What will replace "African-American"?

[BrainGlutton]

We've gone through a lot of terms to designate our sub-Saharan-African-descended population in the United States -- negro, nigger, colored, black, Afro-American (for about two weeks), and in the 1980s Jesse Jackson started insisting on "African-American". I can see his point. Leaving aside its history and cultural associations, "nigger" is a word which, owing to phonetic happenstance, has a much different and nastier sound than, say, "bigger or chigger." Put an "n" at the beginning and -- "nigger" -- it's a word you just can't say without sneering a bit. "Negro" is a bit less sneering but, well, technical -- it sounds kind of like saying "feces" instead of "shit." "Black" is no more than a little harsh phonetically -- but it's so short and curt that it sounds dismissive. "African-American" is an unwieldy seven-syllable compound word and seems to have been chosen for that reason; it incorporates the names of two continents -- you can't say it without briefly recapitulating in your head the whole history of slavery and the civil rights movement. (It's not exactly fair to use this term in a way that excludes immigrants from Egypt, Morocco, etc., but that's a detail.) "African-American" . . . well enough . . . I'm not trying to open a debate on that choice . . . assuming we have to have any particular word for an ethnic or racial group, and I guess we do. But:

If we're going to continue to have meaningful discussions of race and ethnicity in America, then someday we will have to come up with a new term, or pair of terms, to distinguish those American negroes who are descendants of slaves and free blacks who were living here in 1865 from those who have come here from Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean since the old racist immigration quotas were abolished in the 1960s. Because these are two very different groups. They might look similar but their speech, history, and everything else are different. Our older African-American culture is unique to this country, it is nothing like any culture to be found in Africa or anywhere else. Furthermore, I once read in Tony Brown's Journal that studies show black immigrants to America have moved up the economic ladder at the same rate as earlier generations of immigrants -- while the majority of our older African-American culture remain mired in poverty. Whatever are the particular problems of "black America," the post-1960s black immigrants are not really part of those problems, and should be separated out in any serious discussion of them.

So -- what terms will we use? The most obvious choices are "Old African-Americans" and "New African-Americans," but either of those is just too unwieldy -- we have to draw the line at eight syllables. Any ideas?

[DMark]

I have a problem with "African-American" for a multitude of reasons.

First, people are considered African-American base solely on color. No matter if they come from Panama (like a friend of mine, and she never hesitates to correct people who call her African American) or even parts of Mexico, Brazil and other countries.

After a few generations, it seems kind of stupid to associate your "American" with a culture you might not even know anything about. I never hear anyone called "Norwegian American" or "German American".

Let's face it...the only need for the label is in description. Unless you hear a slight Ugandan accent, how in the hell do you know someone is "African" American. They could just as easily be from Egypt, which is both African and Arab?

Then there is Charleze Tilton(sp?) who won the Oscar for Monster. She is from South Africa, but I doubt anyone would call her African American...so we get back to the fact that we are, in reality, describing someone based on color.

And if I am not mistaken, colors don't match countries. Even among African-Americans, there is a stigma as to how "dark" or "light" someone is.

I happen to agree with the old 60's mantra, "Black Is Beautiful" and do not consider it racist or a slur when I refer to a friend of mine as a black woman. And it seldom happens that I need to even add that adjective. She is a smart, attractive woman who is a lot of fun to be with. Enough said. Once you meet her, you will notice she is black...but who gives a damn.

But as to your OP...I can only think that color descriptions will always be in terms of color, and only necessary when it is important: Can you describe the man?
Yes. He was about 6 feet tall, moustache, short hair and was white/black/brown skinned...

[Starguard]

Louis Farrakahn gave a speech once saying that at the rate Black Males are dying due to drugs, AIDS and internal violence, the amount of babies produced by black women will begin to decrease rapidly due to a lack of ability to find strong functional mates. This (he says) is why you see so many African American women today with fatherless children who were all born out of wedlock by different men who are all either dead or in jail. Especially in America's inner cities,

Therefore...

This is expected to cause a population decrease so strong that by the year 2020 the African- American population Nationwide will have decreased down to less than 1/2 of what it is right now,

and...

By the year 2050, Black America will all but disappear. He says that this is all part of a plan derived by the CIA to rid America of the African American population by Genocide.

Genocide - Defined by Websters Dictionary as a systematical extermination of any race or religion of people

Soooo..... If he (Louis Farrakahn) is correct .. I guess that within the next 50 years or so, we'll all be called...History :(

[Starguard]

Now.. for the rest of you...LET THE FLAMING BEGIN.. :eek:

[EsotericEnigma]

By the year 2050, Black America will all but disappear. He says that this is all part of a plan derived by the CIA to rid America of the African American population by Genocide.


They're too busy enforcing the Cuban embargo (http://rds.yahoo.com/search/news/S=53720272/K=Cuba/v=2/SID=w/l=NSR/R=6/SIG=11uua4gce/*-http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/8553651.htm) to bother with exterminating the blacks anymore.

[Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party]

Why not just "black" like the rest of the world?

[KidCharlemagne]

Something about "African-American" strikes me as patronizing (as well as being outright incorrect in some cases as others have pointed out). Personally, I like "Black." I know that black people aren't black in color, but I think the word has been used in good faith and it seems MOST blacks AND whites are comfortable with this word. I'd be happy to call them whatever they want, but lumping darker skinned people together by assuming they are all from Africa seems more presumptious then merely commenting on the color of their skin. Black is far from ideal, but I like it more than African-American. I'd be happy to hear a third option.

[Marley23]

Starguard, the only problem with that post is the words "Louis Farrakhan."

I think our nomenclature is getting pretty picky already, so I don't see anything replacing African-American... it's probably better to just explain what you mean than to make up a hip term for it.

[Loopydude]

I was under the impression that the PC police had designated "African American" the good and proper term to be used, even in preference over "black", due to all the evil and pejorative connotations the sinister color of night illicits.

I mean, shouldn't we call people what they want to be called?

And I don't see this "lumping together" that the OP claims is rampant. Typically, myself and folks I know don't put a label on somebody if they can help it until they've gotten some kind of idea of their background. For instance, dark-skinned person over here may be West Indian or Jamaican. Over there, Senegalese. This lady might be African-American (which means, in essence "descendant of Southern slaves", doesn't it?), while that guy might be Haitian. I had a friend in college who prefered Puerto Rican to black, so that's what I called him. Me, I'm almost totally of French Canadian extraction, descendant of laborers who emigraited to Maine around the turn of the century. My boss is Chinese. My boss' boss is of Chinese extraction, but he was born and raised in Malaysia. Hence he's Chinese, not Malaysian, according to him, though he barely speaks Cantonese and cannot speak Mandarin. Another guy at work was born in Buffalo, mother from Malaysia, Father from Guangdong. He's an "ABC". I call people what they want to be called. Seems like a pretty good plan. If I hear that African-Americans want something new, so be it. That, for me, will determing need for a replacement.

[Dog80]

.....I know that black people aren't black in color, but I think the word has been used in good faith and it seems MOST blacks AND whites are comfortable with this word......


Well, white people aren't white in color either. ;)

[Eve]

As has been pointed out above, "African-American" is often inaccurate. I have white friends who are African-American, and black friends who are neither African nor American. Most of my black friends just prefer "black."

I never understood why "colored" went by the boards, especially as "people of color" seems to be a growing phrase. If anything, it seems a positive, complimentary word (if they're "colored," that would make me "blank," I guess).

"Nigger," on the other hand, was always used as an insult (or at least slighting) phrase, even in the 18th and 19th centuries.

[BrainGlutton]

You're all missing the point of this thread. If we want a word to designate the African race (one of many African races, be it noted) that anthropologists call "negroid," then "black" is good enough, and so is "negro." Such a term would apply to all persons of that extraction whether they hail from Africa, the United States, Brazil, etc.

But what we need is a word that designates a particular racial cultural group, that of African Americans who are descended from the 400,000 black slaves who were shipped across the Atlantic to North America before the slave trade was shut down in the 1820s; and who evolved their own distinctive American subculture merging African and Anglo-Saxon elements (with emphasis on the latter, believe it or not); and whose status in our society and social conditions have posed intractable problems from Independence to the present day. We need a word that can be applied to those people and which expressly does not apply to negroes from other countries or cultural backgrounds, who do not share that history and its distinctive problems.

[BrainGlutton]

And, I should add, another thing that distinguishes our Old African-Americans from their racial cousins from other countries is that many, probably most, black Americans are lineal descendants of white Americans who owned their ancestors and used their slave women as concubines -- which is one reason why modern black Americans come in such a wide range of colors. Another reason is that many of them are descended from American Indians, some of whom also owned black slaves and used them as concubines, and some of whom intermarried with blacks. No other black cultural group in the world has quite this combination of backgrounds.

[syncrolecyne]

I am not black, but I thought African-American was introduced to distinguish American blacks who come from mostly southern slave ancestors from later immigrants and people from other countries.

For instance, "black music" can be all sorts of music (and is a silly a label as "white music") - but "African-American music" would specifically be Blues, Jazz, R&B, and other similar genres that do share a common cultural origin.

This goes to the difference between "Race" and "Ethnicity". Black or white are terms which describe "race" to some degree. "African-American" like Hispanic or Arab, describes an ethnicity and culture.

I don't think it is meant to be a replacement for "black" - though some people seem to think "black" is no longer polite or something. Has anyone ever seen or heard of anyone being angry over being called "black" instead of "African-American"? I am curious.

It reminds me of something I went through in college. I grew up in New Mexico, and I knew many Indians. Some were Apache, others Navajo - but they were Indians. I went to school and actually had teachers cross out "Indian" in my papers and write in "Native American" on top. Yet I have never heard any actual Indian use that phrase to this day. I know part of the problem is that "Indian" can refer to two different groups of people - yet I think some people (*cough* white liberals *cough*) are far too quick to take offense on behalf of others.

[Largo62]

I think the reason "colored" is considered pejorative is that it's like saying someone is "filled in", as in a coloring book. It is as if to say there are "regular" people (whatever that means) and "colored" people. Negro with a capital "N" is unacceptable because it sounds as if one is describing a separate species. Even more egregious is the use of "Negress" to describe a black woman, as if she were an animal like a lioness. I always found that construction shocking.

In normal conversation I don't refer to color at all unless, as DMark suggest, I'm asked to describe someone physically. In that instance, I use black. Otherwise color is just not important to me. I absolutely refuse to be politically correct.

[Tamerlane]

I never hear anyone called "Norwegian American" or "German American".


German-American? Oh hell yes. For example:

http://germanamerican.org/
http://friends.peoria.lib.il.us/community/germanamericansociety/
http://www.intelab.com/gad/bristol.htm
http://home.att.net/~gastulsa01/introduction.htm
http://feefhs.org/frg-sgas.html
http://www.ulib.iupui.edu/kade/


etc., etc.

