Thank you for the explanation! The question in US culture appears to be a lot more convoluted and loaded than I thought...
I think it's the 'color' part that confused me to no end, here when one speaks of 'people of color'it is actually a 'chromatic' distinction (aka 'not pink'), when we speak of the post-colonial countries we speak of 'former colonies' or indeed 'post-colonial world' or any of a lot of words that don't mention or imply color, those for us are two different, not necessarily related elements. For instance here a 'typical' Sikh would be seen as non POC, while a member of a darker-skinned Indian population would be thought of as POC, but both would be considered together as 'citizen of a former colonial country' if we were speaking of history or politics, while if we were speaking of ethnology or pre-colonial history, or Indian cultures we'll go with 'peoples of the Indian sub-continent'...
no subject
I think it's the 'color' part that confused me to no end, here when one speaks of 'people of color'it is actually a 'chromatic' distinction (aka 'not pink'), when we speak of the post-colonial countries we speak of 'former colonies' or indeed 'post-colonial world' or any of a lot of words that don't mention or imply color, those for us are two different, not necessarily related elements.
For instance here a 'typical' Sikh would be seen as non POC, while a member of a darker-skinned Indian population would be thought of as POC, but both would be considered together as 'citizen of a former colonial country' if we were speaking of history or politics, while if we were speaking of ethnology or pre-colonial history, or Indian cultures we'll go with 'peoples of the Indian sub-continent'...