Race, ethnicity, gender: Call people what they want to be called

CNN has decided to start capitalizing the word “Black” when it’s used as a racial identifier. It’s capitalizing “White,” as well.

Sounds fair enough, right?

Except, when it comes to racial and cultural identifiers, things are rarely clear-cut. There are historic, linguistic, and geographic factors to consider, and I’ll discuss each of these in turn. But before you read any further, here’s a spoiler alert: I’ll probably offend you somewhere along the way because I’ll be analyzing this question based a single broad principle. This principle may affirm your beliefs in some cases, but they might offend them in others.

To me, it all comes down to one thing: Respect. What do YOU want to be called? Within very broad parameters, I’ll respect your wishes and call you THAT. That’s the prime directive, in my book. Whether it’s inconvenient or makes sense to me is irrelevant. Whether it treats YOU with respect is what matters.

There’s one qualification: Is what you want to call yourself so inaccurate or offensive to others that their rights outweigh yours? This is, obviously, subjective, but I suggest a very high bar. Self-identification, like free speech, should be protected and respected unless there’s some clear and overriding reason not to do so.

I’ll use the gender pronoun you choose for yourself, because I believe you know a lot better than I do whether you’re male or female. And I’ll use the racial or ethnic identifier you choose, because I believe you’ve got the right to choose the language you use to describe yourself.  

Black and white

Identity labels can be frustrating, because it can be hard to keep up: Preferred labels often change from one generation to the next, and they’re not always universal, even within a single generation. Once upon a time, “colored” and “negro” were accepted by those they were meant to describe. (The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and Martin Luther King Jr.’s use of the word “negro” are cases in point.) They aren’t anymore. But “person of color” is.

Some prefer Black, others prefer African American. There are disadvantages to both terms. “Black” defines a person based solely on skin color, but a very dark-skinned man from New Delhi isn’t “Black,” because the term is specific to a different racial group. On the other hand, not every member of this group is from Africa, so African American isn’t entirely accurate, either. Bottom line: Call the individual in question what they want to be called. If you’re not sure, ask. It’s about respect. Period.

The “n-word” is highly offensive in every sense. It’s always been used in a degrading, dismissive sense. On top of that, it’s a slur, which means it was never even a proper word in the first place. Some within the Black culture use it in referring to one another, which is their prerogative. I personally find the word offensive no matter who’s using it, but I’m not Black, so it’s not my call whether a Black person uses it or not.

Yes, these things can get complicated, but applying the principle of respect simplifies them.

What about “white”? AP doesn’t capitalize it, but now CNN does. Well, in this case, I can comment because it does apply to me. Personally, I don’t want it capitalized, anymore than I’d want the word “tall” or “bald” or “male” capitalized. I don’t particularly identify with the color of my skin, so emphasizing it with a capital letter makes no sense to me.

So, why capitalize Black? Again, if members of that group want it capitalized, I have no problem with it. It’s about respect. But more than that, I understand why they would want it that way. It’s natural for members of an oppressed group to find commonality in the reason for their oppression, and to fight back by asserting their common identity. It’s a means of reclaiming the pride that others have sought to strip from you. I’ve never been oppressed or degraded because I’m white, so I have no reason to emphasize that aspect of my nature any more than any other. I’m neither proud nor ashamed of it. I was just born that way.

Clueless explorers

Here’s an easy one: Most indigenous peoples in the Western Hemisphere don’t like being called “Indians,” which is an absurd term linguistically, since they’re not from India. The designation is based on a mistake by European explorers, who thought they’d found a shortcut to India. They hadn’t. The term ought to be an embarrassment to the descendants of European explorers who were dumb enough to make such a colossal blunder; I know it is to me.

After that, however, things get a little more complicated. “Native Americans” can be useful in a broad sense, but it overlooks the fact that these were (and are) members of specific, distinct, and sovereign nations.

When Europeans arrived in the Western Hemisphere, they viewed all the people they found here as barbarians who needed to be “civilized” and “saved.” They refused to recognize different nations of people — Arapaho, Seminole, Chumash, Paiute, Sioux — that were every bit as distinct from one another as Italians are from Danes, and Irish are from Czechs. By lumping them all together as “pagans” and “savages,” the invaders could justify (in their own small minds) butchering them and forcing them to sign treaties they tore up the minute it suited their purpose.

Once they’d butchered them, they’d sometimes scalp them and sell those scalps for a bounty. The scalps were known as “redskins,” just like the football team that recently changed the name as a result of public pressure (and the threat of not being able to build a new stadium where they wanted to).

That’s stomach-churning, but even if it weren’t true, the name would be offensive. How would you feel about a team being called the blackskins or brownskins or whiteskins? Defining someone else by the color of their skin has to be one of the most superficial, insulting things you can do.

