"People of color", actually aren't.

[(oYo)]

It's not my intention to offend anyone or start a race war, but the recent Cumberbatch incident raises an interesting philosophical question.

Typically "people of color" refers to people with black skin, but why is this? Aren't brown, red and yellow colors too? Black is actually the absence of color, while white is the presence of all colors. If so, then the term "people of color" is really most accurately applicable to white people and/or pretty much everyone except for black people. Perhaps it's time we corrected this historical mistake and started calling black people 'non-colored' and everyone else 'colored'. This would actually be a terrible idea, since it would once again ostracize black people.

Anyway, I wasn't actually going anywhere with this. Just food for thought.

[1714920092]

1714920092

[1714920092]

1714920092

[1714920092]

1714920092

[1714920092]

1714920092

[saddampbuh]

white is the default starting point, the rest is coloured in, here is a picture to help you understand

[CoinCidental]

are you trying to say chinese people are not yellow ? 

[neoneros]

What strikes me is that the discussion is that Benedict said 'coloured' when he meant 'black', but he addressed the white dominance in brittish film, but not all minorities that are dominated by the white movie industrie are black, why should people be offended when called coloured when being called black is ok?

[Lethn]

The whole concept of race and racism is utterly moronic, speaking as an artist who is actually having to study skin tones etc. I can assure you 'white' people are not white and 'black' people are not black. Never mind the fact that single culturilism is dead and if you actually did DNA tests on all the people ranting about race constantly I guarantee you that 'white' people are going to have some variation of DNA in them that isn't what they think and the same goes for 'blacks' that hate anybody who isn't them.

Oh, just so we're clear, whites are actually extremely pale shades of pink or orange etc. and 'blacks' are extremely dark shades of brown.

http://imgs.inkfrog.com/pix/glade/HD_Glamour_0_5_color_chart.jpg

[CoinCidental]

The whole concept of race and racism is utterly moronic, speaking as an artist who is actually having to study skin tones etc. I can assure you 'white' people are not white and 'black' people are not black. Never mind the fact that single culturilism is dead and if you actually did DNA tests on all the people ranting about race constantly I guarantee you that 'white' people are going to have some variation of DNA in them that isn't what they think and the same goes for 'blacks' that hate anybody who isn't them.

Oh, just so we're clear, whites are actually extremely pale shades of pink or orange etc. and 'blacks' are extremely dark shades of brown.

http://imgs.inkfrog.com/pix/glade/HD_Glamour_0_5_color_chart.jpg

so what colour are asians ?

[(oYo)]

What strikes me is that the discussion is that Benedict said 'coloured' when he meant 'black', but he addressed the white dominance in brittish film, but not all minorities that are dominated by the white movie industrie are black, why should people be offended when called coloured when being called black is ok?

Actually, people who consider themselves to be politically correct will argue that people with black skin are African American not 'black'. I don't agree, since clearly not all people with black skin are from America or Africa. Political correctness has gotten way out of hand if you ask me. There are far too many SJW in internet land.

I don't identify people by their color normally, but if I were to trying identify one white guy amongst a group of "colored people" I would most likely say, "the white guy". Naturally if he were among other white people I'd try to find some other unique attribute and call him carrot top or neckbeard or "the dude in the pink shirt" instead. lol

Interestingly enough, I have never used or even heard anyone else use the term 'yellow guy' when referring to an Asian fellow or 'red man' when talking about a Native American Indian. Only recently have I heard 'brown' being used to identify East Indians, but usually it's been by other Indians.

Anyway, I don't see any harm in using colors to identify people (whose ethnicity eludes you) as long as you remain respectful.

[Lethn]

The whole concept of race and racism is utterly moronic, speaking as an artist who is actually having to study skin tones etc. I can assure you 'white' people are not white and 'black' people are not black. Never mind the fact that single culturilism is dead and if you actually did DNA tests on all the people ranting about race constantly I guarantee you that 'white' people are going to have some variation of DNA in them that isn't what they think and the same goes for 'blacks' that hate anybody who isn't them.

