I have long liked how Ebony magazine capitalized the word “Black” when applied to Black people. But on points of English I mostly follow the Oxford dictionary. So I wrote it as “black” instead. I was certainly in good company: Langston Hughes, James Baldwin, Cornel West, etc.
But then in March 2014, I started to capitalize it.
I was mainly persuaded by what Daniel K. Richter said in “Facing East from Indian Country” (2001):
“To emphasize that the identities represented by these color terms were historically constructed rather than the product of some natural or ancient inheritance, I have capitalized the words throughout.”
Further, he does not apply colour terms to people in his history till the 1700s when they themselves started thinking in those terms.
I was also persuaded by what Peter Farb said in “Man’s Rise to Civilization” (1968), another book about Native Americans:
“… I have settled upon “White.” I hope the fact that I have spelled it with a capital letter imparts to the reader that I am really not talking about any particular Caucasoids but about an abstraction – a composite of social, political and economic attitudes by certain people, whose skin is usually whiter than most of the world’s population and who behave in a certain way toward primitive peoples wherever they were encountered around the globe.”
and, as if that were not enough:
“The White is a colonizer who early developed an advanced technology; he is an exploiter of human and natural resources; he has destroyed, often intentionally, almost every alien culture he has come in contact with; and he has imposed an iron rule on the remnant peoples of these cultures.”
He does not use “European” because plenty of Europeans were not part of what went on in the Americas.
In Farb’s book it works beautifully: Whites appear as just another people, just like the Mound Builders or the Aztecs.
I agree with how Farb and Richter look at it. To me using “blacks” and “whites” (lower case) sees race as a fact of nature, like “cats” and “dogs”, while using “Blacks” and “Whites” (upper case) sees them as a fact of history, like “Germans” and “Jews”. It sees race as a social construction.
Also, I mainly use the five-race model for the US: Black, White, Hispanic, Asian and Native Americans. So if Native, Hispanic and Asian are capitalized, then why not Black and White too?
If anything, it is suspicious that White and Black are not regularly capitalized in English when applied to people. That makes it unlike every other term for an ethnic, cultural, religious, political, tribal or national group: Republicans, Methodists, Lithuanians, Basques, Navajos. The only thing like it that I can think of is “gypsy”, ugh, which just calls it further into doubt.
It is like how it seems to be more than an “accident”, oops, that Whites in the US call themselves “Americans” while calling Natives “Indians”! As if Manifest Destiny and dispossession were built right into English.
– Abagond, 2015.
Update (October 17th 2019): I changed the title of this post from ‘Why I use “Black” instead of “black”‘ to ‘Why I capitalize “Black”‘ – to make it easier to search for and find.
See also:
- Why I use “black” instead of “Black” – wherein I took the opposite point of view, mostly by wrapping myself in the pages of the Oxford dictionary
- style guide
- Is race biologically real?
- settler colonialism
- African American
- Black Canada: A brief history – the last post where I regularly put Black in lower case (February 27th 2014).
568
I differentiate race from social categories that have very clear populations, such as ethnicity and nationality. I’ll capitalize the latter, but never the former. To my mind, race is a social construct, and I always want that to be made absolutely clear. Ethnicity and nationality also have elements of being social constructs, but they are more historically grounded with clear geographic origins.
Race is too vague of a concept and I’m wary about using it. The only reason I use racial terms at all is because our entire society is built around that social construct, but in that context it refers to a social order and not to individuals, except as individuals may choose to identify themselves.
That said, I honestly don’t care whether other people capitalize racial terms or not. I just have my own issues with it.
LikeLike
I’ve always capitalized Black no matter the context and I encourage everyone to do so. Every little bit counts.
LikeLike
I think because white and black our colors they are not capitalized. Latino is capitalized because Latin American is where the word is derived from. Asian is capitalized because Asia is a continent. Hispanic because of Hispania. Native American because of America. Religions are capitalized, as are political places, specific places. gays and lesbians, heterosexuauals, etc are rarely capitalized even though the acronym LGBT is capitalized as most acronyms are. I think it is more English rules than anything else however you make good points that it may have something to do with racial attitudes and prejudice.
LikeLike
“are colors” typo also “political parties” not places.
LikeLike
I remember that Ebony cover of Janet Jackson from back in the day. I miss Ebony of old not this trash that it’s become today.
LikeLike
That’s a great idea! From now on I’ll do similar; thanks hung.
LikeLike
I have always used “Black” when I am referring to:
– the people
– the culture
– the history
and I have used “black” when I am talking about the color. It’s just a case of one being a proper noun (person place or thing).
LikeLike
I always write “black”, but I guess because I usually think about it as an adjective and not a noun. I don’t see black or white as comprable to German or Asian.
LikeLike
@abagond
so hispanic is a race again?
sorry i am bit lazy with capital letters in general, for sure…
I understand what you are doing here, of course, like it makes sense, and is apropos due to a previous comment i made here recently
LikeLike
I do not use capitals when discussing skin-color. People are so much more than just the color of their skin; I would see it as denigrating to make someone’s skin-color his/her main characteristic.
After all, nobody speaks of “the Left-handed” or “Pimpled people” either.
LikeLike
@jeff elberfeld its saying that ‘black’ (read: black american) as a cultural or group moniker or identifier instead of ‘Norwegian’ or ‘Pacific Islander’ came about due to external pressure ie ‘white’ society in particular slave trade.
LikeLike
I always seem to use ‘Black’ (but never ‘White’) especially when speaking of African-Americans. I think it’s a vague term but also the most accurate.
LikeLike
re: Kiwi
Well, maybe if we are using “gypsy” to refer to a particular social, ethnic or cultural group, such as the Romani, we should capitalise it.
If we say, “She is living the gypsy lifestyle” or “The Badjao are sea gypsies of the Sulu archipelago” then maybe we don’t have to capitalise, although wikipedia writes “Sea Gypsies” in capitals.
LikeLike
Wikipedia is not about standardized grammar!
LikeLike
That is a good explanation that I never thought about. But I don’t agree with it. I almost agree with Jeff Elberfeld.
I think to capitalise “black” and “white” is equivalent to legitimising the silly colour-race concept. I wouldn’t even use those terms, but they help me easily reference groups of Americans. However, I don’t think “Black” should be any western person’s identity since that colour in western languages is associated with everything bad and has a negative subconscious effect on all of us.
“If anything, it is suspicious that White and Black are not regularly capitalized in English when applied to people.That makes it unlike every other term for an ethnic, cultural, religious, political, tribal or national group”
That’s just it, “white” and “black” are not ethnic or cultural groups. They’re just colours. And I hate to hear people say things like there was a white lady, an Asian man, a black lady and a Hispanic man. One refers to colour, one refers to place of origin and one refers to language background. It’s really mixing apples and oranges. Plus an Asian and Hispanic person can be almost any colour and a white or black person can be almost any ethnicity.
Dr. Ben once outlined this concept very well.
LikeLike
I like African-American, it’s a bit long, but it distinguishes from color vs. people and the negative connotation that comes with black (i.e. blackmail, blackballed etc..) and if they are from another place beside the USA, I just say whatever country they are from or if they know their lineage (i.e Jamerican vs Kenyan-American etc..) I know- I know a bit odd. But it works for me 😀
LikeLike
jefe spake thus:
” Well, maybe if we are using “gypsy” to refer to a particular social, ethnic or cultural group, such as the Romani, we should capitalise it.
If we say, “She is living the gypsy lifestyle” or “The Badjao are sea gypsies of the Sulu archipelago” then maybe we don’t have to capitalise, although wikipedia writes “Sea Gypsies” in capitals.”
Which really brings into question if you should, really, ever say something like “the gypsy lifestyle” at all. (you shouldn’t). Even though Gypsy is a slur, it’s the word for a race/an ethnicity (English is crap at distinguishing the two), and one of the most persecuted ones for the last… 500 years at least. it’s akin to saying somebody is living the [random ethnic/racial slur Abagond has banned] lifestyle.
Trying to separate Gypsy (slur for Romani) from gypsy (some kinda nomadic lifestyle [in reality largely enforced due to persecution]) is kinda like the people saying they don’t mean gay people when they use gay as an insult. “I don’t mean homosexuals!”. Despite that’s exactly WHY the word is used like it is today.
LikeLike
“I like African-American, it’s a bit long, but it distinguishes from color vs. people and the negative connotation that comes with black (i.e. blackmail, blackballed etc..) and if they are from another place beside the USA,”
BTW there is a study that compared people labeled as either ‘black’ or ‘African-American’. As I recall, people labeled the latter were more likely be perceived positively by others. But I don’t otherwise recall the details of the study.
It makes sense. Many Americans perceive negative connotations in racial labels. Race is inseparable from the endless conflicts in our society, which easily puts people in an irritable and defensive mood. Americans tend to have more positive views of ethnic labels because they aren’t part of the long dark history of slavery, Jim Crow, etc.
I still don’t care how people choose to identify themselves. But it is of interest that the label one chooses shapes how one is perceived by others and probably by oneself. Many African-Americans choose to identify as black for the very reason of its historical links to past oppression and fights for justice. For them, it evokes such things as ‘black power’.
Labels are fascinating things. They shape how we view reality, most often unconsciously.
LikeLike
That’s ironic, but what does the author say about the Huns and the Mongols who displaced and purged millions of Whites in Central Asia/Europe during their heyday and invaded Europe? What does the author say about the Turks who enslaved millions of whites and sold them into slavery and used them as assassin’s against other white people? What about the moors who invaded Europe and “conquered” many White peoples? What about the Arabs who used “White Turkic” “slave soldiers”?
The delusional Albino B.S of European Albino’s never ceases to amaze me, it’s like they are master liars and have innate propensity to lie and believe those lies at the same time. They are the masters at creating fantasy make-believe and will believe anything literally.
LikeLike
“I remember that Ebony cover of Janet Jackson from back in the day. I miss Ebony of old not this trash that it’s become today.” @Mary B., Ditto n’ ditto!!
LikeLike
Mz. Nikita, please forgive my ignorance but I’m cutious as to what a intelligent person as your self thinks on my question of is it cultural appropriation for whites to own certain things like knives and guns etc., thank you for talking to me:)
LikeLike
Again please forgive me it’s just I’ve read etched snd asked but I can never get a direct answer and I’m just so depressed lol
LikeLike
@Naishee,
“Gypsy” does not only refer to the Romani people in Europe. For example, it is also applied to the Badjao or Orang Laut in SE Asia. It is used to refer to a variety of different people and things.
The argument was that when it is being applied to refer to a particular ethnic group (or cultural / social / racial group), it probably should be capitalized. If not, perhaps not. Both capitalized and non-capitalized versions are found in the dictionary.
Perhaps it is akin to the word native:
Natives in the USA — American Indians and Inuit and Hawaiians
native to the USA – born in the USA.
Gypsy – Romani people
gypsy – one who follows an itinerant or unconventional lifestyle
Bohemian – a person from Bohemia or descendant of people from there
bohemian – a person with artistic or literary interests living an unconventional or vagabond lifestyle
Savage – people who belong to an uncivilized or primitive tribe
savage – wild and ferocious
LikeLike
@jefe
Well, you’re just… Wrong. Gypsy originated as the name for the Romani people (from “Egyptian”, where people wrongly thought they were from). But I sense there’s no real reason to continue this discussion, since everything you argue was already answered in my first post, and your reply doesn’t actually counter anything I said. Refuting your post would just mean quoting my original one again.
(No, that the Badjao or Orang Laut people are sometimes called “Gypsies of the sea” by outsiders who couldn’t give a F*** what they actually call themselves doesn’t change anything. In fact it only makes my argument stronger. Because that’s y’know. Incredibly disrespectful in multple ways to multiple peoples).
LikeLike
@naishee
That is exactly what I say about your argument.
Even if the word comes from the word Egyptian (which I agree with you that it almost certainly does), which refers to a people and is the alleged origin at that time of the Romani people at the time that the word Gypsy was coined, it does not mean that the non-capitalized versions of gypsy, when it is taken to use a different meaning, are incorrectly applied, or even if the word is used to refer to people who are not related to the Romani or their origins.
So, I think that you are simply wrong, but likewise, it is pointless to continue this discussion with you as I would only be repeating myself.
How do you feel about using the word “Indian” to refer to the descendants of the aboriginal peoples of North America, when the vast majority of those people prefer to use that word?
LikeLike
@jefe
“How do you feel about using the word “Indian” to refer to the descendants of the aboriginal peoples of North America, when the vast majority of those people prefer to use that word?”
[citation needed]
LikeLike
@naishee
I have been doing a lot of reading about American Indians recently, and the preferred term among them in the USA is “Indian”, instead of “Native”. They do use “Native” sometimes (a term preferred by university educated white people), this is perhaps similar to how the term African-American v. Black is used.
I attended part of the United National Indian Tribal Youth (UNITY) conference in Washington, DC in July 2015. “Indian” was the term generally used orally between them, The term “Native” does appear in some of their literature and in a few articles on their website, but is rarely used in their actual activities when they discuss themselves.
Then there is the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) and the National Museum of the American Indian (NMAI). The people serving on their boards tend to use the term “Indian” to describe themselves, although, similar to how “African-American” has creeped into use among Black organizations, they also sometimes use the term “Native”.
This issue has even been mentioned on this blog.
(https://abagond.wordpress.com/2012/09/05/indian/)
LikeLike
To continue, the last point is moot discussion to the argument because it is less about what people choose to call themselves, but about the nature of language itself. New meanings (as well as connotations) are attached to words and old ones discarded all the time. Some of this happens when one group co-opts another word for another purpose (eg, Europeans calling indigenous peoples of the Americas “Indians” or multiracial people in the Mainland USA using the word “Hapa”).
We know the source of each of these words, but that alone does not indicate whether a use is right or wrong today. In fact, the argument is more political and social than anything.
Word usage changes over time. The word “colored” in the USA had a different meaning in 1940 then it did in 1865 or 2015 and definitely compared to the 1600s. So has the word Negro.
Whether or not “black” should be capitalized, and in what circumstances it should be or should not be is one of language use and the social and political circumstances of the user.
I have heard people use “black” to refer to people of South Asian origin, of Melanesian origin, of Micronesian origin, of Austronesian origin and of Australian Aboriginal origin. A “black” neighborhood in Sydney is one composed mostly of people of Aboriginal descent. There is no universal standard that it must refer to people of African descent.
One may, and perhaps even rightfully so, argue the same point about the word “gypsy”. If another group has co-opted and used it for something else, some groups might not like it and feel it is wrong for them to do so. However, you cannot say that the whole behaviour is wrong (as in incorrect). You can only say that you object to it on social or political grounds.
You are welcome to make those objections.
LikeLike
@jefe
“I have heard people use “black” to refer to people of South Asian origin, of Melanesian origin, of Micronesian origin, of Austronesian origin and of Australian Aboriginal origin. A “black” neighborhood in Sydney is one composed mostly of people of Aboriginal descent. There is no universal standard that it must refer to people of African descent.”
That is a good point. The terms black (capitalized or not) and African-American mean different things. There is some research that shows around 5% of American blacks have no detectable African genetics. As for Australian Aborigines, they are more genetically different from Africans than are Europeans. Darker skin and other features evolved with different genetics in separate populations.
That is why black is such a vague term. It doesn’t refer to a common ancestry, ethnicity, nationality, geography, genetics, culture, language, religion, or anything else. It is entirely perception based on darker skin. As a label, it is meaningless outside of the history of racism. Race can’t be separated from racism. But as we still live in a racist society and a globalized one at that, race remains relevant in understanding why various populations have different experiences and identities.
All of this confusion, of course, equally applies to ‘white’ as a label.
“But race is the child of racism, not the father. And the process of naming “the people” has never been a matter of genealogy and physiognomy so much as one of hierarchy. Difference in hue and hair is old. But the belief in the preeminence of hue and hair, the notion that these factors can correctly organize a society and that they signify deeper attributes, which are indelible—this is the new idea at the heart of these new people who have been brought up hopelessly, tragically, deceitfully, to believe that they are white.”
― Ta-Nehisi Coates, Between the World and Me
LikeLike
I saw a news report about racism in Australia that featured this Asian Indian guy being abused by his racist white neighbours. He was called a “black dog” by one of them. For some reason, color is a big deal to the pale people who call themselves white. It’s also obvious that people with color are likely to transmit it to their children. Therefore, that is the connection to biology.
It seems to me that description of others as dark has a long history. IIRC Ethiopia is supposed to be a Greek term that references the “burnt” complexion of the people who were living there. Though some people claim it was not referencing the appearance of the residents, Ancient Egypt was called KMT (Kemet) meaning “black land”. KM (kem) is an ancient Egyptian world for “black” from which we get alchemy (etymologically, “al” is “the” in Arabic followed by “kem” for “black”) and chemistry today. In the Bible at Song of Solomon 1:5-6, the speaker says:
Here is what Marco Polo wrote about Ancient India:
https://books.google.com/books?id=yxP3oJEpGCcC&pg=PT41&lpg=PT41&dq=anoint+him+once+a+week+with+oil+of+sesame&source=bl&ots=zymivOn1ro&sig=iK8pvP1OTmadG122bkF4ezUddxg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAGoVChMIq9LdubHdxwIVBXA-Ch1uRw8h#v=onepage&q=anoint%20him%20once%20a%20week%20with%20oil%20of%20sesame&f=false
The latter seems to be true. I have noticed that a number of Indian deities are depicted as blue-black and have names that are said to reference the color black in their languages (eg. Kali, Kala or Krishna).
So I don’t think white people innovated the recognition of dark complexions. What they appear to have developed to a high degree is a brutal caste system based on the inheritance of color which places dark people at the bottom. Being called black is not inherently offensive; it was made offensive under white supremacy racism. Perhaps they want to bleach the world. Ironically, the word “bleach” is thought to be etymologically related to “black” yet they became almost opposites in English.
German bleichen
Dutch bleken
Danish blege
English blacken
Three of those words mean “bleach”, one means darken. Who are the real “black” people? lol. Reality sometimes entertains us with irony.
In conclusion, whether “black person” is taken to mean being a shade of brown in complexion or being of (relatively recent) African descent I, personally, can’t take offense with either. White people have attached a lot of baggage to those things but most of it applies more truthfully to their behavior.
LikeLike
I say “relatively recent” African descent because it is generally thought that humans originated in Africa.
LikeLike
@Origin
“So I don’t think white people innovated the recognition of dark complexions. What they appear to have developed to a high degree is a brutal caste system based on the inheritance of color which places dark people at the bottom.”
Actually, white people (as in those of European descent) didn’t even invent the caste system based on skin color. That credit probably would have to go to India. But even in other parts of Asia, there are very old divisions based on skin color that predate colonialism.
What European descended whites did was create a particular social order based on those ancient notions of skin color. That was developed precisely for the reasons of colonialism and slavery. But even in that they were maybe being influenced by other societies. It was the Arabs that first sought slaves of a particular skin color. Slave originates from Slav because the early Arab slave owners wanted pale-skinned concubines from Central-Eastern Europe.
Europeans aren’t particularly original. European civilization was built on the inventions of other prior civilizations.
I would also point out that skin color manifested in diverse ways in European and American history. The English were racist toward the Irish for the reason they were lighter-skinned. Some English writers speculated that the Irish were the missing link between Europeans, Africans, and apes. In Anglo-America, Benjamin Franklin complained about the Palatine Germans because they had darker skin and a different culture. For most of history, the category of white had a much more narrow meaning, especially for the English.
http://www.dialoginternational.com/dialog_international/2008/02/ben-franklin-on.html
Here is Benjamin Franklin in his own words:
“Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a Colony of Aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them, and will never adopt our Language or Customs, any more than they can acquire our Complexion.
“24. Which leads me to add one Remark: That the Number of purely white People in the World is proportionably very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth. I could wish their Numbers were increased. And while we are, as I may call it, Scouring our Planet, by clearing America of Woods, and so making this Side of our Globe reflect a brighter Light to the Eyes of Inhabitants in Mars or Venus, why should we in the Sight of Superior Beings, darken its People? why increase the Sons of Africa, by Planting them in America, where we have so fair an Opportunity, by excluding all Blacks and Tawneys, of increasing the lovely White and Red? But perhaps I am partial to the Complexion of my Country, for such Kind of Partiality is natural to Mankind.”
LikeLike
“Actually, white people (as in those of European descent) didn’t even invent the caste system based on skin color. That credit probably would have to go to India.”
I was alluding to the Indian caste system as well though those people would not be considered white people of European descent. I agree that the notion of what constitutes “whiteness” has evolved though its nature as a caste system remains.
LikeLike
Abagond, I think it might have been on one of your blog posts that a debate / conversation arose on naming oneself in America. When I was growing up, “Negro” and “coloured” never sat well with me. Latterly, one started hearing African American, which sounds affirming.
One the other hand, some people identified as Black (in small letters). I thought to myself, a People, after all they have been through – Black Holocaust, Jim Crow, and the ongoing present day racism, reduced to a small letter!
Perhaps, I think, Black written in small letters is purposeful. It is authored by the very people who love to define our lives. That white is the stylistic balance, is a small price to pay.
When one goes back to the names given to us/ for us, it has never been accurate: we never to referred to ourselves by those names ; the names were/are derogatory, offensive, demeaning, and de-humanizing and of late, patronizingly politically correct. I neither have the stomach nor the inclination to repeat any of them.
Just look up the dictionary definitions of white, white hope, white lie, white list, white magic and white witch and compare black, black art, blackball, black dog, blacken, blackguard, black mark, black market, black sheep, black sheep.
I had also noticed that Steve Biko had written Black in small letters in “I Write What I Like.”
So, I started to write Black as an affirmation and respect for Black/ African Americans. I am African, not African American. Also, Black in the philosophy of Black Consciousness. And for the millions of people in South Africa and Africa who identify as Black.
I had balanced it out by capitalizing white, but it felt contrived and insincere and duly dropped it.Generally, I try to adhere to the rules of English, but not in this case. They can continue writing white in small letters and I will not break that rule.
LikeLike
On a similar note time, I hate the usage of “non-white”. Today is the second time in my life that I have used it, to illustrate why I find it highly offensive. Many people, including radical anti-racists employ it.
For me, it is not a neutral descriptor of African/ Black Americans, Original Australians and Americans, Africans and Asians. In it, it is explicit that white is the original or default and the rest of humanity, is not. By using ‘non’ all of humanity is the other and white is the standard. Notice the simultaneous negation of the other and the assertion of white as positive embedded in that word.
It was also the ubiquitous signage used in apartheid to uplift and confer spaces to whites that were not theirs in the first place and to separate and dehumanize the original inhabitants, (although the whites did not see it that way. They thought it was a good thing).
LikeLike
@taotesan – I use non-white in the same way I use non-black. It is referencing a specific racial ideology and social order.
Non-white implies that the division is between whites and all others. This is the mainstream view of the US racial worldview (I can’t speak for other countries). So, I use that term in that context.
However, in my reading and thinking about the topic, I’ve come to think that this is wrong. The term non-white does correctly describe a mentality, but it doesn’t describe the world we live in, at least not at present. It might have made more sense in centuries past when slavery and law made the demarcation primarily on the black and white distinction, since it used to be that few Americans personally experienced non-whites that weren’t black. To that extent, non-white implies the way many Americans see race, as based on how they see the past.
Our racial ideology has become more complex with greater diversity. Even the definition of white has changed over time. The distinction no longer, if it ever was, between whites and those who aren’t white. Rather, a century of melting pot narrative has made the issue one of assimilation. It isn’t necessarily who is white, but who might become white.
The Irish and Scots-Irish finally were accepted as white by Anglo-Americans. Then the Germans, Italians, and even Eastern Europeans were brought into the club. Next Hispanics will be normalized to the white standard, in order to defend the quickly disappearing white majority. I suspect that, when push comes to shove, even Asians will be assimilated.
The one and only group that can never be white, no matter how much all else changes, are blacks. Realizing this, the old white/non-white distinction no longer applies. The world we live and maybe always have lived, since the American racial order began, is that of blacks and all who are not black.
Still, that isn’t the worldview that most Americans live in. It isn’t the narrative of the mainstream media. It isn’t how we make sense of every aspect of our society.
The point isn’t about neutrality. None of these terms are neutral. Every racial label is loaded. What is important is to make all of that explicit. We should use all words carefully. The problem is that racial terms don’t correlate to objective reality, even as they are inseparable from our experience of social reality. It’s always a challenge to speak about that which has no objective reality.
LikeLike
@ Michael John Barker
I am merely stating, from a South African perspective, from some-one who has endured apartheid, how I find the word ‘non-white’ offensive and troubling. Third time. That word, like k*****r and h*tn*t, etc. is absolute violence against me. I grew up with this during apartheid. I have thought about it a great deal. If I find a more persuasive viewpoint, I would change my mind.
” Our racial ideology has become more complex with greater diversity”. For myself, I do not have any ideology, least of all any racial ideology. I do not subscribe to the white concoction of race. You are right, ‘neutral’ is incorrect.
That you employ that word and Black in small letters, in the context that you stated, is your prerogative of speech.
LikeLike
I also find the use of American and Native American interesting.
If you say Native American, then is that not tautological? It is like saying Native Native. Is it not the white inhabitants, with their continuous enlargement, that should be called, you know, white or European Americans or settlers or colonialists, or heaven forbid, invaders? Why is it that they are called American? Really?
Is it not the Native Natives that are the TRUE Americans?
LikeLike
@taotesan – I find amusing your implied accusation that I’m a sock puppet for “Michael John Barker”. I didn’t even know who that was. I did a Google search and some older posts of Abagond’s came up. The person’s name is actually Michael Jon Barker, without an ‘h’. I don’t know anything about that person or his views, but I’m not him.
I’ve always posted in Abagond under this name, which is my actual full name. I don’t hide anything. If you click on my name, it will bring you to the blog I’ve written at for years. If you click on my icon (a picture of my childhood cat), you’ll see my full profile which links to all of my social media pages, which I’ve also had for years. Do you really think I spent the last decade or so of my live creating a sock puppet account just to leave you a comment?
Anyway, I wasn’t even arguing with you. I never claimed you were wrong, that you had no right to your opinion, or that your experience wasn’t valid and worthy. I was merely bringing up a different perspective. It’s called dialogue.
As for ideology, everyone has one, in the basic sense of the word. Ideology just refers to ideas that structure one’s worldview. Ideas are par for the course. But one’s ideas aren’t necessarily conscious. Most of the time they are not, a fact of human nature.
I also don’t subscribe to the white concoction of race. I don’t subscribe to any racial concoction, at least not on an intellectual level. But I recognize I was raised in a racist society and, on a psychological level, that isn’t an easy thing to escape. Ideologies aren’t merely belief systems. They are entire reality tunnels. No matter what I consciously believe, when I look at particular people particular labels come to mind, because that is what my society instilled in me at a young age before I understood anything at all.
I agree with you about American and Native American. I’ve often thought the very things you state right there. Even members of various populations don’t agree about the labels they prefer and what they mean.
Linguistic conventions are strange things. The ever present problem is that too often we lack more clear and accurate labels for many things, such as race. We should have separate terms when we are speaking about someone in terms of ethnicity, ancestry, historical population, demographic grouping, etc. But instead a single word often conflates all those together. Not to mention issues such as nativism and class get thrown in as well to confuse matters even further.
Some people look to genetics for clarification. I know that at least a few “Native American” tribes that require a minimal level of “Native American” genetics to be considered part of the tribe and so to have legal access to tribal funds and benefits. That is an interesting and problematic road to go down.
I’m not as familiar with the genetic data on most populations, but I have looked into the genetic data for ‘blacks’ and ‘whites’ in the US. There are more US whites with African ancestry than there are US blacks. About one in five US blacks has as much or more European genetics than African genetics. One in twenty US blacks has no detectable African genetics at all. Then you have issues such as Australian Aborigines who are more genetically distant from Africans than Europeans are from Africans.
Obviously, race isn’t about genetics or ethnicity or ancestry. When people refer to ‘blacks’ and ‘whites’ (whether capitalized or not), they mean many different things. Being a member of an indigenous ‘black’ population in Southeast Asia wouldn’t be anywhere near the same thing as being an Afro-Cuban ‘black. There is no shared history, culture, language, or anything else. Yet, according to skin color, it is all just ‘black’. Such labels hide more than they reveal, and that is the purpose they were designed to serve.
LikeLike
Sincerely, there was no intention of the sort. I had simply mixed your name up. I am sorry, Benjamin David Steele.
