comment: >
  
  Yeah I agree. People are people.
context: /u/padorUWU (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.
  All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
  Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
  ^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >
  
  Maybe just a semantic point here, but generally, when a term has a suffix or prefix, it denotes that that variation is the special one.
  "Person of color" rather, would imply that "person" refers to a default, and if you're applying that to race, would be referring to a white person, would mean there is nothing remarkable or special about them.
  Adding either a prefix of colored- or a suffix of -of color to the word person, implies that there is something that distinguishes that person of a non-white race from a person who is white, who is considered mundane enough that no qualifiers are needed. >
  
  !delta
  Alright, I think you made a clear argument there. Now thinking from a different perspective it does hinted that calling someone a person of color signals someone who is white has none, and it is not necessarily something positive. Verbally, you make sense there and I can see that I may have worded poorly on my argument. >
  
  You have not worded your argument poorly. You just went off the common usage of grammar.
  Take for example the pretty internationally widespread concept that having the male grammatical gender as the unmarked default is sexist, as it implies that men are more important, since a group of 10 men and 1 women would be referred to with the male plural pronoun, or in the case of English as "guys", but a group of 10 women and 1 man would not be referred to as "gals" or with the female plural pronoun but rather the same as the male one.
  This is why you have German, for example, using the combined word form, e.g., SchauspielerIn (ActorTress), with Schauspieler (actor) being the male form and Schauspielerin (actress) the female form, so SchauspielerIn signifies that it could be either. Or in Slovenian, you have e.g. igralec/-ka or lately igralka_ec (actor/-tress or actress_tor).
  You can even take Asian languages such as Japanese or Chinese, where the kanji/hanzi for man is just a combination of power + field, while woman has its own special character.
  If the non-generic form were indeed considered the special one in real life, these arguments would neither exist nor be internationally problematized. And while I agree that non-generic forms SHOULD be treated as special ones, precisely because they are not the generic defaults, which by definition makes them special, that is not how things commonly work.
  Thus, we're right back at your white == normal, PoC == special. >
  
  I get the premise you are proposing here. Makes perfect sense. But if that were the premise then, shouldn’t that term be considered racist then? And I do mean that as a real question in the interest of calling for consistency. There are movements afloat and even universities putting out word lists for restructuring our speech in the name of reducing hate speech. And calling a group of people the generic term “guys” is being hailed as sexist because, as in the premise you stated, it declares the make form as “special”. So with that in mind, if Person of Color designated that those of color are special, while those that don’t fit that title would then be less special, then that separates and ousts a single race. Hence, a bit racist, no?
  This also goes completely against the arguments that race is a social construct while empowering said social construct. But that’s a whole other discussion. >
  
  Personally, I am completely and entirely against the idea that changing language achieves anything. Want to ban slurs with historical baggage, such as the n-word? Fine. But saying colored person is racist and person of color is not? This doesn't make any sense to me.
  What people that promote this seem to either not know, forget, or simply ignore is that words simply carry meaning, which is actually separate from the words themselves. This is why there's this continuous updating of words negro => colored => black => PoC (order probably messed up), because you can start calling the concept behind these words whatever you want, but if the concept itself is perceived negatively, the word will just take on that connotation as well.
  This is why calling someone "black" in e.g. Slovenian is perfectly fine. Because there's no negative connotation attached. 
  So, American English can change words for "someone with African/non-white ancestry" all it wants, as long as both white AND non-white Americans choose to separate each other by race, the words won't change anything, since racism isn't determined by the words used but rather by the intent and thoughts of the speaker. The entire concept of dogwhistles came about because someone (finally) realized that someone can be using perfectly acceptable language to send certain signals.
  Also, from the European perspective, the separation along racial lines, which often don't even make sense, seems weird. It's at best a heuristic for everyone to be able to exclude people as quickly as possible. Using the terminology of "white person" makes zero sense outside (and to some degree even inside) the American context, since there are historically enormous differences between Latin, Germanic, and Slavic peoples. Calling a random Slav "oppressor", when the English name for the group itself is, due to their sad history, related to the word "slave" (not to be confused with the Slavic self-identifiers, which are similar but related to slava/slovo (glory/word)) is just ridiculous, even though Slavs are considered white (by people of color) in the US, but were very much considered subhuman and not "white" in its underlying meaning at any time in history.
  So yeah, I'll always support the idea that words don't matter, the intent behind them does. And the modern obsession with politically correct speech has not and will not achieve anything beyond making its proponents look silly. >
  
  I support everything you said. So I’m sure you’d share with me in the frustration that the definition of words (within context) are no longer defined by intent as they used to, and should be; but instead are defined by the perception of others. If you meant to say humpback whale in a joke but instead said wetback whale, then I get to make a full statement of your white privileged letting you think that you are allow to joke about Mexicans while using slurs. And even if I’m not Mexican I have the self-awarded right to be offended on their behalf. This leaves you on the defending end of an accusation. And we all know that in modern social structures, it us always the accusation that gets the headlines and formulated minds, while any defense or even justified clarification after the fact carries only a fraction of the impact that the initial accusation carries.
  In short, I agree with you that words should be defined by their intent. But in contemporary times, it is the perceptions of the listener rather than the intent of the speaker, that defines words. >
  
  Agreed. That's messed up. But as an AfroSlav, I at least get to shut down pretty much anyone, if they want to engage in such nonsense, since they're either going to be (by the modern "ruleset") racist against my Slavic or my black side. >
  
  All this bullshit about putting people into boxes is the issue. >
  
  Putting ppl into boxes is indeed racist. Biologically, there are no races. This is a fact. Human traits (hair color, skin color, nose type, etc.) are clined (not clustered) and discordant (not concordant). We sort races by some traits (skin color) but not others (eye color). A white girl with brown eyes and white girl with blue eyes are the same social race. 1 same and 1 different trait.
  A Fijian population and a Kenyan population are the most genetically distinct groups in the world, yet we would call them black by appearance. Sorting into races is not biologically sound >
  
  !delta
  I just saw your argument and I do agree with you and now I changed my opinion a little bit on racial identity in general as you mentioned we only sort races by traits selectively. 
  Making generalization and putting labels onto people just because of their identity(doesn't has to be racial, also base on gender, sexual orientation, nationality, or even political identity etc.) can be unhealthy in many situations. Sometimes I see and hear how people make assumptions that people who are black are poorer simply because they are black, men are more abusive than women just because they are men etc. it makes me uncomfortable, despite that I know the intention of theirs, may be that they want to address equality or whatever. Feels like sometimes people correlate things base off stereotypes without diving deeper to understand the nature of them instead. >
  
  I’d also like to mention that collective society projects expectations to support certain causes and to behave a certain way solely due to shared traumatic history. Thereafter, people start behaving as they are expected so to be accepted into a community.
  As a first generation Mexican, I can vouch that it is tough not being “Mexican enough” for the Mexican community nor “American enough” for any other non-Mexican community. Luckily I met good individuals who support and accept me for my unconventionality but I can definitely picture a universe where I’d suppress my interests to fit more into a conventionally prescribed mold. Chronic loneliness and feelings of alienation are difficult to live with, especially as a kid. >
  
  i will not agree with your last statement.. regarding to a certain race hate another. 
  But I will agree with you on the first then affirmitive action does negatively impact asian americans despite they are a minority and considered poc as well by today's standard. >
  
  I mean the movement itself, isn't just about hate crimes. I do acknowledge many attackers who commited the violence are not white Trump supporters like the media said, but stop asian hate movement also is supposed to talk about general racism toward asians in the west, which more or less is an ongoing issue just that Covid-19 stimulated it and now its becoming more visible. Honestly, the movement is undermined because many people are only vocal selectively, sometimes when the narrative doesn't fit, the media will either downplay or ignore it due to bias. >
  
  it did start out as the stop saying kung-flu, and bat soup jokes...trying to paint conservatives as racists but when asian americans opened their mouth to talk about the hate they recieved it really had nothing to do with the jokes but about  real abuse they received. and your right, they did shut it down because it did not fit the narrative they wanted. >
  
  Oh who "shut it down"? 
  Also really funny you're saying that conservatives being racist towards Asian people is imaginary while also acknowledging the giant racist movement. >
  
  i would say white conservatives are more racist towards black than asians. maybe some 80 year old vietnam vet.... but imo i dont see serious hatred towards asians from whites as a whole >
  
  So you're basically just saying "believe me"? >
  
  idc if you believe me or not. who are you? >
  
  I don't believe you. >
  
  that doesnt make any sense. its just as logical, if not more, that POC makes "white" seem less special.  it obviously implies that they are without color. the term "color" is just dumb. >
  
  The reason I argue that it makes "white people" a special category because it groups all white people into one but it disregards the uniqueness of being asian/black etc. etc. but groups all the "non-white" races into one big pot because they are not white. It makes whiteness an unique quality in comparison, this is what I am implying here. And for your last statement I have similar opinions. I think it is irrational to say white people are "without" color, since white is a color too. It kind of gives off the energy that color is a burden and something that is negative/bad. >
  
  That doesnt really address the point though
  If you argue that the term POC makes being white a unique trait, isnt “having color” the exact same argument for uniqueness? I think this argument would make sense for the term non-white, but not POC
  I also think we divide people that way because, especially in USA, “whites”outnumber other ethnicities. So it does make some sense to categorize, on a big picture, whites and non-whites >
  
  But black people and East Asian people have nothing in common to be classified as 'of colour'. The only thing they have in common is not being white, which really isn't having something in common at all.  
  Technically, could you not include white people in the 'POC' category and for example exclude East Asian people? It would make just as much sense right? >
  
  
  The only thing they have in common is not being white, which really isn't having something in common at all. 
  
  Sure, but as I said that's why I think the terms work as big-picture dividers in the US, not necessarily as perfect identifiers.
  As the other comment points out, while each and every single minority might not have the exact same experiences, there is a very simplified and generic experience that POCs go through compared to White people (whatever that means today). Of course, cause sometimes it needs to be said, this doesn't mean that no white person has experienced racism, poverty, or any other hardship.
  
