endisneigh: no, I'm not from the USA. But I'm reasonably familiar with its Jim Crow era. I'm not sure what point you think I was trying to make, but I'll try to clarify. I'm not saying anything about how people should refer to themselves, I really don't care. You asked: "why you think one term is somehow more appropriate than the other". I can't speak for swayvil of course, but my argument is that 'black' is much more descriptive than just 'colour' because there are so many colours. "Black" is also a range, but it's a more specific range than just "colour". Reading your question again, perhaps it's the word "appropriate" that's tripping us up? If you're trying to describe something, then it's more "appropriate" to be a descriptive as possible. If that's what swayvil was banned for, that's pretty insane in my books.
“Black” people aren’t actually black. If you’re familiar with the term colored in the context in the United States, I’m not even sure what you’re arguing. Black people like everyone else come in a large range of hues, hence colored.
The point is that if you haven't experienced discrimination (in terms of your ancestors being forced into slavery for the color of their skin or the constant barrage of laws attempted to keep you below others in society because of the color of your skin), you have no place in telling someone else how they should refer to the color of their skin.
This isn't an an issue of semantics that you're trying to make it out to be - it's just not your business in the first place.
How do you know my ancestors weren't forced into slavery? How do you know they weren't crammed in 2 families to a room in a cellar with sewage flowing through it? How do you know they werent sent up chimneys when they were kids?
If you want to have a discussion based on discrimination in the here and now that's one thing, dredging up century plus old things to complain about doesn't get anyone anywhere. In fact it weakens your argument because it suggests that the only discrimination is past discrimination, and we now live in an enlightened world where there is no discrimination.
Further. You're veering very far from the question posed, and inserting a lot of assumptions you have no basis for making.
>"Century plus old things" - which continue to persist today.
> (in terms of your ancestors being forced into slavery for the color of their skin or the constant barrage of laws attempted to keep you below others in society because of the color of your skin)
Where's all this slavery? What are these laws?
>I'm here because you decided to argue semantics. Try some self reflection.
I wasn't arguing semantics, I was asking a genuine question. The GPs reasons seemed to conflict with their apparent position. So rather than arguing against what I thought it said, I asked the question.
One shouldn’t have to justify whether or not they are a victim of racism when they make a statement or claim. This isn’t Scarlet Letter.
You seem to place more value in the views of the supposed victims of discrimination. Ironically, this is discriminatory to anyone else who has something to say on the topic.
It's none of your business to tell someone that the way they perceive their racial identity is incorrect, especially when you're not even the same race as that person and do not understand what they've faced.
> Ironically, this is discriminatory to anyone else who has something to say on the topic.
Pointing out discrimination is not discrimination. Telling a marginalized person how they should view their own identity is not your place. Doubly so because you don't seem to understand the meaning of "discrimination" outside "someone told me I was wrong."
