"Black" is a proper noun, but "white" isn't

[The Atheist]

I've been amused for some time that the word "black", when applied to people, has become a default proper noun, and is therefore initially capitalised.

Here are a couple of examples from today's news:

The Hill: Allen Russel, a 38-year-old Black man, will still serve a life sentence

CBC: Vancouver police apologize for wrongly handcuffing and detaining retired Black judge

I've never seen "white" given proper noun status, as in this piece:

One umpire in the softball game was white and one was Black.

Merriam Webster is even funnier, offering both as capitalised in the entry, yet not using it in the description for white:

Black

of or relating to Black people

White

of or relating to white people

Fortunately I'm light brown.

 

[Francesca R]

Isn't it an adjective as used there? Rather than a noun. You don't get proper adjectives so it's wrong.

(If it was part of a noun then wouldn't "man" and "judge" also be capitalised?)

 

[Olmstead]

When you capitalise Black, you're using the word in a similar way as Asian or Hispanic.

Doing the same for white is ... problematic.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

When you capitalise Black, you're using the word in a similar way as Asian or Hispanic.

Doing the same for white is ... problematic.

It's only problematic because we don't typically refer to Whites as a formal group. But you could.

A black man would be a person with ethnicity or skin color you were describing him as.

A Black man refers to belonging to a specific ethnicity.

If you said the Whites colonized much of Africa, that would be capitalized. If you said white invaders or white colonists you wouldn't capitalize it.

 

[d4m10n]

Doing the same for white is ... problematic.

Why, though?

(I prefer the phrase European American, since races are arbitrary but ancestry is real.)

 

[Olmstead]

Why, though?

(I prefer the phrase European American, since races are arbitrary but ancestry is real.)

It's probably more complicated, but I think there's very few people in the Western world who actively "identify" as White.

Compare White pride vs. Black pride.

 

[Checkmite]

Why, though?

(I prefer the phrase European American, since races are arbitrary but ancestry is real.)

Because traditionally even white people themselves never classed "European" as an ethnicity; white Americans had the luxury of self-categorizing by national or sub-national origin - "German", "Italian", "Hungarian", "Irish", and so forth, and that is how they have usually done it. By comparison, historically people who have stressed a generalized "white" identity have very often been racial extremists.

African-Americans didn't really have the same luxury; generally-speaking, their original cultural affinities were essentially beaten out of them, leaving them no choice but to forge a new one based on their shared coordinate of being black former slaves (and the descendants of such).

 

[angrysoba]

Isn't it an adjective as used there? Rather than a noun. You don't get proper adjectives so it's wrong.
(If it was part of a noun then wouldn't "man" and "judge" also be capitalised?)

JapaneseadjectiveUK /ˌdʒæp.ənˈiːz/ US /ˌdʒæp.ənˈiːz/

belonging to or relating to Japan, its people, or its language:
the Japanese stock market
Japanese art

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/japanese

black adjective (PEOPLE)

A2 (also Black)
relating or belonging to people with black or dark brown skin, especially people who live in Africa or whose family originally came from Africa:
black culture Black Americans

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/black

Both are used.

HispanicadjectiveUK /hɪˈspæn.ɪk/ US /hɪˈspæn.ɪk/

connected with Spain or Spanish-speaking countries, especially those countries in Latin America

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/hispanic

 

[d4m10n]

Because traditionally even white people themselves never classed "European" as an ethnicity; white Americans had the luxury of self-categorizing by national or sub-national origin - "German", "Italian", "Hungarian", "Irish", and so forth, and that is how they have usually done it.

That approach doesn't make sense for someone like my mother, who is descended from Irish, Scottish, English, Swedish, and a smattering of Eastern European folks, including Ashkenazim. It makes even less sense for my kids, who've got several other European nations in the mix (along with other continents).

 

[d4m10n]

It's probably more complicated, but I think there's very few people in the Western world who actively "identify" as White.

It's on the census forms here in the U.S.

https://2020census.gov/en/about-questions/2020-census-questions-race.html

(They capitalize.)

 

[mgidm86]

I've been amused for some time that the word "black", when applied to people, has become a default proper noun, and is therefore initially capitalised.

Here are a couple of examples from today's news:

The Hill: Allen Russel, a 38-year-old Black man, will still serve a life sentence

CBC: Vancouver police apologize for wrongly handcuffing and detaining retired Black judge


I've never seen "white" given proper noun status, as in this piece:

One umpire in the softball game was white and one was Black.

Merriam Webster is even funnier, offering both as capitalised in the entry, yet not using it in the description for white:

Black

of or relating to Black people

White

of or relating to white people

Fortunately I'm light brown.

I don't see this as widespread, I've seen it a few times and I think it's dumb. Asian is capitalized because Asia is a proper name no matter how it's used (I think)

And an Asian in the US isn't the same as an Asian in the UK or Europe. Actually none of this is consistent. And not all Asians are Asian. Yikes, we are ******* stupid.

