Talk:African Americans/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Back to irrelevant nonsense

Is the term "African American" an instance of "political correctness"?

I do not understand this sentence (really just the first clause):

Advocacy for its use has sometimes been criticized as due to political correctness; those who prefer it say it is a matter of respect and politeness

How is the terms political correctness in any way a "criticism" (and does this mean that it therefore is not a reason for using the term)? It seems to me that it doesn't matter whether it is good politics or just plain polite, either way is a good reason for using the term. SR

I wholeheartedly agree. In defense of the originator's phrasing, though, they may have meant that those who use terms like "political correctness" mean the term to be negative. There are some folk who want to defend their right to use whatever terms hey grew up with, and for NPOV sake, I guess they ought to be represented. I just don't agree with 'em, personally. -- April

But the point is there is absolutely NO NEED to present arguments, pro and con. This is done NOWHERE else that I can find in Wikipedia -- no discussion of "Indian" vs. "Native American," "Latino" versus "Hispanic," etc. It seems, though, that everyone wants to put in their (usually ill-informed, but still highly opinionated -- and often bigoted) two cents when it comes to black folks. The article is fine without all that crap.deeceevoice 01:21, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think the page should be retitled "Black American" since "African American" is ambiguous and not as recognized as some people want. And "political correctness" is bad because it suggests that calling black people "African Americans" will magically make them being an oppressed underclass go away. Who in their right mind gives a damn whether black people are called black or "African Americans"? And no, the fact that black people request this doesn't mean anything. What does "respect" gain them when they largely remain poor, uneducated and oppressed? "respect" isn't something you can eat. --Anon

I think that would be inadvisable, since the most common official usage is presently African-American. You'll never get a consensus, since a lot of what people call themselves is both based on generation and region, so we might as well stay with the official. And it does actually matter what people want to call themselves, by the way. In my family, the West Indian faction definitely want to be called West Indian, NOT black, and my neice and nephew prefer "mixed" to "mulatto". That said, I think of myself as mixed (specifically a mostly German-Scots mutt), and HATE to describe myself as a color, when everybody else gets to define themselves by ethnic heritage...JHK

Mega dittos JHK! BTW Anon, "Black American" is both an obvious misnomer and is far more ambiguous than the more informative "African American" -- a term that describes where someone's ancestors came from. Besides this issue, is the fact that JHK brought up -- "African American" is the term most often used. --maveric149

If you don't like describing yourself by a color, then complain about the fact that people care what color your skin is. This would be a perfectly legitimate complaint since it's possible to raise children to be color-blind. As for ethnicity, I HATE having to describe myself by an ethnicity; so how about that?

If you want to describe yourself by ethnicity for some weird ass reason then why don't you use an ethnic group? 'African' is not an ethnic group! 'European' isn't an ethnic group either, just a euphemism for 'white'. Or are we supposed to call them ethnic groups because the word 'race' is not PC anymore?

Let's empirically test whether 'african american' is supposed to be informative or if it's just supposed to be the PC gloss over a race term. The test is this: what would people call an australian aborigine who moves to the USA?

If you're so ignorant of your heritage that you don't even know what ethnic group you're from then you don't deserve to call yourself by one! -- ark

--- Now, there's a statement redolent with white arrogance and condescension! Your statements throughout this discussion show YOU to be the one who is abysmally ignorant of African American heritage and culture. You should just shut the hell up, because you obviously haven't a clue and clearly aren't qualified to make pronouncements on who knows what on this subject.deeceevoice 18:03, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

ark, perhaps you misunderstand the neature of an encyclopedia. There is a term, "African-American," that is in wide use, at least in the United States. It is reasonable to have an article describing how the phrase is used, its history, and its meaning(s). If there is public debate over the use of the term, a good article will also describe that debate. (It is my sense that there is little if any debate today over the use of this term). Whether I or you or anyone else personally does not like this term is irrelevant. And if you or I do not understand why people use this term -- well, isn't this the purpose of an encyclopedia, to help us understand? Perhaps it is time for you to re-read the NPOV policy, and otehr guidelines for Wikipedia. SR

Apparently, you don't understand the role reality plays in an encyclopedia entry. Just because Americans use the euphemism African American (whether or not at the request of the native black population) doesn't negate the fact that the USA is an incredibly racist country and is presently waging a race war against blacks which harkens back to the 60s.

When political correctness was first invented, it may or may not have been honest social engineering. To determine that, you'd have to look at the socio-political conditions when the PC movement started. You'd have to check whether black Americans were winning gains or losing them.

But nowadays, black Americans are steadily losing everything they gained in previous decades. So the continued use 'African American' is just a shallow and tragic (or shallow and cynical) attempt to deny reality.

An explanation of all these issues is relevant to an encyclopedia entry. The purpose of Wikipedia isn't to reinforce American delusions and myth-making (at least, I hope not). The notion that white Americans are any the less racist by using a transparent euphemism for race and blacks is just such a delusion.

The notion that conservative and liberal American attitudes to a political issue (such as PC) are the only ones that count is another American myth. Just because you've got "what the Republicans say" and "what the Democrats say" in the article doesn't mean you've covered all sides of the issue. Which is precisely why I am bringing up the sides of the issue the article never talks about. And in so doing I am helping in the construction of an NPOV article. What are you doing? (Other than being an arrogant ass.)

So let's recapitulate:

1. Describing someone by skin colour is just as legitimate as describing them by other physical characteristics like height, hair and eye color, weight, build, et cetera.
2. Most people (both white and black) go beyond that and take the illegitimate step of describing people's identity by their skin color. This involves a completely artificial concept called "race".
3. America is a very racist place (one who believes that "race" exists and is important) as is Brazil and pretty much the entire planet.
4. Yet only Americans have bizarre race politics in which acknowledging the fact that people are racist (or that people have visibly different skin color) is verbotten. Instead, one is supposed to use "ethnicity".

Have you spent any time in Latin America or talking to Hispanics? Talk about people in denial about virulent and pervasive racism -- all the while pretending that they're just one, big, happy family. deeceevoice 03:23, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

1. In fact, terms like "African American" have little or no relation to ethnicity and are just euphemisms for race terms. Most people (even most liberals) do not know and do not care about the difference between a Nigerian and an Ethiopian. They're both supposed to be "African". (Which is especially absurd once one realizes that Africa is the most ethnically diverse place in the entire freaking world.)

   Not so at all. This is sheer ignorance. Ethnic designations have a great deal to do with culture: language, foodways, music, physical adornment/dress, shared history, etc. Taking on the name "African-American" -- "African" as a legitimate descriptor of important aspects of black ethnicity/culture (indeed as an asignation of source) is perfectly legitimate. Culturally, we are not simply dark Americans; there IS a difference. And, frankly, it's not our concern what "most liberals" (or bigots) think or don't think. The term "African-American" is, first and foremost, about what many of us have chosen to call ourselves -- for any number of perfectly valid reasons. And it really doesn't matter what others think of the term. I hear no such similar arrogant presumptions about why Italian-Americans, Chinese-Americans, or Irish-Americans refer to themselves as they do. deeceevoice 03:23, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

2. There is a widespread delusion that liberals are "less racist" because they use euphemisms for blunt race terms.

All of these things are important and relevant to an encyclopedia entry. As much as Americans like to live in denial, an entry that takes their own view of their country as unquestionable fact will be useless to non-Americans. Principally because it will be false. -- ark

There is nothing in the article that denies that "the USA is an incredibly racist country and is presently waging a race war against blacks which harkens back to the 60s." Moreover, there is nothing about the phrase "African-American" that denies that "the USA is an incredibly racist country and is presently waging a race war against blacks which harkens back to the 60s;" conversely, use of the phrase does not suggest that racism against Blacks does not exist. Nothing in the article suggests that merely by using this phrase, one has proven that one is not a racist.

Only technically. It is strongly implied though. How? Americans already believe it and the article doesn't dispute it in any way, but subtly validates their own worldview.

By the way, I observe that you use the term "Black." You know, there was a time when Blacks were called something else in this country (and there are still some people who call them something else). The fact that you call them "Blacks" does not change the fact that there continues to be a considerable amount of racism against African-Americans in this country, though. Indeed, there are many racists who call African-Americans "Black." Personally, I see no reason to assume that therefore anyone who calls an African American "Black" is necessarily a racist. But you never know! SR

When talking to racists, it is often needful to use their language. I wouldn't get very far if I just denied that such a thing as "race" exists. And while race should have no role in everyday or political life anymore than hair colour does, the fact that it has and continues to do so means it must be taken into account by anyone interested in sociology and psychology.

(I got African American and Political correctness confused when I ranted about liberals versus conservative views.) -- ark

ARK, The point is not to decide which term is the least racist -- it is to use the most accepted term. If we were working in the 1950s, we'd say Negro. And you are somewhat correct in that African is not an ethnicity -- clearly there are many ethnic groups and within those groups many different tribes in Africa. However, the reality in America is that most Africans brought over as slaves were deliberately separated from fellow tribesmen, and through the generations most African-Americans have become people whose African background is, well, pan-African, rather than from any particular African ethnic group.

As for your somewhat spurious inquiry about an Australian Aborigine who re-located to the US, he would most likely consider himself Aborigine or maybe Australian. Moreover, most of the people I deal with (generally my students or collegues) who come from parts of Africa WOULD NOT consider themselves African-American -- they are Somali-American, Ghanaian-American. Your insistence on using Black is somewhat offensive, not because it is not PC (something I generally question), but because it reduces people to skin color. Ethnic heritage is important and interesting. Learning about different peoples' backgrounds helps to build understanding and break down the barriers that seeing things in terms of color tends to create. JHK

Regarding pan-Africanism. I agree, I just wish it was explained that way.

Regarding skin color. There is nothing inherent in skin color that logically entails a tendency for people to reduce others to their skin color. Just because people note others are black, brown or white doesn't necessarily imply that they reduce them to their skin color. This is important because it means that noting skin color doesn't produce racist people. Rather, the reverse happens; racism causes people to note (obsess over) skin color. (Many people seem to have problems distinguishing between correlation, causation and reverse -causation. I don't and I consider such beneath me.)

By the way, when you implicitly refer to 'African American's' backgrounds, it's ironic to note that little to none of their background has anything to do with Africa. The pan-Africanism is a mythology which some American black leaders have deliberately constructed over the last few decades. So in my view, 'African American' is about as much of an ethnicity as 'Atheist American'. Doubly so since 'American' isn't even an ethnicity; sociologists recognize about a dozen different ethnicities in the continental US!

"... little to none of their background has anything to do with Africa." WTF? Someone seems sorely in need of a course in African-American Culture 101. lol deeceevoice 03:23, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You think that using black and brown is offensive? Well, I think the insistence on avoiding it is offensive. It's magical thinking. It's a cargo cult. It's rearranging the organizational charts. And I find all such things ridiculous at best and offensive when taken seriously. Now, if people could stop being so damned "offended" long enough to provide a reasonable argument (which you did with African, thank you) then that would be a Good Thing, don't you think?

Here's another argument for you to think about. The US has never recognized dual cultural heritage; this is the country where the Melting Pot is the official doctrine, remember? So there are Americans and then there are non-Americans. Black isn't an ethnicity so a black American is still an American. What do you think that makes an "African" American?

More faulty reasoning. There have ALWAYS been hyphenated Americans -- groups who recognize their dual identities as immigrants or the offspring of immigrants. This need to identify with countries of origin goes beyond identification with any particular nation-state, but has much to do, again, with ethnicity/culture -- foodways, language, customs, music, etc. The U.S. has never been a "melting pot." That is the great lie, the great myth. The nation remains segregated/polarized around issues of "race" and ethnicity. There are still ethnic neighborhoods and tightly knit circles of ethnically exclusive social and political groupings. And "black," when used to refer to a particular group of people with a common history and common culture, IS an ethnicity.deeceevoice 03:23, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

An interesting anecdote about Somali-Americans. It seems the US government has been deporting children of Somali-Americans born on US soil. To the gov, there's no such thing as 'Somali-Americans'.

On a tangential note, there are considerable cultural tensions (at least in Minneapolis) between Somali-Americans (i.e. "of Somali ancestry") and African-Americans (i.e., "descended from slaves brought forcibly to the USA"). I'm not an expert on such matters, but two aspects I've noted are: (1) Somali immigrants and their children, as was the case with previous waves of immigrants, are motivated to do well academically and acculturate to the economically successful strata of society. (2) Some groups of African-Americans resent the success of their Somali-American counterparts.

I've also heard stories of children from Africa being teased by their African-American classmates for "not being black enough". (!!) What bugs me is, if these people have their panties so up in a bunch about this, why don't they take it as a challenge to do better? <sarcasm on> Oh, wait, silly me, I'm speaking from the position of a middle-class European in America, a member of the above-mentioned "economically successful strata of society" and couldn't possibly know what I'm talking about. *whaps forehead*</sarcasm off>

Apologies for the mini-rant. Needless to say, US American notions of race, ethnicity, and cultural identity are intertwined and complex. The fact that we're able to talk about them in this manner is in itself a sign of progress. Let's not lose sight of that. Pgdudda

Au contraire. There are many of us who would take the fact that a discussion of the term "African-American" has degenerated into an opportunity for whites to indulge in admitted "rants" and pointless, backhanded random criticisms of the people so described as a sure sign of the persistent and virulent racism and self-righteousness of many white Americans. Apology NOT accepted.

And one other thing. There seems to be an assumption that "African-American" is a term that was imposed upon black folks by whites. No so. It's a term WE chose -- for any number of reasons, of which there seems to be precious little understanding or knowledge by the contributors in this section. Just amazing. deeceevoice 17:34, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that any ethnologist would class black Americans as belonging to whatever American geo-ethnic group they belong to, with no distinction between black and white. If this isn't so then I'm certain that the ethnic groups of black Americans are merely subgroups of the major recognized geo-ethnic groups. IOW, that there is no such thing as an "American black ethnicity". Tough cookies but this is a matter of fact for sociologists to debate, though the delusion that laypeople have a say in the matter should be duly recorded in an encyclopedia entry. -- ark

Quite the contrary. Any ethnologist worth his/her salt definitely would distinguish between black and white American citizens. To do otherwise would be to ignore obvious differences in African-American culture and that of other ethnic groups in American society.deeceevoice 03:23, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Terminology, again

I just edited some cut-and-paste garble out of the third paragraph and it struck me: Just what term do those who criticize "African-American" as "political correctness" propose to replace it? And what claim to the right to do so are they asserting? Is it those who disdain "colored people" and favor "people of color"? Or it those who . . . who what? Are racists, perhaps.

To me it is a matter of respect for the fact that African-Americans put up with a boatload of stupidity and worse every day of their lives. As Colin Powell says, "When you're black, you're black all day." So what possible objection can there be to respecting their wishes as to their preferred designation? Ortolan88 06:19 Aug 1, 2002 (PDT)

I'm not sure what's up with that, but it might be a resistance to any categorization. I've repeatedly heard complaints from various advocates that terminology denoting a certain group was demeaning in that it "labeled" them. These objections may stem from a desire to avoid unfavorable stereotyping. Anyway, as time goes by the usage of terms shifts, and it would be nice if the Wikipedia could chronicle these shifts. --Ed Poor

Precisely, Ortolan! It's not like we're asking for a white stamp of approval about what to call ourselves -- or that we recognize others' (especially white folks') reaction to it is of any importance or merit. It doesn't matter to us in the least. So, what's all this crap? A "boatload of stupidity," indeed! :-p deeceevoice 06:02, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

U.S. vs. UK usage

Removed Since then it has become a definition accepted by the Western World.

This is clearly not the case in the UK. I find it very strange when US people say "I didn't know he was black", when seeing a picture of someone's grand-parents. -- Chris Q 09:36, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

"a European" or "an European"?

The latest edit made (by Karukera) was changing this:

or even a European nation

to this:

or even an European nation

Now, I don't know about you, but I don't go around saying "an Errr-uh-pe-an". Should not the /j/ sound take the word "a"? I don't say "an yam" or "an year" or "an Yugoslavian", do you? And we don't say "an unicorn" or "an uniform" or "an urinal" either, with what sound like they begin with Y. So, forget the "E" at the beginning for a moment . . . what about "(a|an) European" or "(a|an) eucalyptus"? Should we leave this spelling correction in, or revert it? Thoughts? Wiwaxia 02:13, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

"Black" vs "black"

I've just replaced some instances of "Black" and "White" with "black" and "white", since the previous version had a hodge-podge of case usage.

I know that many groups favor capitalizing the terms "black" and "white", but to be encyclopedic the article should pick one and be consistent throughout, as mixing the two together serves only to confuse. And for completeness, whether or not the term should be capitalized should be addressed in the "Term Criticism and Alternative Names" or "Terms No Longer in Current Use" sections.

Similarly, "Negro" vs "negro" should be resolved, although in this case there seems to be a stronger precedent for the former.

Kaszeta 18:55, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Negro" versus "negro" was resolved decades ago. The use of "negro," with a small "n," long has been considered disrespectful/racist -- much in the same way a white person calling an unrelated black man "uncle" is insulting and condescending. I haven't seen it in print (except in racist publications or by people who simply don't know any better) since the 1940's. No reputable, literate publication these days uses "negro" -- at least not in the United States.

And as for black, most black folks I know don't capitalize either "black" or "white." In fact, the lower-case use of the preferred term (preferred to "Negro") was one of the many reasons black folks adopted the term African-American. "Negro" had acquired Uncle Tommish connotations and was too easily "mispronounced" (the way redneck southerners were so fond of doing) to approximate "nigra"/"nigger," and it was felt that our people deserved an upper-case designation on par that of other "hyphenated Americans," that expresses our pride in our African heritage -- and, for some of us, one that expresses a pan-Africanist worldview. deeceevoice 17:19, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I thought propernouns were always capitalized. --Atticus 08:36, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

In this general context, the words are merely adjectives. Even when "blacks" or "whites" are used as nouns, they've not been capitalized traditionally, not being considered "proper nouns." deeceevoice 20:57, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

AN OBJECTIVE, COMMONSENSE EXPLANATION OF THE TERM

Raising children to be "color-blind"? WHAT?!!! If you suspect your child is color-blind, a visit to the ophthalmologist is in order.

"... though it is sometimes (incorrectly) used to refer to black Americans whether of African descent or not." WHAT?!!! Name me ONE black person who isn't African in origin? There isn't ONE. Even Australian aboriginies, folks from New Guinea (even East Indians) are black because their ancestors came straight out of Africa. They are part of the African diaspora. (But you can leave out India, if you want. That's a rather lengthy discussion.) This statement GOES when I have a moment. It makes no sense.

Deleted: "... , though it is sometimes (incorrectly) used to refer to all black Americans, whether of African descent or not." (Couldn't bear for it to remain a minute longer.) deeceevoice 16:43, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

A bit confused by your statement; while, under the "Out of Africa" theory, all humanity comes from Africa originally, the Australian Aborigines have been in Australia for 60 thousand years, hardly part of the African diaspora. I think the sentence should be reinstated, because I think that it is innacurate to use it. MrWeeble 16:11, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

We just have to assume that terms like "african descent" refer to the past thousand years or so and not to the first spread of humanity a few hundred thousand years ago or whenever it was.

Also deleted -- that stuff about it being considered offensive, because such attitudes stem from ignorance and, possibly, racism. Also, because the initial definition reads more cleanly stated as simple fact. The nuances surrounding the term, as well as the contentions, are described amply enough later in the article. Besides, I found the wording offensive. deeceevoice 16:55, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It shouldn't be necessary, but, given the depths to which the discussion has degenerated, I feel I must state the obvious. There is a natural human need to define oneself in terms of one's ethnicity and all that entails: shared/common history, physical appearance, food, language, history, customs, etc. In a nation so diverse as ours, it has not been sufficient simply to call oneself an "American." Ethnically, it means little in a nation of immigrants. The universe of compatriots is simply too large, too diverse, to be meaningful on a level that imparts a sense of personal or group identity.

The term "American" has currency/meaning, perhaps not only, but certainly primarily, in the sphere of politics and international relations, when "American" is intended to evoke some sort of esprit des corps to accomplish a political objective, or sets the group apart from citizens of the rest of the world and their nation-states, with their different histories, systems of government and interests and policies, both domestically and internationally. For this very reason, "American" has increased resonance in times of national crisis or war.

