Words that should be banned

43: Ethnic

Zoe Williams
The Guardian, Saturday 9 February 2002

This was suggested by a man named Eddie, who is irked by persistent misuse of the word. I admit I'm not bothered by occasional word-abuses, but where a term is ceaselessly misappropriated, there is a good case for a ban. As Eddie points out, the dictionary definition of 'ethnic' is one thing ('relating to a population subgroup with a common cultural tradition'), the conversational meaning is another ('black or brown' when applied to a person; 'dodgy-looking and covered in elephants' when applied to a wall-hanging.)

The problem is this - all words meaning solely 'black or brown', when applied to a person, have been deemed racist. This is because they are racist. There are situations in which a person's nationality might be relevant - but if it's relevant enough to mention, then it's relevant enough to mention precisely. 'Related, possibly distantly, to someone who lived in one of any number of hot countries in the world', is not good enough, and that's what 'black or brown' means. However, having expunged words like 'black' (and coarser words along the same lines), we haven't dispensed with the idea behind them - just replaced them with a word that means the same, but sounds neutral, on account of the fact that it's newer, and hasn't yet been incorporated into racist chants or developed any other resonance of its own. The truth is, it's no more neutral than 'darkie'.