At what point does a minority become a majority? Apparently, this happens when that minority occupies enough positions of social and political power so that it is able to simply act as if it is the majority. That is why London’s Labour-controlled Westminster City Council has decided to begin referring to non-white residents in its official communications not as ethnic minorities, but as members of the Global Majority. This decision is a sign of things to come.
In a statement released on 15 November, 2022, the Council made a commitment to pursue a “relentless focus to become an anti-racist organisation,” part of which involved dropping their previous usage of the acronym ‘BAME’ (Black And Minority Ethnic), as the very term minority has now been deemed inaccurate. Although, according to the most recent census data then available from 2011, Britain was still 86% white, this did not matter. When you consider the planet as a whole, the situation is reversed; there are obviously far more non-whites in the world, estimated to comprise 80-85% of the global population.
A sceptical Sir John Hayes, of the (apparently miniscule) Common Sense Caucus of Conservative MPs, observed that “Minorities and majorities are about the context—you can’t use the term ‘majority’ out of context and assume it affords some sort of accurate description.” Indeed not. The majority of life on Earth is not fish life; but it may well be inside the strictly-defined limits of London Aquarium.
Then again, accuracy was perhaps not what Westminster City Council was striving for. As Hayes added, “The distortion of language is at the heart of the liberal left agenda. The malevolent minority that control too much of Britain wish to control and limit language as a precursor to limit[ing] what people think. It is deeply sinister and must be resisted at every turn.” But how strongly is such an agenda being resisted?
Minority Report
The very term Global Majority (GM) is a tool of racial manipulation. It is billed as an empowering alternative to BAME, because the word ‘minority’ in that acronym supposedly defines everyone else in relation to white people, positioning them as somehow inferior or subordinate. Ironically, replacing BAME with GM still positions all other ethnicities in relation to white people, however, just in reverse; white people—and white people alone—are now put in direct opposition to every other race in existence, in a wholly negative and divisive way. They are the inferior subordinates now.
Saying all non-whites represent a Global Majority is a linguistic trick, pure and simple. Clearly, there is no single ethnicity which accounts for over 50% of the world’s population. There are far more black Africans, East Asians (like Chinese and Japanese), and Southeast Asians (like Indians and Pakistanis) than there are white Europeans on the planet, but none of these single broad ethnic groups is a majority as such. Instead, every single person belongs to an ethnic minority, considered globally; it is only within a specific local context that any of them can be considered ethnic majorities, just like the fish in London Aquarium.
Practising What She Preaches
The term Global Majority was coined in 2003 by Rosemary Campbell-Stephens, a black British academic working in the field of pedagogy, who likes to describe herself using comically self-regarding labels like “anti-racist Pan-African paradigm shifter,” “humanist and womanist,” and even “a disruptor and activist” who “is rarely in her lane.” She is also a professed anti-colonialist who somehow still managed to accept the Member of the Order of the British Empire (MBE) in 2015 for her reputed services to UK education.
Campbell-Stephens appears to have been accidentally subsidised by Britain’s public purse to spread Critical Race Theory (CRT) throughout our schools and universities. Semi-retired in sunny Jamaica, she is nonetheless still currently employed as a visiting fellow at University College London and an associate fellow at the University of Birmingham’s School of Education, where her 2021 book, Educational Leadership and the Global Majority: Decolonising Narratives, is required reading for helpless trainee school teachers.
She also gives speeches with titles like “Global Majority—A Celebration of Decoloniality and Recentring Humanity,” in which she argues that “At a time of systemic implosion environmentally, climatically, politically, economically [and] spiritually … returning to the indigenous wisdom of the Global Majority could be the crucible for ethical and sustainable change in a technological age.” This is an interesting concept, as apparently Campbell-Stephens believes that the “indigenous wisdom” of, say, Chinese Confucians, Turkish Sufis, Vietnamese Buddhists, Brazilian Candomblé wizards, and Caribbean Obeah masters is all the same.They’re all part of a magical, unifying Global Majority, so why not ignorantly conflate all of them, culturally and ethnically?
