What can I write if I don't want to write BME / BAME etc

[HellonHeels]

Is Global Majority better?

Please help, not trying for woke points, just want to be inclusive and use the best language.

No style guide in my institution, other reports use BAME.

I'd say Global Majority but it depends on the context of whatever you're writing.

I may be out of date but if I read Global Majority I’d have no idea what you were on about.

Why don’t you like BME/BAME?

I've never heard of global majority.

BAME seems bizarre because it's lumping all non-white people together as if they're all the same.

An Asian person from a relatively wealthy developed country like Japan, Singapore or South Korea does not have much in common with someone from a poor African country like Sudan. So in what context would it be appropriate to consider them part of the same group?

I’ve never heard of global majority either! I cringe least when I see ‘Black and Brown’ but there doesn’t seem to be a clear consensus. I’m torn between feeling it’s important to achieve balanced representation and fearing that pigeonholing isn’t helpful.

It depends on the context, but if it's needed why not use a persons actual ethnicity.

All BAME and other shitty expressions mean is 'Not white'

So in what context would it be appropriate to consider them part of the same group?

Yes I agree. But the same applies to “Global Majority” doesn’t it?

I guess the appropriate terminology depends on what sort of report the OP is writing where she would need to use this terminology.

If other reports in your org use BAME I would stick with that.

They are the same, in that they are all classed as non-white. It has nothing to do with what they may have in common economically, culturally or otherwise.

People of Colour? That's what BAME people on social media seem to use a lot now.

So, I think that the term needs to be shelved. I do not use it.

I write/say 'majority world' instead of 'third world' <shudder> when I'm talking about international stuff. Otherwise it depends on context. 'People who are BIPOC' seems to be popping up in Canadian/American stuff.

Those who haven't heard of Global Majority - I'm staggered about that - what sectors are you in? This is by far the most accepted and used now, though not to say it won't be overtaken by something else.

Whoever suggested "non-white" - that's not perceived as particularly acceptable, because "non-white" is basically lumping people together based on what they're not. Eg, a women become "non-men".

Global majority is seen as factual, and less "othering" and less oppressive than saying "minority" all the time.

So what do you use instead?

Because I'd guess OP is talking about groups of people rather than a single person so cannot use a single ethnicity.

I'm in HE and BAME tends to be used, not 'global majority' at all.

I'm another that wouldn't have a clue what Global Majority meant.

I'd never heard it before. I'm a commercial lawyer.

The problem is, segregating into groups of people in this way is absolutely no different that saying non white. Where is the need or relevance for this grouping?

It encompasses a massive variety of ethnicity as one homogeneous group, it's awful.

I am also in HE, and I've seen BAME or just straightforward "ethnic minority" because all people encompassed by this are in the minority, ethnically speaking, in our region/at our Uni.
There is also the issue of religion (if I was talking about student culture and how it's alcohol-heavy), language (if I was talking about the need for extra English classes for mainland Chinese students), and racism within some student societies (has been in the news sadly).
I also do research with "developing countries" and for my research writing I use a variety of terms depending on context e.g.
Materially poor countries or peoples (and this could include e.g. former Soviet republics which are majority White, of course).
Under-researched or under-served areas or countries or peoples.
Diverse cultures (especially if I'm saying OY YOU LOT DO SOME RESEARCH ON PARTS OF THE WORLD THAT ARE NOT WHITE).
I don't research racism/race/ethnicity except tangentially (I'm in STEM but do outreach to e.g. train up professionals in a huge variety of settings, so you need to know what works in those settings and why it's different which may be down to physical geography, culture, or a whole shed load of stuff).

I'm also in HE and we are moving to GM (or GEM - global ethnic majority)

So just use what you mean then.

Non-white.

In different contexts I’ve used people of colour, global majority, minoritised groups, racialised groups.

As a researcher though, I often revert to BAME as for all its flaws there is at least a broad consensus on who is included/excluded within that definition, and I don’t think the same is true for any of the others. You can use BAME as an analytical category (if using standard data collection for ethnicity) and I don’t know of a sufficiently useful alternative yet.

Global majority works for me.

I've never heard global majority before but I fucking love it. Will be using it from now on as it's accurate.