Grammar and Racial Reckoning
Anyone who has felt the tough love of my copy editing knows I’m a big fan of active voice.
This type of phrasing succinctly specifies who did what, creating two of my favorite things: clarity and brevity.
Active voice: The City Council adopted the ordinance.
Passive voice: The ordinance was adopted by the City Council. (or) The ordinance was adopted.
As if I needed another reason to adore active voice, k. kennedy Whiters, AIA gave me one at last week’s Dismantle Preservation Virtual Unconference.
Kennedy is one of about a thousand Black women who make up less than one percent of the country’s licensed architects. She has a background in preservation and clearly paid attention in English class.
In her quick unconference talk, “Tell the Full Story: A meditation on the retelling of history” (in the session “Burning Down the House”), kennedy conveyed the power of grammar in our racial reckoning.
She showed some Instagram posts in which various preservation groups refer to Black people who were enslaved, without saying who had enslaved them.
We all know it was primarily white people who enslaved Black people. But knowing and saying are different.
“Omitting white people from sentences and phrases about slavery, et cetera, affirms their humanity,” said kennedy, “and supports white supremacy by creating a disconnect between white people and these inhumane acts.”
Kennedy reached out to the organizations, asking for clarification and suggesting edits. One of them, Historic Seattle, took her up on her offer.
By specifying who did what, active voice makes the doer accountable. It avoids the omission George Orwell is said to have called “the most powerful form of lie.”
I hadn’t realized the extent to which telling the full story of our past entails not just what we say, but how we say it. Thank you, kennedy.
Update, June 2021: Kennedy continues her language advocacy with unRedact the Facts - visit her site to learn more.