i just wanna hear Lou Reed sing… "and the african-americans girls go… do dodododododod
I got Jesse J’s point when he went for this what… 20yrs ago… and its been helpful i think in forging a better feeling about and interest of the continent of Africa and the West African countries in specific…
The crux people is being able to define oneself… reminds me of a paper i wrote when i came across a popular early 20th century song. “Everybody has an anthem but the coon” african american is an attempt to tie into a diaspora… why the panties get in a bunch i have no idea…
One funny thing i remember hearing was from a sports broadcast that labelled the F1 race car driver Lewis Hamilton as the first “african-american” to win a race. He’s fucking british.
Aside from the utter lack of relevance or connection between your premise and your conclusion, I will consider your opinion worth consideration when you can provide citations to your previous condemnations of Irish-American, German-American, Italian-American, Polish-American, Anglo-American, Chinese-American, etc.
Any reason why you pick only one ethnic group to be scorned for doing what all other immigrant groups have done?
Some people whose ancestors were here long before Columbus aren’t too happy with him being credited with “discovering” an already inhabited part of the world, and are also upset about many of the unpleasant and horrific things that occurred to said ancestors subsequent to the arrival of Columbus and other Europeans. Thus, they do not want to honor Columbus, and do not feel he is worthy of having a holiday named after him.
Oh, I see. I don’t think that signifies, though; Jefferson and Washington were slaveowners, and both have rather nice monuments to them in DC maintained at the taxpayers’ expense.
Columbus just has a holiday for people who work for the government or have strong unions.
FWIW, this has always been my understanding of the term. I’m white, but my understanding has always been that African-American is a cultural descriptor, not a racial descriptor, and it has to due with the culture (which, yes, isn’t exactly homogeneous but has certain commonalities) descending from former slaves. Thus, it is a culture with, among other things, a lot of southern US influences. The sons and daughters of recent African immigrants would not be “African-Americans”–at least not from my understanding of the term. I have a friend whose wife is from Sierra Leone, for example. It would never occur to me to refer to her as an “African-American,” (and she refuses to identify as such) although she technically is an American citizen originally from Africa.
That said, people can self-identify as whatever they want. It’s just that when the term “African-American” comes to mind, my understanding of it is limited to a general subset of black Americans. Maybe I’m wrong in this. I don’t know.
I understand that Chicagojeff most likely wasn’t thinking about the Native American viewpoint, and true, it is a holiday associated with Italian-Americans. Those aren’t mutually exclusive viewpoints, though. It is possible to have good intentions, no animosity, and still inadvertently give offense.
Likewise, the editors at Vanity Fair may have had no animosity whatsoever, they may be good people and otherwise in their lives be “post racial” or whatever. Nonetheless, they have offended some people.
When someone finds he or she has inadvertently given offense, rather than get defensive, it might be a better course to stop and consider the other side’s viewpoint. That doesn’t mean you have to agree with it, of course, but self-examination is usually a good thing.
Then again, there are bigoted people in this world - and some of them smile very sweetly - who really don’t care if they give offense. You can’t always tell at first glance, so it’s not a bad idea to thoroughly look at the matter.
Generally by themselves. Letting outsiders name one’s group tends to result in epithets such as “Drunk Micks,” “Kraut heads,” “Wops,” “Dumb Polacks,” “Chinks,” and “niggers” or “coons.” A bunch of Nativists (irony noted) in the early 20th century made the same sort of diasparaging remarks about “hyphenated” Americans at that time, but the groups continued to identify themselves without worrying about the xenophobes. Now that members of a different group decided to employ the same naming convention, we find some people all up in arms that it is a BAD THING, while the people who originally used the same convention get a pass. * [ ::: shrug ::: ] *
I understand the sensitivities of the black community on this issue…and try to use the phrase they prefer. It is just a common courtesy.
But it can be taken too far.
There was a moment during the OJ Simpson trial when Johnny Cochran was cross examining a forensic witness about a hair found in a cap.
The witness mentioned that the hair was Negroid.
Johnny Cochran used the moment to show indignation to the jury…and asked why the forensic community was not politically correct with the usage…and why African American rather than (what he considered to be the derogatory) Negroid had been used.
The witness was flustered…fumbled around and in general just screwed the entire answer up. Actually apologized as I remember it.
The correct answer would have been:
Our science can tell us the race of the person who had this hair…but could not tell us his citizenship.
African American would have been absolutely inappropriate in that context…and Negroid was completely proper.
Really? My ancestry is English/German. Can I self-identify as Asian American? African American? All it takes is to say you are a thing and you become that thing?