Rethinking terminology for describing diverse groups

Numerous organizations and the UK government have moved away from using the acronym BAME (black, Asian, and minority ethnic). While terms like ethnic minority and people of color remain in use, “people of the global majority” is gaining traction as a potential alternative.

Origins of the Term

The term “people of the global majority” refers to individuals who are “black, Asian, brown, dual-heritage, indigenous to the global south, and/or have been racialized as ‘ethnic minorities’,” representing approximately 80% of the world’s population. Educator and activist Rosemary Campbell-Stephens coined the term. During Black History Month in the UK, discussions are underway regarding the term’s origins and the debates surrounding its use when discussing ethnicity.

Perspectives on “People of the Global Majority”

Donna Ali, founder of BE.Xcellence, expressed both support and reservations about the term. She appreciated its emphasis on unity and its ability to empower individuals, countering the feeling of being “less than” associated with the term “minority.” However, she cautioned against the “them and us” dynamic it could create, emphasizing the importance of inclusivity rather than division.

Author and academic Darren Chetty also acknowledged both benefits and drawbacks. He highlighted the term’s ability to reframe the idea of people of color as a majority globally. However, he noted that it doesn’t explicitly address racialization and, like BAME, risks treating diverse groups as homogenous.

Government and Organizational Shifts

The UK government committed to discontinuing the use of BAME in March 2022, following a review on race inequality. It stated it would use specific ethnic classifications whenever possible, and would use “ethnic minorities” or “people from ethnic minority backgrounds” when grouping individuals was necessary. The National Council of Voluntary Organisations adopted “people of the global majority” to replace BAME, Bipoc, and ethnic minorities, citing its more reflective and empowering nature. National Museums Liverpool also made the change for similar reasons.

Criticisms and Concerns

Despite its growing use, the term has faced criticism. Political commentator Julia Hatley Brewer questioned its logic on Talk TV, suggesting it could be considered racist. The National Trust received backlash for using the term in a walking project, with some accusing it of virtue signaling. Think tank director Sunder Katwala argued in The Independent that it was a step backwards for ethnic minorities, erasing their unique cultural heritage. Writer Rakib Ehsan, in Spiked, described it as a “fundamentally useless term.”

Context and Future Language

Darren Chetty emphasized the importance of considering context when choosing language, noting that the purpose and setting of the discussion should guide the selection of terms. Donna Ali advocated for further language changes, suggesting “infusion” as an alternative to “inclusion.” Both agreed on the problematic nature of race itself, with Darren stating that racialization is an ongoing process and not an essential quality. Ultimately, Darren concluded that the work of addressing racism is far more important than choosing the “right” terminology.