And how about “Native American”? Why is that any more legitimate than African-American? After all, most folks in this country were born in the United States, so most Americans are technically Native American. But amazingly, no one seems confused and helplessly frustrated by the racial divide when “Native American” is used to describe the descendants of the original settlers of this country. No one spends a lot of time overthinking the merits of this descriptor; no one scratches their head trying to figure out who does and who does not qualify as a “Native American”. No one associates the term with PC-ness, either. No one bloody cares about it!
But suddenly when the descendants of American slaves get a special name, doomsday asteroids come hurling out of the cosmos, four horsemen come trip-trapping over the Brooklyn bridge, and the English language implodes upon itself in one great big farting sound.
Who said you guys needed a term anyway? I never understood why there are “black” people in the U.K. They’re not “black” people, they’re immigrants. They’re Nigerian, or Jamaican, or Kenyan - they all know where they came from. They weren’t legally defined as one population throughout the nation’s entire history. It’s already bad enough that “black” was a dentrimental political label over here; why would Britain want to artificially ape such a tainted terminology?
I have no problem with referring to an immigrant and his kids as Kenyan-American or whatever; trouble is, we have no idea where most black Americans came from. Their heritage was stolen and they’re a mixture of major West African tribes and nations, leaving aside the fact the majority have some ‘white’ blood too. So African-American serves.
Earlier this week on NPR, I heard Governor McGreevy referred to as a “Gay-American”. Holy hyphenation, Batman! He’s gay-end of descriptor! He was an American before his coming out, so why does he get a hyphenated name because he’s a switch-hitter? I think no different of the man now than I did before, other than he shouldn’t have resigned over it, but that’s another thread.
Around here, it’d better be referring to a book by Dick Gregory or what might be found in a Narcissus in a novel by Joseph Conrad, or you will be in abyssal manure.
The two terms are not interchangeable. In Chicago, we have Polish-Americans, Irish-Americans, Mexican-Americans, etc. We have neighborhood festivals which celebrate our individual cultures. Why not African-Americans? I can’t find any objection to a group of people wanting to identify with their ancestral culture. Seems absolutely normal to me.
African-American has a very particular meaning in the US, referring to those people whose American ancestry dates back to the 19th century and who are primarily the sons and daughters of slaves and indentured servants. This
does not describe people like Teresa Heinz-Kerry, or even a recent black immigrant from Nigeria. I would describe the former as a South-African-American, if I needed to make the distinction, and the latter as a Nigerian American. I would also say this does not describe people with Carribean roots, as there is the Carribean culture to identify with, which is quite distinct from African-American culture.
Before anyone says, why can’t we all just be Americans, I would just say no persons should be denied the ability to celebrate their culture and ancestry. I live in a city where hyphenated-Americans, black/white/Asian/Hispanic, are common and people identify themselves by ethnicity. I see no reason to deny blacks this right. Hence, African-American.
I just checked that site…and I want to know who the hell has “gainsboro” skin? A computer technician who’s been floating dead in a frozen pond for awhile?
It just makes me want to defect to Skynet. Moreso.
The black “ethnicity” was invented for a bad reason - it should be destroyed, not celebrated. And frankly, immigrants ought to pick a nationality and stick to it. Why do they get to have it both ways?
“Native Americans” are native solely to the Americas. Whereas “African-American” is used by many to describe all black people of sub-Saharan descent. This is clearly wrong. (See the beginning of the thread where confused broadcasters call black Africans “African Americans” despite never having been American.)
Instead, I think that many people in this thread are saying that if labels are to be used, the generic term should be “black” (or some other term if “black” is deemed offensive). “African-American” should be limited to black descendents of sub-Saharan slaves brought to the United States.
I’m saying that the designation “black” was invented to justify U.S. slavery, and then used to justify segretation. Now that that stuff is supposed to be over, the label should go too.
As far as an ethnic label goes, some people don’t like the term Mulatto since it literally meant mule. Is there a PC term for it? I know that there’s biracial, but that’s non specific and could technically mean a person of any two ethnicity’s.
Also, since realistically we’ll never be free of ethnic labels, and a lot of people have no problems labeling themselves, how come mulattos (or biracial people if you prefer), especially famous ones, don’t usually identify as such? They usually just identify as black, or African American (Yes, there’s some exceptions, like Tiger Woods who identifies as Cablasian - [Ca]ucasion, [Bl]ack and [Asian]).
In Latin American countries, like say, Mexico, most Mestizos (part white, part Native American) usually identify as such. Is it maybe a little bit of laziness on our part here in the US that, if we’re going to use labels, we just go by what a person looks like as opposed to what the actual ethnicity (or ethnic mix) is?
I suspect that it’s because people who are half-white and half-black look more black than white to white people. They expect to be labeled, so they label themselves: a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Here’s Fitzroy’s completely unscientific idea: it’s not the skin tone that people use to distinguish races off-hand, it’s facial features. It doesn’t really matter what color skin you have; if you’ve got the Negroid facial features, you will look black at first appearance. This includes tightly curled, dark hair, full lips and the like. Some characteristics stand out more than others.
I’ve known countless bi-racial people who are half-black and half white, and they have always had kinky hair. I’ve never met one with naturally straight hair. Likewise: the appearance of the lips always strikes me as black. The noses, eyes, and shape of the head might and often do look just like those of a Caucasian, but I can still just tell.
Talking about human racial science is so politcally-incorrect, and sounds so uncomfortable, that I almost hesitate to even bring it up. Nevertheless it’s completely pertinent here.
There was never a legal or poltical “mulatto” status. Did you read my previous post as to why “black” being an invented political descriptor? I didn’t just make that up, you know.
And just in case it doesn’t go without saying, any known black ancestery made a person legally black, and that’s why people still label themselves that way.
To be honest, as a white person, it does make me a little bit nervous to participate in a thread like this. I have an irrational fear that one wrong word or phrase and I’ll be viewed as a racist. On the other hand, I know that the people on this board are smarter than that, which is why I went ahead and posted anyway.
I’m not saying black is an ethnicity. I’m saying “African-American” is an ethnicity, and black is a physical description. Just like white isn’t an ethnicity. Or am I still missing your point? Are you saying it’s not valid for African-Americans to celebrate their African heritage. I really don’t think that’s what you’re saying, but your comment about immigrants having to pick a nationality makes no sense to me in context.
I’m not trying to be deliberately dense here. I’m really confused.
I really don’t think that’s what you’re saying, but your comment about immigrants having to pick a nationality makes no sense to me in context.