Well, yeah, but I question that the Irish, Italians and Germans all came up with the “-American” tag on their own. I only looked at the Irish links you provided and none of them show anything about when and how the Irish started calling themselves “Irish-American”, which is what I am wondering about.
Do you have a link for that?
I personally don’t think that anyone should be identified by a hyphen - if you were born here, you are an American (tho I still twitch at “American” since the Americas are much more than the US). I think the problem with African-American is that it is applied to all blacks, not just those with roots in Africa, and it tends to be used in an aggressive manner. And apparently we are the only country doing it - was the US the only country that imported slaves from Africa?
I doubt that many people really care what you think on the topic of ancestry and cultural heritage. You’ll have to take that matter up with all of them. If we are talking about Americans who have traveled to other countries or provided relief in disasters or voted in the last election, no one talks about Irish-Americans or Chinese-Americans. We’re Americans. However, if the discussion addresses the issues of poverty in the Boston Back Bay area, noting that the people affected are descendants of Irish immigrants plays a part in that discussion and Irish-American is a lot shorter and less unwieldy than “descendants of Irish immigrants.” (And if there is going to be a big party at the fairgrounds and another at the local park, knowing which is going to be Italian-American and which Polish-American lets me know what sort of food and drink will be available, helping me decide which to attend.)
Taking your questions and comments in reverse order:
Of course, slaves were imported from Africa to many other countries. So what?
The practice of referring to people as homeland-Americans arose at a time when immigrants made up fully one third of the population of the U.S. and there was a certain amount of tension–of many sorts–among the different groups. Immigrants from different cultures settled together for mutual support. They were already known as having arrived from other countries, so the suffix “American” was used to show that they were part of this country. At the time that the use of the “-American” suffix arose, Canada and Australia had far fewer immigrants who were not from the British Isles, so the terms did not catch on, there. Language develops as it will and the absence or rarity of similar terms in other countries indicates nothing more than that language developed differently in those places.
Then, as now, there were people who wished to stamp out any sign of culture that indicated a “foreign” presence who then tried to use the terms disparagingly.
Interestingly, there has never been a case of any of the “hyphenated” groups actually causing dissension in the country, except to the extent that they were attacked by Nativists for looking or sounding different.
The “problem” with African American being used indiscriminately to refer to anyone with African ancestry is not a problem with the term; it is a problem with sloppy speakers of the language not paying attention to the words they use.
As to how “aggressive” you find it, that would appear to be your own self-inflicted problem. I have never in my life been attacked by or threatened by a simple word being used to identify a group to which I did not belong.
OK, I’ll refrain from having the same opinion that others have had in your presence then.
Does it make any difference what country the people descend from?
So would any number of other names that don’t appear to separate citizens of one country into different groups.
I believe I saw upthread that the US is the only country that does the hyphenating.
Apparently you would rather spend time insulting me for incorrect assumptions about me than providing any sort of - oh heck, I’ll say it - proof that this is true.
I guess you don’t understand the concept of aggressive speech then.
If all you have is rudeness on this subject, I have no more interest in it.
Apparently so, otherwise no one would make the distinction.
That is incorrect, as I have seen the construction “Afro-Brit” on more than one occasion from sources in the UK
I must say I’m surprised to see you here - I would have thought the napkin sandwich discussion in the other thread would have kept you thoroughly occupied.
People in the UK tend to be identified by origin only. If you’re in Britain, it is assumed that you belong there. Even in the case where “British” is included, it’s not usually hyphenated - they would be black British.
People of Caribbean descent are much more common in the UK than people of direct African descent, incidentally - and people of Asian (ie., South Asian, in America) descent outnumber both groups combined.
So a Jamaican would be identified as an Afro-Caribbean person, rather than an African-British person, although one of the census categories is “black or black British”, and is further subdivided into “African”, “Caribbean” and “any other background”.
I have been in exchanges with you on previous historical topics and I have never seen any indication that you ever accept any references, preferring to hold your own prejudices more tightly, the more evidence is produced.
