Writing Task Write a thorough critical assessment of The New York Times columnist John Eligan’s “A Debate Over Identity and Race Asks, Are African-Americans ‘Black’ or ‘black’?” In your assessment, summarize Eligan's central claims, reasons, and assumptions. Discuss how he limits claims and describes and responds to any counterarguments. State your assessment of how convincing the argument is and what its weaknesses are, if any. A Debate Over Identity and Race Asks, Are African-Americans ‘Black’ or ‘black’? The push to capitalize black to refer to African-Americans is far more than a typographical change. By John Eligon June 26, 2020 It’s the difference between black and Black. A longtime push by African-American scholars and writers to capitalize the word black in the context of race has gained widespread acceptance in recent weeks and unleashed a deep debate over identity, race and power. Hundreds of news organizations over the past month have changed their style to Black in reference to the race of people, including The Associated Press, long considered an influential arbiter of journalism style. Far more than a typographical change, the move is part of a generations-old struggle over how best to refer to those who trace their ancestry to Africa. The capitalization of black, which has been pushed for years, strikes at deeper questions over the treatment of people of African descent, who were stripped of their identities and enslaved in centuries past, and whose struggles to become fully accepted as part of the American experience continue to this day. “Blackness fundamentally shapes any core part of any black person’s life in the U.S. context, and really around the world,” said Brittney Cooper, an associate professor at Rutgers University whose latest book, “Eloquent Rage,” explores black feminism. “In the choice to capitalize, we are paying homage to a history with a very particular kind of political engagement.” The move toward Black is not embraced by all African-Americans, and two of the country’s major news outlets, The New York Times and The Washington Post, are still wrestling over whether to make the change. “Black is a color,” said the Rev. Jesse L. Jackson, the longtime civil rights leader who popularized the term “African-American” in an effort to highlight the cultural heritage of those with ancestral ties to Africa. “We built the country through the African slave trade. African-American acknowledges that. Any term that emphasizes the color and not the heritage separates us from our heritage.” Did you know you can share 10 gift articles a month, even with nonsubscribers? Share this article. There are also concerns that turning black into a proper noun lumps people of the African diaspora into a monolithic group and erases the diversity of their experiences. Some have said it bestows credibility upon a social construct created to oppress black people. Perhaps the most notable concern is what to do about white and brown as racial identifiers. So far, most news organizations have declined to capitalize white, generally arguing that it is an identifier of skin color, not shared experience, and that white supremacist groups have adopted that convention. But some scholars say that to write “Black” but not “White” is to give white people a pass on seeing themselves as a race and recognizing all the privileges they get from it. “Whiteness is not incidental,” the sociologist Eve Ewing wrote on Twitter in arguing to capitalize white as well. She added: “Whiteness is a thing. Whiteness is endowed with social meaning that allows people to move through the world in a way that people who are not white are not able to do.” At a recent online meeting of Race/Related, a cross-desk team devoted to race coverage at The Times, a discussion of whether to capitalize black or not made clear that there is not universal agreement, even among African-Americans on the staff. “It has been the subject of a lively and surprising debate,” said Dean Baquet, the Times’s executive editor, who has indicated that he will announce a decision on the issue soon. The debate over racial vocabulary is unfolding amid growing recognition across society of the need to tackle racism after several high-profile police killings of black people incited mass protests nationwide. The acceptable terms in America for identifying black people have evolved over generations, from colored to Negro to black and African-American. Also commonly used is “people of color,” an umbrella term used to include many ethnic minorities. In the aftermath of the George Floyd killing, which has unleashed a national conversation on questions of race and racism, many say the country is long overdue to standardize the use of the uppercase B in black, which has been commonly used at black media outlets for a long time. The New York Amsterdam News, for instance, describes itself as “the oldest Black newspaper in the country that offers the ‘New Black View’ within local, national and international news for the Black community.” The debate among black people in America over how they should be described has often centered on identity as a political statement. In her 1904 essay “Do We Need Another Name?” Fannie Barrier Williams, an educator and activist, described a lively discussion unfolding at the time among African-American scholars over whether to shed the label Negro in favor of terms like colored or Afro-American. Colored, she wrote, was a “name that is suggestive of progress toward respectful recognition.” At the heart of the discussion, she wrote, was whether African-Americans needed a new label divorced from Negro and its connections to slavery, something of a fresh start that indicated their new place in society as free people. Some, like W.E.B. Du Bois, favored keeping the term Negro and transforming it into something positive — an affirmation of their perseverance as a people and their freedom. “There are so many Negroes who are not Negroes, so many colored people who are not colored, and so many Afro-Americans who are not Africans that it is simply impossible even to coin a term that will precisely designate and connote all the people who are now included under any one of the terms mentioned,” Barrier Williams wrote. Negro became the predominant identifier of people of African descent for much of the first half of the 20th century, and even then descendants of enslaved people from Africa waged a yearslong campaign before getting most of society, including The Times, to capitalize it. With the rise of the Black Power movement in the mid-1960s, the word black, once seen as an insult for many African-Americans, started winning embrace. In just a few years, it became the predominant descriptor of black people as Negro became obsolete. Mr. Jackson’s campaign brought African-American into popular use in the late 1980s, and it is now often used interchangeably with black. For proponents of capitalizing black, there are grammatical reasons — it is a proper noun, referring to a specific group of people with a shared political identity, shaped by colonialism and slavery. But some see it as a moral issue as well. It confers a sense of power and respect to black people, who have often been relegated to the lowest rungs of society through racist systems, black scholars say. “Race as a concept is not real in the biological sense, but it’s very real for our own identities,” said Whitney Pirtle, an assistant professor of sociology specializing in critical race theory at the University of California, Merced. “I think that capitalizing B both sort of puts respect to those identities, but also alludes to the humanities.” Vilna Bashi Treitler, a professor of black studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara, said that racial categories were fabricated, created to denigrate people considered to be nonwhite. Black and white are adjectives, not proper nouns to be capitalized, she said, calling a term like “African descendant” a more appropriate way to characterize black people. “It’s a placeholder for describing the group of people who are perpetually reinserted into the bottom of the racial hierarchy,” Dr. Bashi Treitler, the author of the book “The Ethnic Project,” said of the term black. “I think we can be more revolutionary than to embrace the oppressor’s term for us.” In her first two books, Crystal M. Fleming, a sociologist and author, lowercased black in part because of academic differences between race and ethnicity. But the more she researched, the more those distinctions became blurred in her mind. She came to see race as a concept that could signify a politically and culturally meaningful identity. Now Dr. Fleming, a professor at the State University of New York at Stony Brook and the author of “How to be Less Stupid About Race,” is writing a book for young people about fighting racism. She has decided to use Black. Part of the reason, she said, was her desire to honor black experiences and speak with moral clarity about antiracism. Another reason was more basic, born in the urgency of the current moment. “Frankly,” she said, “because I want to. That’s also something that I think we need to see more of in every field — black people doing what we want to do.”
John Eligon’s “A Debate Over Identity and Race Asks, Are African-Americans ‘Black’ or ‘black’?” examines the debate surrounding whether to capitalize the term “black” when referring to people of African descent. While hundreds of news organizations have made the change to capitalize “Black,” the decision is not without controversy. The article summarizes the history of racial terminology in America and provides arguments for and against capitalizing “Black,” including the concern that it lumps people of the African diaspora into a monolithic group, while ignoring the diversity of their experiences.
Eligon’s central claim is that capitalizing “Black” is a political statement that acknowledges the specific struggles and shared identity of people of African descent shaped by colonialism and slavery. His assumption is that capitalizing “Black” would convey power and respect to Black people and provide moral clarity for anti-racism.
Eligon limits his claims by acknowledging that the debate is not universally agreed upon, even among African-Americans. He describes counterarguments, including concerns about erasing the diversity of experiences among people of African descent and the appropriateness of labeling racial categories. He also responds to counterarguments, including the assertion that capitalizing “white” is necessary to recognize whiteness as a social construct that confers privileges.
Overall, the argument is convincing in the sense that capitalizing “Black” has important symbolic and political implications that acknowledge the shared experiences of Black people. However, the weaknesses of the argument are that it could be seen as further racializing an already divisive issue, potentially ignoring the experiences of other people of color, and obscuring the historical specificity of terms such as “Negro.”
Can you expand on your explanation of each of the three weaknesses you mention?
Certainly!
The first weakness is that the debate over whether to capitalize "Black" could be seen as further racializing an already divisive issue. Although the intention behind capitalizing "Black" is to recognize and honor the shared experiences of Black people, it could also be perceived as emphasizing racial differences at a time when many people are advocating for greater unity and inclusivity. It's possible that some people might feel excluded or marginalized by a focus on a particular racial identity rather than a broader sense of shared humanity.
