NationStates Jolt Archive

This question got raised and then left hanging during another thread about rounders.

Anybody?

It's a dark-skinned person of African descent who was born American. There are other variations for those who come from the Caribbean.

Oppressed.

Oppressed.

Ruffy wins. :p

The broadest definition would be any person of African descent living in the United States, although it tends to be narrowed down to specifically black Americans of African descent (since the white Africans originally came from Europe).

This question got raised and then left hanging during another thread about rounders.

Anybody?

another label for a group of people baised on skin color that is somehow acceptable because it's "Policitally Correct". :rolleyes:

So what term is used in America to describe a 'dark-skinned person of African descent' who wasn't born in America?

A highly inaccurate term for people in the US with some an ethnic background of former slaves. Used by people who believe descriptors such as negro or black to be offensive.

Perversely enough this in no way implies that the individual has had any link with Africa whatsoever.

Its funny because I heard a story about someone who appeared white but was born and raised in Morocco. When he described himself at his workplace diversity class as African American, he was told by the (black) instructor that he was not.

EDIT: Super mega time warp!

Depends on who you ask. Most people I imagine would assume anyone who you would otherwise characterize as black would be considered African-American, even though that would also include lots of people with no noticeable ties to Africa, like islanders from the Caribbean, and dark-skinned people from Latin America (until they speak, because accents make a difference).

But the term is clumsy, because some American blacks consider the term to mean only those Americans descended from slaves--thus the question of whether Barack Obama is really an African-American, even though his dad is Kenyan and he would have a better claim to the word than most. And then there's the question of white people from Africa who could make a similar claim, as well as people who have mixed ancestry.

In short, I don't think there is a simple answer, and there may not be any satisfactory answer. I figure, if a person wants to call him or herself an African-American, go right ahead. Hell, I don't know who my biological grandfather on my mom's side was, so I might well be one. And even for those who can trace their genealogy, there's the old saying "momma's baby, daddy's maybe."

Oppressed.

ziiinggg

*raises hand* Something like me, I would assume.

Not I.

Well, my friend from Botswona who also happens to be white, always puts, "African American" on his forms.

Technically, it's true.

Not I.
Are you sure? Have you had the genetic testing done?

I'm not being snarky here. I'm just saying that really, few if any of us can be certain of our genetic heritage, and if you go back far enough, we're all African, sub-Saharan African to be specific. I'm waiting for the price to drop some more, but I'm going to do the swab thing eventually, just so I'll know, because I find it fascinating.

Are you sure? Have you had the genetic testing done?

I'm not being snarky here. I'm just saying that really, few if any of us can be certain of our genetic heritage, and if you go back far enough, we're all African, sub-Saharan African to be specific. I'm waiting for the price to drop some more, but I'm going to do the swab thing eventually, just so I'll know, because I find it fascinating.

Pff. As though we'd just let you be African-American?

So what term is used in America to describe a 'dark-skinned person of African descent' who wasn't born in America?

depends on where theyre from doesnt it?

if they are from the UK, you might say he's a black brit. (or just a brit, his skin color isnt important)

if he's from canada, you might say he's canadian (or black canadian if his skin color is somehow important)

if he's from nigeria, you might call him nigerian.

if he's from haiti....

well you get the point.

Pff. As though we'd just let you be African-American?

As I noted above, I think the term is more a social one than a genetic one, but it's not very clearly defined, and the definitions that exist vary from group to group. I doubt, for instance, that a Klansman will give two shits about the difference between a dark-skinned descendant of slaves and a Haitian. But members of those two groups certainly will say there's a difference (at least the Haitians I know say there's a difference).

As I noted above, I think the term is more a social one than a genetic one, but it's not very clearly defined, and the definitions that exist vary from group to group. I doubt, for instance, that a Klansman will give two shits about the difference between a dark-skinned descendant of slaves and a Haitian. But members of those two groups certainly will say there's a difference (at least the Haitians I know say there's a difference).

Shhhh....I'm working on a proof by contradiction. :p

So what term is used in America to describe a 'dark-skinned person of African descent' who wasn't born in America?

