Stop Calling me a 'Person of Colour'

2/5/2017

ANONYMOUS

Vol 11, Issue 9

I’m not white. This fact is surely noticed by most people upon meeting me, although I think it’s far from the most interesting thing about me, and not something that I constantly think about. Nonetheless, in instances of discrimination and racism, as well as more benign social exchanges that I’ve faced, it’s something that I’m instantly reminded of. Nothing like being asked the brilliant “Where are you from?” in a circle of otherwise only white people to make your day. Or, to be spoken of as a ‘person of colour’.

I’m proud of my heritage. It’s of course not always a bad thing to be reminded of; for most of us, there are moments of intense perspective, meaning and value that can be drawn from thinking about our roots, and enjoyment, community and identity are experienced by engaging with it as well.

It’s also great that there has been an increased focus on diversity in social discourse; and in particular relevance to De Minimis readers, firms are starting to be more conscious of having a broader selection of backgrounds and racial mix in their candidates. Ideally, it shouldn’t have to be so conscious: but until there are no longer unconscious (or outright bigoted) biases that often cause people to prefer white candidates, this may have to suffice.

At the same time, it’s disheartening to hear the phrase ‘person of colour’ (or worse yet, the more dehumanising ‘PoC’) used so frequently in not just social movements and campuses, but in professionalised contexts as well. When we use that phrase, what we do is entrench condescension and difference.

I understand that what using the phrase ‘person of colour’ is intended to do is be well-meaning. It intends to recognise that there is substantive disadvantage and different experiences often faced by those of us who aren’t white. It recognises that non-whites are often marginalised, and allows us to have the realities of the perspective we are speaking from acknowledged.
But here’s the thing; when you say ‘people of colour’ what you’re really meaning is ‘people who aren’t white’. So, if you’re saying ‘people of colour’ because the phrase you’d otherwise be saying might come across as racist, remember that you’re singling out people on the basis of their race or relative lack of whiteness. So, if you’re going to do that, if you’re going to make a point about the differences non-whites face, you either need to rethink what you’re about to say or just be transparent about what you’re doing rather than using a misguided term for supposed PC credibility.

The most important thing to remember about the phrase ‘person of colour’ is that it’s really just a rephrasing of ‘coloured person’. This word was frequently used in a derogatory manner in pre-civil rights United States and is not acceptable in a 21st century context. Does re-arranging the words and adding an ‘of’ really make it any different? I don’t think so. I understand the idea that a word can change its meaning, can be reclaimed, and reused in a positive context. But, I would take issue with the rationale that that’s what has happened here: instead, it’s the reuse of a formerly racist term in the guise of progressiveness while really just treating the lack of whiteness as a paramount quality of non-whites. It should be considered about as acceptable as the ‘magical negro’ trope; those of us who aren’t white are imbued with some sort of crude ‘magical’, ‘colourful’, ‘soulful’, ‘spiritual’ quality that makes us differ from the norm and lets us be used as tokenistic caricatures.

Lumping all of us who aren’t white into some abstract category of being ‘people of colour’ further reinforces whiteness as the norm, rather than challenging its status as the dominant hegemony. It strips away our hopes, fears, successes, failures, flaws, strengths, beauty and ugliness away from being the meaningful qualities that define us and instead decides that our ‘colour’ is what makes us special. I don’t want you to respect me as a ‘person of colour’. I want you to respect me as a person.

This is the work of a JD student

The rest of this issue

Political Oncologist

1/5/2017 09:54:35 pm

It's a symptom of the cancer of the millenial left whose raison d'être today is identity politics, to the exclusion of practically everything else. Self styled progressives have become obsessed with pigeonholing people into neat and tidy boxes which they can then use as a basis for making decisions on everything from which things you can express an opinion on, to which jobs you are qualified for. Are you a strong independent woman of colour or a heterosexual cis white male? The answer you give, far from being inconsequential, is to today's "progressives" probably the most fundamental aspect of your character.

