With the controversy surrounding Trump’s tweets about “The Squad,” the media have been describing these four representatives as “women of color.” In my recollection this phrase was first popularized in the 1970s to be more inclusive in establishing a group that goes beyond African-Americans and includes other non-white groups (I know it far predates me, but I am just describing my personal experience). The Squad includes a Palestinian-American, whom I think it would be correct to say is Arab; and a daughter of Puerto Rican immigrants. To call them “women of color” suggests that the term has expanded even further. There was a time when Arabs and Latin Americans were considered distinct ethnic groups, but white. My wife is an Arab and has never thought of herself as a “woman of color,” so I don’t know how much of this term is identity vs. political vs. an objective definition. I don’t hear the phrase used to describe east Asians, so I suspect it is more of a political term. I have heard some west Asians (Pakistan, India) refer to themselves as “brown people” so maybe they feel like they want their own identity. Are Sephardic Jews people of color?
Is “person of color” now a way to say “a person who is not of European white descent”?
I suppose this may have some value in the U.S. given that it represents a large portion of the population, though a minority, and that this group continues to suffer disadvantages compared to the white European majority.
Possibly for Arab-Americans whose families have been in the U.S. for a long time. There are people of Arab descent that are bona fide good-ol’-boys and may even self-identify as “rednecks”. Quasi-examples would be former NASCAR driver Bobby Rahal and former Louisiana politician Richard Ieyoub.
As someone who grew up in the south (80s and 90s, not Jim Crow), I would say determining what is “white” is primarily about appearance and culture, and less about ethnicity.
If you move to town, have palish skin, dress like all the other white people, don’t have a funny accent, and don’t do anything too foreign looking, then you are in the “white” group. The birthplace of your grandfather makes little difference.
But if you move to town, have slightly darker skin, dress differently, and only speak a little English, then it doesn’t matter that a demographer would consider you white (Hispanic), you are not in the “white” group.
The term is a blurry one with meanings that change from time to time and from location to location.
It could be considered a substitute for the long and unwieldy "person considered as ‘other’ on the grounds of appearance and/or ethnicity by people who identify as “white”. It doesn’t have much to do with actual skin color; it’s a social category.
Basically, yes. If you’re not white, then you’re PoC.
Although there are some nowadays who hold that there are true PoC and not-so-true PoC. You mentioned East Asians, for instance - there are now some people who hold that Asians ought to be, or are, lumped into the same category as white people.
Let me modify that a bit, in that people with really dark skin are consistently put into the category. People with intermediary shades of skin color, however, including some who are as light or lighter than some others classed as “white” at the same time and place, may move back and forth in category in different times and places based on their accent, clothing, food, religion, etc.
It just means “non-white,” but in a way that doesn’t reference white people.
Velocity’s articles are not about the term “person of color,” but about a seeming alliance between some white racists and some Asian people. It’s a strange bedfellows situation, due to the common interest of both identity groups being over represented in some institutions, particularly higher education.
I’d already known about white racists who would say that they weren’t white supremacists, arguing that Asians were superior to whites. It was, of course, a fig leaf, but one that aligned somewhat with Hitler himself in his alliance with Japan. I was not aware that some Asian people were aligning right back.
They’re not arguing that “people of color” as a term does not include Asians. They’re discussing East Asians taking on some of the privileges usually associated with being white.
The OP asked about the term “person of color,” not “colored person.” You might think that, logically, they should be the same thing; but they have different histories and connotations.
That definition begs the question. At one time, Arabs, Sephardic Jews, and Hispanic people would have been considered “white.” Now it seems that they are “persons of color.” At least I think so. I’m not really sure anymore. Which is why I asked the question.
The U.S. has always had a problem with this type of language, because the dominant groups had to justify their exploitation of others in public discourse by using ideas of race, so the language they used became critical. Notions of racial purity had to be maintained in the language itself, and we even see this today: Everyone says that Obama was a “black president,” but he was just as much a “white president”—he was both. Americans still cling onto these notions of racial purity, and most people are reluctant to use the word mulatto—as though it were a bad word. (Its equivalent in Spanish-speaking Latin American–where the Europeans mixed more with others–is generally accepted more neutrally.) The ideology is still ingrained and shaping our language.
So, of course, person of color has become a way of saying “not white,” as mentioned above. And, as also mentioned above, people used to say “minorities” instead. But in some places, like Los Angeles, where “whites” (which really means “non-Hispanic whites”) are less than 50%, the term “minority” is becoming less meaningful.
Some Arabs are “white” and some are not. Some Latin Americans are (primarily) “white” (of European origin), and some are not. Most are mixed. If you are confused by this maybe it’s because you’re confusing ethnicity (and nationality) with this notion of (white) racial purity that Americans cling to which I described above.
89% of the tea party are white, vs 1% who are black. I believe in the US as a whole, 60% of Americans are white vs 13% black.
They dont’ detail what the other 10% are, but I’m guessing mostly latinos. But basically if the tea party hates you, you’re probably a POC. And if latinos make up the bulk of the remaining 10%, then you can assume that the tea party doesn’t have the same angst towards latinos as it does towards blacks.
My ‘impression’ is that there are degrees of white supremacy targets. Blacks, muslims and arabs are hard targets while asians and latinos are softer targets for white nationalists. Thats my assumption.