  Technically, could you not include white people in the 'POC' category and for example exclude East Asian people?
  
  I mean, technically you can group ethnicities however you want. But I think the reason we stick to using Whiteness as the dividing line in the US is because Whites are the majority (~60% of the population). Realistically, I think White/non-White does a better job of illustrating that, but I do see how POC/White does the same job without making one or the other, "normal" >
  
  So in essence it is a rather arbitrary and hazy term that is only suitable in the US, maybe in a few other western countries?  
  Generally, I would oppose using such terms, especially because it is such an emotionally loaded term which people actually bind their identity and self-worth to. >
  
  Don’t you think that white people DO have a fundamentally different experience than POC because of their whiteness? It does seem that, in Western society, that white people are the norm. Perhaps POC is the term that best demonstrates the disparity that reflects reality right now. >
  
  I will argue sometimes it is mostly a perception, than actual anecdotes.
  I do not believe that being white fundamentally makes your experience different just because of that. There are many other factors contributing to one's success, experience of getting there etc. However, I can see how it makes sense if people argue that being white is PERCEIVED as having more advantages since it is generally true the majority of people will see white people differently, by perceiving them, and associate them with more positive attributes. 
  And I have given examples in my argument, in many scenarios, person of color as a term is not applicable to describe someone who is not white but actually, is not impacted negatively simply because they are not white. For instance, in so many scenarios, asian americans are not seen as at disadvantage (representation in tech industry, high family income, low crime/jail rate etc.) so you see many times asian americans are not considered "poc" by many media when describing these kind of scenarios. >
  
  If it’s all run on perception, then being white still
  changes your experience. I don’t think anyone believes that white people are biologically different than anyone else. It’s just how white people are perceived in culture. That’s always been true. It’s  overwhelmingly evident than society treats being white as the default. How often do you hear white people talk about being white? I never think about it at all. Because I don’t have to. 
  In fact, tons of white people generally prefer to frame their identity in ethnic terms instead: Identifying as Italian or Irish or Jewish seems to come with a chance to take pride in some shared history.
  So I think our starting point is accepting that by and large, society has established that—advantages or no—that whiteness is the DEFAULT. Not that it’s necessarily good or bad, just the normal base template. >
  
  As someone that spent years around right wingers (of all different flavors from libertarian to evangelical) I can assure you, they do think we are biologically different. 
  They just need to feel safe enough to say it. >
  
  Interesting. Can you give me some examples of their thoughts? >
  
  My former friend, in his 60s now, was a bit of a father figure to me in my 20s. He was a typical “I’m a liberal but the left has gone too far and made me vote for Trump” type. Also, he’s married to a black woman and adopted her two black children. 
  When his friend told me that black people had lower IQs because of “black genetics” my former friend agreed. When I pushed back and said he was saying black people were inferior, I was told no because black people are better at athletics and my former friend agreed again. 
  I had ignored the signs for a while because I didn’t want throw away 15 years of friendship. I thought surely I must be missing something and it can’t be all the way full blown racist bad. I wasn’t missing anything. >
  
  That’s wild. >
  
  My evangelical friend, in his 70s, believes they are mentally and morally inferior. He doesn't hate them, accourding to him, he just feels they need to recognize a place of subservience to whites and seperate as God intended. They are the biblical "mud people" made inferior and marked by God to serve God's chosen whites. 
  As far as if I think he hates them, well that sure is a lot nicer than anything he has to say about the jews. So I guess one has to sort of squint and take a certain relative view to determine what he likes and who he hates. >
  
  So the issue I have with offensive words is that they will be banned because they offend someone. Then a different word or phrase is used as the descriptor that then becomes offensive as it is being used to describe people. And it is a never ending cycle.
  We should not be treating people badly because of their ethnicity. Some people still will even if they shouldn’t. Changing the words that are used will not change the intended meaning of what the person is saying.
  Then you have people who will project intent to what someone says. So no matter what is said they will find a way to turn it into something offensive.
  I do not know a perfect solution to this other then encouraging people to treat others as people. >
  
  I think sometimes, being offended is a choice, an entitlement, rather than something that is of common sense. I do not think the term "person of color" is meant to be offensive nor is it being perceived as something that is offensive by most people in the west at least, but it feels awkward to use and sometimes the usage becomes illogical when you use it to describe someone just because they are not white. And I do know that there are people who get offended over this term since it can be perceived as. I think it is off topic now, but anyway, I think to treat each other equal you have to see each other as your equal first, meaning you need to see outside of just "identity", racial, gender etc. Just normally label someone who is not white as asian. black etc. is something I think is more appropriate and it seems more natural rather just labeling them as a person of color imo since it is counter-productive to group people base off just race, and it is a thing in the west. >
  
  My 2 cents, I think POC is applicable for socioeconomic conversations. It used to be minority but I think that has fallen out of favor due to demographics changing and its derogatory usage overtime. When it comes to treating everyone the same, while it is wishful thinking we are really not at a point in society where we can do that justly. If we started calling everyone just people tomorrow for example, there would still be disparities in incarceration, poverty, healthcare, etc based on the color of your skin. 
  So in the meantime it is useful to separate white people from non-white people in terms of socioeconomic conversations because the disparities are there and there is a clear dividing line. Of course you can break it down further than white people/non-white but it helps because white supremacy did (and still does imo) run through Americas core so white people do on average have a much different experience than someone who is a minority/poc. >
  
  I will hard disagree on this one. The statistics have shown that socioeconomic conversations do not only favor white americans but also asian americans, and hence this is why whenever people of color are being discussed in the context of socioeconomic ones, or just like you said (incarceration, poverty, healthcare etc.) they are not considered poc because poc are perceived as having less privilege. Yet asian americans as a group outperform white americans in many areas. >
  
  They may outperform whites in specific areas, but they are still largely underrepresented as a whole, we've only had 1 president who isn't white for example. ~80% of ceos are white, 98% of land owners are white. Then there was also the Asian exclusion act of 1924, Japanese internment camps, etc.
  My primary point is that even though they may outperform other groups in certain areas, Asians were and are still "othered" by the white majority hence why the POC status/label fits in my eyes. >
  
  I don’t think it makes being white special, but I do think it dilutes the unique features of ALL the POC out there. >
  
  I have wondered at this many times.  I keep being surprised that I never hear anyone who is not white complaining about the term "people of color."
  People's experiences, priorities, and needs differ so greatly within races, let alone across them.  Lumping so many races together and speaking about them as a monolithic entity seems as if it would immediately prompt most of the members of the entity to be like, "Actually, that's not quite right about my particular subset." >
  
  POC is a political movement that’s used colloquially; but not all POC are politically aligned except against racism I suppose. Otherwise lots of immigrant communities are very fiscally & socially conservative. That’s what Republicans don’t get, if they adjusted their messaging away from “replacement theory”, “white fright”, etc., they have a WHOLE base they could draw on. They would essentially split the POC vote. >
  
  I would argue that it does the opposite. Saying “person of color” implies that being white is the default and the modifier “of color” onto “person”  creates a sense of being “other” from the “normal” white people. 
  At least that’s how I always interpreted it and why I personally don’t like the term. >
  
  I don't like it because I'm pink. Pink is a color. 
  Also, I don't know any actually white people that aren't albino. Even then, there's still a bit of pink in there. 
  We are all people of color!
  It's such a stupid way to describe people. >
  
  I don’t like your argument because you never provided an alternative. If we don’t refer to POC’s as POC’s, how should we refer to them? If the answer is simply ignore the “color” component, I see that as the same as saying, “All Lives Matter,” which is essentially devolving an extremely complex historical conversation (at least in Western society) into one that leaves out important facts. >
  
  sorry I didn't clarity but I would rather just refer to someone who is black for example, as a black person, an asian is an asian person etc. It sounds more natural imo and there isn't a need to specfiy that a person who is not white is a person of color. Just think about this then, wouldn't it sound strange, if you call someone a "non-white"? basically, a person of color has no specific racial label, but it is a term to describe a group of people(basically a racial minority in western society). You have "white people" and "people of color", you see here pretty much says that you are either someone who is white or who is not, that was what used to divide races in America and the term "colored person" was invented to seperate white people to others since they simply use it as a way to identify non-white people as people who should have less privilege in this society which is ruled by whiteness(back then). >
  
  So first I’d like to share that I work in the “Diversity & Inclusion” space and we’re trained to refer to anyone with “person-first” pronouns. A perfect non-racial example is someone who is autistic. We do not refer to them as an “autistic person” because we now unconsciously attribute the only thing about that person to be the fact that they have autism when in reality there is a whole person behind that word.
  The same can be argued for referring to race. The reason why we changed the phrase colored people to people of color is simply because you are recognizing them as a human being first, which is a lot less degrading. Believe it or not, it does make a difference. 
  The other thing I’d like to bring up is that it just makes more sense to group all people of color in when speaking about them in terms of statistics. For example, I had to read a book called “Diversify” in my Master’s program that speaks on how businesses can be more successful through things like having a more diverse workforce, removing as much bias from a job application process, or speaking up for people of color AND women of color when there are none in upper-level management. It doesn’t make sense to list every race when speaking on this topic because ALL races (in Western Society) except for White people statistically experience these issues.
  I agree with your argument here, and MLK says it best that the best way that we can move forward and improve as a society is not by judging people by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.
  Edit: The book is actually called “Inclusify” for those interested >
  
  Do you believe the term POC should be abolished in international contexts? >
  
  In some places, it just doesn’t make sense to use the term POC, because it doesn’t have the same racial inequities or historical contexts. A good example is the tensions between Haiti and the Dominican Republic. There are clear inequities for Haitians living in the DR, but we don’t refer to Haitians in this context as POC because they’re all POC? However, even in the DR, people are often treated differently just from the tone of their skin.
  It’s too hard to generalize, and it comes down to each individual country. >
  
