3 ms·

They wrote an article on this: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/05/insider/capitalized-black.html?ugrp=m&unlocked_article_code=1.i00.tCvk.9f2eSqLY47F8&smid=url-s

They wrote an article on this: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/05/insider/capitalized-black.html?ugrp=m&unlocked_article_code=1.i00.tCvk.9f2eSqLY47F8&smid=url-share https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/05/insider/capitalized-black... > The Times also looked at whether to capitalize white and brown in reference to race, but both will remain lowercase. Brown has generally been used to describe a wide range of cultures, Mr. Baquet and Mr. Corbett said in their memo to staff. As a result, its meaning can be unclear to readers; white doesn’t represent a shared culture and history in the way Black does, and also has long been capitalized by hate groups. Assuming you _actually_ care about the answer to the question and aren't just looking to get angry.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
Would the Times capitalise a reference to a black Brit or African? It makes sense, I suppose, within American vernacular, though that same logic works for American whites (versus white people in general). It is somewhat funny if you think about it in terms of only American Blacks getting the capital "b". > Assuming you _actually_ care about the answer to the question and aren't just looking to get angry I consider this a nothingburger. But the repeated juxtaposition in this article gave a light all-caps feeling to Black versus white. I don’t think I’ve noticed the style choice since when they announced the change. Someone else might have noticed it for the first time.
- tptacek 3y ago
  I wouldn't. Black refers to a specific ethnicity: the diaspora of African people brought forcibly to the Americas, stripped of their original cultural heritage, and intermixed with other similarly situated people. It's capitalized for the same reason you'd capitalize "Irish". (I also probably just wouldn't refer to British people as "black", for whatever that's worth).
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > probably just wouldn't refer to British people as "black" Not all, but many have African heritage. They're both black and British. I understand why we capitalise Black and also why some people object to it. I simply found it humorous to notice that it's an America-centric vision of ethnicity; why a black African gets a lower-case b while a Black Chicagoan gets a full-blown B seems to have escaped at least me until now.
    - tptacek 3y ago
      It's not so much an American-centric vision of ethnicity so much as it is an American ethnicity.
  - dctoedt 3y ago
    Interesting: By that definition (which is very appealing, especially the "Irish" analogy), a Nigerian-born American would not count as "Black" but as "black"?
    - tptacek 3y ago
      In theory yes? In practice I'd imagine all African folks in America would be called "Black" --- in the same sense that we're not at all careful about whether we call me "Irish" (which I half am) or "Slovak". But yeah: what you're trying to recognize with the capital is the distinct, uniquely American constructed ethnic identity, the ethnicity of the blues, of the Harlem Renaissance, of the AME church, of cornbread and grits (a great example, because you only get it by mixing African influences with Native American influences).
Y_Y 3y ago
It looks like you're being downvoted by people who just don't like NYT's policy, since obviously you've provided a useful reference and made a positive contribution to the discussion. I personally think the policy is asinine, but I'm not angry. It's presumably also an accurate reflection of cultural norms and the feelings of the people making the editorial decisions (and presumably also some portion of the readers).
- martinky24 3y ago
  As you suggested, I do not advocate for one way or the other, I was just answering dude's question. "Don't shoot the messenger" or something.
tomohawk 3y ago
Is there such a thing as the "NYT gaze"? This would be good evidence for that. Saying that all black people have shared culture and history really seems more like a perspective thing than an actual thing. It says more about NYT than about the people they are talking about. It is so obvious that there are so many different black cultures.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

Would the Times capitalise a reference to a black Brit or African? It makes sense, I suppose, within American vernacular, though that same logic works for American whites (versus white people in general). It is somewhat funny if you think about it in terms of only American Blacks getting the capital "b". > Assuming you _actually_ care about the answer to the question and aren't just looking to get angry I consider this a nothingburger. But the repeated juxtaposition in this article gave a light all-caps feeling to Black versus white. I don’t think I’ve noticed the style choice since when they announced the change. Someone else might have noticed it for the first time.

tptacek 3y ago
I wouldn't. Black refers to a specific ethnicity: the diaspora of African people brought forcibly to the Americas, stripped of their original cultural heritage, and intermixed with other similarly situated people. It's capitalized for the same reason you'd capitalize "Irish". (I also probably just wouldn't refer to British people as "black", for whatever that's worth).
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > probably just wouldn't refer to British people as "black" Not all, but many have African heritage. They're both black and British. I understand why we capitalise Black and also why some people object to it. I simply found it humorous to notice that it's an America-centric vision of ethnicity; why a black African gets a lower-case b while a Black Chicagoan gets a full-blown B seems to have escaped at least me until now.
  - tptacek 3y ago
    It's not so much an American-centric vision of ethnicity so much as it is an American ethnicity.
- dctoedt 3y ago
  Interesting: By that definition (which is very appealing, especially the "Irish" analogy), a Nigerian-born American would not count as "Black" but as "black"?
  - tptacek 3y ago
    In theory yes? In practice I'd imagine all African folks in America would be called "Black" --- in the same sense that we're not at all careful about whether we call me "Irish" (which I half am) or "Slovak". But yeah: what you're trying to recognize with the capital is the distinct, uniquely American constructed ethnic identity, the ethnicity of the blues, of the Harlem Renaissance, of the AME church, of cornbread and grits (a great example, because you only get it by mixing African influences with Native American influences).

Y_Y 3y ago

It looks like you're being downvoted by people who just don't like NYT's policy, since obviously you've provided a useful reference and made a positive contribution to the discussion. I personally think the policy is asinine, but I'm not angry. It's presumably also an accurate reflection of cultural norms and the feelings of the people making the editorial decisions (and presumably also some portion of the readers).

martinky24 3y ago
As you suggested, I do not advocate for one way or the other, I was just answering dude's question. "Don't shoot the messenger" or something.

tomohawk 3y ago

Is there such a thing as the "NYT gaze"? This would be good evidence for that. Saying that all black people have shared culture and history really seems more like a perspective thing than an actual thing. It says more about NYT than about the people they are talking about. It is so obvious that there are so many different black cultures.