Questions about the definitions of words

[megwrites]

One of the questions I've had during Racefail09 and since I've been following 50books_poc is something that I'm not sure where or how to ask, but I figure since I'm at a loose end, I'll just go ahead and ask it.



Who counts as a Person of Color? I realize that there are some rather clueless folks who, in not getting it, will say that we're all people of color and that this whole race thing is silly and why are we still talking about it?

But I'm not trying to ask that, because I definitely believe that PoC is a legitimate term (however problematic it might be in some contexts) and that we need to have a way to discuss race (especially in America and the SF/F genre) and words to describe the people, groups, and racism that's going on.

What I'm trying to ask, without being hurtful or clueless: who counts as white or non-PoC and who counts as PoC? And does that definition change by national borders?

For example, let's say there's a person who had one grandparent who was a PoC, but all their other grandparents were white. Are they white, or are they a PoC? After all, it would mean one of their parents was mixed race, after all. What's the deciding factor in it? Is it whether they look white or get treated white (and yes, you totally do get "treated white")? Is it self-identification?

I have to confess feelings of deep discomfort in talking about it like that, because it brings up rather horrible images of the eugenics charts the Nazis used to draw up to determine your amount of Jewishness and whether your lineage qualified you to exist or not. *shudders*. And I think I'd rather throw myself off a building than to be part of something like that

I also wonder how useful using the term "PoC" is when speaking outside of the context of the United States. Because the category and words used to describe people who are clearly on the receiving end of prejudice and racism here in the USA may not be useful in other countries. Especially since what counts as a PoC and a minority here in America may be the mainstream majority in another country.

I think it is a question worth asking, if only to make sure that the definitions of "Person of Color" and "non-white" and the other phrases we're using are not hurting the very folks that they're intended to define. I've seen comments, blogs, and other essays by PoC who very beautifully express that even the words "person of color" or "non-white" can be hurtful, and above all else, my intention is to make sure that at the very least, I'm not hurting the very people I intend to support and be an ally to.

I'd really appreciate people's thoughts, but I'd really appreciate it also if people didn't come just to argue or to be deliberately unhelpful. I'd also appreciate it if there were no cookies. If you think I'm deep and meaningful and doing a good thing, then, um, good for you, I guess, but I'm more interesting in learning than getting pats on the back.

If you want to hand out pats on the back and praise and support, I suggest going to verb_noire and asking what you can do for them, or buying books from your favorite authors of color, or checking out the many, many links that rydra_wong has compiled on this issue and finding the many excellent things said by the fans, writers, bloggers, and wonderful human beings of color who have spoken out on these issues and put up with so much and spoken so much truth.

Because they are long overdue for recognition and support, and I can honestly say I've had far more than my fair share in life.

Comments

[takumashii.livejournal.com]

I wonder if you can make an analogy with sexuality that's the least bit useful. Categorizing people as gay and straight and bisexual is very specific to the West after the 19th century, and it doesn't really work to say "Shakespeare was gay," but we can look at his sonnets within the context of a class on same-sex desire in premodern literature. I don't want to get hung up too much on putting a dividing line between those who are "in" and those who are "out," when maybe the real question is whether their works and their lives and their identities can illuminate the questions we're trying to look at. But that's not necessarily a good answer either if people try to argue that To Kill a Mockingbird "counts" more than a standard-issue fantasy novel by a Japanese writer.

About being the mainstream majority in one's own country, I don't know. I feel like I did have some aspects of white privilege when I was living in Japan; it's a privilege if people think you're adorable when you make mistakes. It's a privilege if people think that you come from a glamorous society. And I certainly don't feel like Brazilian immigrants to Japan got those same privileges at all. Even as I didn't have 'majority race' privilege, I did have 'high-status-native-country' privilege.

I think there are at least two reasons to read writers of color specifically because they're writers of color: firstly because the experience of being Asian-American, or African-American, or Haitian or Indian or Egyptian is underrepresented (especially if you read books marketed at American science fiction readers). And secondly because the experience of being discriminated against for being those things is underrepresented. And I feel that it's important to read books that address the first even if they don't address the second because the characters don't face a lack of racial privilege.

[fiction-theory.livejournal.com]

I wonder if you can make an analogy with sexuality that's the least bit useful.

I don't know if the sexuality analogy is useful. The thing is? While, no, you can't say Shakespeare is gay from the sonnets he wrote, since there was a social context for love between men which was not considered homosexual, but even the Elizabethans had a clear concept of men who had sex with other men, and a concept of homosexuality (even just as a sexual deviance and sin), heterosexuality, and even bisexuality. And there are clear examples of people who were known to be homosexual because they had sex with people of the same gender and were identified as such, separate from any socially acceptable sonnet writing.

Not to mention that the Elizabethans were aware of the homoerotic implications of such poetry as well.

Sorry to pick apart your example, but I think both historically speaking and speaking in the context of race, it is a bit problematic. But I thank you for saying it.

The problem with making sexuality to race analogies is that sexuality is not like race, in that a person can more easily disguise their sexuality than their race. Race is an identifier which is both personal and social. A person can identify as one race and yet continue to be called another by people who come across them. For instance, people of mixed heritages may find that, for instance, even though they had a parent who was white and one who was black, they are called "black" because of physical attributes, even though they identify as bi-racial.

And since race is a label that is often put on a person by society, I'm wondering where the boundaries are, and what it is that makes a person a "person of color" as opposed to "white". It's a bit like asking for the definition of pornography I feel. It seems like we know it when we see it, but the minute we lay down terms, something comes along to prove us wrong.

I feel like I did have some aspects of white privilege when I was living in Japan

That's something else, and I'm glad you brought it up. Because while white privilege is an undeniable fact of life in America, I'm not at all sure how far beyond our own borders it extends. And hearing whether that privilege extends into other countries is something I think we really need to talk about. Frankly, I'm a little worried by how America-centric a lot of the discussions of race have been, as though America is the only country in the world where racism exists or needs rooting out. I think by understanding racism in a larger, global context, we stand a better chance of getting rid of it in America.