The guy is black, white or neither. He’s also South African. Wtf else do you need?
What is the rest of this shit in the 21st century.
Maybe a map to help you?
Well, imagine a white American who was born and raised in South Africa checks the box marked “African-American” when applying for a job, or to a college, or whatever, and affirmative action ensues. Has the law been obeyed? Has he committed fraud?
Yes, right here in the 21st century: is that legal, and should it be?
The U.S. census currently has a category called “Black or African American,” defined as “A person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa.” That covers the bases as far as white South Africans go, but “origins” is undefined, as is the amount of black ancestry required. I would imagine businesses or universities would employ similar definitions. However, in practice in the US “race” is generally regarded as self defined.
They’re not really considered Africans here (and historically they agreed with this, judging by their own stupid classification schemes), why would they magically become such when they go to America?
Right, and both Barack Obama’s father as well as Colin Powell’s parents do, in fact, have origins in one or more of the Black racial groups of Africa.
The official definition is somewhat arbitrary and also ambiguous, but it has to be. People in the USA don’t want an Apartheid-style racial and ethnic classification board with hairsplitting high-stakes classification decisions.
There’s also a conflict brewing over the fact that the US census defines “white” as “A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa”, which includes Arabs, Berbers, and other peoples who often do not “feel white” on the streets of the USA.
I don’t know if I agree with this.
Isn’t there a cultural aspect to ethnic identity? If a week old baby from Australia, for example, was adopted by a Mexican couple and raised in a Mexican family in the middle of Mexico surrounded by Mexicans, wouldn’t this child grow up to be a Mexican for all essential purposes? The child, regardless of its birth, was raised in Mexican culture.
How can we say that a person who is born in Africa, grows up in Africa, and is from a family that has lived in Africa for generations is not an African?
If you say that a white person can never really be an African, are you also going to say that a black person can never really be a European?
A nitpick that doesn’t affect your point, but the President’s father is Kenyan not Nigerian.
No more so than a Euro-descendant American has a right to call themselves “Native American”. IMO.
But “African” is not equivalent to “Native American.”
And do you not find that white South Africans’ view of their identity, relative to Europe and Africa, has changed rather dramatically since apartheid days? I’ve only read or talked to a few on the subject, but none of them think of themselves as “Europeans,” any more than Australians do.
IMO, it is.
Not really, no.
White Australians aren’t a minority ethnicity in their own country. White South Africans are, and it shows in lots of little ways. Quite a lot of White South Africans I know have dual citizenship with either the UK or another European country, for instance.
Ooops. Thanks.
So you’re accepting the idea that somebody from Africa or Asia (or somebody whose ancestors were from Africa or Asia) can never become European or American or Australian?
I personally reject that idea. I feel that people can fully assimilate into their national culture even if their race is a minority in that culture.
I am a white South African, and I know quite a few white SAns who have moved to the US and now have green cards or US citizenship. None of them, as far as I know, describe themselves as “African-American”. I think it’s quite well-understood that it’s a term that refers to black people.
I don’t entirely agree with MrDibble’s characterisation of the word “African” as requiring indigeneity; I think it depends on the context. But I would have to admit that white South Africans haven’t really assimilated with the majority SA culture to any substantial degree.
On that point - it’s anecdotal, but the dual citizens I know regard their EU citizenships as merely passports of convenience that make traveling easier. They don’t think of themselves as “British” or “Italian” or whatever. (Of course, they’re in their 20s, it might be different for older generations.) For Australians there isn’t as much of a reason to maintain dual citizenship since an Aussie passport has about as much “visa power” as an EU one.
No. They could very easily, by actually assimilating somewhat into indigenous cultures.
That’s not what most White South Africans have done.
For instance, a pitifully small percentage of White South Africans actually speak an African language (and no, Afrikaans is not an African language).
Not indigineity exactly, just ethnic assimilation.
For instance, in my view, Coloureds don’t really count as African, either - except those Coloureds in the late 1700s-early 1800s who, despite European and Asian origins, assimilated into the Khoisan Griqua tribes. Even though their native language had died out, I still consider them African.
That’s not really my experience -
Most of the European ones I know consider themselves more European than South African (Have you ever been to the German, Italian or Portuguese Clubs?) - especially the Germans (and I have several good German friends). With the Brits, it’s probably a minority that do consider themselves British, not South African, like you say. But culturally, they remain largely Anglocentric.
Ironically, it’s the Afrikaners who are most localized, but I wouldn’t call their culture “African” anymore than I’d call American culture “Native American” or mainstream Australian culture “Aboriginal”
My point is, colonial cultures shouldn’t get the nicety of assigning them names that legitimize their hegemony over the land without question. Unfortunately, that ship has sailed in the name “American” for mainstream American Anglo culture, or "Australian culture, because of the near-complete overlay over native cultures. But here, that hasn’t happened, so when I say “African”, you can read a silent “Native” in front…
Note that this isn’t a value judgement on those cultures - I actively despise a lot of elements of the African cultures, and am very Eurocentric myself.
Nor do I consider those Non-“Native African” cultures to be non-“Authentically South African” in the slightest. Far from it, and possibly a little bit the opposite. There’s nothing more authentically South African than being a melting pot of culture, IMO.
The original question has been answered, but I just wanted to comment on the suggestion that White South Africans are “European” and the laughable suggestion that Afrikaans is “not an African language”.
Base on the WSA I know, they are about as “European” as you are French.
OK, I understand where you are coming from, but I would assign terms differently. To me, because “authentic South African” culture was created in and exists nowhere but Africa, it is ipso facto an “African” culture, its members Africans. Just as “African-American,” or black American culture is an “American” culture, its members Americans.
Is the Australian dialect of English an Indigenous Australian language?
Mais oui, how did you know?
Fair enough
Even if the originators of that culture maintained an African/European dichotomy themselves?
It is this that is important I think.
I recall maybe once you even asserted you saw the arab in north africa in this fashion, which from our perspective is weird and silly, but then we do not have this divide.
But I see in the Afrikaans they do not use European. They say Blankes, I would guess the exact translation is Europesches, yes?