, for instance, aside from the usage of white skin as the basis for the term--something I find self-defeating considering that the term is often implied to be inclusive and anti-racist.

Second, the whole concept of categorizing various ethnic groups based on skin color or whether or not they are "of color" seems to me quite simplistic, arguably racially charged, and potentially dismissive of the multifaceted aspects of ethnicity and culture. I'm Arab and African, and my skin tone is quite pale to the point where it may pass off as "white" in some countries. I don't identify as a "person of color"; I identify with my ethnicity and cultural, linguistic, and historical heritage. My skin color could be purple with golden stripes and I'd still identify the same way as I do now as far as ethnicity went.

Third, trying to use a term that largely originated and developed in a markedly American context to refer to people from other countries and group them into "colored" categories based on that is, again rather self-defeatingly, ethnocentric in an American-focused way. The term may be useful in the context of American politics and culture, but it's not even remotely relevant in many other countries. Yet due to the global influence of American media and public figures, the term has gained a bit of ground even in some countries where it is not useful, accurate, or germane to the reality of ethnic identities and public discourse.

What are your thoughts on the above points, as a fellow non-American who would be categorized as a "person of color" in the U.S.?

I'm rather multi-hued. I have pinks and reds, reddish brown on sun exposed parts, dark brown spots and kind of off -white on my butt-cheeks. All that color and I'm pigeon-holed as white!

Edit: The blues! I forgot the blues where my veins show through my skin. Quite proud of the blue.
 
Last edited:

Saint Frankenstein

Here for the ride
Premium Member
I dislike it, too. It's basically just another way of saying "colored" and sounds just as outdated to me. You can't really generalize about minorites like that. I mean, I'm half-black and I often find myself at odds with black people (and what people think black people should be like). We don't all think or live alike. America is a huge, huge place and extremely diverse, geographically and culturally.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
When I come across the term "people of color," I can't help but note that it's disconnected from the reality of ethnic and cultural identities outside most countries that are not the U.S. I acknowledge its usefulness in American culture and history, but it is when people treat it as the default or politically correct way to refer to non-white people that I start to take issue with it.

First, the idea of "people of color" is intrinsically centered around the notion that white skin color is the "default." There is no logical reason that non-black skin tones aren't considered "of color" instead of non-white ones, for instance, aside from the usage of white skin as the basis for the term--something I find self-defeating considering that the term is often implied to be inclusive and anti-racist.

Second, the whole concept of categorizing various ethnic groups based on skin color or whether or not they are "of color" seems to me quite simplistic, arguably racially charged, and potentially dismissive of the multifaceted aspects of ethnicity and culture. I'm Arab and African, and my skin tone is quite pale to the point where it may pass off as "white" in some countries. I don't identify as a "person of color"; I identify with my ethnicity and cultural, linguistic, and historical heritage. My skin color could be purple with golden stripes and I'd still identify the same way as I do now as far as ethnicity went.

Third, trying to use a term that largely originated and developed in a markedly American context to refer to people from other countries and group them into "colored" categories based on that is, again rather self-defeatingly, ethnocentric in an American-focused way. The term may be useful in the context of American politics and culture, but it's not even remotely relevant in many other countries. Yet due to the global influence of American media and public figures, the term has gained a bit of ground even in some countries where it is not useful, accurate, or germane to the reality of ethnic identities and public discourse.

What are your thoughts on the above points, as a fellow non-American who would be categorized as a "person of color" in the U.S. or as an American who would fall under the umbrella of the term?
Let someone just try calling me a person of colour.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
I dislike it, too. It's basically just another way of saying "colored" and sounds just as outdated to me. You can't really generalize about minorites like that. I mean, I'm half-black and I often find myself at odds with black people (and what people think black people should be like). We don't all think or live alike. America is a huge, huge place and extremely diverse, geographically and culturally.
I've always thought colored was funny, because the various shades of white are also a color.
But, then again, ever since I was a little kid I thought the skin color thing was weird because people are rarely to never (and shouldn't be) the color they're said to be. Like yellow. That's not a thing unless it's the Simpsons or jaundice.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I've always thought colored was funny, because the various shades of white are also a color.
But, then again, ever since I was a little kid I thought the skin color thing was weird because people are rarely to never (and shouldn't be) the color they're said to be. Like yellow. That's not a thing unless it's the Simpsons or jaundice.
Labels typically don't have literal meanings.
I know "African Americans" who are white.
(They immigrated here from Africa, unlike
many black people I know.)
And frogs...Frenchies really aren't amphibians.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
What are your thoughts on the above points, as a fellow non-American who would be categorized as a "person of color" in the U.S. or as an American who would fall under the umbrella of the term?
Normally we say that Indians are best baked, beautifully brown, while Blacks are overdone and Whites are underdone.
 

Aštra’el

Aštara, Blade of Aštoreth
I grew up along the Texas-Mexico border, in several small cities before eventually moving on to much larger metropolitan areas. Demographics in those smaller towns consisted primarily of latino and white people.

Never in those first 18 years of my life did I ever hear a single Mexican/ latino/ hispanic identify as “person of color”. None of us more mixed blooded people used it either. Even when I eventually moved to Arizona, I don’t remember any of the natives I trained with ever identifying as “people of color”… just “Navajo”.

