Black...Afroamerican...Negro..Asian

Great Debates
1

Yesterday at a regular meeting of our discussion group one our very intelligent regulars…a black male introduced a topic which took 90 minutes to discuss and quite interesting.

In essence , stated he believes the term Negro is the most acceptable term for him and members of his race…AfroAmerican is particularly offensive to him because other Americans do not go by So.American Americans or Australian American.

Most of Turkey is in Asia…are Turks Asians? Israelis Asians?

Who made the determination that Blacks should be called Black and Japanese, Koreans, Chinese, Filipino’s should be called Asians?

And Brahmans from India consider themselves Caucasians. Why aren’t other Indians caucasians?

By the time our discussion on the subject terminated, most of us approximately 35 of us were entirely confused…

I would like to hear your opinions or answers.

2

Oh, but they do…

…if you live the right places, like the old rust belt. As has been oft-cited on this board the term African American was deliberately created to blend in with the seeming American mainstream. In the regions where blue-collar European immigrant ( and post-immigrant ) communities had preserved a self-consciously Old World ethnic identity and proudly identified themselves as Polish-American, Ruthenian-American, German-American, etc., this made perfect sense. The coalfields and steel plants of Western Pennsylvania where my father’s side of the family ( self-conscious 1rst-3rd generation Serbs ) came from, was one such place. I clearly remember PBS cultural blurbs, ending with some little urchin brightly chirping “I am proud to be a Lithuanian-American” or some such.

Unfortunately the folks that originated the term African-American were blinded by their parochial regionalism. Such identifiers were largely unused/ unknown in wide swaths of the country, such as the south and the west.

Usually so-classed, but they straddle the line so call them whatever they prefer. Usually “Turk” works fine.

Technically, but then again a majority are descended from relatively recent European immigrants. “Israeli” seems to fit the bill, often enough.

Gradual changing cultural convention. Pretty common in this here world.

The classic racialist ( not necessarily, racist, though it was more often than not ) classified virtually all northern Indians as caucasian. The dividing line was roughly the Sanskrit-derived speakers vs. Dravido-Sanskrit and Dravidian peoples of central and southern India. Not that such a dividision was particularly logical, of course.

The reason more general terms like black are used vs. specific ones like Kenyan are simply that in America, most of the African-desended people can only reliably trace their primary ancestry back to Africa ( mostly west Africa ) and represent a complex and very ( but not uniquely ) American mix. It’s a handy cultural label.

If that gentleman prefers negro, I think it is perfectly polite to refer to him as such. But for most the term has developed unfortunate cultural backage ( often couched in terms of submissiveness it seems ) in the wake of the Civil Rights era.

  • Tamerlane
3

I am not sure who is behind the movement to change Oriental to Asian. Every single American of Chinese or Japanese ethnic background in my personal experience uses Oriental, althought I have seen enough posted controversy to realize that the issue is of some importance to a number of people.

As to black (as opposed to Negro), that choice was made by the (now) black community. The polite word through the 1950s and early 1960s was Negro. At some point, a number of people so identified began to raise the issue that newspaper articles used the lower-case color word “white” to identify the majority population in the U.S. while using the capitalized “scientific” word “Negro” to identify that minority which was most publicly fighting for equality of access at that time. Many members of that community kicked around the idea that using “Negro” made the community appear to be a sub-unit of humanity, fit for scientific examination, but not sufficiently like the rest of American society to be admitted, equally. A number of terms were bandied about in Op-Ed pieces, lectures, public debates, and elsewhere, but the argument that the lower-case color word “black” was the word that most equally corresponded to the common color word that identified the majority eventually carried the day.

There is no correct word for any group, but “black” is the word that the majority of people within that population (and every single one of those I know personally) prefer, so it is the word that I use. If the group chooses another word, I am quite willing to go along with them.

I am curious as to the reasons offered to return to “Negro.”

4

Admittedly, this discussion group is composed of seniors but just like members of the SDMB, there is a rocket scientist, and publishers, attys, Drs and so on.

The Black member is 86 with a mind of a 40 year old…his intellectual group object to the AfroAmerican term because altho most Blacks in the US trace their ancestry to Africa but certainly not all…everyone in the US ancestrally originated from all over the world including the Native Americans…Unless other Americans designate themselves as I’m a Polish American, a Russian American, a Greek American routinely, he does not feel he should be labeled as an AfroAmerican.

He said I am a Negro…that covers dark skinned Blacks, light skinned Blacks. It is NOT a word to be ashamed of and of course like so many of us he is loathe to political correctness.

