Not only that, but there are also black African immigrants to this country who do not call themselves African American for the very same reasons that monstro points out for Charlize Theron and Dave Matthews—because they have a specific nationality with which they identify on the African continent. I met a guy a while ago from Ghana, who has been in the United States for about ten years. He intends to live the rest of his life here, but he does not consider himself African American in the way that term is used in America, because he recognizes that the term has a particular cultural significance and historical attachment. I guess he’s a Ghanaian American.
I mean, why the sudden need for literalism in cultural terminology? Liberal no longer means what it did a couple of centuries ago. And plenty of people who call themselves conservatives are, in fact, radically anticonservative or nonconservative in many of their ideas.
Also, Dave, ditching African American and just going with “black” doesn’t solve the problem you seem to be worried about. I mean, you’re worried that African American isn’t precise enough, and that it leaves out certain people. But if you’re so worried about that, how would you suggest that we employ the term “black”?
Should it be merely a visual designation? I mean, i’ve never met anyone who is actually black. Also, i know black people who are considerably lighter-skinned than some Indians or Pakistanis.
Or should it be a cultural designation that applies specifically to Americans of, say, slave background, or pre-twentieth century immigration groups? How, then, would we refer, as in GorillaMan’s example, to black people outside of the USA? Could we call my Ghanaian acquaintance black? And what about folks who stay in Africa?
The point i’m making here is not that the term “black” is useless. In fact, precisely the opposite. I’m saying that, just because certain terms like “African American” and “black” may be used in ways that are not completely congruent with literal dictionary definitions does not mean that the terms themselves are useless or meaningless, or that they are racist.
Yeah, i must say, Dave, i’d have picked you for a patriot, but not for an unreflective nationalist. The whole notion that the nation must come first in all such cultural designations strikes me as rather jingoistic.
You completely ignored my question, and still haven’t told me the difference yet.
Who is offended? I said that I dislike the term. I dislike it because it’s vague and inaccurate while pretending to be specific. The only way you can say that Dave Matthews is not an African American is by defining the label in terms directly contradictory to the two words that comprise it.
What’s wrong with calling him “black” if you’re talking about his skin color and “of Ghanaian descent” if you’re talking about his cultural heritage? It’s not a pithy soundbite, but it has the advantage of being accurate.
Yes, “black” (yea, I get it, substitute amber, auburn, bay, beige, bister, brick, bronze, buff, burnt sienna, chestnut, chocolate, cinnamon, cocoa, coffee, copper, drab, dust, ecru, fawn, ginger, hazel, henna, khaki, mahogany, nut, ochre, puce, russet, rust, sepia, snuff-colored, sorrel, tan, tawny, terra-cotta, toast, umber or whatever you prefer, I’m talking about the word as it’s commonly used) is a visual designation, nothing more. I don’t believe that there are any fundamental differences between you, me or monstro, and the color of our skin is no different than the color of our eyes or hair: a visual difference, that’s it. The more people who realize this and use the term this way, the fewer racists there will be.
“African American” is a meaningless term nowadays. Sure, we can all agree that ideally “African American” refers only to those dark skinned people who are the descendants of people held as slaves, but that’s meaningless in a society that has co opted the term to mean simply folks who are black. I’ve heard people referring to black folks in Toronto as “Canadian African Americans” ( at the very least a remarkable display of cultural conceit ) and seen a newscaster reporting from Port-Au-Prince refer to the citizens of Haiti as African American, not knowing or not caring that they are neither. Almost everyone I have ever encountered, outside the boundaries of academic discussions, uses AA to mean “a person with black skin”. As you have pointed out, there are many black people who do not identify as AA, and this can lead to distrust, confusion and sometimes anger.
It’s not jingoistic at all, it’s basic common sense, and I apply it equally in all directions. If I was to emigrate back to your home, I would absolutely refer to myself as an Australian of American descent, same thing if I moved back to Canada with Gingy. When someone moves to America and becomes a citizen, they become part of a greater whole. Their contribution to that greater whole is what they bring with them-their culture amongst other things. There is too much factionalization amongst people these days, people are always looking for reasons that they are different, when the things they have in common are vastly more numerous. That’s the difference between being( in my case ) an American of Scottish descent, and and being Scottish American. One is inclusive, one is exclusive. Whenever I meet new people, I look for what we have in common, not for our differences. Once we nail this concept in America, we can start applying it to the whole world. Or maybe they’ll nail it first and teach it to us.
