Skip to main content

Capital B

A few weeks ago, I was writing about race. This is not something I do a lot, and not something I feel particularly qualified for. But I had a story I thought worth telling, and it came with semantic issues that could not be ignored.

Specifically, I was wrestling, not for the first time, with how to refer to Black people. I couldn’t sidestep the issue — I couldn’t write my way around it — because their racial identity was central to the story.

So I consulted with my son, who is more attuned to the zeitgeist than I, and he told me that “Black with a capital B” was the way to go. He pointed me to an article that laid out the case, which I found interesting and, ultimately, convincing.

So I took his word for it, though partly for selfish reasons. Because, as it happens, capitalizing the word ‘Black’ plays right into my hands. With a single keystroke, I am suddenly able to solve writing problems I’ve been dealing with for years.

Consider, first, that Black is a one-syllable word. This might not matter to you, but to a writer it’s a big deal. By contrast, ‘African American’ is seven syllables, which is absolutely guaranteed to wreck the flow of any sentence it inhabits. And since I find those seven syllables as culturally misleading as they are linguistically clumsy, I am thrilled to trade all seven for one.

Furthermore, that capital B returns to me some control over the word ‘black’ —both as a color and a metaphor — which I’ve felt slipping away of late. I have written, even recently, of white hats and black hats — as well as of black markets — and in the country’s current state of ferment I have to be sensitive to possible insensitivity. I would hate to lose these tropes — they do have their uses — and I’m hoping the capital B can provide some cover to continue using them.

So overall, I was happy with the solution. With the mere capitalization of one highly evocative yet acceptable word, I could march into the racial discussion without needing to tiptoe around the language.

The only problem was what to do about white people?

The article urged the capitalization of the word ‘white’ when used in the context of race. Which sounded only fair. So I did that too.

But in thinking about it since, I’ve realized that I never use the word ‘white’ to describe a person, except in the context of race. Which means that the whiteness of my writing is just assumed.  That white is the default mode for my writing and, indeed, for my worldview. Which is not something I’ve thought about before. Is that wrong? Or just natural? Is there anything I can or should do about?

This is what they call “unconscious bias” in the well-meaning but problematic “diversity departments” I sometimes write for. We all have it to some extent. The mere act of noticing that someone is in fact Black betrays a certain bias. White people generally don’t register that other white people are white.

So where do we draw the line between unconscious bias and racism? There are those who say there is no line. That racism is racism, and that there are no degrees of it. While I understand this impulse, it seems harsh to me. It minimizes what I think is genuine concern and good will among white people.

Nonetheless, I’m quite sure that my unconscious bias can, if I’m not vigilant, color anything I write. (Note my intentional use of the word ‘color’ — slightly eyebrow-raising in this context — just to demonstrate how politically fraught certain common words can become.)

But it turns out that in light of recent events, this whole subject has been on the minds of news organizations, as well. Just yesterday, as I was finishing this piece, the New York Times announced, in an editorial, its decision to use the capital B. The paper will not, however, capitalize ‘white,’ which, they say, “doesn’t represent a shared culture and history in the way Black does.” And besides, white nationalists use it for their own creepy purposes. So, as you can see here today, I have rethought the capital W. For now.

I strive, not always successfully, to be correct in my use of the language, with the understanding that ‘correct’ will always be a word framed in air quotes.

Language reflects culture, and our culture now changes far too rapidly to separate the language being used from the context in which it’s used. Context — where and how words are used in real life — is the ultimate arbiter of correctness.

But one thing is certain. Language is a moving target. It never stops evolving, sometimes abruptly. I assume I’ll just keep evolving along with it.

Berkley MI



  1. I suggest You register myriad unconscious generalizations of every person you meet, including The “race” of any White whom you meet. In other words, I suspect you do notice. It just isn’t at the top of your hierarchy of thoughts.

  2. I was admonished by 3 of my grandchildren the other day by referring to Blacks. “Gramma”, “Don’t ever say Blacks. My reply, “Blacks call themselves Black. Why can’t I? “Black is ok, just not Blacks. You have to say Black people or Black person.” I get it.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Three Perfect Examples of Both-Siderism You Might’ve Missed

Let’s take a trip down memory lane, all the way back to three weeks ago. I know, it seems like at least half a year, but the invasion of the Capitol on January 6 has still not been fully absorbed. So let me direct your attention to a 60 Minutes segment from the Sunday immediately following that very dark Wednesday. Leslie Stahl did a thirteen-minute interview with Nancy Pelosi about the events of that day. Roughly twelve minutes was spent on a tour of the ransacked House chamber, with Pelosi recreating the scene — her office invaded, her computer stolen, her staff under the table for two hours in the dark. And that idiot with his feet on her desk. This is common knowledge now, but it was still a blur that Sunday. The razor in the apple came just before the ten-minute mark in the clip. Now sitting across from Pelosi, discussing the road forward, Stahl made the outrageously disingenuous claim that “You are not known as a person who compromises.” Which Pelosi was having none of

Coup d’Etat for Dummies

As coups go, this was pathetic. The mob acted on Trump’s orders, as if there were some sort of plan. Given that “Trump” and “plan” should never appear in the same sentence, what were they thinking? Suppose they actually did stop the certification of the electors. Then what? Did they think this would magically give Trump a second term? Or make him president for life? Or that they could shoot Nancy Pelosi, hang Mike Pence, strafe the floor of Congress with AR-15s, then go out and party? What was the fantasy? It’s an important question, because several thousand of these morons assembled, on Trump’s whim, to act out that fantasy. Maybe they thought Trump would reward them. Give them medals, or at least pardons. If so, they haven’t paid much attention for the last four years. Loyalty is something Trump leeches from others. He never, ever returns it. It’s a quid with no chance of a pro quo . Trump stiffs everybody. A bunch of these morons are now looking at multi-year prison ter

Alexei Navalny is a Whole Other Kind of Tough

What are we to make of Alexei Navalny? What are we to think of someone who makes himself a willing martyr to an impossible cause? How do we get our brains around this strange amalgam of Gandhi, Muhammad Ali, and Joan of Arc? First, he gets poisoned with a deadly nerve agent, ordered by Putin, the world’s most dangerous man. He wakes up from a coma in Germany. He recovers in a mere six months, though it’s unclear to what extent he’s still affected. Then, as long as he’s in Germany, he might as well go rummaging through Putin’s carefully crafted past. He makes a video exploding the myth of Putin the super-spy — the one where Putin intrepidly defends Russia from his Cold War post in East Germany. Navalny replaces that myth with the reality of Putin’s real job at that time — a petty bureaucrat in the minor leagues of the KGB. But that’s just the beginning. The same video goes on to expose — with stunning drone footage — what is surely the most corrupt piece of real estate on the p