Black is now capitalized

[Montecarlo]

https://abcnews.go.com/US/dictionary-announces-capitalize-word-black-updates/story?id=72699944&cid=clicksource_4380645_13_hero_headlines_headlines_hed

To a large degree, I think this makes sense.  Most ethnic/racial groups are capitalized.  Caucasian, Asian, African, Latino, Latina, Hispanic, etc all are capitalized.  Why not Black?  I can get behind that.

But if Black, as a racial group, is capitalized, why not White as well?

[Kris]

In part, because as Columbia Journalism Review states, it risks following the lead of white supremacists.

https://www.cjr.org/analysis/capital-b-black-styleguide.php

[GuitarStv]

Black is not a race, it's a colour.

Caucasian, Asian, African, Latino, Latina, Hispanic, etc all are capitalized because they refer to a race.  There is no black, white, yellow, brown, or taupe race of people . . . so capitalizing black because it's an invalid descriptor of the colour of some people's skin doesn't seem to make much sense.

[ericrugiero]

I don't understand capitalizing black because it's not specific enough about a group of people.  It could accurately refer to someone who lives in Africa, Papua New Guinea, Australia (Aboriginal), or many other places.  Capitalizing a description of that huge group of people because of the terrible experience of a relatively small percent of the world's black population had doesn't make sense. 

[PDXTabs]

Caucasian, Asian, African, Latino, Latina, Hispanic, etc all are capitalized because they refer to a race.

Maybe yes, maybe no. Caucasian is constantly getting redefined and basically means white at this point. Similarly, African is confusing. Are we talking about people that live in Africa or people who recently descended from Africans? Additionally Hispanic is confusing and a really vague description. Black makes more sense, racially, than Hispanic. Hispanic AFAIAC is an ethnicity.

[J Boogie]

Black is not a race, it's a colour.

Caucasian, Asian, African, Latino, Latina, Hispanic, etc all are capitalized because they refer to a race.  There is no black, white, yellow, brown, or taupe race of people . . . so capitalizing black because it's an invalid descriptor of the colour of some people's skin doesn't seem to make much sense.

I think I was initially a little skeptical of the NYT decision to do this, but I think it makes some sense.

Black with a capital B isn't actually used to describe the color of a person's skin. There are tons of South Asians that are darker than the average Black person in the US, but they wouldn't be described as Black. Black, when capitalized, refers to a person of African ancestry.


There is a strange phenomenon which Thomas Chatterton Williams observes - that in US culture at least, Blackness overrides other ethnicities, even if its observable manifestation is quite subtle. It is nearly unheard of to hear of a person with a Black parent and a white parent described as white and yet it is extremely common for them to be described as Black.

[GuitarStv]

Black with a capital B isn't actually used to describe the color of a person's skin. There are tons of South Asians that are darker than the average Black person in the US, but they wouldn't be described as Black. Black, when capitalized, refers to a person of African ancestry.

Yep.  I mentioned this already.  Black is an invalid descriptor of the colour of some people's skin.  It's a term that has historically been associated with evil and bad things, and removing this association is going to be extremely difficult.  That's probably why it was chosen to refer to slaves in America.  Maybe continuing to use and legitimize the language of oppression isn't the right way forward.

[Glenstache]

Black with a capital B isn't actually used to describe the color of a person's skin. There are tons of South Asians that are darker than the average Black person in the US, but they wouldn't be described as Black. Black, when capitalized, refers to a person of African ancestry.

Yep.  I mentioned this already.  Black is an invalid descriptor of the colour of some people's skin.  It's a term that has historically been associated with evil and bad things, and removing this association is going to be extremely difficult.  That's probably why it was chosen to refer to slaves in America.  Maybe continuing to use and legitimize the language of oppression isn't the right way forward.

