#blacklivesmatter racism is a human problem

Cool. As part of your day job? You're a data-human, right?

I am a data-human (or try to be). As part of my day work one of the projects was looking at inequalities in indicators in the health world.

BAME NEEDS TO GO

1 Attachment

Slides at work now say "Global majority / BAME / BIPOC" in a sort of contortion of politeness.
Most everyone I know who has to work with it hates it - but is it useful to be able to say "everyone (other than white people)" as part of identifying and challenging racism?

One thing with the recent BLM exposure/awareness is that it has foregrounded discussion of Black experiences and injustices in a way which hasn't been done in the last few years of "diversity and inclusion"/BAME fluff.

But, if the problem is basically held by White people and structures, then doesn't it make sense to make this distinction? (Them as distinct from everyone else.) I don't know, it's something I go round in circles with. No-one wants to be called BAME as an individual. It's patronising and dehumanising. But it's useful when you need to show what is wrong at a structural level in a succinct way.

Any other, um, other-than-white people have thoughts on this?

Basically I don't think we are at a point when we can ditch BAME.

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.

Is ‘non-white’ a problem?

All uses are talking about populations, often in the context of a nation - each nation has a majority of a certain ethnicity.

That just seems the simplest expression.

Is ‘non-white’ a problem?

For Habeeb it's certainly going to be a problem. That post is about recovering identity that is being hidden by a more generic term. "Non-white" has just the same problem and makes any identity other than White a negative one.

That's a good point, and one I confess I hadn't thought of. I suppose the problem I have with that suggestion is that it's somewhat redolant of the 'All Lives Matters' argument. It may well be that black people suffer a greater degree of discrimation that other people of colour who aren't black and wouldn't identify as black. I don't feel I'm in a position to say whether or not that is true. But to claim that being black should be differentiated from being a member of another ethnic minority (in a white majority country) seems equally wrong.

I agree that on an individual level that being descibed as 'BAME' when you identify as being black could be used to minimize or mitigate the discrimination that people who are black, rather than Asian/Arab/SE Asian, would suffer. However, it seems to me that there needs to be a term denoting people who are not white, and who suffer discrimination on the basis of the colour of their skin. I'm not sure BAME is the right term, but I can't honestly think of anything else that is an improvement.

I suppose in a sense this is analogous to Aesop's fable about the man and the donkey - you're never going to end up with a terminology that everyone is happy with. At the moment, the term 'people of colour' seems broadly unobjectionable, hence my use of that term. I can't help but think, however, that terminology is less important that action. Words and symobology are important, and it seems to me it's obviously important that racially derogative terms should not be used, other than by people of the race in question who are seeking to subvert those terms as a means of self-empowerment. I do think however, that there needs to be some neutral ground, so that racial differences can be described in a non-pejorvative sense. If that isn't the case then it seems to me that we end up falling into the 'colour-blind' trap, where people claim that a failure to engage with systemic discrimination is a virtue.

Again, usual caveats apply. I'm here to learn, not to preach. I'm grateful this thread exists. It has caused me to question quite quite a few of the assumptions I'd taken as read, and I'd like to think of this as a journey rather than a destination.

Edited for typos and for clarity.

I totally get that, and I agree entirely that 'non-white' is a term laden with negativity. However, it seems to me (albeit as a white privileged male) that racial discrimination is not limited to the black population. If we acknowledge the concept of white privilege, as I do, then surely it is at least helpful to have a term to describe people of colour subject to discrimination because they're not white. The degree of discrimination such people of colour may experience may differ depending on the colour of their skin, and it may be that some suffer more discrimination than others due to that factor. It still seems to me that there is a need for a term to describe non-white people who suffer discrimination as a result of their skin colour, on a generic if not a personal basis, and not in such a negative way. Like miro_o I'm not sure what the appropriate terms should be.

Again, thinking aloud. Happy to be told I'm entirely wrong.

In the Resmaa Menakem conversation piece I linked to a while back he talks about how alienating (to POC) the corporate "equality, diversity and inclusion" world that he's often called to speak at, is. He also makes a point of not saying POC but saying "bodies of culture". I think it only really works if you say it like he does though (slowly, poetically), and with as much conviction. I'm not sure I could pull it off.

