"African Americans"

[WIGGUM]

I'm taking a course in multiculturalism, and one of our assignments is to take a survey on how people define the term "African American." I thought I'd give the question to the dopers and see what you thought. How do you define "African American"?

[Satan]

A politically correct way of saying "black."

"Calling me an African Ameican,
Like everything is fair again...

Devil, don't believe the hype, I'm black..."

-Ice Cube

------------------
Yer pal,
Satan

[Guy Propski]

An American born person whose ancestors were born in Africa, or who has become a naturalized citizen of the US. Thus, Dave Matthews of the Dave Matthews Band is an African American (he was born in South Africa).

[AWB]

For the literal term, either: an immigrant from Africa, who becomes an American (US) citizen
an African immigrant's children
but no further than that. After that, an immigrant's grandchildren and beyond could say they're "of African descent".

A question back: my quarter-sister and her husband were missionaries in the former Zaire. At least one of their sons was born there. Are my nephews American-Africans?

[Mullinator]

Slightly related to the topic, the other day, my college (well, former, I am now an alumni) newspaper referred to Nelson Mandela as African-American. Either they have no clue about where he lives, or they just assume all black people want to fit into that niche.

------------------
Well, shut my mouth. It's also illegal to put squirrels down your pants for the purposes of gambling.

[Keeves]

If I really had to answer, I'd ditto Guy Propski.

But I'd much prefer to say that the question is invalid, because it is out of context. You want the definition of "African American" in regard to what?

In regard to the medical conditions which such people are prone to, you'd want one definition. In regard to racial victimization, you'd want another definition. And in regard to likely air travel destinations, you'd want a third.

The question is not phrased properly.

[WIGGUM]

Keeves,

The question is pretty straight-forward. You're reading too far into it.

[Keeves]

yes, wiggum, i realize that. my point is that i don't like labelling people so arbitrarily. but i am realistic enough to know that people are going to make such classifications, which is why i began my post by agreeing with Guy Propski.

[Earl Snake-Hips Tucker]

I define "African-American" as blacks who were born in the US.

I don't consider black immigrants from Africa as "African-Americans," but that's just my definition.

[Earl Snake-Hips Tucker]

Well, that's what I define it. But I never use the term. I just say "black."

[WIGGUM]

Keeves,

I'm sorry if you thought I was asking you to label someone. I don't like to do that either. I merely wanted to know what that specific label meant to the masses.

[VileOrb]

Here's an issue where I agree with Spider Robinson. It's a shame that the word "colored", became derogatory. It sounds so positive to those of us who don't remember it being used in a negative way.

I rarely use the phrase "African American". Mostly I use it when referring to specific blacks who have expressed to me their desire to be referred to that way. Because of the sort of people who have expressed this desire, for me it means, "a pretentious black person who likes to portray themselves as exotic."

Anyone else hate the "oriental" to "asian" switch that has happened recently? Trying to base your race name on a land mass the size of asia doesn't make sense to me. I have a feeling that this shift has been put forth mostly by women who are offended by being called "ornamentals". I have some other choice names for them. :)

------------------
If men had wings,
and bore black feathers,
few of them would be clever enough to be crows.

- Rev. Henry Ward Beecher

[Arnold Winkelried]

I go with the most common way the term is used in the USA, i.e.
"black persons living in the United States".

------------------
J'ai assez vécu pour voir que différence engendre haine.
Stendhal

[tomndebb]

A black citizen of the U.S. with an affinity for Jesse Jackson or one having spent too much time watching TV news or taking too many LibArts courses in college.

Nothing wrong with the term, but I find that it is used far more often by whites trying not to offend than by blacks.

------------------
Tom~

[Beruang]

Two of my best friends were born and raised in, respectively, Korea and Indonesia. Neither of them have any opinion on the "Asian" vs. "Oriental" issue. They both say Europeans and Americans are the White Devil, so anything we say is fairly irrelevant to them.

[cher3]

"Anyone else hate the "oriental" to "asian" switch that has happened recently? Trying to base your race name on a land mass the size of asia doesn't make sense to me."

And basing it on Europeans' egocentric sense of direction does make sense?

The problem with our race names (other than the fact that we need them at all) is that they weren't consistent--some people were identified by skin color while others were identified by place of origin. At least Asian and African American makes the names more consistent with Caucasian, Hispanic, etc. I suppose if we used White, Black, Red, Yellow and Brown that would be consistent, too. Except that most people are more or less Brown.

There's and idea. The next time I'm asked what race I am I'm going to write Pinkish Brown.

[Shirley Ujest]

I with you. I'm gonna say "The hundred Yard Dash."

[Earl Snake-Hips Tucker]

"Anyone else hate the "oriental" to "asian" switch that has happened recently? "Trying to base your race name on a land mass the size of asia doesn't make sense to me."

And basing it on Europeans' egocentric sense of direction does make sense?

Um, the roots of "oriental" means "east." What scant info we have on "Asia" implies that its roots also mean "east."

[Diceman]

Most black immigrants do not think of themselves as "African American", they think of themselves in terms of their nationality, i.e. Kenyan-American or Liberian-American. It's my experience that hypersensitive blacks are the only ones that use this term for themselves. It's far mor common for whites to use the term to try to appear politically correct.

------------------
"I had a feeling that in Hell there would be mushrooms." -The Secret of Monkey Island

[Earl Snake-Hips Tucker]

But since Olduvai is in Africa--aren't we all "African-Americans?"

[Guy Propski]

Good point, Mjollnir. If you go back far enough, you'll find your ancestors were from somewhere else. I think I'm going to start referring to myself as a "Gondwannalandian-American."

[{:-Df]

My vote re: the OP: in every (other) context I have ever heard or read it used, "African-American" was used to mean "a Negroid person" (to use another old, oft-misused, oft-negatively-connoted word). That is, "black."

While it is logical to apply the term "African-American" to American descendants of white (including Arab) Africans...since when has logic applied to sterotyping? Except above, I have never encountered the term used in that fashion, and I rather suspect The Average Man would have some choice words for the intellectual (admit it!) who tried to use the term that way. (Which isn't to say it's a "wrong" usage. Just unheard of in my experience.)


VileOrb: it seems on the surface that "hate" is a pretty strong reaction to (what seems to me) a pretty innocuous preference on some people's part. What has happened surrounding the "Oriental to Asian" issue to generate such a visceral reaction for you? Or is that largely a figure of speech, meaning basically "annoyed to have to worry about it?"

The subject did come up briefly in another thread (about "Japanese Dwarf figurines") and the consensus among self-described Asians was that the word "oriental" has negative connotations. I'd hardly blame anyone for wanting to avoid pejorative meanings attached to an old word as now used with reference to themselves - and even if you or I don't intend pejorative meaning, if it's there it's there, and liable to be heard by third parties or the listener. They did agree that "Asian" was ambiguous and usually preferred something more geographically specific, like "Southeast Asian."


My own opinion: we're all just Americans. Either that, or you can start calling us honkies European-Americans or English/German/etc.-Americans, too. (Yeah, that'll fly!)

'Hyphenating' some groups' name to reference cultural origins is now often source of pride through cultural identification (Irish-Americans; Italian-Americans), but how about at the beginning? Originally, those and other European-originated groups were "less-desirable" and discriminated against. Did the majority culture use those distinctions as a way (as it sometimes seems to be now) of drawing a line between "just plain folks" - "you know, Americans" - and "Them, you know, those different people over there?" Anyone have some data on how the practice got started?

(And just in case anyone doubts the subtle power of sub-typing "Americans" - or of word connotations in general - I refer you to the example of the World War II internment camps. "Imprisonment of Americans" has a different emotional impact than does "Imprisonment of Japanese-Americans." Constantly referring to the internees as Japanese-Americans seems to drain power from the issue; the focus seems to go to that group's links to Our Enemy rather than to, say, the Constitutionality of the issue. I doubt the same would be true if we tried to imprison, say, all Tennessee-Americans.

And I don't mean to hijack the thread. I do think the above example indirectly speaks to the larger issue (multiculturalism) referenced in the OP. Perceived meanings attached to words can matter to people because sometimes they make a real-life difference - whether intended or not. To the extent that "African-American" is an attempt to avoid the pejorative images surrounding "black" and "colored" I don't blame anyone for not wanting to make or be subject to such inferences. I also think the attempt is bound to fail, until such a time as everyone uses an inclusive term rather than a distinguishing term.)

[MrSCOTT]

I use the term "black" and "African-American" interchangably. The terms hold equal weight for me, although when refering to the African Diaspora I will use the term "black", since in that case i'm not just referring to black people in America.

-MrSCOTT

[Nickrz]

Merriam Webster's definition is as good as any, in my opinion:

Main Entry: Af·ro-Amer·i·can
Pronunciation: "a-frO-&-'mer-&-k&n
Function: noun
Date: 1853
: an American of African and especially of black African descent
- Afro-American adjective

[Imthecowgodmoo]

I hear "African-American" and I assume the person is talking about a black man.

