• I can understand if Habeeb doesn't like the term BAME. Even to my wholly white ears it seems clumsy. However, surely the point of the term BAME is that it is inclusive, and covers people of colour who are the victims of discrimination who would not self-identify as being black. Moroccans, Algerians, Persians, Indians, Pakistanis, Chinese, Japanese and Korean to name but a few. I'm pretty sure they don't consider themselves as being black, and I wouldn't be comfortable saying that they have to describe themselves as being black just because they're non-white.

    Equally, non-white wouldn't be an acceptable term as far as I can see because it identifies a person in negative terms, as something they're not rather than in positive terms as something that they are.

    I don't know what the answer is, but my gut reaction is that forcing people of colour who don't consider themselves as black, and who on no objective analysis are black, to be called black shouldn't be acceptable.

    Usual caveats apply, given that I speak as a white privileged male who has benefitted personally from apartheid and the exploitation of black labour. I may be part of the problem, but I'm not sure that Habeeb's suggestion is part of the solution.

  • forcing people of colour who don't consider themselves as black, and who on no objective analysis are black, to be called black shouldn't be acceptable

    I'm pretty sure this is not what is being suggested.
    I read it more like - don't call me BAME, call me Black. Which I can get behind on an individual level, but I'm not sure about at a structural level. I'm personally like - don't call me BAME but I don't like any of the available words either so, shrug.

    Edit: Also, "to the detriment of black people" is real. BAME is used to cover up inequality - with generic "diversity" used to mask lack of black participation, and BAME stats masking specifically worse outcomes for black people.

About

Avatar for Brommers @Brommers started