The Lemon Fool

There are many things that irritate me about The Guardian (though to be fair it also contains some excellent features) but one I've noticed recently is their spelling of Black (in the context of people of colour) with a capital `B' but white (in the context of colourless people) with a small `w'.

Here's an example - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... GTUK_email

It seems to me that the quite blatant message it's designed to convey is that Black is more important / deserves more respect than white. Why is this any less stupid and provocative than any other form of racism?

Clitheroekid wrote:It seems to me that the quite blatant message it's designed to convey is that Black is more important / deserves more respect than white. Why is this any less stupid and provocative than any other form of racism?

Here's a link to a consideration of the difference in journalism: https://www.cjr.org/analysis/capital-b-black-styleguide.php

I can see their point that it could be considered an "identity" (with all the associated trappings) in the way that English, Scottish, Irish etc might be
- and that "White" in the same context doesn't really.. unless one was identifying with "the Proud Boys" or their ilk

As to why the Guardian do it?
https://www.theguardian.com/guardian-observer-style-guide-b

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 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.)

perhaps you keep landing on stories by particular writers that are pushing this particular button

it would irk me if it were done without consideration of the context (and similarly if it weren't capitalised when it was proper)

It's funny, I read the Guardian a lot but had never noticed.

Clitheroekid wrote:There are many things that irritate me about The Guardian (though to be fair it also contains some excellent features) but one I've noticed recently is their spelling of Black (in the context of people of colour) with a capital `B' but white (in the context of colourless people) with a small `w'.

Here's an example - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... GTUK_email

It seems to me that the quite blatant message it's designed to convey is that Black is more important / deserves more respect than white. Why is this any less stupid and provocative than any other form of racism?

It's a form of affirmative action or positive discrimination, expressed through language. The Guardian wants to capitalise "Blacks" but not "whites" because it thinks that such anomalies and inconsistencies are successfully performative - like water dripping on a stone you can change peoples' outlook through brainwashing and osmosis.

In that context it is interesting that you also use the phrase "people of colour", which itself is often criticised as again placing the emphasis on colour rather than on whiteness. I would simply use the phrase non-white but that innocent and intuitive phrase is apparently too white-centric for some.

If you look at the last 30-35 years, political correctness has mainly operated through manipulation of language, which itself is a form of thought policing. Combine that with The Guardian's love of identity politics and you have a snide brew of propaganda and ideology.

Lootman wrote:

Clitheroekid wrote:There are many things that irritate me about The Guardian (though to be fair it also contains some excellent features) but one I've noticed recently is their spelling of Black (in the context of people of colour) with a capital `B' but white (in the context of colourless people) with a small `w'.

Here's an example - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... GTUK_email

It seems to me that the quite blatant message it's designed to convey is that Black is more important / deserves more respect than white. Why is this any less stupid and provocative than any other form of racism?

It's a form of affirmative action or positive discrimination, expressed through language. The Guardian wants to capitalise "Blacks" but not "whites" because it thinks that such anomalies and inconsistencies are successfully performative - like water dripping on a stone you can change peoples' outlook through brainwashing and osmosis.

In that context it is interesting that you also use the phrase "people of colour", which itself is often criticised as again placing the emphasis on colour rather than on whiteness. I would simply use the phrase non-white but that innocent and intuitive phrase is apparently too white-centric for some.

If you look at the last 30-35 years, political correctness has mainly operated through manipulation of language, which itself is a form of thought policing. Combine that with The Guardian's love of identity politics and you have a snide brew of propaganda and ideology.

Its amazing the overwhelming influence of the Guardian - remind me - just over 100,000 circulation. The puny News Corp, the feeble DMGT, the stumbling Reach et al stand no chance against Polly and Marina.

T7

terminal7 wrote:

Lootman wrote:It's a form of affirmative action or positive discrimination, expressed through language. The Guardian wants to capitalise "Blacks" but not "whites" because it thinks that such anomalies and inconsistencies are successfully performative - like water dripping on a stone you can change peoples' outlook through brainwashing and osmosis.

In that context it is interesting that you also use the phrase "people of colour", which itself is often criticised as again placing the emphasis on colour rather than on whiteness. I would simply use the phrase non-white but that innocent and intuitive phrase is apparently too white-centric for some.

If you look at the last 30-35 years, political correctness has mainly operated through manipulation of language, which itself is a form of thought policing. Combine that with The Guardian's love of identity politics and you have a snide brew of propaganda and ideology.

