Hello, everyone. I'm Brazilian and one of the things that intrigue the most are the expressions we use everyday without even realizing that they contain some kind of prejudice.
I've been reading lots of international blogs about feminism lately (that's how I found about Feministing!) and I started thinking about the words considered offensive in english, but not offensive in my first language (portuguese). I think it's curious curious that, here in Brazil, the appropriate way of calling a black person is "negro" -- which seems to be the most offensive thing in the U.S! So, the right form there is "black". It's the same word you use for describing objects, for example (like a black dress or a black pen). "Black", the name of the color, is "preto" in portuguese. And it's VERY offensive to call someone "preto" here. Depending on the context, you can be legally charged on racism because of that word. But I understand that each culture uses each word in a different way. So I guess that's the explanation.
However, there`s an expression that's been really making me curious. It's "person of color". For what I've been reading, it's the most respectful and appropriate expression. Again, we do have the exact same expression here ("pessoa de cor") but it's EXTREMELY offensive. What makes it offensive here is the assumption that black people have a color, while white people don't. Or that white is standard, while black is a deviation -- which is basically "othering".
Saying "person of color" in Brazil is kinda like saying "you n--r!" in the U.S.
Many years ago, there was a very famous lecture in my university. It's not famous because of the theme they were discussing. What made it memorable was a quote from a black teacher that participated. Here`s how it went: a white researcher referred to the teacher sitting next to him as "a person of color". The statement the white researcher was trying to make was against discrimination of black people in the academy -- and it was basically a correct and respectful statement. However, the black teacher decided to show him that, even with more black students and researchers in the academy, that wouldn't mean racism is over. After all, racism is a cultural matter. It's in the tiny little things. He said:
"You just said I'm a 'person of color'. Well, let's analyze that. When I get shy, my skin is black. When I'm sick, my skin is black. When I get cold, my skin is black. And when I die, my skin will still be black. Now let's analyze your skin. When you get shy, you get pink. When you get sick, you get kinda yellow. When you get cold, your skin gets purple. And when you die, you'll get a weird kind of green. Now tell me, who's the person of color?".
Well, of course it was a joke, but he has a point. I can see why someone would think there's something offensive about that expression.
So I wanted to understand why the expression "person of color" is not considered offensive in english and why the academy there decided to adopt it. Thanks!
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: About the expression "person of color".
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/11831
You raise an excellent point and I'm not really sure when 'person of color' became the preferred term for non-whites. I'm sure that it had something to do with rejecting the term 'minority,' since that has a lot of nasty connotations of being 'less than' and suggests that, if whites are the majority, they deserve to reign supreme; additionally, an influx of latino/a immigrants and changing birth rates means that in many areas, the so-called minorities are surpassing the majorities. So, I understand why progressives wanted to choose another term. But why we use person of color, I don't know - it's always struck me as slightly odd, because as you say it seems to other non-whites.
I think it's important to recognize the distinction though between "person of color" and "colored person" which would be really offensive.
According to the American Heritage Book of English Usage, "person of color" was chosen to replace "non-white" - to substitute a positive for a negative.
I don't know when it became so popular. I'm a big proponent of calling people what they choose to be called (so if they prefer "black", I use black, if they prefer "African American" etc...) the problem being that there isn't any one universal term that will make everyone happy. This goes for all groups of people by the way, not just race. I think as long as you make an effort not to be offensive and acknowledge when you slip up and say the wrong thing, you're okay.
~ Lilith
In the US, POC doesn't just mean a black person. The term is used to refer to Latinos, Jews and Asians as well, and probably others that I am not thinking of. It's not perfect, but it's better than saying non-white when discussing commonalities for all POC. Non-white establishes white as the default with non-white as other. Of course, in the US, white is a fluid term, and sometimes a person can be both white and a POC.
Oh, I did not know POC was used for other ethnicities as well. Thanks for that!
