> In our technical work we use ‘allowlist’ and ‘blocklist’ instead of ‘whitelist’ and ‘blacklist.’ That’s because of the origin of these terms, with white being seen as ‘good’ and black being seen as ‘bad.’
This is one of these times where I'm confused about my own thinking, and am seeking advice "what should I think?". I think "allowlist" and "blocklist" are actually clearer, but I also struggle to accept that white/black, or light/dark cannot be used as general symbols for good/bad.
He must have been doing those riffs a lot back then. What a master communicator and performer. He reminds me of Dylan's comic side.
Coming back to the topic, if you watch that youtube link to the end, it's interesting how different his recommendation is from 'allowlist' and 'blocklist'. He's not suggesting that whiteness and blackness be taken out of words and replaced with awkward, prudish constructs that no one would otherwise use. Instead he wants positive use of 'black' words: "Rich dirt is black dirt, strong coffee is black coffee". It's a different approach and he expresses it in such a simple and funny way. Of course this was of the moment in the late 60s (black pride).
Historically, white/blacklist did not have racial origins, but history is always happening. The original intent of a word can be erased by its proximity to new taboos and new circumstances, and in this case, white/black have been racialized.
See also: the disappearance of the words "niggardly" and "feck" from common English usage, or how Thais are uneasy using the word "fuk" (gourd, pumpkin) [0]
In our own industry, too, "master/slave" being gradually replaced by "primary/replica", "primary/secondary", etc. There was a lot of similar red-top-style complaining about "political correctness gone mad!" in the early days of that change, too. Now the new terms are totally unremarkable, and it's a real surprise to encounter the old.
As you say, history is always happening. My days of talking about "whitelists" and "blacklists", modulo the occasional slip as I start modifying my lexical habit, are done.
Thanks for the reminder of this. In the last release of my software, we renamed all the "slave" objects to be "masters", without any real thought to the connected social implications.
Honestly, I'm always for making language more inclusive/progressive, but this seems a bit over the top. I always thought of white/black meaning good/bad, respectively, as a natural consequence of people finding light good and darkness, well, bad. It's seen in the Bible, it was probably a direct consequence of darkness being more dangerous. Nothing to do with skin color.
This is a late reply admittedly, but as a white guy (who has had conversations about this terminology) my rule of thumb is to defer to the people who are hurt/historically marginalized.
It doesn't matter to me what the origins of these terms are. As the phrase goes, intent is not impact.
Who am I to tell someone that they shouldn't feel a certain way? I totally used to be "that guy", but have since realized that it's not about what I think.
I mean, really--if some "innocuous" (to me) word hurts someone, why wouldn't I just avoid saying it. It's literally the least I can do. Not saying it's going to fix systemic racism by itself but it seems pretty thoughtless to continue to use language that people have identified as (for lack of a better word) problematic.
Similar issues have confounded me for years. And I've come to believe that a consistent strawman and Catch-22 can be found in political correctness: If we agree to use the substitute words, we admit the original words were designed to segregate and that we used them to that end. If we don't agree to the substitute words, we prove the original words were designed to segregate and that we will use them to that end.
Most of these claims are bait. The goal isn't for the person asserting them to strike meaningful change in our understanding of the issue. They want to appear informed because they feel protected from criticism over their individual culpability. An anecdote: I had a friend who spent years patronizing white people she knew over their "ignorance" on the disproportionate impact of domestic abuse on black and Hispanic women. One evening, she flippantly described them as "too ghetto to know 'wuz good'..." So, all that talk and insistence, and she was the only person in the room with that opinion.
Great article; will keep this in mind for my email/Slack messages at work.
One nitpick:
> The Romans arrived in Britain a couple of thousand years ago, and brought Latin with them. Local tribal leaders had to learn Latin, or else. So they did, and Latin became the language of religion and administration — which is why the words ‘religion’ and ‘administration’ come from Latin.
I'd argue the Normans have much more to do with that; the Romans might've brought Latin with them, sure, but the Old English that came after the Romans lost control was chiefly Germanic (especially considering prior conquests/arrivals by the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes, all of whom spoke Germanic languages). The much-more-recent Norman conquests are what "Latinized" English, by enforcing French as the language of administration (and Latin as the language of religion, as it was for as long as the Catholic Church existed up until the Protestant Reformation made non-Latin languages acceptable for church).
Further, at the time of the Roman conquest few (if any) people in what's now England were speaking anything resembling English; the native peoples of the British Isles were Celtic, and accordingly spoke a Celtic language, very different from any Germanic language like English.
I agree. I read the same passage and had the same complaint.
I just finished a Great Courses lecture series on the Norman conquest of England, and the professor makes this very comment. And also argues that the melding of Norman--not 'French', Norman was a sister to Old French that looks more like Vulgar Latin--and Old English is what gives modern English its vast vocabulary, roughly twice the size of Spanish; as many words have the Germanic and Romance varieties. You can 'meet' someone or 'encounter' someone, etc.
