[nullcaution]

French, PoC was originally a French term long ago, and was popularized again by MLK under a different context.

But beyond the history, which is interesting dont get me wrong, this is a moving goalpost. Once BIPOC becomes unacceptable, soon will its successor. All that matters is intent, I do not think _anyone_ here had the intent of disparaging any particular race, and to prejudicially think someone is using it that way counterproductive and regressive.

This isn't your form to rule.

[rayiner]

“BIPOC” labels people based on a hierarchy of perceived victimization by white people—with two specific groups given prominence as especially victimized. That’s a fucked way to come up with a label for people.

“BIPOC” people overwhelmingly don’t define their identity in terms of victimization by whites and don’t identify by that label. They identify instead with labels that reflect shared cultural, religious, national, or linguistic ties.

[nullcaution]

I think you are confusing the purpose and context of BIPOC. BIPOC is a broad and useful term used to discuss social topics that effect that group of people, that is also why it is an acronym, it's a broad classifier. I don't think anyone would ever identify as such directly.

For example, if we sat down and discussed my race, and you summarized it as just "Asian" that would be dismissive, there is much more detail to my identity. But using "Asian" to discuss issues regarding the larger demographic, like health matters and employment is probably prefectly fine, and more efficient that listing each ethicity individualy. Doing so would be ineffective and exhausting.

If you really believe using general terms such as BIPOC is inappropriate, then stop using "whites" in your language. Who are these whites? Sweedes? British? Germans?...

[rayiner]

> BIPOC is a broad and useful term used to discuss social topics that effect that group of people

It’s broad, but not useful. “BIPOC” encompasses everyone who isn’t white. Non-whites as a group don’t have much in common. For example, when it comes to “health” or “employment.” Asians live longer than whites and have better health outcomes in many respects. Asians are wealthier and poor Asians have far more income mobility than poor whites. Asians are half as likely to be shot by police and a third as likely to be incarcerated as whites. So when people talk about “BIPOC” with respect to economic inequality or criminal justice reform, it just doesn’t make sense as applied to Asians. Even with respect to Hispanics—they live longer than whites, and have equal income mobility and incarceration rates as whites. In terms of economics and health, Hispanics have much more in common with poor white immigrants (Italians, Irish) than other other “POC.”

I get the strong sense that “BIPOC” doesn’t arise out of a practical need for a label to discuss issues common to all non-whites, but instead the political desire to draw Hispanics and Asians into civil rights issues that uniquely effect black and indigenous people. That approach is not only insensitive to the actual interests of Hispanics and Asians, but contrary to those interests because, in reality, Hispanics and Asians have much more in common economically, etc., with other groups of immigrant origin (Italians, Irish, etc.) than they do with other “people of color.”