Anonymous asked: Its nothing about grouping all people under person of colour. It's got nothing to do with ignoring someone's ethinicity and nationality and just blindly calling them person of colour. Its the way it is because its another means of identification. Like height, hair and physical appearance. People dont just ignore where someone is from. Its just another means of portrayal. Example "Man who bought food was 6 foot, large man and was a person of colour." Public opinion is fine, being IGNORANT isnt.
i am ignorant because i would prefer to refer to someone who is part of a minority by something specific to their ethnic background, rather than just grouping them up along with the rest? how the fuck does that even work?
i suppose it starts off fine when you’re using it to more easily identify the appearance of a person who you didn’t get a good look at, but to start referring to all minorities as people of colour, regardless of what they do, is incredibly negligent. what’s going to happen in the future? will they look back on say world war one and two and instead of saying, “the japanese invaded the manchurian area of china” or “the japanese fought a fiece battle among the new guinea jungle with australians,” will they just say, “the people of colour had a civil conflict” or “the people of colour fought against the white people in a jungle”?
does anyone see where i’m going with this?
