BBC changing history

[luiz]

Except in a place like Australia there's plenty of white-passing people with non-European ancestry (I know people with Persian, Lebanese, Malaysian, South African Jewish, and Indigenous Australian ancestries who generally pass for "white"), and there's plenty of people with European ancestry who don't necessarily pass for white (a Greek Cypriot workmate of mine has experienced racist abuse in the street along the lines of "go back where you came from" that had to have been based on skin colour).

The term person of colour captures precisely what it is intended to capture - the experience and condition of being a visible ethnic minority in white hegemonic society.

Then there's the whole thing where for decades, Greeks, Italians etc were officially regarded as not white in immigration policy in Australia for decades, and then after that suffered a long period of racial abuse and discrimination.... so "white" and "European" haven't always been comfortable synonyms here.



I'd have thought this varied hugely by region and by which European language you're using. To my knowledge indio is a lot more accepted, common and self-applied in Brazil than in parts of the Spanish-speaking world and you can't necessarily assume it works the same as Indian in English. And of course I have no idea how people feel about indien in French Canada.

Basically what you're saying is that not all Europeans have been considered "white" at all times. Fine, just use the term non-white then. It's not like "people of color" is imune to any ambiguity. Are Iranians "people of color"? Why, or why not? It's just another silly term, not a panacea for race relations. I'm very much in favor of being objective, as that can never offend and rarely leaves room for misinterpretation or for "enlightenment flaunting". So if I mean people who are not white, I'll say non white.

As for Indians, I admit my experience is limited to Brazil, a couple South American countries and the US. In these places, all Indians I've met referred to themselves as Indians (or the equivalent translation, like the Portuguese índio). I'm also 99.99% sure that the PC term "Native American" was invented by some white US-American college professor.

 

[Arwon]

Of course there's ambiguity.

Where ambiguity exists, having more terms rather than less helps to better navigate and map said ambiguity. Usually a multitude of terms exists around a complex topic because the need for different nuances creates them.

For instance, if people mean exactly "European ancestry" they'll say European ancestry. If they mean first or second generation migrants they can say that specific thing. If they mean people with non-English speaking backgrounds that term exists too.

As I already said, "person of colour" precisely refers to the experience or condition of being a visible ethnic minority in a white hegemonic society. I will add to that, it works better than just "non-white" because people generally don't like being identified simply as "not something else"... it is a little othering compared to terms which centre their subject. (PoC is also a really handily short social media abbreviation)

The term "person of colour" fills a lexical need in several white hegemonic but diverse societies. It is a useful and relevant term for a particular thing and is in a reasonably formal register. I mean, I'm sorry it upsets you, I guess?

(of course a lot of people just say "brown" which works too as an in-group term in a more casual register, but sounds a bit off otherwise)

 

[Thorgalaeg]

Like black and white, it is a stupid incorrect term anyway since we all are of colour. I would say of some degree of burnt sienna mixed with carmine red, lemon yellow and lead white, plus some touch of sea blue and viridian green depending on light and angle.

 

[Kyriakos]

Like black and white, it is a stupid incorrect term anyway since we all are of colour. I would say of some degree of burnt sienna mixed with carmine red, lemon yellow and lead white, plus some touch of sea blue and viridian green depending on light and angle.

Haven't you read the thread? South euros aren't white anyway We are PoCs. Only persons of white are PoWs.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

I never ever read threads.

 

[Lexicus]

But "Indian" was and has remained the preferred term used by Indians themselves...

If you knew what you were talking about, you would know that this is the case for some tribes and other groupings...but not for others.

 

[Arwon]

Haven't you read the thread? South euros aren't white anyway We are PoCs. Only persons of white are PoWs.

I'm pretty sure Greeks and Spaniards started being "white" in Australia in exactly 1982.

 

[Kyriakos]

I'm pretty sure Greeks and Spaniards started being "white" in Australia in exactly 1982.