But in day-to-day matters, there is the long-standing practice in the U.S. that the nation's many and disparate ethnic groups name themselves for their geographic points of origin -- or those of their ancestors -- as "hyphenated Americans": "Italian-American," "Irish-American," "Polish-American," "Chinese-American," "Cuban-American." In fact, it remains a practice -- most notably in Italian families -- to refer to themselves as "Italians," regardless of how many generations they may be removed from Italy.

The label "African-Amercan" is in keeping with this tradition. Folks who have a problem with it are simply employing a double standard. Doubtless, few, if any, of them would presume to take any other ethnic group to task for their misguided, "ignorant" approach to self-identification.

"African-American" refers to the relatively few black Africans who arrived in the original 13 colonies as free men and women or indentured servants in the days of the U.S.'s earliest settlement by non "native peoples," and primarily those who survived the Middle Passage as human chattel and their descendants. Because of the circumstances of our capture, confinement and deculturation, most of us cannot trace our ancestry back to specific nations as can those early Europeans who came to this country, or as the many waves of immigrants thereafter. We cannot claim a specific nation, so we claim our continent of origin, Africa.

Who else legitimately can use the label is up for debate. I generally do not use the term to refer to black Caribbean-Americans as African-American. While their ancestors, indeed, survived the Middle Passage, it is far more useful to refer to them as "Jamaican-American," etc. The general rule in the matter of ethnic self-identification is "the more specific, the better." Again, "African-American" is nonspecific by necessity, not by choice. Nor are immigrants from the African continent generally referred to as "African-Amercans" -- for the same reason. Likewise, they are "Ethiopian-Americans," "Nigerian-Americans," etc. Again, the more specific, the better. Because most people naturally have a sense of pride in their homelands (nations of origin), the issue of African immigrants calling themselves African-Americans doesn't usually arise -- unless it is a matter of filling out government forms, which generally do not provide nation-of-origin choices on forms. Perhaps because of the concept of race and race relations in this nation's history, and because of the social, economic and political dynamics of race and racism, it is deemed sufficient to determine who is black and who isn't (except for Hispanic black folks, who may choose "Latino" on Census forms.)

Non-black "Africans," like Teresa Heinz Kerry, do not qualify as African-Americans in any case. They can be Mozambiquan-American, South African-American, even Portuguese-American, but most certainly NOT African-American. Like all other immigrants to this nation, they can be identified by their countries of origin.

There are other, more political and ideological reasons for the use of the term, but this explanation should suffice for now. deeceevoice 16:22, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Also deleted:

"African Americans are seen as the most oppressed and disadvantaged racial group in North America, along with Native Americans and Hispanics. African-American males are more likely to be imprisoned or sentenced to death than any other demographic group, especially between the ages of 20 and 39. In addition, African American public school students are most likely to be assigned to special-education classes or get suspended or expelled from school. Female African-American public school students make the lowest SAT scores of any demographic group."

Where the hell does this fit into a definition of the term? I checked "Italian American." There's only a passing reference to the stereotype of this group and their connections with organized crime. Native Americans -- there's no reference to their I.Q. scores or high alcoholism (or Irish-Americans either, for that matter, with regard to highly disproportionate rates of alcoholism) or poverty. We get this crap and a sidebar reference to notable African-Americans. Italian-Americans get a pass on the Mafia, drug running, mob violence/hitmen and racketeering and a listing of prominent Italian-Americans on the same page. This is absolute crap. So, out it goes. Period. deeceevoice 18:07, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

Further, that this article focuses primarily on attacking the term "African- American" by uncritically advancing every ignorant opinion on it under the sun, with very little substantive explanation of the validity of the reasons the term exists, or its context in American culture and history; and that it takes great pains to describe African-Americans as semiliterate, criminal, and abysmally disadvantaged -- in terms of failure and NOTHING ELSE -- speaks volumes about the skewed perceptions of blacks held by whites, the pervasiveness of racism, the condescension of the ongoing negative stereotyping of African-Americans, the cluelessness of well-meaning and not-so-well-meaning whites, the power of world techno-media -- and the chasm between black and white in this nation. In this manner, the article is more informative of the mind-set of its contributors than of its intended subject matter.

When contrasted with the Wikipedia treatment of equivalent topics dealing with other ethnic groups, the ham-handed approach and sometimes clearly racist viewpoints (in the discussion, particularly) in evidence herein are outrageous on their face. Where is the lengthy examination of the debate about the use of "Indian" or "Native American," the trashing of Indians as "ignorant" of their heritage because they accept the term "Indian" -- because, after all, it is purely a misnomer by some clueless, lost WHITE guy in a boat? Where is the endless, ad nauseam debate over "Latino," "Hispanic" and "Spanish," citing every stupid misconception, every ignorant, irrelevant opinion on the matter? Where's the part where THOSE terms are held up to scrutiny and ridicule? Where's the examination of the criminality, violence, alcoholism and educational failure of members of other ethnic groups as though it DEFINES them and the entirety of their accomplishment (or lack thereof)? Where is the examination of the massive criminality of white folks? Let's see: the slave trade; lynchings and race riots; Native American genocide; reservations and internment camps; land theft on a massive, worldwide scale; imperialism; Hiroshima; Nagasaki; widespread discrimination/racism/white supremacy/terrorism/oppression directed against people of color around the globe; "pacification" in Vietnam/My Lai; silence/cooperation/support of any number of ruthless, fascist, racist violent regimes to shore up Western, white hegemony and protect multinational corporations? Gee. I must have missed that part! Perhaps someone can direct me to the relevant passages under the respective ethnic listings on Wikipedia. (And, no, this is not a "rant." I'm dead serious. Somebody, SHOW me.)