I say "African-American" and I mean a person from Africa who has since moved to the United States.

------------------
"I'm not dumb. I just have a command of thoroughly useless information."-- Calvin and Hobbes
(__)
`\/-------\
`| |-----| |\
..c.c......c.c....

[Ringo]

I think Guy Propski nailed it for the definition, as per my mind anyway.

But why stop at Gondwanaland (Reunite Gondwanaland!)? Can I be a Primotdial Soup American?

Ah..., why screw areound. I'll thank you all to henceforth refer to me as a Big Bang American.

[AHunter3]

Actually, it's the hyphenated "-American" part that seems out of place to me. My 2nd to 4th generation American friends and colleagues of Irish descent refer to themselves as "Irish"; those originally from Italy as "Italian". Minnesota folks refer to the blonde families next door as Swedish although they've never been out of the US.

Miguel is Mexican, although he is not a Mexican, he wasn't born in Mexico and doesn't live there, but he's Mexican, you dig? Me, I'm Scottish. Never set foot on any of the British Isles, though.

So, of course, they are African. If their national citizenship is an issue, I'll refer to them as Americans, but ethnically they're Africans.



------------------
Designated Optional Signature at Bottom of Post

[Lawrence]

I dunno. I call black people "black". Black people call me and other people who look more or less like me "white". This system seems to work. I vote we stick with it. From what I've read, black people were called (by both whites and blacks) "colored" up until the late '60s, when "black" took over as the preferred term. "Negro" was also widely used, especially in sociological or journalistic contexts. Interestingly, it was always capitalized. I imagine that "Negro" disappeared because of its similarity with "nigger".

I don't much like "African-American" because of the possible confusion between autotochonous American blacks and African immigrants to America, and also because it takes six syllables to say instead of one.

If I notice that everyone else is using "African-American", then I'll start doing it, too. Until then, I'll keep using "black".

[matt_mcl]

Is there anything wrong with referring to a black or African American person as "brown"? I read where Avery Brooks (the guy who played Captain Sisko on DS9) used it in an interview. If not, that would make me "pink", which I regard as better than "white" (I've only known one white person - my albino ex-boyfriend - and he was from Pakistan!) and "Caucasian" (which is inaccurate since my racial heritage is both mixed and not from anywhere near the Caucasus).

To answer the OP, I'd say a citizen of the US of a noticeable degree of, or claimed affinity to, some Negroid ancestry, whether born here, in Africa or elsewhere.

My generalization as to all the discussion here is that there are no reasonably satisfactory names for the human races or mixtures thereof and probably there never will be. More specifically I state the following as to individual posts here.

Satan:

I believe that whether 'African American' or 'black' is "politically correct" depends on the educational or economic class of the person named. Of course, as expressed by those of such ethnicity, the taboo N-word is even preferred by some of same, though I think some of this usage accompanies self-deprecation.

AWB:

I would say that any of your cousins presently citizens of Congo are American-Congolese, and any that are citizens of the US are simply Americans.

Mullinator:

Yes, and I'd say many black Jamaican citizens in the US get improperly called African Americans also, rather than (African) Jamaicans.

Keeves:

I would agree with WIGGUM that you're getting to elaborate in your post. In forms for technical or other specific purposes, more specific designations might be needed. In some medical situations, one might need to designate more than one genetic derivation, such as Negroid, Semitic/Mediterranean, etc., in order to accommodate disease/disorder susceptibility.

Keeves:

Often people are forced to make such racial categorizations by the very objects of such categorization.

VileOrb:

What does "colored" mean. Everyone's colored with some color, except minimally in the case of albinos of any race. And I think the term 'people of color' is disgusting. We're now going to set up all persons predominantly non-Caucasian against all those predominantly Caucasian, even though Mongoloids are more similar to Caucasians than Negroids or Amerinds?

I don't think one ought to group those who prefer to be called 'African American' rather than 'black' as "pretentious". I think they'd just rather be categorized as a variety of human being not based on color. This seems quite reasonable to me, although 'black' is quicker to say, because it's always seemed to me that people, white or black or whatever, view "blacks" not, on the most significant level, according to their color -- but rather on the basis of a certain range of behavioral generalizations and maybe certain feature shapes, whether these be regarded as positive or negative. After all, some Asian Indians / South Asians / East Indians / brown Caucasians (or whatever you call them) are darker than some "blacks" exhibiting such Negroid feature shapes or behaviors.

Yes, I find the substitution today of 'asian' for 'oriental' to be annoying, because, well, natives of India are Asians, as are Caucasians, all derivationally and most Semites contemporaneously, and also Caucasoid Central Asians, and less Mongoloid SE Asians and maybe the various sorts from the East Indies.

Tom:

I think many college-educated "blacks" feel that designation for them is less than appropriate. You might say that some are physically whiter than those who prefer to be called 'blacks', but I think the idea in the main is to get away from something so simply physically constraining as a color, in the context of other ethnic names, such as American, European, Asia, etc. After all, 'yellow' is not considered acceptable in the US at present for designating Mongoloid Americans, as far as I know; though I consider the current acceptability of 'black' for Negroid Americans as a consequence of the past or present preference of a significant portion of that latter group.

Beruang:

Your Asian friends came over here to live with the "White Devil"?

cher3:

Well, I don't think, given an historic view of the world as extending throughout Eurasia, that 'east' is all so egotisticallly Eurocentric; there isn't a lot east of Japan for quite a ways, nor west of the British Isle, and the cultural terms 'Eastern' and 'Western' (Orietal and Occidental) will never go away.

'Hispanic' isn't consistent with anything. It used to mean 'Spanish or Portuguese'. Now, it appears to mean those or some mix of Amerind with them, or just 'having a Spanish (or Portuguese (?)) surname'(whether of Visigothic, Moorish, Gypsy or any Amerind ancestry).

And I thought 'brown' used to refer to Polynesians, Melanesians and maybe South Asians.

Diceman:

In re 'African American', see my comments under VileOrb and Tom.

Mjollnir:

Yes, and all Caucasians are also Asians, right, because the Caucasus is in Asia?

{:-Df (How does one pronounce that?):

...since when has logic applied to sterotyping?

Since the brain was designed. . .er. . .evolved. The brain (neural nets) doesn't know any other kind of logic.

. . .and the consensus among self-described Asians was that the word "oriental" has negative connotations. . . . They did agree that "Asian" was ambiguous and usually preferred something more geographically specific, like "Southeast Asian."

I haven't discussed such things with any Asians, but while 'Southeast Asian' may be fine for those having ancestry in that region, what would've been considered as more specific for Chinese, Koreans and Japanese? I've sort of wondered how the latter have felt about being classed with other "Asians" who have had a much shorter span of a civilized condition, such as Southeast Asians, and particularly, say, Filipinos, and on into other islands if they figure into "Asian". I wouldn't expect them to be appreciative of that particularly.

You ask how the designations Irish-American and Italian-American got started. I think they got started in NYC, when they got off the boat and found that they didn't like each other. More recently, in CA-US, there was an Italian-American woman who wanted the environmental license plate "DAGO", but the CA DMV wouldn't give it to here. As I recall, after she managed to get them to relent, the local Italian-American group nixed it. Just can't satisfy all those I-As at the same time, I guess. Maybe it makes a difference whether you're ancesters came from southern or northern Italy.

Yes, I recall, growing in Salinas, CA, my family being quite friendly with a Japanese-American family the father within which had to lose his pharmacy business, and all of them be interned in first Utah and then Arizona. My brother corresponded with their boy of his age for some time afterwards. I recall playing with them while at the same time having a racially stylized picture on my wall of the "enemy". The Pacific Theater of that war was very racial from the points of view of both sides.

Nickrz:

Nobody uses the term 'Afro-American' anymore. . .except maybe for that hairdo seen in old pictures from back then. OK, so maybe they also use it as to cultural imports from Africa to the US, as in 'Afro-American music'.

beatle:

So you hail from one of our pre-Jurassic tribes, do you? Bet it was your ancestors who did in all those dinosaurs. You should be ashamed! We should throw you back into the primordial soup and see if something better might rearrange itself. As I understand it, they're even trying to come out with an upgraded version of that there Big Bang thang.

AHunter3:

Yeah, well, as discussed in an earlier thread, that 'American' label is a real problem in and of itself. Wasn't Vespucci some kind of Italian? Doesn't that make all of us some kind of Italian? And, hey, since Mexico is in America (even North America), your friend, Miguel must be American American, right?

And if the African Americans you know are descendants only of long-time Jamaicans, are they still "Africans" in your lingo?

Lawrence:

Black Americans weren't called 'colored' very often in the North of the US prior to the late '60s; they were called 'Negro', although, of course, the taboo N-

[Earl Snake-Hips Tucker]

Yes, and all Caucasians are also Asians, right, because the Caucasus is in Asia?

Actually, they're in Europe.:P

BTW, I have no idea how your response related to my post.

Have a nice day!

[{:-Df]

Ray, my Bay Area homie, at the risk of being accused of conspiring with you to hijack this thread (actually, we're imparting the multi-cultural wisdom acquired from living in one of the most culturally-diverse areas of the country, yeah, that's it):
{:-Df (How does one pronounce that?)
It is to be hoped (that is, "hopefully"): "Friend."
...since when has logic applied to sterotyping?... Since the brain was designed. . .er. . .evolved. The brain (neural nets) doesn't know any other kind of logic.
Okay, can't argue that. Whatimeantwas, "Since when has nonintuitive (my opinion), learned, "Socratic" logic applied to stereotyping?" Smart guy.
...what would've been considered as more specific for Chinese, Koreans and Japanese?1 I've sort of wondered how the latter have felt about being classed with other "Asians" who have had a much shorter span of a civilized condition, such as Southeast Asians, and particularly, say, Filipinos, and on into other islands if they figure into "Asian". I wouldn't expect them to be appreciative of that particularly.2
In my own experience with Chinese immigrants I find that:
1) With regards to Asians (literally) they generally use the nationality as descriptor - in Mandarin or English. Exceptions: for other Chinese, they often break it down to the province or city of origin, or (rarely) say "Han-folk" (the majority culture); the word used for India sounds like Hindu, and probably derived from that religion, but is applied to most/all Indians.

With regards to 'European-Americans' they say (in Mandarin) "foreigner" or "American" or "white-folk" or (in English) they say "Americans." 'African-Americans' seem always to be referred to as (M.) "black-folk" or (E.) "blacks."
2) Except with regard to such 'incidents' as the Indonesian riots and rapes, or WW II, they're not too annoyed but are rather a tiny bit superior, conveying the impression that all 'East Asians' are Chinese, ultimately. (China being the fount and the center, etc.) CAVEAT: That is probably more true among Taiwanese than among Mainlanders (who seem a bit more insular in their cultural identification).

With regard to 2) and Japanese persons, I daresay your suspicion may be close to the mark. Those few I've known certainly deny the strong Chinese influence in their traditional culture. (I don't know if they think they've been civilized longer than the Chinese, but I think they feel that way towards other East Asians including Koreans.) But ultimately, my sample is too small for me to be overly confident in my opinion.


Returning to the OP: WIGGUM, when all is said and done, let us know the results accumulated by - or conclusions of - your class.

[NanoByte]

Apparently you're correct that the Caucasus Mountains/Region are/is, by convention, in Europe, although the same convention places Turkey in Asia. (When and how was this arrangement decided? I'm even less of an historian than a geographer.) Of course, I'm not clear on how human genomic differences learned of this arrangement and figured accordingly.

. . ., I have no idea how your response related to my post.

You had earlier posed:

But since Olduvai is in Africa--aren't we all "African-Americans?"

Thinking of the Caucasus as in Asia, and assuming there to be some justification in naming and associating Caucasians with that region, it appeared to me that this statement of mine was, in a more restricted way, parallel to yours, i.e., as to pointing up ambiguity in a racial categorization.

Should I not assume it was Europeans that decided the Caucasus was in Europe? As a Caucasian, could I not've considered myself origionally Asian if Asians had managed better to control the biases of geographers, so as to establish the Caucasus as a part of Asia -- perhaps trading it for Turkey, which, of its own volition, eventually adopted a European alphabet? And are not Turks through at least Bangladeshians Asian Caucasians? My day was nice, but the fog did roll in. How was yours?

Ray

[NanoByte]

Acorn-headed laughing friend ;) :

"Since when has nonintuitive (my opinion), learned, "Socratic" logic applied to stereotyping?" Smart guy.

I dunno, I turned my stereotypewriter in when I got my computer. I did tend to miss gazing at that three-dimensional typeface though. ;)

Ray (can't tell Mandarin from Cantonese; can understand Ebonics though, creo que sí ;) )

[Sycorax]

Wiggum: you didn't really think you'd be able to raise this topic without getting into all the related issues, didja? As for me, African-American means a black person who is trying to overcome the negative racial stereotyping and who has a desire to be identified with their "own" culture -- even with the northern Africa Egyptian culture. Many blacks, including black historians, claim they descend from the ancient Egyptians (with which I do not agree). I have a problem with all the hyphenated American designations as I think that practice simply encourages stereotyping and reinforces biases. For me, the African-American label conjures up a negative reaction -- when I think of Africa, I think of the poverty and horrendously violent civil wars that include the godawful mass killings of innocents. Admittedly, this may be due in part to the focus of the media, but whatever positive things are going on there, we don't hear about them. Another label I don't like - Native American to designate the American Indian. A native of any country is someone who was born there. I am white. I was born in America, ergo I am a native American.

[Diceman]

Sycorax: I agree with most of your post but, if anything, I don't think the media pays enough attention to the problems in Africa. Take the situation in Rwanda. This makes the Serbians' so-called genocide look like a barroom brawl, but we have heard almost nothing about it. Why hasn't the UN lead a massive, US-lead army --I mean, peacekeeping force ;)-- into Rwanda?

------------------
"I had a feeling that in Hell there would be mushrooms." -The Secret of Monkey Island

i don't call people "African-American"; or "Asian" ; or whatever.

I call them my neighbors. :)

------------------
YO-HO, ME HEARTIES! ALL HANDS ON DECK FOR THE MUSICAL BATTLE AT SEA!

[Sycorax]

Dice - Rwanda isn't the only country immersed in civil war on that continent -- what do we do - send UN troops to every country embroiled in civil strife? Provide food for all the starving? I'm not an isolationist, but how far do we go in expending our (and other countries') troops and other resources to help other countries. Not to mention,we can't just unilaterally decide to go in and save them from themselves. Has there been a world-wide outcry to do so, or requests from those countries to help? As you say, perhaps more media attention is needed to understand what's going on there and how the rest of the world can help.

[Beruang]

Beruang:

Your Asian friends came over here to live with the "White Devil"?

================================

Nanobyte --

They came here to learn our filthy western ways, and steal our precious bodily fluids.

-- Beruang

P.S. My Indonesian girlfriend read this thread, and now calls herself a "Brown-American." Thanks a lot, guys!

[Earl Snake-Hips Tucker]

And let's not forget the other euphemisms for "Black."

"Urban" and "civil rights."

By the way, Nanobyte, I'm LOL over "How was your day?"

Guess you've seen my "Boot" post in MPSIMS.

And I thought you were referring to my other post. That was the source of my confusoin. :)

[Beruang]

Nanobyte wrote:

===========================================
Thinking of the Caucasus as in Asia, and assuming there to be some justification in naming and associating Caucasians with that region, it appeared to me that this statement of mine was, in a more restricted way, parallel to yours, i.e., as to pointing up ambiguity in a racial categorization.

===========================================

There is, in fact, *no* justification in naming and associating Indo-Europeans with the Caucus region. Steven Jay Gould covered this in one of his essays. IIRC, an early 20th-C anthropologist, dividing the species into races (one of many folks to do so), came up with the term. His "reasoning" had to do with his contention that natives of the Caucuses are the most "beautiful" tribes of the race (I forget how beauty was defined -- probably a mathematical relationship between chin protrudance and slope of brow -- and I'm only *partly* kidding!), and he then went on to theorize that other Euro-Indopeans "degenerated" from that ancestral stock. Wacky as it all sounds, I believe Gould made the case that the guy was a fairly liberal dude, for his times.

(This same guy -- I'll try to look up the name next week -- also called Orientals/Asians "Mongoloids," a terminology which fell out of favor in the '60s/'70s after it became associated with Down's syndrome. And that association was based on *another* system of racial classification... )

[NanoByte]

Beruang:

There is, in fact, *no* justification in naming and associating Indo-Europeans with the Caucus region.

"The Caucus region" -- oh, yeah, that's composed of those political places like Washington and Sacramento, isn't it? ;) Lotsa honkies there.

-- I'll try to look up the name next week --

I found it this week:
http://depts.washington.edu/chid/chid110/syl1998/misc1.html

Johann Friedrich Blumenbach 1752-1840, German anatomist and naturalist, "On the Natural Variety of Mankind 1776". He was a student of Carolus Linnaeus, the Swedish botanist who initiated the formal classification of all living things.

Quoting the discussion at this site:

"In search of human origins, Blumenbach described a female skull found near Mt. Caucasus as:

"In search of human origins, Blumenbach described a female skull found near Mt. Caucasus as:

'...the most beautiful form of the skull,. . .'

So maybe he was a necrophiliac? ;) Blumenbach continues:

'Besides, it is white in color, which we may fairly assume to have been the primitive color of mankind, since ... it is very easy for that to degenerate into brown, but very much more difficult for dark to become white.'