5

I’ve said several times that, all baggage handled and set aside, Negro and Caucasian are by far the most logical terms. James Baldwin and Paul Robeson, for example, were both famous expatriates and probably would have been irritated to be called African-American, Pele isn’t called African-South-American, and Charlize Theron should she ever become an American citizen is technically more appropriately called by this description than Whoopi Goldberg (who made the comment in one of her specials “I filmed two movies in Africa and spent much time among their people and in their cultures… Baby, I’m American” [this was not said condescedingly but in reference to culture shock]).

Of course the word Congoid is gaining some currency (even though it was coined by a controversial anthropologist considered racist by modern standards and who had the embarassingly ironic name Carleton Coon).

6

Ultimately, though, all Afro-Americans do trace their roots back to Africa, right? Even if they came to the US from the Caribbean, their ancestors were African. Similarly, white South African immigrants to the US, as far as racial classification goes, are European-Americans, not African-Americans, even if their family lived in Africa for generations.

Ditto what others said. And I’d also argue that the discussion is, in the end, more or less pointless. Even if you came up with a flawless argument for why blacks should be called Negros, would you really feel comfortable using that word with total strangers? No, because the current consensus is that that word is outdated and offensive. So you go with the flow, and if a new term comes around, you go with it. No big deal.

Then again, in one sense your friend has a point. Self-identification is one thing, but when we talk about white people whose ethnic background we don’t know (most people can’t tell a Lithuanian-American from a German-American from a Polish-American) we refer to them as just “white.” When we don’t know a black person’s ethnic background, we’ll equally often refer to them either as “black” or “African-American.” I suppose if you wanted to be completely equal in the terminology, you should either always use “black” and “white,” or “African-American” and “European-American.” Unfortunately, I think the term European-American has been co-opted by some white-supremacist groups, so that may be a no-go. And regardless, as interracial marriage increases it’s going to become ever more confusing… :mad:

7

But in that confusion, maybe we’ll be forced to call ourselves just, human. :cool:

8

Over here, most of the time I think “black” and “white” are fine. Some people (including myself) feel a bit uncomfortable describing someone as black - as though perhaps we should use something else to describe them rather than the colour of their skin.

I tend to avoid other terms such as “asian” or “indian” (meaning from India) because they suggest that the person is from Asia, or India. So many people are 2nd or 3rd generation that this isn’t the case. I opt for “of asian origin” but I realise that doesn’t really cut the mustard.

I have never come across anyone describe themselves as African-British, or German-Spanish or whatever, it seems (to me) to be a purely North American thing. I often meet people who say their parents are French, but most people, in my experience, will give their nationality as that of the country they were born in.

9

Your friend can define himself in any way he likes. As far as trying to influence others as far as nomenclature, he will be fighting an uphill battle. Seems like most Black people I know seem to be moving away from African-American and back to ‘Black’.

I think we are seeing more and more real African communtities popping up. LA had a small Ethiopian community when I left. Mississippi seems to have a small Nigerian community as well. When an American (Black or White) meets a real African-American such as a first generation Nigerian immigrant it seems rather silly to clump a 4th generation Mississippian with a Kenyan immigrant just because their skin color is similar.

Comedians can make a living off of pointing out the difference between Blacks and Whites, but that difference is nothing compared to the cultural chasm between a black American and a fresh off the boat Nigerian.

Most importantly, moving back to Negro mean the dropping a whole tome of pop culture catch phrases.

How is one supposed to respond when James Brown yells “Say It Loud!”?
“You ever play roulette? Always bet on ???”
Once you go Negro, you never go ???
Kiss my negro ass! (That’s just wrong)
Black superheroes with ‘black’ in their names like “Black Lightning” would no longer be reserved for black characters

10

Is it just silly when 4th generation Polish, Irish or Italian Americans, meet 1st generation Polish, Irish and Italian immirgrants? Are their communities, not really Italian? In fact, what makes an ethnic community “real”? Does a 4th generation “italian” have more in common with a 4th generation “african” american or their ancestor’s homeland?

Claiming to be African-American isn’t the same as claiming to be African. It’s simply an acknowledgment of the roots that created a unique ethnic group in the US. No different than a 4th generation Italian, acknowledging his roots.

What’s the big deal?

11

On the difference between “black” and “African-American:”

The distinction is only relevant (as is any distinction based on race, like the difference between “black” and “white”) depending on what you’re talking about. For example, to say “XX% of black men are in prison” is very useful if you are trying to indicate a correlation between skin colour and imprisonment. I think it’s quite valid because whatever forces put XX% of black men in prison probably don’t distinguish between the first-generation Congolese immigrant, and the descendent of slaves who does not know anyone who has ever been to Africa.