Nigerian, South African, Rwandan, or whatever country he or she might be from.

It confused the hell out of my students when we studied ER Braithwaite's To Sir, With Love. They kept calling him African American and I kept saying, "NO, he's a British subject."

I'm waiting for the price to drop some more, but I'm going to do the swab thing eventually, just so I'll know, because I find it fascinating.

heh, i've worked out who else in my family i need to have do it to get the widest scope of ancestry possible on both male and female lines.

Nigerian, South African, Rwandan, or whatever country he or she might be from.

It confused the hell out of my students when we studied ER Braithwaite's To Sir, With Love. They kept calling him African American and I kept saying, "NO, he's a British subject."

Even if that person becomes a US citizen? Is he or she an African-American then?

Even if that person becomes a US citizen? Is he or she an African-American then?

seems to me that if a UK citizen becomes a US citizen, he's a british american regardless of skin color/african descent.

So what term is used in America to describe a 'dark-skinned person of African descent' who wasn't born in America?

also african american or black - especially if the person doing the calling is not a member of the specifically american ethnic group that we call african american. we're a little confused as to the nature of nationality, ethnicity, and race over here, and use terms inconsistently on an official basis.

Nigerian, South African, Rwandan, or whatever country he or she might be from.

It confused the hell out of my students when we studied ER Braithwaite's To Sir, With Love. They kept calling him African American and I kept saying, "NO, he's a British subject."

Wouldn't 'Black' have been easier? ^_^'

seems to me that if a UK citizen becomes a US citizen, he's a british american regardless of skin color/african descent.

I imagine The Nazz was thinking more along the lines of a white person born and raised in an African country who becomes a naturalised US citizen later in life.

African American?

we're a little confused as to the nature of nationality, ethnicity, and race over here, and use terms inconsistently on an official basis.

for example, the relevant 2000 census questions:


http://www.amptoons.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/2000-census-categories_2.png

another label for a group of people baised on skin color that is somehow acceptable because it's "Policitally Correct". :rolleyes:

Because if we didn't have an acceptable term for a minority, there'd cease to be minorities and racism. :rolleyes:

I imagine The Nazz was thinking more along the lines of a white person born and raised in an African country who becomes a naturalised US citizen later in life.

African American?
Skin color isn't even at issue for me.

"African American" is sort of funny like that, it doesn't really mean anything significant. Most black Americans have little or no contact or relation to Africa, either linguistically, culturally, or by family. However, the Kenyan students going to my college who speak among themselves in their native language can pretty reasonably be called African Americans with some kind of significance. They also tend to be really nice, friendly people from my experience with them...

The problem is, I'm an Eastern European mutt - Polish, Russian, German, Austrian, etc... of the third generation of my family born here. I'm not a "European American" and I KNOW where my roots are. On the other hand we have these blacks who's families have been here over a century longer then mine has, who have no idea where there roots are besides the mind-blowingly general "Africa," and we have the gall to label them based on their racial origin!?! Give me a freaking break... They have more right to be called American then I do - their history is here, their language and culture is from here, and the fact that they "immigrated" makes them no different from any other group of people from anywhere else in the world.

African American is basically a parody of itself. A punchline of a really lame, awkward joke that no one remembers anymore. Basically, it's an attempt at being polite used by people wracked by guilt over their ancestors crimes and by people raised to use it never knowing why.

Hispanic is another odd one. It doesn't actually refer to any race, nationality, or ethnic background. It's the Latin word for "of Spain" and refers specifically to language. Anyone who speaks Spanish from either hemisphere is fair game to be called Hispanic (first language is a good general rule). The fact that it is used on Government paperwork as a "race" is pretty damn laughable. There is no Hispanic race.

Oxford English Dictionary:


African-American, n. and a.

orig. U.S.

A. n. An American (esp. a North American) of African origin; a black American. Cf. Afro-American s.v. AFRO-.

Although both African and African-American were widely used in the United States in the 19th century, the adoption of African-American as a preferred term among black Americans dates from the late 1960s and early 1970s (particularly after an April 1972 conference at which Ramona Edelin, president of the National Urban Coalition, proposed its use). The term gained widespread acceptance following its endorsement by the Reverend Jesse Jackson (b. 1941) during his presidential nomination campaign in 1988.

