The phrase ‘people of color’ does not make scientific sense

Currently, there is a significant debate surrounding Critical Race Theory (CRT), an academic construct that scrutinizes race and racism. It's a complex subject, yet proponents of CRT associate animal welfare—or the absence thereof—with their theories. Consequently, discussing race, racism, and CRT indirectly involves a discussion on animal welfare, which underscores its relevance to this website. In upcoming articles, I plan to explore CRT within the realm of animal welfare, as it presents a fascinating and crucial topic that bridges human culture and animal welfare.

This is a cross-post. Why? Because Google is ignoring the other post. 😻😉💕

Image: MikeB

This morning, I'd like to address a concern that has been on my mind for some time: the term "people of colour" preferred by some black individuals. It's a term that gently encompasses all black people, and there are those who advocate for its use. However, there is no consensus among black people for the term "people of colour," even though it is inclusive and recognizes the common experiences of racial discrimination shared with other non-white races.

While "black" is an appropriate term, "people of colour" may better represent the heritage and cultural background of some individuals. The term "black" focuses on skin colour, while "people of colour" places emphasis on the individual first.

Despite this, the phrase "people of colour" has its critics. It has been criticized for being too general, grouping together a wide array of cultures, and defining people by what they are not (white), which can be seen as a form of "othering." Some black individuals prefer the term "black," which is considered acceptable today, even though there has been a trend towards using "people of colour."

Science versus culture

Now, onto the scientific aspect. I'm examining the physics of the colors white and black. There's a notable discrepancy between these physical properties and the aforementioned phrase. This discrepancy is somewhat troubling as it suggests a discord between science and culture, whereas I would expect harmony between the two. Science is universally applicable, regardless of cultural background.

In the realm of light physics, white is the combination of all colors, not their absence. Red, green, and blue are the primary colors of light (additive color system), and their combination yields white.

In contrast, black signifies the absence of visible light. A black object appears so because it absorbs all light wavelengths and reflects none to our eyes. Black is not a color on the light spectrum; it represents the total absence of light. In reality, a black object contains pigments that absorb light, which is why it appears black, though it is seldom completely black.

It's clear that white people are not entirely white, and black people are not entirely black. "People of color" have more skin pigmentation, which absorbs light and gives their skin a darker appearance, while white people's skin reflects light back, making it appear lighter.

Biologically, white people are 'people of colour'

The point I wish to convey is that technically, white people could be considered "people of colour". Scientifically, one might argue that white, being a combination of all colours, could fit the description more accurately than black.

However, "people of colour" is a term deeply rooted in social and cultural identity, not just a literal interpretation of colour. It specifically denotes individuals who are not categorized as white within the context of race and their collective experiences. Thus, despite the scientific perspective on colour composition, "people of colour" remains a designation for certain racial groups.

This is simply a notion I felt compelled to share, and it has an indirect link to animal welfare. Please bear with me.

Some more on CRT - summary:

Critical Race Theory (CRT) is an academic framework that examines race and racism. Here are some key things they say:

• Racism is systemic: CRT argues that racism isn't just individual prejudice, but rather ingrained in laws, institutions, and policies. These structures create racial inequalities even if no one intends it. Source: Wikipedia.
• Laws aren't neutral: CRT scholars say laws appear neutral but often have unequal outcomes for different races. For example, seemingly race-blind housing policies might unintentionally perpetuate segregation. Source: Britannia.
• Race is a social construct: CRT views race as a category created to maintain social hierarchies, not a biological fact. Source: Education Week: What Is Critical Race Theory, and Why Is It Under Attack?

It's important to note that CRT is a complex field with ongoing debate. This is just a basic overview of some core tenets.

--------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins.