[humanrebar]

It's worth noting that "blacklist" is awful because it's origins are in British history, having to do political assassination and conspiracy. Amongst a bunch of very Caucasian parties.

The "black" is not racial but metaphorical, as in "the absence if light". The connection to dark-skinned folks is accidental through the science of optics. Light being good and darkness being bad is part of most (all?) monotheistic culture. To excise them all would include considering much art, culture, and even holy texts insensitive. It's overkill, especially when there are more pressing reforms to pursue.

There's a nice confluence where basically all parties win by eliminating "blacklist" from benign contexts, but the original violence is not racial at all. Religious and political, sure.

In case I am not clear, if we want to be on the side of education, accurate history, and truth, we should not assume racist history and intention everywhere. In this case, it's an entirely different form of tyrrany, violence, and bigotry, but we should be careful about appearing overzealous and under-informed.

[tchaffee]

> It's worth noting that "blacklist" is awful because it's origins are in British history,

> The connection to dark-skinned folks is accidental through the science of optics.

Both of these are an oversimplification that leaves out other context and other history.

The first recorded use of the term "blacklist" occurs at the time of mass enslavement and forced deportation of Africans to work in European-held colonies in the Americas.

> To excise them all would include considering much art, culture, and even holy texts insensitive.

That is a strawman. No one is suggesting to eliminate all historical uses of darkness meaning bad. What we are talking about is very specific: words that are very commonly used in a modern work setting, and that have clearer alternatives.

> The connection to dark-skinned folks is accidental.

It far too convenient that "black" continued to mean evil in the midst of widespread dehumanization and slavery for it to be purely accidental.

Consider also that the Latin word "niger" had many of the same figurative senses ("gloomy; unlucky; bad, wicked, malicious"). Another accident?

But if it were accidental - and I think that would be near impossible to prove - many microagressions are accidental.

> we should not assume racist history and intention everywhere

That's another strawman. Where was that assumption made? Besides the fact that much of modern Western history is racist.

Racism against black people in the US has survived for well over 200 years. Thanks much in part to lack of intention. Clearly, it's not enough to have absence of bad intentions. We tried that, and it is not working.

[humanrebar]

I would appreciate citations for your claims about racial origins for the term. Wikipedia does not mention any such thing in either the article for blacklisting nor in the disambiguation for the word blacklist.

There is also this quora answer from an apparent Yale linguist specifically saying blacklist does not have racial origins, mentioning other phrases like "black sheep" that are only racial in inference, not especially in implication.

https://www.quora.com/Is-the-term-blacklist-racist

I also disagree that microaggression can be accidental, though I do think reflexive actions can betray racial attitudes. But that lies typically in instinctive actions like purse-clutching, not in formation of artistic or other creative devices like Stevenson's black spot, Tolkein's Black Gate, or the various incarnations of "black swan".

To reiterate, I am actually fine getting rid of the term blacklist given it's very negative history, but it's a stretch, and counterproductive, to racialize the term. That sort of overreach plays into the hands of people like Trump, who are not afraid of portraying these movements as unhinged.