To Call a Black a Black

The election of Barack Obama has an auxiliary advantage, something that is nice for intermediaries between newspapers and the public: one can finally write black – even in a sub-heading on the front page, as in Le Monde from 6 November (“…the Democratic victor, first black to accede to the White House”) – without receiving a flock of messages calling it racism. That day, the term was used 21 times, idem the following day. Not one reproach. On the contrary, delighted emails about our very complete coverage of this election. This is new: up till then, mentioning a person’s skin color, ethnic or religious roots was taboo.

It is true that this has to do with the United States. On a Focus page on 26 August, “Why Obama’s mixed race is defined as black,” our correspondent Sylvain Cypel explained at length that the word “race” [in English], from this side of the Atlantic, does not have the pejorative meaning that it has had in Europe since the Second World War. It simply indicates a human group, chosen by each citizen, at the time of the census. Since 2000, an individual can mark several boxes (for example “Hispanic” and “Black”) or a single one, like Obama does, meaning in this case the community of which he considers himself a part. A minority (2.5%) of Americans call themselves mixed race – by marking two races or more. “The candidate is not called mixed race, but black, because he proclaims himself as such. That is a political culture,” adds our correspondent.

This simplified approach (of recent date it is true) has not yet reached France. Throughout the American campaign, our readers thus complained of racism underlying our articles. “I’ve had it with reading details of color when what they’re talking about is ‘black,’” wrote Ana Chavanat for example (email). “Yesterday a ‘black American’ author, today ‘a deputy black and four senators of North African origin.’” This message made reference to two articles: a portrait of writer Maya Angelou (great figure of the American black community, friend of Malcolm X and Martin Luther King) and a survey entitled “Where is the French Obama?” that underlined the weak ethnic diversity of the national representation in France. In the two cases, the context justified the use of the word “black”.

“I was quite astonished,” emphasized Marcelle Espejo (email), “to discover (…) that the father of Senator McCain was identified as being an ‘admiral-in-chief,’ while the father of Senator Obama is a ‘black Kenyan’. Apparently the ethnic origin of Mr. Obama is enough to understand his professional career… Likewise, Obama’s mother is a “white American”, while the skin color of McCain’s mother isn’t mentioned, apparently because she is neither black, nor Latina, nor… etc. I am very concerned to see this slip in the pages of Le Monde.”

The two articles our reader was referring to summarized in a few lines the path followed by the two candidates. The details, which would have been shocking in another context, were not in this case. The origin of Barack Obama, African-American born to a mixed-race couple, had, in fact, a non-negligible weight in the electoral battle – like the fact that John McCain is the son of an admiral.

Where does discrimination begin, where does political correctness end? The problem is not new. It is also a headache for newspaper intermediaries with the public. It’s true that nothing in the ethical charters forbids indicating a person’s skin color, ethnic origin, religion or sexual orientation, on the condition that these details are relevant in the context – or that the person concerned prides himself on it. The Style Guide of Le Monde adds, in the chapter Prejudice(s): “The editors forbid use of any formulation or cliché expressing sexism (‘a charming female clerk’), racism (‘a completely Oriental cruelty’) or social contempt (‘son of a modest school teacher’).”

In this domain, the offence increases on a case by case basis, and the blunder is not the least of it. Let’s take two examples. First an obituary of senior member of the Council of State Guy Braibant, which mentioned “his mother, a Jew of Egyptian origin”. “This formulation leaves a feeling of malaise,” says Mr. Lemesle (Maisons-Laffitte, Yvelines). “What is your newspaper trying to prove?” This detail, explains the author of the article, sheds light on Mr. Braibant’s links with his cousin Henri Curiel, a figure of anti-colonialism, assassinated in Paris in 1978, which left a deep impression on him.

Another example: a portrait of the comedian Marina Foïs. “You write: ‘jewish mother, Sardinian father,’” notes Seven Lérys (Neuilly, Hauts-de-Seine). “I remind you that Judaism is a religion, not a nationality.” The reaction in this case is justified, concedes the author of the article, even if the exact formulation – “68-year-old parents, Jewish and psychiatrist mother, Sardinian and physicist researcher father” – came from the comedian herself and aimed to underline the background of cultural diversity from which she came. The error here stems from tactlessness and not from overtones of the unwholesome. But, certainly, it should be avoided.

It is less and less easy. With the politically correct and the contractions of identity progressing (amidst society’s malaise?), the list of taboo terms is getting longer, constraining editors to increasingly artificial circumlocutions: “visible minorities”, “diverse youths”, or “products of immigration”, etc. “Muslim” is among the sensitive terms, likewise for “Kabyle” – “For more than a century, Kabylia has designated an integral part of Algeria!” protests Luc Theibaut (Dijon). “Youth” itself becomes suspect, for it is synonymous with hooligan from the banlieues – verification has been made that this is happily not the case in our pages.

Recently it has been the turn of the word “9-3” [the French department of Seine-Saint-Denis, an area just outside of Paris with a high concentration of immigrants, is called “9-3” in local slang after its official administrative number]. After the publication of an article entitled “In the ‘9-3’, many elevators, no training,” a reader living in Le Raincy (Seine-Saint-Denis) writes: “The inhabitants of this department felt stigmatized by the behavior of the media. The word Negro is banned, but we continue to be called ‘9-3’, as if it were a new form of language.” I can’t wait for the Obama effect!