We’ve got to stop using the word “minorities” to describe the communities we serve. It doesn’t have any value. It never has.
I’ve been thinking a lot about language lately. How it can inspire or enrage, clarify or condemn. The English major in me wants to take a red pen to all the useless jargon we promote in our organizations, starting with how we talk about the people we serve. Because part of the role of nonprofits, I believe, is not only to drive social change, but to also reframe the way America looks at social problems. For years, we’ve made a pity party out of the fact that “XX% of the people we serve are minorities” as if this were in itself a reason to support our cause.
One of my first jobs was as a grantwriter for a small community development agency. Way back when I literally knew nothing about nonprofits or philanthropy, it baffled me as to why our grant language was littered with terminology about “serving minorities” and helping “at-risk youth”. A minority compared to whom? At-risk of what, exactly?
A better term to use that is highly regarded by academics is “people of color” which encompasses all people who are non-white. It’s a term that I prefer, and one you’ll notice me using a lot here on this blog. The term “people of color” has a more positive connotation than “minorities”. “People of color” have cultural significance, while “minorities” conjure up images of people that are worth less than the majority, marginalized, minor. As an African American, I’ve never wanted to be known by a term that makes me feel like I don’t matter. That reminds me I’m not majorly important just because of my race.
Many nonprofits use the word “minorities” as a blanket term to indicate that they provide services for underrepresented groups including African Americans, Hispanics, Asian Americans, Pacific Islanders, Native Americans, and so on. Why don’t we just be specific and name the communities we serve rather than being lazy with it? in Washington, DC, many nonprofits serve 100% African Americans. Much better to say that than to call your youth or homeless clients “ethnic minorities”. It means nothing except to connote a group of people that get stuck on the bottom of society’s shoe.
Anyway, as we know in this country the minority is becoming the majority. As the New York Times has reported:
Ethnic and racial minorities will comprise a majority of the nation’s population in a little more than a generation, according to new Census Bureau projections, a transformation that is occurring faster than anticipated just a few years ago. The census calculates that by 2042, Americans who identify themselves as Hispanic, black, Asian, American Indian, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander will together outnumber non-Hispanic whites. Four years ago, officials had projected the shift would come in 2050.
As the times change, we might as well get rid of the antiquated language that remains a huge barrier to our cultural competence.
I can relate to what you are saying but don’t you fear someone will eventually change it from “people of color” to “colored people”?
I feel for your thoughts but I have spent my whole life being referred by” People of Color” that I am white. Last time I checked my underwear is white, but my skin is a silly shade of pink and tan depending upon the length of time spent under our solar power star the Sun. Also in error is the thought that so named whites are the majority on this planet. With the onset of globalization can we not just get along and realize that we are people of planet earth! Why must everyone continue to label each other with generalities? Do to globalization we are all in danger of the homogenization of diversity and cultures. So to sum up my point, why don’t you also stop calling peoples of caucasian descent “whites”?
I truly believe in the power of language and when we use terms like “at-risk” or “minority”, we set the standards way too low. Describing someone as “at-risk” seems to say, “You have so much stacked against you that we really can’t blame you if you fail. In fact we expect it, so don’t even bother. Here, let me save you from yourself.”
Thanks for a great post.
I’ve been living in California for almost three years now for law school and I’ve noticed that “people of color” and “communities of color” are frequently used terms among social justice circles here. There seems to be a stronger bond here among different ethnic groups than on the east coast, which may help explain why “people of color” is used so frequently here than in other parts of the country.
Hi Rosetta — thanks for this important post. It would be wonderful if there would be more ways for nonprofits to convene and discuss the value and practice of using common, inclusive language. Much like we have meetings about common benchmarks and work to achieve alignment around outcomes (a little disjointedly at times, I know), I would find value in having a checkpoint related to language, positioning, and messaging. Not just as a way of appropriately describing our work or attracting donors, but using language as a way to genuinely reflect all communities in our work.
I believe language is the last place social inequalities exist. You can tell a lot about the progress of a society by the language they use. It seems natural that the nonprofit and philanthropic community would be the observers and keepers of this place, using language as a lever for social change.
@David – I highly doubt we will go back to being called “colored people”
@Kevin – Do you think “Caucasian” is a better term than “white”? In this post, I am referring to the majority/minority discussion in the U.S.
@Adrianne – Yes, I like how you put that, “the power of language” is certainly something we should take into account as we seek to empower and change people’s lives. If our programs are supposed to empower, our language should not take power away.
@Darius – Thanks for sharing your experiences in Cali. Always interesting to hear how many communities have progressed along this spectrum. I wonder what helped to create the “strong bond” on the west coast that us east coasters can replicate?
@Emily – You’d be surprised (or maybe not) at how empty the rooms are at the sessions at nonprofit conferences that talk about diversity and inclusion. I think it’s because even when well-intended, these conversations are hard to have, they make people feel guilty and uncomfortable. The difference from discussions about benchmarks and outcomes is that there’s no painful history about race to muddy the waters. I do think, though, that we can find a way to use language as a frame to approach the really important conversations that we do need to have about race in the nonprofit sector.