Yep, when we're talking about people of the same ethnic background it's considered polite to simply say what they are; "Black" "Chicano" "Brazilian" "Mexican" "Iranian" whatever. When we're talking about a group of mixed ethnicities or nationalities, it's "people of color". I don't think I've ever used the phrase "person of color" unless the person was of mixed background or it was a hypothetical situation of some sort that we were discussing (like interactions with the police "it's more dangerous to be a person of color than white" that sort of thing).
I've seen the distinction between Black and white made in writing before too by capitalizing Black, because it is a word which connotes a shared experience and similar ethnic backgrounds and so is a proper noun, versus white, which is a political and social category, and so is not a title or proper noun.
I don't think I've ever heard POC used to refer to Jews in general. There are certain groups of Jews it applies to -- Ethiopian Jews, Arab Jews, maybe some Asian Jews, maybe Greek or Turkish Jews -- but not Jews in general.
Though the "race" thing for Jews has always been confusing here. My grandparents' and great-grandparents' immigration papers, from the late thirties and early forties, say something like "Complexion: pale. Nationality: German. Race or People: Hebrew." (Some have complexion listed as medium or olive.) So there were separate listings for complexion and for race then.
Judaism isn't a race. I'm not sure it should be included in the list of groups that "person of color" would apply to.
I'm sorry, I'm having a difficult time articulate what I'm trying to say, but I wanted to bring it up.
I think a lot of the terminology has to do with personal preference. Just like the reappropriation of certain words, for some people certain terms and phrases can carry a more negative connotation, while for others they have added a more positive association to it. A lot of it also has to do with the history and how certain phrases were used and by whom and for what purpose.
I know the term "people of color" started to get popular use in the 1970's by anti-racist and civil rights activists. Martin Luther King used the term "citizens of color". Similarly, I hear the term used more by progressives/left-wingers, than I do by conservatives/right-wingers...again I think this has to do with the history, what one tends to associate with the phrase, and also the personal politics of the individual. But, I also know many progressives that hate the term and will never use it.
I lived in Puerto Rico for awhile, and you're definitely right about the differences in customs depending on the language/culture...I've certainly had some of the same questions that you've mentioned in this post, especially the one about white being the "standard" and anything else being the "deviation" or "other"...The U.S. as far as I know, is the only country that uses the term "people of color".
The U.S. as far as I know, is the only country that uses the term "people of color".
It's used somewhat in Canada and the UK as well... just Google "person of colour" instead of "person of color". :D
One argument I've heard is that saying "non-white" is even more othering than saying "person of color," because it assumes that white is the basis and everything else is "non." It would be like saying a woman is a non-man. It was also better than "colored people" which was rooted in the time of Jim Crow segregation. Really, nearly all terms used to refer to different groups of people in the U.S. are being used because of some kind of historical context that may not translate well into other languages and cultures. And while it would be better not to lump vastly different people together under a blanket term like "people of color," to just call someone black or Brazilian or Cherokee or whatever they actually are, it's not always possible. Not people cause people are awkward or ignorant and don't know the terms (although they don't), but because if we want to compare statistics and study living conditions in the U.S., we need a way to talk about race.
I've read a few things about race relations in Brazil and heard that there is a lot more allowance for variation in skin tone and heritage, while in the U.S. history had led us to consider someone either white or non-white (using racist terms because the idea IS racist). This is why Americans talk about Barack Obama being the first black president, not the first biracial president.
Ok that was long and rambling, but my basic answer is that it's all because of our history in the U.S. Hope that helps, or at least gives food for thought...
Yeah, you are right. Here in Brazil it's like a big palette where the "whitest" is considered more beautiful and has more power. Like: "the paler, the better". One person I always like to cite as an example is Colin Powell. My mom once said: "I don't know why they call him black. Look how pale he is!". I guess that's related to our History too. There lots of "bi-racial" or "multi-racial" people (something that unfortunately started with the slaves being raped by the owners of european descent). When slavery was finally over in Brazil, in 1888, the government started tostimulate the immigration of european people -- in their own words, "to 'whiten' the society".
But yeah, thanks very much for the comment. I'll start studying about how these terms were used during American History.
