‘I’m not African-American,’ some blacks insist

[Verboten]

Nobody says "African-Canadian" in Canada. It's just "Black".

I'd say the major issue is many of these people don't come from Africa. Nor did any previous generation they can think of. It has no connection to them.

There's a trend to refer to black Americans as African-Americans though.

[Tempra]

The reason the sports car comparison fails IMO is because sports cars are frequently described by their nationality no matter the nationality. So, in popular usage, the big Venn Diagram circle is completely filled by the smaller Venn Diagram circles and every car is on equal footing.

The inequity with race/nationality comes, again in the popular usage, when white Americans get to exist in the larger "American" circle whereas members of other ethnicity have to have their own sub-circle. The idea that a black American becomes an "African-American" while a white American is simply "American" implies an inequity. One subset of people requires a three-syllable descriptor while the other subset does not.

How is it inequitable when the descriptor "African-American" is by and large self chosen by black people?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

And that's what I think is the root of causing the hissyfit of the majority group people here: their need to respond to individual preferences and treat members of the minority group as having different preferences. Why can't the minority just pick a label so I won't have to worry about offending them? It's such a chore to declare my non-racism every time I apply a generic term that I thought could blanket the entire group of them and only to be called out for having use the wrong term. So frustrating! What do they want from me?!

Your use of the term "hissy-fit" clearly is perjorative, and I'm curious as to why. Do you think a situation where a person acting in good faith can be reprimanded for not using the term preferred by the particular individual in question is preferable?

[Ser_not_appearing_yet]

Here in the UK our black population by and large associate themselves with the Caribbean primarily. I've never heard the phrase 'African-British' or 'African-French'. Africa is a pretty big place anyway, so it doesn't make much sense.

[Ser Greguh]

How is it inequitable when the descriptor "African-American" is by and large self chosen by black people?

I argue that the people that self-choose the descriptor "African-American" choose poorly, at least from a basis of linguistic equity. There are of course other factors to consider for some, and that can be perfectly valid, but that doesn't change the fact that I don't think it's a good choice of words.

[SelaBela]

You're right, it doesn't make much sense. Since Africa is a continent and France/England are nations.

This sort of goes into the silent privilege most white people in America have where they don't HAVE to say European or Irish-American or German-American. Great example is someone asked two women what they saw when they looked in the mirror, the white woman said "a woman" and the black woman said "a black woman". The problem is that the minority groups have to label themselves as separate.

I just say "black" because its what all of my friends prefer to be referred to as. I haven't had a request for "African-American" ever.

I'd prefer if I could just call all my American friends Americans and be done with it!

[awesome possum]

If you were born in the United States of America, you're an American. Simple as that.

If you immigrated from Africa and got your US citizenship, you're an African American.

[TerraPrime]

Re: Errant Bard

Oh yes, a russian-italian sports car, as a qualifier, has way less oomph

So Russian-Italian label to sports cars is as African- or Asian- label as to Americans? If so, why?

Maybe it's because there are no European-American? It certainly seem to denote a subgroup, with an emphasis on sub, of the group actually making up the country, or imply that they are not entirely part of the country. Maybe without the hyphen it would work better as a description qualifier.

There are European-Americans. They just don't use the label because there is no need for them to organize, and to give name to, the type of aggregates that they are subjected to by the dominant group.

Question: In the context of "african-american" thing, isn't this a citizenship issue? Why add "american" behind if it's not? And if it is, why should you feel the need to discriminate between you and them?

I'm not sure what the citizenship question is about? I don't really understand that question.

As for the next question, I think that's some loaded language there. "Discriminate?" Do you mean in a political and systemic way that adversely affect someone, or do you mean in the literal sense of to tell one thing apart from another? I don't feel that using different terms to describe different groups of people whose treatment by the dominant group has been different constitutes the social-political sense of "discriminate." As for the literal sense, we need different labels for different groups because we need a way to talk about the shared experience of members of that group.

It's all fancy and noble to say, "we're all Americans." Well no shit, Sherlock. We're not calling them African-Australians, you know? There are life experience that are common to most darker-skinned people who look like they were descended from the African/Carribean slaves brought over to the U.S. before slavery was outlawed. It is in addition to any of the common life experience that one might have for living in America. The groups are different, due to their differences in life experience, so what is the problem of calling these groups by a more specific name?

Re: Liffguard

What about a different comparison? What about "womens' sports?" I know a lot of feminists (rightfully IMO) have a problem with that phrase because it's used to differentiate it not from "mens' sports" but from "sports" generally. It's not an inaccurate label, but the context of its use has exculsionary implications. Same deal (possibly) with "african-american" and "american."

I think there's a lot of history behind the term "African American" and I suspect it has to do with events like the Harlem renaissance where black Americans began a conscious examination of their cultural roots in American society. But what sets labels like "African American" apart from "women sports" is that the former was supported and embraced by the group of people being described, whereas the in the latter, the label is used by the outgroups. I would err on the side of respecting the labels that people choose for themselves, whether I think the words they use for the label is 100% accurate or not.

Re:

I don't get the need to even specify.

If we want to kill racism (I think we do), why do we continue to name people differently? Am I missing something?

Yes.

What you're missing is that racism does not arise from calling people by different labels. It does not arise from having two descriptive terms for 2 different groups of people. You're confusing the cause and effects here.

Now, as for technical term, I think this might be outdated, but what I was taught in school is that there is the Indo-Europid race, the Mongoloid race, and the Negroid race, and then several other, less common races. I don't know if this what they teach in school now. But even if there is a technical "correct" term for describing race, what's the case scenario where it could be needed? A police report?

It may or may not be outdated. That's not for me to say. If people in that group wants to shift to "black American," I'll respect that and use that term. If they want to keep using "African-American," I'll respect that, as well. It simply is not a call that I have any say-so in.