I have gone to many Development meetings where I would feel like an outcast where my colleagues in the field would use the terms “minorities”, “underserved” “underprivileged”, “at-risk”. I have always found an issue with the charities that act as if they are the “saviors” or “helping the poor people”. I just wish the foolishness of it all would just stop. You are serving human beings who need your help, and to reduce them to “minorities” or “at-risk” only manages the symptoms like a drug, not working to provide a cure.
Cultural identity is what makes the world a better place to live in. Rosetta, I do think “people of color” is somewhat generic phrase that groups everyone in the same category. Yes, we as “people of color” have similar cultural constraints, however all ethnic groups have their cultural differences. I refer to myself as a Black American of the African Diaspora and people should embrace diversity a lot more often.
Thanks so much for sharing your experience, Jonathon. That kind of story is what makes the diversity conversation more real. We are talking about real people, here. I don’t believe the term “people of color” is perfect, either, but it is a lot better to me than being called a minority.
I have to agree with Kevin… to refer to everyone else as “people of color” and then to refer to me as “white” is a bit out of sync for me. Apparently, “people of color” has cultural significance- what significance does “white” have for anyone. I might argue that as long as we reference any people group in such a generalized fashion, we will still have the issues we have long fought to eliminate. We need to learn to avoid such distinctions. We are only embracing the seperation and segregation of past by creating language we are comfortable with.
@Jason – Thanks for your comment! I feel you on the “white” misnomer as it doesn’t seem to have any cultural significance whatsoever. It does make me think about the whole idea of race vs. ethnicity vs. nationality. I would guess that if you don’t want to be called white, you might prefer to be called American or Italian or German or where your family is from?
I don’t agree that we should avoid distinctions, because actually they only reinforce segregation if we WANT them to. For example, making the distinction of being African American is a source of pride for most African Americans I know, and to take that away would be to take away a part of who we are.
Hey Rosetta,
I actually read your SSIR post on this topic a while back, and meant to post a response. I could not agree with you more about the use of the word “minority.” Not only in nonprofit settings, but period.
Personally, I prefer the terms: under represented, under served, and/or under resourced–depending upon the context and the community that someone is referring to. I believe that these terms are better descriptions of what people are trying to describe when they use the word “minority.” For example, women may be under represented in some executive positions, but they may not be under served or under resourced. As such, in this instance under representation better describes the state of women in these executive roles. (Something that I believe the term “minority” does not capture).
Additionally, when we say “under” -represented, -served, or -resourced it doesn’t attribute that status to the populations that we refer to, but to some greater societal force which has either led to, caused, or allowed the “under” condition to occur. “Minority” on the other hand, places the individual (and/or the population) in a “lower than” position to the “majority.”
If you have time, there is a great chapter in a book:
Reed, G. M., & Noumair, D. A. (2000). The Tiller of Authority in a Sea of Diversity: Empowerment, Disempowerment, and the Politics of Identity. In E. Klein & F. Gabelnick & P. Herr (Eds.), Dynamic consultation in a changing workplace. Madison, CT: Psychosocial Press.
where the authors discuss the use of the word “minority” in classifying underrepresented racial groups and the implications of such a “one-down” connotation.
Great post!
I like how you excuse yourself when using the term “white” to generalize the Caucasian people – but do well at taking issue when terms are used to generalize other races – and you are not the only one… it’s widely accepted to refer to Caucasians as “whites” while its seen as insensitive to use the term “black” and god forbid call someone of a different race a color that resembles their skin tone…
It’s really quite a double standard of hypocrisy and it’s getting old and tired!
You want sensitivity, then YOU give it to everyone, not just who you think deserves it, or else shut the hell up!
To that end, i still use the term “Black” to describe the so-called “african-americans” and do you want to know why? — Because who are we to assume that someone with dark pigment is from Africa? I know plenty of people who are in this country that are “black” skinned, and are not from Africa, they are from Trinidad, from Barbados, from France, and more – and to call them all African-American is simply insulting….
like others who have posted, my skin is not “white” it’s a medium to light toned tan color – do i typically have a problem being called “white”? NO, but i tend to start to take issue to it when i hear so much from other races about generalities, while they still continue to call me “White”
Think about it…. everyone…..
@mdavidangst: I think some history needs to be factored into the discussion relative to why “color” became an indicator for racial distinctions. The various identity mutations that former slaves have undergone since the so-called emancipation contributes to the use of “colors” Black, Red Bone, Yellow, Blue Black, etc., to tag this groups identity and results from something that hasn’t happened to any other ethnic group in world, the total disconnect from one’s history, culture, language, land and some may say God. While is search of our true identity, which is treasured by all peoples, former slaves are forever seeking out their true heritage while in the meantime, we seek to distinguish ourselves as an autonomous people. Although Europeans are fair skinned or White, they maintain their proud national origins, German American, Irish American, Bosnian American. All are European and White but they tag themselves with their country of origin regardless how long they’ve been in this country. This is also the case with Asians and Latinos. Every ethnic group, regardless of hue, can association themselves to a land, except the former slave of America.