The second weakness is that the push to capitalize "Black" could potentially ignore the experiences of other people of color. While the historical and contemporary struggles of Black people are certainly significant, the issues faced by other people of color - such as Asian Americans, Latinx people, and Indigenous people - are also important and deserving of recognition. If the debate over whether to capitalize "Black" overshadows the experiences of other marginalized groups, it could inadvertently perpetuate further division and marginalization.
The third weakness is that the debate over capitalization could obscure the historical specificity of terms such as "Negro." While "Negro" has negative connotations in contemporary usage, it was a term that was actively embraced by some Black people during the Civil Rights era as a way of asserting their dignity and humanity. By shifting the focus solely to "Black" as a racial identifier, there is a risk of losing the historical context and nuance of earlier terminology. This could be seen as erasing the complex and evolving history of Black identity in America.
Are there any points that Eligon could have explained further or clarified?
One aspect of Eligon's article that could have been further explained or clarified is the debate around the capitalization of "white." While he acknowledges that some scholars argue that "white" should also be capitalized, he does not go into much detail about why this is the case or how it relates to the larger issue of racial identity. Additionally, Eligon mentions that some news organizations have declined to capitalize "white" because it is seen as an identifier of skin color rather than shared experience, but he does not provide any further explanation of this argument. A more detailed examination of the arguments for and against capitalizing "white" would have provided greater context for readers and added depth to the article's overall analysis of racial identity and language.
Are there important exceptions to any of the points Eligon makes that should be acknowledged?
There are a few exceptions to the points that Eligon makes that are worth acknowledging.
First, while Eligon argues that capitalizing "Black" would provide moral clarity for anti-racism, it's worth noting that some activists and scholars argue that simply changing language is not enough to address systemic racism. While recognizing the shared experiences of Black people is important, it is also necessary to actively dismantle racist structures and institutions.
Second, while Eligon notes that the term "Black" has been widely embraced by many people of African descent, it's important to acknowledge that not all Black people identify with this term. Some prefer other labels, such as African American or Afro-Caribbean, which reflect their particular cultural or national background. Therefore, while capitalizing "Black" might be meaningful for some, it is not necessarily a universal preference.
Finally, while Eligon discusses the potential drawbacks of capitalizing "Black," such as erasing the diversity of experiences among people of African descent, it's also important to note that failing to capitalize "Black" can be perceived as minimizing or ignoring the unique experiences of Black people. Therefore, the decision to capitalize or not capitalize "Black" is complex and depends on a variety of factors, including historical context, cultural identity, and individual preference.
Does Eligon give sufficient evidence for the generalizations he makes? Is there anywhere where more evidence or a different kind of evidence would be helpful?
Overall, Eligon provides a range of evidence and perspectives on the debate over whether to capitalize "Black," including quotes from scholars, activists, and journalists. He also provides historical context, discussing the evolution of racial terminology in America and the ways in which different labels have been embraced or rejected over time.
However, in some cases, more evidence or a different kind of evidence might be helpful to support his generalizations. For example, when discussing the potential drawbacks of capitalizing "Black," such as erasing the diversity of experiences among people of African descent, it would be useful to see more specific examples or case studies that illustrate how this might play out in practice. Similarly, when discussing the argument that "white" should also be capitalized, it would be helpful to see more data or research on the prevalence of this argument, and how it is received by different groups of people.
In general, while Eligon provides a solid foundation of evidence and argumentation, there are places where more in-depth analysis or supporting evidence could further strengthen his claims.
Does Eligon make any assumptions that might be controversial or that might require further examination or evidence?
One assumption that Eligon makes that might be controversial or require further examination is that capitalizing "Black" would provide moral clarity for anti-racism. While it's true that language has the power to shape cultural perceptions and attitudes, it's not clear that capitalizing "Black" would necessarily lead to greater clarity or understanding of anti-racism efforts. Some people might argue that actions and policies are more important than linguistic changes, or that other terminology might be more effective in conveying the nuances of Black identity and experience.
Additionally, Eligon assumes that capitalizing "Black" would honor the shared experiences of people of African descent, but this might not be the case for all individuals or communities. Some Black people might feel that capitalizing "Black" is too narrow or limiting, and that it does not fully capture the diversity and complexity of their experiences. Others might feel that other labels, such as African American or Afro-Caribbean, more accurately reflect their cultural and national identity.
Overall, while Eligon's assumptions are grounded in evidence and analysis, they may not be universally accepted or applicable in all contexts, and they require ongoing discussion and examination to fully understand their implications.
Are there any other arguments for or against capitalizing "Black" that Eligon should have discussed?
Yes, there are several other arguments for and against capitalizing "Black" that Eligon could have discussed.
