Hi all,

Terminological traditions aside, I think we need clarity about what is meant by certain terms.  This is important, because we are in the business of establishing facts about service provision, and taking matters forward for disadvantaged groups.  A key way we do this is through the collection of statistics within services, and it is for this reason that clarity of records is vital.

In my view, however, what tends to be focussed on, when looking at statistical reports, is a set of innacurate assumptions which lay alongside the numbers.  These may include:-

'ethnicity' = proxy for race and/or religeon
'religion' = proxy for race, ethnicity and perhaps nationality
'nationality' = proxy for race, ethnicity and perhaps religeon

There appears to be massive room for confusion, and I think that a common language is vital for taking things forward.  The same thing happens when peiople use gender as a proxy for sex.  

There are, in my opinion, terms that lend themselves to greater reliability, in terms of social science rigour.  While these terms carry historic meaning, they continue to be recorded by service providers and the UK authorities.  While not exhaustive, these terms include:-

'migrant' = somebody who has moved to a country from their country of birth
'indigenous/native' = reference to peoples born in a particular place
'nationality' = country of citizenship
'sex' = recorded as male or female
'race' = the racial origin of a person
'religeon' = [non]affiliation to a faith group
'sexual orientation' = preferred sexual partner(s)

I'm not trying to argue against ethnically driven research.  Its just that it is hard to establish fact without fixed reference points.  Some of the reference points that are used are all too often seen as interchangable, when this is wrong in research terms, and can lead to completely misleading findings.  An orientation on equality-based research that relies on the above terms, which may have more reliable characteristics, comes at a price of seeming to ignore the awful ways that language around disadvantaged groups has been used against them.  In my opinion, this doesn't mean that they shoud not be used, as the task of convincing policymakers and funders, is too challenging without the clarity this brings.

I would also add, that such an approach could then lend itself to systematic use of income or occupational data, in order to attempt to get to the bottom of how sometimes, researchers doing work in "BME Communities", can imply that hardship in a researched community is more connected with ethnic or racial insensitivity of providers to the populaiton they serve, than membership of lower socio-ecconomic groups.

If social class is still a vital indicator, then its absence from service planning data, alongside confused understandings abour racial disadvantage, won't serve disadvantaged people in the long run.

Regards
Pete Hoey

Planning Development Officer
(Diversity & Substance Use)
Safer Stronger Communities Service,
Room G01, The Deighton Centre,
Deighton Road, Huddersfield, HD2 1JP
01484 226932 / 07966 459243
www.saferkirklees.co.uk 
Have you visited our e-learning site yet:
www.drugtraining4free.co.uk 

>>> Sanyal Neil <[log in to unmask]> 10/29/09 6:39 PM >>>
Having lived in Liverpool for 15 years in the 80s and 90s I know the
reason for the dislike of "ethnic". There was a big movement to get the
authorities to use the term "Black British" because many of those who
this term applied to could trace their roots back for more than 200
hundred years in the city and terms like "immigrant" and "migrant" were
disrespectful and not applicable. Many members of the city's White
British population had spent centuries being racist and denying these
Black British Liverpudlians the right to be treated the same as them.
Bristol's experience may well have been similar but I don't know to be
sure. I have been uncomfortable about "BME" but recognize that it is
probably the best term we've got for the time being. I don't like the
idea of "migrants" I'm afraid as it separates out people's identities as
if they were guests for ever and, referring to the Liverpool point
above, people have a right to feel they are citizens of the country they
live in on equal terms. Unless someone has experienced living in a city
like Liverpool for some time and known local people they would perhaps
not understand the importance of all this.

 

Neil Sanyal

Romsey, Hampshire

________________________________

From: Health of minority ethnic communities in the UK
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Ndebele
Melusi
Sent: 29 October 2009 09:14
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Black/black

 

How very refreshing!

Coming to work in Liverpool two and half years ago, I was told that
local people did not like the 'ethnic' bit so the term to use was 'Black
and other racial minorities' (BRM).

In September 2009, the PCT decided it is going to be BME and nothing
else.

I guess the debate will go on but for me this is a very refreshing
perspective.

 

Melusi

 

 

 

________________________________

From: Health of minority ethnic communities in the UK
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ingleby,
J.D. (David)
Sent: 28 October 2009 19:16
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Black/black

 

Dear Jane,

 

The term "Black and minority ethnic" does indeed cause raised eyebrows
in what you refer to as Europe (by which I suppose you mean continental
Europe; last time I looked, the UK was geographically and politically
part of Europe!)  I understand the historical reasons why the term "BME"
was invented, but all the same I hope it will be phased out one day.
Apart from suggesting a contrast between Black and other minority ethnic
groups, it is a quite inadequate term to use for asylum seekers, who are
not an ethnic group (unless Home-Office-Land is a country of origin) and
often have no chance to belong to an ethnic group in the UK. The same
applies to undocumented migrants, who constitute approximately 10% of
all migrants. In fact, I think the popularity of the term "BME" has a
lot to do with the neglect of the rights of asylum seekers and
undocumented migrants in the UK - though which is cause and which is
effect, I'm not sure. 

