you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 3 months ago (7 children)

I've always thought either were silly - it implies that 'white' isn't a color. Even if you say 'white is the absence of color' that itself is a color.

'hey Bill, what did you paint your fence as' 'I painted it not a color' 'ah, quite basic, no?'

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (3 children)

    People usually don't care consider white to be a colour. You wouldn't call a white wall colourful, would you?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago* (2 children)

    The absence of colour is not a colour.

    That said, white people are generally actually various shades of pinky beige, black people are generally various shades of brown, but our language uses colour-based terminology to refer to ethnicity anyway.

    Complaining that white is a colour, so whites should be included as coloured people, is kind of silly in that context.

    Especially if you remember that the term "coloured people" originated as a way to stop people who had black and white heritage from getting any of the benefits of their whiteness.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    It's not 'I want to be included too' but like, the entire thing is silly. We are all some shade of a color. To single out a group and call them 'colored' when we literally all are is just, wat.

    I mean it's not like the people who were at the helm of racism were particularly intelligent, but like come on. It's almost comical how smooth-brained they were (are). If I pulled out a pack of crayons and pointed to the white one, their worldview may implode.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment