Why the term "people of color" is ridiculous.

[Dystopia]

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

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? 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.

[Regina]

I think it's a silly term personally, because like the OP says it erases diversity. Everyone who is not of European ancestry is grouped under this umbrella term, and it comes off really Euro-centric in that you have the "white people" (who make up only like 1/5 of the world's population maximum btw) and then "everyone else".

@Dystopia - yes Hispanic is someone from a Spanish speaking country or background. There isn't a problem with the term per se, in describing the use of the Spanish language or cultures which have historically been heavily influenced by Spain. However, I do think the American classification of "Hispanic" is problematic, in that it's seen as a race.

You can be a a black Hispanic of African descent, an indigenous person of Latin America who may not even speak Spanish, mixed race or racially ambiguous, Brazilian and Portuguese speaking (therefore not "Hispanic", but America will be America). You can also be 100% of European ancestry and therefore "white" by definition, and Hispanic, as most of Argentina are. Yet America slaps this "Hispanic" label on all these groups of people as a "brown" group and that diversity is erased.

A hypothetical situation - Mexico is the dominant power of the world and the USA is poorer, so the migration happens the other way; migrants pour into Mexico from the US. Mexico labels all these migrants the same race, regardless of whether they're white, black, Asian or indigenous. That's what America does with people from Latin America.

[vorlon13]

Whatever happened to all them damn Moabites ?

[KUSA]

We all have the same color of poop.

[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

[Aoi Magi]

I wish there were actually people of color, like red, blue, violet, not-green. Or if we could change colors in a not-getting-slow-roasted-but-chameleon-or-octupus style...

[Lemonvariable72]

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

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? 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.

In the US they often consider Hispanics or latinos to be a different race, but the reason I used them in this example is because they are often " people of color"

[Anomalocaris]

Red, yellow, and white are colors but according to Color Matters black is not a color. So, the term "people of color," if in reference to black people, is indeed ignorant and belittling; it disrespects the truth about the color black.

Still, they are all precious in His sight.

Black and white can both be considered tones of the same color.   How about people of colors and tones?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Us honkies have a color too,  a nice light pinkish tone that turns to tan under sunlight. It's a cool trick.  We're like slow-motion chameleons.

More like slow motion steak being done if you start a light enough pinkish tone.

No, light pinkish in a steak is medium.

If you want to draw the comparison with a steak, you've got to start with a brownish-red.

[Regina]

I also think it's a stupid term because where do you draw the line?

I often hear "white" to basically mean "from Europe" or "with European ancestry", but some Italians, Spanish, Maltese etc are darker than the average Arab (and on the flip-side, some are as naturally blonde as scandinavians). My grandfather was Maltese, and in summer when he had a tan on he could easily pass for an Egyptian, his sister was naturally fair-skinned and they have no known recent northern European ancestry. Yet both were always "white" as "Europeans". It's like where do you draw a line on the world map, where the indigenous people on x side of the line are now "nope, not white". It's silly. It also proves how race is a social construct (not that racism doesn't exist, just race itself doesn't).