Also, yeah, sorry Stoneburg, should have started with the cites first.
Whoa, I’m hijacking/butting in here, but this post struck a chord with me.
I hate to sound corny (i really do; I despise a cornball) but I got something corny to say. You gotta just take what you can learn from a board like this and run with it. You can’t let anyone make you feel like learning something new is a bad thing, because it is always a good thing. I don’t know if the poster was actually trying to belittle you or not, I can’t call it, but regardless, being proven wrong is always something to celebrate. I much rather get enlightened, even harshly or mockingly, than to keep stumbling in the dark. Sorry, but as a girl who dropped out of school in the 7th grade, I have felt like you have just expressed 10 times over, and 10 times as intense, probably. So yeah, strikes a chord with me. No need to be humiliated at all.
It’s pretty obviously that you don’t. But I’m going to assume the fault is mine, and TRY to explain it again, since I take back what I said about you being deliberately obtuse. Provisionally I’ll concede that you really don’t get it.
Here is what I was replying to when I said your opinion doesn’t matter:
So…to YOU it hasn’t been proven. So what? Your opinion on the lack of proof is irrelevant, because you didn’t vote in the election and aren’t an American. It would be the same as if I said ‘Well, to me, the average French voter votes the way they do because they love cheese and surrendering’. Ok…why would my opinion matter on wit? Is it informed? No…I’m neither French nor a voter in French elections, nor do I have any particular insight into the inner workings of the average French voters mindset. Who would care what did or didn’t constitute ‘proof’ of cheese eating surrender tendencies in the average French voter? No one.
Your opinion on whether or not Obama is or isn’t an African American are relevant to the discussion (I think you are wrong, but that’s DEBATABLE), and I’m not trying to shut you down in the least about that…but your assertions about the inner workings of the average American voter on this subject have no bearing, since you aren’t an American and don’t vote in our elections, nor do you have any particular insight into the minds or thought processes of the average American voter.
Get it?
-XT
Please read this very carefully:
I understod exactly what you ment the first time. I really did. I understod it every time you said it. I understod it this last time too. What we have here is a failure to communicate, and I will now do my very best to try and make the communication work. Keep in mind that I am from a very different culture and using my second language:
The fact that my opinion is irrelevant is blatantly obvious to be. It is so obvious that I think it is a given, and to me it should be blatantly obvious to everyone. I was of course aware that my opinion was irrelevant before you pointed it out. I found the combination of you pointing it out and how you did it to be rude and unproductive. I also found your perception that I did not understand it to be frustrating.
Having said that there’s also several arguments to be made about irrelevancy, and many lines of thought stemming from it that that are interesting (I almost wrote relevant). I’m now going to post several questions and statement to exemplify, neither of which is neccessarily something I agree with or have come to a ready conclusion on:
Do only eligible voters opinions count on any particular issue that there is a body of voters?
Are illegal aliens opinions on Obama relevant?
Is your opinion on the 98 senators from states other than your own relevant?
Is the opinion of someone who is now old enough to vote relevant, even though they weren’t old enough at the election?
What about people who aren’t old enough now but will be for the next election?
What about people not intending to vote?
Can’t you make a case that that the opinion of anyone that is in any way affected by something on that something is relevant?
If so, isn’t practically everybodys opinion on everything at least theoretically relevant?
Mathematically could you argue that a registered US voters opinion is only worth 1/169.000.000 more than that of a non-registered/non-US/non-voter?
In a debate, what does it matter wheter someones opinion is relvant acording to an electoral system, isn’t the value of an opinion seperate from whoever holds it?
What is the value of pointing out that someones opinion is irrelevant?
I guess the last one about value is why I found it unproductive or rude. I do not think I can be any more clear, direct or honest in my communication than I have now been. If you still do not understand what I am trying to say I will accept responsibility for that, but I would appreciate if you would put as much effort into understanding what I am saying as I have in trying to say it. Thank you.
There probably are, but it will depend on the speaker, the context, and the (cultural) community from which the speaker emerged. Then it will be shaped by the audience and their perceptions and pre-conceptions.
