5 ms·

Here is the article I believe the parent is referring to https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/05/insider/capitalized-black.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/05/i

by hansbo 5y ago

Here is the article I believe the parent is referring to https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/05/insider/capitalized-black.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/05/insider/capitalized-black... I think it was rather nuanced. Several reasons given: 1) The capitalization of Black has already been accepted by the mainstream - NYT is catching up with the times 2) Other names on American minorities with a shared heritage is already capitalized, like Latino and Asian. 3) African-American is capitalized, but not as inclusive as Black. At no point, except when referring to some early 20th century worldview, are they talking about all black people worldwide. I read the article as a purely American POV.

ErikVandeWater 5y ago
> 2) Other names on American minorities with a shared heritage is already capitalized, like Latino and Asian. What is the definition of "shared heritage" such that everyone but Whites have shared heritage?
- caeril 5y ago
  My understanding is that: 1. Black Americans were taken away from their native specific cultures, whether it be Bantu, Hutu, Berber, etc, and unable to propagate the specifics of their cultures within communities. After emancipation, the only extant culture available was "Black". 2. White Americans generally settled into self-segregating Italian, Irish, German, etc communities or regions, and the original idiosyncrasies of these cultures persisted beyond relocation. This makes a lot of sense, and I think up until the mid-late 20th century, this was fair, but I do think that sense is losing its strength as American society becomes increasingly atomized. In 2021, it's equally valid to say that "Detroit Blacks" and "Memphis Blacks" have their own (sure, nascent, but real) disparate cultures, at the same time that it's valid to say that American "Swedish Whites" and "Italian Whites" are far more culturally similar than they were a couple generations ago. I don't know, we'll see where history leads us, I guess. But the change is definitely visible.
  - zepto 5y ago
    > it's valid to say that American "Swedish Whites" and "Italian Whites" are far more culturally similar than they were a couple generations ago. Ok, but if this is true [1], and it’s also necessarily true by your previous claims that Whites have different culture than Blacks in general, then why not capitalize White, since it is a name for a culture. [1] given that Jews are usually considered ‘white’, and many Jews in fact do have distinct cultures - e.g. Brooklyn Jews, it’s hard to argue this.
    - jakelazaroff 5y ago
      “Jews” is too broad a term. Ashkenazim are generally considered white, for instance, but not Sephardim and Mizrahim.
      - zepto 5y ago
        If you substitute Ashkenazim for Jews, the logic still holds.
zepto 5y ago
The problem isn’t the capitalization of Black, which as you point out has good reason behind it - it is being used as a proper name for a group. The problem is that White is being used the same way and yet isn’t being capitalized.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

by hansbo 5y ago

ErikVandeWater 5y ago

> 2) Other names on American minorities with a shared heritage is already capitalized, like Latino and Asian. What is the definition of "shared heritage" such that everyone but Whites have shared heritage?

caeril 5y ago
My understanding is that: 1. Black Americans were taken away from their native specific cultures, whether it be Bantu, Hutu, Berber, etc, and unable to propagate the specifics of their cultures within communities. After emancipation, the only extant culture available was "Black". 2. White Americans generally settled into self-segregating Italian, Irish, German, etc communities or regions, and the original idiosyncrasies of these cultures persisted beyond relocation. This makes a lot of sense, and I think up until the mid-late 20th century, this was fair, but I do think that sense is losing its strength as American society becomes increasingly atomized. In 2021, it's equally valid to say that "Detroit Blacks" and "Memphis Blacks" have their own (sure, nascent, but real) disparate cultures, at the same time that it's valid to say that American "Swedish Whites" and "Italian Whites" are far more culturally similar than they were a couple generations ago. I don't know, we'll see where history leads us, I guess. But the change is definitely visible.
- zepto 5y ago
  > it's valid to say that American "Swedish Whites" and "Italian Whites" are far more culturally similar than they were a couple generations ago. Ok, but if this is true [1], and it’s also necessarily true by your previous claims that Whites have different culture than Blacks in general, then why not capitalize White, since it is a name for a culture. [1] given that Jews are usually considered ‘white’, and many Jews in fact do have distinct cultures - e.g. Brooklyn Jews, it’s hard to argue this.
  - jakelazaroff 5y ago
    “Jews” is too broad a term. Ashkenazim are generally considered white, for instance, but not Sephardim and Mizrahim.
    - zepto 5y ago
      If you substitute Ashkenazim for Jews, the logic still holds.

zepto 5y ago

The problem isn’t the capitalization of Black, which as you point out has good reason behind it - it is being used as a proper name for a group. The problem is that White is being used the same way and yet isn’t being capitalized.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]