I have often reflected on the need for us to recognize that the terms we grapple with regarding race is a movable feast. Because race isn’t real, but racism is, the terms we use regarding it is like the stones we take from one side of a brook to another.
I recently read this article regarding the term “people of the global majority”. I love that term, we are the global majority and I look forward to the day, that I will probably not see, when we no longer need to make that distinction in reaction to global practices of pushing the lie of white supremacy. The truth, as Resmaa Menakem teaches, is that there is definitely still a global advantage to being born in a white body. And as I was taught, all of us descended from the region of Pangea that is now called Africa, albeit at different times over the millennia that this planet has existed, and not some of the conspiracy theories with which I am familiar.
While I think of myself as a global citizen, I don’t want to engage in the erasure of the unique experience of African descendants of enslaved people here in the United States, as the author addresses while missing as we can do from time to time.
When listing several people of the global majority, “… Asian American, Latinx American, and black American friends…”, he did not capitalize “Black”. This denotes the lack of understanding of the culture that has developed from the unique experience and culture of Black people who have been culled together as a result of systemic oppression and racism that is unique to the history of this country.
Instead of writing a very long comment, I chose to write a blog entry response, hoping to broaden the author’s perspective. This article should be called, “Why I Reject the Term People of Color and Embrace ‘Global Majority People’" instead.
As a person who was born outside the US and raised in my culture to what degree my elders brought it with us to Westchester County, NY, I have always sought to honor the history of the most marginalized peoples in the US - Black and Brown peoples. I hope my feedback helps the author with that seeming blind spot.
Here are some of my thoughts…
In many countries outside the US, there is not actual racialized language but there is definitely caste oppression, whether it is religious or economic. Shockingly to some, it also often boils down to the amount of pigmentation with which one is born as well. Pointing out Myanmar without reference to the oppression of Rohingya Muslims is myopic and suspect.
One word I avoid like the plague is the term “minority” even as it is modified by words like “ethnic” or “religious”. This choice is because I want to do my best to get away from language that reinforces the ideas of superiority and hierarchy, that lure the aspirational class.
It is sad that we have to spend so much time reacting and responding to and teaching about the lies and misleading ideas of this system. I am so glad at the same time that some of us are called to this and take the time. I only blog about topics that absolutely need to be said by me apparently. It is a sacrifice of time and energy at times but I am glad to do it. I am so thankful for the many like Resmaa Menakem, Lynae Vanae, Amanda Seales, Roland Martin and many others who are creating the content, getting paid and dishing it many different ways.
“At this point in my life, I have spent 25 years in the U.S. — three times longer than I have in Myanmar. I have become pretty racialized and spend most of my days existing as an Asian person, as a person of color whose identity exists in relation to the dominant whiteness all around me. But I am able to remember easily, if only for a moment, what it’s like to live outside of whiteness every time I think of my childhood in Myanmar.”
When one is an immigrant, one often has to reflect on sometimes idyllic childhoods to think of themselves outside of the “dominant whiteness” of the United States unless you happened to move into an enclave of your culture here like my family did.
Speaking of terms, I wish we would adopt the term, “United Statesian” instead of “American” because it speaks for other North Americans and South Americans who are not often represented by the statement that is being made.
I liked and agreed with many things shared in this article, this is my most favorite,
“Many people who come to the U.S. are often perplexed by why Americans are so “obsessed with race”. Race, racialization, and racism are not a daily lived experience for people who come from other societies. I will take a moment here to speculate that non-white people who live in the UK, Australia, Brazil, and South Africa experience similar levels of racialization and racism given these countries’ similar histories of white supremacy and systemic racism.”
I wonder about this though.
"The term ‘people of color’ is simply a grammatical inversion of the derogatory term, coined to shed the derogatory term’s awful legacy and reclaim it as an affirming identity label. For many decades, ‘people of color’ was predominantly, if not exclusively, used by black people to refer to themselves".
I always believed that it was coined to be inclusive of other historically oppressed people of the United States, probably by white people or non-Black people. “Black”, “African” and “African-American” are some of the most-used terms recently that distinguish us.
So glad he said this.
For me as an ethnically Chinese person who was not born in the U.S., I experience this uneasy inclusion mainly as impostor syndrome. I feel like an impostor identifying as a person of color. Many Asians feel particularly stuck in this contrived dilemma. We are obviously not white. But we are not obviously black either. Many light-skinned Asian people benefit from the conditional privileges that come from white-adjacency. But many dark-skinned Asian people do not.
Make sure you are thinking of people from India and many other Asian countries that most don't usually think of in this category.
Because of my consistently diverse and multi-cultural background from my family and communities, I have always been sensitive to the exclusionary ways of this system. If I think I can refer to a group or a person, I could at least take the time to find out of whom I speak when it comes to how they identify themselves. Doing this, unless we are speaking journalistically and such, we don’t need these “rules” about terms as people who are mostly white like to approach this.
We can use any term we want. Some will prove to be more effective than others. Let us stop grappling over terms and be engaged with people. When people ask me what Black people want to be called, I recognize that either this person is a purveyor of the system or an unwitting pawn. Then I answer them, “Ask the Black person in your life how they want to be referenced”. Sometimes I add, “…if there are any” depending on how nasty they were about it. Black people you work with don’t really count, mostly because you did no labor to have them be in your life. Your employer chose them for you. See if you have any real Black friends, and wonder why, don’t try to find one like you are catching a fish.
And something that is rarely discussed is the idea that the multi-culturalism of this democracy has been hindered by the history that is murderous of People of the Global Majority by this country, and they believe, its rightful heirs. Shall we continue to be that, or will we apply the ideals to the great future it will bring? I choose the profitable venture that is diversity, equity and inclusion. I invite you to embody that…
I accept Daniel’s invitation to use the term as I identify as a person of the global majority. Thanks for opening this dialogue, Daniel.
Komentáře