In the U.S., up until the 1960s, people of majority African descent were known formally as Negroes, informally as colored, and rudely as any number of other terms. Around 1967 or 1968, a discussion within the black community regarding self-identification bubbled up into the larger society where those of us who were not members of that culture could watch it unfold. Various terms were put forth by different groups, including “black,” “Afro-American,” “African-American,” and a few others. The term that seemed to win out over the others was “black,” (lower-case b), with the argument that when the race of a person was reported in newspapers (of that time), members of the majority population were identified as “white” (lower-case w) while members of the black community were identified as “Negro.” One argument put forth at the time was that this language was divisive as the two terms were different in nature with a subtext that the capitalized “Negro” came across as a “scientific” term identifying that group in a way that indicated they were objects of scientific inquiry while the term “white” just refered to folks. (There were a lot of different arguments and discussions; this just happened to be one that seemed toget a lot of play just before the term “black” replaced “Negro” and “colored.”)
About 20 years later, attempting to address the issues of the way that language continued to divide people, a group of black community leaders addressed the matter at a meeting in the late fall or early winter of (I believe) 1989. From that meeting, the gathered leaders (who tended to have been drawn from mostly the Industrial North and Midwest where there is a tradition of immigrant ethnic communities maintaining the cultural traditions of their forebears in various societies and festivals and who frequently identify themselves as nationality-American) reached back to the terms considered in the 1960s and pulled up the one most nearly like the ethnic terms used in Milwaukee, Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Buffalo, Pittsburgh, etc. In fact, they were explicit in noting that they regarded the term “African-American” to be equivalent to Irish-American, Italian-American, Polish-American, etc.
One thing that distinguished the term African-American from the others, of course, was that Africa is a continent, not a nation. This causes all sorts of ignorant twits to go spastic on the topic, with attempts to discredit the term African-American on the grounds that it “surely” applies to Charlize Theron, (born and raised in South Africa) and not to Gen. Colin Powell, (whose parents were Jamaican).
It’s just a term. “African” was incorporated in the term because at the time that Africans were being imported into the U.S. as slaves, few of the current nation states of Africa existed, (and no slave-providing country in its current borders), and part of the breaking process used to turn captives into slaves included efforts to destroy all contacts with the slave’s original homeland.
Now, unlike “black,” “African-American” was not hashed out in magazines and newspaper op-ed pieces over the course of many months. It was chosen by a particular group of people in a particular context and then announced. The lack of a lengthy discussion of the term prior to its promulgation has meant that a lot of different people have made their own choices regarding what it “really” means. Many people accepted the logic of using a term similar to “German-American” and immediately adopted it. Many others saw problems with it and declined to accept it. (Outside the Industrial North, there are areas where people rarely identify themselves as nationality-American and those folks tend to not even understand the logic. Many people even in the Industrial North have been the products of so much mixing that they have no idea what their ethnic background might be, and many of them dismiss any desire to identify in that manner.) Subsequent to its promulgation, different definitions have been put forth to delineate its use–one popular one being that it refers only to the descendants of slaves. However, in November or December of 1989, such specific limits on the definition were not established, so any such interpretation is conjectural. It is quite valid to begin a discourse by setting out that definition beforehand, but it is unwise to assume that it has an inherent meaning or that all of one’s audience will share in the acceptance of that definition.
The Chicago Manual of Style adopted it rather quickly, leading to its being promulgated throughout most of the U.S. news media rather rapidly. However, with rapid acceptance by some groups, (and without the benefit of a public discussion), other groups dug in their heels and rejected it. However, since the U.S. does not have an equvalent body to L’Académie française, (the Chicago Manual of Style notwithstanding), no one is compelled to use the term and no one is compelled to accept any other person’s definition. To many people, African-American means “descendant of slaves”) either limited to U.S. slaves or anyone who was brought acrosss the Atlantic. To many others, African-American simply means a black person who lives in the U.S. There are probably other definitions, as well.
In regards to President Obama, he could easily be identified as Kenyan-American, (since there is an actual nation-state from which his father arrived as an immigrant), HOWEVER, his close association with the African-American community–living in African-American neighborhoods, working in public service for causes relevant to African-American neighborhoods, going to an African-American church, marrying an African-American woman, raising children who will always be perceived in the U.S. as African-American and who, through their mother, are the descendants of slaves, etc.–is generally considered ample evidence that he has the right to identify himself as African-American, regardless what purists (reaching back to an ex post facto definition) might say regarding his lack of American slave ancestry.
