If not offensive, do you think it’s just silly, wrong, off-putting, etc?
I remember growing up using this term but now looking at it I think it’s pretty silly and I would never use the word when talking to a black person if I needed to use any racial term at all.
For what it’s worth I’m a white guy who lives in a pretty diverse city (Houston) and taught at a pretty diverse high school and I never referred to my “African-American” students.
In a similar vein, I also don’t refer to my “Asian-American” boyfriend, if anything I just call him “Asian” and he uses the same word to describe himself and others of his “race.”
Please leave the debate about whether race exists as a mere social construct or as a genetic thing in GD!
Not “offensive”, but irritating; I’ve never used it. About the only time I’d call someone a “hyphenated American” would be if they personally immigrated from the other country in question. And Africa isn’t even a country.
It suggests that the person was born in Africa and relocated to America, which very well could mean the person is what is typically called “white,” so it’s misleading.
I like it fine. I don’t see any implication that an “African-American” was born somewhere in Africa and immigrated to the US. “Hyphenated Americans” are widely understood to be born in the US but descended in part or whole from people from whatever country. I don’t think any American would hear that “Jersey Shore” is about a bunch of Italian-Americans and expect the cast members to literally have been born in Italy.
Well if Darwin is right and we are all related to Lucy, then we are all African-Americans. However as I was born and raised in Kentucky, I prefer the term Appalachian-American. Sure beats hillbilly.
It’s no more silly than it would be for me to refer to myself as a Russian-Swiss-German-English-AustroHungarian-Dutch-and a few more assorted mongrel bits-American.
No, but you’d expect them to at least have Italian roots, which according to wikipedia, isn’t even necessarily true. JWoww and Snooki are both hispanic.
Which is the problem. You have to know a little something about someone before you can call them a _______-American. If you see a bunch of black guys walking around the national mall, they could be African-Americans, or they could be Nigerian tourists. Or they could be Polish citizens who happen to have African roots. African-Polish? You’d never know unless you talked to them.
Grape-nuts contain neither grapes nor nuts. A person that hates all Semitic people isn’t an anti-semite, a German born in Saxony and migrating to East Anglia isn’t an anglo-saxon, etc. Its perfectly accepted that English words don’t necessarily mean what a literal interpretation of their constituent parts might suggest.
Noone fluent in American English gets “African-American” confused with a term for a white African that’s migrated to the US unless they’re being wilfully obtuse.
But what term is left to refer to the caucasian American of South African origin? And why should a dark-skinned transplanted islander have to be so misdescribed?
I am also offended by the term “Indian” being used to describe Cherokee, Sioux, etc.
How exactly are we supposed to refer to people actually from India when the only reasonable term has been swiped?
