People Beyond Colour

I’ve recently noticed a trend which has seen the phrase “Coloured People” be replaced with “People of Colour”.

But why mum?

I accept the fact that, although it is clearly, technically, exactly the same thing (i.e. “Coloured Flowers or Flowers of Colour) this is superseded by the emotional, social, and racial connotations associated with each variation…

That is to say that those once considered “racist” against said “People of Colour” used the former phrase (“Coloured People”) to segregate against a skin tone; whilst the latter phrase, “People of Colour”, is a recent expression, possibly considered more gentle, created by “People of Colour”, to be used in describing themselves, with a moral wish, I’m sure, that all follow suit, and why not?

The problem is this, whichever way you spin the words, the initial fault remains the same — and the fault is in the REFERENCE POINT.

The reference point, in both variations, upholds and still unfortunately states that, by nature, people are white.

The phrases implies that if you do not mention colour, then the word “people” describes those who are white.

If this were not the case, it would not need to be pointed out that (oh, by the way) some people are not white. We would not need it described to us.

Now flip it the other way, if people who are considered white, were described from the reference point of people being with “colour” by nature and normality, then they would be called, wait for it… ‘People of No Colour’.

Just as ridiculous. Just as ignorant. Just as stupid.

Therefore, In my humble opinion, the future lays in forcing the description of people, beyond colour.

By Neil Patel