That's cause you are upside down

(anyway, point is that 'white' can't only be some ghosts from forgotten northern rapey forests; got to be more inclusive)

 

[luiz]

If you knew what you were talking about, you would know that this is the case for some tribes and other groupings...but not for others.

Yeah, some prefer to be called by their traditional name, and dislike both Indian and Native American. But Native American, as an artificial term created by some US government sponsored white intellectual, is certainly not their preferred term. Indian is much more accepted, as confirmed by both plenty of anedoctal evidence and polls of Indian peoples.

 

[luiz]

That's cause you are upside down

(anyway, point is that 'white' can't only be some ghosts from forgotten northern rapey forests; got to be more inclusive)

The better point is that "white" is a mostly meaningless term. Yazidis are considered white by the US census, after all. So much for white privilege.

 

[Kyriakos]

Not sure what connotation the term used for both has in english, but afaik in most euro languages there is a difference in terms between indians from actual India, and those in America. Eg in greek the former is Indoi, the latter is Indianoi.
And i always regarded it as a very cool term. Some of my favourite toy soldiers also were indians (american ones)

 

[Lexicus]

But Native American, as an artificial term created by some US government sponsored white intellectual, is certainly not their preferred term.

It is the preferred term for some people.

The better point is that "white" is a mostly meaningless term.

White is a term the only meaning of which is 'people with an unfair advantage.'

 

[Arwon]

The better point is that "white" is a mostly meaningless term. Yazidis are considered white by the US census, after all. So much for white privilege.

Collecting specifically race in a census strikes me as a pretty intrinsically shoddy exercise really. Mostly the question in the US seems to be about black and white Americans and everything else is kind of dummy categories and better identified using a couple other questions instead.

 

[civver_764]

White is a term the only meaning of which is 'people with an unfair advantage.'

Lol. White is a term for people with white skin, usually referring to those of European decent. Duh.

 

[luiz]

It is the preferred term for some people.

Sure, a minority will certainly prefer that artificial term. What I said is that a clear majority of Indians prefer the term Indian (as confimed by government polls), and I never met one who took offense at the term.

White is a term the only meaning of which is 'people with an unfair advantage.'

Damn privileged Yazidis. Those Sunnis of Iran are also so spoiled and unaware of all the unfair advantages they derive from being white. And don't get me started on the Shia of Saudi Arabia, pampered hipsters to the very last. Clearly they have a much easier and stress-free life than non-white Americans, those poor oppressed souls.

 

[luiz]

Collecting specifically race in a census strikes me as a pretty intrinsically shoddy exercise really. Mostly the question in the US seems to be about black and white Americans and everything else is kind of dummy categories and better identified using a couple other questions instead.

I agree. I've always thought the French do it right in not collecting "race" data on their census (in fact it's illegal to do so), as it's not only meaningless as it leads to useless divisions. I think they should allow gathering of ancestry data, though, as that's actually a concrete and tangible information.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

I think it is that way in all EU countries. It is forbidden to collect data about race as it is about religion, ideology, sexual orientation and any other purely personal condition. I find it amazing that racial data is collected in USA census. What is officially the finality of such question?

 

[warpus]

"Indian" seems offensive to me when referring to someone not from India, but maybe that's just a Canadian POV.

Something completely unrelated:

I have a friend who is white. He's Sicilian. His skin is so brown people mistake him for an Indian all the time. Or a Mexican. Or an Arab. Or a Greek. Or all sorts of other things.

So he's white.. but at times he has faced discrimination due to his appearance.

How do we sort this one out?

 

[Thorgalaeg]

 

[Kyriakos]

"Indian" seems offensive to me when referring to someone not from India, but maybe that's just a Canadian POV.

Something completely unrelated:

I have a friend who is white. He's Sicilian. His skin is so brown people mistake him for an Indian all the time. Or a Mexican. Or an Arab. Or a Greek. Or all sorts of other things.

So he's white.. but at times he has faced discrimination due to his appearance.

How do we sort this one out?

We've been through this already. You aren't really whiter than greek people, and you are slavic (also not considered white in the old US, btw, cause apparently white there is a byword for 'germanic')