... pretty much all racial descriptors are inaccurate to varying degrees. I'm described as Caucasian, but I'm not aware of anything close to resembling a family tree linkage to the Caucasus. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/07/sunday-review/has-caucasian-lost-its-meaning.html

I tend to revert to letting people define their race as they see fit, and if there are multiple choices, they get to choose it. It is largely about cultural/personal identity rather than a biologically meaningful distinction, so letting individuals define is the least assholeish way I can think of to approach it.

[Tasse]

Black with a capital B isn't actually used to describe the color of a person's skin. There are tons of South Asians that are darker than the average Black person in the US, but they wouldn't be described as Black. Black, when capitalized, refers to a person of African ancestry.

Yep.  I mentioned this already.  Black is an invalid descriptor of the colour of some people's skin.  It's a term that has historically been associated with evil and bad things, and removing this association is going to be extremely difficult.  That's probably why it was chosen to refer to slaves in America.  Maybe continuing to use and legitimize the language of oppression isn't the right way forward.

...maybe following the lead of the people who are being referred to is the right way forward? We could rationalize many different approaches, but Black Americans widely describe themselves as such. I'm not about to try to explain to them why they should change. Seems simplest to accept their terminology, acknowledge that Black is a racial group with a distinct history (again, in the Americas), and move on.

[Tasse]

In response to the OP, Black is a racial group because you can't get more specific - the Black American community largely descends from enslaved people whose specific ancestry obscured. In most other racial groups, as well as those descended from more recent African immigrants, you can be proud of your Irish or Chinese or Nigerian heritage. But enslaved people in the Americas were denied that ancestral link, and forged their own culture here. That's why "Black" has a specific cultural meaning that "white" doesn't.

[J Boogie]

Black with a capital B isn't actually used to describe the color of a person's skin. There are tons of South Asians that are darker than the average Black person in the US, but they wouldn't be described as Black. Black, when capitalized, refers to a person of African ancestry.

Yep.  I mentioned this already.  Black is an invalid descriptor of the colour of some people's skin.  It's a term that has historically been associated with evil and bad things, and removing this association is going to be extremely difficult.  That's probably why it was chosen to refer to slaves in America.  Maybe continuing to use and legitimize the language of oppression isn't the right way forward.

I'd echo the other comments you've been getting about how many Black people self-describe that way and greatly prefer it to the longer and more formal, politically correct sounding alternatives.

And I'd also add there's a certain delightful rebelliousness we humans relish in when we subvert the language of our adversaries and claim it as our own.

Consider the more recent phenomenon of those who self-describe as deplorables or, on the other hand, nasty women. Or nasty womxn.

[nessness]

Black with a capital B isn't actually used to describe the color of a person's skin. There are tons of South Asians that are darker than the average Black person in the US, but they wouldn't be described as Black. Black, when capitalized, refers to a person of African ancestry.

Yep.  I mentioned this already.  Black is an invalid descriptor of the colour of some people's skin.  It's a term that has historically been associated with evil and bad things, and removing this association is going to be extremely difficult.  That's probably why it was chosen to refer to slaves in America.  Maybe continuing to use and legitimize the language of oppression isn't the right way forward.

I'd echo the other comments you've been getting about how many Black people self-describe that way and greatly prefer it to the longer and more formal, politically correct sounding alternatives.

And I'd also add there's a certain delightful rebelliousness we humans relish in when we subvert the language of our adversaries and claim it as our own.

Consider the more recent phenomenon of those who self-describe as deplorables or, on the other hand, nasty women. Or nasty womxn.

Agreed. Another recent example is queer. It was considered a slur for a long time, but in recent years a lot of people have started self-identifying as queer.

[GuitarStv]

Black with a capital B isn't actually used to describe the color of a person's skin. There are tons of South Asians that are darker than the average Black person in the US, but they wouldn't be described as Black. Black, when capitalized, refers to a person of African ancestry.

Yep.  I mentioned this already.  Black is an invalid descriptor of the colour of some people's skin.  It's a term that has historically been associated with evil and bad things, and removing this association is going to be extremely difficult.  That's probably why it was chosen to refer to slaves in America.  Maybe continuing to use and legitimize the language of oppression isn't the right way forward.

