Since two people have called me out on this I guess I wasn’t clear.
All of the other “Blank-Americans” are sufficient to describe someone’s country of origin, or their ancestor’s country of origin, including, say, “Asian-American” to refer to people from an entire continent.
We don’t do the same thing with African-Americans. Obviously Elon Musk isn’t African-American in the way that the term is used. I thought that was self-evident, or at least should have been evident from the context of the rest of post. He’s an American who was born in Africa. This should make it clear that African-American means something conceptually different from Asian-American; specifically it’s a way to refer to American descendants of enslaved peoples whose specific country of origin isn’t known.
It was not at all evident to me that’s what you meant; it looked like you were using it in the snide way that DeSantis used it when he called Elon Musk an African American. Glad to know that you recognize the difference in meaning.
If they don’t identify as Black, don’t call them Black. This does absolutely bumpkis to help you decide whether to capitalize the word, since you won’t be using it at all.
Once again, your self righteous little story is totally off topic.
I heartily agree with you. I was born in Rhodesia. So I have an old Rhodesian passport. When the country gained independence I became Zimbabwean, thus I have a Zimbabwean passport.
I have lived in South Africa for almost as long as I did in Zimbabwe, and I have a South African passport.
I have English citizenship too, so I have a UK passport.
If I was to move to the USA and somehow gain citizenship I would never describe myself as African-American, I am a Zimbabwean.
Perhaps Zimbabwean American - I know you did not suggest this, so something of a strawman I am creating for rhetorical purposes. That is both absurd and subtly insulting to the large number of Black people who cannot trace their roots in Africa to their ancestoral home cities or villages or farms.
And how would anyone know how they identify without taking time to find out by either asking or listening?
Why would I not be using it? In a situation where ethnic categories are being discussed it is highly likely that some form of it will be used. Why would you not give some serious thought to which form should be used and what you intend to convey by that usage?
A “self-righteous little story” in which I do nothing at all? You still haven’t checked back on what I wrote have you?
That wasn’t the question though was it? Magazines and media were not referred to in the OP and they are not the sum total of circumstances in which a choice needs to be made to capitalise or not.
Indeed not, in those circumstances you are going to have to give it your best shot and whether you choose to or not will be governed by your own instincts and knowledge of and consideration of the audience.
Though even then you would make a choice knowing you are not going to please everyone that you think you are including. This is especially true across different cultures where your own parochial definition may not neatly fit.
I don’t think there is anyway to avoid that (which I have already said) but it seems like pointing out the obvious imperfection of that is taken by some as criticism of their own use of the term.
Imagine something we all do, with the best of intentions and out of necessity, that we know has imperfect outcomes. Being aware of those potential imperfections is not an implied criticism of the fact that we still all do it.
Sorry for the boring example. I’d use a more interesting analogy here but unfortunately that self-same group of posters would instantly jump on it as imperfect and use it to willfully confuse further what is really a very simple truth that they all know.
But those mass media communications you mention are not the only circumstances under which a choice is to be made and indeed with a bit of forethought in some circumstances you can avoid giving the impression of making that choice for those who may prefer you didn’t (which was the point of the work example I gave, for those who bothered to read it)
None of that is opaque to me. I said right at the start that there is no perfect solution to this. I’m fine with people making those decisions for mass communications to an unkown audience.
It is the same question because “why capitalise Black?” necessarily means also considering the cases when you should not capitalise “Black”.
As the OP was not restricting the topic to mass media alone I was discussing it at the level of more personal interactions and circumstances in which we personally have the choice to capitalise or not based on listening to colleagues and considering the audience.
Neither America nor any single country can be said to hold the settled answer to this and mass media communications is not the only playing field on which the use of the term has relevance.
You are free to think that the mass media angle is the only one that matters and only concern yourself with that. If how you might use it on a more personal and cross-cultural level is of less interest to you in this thread then feel free to ignore what I wrote.
I assure you, it was not an intentional troll, it was an honest, if somewhat dubious question. It was based out of my misunderstanding the USA, seeing as I have never been there, and I live in Africa.
I don’t stand with @Novelty_Bobble here, and I left the thread once I received the answer I was seeking.
Oh, and for what it is worth - and you may or may not believe me - I requested thread closure once I was educated on the subject and I saw that the conversation was taking a turn for the worse.
And “let’s purposefully misrepresent the words of someone we’ve already decided must be in the wrong” is peak “you” and the rest of the usual suspects.
You are clearly more interested in having another tedious dig at me then actually considering the truth of the accusation. Again, peak you.
If you had any integrity you’d disagree with that accusation that you are implicitly supporting. But you don’t, so you won’t.
I had no idea this was a thing. What was the reasoning behind it? Obviously there’s nothing that could morally justify it, or any of the racial classifications, but did they perceive Japan to be a more advanced civilization than China, or was it that Chinese immigrants were more likely to be manual laborers while Japanese immigrants were more likely to be professionals and more affluent, or some combination of the two?
Here in America my understanding is that the Chinese and Japanese were both persecuted, but in different ways at different times. First the Chinese were discriminated against very harshly on the West Coast in the late 1800s, then in the 1920s an attempt was made to stop immigration from East Asia generally, and then finally during World War II the Japanese-Americans were singled out for internment (regardless of how many generations they’d lived here.)