It's both ironic and unsuprsing; Ironic in that as you point out, terminology such as 'people of colour' is simply a rearrangement of 'coloured people', an historically racist term that others those who are not white.

It is unsuprising in that the 'progressive' movement of the first half of the 20th century was viruletly racist and did the same things that today's progressives do; categorise people into neat and tidy demographic boxes and make decisions of policy based upon that.

A Non White Writer

2/5/2017 08:42:40 pm

Thanks for your comment - I'm the writer of the article. Ultimately, I do consider myself part of the modern left and I do think there are many good things about it that are probably beyond the scope of this article or comments section.

But I do agree with your point overall that this is a serious problem with today's left and that it's counterproductive; when you define barriers by the superficial aspects of people's identity, you rob them of the possibility to move beyond that and mix with each other. The left should be for progress, yet the term "people of colour" and some of the things you identify are horribly regressive. Ironic but unsurprising indeed.

Anon

3/5/2017 12:49:06 am

Bravo to you both. Too often the comments section od de minimis descends into ad hominem insults, whereas you have both provided reasoned, polite and constructive discussion.

Woman of Colour

3/5/2017 03:06:17 pm

Completely agree with this comment. Would love to be known for more than just my skin colour, would love to exist for more than just advocacy by virtue of my skin colour

Not buying

2/5/2017 08:17:57 pm

I personally dislike the word, but for reasons entirely different from the author's.

I am not sure what the author is getting at. I honestly do not know in what contexts, other than those discussions where race is relevant (which might be many), the term 'people of color' could possibly be used. But when it is used, it is often used to highlight the fact -- and largely an undisputed one as established by research ad nauseum -- that nonwhites, compared to whites, face difficulties as a result of their race. This should NOT be construed as taking away your other personal qualities.

As for the bad history of the phrase, why is the phrase not a reclaiming of the phrase and imbuing it with a new meaning to achieve positive outcomes? The author clearly acknowledges this possibility, but then go on to dismiss it without reason, other than restating the bad history of the word (but the whole point is that it can change?).

The idea that the phrase 'people of color' somehow reinforces whiteness as the norm. This is precisely the point because whiteness IS the norm now, and the phrase highlights that. As for the idea that using the term only reinforces, rather than challenges, the norm: is the author suggesting that things would just get better if we had just stopped talking about it? Unfortunately, the point of a norm is that people internalise it and do not need to be constantly reminded. That bias can work unconsciously is known. And in any event, the phrase 'people of color' is not even close to the main reason why the norm is maintained.

The author is basically advocating the 'colorblind' theory of race. I personally do not buy it.

2/5/2017 08:23:17 pm

To clarify. What I mean by the first section is that just because a phrase is often used in wrong contexts does not mean it should not be used in contexts where it clearly serves the intended purpose. And just because some people misuse it does not mean the phrase should be abandoned -- maybe people should just stop misusing it?

2/5/2017 08:49:29 pm

Thanks for your comment. Yes - ultimately I do think we should eventually be somewhat "colourblind" to race and make far less of a big deal out of it. In a globalised world holding on too steadfastly to culture and identities that existed before nations and people's were so intermixed is incredibly closed-minded and backwards looking.

At the same time, I clearly pointed out that at present there is substantive disadvantage, and even if we do move to de-emphasising race as the most important thing in the future, I also pointed out that I think there are also very important reasons why acknowledging with our roots are important; I by NO means want to downplay this. But it's clearly not the only thing that should singularly identify us.

I think I addressed most of these points of disagreement in the article so I'm not sure how much we need to go back and forth; if you're unconvinced, that is fine.

