Global Majority and Indigenous People
Dear RCers,
Our International Liberation Reference Persons (ILRPs) for race-based constituencies—Barbara Love (for African-heritage people), Lorenzo Garcia (for Chicanos/as), Azi Khalili (for South, Central, and West Asian-heritage people), Teresa Enrico (for Pacific Islander and Pilipino/a-heritage people), Francie Chew (for Chinese-heritage people), and Jan Yoshiwara (for Japanese-heritage people—and for Native Americans (Marcie Rendon) have drafted a definition for the term “Global Majority and Indigenous (GMI).” It is as follows:
The peoples of Africa, Asia and the Pacific Islands, and South, Central, and Caribbean America, and Indigenous people, are over eighty percent of the global population. These people also occupy most of the global land mass.
Using the term “Global Majority and Indigenous (GMI)” for these people acknowledges their majority status in the world and interrupts how the dominant (U.S. and European) culture assigns them a minority status.
Many Global Majority and Indigenous people living in dominant-culture countries have been assimilated into the dominant culture—by force, in order to survive, in seeking a better life for themselves and their families, or in pursuing the economic, political, or other inclusion of their communities. Calling these people “Global Majority and Indigenous” contradicts the assimilation.
I suggest that whenever we are speaking or publishing in the wide world, we use this term and include the above definition. The definition alone communicates many important realities that contradict racism and genocide. We will be updating our websites and handouts to adopt this term.
Our policy within RC has been that authors, in their own writings, can choose the terms they use to describe these groups of people. Please read over the above definition and discharge about the choice of language and any resistance you feel to using the term “Global Majority and Indigenous (GMI).”
With love and appreciation,
Tim Jackins
Soon after Tim sent out the letter above, Barbara Love (International Liberation Reference Person for African Heritage People) received an e-mail from an RC leader (copied at the end of this article) questioning the decision to use the term “Global Majority and Indigenous.” Here is Barbara’s response to that person:
Dear X—,
Thank you for writing to me about your concerns about the use of the term “Global Majority and Indigenous.”
While I cannot answer your concerns, I can let you know what thoughts come to my mind while reading your concerns. I will number these thoughts just to keep track.
1. My first thought is for you to reflect on Tim’s e-mail of October 11, 2021, regarding the use of the term “Global Majority and Indigenous.” In that e-mail Tim stated, “Please read over the above definition and discharge about the choice of language and any resistance you feel to using the term ‘Global Majority and Indigenous (GMI).’” I took that to mean that whatever comes up for someone about the use of the term, they should take that to Co-Counseling sessions and discharge about it. You should know that it is not atypical for white males to assume that the directions for everyone else do not apply to them. Instead of taking your “concerns” to sessions, as Tim suggested, your response indicates that you believe that your concerns must be addressed. This “exceptionalism” is a guiding principle of white male supremacy.
2. You wrote, “I told Diane [Shisk] that I think this issue deserves more discussion among the ILRPs and ICRPs [International Commonality Reference Persons].” Exactly which ILRPs and ICRPS do you think deserve to have more discussion about what the ILRPs of race-based constituencies and Indigenous people have decided to call themselves? The ILRPs of race-based constituencies and Indigenous people discussed the term we wanted used to refer to us and our constituencies, and we made this recommendation to Tim. What is the discussion that you think the white ILRPs and ICRPs deserve to have? What is the basis for your thinking that you all deserve to have more discussion about what we wish to be called?
3. You wrote, “From my perspective (and I acknowledge that I am influenced by my being a white person of European heritage), I prefer ‘people targeted by racism’ to ‘Global Majority and Indigenous (GMI)’ people.”
White people do not get to have a preference about what Global Majority and Indigenous people decide to call themselves. It is called the “right of a people to name themselves.” The European colonial project arrogated to Europeans the right to name all the people with whom they made contact. What the people called themselves was of little consequence to European colonizers. They simply named people and whole regions with the names that they preferred. Our goal in this RC project (Goal number 1: the elimination of racism [in the Guidelines for the Re-evaluation Counseling Communities]) includes abandoning that bit of white supremacy and recognizing the right of all people to claim the name that suits them, independent of the preferences of white people.
It is somewhat, though not exactly, akin to the habit of white people of saying, “That name, Bhagya or Mingxia, is too difficult for me to pronounce. I’m just going to call you ‘Susie.’” In other words, white people often presume that what is most comfortable and convenient for them is the acceptable and appropriate thing to do.
4. You wrote, “From my perspective (and I acknowledge that I am influenced by my being a white person of European heritage) I prefer ‘people targeted by racism’ to ‘Global Majority and Indigenous (GMI)’ people.”
