[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.