Race to Ethnicity:

The Classification of
African Identity in Britain

The Ligali Organisation

1/7

August 2005
em: mail@ligali.org | ph: + 44 20.8986.1984 | ml: po box 1257.london.e5.0ud.uk | web: www.ligali.org
 Race to Ethnicity: The classification of African identity in Britain

Introduction

Negro :- a member of a dark skinned group of peoples originally native to Africa.

Origin via Spanish and Portuguese negro. From Latin niger meaning ‘black’

Black :- relating to a human group having dark-coloured skin, especially of

African or Aboriginal ancestry; full of anger and hatred; deeply stained with dirt

White :- relating to a human group having light-coloured skin, especially of

European ancestry; morally or spiritually pure

African :- a person from Africa, especially a black person

European :- a native or inhabitant of Europe.

Source: Concise Oxford English Dictionary, Tenth Edition Published 2001

The Ligali Organisation is opposed to the institutionalised usage of the label ‘black’ as a racial
epithet to describe African people by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) and the
Commission for Racial Equality (CRE). The assertion that African heritage is a superficial
aesthetic representing nothing but a colour perpetuates the derogatory myth that African
culture is of no value whilst failing to reflect the geo-political reality of African people’s
identity. It is disrespectful and disempowering to label the cultural identity of any person by
use of a single homogenous colour particularly if this label is historically linked with negative,
social and cultural connotations and associations. Britain’s historic use of colour coding to
label all non European peoples remains ineffective in espousing the diversity within minority
communities. Furthermore its institutionalised usage in British education and state media
cultivates and perpetuates cultural ignorance and racism.

Races, Racism and Racial Colour Coding

There is a contentious history behind the evolution of ideas and terminology defining
ethnicity. In the early 19th century European anthropologists widely assumed that the
significant biological differences between populations were sufficient evidence of there being
several strains of the human race. These anthropological ideas asserted the notion that it was
a falsehood to believe that all ‘races’ were equal physically, socially, culturally and
intellectually. To support these theories pseudo scientific language was devised which defined
four major human ‘races’. These were typically described as Caucasian (European), Negroid
(African), Mongoloid (Asian or Chinese), and Australoid (the group of people described as
Aboriginal to Australia). Over time these terms were simplified in an attempt to align all non
European groups with a simple colour code that reinforced racist notions of a racial superiority
hierarchy. Some of the terms used in this scheme were based loosely on physical attributes.

2/7

em: mail@ligali.org | ph: + 44 20.8986.1984 | ml: po box 1257.london.e5.0ud.uk | web: www.ligali.org

 From Race to Ethnicity: European Definitions

‘Race’ (geographic region) Pre - 1800 1800 1900 2000

Negroid+ (Africa) Negro Negro/ Coloured Coloured/ Black/
West Indian/ Black Afro-Caribbean^ / African
Caucasoid (Europe) White White/ European* European* European*

Australoid (Australia) Black Black Black/ Aboriginal# Aboriginal/

Indigenous Australians
Asiatic (Asia) Brown Brown Black/ Indian / Asian
Asian
Mongoloid (SE Asia) Yellow Yellow Oriental Chinese

Asiatic Mongoloid (Americas) Red Red Native American Native American/

Amerindian

+Now referred to as Africoid

^Now deemed offensive and replaced with African Caribbean
*Typically refers to majority ‘white’ population of Europe, America, Australia, Israel, and New Zealand
#Also referred to as ‘Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people'

Definitions of Ethnicity

Today the concept of human ‘races’ is firmly discredited as modern genetics now shows that
over 99% of the genetic make up of human beings are common to all ethnic groups. As a
result of this knowledge and that of the increased information detailing patterns of migration
throughout world history, colour coded terminology defining non European peoples was
slowly eradicated and replaced with ethno-geographic definitions. The UK Race Relations Act
1976 defined a 'racial group' as 'a group of persons defined by reference to colour, race,
nationality or ethnic or national origins'. However ‘ethnicity’ and ‘ethnic group' became more
formally defined in UK law by a House of Lords decision (Mandla v Lee 1983) as relating to
those with 'a long shared history and a distinct culture'. This legal definition supports the
widely acknowledged notion that ethnicity is a social construction that indicates identification
with a particular group descended from common ancestors. Ethno-geographic definitions are
now accepted as better placed to encapsulate the six criteria’s typically used to define
ethnicity: a name, a common mythos of origin, a common history, a common culture, a
territorial association and a solidarity feeling.

