7 ms·

It seems like they just did "black names" vs "white names." It would be interesting if they tried this with unique "white" names, like "Göran Hägglund" or "Alf

• dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Also, anyone know if there a reason why "Black" is capitalized in the paper but "white" is not? While its not my personal preferred style, the NY Times has recently adopted this style (from an earlier one which capitalized neither) and explains it reasonably well (and other explanations of users of the style have generally been similar, so its what I take as, in outline, the usual explanation): https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/05/insider/capitalized-black.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/05/insider/capitalized-black...
  • bopbeepboop 5y ago
    It sounds racist and ill-conceived. If using a small “b” insults the history of the descendants of slaves, does using a small “w” insult the various descendants of abused white populations, like the Irish or Italians or Poles? Their reasoning about “shared history and identity” sounds like gussied up racial essentialism — and implies that recently-African Americans and their children “aren’t black”. I think the NYT is just racist.
  • daenz 5y ago
    >white doesn’t represent a shared culture and history in the way Black does, and also has long been capitalized by hate groups. Thanks, and yikes, I had no idea this was a thing. So if I wrote "White" in the same way some might write "Black", people might get the wrong idea? To be honest, this change just seems like more petty ways to divide us.
    • chitowneats 5y ago
      Some on the progressive left have actually started capitalizing "white" as well. Traditionally though that was a sign of Klan sympathy. Personally, I will continue to resist capitalization of American racial categories.
    • mc32 5y ago
      People want to eat their cake and also have it. On the one hand “we’re individuals, don’t look at us as a stereotype” (agreed), on the other hand, we share the same culture and history like no one else does, we’re one identity! (This is categorically wrong given the diversity in Africa).
      • dragonwriter 5y ago
        > on the other hand, we share the same culture and history like no one else does There is no “like no one else does”; the argument is that Black identity (particularly in America) is essentially an ethnic identity produced by shared experience, the same as other ethnic identities. The distinctive part is that the shared experience centrally includes American White supremacy which, among other things, actively erased the preexisting ethnic identities of the black people whom it made Black.
        • mc32 5y ago
          I think one could argue much of the Jewish diaspora also have a "shared" experience in a similar way but I don't see the same tension there, though maybe I'm just not seeing it. There are also African immigrants who would have a different experience, even people from the Caribbean have a totally different experience. If you look at it from a people perspective, it doesn't make sense because people want to be their own individual, not lumped into a category because everyone experiences things differently. I see this as an artificial construction that is usually argued against.
          • dragonwriter 5y ago
            > I think one could argue much of the Jewish diaspora also have a "shared" experience in a similar way There are certainly similarities, but then, no one denies that “Jewish” is a national/ethnic/cultural identifier that should be capitalized, even if racial or physically descriptive identifiers generally shouldn't and even if “Jewish” might also be considered a racial identifier. There are arguably even closer similiarities with the various peoples with roots in the pre-Columbian population of the Americas. But, again, whatever label is used for various collections of those people, one rarely sees arguments against capitalizing the label chosen.
  • eplanit 5y ago
    So, it's an institutional directive to its writers to treat subjects differently based on race: i.e. systemic racism. Because, the best cure for perceived systemic racism is _actual_ systemic racism. It's all absurd.
    • zuminator 5y ago
      I'm not really seeing how that in itself is racist. Could you clarify your point? E.g. I happen to be black and I also happen to usually not capitalize either black or white. Not that I care either way. I do however, generally capitalize "Asian" because it's the adjectival form of a place name, like French, African, American, etc. So am I being racist against Asian people or being racist in their favor, in your estimation?
      • s1artibartfast 5y ago
        It is better addressed in other posts, but fundamentally it is about affirming the concept of 'black' as a cultural identification while denying 'white' as one. Some people who identify as a cultural amalgam of generally white European ancestry are bothered that this is not viewed as a legitimate in comparison.
        • loopz 5y ago
          Why can't we treat people both as individuals, as groups, and acknowledge that groups are just generalizations that do not hold for the individual? We can't really deny either. What is sad is when people hide in the shelter of group identity, instead of being responsible for their own speech and actions. It's often not in anyone's best interests, and distracts from clarity.
        • pseudalopex 5y ago
          Most white Americans identify as their particular amalgam of European ancestry in my experience. Most black Americans can't do that. Slavery erased their particular African ancestry.
  • nomdep 5y ago
    Because every country in Africa is exactly the same so they share the same culture? What a ridiculous and also incredible racist idea. NYT always the same.
    • chitowneats 5y ago
      That's not the argument. They claim it refers specifically to the African diaspora in the U.S. The presumption being that they share the legacy of slavery and discriminatory laws afterwards. Which many do.
      • nomdep 5y ago
        Then many “whites” share the legacy of slave owning and the same laws afterwards. Except for everyone that doesn’t. It is racist, no matter how much you sugarcoat it
      • dragonwriter 5y ago
        > The presumption being that they share the legacy of slavery and discriminatory laws afterwards. No, that they share an identity forged in the experience of slavery and the discriminatory laws afterward, and in many cases that's all the ethnic identity they have because their ancestors preexisting cultural heritage and identity was forcefully prevented from being preserved.
        • deleted 5y ago
          [deleted]
      • loopz 5y ago
        There are rubbles in Middle East where they cling to the past too. It's not a living identity.
• zrail 5y ago
  AP explains their style choices here. Not that this paper is written to AP style but the authors may share the same view. https://apnews.com/article/archive-race-and-ethnicity-9105661462 https://apnews.com/article/archive-race-and-ethnicity-910566...
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• jdavis703 5y ago
  Swedes make up 1% of the US population, while Black’s make up 10%. Just statistically speaking, but a Swedish name is going to way more unique than a Black name. And Black is capitalized for the reason Swedish is capitalized.
  • mc32 5y ago
    No it’s not. Capitalization of black is political. It’s like deciding to capitalize “women”. I don’t capitalize black or white, nor caucasian, unless the person is from the Caucasus. I capitalize African and Asian because they are place name demonyms which get capitalized in English.
  • daenz 5y ago
    My point wasn't "use Swedish names", it was to use unique sounding white names, names that are as representative in the population as black names are in the population. In other words, if a "white name" is as unique as a black name, does it receive the same amount of bias, or different?
  • dudul 5y ago
    Is black a nationality?
• eplanit 5y ago
  Did they try "redneck" names like "Elrod", "Rusty", or "Betty Jo"?
  • epicureanideal 5y ago
    Exactly. See my other comment in this thread. The names they chose are unusual at a glance, and it might be that the 2% variance they see is due to some groups of names unintentionally having higher perceived social status or other attributes. For example, some of the first names are "Lashonda", "Lakeisha", "Takwanda" in the "Black" list, whereas the "white" list includes names like "Geoffrey", "Kristen", "Jennifer". If the perceived social status of the names isn't matched, that could invalidate their results. As a follow-up, it would be interesting to do a survey on the perceived social status of each of the names they used to see how that might have influenced the results.
    • endisneigh 5y ago
      I don't see how what you're proposing is even possible. The names themselves are tied with the race due to the incidence of people of certain races being named certain things. If you accept racism as a social construct then it would necessarily impact social status, thus making the entire exercise to "control" for it moot.
      • mc32 5y ago
        I think what they are implying is that of there were socially distinct class markers for black names as there are for white names, and if you looked at both, there would be a spread between upper class blacks and whites and lower class blacks and whites. That may be neither here nor there with regard to this discussion.
        • endisneigh 5y ago
          I understand that. What I'm saying is that even if that were true, unless you're saying only "objectively" Black and White people are to judge the social status of Black and White names (such that each race judges their own name) - it would end up being no different than the exercise in the paper. For example: Let's say Denise is an "high status" Black name and LeShawn is a "low status" Black name. "Billy" is low status White and "Alexander" is high status. Even if you knew this you'd need to know how the other race perceives the name since that's ultimately what's being judged here, hence it would be moot.
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• zuminator 5y ago
  In the social research world, it's fairly standard practice [0] but not universally accepted to capitalize one and not the other. With an opposing point of view, the National Association of Black Journalists believes that all races should be capitalized.[1] [0] https://www.cjr.org/analysis/capital-b-black-styleguide.php https://www.cjr.org/analysis/capital-b-black-styleguide.php [1] https://www.nabj.org/page/styleguide https://www.nabj.org/page/styleguide