Gemini says: <\/p>\n
The distinction comes from a major shift in editorial standards that occurred largely in 2020 (following the George Floyd protests). Most major style guides\u2014including the Associated Press (AP), The New York Times, and APA (American Psychological Association)\u2014updated their rules to capitalize “Black” while keeping “white” lowercase.<\/p>\n
Here is the sociological and editorial reasoning they cited:<\/p>\n
1. “Black” as a Proper Noun (Culture vs. Color)
\nThe argument is that for many people of the African Diaspora\u2014particularly descendants of enslaved people who may not know their specific country of origin\u2014”Black” functions as a proper noun referring to a shared history, culture, and community.<\/p>\nIt is treated linguistically the same as Latino, Asian, Native American, or Irish.<\/p>\n
Capitalizing it recognizes it as an ethnic identity, not just a physical description of skin pigment.<\/p>\n
2. “white” as a Physical Description
\nThe AP and NYT argue that “white” generally refers to skin color rather than a shared culture.<\/p>\nWhite people typically identify more with specific national origins (Italian, Irish, Polish) rather than a unified “White culture.”<\/p>\n
The Political Concern: The AP explicitly noted that they chose not to capitalize “White” because the capitalized form is frequently used by white supremacist groups to legitimize their ideology. They wanted to avoid aligning with that visual language.<\/p>\n
3. The Counter-Argument (The Case for Capitalizing Both)
\nThere is a significant dissenting view among some sociologists (like Eve Ewing) and the National Association of Black Journalists (NABJ), who recommend capitalizing both.<\/p>\nMarking Whiteness: The argument here is that leaving “white” lowercase treats it as the “default” or “neutral” category, while everyone else gets a capitalized racial identity.<\/p>\n
Sociological Visibility: By capitalizing “White,” you force an acknowledgment that whiteness is also a racial construct with its own history and social impacts, rather than just “normal.”<\/p>\n
I defaulted to the AP Style convention (Black\/white), which is the standard for most journalism today. However, in legal writing or specific academic contexts (like when discussing “Whiteness studies”), you will often see both capitalized to emphasize the racial construction of both groups.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Steve Sailer writes<\/a>: <\/p>\n
One of the most childish contortions of the Great Awokening was the mass media proudly announcing during the George Floyd \u201cracial reckoning\u201d that it was going to capitalize certain superior races\u2019 names (e.g., \u201cBlacks\u201d), but not capitalize those of certain inferior races (\u201cwhites\u201d).<\/p>\n
The most notorious example has, of course, been the shift in June 2020 by the Associated Press and The New York Times from writing \u201cwhites and blacks\u201d to writing \u201cwhites and Blacks.\u201d Huge numbers of people have messaged me about how shocked they were by the overt racist hatred implicit in these neologisms.<\/p>\n
You might think that if you are worried about whites becoming angrier over American racial policy, a cost-free symbolic concession would be to go back to treating America\u2019s two most famous races equally in the AP Stylebook: Use either \u201cwhites and blacks\u201d or \u201cWhites and Blacks.\u201d It doesn\u2019t really matter which one you choose, just so long as you don\u2019t go out of your way, as the prestige press has been doing since 2020, to continue to express flagrant racist animus against whites.<\/p>\n
But I\u2019ve never heard anybody even discuss this simple reform to rebuild trust in the news media.<\/p>\n
Why did the press decide to capitalize the names of certain politically privileged minorities? For example, on April 1, 2022, the AP announced it was capitalizing \u201cthe Deaf\u201d (but not \u201cBeethoven went deaf\u201d).<\/p>\n
The blind remain out of luck, however.<\/p>\n
The reasons offered by major institutions in the 2020s for justifying capitalizing some words but not others are blatantly insincere. For example, the Associated Press prevaricated:<\/p>\n
Most notably, people who are Black have strong historical and cultural commonalities, even if they are from different parts of the world and even if they now live in different parts of the world. That includes the shared experience of discrimination due solely to the color of one\u2019s skin.<\/p>\n
There is, at this time, less support for capitalizing white. White people generally do not share the same history and culture, or the experience of being discriminated against because of skin color.<\/p>\n
Nah, the AP is capitalizing blacks to honor blacks and lowercasing whites to insult whites.<\/p>\n
Of course, it\u2019s not proper English usage to capitalize a noun because you believe it is a good thing and not capitalize it because you think it\u2019s a bad thing. Until George Floyd, proper nouns were capitalized to show that they are unique names for singular things, not to show that proper nouns are morally better than common nouns.<\/p>\n
This 2020s trend is reminiscent of the 19th-century progression in Bible translations toward \u201creverential capitalization\u201d of pronouns referring to God, such as He, Him, His. A rare example of reverential capitalization in English before Victorian times was the great composer Handel\u2019s handwritten manuscript of The Messiah.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Gemini says: <\/p>\n