Alternatively, you could have logged into her informative Zoom lecture “Decolonising Educational Narratives in Birmingham,” in whose advance PR material she was lauded as an “edgy keynote speaker” committed to “challenging government policy that propagates a vanilla meritocracy that is wilfully colour-blind and in denial of the struggles of Global Majority professionals at every level.” Colour blindness used to be just what the Left strove for in public policy; now, it is the direct opposite. Apparently, Campbell-Stephens also “aims to situate both the term and the concept Global Majority at the heart of the conversation rather than ‘other’ them as so-called ‘minorities,’ subordinated to a white norm.” This sounds uncomfortably like she wishes to subordinate white people to artificially homogeneous black cultural norms within their own historic home-countries.
The Blackboard Jungle
Rosemary Campbell-Stephens first came to prominence via her involvement in an educational improvement program called The London Challenge instituted by Britain’s New Labour government, which ran from 2003 and until 2011. In response to disproportionately low results in the capital’s secondary schools, Labour tried to raise attainment by providing these schools with extra funding and training and established a leadership program for local teachers in a number of low-achieving boroughs. Initially, it worked, and by 2005 London schools were doing better on average than the rest of England. The scheme was deemed a success (although subsequent studies have argued that school improvement was the consequence of other factors).
Whether the scheme actually worked or not, Campbell-Stephens certainly thought it did, proudly describing herself as “the developer and head of the programme.” According to her, The London Challenge was “the most successful government intervention to raise levels of attainment in the history of the British education system.” This must have come as news to the creators of the 1880 Education Act, which made primary-level education compulsory for the first time in history. Yet she was highly critical of the way the government presented the scheme, which she felt did not focus enough upon racial issues in London schools, an opinion which rather ignores the fact that the whole point of The London Challenge was to raise educational standards, not obsess endlessly about skin. Or was it?
In her essay “Global Majority: Decolonising the Language and Reframing the Conversation About Race,” Campbell-Stephens implies that New Labour disingenuously presented retired white headmasters hired as consultants as the main driving force behind the scheme’s alleged success, when in fact most of the true miracle workers were non-white staff like herself. As the London locales targeted for intervention had large proportions of ethnic minority pupils, with non-white students often outnumbering white ones, she felt a new term was needed to reverse the alleged whitewashing at work here: hence Global Majority was born, a term she pushed on teachers under her influence.
Was she supposed to be doing this? Her specific assigned role was to get exam results up, but “seeking permission has never been one of my strong points, so I was determined that a black-led leadership preparation [scheme] should be liberating and empowering in both its content and language; and that I could create both.” This sounds like an open boast that Campbell-Stephens decided, of her own volition, to partly alter the purpose of a school-improvement program into becoming a form of CRT-based racial indoctrination program for teachers.
But to what end? Campbell-Stephens claimed that she wanted to allow mentally colonised non-whites to reclaim “their connections to their roots” by “collectively step[ping] into their power as authentic human beings.” For Campbell-Stephens herself, part of this reconnection was facilitated by her personal recognition that, whilst “my nationality is British,” nonetheless “my nationality does not exist in relation to whiteness, and transcends my geographic place of birth.”
But this is just not true. If you are black British, then your identity does exist in relation to white Brits, as, according to current census data, you are part of a 4% subset of the population within an 82% white country. The largest British minority group is actually Asians at 9%, making Campbell-Stephens a minority within a minority, not part of an imagined majority. Simply choosing to self-identify as an invented global majority within the context of an actual local majority is akin to a man arbitrarily choosing to self-identify as being a woman—a complete act of self-delusion.
Existing terms like BAME and visible minority “all situate whiteness as the norm within their respective local contexts even when the opposite is true,” continues Campbell-Stephens. But, again, the opposite isn’t true, is it? (Unless you are talking about hyper-local contexts, such as an all-black household or specific minority-white school, city, or town.) Yet, by “stubbornly using contested terminology,” instead of her own, highly non-controversial gibberish, non-white groups become “minoritised,” a very modish verb which implies non-whites should have been the majority in historically white European countries like Britain, by rights, but have somehow been displaced by some form of unnamed (because non-existent) racial atrocity.
Some Are More Equal Than Others
Nonetheless, such suddenly passé language as BAME “reinforces who has the power to determine reality and the conversation.” Campbell-Stephens coined the phrase Global Majority to be an inherently “empowering term”—but only empowering for the select few that previously fell under BAME, it seems.
She claims that “black leadership, at its best, is unsurpassed”, as demonstrated by her own fine example. In claiming to belong to a Global Majority, Campbell-Stephens seems here to inadvertently and inaccurately reimagine her own specific non-white ethnicity as standing in for all the others. “Imagine embracing being Black as a distinct advantage, a mark of excellence,” she says, an idea which will not necessarily be of much interest to, say, a Bolivian or a Korean, upon whose behalf she apparently presumes to speak.
