58
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 30 May 2024
58 points (85.4% liked)
UK Politics
3065 readers
136 users here now
General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
!ukpolitics@lemm.ee appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
That's how it used to be used, but has since been reclaimed. It's safe to use.
That's good to know. Doesn't really matter if I think it's weird as long as it's not actually upsetting anyone!
Pretty sure the UK term was BAME, but US culture is pretty pervasive.
There has been a move away from BAME in recent years in favour of more accurate, less broad terms:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-53194376
https://civilservice.blog.gov.uk/2022/05/19/why-weve-stopped-using-the-term-bame-in-government/
Thanks, those were both really good articles!
Seems "BAME" is being rejected mostly for qualities it shares with the term "PoC".
Happy to help, and yes, there is definitely a move away from the more general "catch-all" terms that seem to exist mostly to make life easier for those outside of the group in question, rather than those in it. It's a good move.
They're basically fancy ways of saying "non white".
There's a use case for making that distinction but it's a lot narrower than expecting people to self-identify in those terms.
Which, within that use case (e.g talking about wide and systemic oppression by white-led cultures) I guess that could be like the argument some people from certain countries have made that "Third World" is useful term because it does retain the history of its useage, whereas when it's exchanged for terms like LDCs>Global South>LICs>etc that sort of obscures the historical material conditions and relational aspects which inform the present. Or something.
Exactly
And yeah, it can get confusing and complicated when terms are a bit vague or euphemistic, which like you say, is intentional in probably most cases for both identities and countries examples (and others). But really it means we just have to put in a little more thought in to what we actually mean to say, and also be open to learn an adapt.