  !delta
  I think you make a point here and I wasn't thinking about it back then. Thank you for telling this. The term poc does have a lot to do with historical context and internationally it does not share the same sentiment. I should have mentioned it too in my argument. >
  
  Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/TheWorstRoommate (1∆).
  ^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >
  
  I'm not a fan of the term POC, what will it be in 5 years, 10 years? Who truly decides what's suddenly offensive or what should be offensive to all of us? You could say almost anything with a sneer and as others have mentioned the word or phrase is to blame but that doesn't fix the root cause. 
  Besides which until relatively recently white wasn't a catch-all - Greeks, Italians, Irish, Germans and so on were and are unique and have their own culture. The term POC does separate 'whites' from the equation but only because it simplifies a very complex world into a more easily digestible one. That outlook is deeply flawed, it's not the words we use. >
  
  Doesn’t this seem a little bit arbitrary? At the end of the day, there are contexts in which we need words to refer to race. In order to address racism, we need to understand the conceptions of race that people nelieve, and that requires terminology referring to race. Having a term that refers to a racial group is not necessarily prescribing that there is an essential quality to that group, it is merely a descriptive utility. >
  
  unless we are talking about the invisible man everyone is a person of color >
  
  When did white become a non color. We all are colored people >
  
  I don’t like the term African American, they are just Americans. I don’t call myself German/Irish American, that was my grandparents I’m just an American >
  
  First off, it's good practice in charged topics like this to state one's positionality: their relation to the topic. For this question, that should certainly be their race, and relation to the context, say Black American. But I won't hold you to such a standard, though for myself, as an Asian American, that necessarily informs my response here. My views are not universal, nor unbiased. Indeed, when it comes to matters of identity, there's really no point to being unbiased, because we are all biased in this regard. All we can do is state our identity and stake in this topic and step forward to answer.
  One important principle of terminology is that it is meant to give and provide those who are facing forms of oppression words, concepts, and tools with which to describe, name, and counteract their struggle. You are right to point out that POC is often named in contrast to White, but your thinking is a bit too unnuanced in my opinion. What is it that an Asian, Black, Indigenous, and Latin American share? What things might they have in common?
  I will not really going to bother arguing for or against a racist U.S. in its foundations. That argument could be made elsewhere, that is not what I intend to focus on. Let me just cut through all of that and say there is structural racism at play for all of the groups above. The institutions of the state are in opposition to the very existence of  non-White people, to varying degrees, a racial caste system if you will. 
  (This is not to say historically here haven't been ethnicities such as Irish or Italian who haven't faced discrimination either, but they have largely been subsumed under the identity of white and largely are able to go through life in the U.S. without much issue.)
  What many fail to understand is that POC's struggles are best done together, in coalition and mutual support for each other. One amongst several good reasons being is that they are all tied up together. For example, there's a concept called Racial Triangulation, that famed Political Scientist Claire Jean Kim devised. Roughly, Black, Asian, and White identities are constructed along different axes to divide Black and Asian communities. Asian communities are said to be hardworking, prosperous, and largely free of discrimination when it comes to labor opportunities in certain fields, but then, oftentimes, there are those who look at the 'success' of Asians who then turn to Black people and tell them to work harder, to pull themselves up by the bootstraps perhaps.
  That response, however, misses two key points. First, Asian Americans are not a monolithic group, and if you look at the socioeconomics of say Cambodian or Hmong Americans, you'll see a drastic difference than Chinese American. Hell, even with Chinese American, you see a drastic difference in livelihoods with Taiwanese Americans than other groups. Still, the fact of the matter is that Asian Americans still face discrimination, despite having 'made', even if you ignore the communities of Asian Americans who are struggling. Like, I could potentially be insulted, robbed, assaulted, or possibly shot as happened in Atlanta, just because I am Asian. Like because my eyes, which are unalterable, I can legitimately be hate crimed. That's not exactly something white people face.
  Second, this ignores the recency of many Asian Americans having arrived in the last century, due to the repeal of the Chinese Exclusion Act. A good portion of the Chinese immigrants to America are generally starting better off and possess potentially advanced degrees. Whereas Black Americans suffered from historical issues such as redlining, white flight, segregation, the carceral system. Not to forget there was also the Tulsa Massacre, which wiped out built up Black American wealth.
  For us POC, our struggles are tied up with each other. Asian Americans have long had ties and support for Black Americans as Black Americans have had for Asians. Malcolm X had a friendship with famed Asian American activist Yuri Kochiyama. The killing of Vincent Chin led to Asian American protests, that were supported by Black Americans. In Atlanta, there were Black American support for the victims as well. At some universities, the ethnic studies programs were basically established by a coalition of Black, Asian, Indigenous, and Latin American students. 
  Don't get me wrong, there are community issues between us too. But movements designed for change succeed when a wide variety of people recognize the commonality in their struggle and work together to build something new. POC, as a term, yes, is intended to note the difference between white and non-white Americans but it is also intended to unite and therefore empower us as a collective group, so that we can recognize and combat the entirety of an unjust system rather than just in bits and pieces. >
  
  Have you ever met someone who isn’t a color? Literally everyone is a person of  color. White is also a color. >
  
  I think you are reading too much into it. Person of color is basically another word for the minority. Anything else you are reading into it is simply your perception. It doesn't imply anything about superiority or anything else. It's just used to differentiate between the majority who happen to be white and the minority who are comprised of other races. >
  
  As for western society, yes. But I fail to see how it makes sense to describe someone with color. I am not talking about the political aspect of the term, but it doesn't feel right to say someone who is not a white cauasian, is a person who has color. What defines that? white is a color too, just like other colors. Our society also have a hard time labeling someone who is mixed race as just "person of color" because of that. Some of them even go further and regard them as "white passing" which I think is worse. It is a bit confusing to me still that it is a thing. >
  
  I'm not aware of any place that isn't a white majority that uses the term.. I could be wrong though. If there was a place it would simply mean person of color was the majority, it's just a way to differentiate people. It's an evolution of language. The reason color is used is likely due to historical meaning even though you are correct white is a color. People can adopt whatever descriptions they like, a common one here in Canada is brown and black people. >
  
  I find categorising people on their skin colour very odd. Why not choose something else like eye colour or hair colour. Seems strange >
  
  Eye color and hair color seems just as random? >
  
  Yeah. The whole idea of it seems ridiculous to me >
  
  Problem is many are teaching our younger generation that their owed something,as if certain races don’t go through just as many hardships as the next man.Look at how awful Asians were treated here in history? yet they’re the most educated! and have the highest average income in america above white people,Overall no good comes from this idea that skin complexion dictates how successful you can be…it’ll just create more kids rebelling and giving excuses to fail! >
  
  Makes sense. My friend has ‘mixed’ kids and has told them they’re disadvantaged and people will treat them differently because they’re half black. Just doesn’t sit right with me. I would be pissed If someone told my child they were automatically ‘different’ or ‘less than’ because of their appearance. >
  
  Exactly but the sad thing is many feed into that! Like what happen to the standard morals? Love your family,work hard,and believe in something greater than yourself? Terrible times especially for kids growing up with phones 24/7! >
  
  The problem here is how people want to control and manipulate language and thereby thoughts and feelings.  As you said, POC is currently a good thing but it is synonymous (almost literally) with colored person, which is bad.  I’m supposed to capitalize Black but not white, because reasons.   Negro is bad even though that word was used in official black organizations.  African American is okay but any brand of European American is not.  
  My point is it’s all designed to keep us focused on differences and why we should subconsciously (or not) still look at each other side eyed.  It’s encouraging tribalism by the exact people who would swear they would never. >
  
  Fancy meeting you here.
  But you're supposed to present a counterargument in your comment. >
  
  White is a special category...to white people. Society already expects someone who is white to have a different human experience because they are white. People who aren't white are expected to be at a disadvantage for being non-white. 
  Like, your hypothetical scenarios about what the term 'people of color' might do are already happening and are the entire reason the term 'people of color' exists in the first place. >
  
  Expected to be at a disadvantage by whom? >
  
  POC is being used to divide people against each other by putting them into groups. >
  
  I do think the intent of using people of color descriptively is to unite people who are not white, as racial minorities. However, today's political climate makes it backfire in my opinion.. A lot of times the usage basically points finger at people who are white. (poc should stand together to fight injustice, poc deserve better treatment, poc unite against hate). It implies whiteness is the source of these "evil" things, and it further generalizes an entire racial group having those quality. It goes both way, also for people of color, like how many times you see people of color are perceived as having less advantages, being poor, facing more hardship just base off their racial identity, not even considering other factors. It doesn't feel right to me that some people make assumptions about someone who is white, or isn't, just based off their race, doesn't matter the intention is good or not. >
  
  I agree that it doesn't work in all contexts, but there are times when we need a term for "everyone who isn't white" because there are advantages in US society that do apply exclusively to white people. In order to have conversations about those things, we need terms. Sometimes an issue only applies to black Americans, in which case we should say "black Americans". Sometimes it applies to anyone who isn't white, in which case we say "people of color". What would perhaps be a better solution than censoring that term, is to add extra terms for other groups. Maybe we could use a term for "all races other than black" or "all non Asian races" to balance things out. There are certainly cultural things that apply only to each group, and being able to talk about "everyone else" is useful. I guess it just comes up more often for "everyone who isn't white" because of all the systemic racism white people created. >
  
  Can't we just all be humans? Skin color should be no different from eye color. It's just a physical trait someone has. That's it. >
  
  It should be, but it isn't looked at that way by the vast majority of people. We need vocabulary to be able to deal with and discuss that reality. >
  
  It infers the exact opposite. It implies that whites are lacking in color. The same implication that if you're white you have no culture to speak of and can only become cultured when spending time with people of color. >
  
  I believe only White people have varying degrees of hair color and eye color, so technically White people are the only people of color. >
  