Reimagining both demographic facts and the language used to describe them is urgently necessary, however, to avoid alienating “Black and Asian professionals,” who would be otherwise unable even to “introduce themselves in culturally mixed professional company without ambivalence, hesitation and [mis]interpretation, due to the use of confusing terminology, not created by them, about them,” something which would only be true if such professionals habitually went around shaking hands and saying bizarre things like ‘Hello, my name’s Paul and I’m an ethnic minority black man” as opposed to simply saying “Hello, my name’s Paul and I’m a teacher,” as normal, sane individuals would.
Worse than all of this, when it comes to speaking of whites, Campbell-Stephens uses language which makes them sound like the imaginary world-controlling Jews of discredited, Nazi-style tracts like The Protocols of the Elders of Zion:
The global minority [whites] certainly do not limit any notion of their identity to their numbers within a particular geographical location. The white elite act globally, their power has historically resided in large part in the fact that one percent of the world’s population holds approximately forty-four percent of the world’s wealth [this elides the fact not all of this one per cent are actually white …]. They are globally connected, operate collectively, in their mutually exclusive interest, wielding power accordingly, through transnational corporations, organisations, financial institutions, governments, and multi-nationals. Connected systems, economic, business, political, educational, health, all work with synchronised mindsets assiduously focused on maintaining the status quo: while simultaneously sowing and fuelling disruption and discord elsewhere.
Just to remind you, this woman is herself a university academic, has worked for the British government, enjoys international connections and international residency, has influenced national school systems, appears to have enough cash to have successfully retired early to live by the beach in Jamaica, writes for major national newspapers, and once received an MBE from HM the Queen.
Mind Your Language
What are the chances of the phrase Global Majority actually catching on? Like so many of these terms, from BIPOC to BAME, it has approximately zero purchase amongst the general public, who still stubbornly like to communicate in non-robotic language, but in its birthplace of the UK, it has already begun to be adopted by elements of the institutional class. Comic Relief, for example, a charity which traditionally enlisted TV comedians to solicit donations from the public to redistribute towards genuinely poor and needy Africans, established something called The Global Majority Fund in 2020, which doled out grants worth £2.1m to “UK communities experiencing racial inequality [who] have been disproportionately affected by the Covid-19 pandemic.”
The Fund’s online grant-application page begins with a quote from an anonymous individual complaining that “My ethnicity in the UK is defined as a ‘minority,’ but globally I am the majority.” Do please note the wholly delusional use of inverted commas there. Most Comic Relief donors are still under the quaint impression that 100% of their funds go towards worthy causes like feeding the starving or housing the homeless; if they knew some of their pounds and pennies were going towards madness like this, too, the charity might fold into bankruptcy.
Another UK institution eager to adopt this unnecessary and misleading neologism is the Church of England who, lemming-like, established an Archbishops’ Racial Justice Commission (ARJC) in the wake of the death of George Floyd in 2020. The basic starting point, as ritually proclaimed by the Archbishop of Canterbury himself, was that the CofE was “deeply institutionally racist.” As if to prove this, in their first published report, the ARJC adopted yet another new initialism for woke lexicographers to memorise, in ‘GMH,’ or ‘Global Majority Heritage,’ a clear extension of Campbell-Stephens’ original coinage.
Alternatively, the letters UKME or ‘UK Minority Ethnic’ may be used by racially-oversensitive vicars, as justified by the following rationale:
Within the Church of England, the acronym UKME has been adopted as recognition that within the UK there are people from a minority ethnic background, but only because they are in the UK. The term Global Majority Heritage (GMH) is a reminder that minorities in the UK are often from a majority world culture, e.g. Africans, Indians [neither of whom actually make up the majority of the global population at all …]. In Hong Kong, those who qualify [for a visa] will soon be allowed to emigrate to the UK. Although from a majority Chinese heritage, they will automatically be classified as ‘minority ethnic’ in the UK.
Yes, of course they will. Because they will be an ethnic minority there, just like Englishmen in China.
According to the Reverend Karlene Kerr, the Adviser for UK Minority Ethnic Affairs to the Bishop of Norwich, and author of the above spiel, the “abiding hope” of her Church is that “one day [racial] classifications [like UKME and GMH] will cease to exist—that despite any differences, we will matter-of-factly just view one another as simply that—another person.”