However, there are times when it is useful to distinguish between the two groups. For example, my husband (a black man, born and raised in Africa, currently living in Canada) has experienced more racism at the hands of “African-Americans” (ie black people whose ancestors came over many generations ago and who identify as Canadian) than white people. To automatically group him in with them would be to effectively make that racism invisible.

For me “African-American” has a quite specific definition: people born in North America as descendants of slaves. That’s it. (Of course things get fuzzy, what of the person whose mother came straight over from Swaziland, and whose father can trace his line back to Kunta Kinte? Of course, this is not one bit fuzzier than any other “ethnicity.”) Charlize would never be African-American, nor would my husband. It’s a name for a group which came into existence out of a specific set of historical circumstances, and there are some situations in which it is a very useful categorization to make.

For example, many studies about “black” or “African-American” people would be improved if the distinction were made, because black people who are not African-American (eg recent immigrants) may have quite different forces affecting them. This should be included in the initial definitions in order to separate out what is an effect of race from what is an effect of other things (eg speaking English with a foreign accent, culture shock, etc). This could add new insight to the XX% of black men in prison, for instance.

It is definitely confusing, but I think it’s very important. We need to sort this kind of thing out if we ever want to have intelligent and productive discussions of race in this century. Any categorization based on race/ethnicity/ancestral origin is going to be fuzzy, but that shouldn’t stop us.

At the end of the day, when it’s necessary to identify people by ethnic origin, I do so based on how they self-identify. If they haven’t expressed a preference I do my best based on how other people who look like them have self-identified, and I have never had any problems with this.

(I did have a problem when my friend, who was over from India, asked me about the “red Indians.” I gasped in horror, and then realized how culturally-specific my horror was because to him, it made perfect sense.)

12

I would maintain that the 4th gen Italian American has more in common with a 4th gen black American than a recent Italian immigrant. I have many friends who had the same reaction as Whoopi did. “I thought I was XXXX-American until I went to XXXX on vacation.”

I don’t think anyone is arguing with you. I am pointing out that you have to meet a recent immigrant or travel to your ‘country of origin’ to realize how far you have drifted from your roots.

13

That’s hysterical, fourth generation Americans identifying as “XXXX-American.” My grandfather was born in the USA (about a year or two after his parents immigrated), so I guess that makes me a third-generation American, but I’d never identify myself as a German-American. I don’t know German, I don’t speak German, and while my last name is vaguely German (it’d be more recognizable as definitely German had my great-grandfather kept the final terminating “n”), many people probably wouldn’t recognize its origins. Very little about me is German at all (except my love for schnitzels and spatzle). I’m American, baby.

14

Well, finally. Usually I jump in these threads to make the points **cowgirl ** and holmes already have.

An 86-year old man prefers Negro to AfroAmerican? Yeah, that’d be the nostalgia talking. Black will be preferred as the equal and opposite to white.

“American” is my nationality, not much my ethnicity.

15

I’m Philippino. I’m not exactly Asian or Oriental, more over an Pacific islander.

I’m a coconut. Brown on the outside, white on inside. :stuck_out_tongue:

16

I agree with everything you wrote except this. Perhaps “objective term” or “unbiased term” might work better than “correct” here.

17

I thought that was a slur, like someone calling me an “Oreo.”

18

Which is why I italicized the word–to indicate that I was challenging any word’s superiority rather than its accuracy. All the words are conventions for groups that are identified by convention.

You’re from Minnepolis? You’ve never listened to Prairie Home Companion? The whole town of Lake Wobegon is divided between the Norwegians (Lutheran) and the Germans (Catholics) with the occasional Irishman or Frenchman sneaking in to keep the rest honest. A lot of folks held onto their ethnic identity for a long time. My Mom’s family still identifies as “Irish” and my Dad’s as “German” and they arrived just after 1798 and in the 1850s respectively. The families stayed in ethnic enclaves for a long time, forming mutual support associations (financial and recreational), church bonds, and other groups that reinforced identity. With my generation, (since I am “mixed” and married someone else who is “mixed”), that identity is fading, but however quaint it appears to people on the outside, those bonds and associations are real.

Metro Cleveland has three “Irish-American” clubs, and several clubs and associations catering to “Slovenians,” “Germans,” “Italians,” “Poles,” (several), “Lithuanians,” “Hungarians,” “Croatians,” “Koreans,” “Elks.” There is even a “British-American” association.

19

Correct me if I am wrong but isn’t it true that many scientists in this world believe mankind began in Africa a million or so years ago? If so we can all trace our roots to Africa…Black, White, Yellow, Brown (and the cliche I have tremendous comtempt for= purple and green.

20

Technically true, but it gets into pre-history, so most people discount it. I think the races didn’t diverge until after the various groups had left Africa to the varying continents and began to adapt their racial characteristics as we now know them.