During WW I the National German-American Alliance ( dissolved as a group in 1919 under intense pressure because of perceived anti-patriotism ) was a major lobby to stay out of the war.

And did you know that October 6 is national German-American Day, as passed by congress in 1987?

See, Jesse Jackson did not come up with this idea in a vacume. As has been explained many times before in these sort of threads, African-American was created in deliberate emulation of the widespread use of hyphenated-American terminology in the old rust-belt. Unfortunately for Jackson outside of these areas, like say the west coast or the south or southwest, these identifiers were uncommon and pushing African-American sounded a little weird or off-putting.

At any rate most black folks I know in California, in fact all of them that I have ever heard, use "black", not "African-American". But it's not terribly important. As I've said before, call folks whatever they prefer.

- Tamerlane

[Ludovic]

I think there are more instances of confusion between "indian" and "native american" than there are between "black" and "african-american". That's why, despite the fact that those descended from peoples who crossed the Bering Ice Bridge are probably more likely to refer to themselves, in the general, as Indian, I refer to them, in the general, as Native American, so as not to confuse them with people from India. On the other hand, if you are referring to a specific tribe, you can just use that tribe instead.

The problem with African-American vs. Black is, yes, if there were a preferred term for Americans descended from those with a color common to sub-saharan Africa, I would use it, but there isn't. I have a sense that the majority of black people either don't care, or prefer "black". However, if I were to use that term, I would then be on the receiving end of offense from the vocal PC activists, both black and white. So there doesnt seem to be a general consensus. Personally, I try to refrain from referring to that race at all, due to the fact that I am bound to offend someone no matter what I say.

So unless it's necessary in order to identify someone in a group, I don't use it. Then I use "black", since it refers to skin characteristics.

[BrainGlutton]

Even more egregious is the use of "Negress" to describe a black woman, as if she were an animal like a lioness. I always found that construction shocking.

Really? I always found it mildly amusing. Same with "Jewess," although it is not a word I would use in daily conversation with Jews or Gentiles. (I think the PC term is "Shebrew.")

[Belowjob2.0]

But what we need is a word that designates a particular racial cultural group, that of African Americans who are descended from the 400,000 black slaves who were shipped across the Atlantic to North America before the slave trade was shut down in the 1820s; and who evolved their own distinctive American subculture merging African and Anglo-Saxon elements (with emphasis on the latter, believe it or not); and whose status in our society and social conditions have posed intractable problems from Independence to the present day. We need a word that can be applied to those people and which expressly does not apply to negroes from other countries or cultural backgrounds, who do not share that history and its distinctive problems.

You are correct. There's no term in common usage to identify native born black Americans descended from the pre Civil War slave population. Antebellum blacks? Antebellites? Antes?

I doubt if most non black Americans are willing or able to make distinctions between different types of black people. It's along the lines of "I don't care what you call yourself or where you come from, I don't want you living in my neighborhood, eating in my restaurant, working in my office, dating my kid," etc.

[DocCathode]

You're all missing the point of this thread. If we want a word to designate the African race (one of many African races, be it noted) that anthropologists call "negroid," then "black" is good enough, and so is "negro." .

Huh. There must have been some breakthroughs since I took anthropology 101 in college. The professor spent a few days on why the term "race" is without scientific meaning and actually laughing out loud at terms like "negroid".

[tomndebb]

I was under the impression that the PC police had designated "African American" the good and proper term to be used, even in preference over "black", due to all the evil and pejorative connotations the sinister color of night illicits.

I mean, shouldn't we call people what they want to be called?Well, Jesse Jackson wants to be identified as African-American so that his constituency is more easily identified as "like" the Polish-American, Irish-American, Italian-American, and similar hyphenated-American groups that dominate Chicago politics, and the media, perhaps [speculating] led by the Chicago Manual of Style, has accommodated him. On the other hand, the last time I saw a poll of people whose ancestors had been imported to the U.S. from Africa, roughly 60% preferred black and barely 30% preferred African-American and, since every member of that community whom I know, personally, uses black, I feel quite comfortable continuing that usage.

(And, outside a limited number of college campuses, there are no "PC police," so I choose to not run around in fear of non-existent bogeymen.)

[Zoe]

think the reason "colored" is considered pejorative is that it's like saying someone is "filled in", as in a coloring book. It is as if to say there are "regular" people (whatever that means) and "colored" people. Negro with a capital "N" is unacceptable because it sounds as if one is describing a separate species. Even more egregious is the use of "Negress" to describe a black woman, as if she were an animal like a lioness. I always found that construction shocking.

The connotation of these words have changed over the years. In my childhood, colored was considered the polite term, soon followed by Negroes. In the South, we are not inclined to pronounce final o's distinctly and so many of us spoke of the "Negras." When I see it on old film, I shudder now, but we weren't considered rude when we used it then.

I used to like the word Negress because of its connotations of elegance and strength. But by the mid-1970's I began to resent diminutive forms used for women. (I still use actress and hostess without thinking.)

I find the need to distinguish people by "race" to be less and less useful. I used to bristle when asked to designate the racial composition of my classrooms. It was all very sloppy.

[tomndebb]

the reason "colored" is considered pejorative is that it's like saying someone is "filled in", as in a coloring book I suspect that it is much simpler than that. Colored was, as Zoe notes, actually the polite word used through much of the 20th century. I can remember elderly people in the late 1960s who used colored self-referentially, (while Negro was the "newspaper" word--somewhat in the way that black and African-American are used, today).