Legacy of Cultural Disinheritance

Today racial colour coding is one of the remaining legacies of the cultural disinheritance
strategy deployed by the British and Europeans during colonialism and the enslavement of
African people. This strategy was designed to forcibly disconnect African people from their
heritage by imposing language and terminology which infer that non European cultures and
languages are inconsequential and not worthy of note. During this era Asian people were

3/7

em: mail@ligali.org | ph: + 44 20.8986.1984 | ml: po box 1257.london.e5.0ud.uk | web: www.ligali.org

 labelled ‘brown’ and ‘yellow’, whilst the Americans labelled Amerindians ‘red’. Australians
labelled Aboriginal communities ‘black’, whilst during the Apartheid era in Azania (South
Africa) the European regime in power constructed a piece of racist legislation called the Race
Classification Act which prohibited African people from being referred to as Africans instead
designating them labels such as ‘coloureds’ and ‘blacks’.

Usage of the ‘white’ racial epithet has a minimal impact on the wider community. British
society generates enough cultural markers to reaffirm British and European identity to negate
any negative effects that could possibly emanate from its usage. In stark contrast, its usage
when defining minority communities becomes problematic due to the way it institutionalises
the deliberate obfuscation of the minority group’s ethno-geographic identity. This typically
occurs in a society where the assertion of diverse cultural identities is seen as a threat to the
national homogeneity of a majority mono-cultural identity. As a result, the minority group
often attempts to adopt the imposed racial designated moniker to alleviate hostile action from
the majority. This coupled with the deliberate marginalisation of relevant ethno-geographic
cultural references in state education and the national media cultivates a crisis of identity
leading to disaffection and alienation in minority communities.

Inconsistent and Inaccurate

African people remain the only minority group in Britain to be institutionally labelled using
colour coding. This perpetuates the odious practice of cultural disinheritance imposed by
British slavers and colonialists. However the usage of both colour and ethno-geographic
terminology in identity classification also raises the matter of data inconsistency and the
subsequent promotion of racial inequality. The current identity classification framework
advocated by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) and the Commission for Racial Equality
(CRE) mixes outdated concepts of colour-race with modern ethno-geography terminology to
define African people’s ethnicity. This inconsistent and haphazard approach to recording
ethnic identity causes several problems.

The colour coded classifications as they exist falsely assert that;

• Colour is synonymous with ethnicity and therefore both have the same meaning.

• Black is an acceptable coded euphemism for non white.

• Ethnicity is the sole preserve of minority communities and that the wider European
community are exempt from requiring an ethno-geographic definition because they
as a ‘white’ majority are the default state of racial normalcy.

• African people have no need for a distinct ethno-geographic identity because as

integrated ‘black’ people are become coloured versions of the normal ‘white’ people
who have successfully assimilated their alien cultural heritage.

• An African British child who has one African parent with Caribbean heritage and
another without is ‘mixed’ race.

4/7

em: mail@ligali.org | ph: + 44 20.8986.1984 | ml: po box 1257.london.e5.0ud.uk | web: www.ligali.org

 Diversity Within

As with many minority communities in Britain there exists a wealth of diversity within the
African British community. This cannot accurately be described with the crude colour coding
terminology. For example the existing classification framework has no means of
differentiating between African Britons with West African, East African, South African, or
Caribbean heritage. Nonetheless whilst the concept of identity remains fluid for most African
people, it remains primarily informed by the ancestral and heritage information passed on
from parents and the format of the national identity imposed through state education and
persistent media references.

The principle of having state recognition of these multiple identities has become one of
increasing importance to African people. Many want to be able to assert their ethnicity
(African), nationality (British) and cultural heritage (Caribbean, Nigerian, Jamaican, Somali, etc).
In many instances African people also choose to publicly assert a specific attribute as a
primary identity. Nonetheless this does not counteract the need to record all three core
elements of this multifaceted identity to better facilitate the construction of effective policies
designed to promote good race relations whilst addressing the socio-economic inequality
faced by African British communities.