I actually learned about this last year in an anthropology class. We were learning about the different social constructions of race and my professor handed out a survey done in Brazil asking people what race they considered themself, and the survey received something like 98 different answers.
Picking terms is going to be problematic no matter what we decide on. "People of color" has the nasty association with "Colored" from the Jim Crow era. "Minorities" can apply to people who are actually the majority (in that area). "Non-white" implies that white is the default or preferred state. Labeling based on where people come from implies that they are less American than white people (who are also immigrants and may have even been more recent immigrants). Etc, etc.
On top of that, certain terms are more offensive than others to different people depending on location and personal history. Take "Yellow" applied to Asians, which some younger Asians are embracing, but their parents (or grandparents) probably strongly dislike due to a nasty history with the term. Colored people is offensive unless you're the NAACP, negro too unless you're the United Negro College Fund (and in the past it was more acceptable in different states). This is why you don't want to apply Brazillian standards to Americans. Our histories are very different in terms of race relations, and our terminology is going to have different baggage.
"People of color" got decided (for the reasons mentioned above) because we need an academic standard, so we can write and talk about race without having to change our language significantly from place to place. It has baggage and othering implications, but it's still a shorthand for, "I don't mean this in any racist or othering way".
I've always wondered why 'people of color' is the used term. To me, it is a fancier way of saying 'colored people.' I've never really agreed with it, but don't know what to say, so I usually do just say 'minorities.' I never felt saying minorities was saying non-whites were less than, but I supposed non-whites would be the best term, and I used that often, too.
Also, I understand that joke and it's meaning, and realize I am not discriminated against as white, but the context I heard it in was pretty much a white, non-christian, and gay bashing fest at my high school during a 'black history month' assembly. Of course, I was also upset at the assembly because only blacks got recognition from our school, other non-whites did not, non-straights did not, women did not. I think it was inappropriate in my case, but understand where it is coming from.
"Person of color" puts the person first, and makes their skin tone just one characteristic rather than the defining characteristic. The "person of" or "person with" construction is very common these days. Also keep in mind that "colored" has really pejorative baggage from the first 3/4's of the 20th century.
That's exactly what I was going to say. In the mental health industry at least, person-first language is strongly encouraged. You say "person with a disability" or "person with mental illness" rather than "disabled person" or "mentally ill person," because personhood is considered of foremost importance.
I had always seen "person of color" to be the same thing. First and foremost, the individual is a PERSON, not a skin color, not a race or ethnicity.
The language around disability is not as straight forward as it might first seem. For example, I define myself a disabled person, and a person with a mental health problem. I sometimes use the word mad.
From wikipedia article on disability
"A similar kind of 'people first' terminology is also used in the UK, but more often in the form 'people with impairments' (e.g. 'people with visual impairments', etc.). However, in the UK, the term 'disabled people' is generally preferred to 'people with disabilities'. It is argued under the social model that while someone's impairment (e.g. having a spinal cord injury) is an individual property, 'disability' is something created by external societal factors such as a lack of wheelchair access to their workplace"
I know a lot of discussions around language can be dismissed as 'political correctness' but I find it fascinating and have enjoyed this discussion because I have learnt so much.
Anne
I'm from the UK, and we don't really say 'person of colour' or 'coloured' here, it's kind of old-fashioned and if you do say it it means black, not asian or anything else. We don't really have a mainstream equivalent of the USA's 'african american' here, either. The term everyone uses is 'black'. I've heard that in america people don't like saying black, but everyone says it here. For example, Obama was called on the news, 'the first black man to become president of the United States'. They didn't say 'african-american' or 'person of colour'.
The way americans see race surprised me when I first got to know it. I don't know anyone here in the UK who thinks of spanish-looking people as a completely different race, but in america they're considered to be something 'other'. I have never, ever heard someone use the word 'latina' or 'hispanic' to describe someone here! I'm sure it happens, but I've only ever heard someone say 'he/she looks spanish' or 'she comes from south america', not, 'she's a latina/looks kind of hispanic'.