I'd echo the other comments you've been getting about how many Black people self-describe that way and greatly prefer it to the longer and more formal, politically correct sounding alternatives.

And I'd also add there's a certain delightful rebelliousness we humans relish in when we subvert the language of our adversaries and claim it as our own.

Consider the more recent phenomenon of those who self-describe as deplorables or, on the other hand, nasty women. Or nasty womxn.

Agreed. Another recent example is queer. It was considered a slur for a long time, but in recent years a lot of people have started self-identifying as queer.

I think you mean Queer.  Since we're randomly capitalizing any descriptor of people now.  :P

[OzzieandHarriet]

I was once an editor for APA. At the time I was still working for them, both Black and White (when referring to people) were capitalized per APA style. I do remember getting complaints from one author about it.

[dividendman]

What are ya'll talking about? There is one race of people - the human race.

[I'm a red panda]

What are ya'll talking about? There is one race of people - the human race.

You know this line of thinking just further erases minority voice, right? 

[dividendman]

What are ya'll talking about? There is one race of people - the human race.

You know this line of thinking just further erases minority voice, right?

No, I don't know that. How do you know that?

[Tasse]

What are ya'll talking about? There is one race of people - the human race.

You know this line of thinking just further erases minority voice, right?

No, I don't know that. How do you know that?

here ya go https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/color-blindness-is-counterproductive/405037/

[dividendman]

What are ya'll talking about? There is one race of people - the human race.

You know this line of thinking just further erases minority voice, right?

No, I don't know that. How do you know that?

here ya go https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/color-blindness-is-counterproductive/405037/

Well, it's a long article but near the end the writer gets to the point (and refers to several books) which she claims prove that

moving away from colorblindness can actually serve as a pathway towards antiracism. In many of these studies, as whites came to understand themselves as members of a racial group which enjoyed unearned privileges and benefits, this compelled them to forge a different sense of white identity built on antiracism rather than simply supporting the status quo

The person the writer is arguing against is paraphrased here:

Advocates of colorblindness, like Friedersdorf, tend to claim that emphasizing whites’ group identity as whites (rather than as individuals) is counterproductive. Rejecting colorblindness and encouraging whites to see themselves as members of a distinct racial group, they argue, will produce nativism. They will cling to, rather than critique, the privileges that whiteness affords, which are jeopardized by a more multiracial society. Friedersdorf calls it naďve to believe that upon focusing on their status as members of a racial group and the privilege and power that affords them, “masses of white people will identify more strongly with their racial tribe and then sacrifice the interests of that tribe.

I can't speak intelligently to the first quote, but from my own observations I think there has been an increase in white nativst sentiment/identification.

Let's assume for now that "in many of these studies" actually means a majority or significant amount, I am still perplexed as what to what the end is. What's a win? How much should we consider a person's color/race/religion/country of birth/sexual orientation etc. before the individual characteristics in any situation?

I still find it hard to fathom that accentuating physical differences in people is going to make the world a better place.

[Tasse]

Honestly, I didn't even read the article. I googled "race colorblindness" and shared the first result, because I've seen this argument a thousand times and didn't want to do homework for you. A lot of people have put significant thought into this subject; if you're interested in learning more I suggest you research their work.

[I'm a red panda]

What are ya'll talking about? There is one race of people - the human race.

You know this line of thinking just further erases minority voice, right?

No, I don't know that. How do you know that?

Courses in ethnic studies by people who have done a lot of research about this.
And discussions with minorities, who, while unable to represent the entire minority group, have personally agreed with this statement.

Sure it's a true statement we all belong to one human race; but by refusing to "see color" we are erasing the personal narrative of those whose lives are effected.