Its amazing the overwhelming influence of the Guardian - remind me - just over 100,000 circulation. The puny News Corp, the feeble DMGT, the stumbling Reach et al stand no chance against Polly and Marina.

I suspect that these days papers assess their market penetration not by physical copies sold, but by eyeballs on its online paper. The Guardian doesn't have a paywall or require registration, which means probably that people casually look at it more than its competitors.

And no doubt they give away huge numbers of papers free to libraries, schools, unions and other friendly institutions.

Personally I read it because the football coverage is decent, but mostly because I like to know what my enemies are thinking.

Lootman wrote:

terminal7 wrote:Its amazing the overwhelming influence of the Guardian - remind me - just over 100,000 circulation. The puny News Corp, the feeble DMGT, the stumbling Reach et al stand no chance against Polly and Marina.

I suspect that these days papers assess their market penetration not by physical copies sold, but by eyeballs on its online paper. The Guardian doesn't have a paywall or require registration, which means probably that people casually look at it more than its competitors.

And no doubt they give away huge numbers of papers free to libraries, schools, unions and other friendly institutions.

Personally I read it because the football coverage is decent, but mostly because I like to know what my enemies are thinking.

You will find that Daily Mail online alone had significantly more eyeballs than Guardian. However maybe many are just looking at the photos

T7

Lootman wrote:It's a form of affirmative action or positive discrimination, expressed through language. The Guardian wants to capitalise "Blacks" but not "whites" because it thinks that such anomalies and inconsistencies are successfully performative

You've misread it. The quoted style guide said not to use "blacks" as a noun at all, whether capitalised or not.

As to "black" as an adjective, it says it's generally lower case but respects the use of Black if the writer or editor prefers.

Scott.

swill453 wrote:

Lootman wrote:It's a form of affirmative action or positive discrimination, expressed through language. The Guardian wants to capitalise "Blacks" but not "whites" because it thinks that such anomalies and inconsistencies are successfully performative

You've misread it. The quoted style guide said not to use "blacks" as a noun at all, whether capitalised or not.

As to "black" as an adjective, it says it's generally lower case but respects the use of Black if the writer or editor prefers.

That misses CK's central point - that there is no valid reason to treat the words "black" or "blacks" as any different to the words "white" or "whites". And that is borderline racist.

Lootman wrote:

swill453 wrote:You've misread it. The quoted style guide said not to use "blacks" as a noun at all, whether capitalised or not.

As to "black" as an adjective, it says it's generally lower case but respects the use of Black if the writer or editor prefers.

That misses CK's central point - that there is no valid reason to treat the words "black" or "blacks" as any different to the words "white" or "whites". And that is borderline racist.

That is the "Whites" line - you wear it well

servodude wrote:

Lootman wrote:That misses CK's central point - that there is no valid reason to treat the words "black" or "blacks" as any different to the words "white" or "whites". And that is borderline racist.

That is the "Whites" line - you wear it well

Just as the "Blacks" line is well worn by virtue signalers, race warriors and self-hating whites.

But the fact remains that language should be consistent. I have no view on whether it should be whites, blacks, asians and hispanics. Or Whites, Blacks, Asians and Hispanics. But to be inconsistent and capitalise only your preferred races and not others opens you up to the charge of race bias.

Might be worth a read

Why We Capitalize ‘Black’ and Not ‘White’

In June 2020, AP decided to capitalize “Black” in a racial, ethnic, or cultural sense. Lowercase “black” is now used to refer to the color. A month later, in July 2020, AP announced it would continue to lowercase “white,” even in a racial, ethnic, or cultural sense. It gave its reasons in two blog posts on its website (linked in the previous sentences). Let me summarize those reasons for you.

First of all, AP did not make these changes without first doing research and extensive consultation. These revisions resulted “after more than two years of in-depth research and discussion with colleagues and respected thinkers from a diversity of backgrounds, both within and from outside the cooperative.” And these consultations were done with people from around the world.

From this research, AP found that there was a clear desire and reason to capitalize “Black.” The most notable reason is that “people who are Black have strong historical and cultural commonalities, even if they are from different parts of the world and even if they now live in different parts of the world.

AiY(D)

AsleepInYorkshire wrote:"people who are Black have strong historical and cultural commonalities, even if they are from different parts of the world and even if they now live in different parts of the world."

And "people who are White" do not?

Lootman wrote:

AsleepInYorkshire wrote:"people who are Black have strong historical and cultural commonalities, even if they are from different parts of the world and even if they now live in different parts of the world."

And "people who are White" do not?

Like you and the French?

