Sure, these things are not impediments or problems for me at all. I spent two months in India on my own. It was A Thing. Outside a few weekend excursions to Pundichery or Agra I basically didn’t see another ‘white’ person the entire trip, and socialized exclusively with locals.

But not once did that cultural context prove a problem, in fact I rather enjoyed the experience overall. Took lots of time to learn and listen.

But I also recognize I am not the average person. When I see a menu of items I’ve never had, I get excited. Not having access to a good pizza, burrito, or italian dish was not a problem for me. But I rank very far along the experimental side of things. I’d eat at a different restaurant for every meal almost. And the mythologies, symbols, and history of new places was fascinating!

But lets be honest, few people would be so comfortable so easily. Especially Americans, who tend to be particularly insular as these things go.

So you and I? We are unusual. Most Americans, or at least most conservative Americans, would undeniably be much more comfortable two months in most ‘white’ countries. Australia* or England would probably be a hardship culturally. France, Germany, Italy, Poland, or Norway? Despite the language, the commonality of English and the at least somewhat familiar cultures and cuisines would be tolerable.

But Etheopia, or India, or China, or Mongolia? I imagine that would be far more difficult for the average American. Where you or I may embrace pr be excited by those differences in experiences and cuisine, they would put many more on edge.

That was all I was getting at. That is the sense of shared ‘white’ culture at play. The idea that despite different histories and factors at play, the west/ European peoples generally understand each other better than they do the rest of the global cultures.

*minus the continent trying to kill you aspect.

You know, I’ve always thought of the term “Person of Color” to refer to black persons. In a majority-minority area with a lot of Latin and Asian-descended people, I don’t think I’ve ever heard “POC” directed to a non African-American.

I have heard it used in a generic non-white sense here. Probably by a white newscaster though.

I have. I’ve seen People of Color be used as a broader way of describing non-whites, including Latin Americans, Middle Easterners, Asians.

This is how I’ve always seen it used, at least for the past several years. As a shorthand to mean non-white / minority peoples without resorting to a multi-hyphenated mouthful.

That reminds me of my semester abroad, when I referred to someone as African-American. He laughed and reminded me that he was not American.

So if nothing else, it’s good to have terminology that doesn’t make that assumption.

This NPR article on “people of color” and similar terms from a few years back stuck with me:

Each of those terms came into wide usage in the 20th century, only to fall out of vogue and be replaced with a new one. Each replacement was meant to be less loaded than its predecessor, only to eventually take on all of that predecessor’s anxieties — and some new ones. Linguists refer to this process as “pejoration.”
“If a word that refers to something always appears in sentences where that thing is framed negatively, then that term will take on that negativity,”

Steven Pinker, quoted in the article:

“People invent new words for emotionally charged referents, but soon the euphemism becomes tainted by association, and a new word must be found, which soon acquires its own connotations, and so on. […] The euphemism treadmill shows that concepts, not words, are primary in people’s minds. Give a concept a new name, and the name becomes colored by the concept; the concept does not become freshened by the name, at least not for long. Names for minorities will continue to change as long as people have negative attitudes toward them. We will know that they have achieved mutual respect when the names stay put.”

The most formalised reference to this you will get in the UK is the Guardian Style Guide.

BAME
black, Asian and minority ethnic; another alternative is person or people of colour; BME (black and minority ethnic) is less widely used

From the replies he’s using this dumb take to promote his newsletter.

Better take.

What is cancel culture exactly, and how does it differ from regular culture?

As near as I can tell, public shaming and/or boycotting of public figures and companies that say or do disagreeable (said with a carefully neutral expression on face) things. So pretty much “being held accountable”. Maybe it becomes “cancel culture” when taken to an extreme, whatever that would entail?

It also includes the internet trying to identify and dox people who have done terrible things, then incorrectly IDing and harassing someone who has done nothing wrong.

edit for a recent example:

So kind of what used to be called “witch hunts”.

Why not use the term Witch Hunt? It’s not anything that’s new to the US.

I think the term cancel culture refers to the notion of trying to utterly destroy someone for any perceived transgression.

The thing is, most folks have done it said something terrible at some point, so if you dig enough, you can find something on anyone.

People are more than their individual actions.

I think it encompasses the sense of 1) taking the person who is to be cancelled and disregarding their further statements, actions, and achievements, 2) convincing as many others as possible, up to the global population of the Earth, to treat that person similarly, 3) possibly cancelling the cancellation after some not-agreed-upon-time has passed and the cancelled person has completed a regimen of contrition, of requesting forgiveness for wrongdoings that led to being cancelled, of education and self-education about the historical context and deep internal review of their past statements, actions, and assaults against decency.

It is a shunning, a scandal, a silent treatment, a sliding scale, a stockade in the public square, and a sentence to Purgatory. It may accompany criminal or civil penalties, or might stand alone.

It’s similar to Identity Politics.

Normal Politics is when straight white male right-wingers band together to advance their interests.
Identity Politics is when people who aren’t one or more of those categories do the same. You can see why it is evil.
Normal Culture is when dirty hippies and left wingers are either fired or not-hired for their views.
Cancel Culture is when right-wingers are either fired or not hired for their views. You can see why it is evil.

Cancel culture, for you, isn’t about punishing people who are morally deficient (After all, plenty of left wingers are racist or sexist), it’s about persecuting the other lot. Thankyou for your honesty.

cancel culture is just arseholes getting caught acting like arseholes.

So, the original boycott then?