I never liked the acronym BAME I wonder how I’m going to be told to define myself now

[OneDrop]

I just read this

www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/16/uk-government-scrap-bame-response-sewell-race-inquiry

One of my grandparents was Sri Lankan but it was Ceylon when I was little.

I experienced racism at school. And after.

My mother was told she was Black, maybe in the 90s. I think at that time it was if you’re not white you’re Black, we must unite.

I’m sure I was once a Woman of Colour.

I think I’m supposed to be mixed white and Asian. BIPOC.

My child and I now belong to group for families ‘visible by colour’ which we are where we live now. I am grateful for a local Black Voices group which has been welcoming.

Although I identify with much of what I read on Black Mumsnetters I accept I am not Black here.

I don’t know what to think about all these different ways to describe and define who I am.

I do know I am, and have always been Nonwhite.

That’s not strictly true, I’m white and it definitely worries me. I don’t want to offend anyone by using the wrong term, and it’s far from clear what the right one is

how long did it take you to decide to describe yourself as "white" before you wrote this post? I'm guessing no time at all. So you don't have to worry about you define yourself in the way that the OP is describing. Why is it whenever "non-white" people say they have a specific difficulty, there is always one white person who pipes up and says "oh that's nothing to do with race, I have the same problem too?"

Visible by colour begs the question as to visible to whom. My dd is mixed race. It is clearly "visible" to many people that she is not white, as she is very frequently asked about her ethnicity - it seems that she confuses people because they can't easily categorise her. However, I'm sure that there are quite a few people who don't notice that she isn't white at all. So it wouldn't necessarily be "visible" to them.

The real problem with any of these collective terms is that they're still defined around whether people are "white" or "not white". While I totally understand why we might need a collective term when talking about experiences of racism etc, it always feels like these labels just reinforce the notion that white is somehow the default and everyone else is lumped into one category, despite the enormous diversity that is within that "not white" group and the difficulties that some people might have in figuring out where they are supposed to fit in. I don't know what the solution is tbh.

It’s not true about white, are you white British, white English, White Welsh, White Scottish, white Irish, white European, Roma etc. I appreciate if you are white or white passing you have a privilege that many are unaware of. I want to be white English but being English is automatically seen as being racist when being Scottish or Welsh is not.

I certainly find it confusing and difficult to know what to say for fear of getting it wrong e.g. coloured people is offensive but people of colour is not. The N word is offensive if I use it but not if used by a rapper, yes I get it is being reclaimed like queer has been reclaimed but it’s still confusing. I honestly thought as EHRC used it BAME was considered a respectful way to name a group of people. It was only when it came out this was not the case that I stopped using it as a heading when undertaking statistical analysis.

Sadly these labels for different groups of people are often imposed by other people who don’t ask those it is applied to. This does not just apply to skin colour but other protected characteristics. I don’t want to take this thread down a rabbit hole but who decided Trans was an appropriate collective word, has anyone really asked people what the want the collective word to be. Personally, I find CIS is offensive when relating to people but it has a place in science when it used correctly and is not offensive.

I’m not sure how we resolve this as it’s impossible to find one name for a group of diverse people who share one characteristic, just look at the ever expanding LGBTQI …. alphabet.

It is hard because there is an intrinsically understood hierarchy that we can't remove with language.
For example, if we made white people refer to themselves as "white british" and everyone else as "british" - there is still a connotation around power and whiteness.
I think the example of how the Australians do it is probably my favourite

I want to be white English but being English is automatically seen as being racist when being Scottish or Welsh is not.

Lots of white British people have a heritage from across the British Isles or the empire that would be erased by being "white english/scottish/irish/welsh". Nothing to stop you calling yourself English but I don't think its a useful descriptor of heritage

I think the example of how the Australians do it is probably my favourite

Do white Australians describe themselves as British Australian or European Australian etc? Or do they just say that they're Australian?

And how would that work here in the UK. If we started defining people as Indian British, Caribbean British etc, would white people start describing themselves as Celtic British, Anglo-Saxon British etc. Or would they not "need" the extra label?

So yes, I’m British Australian because I was born in the U.K. and live in Australia.

Actually now I think about it, my sons’ friends who were all born here all describe themselves as Australian even though they have a variety of family heritages and skin colours so maybe ours isn’t the best way after all.

Although actually sometimes we’re referred to as “Caucasian” or “Anglo”.

I hate this too OP
I used to find it quite upsetting as a teen - the "othering" seems worse than if it was "non-white" somehow.

I guess that’s more about nationality than skin colour. I’ve actually never noticed race being asked for on forms and things like it used to be in the U.K. The only one that is asked about is if you’re Indigenous Australian.

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes and thank you.

Also

Powerful ‘white identifying’ people/structures which coin or require these changing terms might not be troubled by the effect they have on creating discord amongst groups including non powerful white identifying people of goodwill who are appalled by the racism that is visible to them.

The act of changing terms erases history and research, or anyway enables it to be sidelined ‘we don’t do that any more, we can’t compare categories etc.’

Also ‘visible by colour’ and ‘white passing’ depend so much on context. I’m not even sure ‘white passing’ actually makes sense. It’s not portable from Wandsworth to Dover to Lands End to John O’Groats.

Who benefits from all these labels?

I’ve started to see more and more of the phrase “from the global majority” used.

@AdamRyan

I don't like the term "BAME" as "minority ethnic" is an awful catch all for some big sectors of our society (people with Pakistani heritage for example)

I don’t think it’s a term anyone uses outside of reports, surveys or newspaper article, or online shorthand, though, eg the university I used to work at had a big push to understand and end the attainment gap (fewer firsts and 2.1s achieved by Black students, compared to white or Asian), and BAME was used as bureaucratese for the non-white majority of the student body in written communications, but not verbally.