  Person of color actually is worse for the said person. People are people, no matter what the color. Stating that they are a poc means that they are part of some sort of protected class group. >
  
  Some sort of class group, yes. Protected, no. >
  
  What racism wants the absolute most is for people to deny that its there. 
  ​
  Because racism flourishes the most when we can't talk about it. Restricting certain and/or denying terms that help us discuss racism will inevitably lead the problems that exist to continue, and other problems to come up as well. 
  ​
  Talking about how groups of people are disadvantaged is the first step to dismantling that system that causes oppression. If you can't talk about it nothing will change. 
  ​
  Theres nothing wrong with talking about race and skin color and how it has caused generational trauma for many people of color. We NEED to talk about that and how to fix it... Just how the fear of being labelled a "racist" has caused little progression in closing the race divide over the past 50 years. (Black people, still, have 1/7th the wealth that white people do, I can find the source to this data if you so wish it). 
  ​
  The answer is not "ignore it and it will go away". Thats why we need this type of term. People are born into the dominant racial class in our country, one that has system upon system historically to build up. And people are born not white as well. Some over come that racial divide, others get beat down by it alone. Some never felt like it impacted them a day in their life. That HAPPENS, whether we like it or not. 
  ​
  To say we should just get rid of the term because we don't think its fair that its a thing and that race has nothing to do with ability is missing the entire point of why we need to talk about this sort of stuff in the first place. >
  
  Person of color means black. >
  
  Legally, pretty much the only people that are persons of color are blacks and Hispanics because they are the only economically disenfranchised group. Asians??? Nope. Harder for them to get into the same school as white because school is pushed so hard in Asian cultures. People generally have no clue as to that reality. Asians don’t complain because “can’t” isn’t in Asians’ vocabulary, and as a result, no one else knows. >
  
  We're not going to end racism if we pretend it doesn't exist, and while POC isn't a perfect term for all contexts it's still a useful word.
  Sometimes you do want to refer to non-white people as a group (for example when talking about a city's Mayors have all historically been white) without framing whiteness (or lack there if) as the defining characteristic 
  Obviously many people use words differently, but I feel like we shouldn't overreact when a few people define words in ways we disagree with. >
  
  I think "person of color" implies skin color is special to the society that uses the term. >
  
  i think you should use whateevr that group finds comfortable 
  let’s use an example
  ’queer’
  queer is a reclaimed slur so is a good example. It is also the proper term and people of the LGBT community, like myself (non binary and bisexual) are happy to use it >
  
  Just a query which countries refer to people of colour? I have one heard Americans us this description >
  
  I would say dispense with the whole color thing entirely. They're not white and in not black its a weird good evil dichotomy and the whole thing was thought up by racist a couple hundred years ago, that is to say its run its course lets chose something else already. >
  
  No. The prevailing thought when it comes to the term "person of colour" isn't that Whiteness is special. Rather, the prevailing thought is that White is the default race.
  Just say "person" when dealing with issues that aren't about race. >
  
  White is also a colour use it back at them. Trevor Noah puts it right. What is Native American. Why white Americans are not called euro Americans. Also if countries are called first send and third world countries then Germany should be called fourth world country >
  
  I prefer "person of no colour" >
  
  I think it more so sounds fancier than plain ol "white". So it feels like the opposite of what you said. White is plain and boring and POC is "special".
  But nobody is special for the color of their skin or for any other reason. >
  
  If you have to distinguish "person of colour" if anything that makes the "person of colour" special and the "person of non-colour?" the one that's "normal" in this context. Not that that's any better. >
  
  Person without color is also being used. >
  
  White people are the majority in usa so that's normal >
  
  Colourless people is most accurate. They lack melanin that everyone else has because they come from areas with less sun. >
  
  I saw the comment about how putting “person” first humanizes the individual, and I think that’s a very important point. I would also like to add that by attempting to label individuals as “Black”, “Asian”, “Hispanic”, etc, you have the potential to mislabel very easily, which is also incredibly offensive for those people. It can be a very uncomfortable conversation if someone approaches you and asks “what race are you?” or they make an assumption that is incorrect, and you have been, once again, judged in some way but the color of your skin. It can soon become even more complex of an issue once you realize that many individuals are not just one race. Someone who is half black and half Hispanic, for example, is then forced to make the decision on which race they “most” identify as, putting them in a somewhat more dehumanizing experience- whether that’s by choosing just one, or which one they want to name first. As we continue (as is the current trend, at least in America) to have more bi-racial couples, it becomes increasingly more difficult for people to name a specific way they would like to be identified. At the end of the day, POC may not be the PERFECT solution, but I feel it’s the most inclusive way to refer to minority communities, especially in the context of trying to progress towards a society that is not dominated by white people.
  Edit: I would also like to add that trying to identify individuals correctly is incredibly important. I don’t want to imply that it is “too hard” so we shouldn’t do it. I just think that doing so runs the risk of being even more offensive and marginalizing in certain scenarios, which is something we should be aware of >
  
  You are correct, but please state other options. There are times we talk about racism. There are times we talk about countries. Sometimes we are guilty if we even open our mouth or respond. White people are called white people. It always bothers me. I ignore it. When words matter, people need to be directed on how they can talk. I have a restaurant with all female servers and one male manager. He calls them the girls. Even the servers call them the girls and waitresses. I am this close to calling them all out on it. As a woman, I am insulted and angered every time! Direction is needed. >
  
  This reminds me of those videos where people dress up as a stereotypical Mexican/Asian, then ask what a bunch of white college kids think. Then they go to Mexicans/Asians who don’t care about it >
  
  Doesnt sound bad to me. Just imo >
  
  Yeah I agree. People are people. >
  
  I prefer the term people of global majority. For perspective. >
  
  As a black person (from UK) I just think you’re just looking into it way too much. It’s just not that deep. >
  
  This post was 100% made my an american >
  
  Lmao we caught you trying to invoke the model minority trope >
  
  Really, it’s almost impossible to devise a term to group so many different groups together without being white-centric.
  I’ve heard non-whites, minorities, people of color, and all of these describe them not as their own groups of people, just crudely bunching them together and saying “you’re not white”. It’s asinine to boil down all these groups just to what they’re not.
  Black, Hispanic, and Asian-American populations are otherwise far too different to lump together. They live in different places, have distinct subcultures, occupy unique socioeconomic positions. By trying to group them together at all, you’re grossly oversimplifying.
  I disagree that it makes it sound like being white is special; it’s an inherently flawed attempt at putting people into boxes. They are so different that efficiency of grouping them together is outweighed by the impracticality of a term that means “you’re not white.” >
  
  I wouldn't say it encourages them as being special, but it does lead people to believe "white" is the default skin colour, which is equally as bad. >
  
  I think it has EVERYTHING to do with context… I can see the hopscotch board you are playing on to get to this conclusion, but if I decide that the word donkey means that equestrian animals are the superior species on the planet, that doesn’t make it true >
  
  What about "minority" lol >
  
  They keep deleting comments that don't fit there agenda >
  
  Ya like wtf....nah this is b s >
  
  Change white to “person of non-color”. ? >
  
  I agree, person of color = colored person. It’s a distinction without a difference.  Prior to Kendi-ism, the last people to try to characterize people using this racial binary were legitimately white supremacist.
  I also agree that by defining everyone as either white or nonwhite reinforces the idea that people who aren’t white are irreconcilably disadvantaged which only serves to harm their mental lives and self confidence.
  When someone keeps telling you over and over “you are oppressed!  You will never be able to equally compete with the whites!” You start to believe it, and I can’t imagine many positive outcomes coming from that. When you’re a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail… >
  
  I don't agree that "person of color" should be viewed as a negative nor being white as a positive - I think that the distinction comes solely from the fact that a majority of the population is white, and because of this when making racial distinctions it is a easy way to do so. >
  
  White is a color. Lol >
  
  Its stupid not being able to say "black prople" but saying "white people" is ok. Also I agree whit OP and so we are left with the term "african americans" and I'm not sure that term fits all black people. >
  
  Dude OP this got wild >
  
  That term was created by white liberals so um, yeah. LMAO. >
  
  It's pretty obvious it's the complete opposite. Me and my boy started calling white people stuff like, "gentleman devoid of ethnicity." It's funny. PoC is a nice unifying term that sounds better than just non-white or brown. Brown doesn't include East Asians most of the time afterall.
  That said, it's washed now. Everybody wants to claim they're oppressed and it's ridiculous. Nerurodivergent, queer, PoC etc... Most of these folks look pretty white. No hate, so do I, but it's just been a tough pill to swallow for some mixed kids. So watching white Jews and shit talk about their struggle, man, idk. I don't wanna hear it. You white. Not that white people don't have struggles, but framing it through the lens of other people's shit is just embarrassing to watch over and over again. Not gonna say I didn't play up my Mexican heritage in my younger days (and not that long ago), but time's up. Move on. 
  There's just such obvious and overt danger in being black in the US that it completely overshadows any other subgroup. Even with money black people are in danger from the police to this day. Don't really wanna hear it otherwise. Even then, it's still mostly about money. That's where I'll hear you out. You're poor, you're on the team. 
  Tldr, you're completely off base and time to move on to the next fight. >
  
  Is black people a racist term now >
  
  It could be depending on the context; imagine if you will, you live in rural Whitesville and you get to middle school, so all of the social justice/anti-racist books come out (To Kill a Mockingbird, for example) and you're not a racist; wild, I know, but all of a sudden you start hearing "black folk" and "black people" being used in a semi-derogatory way, and the next thing you know, you'd assume that's racist too because that's how the racists in the book used it, basically, in a very specific circumstance, one could assume it was racist, but no, not really >
  
  I imagine this is how each term came to be discarded and replaced.  Because things had improved, and the old name was now associated with the horrible treatment those people received, each time improving,  but still falling short. We still haven't defeated racism,  so we keep trying to banish anything that might have acquired a negative association over the course of its use. But of course "black" is a little too straight forward to  hold any connotation, in and of itself. >
  
  
  
  Person of Color is different than “colored person” because it humanizes them by identifying that they are a person first, and then identifies that their skin tone is darker. “Colored person” detracts from their “personhood” by placing their skin color first as the more important part of the identity.
  
