[flagged]
> 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.
Assuming you _actually_ care about the answer to the question and aren't just looking to get angry.
It is so obvious that there are so many different black cultures.
It makes sense, I suppose, within American vernacular, though that same logic works for American whites (versus white people in general). It is somewhat funny if you think about it in terms of only American Blacks getting the capital "b".
> Assuming you _actually_ care about the answer to the question and aren't just looking to get angry
I consider this a nothingburger. But the repeated juxtaposition in this article gave a light all-caps feeling to Black versus white. I don’t think I’ve noticed the style choice since when they announced the change. Someone else might have noticed it for the first time.
(I also probably just wouldn't refer to British people as "black", for whatever that's worth).
Not all, but many have African heritage. They're both black and British.
I understand why we capitalise Black and also why some people object to it. I simply found it humorous to notice that it's an America-centric vision of ethnicity; why a black African gets a lower-case b while a Black Chicagoan gets a full-blown B seems to have escaped at least me until now.
I personally think the policy is asinine, but I'm not angry. It's presumably also an accurate reflection of cultural norms and the feelings of the people making the editorial decisions (and presumably also some portion of the readers).