Nothing wrong with either of those things. My term “Ghanaian American” was rather tongue-in-cheek.
You left out “swarthy” and “sons of Ham.”
Completely agree.
This is where i really disagree. It’s not a meaningless term at all, and it’s certainly no less meaningful than anything we could reasonably replace it with. I think it is good shorthand for Americans of African descent. To tell you the truth, i don’t know what proportion of that group can trace their lineage back to slave ancestors, and what proportion had ancestors who came out here as free people, but it seems to me that African American is a completely reasonable designation, by virtue of general comprehension.
You might not like the term too much, but if i tell you that one of my profs is African American (at Hopkins? ha ha. But that’s another story) then you and almost anyone else knows what i’m talking about. This is not one of those cultural terms shrouded in ambiguity; in fact, the only time i see any real argument about what it might mean, that argument tends to start with someone claiming that Charlize Theron or some other white South African or Zimbabwean should be called African American. You’re the only person confusing the issue, as far as i can tell.
Those people you refer to in your examples are morons. And surely this actually helps make my point. We should encourage people to think about exactly who they are talking about, and to use the term African American when it is appropriate. A black person in Haiti is probably not an African American. A black person in Baltimore probably is.
Actually, i’m not sure that the type of exclusivity you’re worried about here (exclusivity of a group within a nation) is any more dangerous or troublesome than what you are calling inclusive (identifying with the nation first). After all, some of the worst shit in human history has been done in the name of misdirected and hyperinflated nationalism, and i believe firmly that it is completely possible to identify much more closely with someone from the other side of the world than with someone from the other side of the street, depending on what your politics, cultural values, etc., are.
Hell, this message board demonstrates that well enough. The people i identify with here are from all over the place, as are the people with whom i don’t identify so closely, as also are the people who i think are complete fucking morons. I guess it depends on what part of your identity you see as most important, but while i’m happy, in a generic sort of way, to be an Australian, it’s not the only or even the primary thing that defines who i am. While i’m happy to be hyperpatriotic at some sports event like a rugby game or a cricket match, i prefer to leave it behind when it comes to the stuff that matters.
Weirddave. I like you. You’re funny. But you are SO full of yourself.
You’re completely disingenuous about why you dislike the term, “African-American.” It’s anything but “vague and inaccurate while pretending to be specific,” and your own statements show you know exactly what it means – you just don’t care for it. If we can all agree that, “African-American” refers only to those dark-skinned people who are the descendants of people held as slaves," why are you bitching? BTW… “dark-skinned?”
Allow me to be impolitic as I say this. Ahem. If I hear one more white person trot out fucking Dave Matthews and goddamn Charlize Theron on this topic…! Sheesh. They are South African expatriates. They’re not African-Americans and have never seriously claimed they were. You people watch too much SNL. I mean, hell – you’re agreeing with Tracy Morgan?
“The only way you can say that Dave Matthews is not an African American is by defining the label in terms directly contradictory to the two words that comprise it.” That’s impressively wrong. By your logic, **toilet water ** must come from the bathroom and a poodle in heat is a hot dog. Surely you’ve risen to your present understanding of the state of the world enough to know that most African-Ameericans cannot with any certainty pinpoint their ethnic heritage that likely originated in West Africa. The term, “African-American” reflects that same vagueness yet precisely. This is one of those “black things you wouldn’t understand.” The sky’s the limit, the limit’s the sky!
“Black” is used much more than as a simple racial visual descriptor. I am impressed with your ability to cut and paste synonyms for “brown.” Read Langston Hughes’ “Harlem Sweeties” for a few you forgot. I’m particularly fond of “persimmon bronze.” Incidentally, no “cafe au lait?”
“African-American” is far from meaningless. It appears to be irrelevant to you and your acquaintances in academia, but I take this to underscore your limited experiences or perhaps, some idle bigotry. Also, in your examples you haven’t heard people who’ve actually co-opted the term, only misuse it. You might try doing something constructive like, I dunno, gently correcting people. Most of the people I know (most are former Negroes) who use the term, use it correctly.
We agree on the importance of recognizing commonalities. One thing I find that commonly endears you to most any ethnic group is calling people by their preferred ethnic descriptors. Could mean “black” – or “African-American.” Just don’t go around lecturing people why they should hate the term because it’s so WRONG. You have any idea how patronizing that sounds?