I will note, however, that we do not see the equivalent in Asian-Americans or Latino-Americans, i.e., we do not see agitation for "let's call them yellow Americans and brown Americans."

[Errant Bard]

Wouldn't you be more like a Ethiopian-American or a South-African-American or a Lybian-American? Africa, it's as big as it's diverse

[Ken Stone]

If it's used to put some people apart and designate and treat them differently than the others, then no, it shouldn't.

If it's a matter of describing one's appearance, then yes, but in the same way as noticing a person's build, their hair colour and cut, the colour of their eyes, etc. In that sense, it's more logical to describe black people as "black" rather than as "african-american", I would think.

In any case, race is a sketchy concept at best, and skin colour is a silly way to tell races apart.

But even the darkest "Black" person is really more dark brown than black. So describing them as "Black" is sort of weird.

[quirksome]

We have the term "black British" as a census descriptor but given how many generations the black population has been in Britain most of my friends consider themselves as just British. Not sure why the African- bit is needed to describe Americans who happen to be black.

[TerraPrime]

Your use of the term "hissy-fit" clearly is perjorative, and I'm curious as to why. Do you think a situation where a person acting in good faith can be reprimanded for not using the term preferred by the particular individual in question is preferable?

Preferable to what: using a label that the described group does not want and not be reprimanded for it?

The type of reaction I'm deriding is indeed a hissyfit, meaning that it's someone being upset over unjustified causes, e.g. being told that hey, don't call people from SE Asia "Orientals."

[S John]

I think that the term African-American came about because the old-school racial terms used in America for blacks were generally not very nice. Or, at least they became pejorative over time.

I do agree with others though that African-American is beginning to seem like a dated-term itself. Just taking a wild stab here - but if I had to guess it seems dated because Gen Xers and younger have no memory of the segregation era where you might have separate facilities for 'colored' people. For people who lived during that era, perhaps the term 'black' struck a cord a little bit too close to 'colored' or 'negro' hence the rise of African-American as a substitute.

So maybe younger Americans of all races who did not live that experience find African-American to be dated and are ready to accept 'black' as an acceptable descriptor. Maybe its like a bridge term. Useful in previous generations, but makes less sense now.

[Lummel]

But even the darkest "Black" person is really more dark brown than black. So describing them as "Black" is sort of weird.

as weird as calling someone like me white when milk-through-to-burnt-magnolia-coloured-with-browner-flecks would be a more realistic description. But there you go, its a mad, mad world.

[TerraPrime]

Wouldn't you be more like a Ethiopian-American or a South-African-American or a Lybian-American? Africa, it's as big as it's diverse

You could indeed make that argument, if the majority of slaves from the trans-Atlantic slave trade had kept reliable genealogy record. Or, more likely, their masters had cared about the origins of their slaves and kept those records for them, through generations of chattel slavery, and then gifted this carefully-assembled genealogy to the now-emancipated slaves. Then, perhaps, we can be specific enough to include countries, instead of being stymied by the lack of information where the best approximation is that most of these slaves came from different parts of Africa.

[Prince Alexander]

Re:

Yes.

What you're missing is that racism does not arise from calling people by different labels. It does not arise from having two descriptive terms for 2 different groups of people. You're confusing the cause and effects here.

I'm not sure I agree. When I think about kids being born into a society where someone with dark skin is called African American, and someone with pink skin is just American, I feel like soil is exactly ripe for new generation of little racists.

Imagine kids being born into society where everyone is called the same, and other kids have different skin/hair/body types just like cats or dogs do. Can you imagine kids growing up like that ever becoming racist?

There is no single cause-effect with racism. It's all a huge circle of causes and effects, and this right here is one way to break it and let it unwind itself.

I hope I'm not derailing. My point is, I think there should be no names to specify race unless it's medical for some specific reason.

[Andriy Czarchenko]

Terra: African-American completely fails as a term because it by american definition excludes a lot of people of African descent. North Africans are still Africans no matter what.

Edit: sorry hit post way too early.

ETA: spelling

[Trebla]

In a perfect world I could just say I'm American. But inevitably the "So...what are nationality are you?" question comes up. I could answer "AMERICAN" since I was born here. But then it leads to, "Oh, haha, um, I meant which ethnicity are you?" Latino or Hispanic isn't even good enough. "Well, which kind?" It just saves a lot of time and irritation to just say Mexican-American.

[Ormond]

Here is one of the most interesting articles addressing this issue that I found through a quick bit of Googling:

http://www.racialicious.com/2010/02/23/why-african-american-is-the-most-accurate-term/

Note that the author of the above is responding to an earlier article by John McWhorter, himself a Black American, who dislikes the term "African-American."

Some people in the USA who are of Mexican descent prefer the term "Chicano", while others think that's insulting and prefer "Mexican-American." The different life experiences of different individuals are always going to result in some differences over preferred terms.

It's interesting that although the term "African Canadian" doesn't seem to be used in Canada, the term "Asian Canadian" is:

http://www.asian.ca/

[TerraPrime]

I'm not sure I agree. When I think about kids being born into a society where someone with dark skin is called African American, and someone with pink skin is just American, I feel like soil is exactly ripe for new generation of little racists.

Imagine kids being born into society where everyone is called the same, and other kids have different skin/hair/body types just like cats or dogs do. Can you imagine kids growing up like that ever becoming racist?

Yes. Because racism is propagated institutionally and culturally, whether the children use these terms or not. Children have no power to change the racism in the world. They are often indoctrinated into racist ideas.

Your supposition that children will grow up to be not racist is only accurate if they were born into a society without racism. Since racism does exist, we do need some language to help us organize thoughts and discuss issues.