Who is “Ethnic people”?
While the newspapers progressively write about the ‘indigenous’ people and use the term correctly, during moments of ‘turmoil’, they do not hesitate to revert back. This was most evident during the February happenings in CHT. “Trouble flares in hills again: 2 ethnic people die in army firing, Bangalee settlers torch 200 houses” (See: http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=127234) Interestingly, this news paper which usually prefer the term adivasi/ indigenous reverted to the term ethnic people in the title of this report. It is only in side the story that the term indigenous emerges. Why? Is it just a silly mistake?
My object here is not to write so much about how this news was being treated in the first place but to point out that during moments of ‘turmoil’, reverting back to generic terms like ethnic group/ people is not helpful. Terminology wise, this does not make any sense. The category ethnic is only sensible when a prefix is added (Bengali or Chakma ethnic community/ group etc).
What is curious about this use of the term is that the term is used only to denote the ‘minority’ ethnic people not the ‘majority’ ethnic people of the country. Often the reports do not feel the necessity to mention the Bengali ethnic groups as if this can or should remain unmarked.
My object here is not to write so much about how this news was being treated in the first place but to point out that during moments of ‘turmoil’, reverting back to generic terms like ethnic group/ people is not helpful. Terminology wise, this does not make any sense. The category ethnic is only sensible when a prefix is added (Bengali or Chakma ethnic community/ group etc).
What is curious about this use of the term is that the term is used only to denote the ‘minority’ ethnic people not the ‘majority’ ethnic people of the country. Often the reports do not feel the necessity to mention the Bengali ethnic groups as if this can or should remain unmarked.
Comments