"she looks spanish" and "she come from south america" are too completely different meanings to me. if someone looks spanish, doesn't that imply they are from spain rather than a spanish speaking country?
as far as the term 'person of color' i understand that it is putting personhood first, like FrumiousB says, which i think is important, but the same way to say 'colored person' in spanish 'persona de color" and other romantic languages follow that pattern. to me that implies that it is essentially saying the same thing, so i've never really felt comfortable using it.
I think the difference is that Spain is considered a European country and people who are Spanish in the sense of actually coming from Spain come from pretty much the same genetic pool as all the other Europeans.
But Latin America has a completely different genetic pool, because of mixture with the native people who were there first.
I'm not 100% sure but I'm not sure if a person who is from Spain even counts as hispanic in the US. They probably don't count as latino/a.
See, here we don't really understand that. It's hard to tell most of the time whether someone is one thing or another thing. In reality, it shouldn't matter, but I still find myself surprised when someone says they're 'hispanic' and I thought they were black, or something like that. We're doing a lot in anthropology right now about how race is culturally constructed, and it's really opened my eyes to how the way we categorise people is detrimental to everyone.
I thought Castilian (Castellano) is "from Spain"...but maybe that's just in Spanish and not in English.
The word "Hispanic", as far as I know, is also used in the U.S. to refer to people from Spain as well.
I don't think Americans use the word Castillian very much, but I think it does refer to people from Spain, or from a specific part of Spain.
Of course in the US we have far more people from Latin America than from Spain.
I've always wondered why colored is offensive and person of color is not. I guess its just because of the historical context.
That said, I've never heard anyone say person of color in real life-- only on politically correct blogs, or in the names of groups like "queer people of color."
Funny, I've been using "person of color" in my normal speech for almost a year now. It initially got some odd looks, but by now my friends and family are in varying degrees aware of why I do it and some of them have even picked up the term themselves.
I don't use it exclusively. If I'm talking specifically about a particular ethnicity, I'll use the more specific descriptor. But "person/people of color" is a great catchall term which avoids the baggage of "non-white" and "minority", and I use it in that sense.
Yeah, it does make sense-- I've just never heard it outside of a politically correct academic context.
And I have a bit of a bad connotation with it due to my own personal history-- that "queer people of color" group was amazingly exclusionary, having meetings in the public lounge of our dorm and kicking people out if they didn't fit their narrow definition of a queer person of color.
But yeah, I realize that isn't a fair reason not to like the word.
I am running into this issue as I take an online course for novel-writing. Some of the directives on describing characters are almost disturbing. Certainly at least one choice of novel excerpt used as an example of good writing has an unbelieveably offensive title. We are told we have to describe characters' appearances immediately, including their race. However, when I read most books, I rarely if ever see "he was white, with black hair." It's making me uncomfortable to have to specify the race of my characters because I wanted to introduce a diversity of people, but without a "default." I know I'm going to get told I have to specify my characters' race when they're not white, but very likely will not be told to do this with my white characters. Some people try to say well, if someone has blond hair and blue eyes, of course they're white. Not. I've met Jamaicans with blue eyes several times and anyone can die their hair. I know I will probably get told well, your novel is in a predominantly white country, so it's normal to assume the default is white. Or I might get told I'm making a big deal out of nothing. I'm not sure how to prepare for that.
You should specify race. As someone who is a minority it infuriates me when I don't know that someone is supposed to be black, latin american, etc. However, it is not just done with descriptions such as "black hair, dark skin." There are many cultural tidbits that can lead you to know where the character is from. For example, describing someone from Haiti or someone from South Africa is going to necessitate different descriptions.
When I took a novel writing class I had a Haitian character living in Miami and several Cuban characters. It was obvious through their conversations and little details that even though they might be all dark skinned and black haired, they were different. Race is not just color.
Dominique, I know exactly what you are talking about. It's something I've been thinking about recently. In America, both the reader and the protagonist of any fiction is assumed to be white unless stated otherwise. It is really annoying.
