Conversation

Replying to
Note: I’d guess based on my audience that the “POC” respondents above are very dominated by middle-class Asians, with few blacks and hispanics.
2
1
The term POC serves no useful purpose that the term ‘non-white’ does not serve better and more honestly. If point is to exclude, then own the exclusionary motive. Drop the euphemism. It is unnecessary. There are good reasons sometimes in the US to qualify things as ‘non-white’.
1
8
If the point is an inclusive solidarity, with exclusion as a side effect, it fails. It is an attempt to manufacture a shared consciousness out of a false solidarity, by minimizing political diversity within the groups it seeks to include.
1
10
In fact it badly distorts politics of many groups. To the extent constructing and using the term “POC” signals valuing solidarity and a manufactured class consciousness, it is broadly socialist/modernist in spirit and unrepresentative of (for example) Asian trad/right wing etc.
1
1
Ironically, intersectionality is a good framework for appreciating this. People of “color” are still “people” first, and as likely to lean right, fascist, racist, libertarian etc as whites, given appropriate socioeconomic contexts. Erasing adversaries creates blindspot perils.
1
4
I believe people who like the term have sincere motives. Sure, people who are victims of structural oppression are disproportionately non-white. But correlation is not causation. By using a ‘color coalition’ as a proxy for socioeconomic oppression you’re hurting your cause.
1
1
You *lose* natural allies (poor/oppressed whites) and fall for tactics of opponents: the divide between poor blacks and poor whites propped up for 150 years since civil war by the rich. And by casting a wide net, you *gain* unwilling/unsympathetic bycatch who will weaken you.
1
4
I’m broadly left-libertarian, with strong sympathy for people suffering from poverty, poor health, lack of education etc. To the extent skin color is a very strong multiplier I take it seriously, but not symbolically. It’s a good analysis variable but a terrible symbolizing one.
1
2
Forget Asians, who are more likely to not fit politics implied by ‘POC’ than fit. Even rich blacks/Hispanics are likely going to be misfits in ways that seriously undermine intent (for example take roles intended to represent but not actually do so because of ‘white’ incentives)
1
1
Someone (I think ) joked that what America needs is a class war, not a culture war. I’d rather not have a war at all, but I agree if we must have one, a “class war” (though not necessarily constructed in socialist terms) is a healthier one to have.
1
9
Replying to
Tldr: it’s your choice whether to use the term. It doesn’t offend me, but it does not serve me either. It represents a slight negative utility which I would tolerate if I thought it was at least helping people who needed help, but it doesn’t do that either. So I don’t use it.
2
8