You are reading a single comment by @ruralcommotion and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
Interesting video, certainly adds some context - I've never liked the "people of colour" phrase that's gets used quite heavily but I guess it makes more sense now.
I previously thought BAME was probably the least bad collective term but feel that collective terms really aren't appropriate in a lot of situations. Black peoples history/issues are not the same as Asian peoples history/issues and given the vast range of what could be counted as "Asian", rolling the two groups together to give an average for statistics is obviously going to under represent black people.
The BLM movement/discussions have been helpful with this, though obviously still a lot of learning/communication to be done.
Lw.
@ruralcommotion
I recently learned the origins of the term ‘women of colour’ from activist Loretta Ross. It is actually attached to a specific historic event:
https://youtu.be/82vl34mi4Iw
“Women of color” is a deliberate political designation of solidarity, not a biological term.
Personally I find using it as a biological, ethnic and/or cultural category pretty empty — with a little more effort it’s possible to be more specific rather than create a sort of monolith where there isn’t one, similar to what’s been said about the problems with ‘BAME’.
I find ‘racialised’ to be a good alternative for ‘person/people of colour’, and rather than First World/developed vs Third World/developing/‘countries of colour’ (yes I’ve really seen this), Global South and Global North are better options even if they are broad, since they speak to the history and consequences of European colonialism, movement of resources, power, etc. I’ve also seen ‘previously colonised countries’ and ‘colonising countries’ or something like that.