Honestly what’s the difference? There is none. “Of colour” vs “coloured” ... my god it’s the definition of a distinction without a difference and just another cudgel to hit white people and non-kneelers with.
Technically, they believe that saying "person of" in front of the classifications is "person-first" language, which conveys proper respect for the ultimate value of the person who is being classified.
Of course, we're not speaking fucking Latin, so positional meaning isn't really the same. In English, you can reorder words much more frequently without appreciably altering meaning.
Plainly: this particular dynamic is just a trap for catching and destroying older conservatives.
If people first language was actually important they’d implement it for everybody. Person of Asian decent, person of whiteness, person who’s ancestors lived in America before people of whiteness arrived, etc... You never see this kind of language because it doesn’t matter.
How do you even accidentally say that? Does anyone under 70 even use that term?
Honestly what’s the difference? There is none. “Of colour” vs “coloured” ... my god it’s the definition of a distinction without a difference and just another cudgel to hit white people and non-kneelers with.
Technically, they believe that saying "person of" in front of the classifications is "person-first" language, which conveys proper respect for the ultimate value of the person who is being classified.
Of course, we're not speaking fucking Latin, so positional meaning isn't really the same. In English, you can reorder words much more frequently without appreciably altering meaning.
Plainly: this particular dynamic is just a trap for catching and destroying older conservatives.
If people first language was actually important they’d implement it for everybody. Person of Asian decent, person of whiteness, person who’s ancestors lived in America before people of whiteness arrived, etc... You never see this kind of language because it doesn’t matter.