Hacker News Reader

Comment by Kye | Hacker News Reader

"People of color" was popularized in the 70s and 80s as a solution to the othering effect of words like "non-white," and not just by white people.

Dr. King preferred "citizens of color." What sets "people of color" apart? Both acknowledge the subject's humanity.

View on HN

as an answer for you:

Political scientist Angelo Falcón argues that the use of broad terms like "person of color" is offensive because it aggregates diverse communities and projects "a false unity" that "obscure[s] the needs of Latinos and Asians"

more or less creating a group that simply ‘is not white’ is disparinging for all of the folks in that group that feel more unique than simply ‘not white’

To add on to this, it is racist to exclude whites.

It is racist to generalize peoples' heritages, it is racist to exclude whites, and above all it is racist to not simply consider your fellow man as just a fellow man just like yourself.

Racism is considering someone's race for something where race is not relevant, the intent behind the act is irrelevant.

most technically racist means systemic oppresion, but it is def discrimination

That’s not a technical definition of the word, that’s an academic/activist niche way to describe the word which is contrary to popular or historical usage.

I criticize the redefinition as seemingly wholly existing to narrow the number of cases in which racial discrimination can be considered racism and I wonder what ethical justification could possibly exist for PRESCRIBING this definition when people use the word “racist” in the common sense of the word. It seems to be a definition which exists wholly because some think it would be swell if a black woman calling an Asian man a slur wasn’t called a racist. Yet the people who argue for this I find don’t actually support this behaviour, they would discourage it, they just want marginalized groups to just never be called racist, because that’s too harsh or something.

Also what constitutes systemic oppression anyways? Take a majority subordinate under a minority boss. Can the minority say a slur without it being racist? Can the majority? What a stupid debate to have when this shouldn’t happen EITHER way, because this is RACIST. The original definition is more fair and simple and straightforwards and popular and less counterproductive than the redefinitions.

> To add on to this, it is racist to exclude whites.

Apparently that’s allowed now, at least by the people seem to think everybody else are the racists: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna129796

By this logic, calling people white is racist. White as an identity is completely arbitrary and seems to shift to change who it includes and excludes every few decades. It's a meaningless term that generalizes a vast and diverse array of cultures.

>> "Racism is considering someone's race for something where race is not relevant, the intent behind the act is irrelevant."

The people who popularized the term to describe themselves certainly didn't think it was irrelevant.

But the concept of race is not logical. You can ask questions about whiteness all you want, but those have the same quality of answers as questions about Asianness and Africanness.

Who says it has to be logical? It’s embedded in the social fabric of the United States. It can’t be dismissed out of hand. It must be recognized and addressed.

People should not fear talking about it. But steer away from phrases like “by that logic” —- it’s neither convincing nor rational to seek a more-logical view on race. It is only embedded in social fabric and not found elsewhere.

I feel like intent is totally relevant. Somebody can outright use a racial slur and people will argue it is not racist if it was not said with racist intent. Enough people think intent is important for intent to be important.

Unfortunately, racism exists, and the primary victims aren’t white people.

Racism existing does not excuse further racism, nor is racism addressed by further racism.

That doesn't answer the question. The question is: what sets it apart from Dr. King's use of a functionally identical term? Dalewyn specifically named Dr. King as the "good" point in a timeline that ends on the bad "calling people people of color."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com