Beyond the caricature of what liberals / progressives (does THIS distinction matter?) actually think, your argument seems to imply that racial hierarchies do not exist, and we live in a post-racial utopia where the colour of your skin does not matter at all. Hence the vacuous invitation to "consider the human race in all its multiplicity". The alternative, of course, is probably a view that most people would probably subscribe to, which is that racism still structures everyday experience in crude and subtle and at times deadly ways and that "being white" - that is, being *seen* in a certain way - confers certain privileges unavailable to other ethnic groups. Therefore, there are ways in which it can make sense, at certain times, for certain reasons, to talk about POC or BIPOC etc - the latter, as even you acknowledge, being an attempt to indicate how such a classification is reductive. If you dug even deeper I´m sure you would find more such debates, but this would blow your strawman wide apart. Why labels like this have been used in ways which flatten them out is another story - more to do with the way that elite institutions have coopted progressive politics, or the general tendency to dogmatism, groupthink and echo-chamber politics that we see everywhere.
I don't think we live in a "post-racial utopia." Rather, I think the concept "people of color" is meaningless at best and harmful at worst, hence the magnanimous invitation to consider the human race in all its multiplicity. For example, as I mentioned in the piece, the median household income of Asian Americans is higher than that of both blacks and whites. In particular, Indian Americans top the list. Are recent Hindu immigrants subject to structural disadvantage because they're "people of color"? Or do persistent inequalities in the US largely center on black Americans (specifically descendants of slaves, not African or Caribbean immigrants), with their unique and painful history in the country? If so, why not have that conversation instead of obfuscating the issue with acrimonious acronyms?
I take your point, but as I said, I think there is a place for such acronyms - if properly understood, and not flattened to the point of caricature, which is something both their proponents and opponents do. Regarding this - "Are recent Hindu immigrants subject to structural disadvantage because they're "people of color"? Or do persistent inequalities in the US largely center on black Americans (specifically descendants of slaves, not African or Caribbean immigrants), with their unique and painful history in the country?" - I agree with the second statement, without denying that the first has some validity. Recent Hindu immigrants will surely face situations in which they are discriminated against on account of their perceived ethnicity, skin colour or national origin. Whether this counts as structural disadvantage is another question.
I’m sure Hindu immigrants face isolated acts of discrimination, but the statistics don’t bear out any structural basis to them. The only anti-Asian racism I’ve witnessed in the US was a black woman screaming at an East Asian man to “go back to your country” after he accidentally bumped into her. Does language like “people of color” and “structural racism” really provide explanatory power for such situations?
One—your own article—says “we are all people of color,” which if it were really believed would lead to the phrase “people of color” being replaced by the word “people.”
Beyond the caricature of what liberals / progressives (does THIS distinction matter?) actually think, your argument seems to imply that racial hierarchies do not exist, and we live in a post-racial utopia where the colour of your skin does not matter at all. Hence the vacuous invitation to "consider the human race in all its multiplicity". The alternative, of course, is probably a view that most people would probably subscribe to, which is that racism still structures everyday experience in crude and subtle and at times deadly ways and that "being white" - that is, being *seen* in a certain way - confers certain privileges unavailable to other ethnic groups. Therefore, there are ways in which it can make sense, at certain times, for certain reasons, to talk about POC or BIPOC etc - the latter, as even you acknowledge, being an attempt to indicate how such a classification is reductive. If you dug even deeper I´m sure you would find more such debates, but this would blow your strawman wide apart. Why labels like this have been used in ways which flatten them out is another story - more to do with the way that elite institutions have coopted progressive politics, or the general tendency to dogmatism, groupthink and echo-chamber politics that we see everywhere.
I don't think we live in a "post-racial utopia." Rather, I think the concept "people of color" is meaningless at best and harmful at worst, hence the magnanimous invitation to consider the human race in all its multiplicity. For example, as I mentioned in the piece, the median household income of Asian Americans is higher than that of both blacks and whites. In particular, Indian Americans top the list. Are recent Hindu immigrants subject to structural disadvantage because they're "people of color"? Or do persistent inequalities in the US largely center on black Americans (specifically descendants of slaves, not African or Caribbean immigrants), with their unique and painful history in the country? If so, why not have that conversation instead of obfuscating the issue with acrimonious acronyms?
I take your point, but as I said, I think there is a place for such acronyms - if properly understood, and not flattened to the point of caricature, which is something both their proponents and opponents do. Regarding this - "Are recent Hindu immigrants subject to structural disadvantage because they're "people of color"? Or do persistent inequalities in the US largely center on black Americans (specifically descendants of slaves, not African or Caribbean immigrants), with their unique and painful history in the country?" - I agree with the second statement, without denying that the first has some validity. Recent Hindu immigrants will surely face situations in which they are discriminated against on account of their perceived ethnicity, skin colour or national origin. Whether this counts as structural disadvantage is another question.
I’m sure Hindu immigrants face isolated acts of discrimination, but the statistics don’t bear out any structural basis to them. The only anti-Asian racism I’ve witnessed in the US was a black woman screaming at an East Asian man to “go back to your country” after he accidentally bumped into her. Does language like “people of color” and “structural racism” really provide explanatory power for such situations?
We can’t be, since the phrase was invented to be an invidious discrimination.
Inventions can be used for purposes contrary to the inventor’s intent.
True. But origins matter.
Birds' feathers originally evolved for temperature regulation, not flight. Co-option is part of the beauty of evolution, including cultural evolution.
Very well. Link me to an example of the phrase being used other than as an invidious discrimination against the people not so designated.
I found one: https://1000yearview.substack.com/p/we-are-all-people-of-color
One—your own article—says “we are all people of color,” which if it were really believed would lead to the phrase “people of color” being replaced by the word “people.”
Still, good. One. Full marks.
Can you find another?