Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is apples to bowling balls and you are trying to cloud the issue using an irrational jump.
We are referring to physical, image descriptors NOT locale or origin definers which is what you are doing.
And no matter how they wish to "represent" it (ever hear of wishful thinking??), one can't just conveniently make up facts or say something doesn't mean the same as something else that is inherently the same because they want simply to (foolishly) try to change the narrative and come up with a cozy, separatist, divisive "buzzword".
So....whether one uses the crayon example or others such as saying a CAR OF RED vs A RED CAR, a TIGER of WHITE vs a WHITE TIGER, a SKY OF BLUE vs. a BLUE SKY and on and on and on and on ad nauseam, the base fact will remain as I said....all these things have equal definitions and meanings....the wishes or the delusions of an agenda or certain group does not alter that to make it as they want it.
Well first you ignore the first part of my post, that there is a well established historical rationale behind why "people of color" and "colored people" are two different things.
Secondly, if you insist on sticking with colours, there are plenty of examples of words utilizing colors where the rearranging of words does not yield similar meanings, e.g. "yellow bellied" does not have the same meaning as "belly of yellow". The former has a well established specific connotation whereas the latter could be referring to a bird. If someone is "black balled" most folks understand what you mean, to say that they were "balled of black" has no meaning. Folks know what you mean by a "red herring", to say a "herring of red" will give you confused looks. The bottom line is that there are certain specific expressions that have certain linguistic meaning that simply rearranging the words don't get you the same meaning. To ignore that "colored people" has historic meaning while "people of color" has a different meaning is to imply that language follows hard rules when in fact it does not.
Personally I have no problem with new terms being coined (linguistically happens all the time), e.g. "people of color" to represent anyone who is non white. It's when existing terms are "appropriated" for convenience, e.g. "racist" can only refer to whites, that I think is more problematic.
[quote=Suburban_Guy;55383655]This isn't the first time I heard of something like this. If I recall correctly, the movie Malcolm X had a scene where Malcolm was talking about the negative connotations of the word black in the dictionary as compared to white.
It was only a matter of time until self anointed activist snowflakes with too much time on their hands saw this opportunity.
Funny, I once had a job where I occasionally dealt with complaints like that - but not racial ones. I would laboriously explain the purpose of a dictionary.
The person is right, though. Technically, Caucasians aren't actually "white," and most African Americans aren't "black."
Tens of thousands of black Americans do not regard themselves as "African-American," instead tracing their ancestry to places like Brazil or the Caribbean. I found a poll from a decade ago in which more than half of all black Americans preferred something other than "African-American."
It reminds me somewhat of the term "Native American." I'm convinced that aside from a few Native diversicrats, the only people who use this term are white, upwardly mobile, right-thinking liberals because few Indians call themselves "Native Americans." They may call themselves "Natives," "Indians" (most common) or refer to themselves by their tribes, but never "Native Americans."
Well first you ignore the first part of my post, that there is a well established historical rationale behind why "people of color" and "colored people" are two different things.
Secondly, if you insist on sticking with colours, there are plenty of examples of words utilizing colors where the rearranging of words does not yield similar meanings, e.g. "yellow bellied" does not have the same meaning as "belly of yellow". The former has a well established specific connotation whereas the latter could be referring to a bird. If someone is "black balled" most folks understand what you mean, to say that they were "balled of black" has no meaning. Folks know what you mean by a "red herring", to say a "herring of red" will give you confused looks. The bottom line is that there are certain specific expressions that have certain linguistic meaning that simply rearranging the words don't get you the same meaning. To ignore that "colored people" has historic meaning while "people of color" has a different meaning is to imply that language follows hard rules when in fact it does not.
Personally I have no problem with new terms being coined (linguistically happens all the time), e.g. "people of color" to represent anyone who is non white. It's when existing terms are "appropriated" for convenience, e.g. "racist" can only refer to whites, that I think is more problematic.
And how is that not them being divisive, separatist and racist (or at least on some level a biased view) on their part?? They are using a made up term to exclude or disenfranchise one race from pretty much any other in order to ostracize said race or make it an "us vs them" state of being (so much for "multiculturalism", huh?...oh..I forgot, that only applies to the cultures/races, etc. "they" decide it includes, right?? - which undoubtedly ALWAYS means any other but white). Having said all that, again, WHITE IS A COLOR....so if one is going to say something should be regarded in the interests of a "person of color", unless they are including whites in that then they are automatically being divisive and biased as I stated above.
And how is that not them being divisive, separatist and racist (or at least on some level a biased view) on their part?? They are using a made up term to exclude or disenfranchise one race from pretty much any other in order to ostracize said race or make it an "us vs them" state of being (so much for "multiculturalism", huh?...oh..I forgot, that only applies to the cultures/races, etc. "they" decide it includes, right?? - which undoubtedly ALWAYS means any other but white). Having said all that, again, WHITE IS A COLOR....so if one is going to say something should be regarded in the interests of a "person of color", unless they are including whites in that then they are automatically being divisive and biased as I stated above.
I wasn't addressing any of what you are referring to, though do consider that to an extent all words/terms are "made up" at some point. That being said, it's generally accepted by many that "people of color" simply excludes whites, the appropriateness and social implications are a different matter altogether.
Also, here is my reply to a previous poster WRT "people of color" and why it currently enjoys acceptance amongst many:
Quote:
Originally Posted by austinnerd
Because in this era of permissive racism, having a target creates a rallying point, sometimes giving rise to labels with low informational density, including the one discussed, whose primary purpose it is to further an idealism vs facilitate understanding.
So it should be pretty clear as to what my position about the term is.
People of color is a way to distinguish people. ...*****
I answered your question about Diaz. I can’t help you beyond what I’ve provided.
Note I was not looking for 'help.' Just looking for an explanation as to why your 'definition' of 'people of color' does not define who is and is not a 'person of color.' If a 'definition' of a term does not define said term, is it really a 'definition??' Definitions are supposed to define, n'est ce pas?
Way back in post #29 you posted:
Quote:
Nah, people [woman] of color is an actual thing. It has real meaning....
I've been trying to get you to tell us just what that 'meaning' is, without success about 50 posts later.
Again, those who use terms they can't define literally don't know what they're talking about.
...Personally I have no problem with new terms being coined (linguistically happens all the time), e.g. "people of color" to represent anyone who is non white. It's when existing terms are "appropriated" for convenience, e.g. "racist" can only refer to whites, that I think is more problematic.
I'll ask you too since you seem to be a fan of the term 'people of color.' Is Cameron Diaz, blonde & blue & Hispanic a 'person of color?' I'm a person of pallor, of mostly N. Euro ancestry. Growing up I had a good friend who was Palestinian, and just as pale as me. Was he a 'person of color?' I have an ex-GF who is Vietnamese, also paler than me (mainly because she never goes out in the sun). Is she a 'person of color?'
What is the definition of 'person of color?'
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
