African American? or just American?

Jgordon

New Blood
J
Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Messages
5
This term has bothered me alot. Why are blacks called African American? Why arn't they just called American? To some, yes, it is a cultural term and used in a way that expresses pride, but when I say it, and most of the other people say it, it is just another word for black people. And if we did, have to call them something other than blacks, why are they African American? Why arnt they like me? like you? Arn't they just Americans? And you do infact believe that they are African American, what are you? Where did your great great grandparents come from, and then we can call you a German-American, or Russian-American, or English-American. Blacks should not be specified with a name while we are just called American. I am pretty sure that they got here just around the same time as us (+or- 50 years) and that not even everyone of the blacks we call today are African American. Some of them have come from other countries and or been born from a black mother and diff. ethnicity of a mother. Again, arn't they just like us, just AMERICANS!
 
There's a touch of racism, a touch of culturalism, a touch of stereotyping, and a touch of recognition.

I'm pretty sure I'm Europion but, from which state therein I neither know nor care. Then again, I don't have a government and self-elected vocal civic leaders convincing me I'm not inferior while demanding I get special treatment to overcome my un-inferior status.
 
The preferred term was "negro" a few generations ago. Then, in the 1960s, activists asserted that "black" was the neutral, non-offensive term, as "negro" still carried with it racist overtones.

"Black" worked just fine until the early 1990s, when some white professors at elite Eastern universities and other activists of the Politically Correct movement arbitrarily decided that "black" was offensive as well, so they coined the unwieldy and inappropriate term "African-American" as a substitute. They claimed it helped black persons (I won't take part in the silliness, as the term "black" is nothing but neutral, and no less offensive than "white") reclaim part of their ancient heritage, something of which they were encouraged to be proud.

This was also an outgrowth of a black separatist movement that began in the 1960s, and reached a new level of absurdity when a black American invented out of whole cloth the "tradition" of Kwanzaa in the 1970s as a black alternative to celebrating the "white" Christmas. One hundred percent of the tradition associated with it is made up.

Black Americans who are the descendants by several generations of former slaves are no more African than anyone else in the US who did not immigrate from Africa, or grow up with African parents. They have little in common with any random group of Africans -- take your pick of any mostly black African country and compare. The black persons who live in the US and are second, third, and higher generation Americans are just as American as any non-black second, third, and higher generation American.

AS
 
It's no affront on you personally what any minority group wants to be called. When I was younger my friends were always Black, as it was a term that flaunted their color with pride (of course, Black people were still trying to get people to stop using the N-word. Young African-Americans I've met sometimes eye me suspiciously when I inadvertantly call them Black but they're usually not offended.

Sure they're Americans, but they have a different history than many Americans and they're proud to include it in their personal identity. The PC term for "Orientals" is now Asians, or for citizens here, Asian-Americans. They're only claiming their Asian descent.

You could honor your roots (assuming you're Caucasion) by calling yourself, Irish-American or British American or Brazilian-American or whatever, and I would stand up for your right to do so. :)
 
I've never heard any blacks use "African-American" in a casual conversation. Ever. And I work primarily for black people in black neighborhoods, for nearly 25 years. But give any self-appointeed "community leader" a podium and suddenly it's African-American this or that.

In my own neighborhood, 90+% of the blacks are not American at all. What are they to be called? African-Africans? Since when is "African" a race anyways? The whole thing is just stupid IMHO.
 
I don't have a problem with "African American" or "____ Americans", but I think the "American" part should be first. Not because of some kind of jingoistic patriotism, I just think it's more accurate. Most people are American before they are their ethnicity. How many of us Americans really want to return to the country we or our ancestors came here from?
 
Mephisto said:
It's no affront on you personally what any minority group wants to be called. When I was younger my friends were always Black, as it was a term that flaunted their color with pride (of course, Black people were still trying to get people to stop using the N-word. Young African-Americans I've met sometimes eye me suspiciously when I inadvertantly call them Black but they're usually not offended.

Sure they're Americans, but they have a different history than many Americans and they're proud to include it in their personal identity. The PC term for "Orientals" is now Asians, or for citizens here, Asian-Americans. They're only claiming their Asian descent.

You could honor your roots (assuming you're Caucasion) by calling yourself, Irish-American or British American or Brazilian-American or whatever, and I would stand up for your right to do so. :)
Click to expand...