I was taught to be "color blind". I have learned, through experience with people of color, including those who do evidence based research, that this is outdated thinking. It is OK to celebrate our differences. Black people in the US shouldn't be expected to be white (or White, depending on your style guide). And the majority should listen to their voices, and not erase them by claiming we are all the same. We aren't the same. We don't experience the world in the same way, and we don't have the same shared history. 

[GuitarStv]

It is OK to celebrate our differences. Black people in the US shouldn't be expected to be white (or White, depending on your style guide). And the majority should listen to their voices, and not erase them by claiming we are all the same. We aren't the same. We don't experience the world in the same way, and we don't have the same shared history.

What are acceptable ways for white people to celebrate their differences and white culture?

Serious question . . . as I've always been taught that celebrating white culture is (at least mildly) racist and gauche since white people have oppressed other cultures through the majority of modern history.  It's certainly possible to celebrate individual ethnicity and religions within whiteness (like being Polish, Jewish, Ukranian, British, etc.) but never whiteness.  I'm actually struggling to imagine an acceptable way of publicly celebrating whiteness that doesn't come off as a little dickish.

[expatartist]

I'll quote from an extensive footnote by Harris's "Whiteness as Property" [1993], an essay that should be read by every US social studies class or anyone studying US history. This is not a new conversation in America, though it may be to some:

[3] "I use the term 'Black' throughout the paper for the reasons articulated by Professor Kimberle Crenshaw. I share her view that "Blacks, like Asians, Latinos, and other "minorities," constitute a specific cultural group, and, as such, require denotation as a proper noun.'.....According to W.E.B. DuBois, '[t]he word "Negro" was used for the first time in the world's history to tie color to race and blackness to slavery and degradation.'...The use of the lower case 'N' in 'negro' was part of the construction of an inferior image of Blacks that provided justification for and a defense of slavery. See W.E.B. Du Bois, That Capital 'N', in The Seventh Son, 12, 13...Thus, the use of the upper case and lower case in reference to racial identity has a particular political history. Although 'white' and 'Black' have been defined oppositionally, they are not functional opposites. 'White' has incorporated Black subordination; 'Black' is not based on domination.....'Black' is naming that is part of counterhegemonic practice."

https://sph.umd.edu/sites/default/files/files/Harris_Whiteness%20as%20Property_106HarvLRev-1.pdf

[I'm a red panda]

It is OK to celebrate our differences. Black people in the US shouldn't be expected to be white (or White, depending on your style guide). And the majority should listen to their voices, and not erase them by claiming we are all the same. We aren't the same. We don't experience the world in the same way, and we don't have the same shared history.

What are acceptable ways for white people to celebrate their differences and white culture?

Serious question . . . as I've always been taught that celebrating white culture is (at least mildly) racist and gauche since white people have oppressed other cultures through the majority of modern history.  It's certainly possible to celebrate individual ethnicity and religions within whiteness (like being Polish, Jewish, Ukranian, British, etc.) but never whiteness.  I'm actually struggling to imagine an acceptable way of publicly celebrating whiteness that doesn't come off as a little dickish.

Honest question- why do you feel the need to celebrate "whiteness"?  As a majority ethnic group, to some extent, everyday is a celebration of whiteness.
Celebrating your heritage, not your race.   When we celebrate Oktoberfest- is that not, more or less, a celebration of "whiteness"?  Because Germanic heritage is white (although certainly not all Germans are white!).  St. Patrick's Day in the US is a celebration of "whiteness"- because Irish heritage is white. (And again, this is not to discount black Irishpeople.)

As someone else pointed out, Black people, due to the history of slavery, has had their heritage erased. They cannot celebrate the country their ancestors came from, because many don't know.  And as a collection of people, Black Americans continue to face discrimination their white counterparts do not.  (As a group- sure an individual white person has been discriminated against, but as a group, white people do not face it.)

When we celebrate Black History Month or Hispanic Heritage Month, it's because, quite honestly, every month is white history month. By and large- the way our history is written is about white men. It's not because other people weren't there and weren't making contributions. It's because they were pushed into the background and not taught about.

