As an Australian, I can’t say that American politics, although often entertaining, is really my cup of tea.
Still, American political fashion sometimes find its way to the Antipodes.
Take, for example, the notion of “peoples of colour” – POC – currently trending among Aussie identitarian Leftists. The idea is that a coalition of the oppressed non-white (i.e. POC) is the agent of change: a potential majority assembled out of minorities. More realistically, for Left-leaning pundits POC are the natural constituency of the Democratic Party in the US (and, monkey see monkey do, the same is the conclusion of Left-leaning pundits elsewhere).
That seems to be good news for the Dems: over there that coalition is increasing in size and that seems to be working just fine in these elections.
Now, as the POC coalition remains numerically a minority, it would, of course, need to be supplemented by other progressive forces – including feminists and the LGB+ movement and, to the extent they can be cajoled or strong-armed, socialists and quasi-socialists and the union movement – and sundry progressive whites as “allies” (another closely associated term).
Evidently, the need and feasibility of this POC-“Others” (another popular umbrella term) alliance may change as the POC coalition increases in size and as the oppression POC suffer is lifted. With this one lands squarely on long-term considerations about the stability, not only of this POC-Others alliance, but of the concept of POC itself.
Without further ado, what I consider a case-study of one identity within POC, of interest for American identitarian Leftists in these elections. I’d love to see similar analyses for other identities, chiefly Latinos, and Americans of Asian background:
Who will Muslim Americans vote for in the US elections?
