The term person of color has been irking me for quite awhile. Not because I don't think it's an appropriate term, but because I find so many people forcing me into it. The reason I'm not willing to identify as a person of color is because my skin color is what many would call "passing". Hell, if someone were to ask me what my skin color was I would say white. But I don't identify as white because that's not what I am. I'm Puerto Rican. I grew up Puerto Rican and there were plenty of people who made sure to ask the questions necessary to discover my Puerto Rican identity (it wasn't like I was hiding it). No one called me white once they found out I was Puerto Rican (unless they were trying to insult me) and I never had any desire to be White. So when I see this definition being used in the Michigan in Color section of the Daily "Person/people of color — or PoC — is a blanket term typically used to refer to all non-white individuals. ", I begin to scratch my head because I'm certainly a "non-white individual" yet I wouldn't ever consider myself a person of color. I've had people chime in mentioning my ancestors and also my ability to tan in the sun, but neither fact changes the reality that often when people see me on the street they don't immediately see a Puerto Rican. However, when someone who actually is a person of color is seen, their skin color is immediately noticed. I could never imagine how it feels to know that just by someone looking at you they are able to deduce that you are not like them. You are part of the "out group". This is an experience I have never had to have and it's all because of the color of my skin. And this isn't just for people who are "brown and black", but also Asians (Chinese, Japanese, Taiwanese, Korean, etc.) frequently deal with this instant visual recognition according to their skin color.
The point is the term Person of color is lacking. It creates an implicit (in my opinion false) hierarchy within the minority community. Minorities all face forms of oppression, but when you designate spaces and terminology for people of color, then left out are those who don't fit in either person of color or white. Furthermore, PoC masks the differences in types of oppression minorities face. Latinos (black and white) face similar types of oppression. But the term person of color instead splits up the Latino community and instead suggests a connection between dark skin Latinos and other communities of color. While certainly the experience of being judged by your skin is relatable and can often be compared, this doesn't make it so that the experience you have will align more with someone of color (but not Latino) than someone who is Latino (but not of color). Intersectionality is important to consider here. White privilege as it comes in its manifested form of skin color also exacerbates this divide because many light skinned Latinos tend to do far better than their dark skinned brothers and sisters (this is due to institutions of privilege that served light skinned Latinos). This socio economic divide, paired with the term "person of color" lends itself to a construction where the light skinned Latino is essentially white in their peers' eyes.
Furthermore, the term person of color encourages a glossing over of the model minority legacy that still exists within the United States. To say that Asian Americans (Chinese, Korean, Indian, etc.) did no benefit from policies which specifically targeted blacks and Latinos in this nation is outright ignorance. Does this mean Asian Americans received no discrimination? Of course not, they were oppressed just as much as any other group, but the nature of that oppression was different. The model minority construct, which should not confine Asian Americans today (many in the Asian community have bravely spoke out against this term and continue to do so), has a legacy that still provides privilege. The term person of color does not provide a discourse about how Asian Americans, especially Indian, may have profited from conceptions of whiteness formed in the early 1900s. While eventually Indians were barred from White privilege, for a period of time the ability to claim Aryan ancestry was considered to be the pseudo scientific litmus test of whiteness, a test many Asians were able to claim they passed. The term person of color glosses over this history and instead inserts a narrative where all people of color (in quite literal terms) have a claim to "color". This propagates that Indians were always of color. Chinese were always of color. Instead what should be emphasized is whether these groups were able to gain access to "whiteness". So do we remove the title of color from them? Again, no. They are still living in a present world where people still judge them according to their skin color. There is no pseudo science to whiteness now. The issue is that the term PoC, when used exclusively to dominate the discussion of oppression glosses over this reality.
I deserve a voice and a space, which isn't currently provided for me at the University of Michigan. MiC seems to think that it is that space, but its insistence to use color as the prerequisite for entrance does a disservice to me and a disservice to many people of color. What I mean is if MiC were to accept my writing and be the space for me, it would distort the term PoC and expand it so that meaningful conversation about how skin color drastically affects peoples' lives would never be possible. My suggestion is to return to the term minority. The term minority is far more encompassing and can provide a space for all of those who are oppressed on this campus. Until this linguistic snafu is dealt with, then communities where there are many who can pass will begin to feel unwanted by their own communities and instead forced to assimilate into a white one.
The point is the term Person of color is lacking. It creates an implicit (in my opinion false) hierarchy within the minority community. Minorities all face forms of oppression, but when you designate spaces and terminology for people of color, then left out are those who don't fit in either person of color or white. Furthermore, PoC masks the differences in types of oppression minorities face. Latinos (black and white) face similar types of oppression. But the term person of color instead splits up the Latino community and instead suggests a connection between dark skin Latinos and other communities of color. While certainly the experience of being judged by your skin is relatable and can often be compared, this doesn't make it so that the experience you have will align more with someone of color (but not Latino) than someone who is Latino (but not of color). Intersectionality is important to consider here. White privilege as it comes in its manifested form of skin color also exacerbates this divide because many light skinned Latinos tend to do far better than their dark skinned brothers and sisters (this is due to institutions of privilege that served light skinned Latinos). This socio economic divide, paired with the term "person of color" lends itself to a construction where the light skinned Latino is essentially white in their peers' eyes.
Furthermore, the term person of color encourages a glossing over of the model minority legacy that still exists within the United States. To say that Asian Americans (Chinese, Korean, Indian, etc.) did no benefit from policies which specifically targeted blacks and Latinos in this nation is outright ignorance. Does this mean Asian Americans received no discrimination? Of course not, they were oppressed just as much as any other group, but the nature of that oppression was different. The model minority construct, which should not confine Asian Americans today (many in the Asian community have bravely spoke out against this term and continue to do so), has a legacy that still provides privilege. The term person of color does not provide a discourse about how Asian Americans, especially Indian, may have profited from conceptions of whiteness formed in the early 1900s. While eventually Indians were barred from White privilege, for a period of time the ability to claim Aryan ancestry was considered to be the pseudo scientific litmus test of whiteness, a test many Asians were able to claim they passed. The term person of color glosses over this history and instead inserts a narrative where all people of color (in quite literal terms) have a claim to "color". This propagates that Indians were always of color. Chinese were always of color. Instead what should be emphasized is whether these groups were able to gain access to "whiteness". So do we remove the title of color from them? Again, no. They are still living in a present world where people still judge them according to their skin color. There is no pseudo science to whiteness now. The issue is that the term PoC, when used exclusively to dominate the discussion of oppression glosses over this reality.
I deserve a voice and a space, which isn't currently provided for me at the University of Michigan. MiC seems to think that it is that space, but its insistence to use color as the prerequisite for entrance does a disservice to me and a disservice to many people of color. What I mean is if MiC were to accept my writing and be the space for me, it would distort the term PoC and expand it so that meaningful conversation about how skin color drastically affects peoples' lives would never be possible. My suggestion is to return to the term minority. The term minority is far more encompassing and can provide a space for all of those who are oppressed on this campus. Until this linguistic snafu is dealt with, then communities where there are many who can pass will begin to feel unwanted by their own communities and instead forced to assimilate into a white one.
No comments:
Post a Comment