1855 T. PARKER Trial Theodore Parker 217, I have shown you the aim and purposes of the Slave Powerto make this vast Continent..a House of Bondage for African Americans. 1858 W. B. LAWRENCE Visitation & Search 131 In 1850, the African-American population of the Republic of Liberia..including the Maryland Colony, amounted to only 7,000. 1890 Amer. Missionary Dec. 386 The African-American is awakening more rapidly than ever to his needs. 1962 Jrnl. Negro Educ. 31 475 African-Americans in the making of America.. Crispus Attucks of Boston Massacre fame. 1979 [I]Jrnl. Black Stud. 8 437 Belonging or acceptance in Black organizations is of particular importance to African Americans because of their exclusion from many White organizations. 1987 Washington Post 16 Aug. D5/4 What made him the target of four years of government infiltration, investigation, persecution and eventual prosecution was his championing the cause of racial independence for African-Americans. 1997 Sun (Baltimore) 5 Jan. F1/2 Like thousands of middle-class and middle-class-aspiring African-Americans, I was taught throughout childhood to loathe black English.

B. adj. Designating or relating to African-Americans.

1858 W. B. LAWRENCE Visitation & Search 131 In 1850, the African-American population of the Republic of Liberia..including the Maryland Colony, amounted to only 7,000. 1885 Amer. Missionary Apr. 107 The idea that African-American sinners and Saxon-American sinners need a different application of the Gospel to save them is a delusion and a snare. 1925 Jrnl. Negro Hist. 10 764 (heading) Letter from J. M. Whitfield, Editor of The African-American Repository, (a colored man). 1969 N.Y. Times 5 Jan. 43/3 Albert Vann, president of the African-American Teachers Association..said that the editorial had evoked little response. 1973 Jrnl. Negro Hist. 58 117 The organization had voted previously in a mail ballot 2 to 1 to change its name to the African-American Historical Association. 1989 Los Angeles Times 14 Feb. VI. 2/2 ‘The Piano Lesson’..tells of an African-American family in 1936 that must decide whether to keep a family pianoin which the faces of their slave ancestors are carved. 2000 Oxf. Amer. May-June 9/1 Don't miss the oldest African-American holiday: Juneteenth is celebrated all over the South.

As race is a socio-political construct, so are the words we use to describe racial groups. African-American is considered a non-insulting term for a black American/American of African descent.

Someone of African descent that is living in America, usually that was born in America and not recently immigrated. Just like Italian-Americans are people of Italian descent living in America...

African American is basically a parody of itself. A punchline of a really lame, awkward joke that no one remembers anymore. Basically, it's an attempt at being polite used by people wracked by guilt over their ancestors crimes and by people raised to use it never knowing why.
Your earlier points are solid, but I think you're off base a little here, because it seems you're crediting people outside the community with coining the name. I believe--and I certainly could be mistaken--that the term "African-American" was an outgrowth of Afro-American, and came from within the black community. It's a tag they gave themselves as part of the long-term movement to define themselves as a group as opposed to accepting the tags placed on them by whites (like negro or colored, for instance).

"African American" is sort of funny like that, it doesn't really mean anything significant. Most black Americans have little or no contact or relation to Africa, either linguistically, culturally, or by family. However, the Kenyan students going to my college who speak among themselves in their native language can pretty reasonably be called African Americans with some kind of significance. They also tend to be really nice, friendly people from my experience with them...

The problem is, I'm an Eastern European mutt - Polish, Russian, German, Austrian, etc... of the third generation of my family born here. I'm not a "European American" and I KNOW where my roots are. On the other hand we have these blacks who's families have been here over a century longer then mine has, who have no idea where there roots are besides the mind-blowingly general "Africa," and we have the gall to label them based on their racial origin!?! Give me a freaking break... They have more right to be called American then I do - their history is here, their language and culture is from here, and the fact that they "immigrated" makes them no different from any other group of people from anywhere else in the world.