You should read this editorial written by Ursula LeGuin about her Earthsea novels. She purposefully wrote a protagonist with dark skin, and purposefully did not introduce the main character as such in the beginning. The editors were fine with it, but she had trouble getting cover art that didn't have white people on it, and when her books were made into a movie, the cast was entirely white.
This made me think about other cases where I've read books (usually fantasy novels) in which characters are clearly not white, and yet the cover art almost always has white people. It's like... who is that person on the cover? It is clearly not the same person being described in this book...
Hey, thanks to both! Your comments have helped me decide what to do. I'm going to introduce race in social context (that is to say, there will be a reason why it comes up early on). That way it'll feel more natural but still specific enough for readers to see the character fully.
If POC means "non-white" shouldn't it (technically) refer to virtually all of us then? I mean, who doesn't have a color?
Okay, I know that "whiteness" is more of a political thing, but then, what am I? If white means "privileged" then I'm non-white or a Person Of Color (being an immigrant with very few rights here) even though my skin color is pinkish like the people called "white" - but even pink is a color, I'd say, so "white" cannot be the opposite of POC. It makes no sense (not that it has to).
Similarly btw Irish immigrants used to not be considered "white" and were not "real americans", but since "white" is a political term it can change meaning and inclusion. As such, in the US now there are people of "Latin" descend who are POCs and those who are less so (having been included in the ever-expanding concept of whiteness) - probably depending on a lot of factors, but one of them definitely being how recent they or their ancestors came here. I think there is a general history in the US that whomever came most recently is not as "white" ("real" American) as the rest of the immigrants who came earlier.
I think these word-games are silly. My conditions of life and living do not change one bit by me being refered to as a POC (if it refers to something political) or "white" (if it refers to my pinkish skin). Of course it is relevant when people use words that are meant to hurt but sometimes "we progressives" change the vocabulary so often that what means one thing today means the opposite tomorrow - and sometimes it is hard to see the reasons for it. Words should make it easier to understand and express reality. They are not reality: I do not get more rights in this country by being refered to as X instead of Y by liberals :) It's usually not hard to know know when the same word is being used to harm or not.
BTW. When I say that these word-games are silly and that the words do not really make sense, that does not mean they don't have a purpose as long as we don't over-emphasize on the words. The words of racism and nationalism doesn't make (logical) sense so the words we use to combat it will also be a bit nonsensical.
Privilege is relative. Look at the thread about it. POC is not ever used as a catchall for people who don't have privilege. It refers to people who don't have privilege because of their skin color. Moreover, you can still not have privilege in other ways without being a person of color.
Make more sense now?
No people of color have privilege due to their race? I have a hard time agreeing with that; rather, I see it as a spectrum of privilege from most to least.
Compared to white people? Please name some examples.
that would depend of what "white people" you are talking about. There's also different (political) shades of whiteness.
Or, it depends, on what you mean by "white". Do you really mean skin-color and ethnicity?
If so, then the same "whiteness" contains both some of the most oppressed and some of the most privileged people - from American descendants of Spanish conquerors to recent Arab immigrants. There is hardly any "racial" difference (in fact, lots of Spanish people are descendants of Arabs themselves).
(I believe) I know what you mean. I'm just drawing attention to the inadequacy of these words. We shouldn't be surprised that these categorizing concepts are inconsistent and confusing: they originate in racism which is inconsistent and confused. We have to deal with racism, so we have to deal with concepts that are not always very logical - we're dealing with an illogical system. Racism divides humanity into "white" and "non-white". We should know that that is nonsense, while we recognize that the racist concepts and ideology is still real.
just adding a couple of comments :)
In Italy they are now using "persona di colore" or nero, which means the color black. The spanish word for black, negro, is like the N-bomb. apparently. My how the shit travels fast.
When I was learning Italian, Spanish words would slip out all the time, especially "Negro" and people would gasp--like, "omg, she just called herself an N*word!" I'm like, "people come on!!"
