> It's NOT acceptable to call people "Black" (note, pretty much equivalent to the n-word)

That's a rather extreme claim. I'd be careful about holding strong views on things you don't understand very well, especially on such a charged topic.

Well, the Associated Press style guide squarely disagrees with you.

Not having a label for something makes it really difficult to talk about issues around that subject. How am I supposed to advocate for a group of people who have it rough, specifically for their skin color, if I can't use the term for their skin color?

https://blackvoicenews.com/2020/06/17/black-with-a-capital-b...

> even USian anthropologists (roughly) agree with me

But also note that the position of the AAA is not that racial inequality does not exist at all (and therefore should not be spoken of, as seems to be your position); their position is that it exists on social, rather than biological, grounds:

> we conclude that present-day inequalities between so-called "racial" groups are not consequences of their biological inheritance but products of historical and contemporary social, economic, educational, and political circumstances

I can’t open the link, but what words should I use to describe people of different skin color when that is appropriate or necessary?

Saying someone is black or someone identifying as black is not the same as the n-word, this is hilariously out of touch

I agree with you, though I don’t know if it’s really exporting to be writing about it on a personal blog or even an American news site like this one. Note the anthropologist take was adopted in 1998; things have changed a lot domestically since then.