I hate the term because it’s bled over into medicine and the term screws up etiology and epidemiology. Some of you may know that I have a BS in molec. bio. and have gone back to school to be a RN. This is what my medical/surgical text book says regarding multiple myeloma:
At first glance, that section seems just fine. But then you wonder. Is the data behind the epidemiology and “African American” based on studies dealing with people of African descent, or is it purely North American blacks who very well might have different chemical exposure?
I know that the etiology is unknown, but obviously there are hints to both genetics and chemical exposure. The term “African American” is too imprecise, or rather, so overly precise that it causes confusion. The section says “whites”, but yet it has to specify a specific geographic region for “African Americans”. Since multiple myeloma may have a genetic cause, may have an environmental cause, or a combination of both, I think they should be clearer as to what group of people they are talking about.
It’s similar to why I am annoyed with how often sickle cell is referred as being most prevalent in “African Americans”, as if other people of African descent are less likely to have the gene. I think this one tweaks me a bit more because multiple myeloma is not necessarily genetic.
African Americans are a distinct population, both because their ancestors largely originated from one particular region of Africa and because they’ve since become interbred with Europeans.
They’re also a lot more epidemiological information on them then on Africans, for obvious reasons. I suspect books say “African Americans” because they collect data from American hospitals, and it doesn’t necessarily follow that its true of all Africans, or even sub-Saharan Africans.
So if your text says “African American” I suspect thats exactly what it means. People in North American who consider themselves descended from black Africans. Its not interchangeable with “people of African descent”.
Sickle Cell is concentrated in West Africa and, due to most slaves coming from that region, in African American populations. Other people of African descent are in fact less likely to have the gene (its almost totally absent amongst S. Africans, probably due to the lack of Malaria in the southern part of the continent).
You have some great points, Simplicio. Other than the small phrasing I didn’t like, this text book is very very good. I still suspect “PC” in most uses of African-American, but you are right. It is a distinct population.
I also looked up the wikipedia entry for multiple myeloma and it says this
Phrasing it like that, by contrasting “African Americans” to “white americans” and then it leaves no doubt as to what populations are being talked about. Just the I americans.
But I really like your larger point. Despite, the PC crap, “African American” is actually a very good term, if it’s used right. I deal with a lot of sickle cell down here at a hospital in south east Georgia, but they probably have more genetic alleles in common with my lily white ass than they do from somebody from East African Kenya.
Huh. I don’t think I hate the term as much as I thought I did. Thanks, Simplicio.
It’s just funny because none of the black people I know refer to themselves as African American. They’re black. It’s not an offensive word, unless I’ve missed something.
It’s PC nonsense because it suggests that blacks in Canada and Mexico aren’t affected, and neither are blacks anywhere else in the world, including Africa.
Black isn’t an offensive word, but as pointed out in this thread, “African American” is a very useful term, describing a specific ethnocultural group present mostly in the United States: the descendents of African slaves. It’s even more precise that North Americans who consider themselves descended from black Africans.
That was my original point, but I think I’m backing off of it. It actually is a decent descriptor of a genetic population. Just think of it as African North Americans.
But, well. I’m still going to refer to all my black friends as “black”. It’s less syllables that way.
Sure, but the example from that textbook is specifying American blacks when it’s clear they meant something else. And when I do have a need to describe someone that way, it’s pretty much a given that I’m talking about someone here in the U.S. Again, if I’d ever heard one black person say they prefer to be called African American, or if I was in an anthropology or sociology class and needed to be very specific it would be different.
I suppose what I’m pitting is that “African American” should have a tighter definition from “black”. But again, maybe my text book did mean it in the tight definition. It can be hard to tell with as much as that phrase is used.
That won’t work. Few Canadians won’t correct the error of being mistaken for Americans, much like New Zealanders do when mistaken for Australians. When backpacking elsewhere in the world, for example, many Canadians attach the Maple Leaf flag to their backpacks for more than a couple of reasons.
It remains a U.S.-centric term, and worse, describes only African Americans as “North Americans.” It also brings to mind U.S. news stories stupidly describing blacks in the U.K. as African Americans.
Keeping in mind I am not educated in genetics other than some fairly general bio classes in HS and AP bio which is the equivalent to a 101 level class …
I have the impression that certain genes are only found in certain populations - that is how they track population migration. So it would be fair to say that < gene GGG is found only in that population originally found in the western part of the African Continent is linked with a proclivity to QQQ type cancers > instead of African Americans have a proclivity to QQQ type cancers ?
[obviously I have no terminology for how genes are named … ]
I think that’s because “African-American” is in a formal linguistic Register while “Black” is merely in a more causal one. We very rarely mix our registers when we communicate; it just sounds weird (example): “My wife, shall we proceed with intercourse.” versus “C’mon honey, let’s down n dirty tonight.”
PS: In rereading the thread, it’s nice to see that A Monkey With a Gun isn’t as strongly opposed to the term “AA,” as he was 2 years ago.
Heh. I like this thread because I was having the same eyebrow-raised moment maybe two weeks ago.
I occasionally sift through medical records at work, and there’s a test which comes up somewhat often, whose specifics I forget, but the doctor performs the test on the patient and then records the score. The sheet has a parenthetical by the slot where the score is to be written which reads “Add X if African-American.” Okay, so it’s possible that in general medical texts African-American can be the correct term used to mean exactly what it says and not PC nonsense, but if a doctor is running a test on you and noting the results, how the hell is he supposed to know if you’re African-American or not? So you go to the doctor and he quizzes you on your background? Does he run your piss or blood and remark to himself, “Well that guy didn’t have an accent,” and assume you’re African American? I suppose there is a possibility that they add X to the score for African Americans specifically, and there is some mechanism in place to distinguish AAs from non-American blacks, but my spidey sense says not. I hope it’s misfiring in this case.
Yes, we’ve all had the conversation about why using African-American and black interchangeably is annoying and wrong, but we’ve all come to live with it and recognize that in 99% of casual conversation, when a person says AA, he really means black. I’d like to think they’d be less sloppy than that in medicine, though.
Two of my friends get bent out of shape when they are referred to as African-American: Terry identifies his heritage as Caribbean, not African; and Julie is not American at all (and has a pretty thick accent to prove it).
This is one instance when the term “African-Amercans” is the best term to use, since it is the most accurate way to describe the studied population. I suppose you could come up with some other, longer, term to describe the group, but African-American is the best known and shortest way to do so.
“Blacks”, while generally synonymous with “African-American” in the US, could easily be read out of context to mean some other, larger group.
The people know call themselves Black, never African American, and never use “nigger.”
There’s a fine line between an immigration wave and a diaspora. Or no line at all. Perhaps the medical terminologist could say “The Diasporant asperated his aspirin.”