Oh, just so we're clear, whites are actually extremely pale shades of pink or orange etc. and 'blacks' are extremely dark shades of brown.

http://imgs.inkfrog.com/pix/glade/HD_Glamour_0_5_color_chart.jpg

so what colour are asians ?

pwned

[CoinCidental]

What strikes me is that the discussion is that Benedict said 'coloured' when he meant 'black', but he addressed the white dominance in brittish film, but not all minorities that are dominated by the white movie industrie are black, why should people be offended when called coloured when being called black is ok?

Actually, people who consider themselves to be politically correct will argue that people with black skin are African American not 'black'. I don't agree, since clearly not all people with black skin are from America or Africa. Political correctness has gotten way out of hand if you ask me. There are far too many SJW in internet land.

I don't identify people by their color normally, but if I were to trying identify one white guy amongst a group of "colored people" I would most likely say, "the white guy". Naturally if he were among other white people I'd try to find some other unique attribute and call him carrot top or neckbeard or "the dude in the pink shirt" instead. lol

Interestingly enough, I have never used or even heard anyone else use the term 'yellow guy' when referring to an Asian fellow or 'red man' when talking about a Native American Indian. Only recently have I heard 'brown' being used to identify East Indians, but usually it's been by other Indians.

Anyway, I don't see any harm in using colors to identify people (whose ethnicity eludes you) as long as you remain respectful.

chinese are yellow like  dehydrated urine ......

[CoinCidental]

The whole concept of race and racism is utterly moronic, speaking as an artist who is actually having to study skin tones etc. I can assure you 'white' people are not white and 'black' people are not black. Never mind the fact that single culturilism is dead and if you actually did DNA tests on all the people ranting about race constantly I guarantee you that 'white' people are going to have some variation of DNA in them that isn't what they think and the same goes for 'blacks' that hate anybody who isn't them.

Oh, just so we're clear, whites are actually extremely pale shades of pink or orange etc. and 'blacks' are extremely dark shades of brown.

http://imgs.inkfrog.com/pix/glade/HD_Glamour_0_5_color_chart.jpg

so what colour are asians ?

pwned

warm beige sounds like  the colour of something that needs flushed tbh ......

[Snail2]

so what colour are asians ?

What part of Asia? Mongols and ppl from syberia are whites. In south India you can find ppl with black (very dark brown) skin... and every possible shades in between the two as you go from the north to the south .

[CoinCidental]

so what colour are asians ?

What part of Asia? Mongols and ppl from syberia are whites. In south India you can find ppl with black (very dark brown) skin... and every possible shades in between the two as you go from the north to the south .

there are albino afghans in pakistan that look remarkably white for that part of the world ,not many of them but when you live there you will notice them for sure ,theres an exception to every rule .......

[jaysabi]

I don't think the controversy is about the semantics of color ('white' people literally being white vs. shades of whatever, or 'black' people literally being black) but about the culture of differences and the inherent privilege or hurdles that go with the perception of what color you are. That is, it doesn't matter that "people of color actually aren't" but it matters how they're perceived to be different from the class that has historically enjoyed the privileges of being militarily superior. (Europe colonized Africa, not the other way around, through military dominance.)

[BADecker]

The idea that blacks are people of color comes from the time of the Civil War.

The United States fought the War against the States of the south because the States of the south were going to secede. If they seceded, the U.S. government would lose the revenue they taxed from the southern States. They couldn't take the idea of revenue loss, so they fought the war to maintain their taxes.

The people wouldn't have backed the North if they knew it was over taxes. So the U.S. government had to provide a different reason. They deceived the people into thinking that it was over slavery. To make that deception real, they really had to completely act the part. The question was, what do we do with a bunch of freed slaves who had no "standing" because they were slaves?

The answer was to make them slaves of the government. They did it by enacting the 14th Amendment which makes people "citizens" (slaves) of the Federal Government. By rights, government can't force anyone to become slaves or citizens. But the 14th Amendment makes a way for it to be legal-like. Legal-like. Color of law. Looks like real law, but essentially isn't. Just has a "color" that looks similar to the lawful color. Color of law.

The citizens of the U.S. government under the 14th Amendment only have rights that the government allows them. Of course, they can fight for those rights, and often get them expanded - other times they might lose some.

Non-citizens, i.e. people, have unlimited rights. Anybody who wants to become a citizen of government (because he is deceived into thinking that he is better off letting government dictate what rights he has) can become such. He is such under color of law, because he always has the right to maintain his position as a human being outside of such citizenship.

