> Here's a well researched and documented article from a medical > journal on the topic with expert citations: > https://jmla.pitt.edu/ojs/jmla/article/view/490 The abstract says it > very well: "This commentary addresses the widespread use of racist > language in discussions concerning predatory publishing. Examples > include terminology such as blacklists, whitelists, and black sheep. > The use of such terms does not merely reflect a racist culture, but > also serves to legitimize and perpetuate it."
I was impressed by the plethora of citations when I first overlooked the article. However, none of those citations prove that black* and white* are connected to race. Any citation around "predatory publishing" can be ignored in our context, because that term is completely unrelated to linguistics or racism, so such citation cannot prove a point but merely serve as an example that those words can be found in journal texts. [40-42] where citations that seemed promising, but I could not find the full articles without a paywall in front of them. The cited passages from [40-42] in the article itself though, i.e. the connotations of "WHITENESS" and "BLACKNESS", do not prove a connection to race. Another statement from the article: > It is notable that the first recorded use of the term occurs at the > time of mass enslavement and forced deportation of Africans to work > in European-held colonies in the Americas. Even if this were true, it does not mean that every word around black- and whiteness is automatically connected to race. As Kurt Fitzner pointed out: > White and black have been and are references to light and dark, and > in every language race and culture on the planet are used in compound > words, phrases and sentences that evoke metaphors of good and bad My latin dictionary refers to "ignes nigri" and "hic niger est" as examples of metaphors of badness that have been used by Horace or Virgil before the 1590s.
