Word for a black person

1 having the color of soot or coal

• we adopted a little black kitten

2 causing or marked by an atmosphere lacking in cheer

• the Friday of the stock market crash was indeed a black day for the country

• bleak,
• cheerless,
• chill,
• Cimmerian,
• cloudy,
• cold,
• comfortless,
• dark,
• darkening,
• depressing,
• depressive,
• desolate,
• dire,
• disconsolate,
• dismal,
• drear,
• dreary,
• dreich
• [chiefly Scottish],
• elegiac
• (also elegiacal),
• forlorn,
• funereal,
• gloomy,
• glum,
• godforsaken,
• gray
• (also grey),
• lonely,
• lonesome,
• lugubrious,
• miserable,
• morbid,
• morose,
• murky,
• plutonian,
• saturnine,
• sepulchral,
• solemn,
• somber
• (or sombre),
• sullen,
• sunless,
• tenebrific,
• tenebrous,
• wretched

• blue,
• dejected,
• depressed,
• despondent,
• down,
• droopy,
• hangdog,
• inconsolable,
• low,
• melancholic,
• melancholy,
• mirthless,
• sad,
• unhappy,
• woebegone,
• woeful

• desperate,
• hopeless,
• pessimistic

• lamentable,
• mournful,
• plaintive,
• sorrowful

• encouraging,
• hopeful,
• optimistic

• bright,
• cheerful,
• cheering,
• cheery,
• comforting,
• cordial,
• festive,
• friendly,
• gay,
• heartwarming,
• sunshiny

3 not having a light complexion

• a black Irishman, Tyrone Power had the classic looks of a Hollywood leading man

4 being without light or without much light

• on a black night such as this, the imagination runs wild

• caliginous,
• dark,
• darkened,
• darkish,
• darkling,
• darksome,
• dim,
• dimmed,
• dusk,
• dusky,
• gloomy,
• lightless,
• murky,
• obscure,
• obscured,
• pitch-black,
• pitch-dark,
• pitchy,
• rayless,
• somber
• (or sombre),
• stygian,
• tenebrific,
• tenebrous,
• unlit

• moonless,
• starless,
• sunless

• cloudy,
• dull,
• dulled,
• lackluster

• shadowlike,
• shadowy,
• shady

• gray
• (also grey),
• leaden,
• pale

• beclouded,
• befogged,
• clouded,
• foggy,
• fuliginous,
• misty,
• smoggy,
• soupy

• ablaze,
• agleam,
• aglitter,
• alight,
• beaming,
• beamy,
• effulgent,
• glaring,
• glowing,
• incandescent,
• lambent,
• radiant,
• relucent,
• resplendent,
• shining,
• sparkling

• floodlit
• (also floodlighted),
• highlighted,
• spotlighted
• (or spotlit)

• moonlit,
• moony,
• starlit,
• sunlit

• bright,
• brightened,
• brilliant,
• illuminated,
• illumined,
• light,
• lit
• (or lighted),
• lightsome,
• lucent,
• lucid,
• luminous

5 not clean

• after mopping the floor, the water in the bucket was black

• bedraggled,
• befouled,
• begrimed,
• bemired,
• besmirched,
• blackened,
• cruddy,
• dingy,
• dirty,
• draggled,
• dusty,
• filthy,
• foul,
• grimy,
• grotty
• [chiefly British],
• grubby,
• grungy,
• mucky,
• muddy,
• nasty,
• smudged,
• smutty,
• soiled,
• sordid,
• stained,
• sullied,
• unclean,
• uncleanly

• contaminated,
• defiled,
• germy,
• impure,
• polluted,
• tainted

• insanitary,
• uncleaned,
• unsanitary,
• unsterile,
• unsterilized,
• unwashed

• chaotic,
• cluttered,
• confused,
• disarranged,
• disarrayed,
• disheveled
• (or dishevelled),
• disordered,
• jumbled,
• littered,
• messed,
• messy,
• muddled,
• mussed,
• mussy,
• rumpled,
• scruffy,
• sloppy,
• slovenly,
• unkempt,
• untidy

• raunchy,
• scuzzy
• [slang],
• shabby,
• skanky
• [slang],
• sleazy,
• squalid

• collied
• [chiefly British dialect],
• crocked
• [dialect],
• fuliginous,
• sooty

• cleaned,
• cleansed,
• combed,
• groomed,
• neat,
• ordered,
• orderly,
• tidy

• bleached,
• purified,
• whitened

• bright,
• flawless,
• perfect,
• shiny,
• sparkling,
• unspotted,
• untouched

• taintless,
• unblemished,
• undefiled,
• unpolluted,
• untainted,
• virgin,
• wholesome

Leigh Wells/Getty Images/Ikon Images

A heads-up to our readers: We use some language in this post that some folks might find offensive.

