Since Black Lives Matters (in the summer of 2020) there has been a resurgence in talk about equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI), and an unexpected outcome has been the use of the acronym BAME in the media and mainstream – and resulting disagreements on the appropriateness of this term.
The best practice has always been to use the term ethnic minority or people from ethnic minority groups. However, BAME (formerly BME) has been used by many people for years and seemed to gain much more use during the pandemic being used by the media to discuss the disproportionate impact on people from ethnic minority/BAME communities.
Everyone is expected to tread sensitively around appropriate language, ‘BAME’, ‘BME’; ‘minorities’ but not ‘non-white’; ‘person of colour’ but not ‘a coloured person’. And, one I quite like – ‘the global majority’. It seems as though everyone is a little bit lost – searching for guidance on a term that won’t be offensive, is current and has consensus.
The history of BAME
Before BAME there was BME and before BME there was Black. Every industry has its buzz word and for the EDI industry BAME was the ultimate buzz term. In regard to its usage it has been quite exclusionary, you either do or don’t know what it means. If you didn’t know what it meant you probably didn’t work in a company that had some kind of equality and diversity strategy or at least some kind of acknowledgement of the lack of progression for some people from ethnic minority backgrounds. Typically, it fit in the human resources field in some way. Legal cases do not refer to BME/BAME, and until 2020 neither did the media.
BAME stands for Black Asian and Minority Ethnic (not Black And Minority Ethnic) – Asian was added as Asian people, the other significant ethnic minority group in the UK did not feel that BME represented them as it specified Black and there are more people from an Asian background than Black in the UK.
BME stands for Black and Minority Ethnicity. Black in this context actually meant ‘political blackness’. In the 1960s and 1970s in the UK all people from Black and Asian ethnic backgrounds were grouped together and grouped themselves together to fight racism. This was political blackness. That is the origin of the Black in BME. It did not originally refer to the black ethnic group of people from the African diaspora as it does now. This is why the trade union Unison has a Black Members Group.
Some students in universities are now preferring the term ‘global majority’ in recognition that the ethnic groups in the UK that are in the minority are often in the majority at a global level.
The law
BAME is a collective description. But the characteristic it is collectively grouping individuals together on the basis of is ethnicity.
In the UK we have the Equality Act 2010 and before that (for race) the Race Relations Amendment Act 2000 and the Race Relations Acts in 1968 and 1976. Race as defined by our UK legislation includes; nationality, ethnic origin, national origin and colour. In the discussion about ‘BAME’ this legislation isn’t helpful except to highlight that there is no legal definition of race, ethnicity or what constitutes a minority group.
Ethnicity descriptors tend to be historical and geographical. The term ‘Asian’ for example – half of Russia is in the Asian continent – but people from Russia are not labelled as Asian. In the UK, Asian tends to mean people from the Indian subcontinent – for example, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh. But in North America, Asian generally means people from East Asia – China, Taiwan, Japan etc. Migratory and colonial histories often define the terminology that references the ethnic minority people in who live in that country.
What is the problem?
Language is ever changing and evolving – particularly in regard to the terms used to describe often marginalised groups. The fact that these groups are marginalised means that we have to be extra sensitive to using appropriate language. Comparatively, discussions about the people in white categories or labels tend to arise specifically when talking about white minority groups such as ‘white Irish’ and ‘white eastern European’ being included in the BAME bracket. Clearly then labels become an issue when there is a perceived disadvantage in comparison to the majority. Until recently the concept of whiteness has not been in the public discourse in any way comparable with what it means to be an ethnic minority. Although there are several academic studies and publications e.g. White Fragility by Robin DiAngelo and The History of White People by Neil Irvin Painter (both publications from the USA).
Labels matter – When dealing with groups of people who have often been marginalised as a collective, labels are both tremendously important and not at the same time. Most importantly, labels when mixed with power (who is saying them to whom) are the everyday experiences that really tell a person how the society they live in views them, where they sit in the pecking order, who you are associated with. But they are also less important when the time, energy and focus is on the label itself i.e. questions about ‘what should the label be?’, ‘should there be a label?’, ‘how can we respectfully describe the differences which we are trying to understand and remove the associated discrimination?’.
‘Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me’ A playground chant to ease children from the pain of the name calling. But as an adult we learn that words do hurt us. Words have power, labels have power and when people are marginalised the names, titles and labels given to them mean so much more. Often because they are ‘given’ to them. We hear of terms being reclaimed. The fact that a term has to be reclaimed means that its use was negative either in intent or how it is viewed.
