White white Black black

June 12, 2009 8:17 PM

Would like more understanding of black, Black, white, White.

(This is from of civil rights law perspective.) Some of my colleagues use capital letter B as in "The company failed to promote dozens of qualified Black apprentices, and instead advanced less qualified White workers." When I was in law school one of my professors (historian Abernathy) insisted on the capital letters for Black and White. Some of my colleagues do not use the capital letters B and W.

From what I have gathered from my conversations, the capital letter is intentional and means something, to highlight, but I feel as though I don't totally understand the meaning.

Are there any essays about this or do you know more about this useage?

posted by ClaudiaCenter to writing & language (17 comments total)

I've always seen Black and White and my understanding is that the usage is deliberate because you're referring to a Proper Noun sort of concept. If I say I have a white dog or a white desk, I'm using the word literally (referring to the actual color). But Black and White, used to refer to people is capitalized because you're not using the word to as a color, you're using it in the same way that you'd capitalize "French woman".
posted by moxiedoll at 8:25 PM on June 12

I don't know any essays about it offhand, and someone who's better versed in studies of race and ethnicity might be able to leave a more educated comment, but from a writing perspective but I think part of the idea is to call people's attention to the use of racial categories. Capital letters in English have the effect of calling attention to the capitalized element, especially in words where it isn't otherwise used generally (like "black" and "white" which are usually treated like normal adjectives and left in lowercase.) If I was writing about race and wanted to force people to focus on the use of racial adjectives, capitalizing the first letter as if it were a proper name would be a small but effective way as a writer to get people's attention. We live in a very racialized society, and from birth we're taught these categories and most people accept them unquestioningly. Treating the words differently from how they normally are raises consciousness of them. Modifying case has an eye-grabbing effect in general: for example, an author lowercasing their name (like bell hooks, e.e. cummings, etc.) I could certainly see how someone working in a civil rights context would want to use a stylistic modification like this to call attention to and force the reader to consider the racial categories we accept more deeply. After all, a civil rights lawyer's job is often to force people to reevaluate the status quo.

I don't know if this is intentional, but I should point out that there's also a certain degree of equitable treatment to it, too. When looking at racialized adjectives "white" and "black" are actually the only ones I can think of in English that receive lowercased treatment by default... most other terms used to denote the ethno-racial categories we as a society work with are always first-letter-uppercased ("Hispanic," "Latino," "Asian," "Arab," "Jewish," any of the myriad terms denoting Native Americans, etc.) The utility or accuracy of any of these terms is debatable but it's a fact that they're always written in this style whereas "white" and "black" often aren't.
posted by Kosh at 8:34 PM on June 12

It seems to me that the trend is lower-case black, as opposed to the more formal upper-case African-American.
posted by desuetude at 8:44 PM on June 12

If you'll notice, the skin of people of African descent isn't actually black. It's more of a deep brown. So, if you're talking about "black people", you must be talking about people who've painted themselves carbon black, or are from some other planet or something.

So, "Black", with the capital, is the correct usage when referring to the ethnicity.

It's a little more dicey with white folks. Usage of capitalized "White" is frequent in racist literature--have a look at some neo-nazi websites, for instance. So, the usage of capitalized "White" tends to have some rather unpleasant connotations.

Likewise, in our racially asinine culture, "white" as an ethnicity pretty much doesn't exist... it's defined in contrast to not-white. White people attempting to take pride in their heritage tend to take pride in being Italian or French or German or Missourian or whatever. Promotion of "white" to capitalized status is indicative of pride in the "White race", which only really exists in the mind of white supremacists.

That said, I have seen "White" in non-racist academic literature. I think you would be okay using it, as long as the context is clearly non-racist. But, if the context is ambiguous, I'd avoid it.

Part of what makes this capital/non-capital distinction so difficult, for both "white" and "black", is that the categories are essentially artificial. A Frenchman comes from France, an Estonian comes from Estonia, Europeans come from Europe, Asians come from Asia; but, a white man doesn't come from Whitonia, nor does a Black man come from Blackistan.

Instead, the ideas of "black" as a race and "white" were essentially coined to mark in groups and out groups. Indeed, they're not even based on physical characteristics: in most Americans' heads (but not yours, of course, I'm sure), you "are black" if any of your ancestors were from Africa, regardless of how pale your skin or narrow your nose might be. Furthermore, until after WWII, the Jews weren't considered "white", regardless of the fact that many of them had so intermarried with, for instance, Russian stock, that they were visually identical to "white" Russians.

Also, one of the reasons that "African-American" is falling out of favor is that we have a whole host of similar compound words (Asian-American, Hispanic-American, etc.) that refer to voluntary immigrants who retain a cultural connection to their land of ancestry. So, "African-American" implies somebody like Obama's dad: an immigrant from Africa.

