Can anyone please explain how "POC" is an acceptable way to group together all non-white ethnicities, yet "coloured person" is a racial epithet?

SomeGuyCalledTom
To clarify, I don't use either terms.

I understand the latter term has some historical baggage attached to it, and it just sounds archaic. And objectively speaking it makes no sense to separate between "white" and "coloured", because all skin melanin contains "colour", white skin too. There's no such thing as a "colourless" person.

But why is it that we all basically agree that "coloured person" is outdated and offensive, yet we're told its politically correct to flip the word order around and add a conjunction instead? Like, "person of colour" is literally just another way of saying "coloured person"? Even by the progressives' own logic, surely this should be "problematic"...

I find it concerning that in our constant efforts to not sound racist, "progressive language" has started to come full-circle back towards being racist. If you're of African-American descent and have dark melanin in your skin, then most people would agree that "black" is a perfectly suitable shorthand. But you probably wouldn't enjoy being called "coloured". You wouldn't go around saying "I'm proud of coloured culture!". It seems to me that progressives wanna divide the world into "the whites" and "everyone else", which is no different to what actual racists believe. There's over 200 countries on Earth, and thousands of different cultures, and skin melanin varies greatly across them all. So what's so "appropriate" about squashing all that variety of humans down to "white" and "[being of] colour"?
Can anyone please explain how "POC" is an acceptable way to group together all non-white ethnicities, yet "coloured person" is a racial epithet?
0
10
Add Opinion