Thinking Black and white

Selective capitalization won't solve racism.

If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn't. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn't be. And what it wouldn't be, it would. You see?
― Lewis Carroll, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland / Through the Looking-Glass

If I can't dance to it, it's not my revolution.
― Emma Goldman

A reader asks, “Why don’t you capitalize the word, ‘Black,’ when you refer to people?”

Before getting into my answer, let me tell you about a few situations that collectively may help explain my thinking around this issue:

— I remember hearing a story in the 1980s (possibly apocryphal) about a newspaper or magazine that had acquired some fancy new computer (the size of a refrigerator, no doubt) that would automatically update references to people they’d been calling “black,” in their publication to the newly-correct phrase, “African-American.” The software apparently still had a few bugs, because an article soon came out in the Science section, describing “African-American holes in our galaxy.”

— A couple of years ago, I had Jody Armour on my podcast. Armour is a distinguished law professor, prolific author, and a really nice man. His most recent book at the time was called: N*gga Theory: Race, Language, Unequal Justice, and the Law. I remember asking him if I, as a white person, could say the name of his book without being offensive. I don’t remember getting a clear answer.

— One day in 2017, I was driving somewhere and tuned in to Terry Gross interviewing an author on her show, Fresh Air. The author, an investigative reporter named Jesse Eisinger, had written a book that Gross kept referring to as “The Chicken S-Word Club.” The book is about the 2008 collapse and the corruption in the Justice Department that resulted in nobody being prosecuted for the largest single financial swindle in the history of western civilization. A serious subject. So why did he give it that stupid, fucking title? The Chicken S-Word Club. What does that even mean? I hate to admit that it probably took me a good 30 miles to realize that the book was called The Chickenshit Club, and that Terry Gross, constrained by inane FCC rules stopping anyone from saying the word “shit” on the airwaves, lest the youth of America be irreversibly wounded, had adapted the title to avoid getting fined. Talk about chickenshit!

— A year or two back, I lost a friend because I used the term “Indian” rather than “Native American” in an after-dinner conversation. We were talking about shamanism, and I said something about how shamanism appeared to have come from Siberia and was ubiquitous in many different Indian tribes in the Americas.

“You mean ‘Native American’ groups,” she said. “Also, the word, ‘tribe’ is offensive.”

“How can ‘tribe’ be offensive? They use it themselves: ‘tribal council,’ and so on.

“Who do you mean by ‘they?’”

‘Native Americans,’ ‘Indians,’ ‘First Nations people,’ whatever.”

“What do you mean, ‘whatever?’”

It went downhill from there. She moved out of town a few months later, having concluded, no doubt, that I was a Very Bad Person.

For what it’s worth, she’s not Apache, Lakota, Chippewa, or oppressed in any discernible way. Her family is rich, she’s some shade of white, teaches yoga and spends her summers in France. Her uncle ran for president.

---

Look, there are real injustices in our world, both historical and present, but after-dinner word games aren’t going to solve them. In fact, these games only obstruct real progress by distracting our attention from the actual problems we face, pitting potential allies against each other by creating conflict around terminology. Furthermore, by distorting language with beyond-the-looking-glass, impossible-to-follow rules, we weaken our ability to communicate with each other and dilute the potential to articulate the kinds of radical change we need desperately. We end up policing each other over our vocabulary while the injustices we’re afraid to discuss only get worse.

“Officer, help me please! That man just robbed my wallet!”

“I think you mean he ‘stole’ your wallet. In current usage, ‘to rob’ focuses on the victim of the crime, whereas ‘to steal’ calls attention to the object that was taken through force or stealth.”

“Whatever! He’s getting away!”

“Why do you assume the person is a ‘he’? Did you confirm their preferred pronouns?”

According to the New York Times, capitalizing “Black” is a way of “describing people and cultures of African origin,” Dean Baquet, The Times’s executive editor explained in a memo to staff. “We believe this style best conveys elements of shared history and identity, and reflects our goal to be respectful of all the people and communities we cover.” (my emphasis)

From a scientific perspective, this is asinine, as African populations have the highest levels of genetic and phenotypic variation among all humans. In other words, two random people from Africa probably have less shared DNA than two random people chosen from anywhere else in the world.

And as for “shared history and identity,” please. Morocco and Madagascar? Angola and Algeria? Nigeria and Namibia? Worlds apart. Isn’t it insulting (racist, even?) — as well as outrageously inaccurate — to impose an assumed “shared history and identity” upon millions of people who come from the most diverse continent on the planet?

