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

[Datepalm]

I'd say you find plenty of people who also hyphenate, but it's generally as a way of describing their heritage, not their race.

What's the difference, in this context?

[Shryke]

What's the difference, in this context?

I could be Black, but that doesn't tell you where my family comes from. Trinidad? The Ivory Coast? Haiti? South Africa? Scarborough? And so on.

Looks vs Cultural Background basically.

[Sci-2]

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

I'm fine with that as well, just as I'm fine with someone wanting to be considered French American if the desire comes from an earnest place.

The onus is on the outsider to respect the individual he is addressing.

[Prince Alexander]

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.

Fair enough, then what we do is send kids to another planet while we either figure out our issues, or the current generation of racists dies out.

I see your point TP and it's a good one, but for some reason I'm idealistic about this: I feel like it's all about the kids and the up-and-coming generation. It's our current and previous 2 generations I'm cynical about. So much screwing up, and I honestly don't see ways to resolve. We can try at best.

[Sixshells]

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

http://www.racialici...-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."

The point he makes is interesting, but I must say I do not understand why anyone whose parents and grand-parents were born in the US would feel the need to continue pointing out to their distant ancestry. Or even any person who does not have two nationalities, really. Isn't "American" enough? I can see why it would be used with people who got the nationality after emigrating but don't see the point after that.

Also, he doesn't really point out the issue where "African-American" is casually used as a PC denomination for any black person independently from whether or not they are descendants of slaves or even came from somewhere in Africa.

[buy one get one free]

In formal situations where preferences aren't known, I would defer to "African American."

In more colloquial settings, unless I know a specific individual's preference otherwise, I'll usually say "black."

Really, I don't know any black folks (my really really colloquial go-to term) that have a problem with either term. But, then, they may not just be telling me. Dunno.

[TerraPrime]

Re: Ormond

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

http://www.racialici...-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."

Hey what do you know? Very similar argument indeed:

However, one might argue, as McWhorter does, that “African American” is a better label for a person who emigrated from an African country, the so-called “actual African.” Today, over 1 million black people in the United States are from Africa; and yet, I argue, the term “African American” is not the most accurate signifier for these subjects. Why? Because “African” is too abstracted for them. That is to say, an immigrant from Nigeria is aNigerian-American, just as one from Ireland is an Irish-American. Because the immigrant from Nigeria knows he is from Nigeria, he should be hailed accordingly. This recognizes two realities of geopolitical modernity: one, the importance of the formation of nation-states; and, two, that most black people born in the United States do not know precisely from where they come. This is how one distinguishes a descendant of slaves from an African immigrant from, say, Kenya: the former is an African American, the latter is a Kenyan American; whereas the Kenyan knows he from Kenya, the African American is from everywhere and nowhere in Africa at the same time.

Re: Prince Alexander

Fair enough, then what we do is send kids to another planet while we either figure out our issues, or the current generation of racists dies out.

Generational spaceships destined for far planets for the win!

I see your point TP and it's a good one, but for some reason I'm idealistic about this: I feel like it's all about the kids and the up-and-coming generation. It's our current and previous 2 generations I'm cynical about. So much screwing up, and I honestly don't see ways to resolve. We can try at best.

The screw-ups are numerous in number and severe in impact, for sure. And really, the future generations will continue to make their own mistakes. Humans are flawed, without a doubt.

I know why you proposed what you did on simply extinguishing the language used to mark the differences. I only wish it would have been that easy to rid ourselves of racism.

[Datepalm]

I could be Black, but that doesn't tell you where my family comes from. Trinidad? The Ivory Coast? Haiti? South Africa? Scarborough? And so on.

Looks vs Cultural Background basically.

But i've always understood it to be about cultural background anyway. I know plenty of people that might be loosely lumped as caucasian, in as much as it's a term with any meaning, and have darker skin than, say, Beyonce. African-American I understood as the group of people who's shared heritage is mostly descent from slaves, for lack of a better term. Someone who's immigrated to the USA from Somalia ten years ago is very likely to have a different culture, language, religeous practice, personal history and sense of identity, and in the aggregate, as a community, different political issues, education levels, patterns of residence, etc, etc from a Black american who's ancestors have been there since the 1600's.

[Ormond]

The point he makes is interesting, but I must say I do not understand why anyone whose parents and grand-parents were born in the US would feel the need to continue pointing out to their distant ancestry. Or even any person who does not have two nationalities, really. Isn't "American" enough? I can see why it would be used with people who got the nationality after emigrating but don't see the point after that.

I suppose the reason you "don't see the point" is because you yourself have completely assimilated into what might be called "general American culture." There are lots of people who still identify with their ethnic subcultures even after a couple of generations and who don't want to minimize how they and their relatives continue to be different from

"general Americans."

And the descendants of pre-Civil War slaves certainly do have a culture which is different from that of the "majority Whites" whose preferences determine "general American culture."

[Errant Bard]

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

Because there is a mixed nationality implied. Why doesn't it seem to be related, for you? I don't know, if I had said "african-italian sport car" would it have been more telling?