Wow. Thanks tomndebb, that was truly illuminating.
I’ve reacted earlier to Americans tendency to use “Irish-American” or “Italian-American” or “1/4 this, 1/8 this”-american. It’s just very foreign to me (pun semi-intentional). It’s just not very common here. I don’t think I’ve ever heard someone describe themself as “Italian-Swedish” here.
The system here is much different. There’s an arbitrary division into “Swedish” and “Immigrant” which has some obvious flaws. Firstly the word immigrant doesn’t actually mean immigrant when used like this. It means “doesn’t-look-traditionally-north-european”. If you’re born here, but your parents are from Turkey, most people will label you as an immigrant. Which is confusing, and stupid.
Yesterday I was at a meeting with an Assyrian organisation. All the other 9 people at the meeting self identify as immigrants, even though 7 of them are born here. I pointed out that one of the men, who actually was an immigrant, had lived in Sweden as an adult for 36 years. Sinces I have only lived here for 34 years total, he actually has more experience of Sweden than me. So he should be considered 2 years more Swedish than me. I was not entirely agreed with.
It is a very confusing linguistic and social situation, with several racist undertones. Someone who immigrates from Norway will not be called an immigrant, they will be called Norwegian. If they speak perfect Swedish they will be called Swedish. Someone from England will be called an Englishman, whether they speak perfect Swedish or not. Someone from Turkey will usually be called a Turk if they don’t speak Swedish, but an immigrant if they do. Unless you meet him when on vacation abroad, in which case you will introduce him as Swedish to the non-Swedish people you meet.
I do not recommend this system.
(bolding mine)
Thanks for saying this, tom. On this board, it can not be said too often.
I don’t think people who flip out over AA realize how stupid and ignorant they sound. Because in the very next breath, they will use “black” to describe the very same people, as if that word is somehow superior. As if the same limitations associated with “A-A” are not present in “black”, and then some.
How about we switch things up and complain about “Caucasian” for once. How many white people are from the Caucasus mountains? What if my black ass moved to Caucasia? If you say it would be wrong to refer to myself as Caucasian, I’m gonna accuse you of racism, mmmkay? Because I want to be cute and edgy. Down with PC-ness! And “white” people is confusing too. Are albino Africans considered white? NO FAIR!
And let’s talk about “American”. Since Canada on down to Argentina all counts as the “Americas”, it is sooooooo crazy that only US citizens are called American. When people say “God bless America”, how in the hell are we supposed know which country we want God to bless? It is so confusing I don’t know what to do with myself.
And please don’t let me get started on “Native American”. I was born and raised in this country. That doesn’t mean anything?? I think Native Americans should just go back to being called Indians, because that is so much better.
For those trying to keep track of my opinion…
Starting opinion: Close to the wikipedia definition, except without the “Most” and with awareness of the second half but no clearly formulated thoughts on it.
Close to"African Americans are the direct descendants of captive Africans who survived the slavery era within the boundaries of the present United States | although some are—or are descended from—immigrants from African, Caribbean, Central American or South American nations."
Starting level of certainity: Somewhat unsure
Current opinion: Full assimilation of the opinion expressed by tomndebb in post #105
Current level of certainity: Moderatly confident
There were a few transitional opinions and levels of certainity which are too unclear to be presented, with varying but mostly decreasing levels of certainity. Current trend is that opinion is stabilized and certainity levels trending slightly upwards.
I tend to use ‘black’ or ‘white’. It just seems more logical to me, since I am usually describing their apperance and have no knowledge of their current or previous nationality or heritage. On the other hand I tend to use “latin american” or “hispanic” rather than ‘brown’ or ‘light-brown’ so I am not being consistent.
I will point out that some also object to “black”. I had one lady say in a aggrieved and loud voice: "I am NOT black, does this (her arm) look black to you? I am a lovely shade of mocha!"
So, no such term is accepted by all, nor is any such term without objection.