In an article in which she tries to explain some of the nuance behind terms like BIPOC, Constance Grady tells the story of the origin of the phrase, “women of color.” She explains that the phrase was coined at the National Women’s Conference in Houston, in 1977, by minority women who wanted to highlight their shared struggle. But today, some activists are frustrated that many think white people came up with the phrase, thus “flattening” it and “robbing it of its political power,” even if the white people using it have good intentions.

This flattening does not necessarily stem from an active desire to do harm. Often, it’s rooted in a desire to be seen as “not racist” or, more broadly, as one of “the good guys.” Anxious and indiscriminate and mostly white liberal speakers vaguely grasp that old terms like “African American,” “minority,” and “diverse” are outdated, and that new terms like “people of color” and “BIPOC” are in. And so they begin to slot in the new terms for the old without thinking too much about how the new terms are different.

“There’s this anxiety over saying the wrong thing,” says deandre miles-hercules, a PhD linguistics student who focuses on sociocultural linguistic research on race, gender, and sexuality. “And so instead of maybe doing a little research, understanding the history and the different semantic valences of a particular term to decide for yourself, or to understand the appropriateness of a use in a particular context, people generally go, ‘Tell me the word, and I will use the word.’ They’re not interested in learning things about the history of the term, or the context in which it’s appropriate.”

This is the “impossible-to-follow” aspect of these issues I mentioned above. Note the condescending assumptions in no-caps deandre’s dismissal of pathetic white people who are anxious not to say the wrong thing. Does she really think we white folks would be better off if we “do a little research … and decide for [ourselves]” what language to use? Somehow, I don’t see that going real well, since even the attempt to not cause offense is in itself offensive:

“People tune in to this, ‘What is the word? Do I call you African American? Do I call you Black? What is the word that people are preferring these days? I know I can’t call you Negro anymore! So just tell me the word so I can use it and we can go on from there,’” they say. “But that lacks in nuance. And that lack of nuance is a violence.”

Really, ms. miles-hercules? Your scolding is an invitation to nuance, and the attempt not to offend is “a violence?”

“Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn't.”

The claim that “lack of nuance is a violence” may be the least nuanced thing I’ve ever read. It used to be universally understood that intent is what matters, and to say that the intention is to avoid offense is itself offensive is fucking ridiculous — and kind of funny, actually.

Can we hold these truths to be self-evident?

• Saying “the n-word” is a childish mind game. Using the word in a racist, hurtful way is ugly and deserving of whatever ass-whipping it provokes. But we all know what “the n-word” refers to, so congratulations, now we both say it and don’t say it. No damage or violence has been avoided, but damage and violence have been inflicted on common sense and the dignity of adults who are forced to utter “the n-word.”

• Mark Twain was not a racist author for featuring the humanity of a black character called “Nigger Jim” in 1884. On the contrary, Twain was a ferocious, prominent critic of racism and a fervent supporter of his black friends. People calling for censuring of Huckleberry Finn or Twain’s other works are idiots.

• Arguing that trans women and trans men are not exactly the same as biological women and men is not violence and does not make someone transphobic.

• Heterosexual men and lesbians who don’t want to date trans women are not transphobic.

• Saying that trans women should not be allowed to compete against biological women in sports where they have huge, obvious physical advantages is not transphobic.

• If you think a well-meaning attempt to avoid causing offense is offensive, you carry the offense within you, and you need to stop projecting your issues onto other people.

• Saying that race and sex are real is no more racist or sexist than noticing the rain is “pro-drowning.” And if race and sex are not real (an idea I’m open to), why are people telling us to capitalize Black and getting surgery and hormone therapy to bring their gender into alignment with their sex? Let’s try to agree on whether these things are real or not before enforcing language rules that make no damn sense.

I don’t know if race is “real,” but I know that racism is, and a capital “B” sure as hell isn’t going to change that.

Here’s what it all comes down to, for me. We live in difficult times that are about to get much tougher. We’re going to need to come together with our allies in order to get through this. Allies are people with good intentions, not people who agree with everything you say and submit to every power play you inflict upon them. Humorless authoritarians telling me what I can and can’t do or say are the problem, wherever they reside on the political spectrum.

We need a revolution. No doubt. But let’s have a revolution where dancing, laughter, and respectful disagreement are welcome.