No. Most of the population is white. What is wrong with you people?
White people are only something like 10% of the world population.
Is BIPOC just a way to say POC while excluding Asians?
-
How do we tell which hispanics are of color and which are wht? Are we going by skin color or Spanishy surname or what?
What is wrong with you people? Where are you coming from? This is 101 in the literature and entry level SRE courses.
Self-ID and indigenous heritage.How do you measure indigenous heritage? You do their genealogies or just eyeball based on skin color?
-
There is clearly no reason to add the "BI" to POC unless you are trying to subset POC. That's how modifiers work.
So if we consider POC to include Asians, non-white latinos/latinas, blacks, and Native Americans/indigenous people, then who is getting modified out of the POC umbrella?
Everyone knows the answer. Well, they past-tense knew, until people pointed out this is incredibly reductive, particularly after the whole protect AAPI people thing. So now people do backflips to pretend it means BI & POC, which again is setting BI apart in addition to being redundant.
It's a bad term. People should take the L for ever trying to make it a thing.
-
"You are first agreeing that POC includes Black and Indigenous (saying "Exactly."), yet then you immediately say that POC is a group "other than" Black and Indigenous, namely Asians and Latinos?"
There's no contradiction here. Reeeaaaaad.You said:
1. POC definitely includes Black and Indigenous people.
2. However, BIPOC as an acronym is necessary, because POC refers to a group separate from Black and Indigenous people, namely Asians and Latinos.That's literally the most direct contradiction possible.
-
It's Black, Indigenous, & People of Color
That's pretty much the entire population then.
No. Most of the population is white. What is wrong with you people?
Wht is a color, genius. You a color-bli/nd ra.cist or something?It’s a reference to historical terminology. Goodness these guys are more dense than usual.
-
There is clearly no reason to add the "BI" to POC unless you are trying to subset POC. That's how modifiers work.
So if we consider POC to include Asians, non-white latinos/latinas, blacks, and Native Americans/indigenous people, then who is getting modified out of the POC umbrella?
Everyone knows the answer. Well, they past-tense knew, until people pointed out this is incredibly reductive, particularly after the whole protect AAPI people thing. So now people do backflips to pretend it means BI & POC, which again is setting BI apart in addition to being redundant.
It's a bad term. People should take the L for ever trying to make it a thing.There is clearly no reason to add the POC if the BIA was comprehensive. Which is why the term unambiguously
included Asians as early as 2013, as did POC long prior.Take the L. You a bad job at challenging sociologists.
-
"You are first agreeing that POC includes Black and Indigenous (saying "Exactly."), yet then you immediately say that POC is a group "other than" Black and Indigenous, namely Asians and Latinos?"
There's no contradiction here. Reeeaaaaad.
You said:
1. POC definitely includes Black and Indigenous people.
2. However, BIPOC as an acronym is necessary, because POC refers to a group separate from Black and Indigenous people, namely Asians and Latinos.
That's literally the most direct contradiction possible.The only contradiction is the self-contradiction 2. creates for your argument ;-)
-
^ You're making no sense. Also, most "sociologists" do not use terms like this, it's only the subset who live on twitter. Your subliterate crowd does not represent the discipline.
Are Black and Indigenous considered People of Color? Yes or no.
If they are a subset within People of Color, how are you claiming that BIPOC is not automatically a redundant term?Logic is not your strong-suit, and you never got around to auditing that undergrad PHI course?
-
It's Black, Indigenous, & People of Color
That's pretty much the entire population then.
No. Most of the population is white. What is wrong with you people?
Wht is a color, genius. You a color-bli/nd ra.cist or something?
It�s a reference to historical terminology. Goodness these guys are more dense than usual.So the goal is to reinforce historical essentialism and particularism? Why?
-
^ You're making no sense. Also, most "sociologists" do not use terms like this, it's only the subset who live on twitter. Your subliterate crowd does not represent the discipline.
Are Black and Indigenous considered People of Color? Yes or no.
If they are a subset within People of Color, how are you claiming that BIPOC is not automatically a redundant term?
Logic is not your strong-suit, and you never got around to auditing that undergrad PHI course?It’s just as much of a redundant term for you. That’s the problem with your non-sequiture argued from redundancy.
Alright, show me an authoritative citation from sociology that explicitly excludes AAPI from BIPOC.
-
There is clearly no reason to add the POC if the BIA was comprehensive. Which is why the term unambiguously
included Asians as early as 2013, as did POC long prior.
Take the L. You a bad job at challenging sociologists.If you are defending this term, and I ask this with all sincerity, can you answer these two questions:
Is there any person or identity that is included in BIPOC that is not included in POC by any normal person?
Is there a semantic gain to using the term BIPOC instead of POC?
I'm just not seeing it.
-
The only contradiction is the self-contradiction 2. creates for your argument ;-)
You are simultaneously claiming that POC includes Black and Indigenous people while at the same time it doesn't. I can't tell whether you're trolling in a performative way to mock wokesters here by deliberately making no sense at all.
"Black, Indigenous, and People of Color" necessarily implies Black and Indigenous are not People of Color -- otherwise it's linguistically nonsensical to separate them in process of creating a new acronym.
It's like if I created an acronym for Abrahamic religions that was like CJAR -- "Catholicism, Judaism, and Abrahamic religions," which wouldn't make any sense since Catholicism and Judaism are already directly signified by the term "Abrahamic religions." If Black and Indigenous people are already signified by POC, which no one is denying (I think?), then anyone above a 9th grade reading level (maybe not including you) would understand the term BIPOC is nonsensical. BIPOC appears to be elevating two out of four groups while demoting the other two -- in addition to being redundant would be a statement dehumanizing to others (such as Asian victims of hate crimes by others in the identity-coalition).
-
The kitchen sink routine. I�ll take this one point at a time. Let�s see the citation. You made a bold claim about the field. Back it up or admit you�re bluffing.
You're making a bold claim that all "sociologists" are subliterate wokesters who go around throwing around terms like "Latinx" and "BIPOC." The vast majority of sociologists do not use these terms, and anyone who uses these terms is really not going to be a credible scholar. No one in the real world uses these terms. It's just twitter activists, a small subset of whom are unfortunately occupying positions in academia as a result of affirmative action.