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:[log in to unmask]] 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. ***************************************************************************