That such an unbalanced portrayal/characterization of African-Americans could be considered even remotely appropriate outside of Stormfront is -- even for a cynic such as me -- utterly astonishing. And these very same contributors would swear to high heaven they're not racist; they're "color-blind," and become self-righteously indignant and downright hostile if the suggestion were made that the entry under "African-American" was at any time insulting and outrageously, blatantly, unabashedly RACIST. KMBA!deeceevoice 09:15, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

Should we mention that similar terms are not used to describe racial groups in countries where dual nationality is permitted? In Britain African-British would mean someone with citizenship of both an African country and Britain, just as French-British would mean someone with citizenship of France and Britain. -- Chris Q 11:46, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No. IMO, it is irrelevant. What is under discussion is a label describing African-Americans -- not the British. Their naming patterns are not at all relevant to this discussion. What IS relevant, however, are the points I've raised about the American custom of "hyphenated Americans." When I have an opportunity, I intend to restate what I've written in "Discussion" about that and other matters. I seem to be the only African-American particpating in this discussion, and I appear to have a better grasp of the rationales behind the name in the first place. There is a lot of discussion in the article why folks think the term is silly -- and in this discussion, for example, the astoundingly idiotic charge (from someone who has demonstrated a profound absence of knowledge of African-American culture) that African-Americans are too "ignorant" of our own heritage to know what ethnic group to claim correctly. Therefore we don't "deserve" to use the term "African." But there is precious little in explication of the appellation. But rest assured I will do so after I dispense with a couple of very pressing deadlines. deeceevoice 13:47, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough, though this does affect non-American's perception of the term. To people from countries where hyphenated nationalities represent dual citizenships (which I think might be most English-speaking countries outside the USA) it sounds as if it means "not completely American", which is obviously not what it means in the USA at all. -- Chris Q 15:41, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

And that is precisely why some INTELLIGENT discussion of the phenomenon of hyphenated Americans, as I've already pointed out, is a glaring omission from this piece. It seems clear many of this article's authors are more preoccupied with stating in pseudo-objective language their varied and several objections to the term and "ranting" about black folks, rather than explaining why the term "African-Amercan" exists. Which is fine. The intellectual dishonesty, hostility and and outright ignorance with which these "contributors" have approached the subject under discussion do Wikipedia a disservice. I'll simply explain it myself employing the wording I've already used to explain the phenomenon in this "discussion." That should clear up any confusion on the part of non-Americans -- and shut up some of the obviously mentally challenged "contributors" to and commentators on this article. deeceevoice 16:11, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The right approach, especially on such an incendiary topic as this, would be to excise unsourced statements of opinion (which would currently seem to be nearly all of them, from a quick glance at the article). i.e. everything of the form "some people feel," "some proponents say," and so on. For any widely held opinion, or argument put forth by a prominent entity, it should not be difficult to find a specific source to cite. See also Wikipedia:Cite sources. (For example, according to bartleby.com, Jesse Jackson was a major proponent of the term in the 1980s; it would be good to quote his arguments from that time.) —Steven G. Johnson 21:03, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

It's completely unnecessary to dig up some moldy, old quote from Jesse Jackson as gospel. After all, is there some white overseer whose word is law we should consult on matters related to white folks? Some head honcho to whose superior wisdom we should bow on all matters Latino? No. That tack is old and played out. We don't need it. As with any other Wikipedia article, balanced treatment, impartiality and informed contribution are what is needed. But agreed, Steven, on the obliteration of the "he said, she said" garbage. Like I said, blow this mutha up and start from square one -- well, maybe square two. :-p deeceevoice 10:06, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I never suggested that Jesse Jackson was "gospel", and your response is offensive. When discussing history, it's always appropriate to quote original sources when possible, and Jackson was a prominent proponent of the term in the 80's and was reportedly a key figure in popularizing it — quoting the arguments of a prominent figure from that time is helpful to describe its history. Moreover, any thorough discussion of this term should describe people's opinions on it...not anonymous opinions like we have now, but rather quoted commentary by prominent figures involved in public debate over the term. Jackson is unarguably one such figure, whom I gave as an example. —Steven G. Johnson 15:20, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

