Kamala Harris refers to herself as a ‘woman of colour’. Is it okay if everyone else does too?

President Joe Biden’s recent decision to step down from the 2024 presidential elections in the United States and support Vice President Kamala Harris as the Democratic nominee has led to a landslide of sexist and racist reactions.

As a woman of Indian and Jamaican heritage, Harris is facing a flood of disinformation, stereotypes and deeply offensive racist slurs against her. These include suggestions her political rise is due to the fact she is a “woman of colour” rather than because of her ability to govern.

Harris proudly refers to herself as a “woman of colour”, as do many feminist activists in the US and in Australia. So why the controversy around the use of this phrase?

To answer this, we need to take a quick look at the history of race relations in the US and put this phrase into context. The term “people of colour” can be traced back to the 16th century, when European explorers used it to describe native Americans in contrast to their own imagined “whiteness”. By the 18th century, the term “people of color” was not only used in the English-speaking world but was also a French term, gens de couleur and an Italian one, gente de color.

In this context, we can see why this phrase, and its focus on skin tone, perpetuates a racial hierarchy based in a history of oppression and discrimination. It reflects an idea of white people being at the top.

Even today, many people dislike the term because lumping everyone who is not considered white together in a category like “people of colour” can further reinforce “whiteness” as the norm. It therefore can erase the huge diversity that exists across this group.

However, with the start of the US civil right movements in the 1960s, which called for racial justice, gender equality and an end to all forms of discrimination and oppression, many historians note that Black feminists coined, or reclaimed, the term “women of colour”.

A famous example is the 1977 Combahee River Collective Statement, which reads:

As Black women we see Black feminism as the logical political movement to combat the manifold and simultaneous oppressions that all women of color face.

In this context, the term is intended to express solidarity and collective power.

We can see a similar example in Martin Luther King junior’s 1963 “I have a dream” speech. In this he coined the term “citizens of colour”. It projected a newfound sense of pride in being American citizens of African heritage.

Later generations of African American activists, including prominent athletes and artists and, in the case of Harris, politicians, have proudly embraced their “black”, Latina/Latino and other racial identities (and gender identities) as a form of liberation and empowerment.

In the decades that have followed, in response to calls for greater equality and diversity, some governments and organisations have introduced policies emphasising diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) in workplaces and key institutions. These policies had the explicit aim of promoting the fair treatment and full participation of all people, particularly those who have historically been under-represented or discriminated against, including many people of colour.

Yet DEI policies have recently faced mounting criticism and resistance in many Western societies, especially the USA. There they have become synonymous with much more controversial affirmative action policies.

In such a racialised context, there is no doubt describing Harris as a “person or woman of colour” could be offensive, especially if it implies she is less qualified for the top job or is only in politics because of her race or gender, rather than her political ability.

Indeed, her political opponents branded her as “one hundred percent DEI hire […] her record is abysmal”.

As is the case with language more generally, how these phrases are understood can change over time in ways that perhaps make it more acceptable. Language has always been an essential part of intergroup dynamics and intercultural understanding. Ultimately, often the extent to which such phrases can be offensive, even racist, depends on who is saying it and in what context.

Perhaps in relation to the debate about Harris, the public commentary in mainstream media in particular should desist using such loaded terms and focus instead on her policies and credentials as a potential president. If there is a need to discuss her personal life and ethnic heritage, then referring to her mixed Indian-Jamaican background would be accurate and inoffensive. It is ironic that a phrase that evolved from a spirit of solidarity and respect has become a cover for avoiding the complexities of identities.