A:

I guess the best way for me to answer that question is to say I think the term people of color is really dishonest, as it simultaneously conflates and elides the myriad ways “people of color” experience white oppression. So although I understand the seemingly progressive impulse to unite folks under this umbrella term, the phrase just feels really imprecise to me, and I think the already anemic language we have around race/culture/etc. needs to be exact. 

A black person, for example, might get racially profiled for driving a Benz, but is that person going to have to prove US citizenship when the police officer taps on the window?

Or, if this same black person is born of black parents native to the US and attends an elite institution such as Harvard, then her experience is probably more notable and quite different than, say, that of her first-generation schoolmate whose parents come from Nigeria. I think those distinctions are imperative, but they get lost when we employ people of color as some kind of unifying term. It allows the privileges that many receive in spite—or even because—of skin color, accent, etc. to become obscured. In fact, I think to actively identify as PoC allows many to conveniently deny the privilege they have. Stereotyping is not good, but I think there’s an incredible difference between people assuming you’re a doctor and people assuming you’re a drug dealer. When we abandon specificity we prevent these distinctions from coming to the fore.

Furthermore, since the term, I guess, technically describes all non-white people, we have to assume, on some level, that we all experience white oppression similarly. And that’s just not true. Sure, there are commonalities, but not enough, for me at least, to embrace the term. To add, I think employing PoC implicitly reifies whiteness as the default position, that thing we’re always juxtaposing. It’s very “us vs. them.” And I think it important to disrupt that inclination to center whiteness when attempting to understand what we experience because of it.

Mostly, though, I think it’s really nice-sounding semantics that isn’t very useful. I prefer my language delineating such issues to be sharper and less soft and flowery.

I hope that answers your question.