Information icon.svg Voting is completed for the RationalWiki 2021 Moderator Election and the results are now posted.
Congratulations to the winners!

Essay talk:'Person of color' is a terrible phrase

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

FYI, in the context of talking about race relations, civil rights, etc., "minority" isn't "a purely mathematical descriptor" - it refers to disadvantages & underprivileged groups within a society. Such groups are usually also the technical minority (in mathematical terms) but there are exceptions where the (mathematical) minority population is dominant, meaning that the mathematical majority is a "minority group" in sociological terms. See WP:minority group and this old Saloon Bar discussion.

Aside from that, I agree with your essay. I would add that "person of color" just sounds like a person-first-language rearrangement of the old Jim Crow designation "colored". Also, as this phrase seems to encourage solidarity only between "non-white" minority groups, it's just imposing the same old artificial distinction between "white" and "non-white" (as you point out), which excludes many minority groups who are typically (though not always) regarded as white, such as Irish, Polish, Italian Americans, and ethnic Jews. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 10:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, point taken. I guess that's my mathematics education talking, making me mistake a sociological term for a mathematical one just because they have the same name. (Ironically enough, I once had a counselor make the reverse error, hearing me talk about group theory and thinking I was talking about group psychology. Heh.) Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 10:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
I would rather be a black dwarf than a little person of colour. One sounds like it is either some amazing astronomical phenomenon or a Tolkien character that can kill twenty men before breakfast; the other lives at the bottom of the garden, painting the flowers and insects with a tiny brush. Minoreditor (talk) 16:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
"People of Color" or POC, is a specific term that has been fairly accepted within race studies communities to refer to "people who don't have white privilege." So yes, you're right about it being about "white/nonwhite" distinction, but it's about more than just grouping: it's specifically set up to help us talk about who has the power in western society, and who doesn't. It is not to be used when referring to a specific diaspora of non-white peoples (Black people, Latin@ people, jewish people, etc.) and can be considered misapplied and/or erasive when done so. It's a specific term and you goons debating it is just as stupid as male folks whining "But why do they call them FEM-inists if they're for EQUALITY?". No, it's a term that was not decided upon by you or your people and it's not your choice what groups of people decide to call themselves or how they decide to identify or what dialogues they create to explore and relate their oppression so please kindly fuck off and cease this discussion forever. ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRsufficiently advanced argument still distinguishable from magic 06:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Um, hi? I have the right to write an essay if I want. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 07:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
That was never in dispute. But I also have the right to tell you that your essay is not very good and really ignorant of the background the term comes from, and perhaps the whole wealth of literature the term comes from. You are not actually an expert on a term that you clearly have not studied at all? So why on earth do you think you are knowledgable enough to call it out as good or bad when you're not even part of the discourse that uses it and seem to even be totally ignorant that it is a term of discourse, not merely a buzzword? ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRsufficiently advanced argument still distinguishable from magic 07:13, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I was referring to the phrase "fuck off and cease this discussion forever". I will grant that I'm not very knowledgeable about this topic; I just don't think I should be silenced for it. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 07:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Look on the bright side! At least it wasn't as bad as "Please go kill yourself you little shit!" which certain other denizens of the web might have resorted to. Nullahnung (talk) 11:53, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
This is the essay talk, which is a discussion, not the essay itself, which is not a discussion. I'm am not sure why you feel that someone protesting more than one person's ignorant erasiveness of race discourse and a crappy discussion made by people not even at all studied upon it at *all* is silencing tactics. Would you call leaning into some dudebro's discussion about how feminism is about male subjugation and telling them to shut up because they actually don't know what they're talking about "silencing tactics?" Or leaning into some denialist's blabber talking about how evolution is just a theory to tell them they don't know what the term scientific theory means, "silencing tactics?" Why is it silencing tactics, then, to lean into a bunch of people talking about the term People of Color as if it was inflicted upon them like Jim Crow (indeed, it was the opposite of that; it was invented by nonwhite speakers and authors to expand race dialogues in the USA from just being about black and white people), and that it has to do with minority groups somehow, or whatever this goofy fuckery is, and tell them that this is kind of a racist discussion, based on a somewhat racist essay (that of course, you are free to make-- but it's still questionable) ignorant of that context, too? Being called out is not a silencing tactic. ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRsufficiently advanced argument still distinguishable from magic 14:53, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
No no, you're quite right. It's just the style of it that often determines how the targets of such outcallings feel about said outcallings. For example, "I am highly disappointed in you and would appreciate it if you read deeper into the topic before writing such an essay" is much more likely to be accepted by its target than "fuck off and cease this discussion forever". It is true that you've explained your reasons and suggestions in detail before that last line, but remember that the last thing people read is often the thing that makes the most impact. Nullahnung (talk) 15:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
After careful consideration, I think little person of colour is actually the more awesome option. With the tiny brush and everything. Minoreditor (talk) 19:40, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Look, I might well be wrong about this. If you gave me some examples of papers explaining why this is a better phrase I would certainly examine them and may well retract what I've said here. What infuriates me is that you (Knight) start the discussion off angry at me, as though the fact that I have voiced an opinion you don't like automatically means that I won't listen to what you have to say. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 00:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Biggest stroke of genius in this essay.[edit]

The problem here is that the phrase "person of color" seems more useful in establishing a writer's "sensitivity credentials" than actually combating racism.

I like how this describes a large portion of Internet slacktivism. --Raysenn Get the paddles, he's having a cancer! 12:27, 2 May 2014 (UTC)