HorsesAss.Org » Blog Archive » Open Thread: "People of Color … a Racist Term Worthy of South Africa
SJ believes that the term “people of color” ought to be dropped because it is a racist term that castigates Europeans while placing a very divers group of humans in some sort of protected status. In other words, POC is an apartheid term.
What is that term supposed to mean?
definition 1
POC are people descended from America’s racist history? I would include any of the descendants of slaves, Amerinds (including Mexican and Puerto Rican), Filipinos, and Aleuts appearance.
This, definition, however, leaves out lots of descendants who have a totally European appearance. Are these “people of color?” How do you determine from someone’s color, who their ancestors or and where those ancestors lived? Such determinations have been made historically by legal test under Nuremberg and S. African law.
How does one deal with the term when the person being referred to is culturally a member of one of the descendant communities but has a “white” appearance? Eric Holder, the current Attorney General, could easily pass for a Greek, Italian or Spaniard. Does he lose his POCness because of his skin color?
definition 2
Perhaps POC refers to people not descended for the European light skinned folks who have dominated world politics for the lats five centuries?
This broader definition includes Koreans, Nigerians, Hindus, Arabs, Iranians, Australian Aborigines, Chinese, etc … Arguably the folks the Euroes have treated badly can be identified this way.
That is an awful lot of POC!
Of course this definition would leave out Hispanics of European origins, including many Mexicans and Puerto Ricans who certainly have suffered prejudice here.
Try telling the Irish that they have not suffered under the racist hands of the Brits. Or tell it to the Oakies and Hillbillies who now have suffered generations of prejudice form the mainstream of American culture.
Also, should the American idea of POC include groups we Americans have not encountered before? There are, after all many affluent American groups who are POC but have little or no history of prejudice, .. Iranians, Hindues, Koreans, etc. Our half Kenyan President comes from an area of Africa that has had little to do with the slave trade and mainly positive interactions with the US since WW II.
How about Jews? Are we POC?
************************************************
It seems to me that POC ought to be restricted to those ethnic groups that have a record of being racially discriminated against by the US. Those groups are not hard to enumerate: Native American Indians (including Mexican and Puerto Rican), African Americans, and Filipino-Americans. Every one of these groups have been treated as a “race” and people from thsoe groups have been deprived ont heir rights simply because they either looked a certain way or were known to be part of one of these communities.
This definition is hardly complete.
POC, defined this way, leaves out “white folks” who have been treated with prejudice as well … spik, kike, polak, and rag head are as racist in meaning as nigger or slant eye. But, members of all these groups have a huge advantage in being able to pass for “white” and none of these has suffered the severity or the generations of bigotry that affect, for example, African Americans.
Recently a rather privileged African bought an enormous estate in Malibu. Does he belong to the same minority as Michelle Obama or her husband just because of his skin? We now have growing immigrant communities form the Indian Subcontinent. These people bring great cultures to the US but why would their Indo-European cultures be treated differently than
Jewish or Irish cultural contriobutions to the US?
What a mess!"
Here is the beginning of my post. And here is the rest of it.
[ Read Full Story ]
Sunil Aggarwal, a UW MD PhD student is arguing that inhaled marjuana is aafe.
First, let me state again that no responsible scientist is going to advocate inhaling mj smoke given the simple fact that mj smoke has a very high content of known carcinogens.
Tashkin’s study is a good study. So how does one account for Tashkin’s study? Could there be some surprise in inhaled MJ, something wonderful that prevents cancer? The answer is yes, but …
The but is part of the basic tools of modern science. Tashkin’s study does not prove that mj is safe and certainly did not “prove” that it prevents cancer. No association analysis can prove a specific hypothesis.
I would hope, given Sunil’s PhD in the social sciences that he would have taken a course in causal analysis? For those who might care, the difference between causal analysis and association is HUGE.
For example, studies have shown that children of parents with hi IQ do better on exams. This association s valid but not causal because IQ scores are confounded by other variables, eg inherited wealth. When there is a surprising association, good scientists never decide on causality, they design hypothesis testing experiments to determine if the surprise is correct.
Justifying such studies is difficult because they are very expensive. A friend of mine owns and runs a drug company that exploits traditional Chinese medicine t find new drugs. Perhaps Sunil would like to try t convince that company to spend money on marijuana?
Sunil would have trouble convincing my friend t spend this money because there is so much evidence that inhaled mj SHOULD cause cancer. Sunil, however, is devoted to the naturopathic idea that complex extracts from plants, have better therapeutic outcomes than the effects of pure ingredients. This would be similar to Lilly saying it is no longer going to sell “pure” insulin because there is some other useful ingredient in pig pancreatic extract. As a diabetic patient, I am very glad that genetic engineering now allows Lilly to synthesize pure insulin.
For now let me point out that nothing in Tashkin’s study suggests that such a wonderful effect is due to the properties of marijuana. Suggesting that folks be encouraged to inhale benzpyrene, one of the carcinogens in mj smoke, is irresponsible and forcing children to do so at Hempfest may be a criminal act.
Cross Posted at SJ