  
  It isn’t just a perception that white people overall have a better “human experience” than people of color; it is a fact. Because there is hundreds of years of mistreatment that impact the socioeconomic system in which people of color grow up that white people typically don’t have to deal with. For example, segregation, racist immigration policies, and access to higher education continue to have lasting impacts that carry over to today, even if the policies have been changed. Recognizing these historical injustices and their continued influence recognizes the additional hurdles that many people of color must overcome that many white people will never have to experience. 
  
  
  Recognizing that someone is White vs a person of color doesn’t indicate that the white person is “special” in any way; it does, however, identify and communicate an understanding of the historical injustices that have impacted a person’s life and acknowledges their own unique human experience. The thing is, people always throw around the term “equality,” and in reality, that doesn’t make a lot of sense because the playing field does not start out even, because of these social injustices. Using the term “person of color” takes a step toward equity, which is infinitely more important than equality because it begins to ensure a level playing field for future generations. You cannot have equity without understanding all of the adverse impact a group of people has experienced, and you cannot understand the adverse impact if you don’t find a way to respectfully identify that a person comes from a background that has been mistreated. >
  
  What gives words, terms, phrases any power is the listener; the speaker has no power. None at all. If I call you a swear word, a racial epithet, or anything else intended to insult you, you're the one who gives it any strength. The words themselves carry only semantic value; they alone cannot insult or hurt you - only you can choose too feel offended, and therefore you, the listener, are the one who makes them offensive, not the speaker. >
  
  As you know, white is not a colour. It is an elevated state of being. Bestowed on the very fortunate.
  The rest of us need to always find creative ways and words of defining our identity and finding ways to fit/blend and be accepted as ‘near equals’.
  If the west had not conquered and plundered the world, white would not have been anything special.
  However the worship of white is directly correlated with the deep colonisation imprint left on the colonised nations. >
  
  I hard disagree with you.
  What makes you think a non-white person has to fit/blend and be "accepted"?
  This mentality is unhealthy and I don't see myself not being equal to someone who is white. >
  
  I don’t think that either.
  I am just stating what I see.
  Does not make it ok. But it is a sad fact.
  Look at the billions spent in Asia and Africa on skin whitening creams and lotions.
  Also at the subtle discrimination that still happens basis skin colour >
  
  That is more about colorism and depending on the historical content of each country skin whitening does not necessarily has to solely do with white people/colonization. For instance, skin bleaching in East Asian countires can be tracked back to the times before European imperialism is a thing. China favors white skin as a sign of privilege because having darker skintone is a sign that you work outside and belongs to the working class.
  I believe eurocentric beauty standards play roles in some of the things we see today like how caucasian features are praised and viewed as the norm for being attractive but thinking that whitening skin has to do with white people is not always accurate. >
  
  Ok. As you prefer >
  
  The real reason is because there is a majority of white people in the US and most European countries. If whites aren’t the total majority (greater than 50% of the population), then there are at least more of us than of any other color in those places. Furthermore, while there are highly distinct cultural differences between say someone from India vs. someone from Mexico, they both are going to suffer racism similarly in the US. The jokes and attitudes will be unique in that they will be aimed at the individual’s particular cultural background and influenced by the sayers knowledge of said backgrounds. However, the reason that the attitudes and jokes exist at all, despite being verbally distinct, is because of their darker skin tone. 
  POC then creates a neutral umbrella term which recognizes that despite their wildly different cultural upbringings, a person from India, a person from Mexico, and a person who was born in the US to parents who emigrated from the Philippines, who all live in the US, will all experience passive and active racism here. And the initial trigger for that racism is their skin tone because the skin tone is visually obvious and will be the first thing noticed before they can even speak.
  All this to say, I do think there is danger in homogenizing people under one “name”… There is value in it too. Many people use POC because it’s easier than figuring  out other people’s background and avoids the risk of assuming someone is from somewhere they’re not. Weather the assumption is that they’re from the US or from another country, if you guess wrong, you can offend. So it’s “safer”/more polite to say POC and usually moves the conversation along. POC also allows us a term that can easily speak to a collective experience as I mentioned already.
  As far as it’s effects on white people… as a 33 year old white dude… it hasn’t affected me in the slightest, aside from my annoyance at lazy people who prefer to use it because they can’t be bothered to learn about their fellow human beings. >
  
  /u/padorUWU (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.
  All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
  Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
  ^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >
  
  Maybe just a semantic point here, but generally, when a term has a suffix or prefix, it denotes that that variation is the special one.
  "Person of color" rather, would imply that "person" refers to a default, and if you're applying that to race, would be referring to a white person, would mean there is nothing remarkable or special about them.
  Adding either a prefix of colored- or a suffix of -of color to the word person, implies that there is something that distinguishes that person of a non-white race from a person who is white, who is considered mundane enough that no qualifiers are needed. >
  
  !delta
  Alright, I think you made a clear argument there. Now thinking from a different perspective it does hinted that calling someone a person of color signals someone who is white has none, and it is not necessarily something positive. Verbally, you make sense there and I can see that I may have worded poorly on my argument. >
  
  You have not worded your argument poorly. You just went off the common usage of grammar.
  Take for example the pretty internationally widespread concept that having the male grammatical gender as the unmarked default is sexist, as it implies that men are more important, since a group of 10 men and 1 women would be referred to with the male plural pronoun, or in the case of English as "guys", but a group of 10 women and 1 man would not be referred to as "gals" or with the female plural pronoun but rather the same as the male one.
  This is why you have German, for example, using the combined word form, e.g., SchauspielerIn (ActorTress), with Schauspieler (actor) being the male form and Schauspielerin (actress) the female form, so SchauspielerIn signifies that it could be either. Or in Slovenian, you have e.g. igralec/-ka or lately igralka_ec (actor/-tress or actress_tor).
  You can even take Asian languages such as Japanese or Chinese, where the kanji/hanzi for man is just a combination of power + field, while woman has its own special character.
  If the non-generic form were indeed considered the special one in real life, these arguments would neither exist nor be internationally problematized. And while I agree that non-generic forms SHOULD be treated as special ones, precisely because they are not the generic defaults, which by definition makes them special, that is not how things commonly work.
  Thus, we're right back at your white == normal, PoC == special. >
  
  I get the premise you are proposing here. Makes perfect sense. But if that were the premise then, shouldn’t that term be considered racist then? And I do mean that as a real question in the interest of calling for consistency. There are movements afloat and even universities putting out word lists for restructuring our speech in the name of reducing hate speech. And calling a group of people the generic term “guys” is being hailed as sexist because, as in the premise you stated, it declares the make form as “special”. So with that in mind, if Person of Color designated that those of color are special, while those that don’t fit that title would then be less special, then that separates and ousts a single race. Hence, a bit racist, no?
  This also goes completely against the arguments that race is a social construct while empowering said social construct. But that’s a whole other discussion. >
  
  Personally, I am completely and entirely against the idea that changing language achieves anything. Want to ban slurs with historical baggage, such as the n-word? Fine. But saying colored person is racist and person of color is not? This doesn't make any sense to me.
  What people that promote this seem to either not know, forget, or simply ignore is that words simply carry meaning, which is actually separate from the words themselves. This is why there's this continuous updating of words negro => colored => black => PoC (order probably messed up), because you can start calling the concept behind these words whatever you want, but if the concept itself is perceived negatively, the word will just take on that connotation as well.
  This is why calling someone "black" in e.g. Slovenian is perfectly fine. Because there's no negative connotation attached. 
  So, American English can change words for "someone with African/non-white ancestry" all it wants, as long as both white AND non-white Americans choose to separate each other by race, the words won't change anything, since racism isn't determined by the words used but rather by the intent and thoughts of the speaker. The entire concept of dogwhistles came about because someone (finally) realized that someone can be using perfectly acceptable language to send certain signals.
  Also, from the European perspective, the separation along racial lines, which often don't even make sense, seems weird. It's at best a heuristic for everyone to be able to exclude people as quickly as possible. Using the terminology of "white person" makes zero sense outside (and to some degree even inside) the American context, since there are historically enormous differences between Latin, Germanic, and Slavic peoples. Calling a random Slav "oppressor", when the English name for the group itself is, due to their sad history, related to the word "slave" (not to be confused with the Slavic self-identifiers, which are similar but related to slava/slovo (glory/word)) is just ridiculous, even though Slavs are considered white (by people of color) in the US, but were very much considered subhuman and not "white" in its underlying meaning at any time in history.
  So yeah, I'll always support the idea that words don't matter, the intent behind them does. And the modern obsession with politically correct speech has not and will not achieve anything beyond making its proponents look silly. >
  
  I support everything you said. So I’m sure you’d share with me in the frustration that the definition of words (within context) are no longer defined by intent as they used to, and should be; but instead are defined by the perception of others. If you meant to say humpback whale in a joke but instead said wetback whale, then I get to make a full statement of your white privileged letting you think that you are allow to joke about Mexicans while using slurs. And even if I’m not Mexican I have the self-awarded right to be offended on their behalf. This leaves you on the defending end of an accusation. And we all know that in modern social structures, it us always the accusation that gets the headlines and formulated minds, while any defense or even justified clarification after the fact carries only a fraction of the impact that the initial accusation carries.
  In short, I agree with you that words should be defined by their intent. But in contemporary times, it is the perceptions of the listener rather than the intent of the speaker, that defines words. >
  
  Agreed. That's messed up. But as an AfroSlav, I at least get to shut down pretty much anyone, if they want to engage in such nonsense, since they're either going to be (by the modern "ruleset") racist against my Slavic or my black side. >
  
