Anonymous wrote:

But my question is larger — what defines a POC vs a white person? I used myself as an example of someone who I don’t think is clearly in either category.

Then expand the number of categories.

I’m white passing and middle eastern (honestly many many people from Turkey, Lebanon etc are white passing) never knew if that makes me POC or white. So I appreciate BIPOC, it’s clearer. Placing everyone in either White or POC category is weird.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I remember when it was preferred to refer to folks as black. Then it was changed to african-american. Than, apparently, we went to black again. I guess BIPOC is the latest iteration.

I'm happy to call people whatever they prefer, but if wish folks would settle on one term.

The way that we think and talk about race has always and will continue to evolve. Black people endured hundreds of years being defined by white people. Please allow us our nuance now.

What is the nuance though? Can’t you understand why it is confusing when there are different definitions all over?

It's confusing, to whom?

Um, OP, me and all of the others asking?

Right. So what you're saying is, "Your term for yourself confuses me." But people's self-definition isn't about you. It's not for your benefit. You're not the target audience.

Um, the treatment of black or BIPOC or POC people certain does require white people and others to listen and understand.

How white people treat black/BIPOC/POC people does require white people to listen (and, ideally, understand).

What terms black/BIPOC/POC people choose for themselves does not require white people's understanding, just white people's general respectfulness. Person A does not have to understand why Person B uses a particular term.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still don’t even know how to define “people of color.”

I identify as Jewish-American. When I did 23andme a few years back, it came back as:

48% Ashkenazi Jewish (by way of Russia and Ukraine)
14% Southern European (Italian and Maltese)
14% Northwestern European (Norwegian)
13% East Asian (Japanese and Korean)
4% Middle Eastern and North African (probably Libya)

They couldn’t categorize the rest.

Outside of the Norwegian portion, my background is not white, as defined as Anglo-Saxon. I look white in terms of my skin color. I don’t face discrimination based on my skin color, but I do based on my religion.

My mom, uncle, and grandpa were called Japs in NYC in the 1930s-1960s and my grandpa and his brothers were in internment camps here.

On the Jewish side, everyone came here in the 1910s/1920s to escape pogroms in Ukraine and Russia. They all changed their names to anglicize them.

So what the hell am I, in terms of this “POC vs white people” dichotomy?

Fortunately, you don't have to. You know what you identify as. Let other people decide what they identify as.

But my question is larger — what defines a POC vs a white person? I used myself as an example of someone who I don’t think is clearly in either category.

Anonymous wrote:I still don’t even know how to define “people of color.”

I identify as Jewish-American. When I did 23andme a few years back, it came back as:

48% Ashkenazi Jewish (by way of Russia and Ukraine)
14% Southern European (Italian and Maltese)
14% Northwestern European (Norwegian)
13% East Asian (Japanese and Korean)
4% Middle Eastern and North African (probably Libya)

They couldn’t categorize the rest.

Outside of the Norwegian portion, my background is not white, as defined as Anglo-Saxon. I look white in terms of my skin color. I don’t face discrimination based on my skin color, but I do based on my religion.

My mom, uncle, and grandpa were called Japs in NYC in the 1930s-1960s and my grandpa and his brothers were in internment camps here.

On the Jewish side, everyone came here in the 1910s/1920s to escape pogroms in Ukraine and Russia. They all changed their names to anglicize them.

So what the hell am I, in terms of this “POC vs white people” dichotomy?

Fortunately, you don't have to. You know what you identify as. Let other people decide what they identify as.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I remember when it was preferred to refer to folks as black. Then it was changed to african-american. Than, apparently, we went to black again. I guess BIPOC is the latest iteration.

I'm happy to call people whatever they prefer, but if wish folks would settle on one term.

Only whites are privileged enough to have one term for themselves.

LOL. I am from West Virginia. I've been called white trash, hillbilly, cracker, peckerwood, trailer trash, inbred (x1000), and all sorts of other unflattering things.

I do my best to call people of any race, gender, etc. whatever they prefer to be called. If you want BIPOC, BIPOC it is. I do find the indigenous part confusing because only Native Americans are indigenous here. the rest of us are immigrants, forced or unforced.

My family started out as "indentured servants" here.

At what point are people no longer immigrants? How many generations or years have to pass?

I'm not the PP, but all of us except Native Americans are immigrants not matter how or when you came or how long you've been here.

This argument is not logical. In that case the entire WORLD is immigrant, except for Africans (the birthplace of humanity). There has to be a number of years or generations before a group of people is no longer considered an immigrant, whether it's to the United States or to China.

I still don’t even know how to define “people of color.”