African American is basically a parody of itself. A punchline of a really lame, awkward joke that no one remembers anymore. Basically, it's an attempt at being polite used by people wracked by guilt over their ancestors crimes and by people raised to use it never knowing why.

Hispanic is another odd one. It doesn't actually refer to any race, nationality, or ethnic background. It's the Latin word for "of Spain" and refers specifically to language. Anyone who speaks Spanish from either hemisphere is fair game to be called Hispanic (first language is a good general rule). The fact that it is used on Government paperwork as a "race" is pretty damn laughable. There is no Hispanic race.

Unbunch your panties and learn to use dictionaries.

Also try learning a little history so your tirades don't sound so silly.

Unbunch your panties and learn to use dictionaries.

Also try learning a little history so your tirades don't sound so silly.

Note his name, "Radical Centrists".

Your earlier points are solid, but I think you're off base a little here, because it seems you're crediting people outside the community with coining the name. I believe--and I certainly could be mistaken--that the term "African-American" was an outgrowth of Afro-American, and came from within the black community. It's a tag they gave themselves as part of the long-term movement to define themselves as a group as opposed to accepting the tags placed on them by whites (like negro or colored, for instance).

You could be right about that. It still seems a little off to me though - something about fighting discrimination by defining yourself exclusively as different from other "Americans" doesn't sit well with me. It is a fair bit better then things like negro or colored, but still essentially the exact same thing. Just a polite way of alienating a group more then they already are.

*Shrugs*

I don't like it. To me, you're an American when you get your citizenship.

Pff. Dictionaries.

We decide based on how nappy-headed you are.

On the other hand we have these blacks who's families have been here over a century longer then mine has, who have no idea where there roots are besides the mind-blowingly general "Africa," and we have the gall to label them based on their racial origin!?! Give me a freaking break... They have more right to be called American then I do - their history is here, their language and culture is from here, and the fact that they "immigrated" makes them no different from any other group of people from anywhere else in the world.

African American is basically a parody of itself. A punchline of a really lame, awkward joke that no one remembers anymore. Basically, it's an attempt at being polite used by people wracked by guilt over their ancestors crimes and by people raised to use it never knowing why.

actually, it's from an explicit attempt by black groups as part of the civil rights movement to have the ethnic group (created by slavery, jim crow, and racism generally) join the standard practice of usians acknowledging and expressing pride in their ancestry by labeling themselves as _____ americans.

Hispanic is another odd one. It doesn't actually refer to any race, nationality, or ethnic background. It's the Latin word for "of Spain" and refers specifically to language. Anyone who speaks Spanish from either hemisphere is fair game to be called Hispanic (first language is a good general rule). The fact that it is used on Government paperwork as a "race" is pretty damn laughable. There is no Hispanic race.

actually, hispanic is their one attempt at nuance and a nod towards ethnicity, as they allow various combinations of race and hispanic-ness.

African-American is considered a non-insulting term for a black American/American of African descent.
So that would make it synonymous with "human", then?

Wouldn't 'Black' have been easier? ^_^'

Yes, but God forbid, when it was mentioned in the book, all the kids were horrified. Political correctness "wins" again -- by making things muddier and more confusing.

So that would make it synonymous with "human", then?

no, as you don't get to claim the place where your ancestors were 50,000 years ago as 'where you are from' in the relevant sense

So that would make it synonymous with "human", then?

Funny.

But that would mean only Americans (esp. North Americans) were human. :p

Yes, but God forbid, when it was mentioned in the book, all the kids were horrified. Political correctness "wins" again -- by making things muddier and more confusing.

Because otherwise race and ethnicity are simple, straight-foward concepts?

Yes, but God forbid, when it was mentioned in the book, all the kids were horrified. Political correctness "wins" again -- by making things muddier and more confusing.

That'd make things troublesome if a book ever went so far as, say....colored, no?

Because otherwise race and ethnicity are simple, straight-foward concepts?

Could be. Course, a lotta people have fun with making things confusing for a bit of a thrill.

Unbunch your panties and learn to use dictionaries.

Also try learning a little history so your tirades don't sound so silly.