  All this bullshit about putting people into boxes is the issue. >
  
  Putting ppl into boxes is indeed racist. Biologically, there are no races. This is a fact. Human traits (hair color, skin color, nose type, etc.) are clined (not clustered) and discordant (not concordant). We sort races by some traits (skin color) but not others (eye color). A white girl with brown eyes and white girl with blue eyes are the same social race. 1 same and 1 different trait.
  A Fijian population and a Kenyan population are the most genetically distinct groups in the world, yet we would call them black by appearance. Sorting into races is not biologically sound >
  
  !delta
  I just saw your argument and I do agree with you and now I changed my opinion a little bit on racial identity in general as you mentioned we only sort races by traits selectively. 
  Making generalization and putting labels onto people just because of their identity(doesn't has to be racial, also base on gender, sexual orientation, nationality, or even political identity etc.) can be unhealthy in many situations. Sometimes I see and hear how people make assumptions that people who are black are poorer simply because they are black, men are more abusive than women just because they are men etc. it makes me uncomfortable, despite that I know the intention of theirs, may be that they want to address equality or whatever. Feels like sometimes people correlate things base off stereotypes without diving deeper to understand the nature of them instead. >
  
  I’d also like to mention that collective society projects expectations to support certain causes and to behave a certain way solely due to shared traumatic history. Thereafter, people start behaving as they are expected so to be accepted into a community.
  As a first generation Mexican, I can vouch that it is tough not being “Mexican enough” for the Mexican community nor “American enough” for any other non-Mexican community. Luckily I met good individuals who support and accept me for my unconventionality but I can definitely picture a universe where I’d suppress my interests to fit more into a conventionally prescribed mold. Chronic loneliness and feelings of alienation are difficult to live with, especially as a kid. >
  
  i will not agree with your last statement.. regarding to a certain race hate another. 
  But I will agree with you on the first then affirmitive action does negatively impact asian americans despite they are a minority and considered poc as well by today's standard. >
  
  I mean the movement itself, isn't just about hate crimes. I do acknowledge many attackers who commited the violence are not white Trump supporters like the media said, but stop asian hate movement also is supposed to talk about general racism toward asians in the west, which more or less is an ongoing issue just that Covid-19 stimulated it and now its becoming more visible. Honestly, the movement is undermined because many people are only vocal selectively, sometimes when the narrative doesn't fit, the media will either downplay or ignore it due to bias. >
  
  it did start out as the stop saying kung-flu, and bat soup jokes...trying to paint conservatives as racists but when asian americans opened their mouth to talk about the hate they recieved it really had nothing to do with the jokes but about  real abuse they received. and your right, they did shut it down because it did not fit the narrative they wanted. >
  
  Oh who "shut it down"? 
  Also really funny you're saying that conservatives being racist towards Asian people is imaginary while also acknowledging the giant racist movement. >
  
  i would say white conservatives are more racist towards black than asians. maybe some 80 year old vietnam vet.... but imo i dont see serious hatred towards asians from whites as a whole >
  
  So you're basically just saying "believe me"? >
  
  idc if you believe me or not. who are you? >
  
  I don't believe you. >
  
  that doesnt make any sense. its just as logical, if not more, that POC makes "white" seem less special.  it obviously implies that they are without color. the term "color" is just dumb. >
  
  The reason I argue that it makes "white people" a special category because it groups all white people into one but it disregards the uniqueness of being asian/black etc. etc. but groups all the "non-white" races into one big pot because they are not white. It makes whiteness an unique quality in comparison, this is what I am implying here. And for your last statement I have similar opinions. I think it is irrational to say white people are "without" color, since white is a color too. It kind of gives off the energy that color is a burden and something that is negative/bad. >
  
  That doesnt really address the point though
  If you argue that the term POC makes being white a unique trait, isnt “having color” the exact same argument for uniqueness? I think this argument would make sense for the term non-white, but not POC
  I also think we divide people that way because, especially in USA, “whites”outnumber other ethnicities. So it does make some sense to categorize, on a big picture, whites and non-whites >
  
  But black people and East Asian people have nothing in common to be classified as 'of colour'. The only thing they have in common is not being white, which really isn't having something in common at all.  
  Technically, could you not include white people in the 'POC' category and for example exclude East Asian people? It would make just as much sense right? >
  
  
  The only thing they have in common is not being white, which really isn't having something in common at all. 
  
  Sure, but as I said that's why I think the terms work as big-picture dividers in the US, not necessarily as perfect identifiers.
  As the other comment points out, while each and every single minority might not have the exact same experiences, there is a very simplified and generic experience that POCs go through compared to White people (whatever that means today). Of course, cause sometimes it needs to be said, this doesn't mean that no white person has experienced racism, poverty, or any other hardship.
  
  Technically, could you not include white people in the 'POC' category and for example exclude East Asian people?
  
  I mean, technically you can group ethnicities however you want. But I think the reason we stick to using Whiteness as the dividing line in the US is because Whites are the majority (~60% of the population). Realistically, I think White/non-White does a better job of illustrating that, but I do see how POC/White does the same job without making one or the other, "normal" >
  
  So in essence it is a rather arbitrary and hazy term that is only suitable in the US, maybe in a few other western countries?  
  Generally, I would oppose using such terms, especially because it is such an emotionally loaded term which people actually bind their identity and self-worth to. >
  
  Don’t you think that white people DO have a fundamentally different experience than POC because of their whiteness? It does seem that, in Western society, that white people are the norm. Perhaps POC is the term that best demonstrates the disparity that reflects reality right now. >
  
  I will argue sometimes it is mostly a perception, than actual anecdotes.
  I do not believe that being white fundamentally makes your experience different just because of that. There are many other factors contributing to one's success, experience of getting there etc. However, I can see how it makes sense if people argue that being white is PERCEIVED as having more advantages since it is generally true the majority of people will see white people differently, by perceiving them, and associate them with more positive attributes. 
  And I have given examples in my argument, in many scenarios, person of color as a term is not applicable to describe someone who is not white but actually, is not impacted negatively simply because they are not white. For instance, in so many scenarios, asian americans are not seen as at disadvantage (representation in tech industry, high family income, low crime/jail rate etc.) so you see many times asian americans are not considered "poc" by many media when describing these kind of scenarios. >
  
  If it’s all run on perception, then being white still
  changes your experience. I don’t think anyone believes that white people are biologically different than anyone else. It’s just how white people are perceived in culture. That’s always been true. It’s  overwhelmingly evident than society treats being white as the default. How often do you hear white people talk about being white? I never think about it at all. Because I don’t have to. 
  In fact, tons of white people generally prefer to frame their identity in ethnic terms instead: Identifying as Italian or Irish or Jewish seems to come with a chance to take pride in some shared history.
  So I think our starting point is accepting that by and large, society has established that—advantages or no—that whiteness is the DEFAULT. Not that it’s necessarily good or bad, just the normal base template. >
  
  As someone that spent years around right wingers (of all different flavors from libertarian to evangelical) I can assure you, they do think we are biologically different. 
  They just need to feel safe enough to say it. >
  
  Interesting. Can you give me some examples of their thoughts? >
  
  My former friend, in his 60s now, was a bit of a father figure to me in my 20s. He was a typical “I’m a liberal but the left has gone too far and made me vote for Trump” type. Also, he’s married to a black woman and adopted her two black children. 
  When his friend told me that black people had lower IQs because of “black genetics” my former friend agreed. When I pushed back and said he was saying black people were inferior, I was told no because black people are better at athletics and my former friend agreed again. 
  I had ignored the signs for a while because I didn’t want throw away 15 years of friendship. I thought surely I must be missing something and it can’t be all the way full blown racist bad. I wasn’t missing anything. >
  
  That’s wild. >
  
  My evangelical friend, in his 70s, believes they are mentally and morally inferior. He doesn't hate them, accourding to him, he just feels they need to recognize a place of subservience to whites and seperate as God intended. They are the biblical "mud people" made inferior and marked by God to serve God's chosen whites. 
  As far as if I think he hates them, well that sure is a lot nicer than anything he has to say about the jews. So I guess one has to sort of squint and take a certain relative view to determine what he likes and who he hates. >
  
  So the issue I have with offensive words is that they will be banned because they offend someone. Then a different word or phrase is used as the descriptor that then becomes offensive as it is being used to describe people. And it is a never ending cycle.
  We should not be treating people badly because of their ethnicity. Some people still will even if they shouldn’t. Changing the words that are used will not change the intended meaning of what the person is saying.
  Then you have people who will project intent to what someone says. So no matter what is said they will find a way to turn it into something offensive.
  I do not know a perfect solution to this other then encouraging people to treat others as people. >
  
  I think sometimes, being offended is a choice, an entitlement, rather than something that is of common sense. I do not think the term "person of color" is meant to be offensive nor is it being perceived as something that is offensive by most people in the west at least, but it feels awkward to use and sometimes the usage becomes illogical when you use it to describe someone just because they are not white. And I do know that there are people who get offended over this term since it can be perceived as. I think it is off topic now, but anyway, I think to treat each other equal you have to see each other as your equal first, meaning you need to see outside of just "identity", racial, gender etc. Just normally label someone who is not white as asian. black etc. is something I think is more appropriate and it seems more natural rather just labeling them as a person of color imo since it is counter-productive to group people base off just race, and it is a thing in the west. >
  
  My 2 cents, I think POC is applicable for socioeconomic conversations. It used to be minority but I think that has fallen out of favor due to demographics changing and its derogatory usage overtime. When it comes to treating everyone the same, while it is wishful thinking we are really not at a point in society where we can do that justly. If we started calling everyone just people tomorrow for example, there would still be disparities in incarceration, poverty, healthcare, etc based on the color of your skin. 
  So in the meantime it is useful to separate white people from non-white people in terms of socioeconomic conversations because the disparities are there and there is a clear dividing line. Of course you can break it down further than white people/non-white but it helps because white supremacy did (and still does imo) run through Americas core so white people do on average have a much different experience than someone who is a minority/poc. >
  