Ironically, "Norman" comes from "north men", as Normandy was settled by Scandinavian invaders who "went native" in France. Then they "went native" again in England, forgetting their original Norman.
> not 'French', Norman was a sister to Old French that looks more like Vulgar Latin
I mean, at that point in time it might as well be "French", right? Obviously not modern French, but an ancestor (or uncle?) thereof.
I've done quite a bit of (amateur/casual) reading into the histories of English and Norse languages, but the Norman part I haven't exactly dug into yet (beyond exactly how it influenced modern English and induced a lot of the differences from Old and Middle English) so now my curiosity's a bit piqued.
And the Germanic tribes in the British isles even had a discourse among them - "what can we do to avoid ending up like the Celts when the Romans came?"
Yes, but now that I think about it, I may be misremembering things - I think they (anglo-) Saxons tried to learn something from how the Romans were defeated.
So frustrating that the details elude me right now, please someone fill in if you know. I think it was at the time of Alfreds rule.
Some interesting thoughts but this aversion to the word "guys" needs to stop. My wife uses it all the time to address both mixed and exclusively female groups, it's completely gender neutral. If words like "guys" are causing someone distress then there are obviously bigger issues we need to address.
It's also bizarre that this guide suggests avoiding colloquialisms and then suggests using "y'all". I've never heard anyone in the UK say that outside of attempting to imitate a Texan.
I'm not so sure. To me, "How many guys have you slept with?" is a gendered question.
> If words like "guys" are causing someone distress then there are obviously bigger issues we need to address.
Maybe this is true, but we can address the bigger issues while also making sure people are comfortable in the meantime :) it's really not a big deal to just avoid using a certain word if people don't like it.
> it's really not a big deal to just avoid using a certain word if people don't like it.
Okay, I say saying word veggies distresses me. Please stop using that word everyone. eat_veggies distresses me the most, coz it implies that the word veggies is used as healthy food, while I dont like eating healthy. I think its offensive from you to tell me what to eat.
See? The problem with that kind of thinking is that anyone can declare anything distressing. If we declare "guys" as distressing, and allow gradual wiping of the word on that basis, where do we draw the line?
I think all the guys should take a breath, eat some veggies and start worrying about other things, than if someone adressed them by word they dont like. I seriously dont get this trend of validation of being ofended by most random things.
Ok I won't use the word around you, since it distresses you and because I respect your boundaries.
That's where I draw the line. Enough people are uncomfortable with the word "guys" that it makes sense to not to use it unless you know that everyone you're addressing is okay with it.
I know for a fact that you don't like "veggies" since you told me, so I won't use it with you.
Yeah. As someone who is frequently the only female in a group at work, it’s more distressing for someone to say “hey guys... and women!!!” or something unnaturally gender-neutral (hey TEAM!), as if my presence is stopping them behaving/speaking naturally. Guys is fine.
> Some interesting thoughts but this aversion to the word "guys" needs to stop. My wife uses it all the time to address both mixed and exclusively female groups, it's completely gender neutral. If words like "guys" are causing someone distress then there are obviously bigger issues we need to address.
Looking upthread, Hackernews has come to the decision that policing language like this is okay because values change and what was acceptable yesterday may not be suitably inclusive today. History is always happening, so watch what you say.
The author recommends using emoji in writing. Not sure about that. Person to person writing, such as texting, sure. One to many writing, maybe not. Twitter supports emoji, but tweets seldom use them.
Not quite. They're saying "This is a ... overview of how we write" In other words, when Monzo people want to sound like Monzo, they recommend using emoji :)
It's not a universal recommendation, it's a brand identity. You do you.
I follow similar practices on my website. I help people settle in Germany. Since I can't assume people are native English speakers, I use simple english. It's surprisingly hard. When I revisit old guides, I can notice how much I have learned.
Struggling with German helped me become better at writing for those who struggle with English.
I use Hemingway to spot long sentences, difficult words and other problems.
I also use text formatting and typography to great effect. It makes the text easier to skim if you just need a specific piece of information.
Here are some of the things I learned:
* Put the short answer at the start, and highlight it. I try to make my content the opposite of clickbait.
* Use short, unambiguous sentences. Let readers catch their breath. Don't write sentences like Tarantino writes stories.
* Avoid idioms and expressions as much as possible.
"The psychologist and linguist Steven Pinker has an idea called ‘the curse of knowledge’.”
He didn’t have the idea originally, it is a generally accepted idea that predates him and should better not be associated with Pinker’s feelgoodery bias.
Living in country where English is not the first language has made me aware of this kind of stuff all the time when I am writing. Particularly also, I have the "what will google translate this to" check in the back of my mind.
This is one of these times where I'm confused about my own thinking, and am seeking advice "what should I think?". I think "allowlist" and "blocklist" are actually clearer, but I also struggle to accept that white/black, or light/dark cannot be used as general symbols for good/bad.
Edit: this reddit question and a lengthy answer talks about the "origins" -- they are not racial, and consistently meant allow/block: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/866ynp/what_...