Note on Historic and Harmful Language

The BWDP is categorically opposed to hatred and discrimination of any kind, including but not limited to racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, and any other form of bigotry. We regard our work on this project as part of what scholar Kim Gallon calls a “‘technology of recovery’,” “characterized by efforts to bring forth the full humanity of marginalized peoples through the use of digital platforms and tools” (“Making a Case” 44). Therefore we do not censor the writers represented in our project, but we hope to frame their articulations within the historical context in which they were written.

We use secondary sources–namely, census records and historic newspapers–to research the diarists and the people mentioned in the diaries. The language used to describe African American figures in these materials is not necessarily that chosen by the person being described. For example, between 1850 and 1890, census takers were required to identify people as “white,” “black,” or “mulatto.” The 1890 census shifted to eight categories: “white,” “black,” “mulatto,” “quadroon,” “octoroon,” “Chinese,” “Japanese,” and “Indian” (Native American). As Jennifer L. Hochschild and Brenna M. Powell explain, this shift was part of a larger effort to show “that mixed-race individuals were physically, mentally, and morally degenerate.” Such sources should not therefore be seen as objective (“Racial Reorganization”).

The language used in newspaper articles differs drastically, even when writers are addressing the same event. Not surprisingly, Black-owned newspapers are more likely to use respectful language when describing Black individuals, while white-owned newspapers often use racist language reflecting the views of the writer and publisher. We quote from such materials when it is necessary to provide context, even as we recognize that such language can be outdated, offensive, and harmful.