Media Usage of Dated Ethnic Terms Archaic and Offensive
By Keetah Bryant (FRL)
In my personal experiences as a university educated, visible minority, single mother in Canada, I have
found the reflection of our society provided by the media to be highly inaccurate. There continues to be fast-paced
demographic changes in all of Canada’s major cities, yet the media it seems cannot keep pace with this change.
The views presented, the presenters, and the topics covered, both in daily papers and television programs are all
representative of a more nostaligic and ethnocentric era. Bad enough that this lag in development is still evident in
government, but in the media too? The modern population, it’s constituents, and the corresponding concerns are
all going unnoticed by the very institutions the Canadian public have come to trust as pillars of truth and
representation.
Where are the visible minorities? Where are the stories and analsyses that are directly related to their
position in society? Surely there is something more to say about this growing segment of our population, other
than the familiar and redundantly thoughtless stories on group specific criminality and gang involvement. These
consequential fallacies are what prompted me to apply my knowledge in social sciences to the world of journalism.
This road has been far more diffiult that I ever could have imagined. One of the first challenges to ethical
and representative journalistic practice is found in the standardized guidelines for journalists in Canada.
The Canadian Press (CP) began in 1917, the same year the University of British Columbia first opened
it’s doors. The role of the Canadian Press, has grown and changed since it’s inception to include a broadcast
division, Broadcast News(BN). According to Eric Morrison, president of CP/BN, The Canadian Press “provides
service to private television and radio broadcasters, as well as audio to Internet sites and wireless services”. With
this vast influence, apparently CP is able to “tell[s] people the story of their country every day, in all forms and
from all corners of the land”.
It’s a nice thought, but actions speak louder than words. In order to accurately tell people of Canada the
story of their country, you must include all of them in it - in the creation of it, in the telling of it, in the guidelines
covering it’s production. It appears CP has done nothing to ensure the participation of all Canadians in this very
crucial process, even though it purports to represent us all.
I myself am of mixed ethnicity; Ukrainian-African to be precise. But wait a minute, according to the CP,
there’s generally no need for “hyphenated descriptions of race”. I might also call myself Mulatto. But wait a
minute, according to the CP, the words “black, mulatto, red, yellow and white” do not name “race” and are
therefore lower case.
In the CP stylebook, the “bible consulted by journalists”, the section entitled “Race” mentions to “let
people speak for themselves”. The people have been speaking, and no one is listening.
The fact that the term “race” is still in use by an organization that apparently sets the standard for
journalism in one of the most ethnically diverse countries in the world is an embarassment. I believe we all belong
to the human race, we just happen to be of different ethnicities. The word “race” connotes some fundamental
difference in quality between one type of organism and another. CP, by it’s definition and use of the word “race”,
has contributed to an erosion in “black” identity. By determining that the words “black” and “mulatto” are not
terms of “race”, CP has served to diminish the importance of the ethnicity and culture of “black” people in Canada,
an ethnicity that continues to exist despite the definitions and lack of capitalization. These are the definitive
guidelines in Canadian jouranlism, taken straight out of the most recent edition of the Canadian Press Stylebook.
It’s ethnocentric and archaic.
I do not find it acceptable, that because I am the descendant of slaves, taken from Africa, that I should not
be entitled to an ethnicity. Why is the only identity available to me one that starts with a lower case letter? Why is
it that the Canadian Press has determined for all black Canadians that they have no ethnicity status, and the only
way they ought to be identified is by the color of their skin? If I cannot claim mixed race status, if I cannot call
myself mullato, Ukranian-African, but merely “black”, can I therefore choose to call myself Caucasian instead? I
am, after all, half white. Can I assert my whiteness? Can I respond to census questions on ethnicity by calling
myself Caucasian? Would that eliminate the adverse social conditions that I have to face because of my difference?
Would it be a useful distinction in understanding the unique and changing face of the Canadian population?
The words people choose, or are given to describe themselves, are more than mere physical descriptions.
Ethnic terms assist individuals and groups in forming unique positive identities within this multicultural nation.
In Canada, there are Asians, Aboriginals, Indo-Canadians, Quebecois, Caucasians, Europeans, and blacks. No one
would ever think it politcally correct to call an Asian person by their most physically differentiating feature.
Women might think sometimes about calling men by theirs, but that would be considered derogatory. What makes
it any more correct to identify an entire class of people strictly based on the color of their skin? This type of
discourse the norm in Canada, in the papers, on the television, and most sadly, among the “black” people of this
country. CP has determined this is the only acceptable way for “black” Canadians to define themselves, and I find
that inexcusable. How can we as a people form a positive identity around the mere color of our skin? The time for
using the word “black”, to identify people has ended. Change is always difficult but most often necessary, and in
order for people to evolve, their discourse and their language must do so first. This is Canada, the destination of
the Underground Railroad and international leader in multiethnic unity - can we do away with the slave talk,
please?
From this point forward, I should like to inform the Canadian Press, it’s affiliates and supporters, that I
personally find it offensive to be identified as merely “black”. For anyone of any skin tone to be defined merely by
such a superficial differentiation is offensive, and quite frankly, very ethnocentric. My skin is not black, it’s
brown. I have freckles and green eyes. I have Ukrainian family and family of African descent living in this
country. Both sides of my family have been living in this country for four generations. I am not merely ‘black”,
thank you.
We all know that the people you call ‘black” originated in Africa, just as Japanese people originate from
Asia. We are of African ancestry, we are not just “black”. I am a human being first and foremost, but it seems we
live in a time that differentiations have been deemed necessary. If I must differentiate myself from the rest of my
fellow human beings, the members of other nations, and the rest of unblack Canada, then I chose the term
Afro-Canadian, because I have an identity beyond the color of my skin, as does the rest of the Afro-Canadin
population.
No comments:
Post a Comment