Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: jeremyp on June 30, 2020, 03:39:07 PM
-
No, not the Rubble baby.
I've always hated the term "BAME" mainly because the pedant in me says doesn't "minority ethnic" also include black and Asian, at least in the context of the UK and the USA? Also, it sounds pretty horrible.
However, there is another better reason to dislike it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53194376
Using the word BAME as a convenient label for anybody who is not of European appearance seems somewhat counter to the objective of stopping racism. Chinese people are different from Pakistanis are different from Russians are different from African Americans are different from Nigerians etc etc etc but we label them all "BAME".
-
I agree with you.
-
There's a place for it. At the risk of exciting the Faragistas, there's a basis for accepting that the statistical norm in the UK derives from the ethnic groupings that fall under the broad 'Caucasian' label; in the right context there's a justification for having a term that refers to the range of other ethnicities.
However, too often it's used when a specific label would be more accurate, but that can be fraught with danger. There are elements, for instance, of the ethnic groupings that covers sections of what is now India, Bangladesh and Pakistan who object to be referred to as of Indian, Pakistani or Bangladeshi heritage or extraction, still others who object to the term 'sub-continental' and who complain that 'south east Asian' isn't precise enought.
It'd be nice to be in a place where we don't need to make reference to ethnicity at all, but until we get there I think we're always going to have to be making some linguistic compromises and hope that enough people take the efforts in good faith that it doesn't perpetuate the problems it's trying to be applied to solving.
O.
-
https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jul/25/the-term-bame-isnt-fit-for-use-we-need-a-new-political-language?__twitter_impression=true