I acknowledge that it is customary for white people to prefer to refer to GMI people based on how we have been hurt and to see us and respond to us from that perspective. We, on the other hand, do not see the hurt that we have experienced as an identity or a way to be referred to. Yes, we have been targeted by racism, but that is what happened to us, not who we are. We prefer to claim an identity based on benign reality—that we are the majority of the people of the world. A hurt, no matter how institutionalized or pervasive it may be, is not an identity. If you prefer to refer to us based on the hurt that has been targeted toward us, then why not just call us the “People Who Have Been Genocided,” or the “People Who Were Stolen,” or the “People Who Were Enslaved,” or the “People Who Were Put in Concentration Camps,” or the “People Who Had Their Families Separated.” Racism is a catchall word that obscures what happens to us. If you identify us by what has happened to us, why not be specific? If we use your line of reasoning, then why not simply say, “People Targeted by White Supremacy,” since racism is merely the outward enactment of white supremacy.
5. You wrote, “I think GMI is problematic for several reasons.”
It is problematic that you think that the name that ILRPs of race-based constituencies and Indigenous people have chosen for themselves is problematic. If this name were rooted in oppression or internalized oppression, or if it reproduced oppression or internalized oppression or directed harm toward some other people or some such, I could see why you would want further discussion. What the term does is dispute or deny the status of white people as the majority. I can see how that might be problematic and confusing for some white people.
6. You wrote, “It is confusing to some people that Indigenous people are not considered People of the Global Majority. (When we first started using the term ‘People of the Global Majority,’ I asked Marcie Rendon [International Liberation Reference Person for Native Americans] at a workshop if she considered Indigenous people to be People of the Global Majority. She said that she did not but did not say why. And I did not press her.)”
I am so glad that you did not press Marcie. Do Indigenous people always have to explain everything to white people’s satisfaction? The term is GMI—Global Majority and Indigenous. Do Indigenous people really have to explain to white people why they prefer to be referred to as Indigenous people?
It is my experience and observation that “confusion” is a convenient shield behind which racism often hides and resides.
7. When white people are uncomfortable with something, they can find “reasons” to object, covering their discomfort with a cloak of presumed rationality. I will not try to address your reasons—except for this one: “If we adopted the term ‘GMI’ now, we might come to regret it in the future as more and more people in the world join the RC Community. The term ‘people of color’ was once more common than it is now.”
The term “colored” was once more common than it is now. And yet, we are pretty much [mostly] in broad agreement that we do not refer to African-heritage people as “colored.” The term “Negro” was once more common than it is now. And yet, we are in general agreement that we mostly do not use the term “Negro.” Names change. This name will someday change as well. It will change, however, when the people who have chosen it decide to change it.
You might be right. We might come to regret it. I think that it is more likely that when we arrive at a point when this term no longer serves us well, we will simply change it.
Finally, you wrote, “because it is simpler and because racism is easily explained.” I am taking your letter as proof that racism is not quite so easily explained.
These are my thoughts, not answers. The recommended term was the product of long and repeated discussions and agreement among the eight race-based ILRPs and the ILRP for Native Americans. I will pass your letter along to the other members of the group. Others in the group might have a different response.
Sending love and care,
Person for African Heritage People
This is the letter Barbara was responding to:
Dear Barbara,
I have been having an e-mail discussion with Diane [Shisk] about the term “Global Majority and Indigenous.” I told Diane that I think this issue deserves more discussion among the ILRPs/ICRPs. She suggested that I consult with you.
From my perspective (and I acknowledge that I am influenced by my being a white person of European heritage), I prefer “people targeted by racism” to “Global Majority and Indigenous (GMI)” people.
I think GMI is problematic for several reasons:
It is confusing to some people that Indigenous people are not considered People of the Global Majority. (When we first started using the term “People of the Global Majority,” I asked Marcie Rendon at a workshop if she considered Indigenous people to be People of the Global Majority. She said that she did not but did not say why. And I did not press her.)
There are other groups of people in the world who might be considered a “global majority,” for example women, poor and working-class people, and perhaps others.
Although it is true that eighty percent of the people in the world are in the groups mentioned in the footnote [for Global Majority and Indigenous] that Diane sent me, some of those groups also oppress or have oppressed each other, sometimes in brutal ways. For example, Japan’s imperialistic desires led to the oppression of many people from other Asian countries. China oppresses the Tibetans and the Uyghurs and probably other minorities.
Capitalism uses oppression to keep people divided, and the oppression is justified by convincing the members of the oppressor group that they are better than the other group. This often (but not always) gets played out [acted out] using racism.
If we adopted the term “GMI” now, we might come to regret it in the future as more and more people in the world join the RC Community. The term “people of color” was once more common than it is now.
Referring to these groups (which are clearly people targeted by racism) as the global majority distracts from the crucial goal of uniting the working class to the task of replacing the class system.
I think “people targeted by racism,” while not perfect, is a better term than “Global Majority and Indigenous” people, because it is simpler and because racism is easily explained. In addition, even if white people were the majority of people in the world, wealthy white people would be finding ways to oppress and exploit darker-skinned people with the excuse that they were inferior.
What do you think?
Love, Barbara
Amherst, Massachusetts, USA
(Present Time 206, January 2022)