Why are white people lower case, and Black people upper case?

[TV and credit cards]

Exactly. You capitalize proper names. In this context, "Black" is a proper name, "white" is not.

Black is a proper name when it comes to Lewis Black or Edmund Blackadder but how is "black" as an ethnic/racial descriptor any more a proper name than "white"?

It's not. Unless one is referring to a specific group of black people. It may be the rule but it is a rule from common practice, or in this instance, common error that emerged from political correctness. Black people should not be capitalized any more than she should be capitalized in an instructional manual.

 

[bigfield]

When referring to African American people, the word "Black" is capitalized. The reason for this is that in this case, "Black" refers to a nationality or ethnic group, just like "Hispanic," "Romanian," or "Apache." The word "white," when used to refer to "Caucasians" need not be capitalized, since "whites" are not a nationality or ethnic group ("whites" can be American, Mexican, Iraqi, or whatever). When "black" is used to refer to a skin tone, or to the black race in general (all the black people in the world), it is not capitalized, since, just like "white," it does not refer to a nationality or ethnic group, and the imaginary colors of so-called "races" are not capitalized. (Optional alternate rule: Capitalize both "Black" and "White" whenever referring to ethnic backgrounds.)

http://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/engl1311/writingrules.htm

So a black African immigrant living in the USA is black, and an Afro-Trinidadian living in the US is black, but a black American with African ancestry is Black.

This is why I find it hard to take the social sciences and humanities seriously.

 

[ZiprHead]

Why are white people lower case, and Black people upper case?

Because that's the way you wrote it.

Next!

That was my first thought.

The rest is not worth thought.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

When referring to African American people, the word "Black" is capitalized. The reason for this is that in this case, "Black" refers to a nationality or ethnic group, just like "Hispanic," "Romanian," or "Apache." The word "white," when used to refer to "Caucasians" need not be capitalized, since "whites" are not a nationality or ethnic group ("whites" can be American, Mexican, Iraqi, or whatever). When "black" is used to refer to a skin tone, or to the black race in general (all the black people in the world), it is not capitalized, since, just like "white," it does not refer to a nationality or ethnic group, and the imaginary colors of so-called "races" are not capitalized. (Optional alternate rule: Capitalize both "Black" and "White" whenever referring to ethnic backgrounds.)

http://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/engl1311/writingrules.htm

So a black African immigrant living in the USA is black, and an Afro-Trinidadian living in the US is black, but a black American with African ancestry is Black.

This is why I find it hard to take the social sciences and humanities seriously.

But capitalization is not a social convention, but a grammatical one. Take it up with the MLA.

 

[bigfield]

So a black African immigrant living in the USA is black, and an Afro-Trinidadian living in the US is black, but a black American with African ancestry is Black.

This is why I find it hard to take the social sciences and humanities seriously.

But capitalization is not a social convention, but a grammatical one. Take it up with the MLA.

I highly doubt that the MLA Style Manual makes the same recommendation as Williamson does.

Rather, most sources recommend lowercase for both black and white, or uppercase for both Black and White , but none specify a usage where you would find one capitalised and not the other.

The capitalisation of the black and the non-capitalisation of white, both as stipulated by Williamson and as practised by the morons on feministing, is probably based on a fear of disrespecting black Americans rather than a desire to follow broader style conventions.

It's not an outrage: it just looks silly. And you are defending their silliness.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

But capitalization is not a social convention, but a grammatical one. Take it up with the MLA.

I highly doubt that the MLA Style Manual makes the same recommendation as Williamson does.

Rather, most sources recommend lowercase for both black and white, or uppercase for both Black and White , but none specify a usage where you would find one capitalised and not the other.

The capitalisation of the black and the non-capitalisation of white, both as stipulated by Williamson and as practised by the morons on feministing, is probably based on a fear of disrespecting black Americans rather than a desire to follow broader style conventions.

It's not an outrage: it just looks silly. And you are defending their silliness.

Actually no. I'm wondering why the discussion at all. As black woman with a male child who has been stopped for RIDING WHILE BLACK, handcuffed, and sat on the side of the road for 45 minutes only to have NOTHING found on him and the driver get only a speeding ticket, Discrimination through Capitalization doesn't really make it on my radar.

But if this the hill y'all wanna die on...

 

[bigfield]

I highly doubt that the MLA Style Manual makes the same recommendation as Williamson does.

Rather, most sources recommend lowercase for both black and white, or uppercase for both Black and White , but none specify a usage where you would find one capitalised and not the other.

The capitalisation of the black and the non-capitalisation of white, both as stipulated by Williamson and as practised by the morons on feministing, is probably based on a fear of disrespecting black Americans rather than a desire to follow broader style conventions.

It's not an outrage: it just looks silly. And you are defending their silliness.

Actually no. I'm wondering why the discussion at all. As black woman with a male child who has been stopped for RIDING WHILE BLACK, handcuffed, and sat on the side of the road for 45 minutes only to have NOTHING found on him and the driver get only a speeding ticket, Discrimination through Capitalization doesn't really make it on my radar.

