Personally, I think it’s because it serves as a clever tool to aid in polarizing all non-Caucasians against “whitey.” And the purpose of that is, of course, to over the course of time remove Caucasians from all places of power and presitige. It’s a game of ‘King of the Hill’ as I see it, with jealousy being the driving force behind it.
I mean, Why else would so many Liberals go out of their way to inculcate the collective American psyche with this BS phrase, as clearly we can all see that non-Caucasians are, technically speaking, monochromatic due to being pretty much of one shade or color (and God bless 'em for it, as there’s nothing wrong with being mono, nothing at all ).
So how 'bout it, Liberals, would you care to step up to the plate and gimee your answers as to why you must insist that monocromatics are supposedly “people of color”? :eek:
P.S. Ans let’s see if we can let the shit fly (so as to get to the truth) without having too much profanity laced in, okay?
I rarely hear anybody use that phrase. I’ve certainly never heard anybody insist on it. At one time I think it enjoyed a brief vogues as an alternative to “colored people,” because “colored people” was historically associated primarily with blacks, while “people of color” ostensibly designated all non-whites. Historically there is a definite social and political justification for speaking in terms of a white/non-white dichotemy. If you don’t like the phrase “people of color,” don’t use it. Nobody gives a shit, I assure you. I don’t use that phrase either.
As for your request to refrain from profanity, go fuck yourself, this is the Pit…and my post is probably one of the more polite responses you’re going to get.
Are you like a dog, only able to see in black and white? Because I don’t even think white peole are all the same color, much less people of non-European descent. I think there are literally as many colors as there are people. Monochromatic? Absolutely fucking NOT. White people tend to fall into a certain narrow band of melanin tonality, while people from warmer climes tend to vary a lot more. So what I’m saying is, in my experience, people who are referred to as “people of color” tend to be all different colors, while white people tend to vary less, though we do vary quite a bit.
I realize that doesn’t answer your question, which is why people not of European descent are called “people of color.” It is kind of a strange term, considering we’re all of various colors (even milky white is a color, after all). It does tend to draw arbitrary lines between people based on skin color. I don’t know why the term is used and would be interested in hearing the reason.
I just wish you had asked this question in a less boneheaded way, without all your assumptions about what “liberals” insist on saying, describing whole swaths of people as “monochromatic” and “whitey,” and spewing a bunch of race-baiting crap about a colored conspiracy for removing white people from “all places of power and prestige,” so that we could have an interesting discussion instead of another “why is GuyNblueJeans such a trolling nutbar?” train wreck.
GuyNBlueJeans, the only time i’ve heard “people of colour” used is in old films and in recent things where the context shows it to be either offensive or partially offensive (or just out-of-date). It could be just because i’m not American, and so aren’t witness to the same things as you - but could you possibly tell us where you hear this term from, and how you know it’s Liberals that espouse it?
I have another, possibly tangenital, pair of questions. You suggest that non-Caucasians are trying to take positions of power and pretige away from Caucasians. Surely this could be explained by the motivation that most people have to be in such positions, and not jealousy or some other unpleasant motivation? It rather comes across as though you don’t think non-Caucasians should hold these position - i’m sure i’m misunderstood you, of course, and you’re merely saying that Caucasians mostly hold such positions.
Majority is default; where it is pertinent, one differantiates the minority by calling them just that, non-majority - minority. This is both a valuable and recognized technique in most professions, from statistics to crafting to service.
How one can extrapolate offense from such a logical and necessary choice of words is beyond me.
As to the term “people of colour,” it’s an umbrella term for people who’s skin color isn’t white. Using the term non-caucasian could be plausible, but the word caucasian usually isn’t what the people using it is looking for.
The Caucasus is a geographic area in mid-Eurasia, in other words covering parts of Europe, Asia and the middle-east. Using the term in Europe would usually be seen as a reference to the people from the caucasus as we mostly dropped the term when we moved away from the flawed and discredited form of racial classification it came from. In fact, the court case United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind found people from subcontinential India to be of caucasian race, and that would certainly dilute the term’s value as a description of “white” people.
Your use of the word caucasian would be one example of it being used wrong, or in a wrong context, as most white inhabitants of America come from an Anglo or western-european descent. (The most prominent caucasian country being, of course, Georgia - as you can see from pictures of Georgians, you probably wouldn’t have discernably caucasian features)
Maybe the use of “people of color” was an attempt by them damn liberals to use some words to describe non-Caucasians that weren’t just plain shitty.
Liberal #1, "Say Joe, what do you think we ought to call those Negroes and
Mexicans and Asians to point out that, combined, they just aren’t white folks.
Liberal #2, "I have it Bill! Let’s call them “People of Color”.
Liberal #1 “That should do it. It will probably dethrone every last one of the stinkin white folks that have positions of power and prestige. That is, of course, unless some brave individual steps up and points out our evil plan.”
Liberal #2, “Well, let’s just hope that the guy who does that is assumed to be a batshit crazy fucknut by anybody that hears him.”
Why are non-Neocons called “Liberals”? Personally, I think it’s because it serves as a clever tool to aid in polarizing all non-Bushites against “Dubya.” And the purpose of that is, of course, to over the course of time remove Neocons from all places of power and presitige. It’s a game of ‘King of the Hill’ as I see it, with jealousy being the driving force behind it.
I mean, Why else would so many Neocons go out of their way to inculcate the collective American psyche with this BS phrase, as clearly we can all see that non-Neocons are, technically speaking, uniform due to being pretty much of one opinion or perspective (and God bless 'em for it, as there’s nothing wrong with being uniform, nothing at all ).
So how 'bout it, Neocons, would you care to step up to the plate and gimee your answers as to why you must insist that most Americans are supposedly “Liberals”? :eek:
P.S. Ans let’s see if we can let the shit fly (so as to get to the truth) without having too much profanity laced in, okay?
Well, it’s certainly helpful that you opened this in the Pit, though if you really cared about the factual answer and not just stirring shit up, I would’ve recommended either GQ or GD…
I’ve been wondering for a while now - is it guy in blue jeans, or guy and blue jeans? What association do this gentleman and his trousers of colour have?
).
