3 ms·

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 ter

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.
celticninja 6y ago
>. And think this controversy could be avoided if OP chosen more neutral words. But I don't think OP was willfully racist I agree entirely and said so in my initial comment. As I say elsewhere it was really to inform OP rather than berate them.

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.

celticninja 6y ago

>. And think this controversy could be avoided if OP chosen more neutral words. But I don't think OP was willfully racist I agree entirely and said so in my initial comment. As I say elsewhere it was really to inform OP rather than berate them.