I think the reason it fails to reclaim the word is because it's failed to actually give it a new meaning; "people of colour" still means "coloured person" in reference to the same things as it did in a more racist time. Contrast with something like the reclaiming of the word "nigga" by black activists and communities; it can be a sign of friendship, acknowledgement etc and is not merely about categorising people. Also, importantly, it is only acceptably used by black people referring to each other; whereas "people of colour" mostly exists as a phrase for white people to pat themselves on the back for using it irrespective of how non-whites actually feel about it.

2/5/2017 09:18:44 pm

Also, you brought up also disliking the term (for reasons differently to mine). Out of curiousity, what are they?

Name

2/5/2017 10:27:32 pm

You can't have it both ways.
If your going to use the category of "white" than you're enievtably creating a "non-white" / "person of color", or whatever else you want to call it, category.
If "person of colour" is an "abstract category" than so is the category of "white".

Noname

2/5/2017 11:13:10 pm

Once upon a time there was the idea of being colourblind, which although it often or even usually might not have reflected reality, was something for our society to aspire to.

Surely that is better than the sectarian identitarianism that seems to have been fervently embraced by the former champions of a colourblind 'post-racial' society.

If a racist tree falls in the woods and there are no minorities around to be offended, did it make a racist sound?

3/5/2017 05:35:57 pm

There was once another solution to this conundrum. It was colloquially called the 'white Australia policy' and was originally designed specifically to ward off the threat of a society riven by sectarian ethnic/racial divisions.

Australia was in effect a colourblind society because there was in actual fact almost no other colour. Australia was literally 99.8% white British for about 100 years. In almost all walks of life there was no racism, no dividing up society along ethnic sectarian lines, because there was simply no other race to be racist against. There were exceptions obviously, regarding interactions with indigenous peoples and others who fell into that .2% of the population.

Now I'm not saying I endorse this, just that this was in fact a large part of the rationale for the policy.

Alternative names

2/5/2017 10:44:34 pm

What about "off white"?

Ho Wen

2/5/2017 11:37:03 pm

As someone who moved here last year, I find it more frustrating when people just assume I've lived here all my life, or at least did undergrad here.

Being asked for directions in my first week in melbs, staff mentioning Centrelink implications when I asked about the 3.5 year degree, views about auspol, which AFL team I support, etc.

Peeps who have asked, and hence know, where I'm from, are capable of making the correct assumption that I hadn't seen The Castle, so when someone mentions Dennis Denuto, said peeps would offer a quick explanation of who that is. (I have since seen The Castle).

In lectures, when distinctly Australian terms come up (e.g. milk bar, verge, chook, Bunnings sausage) or when the whole class is laughing because the lecturer said "the vibe", someone who knows I'm not 'from here', seeing my wtf expression can bridge the cultural gap.

If you're advocating a colourblind inspired don't ask, don't tell re: where are you from, everyone loses. Skin colour often is the first thing we notice about a stranger, and one of the few ways to start meaningful dialogue - it is personal yet public. (cf question about age is personal and private).

I do agree that the more tackless seem to ask that question just to pigeonhole you. If you feel that way, promptly label them as you see fit.

p.s. This was written under the assumption that "Nothing like being asked the brilliant “Where are you from?” in a circle of otherwise only white people to make your day." was meant to be sarcastic. In any case, I've experienced worse, I feel you.

Micro aggressor

3/5/2017 02:40:09 am

I've never felt there is anything wrong with asking about a person's background, provided it is done tactfully as with all things, and notwithstanding the righteous crusade du
jour of our enlightened social engineers against micro aggressions.

I also think that realistically a persons' race and other outwardly manifested physical characteristics can never be entirely ignored, nor should they be. What I think the danger is, and what I understand the article to be warning against, is elevating our differences above our commonalities.

A person is white, black, yellow, purple, but is a person first and should be regarded as a person on equal terms as every other person, not as a 'person of colour' a 'white person', etc. Race must not be elevated above common humanity in one's core identity. To do so leads to balkanised societies not worthy of the name.

Comments are closed.

Stop Calling me a 'Person of Colour'

Archives