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.

Isn't this the problem? That there is a need to differentiate oneself for some and not the others? Yes, I know there are European-American, just like there are red-haired-American or Green-eyed-American, but I see nobody get querulous because they can't label "them" with a compound name including "American".

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

"American", it can only come from nationality/citizenship: there is no physical specificity from being "american", so the african-american qualifier, as I see it, tacks a nationality qualifier behind one which is just related to heredity, pretty different things.

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.

Both. I see where you're coming from now, but for me there was never a need to add a "French" to any qualifier for a group of people I might have been talking about. It just feels weird to me. As I said, if it's not an issue of nationality, why use "American" in that compound? It's like if I said of my avatar that it was a Bayeux-Westerosi one, doesn't make any sense.

Well, that's why I asked, anyway.

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?

One of those difference being, of course, that all their life they will have been marked as having another label than the majority of people. Isn't it a bit self-perpetuating? I can understand that racism is a big thing, but to link segregation (separation, divide?) of those group to nationality, isn't that acknowledging that real fractures within the population have precedence over nationality?

Not to mention that it's a bit too big a blanket, as that study shows: not everyone in that hypothetical group has had the same experiences, or thinks the same, including about which name they think their box has.

You could indeed make that argument, if the majority of slaves from the trans-Atlantic slave trade had kept reliable genealogy record.

Ah, sorry, it was directed at Awesome Possum and his line about present-day immigrants from Africa.

[Shryke]

But i've always understood it to be about cultural background anyway. I know plenty of people that might be loosely lumped as caucasian, in as much as it's a term with any meaning, and have darker skin than, say, Beyonce. African-American I understood as the group of people who's shared heritage is mostly descent from slaves, for lack of a better term. Someone who's immigrated to the USA from Somalia ten years ago is very likely to have a different culture, language, religeous practice, personal history and sense of identity, and in the aggregate, as a community, different political issues, education levels, patterns of residence, etc, etc from a Black american who's ancestors have been there since the 1600's.

Right, but they are still both "Black" generally (in Canada anyway)

Black is a description of your race (read: appearance) and not your culture.

Although there is a north american black culture too.

[TerraPrime]

Because there is a mixed nationality implied. Why doesn't it seem to be related, for you? I don't know, if I had said "african-italian sport car" would it have been more telling?

So mixed nationality things are inferior to pure nationality things? I'm just not grasping very well your objection on the "nationality" angle.

Isn't this the problem? That there is a need to differentiate oneself for some and not the others? Yes, I know there are European-American, just like there are red-haired-American or Green-eyed-American, but I see nobody get querulous because they can't label "them" with a compound name including "American".

As I said to Prince Alexander, racism exists. Not adopting the vocabulary needed to discuss this issue does not help solve the issue, at all.

"American", it can only come from nationality/citizenship: there is no physical specificity from being "american", so the african-american qualifier, as I see it, tacks a nationality qualifier behind one which is just related to heredity, pretty different things.

I don't understand why it is undesirable to specify ethnic heritage along with a declaration of nationality.

Both. I see where you're coming from now, but for me there was never a need to add a "French" to any qualifier for a group of people I might have been talking about. It just feels weird to me. As I said, if it's not an issue of nationality, why use "American" in that compound? It's like if I said of my avatar that it was a Bayeux-Westerosi one, doesn't make any sense.

I am failing to understand your objection. Sorry.

One of those difference being, of course, that all their life they will have been marked as having another label than the majority of people. Isn't it a bit self-perpetuating?

Black people will be discriminated against whether we call them African-Americans or black Americans, or if we start calling them Pancakes. Having a name for the group dose not validate, increase, or promote discrimination against those groups. The membership criteria that put people into those groups already exist, and recognizing the existence of these social groupings is not itself an endorsement of the grouping.

If I have a bag of mixed marbles and I separate them out based on whether they are red or not-red, and someone else comes along and say, "oh, I see you have a pile of red marbles and a pile of non-red marbles," their declaration would have had no effects on my initial act of separating out the marbles by color.

I can understand that racism is a big thing, but to link segregation (separation, divide?) of those group to nationality, isn't that acknowledging that real fractures within the population have precedence over nationality?

I don't see how it is linking racial discrimination to nationality. The term "African American" is a descriptive term, not a prescriptive term that enables whoever is being called by that term to be discriminated against. If I called a white-skinned person "African American," that person is not going to magically begin to experience the same type of social interactions as a black person would.

Not to mention that it's a bit too big a blanket, as that study shows: not everyone in that hypothetical group has had the same experiences, or thinks the same, including about which name they think their box has.

The study also showed that some prefer that term, and not everyone agrees on one single term. So your criticism here can be applied equally to any term, that it is not universally accepted. Therefore, I am not sure how valid this criticism against the use of the phrase "African American" is.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

There are lots of people who still identify with their ethnic subcultures even after a couple of generations and who don't want to minimize how they and their relatives continue to be different from "general Americans."