So basically an Activist (even a good one) and a Reverend (even a poor one) can make and support a suggestion and suddenly, thanks to the awesome power of dictionaries, all other perspectives are rendered moot? Fascinating.

I wonder how I would be defined in there? Oh, I forgot, no one would assume I was anything other then a "white guy" unless I put a post-it note on my forehead detailing my lineage. Damn skin color.

Everyone comes from Africa. The only thing that separates me from Jesse Jackson is that my ancestors took a really fucking round-a-bout way of getting here. Maybe it is he that should unbunch his panties.

So that would make it synonymous with "human", then?

QFT. Well, sorta.

actually, it's from an explicit attempt by black groups as part of the civil rights movement to have the ethnic group (created by slavery, jim crow, and racism generally) join the standard practice of usians acknowledging and expressing pride in their ancestry by labeling themselves as _____ americans.

"USians acknowledging and expressing pride in their ancestry by labeling themselves as _____ americans," huh? The last person I've seen do that was a really obnoxious Republican chick from New Jersey who calls herself a Italian-American BECAUSE blacks can be African-Americans. That isn't something to aspire to.

actually, hispanic is their one attempt at nuance and a nod towards ethnicity, as they allow various combinations of race and hispanic-ness.

And in doing so making the whole business more convoluted, meaningless, and laughable then before? Once again, fascinating.

Nigerian, South African, Rwandan, or whatever country he or she might be from.

What kind of weird racism is it that you call a black American an African American, but a black German just gets called a German? Why not an African German?

"USians acknowledging and expressing pride in their ancestry by labeling themselves as _____ americans," huh? The last person I've seen do that was a really obnoxious Republican chick from New Jersey who calls herself a Italian-American BECAUSE blacks can be African-Americans. That isn't something to aspire to.


I'm not Republican, I'm not from New Jersey, I'm occasionally obnoxious, but I refer to myself as Italian-American (or Sicilian-Puerto Rican/American) simply because it's the easiest way to tell people about my background, not because of any "They do so *I* can" bull.

I've heard people call themselves German-American, Chinese-American, Polish-American et cetera, so I don't know where you're making this assumption from that it has anything to do with competing with blacks.

Well, my friend from Botswona who also happens to be white, always puts, "African American" on his forms.

Technically, it's true.True, time to get some juicy college grants and into colleges due to my place of orgins.:p

What kind of weird racism is it that you call a black American an African American, but a black German just gets called a German? Why not an African German?

Because a black German does not refer to himself in that way, but US blacks who are descendents of African slaves do refer to themselves in that manner?

How is it racism to refer to someone in the way they identify themselves?

Because if we didn't have an acceptable term for a minority, there'd cease to be minorities and racism. :rolleyes:why is African-American Acceptiable? why not just American? what if that person was born in America and has never been to Africa... does (s)he get stuck with the lable African-American even if they don't want it? Why do we need any terms, acceptible or otherwise, for any such minority?

I refer to people by their names. If I don't know their names I point to them and say "that guy/girl."

I have yet to be in any situation where I refer to anyone by their race, color, creed or any other classification that fits any "minority."

I've never identified myself as Japanese/Okinawan-American to anyone in any form of conversation.

Oxford English Dictionary:...

Yes, I know how to use a dictionary, thank you very much.

I don't give a damn for the facts, I'm interested in how and what you people think.

Are Canadians African Americans?

no, as you don't get to claim the place where your ancestors were 50,000 years ago as 'where you are from' in the relevant sense
Sez you, but others would say that someone who's ancestors left Africa over a century ago (or even longer in the case of Caribbean/Haitian/etc African-Americans) and haven't had any real connection since then can't claim the place.

Are Canadians African Americans?

canadians live in igloos and drive sleighs

So what term is used in America to describe a 'dark-skinned person ' who wasn't born in America?Mexican :D
sometimes they call them "cheap labor" or "Illegal alien".. I call them "senor"

It is another way of saying a black american.

