quite acceptable here. i suppose it might not travel, though.not exactly in the common vernacular but in my work it's preferred to 'non-whites' (which used to be the term used) since it is descriptive of appearance rather than ethnicity and doesn't refer to white as the default.
i guess it could seem racist, so my apologies, but the people i know who use it are largely brown themselves. i think part of the reason is that it doesn't involve race or ethnicity or national origin and is therefore more inclusive and doesn't rely on assumptions about people.
(i guess it could seem racist, so my apologies, but the people i know who use it are largely brown themselves. i think part of the reason is that it doesn't involve race or ethnicity or national origin and is therefore more inclusive and doesn't rely on assumptions about people.
postbear has metal knees,
Sun 11 Apr 2010, 3:45,
archived)
Fair enough.It was a genuine question, I wasn't trying to be accusatory.
But no, I don't think it would travel well.
(But no, I don't think it would travel well.
4Q just lurking,
Sun 11 Apr 2010, 3:47,
archived)
no worries, i understand the concern.i think part of the motivation is that people who have brown skin realise that racists lump them all together - i also think we are all various shades of brown so any white or black racists i can annoy with that theory, i will.
( postbear has metal knees,
Sun 11 Apr 2010, 3:52,
archived)
fucking hat-freak. to the salt mines with you! postbear has metal knees,
Sun 11 Apr 2010, 3:52,
archived)