[PDXTabs]

It's certainly possible to celebrate individual ethnicity and religions within whiteness (like being Polish, Jewish, Ukranian, British, etc.) but never whiteness.

That is my understanding. It is culturally acceptable to celebrate your ethnicity (Polish, British, North Dakotan, etc) but not the color of your skin if you are white. Meanwhile, black folks in the USA were robbed of their cultural identity and usually don't know which part of Africa their ancestors where taken from. For this reason it is considered culturally acceptable to celebrate Blackness but not whiteness.

[PDXTabs]

As someone else pointed out, Black people, due to the history of slavery, has had their heritage erased. They cannot celebrate the country their ancestors came from, because many don't know.  And as a collection of people, Black Americans continue to face discrimination their white counterparts do not.  (As a group- sure an individual white person has been discriminated against, but as a group, white people do not face it.)

Two small points. First, while I refuse to celebrate my whiteness, I don't know all of my ancestry. I'm sure that there are many white folks in the USA that have no idea where they come from.

Second, you can absolutely experience horrible racism as a white person. Just not in the USA.

[I'm a red panda]

Two small points. First, while I refuse to celebrate my whiteness, I don't know all of my ancestry. I'm sure that there are many white folks in the USA that have no idea where they come from.

Second, you can absolutely experience horrible racism as a white person. Just not in the USA.

I don't know all my ancestry either.

And yes, the racism I am speaking of is US only.  In places where white people are a minority, things would very likely be different (but the colonial history of white people in non-white countries is extremely complicated, and I really don't know enough to speak to "celebrating whiteness" in these places.)

[GuitarStv]

It is OK to celebrate our differences. Black people in the US shouldn't be expected to be white (or White, depending on your style guide). And the majority should listen to their voices, and not erase them by claiming we are all the same. We aren't the same. We don't experience the world in the same way, and we don't have the same shared history.

What are acceptable ways for white people to celebrate their differences and white culture?

Serious question . . . as I've always been taught that celebrating white culture is (at least mildly) racist and gauche since white people have oppressed other cultures through the majority of modern history.  It's certainly possible to celebrate individual ethnicity and religions within whiteness (like being Polish, Jewish, Ukranian, British, etc.) but never whiteness.  I'm actually struggling to imagine an acceptable way of publicly celebrating whiteness that doesn't come off as a little dickish.

Honest question- why do you feel the need to celebrate "whiteness"?  As a majority ethnic group, to some extent, everyday is a celebration of whiteness.
Celebrating your heritage, not your race.   When we celebrate Oktoberfest- is that not, more or less, a celebration of "whiteness"?  Because Germanic heritage is white (although certainly not all Germans are white!).  St. Patrick's Day in the US is a celebration of "whiteness"- because Irish heritage is white. (And again, this is not to discount black Irishpeople.)

As someone else pointed out, Black people, due to the history of slavery, has had their heritage erased. They cannot celebrate the country their ancestors came from, because many don't know.  And as a collection of people, Black Americans continue to face discrimination their white counterparts do not.  (As a group- sure an individual white person has been discriminated against, but as a group, white people do not face it.)

Honestly, I'm not even sure what 'celebrating whiteness' would be.  Eating hot dogs?  Popping your golf shirt collar?  Putting a little dog in a rain coat?  Every thought I have of it is pretty distasteful.  But someone just told me that it was OK to celebrate our differences - that was why I asked.

In seriousness, I grew up in a very poor, remote community.  I'd say that the majority of white people there didn't know where they came from or have any idea of their ancestry more than a generation or two back.  I suspect that this is true of many areas in the US as well.

If you're telling black people that they should be free to celebrate their skin colour because they don't know where they come from, but telling poor white people that they're not free to celebrate theirs I feel like this will certainly cause friction.  You are, after all, explicitly telling them that they should be a little bit ashamed of who they are and where they come from because of the color of their skin.