It doesn't insult me, but it is foolish and it is divisive. We're Americans. Period. Hyphening the term and adding whatever nationalist or continental or ethnic heritage we happen to claim leads to an unnecessary expansion of identity and encourages identity group politics. Identity politics is the politics of victimhood and BS, frankly. It's also anathema to the colorblind society Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. lauded as a goal we should strive to obtain. Separatist movements are a step backwards, and I'll have no part in encouraging or recognizing them. The black separatist movement is no less racist than white separatist or white supremacist movements. They're two sides of the same coin.

As countless others have previously pointed out, adhering to the use of "African-American" as a substitute for "black" leads to silly results. We see references in news media to "African-Americans" when they are really referring to persons who appear to be ethnically black (if you'll allow me to refer to that as an ethnicity), but are actually from nations other than the US. I've seen plenty of references to black British citizens as "African-Americans." That's just downright stupid. I had a black British client once, and we discussed that very topic. He agreed with me, and wasn't the least bit offended that I referred to Jimi Hendrix as black, for instance, or that I called him black. That he was happened to be black was very pertinent to my representation of him. It was a central issue in our litigation. He understood that, and fully grasped that any attempt on my part to dance around that issue would be nothing but sophistry.

No thank you. You can keep your political correctness, and you can indulge in the silly little games it demands, but I'm going to stick with honesty and forthrightness. I live in a state with a population of whom more than 1/4 are black persons, and I've lived alongside them, gone to school with them, and worked with them all my life. I know no one who is offended when we discuss "black" persons, issues, or affairs. I do it almost daily with black persons, some of whom are in positions of authority over me. They don't mind.

AS
 
AmateurScientist said:
This was also an outgrowth of a black separatist movement that began in the 1960s, and reached a new level of absurdity when a black American invented out of whole cloth the "tradition" of Kwanzaa in the 1970s as a black alternative to celebrating the "white" Christmas. One hundred percent of the tradition associated with it is made up.


AS
Click to expand...

I don't have a problem with the made-up traditions related to Kwanzaa any more than I have a problem with the made-up traditions related to Christmas. I see nothing wrong with making up a holiday.

I do consider the African American thing to be an imprecise and potentially confusing aspect of language and I would prefer to see it go away.
 
However one might feel about it, the fact remains that racial identities remain relevant classifications for many purposes in contemporary society, and therefore we have to have terms by which to identify the groups of which we wish to speak. I'm sympathetic to the point that the constantly shifting "proper" terminology (Negro-->black-->African American-->person of color) has an air of silliness about it, but it's equally silly to suggest that we abandon terms of racial classification altogether, when race remains a powerfully divisive force in so many areas of life. It would make no more sense to abandon the language of racial classifications, than to eliminate the linguistic distinction between "man" and "woman" on the grounds that we're all human, and gender shouldn't matter. It does matter, and so we need words with which to discuss it.
 
Ladewig said:
I don't have a problem with the made-up traditions related to Kwanzaa any more than I have a problem with the made-up traditions related to Christmas. I see nothing wrong with making up a holiday.
Click to expand...

What I have a problem with is this:

1) It assumes Christmas is a racist holiday;

2) It is sold to black persons in the US as a traditional African celebration. That simply is untrue. It was invented in the US, and bears no relation to any actual African celebration in December.

Basically, it's a lie on both counts.

Is Christmas made up? Sure. It's a lie too, as it is nothing more than the Roman Saturnalia as appropriated by the Christian church and altered to reflect some Christian myths.

In either event, Christmas is at least more traditional in that its celebration predates Kwanzaa's by many generations, and it isn't separatist, at least not with respect to most black Americans. Granted, it is separatist with respect to Jewish, Islamic, and all other non-Christian (or secular, but raised in Christian homes) persons. That's a religious difference, however, not one based solely on racial self-identity and a rejection of "white" America.

I view Kwanzaa as sort of like Frank Costanza's Festivus. He treats it as sacred and holy and traditional, but the truth is he made it up.

AS
 
James Dillon sez
Huh?
Click to expand...

CCL -- Classic Circular Logic/Cause-effect/yada-yada.

Blonds and brunetts too are classified. Blond jokes abound and yet, few blonds mind (perhaps they don't understand). Many brunetts follow suit and head to the hairdresser. To my knowledge, they have no spokesman other than that blond that thinks tuna is chicken.
 
Last edited:
Rob Lister said:
CCL -- Classic Circular Logic/Cause-effect/yada-yada.

Blonds and brunetts too are classified. Blond jokes abound and yet, few blonds mind (perhaps they don't understand). Many brunetts follow suit and head to the hairdresser.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that racial differences are only significant because the language makes them that way? If so, I disagree; do you really think that the racial tensions in America would just go away if we eliminated the terminology of race from the English language? I very much doubt it.
 