We don’t want to offend anyone. We live in an age of ‘identity politics’ this is a step further from the views of the 90s/00s that ‘political correctness had gone maaaad’. Political correctness had the aim of using the language and terminology that is preferred by a group of people to describe themselves so as not to cause offence. Apparently, this ‘went maaaad’ because some people were being asked to consider the language they used, to not be offensive to that group who they were referring to – often deemed as encroaching on freedom of expression. In a former job (in 2009) I trained a team of four front line workers in the NHS, where I spent an unusual amount of time explaining to one of the trainees why she couldn’t say ‘Pi shop’ that ‘corner or local shop’ were more acceptable and inoffensive. This was a good example of white privilege. She was outraged and determined to keep saying ‘Pi shop’. Her colleague sitting right next to her in this training session, was an Asian man, who must have found this offensive. This is an extreme example and I live in hope that most people are doing their best not to offend people and be considered in the language that they use.
There is no consensus. Everyone arrives at these terms in different ways, with their own perception of what they mean and their own experiences of how they are used. I have spent far too much time trying to explain the history of the terms to people. Because at the end of the day the history doesn’t matter if the individual has already rejected or embraced the label being assigned to them. And this can be for different reasons. A person may reject it because they; 1) don’t want to be put in an incorporeal generalised group 2) see the associations that people make with the label and feel it doesn’t represent them or their experiences 3) don’t see themselves as BAME 4) don’t want to be labelled by others. And on the other side of the coin, people may embrace the term because 1) they feel that their experiences as a minority person are collectively similar, 2) they want patterns of discrimination on the basis of race to be identified and addressed, 3) they feel less isolated when similar experiences (positive and negative) on the basis of race are openly discussed.
Where are we now?
Firstly, everyone has an opinion. Literally, everyone has an opinion as to what term should be used. Whether or not they are in the group, which creates a problem and added layer of complexity. Who decides the terms and who uses it? For example, if stereotypically privileged white men start saying ‘BAME people’ a lot with some negative intonation, the term itself may have a different feel and be viewed negatively.
Secondly, there is no answer. This is not a maths question. There will never be a one size fits all language when we are talking about how people identify themselves for a characteristic that is socially constructed. Also, it is impossible to completely throw away a term like BAME because so many people do identify with it and organisations use it.
Thirdly, some people have only just discovered and embraced the BAME term. But generationally, for younger people in the UK this term is almost dead already. As stated above, language changes. All terminology changes and especially on personal characteristics. A clear example of this is that ‘coloured person’ was and is offensive to people in the UK, but with the influence of the USA, ‘person of colour’ is acceptable now.
What is the answer?
Look beyond your own interpretation and understanding. It is important to understand that there is nobody (person or organisation) that will determine an appropriate term – therefore everyone will use it as they please. But if we monitor the terminology being used by ‘the youth’ via social media – you should probably prepare yourself if you haven’t already for POC person of colour (or in the Americas BIPOC Black Indigenous and Persons Of Colour) and ‘Black and Brown people’ which are being used globally (on social media) by the younger generations.
In a professional context be prepared to throw all of the hot, exciting, social zeitgeist terminology away and just use the basic ‘does what it says on the tin’ terms ethnic minority and minority ethnic groups – particularly in original produced organisation communications and publications (while mirroring the language that other organisations use and letting individuals choose their own terminology when referring to themselves).
Tips:
- Do use the phrase ‘People from ethnic minority groups’ (or backgrounds) or ‘ethnic minority people’. It is simple but has few negative associations in its use.
- Do consider the context (geographical) when trying to describe a group. Different countries have different ethnic minority groups. If you are talking about groups relevant to the UK context say so – or consider that minority ethnic groups shift regionally and in the four nations.
- Don’t say ‘non-white’ this is marginalising and offensive. Shaping the experiences of ethnic minority people as only relevant to the white narrative.
- Do remember that If you are going to use the term BAME it is an adjective. Say, ‘Black, Asian and ethnic minority’ or ‘people from BAME backgrounds’. It is not a noun – there are no BAMEs.
- Do not tell a person how they should label themselves. You don’t understand that persons personal perspective and should not presume their identity.
- Don’t get stuck on one term! It will be different tomorrow and time should not be wasted arguing about it. You have a preference, but it would be impossible to have everyone agree on your personal preference – and no one should have to.
- Don’t be too prescriptive as to say we will only use one term – by rejecting a term being used by others that identify themselves with that term, it creates barriers and does not recognise people’s lived experiences.
- Do be cognisant of the conversations in the wider environment; media, communities, experts about best practice. For example, mirroring language used by researchers, media, in reports when discussing that group/report etc.
Finally, this page from the ethnicity facts and figures website is helpful in how they explain the language they use to write about ethnicity.