On the other hand, American Blacks were not voluntary immigrants seeking a better life. They were enslaved and forcefully taken from their homelands. What's more, their cultural ties to those homelands were systematically destroyed by their oppressors. So, we're starting to use the term "Black" vs. "African-American" to mark the cultural difference between the ancestor of slaves and the ancestor of voluntary immigrants.

Although, of course, "African-American" is still a valid way of referring to Blacks. It's just falling out of favor.
posted by Netzapper at 9:02 PM on June 12 [5 favorites]

There is a distinct difference between Deaf and deaf, so perhaps this is getting at the same thing? Specifically, that "black" simply describes a skin color, while "Black" describes a culture, and that there could be Black people who are not black and black people who are not Black.
posted by Rock Steady at 9:04 PM on June 12

What moxiedoll said.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 9:06 PM on June 12

This is really helpful -- thank you.
posted by ClaudiaCenter at 9:24 PM on June 12

On the other hand, American Blacks were not voluntary immigrants seeking a better life. They were enslaved and forcefully taken from their homelands. What's more, their cultural ties to those homelands were systematically destroyed by their oppressors. So, we're starting to use the term "Black" vs. "African-American" to mark the cultural difference between the ancestor of slaves and the ancestor of voluntary immigrants.

Also, African-American makes little sense as a term for a race (as it was being used once, and is used less now) that has many non-American, non-ethnically-African members.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 9:25 PM on June 12

I also think what moxiedoll said is essentially correct.

Regarding "African-American", I personally don't like to use the term because I think it primarily refers to Black people who are a) American, and b) descendants of American slaves. There's no way to know, at face value and without specific details, what any particular Black person's genealogy is. They may be relatively recent immigrants from Africa, or they may not be descended from American slaves.

In my opinion, you're painting Black people with a pretty broad and presumptuous brush if you automatically refer to them generically as "African-American" in an effort be politically correct. Therefore, I generally use the term "Black". In some circles (such as academia or certain social "castes") it may be apparent that the Black members refer to themselves as "African-American" and in those situations one should use the preferred vernacular. In addition, the mainstream media largely still seems to deem "African-American" the appropriate term to use although "Black" seems to be gaining renewed favor, particularly with the election of our current president.

Simply, in questions of what to call people, I think it's best to find out what they want to be called (or note what they call themselves) and proceed accordingly. I think in general, you will find most contemporary (post-civil rights era) Black people now using "Black" and not "African-American" (or "Negro", "colored", "Afro-American", etc.).

Also, I use the capital B and W because as racial terms the words are not merely being used to describe skin color. As someone mentioned above, the capitalization turns the words into proper nouns or adjectives.
posted by fuse theorem at 9:53 PM on June 12 [2 favorites]

This is a question of writing style, which can vary widely from publication to publication, with a lot of "legacy" styles still out there. For example, as of a year ago, the AP Stylebook said that "black," "Black," and "African-American" were all still acceptable in most usages. And while "Negro" and "colored" are no longer acceptable, you still have the UNCF and the NAACP.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 10:02 PM on June 12

From Bloom County :

Mom: That's the most adorable little colored girl playing outside.
Steve: "Colored"? You're saying "colored people" in 1988? You know better, Ma.
Mom: Then why the "National Association for Colored People? I don't think Negroes mind at all.
Steve: Don't say "Negroes," Ma! You can't say "Negroes"!
Mom: Can I say "United Negro College Fund"?
Steve: You are baiting me, Ma!
Dad: That's it. We're leaving.
Mom: Stay put, Reginald. "Mister Socially Sensitive"isn't finished shaming his parents into enlightenment.
Steve: Everybody just calm down. Let's agree to use the the New-Age term "People of Color."
Mom: People of Color.
Steve: People of Color.
Mom: Colored people.
Steve: NO!!
Dad: We're leaving.
posted by polexxia at 2:12 AM on June 13

The Chicago Manual of Style gives this information:

"7.33 The names of specific racial, linguistic, tribal, religious, and other groupings of people are capitalized." Then it lists a bit of each, such as: Aborigine, Arab, Highlander, Latino, Mormon, Nordic.

"7.34 Designations based only on color, size, habitat, customs, or local usage are often lowercased (but see 7.35). Some designations that are capitalized when referring to specific peoples (as in 7.33) are lowercased when applied more generally." Then it lists some examples, such as: aborigine, black, highlander, white.

"7.35 The term Black is now often capitalized as the widely accepted name of the dark-skinned group or groups of people originating in Africa. (African American has also been gaining broad acceptance among these groups.) Similarly White is often capitalized as the preferred term for light-skinned people, for some reason long known as Caucasians..."