That’s nothing. I remember one year when Walgreens issued a book of coupons for Black History Month which included hair straightener and skin lightening cream.
Thank you for telling me my motives. I’ll be sure to shot you off an email before I do anything again just to make sure my motives are pure. Frankly, I think you are the one being disingenuous if you think most people use the term properly. For most people, AA mean simply black.
Is it Ok if black people make this argument? Lordy, lordy, I wouldn’t want to do anything that I’m not allowed to do because of my race, I might get in trouble. :dubious: ( I almost never watch SNL, FTR. I was unaware that Tracy Morgan had done a skit on Dave Matthews or anyone else.)
That’s kind of a tangent to my point. Black people from a myriad of different cultures in Africa had those cultural roots obliterated as they were homogenized unto a single whole-slaves. That was deplorable. Attempting to make a connection with a past that is at the best tenuous and in more cases can more fairly be said to be made up out of whole cloth isn’t all that great either, especially when there is so much to be proud of right here, in what blacks have accomplished in this country. According to the last figures that I have seen (which I can’t find right now, Google is not being my friend. I saw these figures in a magazine, not online), right now blacks have the highest percentage of their population in the middle class of any ethnic group in America, including whites. What a tremendous accomplishment, especially when starting from slavery. Where’s Africa in that?
If I told you something was a “white thing” and that “you wouldn’t understand it”, you’d rightly boil me in oil. Please do me the same courtesy of not patronizing me. I have never had any trouble understanding anything from black friends and colleagues in my life, probably because we tend to treat each other like just folks instead of as white or black folks.
And it shouldn’t be, that is my point.
C&Ping from a thesaurus was kinda my point, no? Arguing about what new terms to use when we don’t even agree on the present ones seems a bit premature.
I’m not telling anybody that anything is WRONG. If you read back, all I have said is that I dislike the term African American because it is used incorrectly most of the time, is not factually acuurate, and I’m discussing it on a message board designed for the free exchange of ideas. Let me ask you this, though. You say “call people by their preferred ethnic descriptors.” I do about 30-50% of my business with minority business owners, mostly black. I have had people get offended by both the term black and the term African American. Which should I use as a default, hmm? I prefer to use the term black because it’s more inclusive, but the only time any term is needed is if I’m talking about skin color as an identifying trait. Tell me, what is the difference between Paul Walker and Eddie Lemon? Both are clients, one runs a daycare and one runs an excavating company. Both designed basically the same health plan for their family. One is black and one is white. Which one is which? Who runs what business? Who the fuck cares? The only reason I would have to use the term white or black about either one of them is if I was telling you how to pick one or the other of them out of a crowd.
I said, "most people I know (former Negroes) " use “African-American” correctly. I’ve hung around here at the SDMB long enough to know that a surprising number of people don’t, but they do not comprise a majority. I only speculated on your possible motives, which you’d know if you’d bothered to read what I wrote. I’m good at reading body language but I don’t electronically read minds.
It’s an idiotic argument no matter who might bring it up, but so far I’ve only had white people earnestly say to me “Charlize Theron is African-American!” If someone black did it over the age of 12 who wasn’t congenitally retarded (like Tracy Morgan), I’d have apoplexic fits. Also: I linked to a relevant SNL transcript. Why didn’t you read it? If you read it, how did you forget that fast that Charlize Theron was in the skit?
Your inability to Google such a flagrantly inaccurate “fact” should be your first tip-off it’s bullshit.
We’ve already established that your worldview, simply using the term “African-American” – which you said you dislike – is “unAmerican,” puts “the cart before the horse,” and attempts to “make a connection with a past that is at the best tenuous and in more cases can more fairly be said to be made up out of whole cloth…” But you’re not telling anybody it’s WRONG!
… you make a fair point, and I apologize for saying “It’s a black thing, you wouldn’t understand.” Yes, I was being patronizing. Gee, I wonder why.
Here’a a tip: “black” is the preferred default descriptor of most dark-skinned peoples who aren’t Latino. That said, if you’ve had people get offended at terms “African-American” and “black,” they’re pronbably Korean.
So you admit that a “surprising number” of people do use the term AA to mean black, but contend that they’re not a majority. I say that they are a majority. Seems pointless to argue because without a scientific poll we aren’t going to know for sure. Nevertheless, thank you for admitting that the problem exists. (BTW, What on earth is a “former Negro”?)