However, when the discussion arose that resulted in the adoption of black, one strong argument against colored was that it was the typical term used to enforce Jim Crow. Drinking fountains, rest rooms, and the back entrances to public facilities were not labeled nigger, or even Negro, they were identified as colored.

[Walloon]

Even more egregious is the use of "Negress" to describe a black woman, as if she were an animal like a lioness. I always found that construction shocking.Calm down. Actor/actress, heir/heiress, duke/duchess, count/countess, waiter/waitress, steward/strewardess, headmaster/headmistress.

[Largo62]

I guess I should explain my dislike of "colored" and "negress" for those of you who think I am over-excitable (which, now that I think of it, I may be). Many years ago my mother made the remark that "negress" sounded to her like comparing a person with a beast. I was struck by that remark and it stayed with me. I know the form "actress", "waitress", "songstress", etc. are common, but they don't seem to have the same negative connotation (unless you're a radical feminist) as "negress" or, for that matter "Jewess". I've never heard a white woman referred to as a "Caucess", or a Baptist woman as a "Baptess".

As for "colored", I heard Sammy Davis, Jr. say in an interview back in the sixties something like, "they call us colored, like they think we're filled in or something." I don't have access to the quote. That's just how I remember it. I never used the term subsequently because that's how I thought black people in general saw it. I was in my twenties then and still pretty naive. Maybe the naievte hasn't worn off entirely yet.

Anyway, I just stick to "black". As always, YMMV.

[BrainGlutton]

Huh. There must have been some breakthroughs since I took anthropology 101 in college. The professor spent a few days on why the term "race" is without scientific meaning and actually laughing out loud at terms like "negroid".

Will, it might be passe now, but I do remember seeing the word "negroid" used in reference books published as late as the '70s. As for the concept of "race," it might be scientifically meaningless, but it remains culturally and politically relevant -- you know it does, or we wouldn't be having this discussion at all. As the word is commonly used, there is an identifiable "negro race" or "negroid race," which (like several other races) originated in sub-Saharan Africa, and which can be conceived of an included many persons whose "racial" extraction is not purely "negro" (i.e., most African-Americans, who also have whites and Indians in their family trees). We can't simply dismiss these terms as meaningless, because they relate to very real and often intractable problems in our history and society, and if we get rid of the terms, the problems remain. We must have serious discussion of these problems to solve them. I merely contend that we can discuss them more intelligently and meaningfully if we refine our terminology, to distinguish the older group African-Americans ("Old African-Americans"? "Slave-Descended-Americans"? something) from the newcomers. The latter might have problems adjusting here, but it is an entirely different set of problems from the former's.

[DocCathode]

Will, it might be passe now,
Not passe, disproven and baseless- like Lamarkian inheritance or geocentric cosmology

As for the concept of "race," it might be scientifically meaningless, but it remains culturally and politically relevant

I never denied that.

[Aeschines]

Here is a cite (http://www.themarcusgarveybbs.com/xnegro.htm) related to the term "Negro" being exchaned for "Black."

I found it hard to find other cites, but my understanding (which other posters have put forth too) is that "colored" was the polite, unoffensive term until the 1940s or so, at which point "Negro" was introduced. This term, in turn, started to fall out of popularity at the end of the 1950s (as per the cite), and the term "Black" was adopted. Note that the terms "Negro" and "Black" were endorsed by black people themselves (at least the latter term, for certain). Then, in the early 90s, "African-American" was introduced.

Personally, I can't see why "Black" wasn't good enough. Most black people I have known seem satisfied with it. It's simple, and everone understands what it means.

Re the OP, I don't think we need any more terms to divide us up into categories: black and having slaves as ancestors, black and having sub-Saharan Africans as ancestors. No thanks.

First, the color issue is meaningless. The race thing. Especially in America, we need to rise above this. And we are, slowly but surely. The fact that someone is black but from Africa or not isn't all that relevent.

The cultural issue IS more relevent, but this is not connected to race directly. Sure, there's a high correlation there, but it's not definite. Anything you can point to as "black culture" in the US is related to "white culture" and European/Asian/African culture; and anything you think of as "white" is still going to have that Southern/Black/African influence. "Black culture" is open to whites (Eminem) and "white culture" is open to Blacks (Charley Pride, and country music has a huge black influence anyway). And for that matter American culture is open to the whole world.

The great thing about America is that anyone can join. Africans coming now certainly do not need to be labeled "a different kind of black people." Really, it's time to rise above this primitive way of thinking.

[Walloon]

The magazine Ebony was using "Negro" (always capitalized) well into the 1960s. I don't think "black" predominated until about 1968.

My mother was bemused a few years ago by her mostly black kindergarten class who after watching a tape of Martin Luther King speak, asked what a "negro" was.

[Lamia]

You are correct. There's no term in common usage to identify native born black Americans descended from the pre Civil War slave population. Antebellum blacks? Antebellites? Antes?

No, there is such a term, and that term is "African-American". As my old Jamaican roommate and her friends used to say, "We're all black, but they are African-American and we are Jamaican!" The American population often called "black" has very little in common with other "black" populations around the world. While I don't think many people actually consider the term "black" offensive, it is so broad that it's not always useful. "White" of course is similarly broad, but within the US there are many more specific terms in use for various subpopulations -- "WASPs", "Italians", "Southerners", etc.