So basically an Activist (even a good one) and a Reverend (even a poor one) can make and support a suggestion and suddenly, thanks to the awesome power of dictionaries, all other perspectives are rendered moot? Fascinating.
What a bunch of non-sequitor twaddle. You stated that the term 'African American' was made up by guilt ridden white folk. You are wrong and no amount of discussion about perspectives rendered moot will change that simple fact. The term wasnt invented or popularised by guilt ridden white people.

I wonder how I would be defined in there? Oh, I forgot, no one would assume I was anything other then a "white guy" unless I put a post-it note on my forehead detailing my lineage. Damn skin color.

Everyone comes from Africa. The only thing that separates me from Jesse Jackson is that my ancestors took a really fucking round-a-bout way of getting here. Maybe it is he that should unbunch his panties.

None of which gives you the right to dictate to others how they percieve their own identity.


QFT. Well, sorta.



"USians acknowledging and expressing pride in their ancestry by labeling themselves as _____ americans," huh? The last person I've seen do that was a really obnoxious Republican chick from New Jersey who calls herself a Italian-American BECAUSE blacks can be African-Americans. That isn't something to aspire to.
If you imagine that because X does Y and X is Z that whatever does Y therefore is Z, you should know that most people know better than that.

And in doing so making the whole business more convoluted, meaningless, and laughable then before? Once again, fascinating.
Your post is pathetic. You were wrong. You had some big idea in your head about the guilt ridden white people coming up with this term. You got served and your response is simply more of the same, only since your dishing it up, it's self service. Instead of making yourself look more silly than your earlier and utterly inaccurate post already did, you'd be better off working on getting your facts together in future before you go off on an ill-advised and somewhat snarky rant.

This question got raised and then left hanging during another thread about rounders.

Anybody?

A citizen of the US whose skin colour and facial traits show that his ancestry is, at least in part, african - excluding arab and berber ancestries.
I always wonder why americans are so obsessed with

why is African-American Acceptiable?

Cuz I said so. Let's start there.

[QUOTE=OcceanDrive;12549087]Mexican :D

In Kansas they still call them Italian.

I have yet to be in any situation where I refer to anyone by their race, color, creed or any other classification that fits any "minority."

you also live in hawaii, otherwise know as a special case.

I think the correct term is USian of Color.

I think the correct term is USian of Color.

nah, 'of color' is a broader category

I have yet to be in any situation where I refer to anyone by their race, color, creed or any other classification that fits any "minority."

Tall? Blue-eyed? Nothing?

not from the US,

But i would have assumed the term african american is used by people in the US who people would recognise as being black (whether skin colour, hair, facial bone structure) yet don´t know they're ancestry. If someone's parents were from Kenya, Congo, etc... I'd have assumed they would call themselves Kenyan American just like someone of Irish descent would call themselves Irish American.

The African in african american being used as a geographic designator.

From personal experience, the few african americans I've met don't particularly look african to me. They generally looked 'mixed'. So maybe that's another reason?

Don't know why they're not just American. Also what happens if the person has some African ancestry but comes from mexico or brazil?
Would they be classified as latino/hispanic or african american?

Someone you're afraid to call black because you think they'll mug you.

Someone you're afraid to call black because you think they'll mug you.

Why do you think us white people live in gated communities?

Why do you think us white people live in gated communities?

To keep the untermensch out.

To keep the untermensch out.

Correct.

But some of them poor people are black, and everybody knows poor black people own guns and shoot at us innocent whites.

Why do you think us white people live in gated communities?

To keep you chavs in.

Why do you think us white people live in gated communities?
White?
What are you talking about Ese?:rolleyes:
-----------------------------
An African American is something waiting to be shot by a German Soldier.

To keep you chavs in.

But they lets us out on Saturdays..

This question got raised and then left hanging during another thread about rounders.

Anybody?
As far as I am concerned, an African American is a person from Africa who has moved to America.

Americans who happen to have dark skin are not "African Americans," any more than Americans with pale skin are "European Americans." They're all Americans.

As far as I am concerned, an African American is a person from Africa who has moved to America.