Former slaves must distinguish themselves from other Africans, afterall, Teresa Kerry referred to herself during her John’s Presidential campaign, as African-American.
In reference to the generic term “minority”, I agree with Rosetta because it’s become a catch basin for all ethnic groups who aren’t of European decent. In “Minority” contracting there are 28 different nationalities listed in that category, which included White women. Therefore, former slaves represent 1/8 of the classified minorities. We’re selling ourselves short. My husband and I have been in government contracting for a number of years and elected not to be classified as minority contractors. Why go for 1/8 or 10% set-asides when our competitiveness is greater among the 90%.
Globalization has indeed changed the way people think but I don’t hear anyone trumpeting giving up their nationality.
I hear what you are saying about heritage Romona, I certainly understand and respect that.
But i also find it interesting that you have brought up the need for facts.
you say “this groups identity and results from something that hasn’t happened to any other ethnic group in world”
- well I’m sorry to inform you that you are absolutely Wrong, –
look at some history in Asia, and India please. Many countries in those parts of the world are affected by a class system, (either still now, or in the past) and a byproduct of that is a stigma of how dark your skin is. The stigma is, that if your skin is darker than an “accepted tone”, then that means that you spend your time outside doing manual labor (skin darkened by the sun) – and therefore, you are of a lower class – a clear mark of being identified by the color of you skin.
& “Although Europeans are fair skinned or White” Oh my god – are you serious? and you say you need facts to be present?
Have you been to parts of Italy (south) – some parts of Spain – have you been to Albania – ?
– many groups of peoples in those areas and more, and not “fair skinned” and “white” – please get acquainted with the world that you think you know so well…seriously ! ..
- –
I must state though that I am not trying at all to diminish your feelings in regards to slavery and the effects it has on one’s psyche and how the lingering effects can affect one’s life… I know and (try) to understand as best i can since my relatives were not slaves, but (just as side note- my fathers father was adopted, and we are still trying to find out our history ourselves…. This is in every humans “being” to know where we came from)))))
But you must see that You need to research some facts yourself.
How do you feel about the Irish who were enslaved (uh-oh, they’re white) – - and how about the Jews who were enslaved in Egypt. And how about the Eastern Europeans and Russian women who are being enslaved as we speak!
And how about Africans still enslaving other Africans to this day! Look it up!
how do you feel about the “white” people who were born in Africa, or people of other ethnic origins? Are they African to you?
Can they be truly African if they have white skin or would you deny them that – and insist on calling them European-African or something stupid like that?
And as for white people calling themselves “German American, Irish American, Bosnian American” – This only came around after Jesse Jackson coined the phrase African-American. Before that, people were just “American” and proud of it!
If you asked someone their heritage, they would tell you, but it wasn’t part of their outward identity.
And even now, I hardly ever hear anyone say those sorts of things. This is primarily a non-white/caucasian trend.
Again, I am not trying to say that you are wrong in trying to identify where and what your heritage is – but i would urge you please to do your own homework as well…
And please think about how you see others who are not like you, and is that the way you wish to be seen yourself….
I find this topic fascinating, and am always willing to learn new things and allow those things to (the facts only) shape how i view the world..
I watch a lot of Discovery and Science channel, – they have a lot of programs that address these (and similar) issues, – with Facts… And i do plenty of research on the internet for things that i am interested in . (with multiple sources – not just one biased one) –
On another note – a question –
wouldn’t it be true to say, that if we take a time-line back far enough, – then wouldn’t we ALL be Africans?
I know you are referring to a time-line of only the past 3-400 years, but do you get my point?
There’s more to the world than just the thing that you are aware of……
to Romona Taylor Williams – (to all, sorry to belabor this point – but the “facts” of slavery was brought in to this discussion, so i thought this was appropriate)
this is an article that was just published….
http://www.alternet.org/story/142171/
“There Are More Slaves Today Than at Any Time in Human History”
(again- not diminishing anyone’s personal history, if slavery has affected your family) – this is to show that it is still a major problem of the World, not just America….
I don’t know where my opinions/feelings lie with all that’s been said here, but I do believe that how we identify with one another is often based off of our subjective realities (which is different for everyone). How we see & interpret things is often rigid, in black or white, so its easy to say one thing or another and not give it much thought.
I had a great professor in college that taught me ,or rather illustrated, that the best way to handle diversity is to celebrate it. If feelings of xenophobia control our daily lives, politics, socioeconomic status, etc…it’s time to break the cycle and embrace a collective reality–Regardless of the color of your skin, we are all human beings, and deserve to be treated with respect and dignity.
Also want to say that I enjoyed reading through everyone’s comments, and found it more interesting than most classes I’ve taken on race or identity politics.
I know exactly what you mean. It’s like who decided those are the words we should use to describe people that fit into those categories? There are other terms that aren’t so condescending that could be used.
Afterall, the world isn’t black and white. There are gray areas, that others need to be aware of. But then again, words like ‘at risk’, ‘minorities’, ‘non colored’ are words that people have not protested against, and its just part of their everyday vocabulary. They have to understand what is wrong with the word and how to change it.
Peggy ~www.3minutecharity.com~ ~www.nonprofit.nu~