#15 - What do I call people who aren't white? 'Non-white' can't be right, right?
A guide to ethnicity-based terminology.
I was uncertain about the theme of this month’s newsletter, so I took to Instagram stories to canvass the community’s thoughts. The overwhelming response was for insight into how we can respectfully describe individuals identified by their race or ethnicity.
There’s clearly a lot of confusion about what terms to use, so I've analysed nine phrases - highlighting their historical context, who they apply to, and when they should and should not be used. I’ve also included terms to avoid.
Although this was a much-requested topic for very valid reasons, we should not become overly fixated on finding terminology that perfectly captures someone else’s racial and ethnic identity. Instead, our focus should ultimately be identifying how people, by virtue of their skin colour, are put at a systemic disadvantage and shining a light on that.
Ok, let’s begin.
What terms should I use to describe groups?
Term: B.A.M.E
Meaning: Black, Asian & Minority Ethnic
Context: The British anti-racism movement coined " BAME " in the 1970s. Originally, "BME" (Black, Minority Ethnic) was used, and an 'A' was added in the 1990s to represent Asian people. Today, BAME is used mainly by researchers comparing certain groups with the white population. Criticism of BAME peaked in 2020, with many people speaking out against its use in discussions about the impact of Covid-19. The UK Government announced it would no longer use the term in 2021.
BAME is problematic for several reasons, it:
Suggests whiteness is the centre of society, and all other ethnicities exist as "other."
Lumps groups together without acknowledging that ethnicities within this group have different experiences.
Emphasises certain groups (Black/Asian) whilst minimising others (Jewish, Gypsy, Roma and Traveller groups) who also face harmful disparities.
Evolved into a proxy for "non-white", which is divisive.
Consensus: Not fit for purpose along with ‘non-white’.
When should it be used? 🚫 It shouldn't.
Term: POC
Meaning: People of Colour
Context: "People of Colour" feels contemporary, but one of the earliest recorded uses is from the Oxford English Dictionary in 1797. In more recent history, Dr Martin Luther King Jr. used "citizens of color" in his speech at the 1963 March on Washington in his call for equal rights for Black citizens. In U.S. history, 'person of color' was used to refer to people of African heritage, but today it's used across the English-speaking world to refer to all/any people of African, Native American, Pacific Island, Asian, Latino/Hispanic descent.
There are several positives to the term - it's inclusive, it avoids defining someone by a negative (non-white) or by numbers (minority), but like all of these terms, it centres whiteness by suggesting that only those racialised have a race when we ALL have a race and multiple ethnicities. Similarly to BAME, it does not consider how people within this group experience the world differently based on their outward appearance and proximity to whiteness.
Consensus: It's largely positive, but it's open to misuse.
When should it be used? When you are referring to a group of multiple ethnicities.
When should it not be used? As a synonym for one group, e.g. Black/South Asian/East Asian.
Term: Global South
Definition: The terms 'Global North' and 'Global South' are used to categorise countries according to distinctive socio-economic and political traits.
Context: Despite how it sounds, this is not a geographical term. Several countries included in the Global South are in the northern hemisphere, including India, China and the northernmost countries of Africa. Conversely, Australia and New Zealand, both in the southern hemisphere, are not considered to be in the Global South.
‘Global South’ is part of a family of terms, some more problematic than others, including “Third World”, 'the developing world' and “Periphery,” that denote regions outside Europe and North America, mostly (though not all) low-income and often politically or culturally marginalised.
Consensus: It's largely positive and sounds less hierarchical than its problematic predecessor 'Third World".
When should it be used? When you are referring to these regions of the world versus the diaspora.
When should it not be used? As a synonym for one group, e.g. Black/South Asian/East Asian.
Term: Global Majority
Definition: A collective term for people of Indigenous, African, Asian and Latin American descent who equate to 85% of the global population.
Context: Rosemary Campbell-Stephens coined it to challenge the normativity of a white majority or Eurocentric perspective and provide an alternative to terms such as 'people of colour' or 'ethnic minority'. I'm personally not invested in discussions concerning ‘minorities’ or ‘majorities’, as far-right detractors can sometimes use them to peddle problematic tropes such as the 'great replacement theory'.