I identify as Jewish-American. When I did 23andme a few years back, it came back as:

48% Ashkenazi Jewish (by way of Russia and Ukraine)
14% Southern European (Italian and Maltese)
14% Northwestern European (Norwegian)
13% East Asian (Japanese and Korean)
4% Middle Eastern and North African (probably Libya)

They couldn’t categorize the rest.

Outside of the Norwegian portion, my background is not white, as defined as Anglo-Saxon. I look white in terms of my skin color. I don’t face discrimination based on my skin color, but I do based on my religion.

My mom, uncle, and grandpa were called Japs in NYC in the 1930s-1960s and my grandpa and his brothers were in internment camps here.

On the Jewish side, everyone came here in the 1910s/1920s to escape pogroms in Ukraine and Russia. They all changed their names to anglicize them.

So what the hell am I, in terms of this “POC vs white people” dichotomy?

Anonymous wrote:Clearly, people have too much time on their hands.

An important part of this turning point in our history is to listen, to understand, to discuss, giving people a better understanding of why we need to speak up, of how to speak up. This discussion may seem a waste of time to you, but it is mostly a positive discussion of people trying to understand a piece of a greater problem. One piece does not make the whole picture, but it is a piece, and eventually many pieces hopefully will soon make a whole. Take it in the spirit, friend.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I remember when it was preferred to refer to folks as black. Then it was changed to african-american. Than, apparently, we went to black again. I guess BIPOC is the latest iteration.

I'm happy to call people whatever they prefer, but if wish folks would settle on one term.

Only whites are privileged enough to have one term for themselves.

LOL. I am from West Virginia. I've been called white trash, hillbilly, cracker, peckerwood, trailer trash, inbred (x1000), and all sorts of other unflattering things.

I do my best to call people of any race, gender, etc. whatever they prefer to be called. If you want BIPOC, BIPOC it is. I do find the indigenous part confusing because only Native Americans are indigenous here. the rest of us are immigrants, forced or unforced.

My family started out as "indentured servants" here.

At what point are people no longer immigrants? How many generations or years have to pass?

I'm not the PP, but all of us except Native Americans are immigrants not matter how or when you came or how long you've been here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I remember when it was preferred to refer to folks as black. Then it was changed to african-american. Than, apparently, we went to black again. I guess BIPOC is the latest iteration.

I'm happy to call people whatever they prefer, but if wish folks would settle on one term.

Only whites are privileged enough to have one term for themselves.

LOL. I am from West Virginia. I've been called white trash, hillbilly, cracker, peckerwood, trailer trash, inbred (x1000), and all sorts of other unflattering things.

I do my best to call people of any race, gender, etc. whatever they prefer to be called. If you want BIPOC, BIPOC it is. I do find the indigenous part confusing because only Native Americans are indigenous here. the rest of us are immigrants, forced or unforced.

My family started out as "indentured servants" here.

At what point are people no longer immigrants? How many generations or years have to pass?

person you are quoting. In America, the melting pot, pretty sure that people who came over the land bridge 10k years ago are natives. the rest of us aren't.

Anything less is dismissive of aboriginals in Austrailia, Bushmen and many other native tribes in Africa, Maori in NZ, Bedouin in the ME, and many more.

I am a proud West Virginian but I have immigrant roots, for sure. Except 1/32nd of myself (Cherokee), which is not enough to matter. My noticeable roots are Irish and French. Am I Irish or French? of course not, but recent ancestors were.

Clearly, people have too much time on their hands.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the distinctive term makes sense. My parents were immigrants, but I think there's clearly a different experience between people who willingly CHOSE to come to the US, vs. people who are here and part of the system through no ancestral choice. I think a "new" term to refer to these persons and American experience is important.

That’s actually a really clear and precise way to describe it, PP. I think I get the distinction now. Thank you! -OP

ADOS has been used and I think that I prefer to keep it clear that my ancestors were enslaved here.

That said, there are black people who have been in what is now the US without enslavement in the US. My friend’s ancestor came from what is now Madagascar to Hawaii before the US stole it from the Hawaiians. There were small groups of free-born African sailors in Polynesia on British and French merchant ships. How do we count her? Maybe she’ll embrace BIPOC?

Anyone know how to pronounce it? Bye-pock? B-I-P-O-C? Bye-P-O-C?

Anonymous wrote:I think the distinctive term makes sense. My parents were immigrants, but I think there's clearly a different experience between people who willingly CHOSE to come to the US, vs. people who are here and part of the system through no ancestral choice. I think a "new" term to refer to these persons and American experience is important.

That’s actually a really clear and precise way to describe it, PP. I think I get the distinction now. Thank you! -OP

I think the distinctive term makes sense. My parents were immigrants, but I think there's clearly a different experience between people who willingly CHOSE to come to the US, vs. people who are here and part of the system through no ancestral choice. I think a "new" term to refer to these persons and American experience is important.