One reason for the language is U.S. history. Until the 1830s, the overwhelming majority of people who were citizens came from the United Kingdom, specifically England. There was an early movement of Germans, Irish, and Scots, but the Germans tended to self-segregate based on language and the Irish and Scots often became “English” as soon as they (or their children) lost their accents. However, beginning in the 1830s, the number of Irish and German immigrants ramped up, considerably. (The Scots tended to head for Canada.) Based partly on competiton for jobs and partly on religious feuds, a distinctly anti-immigrant (Nativist) attitude developed among many of the settled Americans. As more immigrants arrived, they tended to settle among their own kind, not necessarily in ghettoes, (although they did that in the cities), but often gathering in farmlands. In response to Nativist attacks, (generally just contempt or refusal to hire for jobs or sell goods and houses, occasionally efforts to pass restrictive laws, rarely, but not rarely enough, actual violence), immigrant communities banded together even more closely. The various nationalities that arrived speaking a langage other than English often continued to speak their original language in communities that would support them. (Germans settled the coast of Texas in the 1850s and there were still a few towns where that was the trade language as late as World War II.) From the 1890s through 1920, there was an enormous flood of immigrants who repeated the same patterns of earlier groups. In 1920, the Nativist movement was able to slam the door shut on immigration. Those groups who had already arrived saw that as an attack on themselves and strove even more to maintain their dual identities. The word “hyphenated-American” was coined as an insult to describe people who were not “really” American, but was then taken over by the later generations of the immigrants’ descendants as a badge of honor that they really were true Americans, (paying taxes, voting, joining the military, celebrating Independence Day, etc.), but that they had not cast off their heritage. Since the places where such groups were most easily able to cling to their heritage was in cities and since the cities that welcomed the most immigrants were industrial centers seeking labor in the Northeast and along the Great Lakes, that is where such people tended to cluster, (with notable exceptions such as the “German” farmers of Texas, Wisconsin, and the Dakotas and the “Scandinavian” farmers of Minnesota).
Through and after World War II, with the new college educations offered to returning servicemen and so many people moving to find better education-based jobs along with the growth of the automobile driven explosion of the suburbs, much of the insular nature of such communities waned, although the traditions of self-identification by ethnic background has remained among many people, particularly around those old industrial cities.
The actual events were, of course, a lot more complex than I have described and often differed from one group or decade to another, but that is a general outline of the origins and persistence of ethnic self-identification.
A recent local satirical take: Tiger Woods Embraces His Thai Half By Denying Reality 
I would appreciate feedback from xtisme on what I wrote in post #104, whether I managed to communicate successfully or not. It feels like it’s been just hanging there for three days now.
Sorry, I’ve been out of town and to be honest I kind of forgot this thread. Let me take a look here:
Honestly…you still don’t seem to be getting it. I’m inclined to just drop the whole thing at this point, for like you I’m getting frustrated as well.
When attempting to make categorical statements about the reasons they voted one way or another? Yes and no. Obviously, an outside expert would have something relevant to say on the subject that might be even more insightful than the voters themselves. But someone who clearly doesn’t really understand the thought processes of those voters? No…they really have nothing meaningfully to say about why the voters voted the way they did.
You say you get what I’m was saying there, but to me your question here indicates that you don’t. You may have something interesting to say about the question, but you don’t have anything relevant to say about how the average American voter sees the question or the broader issue, because you are neither an American, an American Voter nor seemingly an expert or even someone with a lot of insight into the thinking of American’s or American voters.
Certainly. Your opinion on Obama is relevant, as is your insights into the actual question of the OP (i.e. ‘Is Obama African-American?’). Again, this indicates that, while you SAY you understood what I was getting at, to me it’s fairly obvious that you don’t…and still don’t.
And really, the rest of your questions are all the same. It’s clear to me that there is no profit in continuing this debate from my own perspective. You think you understand what I was getting at, to me clearly you don’t just based on the questions you are asking me, all of which have the same answers, and I’m not seeing any reason to keep going back and forth across this disconnect and further frustrating us both. I’ve given my own answer to the OP up thread, and will be more than happy to respond to questions, comments or even flames about that…but on this subject I think it’s best to just let it go before one or both of us find ourselves at odds with our friendly neighborhood Moderators. 
-XT
Well that was my best attempt. You keep saying I don’t get it, I think I get it. I don’t think you get it, you probably think you do. I tried to bridge the communication gap but obviously only caused more confusion from what I understand of your last post. Frankly it feels like you and I are so different that there’s no point in even trying to communicate or establishing some sort of rapport. So I’ll take you up on the offer of not doing it.