the one book that really stuck out to me is the so-called "Mocha Manual" book. I wonder how females serving in the U.S military would feel about that book slumping them in the same group with military wives and girlfriends.

let's make it clear:

Military wives/girlfriends are. NOT. THE. SAME. as women serving in the U.S military!

OK???

I can't help but wonder if the "people of color" label is similar to the "people with handicaps" label. This is something I've been struggling with for a long time, and that I've recently been able to find a little bit of solid ground on (mostly thanks to commenters on this site, so thanks!).
It's necessary to be able to describe demographics concisely for analytical purposes. Of course each person is an individual and should be considered as such - and a lot of individuals have traits in common that affect their lives in similar ways. Those effects must be understood in order for tolerance to come about - because so often, intolerant behavior is the result of ignorance.

But to say "handicapped people" is considered offensive - we're supposed to say "people with handicaps", to show that we understand that they are people first and handicapped second. "People who are blonde," instead of "blonde people". While neither of these examples necessarily have the same background of hardship and discrimination (although the movement against discrimination towards people with handicaps is/has been a pretty large one), they carry the same semantic issue of describing demographics in a non-offensive way. So, describing people who are not white ends up being the same kind of tricky. Back when it was okay to have different drinking fountains for people of different colors, it was okay to say "colored people" - which is unacceptable today. "People of color," however, seems to carry a less offensive ring to it, and serves to describe the demographic of "non-white" without directly relating an enormous group of people to "white". Instead of "white" as normal and "non-white" as other it's "white people" and "people of color" - giving each chunk of the pie chart its own independent label. So, using the label "people of color" to describe an entire demographic of non-white people is understandable *in some situations*.

That being said, this division in gifts is ridiculous. I can just hear the development meeting for this section - "What do people of color like? Of course! Barack Obama and clothes designed by twins from Somalia!"

It's sad, in a way, that this presentation was done to poorly 'cause a lot of these gifts seems really cool (for people of any color.)

But some of these things seem like they would be inappropriate for white people, maybe, in a way that they wouldn't be inappropriate for some other groups. While I'm all for getting people cool stuff regardless of race wouldn't some of this cross over into appropriation if given to a white person (I'm thinking of the bindya scarves, "Wise Latina" shirt, etc.)?

So you can't use henna if you're white?
I know alot of bellydancers who are going to be very suprised to hear that.

Baby Jamz looks depressingly whitewashed for a product being advertised to PoC.

"The guide lumps together all non-white groups"
Isn't that what the term "people of color" also does?

I think the marketing on this is very wrong, and I do have a lot of issues with it, BUT...I was struck more by the "BY people of color" label than anything else, which you didn't much touch on.

I'm not saying, by any means, that this is a good idea AS IS, but seeing a list of products entirely made by people of color in the US is kind of nice. I don't think people realize most of the time who's designing their products, but just in the same way that I go out of my way to purchase from local- and minority-owned shops in my neighborhood rather than chain stores, there's room for this to have a similar concept, rather than the one presented.

How to go about that without coming off like this, though? I don't know...

“Ultimately, this reinforces the idea that people of color are always outsiders in a white world.”
~OR~ that all white people are uncultured, ethnocentric, isolationists; which I find equally repugnant and unfair. I agree that white people are guilty for the vast majority of inequities; however, statements such as this do not illuminate the fact that a lot of white people are being painted with a rather broad and unsavory brush. I had the same amount of input on my skin color as everyone else and I would appreciate not being lumped under the "white devil" label solely based on my complexion.

I agree that it is frustrating to have to separate gift guides as "colored" and "non-colored"; but many of these products would not get seen in mainstream media without that distinction.

This is like Michelle Obama's skin toned dress - without a guide like this,dark skinned women (like my wife) never knew these products were available to her.

Some of these don't belong, for sure. And why only 2 categories?