I rather hope for that myself too, Karlene. May I therefore suggest that perhaps the best way to ensure that such an appealing prospect comes to pass might be for you to stop using these terms? After all, the vast bulk of ordinary folk, of whatever skin colour, don’t, do they? You might well call them the Global Majority.
The ‘Global Majority’: Racially Divisive Linguistic Nonsense
At what point does a minority become a majority? Apparently, this happens when that minority occupies enough positions of social and political power so that it is able to simply act as if it is the majority. That is why London’s Labour-controlled Westminster City Council has decided to begin referring to non-white residents in its official communications not as ethnic minorities, but as members of the Global Majority. This decision is a sign of things to come.
In a statement released on 15 November, 2022, the Council made a commitment to pursue a “relentless focus to become an anti-racist organisation,” part of which involved dropping their previous usage of the acronym ‘BAME’ (Black And Minority Ethnic), as the very term minority has now been deemed inaccurate. Although, according to the most recent census data then available from 2011, Britain was still 86% white, this did not matter. When you consider the planet as a whole, the situation is reversed; there are obviously far more non-whites in the world, estimated to comprise 80-85% of the global population.
A sceptical Sir John Hayes, of the (apparently miniscule) Common Sense Caucus of Conservative MPs, observed that “Minorities and majorities are about the context—you can’t use the term ‘majority’ out of context and assume it affords some sort of accurate description.” Indeed not. The majority of life on Earth is not fish life; but it may well be inside the strictly-defined limits of London Aquarium.
Then again, accuracy was perhaps not what Westminster City Council was striving for. As Hayes added, “The distortion of language is at the heart of the liberal left agenda. The malevolent minority that control too much of Britain wish to control and limit language as a precursor to limit[ing] what people think. It is deeply sinister and must be resisted at every turn.” But how strongly is such an agenda being resisted?
Minority Report
The very term Global Majority (GM) is a tool of racial manipulation. It is billed as an empowering alternative to BAME, because the word ‘minority’ in that acronym supposedly defines everyone else in relation to white people, positioning them as somehow inferior or subordinate. Ironically, replacing BAME with GM still positions all other ethnicities in relation to white people, however, just in reverse; white people—and white people alone—are now put in direct opposition to every other race in existence, in a wholly negative and divisive way. They are the inferior subordinates now.
Saying all non-whites represent a Global Majority is a linguistic trick, pure and simple. Clearly, there is no single ethnicity which accounts for over 50% of the world’s population. There are far more black Africans, East Asians (like Chinese and Japanese), and Southeast Asians (like Indians and Pakistanis) than there are white Europeans on the planet, but none of these single broad ethnic groups is a majority as such. Instead, every single person belongs to an ethnic minority, considered globally; it is only within a specific local context that any of them can be considered ethnic majorities, just like the fish in London Aquarium.
Practising What She Preaches
The term Global Majority was coined in 2003 by Rosemary Campbell-Stephens, a black British academic working in the field of pedagogy, who likes to describe herself using comically self-regarding labels like “anti-racist Pan-African paradigm shifter,” “humanist and womanist,” and even “a disruptor and activist” who “is rarely in her lane.” She is also a professed anti-colonialist who somehow still managed to accept the Member of the Order of the British Empire (MBE) in 2015 for her reputed services to UK education.
Campbell-Stephens appears to have been accidentally subsidised by Britain’s public purse to spread Critical Race Theory (CRT) throughout our schools and universities. Semi-retired in sunny Jamaica, she is nonetheless still currently employed as a visiting fellow at University College London and an associate fellow at the University of Birmingham’s School of Education, where her 2021 book, Educational Leadership and the Global Majority: Decolonising Narratives, is required reading for helpless trainee school teachers.
She also gives speeches with titles like “Global Majority—A Celebration of Decoloniality and Recentring Humanity,” in which she argues that “At a time of systemic implosion environmentally, climatically, politically, economically [and] spiritually … returning to the indigenous wisdom of the Global Majority could be the crucible for ethical and sustainable change in a technological age.” This is an interesting concept, as apparently Campbell-Stephens believes that the “indigenous wisdom” of, say, Chinese Confucians, Turkish Sufis, Vietnamese Buddhists, Brazilian Candomblé wizards, and Caribbean Obeah masters is all the same.They’re all part of a magical, unifying Global Majority, so why not ignorantly conflate all of them, culturally and ethnically?