Sioux, Seminoles, Blackhawks and Warriors

This raises the issue of sports team names in general: Under the principle of respect, each indigenous nation should have the right to decide whether its name should be used. Do such nicknames denigrate the nations or honor them? Seven Sioux tribal councils asked the University of North Dakota to drop the name “Fighting Sioux.” On the other hand, Florida’s Seminole Tribe has endorsed the use of the Seminole name by Florida State University.

Both these decisions should be respected.

The situation surrounding the Chicago Blackhawks hockey team is slightly more complicated. The team’s founder named it for the 86th Infantry “Blackhawk Division,” in which he had served. But that division, in turn, was named for a war leader named Black Hawk from the Sauk nation, and the team’s logo is an indigenous man’s head in profile, which feathers in his hair.

The logo illustrates that not all communication is verbal: Imagery can be just as important. Actions like the “war whoop” and “tomahawk chop” (which are annoying as hell even apart from their racial stereotyping) are clearly offensive, as are images like Cleveland Indians’ now-retired Chief Wahoo.

Getting rid of the Wahoo mascot, however, didn’t resolve the issue of the team name: Members of indigenous nations don’t like it, and — as mentioned above — it’s inaccurate, to boot. 

“Warriors” can refer a courageous fighting force of any ethnic background, so everything depends on the imagery associated with it. Names like “Chiefs” and “Braves” apply specifically to indigenous peoples and seem complimentary, but are they appropriate? Again, the best way to determine that is to defer to the wishes of the people being represented. Here’s another way of looking at it: Would you want your face on a product without your permission?*

How would you like someone else making gobs of money off your heritage? Or your work?

Black musicians were routinely paid a pittance for their groundbreaking work during the 1950s and ’60s — work that defined rock and roll music — because they were forced into unfair contracts by white record executives who profited off their work.

Should these musicians and/or their heirs be compensated fairly now? Of course, they should. And if you argue, “well, they signed a contract,” here’s my response. First, contracts signed under duress are not valid, and racism is one of the most extreme forms of duress you can imagine. Second, if the people in power gave a damn about the sanctity of a written contract, they would have honored the treaties they signed with indigenous nations.

Not every idea is a good one

The term “Latinx” is an interesting case. You hear it on TV from time to time, usually from journalists on cable news channels. The idea, to use a gender-neutral version of Latino/Latina, seems well-meaning on the face of it.

But is this really how Latinos and Latinas want to be referred to? Part of their language — and their cultural tradition — is the use of masculine and feminine nouns. In imposing a gender-neutral term, are we seeking to recognize gender neutrality at the expense of cultural heritage?

Personally, I think “Latinx” sounds contrived. No language I’m aware of uses an “x” to indicate neutrality. The word reminds me of Kleenex and X-rays, and X-rated films: not exactly the most flattering points of reference.

It would have made far more sense, linguistically, to create a term like Latini, because the “i” is a recognized plural form that can encompass either gender (e.g., alumni) or both. It would be like using “they” instead of “he” or “she” when making a general statement. It’s not proper English, technically speaking, but most people use it anyway, and it resolves the issue.

If there really IS an issue.

Which, when it comes right down to it, there may not be: “Latinx” seems to be a solution in search of a problem. A 2019 survey showed that a plurality within this ethnic group (44%) preferred to be described as “Hispanic,” which is ALREADY gender-neutral. And it wasn’t even close: Just 24% preferred Latino or Latina, while an underwhelming 2% picked Latinx. That’s good enough for me.

If, at some point, a majority in the Hispanic community choose to refer to themselves as Latinx, I’ll respect that and refer to them that way. If individuals tell me that’s how they identify themselves, I’ll respect that, too.

Limitations

There are limits, however, to self-identification, just as there are to free speech. If you’re not a member of a group but seek to profit by identifying with it, that’s not OK. This is about respect, and you can’t respect another person’s identity if you’re trying to steal it.

This isn’t about hairstyles or musical tastes. It’s about people pretending to be something they’re not for the sake of profit or mockery (blackface and caricatures of indigenous peoples come to mind). It’s about people who take credit for the work of others, and make money off it. It’s about people who seek scholarships by pretending to be indigenous people when they’re not.

These, however, are extreme examples. They’re exceptions, rather than the rule. The rule should be, plain and simple: Respect people’s right to self-identify the way they want to. They know who they are better than anyone else, and we damn well ought to honor that.

*The same should apply to nicknames like Vikings and Fighting Irish if those ethnic communities object.

Photo by Lorie Schaull, 2017, CC BY-SA 2.0, https://www.flickr.com/photos/11020019@N04/32512423746