art history will be like "this is the most revolutionary painting of its time!" and you will look at it and is just a normal painting of a lady sitting under a tree and then an art historian will explain "this is the first time a painting ever used this specific shade of blue which challenged all understood conventions of how to depict light and launched a movement known as auzureism, and also the lady is looking at a sparrow which in its time it was a sign of fierce sexual liberation and it was considered scandalous" and then you find out the painter was expelled from the academy of art of stockholm because of the painting and that the king of sweeden paid three thousand marcs (equivallent to ten million dollars now a days) to have the painting in his room and the painting still looks like a generic painting of a lady under a tree
"Racialised" is much better than PoC but I've been leaning a lot on the concept of racial markedness. Because that allows us to make statements like "the name Jamal is racially marked in USA". Rather than saying something like "Jamal is a PoC name", a nonsense statement, saying it's racially marked in USA allows us to contrast with societies like Albania or the Arab countries where the name Jamal is ordinary, thus unmarked.
