Lib Logic: “People of Color” = Good; “Colored People” = Outrageously Offensive

There is a rising trend among black people, particularly the “strong black woman” and beta-male types, to call themselves “people of color,” or POC, rather than “black.” It’s a show of power over white racism, a taking back of control of a word that was used pejoratively long ago by whites when referring to blacks. It’s a silly attempt at self-empowerment, like those people with poor self-image who seminars taught to look in the mirror every morning and say, “You are beautiful. You are better than them.”

“You are better than them,” as a matter of fact, is implicit in blacks’ self-references as “POC,” with “them” being white people. Why are blacks reclaiming the word “color” when whites haven’t used that word in the mainstream for decades? The only legitimate reason for calling themselves “people of color” is if they believe all white people are still “oppressors.” Otherwise, whom are they reclaiming the word from?

A writer at the black-celebration website The Root takes the reclaiming of power a step further (see the “oppressors” link above): he is not merely a “person of color,” he says; he actually refers to himself outright as “Coloured” (the capital C demonstrates superiority over non-Coloureds, like you and me). The writer is a mixture of a bunch of different races, but he lives in South Africa and acknowledges he would be offended if Americans were to use the word. (It’s hard to keep track of all these rules sometimes, isn’t it?)

But why is that? If “person of color” is okay, then certainly its grammatical equal, “colored person,” is just as acceptable. Isn’t “foot odor” the same thing as “odor of foot” and “Justice Department” the same exact department as the “Department of Justice”? Yes, yes. The only difference between “colored people” and “people of color” is that one doesn’t give them the warm fuzzies, and, as you know, liberals are creatures of emotion, not logic. (It’s the liberal blacks who use this terminology, of course, not the 10 percent who are conservative.)

Soon after blacks—pardon me—soon after coloreds began calling themselves “color[ed],” young Asian and Hispanic social Marxists wanted to jump on the “I wanna be a victim” bandwagon and adopted the “POC” term for themselves. This is ironic, considering that such social-justice warriors (SJWs) often pretend to support giving only blacks—oops—only coloreds special language privileges. If a white person uses a word that only coloreds are given social permission to say, the Asian and Hispanic SJWs shout “Oppression!” because we are supposedly taking away the power of the black race, the “only” race that is permitted to use certain words. Yet non-black and non-white SJWs get to appropriate black language for themselves by calling themselves “colored”?

Really, though, it’s an inaccurate label, “person of color,” because who among us does not have a color? I’m “white,” but while white isn’t technically a color, I’m also not technically white; I’m orange-spotted in some areas, a little pink in others, but overall I’m creamy. Black is also technically not a color, but black people also aren’t technically black; they’re brown. Brown is a color; it’s in the same family as red and orange. Every race is “of color,” which is why I find it to be an exclusionary term, another bit of irony for the fact that it’s used by a group who puts on airs of desiring inclusion. Not that I’m offended by being excluded from permission. I’m more offended by the emotional-based thinking.