The truth is: woke journalists engage in these types of linguistic shenanigans for the sole purpose of sticking their thumbs in the eyes of white Europeans - because they think they deserve the indignity, because they consider this type of bullying both amusing and justified, and because they know that most white people would never dream of pushing back.
“Equity” demands capitalizing both White and Black, or neither white and black; but White and black, or Black and white, are obviously unequal and thus racist.
Such introspective comments from John M. I appreciate the nuances of his thinking. I think he clarifies the question somewhat by focusing on the broadest notion of "a people" rather than more utilitarian subsets like political identity.
Reading this reminded me of an encounter years ago in college. My roommate, Bernard, was Nigerian. I had a friend, Charley, who was evidently very invested in aligning his identity with that of Bernard's. Bernard, however, was having none of it. At one point, Charley, having repeatedly having used the word "brother" with Bernard, prompted the response "I am not your brother". Charley asked him why not. The response? "You are American!" "But I'm black like you" said Charley. Bernard looked at him like he had two heads and said "you are white!" In fact, Bernard looked at all black Americans as basically a variation of American white. More accurately, perhaps, that Americans seemed more a "people" to him than anything else.
A watershed in my thinking, all from a bluntly-expressed outside view.
Sometimes b(B)lack people just lie? Did I just hear that out loud? And you called him a "boy?" My head is going to explode. Please don't tell me you and your wives sleep in the master bedroom. That would be too much. I love you guys. Keep up the good work. Your voices need to be heard.
I often feel that this preoccupation with racism is partly why the great African American director, Charles Burnett, is not as well known as Spike Lee. Burnett's films are very immersed in the black Los Angeles community that he comes from. He has stated explicitly that his intention as a filmmaker was about articulating the issues that beset his local community. You get a sense of that very strongly in his masterpiece Killer of Sheep and My Brother's Wedding and To Sleep With Anger. However, unlike Spike Lee, his films are not explicitly about anti-black racism. There are not even many white characters in his best works. I think if his films were more fiery and polemical he would be better known, not just among cinephiles, but more broadly. Sad to say, I don't think in the current climate that his best films would be considered angry enough to be of much interest.
Why are we picking just one aspect of a person to describe him/her/it? We would never write : All the Dentists in my town live on State Street. And yet dentists are a much more identifiable group than those we group as "black" Isn't "colored" a better terms to identify all the variations of those we call black or African American. And yet some people who live in southern Italy are of adarker pigment than many people we for some reason call black. Makes no sense at all. Would we take one aspect such as "tall" and say all the "Talls" in my H.S. play basketball.
The only systemic racism we have today in this country is the democrat party. And all they have to support their psychotic, racist false narrative are lies, slander, censorship, and bullying. They can only get away with this because the control the state run media.
ASIA FOR THE ASIANS, AFRICA FOR THE AFRICANS, WHITE COUNTRIES FOR EVERYBODY!
Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.
The Netherlands and Belgium are just as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.
Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.
What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?
How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?
And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?
But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.
They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.
Several years ago I resisted the term African American, then in vogue, for many of the same reasons and some additional ones. (I am white.) First, I attended a church that was more than half black, but quite a few of its black members were not Americans; they were Africans (Nigerian or Liberian citizens) or immigrants from somewhere other than Africa. So I thought "African-American" too often inaccurate for safe usage. Also, in a world where we don't say "television," but "TV," why would we exchange the simple term "black" for the cumbersome, seven-syllable "African-American"? When talking with people who preferred the term, out of respect I tried to use it, but not in daily life. It did frustrate me that black people (for a time) kept referring to white people as Caucasians (a term I despise because it's parallel in my mind, from fifth-grade social studies, with "Negroid") without ever asking me or other white people if the term was even acceptable, let alone our preferred term. And they kept insisting on using the term "Native American" for people who had expressed that they didn't like the term.
To me, African-American makes sense in the same context European-American or Asian-American makes sense. If you're talking about cultural heritage, then it makes more sense to call me Scottish-American or European-American than to call me white. But that is a limited subject.
I think I understand the current pushback against being "colorblind." Ethnic heritage and cultural background do matter to us to some degree or another. (My Scottish heritage is more a curiosity than an important fact about me, but it is at least of some interest.) But in a world where someone who is 1/16 black is supposed to identify as Black and see everything in life through that lens, it seems like we are overdue for a course correction. We are human beings first, made in the image of God. The specific details of what type of humans we are (sex, ethnicity, nationality, profession, etc.) come in second and shouldn't divide us into how and with whom we can be friends.