Probably not the way that you would use the phrase, where it probably corresponds pretty closely to uppity.
This is the Pit. Your only interest, to begin with, was to find ways to insult some of your fellow citizens for being different than you.
That’s not what I meant. I thought that was rather obvious, but apparently not. I’m an American with Polish ancestry, so I can choose to identify as Polish, as American, or as Polish-American. That’s what I mean by “self-identify as whatever you want.”
OK, I guess I wasn’t at all clear. What I meant is does it make any difference how the poverty is addressed to identify what country the people’s ancestors came from.
I guess it depends on who you talk to, since Really Not All That Bright doesn’t seem to think that it is common for those in the UK to identify people as whatever-British.
I am not involved in any discussions on napkin sandwiches. If the people in that thread want to avoid the subject by posting inanities, I have no interest in responding.
So for me they are “prejudices” but anyone else simply has a different opinion? Why is it that those in this thread who have posted opinions similar to mine have not been called prejudiced by you?
Perhaps if you didn’t assume something negative, you would have a more realistic picture of my posts.
Completely not true. It is actually more common for the clique here to insult those who are different than their rigid beliefs than the other way around. You all seem to “fight ignorance” by throwing things at it.
I don’t get to have a hyphen. This makes me sad. <–See? I am bereft because I am not a hyphenated American.
My ancestors have been here since the Revolutionary War (and prior to). There is no appellation for me: the WASP descendent whose family has been around since 1600 something. I have no ethnic diversity to celebrate*. Articles in women’s magazines that tell me to celebrate my “roots” via the customs of my heritage make me feel more isolated and alone. Poor me…
That said, sometimes I use AA, sometimes I say black. I’ve never come across a black/AA person who took offense at either of them. Then again, I rarely have to use either term in my every day speech or writing.
this is not quite true–some of those ancestors were Scots-Irish, so I get fiddle music and Appalachian hymns. Luckily, some of them were Yankee merchants, so I also get all my teeth, shoes and no desire to marry my cousin.*
**It’s a joke, people. No offense intended to hillbilly-Americans.
This is where my Appalachian in-laws stand up and say "We ain’t no gol-darned hillbiiles, we’s mountain people." But since most of 'em can’t read and speak and obscure dialect of American you probably wouldn’t understand them anyhow.
(In other words, you can’t make anyone happy these days)
I shall take a stand as an Unhyphenated-American (thanks RNATB!)–them there are fightin’ words. I meant hillbilly and I say, I say HILLBILLY!
Are your inlaws Melungeon? :eek:
You are the only poster with whom I had an exchange in this thread. I am not wandering around looking to call anyone prejudiced. My response was in direct reference to your posts and based on the fact that I have engaged with you in other threads in which you made unsubstantiated claims that corresponded to your “beliefs,” then refused to acknowledge an historical information that contradicted you.
We’ve got some on the boards. Here’s an Ask the Melungeon thread, for example (though the OP hasn’t posted here since '04). Mississippienne has also previously mentioned that her mother or grandmother is/was Melungeon.
Well, shit. I’ve got shovel teeth and vitiligo. I think I’m Melungeon! (god knows I’ve got the Scots-Irish Celtic bit. And one of my great-greats [male] changed his name to Jones when he moved from VA to Kentucky and never told anyone what his real name was…) :eek: I can be Melungeon-American? I got me a hyphen!!
[Navin Johnson] I’m somebody now![/Navin Johnson]
If so, you aren’t doing a very good job of it since I didn’t say anything different than several others in this thread, yet you only respond to me? (Not that you didn’t respond to at least one other - you are aware that I’m not Crafter_Man, right?) And then you go on to say…
So, you are looking to call me prejudiced, based on your misunderstanding of what I said some place else and the usual pig pile on that comes after someone dares to be different in here. Therefore this —>
doesn’t appear to be true.
But, whatever. If you have no cites that back up your claim that the different groups gave themselves the hyphenated names, which was my simple question earlier, then I guess there won’t be any - cough - ignorance fought here.
<–See? I am bereft because I am not a hyphenated American.