Some literal-minded Mexicans, Canadians and South Americans do that, I have heard. Right now, “Americans” refers to those citizens of the 48 contiguous United States and (some) applicable territories. This may grow as support for the proposed North American Union grows. More likely, if we follow the model of Europe and Africa, we will collectively call ourselves North Americans, if anything. (Which make Central American participation deliciously oxymoronic.)
DrDeth, that’s an amazingly dishonest claim to make, as I have already pointed out. The situation behind Senator Obama’s self-identification as African-American is complicated, and your pretense that he has made some simple statement that can be used as evidence for your definition is simple mendacity. You are continuing to pretend that a politician’s claim in one speech (which is all that has been cited if I’m not greatly mistaken) is in some way support for your point - a claim that could have been made for many reasons (reasons which have been pointed out earlier in this thread), and a claim that the politician himself might have felt was a stretch in order to connect with his audience.
You are making arguments long after others have pointed out how weak they are and long after the discussion has moved beyond them. You are exhibiting, over and over, a fundamental dishonesty in your refusal to consider what other people have said. It’s become crystal-clear that you are not even interested in honestly reading what the rest of us are saying.
I hope everyone else will join with me in refusing to engage with DrDeth any further on this issue.
Really? How about if your Mother was Jewish, but converted to the Christian faith before you were born? How about if your Conversion was Reform? Refrom Jews say you are Jewish, bit others disagree. But you’re right- it’s not a simple matter. But “Jewish” is both a faith and an ethnicity, so it’s even more complex.
Of course, the legal binding state only holds in whatever jursitiction it holds in. In Isreal, you are Jewish if the Laws of Isreal say you are. In the USA you are Navaho if that Tribe’s laws says you are (which the US Government recognizes). Perhaps in Mexico they don’t recognize those laws, thus there you wouldn’t be LEGALLY Navaho.
What’s “clearly” not African American? What’s your definition?
My definition allows for self-determination, and the rights of individuals, instead of other dudes deciding what race you or I- (or Charlize, or Sen Obama) deciding what race we are. Who do you give the right to decide to? I give it to the individual concerned.
My definition- poor and simplistic as it is- is better than what anyone else has come up with. Point to a better one. It’s like the definition of Democracy- “Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried.” (Churchill)
Why do you bother to reply if you aren’t going to read and address the points I made?
Far more than one speech.
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040531&s=scheiber053104&c=2
More important, Obama played up his achievements in a way that called attention to his race. David Axelrod, a media consultant and Obama aide who was simultaneously advising John Edwards, believed Obama’s biography was perfect raw material for the kind of hopeful themes he was crafting for the North Carolina senator’s presidential campaign–particularly Obama’s status as the first-ever black president of the Harvard Law Review. “It worked on two levels,” Axelrod says. “For those for whom the knocking down of barriers is important, it was very important. For others, Harvard Law Review was a big credential.” In Obama’s first advertisement, the telegenic state senator looks at the camera and explains, “They said an African American had never led the Harvard Law Review–until I changed that.” The commercial concludes, “Now they say we can’t change Washington, D.C. … I approved this message to say, ‘Yes we can.’”
This cite talks about the issue at length:
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040531&s=scheiber053104
Here’s the Tribune:
*He decided he belonged to the “community of humanity.” I asked him whether that smacked of Tiger Woods’ description of his biracial identity, which some blacks saw as a rejection of the black community.
“My view has always been that I’m African-American,” he said. “African Americans by definition, we’re a hybrid people. One of things I loved about my mother was not only did she not feel rejected by me defining myself as an African-American, but she recognized that I was a black man in the United States and my experiences were going to be different than hers.”*
http://www.ericzorn.com/extra/obama/
*Obama: Let me respond to the question. A couple of things.
No. 1, I am rooted in the African- American community, but I am not limited to it. …
Berkowitz: So, what is the African-American base going to focus on in this race?
Obama: What they are going to look at is who has a track record of effectively working on behalf of the issues that they care about. And, I come out of a legislative session where I sent twenty-five pieces of legislation to the Governor’s desk, including:
–landmark videotaping legislation of interrogations and confessions, the first in the Nation.
