Can you tell me the difference between "People of color" and "Colored people?"
I know! One phrase has three words in it, the other has only two.
Just kidding. Actually, there isn't any. The latter is just watered down "fakespeak" used by those who try and state the obvious without offending the overly sensitive. Or become confrontational. Sort of like the way we're expected to call men who pretend to be women, women.
It's sorta' like "People of Journalism," as opposed to "Journalists." That "of" really doesn't belong as a modifier at all. Just forget it and go back to calling a spade a spade.
Oh wait! Can we still say that?
Think about it: We're all colored. Black people aren't Black. White people aren't White. Red people aren't Red. And Yellow people aren't yellow. They're each a lighter shade of those colors. Like me. I'm sort of a pinkish. In summer I can turn a nice deep tan if I desire. But not White.
Never White. You only turn White when you die.
You should know that when I was a kid, back during the Stone Age, Blacks were offended if you called them "Black." They wished to be call "Negroes." It was surely better than that other word they were often called, so I assume they picked the least offensive title possible. Like Italians were called "WOP's. And the Irish, like me, were called "Micks." And the Chinese were called "Chinks." There was no real offense intended. It was just a colorful convenience adopted to expedite conversation. By the less well educated among us. And then sometime later, somebody, perhaps Black folks, decided that they should be called "Black." Don't ask me. I wasn't in the room...
(BTW "WOP's" was short for "Without Papers." When Italians got off the boat in New York City, with no identifying paperwork, they were forced to display a sign on their shirts so signifying. Thought you'd like to know.)
My best friend while I was in the Army was a Black guy from Detroit. His name was Walter. He laughed everytime he called me "Chuck." For that was Black slang at the time for White guys. I think I was personally responsible for stopping its usage.
Why is there an entire month for gay people when there's only one day for two of our very best presidents? Isn't that sort of like "People of color?" Throwing a bone to the "others?" For their votes, perhaps? Helping to normalize those who embrace a different lifestyle that heretofore has not be recommended or accepted? How about we have a White Peoples Appreciation Month? No? Tell me why not! If it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander. Not wishing to dishonor geese, mind you. Just sayin.'
Why is there a National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, instead of the "NAAOPofC?" In fact, why is "Colored" still in the NAACP's name, when it's not politically correct to call a Colored person Colored? Shouldn't they take that out? And then change it to NAAOBP?
Better yet, why not just do away with the entire organization?
And why is there a Congressional Black Caucus on Capitol Hill? Is there a Congressional White Caucus? No. Because there's no need. They're all Congressweenies. I personanlly wouldn't wish to be seen with any of them. I'd rather take the next 525 people who walk into the Mall of America to replace them.
And why is there a Black Entertainment Channel? Isn't there some billionaire somewhere who'll start the White Entertainment Channel? If for no other reason than to make those who live to so segregate America cringe?
In fact, almost any professional society in the U. S. of A. has a Black subset. The "Black Undertakers of America." The "Black Journalists of America." The "Black Rodeo Cowboys of America." Seems to me they intentionally segregate themselves from the rest of us. Wouldn't you think they'd wish to assimilate?
And think about the fact that we used to award Black folks extra points on their college entrance exams and their Gubmint job applications. It was that way back during the LBJ years. To make up for the mistreatment their forebears suffered 400 years ago, I presume. Not kidding. We really did. 5 extra points could put you in the driver's seat of a postal worker's Jeep, and a lifetime career, leaving the equally qualified poor White guy jobless on the side of the road. Was that fair? Shouldn't those po' White folks now get reparations?
And remember when "Roots" was on TV waaaay back when? We were all, especially us White folks, supposed to watch all 7 nights of it. Just to make us feel guilty. Because Black people were enslaved centuries ago, I'm guessing. Long before you and I were born. Making it ancient history, unless there were those who wished the memory to remain divisive. The "Black Preachers of America," especially. To keep the wound open and festering, me thinks. Imagine how that must have made our Black friends feel back then? Like second class citizens, I'm guessing. Wishing it would finally be forgotten so they could blend in and lead normal lives as just plain old "Americans."
And now there's several Big Blue Cities that are planning to grant reparations to Blacks. My favorite is California, which never fails to screw stuff up. Several CA cities are planning to shovel money to Black folks, even though we were never a slave state. In fact, CA entered the Union in 1850. There were no slaves here, and no slave owners, either. But the Social Justice Warriors among us think it's A-Okay to use our tax money, yours and mine, to pander to Blacks.
For their votes, no doubt.
All you have to do here in CA is to "identify" as something, they tell us, and then you're that something. The Department of Health and Human Services tells us that only 3% of our population actually suffers from "Gender Dysphoria." But twice as many actually portray themselves that way. So I identify as Black, and also gay. And transgender, too. And I also further identify as a White Heterosexual Male on top of those other designators. So when the money starts flowing I'll be first in line. I also identify as a mezzo soprano astronaut archeoastronomer and rodeo clown. Just in case any of those identities get some free loot sometime in the future.
Biden picked Kamala as his V.P. because she was Black(ish)* and a woman. He actually said that foolishness out loud, in front of God and everybody. Proving himself to be a dimbulb. In fact, she was the only Democrat in shouting distance who was both Black(ish) and a female. Seems to me that choice was both distasteful and idiotic. The fact that she's both inept and dumb as a bag of rocks was shown in Technicolor on the national stage for everyone to see. Proving that identity politics has gone waaay to far.
Are there racists? Sure. There are also those who dislike Midgets. And pickpockets. And those stutter. But advertising our differences continues to feed their failings. We are a melting pot. Or should be. Perhaps it's time we actually became so.
So "color" me one who believes we should reward those who've proven themselves worthy of advancement with our votes and our donations (duh!). Not bcause of their gender. Or their race. Or their number of tatoos. Or whether they can juggle. Or how badly they can butcher a sentence, like Mzzz. Kamala. Will we do that? I think Conservatives already do. The Democrats?
No way, Jose....
* Mzzz. Kamala's mom is an Indian. Red dot, not "woo woo." And her dad is from the Dominican Republic. A Caribbean Islander. Whose forebears more than likely owned slaves. Nowhere near Black. Not even a Dark Brown. Nowhere near Africa, for either of them. Just setting the record straight...