Hey, wait, lemme check. I'm white on the outside, but maybe my skeleton's brown. . .probably recycled material. ;)

Dr. B claimed Caucasians (descendents of those who left skulls near Mt. Caucasus) were the most beautiful, but claimed other races were just as moral and intellectually astute as Caucasians. He also claimed the degeneration of beauty proceeded, in 2 directions, sequentially through 2 steps/races:

. . . . . . . . . Caucasian(W)
. . . . . . . . . ./ . . .\
. . . . . . . .Malay(Bn) American(R)
. . . . . . . . ./ . . . . .\
. . . . . Ethiopian(Bk). . Mongolian(Y)

Hey, what could be more beautif'ler than that?

So the directions of evolution are are messed up and the hierarchy and sequences are baloney, but, admitting that the territory is semi-amorphous, those 5, under different names, are more or less the way the world views racial differences. . .in the absence of silly political correctness or other political distortions. I believe I was presented in school, in the '30s - '50s, with (no hierarchy or order):

[common]. .[anthropological]

white . . . . .caucasoid
yellow. . . . .mongoloid
black . . . . .negroid
red . . . . . .amerind
brown . . . . .melanoid?

The brown, however, apparently doesn't follow any genetic lines. Caucasoid includes also dark South Asians. My idea of what distinguishes some kind of "Caucasoid" identity is not color, but an evolutionary experiment with the nose (as 'honky' would imply). Setting aside considerations as to whether a Caucasian beak is "beautiful" (I suspect Blumenbach wouldn't have allowed the more extreme, say, Afghan version of this type of nose as beautiful, but then skulls don't do justice to the nose all that much) -- the development of this facial feature did center, at least, in the more general Southwest Asian area initially.

Of course, today, one might look to genomic data on which to base notions of race. The same page claims there is greater genetic variation within a race than between races (dunno what it counts as race). This page says, in outline form (but I'm not sure how to decipher it):

2 per cent between individuals

- 85 percent difference in any local group

- 9 percent difference between ethnic groups by race: example, between Italians & French

- 6 percent difference between races: example
between Europeans and Asians

But then you can read elsewhere the difference between Homo sapiens and chimpanzees is only 3%. I once posed the question to a Usenet group related to genetic s, as to what actual feature of DNA they were relating this percentage measure to, and the answer I got was on parameter that wasn't meaningful at all, in terms of what people think of in respect to differences in species or differences in varieties/strains/races.

******

Here is a Website on which is the content of a graduate thesis related to the question in the OP of this thread:
http://william.stmarys-ca.edu/cynaut/lise/

Ray (Race? What's the hurry?)
http://william.stmarys-ca.edu/cynaut/lise/paper.html

[Diceman]

Yue Han: According to my Eastern Civilizations class, "The Middle Country" is a very old and cherished term for China, at least among the Chinese.

VileOrb: Jessie Jackson is generally credited/blamed with coining the term "African American." This probably explains why he does his best to keep the wotd in current usage.

------------------
"I had a feeling that in Hell there would be mushrooms." -The Secret of Monkey Island

[Diceman]

Yue Han: According to my Eastern Civilizations class, "The Middle Country" is a very old and cherished term for China, at least among the Chinese.

VileOrb: Jessie Jackson is generally credited/blamed with coining the term "African American." This probably explains why he does his best to keep the word in current usage.

------------------
"I had a feeling that in Hell there would be mushrooms." -The Secret of Monkey Island

[Diceman]

Double post. Damn :o

[heretic]

Sycorax, to call what happened in Rwanda "civil war" is like saying that the Holocaust was an ethnic conflict between Germans and Jews.

I don't know what your criteria for involvement overseas are, but if there is any point at all in having any international force, if there is ever any ground for using cooperative military power to intervene in a situation, Rwanda was it. If ever, since the Holocaust, there has been a need for the people of the world to act with common humanity, with courage and conviction in the defence of humankind against barbarism and slaughter, the Rwandan genocide was it.

The UN troops on the ground thought so. General Romeo Dallaire thought so, and begged for a few hundred UN troops. The Belgian peacekeepers who shredded their casques bleus on the Kigali runway thought so, too, when they destroyed the symbol of the UN forces they served out of anguish and frustration because they knew what was going to happen; they knew that whatever promise and hope the UN ever held, it was being betrayed and that many would die as a result. They were right.

Not that it's all America's fault, per se. America refused to do anything to help, it's true, and refused even to expedite the shipment of a few armoured cars to the UN forces until they were paid for (and people say that Americans don't have any sense of irony). France is largely at fault for its counterproductive adventurism and its long-standing support of the Habyarimana's regime. Belgium, too. But America has the muscle & the money & the wherewithal to do this sort of thing far more than other countries.

Have a read of Fergal Keane's "Season of Blood" or Philip Gourevitch's "We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will Be Killed With Our Families".

Keane: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0140247602

Gourevitch: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0312243359

ben

[{:-Df]

Nanobyte: "...acorn-headed..." - I usually just say "pointy-headed." I still haven't figured out why people laugh. But if you can translate Ebonics, there may be a consultant job for you with HUD.

Sycorax: "Another label I don't like - Native American to designate the American Indian." I understand your logic, but by that or almost any other standard "Indian" is clearly way out. (That was ALWAYS a mistake.) I suppose Aboriginal-American would fit with a current way of naming "native peoples," but maybe it would be better to say Cherokee, Hopi, Seminole, etc.?

"...how far do we go in expending our (and other countries') troops and other resources to help other countries. Not to mention,we can't just unilaterally decide to go in and save them from themselves." My understanding is that we (the USA), the Soviet Union, and the previous colonial powers set the stage for the whole Rwandan genocide. The previous colonials entrenched within the social institutions an official, discriminatory prejudice towards the two main cultural groups (writ large, one was the "good," educable group of heathens, the other the "bad," unmanageable bush heathens), and from this flowed injustice, inequal economic and political opportunity, etc. The Soviet Union and ourselves, goes my understanding, then armed these groups to the teeth (as part of our power "struggles" in Africa) just as the colonial system was dissolving. Is it all our (the citizens of the USA) fault? No. Do we bear some responsibility? Yes. What should we do/should we have done? I imagine that question - or variants of it - will continue to haunt our descendants long after we all have passed.

Ray, again: "But then you can read elsewhere the difference between Homo sapiens and chimpanzees is only 3%. I once posed the question to a Usenet group related to genetic s, as to what actual feature of DNA they were relating this percentage measure to..." Of course I don't know what any of the various writers and respondents meant, but why should that stop me from guessing?

Remember that within a species, I believe it is common to think of a given local gene pool in terms of a 'frequency profile' of the genes - that is, how often a particular genotype (or gene variant) appears across the members of the pool, measured for every gene. (Think of, say, blood types.) From the overall perspective of every possible variant of every gene in the H. Sapiens sapiens genome, "race" has little meaning. It's sort of like drawing Venn diagrams (those overlapping circles) for every gene for each "pool" and then trying to sort out meaningful correlations to come up with "super-pools." That is, okay, sure we can divide the species into these groups according to melanin levels or presence/absence of epicanthic folding, but when we look at mitochondrial DNA or fat cell percentages or immune system complexes (ad nauseum), the overall population breaks down into these statistically-significant groupings, which is completely different from the earlier division. Thus, "race" is an archaic and nearly meaningless criterion based mostly on appearance rather than on any medically-important or "scientific" basis. (To put it simply, is a Sri Lankan "Caucasian" because of her nose or "Negroid" because of her skin - both of which involve appearance - and understand it gets MUCH more complicated at the cellular level.)

Concerning all that, then, my third-best advice is: give up the old groupings, because they mean next to nothing. Second-best advice: if one means to divide people according to cultural standards, do so and don't try to call it anything else. Best advice: refrain from attaching emotional meaning to one's working definitions.


NOW, all that being said, I would guess that the within-species differences mentioned above are measured against the range of human possibility. (Returning to the Venn diagram example, they refer to differences within the circle labelled "humans.") I guess, from your example above - WAG ALERT - the 'French and Italian gene frequencies' "are" statistically indistinguishable in 91% of the genes at which we could measure variation, and are somewhat distinguishable at 9%.

By contrast, going across species lines involves comparing distinct genomes, with different numbers of genes AND CHROMOSOMES, with genes that do something in one species but don't appear at all in another, etc. The 3% difference between chimps and humans would indicate to me that 97% of our genes appear in each species and do the same thing, though not necessarily with the exact same range of [i]versions[i] of the gene, while in each case 3% of the genes appearing simply don't exist in the other species.

How to read some of those other numbers I dunno, but I hope the principle would be similar.

Yue Han (it's also John, right?): I was told that Mei Guo was chosen 'cause it sounded a bit like America ('Mare'ca = May Gwo, I guess). Originally, of course, it was just Old Gold Mountain (now relegated to San Francisco) because of the Gold Rush. But I'm sure the term Zhongguoren was not meant to be depressing - the connotation to 'People of the Center' was that the Chinese were civilized, the source of all learning and culture, while all others were "outlanders" (Waiguoren).

