a grammatical diversion
Being an inconsistency I too have noted in recent times, I link here to this NYT piece discussing the pros and cons of the adjective “black” as used in respect to race, being elevated, so to speak, to proper noun status; that is, a capitalised “Black”.
Not being one who is at all fundamental on this, though finding the grammar fuzzy, and also very aware of my own inconsistency (see any one of my previous blog entries), I would only say that the German capitalisation of ALL nouns has affected me (or infected me!) over the years and point out that it was, at the very least, a convention of the English language prior to the 19th century. Consider, for instance, the Constitution of the United States of 1787:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The Constitution of the United States – Preamble
And then of course there are any number of literary examples; at the British Library there are gems in abundance, including this letter-writing manual of sorts from Samual Richardson, with fictional correspondence for all and every occasion, and that was to inspire his epistolary (and scandalous!) 1740 novel, Pamela.
As I say, I have not formed a definite opinion on this matter, but there is, I think, a certain linguistic elegance and SIMPLICITY beyond the political and social arguments parried in the NYT piece – though in this respect, it would be only consequential to extend the Black to include White and Brown (in context). But dare I mention all the Grey areas then open to dispute, and that social groupings (defined by common nouns) beyond those categorised by color (or Color) and sometimes deriving from adjectives and sometime not – eg. g/Gay, q/Queer, m/Migrant, r/Refugee – may have equally valid arguments. This could all lead to Man and Woman and all the subsets thereof, and I don’t know what J.K. Rowling would do with that…, and the Germans don’t know how lucky they are to have avoided THIS argument …but they have their own linguistic conundrum in dealing with matters of “race” – not to mention the little COMPLICATION of giving all their nicely capitalised nouns a GENDER!
Good cases are presented from both sides, but Professor Vilna Bashi Treitler from the University of California presents a particularly good argument when she emphasises that “black” is a colour and an adjective, it is also “the oppressor’s term” and wonders as such whether it should be embraced.
When you think about it Black would be mostly used as an adjective – for instance, “Black culture” or “Black people”, the big-letter, stand-alone noun from which it derives but rarely, and it is this latter that I find problematic. For example, one says: “an American woman” or “a Catholic man” and so “a Black person” seems reasonable. However, one may also reasonably say: “She is an American.” and “He is a Catholic.” but could or should one say “He/She is a Black.”? Returning to Professor Treitler, I too find the tone abrasive and ringing somehow like the voice of the oppressor.
Back to the Germans for a moment. In the German language, adjectives referring to nationality, ethnicity or religion are not capitalised anyway (the common nouns of course are, leading to a reverse logic) – eine amerikanische Frau, ein katholischer Mann and it follows ein schwarzer Mensch. Surely a headache for the German Sprachpolizei should this conundrum go global!
This finally brings me to ask whether it has been properly considered that a lot of the world’s “black” population live in countries – African countries, for instance, or in Brazil – with languages other than English. And, also, often forgotten are people on the Indian sub-continent who are very often defined (and discriminated against) on the basis of their shading – no prizes for guessing the order. And what about smaller, and black, indigenous populations, as in Australia or Papua New Guinea? Would a big ‘B’ black culture claim to incorporate such a global diversity of heritage.
It is understandable that, for many of the advocates, the imperative here is particular to the United States, and its very particular history and social structures, but I think if the purpose is to address Black racism, an opportunity is being missed to show solidarity with Black people all over the world and, further, seems some how to have the potential to distance Black Americans from their own African heritage. I’m old enough to have had to learn, and get used to, Jesse Jackson’s “African-American” terminology, and would really not like to see it go away. But, again, who am I to say.
A timely debate which I will continue to follow with interest.
Postscript: July 5th, 2020: Now misplaced, but I was reading a political commentary a couple of days ago to with the U.S. elections, and in respect to “the minority vote” a sentence stood out which included “…black and Hispanic voters …blah, blah”. Previously I would not have paused, but given the debate discussed in the above post which is still on my mind, I wondered why “Hispanic” should be capitalised, and how it came to be capitalised – was there ever a debate? It does derive from a proper noun – Hispania – but one that is very much historical. And “Latino”? Fairly well synonymous with “Hispanic” – give or take Brazil or Spain – and deriving from Latin America, in itself an expression of categorisation and convenience.
Postscript: July 25th, 2020: In respect to Germany, I note the English language and particularly American acronym of BPoC i.e. Black & People of Color being used more and more in Germany, especially amongst a younger urban generation with an immediate or recent (relatively speaking; say, as the children of) migrant background. Probably not absolutely defined, nor consistent in ownership or usage, but labels are often like that. In saying that, it immediately occurs to me: aren’t we meant to be against, or at least cautious, when it comes to applying “labels”? Why is it that so many are now crying out for the same? Or is it okay to give oneself a label? But on what basis is it legitimated, and by whom? The questions come easy; of course the answers not.