Amen. It's amazing how capitalizing "black" became de rigueur overnight when the liberal elite decided it should be so. Reminiscent of the universal acceptance of the term "African American" many years ago when Jesse Jackson decreed "black" was no longer the correct word (if I recall correctly). I've never capitalized "black" because it's just stupid.
"But if all the disparate groups that constitute “whites” don’t comprise a single people, why should all the disparate groups that constitute “blacks” do so?"
They don't, but this is a control mechanism for the politicians, activists, and media. The same is applied to women, Hispanics, gays, and any other denomination within the church of the aggrieved and offended. It is an enforcement mechanism. If you are part of one of these groups, you are expected to subscribe to a specific dogma. All of the dogma. Even deviating on a single point is tantamount to heresy.
Treating those groups as monoliths - as if every member of one is only a member of that one - provides a platform and political power. Keep in mind that the point of activism, no matter the cause, is to perpetuate the activism and the grifting it makes possible. It has nothing to do with resolving any issue. If it did, what would these people do if the issue was resolved?
Finally, the point about King/Powell/Wilkins cannot be repeated often enough or loudly enough. The notion of a young black person claiming with all sincerity that his/her life in these United States is somehow more difficult than those of past generations is farcical. To be black and even semi-talented today is to have corporate America drooling on itself to hire you. It's insulting to past generations that could barely dream of the opportunities available today, let alone realize them.
I capitalize neither because I *do* associate it with white supremacy. Back in the days of yore, when 'white supremacy' still meant a conscious commitment to an ideology upholding white people as superior, I knew that white racist writers capitalized White. The only example I can remember on the other side was Sharazahd Ali (remember her? The one who justified Black domestic abuse?) writing about Black people. Now that so many on the left have put the racism back into antiracism, I associate both with their respective skin colour supremacy and ergo, I refuse to capitalize.
If any good comes of the war in the Ukraine, it may be to unite people as human--forget about capitlizing any race, forget about race and so-called anti-racism, and think about what unites us all, name the desire for Putin to be removed from power and for the Ukraine to be able to rebuild its cities.
The truth is: woke journalists engage in these types of linguistic shenanigans for the sole purpose of sticking their thumbs in the eyes of white Europeans - because they think they deserve the indignity, because they consider this type of bullying both amusing and justified, and because they know that most white people would never dream of pushing back.
I see what you did there! I only do it when at the beginning of Sentences. And when I'm writing Literary Theory or German Idealist Manifestos.
Now I don't know what to do!
“Equity” demands capitalizing both White and Black, or neither white and black; but White and black, or Black and white, are obviously unequal and thus racist.
Such introspective comments from John M. I appreciate the nuances of his thinking. I think he clarifies the question somewhat by focusing on the broadest notion of "a people" rather than more utilitarian subsets like political identity.
Reading this reminded me of an encounter years ago in college. My roommate, Bernard, was Nigerian. I had a friend, Charley, who was evidently very invested in aligning his identity with that of Bernard's. Bernard, however, was having none of it. At one point, Charley, having repeatedly having used the word "brother" with Bernard, prompted the response "I am not your brother". Charley asked him why not. The response? "You are American!" "But I'm black like you" said Charley. Bernard looked at him like he had two heads and said "you are white!" In fact, Bernard looked at all black Americans as basically a variation of American white. More accurately, perhaps, that Americans seemed more a "people" to him than anything else.
A watershed in my thinking, all from a bluntly-expressed outside view.
Sometimes b(B)lack people just lie? Did I just hear that out loud? And you called him a "boy?" My head is going to explode. Please don't tell me you and your wives sleep in the master bedroom. That would be too much. I love you guys. Keep up the good work. Your voices need to be heard.
I often feel that this preoccupation with racism is partly why the great African American director, Charles Burnett, is not as well known as Spike Lee. Burnett's films are very immersed in the black Los Angeles community that he comes from. He has stated explicitly that his intention as a filmmaker was about articulating the issues that beset his local community. You get a sense of that very strongly in his masterpiece Killer of Sheep and My Brother's Wedding and To Sleep With Anger. However, unlike Spike Lee, his films are not explicitly about anti-black racism. There are not even many white characters in his best works. I think if his films were more fiery and polemical he would be better known, not just among cinephiles, but more broadly. Sad to say, I don't think in the current climate that his best films would be considered angry enough to be of much interest.
Glenn: Thanks for an opportunity to ring in. For myself, if I capitalize Black, I capitalize White (in an article - I generally pair them). If otherwise, no caps for either. You may find interest in my article: I Am Not White: Obliterating Critical Race Theory (published at https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/08/i_am_not_white_obliterating_critical_race_theory.html). I now publish on Substack, also, at ScottSense (plainsenseandsanity.substack.com) Hope to be in touch.