Only the very confused use "African-American" to refer to black people regardless of nationality. Properly used, it means the (often multi-ethnic) descendants of pre-Civil War slaves whose homeland cannot be identified more specificaly than by continent. Most of the black people living in America who are not the descendants of pre-Civil War slaves are recent immigrants and, like other recent immigrants, are commonly referred to by country of origin. But as the OP points out, as the population of black Americans descended from post-Civil War African immigrants increases, it may be necessary to further refine terms. However, I think it's likely the descendants of, say, Nigerian immigrants will be known as "Nigerians" or "Nigerian-Americans" rather than "New African-Americans".

[Futile Gesture]

I kind of like the idea of the term 'people' replacing all of them. You know, instead of inventing new labels that mean the same thing.

You may call me a dreamer.....

[pizzabrat]

Exactly. Without slavery or segregation, what's the point of a label at all?

[Lamia]

Exactly. Without slavery or segregation, what's the point of a label at all?
Because it's hard to talk without words.

There's nothing wrong with recognizing that different people come from different cultural/ethnic backgrounds, or with having labels to describe these groups. You run into problems when you have a system in which people to whom certain of these labels apply are considered better than others, or when the labels become more important than the people themselves, but that's not the fault of the words. I'm all for abandoning the use of labels that are actually hurtful or offensive, but if we had no labels at all we'd have no language.

[Oy!]

I think folks are way overcomplicating this, looking at why one term was rejected after a time in favor of another.

IMHO, the reason the term for a person of color with probable ancestors at some point in Africa (i.e. with or without stops in various other portions of the Western Hemisphere) has changed is because some people have/had negative attitudes about such people, the negative attitudes were associated with whatever term was in use, and people changed the term in hopes that the negative attitudes would be left behind - just as the term for people with some sort of physical disability has gone from invalid to handicapped to disabled to challenged or disadvantaged. Unfortunately, very few people who hold the negative attitudes actually change them with the term, and so the new term becomes as freighted as the old.

THe problem with changing terminology as a way of engineering social change is that it doesn't change any underlying reality; people of black African descent are still people of black African descent and those who are bigots don't really care what the term du jour for them is; they're still going to be bigots. Similary, people in wheelchairs are still going to be in wheelchairs, regardless of what they are called, and some others are still going to therefore view them as stupid, deaf, or otherwise incapable regardless of the term used to refer to them.

Please note: I am not equating being of African descent with being physically disabled, except in the sense that some people who are neither hold unwarranted beliefs about or attitudes toward one group or the other or both, and that the politically correct terminology changes over time have largely (IMO) failed to change those attitudes. (I think attitudes have changed over time to some extent, but not due to the terminology).

[pizzabrat]

I'm all for abandoning the use of labels that are actually hurtful or offensive, but if we had no labels at all we'd have no language.

Hello! Do you remember why these labels were invented in the first place? Soley to simplify and justify slavery. After that, the labels were necessary for segregation to make sense. They're not cultural identifiers (there is no black or white culture. And it's telling that when a previous poster tried to give examples of black and white culture, he mentioned nothing more than commercial products. The latest record album isn't culture. Black people aren't passing down Ice T generation to generation. N Sync doesn't represent white mores and traditions.), they're political titles. The reasons for their birth are dead - the labels should die with them. Just like Patriots and Loyalists died with the Revolutionary War, and Whigs with the Civil War. They served their political purpose, now why can't the lables just fade away? Give me one reason why the U.S. still needs racial classification that serves a positive purpose?

[Futile Gesture]

I'm all for abandoning the use of labels that are actually hurtful or offensive, but if we had no labels at all we'd have no language.I don't know, we manage pretty well without a collective label for people with small ear-lobes (Minilobers?). Or people who are right-handed (Rightdexes?). Or people who prefer to spend Tuesday nights in (Homotuesdayites?). Or even people with brown eyes. (Brownoptos?) *

The whole classification by race/skin colour doesn't have any scientific justification, is culturally on shaky and diminishing ground and comes with a whole lot of unhelpful baggage.

Of course, we're certainly nowhere near there yet, but I'd like to see a point when the need and use of the label fades away. That won't stop you being able to describe the colour of a person's skin when and if the need arises.

*I run the risk here, naturally, of being cited collective nouns for all the above. :)

[monstro]

Hello! Do you remember why these labels were invented in the first place? Soley to simplify and justify slavery. After that, the labels were necessary for segregation to make sense. They're not cultural identifiers (there is no black or white culture. And it's telling that when a previous poster tried to give examples of black and white culture, he mentioned nothing more than commercial products. The latest record album isn't culture. Black people aren't passing down Ice T generation to generation. N Sync doesn't represent white mores and traditions.), they're political titles. The reasons for their birth are dead - the labels should die with them. Just like Patriots and Loyalists died with the Revolutionary War, and Whigs with the Civil War. They served their political purpose, now why can't the lables just fade away? Give me one reason why the U.S. still needs racial classification that serves a positive purpose?

pizzabrat, I disagree with a lot of this. First of all, there's nothing wrong with a "racial" label in and of itself. Distinguishing a black person from a white person does not have to be any more political than distinguishing a blonde from a brunette.

Also, there is such thing as black culture, even if it's hard to define. The descendants of African slaves have no less of a shared culture than Southern whites or Chinese Americans. If anything, we have more of a pronounced culture since we've been isolated from mainstream culture for so long. Perhaps you meant that there is no culture shared by all of those in the African Diaspora. One could argue that point well, but one can't argue that there is no such thing as black American culture. Doing so is not only wrong, but it's also demeaning to black Americans and their rich heritage.

Race exists. It doesn't exist biologically, but it exists socially. I don't think discarding racial labels will do a damn thing except save ink on census forms. It won't stop people from grouping others (or themselves) based on appearance and ethnicty, and it won't stop people from being prejudiced and hateful. So what would be the point?