 

[Minoosh]

For consistency I would capitalize White as well as Black, or lower-close them both. Until we outgrow such labels which I hope is soon. Is Obama black? Is he Black? I don't hear him called White, but he's as much half-white as he is half-black.

I think I prefer lowercasing both. This is not a new discussion.

 

[Olmstead]

It's on the census forms here in the U.S.

https://2020census.gov/en/about-questions/2020-census-questions-race.html

(They capitalize.)

Well, someone hasn't read the style guides.

Actually, I don't know what style guides say. Let's check some:

Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/guardian-observer-style-guide-b
https://www.theguardian.com/guardian-observer-style-guide-w

black
should be used only as an adjective when referring to race, ie not “blacks” but “black people” or whatever noun is appropriate. There is ongoing debate about the capitalisation of black, with some using it as a physical descriptor, others to describe a specific cultural group, therefore while generally lower case, if a subject, writer or editor of a story prefers to use Black then that choice should be respected. (See also BAME.)

white
lc in racial context

So, black or Black but only white.


Chicago Manual of Style:

Names of ethnic and national groups are capitalized. Adjectives associated with these names are also capitalized.For hyphenation or its absence, see 8.39. Note that terms such as black and white, when referring to ethnicity, are usually lowercased unless a particular author or publisher prefers otherwise.

(Well, that was helpful. Thanks Chicago.)

Actually, I doubt the census people have a style guide.

 

[Checkmite]

That approach doesn't make sense for someone like my mother, who is descended from Irish, Scottish, English, Swedish, and a smattering of Eastern European folks, including Ashkenazim. It makes even less sense for my kids, who've got several other European nations in the mix (along with other continents).

That's because, in the US, ethnic self-identification was a natural function of America being a land of immigrants. Time and integration results in people with convoluted ancestries for whom identification with this or that Old-World culture is less and less important.

There isn't a logical progression from that kind of identification to capital-W "white". Proclaiming "White" or "European" as a cultural affiliation is illogical because it's no such thing; Europeans despite sharing a set of similar skin tones are a coincidental set of discrete tribes which have always been and to this day remain in a condition of open disdain and sometimes actively murderous contempt for each other. Objectively there is no singular general European or "White" culture to identify with, and it's too late to create one the same way that black former-slaves did postbellum because capital-W Whiteness-as-an-identity has already been claimed by and is now inextricably associated with neo-Nazis.

 

[Thermal]

Yeh this is great, but did they work out if we capitalize yellow man and red man? Got **** to do, you know.

 

[d4m10n]

There isn't a logical progression from that kind of identification to capital-W "white". Proclaiming "White" or "European" as a cultural affiliation is illogical because it's no such thing...

Calling someone European American is saying something about their ancestry and current nationality, not necessarily their culture. This is also true of Asian American, etc.

...capital-W Whiteness-as-an-identity has already been claimed by and is now inextricably associated with neo-Nazis.

Bit odd that the census uses it, then.

 

[angrysoba]

Well, someone hasn't read the style guides.

Actually, I don't know what style guides say. Let's check some:

Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/guardian-observer-style-guide-b
https://www.theguardian.com/guardian-observer-style-guide-w



So, black or Black but only white.


Chicago Manual of Style:


(Well, that was helpful. Thanks Chicago.)

Actually, I doubt the census people have a style guide.

Style guides are just that. Guides to a particular style, if you want that particular style.

But each media outlet is likely to have its own editorial policy on this, and it doesn't matter what the Chicago Manual of Style or Strunk and white think.

 

[The Atheist]

I don't see this as widespread, I've seen it a few times and I think it's dumb.

It's quite recent.

Yeh this is great, but did they work out if we capitalize yellow man and red man? Got **** to do, you know.

Haha! I didn't go there, so kudos.

Yellow Peril seems to be routinely capitalised.

 

[angrysoba]

I love the way people are saying, "Look at this inconsistent usage of the English language I have discovered".

You must be new to the English language. Please try to get better acquainted.

 

[Olmstead]

Style guides are just that. Guides to a particular style, if you want that particular style.

But each media outlet is likely to have its own editorial policy on this, and it doesn't matter what the Chicago Manual of Style or Strunk and white think.

I know, but some things are universally applicable. Mostly, I was hoping for some more in-depth explanation.

For example, the Chicago Manual of Style has this to say on the word female:

Sex-specific labels as adjectives. When gender is relevant, it’s acceptable to use the noun woman as a modifier {woman judge}. In recent decades, woman has been rapidly replacing lady in such constructions.The adjective female is also often used unobjectionably. In isolated contexts it may strike some readers as being dismissive or derogatory (perhaps because it’s a biological term used for animals as well as humans), but when parallel references to both sexes are required, the adjectives male and female are typically the most serviceable choices {the police force has 834 male and 635 female officers}

That's much more useful.