TIMES INSIDER

Why We’re Capitalizing Black

The Times has changed its style on the term’s usage to better reflect a shared cultural identity. Here’s what led to that decision.

Credit…The New York Times

By Nancy Coleman

July 5, 2020

Times Insider explains who we are and what we do, and delivers behind-the-scenes insights into how our journalism comes together.

The last time The New York Times made a sweeping call to capitalize how it referred to people of African ancestry was nearly a century ago.

W.E.B. Du Bois had started a letter-writing campaign asking publications, including The Times, to capitalize the N in Negro, a term long since eradicated from The Times’s pages. “The use of a small letter for the name of twelve million Americans and two hundred million human beings,” he once wrote, was “a personal insult.” The Times turned him down in 1926 before coming around in 1930, when the paper wrote that the new entry in its stylebook — its internal guide on grammar and usage — was “not merely a typographical change,” but “an act in recognition of racial self-respect.” Decades later, a monthlong internal discussion at The Times led the paper on Tuesday to make, for similar reasons, its latest style change on race — capitalizing Black when describing people and cultures of African origin. “We believe this style best conveys elements of shared history and identity, and reflects our goal to be respectful of all the people and communities we cover,” said Dean Baquet, The Times’s executive editor, and Phil Corbett, associate managing editor for standards, in a memo to staff. Did you know you can share 10 gift articles a month, even with nonsubscribers? Share this article. Conversations about the change began in earnest at The Times and elsewhere after the death of George Floyd and subsequent protests, said Mike Abrams, senior editor for editing standards. Several major news media organizations have made the same call including The Associated Press, whose stylebook has long been an influential guide for news organizations. “It seems like such a minor change, black versus Black,” The Times’s National editor, Marc Lacey, said. “But for many people the capitalization of that one letter is the difference between a color and a culture.” Editors’ Picks When George Clooney Met Julia Roberts (Don’t Believe the Reports) Venice: ‘Don’t Worry Darling’ Faces the Press, but Where Is Florence Pugh? John McEnroe Gets His Revenge As tensions rose across the country, Mr. Abrams noticed members of the newsroom raising questions about the capital B and sharing articles on the subject in Slack, the workplace chat platform. He talked with editors at other publications, including The A.P. and The Washington Post, about conversations happening in their newsrooms. And he talked with Times staff members: more than 100 of them, by phone, email and Slack. “The lowercase B in Black has never made sense to me as a Black woman, and it didn’t make sense to me as a Black girl,” said Destinée-Charisse Royal, a senior staff editor in the Graphics department and one of the editors consulted on the change. “My thought was that the capital B makes sense as it describes a race, a cultural group, and that is very different from a color in a box of crayons.” The style change is one of dozens of other updates or additions that have been made to The Times’s usage guide this year, Mr. Abrams said. The decisions can take anywhere from hours to months. Suggestions for changes are typically submitted by staff through email or an online form, filtered into a spreadsheet and parsed each month by the Standards team. New entries, intentionally, can often lag behind the most current language. Ms. Royal likened new style guidance to new dictionary entries: The Times adds words once people are already widely using them, not before. “We don’t treat the stylebook as an instrument of activism; we don’t view it as at the vanguard of language,” Mr. Abrams said. “We generally want the stylebook to reflect common usage.” Most updates don’t require much input or approval from other editors, but on sensitive issues, he said, particularly those that reach every corner of Times coverage, a range of perspectives is vital. “Some have been pushing for this change for years,” Mr. Lacey said. “They consider Black like Latino and Asian and Native American, all of which are capitalized. Others see the change as a distraction from more important issues. Then there are those troubled that our policy will now capitalize ‘Black’ but not ‘white.’ Over all, the view was that there was a growing agreement in the country to capitalize and that The Times should not be a holdout.” Before the style change, Ms. Royal said, some writers might have been inclined to use African-American — the only uppercase option, and still acceptable per the Times stylebook — even when Black might have been more accurate. “Because of the history of Black people in this country, most of us do not have a specific African nation to link our ancestry back to,” she said. “Broadly speaking, when you are looking at a group of people of African ancestry in the United States, you do not know if they identify as African-American. You do not know if they were born in, say, Ghana or if they were born in the Bronx like I was.” But specificity is always preferred when possible, Mr. Abrams said — that is, when race is mentioned at all. Times policy advises reporters to cite a person’s race only if it’s pertinent to an article, and in those situations, reporters must explain why. The Times also looked at whether to capitalize white and brown in reference to race, but both will remain lowercase. Brown has generally been used to describe a wide range of cultures, Mr. Baquet and Mr. Corbett said in their memo to staff. As a result, its meaning can be unclear to readers; white doesn’t represent a shared culture and history in the way Black does, and also has long been capitalized by hate groups. “To be parallel does make sense usage-wise when talking about grammar and usage, but we can never just go on these sorts of standards,” Ms. Royal said. “Language doesn’t work that way. You have to consider the other factors.”