[I'm a red panda]

GuitarStv - I can't answer every question. And I'm not telling anyone to be ashamed of their white skin.  Nor am I telling black people they have to celebrate their skin color. They can do what they want. But I absolutely believe white people should not celebrate their skin color, and most of that is based on the history of what it means to celebrate having white skin.

Your profile says you are Canadian. Are there regional celebrations of Canadian heritage?  Can you celebrate "whiteness" in that way?

Certainly there are festivals that celebrate Appalachia or being 'from' other regions in the US. Celebrating Texas Independence Day.  Things like this That's generally celebrating white heritage, without it being European based.

Another quote that mentioned domination was a great one.  Celebration of being white generally has been due to being dominant over other races. Celebration of being Black (in the US, at the very least) does not have this element.

[Pigeon]

In seriousness, I grew up in a very poor, remote community.  I'd say that the majority of white people there didn't know where they came from or have any idea of their ancestry more than a generation or two back.  I suspect that this is true of many areas in the US as well.

If you've never seen it, I highly recommend watching some episodes of the fascinating Henry Louis Gates TV show Finding Your Roots.

He traces the ancestral stories of prominent people back many generations.  This is generally much easier for white people than it is for Black people, even if the white people came from poor families.  There are still records that genealogists can trace.   Your average person might not know where to look, but the information is out there if you do.  Black people often hit a brick wall when tracing their ancestors back to enslaved people, because the links back to their countries of origin are completely severed.

[iris lily]

I can see the logic of the New York Times’ new nomenclature, and I can support it in theory, generally speaking. But I will tell you there’s been so many names over the years for persons of African decent  that I no longer have much interest in being “correct.” If you shudder at the term “politically correct “ please know this kind of change is what makes snarkers use that term.

Perhaps if those who decide these things could stick with a term for longer than 5 minutes, society would come along in its use.

Instead, I see this as another tool posters  like—well, never mind specifics—will use to bludgeon other posters for their backwardness, their Trumpian stupidity, their lack of respect. Yet living  as I do in a town that has better than 50% African-American population, I will guarantee that the next 5 Black people I meet on the street will be unaware of this new grammar rule

[Glenstache]

It is OK to celebrate our differences. Black people in the US shouldn't be expected to be white (or White, depending on your style guide). And the majority should listen to their voices, and not erase them by claiming we are all the same. We aren't the same. We don't experience the world in the same way, and we don't have the same shared history.

What are acceptable ways for white people to celebrate their differences and white culture?

Serious question . . . as I've always been taught that celebrating white culture is (at least mildly) racist and gauche since white people have oppressed other cultures through the majority of modern history.  It's certainly possible to celebrate individual ethnicity and religions within whiteness (like being Polish, Jewish, Ukranian, British, etc.) but never whiteness.  I'm actually struggling to imagine an acceptable way of publicly celebrating whiteness that doesn't come off as a little dickish.

Sometimes a fish has trouble seeing the water they are swimming in. In the USA, our holidays and commemorations are a sea of whiteness. All those president birthday holidays? White Guys. Christmas? A big pile of co-opted northern european (and roman) solstice traditions plastered over a likely-brown person... who was probably born in June anyways.  We don't need a carve out holiday to celebrate white culture because our culture is so dominant in the USA that we get to celebrate little pieces of it every day. We swim in white culture in this country. Minority population (define it by race, culture, whatever) have "Group" celebrations because they need the carve out. Celebrating white culture as the dominant culture just comes off more than a bit tone deaf, dismissive of why there is a purpose to minority group culture celebrations, and, yes, a bit dickish and full of it.

[I'm a red panda]

I will guarantee that the next 5 Black people I meet on the street will be unaware of this new grammar rule

Probably. I think there was a recent study that the term Latinx is pretty much unseen in Latino/Latina communities.  (Who may also call themselves other things than that even.)

Still, I'd rather listen to the community and what they want to be called, and, in my area, Black is more common now than African-American. 
I certainly would never start saying "Negro" because "we used to say that, so why keep changing"  (and I'm not saying you are advocating that. But certainly, there is something to political correctness.)