I really detest the phrase "white passing" to describe people who could be mistaken for being white. It always sounds like the people who don't look white are somehow failing.

And are white Australians just Australian? I don’t think I like it - same with African/whatever Americans. Funny how most white Americans are just American

I understand why African Americans embraced the term but I've always thought it was a mistake - it lumps them with the generations of immigrants who went to America from Ireland, Italy, etc., rather than up there with those of European descent, who are just 'American'.

@AlexaShutUp

I really detest the phrase "white passing" to describe people who could be mistaken for being white. It always sounds like the people who don't look white are somehow failing.

It certainly always sounds as if looking or being white is the ultimate aspiration or achievement.

Which is not the case.

Utterly hateful phrase.

Recently, on TV, someone described herself as "brown skinned". Is that a common / acceptable description?

I’m mixed race. On forms I have to put white and asian. Asia is a continent… I’ve never been to any country there. I was born in England. I’m English but the colour of my skin dictates the diversity category I’m put in.

Pisses me off.

@OneDrop

I just read this

www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/16/uk-government-scrap-bame-response-sewell-race-inquiry

One of my grandparents was Sri Lankan but it was Ceylon when I was little.

I experienced racism at school. And after.

My mother was told she was Black, maybe in the 90s. I think at that time it was if you’re not white you’re Black, we must unite.

I’m sure I was once a Woman of Colour.

I think I’m supposed to be mixed white and Asian. BIPOC.

My child and I now belong to group for families ‘visible by colour’ which we are where we live now. I am grateful for a local Black Voices group which has been welcoming.

Although I identify with much of what I read on Black Mumsnetters I accept I am not Black here.

I don’t know what to think about all these different ways to describe and define who I am.

I do know I am, and have always been Nonwhite.

I don't let it define me.

My maternal grandparents were of Indian descent via a Caribbean country then England. But we (2nd generation onwards) are English. Our culture is English, our ways and speech are English.

But I'm very light, people have asked if I'm Greek, Turkish, Spanish, South American etc and I've never experienced any racism so my thoughts will be different I'd expect.

I've heard "person of colour" used which I believe is the current "correct" term, the trouble is it gets abbreviated to POC or POCS which obviously sounds like something unpleasant.

The problem is that we're searching for a friendly catch-all term for "non-white" whilst simultaneously believing that the concept of having a friendly term for "non-white" is not politically correct.

I've not heard "from the global majority" before but a quick search it suggests it's just another term for "non-white". It seems a little dangerous though because by stating white people are a minority it immediately suggests they're not privileged compared to others. (If they are a minority, logically they wouldn't have been able to get into a privileged position.)

@Cerealnamechangerer

Just another example of how it's so much easier to be white. White people don't have to worry about this at all.

Except for thinking up the next "non offensive label" that non white people have to go by.

07:11Didiusfalco

Cerealnamechangerer

Just another example of how it's so much easier to be white. White people don't have to worry about this at all.

That’s not strictly true, I’m white and it definitely worries me. I don’t want to offend anyone by using the wrong term, and it’s far from clear what the right one is.

But do you even need a term? Do you use a descriptor when talking about white people?

I think all colour references are reductive and simplistic and put people in a box. We're all mongrels really, with a complicated mix of ancestors and countries and cultures

@OneDrop

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes and thank you.

Also

Powerful ‘white identifying’ people/structures which coin or require these changing terms might not be troubled by the effect they have on creating discord amongst groups including non powerful white identifying people of goodwill who are appalled by the racism that is visible to them.

The act of changing terms erases history and research, or anyway enables it to be sidelined ‘we don’t do that any more, we can’t compare categories etc.’

Also ‘visible by colour’ and ‘white passing’ depend so much on context. I’m not even sure ‘white passing’ actually makes sense. It’s not portable from Wandsworth to Dover to Lands End to John O’Groats.

Who benefits from all these labels?

For me, I tend to go back to 'why are we even asking'.

So if the aim of categorising people by colour/race is to monitor racism, then the people that are subject to the racism should be the ones to determine the ways that this is recorded and monitored.

And how can behaviour be changed, which is the reason we are surely asking? How many categories are important to monitor, are there different issues for different groups and if so, how do those groups wish it to be recorded and monitored and stopped?

Has the labelling that has been done so far to record and monitor been successful? Or has it actually uncovered more issues? Is it an issue in itself?

Alot of this is to do with how funding flows through government departments through to funded projects to show that it has been spent on 'groups' so the categorising tends to follow the ONS categories, so is whoever is in charge of the ONS in a position to be determining which categories are recorded, monitored and reported on? Was this determined in line with the 'groups' it was meant to help or decided by a white ex university educated think tank?

And what terms can be ported across a whole country to enable reporting to be consistent? Or should it be all localised as what is needed in Cornwall may not be what is needed in Wandsworth. But here again, it might be. Who knows?

If you are white but born abroad and live in England you still experience racism. Racism is not white against black. If I’m completely honest if it was our lives would be easier.

@Danikm151

I’m mixed race. On forms I have to put white and asian. Asia is a continent… I’ve never been to any country there. I was born in England. I’m English but the colour of my skin dictates the diversity category I’m put in.

Pisses me off.

I avoid putting stuff on forms. I was born and raised here. The colour of my skin doesn't change that. If there's "prefer not to say" I do that.