Several large cities later I find myself back in Texas, and Donald Trump has just become the President of the United States. Now all of a sudden the media and various (primarily leftist) groups are referring to everyone who is not Caucasian as “colored people”. The purple haired crazies even came up with a new more inclusive term for latinos… “latinx”, because for some reason the word “latino” (as well as the entire Spanish language) is offensive and problematic. And yet… whenever I’d go back and visit these small towns, whether it was just to hang out and visit, or attend weddings, funerals, quinciñeras, graduations, etc… and interact with friends/ classmates/ teammates/ friends of friends/ families of friends and the local communities in general, people are wondering when did so many of us become “people of color” and who the heck would call themselves a “latinx”?

No, I do not use the term “person of color”. It is ridiculous. No, I do not use the term “latinx”. It is ridiculous… and a massive number of Mexicans/ hispanics/ latinos and mixed blooded people agree.
 
Last edited:

Viker

Your beloved eccentric Auntie Cristal
Call me old school but I prefer Creole for myself. Or just go ahead and use white lady. Anyone uses "people/person of color" to reference even someone like me, I get a little tense. It's too close to that horrid "colored people/person" for me.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
When I come across the term "people of color," I can't help but note that it's disconnected from the reality of ethnic and cultural identities outside most countries that are not the U.S. I acknowledge its usefulness in American culture and history, but it is when people treat it as the default or politically correct way to refer to non-white people that I start to take issue with it.

First, the idea of "people of color" is intrinsically centered around the notion that white skin color is the "default." There is no logical reason that non-black skin tones aren't considered "of color" instead of non-white ones, for instance, aside from the usage of white skin as the basis for the term--something I find self-defeating considering that the term is often implied to be inclusive and anti-racist.

Second, the whole concept of categorizing various ethnic groups based on skin color or whether or not they are "of color" seems to me quite simplistic, arguably racially charged, and potentially dismissive of the multifaceted aspects of ethnicity and culture. I'm Arab and African, and my skin tone is quite pale to the point where it may pass off as "white" in some countries. I don't identify as a "person of color"; I identify with my ethnicity and cultural, linguistic, and historical heritage. My skin color could be purple with golden stripes and I'd still identify the same way as I do now as far as ethnicity went.

Third, trying to use a term that largely originated and developed in a markedly American context to refer to people from other countries and group them into "colored" categories based on that is, again rather self-defeatingly, ethnocentric in an American-focused way. The term may be useful in the context of American politics and culture, but it's not even remotely relevant in many other countries. Yet due to the global influence of American media and public figures, the term has gained a bit of ground even in some countries where it is not useful, accurate, or germane to the reality of ethnic identities and public discourse.

What are your thoughts on the above points, as a fellow non-American who would be categorized as a "person of color" in the U.S. or as an American who would fall under the umbrella of the term?

In America, at least for as long as I can remember, there has been some degree of confusion and consternation about what to call someone - what's considered acceptable as opposed to offensive or outdated. There's also some discomfort, since some people don't really want to offend or say the wrong thing.

I've heard the term "person of color" since at least the early 1990s, although I'm not sure where it first originated.

Personally, I'm not going to label people myself. Whatever people want to call themselves is whatever they want to call themselves. I'll respect whatever choices people make in that regard.
 

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
Several large cities later I find myself back in Texas, and Donald Trump has just become the President of the United States. Now all of a sudden the media and various (primarily leftist) groups are referring to everyone who is not Caucasian as “colored people”. The purple haired crazies even came up with a new more inclusive term for latinos… “latinx”, because for some reason the word “latino” (as well as the entire Spanish language) is offensive and problematic.

The American Heritage Guide to Contemporary Usage and Style cites usage of "people of colour" as far back as 1796. It was initially used to refer to light-skinned people of mixed African and European heritage.[10] French colonists used the term gens de couleur ("people of color") to refer to people of mixed African and European descent who were freed from slavery in the Americas.[14] In South Carolina and other parts of the Deep South, this term was used to distinguish between slaves who were mostly "black" or "Negro" and free people who were primarily "mulatto" or "mixed race".[15] After the American Civil War, "colored" was used as a label exclusively for black Americans, but the term eventually fell out of favor by the mid-20th century.[10]

Although American activist Martin Luther King Jr. used the term "citizens of color" in 1963, the phrase in its current meaning did not catch on until the late 1970s.[16][17] In the late 20th century, the term "person of color" was introduced in the United States in order to counter the condescension implied by the terms "non-white" and "minority",[18] and racial justice activists in the U.S., influenced by radical theorists such as Frantz Fanon, popularized it at this time.[19] By the late 1980s and early 1990s, it was in wide circulation.[19] Both anti-racist activists and academics sought to move the understanding of race beyond the black–white dichotomy then prevalent.[20]

Person of color - Wikipedia

The term predates the Trump presidency by over a century, and its current usage is far from "sudden." I'm far more interested in historical and etymological accuracy than partisan attempts to demonize a political camp or group (in this case, the left and "purple-haired crazies," whoever the latter are supposed to include) or oversimplify history to that end.
 
Last edited:

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
Some history about the term, as well as the term 'colored' being reclaimed by emancipated slaves and the birth of 'people of color' in conjunction with political activism.
The Journey From 'Colored' To 'Minorities' To 'People Of Color'
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...s-what-you-need-know-about-this-new-identity/

I've read about its etymology and history before. Personally, I think they just reinforce that it's a primarily American-centric term with some helpful uses there but largely insufficient use or meaning in many other countries. To many non-white people elsewhere, it doesn't even cross our minds to identify or refer to ourselves as being "of color" based on the usage of white skin tone as a reference.
 
Top