From an LA Times editorial:
Shouldn’t that read either:
And some Latinos – like some Anglos – sadly have shown distaste for black candidates, a reserve exacerbated by tensions between blacks and Latinos in many American cities.
or
And some Latinos – like some Anglos – sadly have shown distaste for African American candidates, a reserve exacerbated by tensions between African Americans and Latinos in many American cities.
The LA Times sentence includes blacks of non-African origin - Australian Aborigines. Are there many such in LA and have they caused trouble with Latinos?
But I prefer your two sentences.
It would also include black Africans with no American ancestry, no?
So we’re marking grammatically for race and class now? 
-FrL-
The issue is not grammar, but political correctness. I’ve seen this in other newspapers. “African American” has become the politically correct way to designate people whom we used refer to as “blacks.” Apparently, many blacks take offense at being called “black,” so many newspapers, et al., cover their asses by using the term, “African American” at least once in their articles.
This isn’t an issue of parallelism, and certainly not one of grammar. The question here is simply whether it is OK to refer to the same entity by two different terms in the same sentence. And the answer is yes, it’s perfectly OK. It’s just a stylistic choice. Many people prefer changing up terms that way to avoid monotony.