–racial profiling legislation that has been called a model for the country.
–healthcare legislation that expands the Kidcare program to …
–an expansion of the earned income tax credit…
–a hospital report card that…
So, African- Americans, like every other voter, are going to look and see who do we have confidence in, in terms of being able to work on the issues that are going to matter in my life and my family’s life.*
Are we willing to concede that Sen Obama considers himself an “African-American”? My claim is that what he calls himself, thereby that’s what he is. Askias claim seems to me to be that Askia gets to define who is African-American or not. My theseis is that of self-determination. Simplistic? sure.
I did. But- what’s your defintion?
It’s amazing to me that you can post so much and fail to make a single point whatsoever.
The fact that you would ask that and claim, once again, that you have somehow proposed the “best” definition we’ve seen yet, indicates clearly that you have not read any of my posts.
I wrote a lot above; I ended up making several points more than once when you ignored them the first time. I’m certainly not going to say the same things yet again in hopes that you’ll experience some sort of personality change and suddenly begin reading and arguing honestly.
I know, it’s terrible when the facts get in the way, isn’t it? :rolleyes: So, a simple- “I see, yes, I was wrong, there have been plenty of times where Sen Obama self-identified as African-American” is too hard to type? Of course you don’t want to engage me when nasty little things like the facts get in your way. (I freely admit that the gist of this thread is all about opinions, but others don’t seem to think so, so if they want facts- facts it is.) My point was- *you were wrong. *
But that’s not the point!. Obama’s position–whether he’s stated it once or one hundred times–doesn’t suddenly make it okay to throw current definitions of race and ethnic identity out the window. I’m amazed that this you can’t see how silly you sound.
Is Koko the Gorilla a human because she says so? If not, what’s makes you the arbiter of that? If Wesley Snipes said he was white, would you agree with him? Please respond to these simple questions.
What I said was this:
The only claim that I had made was that there was only one citation offered earlier in the thread; notice that I explicitly hedged what I said in case more than one citation had actually been pulled up.
I never once claimed that Obama only mentioned his ethnicity in one speech. You continue to demonstrate that you have no ability whatsoever to read and respond to an argument. In this case, all that you have managed is to lie about what I said; you neglect to note that no matter how many times Barack Obama has claimed to be African-American, it makes no difference whatsoever to any of the points I was making. It’s not like you say it three times and click your ruby slippers together and suddenly you’re African-American.
Look, let’s not have tempers flare. With anything to do with race, there are two constants:
- Dudes will get upset easily
- There are no easy or “right” answers.
**Shagnasty ** sez:The term African-American has been discussed here at length. The working definition seems to be anybody in this country who has easily detectable black African ancestry. It really doesn’t matter where they came from directly. There are plenty of black people moving here even now from the Caribbean and elsewhere who know nothing of Africa or their original lineage and they will be called African-Americans if they call the U.S. home one day. The term African-American isn’t true to the two words that make it up.
**Tomndebb ** sez: The term African American is generally applied to anyone who had ancestors taken from Africa as slaves between the early sixteenth century and the late nineteenth century, regardless whether those ancestors were imported directly to South Carolina in 1788 or into a Caribbean Island in 1560 from which their descendants immigrated to the U.S. in the 1970s.
It is a political term, but it was coined to identify a specific group of people who have suffered discrimination in the U.S. based on their ethnicity and appearance in a way that would make their group identification sound more like the ethnic identities used by other groups.
**Askia ** sez:*The correct ethnic term for blacks descended from American slaves in the United States is African-American. *
**John Mace ** seems to like this on-line dictionary defintion of “A Black American of African ancestry” based upon “but the fact is, in the U.S. the terms “Black” and “African-American” are used interchangebly. The dictionary cite I gave confirmed that.”
I say “you are what you say you are”.
None of these are wrong. None are right, either.
Here’s an interesting site:
"*A recent version of this controversy involves immigrants from Africa or the Caribbean and whether they are “African-Americans.” Harvard professors have publicly worried that over half of Harvard’s “black” students did not descend from American slaves but are, rather, immigrants or the children of immigrants from Africa or the Caribbean. Though it started off on the right track, this debate predictably became as much about the “identity” of these immigrants as the direction of Harvard’s admissions policies.