VileOrb:

The person (a cambodian female) who most emphatically expressed her objection to "oriental" said to me, "Rugs are oriental. People are asian."

Rugs may be oriental and people may be oriental; but, of the two, only people can be programmed. ;) This goes for both majorities and minorities, or both the dominant and the subordinate. Now, computers. . .well, they can be more easily reprogrammed or programmed to function according to the particular task.

It annoys me when perfectly normal words take on negative connotations because then you have to search for another word, which may not be as clear.

Well, even if such a word gets used differently, whether in a negative sense or not, there's still the resultant problem of finding a new or different one for the original meaning you used it for. I guess 'gay', in its original meaning, wasn't too bad a loss, since it wasn't used all the much commonly for its original meaning. (I never really figured out why I'm supposed to say 'gay and lesbian' though. Doesn't 'gay' suffice for those otherwise assigned to either sex?)

One that I have lost track of is "mongoloid" which last I heard had been dropped in favor of "a person with Downs Syndrome" or something like that.

Well, since I don't hear this term used much these days for a person with Down's disease, I'm thinking it may be OK to use it in discrete contexts, where it's clear that no one is trying to make any tie-ins by using it. (It's one more demerit for MDs that this term ever got started or perpetuated as denoting disease (not too say that Han Chinese necessarily appreciate the term).)

My preference to the word "colored" is the positive connotations that word has for me aside from any identification to a race. I think that a problem with "white" and "black" is their literary connection to "good" and "evil". I do not think that "colored" is more appropriate for one race or another.

So. . .as long as the connotations are positive the word is OK. . .even though it distinguish anything. . .and therefore serves no purpose. Yes, none of us are polar bears. ;)

"Asian" does not appear to be thought out.

I don't know [i]how[/b it sneaked in there, as a substitute for oriental as referring to "mongoloid" peoples, during the last couple decades. (The China lobby in Washington? ;) )

Perhaps someone intentionally chose a very neutral word.

The problem, though, is not its neutrality, but rather its scope. Did those switching terms here -- minorities (?), US federal govt. (?) -- really intend to include South Asians, Central Asians and Near Easterners in a common term? I never know what the racial/ethnic, mostly official use of the term is supposed to mean -- and sometimes it apparently is allowed to include "Pacific Islanders", presumably only of more-or-less aboriginal ancestry. . .except maybe Australian "Aborigines", because their island is big enough to get called a continent (which is unfair to disorganized minorities). ;) (Well, not a big immigrational problem in the US. ;) )

If I were choosing, I would go for something more positive. Is there nowhere in the rich poetry of the east a word meaning "Beautiful People" that would be ponounceable by westerners? Or "strong people" or "powerful people" or even "civilized people"?

Now wait a minute! That's exactly the thing that makes things go screwy. (And the Chinese and Japanese people, if any Asians, aren't the most apt to get that screwy right away.) If those presently in the minority in the US (Is that what we're talking about?) all are to pick whatever in one of their languages (which language being another point of decision, decision, decision) means 'beautiful people', then, well ,gee, guess what the present majority should be found to need to do: "Hi, Beautiful! Yeah, you're one of us Cocky-Asians (no, I guess that's spelled Caucasians) who speaks English, and in English, 'beautiful' means 'beautiful'. . .well, so maybe the French dumped the first syllable on us (but the English didn't steal it. . .and we politely camouflaged (God, more French) it in pronunciation.)." I think we ought to stick to [b]neutral words, but not colors or geographical terms, at least, not those of the latter type that extend beyond the territory of the presumed homeland of the intended designees.

(An aside, as to beauty, and maybe Caucasian skulls, during most of my (male Euro-American (?)) grade-school schooling, the three girls in my classes that appeared to me to be the prettiest were Chinese-Americans. I think other observers of them would've agreed. Didn't check what their bare skulls looked like.)

(I mention the pronunciation thing because we Americans rudely expect everyone to speak our language and somehow get away with it.

Well, in most of the world, most people are less accommodative to your not speaking their language than we are here. However, given where education, commerce and technology stand today, English commands, regardless of the country you want to associate this language with.

However,. . .that is not to say that China couldn't totally change that. At first glance, you might wonder how that could help but come about. . .but then you see how responses of the small, tight, single, near-totalitarian leadership, which is traditional there, in respect to the Falun Gong, says, can lead to serious instabilities that could well prevent such global power/dominant-race change, with resultant language change, to occur.

Guilty as charged,

What, exactly, were the charges anyway?

but I don't know how to do anything about it except on a personal level.)

Well, in respect to curing the ills of the world, even as agreed upon (?) by the sum of its humanity, you're immediately up against two enigmae:

1. The direct antagonism of the ethic of the noble savage vs. that of civilized man -- monumental achievement vs. broad-spectrum charity.

2. The pros and cons of social engineering (relate to your "thought out") vs. social evolution (what the masses and their leaders compromise on).

I think all this pride of minority races and ethnicities (which probably doesn't, without extra stimulation, overwhelm the majority of any minority) should take second-fiddle priority in respect to reasonable beneficial integration into the society which does the most to accommodate their welfare. After all, most individuals of racial/ethnic minorities in the US are here, because of worse treatment by their cohorts back home or in an earlier time, than they are currently or have been in their present physical and social milieu. This is only to stick pins in the pride thing, not to foment anti-accommodative discrimination.

********

Yue Han:

Unfortunately, the Chinese for some reason gave the name "Meiguo" the the US; meiguoren means American.

At what date did they make this appelation? And what segment of Chinese society originated this term? Perhaps those who invented it saw the US as great opportunity. I guess some who made it to CA-US during the gold rush, made out reasonably well, under rather extreme hardship, but many fell into some very bad hands here. Clearly some of their offspring did pretty well, although I didn't realize, until much later, that persons of Chinese extraction couldn't officially own land in this state until some time in the 1950s.

Of course, even if 'meiguo' wasn't already taken, what would the Japanese, Koreans and Southeast Asians have to say about naming the overall "racial" group with a name from the language of the "middle country"? How similar, even, is that name pronounced in Mandarin and Cantonese? An

[techchick68]

Not having read all of the replies, I must state that the term "African-American" would relate to those that recently immigrated here from an African country. If you are born and raised in the U.S., you are an American with NO predetermination of what catagory you fall in.

As I have stated before, I am adopted. I don't know my actual origins, I suspect I am very much Irish but can't tell you I am or not not. I spose that would make me Mutt-American?

I am sorry, I find that those that prefer to place themselves in one ethic group are only creating more of a problem for themselves than the intentions are. If you classify yourself as one thing or another, rather than a plain "human being" or in this case, an American, it creates a sense of separatism that often backlashes with stereo-type and cynicism.

Why not accept the plain "American", I only know from my own experience and can't honestly say that I can call myself a member of any ethnic group, so why make such a big damn deal about it.

I am an American first and foremost. I sympathize with those that have relatives that have been through hell and back to have some sense of equality and yes, many groups still have difficulties. But, it's time to take a stand, give finalization to equality and be equal...you can read into that what you think, I mean no harm....however I do find that many in our society find that separating themselves by some defination can only serve to work against the community as a whole. If we all are that important, then lets all focus on working as one and quit making groups within the community as with "African American," "Latin American," "German American," etc.....

Stop the labels and we might stop the ignorance and stupidity.



------------------
opinion - a belief held often without positive knowledge or proof.

oppress - to burden harshly, unjustly, or tyrannically.

don't oppress my ability to have an opinion

[VileOrb]

Wow, this thread is really good. A lot of good topics here.

This is to clarify a few things from my post last week and possibly add a comment or two. I am on cold medication so I am not going to try to go back through and respond carefully to every comment.

I am merely annoyed by the transistion from "oriental" to "asian". The person (a cambodian female) who most emphatically expressed her objection to "oriental" said to me, "Rugs are oriental. People are asian." This did not persuade me but the lady's obvious objection did (while annoying me at the same time).

It annoys me when perfectly normal words take on negative connotations because then you have to search for another word, which may not be as clear. One that I have lost track of is "mongoloid" which last I heard had been dropped in favor of "a person with Downs Syndrome" or something like that. Please forgive me if I'm wrong on this I mean no offense.

My preference to the word "colored" is the positive connotations that word has for me aside from any identification to a race. I think that a problem with "white" and "black" is their literary connection to "good" and "evil". I do not think that "colored" is more appropriate for one race or another. I only say that, if my race were called that, I'd be happy about it. Obviously, if the negative connotations became too strong, as for blacks in the 50's, I'd have to give it up.

Here's my additional comment. If I found that the term for my race had become offensive, I would want to choose a new term very carefully. Though I'm not sure who originally started the "African American" term, Jesse Jackson seems to be the one keeping it from obscurity. He thinks that the term encourages blacks to be proud of their roots and of themselves. Whether effective or not, at least it's been thought out. "Asian" does not appear to be thought out. Perhaps someone intentionally chose a very neutral word. If I were choosing, I would go for something more positive. Is there nowhere in the rich poetry of the east a word meaning "Beautiful People" that would be pronounceable by westerners? Or "strong people" or "powerful people" or even "civilized people"? (I mention the pronunciation thing because we Americans rudely expect everyone to speak our language and somehow get away with it. Guilty as charged, but I don't know how to do anything about it except on a personal level.)




