Letter to the Editor: Semantic discrimination

I will start with my conclusion: I have made a personal decision to stop referring to myself as a “black” person.

I have also decided to refrain from referring to the complexions of persons as “light” or “dark” or some degree thereof. Moreover, I have decided that I will no longer refer to persons of European descent as “white.” I will refer to members of this branch of the human family as either “Caucasians,” “Europeans” or “European Americans.”

I will refer to members of the human family who have close descendants from Africa (everyone has distant descendants from Africa given that “Lucy” is the mother of humanity) as African-Americans or some other appropriate moniker which is devoid of a color designation. Please indulge me as I seek to explain.

Despite the fact that the African-American community sought to detoxify the word “black” in the 1960s, the word “black” is primordially and prehistorically negative, i.e., “blackness” and “darkness” as negative is so deeply imbedded in the cosmic psyche for so long that no amount detoxi?cation can cleanse the term.

While the attempt in the 1960s was gallant and noble, it was only a microsecond in the history of space and time that has deemed “blackness” and “darkness” as evil and “whiteness” and “light” as good: God destroyed the darkness and created the light; the good guys wear white and the bad guys wear black; devil food cake is dark and angel food cake is white; the black sheep of the family is the one who is deviant and brings shame on the family; a white lie is innocuous and a black lie is evil; and it is black ice which causes us to have accidents.

Some would argue that there is a difference between calling someone “black” and the negativity associated with “blackness” in general. For those who hold this position, I would argue that the burden of proving this “disassociation” lies with them.

In Joseph Murphy’s “The Power of Your Subconscious Mind,” he makes the case that the subconscious mind cannot take a joke. He implies that if a word, expression or term has a generally societal sanctioned meaning, the subconscious mind accepts that meaning as real and acts on that meaning.

Thus, if the term “black” is generally overwhelmingly associated with negativity, the rare times when it is used to denote something positive is not processed or processed as negative by the subconscious mind.

If Murphy is correct, and much of the popular psychology of the self-help movement is based on this premise, when we call individuals “black,” “dark,” “white,” “fair” and “light,” we are imputing negativity and adulation respectively.

One of Martin Luther King’s most pensive and most overlooked insights focused on what may be called semantical racism: “Even semantics have conspired to make that which is black seem ugly and degrading. In Roget’s Thesaurus there are 120 synonyms for blackness and at least 60 of them are offensive, as for example, blot, soot, grim, devil and foul. And there are 134 synonyms for whiteness and all are favorable, expressed in such words are purity, cleanliness, chastity and innocence.

A white lie is better than a black lie. The most degenerate member of a family is a “black sheep.” Ossie Davis has suggested that maybe the English language should be reconstructed so that teachers will not be forced to teach the Negro child 60 ways to despise himself, and thereby perpetuate his false sense of inferiority, and the white child 134 ways to adore himself, and thereby perpetuate his false sense of superiority.”

I am not making the case that all of the ills of the African-American collective are tied to the monikers “black” and “dark.” Nor am I saying that changing what we call ourselves and others is going to instantly and magically transform all of the challenges of living in racially diverse culture and a conservative political economic system. This  transformation, under the best of circumstances, could take decades, if not centuries.

I am saying that words are indeed powerful and our culture acknowledges this fact with laws against profanity — we also embrace the concepts of “diplomacy,” “civility,” ”protocol” and “etiquette.” Our culture acknowledges that what we say and how we say it matters.

Given the primordial and prehistoric association of good with “whiteness, light and fair” and this same primordial and prehistoric association of “black and dark” with evil, I am saying that the use of these terms do not serve the value of mutual respect.

Can I prove scientifically that the use of “black” and “dark” negatively impacts the African American collective? Can I prove that the use of “white, light and fair” positively impacts the Caucasian collective? While there is research to support this contention, the research is probably not sufficient to convince the unconvinced.

Am I making the case that this notion is something that needs to be debated on radio call in shows, beauty shops and barbershops? No, I am not. There are ample issues which are much more urgent and require the time and energy of those who wish to empower progressive citizens of the human rainbow.

I am simply and humbly making the case that it is rationally and intuitively clear that the use of these terms do not serve the goal of mutual appreciation among diverse communities.

They impute adoration for those who are called “white, light and fair” and scorn for those who are called “black and dark.”

As one richly melaninated African-American individual, I do not have the wherewithal to bring about equal opportunity, fairness and justice in our society. While it is tantamount to trying to change the world by moving one shovel of sand on a beach, I can make a decision regarding how I will refer to myself and others and hope that others will consider doing the same.


E-mail: lhanks@indiana.edu