The first comment?
Really guys?
Just, wow.
I was hoping we might get some elevated discussion about relative manufacturing feasibility between early 20th century America and early 21st century America. But here we are.
Really guys?
Just, wow.
I was hoping we might get some elevated discussion about relative manufacturing feasibility between early 20th century America and early 21st century America. But here we are.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Feeding trolls like this actually does more damage than they do. A flagkilled comment with no replies is the proper outcome for the GP—it's what minimizes damage to the container. We can come along and ban the account later.
In egregious cases, heads-ups to hn@ycombinator.com are welcome.
There are various ways to get banned, but the relevant ones in this case involve moderator intervention.
[MESSAGE TO THE MOD: you're doing a great job, i'm good]
What's the reason Ars Technica capitalizes the one ethnicity and not the other?
Actual question, not a native speaker.
If you're genuinely curious, there are ways of satisfying that which don't damage the forum, e.g. a web search.
I'm a regular HN reader and I never stumbled over any of those apparently very repetive and ideological talks about capitalization. I read global news like the Economist and sometimes Bloomberg/FT and they certainly didn't address this apparently rather new convention anywhere prominent.
Here in Germany, no ethnicity gets capitalized. We capitalize nouns, first words in a sentence and formal pronouns.
I know there's a lot of emotions in the US about race but I have the impression that in this specific case this alertness might stand in the way of genuine and curious conversation, which would be a cornerstone of every just and inclusive society.
I hope the damage you see caused by my question wasn't long lasting and I thought that I got some interesting, contentful and non-repetitive replies.
Statistically, yes. I realize that sounds odd, but the moderation perspective has to look at the site globally.
For one thing, the consensus among major newspapers on the capitalization of white/black is not absolute; the New York Times only capitalizes “Black,” while the Washington Post capitalizes both “Black” and “White.” For another thing, many white people find the selective capitalizing demonstrated in this article to be demeaning. I am one of them. Silencing that voice in particular strikes me as prejudiced moderation. Finally, non-Americans may be curious about this recent change in vernacular. They are entitled to answers.
Until recently, most publications didn't capitalize "white" or "black", but capitalized everything else ("Indian", "Native American", "Asian", etc.).
Recently, there has been increasing recognition that Black isn't just a (lowercase) skin color, but an identity like the rest and thus ought to be given the same capital-letter-recognition "Black". A large number of publications have made this change in the past couple years.
The reason "white" still isn't capitalized is because many people are uncomfortable recognizing white identity -- because in the past and still ongoing, that is often linked to white supremacism.
So as long as capitalizing "White" continues to carry (even unintended) associations of white supremacism, it's probable that most publications will keep it lowercase.
To be clear, I'm not expressing any opinions here as to whether this is right or wrong or desirable or not (edit: or even whether white identity exists). This is just a description of the reasons for things currently.
There is no unified "white" identity. I am white, my ethnicity is Romanian. There is no shared identity between me, and for example someone with German heritage. So to capitalize "White" is silly in my eyes.
edit: unified may have been a poor choice here. "Shared" is what I was getting at. Of course people across the US have different experiences and opinions.
Obviously people in different states lead different lives. It's still possible to have a shared identity through facing similar struggles and discrimination.
Just because I grew up in IL and my cousin grew up in CA doesn't mean we can't have a shared identity as Romanian-Americans either.
edit: I have amended this and my parent post to clarify I meant a shared experience, not a unified one.
Identities are generally fluid and reflect matters of degrees of commonality and shared experience.
In your case, there are certainly some things you share in common with Germans, e.g. you share an Indo-European linguistic heritage which you don't share, for example, with someone who has Japanese heritage.
Of course that's simply an academic point -- you're free to feel whatever degree of identity affinity you like, which is what matters. Identity is constructed.
Well sure, and this is what I believe is happening with the Black identity. Unified may have been the wrong word to convey what I mean.
I have zero reason to feel anything like that with a "white" identity, germans being just an example. There is no real anti-white discrimination in a systemic sense like what black people face, so I see no reason that white would warrant a capitalization. There is just no similar shared identity.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/pr/2020/07/29/washington-post...
As a white person, I agree with the staff of the Post. It would be conspicuous and demeaning to capitalize every demographic identifier except “white.” White Americans also have a distinct cultural identity, extending back to the writings and observations of Alexis de Tocqueville, which is more than just the actions of white Americans’ worst examples.
If your question is "why not african-american"? It's likely because not every black person is from Africa, or is American. Personally I think African-American is a poor term and Black American is better (if they're American, obviously).
[0]: https://apnews.com/article/71386b46dbff8190e71493a763e8f45a