 

It's true that we "Europeans" on the other side of the Channel do tend
to talk a lot about "migrants", but that reflects a deliberate choice
for a different theoretical perspective. I don't understand how you can
call it "just plain wrong". Referring to "second generation  migrants"
is a contradiction in terms, I admit; but ignoring the difference
between members of an ethnic group who were born overseas and those who
were born in the host country - which is what you do if you only look at
"ethnicity" - is not very helpful either. Can't we just agree to study
"migrants and ethnic  minorities"?

 

As for what constitutes an "minority ethnic group", I'd like to
challenge the apparent assumption of many UK researchers that whenever
you have a group of people coming from a certain country, you have an
"ethnic community". Very often, "community" is just a feel-good term
that doesn't correspond to anything real. The only way to find out
whether people coming from a particular country form a community - i.e.
identify with that country, maintain contact with each other, and so on
- is to get out there and ask them. My hunch is that many of them don't.
Especially when the country in question is a big one, regions, cities,
religions or tribes may be far more important. 

 

For example: in the Netherlands, Moroccans are treated as an ethnic
group (and how!)  However, if you ask them, you learn that many never
thought of themselves as "Moroccans" when they arrived. In particular,
Berber- and Arabic-speaking Moroccans felt they had little in common
with each other. However, when the Dutch media and intellectuals started
to tar them all with the same brush, they suddenly did - and so an
ethnic group was born.....

 

Glad to see these issues aired at last!

 

Best wishes,

David

 

Utrecht,

The Netherlands,

Europe,

The World,

The Solar System,

etc.

 

________________________________

Van: Jane Fountain [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Verzonden: wo 28-10-2009 09:05
Aan: Ingleby, J.D. (David); [log in to unmask]
Onderwerp: Black/black

I agree with Mark (below) on this one.  At ISCRI, we use the following
to explain:

 

"We are very conscious that various terms are used to refer to the many
diverse communities in the UK.  We use 'Black and minority ethnic
communities/populations.'  This reflects that our concern is not only
with those for whom 'Black' is a political term, denoting those who
identify around a basis of skin colour distinction or who may face
discrimination because of this or their culture:   'Black and minority
ethnic' also acknowledges the diversity that exists within these
communities, and includes a wider range of those who may not consider
their identity to be 'Black,' but who nevertheless constitute a distinct
ethnic group, such as White Irish people."

 

This goes down like a ton of bricks in Europe, though, where the 'and'
in 'Black and minority ethnic' is taken to mean that 'Black' people are
not 'minority ethnic' people.  

 

Throughout Europe, the term most often used is 'migrants' which I think
is totally inadequate and just plain wrong, but I fear I am fighting a
losing battle!

 

I too have had problems with journals who decapitalise my 'Black' even
when I add the paragraph above explaining it.  

 

My main concern as a researcher, however, whatever people choose to call
themselves, with a capital or not, is that data are collected and
presented at least according to the 2001 census (or is it Census?)
categories.  Many publications (including government ones) present data
on ethnicity collapsed into the categories of 'Black, White, Asian,
Mixed, Chinese and other', which is useless for most purposes.  

 

Jane

 

    

________________________________

From: Health of minority ethnic communities in the UK
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of M & M
Johnson
Sent: 26 October 2009 17:10
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Black - capital B or not

 

Guardian style book reduces nearly all Capitals except proper names to
lower case

 

In my experience (i.e. 'according to Johnson')

 

Black vs black is like Deaf versus deaf: Politically defined as an
identity or used as an adjective (roughly speaking) i.e., the Deaf
community use D to indicate an identity and political message, others
use as an adjective indicating loss of auditory ability.

 

similarly with Black used as an inclusive term and/or shorthand for BME
or BAME (and there's some room there for manoeuvre on what the A stands
for - asylum seekers, asian and And.)

 

you choose....

 

Mark R D Johnson
Moderator, Minority-Ethnic-Health Discussion List
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/minority-ethnic-health

 

Others - please comment - this could be an interesting discussion!

 





***************************************************************************
CONFIDENTIALITY: The contents of, and any electronic files attached to this e-mail may be confidential. If this correspondence has been incorrectly addressed (whatever the reason), you are put on notice that you are not authorized to copy or forward it in any form. 
If you receive this electronic message in error, you are politely requested to inform the sender and to delete the original message.
***************************************************************************