undefined | Better HN

0 pointsvector_spaces2y ago0 comments

There are a few reasons that people prefer the term nonwhite over POC in certain contexts, and I think most people using it are using it intentionally because of them. The main issue is that the latter term is homogenizing:

> 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".[39][40]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person_of_color

Another criticism I've heard is that the terminology for POC originated among black activists during the civil rights movement in the US who were reclaiming the term "colored" used in the Jim Crow/segregation era, and so it's only really appropriate for black people to use.

The former term (nonwhite) is iffy too, but sometimes it's a better descriptor

To be clear, I haven't heard many people voicing the second criticism -- I think most people using "nonwhite" subscribe to the former point of view

0 comments

dj_mc_merlin2y ago

> The main issue is that the latter term is homogenizing:

By that logic, white would be homgenizing as well, or? Someone from Prague has little in common with a person from Massachusetts or St. Petersburg.

chrsig2y ago

I'd look towards stratified sampling to think more formally around the issue.

POC is homogonizing because it's reducing the space from N strata to 2: white and non-white, blending n-1 strata.

Per wikipedia:

> Stratification is the process of dividing members of the population into homogeneous subgroups before sampling. The strata should define a partition of the population. That is, it should be collectively exhaustive and mutually exclusive: every element in the population must be assigned to one and only one stratum. Then simple random sampling is applied within each stratum

Using this definition, white and non-white are mutually exclusive, while location of origin forms a different axis for comparison.

In more social sciences, you might look to intersectionality for an explanation.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratified_sampling

[1] https://www.nasponline.org/resources-and-publications/resour...

dj_mc_merlin2y ago

I fail to see how non white doesn't also reduce the strata to 2, however. Where is the third stratum?

clcaev2y ago

Moreover, who is white or non-white is political: currently a certain blood quantum is necessary for being American Indian; yet, in recent history under the one drop rule, for African Americans it was the inverse. The difference is material, as former was entitled to a say in land on a reservation, while the latter did not.

bckr2y ago

Yes! You get it. The difference is that “white” is constructed as an in-group identifier, that has been adapted as needed to include previously non-white groups such as Jews and Italians.

kaashif2y ago

I'm pretty sure "person of colour" means literally the same thing as "non white" in the US, I find it hard to care about such minor differences in phrasing.

bckr2y ago

It’s annoying but important for those of us grappling with the long term effects of slavery and segregation and continued anti-blackness.

parabyl2y ago

Yeah I'd tend to agree with the issues it being a homogenizing term as a whole (ie. often used awkwardly), however in this context where we're using it in order to refer to homogenization (that being, those who have had historically less power in white/male dominated industry), it seems a little softer of a homogenizing term as compared to 'non-white'.

Although, my perspective is of course informed by how I've internalized my local community use this language in certain ways. In South Africa, where white people are just 8% of the population, it seems stranger to make reference to the subject through that caveat rather than in, say, a US context the inverse may seem more uncontroversially worded.

Interestingly, as a side, I'm considered coloured in South Africa - a term taken on here by mixed race folks as a disambiguation of the American term, in a similar fashion to how you describe the origin of the PoC term.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

dj_mc_merlin2y ago

> The main issue is that the latter term is homogenizing:

By that logic, white would be homgenizing as well, or? Someone from Prague has little in common with a person from Massachusetts or St. Petersburg.

chrsig2y ago

I'd look towards stratified sampling to think more formally around the issue.

POC is homogonizing because it's reducing the space from N strata to 2: white and non-white, blending n-1 strata.

Per wikipedia:

Using this definition, white and non-white are mutually exclusive, while location of origin forms a different axis for comparison.

In more social sciences, you might look to intersectionality for an explanation.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratified_sampling

[1] https://www.nasponline.org/resources-and-publications/resour...

dj_mc_merlin2y ago

I fail to see how non white doesn't also reduce the strata to 2, however. Where is the third stratum?

clcaev2y ago

bckr2y ago

Yes! You get it. The difference is that “white” is constructed as an in-group identifier, that has been adapted as needed to include previously non-white groups such as Jews and Italians.

kaashif2y ago

I'm pretty sure "person of colour" means literally the same thing as "non white" in the US, I find it hard to care about such minor differences in phrasing.

bckr2y ago

It’s annoying but important for those of us grappling with the long term effects of slavery and segregation and continued anti-blackness.

parabyl2y ago

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse