4 ms·

I think using black is fine, nyt choose the capitalized Black: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/05/insider/capitalized-black.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/0

I think using black is fine, nyt choose the capitalized Black: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/05/insider/capitalized-black.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/05/insider/capitalized-black...

ceejayoz 6y ago
The NYT usually pairs “Black” with “people”. “Black people” and “blacks” read a little differently.
- celticninja 6y ago
  Yup, black people and white people still recognises their shared humanity. The use of blacks and whites is divisive.
plorg 6y ago
Black as adjective, sure. Black as a noun, I should think not.
celticninja 6y ago
Black is fine, 'the blacks' or 'the whites' is not. If you are describing someone it is fine to denote their skin colour. It is not fine to encompass a whole group as 'blacks', does this include mixed race people, does it include all BAME groups?
- jjcon 6y ago
  Not everyone here speaks English as a first language (including me). To me that sort of language policing just seems petty. We all know the point being made.
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    “Didn’t know that, thanks for the info” is also a possible approach here for someone speaking English as a second language.
    - jjcon 6y ago
      Or they can reply like I did and say quit distracting the conversation with petty language policing
  - celticninja 6y ago
    It's not petty. And yes we understand the point being made, but if it is left unchallenged then am I no better than the person who uses such language. Should I also remain quiet when other racially charged language is used? https://youtu.be/g9n_UPyVR5s https://youtu.be/g9n_UPyVR5s
    - jjcon 6y ago
      Please stop calling everything racist - that sort of flamewar is against hn rules and is not in the spirit of cordial conversation
      - celticninja 6y ago
        I'm not calling everything racist, just racist language. I'm am explaining to OP, that if they were unaware, their language is racially charged with out any need. The papers that are mentioned use proper ethnicity identifiers and there is no reason other than ignorance, laziness or bigotry for OP to use those terms. I have therefore assumed the best of OP and it is through ignorance they have used those terms. And on that basis I have sought to impart some knowledge to OP, to teach rather than berate. What's your motivation for arguing with me?
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- bXVsbGVy 6y ago
  I see your point. And think this controversy could be avoided if OP chosen more neutral words. But I don't think OP was willfully racist. The most adequate terminology is still in dispute and most people don't follow this discussion closely. Also it varies from country to country. For instance, in my country, the "n-work" used to be accepted while "black" was pejorative. But recently, a new line of though emerged: those who think we should adopt the NA convention. To avoid any controversy, I would had chosen other words: s/racial/skin color/ s/black/dark skinned people/ s/black/fairer skinned people/ OP probably tried to be consistent with the papers they cited.
  - sokoloff 6y ago
    > in my country, the [n-word] used to be accepted while black was seems as pejorative. I’m presuming you mean “negro” rather than a 6-letter word starting with “ni”?!
  - celticninja 6y ago
    None of the papers cited in the thread above use the specific terms 'blacks' or 'whites' so I'm pretty happy placing the responsibility for this on OP.
  - umanwizard 6y ago
    But black people and “dark-skinned people” don’t mean the same thing. Black people specifically means people whose ancestors are from sub-Saharan Africa. There are other people with dark skin whose genetics are completely different, for example in India or Australia.
    - celticninja 6y ago
      Does 'blacks' somehow do a better job of defining an ethnic group? Or is it again a catch all term for non-white?
      - umanwizard 6y ago
        No, “blacks” is not a catch-all term for non-white. Again, it means people whose ancestors are from sub-Saharan Africa. In fact, in the US it is usually even more specific than that, since the vast majority of black Americans’ ancestors are from West Africa specifically. Similarly, white people or “whites” usually refers to people whose ancestors are from Europe, even though there are other people with light skin tones throughout the world (especially Asian or Native American people in high latitudes). Not really sure what point you’re making.

I think using black is fine, nyt choose the capitalized Black: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/05/insider/capitalized-black.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/05/insider/capitalized-black...

ceejayoz 6y ago

The NYT usually pairs “Black” with “people”. “Black people” and “blacks” read a little differently.

celticninja 6y ago
Yup, black people and white people still recognises their shared humanity. The use of blacks and whites is divisive.

plorg 6y ago

Black as adjective, sure. Black as a noun, I should think not.

celticninja 6y ago

Black is fine, 'the blacks' or 'the whites' is not. If you are describing someone it is fine to denote their skin colour. It is not fine to encompass a whole group as 'blacks', does this include mixed race people, does it include all BAME groups?

jjcon 6y ago
Not everyone here speaks English as a first language (including me). To me that sort of language policing just seems petty. We all know the point being made.
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  “Didn’t know that, thanks for the info” is also a possible approach here for someone speaking English as a second language.
  - jjcon 6y ago
    Or they can reply like I did and say quit distracting the conversation with petty language policing
- celticninja 6y ago
  It's not petty. And yes we understand the point being made, but if it is left unchallenged then am I no better than the person who uses such language. Should I also remain quiet when other racially charged language is used? https://youtu.be/g9n_UPyVR5s https://youtu.be/g9n_UPyVR5s
  - jjcon 6y ago
    Please stop calling everything racist - that sort of flamewar is against hn rules and is not in the spirit of cordial conversation
    - celticninja 6y ago
      I'm not calling everything racist, just racist language. I'm am explaining to OP, that if they were unaware, their language is racially charged with out any need. The papers that are mentioned use proper ethnicity identifiers and there is no reason other than ignorance, laziness or bigotry for OP to use those terms. I have therefore assumed the best of OP and it is through ignorance they have used those terms. And on that basis I have sought to impart some knowledge to OP, to teach rather than berate. What's your motivation for arguing with me?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
bXVsbGVy 6y ago
I see your point. And think this controversy could be avoided if OP chosen more neutral words. But I don't think OP was willfully racist. The most adequate terminology is still in dispute and most people don't follow this discussion closely. Also it varies from country to country. For instance, in my country, the "n-work" used to be accepted while "black" was pejorative. But recently, a new line of though emerged: those who think we should adopt the NA convention. To avoid any controversy, I would had chosen other words: s/racial/skin color/ s/black/dark skinned people/ s/black/fairer skinned people/ OP probably tried to be consistent with the papers they cited.
- sokoloff 6y ago
  > in my country, the [n-word] used to be accepted while black was seems as pejorative. I’m presuming you mean “negro” rather than a 6-letter word starting with “ni”?!
- celticninja 6y ago
  None of the papers cited in the thread above use the specific terms 'blacks' or 'whites' so I'm pretty happy placing the responsibility for this on OP.
- umanwizard 6y ago
  But black people and “dark-skinned people” don’t mean the same thing. Black people specifically means people whose ancestors are from sub-Saharan Africa. There are other people with dark skin whose genetics are completely different, for example in India or Australia.
  - celticninja 6y ago
    Does 'blacks' somehow do a better job of defining an ethnic group? Or is it again a catch all term for non-white?
    - umanwizard 6y ago
      No, “blacks” is not a catch-all term for non-white. Again, it means people whose ancestors are from sub-Saharan Africa. In fact, in the US it is usually even more specific than that, since the vast majority of black Americans’ ancestors are from West Africa specifically. Similarly, white people or “whites” usually refers to people whose ancestors are from Europe, even though there are other people with light skin tones throughout the world (especially Asian or Native American people in high latitudes). Not really sure what point you’re making.