Alternatively, you could have logged into her informative Zoom lecture “Decolonising Educational Narratives in Birmingham,” in whose advance PR material she was lauded as an “edgy keynote speaker” committed to “challenging government policy that propagates a vanilla meritocracy that is wilfully colour-blind and in denial of the struggles of Global Majority professionals at every level.” Colour blindness used to be just what the Left strove for in public policy; now, it is the direct opposite. Apparently, Campbell-Stephens also “aims to situate both the term and the concept Global Majority at the heart of the conversation rather than ‘other’ them as so-called ‘minorities,’ subordinated to a white norm.” This sounds uncomfortably like she wishes to subordinate white people to artificially homogeneous black cultural norms within their own historic home-countries.
The Blackboard Jungle
Rosemary Campbell-Stephens first came to prominence via her involvement in an educational improvement program called The London Challenge instituted by Britain’s New Labour government, which ran from 2003 and until 2011. In response to disproportionately low results in the capital’s secondary schools, Labour tried to raise attainment by providing these schools with extra funding and training and established a leadership program for local teachers in a number of low-achieving boroughs. Initially, it worked, and by 2005 London schools were doing better on average than the rest of England. The scheme was deemed a success (although subsequent studies have argued that school improvement was the consequence of other factors).
Whether the scheme actually worked or not, Campbell-Stephens certainly thought it did, proudly describing herself as “the developer and head of the programme.” According to her, The London Challenge was “the most successful government intervention to raise levels of attainment in the history of the British education system.” This must have come as news to the creators of the 1880 Education Act, which made primary-level education compulsory for the first time in history. Yet she was highly critical of the way the government presented the scheme, which she felt did not focus enough upon racial issues in London schools, an opinion which rather ignores the fact that the whole point of The London Challenge was to raise educational standards, not obsess endlessly about skin. Or was it?
In her essay “Global Majority: Decolonising the Language and Reframing the Conversation About Race,” Campbell-Stephens implies that New Labour disingenuously presented retired white headmasters hired as consultants as the main driving force behind the scheme’s alleged success, when in fact most of the true miracle workers were non-white staff like herself. As the London locales targeted for intervention had large proportions of ethnic minority pupils, with non-white students often outnumbering white ones, she felt a new term was needed to reverse the alleged whitewashing at work here: hence Global Majority was born, a term she pushed on teachers under her influence.
Was she supposed to be doing this? Her specific assigned role was to get exam results up, but “seeking permission has never been one of my strong points, so I was determined that a black-led leadership preparation [scheme] should be liberating and empowering in both its content and language; and that I could create both.” This sounds like an open boast that Campbell-Stephens decided, of her own volition, to partly alter the purpose of a school-improvement program into becoming a form of CRT-based racial indoctrination program for teachers.
But to what end? Campbell-Stephens claimed that she wanted to allow mentally colonised non-whites to reclaim “their connections to their roots” by “collectively step[ping] into their power as authentic human beings.” For Campbell-Stephens herself, part of this reconnection was facilitated by her personal recognition that, whilst “my nationality is British,” nonetheless “my nationality does not exist in relation to whiteness, and transcends my geographic place of birth.”
But this is just not true. If you are black British, then your identity does exist in relation to white Brits, as, according to current census data, you are part of a 4% subset of the population within an 82% white country. The largest British minority group is actually Asians at 9%, making Campbell-Stephens a minority within a minority, not part of an imagined majority. Simply choosing to self-identify as an invented global majority within the context of an actual local majority is akin to a man arbitrarily choosing to self-identify as being a woman—a complete act of self-delusion.
Existing terms like BAME and visible minority “all situate whiteness as the norm within their respective local contexts even when the opposite is true,” continues Campbell-Stephens. But, again, the opposite isn’t true, is it? (Unless you are talking about hyper-local contexts, such as an all-black household or specific minority-white school, city, or town.) Yet, by “stubbornly using contested terminology,” instead of her own, highly non-controversial gibberish, non-white groups become “minoritised,” a very modish verb which implies non-whites should have been the majority in historically white European countries like Britain, by rights, but have somehow been displaced by some form of unnamed (because non-existent) racial atrocity.
