Please
note the quotation marks in the title. I hate the expression, not the people. I
hate it because it is illogical, ungrammatical, and reminiscent of the South
African apartheid regime’s race classification system.
Furthermore, we don’t say “a rose of red.” We say “a red rose.” So why say “people of color” instead of “colored people”? And why does the former include non-African-Americans while the latter does not?
Logically, the existence of people of color implies that there are people who have no color. But wouldn’t that make them invisible? On the other hand, true white is a blend of all the colors of the rainbow, while true black is true lack of color. Why, then, are black-skin people called colored people or people of color while white-skin people are not? It would be more accurate to call whites people of color.
When the book was published almost 30 years ago it was strongly praised by responsible health experts and the rare responsible media, but trashed by new-age critics and even vandalized in bookstores by new-age fanatics. It is as true and relevant as ever, and has been mostly vindicated by time. Yet my courageous and far-sighted publisher, the venerable Prometheus Books, is still sitting on lots of copies. Please help validate their integrity by buying a copy. Or two or more as gifts. Perhaps 10 for your local school library and health classes. See their website for assorted discounts. Make them an offer. (My royalties are insignificant; this little promo is for the benefit of one of the world's great publishers, Prometheus Books.)
Maui's future foretold: Barbarians In Paradise -- Terror Comes to Maui. This is a prophetic flash novel about a future police state and those who rebel against it. Available in paperback and ebook at Amazon.com.
Traditionally
African-Americans were called colored people or Negroes. These were the polite
terms, while racists used other, hateful words. The NAACP still refers to its constituents
as colored people, but in the 1960s the term started to fall out of favor as
many preferred to be called black or African-American. The words “colored” and “negro”
came to be considered almost derogatory, though the NAACP did not change its
name.
Then, in 1963,
Martin Luther King, Jr. made a reference in a speech to “people of color”
rather than “colored people.” From the context it is clear he was referring not
just to African-Americans but to all people who have been historically
oppressed by people of European ancestry. The expression has steadily gained
currency and is now widely used by journalists, academics, politicians and the
media. There was never a discussion or debate about this; it just happened.
King
was a great speaker and a master of the language, but I believe he made a
mistake coining this expression. It raises too many questions and becomes a
distraction. It is not clearly defined, but implies a binary system with two identifiable
groups, people who are of color and people who are not of color. Whatever “of
color” means, this is not the real world. Furthermore, we don’t say “a rose of red.” We say “a red rose.” So why say “people of color” instead of “colored people”? And why does the former include non-African-Americans while the latter does not?
Logically, the existence of people of color implies that there are people who have no color. But wouldn’t that make them invisible? On the other hand, true white is a blend of all the colors of the rainbow, while true black is true lack of color. Why, then, are black-skin people called colored people or people of color while white-skin people are not? It would be more accurate to call whites people of color.
In
reality, the skins of so-called black people are on a vast spectrum from light
brown to very dark brown to almost black. The skins of so-called white people
are on a vast spectrum from pink to very light brown to dark brown. The colors
of these two groups overlap in a vast middle.
As
a group, people of color far outnumber those known as colored people which, in
the US, includes only African-Americans. King’s use of the term to include all
historically oppressed people, even though many have skin color similar to that
of Europeans, leads to confusion.
Now
some people use the term “people of color” for all non-Europeans, whether
historically oppressed or not and whether light-skinned or dark. Most Asians,
Jews and Irish have light skin. It is illogical to call them people of color simply
because some of them endured oppression. On the other hand, it could be argued
from the physics of light that light-skin people are the real people of color.
See
what I mean about inconsistencies and ambiguities? This is why I avoid using
the term “people of color” and I cringe a little when others use it. Besides, we
need to get away from the obsession with skin color. It is literally the
shallowest of all human features, the least meaningful and the least important.
Let's try to come up with more accurate and meaningful terms for groups of people.
Links to all my blogs: www.KurtButlerBlogs.blogspot.com.
For more detailed critiques of various forms of quackery, including naturopathy, see my book A Consumer’s Guide to “Alternative Medicine”. It was expertly edited by legendary quack buster Stephen Barrett, MD. The critics say:
"Superb!" -- Dr. Victor Herbert in the New England Journal of Medicine.
"Excellent" -- National Council Against Health Fraud.
"Five Stars" -- Cooking Light.
"Thought provoking; a great book" -- American Journal of Health Promotion.
Maui's future foretold: Barbarians In Paradise -- Terror Comes to Maui. This is a prophetic flash novel about a future police state and those who rebel against it. Available in paperback and ebook at Amazon.com.