JamesDillon said:
However one might feel about it, the fact remains that racial identities remain relevant classifications for many purposes in contemporary society, and therefore we have to have terms by which to identify the groups of which we wish to speak. I'm sympathetic to the point that the constantly shifting "proper" terminology (Negro-->black-->African American-->person of color) has an air of silliness about it, but it's equally silly to suggest that we abandon terms of racial classification altogether, when race remains a powerfully divisive force in so many areas of life. It would make no more sense to abandon the language of racial classifications, than to eliminate the linguistic distinction between "man" and "woman" on the grounds that we're all human, and gender shouldn't matter. It does matter, and so we need words with which to discuss it.
Click to expand...

I agree, especially to the extent that although cities are largely integrated in many workplaces, and in the places we shop and the public events we attend, but that they remain ethnically, and especially racially, divided with respect to housing and church affiliation. There is such a thing as "black" culture in so many places in the US, and any attempts to deny that are simply dishonest. Also, there is unfair discrimination against poor black persons in many urban neighborhoods, especially in projects, and especially as committed by many police forces assigned to those areas. I can't count how many times I've heard police officers use the euphemism "high crime area" to refer to a black neighborhood as a justification to conduct a stop of some "suspects" who aren't engaged in any apparent criminal activity. In that sense, it does matter and it is a useful term.

As for the distinctions between "negro," "black," "African-American," -- and the most awkward of them all -- "person of color," a rose is a rose is a rose, by any other name. Black just happens to be the most descriptive and least politically charged of them all, in my opinion. It worked great until some white eggheads in academia decided all by themselves that it was offensive to blacks. Hmmm...maybe someone should have surveyed some black persons first.

On the other side of the coin, is anyone truly offended by being called "white?" If not, then what is the big deal about "black?" It's convention, people. They are neutral terms.

AS
 
Last edited:
AmateurScientist said:
As for the distinctions between "negro," "black," "African-American," -- and the most awkward of them all -- "person of color," a rose is a rose is a rose, by any other name. Black just happens to be the most descriptive and least politically charged of them all, in my opinion. It worked great until some white eggheads in academia decided all by themselves that it was offensive to blacks. Hmmm...maybe someone should have surveyed some black persons first.

On the other side of the coin, is anyone truly offended by being called "white?" If not, then what is the big deal about "black?" It's convention, people. They are neutral terms.

AS
Click to expand...
I agree with that, and none of the black people I know are offended by the term (any more than I'm offended by being called white). I suppose, as Avery Brooks and some others have pointed out, that "brown" is the more accurate descriptive term, and it does avoid the negative connotations of evil and darkness that have long been associated with the term "black," but it never picked up any great currency and would probably be viewed as more offensive than "black" by most of the demographic group in question. Is it just my mistaken impression, though, or has the mid-1990s preoccupation with "sensitivity" in terminology eased off a bit, so that formerly inoffensive terms like "black" have made a return to mainstream respectability?
 
JamesDillon said:
Are you suggesting that racial differences are only significant because the language makes them that way? If so, I disagree; do you really think that the racial tensions in America would just go away if we eliminated the terminology of race from the English language? I very much doubt it.
Click to expand...

Not only that, but I'm continually befuddled by scientists who insist that there is no difference genetically among the different so-called "races." If that is the case, then how do they account for the fact that genetic defects that cause the disease sickle cell anemia is almost exclusive found in black persons, and that cystic fibrosis is almost exclusively a Caucasian disease? Both are caused by genetic defects.

What say the scientists who contend such a thing?

AS
 
Last edited:
It's interesting that Asians are rarely ever called "yellow". At least, here in Toronto.
 
JamesDillon said:
Is it just my mistaken impression, though, or has the mid-1990s preoccupation with "sensitivity" in terminology eased off a bit, so that formerly inoffensive terms like "black" have made a return to mainstream respectability?
Click to expand...

No, I think you're right. Most of the "sensitivity" nonsense seems to have subsided, and I think, as Wildcat pointed out, that it's almost exclusively self-appointed "black leaders" who trot out the term "African-American" only when they're on a soap box. The only other time I hear it is from whites with liberal guilt walking on eggshells.

I say shame on both of them. I try to honor and value intellectual honesty when I can.

AS
 
i too hate the term african american. it's a bunch of pc ******** that strikes me as more seperatist than it is unifying and properly respectful. i hate racism and discrimination, but that kind of awkward silliness isn't something i can abide by. ditto kwanza. what a load of crap. it seems like that kind of thing moves us more backward than forward, and my concerns for racial equality aren't served by overly pc language or made up holidays.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom