They use the term "people of color" a lot in the news over the last few years, but usually it is in the context of African-Americans. What makes the terms "people of color" different from "colored people" which is more derogatory? And isn't using a racial term that so directly emphasizes skin color a particularly divisive category? I'm a white guy and it just seems a bit offensive to call one or two groups of people "people of color" when all along I never thought of myself as albino. Aren't we all "people of color?" — TiredThinker

In summary:

"The more divided a population is, the greater and easier it is for the government to control the masses, as they are therefore much more busy hating eatch other than focusing their resentment on the real oppressor - aka, the State -."

Race today is yet another argument used to advance the political agenda of different parties.

Yes, "people of color" is a racist term, but that only becomes relevant when that term no longer favors the narration of such a group.

Current racism is as perverse as the Nazi era one.

Its only difference is that today, people justify their actions in supposed "good causes".

Reviewing it now, they don't look that different, do they?

Skin color is the result of melanin production. It is a real genetic trait and has long evolutionary history. There is nothing inherently insulting about it, and if someone feels insulted, that is more so the problem then the term itself.

I am Bulgarian. Thus I am East European. East Europe is a region with inferior institutional and socioeconomic development. Which is true. I wouldn't want anyone to be ashamed from referring to my origin, if they had to discuss those problems and bore no ill will. If they wanted to inquire about the aforementioned regional specifics, it would be most pertinent to make the proper reference.

I am a pale skinned caucasian. In the past I would have considered such reference to be a pretty good first approximation of my appearance. It is interpretative and blurry, but all designations are partly fuzzy and inherently discriminatory. If I say that I am a male, you have no idea if I am muscular or skinny, virile or effeminate, rugged or metrosexual. You may conclude that I am fetishizing my masculinity to the discredit of the female population, but I'm not. All group designations are divisive. But that doesn't mean that we should deprive language of its generalized categories.

I don't care about politics. I want to be respectful, but if I need to refer to certain groups of people, I would like to be able to do that. I don't need to tiptoe my way around the subject, in a "that of which we cannot talk" style, just because certain discriminators are additionally reinforced in socioeconomic correlations that are such a difficult problem for society that it needs to be shoved under the carpet.

I suppose you're right but such expressions as "people of color" are what I call linguistic relics i.e. they're remnants of past weltanschauungs that are now outdated. Their presence in the modern world is only indicative of a lack of better, less-prejudiced, expressions, phrases, or words or due to linguistic aspects like shelf-lifes of words, expressions, phrases which maybe determined by various factors none of which I can name as of the moment.

If you'll allow me to make a guess, the one factor that would effectively spell the end of a word, expression, or phrase, it would be when that word, expression, or phrase becomes meaningless; this is where people like you come in I suppose.

Back in 1968 when I started a new job, I referred to "colored people". One of the "black" teachers laughed and said "I haven't heard that phrase in years!" Later on, "people of color" came to include all colored people -- Blacks, Chicanos, Native Americans, Asians, Indians, Africans, Arabs, etc--everybody except "whites". Of course we aren't white like copy paper. We're pale, pinkish, or tannish--some times as tan as colored folk. Then there are African Americans, or Afro-Americans, and so on and so forth.

Aren't we all "people of color?" — TiredThinker

Absolutely we all are people of colour. It is even of how the media wants to categorized the people themselves. I am agree with you that it can be so offensive when an African is called "people of color" instead of saying black.
They are black. That's all. We have to call the people by their true names. I am Hispanic so yeah I am brown or "spaniard" but not a "guy of color" pretending I am so different from a white man.
Nevertheless, sometimes it is true how media, again, uses this terms. I. E. One gang of "black" people stole yesterday a store, etc... Why they use the black word in that news? It is literally pejorative. So I guess the solution of avoiding this kind of categories is stopping the fact of dividing people due to their races.

Of course we all have different skin colours. But this is what makes us unique. If I see a an African I'd call him black or African not "color person."
As if the word "black" is forbidden or something.

What makes the terms "people of color" different from "colored people" which is more derogatory? — TiredThinker

Though I've used the term, somewhat carelessly slipping into news speak from time to time, so to speak, I prefer Non-Whites or Non-White folks / citizens / communities (in the North American context). Otherwise, Out-group persons / communities is more generic and precise (re: e.g. Tutsis, Uighurs, Kurds, Israeli Sephardim, Chechins, etc ... in their respective national contexts.)

edit (thanks to Ciceronianus the White):

... Sicilians.

I prefer Non-Whites — 180 Proof

There are other problems inherent in defining groups only in opposition to another (in this case dominant) group.

In Dutch we use the words 'autochtoon' and 'allochtoon'. Which mean native and non-native respectively.
Yet in the media the word allochtoon usually refers to foreigners of certain countries causing societal problems. I think mainstream media like radio and television in the 21st century are the worst source of information. Negative brainwashing without filter. When you say such crap on the internet you won't get away with it. At least not in the Netherlands. That's my take on it

As EU citizen it hurts me to see the huge differences between our different nations. I do believe in Europe and the future of the EU. But in its current form it isn't really successful it seems. Perhaps in the future I want to move to Brussels, to see if I can make a political change there. Some people in North Western Europe actually do care about more than their own happiness

Yes of course we are all colored. 'White' people are light brown / pink. Even if they were technically white, white is also a color.

-----

Two Jewish folks had a dispute about this issue one day, and decided to ask their rabbi about it. They asked him: "Rabbi, is black a color?" The rabbi answered: "Yes of course, black is a color." One of the guys asked again: "Okay but is white a color?" Again the rabbi said "Yes, white is also a color".

Then the other guy said: "You see? I did sell you a color TV."

@TiredThinker
In review of some of the other responses, I want to clarify. Misuse of the term can always create the impression that it is a pejorative. it all depends on the context.

For example, as @javi2541997 remarked, few sensible people would qualify someone as "person of color" in direct interactions. But if some public outlet wanted to discuss the role of ethnic factors in the interaction with certain civic institutions, they might, if it was indeed appropriate, refer to them as "people of color". For example, in a discussion about the access to education. I wouldn't expect them to refer to someone in a specific personal story as being "of color". If indeed relevant, I would expect them to use Hispanic-, African-, Latino-, Asian- prefix, and then the national qualifier. As @Tom Storm also noted, saying "Non-Whites" might imply guilt ascription, so that might have to be similarly avoided.

What I am against is the idea that any skin color recognition is inherently racist and needs to be censored. That, in my opinion, even further cements the idea that skin color is a problem, and makes the issue worse then it is.

Perhaps; but it is germaine taxonomy with regard to political-economic and socio-cultural resistance to state-sanctioned oppression. After all, oppressors and their systems of control frame the terms – groupings – of opposition. In order to effectively fight your enemy you must name him (re: White Nationalists) and thereby rename yourself in contrast (re: Non-White Citizens et al). Problematic, no doubt, yet indispensable for strategic thinking in liberation-social justice struggles. (vide Sunzi, Spartacus, Toussaint L’Ouverture, Simon Bolivar, Errico Malatesta, Emiliano Zapata, Mahatma Gandhi, Franz Fanon, Ho Chi Minh ...)

In order to effectively fight your enemy you must name him (re: White Nationalists) and thereby rename yourself in contrast (re: Non-White Citizens et al). Problematic, no doubt, yet indispensable for strategic thinking in liberation-social justice struggles. — 180 Proof

There are also 'white' citizens who are not white supremacists. It seems counter-productive to mistake them for the enemy, if they aren't.

What I am against is the idea that any skin color recognition is inherently racist and needs to be censored. — simeonz

Skin color is only one tiny factor here, in classifying people between 'white' and 'black'. Otherwise most people on earth would be classified 'grey' or 'in-between' or something like that.

Your point escape me. If you're not one, then I'm not referring to you (or mistaking you for them), am I?

As EU citizen it hurts me to see the huge differences between our different nations. I do believe in Europe and the future of the EU. But in its current form it isn't really successful it seems. Perhaps in the future I want to move to Brussels, to see if I can make a political change there. Some people in North Western Europe actually do care about more than their own happiness — TaySan

People in developed nations want to keep their standards from being floored, which I can understand. The solution would require intricate maneuvers, because investment and labor markets are inherently adversarial. The issue will worsen with the advent of technological automation and there is another thread for this topic on the forum. But the EU states are experiencing political crisis on their own at the moment, and the overall global political situation is a fiasco, so it is unlikely to happen.

With all that being said, we are not entirely innocent.
About half of our citizenry hopes for the restoration of precedent political realities. Some feel entitled to portion of the tax from other sovereign states, while hoping that our country will divorce from its present political affiliations someday. You cannot play both sides against the center and expect to be loved by everyone.

Still, not all of the attitude towards my country is justified and there is some definite prejudice. I am glad that someone tries to remain open minded.

Well said.