Some Are More Equal Than Others
Nonetheless, such suddenly passé language as BAME “reinforces who has the power to determine reality and the conversation.” Campbell-Stephens coined the phrase Global Majority to be an inherently “empowering term”—but only empowering for the select few that previously fell under BAME, it seems.
She claims that “black leadership, at its best, is unsurpassed”, as demonstrated by her own fine example. In claiming to belong to a Global Majority, Campbell-Stephens seems here to inadvertently and inaccurately reimagine her own specific non-white ethnicity as standing in for all the others. “Imagine embracing being Black as a distinct advantage, a mark of excellence,” she says, an idea which will not necessarily be of much interest to, say, a Bolivian or a Korean, upon whose behalf she apparently presumes to speak.
Reimagining both demographic facts and the language used to describe them is urgently necessary, however, to avoid alienating “Black and Asian professionals,” who would be otherwise unable even to “introduce themselves in culturally mixed professional company without ambivalence, hesitation and [mis]interpretation, due to the use of confusing terminology, not created by them, about them,” something which would only be true if such professionals habitually went around shaking hands and saying bizarre things like ‘Hello, my name’s Paul and I’m an ethnic minority black man” as opposed to simply saying “Hello, my name’s Paul and I’m a teacher,” as normal, sane individuals would.
Worse than all of this, when it comes to speaking of whites, Campbell-Stephens uses language which makes them sound like the imaginary world-controlling Jews of discredited, Nazi-style tracts like The Protocols of the Elders of Zion:
Just to remind you, this woman is herself a university academic, has worked for the British government, enjoys international connections and international residency, has influenced national school systems, appears to have enough cash to have successfully retired early to live by the beach in Jamaica, writes for major national newspapers, and once received an MBE from HM the Queen.
Mind Your Language
What are the chances of the phrase Global Majority actually catching on? Like so many of these terms, from BIPOC to BAME, it has approximately zero purchase amongst the general public, who still stubbornly like to communicate in non-robotic language, but in its birthplace of the UK, it has already begun to be adopted by elements of the institutional class. Comic Relief, for example, a charity which traditionally enlisted TV comedians to solicit donations from the public to redistribute towards genuinely poor and needy Africans, established something called The Global Majority Fund in 2020, which doled out grants worth £2.1m to “UK communities experiencing racial inequality [who] have been disproportionately affected by the Covid-19 pandemic.”
The Fund’s online grant-application page begins with a quote from an anonymous individual complaining that “My ethnicity in the UK is defined as a ‘minority,’ but globally I am the majority.” Do please note the wholly delusional use of inverted commas there. Most Comic Relief donors are still under the quaint impression that 100% of their funds go towards worthy causes like feeding the starving or housing the homeless; if they knew some of their pounds and pennies were going towards madness like this, too, the charity might fold into bankruptcy.
Another UK institution eager to adopt this unnecessary and misleading neologism is the Church of England who, lemming-like, established an Archbishops’ Racial Justice Commission (ARJC) in the wake of the death of George Floyd in 2020. The basic starting point, as ritually proclaimed by the Archbishop of Canterbury himself, was that the CofE was “deeply institutionally racist.” As if to prove this, in their first published report, the ARJC adopted yet another new initialism for woke lexicographers to memorise, in ‘GMH,’ or ‘Global Majority Heritage,’ a clear extension of Campbell-Stephens’ original coinage.
Alternatively, the letters UKME or ‘UK Minority Ethnic’ may be used by racially-oversensitive vicars, as justified by the following rationale:
Yes, of course they will. Because they will be an ethnic minority there, just like Englishmen in China.
According to the Reverend Karlene Kerr, the Adviser for UK Minority Ethnic Affairs to the Bishop of Norwich, and author of the above spiel, the “abiding hope” of her Church is that “one day [racial] classifications [like UKME and GMH] will cease to exist—that despite any differences, we will matter-of-factly just view one another as simply that—another person.”
I rather hope for that myself too, Karlene. May I therefore suggest that perhaps the best way to ensure that such an appealing prospect comes to pass might be for you to stop using these terms? After all, the vast bulk of ordinary folk, of whatever skin colour, don’t, do they? You might well call them the Global Majority.
READ NEXT
Play the Ball, not the Man: Cancel Culture’s Attempt To Capture Hungarian Academia
Starmer’s War on Farmers: a New Low for Client Politics
Unprincipled Liberals & the Principle of Cause and Effect