Welcome to \u201cEst-ce que \u00e7a se dit?\u201d, a monthly column where URelles answers questions about inclusive language. Got a question for us? Write to info@urelles.com and we’ll get back to you. Your identity will not be revealed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
****<\/p>\n\n\n\n
As we’ve often said, what we’re presenting here are findings and recommendations. But it’s always best to ask people how they wish to identify themselves. That said, to try and answer the question, let’s look at each of the terms and what they imply.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
First of all, let’s remember that the notion of \u201crace\u201d is a social construct. It has had economic, social and political impacts, as well as cultural and identity-related consequences for the people concerned. In the past, the social sciences (with the help of racial anthropology) have established the hypothesis that there are \u201craces\u201d based solely on phenotype or skin color. This has led to the categorization and hierarchization of populations according to their ethnic origin. This hierarchization is manifested by placing the white \u201crace\u201d at the top of the pyramid. The black \u201crace\u201d is at the bottom of the pyramid.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
From a purely scientific and biological point of view, there are only two races: the animal race and the human race. But in reality, it’s different: a hierarchy of \u201craces\u201d is in place, and is amply documented by the existence of inequalities in terms of access to employment, housing or even healthcare for so-called \u201cracialized\u201d people who don’t belong to the white ethnocultural category.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The use of the term \u201cperson of color\u201d dates back more than three centuries to colonialism. The term continues to be debated because it reduces the experiences of people from non-white ethnocultural communities solely to their skin color or physical appearance, while biologizing the racial question.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Another issue with the term \u201cperson of color\u201d is that it lumps all non-white people together, as if they were a homogeneous group of individuals. Yet a black person and a \u201cbrown\u201d person will not suffer racism and discrimination in the same way. Hair discrimination is a case in point. It is therefore important to take into account the multiplicity of people’s experiences. The term \u201cperson of color\u201d does not do this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The expression \u201cBlack, indiginious and people of color\u201d (BIPOC) generally meet with greater consensus. It have the advantage of recognizing and validating the specificities and different experiences of people from ethnocultural communities, in a more inclusive way. By naming groups of people specifically, we highlight their identity, which is more respectful than using an invisibilizing amalgam such as the term \u201cperson of color\u201d, for example.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Although the term \u201cracialized\u201d seems to be used in most cases, the term \u201cracialized\u201d is also worth considering. It resonates with part of the non-white ethnocultural population.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The term is chosen by some people as a replacement for \u201cracialized person\u201d to reinforce the notion of the social construct of race: the process of racialization, i.e. the process that reinforces the differences between different ethno-cultural groups and its ramifications (racism, discrimination, domination of a dominant group over a dominated one) on the person from a non-white ethno-cultural community, which is not the case for the term \u201cracialized\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
At present, it seems preferable to use the expression \u201cBIPOC\u201d to refer to a group of people. We should bear in mind, however, that usage varies depending on the country in question, and also on the target audience. If you’re only talking to a group of black or Asian people, you don’t need to use the term BIPOC. You can talk about \u201cAsian people\u201d or \u201cblack people\u201d. On the other hand, if the audience includes people from diverse ethno-cultural communities, it’s better to use the term \u201cBIPOC\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Nevertheless, the use of these expressions, like the notion of identity, is constantly evolving. Debates and reflections on these subjects take place every day. So let’s be alert to their use and precision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
***<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Article written by Michelle Martineau, external contributor specializing in DEI issues.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Welcome to \u201cEst-ce que \u00e7a se dit?\u201d, a monthly column where URelles answers questions about inclusive language. Got a question for us? Write to info@urelles.com and we’ll get back to you. Your identity will not be revealed. **** Is it better to say BIPOC? Racialized person? Person of color? As we’ve often said, what we’re […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":29363,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-27067","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-bipoc-en"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"