The history of this cultural group’s designation for itself reflects the fact that whatever term is chosen – colored, negro, black, Afro-American, African-American, all of which have been preferred at one time – that term is eventually going to develop a perceived negative connotation when used by the white majority, due to the relationship between the groups.
It is silly but understandable and rather sad. I’ll use whatever term is preferred, but sometimes I may not be able to avoid sounding patronizing.
Instead of being patronizing, I suppose you could simply continue to use black, which has the dual benefits of being preferred by the majority of people so described and of not suffering any particular stigma. The fact that the American news media leapt onto African American after Rev. Jackson’s 1988 statement does not mean that the more prevalent term has actually been retired.
I am neither american (well, actually I am, but not from the united states…-nevermind, different rant) nor black, but I ve always found the term “African-American” insufferably stupid.
Someone born in africa, who then moves to america, might be an african american, regardless of their race. A black person who can trace their lineage back to the first slaves in the continent and has never even been to africa, is definitely NOT “african-american”.
Why was the term even coined? are black people ashamed of being black?
No, but a wise young man once told me he wasn’t black, he was brown. That wise young man was my (then) four year old son.
Although the term black is technically incorrect (I’m a Lovely Shade of Brown[sup]TM[/sup], thank you very much), I prefer it over African American. I rarely, if ever, use that term.
As an aside, Wanda Sykes (whom I generally find completely unfunny) has a funny bit about African American vs. black.
Alternatively, why would someone repeat a question that already been answered simply to have the opportunity to make snide remarks while demonstrating that they had not bothered to read the thread?
To lay it out in more detail:
Throughout the Rust Belt of the U.S. (and, to a limited extent, in other places in the U.S.) it is common practice to refer to people with strong ties to their ethnic roots as ethnicity-American. The practice is so old, that the word hyphenated-American is 100 years old or more. My mother’s ancestors all arrived in the U.S. before 1800, yet (when the subject comes up), she refers to herself as Irish-American. None of her ancestors came from anywhere other than Ireland (within determinable history); they remained in Irish enclaves and communities right up until her generation (when she went out and married a German-American). They shared a common religion, folk sayings, diet, and any number of other common traits. They could be (and were) identified as Irish-American.
In an effort to be seen as more like their neighbors, based on ethnic identification rather than skin color, various blacks have chosen to identify themselves as ethnicity-Americans.
Since the slave industry made an explicit point of eliminating any continuity between slaves and the ethnic groups from whom they wre taken (in a process known quite explicitly as breaking), it is pretty much impossible for any descendant of slaves in the U.S. to identify himself or herself as Ibo-American or Yoruba-American or whatever.* Therefore, those descendants of slaves who wished to associate themselves with an ethnic identity use the word African-American (since there are darned few Americans or Europeans who actually know enough about Africa to be able to distinguish an Ibo or Yoruban from a Zulu or an Issa, anyway).
There is no shame (real or perceived) in being black, but there are differences in apprehension rgarding the best way to identify oneself in the manner most like one’s neighbors.
Now, I happen to think that that particular choice was an error (mostly because of the nit-picking cavils that have been made in several posts to this thread). However, there is a difference between noting that the law of unintended consequences will bring this effort to a bad end and claiming that the people who made that choice were either ashamed or stupid.
*(Even Europeans have this problem to a limited extent. While there are millions of Polish-Americans, one does not encounter anyone who identifies as Cashub-American, even though the Cashubs have a fairly independent attitude regarding their “inclusion” as Poles.)
Look, tomndebb (thanks, tomndebb) explained the origins of the term. In the NE, ethnic-american groups had a long history, even after they’d been in the US for a long time or when the members were 3rd, 4th or 5th generation. AA was a (ultimately futile) attempt to fit blacks into this ethnic-american schema. I think it fails because blacks had a different history (remember the slave trade?) than other ethnic groups.
One time, some visiting friends were talking politics with me, in the presence of my 80’s+ Grandmother. Someone used the current term “people of color”.
Grandma listened a while, than asked why we were using that term – wasn’t it rather demeaning? She said that she was told many years ago that using the term “colored people” was not really proper.
We all had a heck of a time coming up with a logical explanation of why “colored people” was not proper, but “people of color” was. Finally we said it was basically a fad; different terms came & went in popularity.
Whereupon Grandma said that there were only 4 such families in the neighborhood, and she knew all of them, so she would just call them by their name.
The more I think about that, the more I think she was a pretty smart old lady!