You can find us here: https://www.ww2online.org/content/donor-support.

We’ve spent several years researching names, places, and dates related to experiences in World War II. These veterans were born in a United States that spoke English differently than we do now. Think about how Cary Grant and Katherine Hepburn sound in some of those old movies. Many of them had never ventured more than 50 miles from the place they were born, and they carried those accents and eccentricities of speech for the rest of their lives.

The places they visited were far-flung and exotic, and we’re capturing the place names, but also their remembered wonder at seeing those places for the first time. The shock of memories about huge coconut crabs on tropical islands juxtaposed with the sudden, bloody death of the guy right next to you.

And these guys remember the men who were lost—they remember their first and last names and often theor middle initials! They remember where that guy was from. And they remember the sudden, ghastly details of their deaths.

They remember their lives before the war so carefully, but to us transcribing, it often seems like a landscape from the Wizard of Oz, more foreign than some of the locales they visited. Men who remember plowing acres of land with horses, and futures that offered only the option of doing what your dad, and his dad, had done.

Education seems to have been pretty sporadic, and their reasons for enlisting are as varied as the men who enlisted, but they all shared some degree of naivete. Some have a greater understanding of infantry than others, but none of them were prepared for the realities of war.

We forget that most of the U.S. was unaware of the horrors of the Holocaust when we ventured into the war. And I think we forget how united Americans were in enlisting and joining the fight. We’ve heard many veterans comment that everybody was enlisting. My mother used to talk about how important radio was in those days, and veterans and people on the Home Front alike were stirred by Roosevelt’s “a day that will live in infamy speech.”

Listening to these oral histories has been a privilege, and researching their experiences “over there” has been a challenge.

Thanks to the National World War II Museum for the experience of a lifetime, and the chance to capture the descriptions of thousands of experiences of a lifetime.

Published October 11, 2022

Gender-Neutral Form?

Meaning Of Mx.

When addressing strangers, authority figures, and in formal situations, it is considered polite to use an honorific, or title, to address them. The most frequently used honorifics are gendered male or female, which may not always be appropriate. In this article, we are going to review the most common honorifics, the alternative Mx., and how and when to use these titles.

What is the gender neutral term for Mr., Mrs., and Ms.?

The most commonly used gender-neutral honorific is Mx., pronounced [ miks ] or [ muhks ]. The first recorded use of Mx. was in 1977, where it was suggested as a less-sexist alternative to the traditional Mr., Mrs., and Miss. These forms are not only highly gendered, but they also link a woman’s status to whether she is married or not.

The honorific Mr., from master, is used for men regardless of marital status. The titles Mrs. and Miss, from mistress, are used for married and unmarried women, respectively. To reduce the emphasis on marriage, the alternative Ms. was coined in the 1950s for women regardless of marital status.

You can learn more about all of these forms and where they come from in the article “Mr., Mrs., Miss, and Ms.: What They Mean And How To Use Them.”

Just as Ms. solved the sexist problem that a woman was described based on her relationship to men, the form Mx. addressed the gendered nature of titles more generally. Although it was coined in the 1970s, it didn’t gain traction until the 2000s as there came to be greater mainstream acceptance of nonbinary or gender-nonconforming people (see A Language Of Pride: Understand The Terms Around LGBTQ Identity).

Mx. is now used as a preferred title for many who identify as neither man nor woman. This is not its only use, however. Like other gender-neutral forms of address, Mx. can also be useful when addressing an audience whose gender is unknown. A good example of this is on forms that use a title (think: Mx. _____).

While Mx. is the most common gender-neutral title, it isn’t the only one. Another alternative for nonbinary or gender-noncomforming people is Misc., short for miscellaneous, from the Latin for “mixed.” Similarly, the alternative title M. does away with all the gendered information that comes after the M in the other titles and is a simple way to express a variety of genders or lack of gender. Another option is Ind., short for individual. As with all titles, pronouns, names, and so forth, one should be mindful to use the language that a person uses for themselves.

Along those lines, professional titles are gender-neutral and may be preferred by people of any gender. The most common of these is Dr., short for doctor, which is used for Ph.D. holders and medical doctors. Captain and coach are also common titles that can be held in a variety of settings. People in the military can be referred to by their ranks, as in General or Sergeant. Members of the clergy in many faiths are also typically referred to by specific honorifics, such as Reverend or Rabbi.

What does Mx. stand for?

Mx. is a riff on the classic gendered titles Mr. and Ms. It keeps the M and swaps the gendered element of these terms for the gender-neutral X. The letter X has historically been used as a symbol for the unknown or indescribable. In this way, it is perfect for a gender-neutral honorific. Mx. shows respect while leaving the gender unknown or unarticulated. Other examples of words that use the letter X as an indication of gender-nonconformity that you may have come across are folx and womxn.