Is this necessarily a good thing, though? Couldn't that easily lead to a preference for dealing with members of your own "subgroup" over others? For example, if you're Irish-American, and like thinking of yourself as "different" from other Americans because of that, wouldn't it be perfectly reasonable to prefer other "Irish-Americans" for jobs, opportunities, etc.? And that would necessarily mean prefering them over blacks, asians, hispanics, etc.

[TheLoneliestMonk]

Is it just me, or does using a race are a noun sound horrible?

[Gingerly Grumkin]

I am a 1st gen American (both parents from Europe) but i call myself a New Yorker. Where i notice this thou is in hispanics. Every hispanic will tell you specificly where they are from PR/DR/Mexico/Cuba etc. etc

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

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

Most of the time, we don't deal with people as a homogeneous group, but as individuals. Or at least, not all such groupings of people think the same way. I've got no problem with avoiding terms that are independently offensive. But when you get to the point where different subgroups, indistinguishable on their face from other such subgroups of the same ethnic background, have their own indiosyncratic preferences, it's just dumb. Or rather, such subgroups being offended because you didn't use their particular term, is dumb.

IMHO, people worth talking to aren't going to care which one you use, or certainly, wouldn't correct you for being "wrong" given that there is no way to know ahead of time which term is "right". IOW, if someone is offended because I choose the wrong of the two most popular choices, f'em. That's just being a dick, which is a status on which no particular race has a monopoly.

[Sci-2]

IOW, if someone is offended because I choose the wrong of the two most popular choices, f'em. That's just being a dick, which is a status on which no particular race has a monopoly.

I think there's a gulf between someone taking outright offense and assuming you are a racist versus someone respectfully wishing to be referred to by a specific term.

I'm sure many on these boards would like to refer to religious peoples as "those idiots" but would refrain from doing so in polite company.

[Sivin]

I'm a white guy, but I've always had a problem with the term African-American. I don't claim to be great friends with any black people, but the ones I know and respect are Americans. There's nothing "African" about them, and it seems stupid to say so.

In my mind, "political correctness" is overrated. Your skin color doesn't really matter, so why dance around the issue? You're black, you're black. You're white, you're white. Who the fuck cares?

It's the same as I feel about gays. It's just a descriptive, other than that it shouldn't mean anything.

[Errant Bard]

So mixed nationality things are inferior to pure nationality things?

Depends on what you mean by inferior, but "african-italian" for a sport car would certainly imply that

1. It's less italian
2. It's of lower value than a simple italian sport car

If I have a bag of mixed marbles and I separate them out based on whether they are red or not-red, and someone else comes along and say, "oh, I see you have a pile of red marbles and a pile of non-red marbles," their declaration would have had no effects on my initial act of separating out the marbles by color.

But you don't fancy calling them red-American marbles.

I'm just not grasping very well

I don't understand

I am failing to understand

I don't see how

I don't think we will understand each other. So I'll leave you alone for now. I'm still puzzled, but heh, to each his own, I'm certainly very formatted by my culture.

[TerraPrime]

Re: FLoW

But when you get to the point where different subgroups, indistinguishable on their face from other such subgroups of the same ethnic background, have their own indiosyncratic preferences, it's just dumb. Or rather, such subgroups being offended because you didn't use their particular term, is dumb.

And why is it dumb to be upset that someone didn't use the right term that you'd like? Is a Marine the same as say a sailor? Is a parachuter the same as infantry? Why should anyone be upset at me if I incorrectly name one group as the other?

IMHO, people worth talking to aren't going to care which one you use, or certainly, wouldn't correct you for being "wrong" given that there is no way to know ahead of time which term is "right". IOW, if someone is offended because I choose the wrong of the two most popular choices, f'em. That's just being a dick, which is a status on which no particular race has a monopoly.

It will depend on the correction. If it's something like "actually, Terra, I prefer 'black American' to 'African American.'" then I would have no problem to nod and say ok, I didn't know that so I will be using the term you prefer from now on.

If, on the other hand, the reaction is "How dare you call me 'African American' you disgusting racist scumbag!!" then I would feel that the the reaction is disproportionate and the inference incorrect, and I may or may not respond in a similarly angry tone.

Still, whether some people are capable of distinguishing the two reactions from each other will determine how they're likely to respond to that reaction. There seems to be some people who feel that a member of the minority group is accusing them of being racist no matter how mild the correction is, because they take any criticism as an accusation of racism.

Re: Sivin

I'm a white guy, but I've always had a problem with the term African-American. I don't claim to be great friends with any black people, but the ones I know and respect are Americans. There's nothing "African" about them, and it seems stupid to say so.

Since you're not great friends with them, did you have a chance to ask them how they feel about the subject? Or does their self-determination matter nothing to you and you feel that your prescription to what they should be called trumps their own decision?

Your skin color doesn't really matter, so why dance around the issue? You're black, you're black. You're white, you're white. Who the fuck cares?

You're implying that very few people care about people's skin colors. The reality of the pervasiveness of racism in the U.S. says otherwise.