People of the Global Majority: A Case for Inclusivity and Accuracy in Naming

The terms “minorities” and "people of color" have been widely used as a politically correct terms to refer to individuals who are not white. However, these terms have been under great scrutiny in recent years for their lack of inclusivity and inaccuracy in representing BIPOC populations.

One of the main issues with the phrase "people of color" is that it groups all non-white individuals together, regardless of their specific racial or ethnic background. This can be problematic as it ignores the unique experiences and struggles of different minority communities. For example, the experiences of an African American and Asian American are vastly different and should not be lumped together under one term.

Furthermore, the phrase "people of color" also implies that white is the default or "normal" race, while all other races are considered "colored" or different. This reinforces the notion of white supremacy and otherness, which is damaging to minority communities.

An alternative phrase that has been proposed is "people of the global majority." This phrase is more inclusive and accurate as it recognizes the diversity of non-white communities and acknowledges that the majority of the world's population is not white. It also shifts the focus away from white as the default and instead acknowledges that the global majority are people of color.

It is essential that we change our language and the way we talk about race. By using more appropriate and inclusive phrases, such as "people of the global majority," we can help to dismantle the harmful and oppressive systems that have been built around race. So, let's move away from the politically correct phrase "people of color" and embrace the more appropriate and inclusive "people of the global majority".

Photo by: Christina | @wocintechchat | wocintechchat.com

Introducing the change of phrasing from "People of Color" to "People of the Global Majority" may face challenges in different fields. Here are a few examples:

1. Law and Government: The legal and governmental fields have long used the phrase "People of Color" in laws and official documents. Changing the wording in these documents would require a significant amount of effort and resources, as well as getting buy-in from lawmakers, legal experts, and bureaucrats.

2. Media and Journalism: The media and journalism fields have also been using "People of Color" as a standard terminology. Changing the phrase would require media outlets, journalists, and editors to update their style guides and retrain their staff, which can be a daunting task.

3. Education: The education field often uses the phrase "People of Color" in textbooks, curriculum, and official documents. Changing the phrase would require updating the materials, and retraining teachers, which can be a costly and time-consuming process.

4. Businesses: Businesses and corporations often use "People of Color" in their diversity and inclusion policies and programs. Changing the phrase would require updating these policies and retraining employees, which can be challenging for companies to implement.

5. Society: Changing the phrase would require a change in the way society thinks about race and ethnicity. This can be a difficult and slow process as it requires people to be open-minded and willing to change their perspectives and beliefs.

All these challenges demonstrate that introducing the change of phrasing from "People of Color" to "People of the Global Majority" is not an easy task and would require a lot of effort, resources and buy-in from different stakeholders. It requires a collective effort, awareness, and education on the importance of inclusive language.

Photo by: Adeolu Eletu | @adeolueletu

In a world where race, ethnicity, and nationality do not limit an individual's opportunities in society, there are many possibilities for a more just and equitable society. Here are a few examples:

1. Greater diversity and representation: Without the limitations imposed by white supremacy, people of the global majority would have greater opportunities to be represented in all areas of society, from politics to business to media and entertainment. This would lead to a more diverse and representative society.

2. More equal access to education and job opportunities: Without the limitations imposed by white supremacy, people of the global majority would have more equal access to education and job opportunities. This would lead to a more educated and economically stable society.

3. Greater social mobility: Without the limitations imposed by white supremacy, people of the global majority would have greater social mobility, allowing them to move up the social and economic ladder more easily. This would lead to a more dynamic and fluid society.

4. More creativity and innovation: Without the limitations imposed by white supremacy, people of the global majority would have greater opportunities to express themselves and share their unique perspectives and ideas. This would lead to a more creative and innovative society.

5. A more inclusive and empathetic society: Without the limitations imposed by white supremacy, people of the global majority would be able to fully participate in society, leading to a more inclusive and empathetic society.

It is important to note that a world without white supremacy is not just good for people of the global majority, it is good for everyone. A society where everyone has equal opportunities to succeed and reach their full potential benefits everyone. It is also important to note that creating a more inclusive and equitable society is not something that happens overnight, it requires a collective effort, awareness, and education on the importance of dismantling oppressive systems and creating a more inclusive society.