[tomndebb]

Give me one reason why the U.S. still needs racial classification that serves a positive purpose? How about a necessary, if unfortunate, purpose?

When a person discovers that they cannot get a job or a house, while many people with fewer qualifications or poorer credit are finding employment or housing, and the successful applicants are of a distinctively different ethnic background, how should the unsuccessful applicant seek redress? If the unsuccessful applicant says that he or she was denied opportunities because he or she was black, are you going to tell that person that it was only their imagination because there is no such group?

The government does not create ethnic or racial categories. It attempts to identify categories that are already recognized (and acted upon) within the larger society (although the attempt is clearly clumsy and is not always successful).

[you with the face]

by Lamia
Only the very confused use "African-American" to refer to black people regardless of nationality.

I agree. Why are still people having problems with this? I don't get it when people keep pointing out that some white people are technically "African-American", as if that makes the term meaningless. If a white person hails from Africa, odds are they come from a particular country in Africa, and therefore the identifier that would make the most sense would be something like Nigerian-American or South African-American. Not "African-American", which is a broader description typically applied to descendants of American slaves because these folks don't know what nation their ancestors were from. So the whole continent is used to describe what they are, rather than a nation or tribe.

And if there's still some confused people out there, consider this: there are black people in Poland. If these black Poles were to move to the states and become American, they could then call themselves Polish-Americans. Just the same as their white compatriots. That doesn't mean "Polish-American" is meaningless and should be discarded? Right? Does everyone agree? Now apply that logic to African-American.

[holmes]

And if there's still some confused people out there, consider this: there are black people in Poland. If these black Poles were to move to the states and become American, they could then call themselves Polish-Americans. Just the same as their white compatriots. That doesn't mean "Polish-American" is meaningless and should be discarded? Right? Does everyone agree? Now apply that logic to African-American.


If they could apply that logic, this thread wouldn't even exist. Geez...who'd thunk this fight would be this hard...?

[UrbanChic]

pizzabrat
Also, there is such thing as black culture, even if it's hard to define. The descendants of African slaves have no less of a shared culture than Southern whites or Chinese Americans.I've always disagreed with the notion that there's such a thing as black culture as defined in modern terms. I've said it before on these boards and I'll say it again. Many of the beliefs and institutions associated with the concept of black culture can also be associated with poor, white people, especially Southerners. Many of Jeff Foxworthy's jokes could easily be replaced with 'you might be ghetto if'.

My experiences differ from those of a black person raised in Detroit in low-income housing. My experiences also differ from blacks who come from 'old money'. I don't share their culture as I'm not from generations of low-income housing dwellers nor am I from generations of well-to-do mansion dwellers. When examined closely, you'll find culture follows socio-economic lines closer than it follows racial lines.

As more than one person has made this mistake, allow me to clearly state what you see on MTV does NOT equal black culture. I know you know this monstro, so it wasn't directed at you.

[BrainGlutton]

And if there's still some confused people out there, consider this: there are black people in Poland.

??? How did blacks wind up in Poland, of all places? How long have they been there?

[monstro]

I've always disagreed with the notion that there's such a thing as black culture as defined in modern terms. I've said it before on these boards and I'll say it again. Many of the beliefs and institutions associated with the concept of black culture can also be associated with poor, white people, especially Southerners. Many of Jeff Foxworthy's jokes could easily be replaced with 'you might be ghetto if'.

My experiences differ from those of a black person raised in Detroit in low-income housing. My experiences also differ from blacks who come from 'old money'. I don't share their culture as I'm not from generations of low-income housing dwellers nor am I from generations of well-to-do mansion dwellers. When examined closely, you'll find culture follows socio-economic lines closer than it follows racial lines.

As more than one person has made this mistake, allow me to clearly state what you see on MTV does NOT equal black culture. I know you know this monstro, so it wasn't directed at you.

I don't think that saying that a group has its own culture precludes cultural overlap with other groups. Nor do I think all members of a group have to practice or carry a specific cultural artifact in order for such property to "belong" to that group.

For instance, take the controversial and much-discussed phenomenom AAVE. This is not the property of poor Americans. Poor whites do not speak AAVE. The fact that blacks in inner-city Detroit and blacks in suburban Atlanta share similar speech patterns indicates that these groups are connected culturally in some shape or form. I'm a highly educated person who regularly speaks in AAVE (usually around close friends and family). AAVE did not erupt out of thin air. If dialect is not an aspect of culture, what is it?

The descendants of African slaves are tied together through religious worship styles and practices, styles of dress, food, familial interactions,and yes--music! I don't know why people have a hard to recognizing this. Why is it so taboo?

I grew up in a black world. Although my schooling was integrated, I grew up in a black neighborhood, attended black churches, and had mostly black friends. I live in Newark now, but work in a predominately white environment. So it's really difficult for me to not contrast my experiences and cultural upbringing with those of my current friends and associates. Perhaps if I had grown up in a mostly white setting, without the Afrocentric focus of my mother, I may feel differently about a bunch of stuff.

I guess my problem with your analysis is that you can say the exact same thing about mainstream American culture, which exists just as sure as you're born. The fact that Bill Gates has little in common with a rural trailer park resident does not mean that Bill Gates is more similar culturally to rich people all over the world, right? In the US, there's is a culture--however diffuse--that connects us together and makes us different from other folks. There's a culture that connects black Americans together and makes them different from other Americans. I can't see it being any more complicated than that. Yes, it's a generalization. But not all generalizations are wrong, are they?