------------------
If men had wings,
and bore black feathers,
few of them would be clever enough to be crows.

- Rev. Henry Ward Beecher

[Yue Han]

A little of topic, but brought to mind by VileOrb-

In Chinese, beautiful country is "Meiguo." People from "the beautiful country" would be "Meiguoren." Unfortunately, the Chinese for some reason gave the name "Meiguo" the the US; meiguoren means American. That depresses me a little, since the name they use for themselves, "Zhongguoren", just means "people of the middle country."

-John

[NanoByte]

pointy:

. . .but maybe it would be better to say Cherokee, Hopi, Seminole, etc.?

Well, ya know, those Injun names like 'etc.' get to be pretty longgggggggggggggggg. The combination just brings up a whole slew of past "ethnic" wars of its own anyhow. And it's come into recent controversy that all indigenous peoples of the Americas came from Asia via Alaska anyhow. Some now think some of the early (10,000 yr ago) types were from either southern Asia or Europe. Not sure how that would align with present-day Native Americans:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1999/10/16/MN16921.DTL

------

As to those DNA numbers, I had them wrong in my earlier post here. I once wrote this in an e-mail to a skeptical organization:

". . .a question that bears on the yet-to-come fun and games with the human genome: In these calculations of commonality of genomes, how exactly are the percentages calculated, given the complex effects of relationships of DNA nucleotides at different distances along the chain? I believe the commonality percentages reported in the press have been 70% between humans and round worms and 99.7% between humans and chimpanzees or bonobos. And are there other more meaningful measures, perhaps limited to only a certain range of phyllogenetic characteristics?

The future race-related enigma is seen when someone states, as was done at an earlier EBSS meeting, a figure for the percentage of genomic variance *within* the range for humans. I seem to recall this was stated as 0.7% (source unknown), which stacked against the above 99.7% is inviting of some kind of alchemical statement. ;-)"

I wrote (no answer) to Cecil in 2/99:

"The newspapers these days often comment that there is 97% commonality between the known part of the genome of the chimpanzee and that of Homo sapiens sapiens, 70% between same of some round worm and that of H. s. s., etc. Never is it said -- in the face of the great complexity of how exact positional relationships of four bases in DNA manage to end up producing species of organisms that appear and behave considerably differently -- in any rudimentary manner, how these measures of commonality between pairs of these outwardly quite different critters are arrived at -- i.e., what counts as sameness in the two genomes of two different species and why does *that* particular relationship, rather than some other that would evidence a different notion of sameness, get the nod to call the shot?"

. . .within a species, I believe it is common to think of a given local gene pool in terms of a 'frequency profile' of the genes -
that is, how often a particular genotype (or gene variant) appears across the members of the pool, measured for every gene.

Well, I'm no biology type. Never had a course in it in any school. Went to college before Watson and Crick did there thing, but have read a little in the past at Scientific American level -- then forgot 'most all of it. But a "gene varient" is termed an 'allele', isn't it, rather than a 'genotype', which is the full complement of the genetic information in an individual, isn't it?

From the overall perspective of every possible variant of every gene in the H. Sapiens sapiens genome, "race" has little meaning.

Well, I think in most educated/intelligent peoples' books (except maybe in those of science-despising humanists, fundamental theists, or feeling-put-upon minorities), 'race' approx. = 'variety' in biology. In classical taxonomic biology, all the levels of distinguishing organisms from each other are biased by this or that that probably isn't the most significant thing. But who has the original blueprint? Even Evolution, they tell us, never owned a blueprint; she's just a faker constantly throwing out WAGs/hands like somebody else around here. . .just trying to see what might survive, and change how, as the environment changes. ;) As long as identifiable differences between groups of people who are obviously related and obviously correspondingly similar in some observable physical feature(s) or behavior(s) (stereotypical of the group) can be recognized, people will use a word/concept, such 'race', to designate this distinguishability. The only aspect of this that may be influenceable is how these distinctions are used and possibly when they are overtly recognized.

. . .we can divide the species into these groups according to melanin levels or presence/absence of epicanthic folding, but when we look at mitochondrial DNA or fat cell
percentages or immune system complexes (ad nauseum), the overall population breaks down into these statistically-significant groupings, which is completely different from the earlier division.

Now, you know any choice of any pair of such two types of distinction is not likely to produce "completely different" groupings of healthy individuals. In fact, many health/functional disorders are predisposed to certain races/strains of people, as has been acknowledge previously in this thread by others.

Thus, "race" is an archaic and nearly meaningless criterion based mostly on appearance rather than on any medically-important or "scientific" basis.

Much too extreme a statement.

As for the Sri Lankan, you opened a can of worms:
http://www.tamilcanadian.com/eelam/analysis/sinhala.html#b

From what I read on this page, you're not putting things "simply"; there are various types of Caucasoids and Malay sorts of people on that island. The traditional racial outlook, which I would expect also to be the most medically relevant one in general circulation, would say that she is either Caucasoid or Malay-like, depending more on her nose shape and other features than on the shade of her skin. It's unlikely she would be Negroid, but she could, of course, be a mix of Caucasoid and Malay or whatever else. I don't feel like scouring reference materials to find out whether any significan medical differential diagnoses are contingent on whether she is which. I'm not saying what the Sinhalese government or the Tamil rebels ought to do on the basis of such racial discernments; I'm just saying that running around trying to deny people's perceptions/conceptions of race is not productive and not across the board in the interest of either science or the social order.

You could take an interlude from humans and consider (without tryping to make a close parallel) European vs. African bees, which interbreed. I'm sure you could find human Africans that nearly don'tinterbreed, also.

The rest of what you say is all in generalities, and thus doesn't approach my point of curiosity as to the actual nuts-and-bolts derivation, genewise, of these intra- and interspecies DNA-percentage differences.

I don't know Chinese at all, but 'zhongguoren', from what is said here, doesn't sound like a bad choice for Han-centered China, but I don't think 'whatever-guo' is any solution to the problem of a generic name for Mongoloid Asians.

Ray (That makes me waiguo? How 'bout meiwaiguo? ;) )

[Phaedrus]

Nano Nano my my my aren't we touchy?

I call an African American a person who is Negroid and lives in America.

For your enlightenment, Nano, Physical Anthropologists have not reached consensus as to whether or not there is such a thing as race. If you need more info on it, I will provide.

------------------
That which a man had rather were true he more readily believes.

[Beruang]

Wow, these posts are getting long! I shall try to be brief:

Sycorax:

I agree. "Native" means "born in a place." Using "Native American" to refer only to (mis-labelled) "Indians" can be seen as offensive by other folks who were born here.

(Of course, refering to US citizens as "Americans" can be seen as offensive to others nations in the Western Hemisphere.)

"Indigenous" is no better. It's a biological term meaning "evolved in a place." As a species, or even a race, no Homo sapiens ever evolved in the Western Hemisphere. One might make the argument that the *cultures* are indigenous. One might make that same argument for mainstream US culture, or "black" US culture.

"Original" has connotations of "superior" that would offend just about everybody.

"Aboriginal" is the proper term -- it means "first people in a place." But it is now thoroughly associated with Australians.

I like Canada's solution: "First Peoples" or "First Nations."

(I also like the Simpson's episode where Homer claims to be a native American and Apu claims to be an Indian American, leaving Lisa with no term for the First Peoples.)

pointy & Nanobyte:

Two problems with refering to "Indians" by their tribal names. One, it's like refering to whites by their European origins. I'm German and Polish by heritage. How would you count me? How would you even know? (What relevance it has tomy life -- virtually none -- is a separate question.) If you want/need to divide the species into a handful of large groups, nationality ain't gonna help much.

Second, what name to use? Many many tribes are known by more than one name. In many cases, they are changing from the name most familiar to whites and reclaiming their own historical names for themselves. Thus, some Navaho now call themselves Dene; some Winnebago call themselves Ho-Chunk.

techchick68:

Didn't teddy Roosevelt rail against "hyphenated Americans" about 100 years ago?


Hmm, I guess that wasn't so short after all. Sorry...

[{:-Df]

The rest of what you say is all in generalities...
And don't limit it to "the rest." That post was pretty much ALL painted in generalities, the idea being not to give "the" scientific answer, but to illuminate the problem from "another" perspective. But the last I heard, neither Physical Anthropologists nor geneticists took the idea of "race" seriously, at least with respect to supporting a holdover system of appearance-related categorizations. (And thus my quick "example" of an imaginary Sri Lankan. I'll access your reference - no, really - but in the meantime, you point out (quite correctly) some of the problems of trying to categorize "her" according to appearance instead of culturally, which was just my point: don't try to "scientifize" physical-appearance categorizations; they mean next to nothing, real-science-wise. You point out correctly that these categorizations DO matter socially, but I think the weight of opinion seen here is that they SHOULDN'T.)