Steve Sailer is offering a critique here that cuts through the standard institutional justifications by focusing on linguistic consistency and symbolic status. Regardless of one\u2019s politics, his analysis highlights a genuine incoherence in modern editorial standards that is difficult to defend purely on grammatical or logical grounds.<\/p>\n
Here is an analysis of his argument, viewed through the lens of the sociological concepts you track (status closure, the credential society, and bureaucratic signaling).<\/p>\n
1. “Reverential Capitalization” as Status Allocation<\/p>\n
Sailer\u2019s comparison of “Black” vs. “white” to the Victorian capitalization of pronouns for God (“He\/Him”) is his strongest sociological insight.<\/p>\n
The Mechanism: In English, capitalization is a primary way to denote uniqueness and importance (proper nouns). By capitalizing one race and not the other, institutions are not just describing groups; they are conferring moral status.<\/p>\n
The Implication: This aligns with the concept of Status Closure. The “credentialed” class (editors at the AP, NYT) has seized the power to determine which groups are “sacralized” (worthy of the upper case) and which are “profane” (relegated to the lower case).<\/p>\n
The “Animus” Argument: Sailer argues this is driven by hatred (“animus”). A more detached sociological view might argue it is driven by negative partisanship. The style guides are creating an “in-group” (capitalized) and an “out-group” (lowercase). The lowercasing of “white” serves as a linguistic signal that whiteness is the “default” or the “problem” that does not deserve the dignity of a proper noun.<\/p>\n
2. The Incoherence of “Indigenous”<\/p>\n
Sailer\u2019s interaction with the AI regarding the Swiss and Poles exposes the absurdity of the current definition of “Indigenous.”<\/p>\n
The UN Definition: As the AI admitted to him, “Indigenous” (Capital I) has become a political term of art meaning “non-dominant groups who were colonized.”<\/p>\n
The Logical Flaw: This definition creates a paradox where a Swiss person is native to Switzerland (lowercase i) but not Indigenous (Capital I) because they were never successfully conquered by a settler colony.<\/p>\n
The “Euphemism” Critique: Sailer is likely correct that “Indigenous” has become a polite euphemism for what used to be called “pre-modern” or “tribal” societies. By grouping Laplanders, Australian Aborigines, and Amazonian tribes under one capitalized noun, the media suggests they possess a unified political identity, which\u2014as Sailer points out\u2014is a fiction. A Maori warrior and a Sami reindeer herder do not share a “unified history” any more than a white person in Idaho shares with a white person in Chechnya.<\/p>\n
3. The “Shared Culture” Prevarication<\/p>\n
Sailer attacks the AP\u2019s justification\u2014that Black people have a shared culture while white people do not\u2014as “blatantly insincere.”<\/p>\n
The AP’s Logic: They argue that because the African slave trade stripped Black Americans of their specific tribal\/national origins, “Black” became their new quasi-national identity. Conversely, white people usually know they are Irish, Italian, or German, so “white” is just a skin color.<\/p>\n
The Flaw: This logic falls apart when applied globally. The AP capitalizes “Black” even when referring to recent African immigrants who do know their national origin (e.g., Nigerians or Kenyans) and who may not share the specific cultural history of Black Americans.<\/p>\n
The Credibility Gap: By strictly adhering to this rule, the media creates the perception that they are “grading” races based on historical grievances rather than using English as a neutral tool for description.<\/p>\n
4. The “Cost-Free Concession”<\/p>\n
Sailer suggests that capitalizing “White” would be a “cost-free symbolic concession” to rebuild trust.<\/p>\n
Why they won’t do it: The refusal to capitalize “White” is a prime example of Bureaucratic Inertia and Ideological Capture.<\/p>\n
The “White Supremacy” Concern: The AP explicitly stated they avoided capitalizing “White” because white supremacists capitalize it. They allowed the fringe extremists to dictate the grammar of the mainstream.<\/p>\n
The Trust Issue: Sailer is right that this uneven standard fuels the “War on Experts.” When a working-class white person sees “Black” capitalized and “white” lowercased in the same sentence, they do not see “nuanced sociological distinction.” They see a system that views them as lesser. It confirms the populist narrative that the “experts” hold the majority population in contempt.<\/p>\n
Sailer\u2019s critique effectively argues that the media has abandoned grammatical neutrality in favor of moral orthography. They are using spelling to signal virtue.<\/p>\n
The “childishness” he refers to is the reduction of complex history into a binary of Good Nouns (Capitalized) and Bad Nouns (lowercase). It is a clear example of the Credential Society flexing its power: only those with the proper degrees understand why the Swiss aren’t Indigenous or why White must remain lowercase, while the rest of the public is left looking at the text and seeing obvious bias.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gemini says: The distinction comes from a major shift in editorial standards that occurred largely in 2020 (following the George Floyd protests). Most major style guides\u2014including the Associated Press (AP), The New York Times, and APA (American Psychological Association)\u2014updated their … Continue reading