There could be 10 million, two million or two thousand people of a certain race or ethnicity who face discrimination of some form, and I would advocate for them. Regardless of this personal POV, I’m profoundly grateful for Campbell-Stephens' work.
Consensus: It readdressed the balance but inadvertently introduced a new hierarchy.
When should it be used? When referring to the diaspora and citizens of the Global South.
When should it not be used? As a synonym for one group, e.g. Black/South Asian/East Asian.
Term: BIPOC
Meaning: Black, Indigenous and People of Colour
Context: The term was coined by the BIPOC Project in the USA, which promotes its use to highlight the unique relationship that Indigenous and Black people have in a U.S. context. One of the principles of the BIPOC Project is to honour the legacies of Native American and Black resistance to colonialism and how this uniquely impacted those communities.
Consensus: Whereas BAME centred Black and Asian because of the sizes of these communities in the U.K. (4.2% and 9.6%), BIPOC centres Black and Indigenous people because of their unique and shared experience in North America. It’s a positive and empowering distinction.
When should it be used? As an alternative to 'POC', when you are referring to a group of multiple ethnicities or when you are explicitly highlighting the challenges faced by Indigenous and Black communities across the world.
When should it not be used? As a synonym for one group, e.g. Black/South Asian/East Asian.
Term: Ethnic Minority
Definition: Ethnicities in the minority of the broader population.
Context: The Paris Peace Conference (1919-1920) coined the term to highlight communities within European societies that are "nationals belonging to racial, religious or linguistic minorities". Today, the UK government uses it as a substitute for B.A.M.E. Some linguists have recommended 'Minority Ethnic' or 'Minitoritised Ethnic Groups' as alternatives that recognise these groups are not minorities necessarily, but they have certainly been minoritised.
Consensus: Proceed cautiously, as 'minority' is usually equated with being less than, oppressed, or deficient compared to the majority group. In some instances, this may be statistically inaccurate. Cities like London and New York City are ethnically diverse, which you'd assume would be reflected in their workforce—the disparity demonstrates that it's not the number of people but the power differential between the groups that is the issue.
When should it be used? 'Minoritised Ethnic' is preferable to 'Ethnic Minority', but the word 'minority' is still problematic, as it links societal outcomes to population demographics versus systemic racism.
When should it not be used? As a synonym for one group, e.g. Black/South Asian/East Asian.
Term: Marginalised Communities
Definition: Communities who have been excluded from society and continue to face other barriers to participation - it is not race/ethnicity-specific.
Context: Today, marginalisation means treating a person or group as insignificant by isolating and disempowering them. Marginalisation results from discrimination in many forms, including but not limited to racism, sexism, ableism, ageism, homophobia and xenophobia.
Consensus: It names the issue head-on. We have a better chance of solving an issue by acknowledging it and its impact on people's life outcomes simply because of their racial or ethnic identity. [See also "historically excluded communities".]
When should it be used? In instances when you're referring to the active discrimination of groups within our society.
When should it not be used? To describe an individual or group devoid of a conversation regarding marginalisation. It's not interchangeable with the terms above.
Term: Black and brown people
Context: This term is used by Black individuals and those identifying as 'brown', typically Indigenous, Asian (South, East and West), North African and Pacific Islanders. It's very much a case of self-identification as some West or East Asians may call themselves 'brown', but others may see this as co-opting an experience that is not theirs.
Consensus: This is a positive term to acknowledge shared experiences, but it can also exclude individuals as we may not know how they self-identify.
When should it be used? This is typically a term used within those communities who self-identify as Black or brown.
When should it not be used? By those who do not identify this way. Because of self-identification, it should not be used in Diversity & Inclusion reporting, etc.
Term: Diverse communities
Definition: Communities of different diversity dimensions, including race/ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation/identity, socio-economic status, age, religion, physical and mental/neurological abilities, language, geographical location and other characteristics.
Context: Although cultural diversity predates the 1970s, this is when 'diversity' entered the corporate and cultural lexicon. In the 1970s, it was used to describe the requirement to include and welcome people who had historically been discriminated against for the colour of their skin.