Some of the reasons other people gave don't make sense to me. For example, to say that "African American" must mean that people descended from slaves just isn't correct -- it can easily and correctly refer to people who recently immigrated from Africa, and this does occur frequently. A more-understandable argument against using "African American" is that it causes some confusion: Is it correct to use for the white person who immigrated from South Africa to the US? Is it correct to use for the black person who immigrated from the Caribbean/Europe/Asia/elsewhere to the US?

Likewise, using capitalization as a matter of pride doesn't make sense. If so, and if you accept that spelling Black means pride but spelling White means racist, you have quite jumbled-looking sentences trying to show pride-but-not-racism. I think you at least must adopt one capitalization rule and stick with it throughout a writing piece.

To that end, if you find there are no legal ramifications or reasons for the capitalization, I recommend finding a style guide and sticking with it. I've quoted the Chicago Manual of Style. If attorneys have a style guide, you could use it. Otherwise, it might be appropriate to use the style guide from the American Sociological Association. If you are interested in what it says (if anything) about this, let me know; my sister has a copy and I'd be glad to ask her and type it for you here.
posted by Houstonian at 2:57 AM on June 13 [2 favorites]

Keeping in mind that the original question is not which term to use, but whether the B and W should be capitalized for black and white, I believe that context is important. For example, the usage is deliberate because you're referring to a Proper Noun does show why some people would rather capitalize it because it's about a race and not a skin color. But on the other hand, part of the idea is to call people's attention to the use of racial categories explains why most newspapers do not capitalize racial labels. Thus, I would expect someone writing an essay for Black Studies 101 to use "Black", but I would expect a newspaper article about a black man sought by the police to use "black", as it is considered an identifier rather than an identity.
posted by dhartung at 10:52 AM on June 13

Although, of course, "African-American" is still a valid way of referring to Blacks. It's just falling out of favor.

Not really true. Although the majority of black Americans say which is used doesn't matter, African-American is preferred by those who express a preference.

African-American makes little sense as a term for a race (as it was being used once, and is used less now) that has many non-American, non-ethnically-African members.

Returning to this term, and if this is a sufficient derail I permit moderation in advance (and have put all this in a separate comment), but why would you even think that the term refers to non-Americans? This was a problem on Wikipedia once. There were occasional dolts who, for example, changed the race of Seal to African-American, perhaps because they believed that calling him Black was offensive (ironically, I see he is now simply labeled "English"). In fact Black is the preferred term outside the US. But that meant that editors outside the US didn't understand the importance of African-American as a home-grown political term popularized by American black activists such as Jesse Jackson. They sought to abolish its use on the Wikipedia because of the occasional error of being applied to non-American blacks, and less so because not all Africans are black. But the history of the term is pretty clear and represented an overt attempt to give Africans an equivalent sense of being hyphenated Americans with a culture. It was definitely about heritage and culture being given prominence over skin color and the amorphous concept of "race". So to pigeonhole it that way makes very little sense.
posted by dhartung at 10:59 AM on June 13

I'm not sure I understand your point, dhartung, because I agree with you - I perhaps just didn't expand my point enough. "African-American" makes sense as a term when it's used correctly, but I was referring to the fact that it's often applied too widely and used incorrectly, especially by people who are simply fearful of giving offense by using the word "Black." I'm not trying to pigeonhole the term. I'm being descriptive rather than prescriptive if you will.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 12:19 PM on June 13

Great discussion, thank you.

FWIW, I wasn't so much asking which useage is correct -- I think they are probably both "correct" at times (maybe not capitals in the newspaper about a crime, good example and explanation of context, dhartung) -- but why the strong preference for the capitals by some people in some contexts (while others would not use capitals in the same context). Which I am starting to understand better.
posted by ClaudiaCenter at 2:42 PM on June 13

For example, to say that "African American" must mean that people descended from slaves just isn't correct

I don't know who can say whether it's "correct" or not. To my knowledge there's no official group making that decision. However, I remember when the term first came into common usage. It was, IMO, a politically correct replacement for the (to some) harsh and militant-sounding "Black", and was 180 degrees less offensive than "Negro" or "colored". Everybody (using the term hyperbolically) jumped on the bandwagon with a bit of relief because it seemed to be a solution that most people could be happy with. And, to my recollection, it was intended to refer to Black people who were descendants of slaves because it was part of the discussions still occurring from civil rights era.

The problems with it that seemed to crop up--to my recollection--were with other X-Americans who didn't like that Black people were seemingly co-opting the word "American". The expressed argument seemed to be that, "we're all 'Americans', there's no need to put special designators on it." In addition, there was the whole issue of what to call non-Black people whose genealogical roots were also in Africa. Personally, I'd have a problem referring to either actress Charlize Theron or Senator John Kerry's wife Teresa Heinz as "African-American" but technically both of them are.

Which comes back to why I generally use "Black." That term pretty much allows you to avoid the situations where using "African-American" is simply incorrect, inappropriate, or presumptuous.
posted by fuse theorem at 4:44 PM on June 13