Before the term “Native American” came around, I remember differentiating between “American Indians” and “Indian Indians” (aka, people from India.) So “Native American” makes sense to me, only because “Indian” isn’t precise and "American Indian sounds like an out-of-date term. Although the only person I know that is, now that I think of it, calls himself Objibwe because that’s his tribal affiliation. But he’s sort of political about it and I don’t know if that’s typical.
Similarly Hispanic. Many Hispanics aren’t from Mexico, so like “Indian” it’s not really a precise term. Mexicans are from Mexico. Hispanics might be from Portugal, Cuba, Honduras, Dominican Republic or even, you know, Spain. So isn’t calling someone “Mexican” when they are actually from Cuba inaccurate?
My across-the-street neighbor refers to himself as the “token Negro” on our road but he’s intentionally being a bit silly when he says that because this is actually a majority-black neighborhood so our little dead-end road being all white except for him is a bit of an anomaly. Since this thread came about, I’ve asked both my neighbor and a black friend how they refer to themselves or other black people. They both said “black” but didn’t object to “African American” when used by other people of any race.
It’s not a very good term as it pertains to a group that can be identified by other common terms while opening the door to various bits of uncertainty (Does it apply to white people from Africa? What about black people from the Carribean?) and stupidity (I once heard a person talking about the “African African-Americans” who live in Africa and have never set foot in the Americas) but I don’t see how it’s offensive.
If you are born in the US, you are American. If you emigrated and have dual citizenship you are a whatever-American. If you have not yet done the citizenship thing, you are a whatever with a green card.
After the earthquake in Haiti in 2010, I heard a reporter refer to the disparity between some of the poor “African-American Hatians” and the wealthier white Haitians. While Haiti is in " the Americas," I don’t think the term applies.
Why use 6 syllables when a perfectly good single-syllable is available? Even worse: why substitute a 6 syllable term FOR a perfectly good single syllable word?
The President is black. I am white. Although it speaks volumes that a person whose father was of 100% African descent and whose mother was of 100% European descent would be labelled “black”. He has equal claim on “white”. Except in the US.
I thought it amusing as hell to watch the GOP trying to restrain itself from yelling "He’s a Goddamn N----- you people! Vote for us - at least we’re White!. They had to call themselves “Tea Party” to use that term.
Am I now a Euro-American?
I think most people using the term “Asian-American” do so in reference to a specific person or group who the listener(s) KNOW are Americans. If you MUST specify ethnic group, why do you also need to specify the obvious?
And, before the issue is raised: I refuse to call my cat “Feline-American”.
I just use “black” as I find “African-American” to be overlong, needlessly complicated and occasionally just plain inaccurate. but I don’t feel that strongly about it.
I’m an Irish-Sicilian-American and I think both African-American and *black *(or Black?) are perfectly cromulent,
and I think American Indian (or just “Indian”) is even more cromulent, while “Native American,” although I’m not fond of it, is still useful in some writing like Wikipedia where I write about Indians a lot and go along with the prevalent usage there of saying “Native American,” since Wikipedia has a global scope and the disambiguation is helpful,
and I believe in calling people whatever they want to be called, especially in regular life interactions; I don’t think it’s for me to judge if I’m not a member of the group. I happily use African-American and black interchangeably.
tldr version: It isn’t for me to judge if I’m not a member of the group.
I’m not a member, so I can’t be offended. I don’t use it because every black person I’ve ever talked to has told me it is unnecessary. I did for a while use it here, but that was to try to fit in with the more scholarly atmosphere I thought this place had, and then just to avoid digressions by the offenderati (which I define people who are offended at something for someone else who doesn’t find it offensive). Now I try not to use it at all, although I’m sure it may have slipped through out of habit.
I wouldn’t call them anti-black, but the Africans I have talked with about this precise question all felt that the term was inappropriate because black Americans are not Africans. Not just that they did not personally immigrate from the continent; their actual ethnicity did not correspond to any African identity (of hich, of course, there are many).
I think that’s right. Black Americans are a new ethno-cultural group (akin to the various Latin American groups). With substantial roots in Africa, of course–but with essential cultural elements, and genes, of European origin. Native, too. It’s a gorgeous, rich, dynamic heritage; there’s no need to ‘dignify’ it by calling it something else that it isn’t, exactly.
I’m remembering a Congolese couple who were living in the US and found it terribly confusing and an attack on logic that they were being told to mark “African-American” in job applications. “But I’m not African-American! I have a PhD, if I was African-American instead of African-African I wouldn’t be asking for a job at MacDonald’s!” Being told “hey, that’s how the game is played here, there just isn’t an option for ‘Congolese’” did not really calm them down.
Oddly coincidentally, Mad magazine made that a joke back in 1969. On a parody of a college application form, under the question “Race,” one of the choices was “Black, but prepared to belt anybody who doesn’t refer to me as a Congolese-American.”
Context: In the 1960s, “Afro-American” was proposed by some as a replacement for “Negro.” But it apparently went out of style concurrently with the Afro hairstyle, and “black” (or Black?) became the standard throughout the 1970s. However, African-American was not a new coinage; It was used for the Baltimore Afro-American newspaper in 1892, and then the National Afro-American League in 1899, and by Scott Joplin in the subtitle of “The Chrysanthemum: An Afro-American Intermezzo” (1904).
Worthy of note in this 1967 Ebony article is that the earliest black people in America referred to themselves as “Africans” first and “Black folk” second. So then their descendants logically have the right to call themselves African-Americans, their immigrant forebears having preferred the designation African while living in America.
The first black people in America didn’t just call themselves Africans, they literally were that, of course. But they are not the only ancestors of black Americans today.
You need to understand the history of immigration in America. Despite the phrase “melting pot”, most people did separate themselves by ethnic group, and even when their children were born, they raised them to remember their ethnic heritage, passing down certain traditions, etc. So it’s a point of pride here in the U.S. to remember where our ancestors came from. In many cities, there were certain areas that were known to be “Little Italy”, “New Poland”, etc. In some, they still exist.
And in some cases, it has more of an effect than you think, if it’s only a great-grandparent. My maternal grandmother’s parents were from Poland, and our family still observes a lot of the same customs at holidays, uses a lot of the same recipes, etc.
I’m not saying I’m the same as someone who was born in Poland, of course. Just trying to explain where these people were coming from.
I have told this story before. There was a young AA woman in one of my classes. Someone called her “Black” and she said: “I am NOT “black” I am a lovely shade of mocha brown.”
So isn’t calling someone “Mexican” when they are actually from Cuba inaccurate?