It's fairly common terminology in fannish circles; see e.g. this Fanlore write-up of the Dark Agenda challenge. In general, "non-X" terminology is preferred because setting things up as "X and non-X" often winds up interpreted by humans as "normal and abnormal" -- c.f. referring to people as LGB+ or queer rather than "non-straight", "abled" rather than "non disabled", and so on. (Compare also with the part where some of what's fucking up gender politics atm is In My View that we don't have a good catch-all term for the group "people who aren't men or don't benefit from male privilege", such that "women-only spaces" feels more positive & affirming than "spaces for people who aren't men" and thus gets used, even though it's imposing a false binary and hurting a lot of people at the margins.) (Note also that it doesn't always work this way around, e.g. "allistic" versus "not autistic" and "cis" versus "not trans", but tl;dr the "not X" construction contains an implicit norm in a way that tends to reinforce power structures.)
So, first, using "non-white" centres whiteness (as a norm and default) even when the topic isn't about white people; it positions chromatic creators and characters and existence relative to whiteness, as though whiteness is a central and necessary reference point, always. Which isn't great.
By my understanding, using "chromatic" has some of the same advantages of using Queer as an umbrella term, or LGBT+, or neurodiverse (or neurotypical!): it's a welcoming term that allows for fuzziness and doesn't run into issues with "have we listed everyone?" (e.g. Reni Eddo-Lodge discusses, in Why I'm No Longer Talking To White People About Race, the way that Black has sometimes historically been used as a catch-all for folk who are targeted by racism, and goes on to talk about ways in which more nuance and specificity when discussing Black experience is helpful) -- while emphasising the diversity of experience that "non-white" encompasses, rather than just sort of... collapsing it.
So: term in primarily fannish usage, that I am using in a fannish context, but that I (as obv a White Person) think has obvious usefulness & applicability outside that context.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
regna
[content note: white person talks about race and racism]
Date: 2019-01-02 06:26 pm (UTC)So, first, using "non-white" centres whiteness (as a norm and default) even when the topic isn't about white people; it positions chromatic creators and characters and existence relative to whiteness, as though whiteness is a central and necessary reference point, always. Which isn't great.
By my understanding, using "chromatic" has some of the same advantages of using Queer as an umbrella term, or LGBT+, or neurodiverse (or neurotypical!): it's a welcoming term that allows for fuzziness and doesn't run into issues with "have we listed everyone?" (e.g. Reni Eddo-Lodge discusses, in Why I'm No Longer Talking To White People About Race, the way that Black has sometimes historically been used as a catch-all for folk who are targeted by racism, and goes on to talk about ways in which more nuance and specificity when discussing Black experience is helpful) -- while emphasising the diversity of experience that "non-white" encompasses, rather than just sort of... collapsing it.
So: term in primarily fannish usage, that I am using in a fannish context, but that I (as obv a White Person) think has obvious usefulness & applicability outside that context.