It's been 100 years since the Supreme Court's landmark Plessy v. Ferguson decision. But some folks seemed to have forgotten that separate is inherently unequal after all that time.
"People of color" is the latest phrase that some use to refer to -- what? When you get right down to it, the expression means everyone -- except whites. It's a club that all can join -- except whites. It's a mollifying moniker for all the downtrodden, disenfranchised, and forsaken -- except whites. It's separate and equal revisited, with a twist. It's like a cacophonous symphony -- "Discrimination in D Major."
For my money, if black, brown, yellow, and red are "colors," then so is white. Granted, my dictionary defines it as "free from color." But I believe that most ordinary people consider white to be a shade of color. Everything we see daily possesses many characteristics, one of which is hue. Forget the technicalities. White is hue; it is color.
I'm probably in the minority on this one. And that's my point. By placing anyone into a "minority" status, we know what happens. We are reminded everyday by our criminal justice system, pronouncements of psychologists and sociologists, and ever-present daytime TV talk show blabbermouths.
But by naming all the world citizens "people of color" -- except whites -- exclusivism results and sick, sapping separative doctrine becomes legitimized. Is that intentional? Is that to exclude whites, so they (whoever the real "they" are) can appreciate a feeling of alienation? Is the intent to shame? Is that because all whites have enjoyed higher stature and standing than all other peoples in the world? We know better.
Statistics have long shown that there are more poor whites in this country than people of color. I know, you're saying wait a minute! There's a far greater percentage of people of color who live in poverty. Absolutely, but is the plight of any individual poor white materially different from any other person?
So what is the people of color club all about? We know many whites experience the same social and economic hardships. Don't they count? Can't they join the club? What kind of club is it? Is it revolutionary? Does it want vindication or victory, equity or exclusion, collaboration or conflict?
It's really the economy, stupid. Economic class and standing probably affect discrimination patterns more than race. If race were the only or main consideration, wouldn't wealthy whites become munificent benefactors to their lowly white brethren? Wouldn't poverty, despair and inequity be non-existent in countries governed by people of color? We know better about this as well.
Read your Bible; read your history. One pattern emerges clearly. Divisions between rich and poor, haves & have-nots have plagued us from time immemorial.
My ears are burning! I can hear many of you pooh-poohing all this folderol as sour grapes. "Poor whites. Hah! We should have it so bad." Good point. But it's not to the point, unless one's goal is to maintain and highlight people's differences to foster dissent and disunity. However, if the goal is harmony, respectful treatment of one another, and true equal opportunity, then it can't be achieved through words and actions that reinforce distrust, distance, and hostility. It may be that some folks are looking for restitution of past wrongs. But "vengeance is mine, saith the Lord." The rest of us are directed to be mere bystanders. Of course, turning the other cheek goes only so far, especially when inequality and repression have incensed your ancestors for centuries. How patient can people be, you may ask? Nevertheless, revenge in human hands is very dangerous.
Injustice is injustice; it knows no color. While we have ample evidence that the scales of justice have not been (and still aren't) in complete color balance, our goal must be to achieve a better future. Our themes and credos should enhance dialogue and association among all rather than division and separation.
"People of color" doesn't fill the bill. Why not "people of concern?" At least that phrase welcomes and includes everyone who wants a brighter tomorrow.
++++
Fred W. Apelquist, III, M.Ed.
Approximately 680 words.
© 1998