But if this the hill y'all wanna die on...

Don't you mean 'the side of the road y'all wanna be sat on for 45 minutes'?

 

[Clivedurdle]

(Also, whoever wrote that guide should have written 'imagined' or 'putative' colors, rather than 'imaginary'. White, black, yellow, red, and brown are not imaginary.)

Why are they not imaginary? Last time I looked I am pinky brown!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Exactly. You capitalize proper names. In this context, "Black" is a proper name, "white" is not.

Black is a proper name when it comes to Lewis Black or Edmund Blackadder but how is "black" as an ethnic/racial descriptor any more a proper name than "white"?

It's being treated as the name of a group, not merely a description of their color. White generally is not, although when the KKK refers to "White power" it correctly is capitalized. It's just "white" is generally not being used as a name other than by the Stormfront crowd.

- - - Updated - - -

When referring to African American people, the word "Black" is capitalized. The reason for this is that in this case, "Black" refers to a nationality or ethnic group, just like "Hispanic," "Romanian," or "Apache." The word "white," when used to refer to "Caucasians" need not be capitalized, since "whites" are not a nationality or ethnic group ("whites" can be American, Mexican, Iraqi, or whatever). When "black" is used to refer to a skin tone, or to the black race in general (all the black people in the world), it is not capitalized, since, just like "white," it does not refer to a nationality or ethnic group, and the imaginary colors of so-called "races" are not capitalized. (Optional alternate rule: Capitalize both "Black" and "White" whenever referring to ethnic backgrounds.)

http://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/engl1311/writingrules.htm

So a black African immigrant living in the USA is black, and an Afro-Trinidadian living in the US is black, but a black American with African ancestry is Black.

This is why I find it hard to take the social sciences and humanities seriously.

As a skin color, he's black. As a political matter, he's Black. It's the context that matters.

 

[laughing dog]

So a black African immigrant living in the USA is black, and an Afro-Trinidadian living in the US is black, but a black American with African ancestry is Black.

This is why I find it hard to take the social sciences and humanities seriously.

But capitalization is not a social convention, but a grammatical one. Take it up with the MLA.

Grammar evolves through use: grammar is a social convention.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

But capitalization is not a social convention, but a grammatical one. Take it up with the MLA.

Grammar evolves through use: grammar is a social convention.

Whose rules are codified by Grammarians not Social Scientists.

 

[Underseer]

Many (all?) of the 'social justice'-type websites I visit always capitalise the 'B' in 'Black' (when referring to people), but never capitalise the 'w' in 'white' (when referring to privilege or people). On diversityinc's website, the author even explains about some correspondence:

(Note: The person commenting used a lower case b for Black; we use an upper case B.)

On feministing (I selected a short piece but almost any article on the site will do), we learn that Black women are more than twice as likely as white women to live in poverty after retirement.

Obviously, there seems to be something I'm missing. Why the unequal treatment?

This is obviously evidence that white people are being persecuted!

Some day, you will tell your grandchildren about the abuses you endured, and their little eyes will well up with tears of admiration.

 

[Metaphor]

This is obviously evidence that white people are being persecuted!

No: it's evidence that those with a certain ideological bent feel no issue with using a diminuitive form for 'white' while capitalising 'black'.

Some day, you will tell your grandchildren about the abuses you endured, and their little eyes will well up with tears of admiration.

I don't, and won't, have children, so I find that unlikely.

 

[Cobalt]

I had read the title of this thread as being about "class", not "case". Imagine my disappointment at the lack of hyperbolic sweeping generalizations when I got around to surveying its contents and realized my error...

 

[SimpleDon]

My nominee for the most trivial, useless thread of the month. The "I can't believe that I read the whole thing" award.

I do have a suggestion, if you are so concerned with the inconsistent capitalization of labels that are inexplicably so important to you, maybe start using the outrage soothing asterisk, *hite, *lack, *doit, etc.

It will make deciphering the meaning of your posts only slightly harder than they already are.

 

[Rhea]

I can see why usage would evolve such that writing about the Black experience in America creates a group-theme whereas the white experience just doesn't.

Part of this, of course, is the prevalence with which Americans will _see_ Blackness as the first and most defining attribute of a person in America who is black while they absolutely do not do that with people who are white. Case in point; read news articles in America and note how many times they make a point to mention that the person is white absent a comparison to a person who is not-white in the same article. If an article is about a single person and that person is white, it is not mentioned. If that person is black and their race has nothing to do with the content of the article, it will very often be mentioned anyway because that is somehow important.

I dunno about Australia, but that is a very real thing here in USA.

So it makes sense in concurrence with the common USA usage by people who are both black and white and many other color races, that the being of Black is a collective identifying thing and the being of white is not.

Grammarians didn't make this up. Feminists and Equality-pushers didn't make this up. It's a thing. It's real. It is unequivocal and undeniable. In America, being Black is considered defining by people who are white. Whereas, if you are white, being white is maybe 40th on the list of things that define you.