LikeLike
@taotesan – That is fine. I wasn’t offended. I was actually just confused and a bit amused. I really didn’t know who that Barker guy was. I have commented a decent amount on Abagond’s blog, but not enough to be familiar with many names of commenters. I assumed you were implying that I was a sock puppet. I’m glad to be proved wrong, not that it was all that important. No hard feelings. It’s just typical internet miscommunication.
LikeLike
I prefer African American personally.
LikeLike
I also find the use of American and Native American interesting.
If you say Native American, then is that not tautological? It is like saying Native Native.
In Canada the terms used are Aboriginal, Indigenous and First Nations. Individuals may refer to themselves by their nation.
LikeLike
@ taotesan
I do not like “non-White” either, or “minority”, so much so that in most cases I will use the more awkward term “people of colour” instead – or even just “Black”, with the understanding that much of what I say about Blacks applies to anyone at the wrong end of White racism.
LikeLike
@ Abagond
@Hernieth
Yes, I think I detected that from both your writing.
In “Racism Against Indigenous Peoples” published in connection with the UN “World Conference Against Racism Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance” in 2001, the delegates and writers referred themselves as First Nations, Aboriginal Peoples and Indigenous Peoples. I have to seen in other writings, Original or First Peoples.
LikeLike
*referred to;
*have seen
LikeLike
I was always taught that “black” was the skin-color, thus unimportant, just a descriptor, like hair color, or height or whatever, while Black was the ideology of “Will To Power Through [Feigned] Victimhood”, thus dangerous.
Ironically, I was not taught this by peers nor parents, but by my Philosophy professor in college, a black man and published author, one Dr. Johnny Washington. He was a man of such conviction, he actually LEFT a comfortable and well-paid job in protest over being forced to teach “White Privilege” and “African American Studies” programs! (Make your own jokes about the irony of a black man being forced to teach these things!)
I also dislike the term “First Nation” because it’s a subtle way for the Indians to rewrite history that they were already nations with set land and boundaries before the whites came and imposed boundaries–whereas before, they INSISTED noone could own land!
Pre-civilization boundaries in America were always in flux, essentially street gangs without streets, fighting not over “turf” but anything from water to hunting rights to women (Or slaves), and even perceived personal insults!
Only the Aztec had a boundary, and even then, they only got that by conquering and extorting cultures lesser than themselves! I guess when one group gets technologically advanced, they really DO want to lord it over the rest–even if they’re not white?
They developed war, slavery, even torture, without waiting for Bush to blame it on! Of course, since they were already doing that to each other, I don’t see where the butthurt comes in about the Civilized World–except the generic Sour Grapes about LOSING a fight–that they kept starting!
IF you attack someone X times and that someone beats you X times, why would you attack them X+1 times?
At best, whites were just another tribe joining the fight. Noone told them it was invitation only–and their descendants have yet to produce the invitation (Wretched though it must be by now!) that drew them from Mongolia!
At worst, strong conquers weak was the way of the world up until about 1908.
They had no problem playing Might Makes Right–until they LOST, at which point, it was a “horrible genocide”, right?
LikeLike
He also introduced me to Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams, brilliant philosophers also, although at their start, most of their “brilliance” was in pointing out the obvious in literal books. I tried writing such a book, it was returned. Coates writes a pack of lies and gets rich&famous for it.
Yep, whites are the privileged ones!
In their later days (I.e., NOW), Sowell and Williams put some of their low-hanging fruit observations on the Internet, free and legal, even though they know it will cut into their book sales!
I recommend starting with Williams’ “Wasn’t Always This Way” and Sowell’s “The Multicultural Cult”
LikeLike
Update: I changed the title of this post from ‘Why I use “Black” instead of “black”‘ to ‘Why I capitalize “Black”‘ – to make it easier to search for and find.
LikeLike
@ Abagond
I suppose I should follow suit.
LikeLike
In the wake of the George Floyd protests in 2020, the LA Times, USA Today and NBC News in the US have said they will start capitalizing Black when referring to Black people. The NABJ (National Association of Black Journalists) updated their stylebook last year recommending capitalization. The AP, whose stylebook most US news reporters follow, is considering doing the same.
More:
https://www.theroot.com/capitalizing-the-b-in-black-is-nice-but-actually-hir-1844051820
LikeLike
Black American with a capital “B.”
LikeLike