[dmurray]

It's a modern style of a lot of publications that want to appear progressive or fear appearing insufficiently progressive.

Black people (specifically this means people in the US who have dark skin and whose ancestry is in the US) have a unique identity based on a shared history that should be dignified in the same way we would write about Irish or Jewish people or culture.

There is no White culture, however, and anyone arguing for an identity based on something so superficial as skin colour is probably a segregationist or a White supremacist. American people who happen to have white skin and are looking for an identity group should choose to be identify as Irish or Armenian or whatever their ancestry justifies, or they should choose to be baseball fans or LGBTQ allies or some other race-blind identity.

[adwn]

You're arguing that "Black" is an identity in the US because the people thus identified share a common history within the US, even though their ancestors originated from different regions and cultures before they were enslaved and shipped to North America. Yet in the next paragraph you argue that "White" is not a valid identity, because their ancestors originated from different regions and cultures, even though they share a common history within the US. How do you reconcile this double standard?

Edit: In case you're only paraphrasing a point of view which you don't hold yourself, it would probably be a good idea to use a style that clearly signals this.

[bitcurious]

> You're arguing that "Black" is an identity in the US because the people thus identified share a common history within the US, even though their ancestors originated from different regions and cultures before they were enslaved and shipped to North America. Yet in the next paragraph you argue that "White" is not a valid identity, because their ancestors originated from different regions and cultures, even though they share a common history within the US. How do you reconcile this double standard?

The ethnic, cultural, linguistic, familial, etc., identities of enslaved people in America were systematically and deliberately erased. When you strip away those pre-American identities you land on the experience of slavery as your common denominator and root of history. This is fundamentally distinct from, for example, Irish immigration, who kept their community, religion, and family ties both within the US and over the pond. There’s a lot written about this that you can explore independently.

I’m not actually a fan of “Black” in writing like this, mostly because it’s sloppily applied in a ctrl+f for lower case “black”, even at major institutions who should know better, but the case for it is a fairly strong one.

[0xDEAFBEAD]

>Black people (specifically this means people in the US who have dark skin and whose ancestry is in the US)

So dark-skinned Africans aren't "Black"? (But they are "black"?)

Why not just use black/white for skin tone, and African-American for "people in the US who have dark skin and whose ancestry is in the US"? Then for African immigrants, we can reference the specific nation of origin, e.g. "Ghanaian-American".

[gfehhffvvv]

African-American includes Americans of African descent that nevertheless are not descendants of Africans that were slaves. I suppose this is a reason.

[0xDEAFBEAD]

I don't think that's how the term is used.

[Closi]

I don't know if I agree in this instance. While I agree that Black people completely have a shared identity and culture - the article is clearly talking about skin colour and it's doing a comparison between how AI represents two skin tones, so I would assume that by your definition it should use lowercase in both cases.

If it's comparing a culture vs a 'non-culture' then that doesn't sound like for like.

[snovv_crash]

That's a very American-centric viewpoint. The rest of the world also has a lot of different cultures of black people, and relative to the rest of the world the US 'white' culture is extremely distinctive, no matter that the members themselves quibble about having 1/16th Irish ancestry or whatever it is.

[erichocean]

> relative to the rest of the world the US 'white' culture is extremely distinctive

African descendants of slaves in America ("Blacks") are similarly distinct.

Both have undergone their own ethnogensis, which makes them distinct from their original continents (Europe, Africa).

Both are multi-racial ethnos as well (unlike many European and African countries).

[simianwords]

Nicely put though I’m still uncomfortable with this performative ritual

[ffsm8]

> There is no White culture

Lmao, oh the irony reading this on HN in 2025

The cognitive dissonance is really incredible to witness

[qcnguy]

I don't think the OP was agreeing with this stance, only describing it. It seems they probably disagree with it as this is clearly sarcasm given what was just described: "anyone arguing for an identity based on something so superficial as skin colour is probably a segregationist"

[collingreen]

Thanks for writing this; this was my take as well (op was full on -mocking- the take being described) and I was surprised to see people think it was arguing for a very clear double standard.

[NaomiLehman]

My take: I think that whiteness is not a lack of culture. It is the dominant culture, which makes it feel like an absence of culture to most within it. Like a massive white (pun intended) wall, which makes other cultures clearly visible in front of it.

I would also guess that most people saying that are centrists/moderates cosplaying a different political ideology, making it even harder to see any distinct features or a sense of community and belonging.

[reverius42]

I think this is on the right track. There isn't a "white" American English variant -- it's just American English. But AAVE is a thing.