this post was submitted on 15 Jan 2024
220 points (89.6% liked)
People Twitter
7736 readers
1532 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You know MLK didn't write that transcript, right?
Why are you getting sidetracked from a message of unity with somthing so trivial. It almost seems intentional, like you'd prefer whites and blacks be separate.
I can’t help thinking and worrying about your reply… from my understanding of written English (my adopted language) capitalisation versus non-capitalisation does suggest separation - or at least a difference of some sort. I always thought some humans are black, some humans are white; most humans are both or neither. The way that speech has been transcribed - NOT SPOKEN - creates a difference. If I wrote I was wearing a Black jacket and a white hat that would be nonsensical. My problem is the subtext of the capitalisation process. (Having said that some lovely person pointed out that apparently this is in AP’s style guide - so maybe it’s well intentioned; but poorly understood by those of us outside the… “yankosphere” (Does that word exist?)
I do. That’s why I highlighted that particular usage of capital letters. When written like this It seems a really subtle remix of the great man’s original speech… perhaps it’s just me. EDIT: first sentence went from “I am” (aware) to “I do”
it's possible they were following AP style guidelines which suggest that.
I’ve had a chance to look into that now. Again, thanks for bringing it to my attention. I had no idea it was a thing. I don’t agree with it - but AP’s reasoning and caveats on their website aren’t entirely without merit. I just think that to the dozens of us on the internet who aren’t US born and bred it seems massively incongruous - and might have the potential to perpetuate the exact opposite reaction to what is hoped. On a side note - good effort bringing something of interest and value to the table.
That might be true, but every country likely has similar language quirks for historical, cultural reasons that may seem odd or hypocritical to outsiders.
Yeah, maybe so. I suppose having racism / segregation hard-baked in to your language would be a great way to maintain the status quo and keep the little people against each other. For a nation actually born out of genocide, slavery and apartheid I almost want to shoot myself in the face when its citizens still use words and phrases like “African American”, “Native American” and “American”. The inequity is staggering and not even implicit. I hope that practice dies before I do - but I doubt it will.
Associated Press, yeah? I’ll have a look at that later. Thanks for the heads up. I suppose this might be classed as “semiotics” which, honestly, ain’t my speciality. Just seems weird to me - perpetuating a difference (if only syntactically) between humans with different levels of melanin. I guess from a US-centric point of view it “might” have some merit.