A Black Lives Matter spokesperson said that Black people are over-policed as citizens but under-policed as victims (PA)/ Photo from Yahoo news
More and more organizations are abandoning the term 'BAME' (Black, Asian, Minority Ethnic) in favor of 'Global Majority' when referring to individuals of Black, Asian, Indigenous, or Latin ancestry. This week, the National Trust adopted this language while introducing a new training program aimed at increasing ethnic representation.
The shift in terminology has raised questions about the meaning of 'Global Majority' and why 'BAME' has fallen out of favor. Many view 'BAME' as clumsy and inaccurate, lumping all non-white people under a single, marginalized category. In contrast, 'Global Majority' seeks to provide a broader context for their experiences. The phrase has been used in the United States since the early 2000s.
Furthermore, 'BAME' perpetuates the misconception that individuals from minority communities are inherently marginalized. In reality, people with African, Asian, Indigenous, or Latin ancestry comprise approximately 85 percent of the global population. Statistics show that nearly 60 percent of the world's population resides in Asia, while 18 percent live in Africa. Latin America and the Caribbean account for 8 percent, North America for 4 percent, and Oceania for less than 1 percent.
Advocates for using terms like 'Global Majority' argue that it helps decolonize language and combat racism by rejecting the notion of white superiority. They argue that 'BAME' combines important statistics about non-white individuals, such as population trends and diversity data, which can lead to misrepresentation and inaccuracies. Additionally, 'BAME' can mask the lack of representation of certain groups by highlighting the inclusion of others, creating a false sense of racial equality.
The adoption of 'Global Majority' by organizations like the National Trust reflects a broader trend towards embracing more inclusive language. Westminster City Council and the National Council of Voluntary Organisations have also adopted this terminology. The Church of England's Archbishops' Anti-Racism Taskforce report suggested using "United Kingdom Minority Ethnic/Global Majority Heritage" (UKME/GMH) instead of 'BAME'.
However, not everyone supports the shift to 'Global Majority'. Conservative MP John Hayes criticized the label, arguing that it distorts language and serves a liberal agenda to control and limit thought. Nevertheless, the government's Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities (CRED) denounced the 'BAME' term as unhelpful and redundant in its 2021 report, although it did not propose an alternative.
Ultimately, the debate over terminology reflects larger discussions about identity, representation, and the need for language to accurately reflect diverse experiences. While 'Global Majority' may not be universally accepted, it represents an effort to move away from outdated and potentially harmful terminology towards more inclusive language that acknowledges the realities of a diverse global population.
