[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
Huh? If I’m understanding you correctly, you feel there is a need for a different term for black people who are descendants of slaves from black people who are not? Sorry, but that makes zero sense to me. It’s like saying that people whose great grandparents were farmers should have a different label than people whose great grandparents were townspeople. I’m sure Barak Obama did not avoid the difficulties of growing up black in America just because his ancestors had been slaves.
[/quote]
I know little about Barack Obama’s childhood, and I don’t know whether it is the norm for U.S.-born children of African immigrants to share in the quote-unquote “Black Experience”. But at very least, you seem to have missed a major point that Askia has argued rather eloquently and that I touched on as well: there is a unique culture amongst “African-Americans” (in Askia’s use of the term) that is likely different than that of Barack Obama. Skin color doesn’t mean all that much; it’s a proxy for many other, much more complicated phenomena, and black people in the United States have a certain identity unique to them.
Oh, dear. Yes, the announcement was made last Thursday; I’m not sure how you missed it, but it was in all the papers. 
No, she’s not. There is no reasonable definition of the term that departs so sharply from what it’s actually used for. “African-American” does have a specific meaning, and it definitely excludes white people. That has been explained to you already; unless you’re willing to attempt to refute some argument, you’re just making a bald assertion here, much like Clothahump did earlier.
I have some sympathy for Askia’s use of the term - largely because that’s how I use it myself and I have always felt a certain discomfort with its use to describe just any black person in the United States. But I’m willing to accept that popular usage most likely is to use it to refer to black African immigrants and their offspring; however, conventional usage certainly is limited to black people. Conventional, that is, outside of this precise argument, which itself is becoming sadly conventional - but none the more convincing for it.
But the fact that that is not the definition in any kind of use outside of stunts played by schoolchildren does make it wrong.
You may not agree with that, but it’s still true.
Precisely what is that reasonable standard? It is only “reasonable” either by fallacious attempts to make analogies to other compound ethnonyms like the ridiculous one advanced above by Clothahump and subsequently thoroughly demolished, or under the similarly fallacious (though less deliberately deceitful) reasoning based on the idea that a compound word must always mean exactly the combination of its component parts, a line of reasoning that I have already disproven.
You’re simply sitting here and making claims with no support to back them; those claims, worse yet, have already been addressed. Without some novel line of reasoning to support them, you’re simply baldly stating an assertion based upon an incorrect knowledge of what a “definition” of a word is.