It bothers me that another "ethnic" American (for lack of a better term) can talk about his or her culture freely, with no question about whether it really exists as a separate, special thing--while I can't talk about black culture without people wondering if I'm making something up.

If black culture does not exist, why do we have "black names" like Temika, Keisha, and Hakeem (and do not cite socioeconomics, because I know folks with these names who are not poor). Why is it possible to linguistically profile black people, if black people--in general--do not speak in an identifiable way? Why are black churches frequently portrayed in a stereotypical way in the media, if there is no such thing as a "black church"? Why do black people speak of the "black community", if such a community does not exist? I'm as individualistic as the next person, but it's clear to me that black people as a group have a heritage that isn't class-based or the simple-minded creation of MTV.

[Belowjob2.0]

I'll agree with Monstro that there is definitely such a thing as black (American) culture. I'll also agree that this isn't a question of poverty or ignorance or anti-social behavior (you might be ghetto if...).

It's a question of common historical experience. Black Americans have only had full citizenship rights and a guarrantee of equal treatment before the law for 40 years or so. Before the mid-"60's, the fact of blackness above all else determined where you could live, where you could go to school, what kind of job you could get, where and how you worshipped your diety. So you have 40 years of (relative) freedom vs. 300 + years of bearing a common burden.

No surprise then that black folks have developed distinct ways of speech, dress, food, religion, music, family relations, and social organizations. (And as BrainGLutton pointed out, this derives from England as much as Africa.)

A distinct culture, without question, but more than that, a culture that the rest of the world can't seem to get enough of. Unless you've been living in a cave for the past century (since the Jazz Age at least) you're probably been a consumer of black America's cultural production.

It's a common enough belief that authentic black culture is lower class -even black folks make this argument when it suits their individual purposes. But this leaves out Duke Ellington, MLK, Frederick Douglas.

Go back and listen to one of MLK's speeches. His speaking style is distinctly black American, it's word choice, intonation, pronounciation. His style is also powerful, precise, grammatical, informed by the King James and Shakespeare. King grew up in the black Baptist churches of Georgia, the son and grandson of ministers. Culturally speaking, you can't get any blacker than King, but there's nothing lower class about his speeches.

[UrbanChic]

I don't think it's taboo to talk about black culture, I just reject its existence. A black person who grew up in South Central L.A. (that's a poor, predominantly black neighborhood, right?) speaks *radically* different than a person who grew up in a poor, predominantly black neighborhood in Baltimore.

AAVE, I've found, is a nebulous term. Mispronouncing the 'th' sound as 'd' or neglecting to pronounce the letter 't' at the end of words is a lazy way of speaking and is not idiosyncratic to black speakers. If you know how to speak properly, why on earth would you change your pattern of speech with your friends or family? I'm not referring to slang usage, either. Of course I use slang at appropriate times (read: with friends or family) and refrain from saying 'phat' or 'lame' when, say, giving a speech at a symposium.

I posit your 'black names' have close ties with and, in many cases, are directly derived from Muslim and French names - Hakeem, Lekeisha, Dante (I've seen it spelled as Dontae, too). I'll spot you that whenever I hear a name such as Keisha or Tamika, I know to expect a black person. This does not a culture make.

What food dishes are associated with black culture? I presume you're speaking of fried chicken, chitterlings, collard greens, fried catfish and black-eyed peas? These dishes are by no means exclusive to blacks nor did they suddenly come into existence with the first slaves off the ship. Many, many, many Southerners, both black and white, enjoy these dishes.

I'm very interested in this black style of dress. What's that all about and how would I know it if I saw it. Dashikis and tams?

Are you defining black culture as, among other things, an amalgamation of AAVE, enjoying Southern comfort food, co-opting Muslim and French names and wearing dashikis?

[Lamia]

I don't think it's taboo to talk about black culture, I just reject its existence. A black person who grew up in South Central L.A. (that's a poor, predominantly black neighborhood, right?) speaks *radically* different than a person who grew up in a poor, predominantly black neighborhood in Baltimore.

They don't speak any more differently than a middle-class Japanese person from Osaka and a middle-class Japanese person from Tokyo; possibly less so. Yet I would not consider this evidence that Japanese culture is non-existent.


AAVE, I've found, is a nebulous term.
Not to linguists it isn't.


Mispronouncing the 'th' sound as 'd' or neglecting to pronounce the letter 't' at the end of words is a lazy way of speaking and is not idiosyncratic to black speakers.
It is not lazy. AAVE is not easier or simpler than other vernacular English dialects. It requires just as much effort and intelligence to speak and understand as any of them. People aren't lazy just because they don't speak like you, or the way you think they ought to speak.


If you know how to speak properly, why on earth would you change your pattern of speech with your friends or family?There is no such thing as "speaking properly" except in terms of speaking in the way that is best suited to the situation. monstro presumably knows her family and friends better than you do, and if she feels comfortable speaking AAVE around them then that is proper for her situation and you are in no position to tell her otherwise.

I don't think you're in any position to tell her that her culture doesn't exist either. You don't have to consider yourself a part of that same culture, and indeed it would be foolish to treat African-American culture as a monolithic. However, some African-Americans clearly do feel that they have a distinct cultural identity and heritage, and I don't think that's some sort of mass delusion.

[UrbanChic]

Fair enough, monstro, Belowjob2.0 and Lamia. While my opinion hasn't changed, I can see how it could be misconstrued as insulting. It is not my intention to disparage anyone and please forgive me if I have.