  I will hard disagree on this one. The statistics have shown that socioeconomic conversations do not only favor white americans but also asian americans, and hence this is why whenever people of color are being discussed in the context of socioeconomic ones, or just like you said (incarceration, poverty, healthcare etc.) they are not considered poc because poc are perceived as having less privilege. Yet asian americans as a group outperform white americans in many areas. >
  
  They may outperform whites in specific areas, but they are still largely underrepresented as a whole, we've only had 1 president who isn't white for example. ~80% of ceos are white, 98% of land owners are white. Then there was also the Asian exclusion act of 1924, Japanese internment camps, etc.
  My primary point is that even though they may outperform other groups in certain areas, Asians were and are still "othered" by the white majority hence why the POC status/label fits in my eyes. >
  
  I don’t think it makes being white special, but I do think it dilutes the unique features of ALL the POC out there. >
  
  I have wondered at this many times.  I keep being surprised that I never hear anyone who is not white complaining about the term "people of color."
  People's experiences, priorities, and needs differ so greatly within races, let alone across them.  Lumping so many races together and speaking about them as a monolithic entity seems as if it would immediately prompt most of the members of the entity to be like, "Actually, that's not quite right about my particular subset." >
  
  POC is a political movement that’s used colloquially; but not all POC are politically aligned except against racism I suppose. Otherwise lots of immigrant communities are very fiscally & socially conservative. That’s what Republicans don’t get, if they adjusted their messaging away from “replacement theory”, “white fright”, etc., they have a WHOLE base they could draw on. They would essentially split the POC vote. >
  
  I would argue that it does the opposite. Saying “person of color” implies that being white is the default and the modifier “of color” onto “person”  creates a sense of being “other” from the “normal” white people. 
  At least that’s how I always interpreted it and why I personally don’t like the term. >
  
  I don't like it because I'm pink. Pink is a color. 
  Also, I don't know any actually white people that aren't albino. Even then, there's still a bit of pink in there. 
  We are all people of color!
  It's such a stupid way to describe people. >
  
  I don’t like your argument because you never provided an alternative. If we don’t refer to POC’s as POC’s, how should we refer to them? If the answer is simply ignore the “color” component, I see that as the same as saying, “All Lives Matter,” which is essentially devolving an extremely complex historical conversation (at least in Western society) into one that leaves out important facts. >
  
  sorry I didn't clarity but I would rather just refer to someone who is black for example, as a black person, an asian is an asian person etc. It sounds more natural imo and there isn't a need to specfiy that a person who is not white is a person of color. Just think about this then, wouldn't it sound strange, if you call someone a "non-white"? basically, a person of color has no specific racial label, but it is a term to describe a group of people(basically a racial minority in western society). You have "white people" and "people of color", you see here pretty much says that you are either someone who is white or who is not, that was what used to divide races in America and the term "colored person" was invented to seperate white people to others since they simply use it as a way to identify non-white people as people who should have less privilege in this society which is ruled by whiteness(back then). >
  
  So first I’d like to share that I work in the “Diversity & Inclusion” space and we’re trained to refer to anyone with “person-first” pronouns. A perfect non-racial example is someone who is autistic. We do not refer to them as an “autistic person” because we now unconsciously attribute the only thing about that person to be the fact that they have autism when in reality there is a whole person behind that word.
  The same can be argued for referring to race. The reason why we changed the phrase colored people to people of color is simply because you are recognizing them as a human being first, which is a lot less degrading. Believe it or not, it does make a difference. 
  The other thing I’d like to bring up is that it just makes more sense to group all people of color in when speaking about them in terms of statistics. For example, I had to read a book called “Diversify” in my Master’s program that speaks on how businesses can be more successful through things like having a more diverse workforce, removing as much bias from a job application process, or speaking up for people of color AND women of color when there are none in upper-level management. It doesn’t make sense to list every race when speaking on this topic because ALL races (in Western Society) except for White people statistically experience these issues.
  I agree with your argument here, and MLK says it best that the best way that we can move forward and improve as a society is not by judging people by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.
  Edit: The book is actually called “Inclusify” for those interested >
  
  Do you believe the term POC should be abolished in international contexts? >
  
  In some places, it just doesn’t make sense to use the term POC, because it doesn’t have the same racial inequities or historical contexts. A good example is the tensions between Haiti and the Dominican Republic. There are clear inequities for Haitians living in the DR, but we don’t refer to Haitians in this context as POC because they’re all POC? However, even in the DR, people are often treated differently just from the tone of their skin.
  It’s too hard to generalize, and it comes down to each individual country. >
  
  !delta
  I think you make a point here and I wasn't thinking about it back then. Thank you for telling this. The term poc does have a lot to do with historical context and internationally it does not share the same sentiment. I should have mentioned it too in my argument. >
  
  Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/TheWorstRoommate (1∆).
  ^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >
  
  I'm not a fan of the term POC, what will it be in 5 years, 10 years? Who truly decides what's suddenly offensive or what should be offensive to all of us? You could say almost anything with a sneer and as others have mentioned the word or phrase is to blame but that doesn't fix the root cause. 
  Besides which until relatively recently white wasn't a catch-all - Greeks, Italians, Irish, Germans and so on were and are unique and have their own culture. The term POC does separate 'whites' from the equation but only because it simplifies a very complex world into a more easily digestible one. That outlook is deeply flawed, it's not the words we use. >
  
  Doesn’t this seem a little bit arbitrary? At the end of the day, there are contexts in which we need words to refer to race. In order to address racism, we need to understand the conceptions of race that people nelieve, and that requires terminology referring to race. Having a term that refers to a racial group is not necessarily prescribing that there is an essential quality to that group, it is merely a descriptive utility. >
  
  unless we are talking about the invisible man everyone is a person of color >
  
  When did white become a non color. We all are colored people >
  
  I don’t like the term African American, they are just Americans. I don’t call myself German/Irish American, that was my grandparents I’m just an American >
  
  First off, it's good practice in charged topics like this to state one's positionality: their relation to the topic. For this question, that should certainly be their race, and relation to the context, say Black American. But I won't hold you to such a standard, though for myself, as an Asian American, that necessarily informs my response here. My views are not universal, nor unbiased. Indeed, when it comes to matters of identity, there's really no point to being unbiased, because we are all biased in this regard. All we can do is state our identity and stake in this topic and step forward to answer.
  One important principle of terminology is that it is meant to give and provide those who are facing forms of oppression words, concepts, and tools with which to describe, name, and counteract their struggle. You are right to point out that POC is often named in contrast to White, but your thinking is a bit too unnuanced in my opinion. What is it that an Asian, Black, Indigenous, and Latin American share? What things might they have in common?
  I will not really going to bother arguing for or against a racist U.S. in its foundations. That argument could be made elsewhere, that is not what I intend to focus on. Let me just cut through all of that and say there is structural racism at play for all of the groups above. The institutions of the state are in opposition to the very existence of  non-White people, to varying degrees, a racial caste system if you will. 
  (This is not to say historically here haven't been ethnicities such as Irish or Italian who haven't faced discrimination either, but they have largely been subsumed under the identity of white and largely are able to go through life in the U.S. without much issue.)
  What many fail to understand is that POC's struggles are best done together, in coalition and mutual support for each other. One amongst several good reasons being is that they are all tied up together. For example, there's a concept called Racial Triangulation, that famed Political Scientist Claire Jean Kim devised. Roughly, Black, Asian, and White identities are constructed along different axes to divide Black and Asian communities. Asian communities are said to be hardworking, prosperous, and largely free of discrimination when it comes to labor opportunities in certain fields, but then, oftentimes, there are those who look at the 'success' of Asians who then turn to Black people and tell them to work harder, to pull themselves up by the bootstraps perhaps.
  That response, however, misses two key points. First, Asian Americans are not a monolithic group, and if you look at the socioeconomics of say Cambodian or Hmong Americans, you'll see a drastic difference than Chinese American. Hell, even with Chinese American, you see a drastic difference in livelihoods with Taiwanese Americans than other groups. Still, the fact of the matter is that Asian Americans still face discrimination, despite having 'made', even if you ignore the communities of Asian Americans who are struggling. Like, I could potentially be insulted, robbed, assaulted, or possibly shot as happened in Atlanta, just because I am Asian. Like because my eyes, which are unalterable, I can legitimately be hate crimed. That's not exactly something white people face.
  Second, this ignores the recency of many Asian Americans having arrived in the last century, due to the repeal of the Chinese Exclusion Act. A good portion of the Chinese immigrants to America are generally starting better off and possess potentially advanced degrees. Whereas Black Americans suffered from historical issues such as redlining, white flight, segregation, the carceral system. Not to forget there was also the Tulsa Massacre, which wiped out built up Black American wealth.
  For us POC, our struggles are tied up with each other. Asian Americans have long had ties and support for Black Americans as Black Americans have had for Asians. Malcolm X had a friendship with famed Asian American activist Yuri Kochiyama. The killing of Vincent Chin led to Asian American protests, that were supported by Black Americans. In Atlanta, there were Black American support for the victims as well. At some universities, the ethnic studies programs were basically established by a coalition of Black, Asian, Indigenous, and Latin American students. 
  Don't get me wrong, there are community issues between us too. But movements designed for change succeed when a wide variety of people recognize the commonality in their struggle and work together to build something new. POC, as a term, yes, is intended to note the difference between white and non-white Americans but it is also intended to unite and therefore empower us as a collective group, so that we can recognize and combat the entirety of an unjust system rather than just in bits and pieces. >
  
  Have you ever met someone who isn’t a color? Literally everyone is a person of  color. White is also a color. >
  
  I think you are reading too much into it. Person of color is basically another word for the minority. Anything else you are reading into it is simply your perception. It doesn't imply anything about superiority or anything else. It's just used to differentiate between the majority who happen to be white and the minority who are comprised of other races. >
  
