Podcast Summary: “‘African American’ Is Awkward. It’s Time to Use ‘Black.’”

Podcast Information:

• Title: The Opinions
• Host/Author: The New York Times Opinion
• Description: You've heard the news, here's what to make of it.
• Episode: ‘African American’ Is Awkward. It’s Time to Use ‘Black.’
• Release Date: July 29, 2025

Introduction

In this episode of The Opinions, David Leonhardt, Editorial Director at The New York Times Opinion section, engages in a thought-provoking conversation with linguist and columnist John McWhorter. The discussion centers on the evolving landscape of racial and ethnic terminology in the United States, specifically focusing on the preference for “Black” over “African American” and the contested term “Latinx.” The episode delves into the historical context, societal implications, and the intersection of language, identity, and politics.

The Debate: African American vs. Black

Historical Context and Emergence of “African American”

David Leonhardt introduces the topic by referencing John McWhorter’s recent column advocating for the retirement of the term “African American” in favor of “Black.” McWhorter recounts the origins of “African American,” tracing it back to 1988 when Reverend Jesse Jackson promoted the term to better capture the heritage and pride of the community. He explains, “African American” was intended to move beyond what he perceived as the crudeness of “Black,” adding a sense of pride and connection to African ancestry.

McWhorter’s Personal Stance

McWhorter expresses discomfort with the term, stating, “For one thing, personally, I feel Africa in our case is just too far away.” He argues that while terms like “Italian American” resonate due to recent and tangible cultural connections, “African American” feels too abstract and disconnected from the present identity of many Black individuals in the U.S.

Public Opinion and Linguistic Evolution

Leonhardt posits that “Black” will likely regain prominence over “African American” in the coming decades, citing its simplicity and widespread acceptance. McWhorter concurs, noting a shifting sentiment: “I can feel something falling away.”

Capitalization Debate

The conversation shifts to the debate over capitalizing racial and ethnic identifiers. Leonhardt references philosopher Kwame Anthony Appiah’s argument for capitalizing both “Black” and “White” to acknowledge them as social constructs. McWhorter reflects on his initial resistance to capitalization but concedes, “I would go with capital B, capital W,” recognizing the importance of language in affirming identities.

Quote:
John McWhorter (09:09): “Yeah, I would go with capital B, capital W, and I would never have imagined myself saying this five years ago, but sometimes you have to go with the times.”

The Latinx Controversy

Origins and Reception of “Latinx”

Leonhardt transitions to the term “Latinx,” highlighting its reception and controversy. Senator Ruben Gallego critiques the term as “something that white liberals made up,” noting its limited adoption among Latinos themselves.

McWhorter’s Analysis

McWhorter characterizes “Latinx” as “academic and activist jargon” that has not caught on beyond those circles. He explains the term’s attempt to neutralize gender binaries but points out its aesthetic and cultural disconnect with the Spanish language, stating, “There are an awful lot of Latinos who don’t want to get rid of the gender binary.”

Quote:
Senator Ruben Gallego (12:16): “I've quoted you on this show a number of times because you've been talking about this term Latinx, which sounds, I don't know what it sounds like. It's something that white liberals made up.”

Public Opinion vs. Academic Preferences

Leonhardt and McWhorter agree that while “Latinx” serves academic and progressive agendas, it fails to resonate with the broader Latino community. McWhorter emphasizes that imposing such terms disregards the preferences of the very groups they intend to describe.

Sports Team Names and Cultural Sensitivity

Controversial Team Names

The discussion shifts to the naming of sports teams, such as the Washington Commanders (formerly Redskins) and the Cleveland Guardians (formerly Indians). Leonhardt highlights President Donald Trump’s push to revert name changes, claiming widespread Native American support.

McWhorter’s Perspective

McWhorter counters by referencing more recent polls indicating that the majority of Native Americans oppose names like “Redskins.” He argues that such names are dehumanizing and perpetuate stereotypes, unlike other team names like the Notre Dame Fighting Irish or the Montreal Canadiens, which are broadly accepted by their respective communities.

Quote:
John McWhorter (17:31): “You would never call someone a Redskin to their face. You know, I. Sports plays no role in my life whatsoever. But I remember when I was 10… that kind of nostalgia is inappropriate here because you would never say, hello, Redskin.”

Consistency in Naming Practices

Leonhardt challenges McWhorter’s view by pointing out that other team names representing entire groups, such as the Fighting Irish or the Montreal Canadiens, are not widely contested. He asserts that the key difference lies in the consent and acceptance of the communities being represented.

McWhorter’s Response

McWhorter concedes that while there might be efforts to review such names for consistency, the unique historical context and ongoing discrimination faced by Native Americans make the case against such team names more compelling.

Formulating the McWhorter Doctrine

Key Principles:

1. Context Matters: Understanding the historical and cultural backdrop of terminology is crucial. Terms that may have been acceptable or even preferred in the past can become problematic as societal awareness evolves.

2. Respect Public Opinion: Language should reflect the preferences and sentiments of the communities it describes, rather than imposing academic or elite viewpoints.

3. Avoid Overreach for Comprehensiveness: Attempting to create universally accepted terms often leads to awkward or ineffective language. It’s essential to prioritize common usage over forced inclusivity.

4. Distinguish Academic Views from General Public Opinion: Recognize that academic discourse does not always align with the beliefs and preferences of the broader population. Policies and language should consider the latter to ensure relevance and acceptance.

Quote:
John McWhorter (23:12): “Absolutely. There's always going to be fuzz. No term is going to be perfect because humanity and history and geography are so complex.”

Conclusion

The episode concludes with Leonhardt and McWhorter reiterating the importance of evolving language that respects the identities and preferences of diverse communities. They caution against allowing academic preferences to dictate societal norms, advocating instead for a more grounded approach that honors public sentiment and historical context.

Quote:
David Leonhardt (24:22): “I think of you as the loyal opposition to your academic tribe rather than disloyal to it.”

Final Thoughts:

John McWhorter’s insights offer a nuanced perspective on the delicate balance between linguistic precision and communal acceptance. By emphasizing context, public opinion, and the limitations of language in capturing complex identities, the conversation underscores the ongoing evolution of how society defines and refers to its diverse members.

Notable Quotes with Timestamps:

• John McWhorter (09:09): “Yeah, I would go with capital B, capital W, and I would never have imagined myself saying this five years ago, but sometimes you have to go with the times.”

• Senator Ruben Gallego (12:16): “I've quoted you on this show a number of times because you've been talking about this term Latinx, which sounds, I don't know what it sounds like. It's something that white liberals made up.”

• John McWhorter (17:31): “You would never call someone a Redskin to their face. You know, I. Sports plays no role in my life whatsoever. But I remember when I was 10… that kind of nostalgia is inappropriate here because you would never say, hello, Redskin.”

• John McWhorter (23:12): “Absolutely. There's always going to be fuzz. No term is going to be perfect because humanity and history and geography are so complex.”

This comprehensive summary encapsulates the key discussions, insights, and conclusions from the episode, providing a clear understanding for those who have not listened to it.