Blacks (or anyone else) who don't know this, but become citizens of the U.S. Government, do so under color of law. Because blacks of civil war times were the first - they didn't have the knowledge of how to be free men - they became people of color.

These days, most of the rest of us live as 14th Amendment citizens of government as well. Most of us are unaware of how we can be non-citizens, and live as free people out from under the thumb of government and its taxes. The point here is, we are mostly all people of color. Listen to Bill Thornton at http://1215.org/, or Youtube search on his name.

Listen to Karl Lentz (Youtube search on Karl Lentz common law) to see the practical ways to use Bill's information. Karl is a little hard to understand at times, because most of the time he is throwing out information that works if the circumstances are exactly as he depicts them, while at the same time he is throwing it out in such a way that it might be able to be used when circumstances are not exactly as he describes. He will tell you right out at times, that you need to use his stuff with common sense, adapting it for the circumstances you happen to be in.

Youtube search on Richard Cornforth. You can find all about the laws you wished you knew (mostly court cases) that could set you free if only you knew they were there. Check his site at http://voidjudgments.com/.

The point is, we are all people of color... except for the few of us who have stepped out from under citizenship into freedom. The reason the term is applied to blacks is, the place the term was first used was with the "freed" slaves of the Civil War times. And most of them were black.

[fenghush]

We're all pink on the inside.

[BADecker]

We're all pink on the inside.

With regard to my above post, this doesn't have any meaning.

[fenghush]

We're all pink on the inside.

With regard to my above post, this doesn't have any meaning.

Nothing ever has meaning, everything is meaningless. We the people give meaning to any abstract context we conceive based on our beliefs, experiences and biases.

Separating people by colour, nation, believes, status etc is indeed meaningless. When you remove all barriers which we constructed, we're all fundamentally the same.

[BADecker]

We're all pink on the inside.

With regard to my above post, this doesn't have any meaning.

Nothing ever has meaning, everything is meaningless. We the people give meaning to any abstract context we conceive based on our beliefs, experiences and biases.

Separating people by colour, nation, believes, status etc is indeed meaningless. When you remove all barriers which we constructed, we're all fundamentally the same.

Yes, everything is ultimately meaningless. However, it is NEVER "you" who moves the barriers for me. It is always i who removes the barriers for me. Anyone can apply this to my post

In the U.S. and most of the other common law countries, if a man stands as himself in the court (not representing himself or represented by another - an attorney), he can rightfully demand to face his accuser, his accuser has to have been harmed or damaged, has to prove the harm or damage, has to swear that the accused was the one who did the harm or damage, has to have evidence linking the accused to the harm or damage, and has to have an impartial, third party witness saying that he/she witnessed the accused doing the harm or damage. Standard law. http://voidjudgments.com/

If the accused does the above, and if the accuser does not appear and get up on the stand and swear or affirm the wrongdoing (harm or damage), or if there is no impartial witness, or if the evidence can't be tied to the accused, either the accused is set free, or there is a jury trial.

If the jury is a fully informed jury, they will understand that they can judge both the facts and the law. That is, they can judge the guilt or innocence of the accused, and they can, also, judge the law to be right or wrong. If they judge the law in question to be wrong, it is automatically repealed in every following case that stands on their judgment.

But if you don't, as yourself apply it, then you have applied something else by default.

[1986]

It's not my intention to offend anyone or start a race war, but the recent Cumberbatch incident raises an interesting philosophical question.

This Cumberbatch situation was ridiculous. People should concentrate on real actual cases of racism rather than using some slightly outdated words.

[Dr. Pepper]

Typically "people of color" refers to people with black skin, but why is this? Aren't brown, red and yellow colors too? Black is actually the absence of color, while white is the presence of all colors. If so, then the term "people of color" is really most accurately applicable to white people and/or pretty much everyone except for black people. Perhaps it's time we corrected this historical mistake and started calling black people 'non-colored' and everyone else 'colored'. This would actually be a terrible idea, since it would once again ostracize black people.

Anyway, I wasn't actually going anywhere with this. Just food for thought.

Semantics. White people aren't white - they're more pink or peach. Black people aren't black - they're more shades of brown. I've never met any humans who were red or yellow either.