Why the term "people of color" is ridiculous.

[Pyrrho]

I don't see the point - What's the relevance of all of this? I don't use the term "people of colour" very often, but from my experience it is just a reference to non-white darker ethnic groups, nothing else - It's not a universal homogeneous group. The reason why for the term is to identify the (usually) most discriminated minorities faster. It's pragmatic

I agree completely, except that is it racial, not a matter of ethnicity.

The first group has a very long ancient on the iberian peninsula and have been major players in western politics since they were conquered by Rome. They were a people of renown in the middle ages and drove the age of discovery. Notably they engaged in slavery and often bought aslaves from African princes that had defeated their enemies.

I'm sorry but isn't Hispanic someone from a Spanish speaking country (usually Spain or former colonies)? If so, how are they an ethnic group?

You seem to be confused on the definition of the word "ethnic."  See:

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defini...ctCode=all

Here is one of the definitions that strikingly shows that people from Spanish speaking countries are an ethnic group:

1.1 Relating to national and cultural origins

Skin color is NOT an indicator of ethnicity.  One can see this from comparing the native Australians to some native Africans.

That's like saying Indians are British because they were ruled by them. I know Americans call browns "latino", but the word Hispanic never made sense to me.

That is not correct.  In America, people from Spanish-speaking countries are "latinos," but brown people from other places are not latinos.  For example, people from India, the middle east, etc., are not latinos, but are often brown.

You do raise a matter that is an oddity in many American forms in which there is an area for "race," as it typically conflates race and ethnicity, as "latino" is certainly not a racial designation, as one can be very white or very black or anything in between and be latino.  On more recent forms, they often call the section "Race/Ethnicity," but it is peculiar that Spanish-speaking people are the only ethnicity that one typically finds on such forms.

I had a Spanish roommate in college who hated the U.S. forms.  He was white, and he thought it odd, in a bad way, that Spanish-speaking people were singled out as if they were somehow a race, whereas other language speaking people are not separated off in such a way.  And it is a very peculiar thing that is being done on U.S. forms, as one may be latino and black, or latino and white, or latino and brown.

I see from looking up "latino" and "hispanic" on the Oxford dictionary site, that they define them slightly differently, yet they have been used interchangeably in the U.S.  See:

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defini...o?q=latino

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defini...q=hispanic

"Hispanic" used to be the term used, but more recently, one sees "latino" as the preferred term.

Also, I see that the first other dictionary I tried disagrees with Oxford on the word "latino," and defines it as the Oxford dictionary defines "hispanic," which fits better with the use I have typically encountered:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/latino?s=t