On Tue, 2020-07-14 at 12:24 -0400, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: > We'll have to agree to disagree. To me it is clearly racially charged > language and you are cherry picking your sources. 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 > The first *recorded* use of the term 'blacklist' or 'black list' was in 1660 when Charles II of England used it to refer to a list of those who had killed his father, Charles I. From the context it is far more likely that 'black list' was referring to the sin of regicide than to anybody's skin colour.
I notice that the abstract you quoted has no references earlier than 1962, so I find it hard to take it seriously, especially as the earlier religious links between 'black' and 'sin' appear to be ignored by it. This is odd considering how much influence religion had on society in the 17th century and that there was no slavery in North America before about 1640. Out of pure curiosity, when was the current racist use of 'black' first coined and where did that happen? Me? I grew up in NZ where the social norms were against any attempt to denigrate Maoris: anybody who would not let a Maori meter-reader in to read his electricity meter would not be sent a pakeha meter reader and so was more or less guaranteed to get a heavy fine for late payment and failing to get his meter read. Similarly, I don't remember the All Blacks, national rugby team, ever not having Maoris in it. Martin
