Correct me please, but as best I can tell, when British news sources talk about their new Prime Minister they usually say that he is “of Indian descent.” American sources often describe him as “a person of color.”
Which is better?
Our mode of speaking groups him with African-Americans, Latinax, Chinese, Japanese, people indigenous to this land, et al. . The British phrasing evokes British colonial rule, the Raj, and the migrations after the division of the subcontinent in 1947. and the experience of those who then migrated to Britain and elsewhere. .
If you were Mr. Sunak, which label would you prefer? Which tells us more about him?
Our way of identifying him reinforces the widespread American pattern of thinking about difference in a bipolar way – all whites on one side, all “people of color” grouped together on the other. In my view, that’s racism rampant.
It also raises some important political questions,, for it assumes that all “people of color” will respond in the same way on various issues, and react the same way to candidates. Does this assumption underestimate the diversity of interests and views among various groups in this very diverse country? Is it really the key to successful coalition building? Will it continue to work, as more and more communities become “majority minority”? Or will the uncritical use of such e terminology obscures the genuine and legitimate differences among American population groups? If so, it will likely become less and less useful as more and more communities become “majority minority.”
This may exaggerate the importance of a phrase that well-intentioned people used merely for convenience’s sake. But we philologists, for better or for worse, have the habit of focusing on small variations in language and then attributing big consequences to them.
Time will tell.
Which is better?
Our mode of speaking groups him with African-Americans, Latinax, Chinese, Japanese, people indigenous to this land, et al. . The British phrasing evokes British colonial rule, the Raj, and the migrations after the division of the subcontinent in 1947. and the experience of those who then migrated to Britain and elsewhere. .
If you were Mr. Sunak, which label would you prefer? Which tells us more about him?
Our way of identifying him reinforces the widespread American pattern of thinking about difference in a bipolar way – all whites on one side, all “people of color” grouped together on the other. In my view, that’s racism rampant.
It also raises some important political questions,, for it assumes that all “people of color” will respond in the same way on various issues, and react the same way to candidates. Does this assumption underestimate the diversity of interests and views among various groups in this very diverse country? Is it really the key to successful coalition building? Will it continue to work, as more and more communities become “majority minority”? Or will the uncritical use of such e terminology obscures the genuine and legitimate differences among American population groups? If so, it will likely become less and less useful as more and more communities become “majority minority.”
This may exaggerate the importance of a phrase that well-intentioned people used merely for convenience’s sake. But we philologists, for better or for worse, have the habit of focusing on small variations in language and then attributing big consequences to them.
Time will tell.