‘Global Majority’ no longer to be used in polite company

I'm not sure why you would wish to do ANYTHING about a term whose adoption or otherwise doesn't make one bit of difference to your life.

Who cares what somebody surely most of us have never heard of thinks. She is entitled to her opinion.  She represents only herself.  We don't need to be outraged.

I tend to say "People of Colour", "Black", "Asian", "Latino/a", "First People" etc - depending upon the context. Have done for years.

I've never been admonished about anything, so far as I know.

Because I don't really have any strong views on such a minor matter.

So long as the terms people use don't cause offence, I couldn't care less what an organisation says.

It's not a minor matter to the people in the population cohort concerned - the non-white population.

They have a very keen interest in how they are referred to by the rest of us. It seems that every formulation that has been tried - from coloured to BAME to 'global majority' - has critics for one reason or another. It seems we can't please everybody no matter what we do.

So what's the answer? Just call them 'Them' or 'The Others' or even 'non-whites'? Might that work?

You may be right but rather than pursuing you down that particular rat-hole I'd rather return to the central question, which is how we (the global minority) are supposed to refer to the them (the global majority) in terms that won't cause widespread rancour. This is clearly an important matter otherwise it would not take up so much mental shelf-space and be the source of so much liberal angst in every country across the west not just the UK.

As it happens dappy both you and Wally can stop scratching your heads in search of a coherent answer. I think I have found one, but more later.

So picking up the theme again, what ought we to be calling the non-white population?

Not for the first time great minds in Whitehall have risen to the challenge and have proposed a resolution to the knotty problem that confronts us.

I happened to stumble across a style guide 'Writing about ethnicity' that informs public sector workers about how to do it. There are a number of useful tips and tricks.

First, we're not to confuse race and ethnicity. The guide doesn't come out and say it, but the implication is that race is merely a social construct while ethnicity is a real thing. In government circles there are currently nineteen different ethnic groups, including White British.

The guide proposes that every other ethnic group should be referred under the collective title of 'ethnic minorities'. So that's the answer right? Ethnic minorities and not racially divisive terms like black, people of colour or members of the Global Majority.

But wait. There's a hitch here. The officially prescribed list of Ethnic minorities include a number of ethnic groups that are usual considered as white, specifically: Irish, Gypsy or Irish Traveller, Roma and 'Any other white background'.

And what about the White British? Won't they become another ethnic minority if (when?) they are no longer the majority, say around 2066?

So it's clear that ethnic minority cannot serve as a proxy for 'non-white' now and even less so in the longer term. It wouldn't, for example serve UCL's purpose in identifying those qualified to participate in its Tai Chi sessions. They're looking to include only those who have experienced "chronic stress triggered by racism.

The formulation that UCL could have used instead, rather than restricting the sessions to 'staff who identify as black/people of colour/global majority', would have been (per the style guide): 'staff who are members of any ethnic minority, except for Irish and those of any other white background who have no group experience of historical oppression. Not very catchy I agree but it has the great merit of offering a safe route through the minefield of identity politics, something not to be sniffed at these days.

You're welcome.