Why are we picking just one aspect of a person to describe him/her/it? We would never write : All the Dentists in my town live on State Street. And yet dentists are a much more identifiable group than those we group as "black" Isn't "colored" a better terms to identify all the variations of those we call black or African American. And yet some people who live in southern Italy are of adarker pigment than many people we for some reason call black. Makes no sense at all. Would we take one aspect such as "tall" and say all the "Talls" in my H.S. play basketball.
The only systemic racism we have today in this country is the democrat party. And all they have to support their psychotic, racist false narrative are lies, slander, censorship, and bullying. They can only get away with this because the control the state run media.
ASIA FOR THE ASIANS, AFRICA FOR THE AFRICANS, WHITE COUNTRIES FOR EVERYBODY!
Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.
The Netherlands and Belgium are just as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.
Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.
What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?
How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?
And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?
But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.
They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.
Anti-racist is just a code word for anti-white.
Several years ago I resisted the term African American, then in vogue, for many of the same reasons and some additional ones. (I am white.) First, I attended a church that was more than half black, but quite a few of its black members were not Americans; they were Africans (Nigerian or Liberian citizens) or immigrants from somewhere other than Africa. So I thought "African-American" too often inaccurate for safe usage. Also, in a world where we don't say "television," but "TV," why would we exchange the simple term "black" for the cumbersome, seven-syllable "African-American"? When talking with people who preferred the term, out of respect I tried to use it, but not in daily life. It did frustrate me that black people (for a time) kept referring to white people as Caucasians (a term I despise because it's parallel in my mind, from fifth-grade social studies, with "Negroid") without ever asking me or other white people if the term was even acceptable, let alone our preferred term. And they kept insisting on using the term "Native American" for people who had expressed that they didn't like the term.
To me, African-American makes sense in the same context European-American or Asian-American makes sense. If you're talking about cultural heritage, then it makes more sense to call me Scottish-American or European-American than to call me white. But that is a limited subject.
I think I understand the current pushback against being "colorblind." Ethnic heritage and cultural background do matter to us to some degree or another. (My Scottish heritage is more a curiosity than an important fact about me, but it is at least of some interest.) But in a world where someone who is 1/16 black is supposed to identify as Black and see everything in life through that lens, it seems like we are overdue for a course correction. We are human beings first, made in the image of God. The specific details of what type of humans we are (sex, ethnicity, nationality, profession, etc.) come in second and shouldn't divide us into how and with whom we can be friends.
Amen. It's amazing how capitalizing "black" became de rigueur overnight when the liberal elite decided it should be so. Reminiscent of the universal acceptance of the term "African American" many years ago when Jesse Jackson decreed "black" was no longer the correct word (if I recall correctly). I've never capitalized "black" because it's just stupid.
"But if all the disparate groups that constitute “whites” don’t comprise a single people, why should all the disparate groups that constitute “blacks” do so?"
They don't, but this is a control mechanism for the politicians, activists, and media. The same is applied to women, Hispanics, gays, and any other denomination within the church of the aggrieved and offended. It is an enforcement mechanism. If you are part of one of these groups, you are expected to subscribe to a specific dogma. All of the dogma. Even deviating on a single point is tantamount to heresy.
Treating those groups as monoliths - as if every member of one is only a member of that one - provides a platform and political power. Keep in mind that the point of activism, no matter the cause, is to perpetuate the activism and the grifting it makes possible. It has nothing to do with resolving any issue. If it did, what would these people do if the issue was resolved?
Finally, the point about King/Powell/Wilkins cannot be repeated often enough or loudly enough. The notion of a young black person claiming with all sincerity that his/her life in these United States is somehow more difficult than those of past generations is farcical. To be black and even semi-talented today is to have corporate America drooling on itself to hire you. It's insulting to past generations that could barely dream of the opportunities available today, let alone realize them.
I capitalize neither because I *do* associate it with white supremacy. Back in the days of yore, when 'white supremacy' still meant a conscious commitment to an ideology upholding white people as superior, I knew that white racist writers capitalized White. The only example I can remember on the other side was Sharazahd Ali (remember her? The one who justified Black domestic abuse?) writing about Black people. Now that so many on the left have put the racism back into antiracism, I associate both with their respective skin colour supremacy and ergo, I refuse to capitalize.
If any good comes of the war in the Ukraine, it may be to unite people as human--forget about capitlizing any race, forget about race and so-called anti-racism, and think about what unites us all, name the desire for Putin to be removed from power and for the Ukraine to be able to rebuild its cities.