I don't find it necessary to even bring up the debate. A simple explication of the term and putting it in its proper cultural and historical context should suffice. As I said earlier, there is no such ongoing debate presented in Wikipedia regarding "Indian" and "Native American," or "Latino" and "Hispanic." When it comes to whatever name black folks choose to call themselves, that old saying about opinions and rectums seems to apply: "everybody has one" -- regardless of whether they make any sense, stem from an informed perspective or abject ignorance (or outright white arrogance/racism), or have any merit or relevance. Frankly, I think such a presentation is wholly unnecessary and insulting. The article reads perfectly fine without it -- just like the OTHER articles on other ethnic groups do. deeceevoice 21:02, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is the problem with most of these PC ethnic identifiers. They are all misleading and underinclusive. In the USA we would refer to someone from China or Korea as Asian-American or Asian, but that it misleading because the term doesn't include people from Israel or India, even though, they are actually Asian as well. African American does not take into the cultural diversity of Africa, as an Egyption or Algerian Arab would never be called African American even though it may be more accurate to do so. There was a news story about a white South African student being nominated as African American of the month at a University as a prank, and the students involved were all disciplined by the school. Also black Hispanics are left out of this definition even if they ancestry is obviously African, e.g. All Star Baseball player Sammy Sosa or Pele. Latino is also misleading when one consider that the original speakers of Latin were the Romans or Italians, and there are a few countries in Latin America where English is the official language.Ramsquire 20:10, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There's a lot wrong with your observations, Ramsquire. But I'm not going to bother with most of it. Just one easy correction: "Latino" is an abbreviation of "latinoamericano," which, in Spanish, simply means "Latin American." It's got absolutely nothing to do with Latin. Further, the university students involved in the prank were incorrect. The white student may have been South African or South African-American, but certainly not African-American, which is reserved for people of INDIGENOUS African ancestry. deeceevoice 03:40, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

Once again, the offensive garbage about the debate regarding the term has been removed -- for ALL THE REASONS ALREADY STATED ABOVE. There is NO defensible rationale for including it. The section that describes the rationale for the term is sufficient to clear up any "confusion" on the part of those who may not know. deeceevoice

Anybody got any C4?

No, folks. "negro" -- with a small "n" was NEVER a term of respect -- which is why it's been capitalized since the 1940s. Virtually every time I open up this article, I discover something off-the-wall I either overlooked or that has been added. This entire article is a mess. There's so much wrong with it -- misinformation, outright stupidity. It's hard to know where to begin. Somebody should just blow the damned thing up and start over again. Terrible. Ugh! And I wouldn't have said so before reading this article, but there are just some things most white folks shouldn't attempt. Rapping is one. Authoring a credible entry on "African-American" certainly appears to be a second. E.g., "negro" is an abbreviation of "negroid"? Gimme a break. The purported abbreviation appeared 300 years before what has been explained as its root word. Please, people. If you don't KNOW, don't write anything. After all, there are plenty of credible sources with scholarly information on any number of subjects. NOTHING is preferable to blatantly racist, or incorrect "information."deeceevoice 23:28, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC) ---

FURTHERMORE, it is a pointless and arrogant exercise for any outsider to criticize any group's self-referential terminology; what outsiders think of such terms is largely, if not wholly, irrelevant to the group so self-identified. Further, the contributors to this "discussion" and to this piece of crap of an article should be well aware of the obvious -- that the purpose of the term "African-American" is to identify a group of individuals who share a very particular common heritage, common history, and common experience; whose very presence in this nation is a result of the venality and depravity of whites and, in part, the WHITE fabrication of the notion of "race"; and whose many and various members -- regardless of their socioeconomic status -- in some way see and/or feel the weight of that shared history as an everpresent reality on a daily basis. It is further equally silly and mind-numbingly presumptuous for any outsider -- and most especially the descendants of the people who brought that group here on the basis of "race"in the first place, whose near ancestors and, likely, who themselves have participated in and benefited from a system of oppression and exploitation of the self-identified group, again on the basis of "race"-- to criticize any self-referential term of the group because it is "'race'-based" and therefore doesn't fit in with their ridiculously false/hollow, utopian notions of "color-blind" nomenclature that have no relevant precedent in any Amercan context, let alone in human history. Time for a reality check, folks.deeceevoice 09:58, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Part of the criticism likely stems from the confusion regarding the meaning of the term. As mentioned previously, but belittled, hyphenations of this type refer mostly to dual-citizenship, or sometimes direct immigration. This is how other people understand it. If a self-referencial term is to be accepted, one should at least be willing to explain it when someone doesn't understand it, rather than belittle another's opinion--how can you possible expect others to want to learn anything about you if you criticize them unproductively for not understanding something? Different people think, der, differently. Go figure. Further confusing is the continental reference to Africa as if it were a country (following the above-mentioned usage of such hyphenated terms), thus deviating from common practice. In reading the article, and this entire talk page, I'm still unconvinced that anyone has come to an agreement on the meaning of the term that anyone else can understand. -Nulbyte 19:29, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC)

The rationale is explained adequately in the discussion, including the "deviation" from nation-specific appellations. Perhaps you missed it. deeceevoice 15:20, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Fuse is Lit

Deleted as NPOV: "Some critics contend that its widespread acceptance by many whites is due to their desire to see blacks like other ethnic groups who came to the United States by choice and ignore the implications of slavery and the Middle Passage."deeceevoice 18:34, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Deleted until all this tiresome "he said, she said" can be straightened out:

==Term criticism and alternative names==

Early proponents of the term African American believed it increased the status of black Americans because of its parallels with terms for other ethnic groups, e.g. Irish American and Asian American.