Last week, the Toronto Star found itself in the midst of one of those blink-and-you-missed-it Internet kerfuffles over race.

Here’s what happened. The Ontario Human Rights Commission had settled on a term to use in reference to people of color — «racialized people.»

The commission wrote:

«Recognizing that race is a social construct, the Commission describes people as ‘racialized person’ or ‘racialized group’ instead of the more outdated and inaccurate terms ‘racial minority,’ ‘visible minority,’ ‘person of colour’ or ‘non-White.’ «

In turn, Star reporter Natasha Grzincic created a listicle: «5 other labels for people of colour er… non-whites uh … racialized people.» It seemed to be riffing on a common idea that these designations are tortured and overly sensitive.

Some readers complained that Grzincic was making light of the agency’s decision, and the story was subsequently removed from the Star’s website a few hours later, with a note saying that it did not meet the paper’s standards.

On this side of the border, the Army found itself in hot water after it updated its regulations to prevent discrimination, noting that some people who are «black or African-American» might also identify as «Negro.» The story was widely reported as Army says ‘Negro’ is OK to use, and although that’s not exactly what happened, the Army felt compelled to issue an apology and remove the motive. (You might recall a similar controversy over «Negro’s» appearance on U.S. Census forms that prompted the bureau to announce last year that it would be removed from future questionnaires.)

Minorities. Nonwhites. People of color. In some corporate-esque sectors, you might even hear someone use the term «diverse» as a modifier — as in, «We’re really interested in hearing a diverse voice on this issue,» as though an individual person might be diverse. Each of those terms came into wide usage in the 20th century, only to fall out of vogue and be replaced with a new one. Each replacement was meant to be less loaded than its predecessor, only to eventually take on all of that predecessor’s anxieties — and some new ones. Linguists refer to this process as «pejoration.»

«If a word that refers to something always appears in sentences where that thing is framed negatively, then that term will take on that negativity,» Lauren Hall-Lew, a sociolinguist at the University of Edinburgh, told me over email.

Steven Pinker gave this idea a more colorful name in his 2004 book The Blank Slate: the «euphemism treadmill.»

«The drive to adopt new terms for disadvantaged groups … often assumes that words and attitudes are so inseparable that one can re-engineer people’s attitudes by tinkering with the words,» Pinker wrote.

He went on:

«People invent new words for emotionally charged referents, but soon the euphemism becomes tainted by association, and a new word must be found, which soon acquires its own connotations, and so on. […] Even the word ‘minority’ — the most neutral word label conceivable, referring only to relative numbers — was banned in 2001 by the San Diego City Council … because it was deemed disparaging to nonwhites. … The euphemism treadmill shows that concepts, not words, are primary in people’s minds. Give a concept a new name, and the name becomes colored by the concept; the concept does not become freshened by the name, at least not for long. Names for minorities will continue to change as long as people have negative attitudes toward them. We will know that they have achieved mutual respect when the names stay put.»

These terms also become outmoded because of our shifting politics. A designation like «nonwhite» is often criticized because it makes white people a kind of neutral default from which other people might deviate. A term like «minority» might ruffle some folks because we’re entering the age of pluralities, with no clear majorities.

That same volatility dogs more specific racial designations than those describing all people of color. As I wrote in a story some months back, Americans often change which boxes they checked for the race question on the United States census. Indeed, the Census Bureau said no two decennial censuses have ever used the same language or categories for questions about race or ethnicity.

«Oriental» became «Asian» became «Asian-American and Pacific Islander.» «Colored» changes to «Negro» and then to «black» and «African-American.» The nomenclature for white people, on the other hand, has remained more or less stable, even if the definition of who might qualify as «white» has been pretty fluid over the past few hundred years.

But as Hall-Lew points out, this is all less about the words themselves than about the social context in which they’re being used. «Colored» is an ugly anachronism in the United States but still a pretty neutral descriptor in South Africa, where «Coloured,» with a capital C, refers to people with certain mixed-race ancestries. «Despite the extremely fraught history of racial tension in South Africa,» Hall-Lew said, «there was not as direct a relationship between the term ‘[coloured]’ and racist discourse the way there was in the United States, in large part because of the role of the [black African and Indian/Asian groups] in South Africa.» She said context also explains why both «colored people» and «people of color» can have such drastically different meanings in the U.S.: «It’s about who says it and what they’re saying when they say it,» she said.

A big reason these terms have been in flux is because of the evolving social positions of the people being referred to — that is, as people from different groups gain visibility, the names people give to their own ethnic groups («autonyms») are supplanting the names that groups are given by outsiders («exonyms»). Of course, those are contested, too; it’s not like there’s consensus on «black» or «African-American,» and many people toggle back and forth and employ their own, personal taxonomies.