I've got used to POC as a catch-all and I think it's been fairly well reclaimed from the more dismissive and derogatory use of "coloured". BIPOC is used more often in the US. BAME is a UK thing as far as I can tell, and it's super awkward. How do you feel being a "minority ethnic"? Since when do you capitalise the "and" in a phrase? By highlighting the minority aspect, it always feels a bit like it's saying "there's not many of you, you're not the mainstream - you're just being awkward, you're causing a problem".

I don't know if the term "global majority" was a reaction to it, or if it had other roots, but while I understand the re-framing (we are the norm and not the "other") it's also a strange one to use - defining so many multiple people as a proportion. I don't feel like being majority or minority is really that relevant.

You are right in that we need to be able to talk about this stuff in a useful way. Which is why I think BAME or whatever terms is used, is necessary for now. I do also think it's important to talk about the ways in which words are problematic - not just in terms of words and identity, but other implications (eg. 'colour-blind' diversity being used to maintain discrimination).
Edited to add: A huge aspect of racism is reliant on people's ability to dehumanise other people - language is a significant part of that.

Since when do you capitalise the "and" in a phrase?

My understanding is the A is for Asian.

OH.
Every day a school day.

Black, Asian and minority ethnic.

Also, black is a colour, Black is an identity.

I see the point Habeeb is making and has been said, on an individual level calling someone BAME could serve to erase their individual identity and therefore their specific rights as a person.

I can see it being analogous to calling a transperson an "LGBTQ+ person". Each letter has its own issues and we have fucked over each one differently over time. It is a term that is (unfortunately) useful now to further discussion. Ideally, we shouldn't need to separate white people from everyone else and straight people from everyone else, but it is a product of the issues white and straight people have created by being racist and homophobic/transphobic for so long.

Worth a listen
https://podcasts.google.com/?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5zaW1wbGVjYXN0LmNvbS9TUjNTc09pdg&ep=14&episode=NTY3MDBjZWUtNDRlNC00ZDNjLTg0ZDEtMGUwZDk5YmFlMzk2

As someone who counts people in categories, I need categories. Otherwise I can't tell you how shit things are for groups of people.
On an individual level, I'm happy calling you black, or whatever you ask me to call you.
Personally, I think for grouping and counting and describing outcomes it's difficult.

Non white is so loaded historically, even the suggestion of it is crazy.
It's as bad as sex : unknown/missing

But. It not about me.

I dislike the term BAME as mentioned near the beginning of this thread, it is as bad as all the derogatory names I can list which are too offensive to post. I also dislike this as much as seeing a face with multi colours that calls itself diversity.. yeah that’s white shit talking about labels.. am I suppose to relate to that?? Like I’m some fucking alien.. because that’s how I feel sometimes even after living in London for 52 years

#stillranting
#stillediting

Also and I will offend with this comment , but I don’t see a lot of Asian people support BLM

That just reminded me of the Hasan Minhaj video I watched recently.

https://youtu.be/i_FE78X-qdY

In conversations where it is being discussed how to resolve the issues around how white people and a racist white society has treated people who are not white, what would you see as a better term?

Feel free to tell me to fuck off, I don't mean this question to sound like I'm putting the onus on you. I'm trying to learn and am trying to put in the work elsewhere too.

Would the correct thing be to address issues individually and not have a single term?

Taking that onboard ... we should just not use any catch-all term for ethnic minorities (in majority white populations)? Tricky but possible I guess.

Perhaps the takeaway is to always be specific with identity, when one can?

Let’s start by celebrating difference in race, culture, religion.. I love the fact that black culture from the Carribean, South America, Africa continues to enrich our lives in the UK. Not just music, food, sport, fashion. But the collective contribution to our society from everyday people in a positive way since the arrival of the Windrush generation.

About me? mixed race Londoner first, nothing more..

Arundhati Roy on "caste Hinduism" and BLM.

Sorry Al, you are a proper Londoner ;)

London, to me, is a collection of cultures and people like no where in the UK. Now this sounds like all lives matter I know, but it isn't. Every expat that has come to this country has bought their culture and made this country better from the migration.