Skin color is only one tiny factor here, in classifying people between 'white' and 'black'. Otherwise most people on earth would be classified 'grey' or 'in-between' or something like that. — Olivier5

The designation can be attached to many other notions implicitly present in the context. The color designation can allude to whatever statistical correlations between ethnicity and living background are involved for the purposes of the discussion. Such as in my example, when talking about the access to and benefit from education, connection might be implied to the social strata, the culture (or mirco-culture) of upbringing, even the early exposure to crime of the individual. But there is nothing inherently wrong with recognizing the color of the skin, or those correlations, as long as it not weaponized to diminish someone. I think that considering all skin tones as non-white is just an excuse to censor the mention of skin color and sidesteps how we use such terminology in practice. If I say that someone has bright eyes, I don't mean a particular CIE colorspace lightness that we use to specify all "bright colors". It is a comparative term.

Well, there has been a scandal where a number of Bulgarians committed fraud with Dutch welfare. A television crew then went to Bulgaria and asked why they did that. The people explained that they are very poor. Most people here understand that and have compassion. But our system cannot function if extensive fraud is committed, thus we had to act on it. Yes, the Netherlands is in a political crisis. Our government resigned and the prime minister declared that 'the whole system has failed'. Like German sociologist Max Weber's Iron Cage, our country is now being strangled by its own laws, rules and regulations. A problem inherent to democracy so it seems.

We are not really aware of the political situation in Bulgaria. Probably because, like you said, the entire world seems to be in a political crisis. US, Brazil, Iran, Africa, you name it. Not to mention China, where people who criticise the government just 'disappear'.

Well perhaps it could have been worse. We can talk freely here on the internet without having to be afraid to be imprisoned. And a lot of openminded people on this forum so it seems :)

But there is nothing inherently wrong with recognizing the color of the skin, or those correlations, as long as it not weaponized to diminish someone. — simeonz

It’s never actually measured objectively, though. It’s not like people’s actual skin color or melanine density in the epiderm was recorded by some optic device.

I mean to say that another possible way to define yourself in opposition to a ‘white’ racist is as anti-racist, rather than as ‘non-white’. I’d be worried about validating racial discourse.

I prefer to co-opt "racial discourse" by continuing to "define" myself an anti-racist – anti-fascist – Non-White citizen of the world.

Sure, if that works for you. Me, I'm a Non-Black anti-racist.

[...]

So you and your community are oppressed by a state and business apparatus controlled by Whites? If not, then wtf ...

So you and your community are oppressed by a state and business apparatus controlled by Whites? — 180 Proof

Where I live, the state and business apparatus is controlled by Italians, who I suppose are white, most of them in government anyway. Many Italians are casually racist (including between themselves, ie regional sentiments are strong) but the level of racial hatred is not as high as in the US. There isn't much history in terms of ideological racism in Italy; it's not engrained in politics like it is in many other places. Even Mussolini was not much of a racist.

Here the cops do not beat up people for the fun of it, like in the US, or France for that matter. So indeed, I am not feeling oppressed. When an Italian cop stops me, I don't fear for my life, even though I'm not Italian, and I realize that's a blessing.

Perhaps an abbreviation refering specifically to the racial groups that are being referred to?

Like how LGBTQ lumps a few groups under the same umbrella?

If the track-record of political correctness is any indication, this phrase will be deemed racist, discarded, and we'll be presented with another handy but inadequate phrase to describe a vastly diverse group of people. It's an absurd game, and It won't be long until "descendants of Ham" becomes vogue again.

Where I live, the state and business apparatus is controlled by Italians, who I suppose are white, most of them in government anyway. Many Italians are casually racist (including between themselves, ie regional sentiments are strong) but the level of racial hatred is not as high as in the US. There isn't much history in terms of ideological racism in Italy; it's not engrained in politics like it is in many other places. Even Mussolini was not much of a racist. — Olivier5

I'm of Italian descent (mostly), not Italian, but what you say rings true even among those of us whose ancestors came over to the U.S. Northern Italians dislike Southern Italians, Southern Italians look down upon those Italians further south, and all look down upon Sicilians. Those from Naples seem to hold a special place, judging from a phrase I've heard spoken since I was a child, "Va fa Napoli!", literally "Go to Naples!" but broadly meaning "Go to Hell!"

So, that kind of casual contempt carried well over the ocean, although being of Italian descent generally became a problem, thus resulting in insulting names of universal application, e.g. Guinea, Wop, Dago depending on where you live in America.

As opposed to being called "colored" versus not?

Northern Italians dislike Southern Italians, Southern Italians look down upon those Italians further south, and all look down upon Sicilians. — Ciceronianus the White

Yes. Italians had no colonial empire but Sicily and Sardinia were treated as colonies, with their inhabitant considered to be of African descent or admixture, and therefore atavic, inferior, almost bestial.

We're all the negro of someone.