Just one more anecdote here, while on the topic of Brazil. So I was in Brazil in 1992 for 3 months---yeah, a while ago. It was my first time out of the country and I had heard about all of the different ways to characterize color but I wasn't quite prepared for it.
So in the USA, I'm black (both parents are too), no questions asked. But in Brazil, it depended on the day, apparently. I basically entered the country one color, and practically every other day, depending on my "tan" or if my hair was in braids or whatever, I was supposedly a different color. Ok, I'm exaggerating...but traveling around for 3 months, the subject came up more than one time--enough to understand that my color was apparently not static.
One thing that became clear was that the men where trying to be complimentary or to butter me up by anointing me a lighter color, i.e., "Mulattinha" or whatever. One fool even called me Morena, which I know was a damn stretch into the realm of ridiculousness. But by the end of my stay, I had a deep tan--so, finally people were calming down and I was black again :).
So now in Europe I'm having flashbacks where apparently people seem to think I "look" Brazilian. Right--of all the countries where black folk come from...mKay??? They never guess that I'm from the UK or the US---People have literally come up to me on the street speaking portuguese, which I understand, but I pretend not to because usually it's some dude trying some weird ass game. Although one time, it was a Brazilian women, genuinely being curious.
Anyway, let's just say I've learned some new perspectives surrounding all of this. I mean, I'm the same person I've always been, but others see me differently depending on the environment...weird.
It's the same thing all over Latin America.
Being called "blond" is a compliment in Mexico and the more indigenous you look, the more you are shunned.
I remember in school we had some French students come for an exchange program. All of the boys hooked up with French girls and paraded them like a badge of honor. They had "white" girlfriends!
The boys had no interest in hooking up with the one non-Caucassian girl who had come over through the exchange.
I remember my husband's family commenting that maybe he shouldn't marry because I looked "just like the maid," which meant I had dark skin and native features and he could do better.
I kid you not. Every time someone tried to call me "blond" to give me a fake-ass compliment I felt extremely offended. I am proud of my heritage.
Way to see women as furniture, eh?
I can't blame anyone for calling you a "morena", actually. Racism in Brazil is srs bsns and as we have a really mixed gene pool - I'm the daughter of a... A... Mulata... Methinks. My mom has a black father, a "morena" mother, but her grandfather was white with blue eyes, and her grandgrandsomethingmother was the daughter of slaves and married a Portuguese man. My father is a Portuguese and Spanish descendent. Kudos to anyone who succeeds in classifying me, who is kinda white, but too morena, but has a large nose and lips (Not related: Very pretty lips imo), but has been called a "white" when some people in my class were discussing noses. A "black", "moreno", "mulato" "blmomu whatever" boy said I'm the "only white that has a large nose" and I was like what I'm not white I'm mixed.
So - We have a really mixed gene pool. To be called a "preto" is to be offended in some places. "Negro" same thing, but it's more accepted. We even have the word "Nego", that means "dude", but people have been banned from MMORPGs from calling someone "nego", because supposedly it was racist. So we have japanese people here too, but to call someone "japa" could be racist. Race in Brazil is a really confus thing. We dance beteween political correctness and simplicity.
But, from your post, I remembered something: I had a dark-skinned friend in my class. One day, other girl asked me to call her and said something like "Do you know "fulana"? That morena. The moreninha with big cheeks and glasses. Can you call her please?". I could FEEL the awkwardness in her voice - To call that girl "black", "negra", wouldn't be an offense. But she choose to call her a morena. But she wasn't exactly what a morena can be called here - Morena goes to dark-haired people or not-so-dark-skinned people but also not so white-skinned ones.