[monstro]

I don't think it's taboo to talk about black culture, I just reject its existence. A black person who grew up in South Central L.A. (that's a poor, predominantly black neighborhood, right?) speaks *radically* different than a person who grew up in a poor, predominantly black neighborhood in Baltimore.

Apparently not, since language experts accept the existence of "black English". Are you a linguist? Is there a good reason why you doubt the realness of AAVE?

AAVE, I've found, is a nebulous term. Mispronouncing the 'th' sound as 'd' or neglecting to pronounce the letter 't' at the end of words is a lazy way of speaking and is not idiosyncratic to black speakers. If you know how to speak properly, why on earth would you change your pattern of speech with your friends or family? I'm not referring to slang usage, either. Of course I use slang at appropriate times (read: with friends or family) and refrain from saying 'phat' or 'lame' when, say, giving a speech at a symposium.

Um, everyone changes their pattern of speech depending on the audience. I would hope a businessman speaks to his family differently than he does to the folks at the office.

It's called code switching. Everyone does it. But funny, only blacks get labeled "lazy" when they do it. I'm offended by your intimation. I don't purposefully "mispronounce" anything. I speak using the language I find most comfortable and familiar.

I posit your 'black names' have close ties with and, in many cases, are directly derived from Muslim and French names - Hakeem, Lekeisha, Dante (I've seen it spelled as Dontae, too). I'll spot you that whenever I hear a name such as Keisha or Tamika, I know to expect a black person. This does not a culture make.

What? Names are definitely cultural. No, they do not encompass an entire culture, but they point to its existence.

I find it funny that you brush off the significance of black names while admitting they exist. The fact that Temikas in Oregon and Temikas in Florida and Temikas in New Jersey are 99.9% of the time black indicates that black Americans share something. If that something isn't culture, then I guess I don't know what culture is.

What food dishes are associated with black culture? I presume you're speaking of fried chicken, chitterlings, collard greens, fried catfish and black-eyed peas? These dishes are by no means exclusive to blacks nor did they suddenly come into existence with the first slaves off the ship. Many, many, many Southerners, both black and white, enjoy these dishes.

And just how did Southerners come to eat these foods? Were the English colonist frying chicken and eating chitterlings prior to their exposure to black Americans? Why isn't fried chicken considered a Northern food? How did it come to be that the exact foods you listed are known as "soul food", aka "black American cuisine"? Are people simply imagining a connection that doesn't exist?

The art of deep frying food is African, not European.

Collards and chitterlings (and other parts of the pig) were considered "cast off" foods on the plantation, and thus black slaves were able to create their own dishes using these products.

Why is it that soul food restaurants are so common in black neighborhoods all over the country, if soul food is simply "Southern". Why is that my grandmother, who lives in Indiana of all places, regularly whips up a delicious assemblage of "Southern" cuisine if she has never left the greater Chicagoland area.

I eat Chinese food all the time. In fact, millions of non-Chinese people eat Chinese food because it's fucking delicious. Does that mean there is no such thing as "Chinese" food? That because everyone loves it, everyone had something to do with it's creation? That's it's not special?

I'm very interested in this black style of dress. What's that all about and how would I know it if I saw it. Dashikis and tams?

You say this sarcastically, but yes--Afrocentric clothing is a part of black American culture. You don't sound like someone who regularly sports Kenti cloth. Neither do I (although I do own some very nice dashikis). But lots of black people do. Can you say the same for other ethnic groups?

Are you defining black culture as, among other things, an amalgamation of AAVE, enjoying Southern comfort food, co-opting Muslim and French names and wearing dashikis?

I'm not defining anything, Juanita. I'm simply pointing to examples of culture. I don't know what your definition of culture is. Mine includes food, names, clothing, music, and dialect. If these things aren't culture, enlighten me. Give an example of cultural property (say, from the US) that DOES NOT include these things.

[Liberal]

I like the Quaker term — friend. :)

[monstro]

JuanitaTech, apology accepted! ;)

[UrbanChic]

Thanks, monstro. That means a lot to me and I hope you understand how sincere I was.

As to the OP, why do we need yet another term? Your reason doesn't flesh out for me. I've never had a problem with the term black and if you need to differentiate from a black person whose ancestors came over on a slave ship and a black person who is first a first-generation Tanzanian American, what's wrong with Tanzanian American?

Whatever consensus you reach, if it means applying yet another label to me that differs from the term 'black' leave me out of it as black's just dandy with me.


JuanitaTech, JustPlain American.

[tomndebb]

AAVE, I've found, is a nebulous term. Mispronouncing the 'th' sound as 'd' or neglecting to pronounce the letter 't' at the end of words is a lazy way of speaking and is not idiosyncratic to black speakers. If you know how to speak properly, why on earth would you change your pattern of speech with your friends or family? I'm not referring to slang usage, either. Of course I use slang at appropriate times (read: with friends or family) and refrain from saying 'phat' or 'lame' when, say, giving a speech at a symposium. At the risk of piling on, the dialectual nature of AAVE has been noted on this board on many occasions. It is not a matter of substituting /d/ for voiced /th/ (a trait shared by several Eastern European groups) or /t/ for unvoiced /th/ (a trait shared by speakers influenced by Irish) or of pronouncing the word "ask" as /aks/ (a trait shared by speakers of the Midlands of England). Rather, it is an entire constellation of pronunciations, syntax, grammar, and vocabulary that are identifiable and predictable from one group of speakers to the next. The rules of AAVE have been recorded and discussed for over 30 years and the dialect is quite well documented and specific.