[GuitarStv]

Is negro considered offensive, or is it just old fashioned?  I've never used the term either way, but my understanding was that it was actually considered less offensive than black by many older people of colour.

[iris lily]

I will guarantee that the next 5 Black people I meet on the street will be unaware of this new grammar rule

Probably. I think there was a recent study that the term Latinx is pretty much unseen in Latino/Latina communities.  (Who may also call themselves other things than that even.)

Still, I'd rather listen to the community and what they want to be called, and, in my area, Black is more common now than African-American. 
I certainly would never start saying "Negro" because "we used to say that, so why keep changing"  (and I'm not saying you are advocating that. But certainly, there is something to political correctness.)

Yeah well “ Negro” isn’t a bad term, But I accept that, to you if you’re from a different generation,  it probably sounds archaic and slightly off if not way off. But it is simply dated.

I worked in a library and  handled all complaints about books in the collection. One of those challenges was against a standard work of history that had “Negro”  in the title. Eye roll.  If we were to remove all books that used that word we would be removing seminal pieces of literature. But all righty then, let’s not offend anyone or even have material we fear might offend.

And speaking of libraries and correct-talk, you are probably too young to remember the brief period where “ Afro – American” was the correct term. That was before “African American.”  It was in vogue for, what, 15 or so years?

Back in those days before digital library catalogs, we had to take our little bottle of the white out and change catalog cards every time these headings were revised. It kept little people and their little fingers very busy. What a dumb use of human labor.
 

[J Boogie]

I will guarantee that the next 5 Black people I meet on the street will be unaware of this new grammar rule

Probably. I think there was a recent study that the term Latinx is pretty much unseen in Latino/Latina communities.  (Who may also call themselves other things than that even.)

To quote John McWhorter, Schoolmarms don't make language. I married into a Latin family and I would be laughed out of the room if I tried to casually use the term Latinx among ANY of my extended family.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/why-latinx-cant-catch-on/603943/

[GuitarStv]

Kinda makes one question if this whole capitalized B thing is really something that the black community is really clamoring for, or just invented by white people to feel better about themselves without actually doing anything of value to minimize racism or improve race relations.

[J Boogie]

Kinda makes one question if this whole capitalized B thing is really something that the black community is really clamoring for, or just invented by white people to feel better about themselves without actually doing anything of value to minimize racism or improve race relations.

It's possible Black people by and large don't care at all, but NYT et all believed it was accurate from a sociological/grammatical standpoint and not from a moral/social justice standpoint.

As a language stickler myself I can relate to the desire to be accurate. I detest virtue signaling as much as the next centrist, but I don't see too much of it here.

[Tasse]

A Black acquaintance told me it should be capitalized. I started capitalizing it. I'm not aware of any credible claims that capitalizing it can be offensive, so it seemed pretty straightforward to me; some people won't care, but some will.

I don't really understand the complaint that "there have been so many names over the years." In my awareness, over the last 2 decades or so, there has been a gradual shift toward "Black" instead of "African American." That's two names. In the same time I also learned words like "iPad" and "blog" and "paywall," which were not difficult to incorporate into my vocabulary. Language changes.

It doesn't even change that fast, though.

ETA: it also seems self-explanatory why it would matter more to the NYT to set their standards carefully than it does to random people on a small forum to use *precisely* the right grammatical structure. I'm explaining why capital B Black makes sense to me, and why I use it, but I've also never chased someone down to scold them for not using it. We'll see if the linguistic evolution sticks.

[Glenstache]

A Black acquaintance told me it should be capitalized. I started capitalizing it. I'm not aware of any credible claims that capitalizing it can be offensive, so it seemed pretty straightforward to me; some people won't care, but some will.