The reason of all this? Maybe backstory. Brazil's backstory is full of this. But there's also something I'd like to say:
Some years ago, the govern gave scholarship to black people to go to public colleges. It wasn't really a scholarship (I don't know the word in English) but it was something like that: 20%, I think, of the places in the college were reserved for black people, because we have a lot of them going to public school (That, in Brazil, isn't good, opposed to public colleges, that everyone and their dogs aspire to) and supposedly didn't have enough knowledge to have a better score than non-dark-skinned-people that could go to a private school. Can you spot the lolwut? Yesssssss. Black people from private schools could have that places and private that non-dark-skinned-person from the place in college, even if the NDSP scored higher than the DSP. A lot of teachers said that had NDSP alumns that lost places because of that. Then, we have the problem of the gene pool. Who is black and who isn't in Brazil? We had even stories of twins - One was considered black and one wasn't. And Dark-skinned-people that refused the scholarship but lost the place for not-so-dark-skinned-people, even with higher scores?
It's so confuse. I think you can read Portuguese, so try Wikipedia: http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol%C3%ADtica_de_cotas_no_Brasil
Sorry for the TL;DR;
Language is constantly a colonizing act. Simple patterns of speech reinforce raced and gendered hierarchies that inform the "common sense" of the mainstream. I mean, look at the progression of language use around labeling racial groups. Whiteness as a term has never changed, however the group itself has expanded over time in order to create a stronger "Us vs. Them" divide. Each politically correct or individually designated term to signify a group that is labeled something other than white has been shaken off, only to find a new term that is widely used and socially acceptable. Still, person of color is a highly colonizing phrase, suggesting just as many of you have said, that whiteness is a blank canvas and "non-whiteness" is deviant.
I'm not sure who decided that Hispanic was ever an okay term to signify millions of people who were colonized by Spaniards, but I'm gonna say it was probably a white person.
I will say that POC is a term that creates solidarity between racially oppressed groups--a solidarity that is consistently made difficult by the ways that the white American psyche pits groups of color against each other so that whiteness will reign supreme without unified opposition.
This is a great and interesting post!
I identify as a person of colour, although I do not think that it is the best term because of what you said about othering. I am mostly doing it because I am under the impression that other people of colour prefer that term.
However, I think a better term is "person without white privilege", which is based on Professor What If's idea of calling white people people of white privilege.
Wikipedia on the euphemism treadmill:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphemism#The_.22euphemism_treadmill.22
Latino/a (also written as Latin@ to show simultaneously the masculine and feminine forms) is the label constructed by U.S. academics to refer to people of Spanish-speaking Latin American or South American descent who currently live in the United States. It is considered preferable to the term Hispanic because Hispanic (i.e. from Hispania, Spain) has colonial ties. It is also not a race - Latin@ people can be white, black, Asian, or Native American.
People who are trying to apply logic to language that is so politically charged are missing the point.
There are lots of terms (for lots of ideas or objects) which don't make sense if you really think about it. But language is not some kind of truth-machine. It comes from historical, cultural, political and ethnic contexts.
As some folks have pointed out, the reason people use the term "people of color" in one country and not in another is because of the way particular struggles around language & terminology played out in that country. Logical arguments about menaing is just a game you can play to criticize or highlight the essential illogic (i.e. context-based) aspect of these words. Most of them are not inherently offensive, they are offensive because of the associations people have with them.
this doesn't mean it's all about individual choice, though, because using certain terms can evoke associations in other people which can make you come off as hostile, offensive, even terrorizing (or can ally/associate you with people you really don't want to be associated with). SO you have to think a bit more sometimes, and do your homework if you don't know..
POC is almost never used in everyday conversation here in the UK. Black is used, but there isn't a big population where I live so it doesn't come up often. There is a huge Asian population, by which I mean people from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and the Middle East. Race relations have been difficult (see the films This Is England, East Is East, Bend It Like Beckham or Brick Lane for insight), and the term 'paki' is an incredibly offensive term used to describe anyone with brown skin. Asian is the most normal word.
Interestingly, the most racist man I know is Iranian (he prefers to say Persian, but Iran stopped being Persia nearly a hundred years ago). He runs several lapdancing clubs and I used to work on the bar at one of them. He had a blanket door policy of 'No Asians', by which he meant those from the Indian subcontinent, not those from the Middle East. White people always called him Asian himself thanks to his olive skin and heavy accent. Other Asians called him much nastier things.