Recently I've been thinking of the term "poc". Both in terms of it's application and usefulness. I think this is something that might get me a lot of heat — but I don't personally like it.
I can't deny it's usefulness as a tool, but it falls short in so many areas, that I think now we're in a time we can address.
To me, it's biggest pitfall is that it's too american-centric. "People of colour" subscribes to the same simplistic american notions of race that white supremacy imposed — it implies that the only races that exist are: white, black, brown and indigenous people are only considered if you're lucky.
Not to mention the big misconception it raises, in that racial-based oppression and marginalisation are solely based on skin color, rather than identifiable ethnic features. For example asians, specifically east asians who are pale, are still marginalised and oppressed on the basis of their race even if they're 'white-skinned' and not 'coloured' in the way the term implies. (The fact that this has been brought up as an argument to delegitimise the oppression faced by the east-asian community proves the dangers of such misconceptions born out of a misunderstanding of the term "poc" — however, it also raises questions of how the term "poc" enables that).
Which brings me to my next point. So, if white = european, and black = african, who are brown people? south asians? south-east asians? latine people? middle easterns? All of them? That's too broad, too vague, and too unclear. Ultimately "brown" as a racial-monkier serves no one, and causes more confusion than any problems it potentially solves.
Another point worth noting is that, we don't neatly fall into any of these boxes of "white, black, brown, (indigenous)" that "poc" implicates. A pale middle eastern person is not "brown", but they are still middle eastern with clearly middle eastern features and are marginalised by their race. Same with the erasure of some asian communities by the term. The way latine communities struggle with the term, too, offers some perspective into that.
Regardless — I've never seen the change from "coloured people" to "people of colour" as being particularly progressive.
I understand that it's partially because we do not want to call ourselves "non-white", but I still see the term as one that centres our oppressors, because here's the thing, "poc" also, in a way, implies that "white" is the default. There's white and then there's "coloured people".
In that same vein, I see it as defining ourselves by how our oppressors have defined and called us. More importantly, once more, it subscribers to a way too simplistic notion of race.
The question then becomes: what do we call ourselves? what would be a more suitable/appropriate term to replace "poc".
That, I don't know. I still think though, that it's a discussion worth having as a community. A way to 'redefine' ourselves in a way that won't alienate a huge chunk of us.
Personally, I prefer using "racially marginalised" as an 'identifier' if you will — a way in which we relate to each other, and an accurate term for our struggle as well as what we stand in solidarity for (against? because of?) It can comfortably serve as an umbrella term without attempting to box us and provide a more flexible framework to the nuances of our oppression — where it intersects and where it differs.