This got us thinking about a whole other class of charged words whose meanings are especially dependent on the speakers and audience — reclaimed slurs like «nigger» or «queer.» As a Redditor pointed out to me, those terms have never been neutral designations — they can’t fall off the treadmill because they were never euphemisms. In some contexts, they’re terms of affection, markers of in-group status. In other situations, they’re derogatory. (Context and consequences, people.)

Hall-Lew told me that «reclamation is the other side to the same coin»:

«[S]uccessful instances of reclamation suggest that those speakers have enough social capital (in certain communities, at least) to make it stick (which, for example, might give us some insight on the cultural change in the legitimacy granted to speakers who identify as queer).»

Pinker calls it the euphemism treadmill. Other folks might call it, derisively, «political correctness.» But this is how language works: It reflects the relationships between speakers and groups. These descriptors will be in flux as long as our orientations to each other keep changing, which suggests that the treadmill isn’t likely to stop anytime soon.

• #1

spade
[countable] taboo old-fashioned a very offensive word for a black person. Do not use this word.

Source: Longman Dictionary

Hello,
I wonder that «spade» in the above definition is originated from what? I mean why some people wanted to insult a black person by calling him/her a spade? Why was it an offensive word? Does this have an especial history or story?

Thank you.

• #2

I’m guessing it’s from the colour of the ‘spades’ suit in a deck of cards.

• #3

There was an expression «to be as black as the Ace of Spades».

• #4

Yes, it’s supposed to have derived from the colour of the Ace of spades, but no one seems to know why the connection was made.

• #5

The playing card, the Ace of Spades:

• #6

That doesn’t actually explain why the original reference to spades; clubs are black, too.

• #7

As for as quantities of black are concerned, the 10 of Spades is blacker. As spades were the master suit and as the ace was the highest card, it seems reasonable, from a cultural point of view, that the image of the single large spade, black against a stark white background, would spring most readily to mind.

The OED has under the entry for «Ace»

c. colloq. as black as the ace of spades: very black or dark; esp. (of a person) having very dark skin (now usu. offensive).
1817 New Evangelical Mag. Aug. 247 If..anyone should call him a black man, even though he was as black as the ace of spades, the negro could sue him.

But this use was preceded, albeit by only a few years, so probably both were concurrent, by

b. ace of spades n. slang a widow, esp. one wearing mourning weeds.
1811 Lexicon Balatronicum (at cited word), Ace of Spades, a widow.
1868 Nation 3 Sept. 190/1 The ‘autum cackler’, being bereaved of her husband, becomes ‘an ace of spades’—that being what a widow is styled in the slang dictionary.

The idea then is that the Ace of Spades was a by-word for blackness.

An alternative — fixing the card in the mind, is given in Ace of spades — Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia where in the UK and from the 17th century the Ace of Spades was the most ornate card in the pack — and thus the one most likely to form a simile.

• #8

A black coworker has heard «spade» used in reference to blacks but she does not associate it with anything offensive. Is it still considered an offensive term to blacks?

The British expat in the office (living in the USA for the last 30 years) is not familiar with the expression at all.

I had a coworker in 1970 to 1972 who would say, «I’m not afraid to call a shovel a shovel» in front of blacks, assuming that the black people would not make the association between shovel and spade. It was clear to me that he considered «spade» a derogatory word.

What is the status of «spade» in reference to blacks? Derogatory, neutral, positive? My black coworker said it sounded «cool».

• #9

In BE, derogatory and dismissive. I heard it more in the late 70s and in the 80s. I have not heard it recently.

My black coworker said it sounded «cool».

… until he finds out the nuance — but who knows, it could be «re-purposed.»

• #10

In BE, derogatory and dismissive. I heard it more in the late 70s and in the 80s. I have not heard it recently. … until he finds out the nuance — but who knows, it could be «re-purposed.»

Like the word «bad» which shifts in meaning from «bad» to «good»?

• #12

A black coworker has heard «spade» used in reference to blacks but she does not associate it with anything offensive. Is it still considered an offensive term to blacks?

The British expat in the office (living in the USA for the last 30 years) is not familiar with the expression at all.

I had a coworker in 1970 to 1972 who would say, «I’m not afraid to call a shovel a shovel» in front of blacks, assuming that the black people would not make the association between shovel and spade. It was clear to me that he considered «spade» a derogatory word.

What is the status of «spade» in reference to blacks? Derogatory, neutral, positive? My black coworker said it sounded «cool».

A running joke I have heard in London more than once is ‘You can’t call a spade a spade any more’, obviously because it’s deemed offensive by some, although I remember reading somewhere it was only a reference to a coal shovel, which every household used to have and was quite definitely black (I remember my grandma had one, as she had coal fires in her old Victorian house).

Anyway, don’t use it to speak about black people , sb.

• #13

A few decades ago (60s-70s) the word was kind of hip slang used to refer to African Americans.