As for your comment about human Africans who nearly don't interbreed, I believe that one of the observations regarding the Kalihari "Bushpeople" (the !Kung ?) involved visible differences in their genitalia compared to the Western observers and decreased fertility when "breeding" with outsiders. But that's an ancient memory...

Beruang: "'Aboriginal'...is now thoroughly associated with Australians."

That may be true in the popular conception, but I have seen it applied to other aboriginal groups.

But with regards to your mixed cultural heritage, you put your finger on it as far as I - and apparently many of the posters here - see it: how would anyone know, and why would it matter? Of course, with groups who look or dress or act differently from the majority culture it's harder to argue that it doesn't matter (whether or not it SHOULD is a separate question) because they often feel excluded. And THAT's the issue here, as you knew. In my opinion, if we don't want the society to fragment, we have to create a situation that doesn't make it attractive for groups to identify themselves as separate, and that means we need to be "all" inclusive, or at least a lot more tolerant. (After all, groups wouldn't "hyphenate themselves" if there weren't some form of reward for doing so*, or if they weren't forced to do it by lack of other choice.)

*Watch out; here come the "reverse discriminationists," though that isn't what I meant.

[Satan]

Jesus H. Christ in a chicken basket!

All of these wordy posts, and the obvious (which I commented on) was ignored...

IT'S NOTHING BUT POLITICALLY CORRECT SPEAK DESIGNED FOR WHITE LIBERAL GUILT!!

That's ALL it means.

Say someone is American if they are indeed a member of our country. Say they're black if their skin color seems to indicate that, and you really have to say something other than "human." A lot of black folks like to call themselves "niggaz," in fact. Use this at your own peril.

But, I repeat, the term African-American is an abomination brought on by white guilt! STOP THE FUCKING MADNESS about, "well, if you are born in Uganda, but spent 3.6 years living in Pakistan, while here on an expired Visa..."

ARGH!!!

------------------
Yer pal,
Satan

[december]

A Caucasian colleague at work was raised in South Africa and is now an American citizen. Of course, he would not be referred to as "African-American," although he literally is one. It seems to me that this term is simply a synonym for Negro. I believe that a Black Canadian person might be called "Africal-American."

I am one who was offended by the requirement that we switch from "Oriental" to "Asian", especially as both terms have similar roots. Also, most people of Asian descent that I know identify themselves with a particular COUNTRY not a CONTINENT.

How did this lingustic requirement come about? I imagine that some politically correct leadership group secretly decided to force the change just to show that they have power over the rest of us.

Maybe I'm a bit paranoid...

[tomndebb]

Satan:IT'S NOTHING BUT POLITICALLY CORRECT SPEAK DESIGNED FOR WHITE LIBERAL GUILT!!

That's ALL it means.
:::sigh:::

No, Brian. There are other dynamics going on here--including the origin of the phrase.

Jesse Jackson and a bunch of colleagues met in Chicago (over, I believe a Labor Day weekend), several years ago to discuss strategies for bringing blacks into better relationships with American society. Most of Jesse's friends are from Chicago, and several others in the group were from other rust-belt locations. In the rust belt (which has the highest percentage of descendants from the great immigration rush of 1890 to 1920 along with substantial groups of the Irish and Germans that preceded that wave), there is a common practice among the various descendants of Irish, Polish, Hungarian, Slovak, Serbian, German, Italian, etc. immigrants of establishing societies, clubs, and other social organizations to maintain the memories of their cultural roots. They do not separate themelves from their U.S. citizenship or their American culture, but they do create credit unions, organize insurance groups, and sponsor some really wild parties. The common thread that each of these groups has (beyond the consumption of large quantities of ethnically derived alcoholic beverages when they gather) is the use of a hyphented name ending -American.

When the Reverend Jackson and his associates decided that, among the several other goals outlined at their conference, they wanted to do something to be more like the white folks with whom they shared a society, they decided to deliberately choose the name by which they would be known. Since most of the members of the group came from rust-belt cities, they were most familiar with the hyphenated-American form of name, so they chose it.

Blacks have not run out to embrace the term. The last time I saw a poll, there was a roughly 60/40 split between black and African American (with the latter term actually losing ground from a couple of years earlier). The U.S. news media, however, identifying Jesse Jackson (correctly or incorrectly) as a "leader" of that population, has embraced it. To the extent that ABC/CBS/NBC/CNN/AP/Scripps-Howard/Hearst/etc. use it, you can claim a "white guilt" association. (You may or may not be correct, but there is room to make the charge.)

The term was not intended to be devisive. It was intended to give black Americans an identity that was more like their neighbors.
Of course, Jackson's group appears to have missed the facts that the rust belt is not representative of the whole of American society and even in the rust belt the old hyphenated-American societies are slowly becoming mere social clubs (and often dying out), so they shot themselves in the foot with a lot of people.

Since most of my black acquaintances prefer to use the term "black" (on those occasions when a term is needed), I stick with that.

------------------
Tom~

[Earl Snake-Hips Tucker]

Just to echo Tom's final comment--I have never heard the term "African-American" used by any Black acquaintance of mine.

I have on a couple of occasions heard it IRL from PC-type white guys--but only the PC-types, and only a couple of times there, too.

Just my 2¢.

[Lawrence]

Ray Campanis:

You said, "Engineering talent is a preadolescence-developed, highly male-chemistry determined trait accentuated in temperate-region evolved persons." Does that mean that you're saying women, blacks, and Hispanics don't have the necessities to be engineers? And since when are India and Southeast Asia temperate regions? And, geez, you get wordy like that and then give me trouble for using "autochtonous". All right, I spelled it wrong the first time. Sue me.

Tom's post was excellent, as usual, and I sympathize with Satan, at least as far as white people using "African-American" goes. Mjollnir, on campus between 1992-94, you can guess where, it was quite the fashion for black students to use "African-American". My guess is that the fashion was largely confined to campuses, the media, and the world of political activism, and that it's fading, but I had a good few black friends and acquaintances who used that term. There were also a couple of fellow students in my department from Senegal and Cote d'Ivoire who thought "African-American" was pretty silly.

[Earl Snake-Hips Tucker]

BTW, when the big, bushy "Afros" were in style, my father referred to them as "Africos."

He was quite sincere about it. He thought that's what they were supposeds to be called.

Whenever he did say it, it was all I could do to not laugh.

Well, at this point, this thread is clearly NOT a general QUESTION, but either a great or not-so-great debate. And since, in this medium and intellectual context, I obviously have trouble seeing what goes on here in simple enough terms not to end up wasting a lot of time and riding on the edge of social tastes by accentuating some abstract points that are brought out in such an interchange. Of course, if I go out on the streets of Berkeley, or the campus, my mind shifts into a completely different gear, unless I talk to someone who I know is not emotionally twanged by elements of this stuff, and is open to the full range of objective aspects the issues here. I have no occupational or other position in this society at present where I'm involved in an policies affected by or affecting these considerations; so, in my case at present, there are only the one-on-one pragmatic and the intellectually aloof stances. All my heavy contentions have been with "co-conspirators" of the conquering (?) whatever-it-is-that-we're-not-supposed-to-call-a-race, most all of us more or less Anglo-Saxons.

Phaedrus:



A number of serious problems, such as:

1. What's cutoff percentage of negroid "blood"?
2. What are the borders of "America"?
3. Does/should the subject person have a means of influencing whether (s)he is to be so categorized?

[quote]Physical Anthropologists have not reached consensus as to whether or not there is such a thing as race.

Do they intend to? I don't follow them, but the idea of whether "there is" or "there isn't" any such thing as race simply amuses me. This is just one example of what is, in my mind, a general sort of ridiculous dilemma: People have employed a word rather indiscriminately, and not closely tied into a tight little paradigm, for 'x'; does 'x really exist? NOTHING EXISTS IN ITS OWN RIGHT; IT ONLY EXISTS WITHIN A MENTAL SETTING -- CORRELATE TO CERTAIN WEIGHTINGS OF SYNAPTIC INTERCONNECTIONS IN BRAINS -- WHICH SETTING PRESUMABLY HAS COLLECTIVE FUNCTIONALITY IN THE LIVES OF THE ENTITIES HAVING THOSE BRAINS AND IN WHAT IS SEEN AS SOCIAL ORGANIZATIONS WHEREOF THEY ARE PARTS. This is essentially the same notion as came up in the thread on the order of mathematical operations within a conventionally expressed equation. OK, so it's only one philosophical point of view. . .but all the others seem to me to just wander off into infinite [<font face="symbol">¥</font> (Hey, I was shown how to do it, so I gotta use it.)] nowhere. Science sometimes likes to kid itself that it is independent of pragmatic societies' and their individuals' desires, and that its concepts are set in some kind of "holy", absolute objectivity that "exists" outside of the human or whatever mind. . .but what do you sit on (scientifically, of course) while you prove this is all so?