Today, the consensus is generally positive, but the term is open to misuse. For example, individuals can be labelled 'diverse' or 'diverse hires'. This is highly problematic. Diversity is achieved by creating a space where individuals hail from diverse backgrounds. A place can be diverse; an individual is not.
Individuals can be labelled 'diverse' or 'diverse hires'. This is highly problematic. Diversity is achieved by creating a space where individuals hail from diverse backgrounds. A place can be diverse; an individual is not.
Consensus: On the whole, it is positive, but it is open to misuse, as detailed above
When should it be used? To describe groups who are made up of several different (diverse) backgrounds.
When should it not be used? As a synonym for one community, e.g. the Black community.
Concluding thoughts:
Language is continuously evolving. Show willingness to refresh your language so we use appropriate and respectful terms.
Umbrella terms can erase a sense of individuality.
Although acronyms such as POC/BIPOC exist, it's preferable to be specific when referring to one race or ethnicity. Acronyms are used when referencing multiple ethnicities.
It is always best to practice specificity and be accurate versus using broad terms such as POC when you are referring specifically to a matter relating to the Asian community.
If you find yourself shying away from using descriptors such as ‘Black’ or ‘Asian’ as you perceive them to be rude. This has nothing to do with the person you are describing and, sadly, everything to do with your negative perception of what it means to be Black or Asian. Spend time to unlearn this behaviour and mindset.
Language that essentialises or reifies race is inappropriate. Phrases such as "the Black race" and "the white race" are essentialist, portray groups monolithically, and perpetuate dangerous stereotypes. Drop them.
Avoid terminology that suggests any hierarchy.
Don't conflate race/ethnicity with class. Don't assume members of minority groups are underprivileged; underprivileged means having less money, education, resources, and so forth than the other people in a society. Equally, access to those resources does not protect individuals from being discriminated against because of their race/ethnicity.
Individuals will have their preferences; take note.
Own and learn from your mistakes, and apologise if you get the terminology wrong and cause offence.
If race/ethnicity is not relevant, there's no requirement to mention it.
April recommendations:
📱 WATCH American Fiction on Amazon Prime. I mentioned this Oscar-winning film briefly in last month’s essay, but if you haven’t watched it, consider this your reminder. I won’t bog you down with a synopsis, but I will quote the Guardian, which described it as a “satisfyingly prickly satire on race and hypocrisy in the literary world”. It’s not perfect and raises more questions than answers, but I’m so glad that it exists and is successfully provoking conversation and, hopefully, much reflection by the publishing industry.
📻 LISTEN to this episode of the Newsagents podcast: "Have Israel and Iran stepped back from the brink?” It features a conversation between host Lewis Goodall and Jasmine M. El-Gamal, former Middle East Advisor to the United States under President Obama.
Goodall points out that it is rare to interview anyone in this space with no "ideological or political axe to grind." The discussion is thoughtful, considered, and, most of all, hopeful.
📖 READ Babel by RF Kuang: Set in an alternate-reality 1830s England, in which magical silver bars fuel Britain's global economic and colonial power. Their power derives from capturing what is "lost in translation" between words in different languages with similar, but not identical, meanings. To harness this, Oxford University has created the Royal Institute of Translation, nicknamed ‘Babel’. The story follows a new cohort of four students who, as they awaken to the truth behind their exploitative work, have markedly different views on what to do. If I had to describe it in a nutshell, I’d say it’s ‘Harry Potter meets Empireland’.
It’s a dense but highly thought-provoking and engaging read that I’m still thinking about weeks after finishing it.
Ok, friends, that's it for this month. If you want to follow me on @_languagematters, I’d absolutely love that. And if you have anything to say or ask, please drop me a note below.
Thanks as always for reading. I know how busy life is, so I’m grateful you chose to spend some time with me. If you like what you’re reading and have learnt something from me, please consider sharing this newsletter. Your support is appreciated 💛. Until next month,
Thank you for this brilliant Substack article, always learn so much from you and am grateful for your time and work dedicated to this. I loved Yellow Face and must read Babel now! I’ve heard it’s brilliant x
Thanks for the post! Important topic and your explanations are very valuable for me. I also really love your book recommendation, Babel was one of the best books I have read in the last couple of years. Looking forward to next month’s post.