“Each name has a cultural background and yet we do not have a problem with names like Connor, Dimitri, Alannah, Antonio, Robert, though they mark culture just as surely as Kwame and LaShawn. By encouraging us to hate and ridicule these names, Whiteness is attempting to discipline and shame Blacks, though this is not a phenomenon unique to us. During the heyday of Ellis Island, people would often emerge to find their names changed by agents who were not patient with immigrants. They were poor, and in many cases certainly not understood to be White, though they would be deemed so today. If we look at the history of many people in the public eye the one trend that we can easily see is that if their names are deemed too ethnic they are changed. Just as Frederic Austerlitz Jr. was deemed better than Fred Astaire, even a name is bland as George Michael, is understood to be better than Georgios Kyriacos Panayiotou.

Whiteness today is still conditional upon no obvious displays of culture, though some cultures are understood be better than others. There is a cost beyond ridicule to having a Black name. It has been proven repeatedly that given the choice between an anglicized name on a resume and an ethnic name, that employers will choose to interview the person with the anglicized name, even in cases where the resumes have similar education and employment history. There is also a stigma of poverty attached to the name. The more that a person of colour is able to conform to Whiteness, the greater chance they have of financial success. A Black name is considered by many to be an albatross. Instead on focusing on these names, we should be turning our attention to why these names bring about such ire.”

—Womanist Musings: What’s In A Name?

Yes.

(via tabularasae)