The purpose of using these titles, whether it’s Mr., Ms., Mx., or anything else, is to convey respect. (They are called “honorifics,” not “ruderifics,” after all.) Because that’s the goal, whatever title someone chooses for themselves is the one you should use for them. And whether you are nonbinary, gender nonconforming, or simply just not interested in being called a gendered title, if Mx. or any of these alternatives don’t feel fitting to you, you can always coin your own!

General Advice

Pigs get fat; hogs get slaughtered.
A worm is the only animal that can’t fall down.
Never sign nothing by neon.
Just because a chicken has wings don’t mean it can fly.
Keep your saddle oiled and your gun greased.
You can’t get lard unless you boil the hog.
If you cut your own firewood, it’ll warm you twice.
There’s more than one way to break a dog from sucking eggs.
Give me the bacon without the sizzle.
Don’t hang your wash on someone else’s line.
Do God’s will, whatever the hell it may be.
Lick that calf again? (Say what?)
Why shear a pig?
Don’t snap my garters.
A guilty fox hunts his own hole.
Quit hollering down the rain.
Don’t rile the wagon master.
Better to keep your mouth shut and seem a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.
The barn door’s open and the mule’s trying to run. (Your fly’s down.)
Don’t get all het up about it.
There’s a big difference between the ox and the whiffletree.
There’s no tree but bears some fruit.
Skin your own buffalo.
You better throw a sop to the dogs.
Don’t squat on your spurs.
Any mule’s tail can catch cockleburs.
A drought usually ends with a flood.
If you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.
A lean dog runs fast.
The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.

Celebratory

Let’s shoot out the lights.
We’ll paint the town and the front porch.
Let’s hallelujah the county.
Put the little pot in the big pot.
Throw your hat over the windmill.
I’ll be there with bells on.
I’ll wear my Sunday-go-to-meeting clothes.
He’s all gussied up.

Big

Fat as a boardinghouse cat.
Fat as a town dog.
She’s warm in winter, shady in summer.
He don’t care what you call him as long as you call him to supper.
So big he looks like he ate his brother.
So big he has to sit down in shifts.
Big as Brewster County.
Big as Dallas.
Big as a Brahma bull.
She’d rather shake than rattle.
He’s big enough to bear hunt with a branch.
He’s all spread out like a cold supper.
Wide as two ax handles.
He’ll eat anything that don’t eat him first.

Cheap

Tight as Dick’s hatband.
Tight as a tick.
Tight as a clothesline.
Tight as a fiddle string.
Tight as wallpaper.
Tight as a wet boot.
Tight enough to raise a blister.
So tight he squeaks when he walks.
He’ll squeeze a nickel till the buffalo screams.
She has short arms and deep pockets.

Crazy

He’s got a big hole in his screen door.
She’s one bubble off plumb.
She’s one brick shy of a load.
She’s two sandwiches short of a picnic.
He’s a few pickles short of a barrel.
There’s a light or two burned out on his string.
He’s missing a few buttons off his shirt.
The porch light’s on but no one’s home.
He’s lost his vertical hold.
He’s overdrawn at the memory bank.
I hear you clucking, but I can’t find your nest.
She’s got too many cobwebs in the attic.
Crazy as a bullbat.
Crazy as Larrabee’s calf.

We’ve spent several years researching names, places, and dates related to experiences in World War II. These veterans were born in a United States that spoke English differently than we do now. Think about how Cary Grant and Katherine Hepburn sound in some of those old movies. Many of them had never ventured more than 50 miles from the place they were born, and they carried those accents and eccentricities of speech for the rest of their lives.

Thanks for reading Capturing Voices! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

The places they visited were far-flung and exotic, and we’re capturing the place names, but also their remembered wonder at seeing those places for the first time. The shock of memories about huge coconut crabs on tropical islands juxtaposed with the sudden, bloody death of the guy right next to you.

And these guys remember the men who were lost—they remember their first and last names and often theor middle initials! They remember where that guy was from. And they remember the sudden, ghastly details of their deaths.

Education seems to have been pretty sporadic, and their reasons for enlisting are as varied as the men who enlisted, but they all shared some degree of naivete. Some have a greater understanding of infantry than others, but none of them were prepared for the realities of war.

They remember their lives before the war so carefully, but to us transcribing, it often seems like a landscape from the Wizard of Oz, more foreign than some of the locales they visited. Men who remember plowing acres of land with horses, and futures that offered only the option of doing what your dad, and his dad, had done.

We forget that most of the U.S. was unaware of the horrors of the Holocaust when we ventured into the war. And I think we forget how united Americans were in enlisting and joining the fight. We’ve heard many veterans comment that everybody was enlisting. My mother used to talk about how important radio was in those days, and veterans and people on the Home Front alike were stirred by Roosevelt’s “a day that will live in infamy speech.”

Listening to these oral histories has been a privilege, and researching their experiences “over there” has been a challenge.

Thanks to the National World War II Museum for the experience of a lifetime, and the chance to capture the descriptions of thousands of experiences of a lifetime.

You can find us here: https://www.ww2online.org/content/donor-support