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.

Why is coloured people offensive then?

Genuine question.

I work in HR in the most diverse employer in the UK and we do not use this term, none of our employees thought it resonated with them.

This is odd, the only time I’ve seen “global majority” used to refer to all non-white ethnicities used is by crazed white nationalists frothing at the mouth about white people being the “global minority” and are doomed to extinction unless white women have lots more white babies…

So, I’m have a bit of cognitive dissonance with the fact that so many appear to like this term? I can’t really bring myself to like it tbh. But it’s not my choice, I think it’s up to each ethnicity what they want to be called and no label should be imposed on anyone.

I still use BAME but also aware now that it’s less acceptable to the ethnicities it refers to. So, I try and write out each ethnicity (ie Black Caribbean, Chinese, etc) in full when discussing these sorts of issues. But a lot of studies and government statistics still use BAME and so when you use that data you are sort of forced to use that terminology in order to accurately refer to statistics…so it’s a bit of a rock and a hard place.

I heard Global Majority for the first time recently at some anti racism training at school. The trainer was a woman of a Somali heritage and she said it was her preferred description, it has only recently been commonly used.

I can’t see how global majority addresses any of the problems with BAME. And I think it disguises the problem it is mean to address, that non-white peoples suffer discrimination due to being a minority group in this country.

I prefer the suggestion upthread Ethnic minority groups, it acknowledges both that being in a minority has complications and using the plural hep prevent treating them as homogeneous.

I'm not sure what purpose labelling people as anything which means white and non-white is very helpful in any case. It gives the impression you think a white people are the same and all non-white people are the same.

In fact a rich, privileged person with brown skin has more in common with a rich, privileged person with white skin than with a poor under-privileged person with brown skin. Similarly a brown skinned person from Japan may have more in common with a white person from Norway each other than they do with a black skinned person from Ethiopia. Or they may not.

Basically my point is I don't really see the point of a label meaning non-white. You may as well have a label that means non-black which includes white, brown and mixed race people. How is that any more nonsensical?

Ps I'm a teacher and never heard of the term global majority.

Generally speaking the term ethnic minority refers to a specific minority group within a particular country or area, which may cause disadvantage to people in that group. In a country where that group is the majority, there's no disadvantage to being part of that group!

Well as part, therefore, of the global majority, I am sorry to say, "great global
Minority saver" if find the term ridiculous and demeaning. But then, what do I know? @NewYorkXmas

I hate BAME but think Global majority is just as bad, what does it even mean? Who is it referring to?

I think it depends on what the context is.
Personally I think global majority sounds weird (I prefer saying that my parents grew up in developing countries rather than saying that they were part of the global majority - not really sure they are now still part of it having come to UK).
I think BAME is ok but would prefer it if people tailored the term more specifically to the context.
For example an office might want to raise awareness of the special days/holidays of people of different cultures or religions.
Black people are under-represented in my company and I hope their initiatives can help improve this - but this is not true of every ethnic minority that counts under ‘BAME’ (that is not to say that the experience of other ethnic minorities shouldn’t be improved as well - just that it should be tailored to the difficulties people face).

I guess I would just describe people as “of South East Asian ancestry” or whatever. I mean you are never going to know everyone’s specific ancestry ( people never get mine) but it’s broad enough without lumping all non Europeans together. I never liked BAME because it really doesn’t mean what the letters say, it’s just a way of saying “ not white” .

Well I have never heard of it and I’m one of them!

I work for a local authority which after polling the staff have agreed to continue using BAME. Global Majority was not on the list of options from which to select a preference. Lumping everyone together is the same as saying non-white and useful only to address where white privilege occurs.

I work at uni where the majority of our students are not British. I've never heard of the term global majority and wouldn't know who it was referring to.

I've never heard global majority. It's a bit of a weird term.

Because ‘ethnic minorities‘ is habitually used - consciously or not - to make every non-white person feel small and isolated and helpless and at the mercy of the inalienably white ‘majority’ to whom they must be forever grateful for every lash and kick and patronising back door opportunity to sip fresh water or hold a pen.
Using the word ‘majority’ do describe non-white people redresses the psychological balance.

@TottersBlankly I'm an ethnic minority. I don't mind being categorized that. Global majority don't resonate with me at all. If I had to be categorized as global majority, I'd rather be called non white, because it's true, but global majority isn't.

But weird thing is, I don't remember ever needed to declare my ethnicity in my own country. In UK, there are so many occasions that we need to choose one of the options. Never thought about it until now, but why do we need that in the first place?

Global majority only makes sense if you've already mentally grouped the world into the categories of white people and everyone else.

I've heard of "global majority".

I'll add in "weird" countries: Western, educated, rich and democratic.

It doesn't seem that this is what OP is looking for, but I like that it doesn't segregate upon race. Obviously no generalisation is perfect, but sometimes dividing by race misses the point (other times not).

But when you're writing about inclusion and diversity you have to have a way of identifying groups who are not the pre-dominant group. So what word do you use if you want to describe the non-dominant ethnic group?

We have a group called 'disabled people' which obviously encompasses a huge range of differing needs, but before you get to that point you might need to talk about the importance of including disabled people. As far as I am aware disabled people don't object to being lumped into a group together - or do they?

Non-White is awful though. It makes 'White' the norm or the default, and makes everyone else outside the norm.

You wouldn't call a White person 'Non-Black', would you?

Doesn't it rather depend on the context? If you are discussing a global issue then global majority is probably correct. If you are discussing a UK issue then I would say BAME is more appropriate wording.

I absolutely hate the term people of colour. It absolutely sounds like coloured people with a modern twist. So weird to me that it's so accepted.

Yeah this is it. If you are trying to say non white then you can use any phrase you want but it's still going to mean the same thing. If you were trying to say non black then would you feel as whatever about saying it? Non Asian? I mean either you beat around the bush but people still know what you mean no matter how you say it or you come straight out and say it.

The only not 'othering' way to do it is to actually name individually every race or ethnicity of the people you are referring to.

@titchy
I just wondered reading this thread. Why do people need to differentiate and identify groups? Why do they need to separate people constantly because of ethnicity or colour? If they feel the need, granted. They may need the adjustment in regards to religion or customs. But in UK, they ask you all the time, when you see the doctor, go to school, etc. Why the need? I'm a female, human. My colour or ethnicity doesn't come to my mind in everyday life much. Only being reminded when I'm asked.

It's just more nonsense divisive language. This time it's confusing as well.