I don't really understand the complaint that "there have been so many names over the years." In my awareness, over the last 2 decades or so, there has been a gradual shift toward "Black" instead of "African American." That's two names. In the same time I also learned words like "iPad" and "blog" and "paywall," which were not difficult to incorporate into my vocabulary. Language changes.

It doesn't even change that fast, though.

ETA: it also seems self-explanatory why it would matter more to the NYT to set their standards carefully than it does to random people on a small forum to use *precisely* the right grammatical structure. I'm explaining why capital B Black makes sense to me, and why I use it, but I've also never chased someone down to scold them for not using it. We'll see if the linguistic evolution sticks.

Another key difference is that intent matters and that is a lot easier to grok in a one on one interaction than in print form, where the standards matter (as you mention above).

[SunnyDays]

So is "African American" not PC anymore?  This was the predominant term until just recently.  Personally, I didn't really understand that.  Many black people do not consider themselves to have come from Africa, at least not since many centuries ago.  And why weren't white people referred to as European American then?  There is no way to make everyone happy.

[Glenstache]

So is "African American" not PC anymore?  This was the predominant term until just recently.  Personally, I didn't really understand that.  Many black people do not consider themselves to have come from Africa, at least not since many centuries ago.  And why weren't white people referred to as European American then?  There is no way to make everyone happy.

Plenty of people have identified as Irish American, or Italian American. But that tends to fade by generation and local cultural context (ie, more likely to identify that way in Boston than in Seattle). Again, just go with what people prefer to be called. It is just a way to epxress respect for people.

[Tasse]

Neither term is offensive, but different people prefer different things and they have slightly different meanings. I'm looking for a guide I've seen but haven't found it yet.

ETA Here it is: https://twitter.com/erinblogan/status/1225522501876428803?s=20

[dividendman]

What about brown? Does that get caps or not?

[Tasse]

Not in my experience, but I don't know everything. :)

[SunnyDays]

Interesting chart.  I notice there isn't a "no" option for "do you know what country they came from."  Makes me glad I'm not a journalist.

[Montecarlo]

In response to the OP, Black is a racial group because you can't get more specific - the Black American community largely descends from enslaved people whose specific ancestry obscured. In most other racial groups, as well as those descended from more recent African immigrants, you can be proud of your Irish or Chinese or Nigerian heritage. But enslaved people in the Americas were denied that ancestral link, and forged their own culture here. That's why "Black" has a specific cultural meaning that "white" doesn't.

Proper nouns and adjectives have nothing to do with specificity.  It has to do with uniqueness.  There is only one Africa.  There is only one Somalia.  If we take Black to mean "descended from sub-Saharan African ethnicities with dark skin tone," that refers to ONE group of people.

Why doesn't "descended from European ethnicities with light skin tone" have the same merit?

By your logic, asia is not capitalized but Thailand is.  Or even more specific... thailand is not capitalized but Bangkok is.  The specificity argument doesn't hold water.

[Montecarlo]

In part, because as Columbia Journalism Review states, it risks following the lead of white supremacists.

https://www.cjr.org/analysis/capital-b-black-styleguide.php

I'm sure Hitler capitalized proper nouns.  Should we all abandon capitalizing proper nouns?

[nessness]

Interesting chart.  I notice there isn't a "no" option for "do you know what country they came from."  Makes me glad I'm not a journalist.

In that case you probably should have answered "no" to "do you know their ethnic background?" But another line on the flow chart would make that clearer.

[ericrugiero]

Proper nouns and adjectives have nothing to do with specificity.  It has to do with uniqueness.  There is only one Africa.  There is only one Somalia.  If we take Black to mean "descended from sub-Saharan African ethnicities with dark skin tone," that refers to ONE group of people.

Why doesn't "descended from European ethnicities with light skin tone" have the same merit?

Not all Black people are descended directly from Africa.  I have a friend from Papua New Guinea.  He is certainly Black but isn't from Africa.  The same for Australian Aboriginal people and other people groups around the world.  Maybe if you go back far enough they all come from the same place but it's far enough back that they don't consider themselves African.