  As for western society, yes. But I fail to see how it makes sense to describe someone with color. I am not talking about the political aspect of the term, but it doesn't feel right to say someone who is not a white cauasian, is a person who has color. What defines that? white is a color too, just like other colors. Our society also have a hard time labeling someone who is mixed race as just "person of color" because of that. Some of them even go further and regard them as "white passing" which I think is worse. It is a bit confusing to me still that it is a thing. >
  
  I'm not aware of any place that isn't a white majority that uses the term.. I could be wrong though. If there was a place it would simply mean person of color was the majority, it's just a way to differentiate people. It's an evolution of language. The reason color is used is likely due to historical meaning even though you are correct white is a color. People can adopt whatever descriptions they like, a common one here in Canada is brown and black people. >
  
  I find categorising people on their skin colour very odd. Why not choose something else like eye colour or hair colour. Seems strange >
  
  Eye color and hair color seems just as random? >
  
  Yeah. The whole idea of it seems ridiculous to me >
  
  Problem is many are teaching our younger generation that their owed something,as if certain races don’t go through just as many hardships as the next man.Look at how awful Asians were treated here in history? yet they’re the most educated! and have the highest average income in america above white people,Overall no good comes from this idea that skin complexion dictates how successful you can be…it’ll just create more kids rebelling and giving excuses to fail! >
  
  Makes sense. My friend has ‘mixed’ kids and has told them they’re disadvantaged and people will treat them differently because they’re half black. Just doesn’t sit right with me. I would be pissed If someone told my child they were automatically ‘different’ or ‘less than’ because of their appearance. >
  
  Exactly but the sad thing is many feed into that! Like what happen to the standard morals? Love your family,work hard,and believe in something greater than yourself? Terrible times especially for kids growing up with phones 24/7! >
  
  The problem here is how people want to control and manipulate language and thereby thoughts and feelings.  As you said, POC is currently a good thing but it is synonymous (almost literally) with colored person, which is bad.  I’m supposed to capitalize Black but not white, because reasons.   Negro is bad even though that word was used in official black organizations.  African American is okay but any brand of European American is not.  
  My point is it’s all designed to keep us focused on differences and why we should subconsciously (or not) still look at each other side eyed.  It’s encouraging tribalism by the exact people who would swear they would never. >
  
  Fancy meeting you here.
  But you're supposed to present a counterargument in your comment. >
  
  White is a special category...to white people. Society already expects someone who is white to have a different human experience because they are white. People who aren't white are expected to be at a disadvantage for being non-white. 
  Like, your hypothetical scenarios about what the term 'people of color' might do are already happening and are the entire reason the term 'people of color' exists in the first place. >
  
  Expected to be at a disadvantage by whom? >
  
  POC is being used to divide people against each other by putting them into groups. >
  
  I do think the intent of using people of color descriptively is to unite people who are not white, as racial minorities. However, today's political climate makes it backfire in my opinion.. A lot of times the usage basically points finger at people who are white. (poc should stand together to fight injustice, poc deserve better treatment, poc unite against hate). It implies whiteness is the source of these "evil" things, and it further generalizes an entire racial group having those quality. It goes both way, also for people of color, like how many times you see people of color are perceived as having less advantages, being poor, facing more hardship just base off their racial identity, not even considering other factors. It doesn't feel right to me that some people make assumptions about someone who is white, or isn't, just based off their race, doesn't matter the intention is good or not. >
  
  I agree that it doesn't work in all contexts, but there are times when we need a term for "everyone who isn't white" because there are advantages in US society that do apply exclusively to white people. In order to have conversations about those things, we need terms. Sometimes an issue only applies to black Americans, in which case we should say "black Americans". Sometimes it applies to anyone who isn't white, in which case we say "people of color". What would perhaps be a better solution than censoring that term, is to add extra terms for other groups. Maybe we could use a term for "all races other than black" or "all non Asian races" to balance things out. There are certainly cultural things that apply only to each group, and being able to talk about "everyone else" is useful. I guess it just comes up more often for "everyone who isn't white" because of all the systemic racism white people created. >
  
  Can't we just all be humans? Skin color should be no different from eye color. It's just a physical trait someone has. That's it. >
  
  It should be, but it isn't looked at that way by the vast majority of people. We need vocabulary to be able to deal with and discuss that reality. >
  
  It infers the exact opposite. It implies that whites are lacking in color. The same implication that if you're white you have no culture to speak of and can only become cultured when spending time with people of color. >
  
  I believe only White people have varying degrees of hair color and eye color, so technically White people are the only people of color. >
  
  Person of color actually is worse for the said person. People are people, no matter what the color. Stating that they are a poc means that they are part of some sort of protected class group. >
  
  Some sort of class group, yes. Protected, no. >
  
  What racism wants the absolute most is for people to deny that its there. 
  ​
  Because racism flourishes the most when we can't talk about it. Restricting certain and/or denying terms that help us discuss racism will inevitably lead the problems that exist to continue, and other problems to come up as well. 
  ​
  Talking about how groups of people are disadvantaged is the first step to dismantling that system that causes oppression. If you can't talk about it nothing will change. 
  ​
  Theres nothing wrong with talking about race and skin color and how it has caused generational trauma for many people of color. We NEED to talk about that and how to fix it... Just how the fear of being labelled a "racist" has caused little progression in closing the race divide over the past 50 years. (Black people, still, have 1/7th the wealth that white people do, I can find the source to this data if you so wish it). 
  ​
  The answer is not "ignore it and it will go away". Thats why we need this type of term. People are born into the dominant racial class in our country, one that has system upon system historically to build up. And people are born not white as well. Some over come that racial divide, others get beat down by it alone. Some never felt like it impacted them a day in their life. That HAPPENS, whether we like it or not. 
  ​
  To say we should just get rid of the term because we don't think its fair that its a thing and that race has nothing to do with ability is missing the entire point of why we need to talk about this sort of stuff in the first place. >
  
  Person of color means black. >
  
  Legally, pretty much the only people that are persons of color are blacks and Hispanics because they are the only economically disenfranchised group. Asians??? Nope. Harder for them to get into the same school as white because school is pushed so hard in Asian cultures. People generally have no clue as to that reality. Asians don’t complain because “can’t” isn’t in Asians’ vocabulary, and as a result, no one else knows. >
  
  We're not going to end racism if we pretend it doesn't exist, and while POC isn't a perfect term for all contexts it's still a useful word.
  Sometimes you do want to refer to non-white people as a group (for example when talking about a city's Mayors have all historically been white) without framing whiteness (or lack there if) as the defining characteristic 
  Obviously many people use words differently, but I feel like we shouldn't overreact when a few people define words in ways we disagree with. >
  
  I think "person of color" implies skin color is special to the society that uses the term. >
  
  i think you should use whateevr that group finds comfortable 
  let’s use an example
  ’queer’
  queer is a reclaimed slur so is a good example. It is also the proper term and people of the LGBT community, like myself (non binary and bisexual) are happy to use it >
  
  Just a query which countries refer to people of colour? I have one heard Americans us this description >
  
  I would say dispense with the whole color thing entirely. They're not white and in not black its a weird good evil dichotomy and the whole thing was thought up by racist a couple hundred years ago, that is to say its run its course lets chose something else already. >
  
  No. The prevailing thought when it comes to the term "person of colour" isn't that Whiteness is special. Rather, the prevailing thought is that White is the default race.
  Just say "person" when dealing with issues that aren't about race. >
  
  White is also a colour use it back at them. Trevor Noah puts it right. What is Native American. Why white Americans are not called euro Americans. Also if countries are called first send and third world countries then Germany should be called fourth world country >
  
  I prefer "person of no colour" >
  
  I think it more so sounds fancier than plain ol "white". So it feels like the opposite of what you said. White is plain and boring and POC is "special".
  But nobody is special for the color of their skin or for any other reason. >
  
  If you have to distinguish "person of colour" if anything that makes the "person of colour" special and the "person of non-colour?" the one that's "normal" in this context. Not that that's any better. >
  
  Person without color is also being used. >
  
  White people are the majority in usa so that's normal >
  
  Colourless people is most accurate. They lack melanin that everyone else has because they come from areas with less sun. >
  
  I saw the comment about how putting “person” first humanizes the individual, and I think that’s a very important point. I would also like to add that by attempting to label individuals as “Black”, “Asian”, “Hispanic”, etc, you have the potential to mislabel very easily, which is also incredibly offensive for those people. It can be a very uncomfortable conversation if someone approaches you and asks “what race are you?” or they make an assumption that is incorrect, and you have been, once again, judged in some way but the color of your skin. It can soon become even more complex of an issue once you realize that many individuals are not just one race. Someone who is half black and half Hispanic, for example, is then forced to make the decision on which race they “most” identify as, putting them in a somewhat more dehumanizing experience- whether that’s by choosing just one, or which one they want to name first. As we continue (as is the current trend, at least in America) to have more bi-racial couples, it becomes increasingly more difficult for people to name a specific way they would like to be identified. At the end of the day, POC may not be the PERFECT solution, but I feel it’s the most inclusive way to refer to minority communities, especially in the context of trying to progress towards a society that is not dominated by white people.
  Edit: I would also like to add that trying to identify individuals correctly is incredibly important. I don’t want to imply that it is “too hard” so we shouldn’t do it. I just think that doing so runs the risk of being even more offensive and marginalizing in certain scenarios, which is something we should be aware of >
  
  You are correct, but please state other options. There are times we talk about racism. There are times we talk about countries. Sometimes we are guilty if we even open our mouth or respond. White people are called white people. It always bothers me. I ignore it. When words matter, people need to be directed on how they can talk. I have a restaurant with all female servers and one male manager. He calls them the girls. Even the servers call them the girls and waitresses. I am this close to calling them all out on it. As a woman, I am insulted and angered every time! Direction is needed. >
  
  This reminds me of those videos where people dress up as a stereotypical Mexican/Asian, then ask what a bunch of white college kids think. Then they go to Mexicans/Asians who don’t care about it >
  
  Doesnt sound bad to me. Just imo