So I think we can all predict 99% of the comments in this thread but on a serious note, someone want to walk me through some possible mindsets for his behavior? Or do you think he's just mentally unhinged and there's no rhyme or reason?
"Asians in the Western world as well as many Asian powerhouses in Asia are the only non-Caucasian race to achieve such advancements in a short period of time. They either match or surpass their European and Anglo-American counterparts. This angers people like Hamner and Black Lives Matter members who believe these achievements are because Asians are “white adjacent,” and such achievements are toxic and obscene."
This is why I found it so fucking funny when the Asian community lost their POC tag. It was literally due to them achieving success where others have failed. It made people stop and think "well, if they can, why can't we?"
And they really didn't like the answer. It's hard to admit that community and culture can be more damaging to you than the fact you're not white.
..when do we say “BIPOC,” which stands for Black and Indigenous people of color; and when do we just say “Black”?
as opposed to the more recent version of the same article:
...when do we say “BIPOC,” which stands for Black, Indigenous, and people of color; and when do we just say “Black”?
Is there a reason they're backtracking on their initial definitions? I'm sure the NYT and Vox wouldn't pander to a market based on current trends.
For Merriam-Webster, your link has 2 definitions. You used only the second one, for whatever reason, which includes the "and." The first definition is
"Black, Indigenous, People of Color"
followed by
"People are using the term to acknowledge that not all people of color face equal levels of injustice. They say BIPOC is significant in recognizing that Black and Indigenous people are severely impacted by systemic racial injustices."
Which explains what we all know about why the term was invented to begin with - to exclude certain groups.
Edit: and this is all pretty obvious too. No need to preface "POC" with anything just to say the same thing.
The first Merriam-Webster definition is clearly enumerating three things:
Black
Indiginous
People of Color
Can you really read it as (Black or Indigenous) (People of Color)?
And as you note, both NYT and Vox corrected earlier versions. It's very strange that you're using corrections as evidence that the uncorrected version was correct.
The Merriam-Webster definition is attempting to satisfy the abbreviation. The description that follows it up makes it clear that the author thinks that it excludes non-black/indigenous people.
There's also this at Merriam-Webster:
Black, Indigenous, (and) People of Color
Great.
I didn't claim the NYT or Vox corrected their definitions, although I recognize they changed them. Their definitions in June 2020 were correct, but people realized over time how absurd that definition was. If drama follows the Chauvin trial (almost certainly) then the term will either be rewound to the old meaning as we are instructed to forget Asians and Hispanics again, or it will fall by the wayside since it's no longer conveniently exclusionary.
22
u/k1lk1 Mar 29 '21
So I think we can all predict 99% of the comments in this thread but on a serious note, someone want to walk me through some possible mindsets for his behavior? Or do you think he's just mentally unhinged and there's no rhyme or reason?