Scott.

swill453 wrote:

Lootman wrote:And "people who are White" do not?

Like you and the French?

There are plenty of examples of black people disliking each other as well. I have talked to a couple of black residents of LA who moved there from Africa, and they both told me they feel nothing in common with African-Americans.

And of course African nations have been known to go to war with each other just like European peoples have.

So what? The idea that black folks have something in common that white people do not is a self-serving myth perpetuated by those with a political agenda rather than a regard for truth and language.

AsleepInYorkshire wrote:Might be worth a read

From this research, AP found that there was a clear desire and reason to capitalize “Black.” The most notable reason is that “people who are Black have strong historical and cultural commonalities, even if they are from different parts of the world and even if they now live in different parts of the world.

Those tribes who major in killing one another in SA seem not to have heard that, nor the Blacks & Asians who don't get on over here.

Perhaps what they have in common is a readiness to pull the 'race' card when it suits them.

V8

88V8 wrote: Those tribes who major in killing one another in SA seem not to have heard that, nor the Blacks & Asians who don't get on over here.

Friction between blacks and Asians is an instructive example. I feel sure that examples can be found that pre-date this, but some trace that back to the mid 1960s in America. During that period when civil rights legislation was being passed by Congress, an article appeared in the New York Times describing the economic and professional success that Asian immigrants to the US were enjoying. Coupling that with the perception that Asians emphasise family values and have a low participation rate in crime, the author coined the phrase "model minority" for Asian-Americans. And for good measure used the phrase "problem minorities" for the other non-white minorities.

Not very PC you might think, at least by contemporary standards. But the concept caught on and by the 1980s, the term "model minority" was widely used in the media to pile adoration onto this super race, just as Japan reached peak power, with its stock market at one point being 40% of global market cap.

But the black community did not like this at all. It undermined their principal argument that being a non-white minority entailed under-performance, which must be addressed by affirmative action, anti-discrimination laws, handouts and the rest. Worse it wasn't just that Asians were out-performing blacks and Hispanics, they were out-performing whites. And so the 1980s also saw a wave of attacks, violence and crimes against Asians and Asian businesses. And friction between the two groups has persisted to this day.

In some ways this mirrors how anti-semitism grew as a result of the perception that Jews are disproportionately successful. And in the same way as that can lead some left-wingers to criticise Jews and Jewish institutions, so the white liberal elite sought to try and puncture this idea that Asians really did perform so well.

Coming back to the topic, I find it does feel right to capitalise words like Jews, Asians, Hispanics and Arabs, because they refer to proper names of regions or religions. But the words "whites" and "blacks" do not share that feature, to my ear. But either way you capitalise both or neither.

AsleepInYorkshire wrote:From this research, AP found that there was a clear desire and reason to capitalize “Black.” The most notable reason is that “people who are Blackare woke activists who contribute to your study have strong historical and cultural commonalities, even if they are from different parts of the world and even if they now live in different parts of the world.

FTFY. Purely speculatively, of course. The original statement seems pretty pure-bred racist, attributing attitudes to people based purely on skin colour.

UncleEbenezer wrote:

AsleepInYorkshire wrote:From this research, AP found that there was a clear desire and reason to capitalize “Black.” The most notable reason is that “people who are Blackare woke activists who contribute to your study have strong historical and cultural commonalities, even if they are from different parts of the world and even if they now live in different parts of the world.

FTFY. Purely speculatively, of course. The original statement seems pretty pure-bred racist, attributing attitudes to people based purely on skin colour.

I think, as the quote from Donald Glover points out in the article I linked, that THAT is precisely what happened when they (variously sourced African people) were enslaved, shipped off and treated as a homogeneous underclass of human for quite a long time in some parts of the world. He's probably got a better understanding of it than I do.
I'm not surprised they might find a common sense of self

servodude wrote:

UncleEbenezer wrote:
FTFY. Purely speculatively, of course. The original statement seems pretty pure-bred racist, attributing attitudes to people based purely on skin colour.

I think, as the quote from Donald Glover points out in the article I linked, that THAT is precisely what happened when they (variously sourced African people) were enslaved, shipped off and treated as a homogeneous underclass of human for quite a long time in some parts of the world. He's probably got a better understanding of it than I do.
I'm not surprised they might find a common sense of self

Erm, that's not unique nor even unusual in human history. It matters in the US - where the legacy of that is so big and arguably lives on today - but even in the case of Black Americans[1] you'd be excluding such distinguished figures as their recent President.

[1] As distinct from African Americans like Elon Musk. At least for those of us who try to resist Newspeak.