> The fact that any given white person, such as you, may not have
> "done" many or any racist things doesn't get rid of the fact that you have
> skin color privileges for your tannish pink hue and that it is termed
> "white" because some other , old white people named themselves and you
> "white". I mean if you are not white,in this conventional sense. , you are
> playing games by not saying so. (The fact that in naming themselves and
you
> "white" they weren't precise is very irrelevant to the current social
> significance of skin "color". It's a diversion from serious discussion to
> get into it).
I was raised by and around several racist relatives, so I'm aware of the disease and the privileges that come with it. As Martin Amis put it, I'm less racist than my parents, and my kids are less racist than me, and hopefully their kids will be less so, and so on. There's no instant formula for us tannish pink types, and I don't trust any pwoggie ofay who says that he or she is free of the contagion. No such thing. By the same measure, the use of pigment as a weapon is hardly limited to the tan-pinks. The poison affects us all. (Yes, there's the power difference, but that, in my view, is more class-based than skin-based, though skin does have its uses, mostly bad.) My point is, either we are human or we are not, and this casual "race" baiting which some lefties engage in begs more questions than it answers.
> Colored People ( as in NAACP) is a term pre-1960's. Then in the U.S. it
was
> used to refer to Negroes mainly.
>
> People of Color is sort of post70's. It includes African Americans and
> pretty much all other non-Europeans or non-whites.
I still don't see the difference -- Colored People/People of Color. Either both are offensive or both are fine. I say the former.
DP