I didn’t read your link because I accepted that Tracy Morgan had done a skit you didn’t like, and I didn’t say Charlize Theron because I always have to go look up how to spell Charlize correctly and I didn’t want to bother. (Tracy Morgan? Is he the black guy on SNL? I thought that was Tim Meadows. (I kid, I kid!))
What exactly are you saying is inaccurate about my “fact”?
And I feel exactly the same about the term Irish American or German American or Polish American or Jewish American…what is your point, anyway? African American should get a special dispensation? Why?
Wow. A dictionary. There’s no way to respond to that kind of masterful debating tactic. :rolleyes:
I wonder why you’re being patronizing too. Care to enlighten me?
Yes, all the Korean people who I’ve called black have gotten mad and used their nasty Kung Fu on me. I’m gonna wear out the rolleyes smiley. Are you trying to get me to believe that you honestly can’t see someone getting upset if I called them black when they prefer AA or vice versa? You have to be kidding me.
I admitted that a “surprising number” of people on this message board misuse the term “African-American” and I don’t think for one second that they comprise anywhere near a majority of the 50,000 members that frequent this site. Moreover I feel perfectly confident expressing the opinion it’s fewer than 100 people… without doing any polling. I base this on a little thing called “paying attention.” A “former Negro” is… sarcasm.
Ah. But by not finding out for yourself what the link was about, you avoided insight why that’s such a stupid argument: it stems from an SNL skit. Not wanting to spell “Charlize” is a pretty flaky reason to avoid pertinent facts.
It’s bullshit that the African-American middle class comprises the largest of that socioeconomic class among American ethnic groups as a percentage of its total population. I mean, I’d like that to be true. With black male prisoners outnumbering black male college students 3 to 1, I don’t see that happening.
Um, yes. Because of the unique historical facts I already mentioned.
It’s not a debating tactic, it’s a definition of “disingenuous,” which is you in a nutshell.
Um, no. But you should read the definition of “disingenuous,” there’s a lotta answers in there for you on a deep and personal level.
You know something? You’re right, but maybe not by as much as you might think. I finally found the relevant table on the Census Bureau’s website. Using the data from this table, and assuming that quintiles 2,3 and 4 comprise a good rough definition of “middle class”, we find that the breakdown, by ethnic group, is as follows (using the A.O.I.C. numbers):
White-60%
Black-58%
Asian-52%
Hispanic-50%
So it seems that my assertion was false, the black middle class does not comprise the largest percentage of the total population of any ethnic group. However, the percentage is pretty close to that of whites, and far and away the highest amongst minority populations. I was wrong, yes, that’s what happens when quoting from memory an article I read at least a month ago in a client’s waiting room (and thinking on it, the article must have been talking about only minority groups), but I think a 2% difference is a long way from “flagrantly inaccurate”. “Flagrantly” implies a large, intention distortion of the facts.
Weriddave. Well, that’s fair. I completely recant “flagrantly inaccurate” insofar as your recollection of the data. I still have a problem with the data, tho.
There’s population data that’s not reflected in the Census, which doesn’t include prisoners in its U.S. household reports. The Bureau of Corrections keeps its own Census.
Consider.
White households steadily increase the higher the income levels. The numbers in the top fifth households are higher than in each of the lower fifth grouping, excluding the rarified few at the top 5% (not to be confused with the top fifth.)
Asian households fluctuate. First high numbers of poor, which drops, then steadily increases. The households in the top fifth are about 1/4th in the lowest fifth.
Hispanic households fluctuate. First middling numbers of poor, which rises, then drops, then rises again. The households in the top fifth are about 1/2 in the lowest fifth.
Blacks are the only ethnic group listed that steadily declines the higher the income levels. The number of households in the the highest fifth are 1/4th the numbers in the lower fifth. The lowest two fifths income groups constitute half of all black households. But the lowest fifth still doesn’t include the million and half incarcerated black men held in corrections. These people are the bottom. These men are so poor they’d have to get a steady job just to make the lowest fifth. This population exclusion skews the numbers: 10% of the black population isn’t reflected.
Even using the Census’ own data you can’t say that blacks have the highest percentage in the middle class. Add the Corrections Census population data and that becomes moreso obvious.