African Reality

The word African specifically relates to the indigenous people of the African continent and
their descents in the Diaspora (Caribbean, Americas, Arabia, etc). Its usage in the broader
global context encapsulates the diversity of African identities. The formal race nationality
model such as that currently employed by African American, African Brazilian and African
Caribbean communities more accurately describes African and national identity whilst fully
articulating the history and geo-political reality of African people globally.

Some African people are reluctant to divorce the label ‘Black’ from their identity as its
contemporary use is seen as a means to denote a specific socio-cultural and political context.
It is recognised as a colloquial term that was fashioned as a reactionary concept to derogatory
racial epithets in the 1960’s. Nonetheless it remains offensive and redundant when used as an
official racial classification code word to denote African identity.

Britain’s Race Relations

The Macpherson report published in February 1999 stated that institutional racism was the
collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to
people because of their colour, culture or ethnic origin. The following Race Relations
(Amendment) Act 2000 strengthened the Race Relations Act 1976 and placed a general duty
on public authorities to work towards the elimination of unlawful discrimination and to

5/7

em: mail@ligali.org | ph: + 44 20.8986.1984 | ml: po box 1257.london.e5.0ud.uk | web: www.ligali.org

 promote equality of opportunity and good relations between persons of different racial
groups. Public policy makers and service providers were now required to take steps to ensure
that their policies and services are fair, and put things right when they are unfair or unlawful.
Specific duties were also placed on the policy and service delivery functions of key public
bodies which included the monitoring of policies for adverse impact on the promotion of race
equality.

Despite this by advocating a classification system where African Britons are categorised as
either ‘Black’, ‘Black British’, ‘Black Caribbean’, ‘Black African’ or ‘Black Other’;

1. African Britons with Caribbean heritage are indirectly discriminated against by the
ONS and CRE through the deliberate obfuscation of their African identity.

2. African Britons without Caribbean heritage are directly discriminated against by the
ONS and CRE through the deliberate marginalisation and denigration of their African
identity.

3. African Britons remain the only minority ethnic group to be discriminated against by
the ONS and CRE through the exclusive usage of a racial colour epithet to supplant
their ethno-geographic identity.

4. The ONS and CRE have cultivated cultural ignorance which obstructs the promotion of
good race relations by institutionalising and perpetuating the usage of racial colour
coding as the primary identifier of African people.

5. The ONS and CRE have encouraged the development of ineffective public policies
based on inaccurate data. As a result these policies have failed to eradicate the
distinctive socio-economic disadvantages faced by African Britons.

6. The ONS and CRE have failed to evaluate and publish results demonstrating any
adverse impacts from this form of ‘colour’ discrimination against African people.

We strongly recommend that the Office for National statistics and the Commission for Racial
Equality immediately revises all parts of any issued code of practice using the current identity
classification framework that perpetuates usage of racial colour coded terminology. On
publication and reissue of the revised code a supporting explanatory commentary should be
provided.

New System

Today the practice of using colour coding in the American census has been eradicated and
replaced with a single ethno-geographic model that has proven effective in respecting and
persevering the cultural heritage and nationality of all American citizens. In Britain this is not
so. The colour coding that remains in use to classify African people remains offensive with a
harmful impact on socio-economic development. A new model of recording identity based on
storing ethno-geographic, nationality and heritage information would better reflected the

6/7

em: mail@ligali.org | ph: + 44 20.8986.1984 | ml: po box 1257.london.e5.0ud.uk | web: www.ligali.org

 diversity of Britain’s population. This would allow for more meaningful information to be
gathered from which to better promote and implement race equality policies.

To capture this data within a single classification system would not be difficult. To do so
would require the asking of three specific questions with clear examples given in each case.

1. Ethno-geographic identity (e.g. African, Asian, European)

2. National identity (e.g. British, Scottish, Irish, Welsh)
3. Family heritage or geographic origin (e.g. Caribbean, Nigerian, Jamaican, Pakistani,
Kurdish, English)

In conclusion we recommend that when recording identity information of African people in

Britain;

• All references to colour are removed from ethnicity classifications.

• The word African is used exclusively as the ethno-geographic reference for African
people instead of the racial appellation ‘black’ as a euphemism for non-‘white’ (non-
European).
• Family heritage is always recorded as part of any wider questions on ethnicity and
identity.
• The term African British is not hyphenated.

7/7

em: mail@ligali.org | ph: + 44 20.8986.1984 | ml: po box 1257.london.e5.0ud.uk | web: www.ligali.org