Anyhow, I say a very wide range of people on this planet want, and feel they have a need, to use some term that is close to the everyday present usage of the word 'race'. As for scientists (and I'm not sure physical anthropologists are always all that scientific), what do they want out of a decision of whether 'race' or a similar word be considered "to exist". . .in presumably some scientific sense? We readily admit that things macrobiological vary all over the place, so much so that we all admit that the whole taxonomic hierarchy of biological organisms on earth, begun back in the murky early days of biology and only patched up in small ways now and then, is only a crude outline of the menagerie, and that the subject matter is even still varying. Some want to completely overhaul this quite imperfect diagrammatic history and addressing system of variant organizations of living matter, to the extent of doing away with the fixed across-the-board ranks of this hierarchy, i.e., kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species. The basis of the present biological taxonomic system began with Linnaeus' classification of plants and animals and established biology as a science in the 18th century.
http://www.inform.umd.edu/EdRes/Colleges/LFSC/life_sciences/.plant_biology/nomcl/nictxt.html

But in this age of "organics", some guy named Daston concluded in 1997:

"Classifications organize, but they are not organic."

So classifiers of organisms started thinking about becoming organic, and Kevin de Queiroz has proposed this phylogenetic system be substituted for the present Linnaean nomenclatural system:
http://www.inform.umd.edu/PBIO/nomcl/dequ.html

But the bulk of taxonomists being as stuffy as they are, apparently neither this nor similar schemes are likely to happen over night.

Now, I'm not saying I waded through all this stuff. (It would've "taxed" me just to much.) But before telling the public around the world that 'race' isn't a scientific enough concept, so they shan't use it, I say clean thy own house first. . .and 'race' = 'variety' ain't all that less scientific than our present Linnaean-based "scientific" hierarchical taxonomic systems, with their silly words for their ranks, like 'kingdom'. Sounds pretty patriarchal to me. I'll have to run that by NOW. ;) In the meantime, I think your physical anthropologists should hold their decision off until the biolgists, as a more basic science, restabilize about a phylogenetic taxonomic system for all living things, because genes and genetics is where it's at in these kewl days of millenial shiftiness.

That which a man had rather were true he more readily believes.

Why not.

-----

Beruang:

Well, you can't exactly go to Amerinds to find a common name for themselves. Most of them have spent out their energies on negative names for each other, the same as the rest of the world. You can't even do it for within the US (which is a kind of artificial task borderwise, in respect to the aborigines), because more than one language family is involved.

-----

pointy:

. . .you point out (quite correctly) some of the problems of trying to categorize "her" according to appearance instead of culturally,. . .

So you say it's OK to yell 'ethnic' appellations but not 'racial' ones; is that it? But apparently 'Sri Lankan' doesn't label much of an ethnic designation; you have to break that down to Sinhalese and Tamil, or something, and if you did this task right, you'd probably cross over into a share of India, which, of course, Sri Lanka (Ceylon) used to be when the British ruled it. . .and I'm sure the Brits had some creative names that would cover all non-Brits in India -- although racial, subracial, cultural and religious differences were exceedingly apparent in India, as in few other places.

. . .which was just my point: don't try to "scientifize". . .

Er. . .don't try to idiolexicize, when 'scientize' oughtta work just fine. ;)

. . .physical-appearance categorizations; they mean next to nothing, real-science-wise.

1. Next to nothing can mean a great deal in science. Like, what percentage of the earth's matter is plutonium?

2. Who said the purpose of the notion of 'race' involved science? What does the Mona Lisa mean sciencewise? That a smile on an Italian woman's face could mean just about anything? Or what does the sound of one hand clapping m

[NanoByte]

Lawrence:

Ray Campanis:

What is that second word there? Is that supposed to be Latin for 'chimes'?

You said, "Engineering talent is a preadolescence-developed, highly male-chemistry determined trait accentuated in temperate-region evolved persons." Does that mean that you're saying women, blacks, and Hispanics don't have the necessities to be engineers?

I'm saying that, relative-percentagewise within their populations, they have neither the desire/interest nor the wherewithall for technical engineering. Only a few of them try it, and most of those get out of the technical sector of it. Sure, there are quite a small number who are so-equipped, and I guess there are some of those who stay in a technical area of it, but, out of a thousand or so I've met, I can think of only one. There are no doubt a few more than that today. I'm also not saying there aren't a handful who are more capable of practicing technically in that field than the average temperate-latitude-evolved male, but those persons are generally also qualified to do many other things also, which things become more appealing to such persons. The student who achieved, by far, the best grades in all the engineering specialties in freshman year of my undergrad college class was a white female. After that year, however, she got much more social, the chemistry kicked in, and that was the end of that; but I don't know what she ended up doing professionally. I'm speaking of a class that graduated in 1954, however.

And since when are India and Southeast Asia temperate regions?

Well, I don't know exactly how I worded my statement in this regard, but what I intended to put in the prime scientific/technological-aptitude category was males of genetic lines that significantly evolved in temperate zones. South and Southeast Asia have mixes of long-term indigenous, tropical peoples and peoples who spent tens of thousands of years considerably further north in Asia. The latter tend to be dominant today in those areas and are the ones I placed in the mentioned category. Obviously there are oriental and Caucasian engineers situated in the tropics today, but they're all, of course, descendants of "races" which evolved for tens of thousands of years in temperate regions. Clearly, at this time, there are many opportunities for engineers in all parts of the world, and indoor working areas can be made technologically accommodative to such occupations, but neither of these were the case back when the pertinent genes were being influenced. And today it's also not as easy to live in the tropics by just grabbing fruit and throwing spears. ;)

Sue me.

What are you worth?

-------

Tom:

Well, I don't know about all that Jesse Jackson stuff, but before African American or African-American, there was Afro-American, right? Was the lattermost from a different source. And I believe the present 'African' form has no hyphen, right? Without the hyphen it can't mimic the European American X-American ethnic groups, can it?

Ray (Citizen of the California Republic)

[tomndebb]

Afro-American was a term that was evaluated (by throwing it out on the street to see whether any one would use it) back in the late 1960s, when the original discussion regarding names was in full swing. The original discussion within the black community was in regard to what word they wanted used when a news article (electronic or print) referred to them as a group. The media at the time was using Negro. The objections raised against that were that is had a pseudoscientific air about it that conveyed an image of specimens being examined. Whites were simply referred to as white, rarely as Caucasian. The word colored might have had a shot, except that nearly all the Jim Crow laws and Northern "point" systems used that word, hanging a lot of excess emotional baggage on it. (I kind of liked "colored," myself, with the corollary that we descendents of Europeans were "colorless.") Quite a few other terms, including African-American, Afro-American, and several that were quite bizarre were also put forth. Afro-American followed the usage of Sino-American, Euro-American, Franco-American, and similar words. I never heard why it made as strong a showing as it did at that time. At a WAG, it indicated the geographic origins while being shorter than "African American." Eventually, they settled on black (lower case "b") as the word that most nearly resembled white in usage and function.

The hyphen in (or out of) African American has come and gone at different times. (This is also true for Irish American/Irish-American and similar terms. The nomenclature is "hyphenated-American," but in actual usage it is printed both ways.) The version without the hyphen is the one that made it into the various media style books. Since very few people take the time to find out word origins, the appearance of "African American" as it appears in newspapers and magazines is simply accepted as it is found and embraced or reviled by each reader/listener as they see fit.

------------------
Tom~

[Lawrence]

Come on, Ray, don't tell me you've never heard of Al Campanis, the former Dodgers player and front-office man, and the time he put his foot in his mouth on "Nightline" by saying that blacks "don't have the necessities" to be major-league baseball executives. It cost the guy his career, which was kind of sad since he'd been a friend of Jackie Robinson's and had been one of the earliest supporters of integrating baseball. During the '40s and '50s his thoughts were very liberal compared to those of the rest of society. Too bad he got mentally stuck at that time. Your opinions sound a lot like his.

[pendiva]

The term refers to American Blacks. I can't believe all the attention (negative and otherwise) given to this subject. I wonder if Native American, Irish American, Italian American, etc., when first used, conjured up this much controversy. I can't seem to figure out why one's preference as to their label (since we OBVIOUSLY have to have them) is met with negative conjecture. I personally use "Black" because it takes too long to say african american also it simply does not matter to me. However, do consider this; I live in Italy amongst Blacks AND Whites who are from Africa AND America. Let the labels begin. And to the politically correct Whites, in an effort not to offend, which is it Red, Native American or Indian; Brown, Red, Mexican American, Mexican, or Hispanic? On a parting note, my American friends (the white variety) don't refer to our host nationals as whites but as Italians. Hmmmmmm?!?

[Nickrz]

65 posts and counting.. yup. Great Debate here. Duh.
Nickrz
------
GQ Mod