The use of the term African American has often been criticized as unreasonable political correctness. Today, using the word black is accepted by most, and some actually object to African American. One objection is that it incorrectly implies that all Africans are black. A white immigrant from Africa (for example a South African of european decent; prominent examples include musician Dave Matthews and actress Charlize Theron) could technically be considered an "African American," but because of the term's existing racial context, would find it hard to seriously use the title. In addition, even if some of one's remote ancestors descend from Africa, a dark-skinned immigrant from, for example Haiti or Cuba (or even a European nation) might prefer not to be identified as African, and some dark skinned imigrants to the United States from Africa believe the term should be reserved for them to provide a separate identity from black Americans who are descendants from slaves. The situation is further complicated in that some believe that black immigrants should be referenced by their country of origin (for example, "Haitian-American" or "Ethiopian-American") and that the term "African American" should be reserved for descendants of slaves.

Another criticism of the term African American has been that the term European American has not been widely used to replace the term white when referring to Caucasians, leading to inequity of terminology. In addition, African American assumes that the person referred to is a US citizen. Yet at any given time a substantial number of black people in the United States are foreigners. It is obvious that these individuals are not African Americans.

deeceevoice 18:41, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I put this back in. I believe it's important information.--Gbleem 02:39, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I added a sectional NPOV tag. Maybe some other people will take a look. --Gbleem 02:52, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

--- Also deleted:

The word "méamelouc" became the standard label for someone whose ancestry was one-sixteenth sub-Saharan African, while a one-thirty-second mix was a "demi-méamelouc". The word "sang-melé" covered someone who had at least one known ancestor from Africa, but was less than one-thirty-second Black. Someone who has three-fourths black (the progeny of a mulatto and a pure African, ideally) was traditionally called a "griffe".

These terms were never used commonly in the U.S. -- if at all -- to refer to black folks. They, therefore, are irrelevant to a discussion of the term "African-American" and its evolution.deeceevoice 18:58, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I see. So this is an article for the US populace only? Right, we Americans don't care what the rest of the world thinks...how could I forget? -Nulbyte 19:29, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC)

You will note that the silly discussion focused primariy on the appellation itself has been pretty much done away with -- and rightly so -- in the current version of the article. But, yes, those terms were excised because they were offered in the context of a discussion about the term "African-AMERICAN." What other nations call whomever had no bearing on the matter. If one feels compelled to discuss such things, perhaps another article is in order. deeceevoice 15:20, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This is an article about African-Americans but this article, like all of English Wikipedia, is targeted at the English speaking world. We should explain the meaning of the term as NPOV, not just an American POV. Someone who is not American and is unfamiliar with the term should be able to relate to the article. We should explain the common and suggested usage, briefly cite criticisms (citing source of the criticisms) and counter arguments. Usage of the term in America as well, usage in other countries, and differing POVs from other countries should all be mentioned (briefly). --Sketchee 23:48, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)

Another thought, if it is deemed necessary we could set up and link to a seperate disambiguation page for uses of the term or similar terms (e.g. hyphenated African-American referring to dual citizenship) linking to the appropriate other meanings in the english speaking world.--Sketchee 00:08, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

Rewrite?

Just a suggestion, but some people have previously re-written "messy" articles by creating a /New sub-topic, writing the article there and then overwriting the current version when the rewrite is complete. Other authors may then re-add things that they felt should not have been omitted, but in general they respect the new structure and integrity of the article. [User:LordSuryaofShropshire] did this for the [Hinduism] page -- Chris Q 10:28, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That's precisely what I've already suggested. Blow it up and start over again.deeceevoice 12:33, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've made some changes. I think they're subtle, but they seemed important at the time. --Atticus 02:32, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

It would be nice if you had a talk page deecee. Sorry, didn't know you were editing at the same time.

I completely disagree with your editing of this sentence "Because indigenous Africans tend to have very dark skin pigmentation, the term typically is not used to apply to Africans with lighter skin pigments, such as Semitic peoples from northern Africa or white immigrants to the African continent and their descendants." The concept behind any of these race related terms is skin pigmentation, and at least some mention of the fact that Africans are not only not black but share a wide variety of pigmentations is warrented. --Atticus 08:55, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

First of all, the premise of the sentence seems completely wrong-headed. The term "African-American" was conceived as a substitute generally for other terms for black folks whose ancestors survived the Middle Passage and were slaves in the American South. And that's got absolutely nothing to do with Africans and Semitic people whose ancestors did not share that experience. And, no. In the United States, it was and always has been about who's a "Negro" and who isn't. We were ALL in shackles, regardless of our skin color. Also further, not all indigenous Africans have "very dark skin pigmentation." And, yes, I do have a talk page; but it seems to me this is the appropriate forum for such discussions. This way, everyone interested is privy to them. Peace. deeceevoice 21:07, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

SubSaharan Africans frequently identify themselves as "Nations" based on tribal, clan, or family name. I thought it would be appropriate to allude to the fact. --Atticus 09:07, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, they do. But they also refer to themselves by nation-state of origin, and that is the essential identifier being discussed in the context of this national tradition.deeceevoice 21:11, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

British North America is apparently Canada-free

I realize that wikipedia is unclear on this fact (see British North America) and maybe the Americans never noticed, but Canada continued to be governed by the British North America Acts from 1967 until present, the last one being enacted by the Canadian Government in 1975. After the American revolution the Canadian colonies were the remaining british presence in North America. Somehow this article indicates, in error, that British North America became the United States. That is a 33 million man, second largest land mass oversight. Thanks. Codylink (talk) 20:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)