The far-left has always been adept at using language to advance its cause. By using the power of words, the Marxist crowd has sought to change the way Americans view certain aspects of society. Using terms like “LatinX” to describe Hispanics/Latinos, “BIPOC” to refer to Black, Indigenous, and Other People of Color, as well as other such jargon, they believe they are changing people’s mindsets to that which makes for a more equitable view of the world. However, a trend seems to be emerging in which even people on the left are rejecting the lingo progressives have insisted everyone use.
No More Latinx?
“LatinX” was invented as a term to circumvent the masculine and feminine grammatical forms inherent in the Spanish language. Rather than referring to female Hispanics as “Latina” and males as “Latino,” the word aimed to provide a gender-neutral catch-all. However, several sources suggest that people are not too keen on adopting the new way of speaking. Politico recently reported on a Democrat poll that revealed the vast majority of Hispanics/Latinos don’t refer to themselves using the progressive-approved term:
“Only 2 percent of those polled refer to themselves as Latinx, while 68 percent call themselves “Hispanic” and 21 percent favored “Latino” or “Latina” to describe their ethnic background, according to the survey from Bendixen & Amandi International, a top Democratic firm specializing in Latino outreach.
“More problematic for Democrats: 40 percent said Latinx bothers or offends them to some degree and 30 percent said they would be less likely to support a politician or organization that uses the term.”
Bye Bye to BIPOC?
The term “BIPOC” became more popular during the widespread unrest that ensued after the murder of George Floyd. Pronounced “bye-pock,” it is yet another catch-all term that the progressive left uses to describe non-whites. But it appears that at least one high-profile leftist believes the term to be problematic.
Shree Paradkar, race and gender columnist for the Toronto Star, penned a piece in which she explained why she was abandoning the term. At first, she favored the use of the label because she believed it to be more inclusive. She wrote:
“I thought it held some promise then. It appeared to be a thoughtful political coalition term, acknowledging disparate impacts of white supremacy by singling out Black and Indigenous experiences, even though both ‘Black’ and ‘Indigenous’ are homogenizing identities in themselves, and not always disparate.”
Paradkar indicated she had a change of heart when she realized “as with POC or person of colour, BIPOC got swallowed up, quickly lost nuance and got spat out as a racial identifier to say ‘not white.’” She continued, noting that the term “person of color” is also an issue. “POC was supposed to be a collaborative term. But even when reduced to an identity, it was more positive than non-white, which sounded like a deficit, an accusation of something lacking,” she wrote.
In a piece for the Virginia Law Review, Southwestern law professor Meera E. Deo also pointed out the problem with using BIPOC to describe non-white individuals. She wrote:
“While language is key to anti-subordination, BIPOC damages those efforts rather than being helpful, especially among those searching for new language addressing contemporary issues of race and racism. New terms are useful and should be utilized in antiracism efforts; yet BIPOC itself does a disservice to communities of color and efforts to dismantle systems of racial privilege.”
In her introduction, Deo argues that “centering particular groups only in name ultimately furthers their marginalization because they remain excluded in fact though referenced in the term, erasing the power that comes from participation and inclusion.” She added: “BIPOC begins with the premise that we should always center two particular racial groups—Black and Indigenous—within the people of color category, though these communities are not always at the center of the issue being discussed.”
Is This Serious?
It is difficult for normal, everyday folks to take these things seriously regardless of political affiliation. The fact that so-called progressives spend so much time and bandwidth developing novel terms to describe the oppressed instead of focusing on real problems is peak wokeism. It is an integral component of the wokeist religion, whose tenets require its adherents to hone in on everything except actually delivering working solutions for the people for whom they claim to be fighting.
The vast majority of non-white Americans are not concerned with this obsession over racial nomenclature. A black person identifies as black. Hispanics refer to themselves as Hispanics or Latino/Latina. Indeed, many have taken issue with the term “people of color” precisely because it erases or ignores cultural parts of one’s identity.
But, as most know, progressive practitioners of the wokeist religion do not care what non-white people think. They are rarely concerned with the input of those they seek to rule. In the end, they only wish to advance their cause and promote their Marxist religion, nothing more, nothing less. Perhaps this is one of many reasons they have had so much trouble winning over minority voters.
~ Read more from Jeff Charles.