One argument for capitalizing "Black" is that it acknowledges the political and historical significance of Black identity. By treating "Black" as a proper noun, it elevates it to the level of other racial and ethnic identities, such as Asian American or Native American. This can help to foster a greater sense of pride and solidarity among Black people, and signal to the wider community that Black identity is an important and worthy aspect of human diversity.
Another argument against capitalizing "Black" is that it could obscure the diversity of experiences and identities within the Black community. By treating "Black" as a monolithic group, it could reinforce stereotypes or oversimplifications about the range of cultures, languages, and histories that make up Black identity. This could lead to further marginalization or erasure of Black people whose experiences do not fit within the dominant narrative of Blackness.
One argument for capitalizing "White" is that it acknowledges the role of white supremacy and privilege in American society. By treating "White" as a proper noun, it highlights the ways in which whiteness has been constructed as a normative and superior identity, and recognizes that it confers social and political advantages on those who possess it. This can help to promote greater awareness and understanding of systemic racism, and encourage white people to engage in anti-racist activism.
One argument against capitalizing "White" is that it could further entrench racial divisions and animosity. By treating "White" as a racial category on par with "Black," it could reinforce a sense of tribalism or group identity that obscures the complexities of individual experience and identity. This could lead to further polarization and antagonism between racial groups, and undermine efforts to build a more equitable and inclusive society.
Overall, there are many different arguments for and against capitalizing "Black" and "White," and a full discussion of this issue would need to explore a range of perspectives and evidence in order to fully understand its implications.
What are the main strengths of Eligon's argument? Quote at least once to support discussion of each strength.
One strength of Eligon's argument is his ability to provide historical context and show how the debate over capitalizing "Black" is part of a larger struggle for recognition and dignity among people of African descent. For example, he writes:
"The capitalization of black, which has been pushed for years, strikes at deeper questions over the treatment of people of African descent, who were stripped of their identities and enslaved in centuries past, and whose struggles to become fully accepted as part of the American experience continue to this day."
This historical perspective helps to explain why the issue of capitalization is so important to many Black people, and why it has taken on a greater urgency in recent years. By framing the debate in this way, Eligon is able to show how capitalization is not just a linguistic or grammatical issue, but a deeply emotional and symbolic one as well.
Another strength of Eligon's argument is his ability to present a range of perspectives on the issue of capitalization, including those who are in favor of capitalizing "Black" and those who are against it. For example, he quotes Whitney Pirtle, an assistant professor of sociology, who argues:
"Race as a concept is not real in the biological sense, but it’s very real for our own identities...I think that capitalizing B both sort of puts respect to those identities, but also alludes to the humanities.”
By presenting a diversity of voices and viewpoints, Eligon is able to show how the issue of capitalization is complex and multifaceted, and how different people may have different reasons for supporting or opposing the change.
A third strength of Eligon's argument is his ability to raise important questions and concerns about the potential drawbacks of capitalizing "Black," such as erasing the diversity of experiences within the Black community. For example, he quotes Vilna Bashi Treitler, a professor of black studies, who argues:
“Black and white are adjectives, not proper nouns to be capitalized...I think we can be more revolutionary than to embrace the oppressor’s term for us.”
By raising these concerns, Eligon is able to acknowledge the complexity and nuance of the issue, and show how the decision to capitalize or not capitalize "Black" is not a straightforward one.
What would be a useful way to respond to Eligon's article to further the conversation on these issues?
A useful way to respond to Eligon's article to further the conversation on these issues would be to engage with the different arguments and perspectives he presents, and to add one's own thoughts and experiences to the discussion.
One could start by reflecting on their own views on the issue of capitalizing "Black," and why they hold those views. Do they believe that capitalization is an important step toward acknowledging the political and historical significance of Black identity, or do they think that it could obscure the diversity of experiences within the Black community? What evidence or experiences have shaped their perspective?
Next, one could consider the perspectives of others who have a different view on the issue, and try to understand where they are coming from. This might involve listening to people who have had different experiences of race and racism, or seeking out scholarly work on the issue that provides a more nuanced understanding of the complexities involved.
Finally, one could think about what practical steps could be taken to address the issues at the heart of the debate over capitalizing "Black." This might involve advocating for changes in language use in one's own community or workplace, or supporting organizations that are working to promote greater equity and inclusion for people of all races and ethnicities.
By engaging in this kind of thoughtful and open-minded conversation, we can deepen our understanding of the complex issues surrounding race and identity, and work toward building a more just and equitable society.