This is actually not a Good Thing, IMHO, but it is definitely a thing. It's one I actually try to avoid because I feel discomfort in calling (or thinking of) a person who is black as a "Black person," since it seems to demean all of the other things that make them a person. So I feel more comfortable thinking of them as "a person who is black" (when race is ever needed at all) because it puts person first, where it belongs.

 

[Metaphor]

My nominee for the most trivial, useless thread of the month. The "I can't believe that I read the whole thing" award.

I do have a suggestion, if you are so concerned with the inconsistent capitalization of labels that are inexplicably so important to you, maybe start using the outrage soothing asterisk, *hite, *lack, *doit, etc.

It will make deciphering the meaning of your posts only slightly harder than they already are.

What on earth are you talking about? Why did you read the whole thing? More's the point, why did you read the whole thing and then make your own reply?

If the meaning of my posts are inscrutable to you, I suggest a remedial course in English comprehension.

 

[bigfield]

I can see why usage would evolve such that writing about the Black experience in America creates a group-theme whereas the white experience just doesn't.

Part of this, of course, is the prevalence with which Americans will _see_ Blackness as the first and most defining attribute of a person in America who is black while they absolutely do not do that with people who are white. Case in point; read news articles in America and note how many times they make a point to mention that the person is white absent a comparison to a person who is not-white in the same article. If an article is about a single person and that person is white, it is not mentioned. If that person is black and their race has nothing to do with the content of the article, it will very often be mentioned anyway because that is somehow important.

I dunno about Australia, but that is a very real thing here in USA.

It's a thing here, too. I just assumed that it was pandering to people who insist that every notable achievement by a non-white person should be celebrated as an achievement for that ethnic group. Like "OMG an Arab is playing cricket for Australia! Yay Multikulti!"

The one I see often, and I'm sure this bothers women more than it bothers me, is the fact that any time a woman with children achieves anything notable, she is referred to as a mother at least once in the article, and sometimes in the headline. The media thinks that being a woman with kids is a handicap. But I digress from the topic.

So it makes sense in concurrence with the common USA usage by people who are both black and white and many other color races, that the being of Black is a collective identifying thing and the being of white is not.

Grammarians didn't make this up. Feminists and Equality-pushers didn't make this up. It's a thing. It's real. It is unequivocal and undeniable. In America, being Black is considered defining by people who are white. Whereas, if you are white, being white is maybe 40th on the list of things that define you.

This is actually not a Good Thing, IMHO, but it is definitely a thing. It's one I actually try to avoid because I feel discomfort in calling (or thinking of) a person who is black as a "Black person," since it seems to demean all of the other things that make them a person. So I feel more comfortable thinking of them as "a person who is black" (when race is ever needed at all) because it puts person first, where it belongs.

“I don’t see colour, I just see a human being” is something racist White Americans say.

See? Everyone can be a loser in this game.

 

[Rhea]

It's a thing here, too. I just assumed that it was pandering to people who insist that every notable achievement by a non-white person should be celebrated as an achievement for that ethnic group. Like "OMG an Arab is playing cricket for Australia! Yay Multikulti!"

If it were used exclusively for good news, that would be nice. But... it's not.

The one I see often, and I'm sure this bothers women more than it bothers me, is the fact that any time a woman with children achieves anything notable, she is referred to as a mother at least once in the article, and sometimes in the headline. The media thinks that being a woman with kids is a handicap. But I digress from the topic.

Not a digression at all, that's a good example of the phenomenon.

So I feel more comfortable thinking of them as "a person who is black" (when race is ever needed at all) because it puts person first, where it belongs.

“I don’t see colour, I just see a human being” is something racist White Americans say.

See? Everyone can be a loser in this game.

Interesting article. And it makes sense. But it does toss a little baby out with a little bathwater. If one wants to think/feel/believe that color should not be the only or the first thing one notices about a person, one is not (necessarily) saying that the color/race/experience should be hidden or demeaned. I agree with the article that it should be discussed and discarded if the motivation is to imply, "he's Sssshhhh! black." But I disagree completely if the motivation is to say, "he is a damn fine poet, I really enjoy his work, it speaks to a history and an emotion that is conveyed so deeply. And the fact that it comes from his experience as a American who is black means that his skill as a poet is bringing to me an understanding of a history that I would not otherwise have really felt."

I think the article has a terrific point, but may, in frustration or anger, shut down something that is racially positive for our society.

 

[bigfield]

Interesting article. And it makes sense. But it does toss a little baby out with a little bathwater. If one wants to think/feel/believe that color should not be the only or the first thing one notices about a person, one is not (necessarily) saying that the color/race/experience should be hidden or demeaned. I agree with the article that it should be discussed and discarded if the motivation is to imply, "he's Sssshhhh! black." But I disagree completely if the motivation is to say, "he is a damn fine poet, I really enjoy his work, it speaks to a history and an emotion that is conveyed so deeply. And the fact that it comes from his experience as a American who is black means that his skill as a poet is bringing to me an understanding of a history that I would not otherwise have really felt."

I think the article has a terrific point, but may, in frustration or anger, shut down something that is racially positive for our society.

Please: this is no place for nuance.