Meanwhile Republican Alan Keyes complained that the Democratic Party’s rising star, Barack Obama—the son of a Kenyan immigrant—“[wrongly] claims an African-American heritage.” In reaction to which UC-Berkeley linguist John McWhorter quite reasonably pointed out that immigrants from, well, Africa, who are now residents of the United States of America, have a stronger claim to the term “African-American” than most American blacks, whose connection to Africa is generations old. Others worried that defining “African-American” as rooted in geographic origin seems to suggest that Teresa Heinz Kerry, born in Mozambique, and Charlize Theron, born in South Africa, are "African-American…
The nation anxiously awaits the answers to these urgent social questions.
It shouldn’t. Arguments about the correct definition of racial identity are this century’s version of medieval scholastic theologians’ debates about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. They seem to be of vital moral and spiritual importance, involving many contested terms, conceptual puzzles, and facts not in evidence. They’re a great way for smart people to pass the time until the bartender pours the next round. But there’s no way to resolve these questions or even to agree on common grounds for debating them. "*
I agree with those last lines: "They’re a great way for smart people to pass the time until the bartender pours the next round. But there’s no way to resolve these questions or even to agree on common grounds for debating them."
So, I apologize if feathers got ruffled or tempers flared. All of us are right, and all wrong. 
(Although still, like it or not- Sen Obama clearly considers himself an African American). 
(Oh, and Charlize Theron is HOT, African-American or not) 
DrDeth. Using your own definition, then… “you are who you say you are”… simply cite, from a reputable source, where large numbers of African immigrant populations are lately using the descriptor “African-American” for themselves and I will happily concede I am wrong. Until that happens, it’s just one group trying to wrongly foist a name onto another group, as imperialists, conquerors, government staticians and ignorant but well meaning confused Americans have done for ages. (Why, for example, are black immigrants from the region south of the U.S., east of Central America and north of South American still listed on the 2000 census as West Indies instead of the far more popular and self-selected descriptor, Caribbean? Yeesh.)
Charlize Theron’s appearance has not been contested. She’s okay-looking, I suppose. By Euro standards. Got then lips. Kinda pasty. She’s not packing enough junk in her trunk. She could use some more “bling.” 
Then it would be nice if you wouldn’t try to offer an “easy” answer because you’re unable to deal with categories that don’t have clear borders.
Isn’t that just a cuddly sentiment.
So your argument is predicated on the notion that politicians always tell the truth?
Interesting strategy, that.
I’m interested in seeing some responses to this portion of the quote DrDeth provided:
"Arguments about the correct definition of racial identity are this century’s version of medieval scholastic theologians’ debates about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. They seem to be of vital moral and spiritual importance, involving many contested terms, conceptual puzzles, and facts not in evidence. They’re a great way for smart people to pass the time until the bartender pours the next round. But there’s no way to resolve these questions or even to agree on common grounds for debating them. "
I think my sentiment is similar.
-Kris
Emphasis added. I’ll drink to that!!
Am I missing something, or did you imply that Hawaiians and Alaskans are not Americans? Their Reps, Senators, and (used to be) draft boards might be surprised.
I’m with Askia on this one. Let the damn Eskimos and hula dancers fend for themselves!
Cardinal. I implied states like Hawaii and Alazka and commonwealths like Puerto Rico when I said “… and (some) territories.” I suppose it could have been phrased better. I always figured with the Revolution comes Hawaii and Alaska will be all, “America, who?”
Frylock. African-American, as I have been repeating now past boredom and beyond ennui and to the point where it now threatens to become my own divine mantra, is not a *racial * descriptor but an *ethnic * one. The dude writing that article, like many literal minded academics I used to hang with, misses the point, too. I’ll bet you anything that free-drinking collection of free-thinkers probably don’t even drink with a brother in the group discussing it. I of course disagree profoundly with the notion that the question can not be resolved. I’m just waiting for you bastards to shelve your massive egos and agree with me. Me. ME!!