If true, that behavior in anyone should be criticized. This sounds to me like "gaming the system."
This is why I don’t answer to “person of color.” Indian Americans have nearly double the median white income. They live almost 8 years longer than white Americans. (Heck, Asian women make more money than white men, while Asian men live longer than white women.) Even the ones that grow up here in poverty have vastly higher income mobility as adults than whites. What clarity or insight is gained by grouping them together with other minorities suffering from generational poverty? In fact if the goal is helping people, it would make way more sense to include folks like Appalachians and Cajuns, who also suffer from generational poverty. That might give you real insight into root causes.
And when white people use the label, it’s offensive as fuck. “We are going to group you together with people you have nothing in common with economically, historically, or culturally, because you’re all ‘coloreds’ to us!”
I have never met a single European who would differentiate between a Portuguese and a German based on their skin color. But if that Portuguese person moves to the US they are suddenly a PoC and a victim of white oppression.
Don't you think it's _describing_ this grouping, not _prescribing_ it? The truth is that racism isn't rational or know what your net worth is.
'Indians are sycophants', 'Indians don't speak English well', 'Indians are corrupt', 'Indians are good at office politics'—all from this thread alone.
I am trying to respond as civilly as possible without swearing, but this phenomenon is making it increasingly hard to do so.
Somehow white people are allowed to be 'sycophants', but Indians aren't? Somehow white people were allowed to trod all over Asia and Africa (many still are) for half a millennium, and coughed up racist theories to justify their borderline enslavement of non-whites, and evangelise their religion and culture[1]. But then when non-white people succeed, it's 'corruption' or 'nepotism'?
India is a country of 1.5 billion people. Include the rest of the Indian subcontinent and that number becomes nearly two billion. One quarter of the human population is from that region. Given these numbers, is it that surprising that Indians are quickly reaching the highest echelons of corporate America/Europe? By numbers alone, Indians still outnumber both the US and the EU, combined.
The region is still developing. India is a democracy, and the democracy is an absolute cacophony. It has taken its time to develop, and is frequently compared to a certain other neighbouring country with a similarly large population. That country had (and still has) no qualms in murdering millions of people to achieve its goals. India does not do that, and will bring its populace forward and upward, slowly but steadily.
These stereotypes are old, unfair, and unjustified. I am extremely unhappy that this is silently accepted, while racism against Blacks is white-knighted against.
[1]: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/07/Civiliza...
However I agree with you that some of the comments are close to being derogatory.
In my experience (as I have shared below) many Indians are more career oriented than, say, Europeans. No criticism here, I personally don’t care and love my Indian colleagues.
I’m guessing be a grade A yes-man has a lot to do with it.
Dead Comment
Also, if their parents moved to Brazil in the 1960s they somehow became a PoC? Does the actual ancestry matter or are we just assuming that everyone who is not from Europe is a PoC?