Americans who happen to have dark skin are not "African Americans," any more than Americans with pale skin are "European Americans." They're all Americans.
Fie upon you! Fie I say! I'll be just as African American as the Botswanan, iffin you don't mind. *nods*

Fie upon you! Fie I say! I'll be just as African American as the Botswanan, iffin you don't mind. *nods*

Have you ever been to Africa?

Have you ever been to Africa?

*shrug* Mebbe this summer...If I don't go to Germany.

I imagine The Nazz was thinking more along the lines of a white person born and raised in an African country who becomes a naturalised US citizen later in life.

African American?

no

regardless of skin color the person is <whatever country> american.

nigerian american, kenyan american, malian american.

african americans are generally the descendants of slaves whose country of origin was supressed. they have no way to know what country or ethnic group they came from (although they are most likely a mix of several since it was the general policy of slave traders to not keep people from the same area together on plantations)

Are Canadians African Americans?

no

as canadians they get to choose their own term for themselves.

i dont know what it is.

Cuz I said so. Let's start there. and end there as well.

you also live in hawaii, otherwise know as a special case.Yay! I'm special! :p

Tall? Blue-eyed? Nothing?height is relative, but I have said, the guy/gal about yea high [indicating height], never referenced anyone's eye color,

no

as canadians they get to choose their own term for themselves.

i dont know what it is.

Ah, its another of those strange parochial uses of the term 'American'.

So that makes two words out of two somewhat problematic.

Ah, its another of those strange parochial uses of the term 'American'.

So that makes two words out of two somewhat problematic.

not in the united states it doesnt.

other countries are free to use whatever term means the most to them to describe their citizens of black african descent.

This question got raised and then left hanging during another thread about rounders.

Anybody?

An idiotic label coined by the race warlord Jesse Jackson if I recall to describe black Americans. Note a white South African or an Asian from Uganda that immigrated to the US and became a US citizen would not--again using this idiotic phrase--be called an African-American.

If you were born in Africa and became a US citzen you are an African-American, if you were born in the US, you are simply an American.

no

regardless of skin color the person is <whatever country> american.

nigerian american, kenyan american, malian american.

african americans are generally the descendants of slaves whose country of origin was supressed. they have no way to know what country or ethnic group they came from (although they are most likely a mix of several since it was the general policy of slave traders to not keep people from the same area together on plantations)

When slavery was practiced in the New World, there were almost no African countries in existence.

Nigeria, Kenya, etc all became independent states after WWII. Be quite silly to call oneself a Ghanese-America simply because 200 years ago your family lived on the land that would one day become Ghana. In any event, simply because your great great great great grandmother came to Carolina in 1705 doesn't make you an African. I note that I have yet to see a checkoff on any form for "European-American." I think most "European-Americans would find that phrase quite silly.

height is relative, but I have said, the guy/gal about yea high [indicating height], never referenced anyone's eye color,

Those taller than average are probably (actually, by necessity, I think) a minority. *nods*

If you were born in Africa and became a US citzen you are an African-American, if you were born in the US, you are simply an American.

*sticks toungue out* Sez you. You're not the one with the Dymo labeler. Only I get to do that.

I think most "European-Americans would find that phrase quite silly.

What makes you say that? I could certainly get behind it.

What makes you say that? I could certainly get behind it.

Not something I would support. You are no more a European-American (if you were not born in Europe) than a person not born in Africa is an African-American.

What makes you say that? I could certainly get behind it.
Why?

I'm not from Europe. My parents aren't from Europe. We were born here, in the USA. Indeed, EVERY person in the USA today is from somewhere else. Even Native Americans once migrated to what is now the USA from other places.

So what's our cut-off for "native" status? How many generations must a person's family have lived in the USA, before they are to be considered just plain old "Americans"? Or are we really supposed to add the stupid European- or African- or Asian- prefixes for every single American citizen?

A highly inaccurate term for people in the US with some an ethnic background of former slaves. Used by people who believe descriptors such as negro or black to be offensive.

Perversely enough this in no way implies that the individual has had any link with Africa whatsoever.

Exactly. And if you're not willing to wear the politically correct identifier, the very same people will call you Uncle Tom.

Why?

I'm not from Europe. My parents aren't from Europe. We were born here, in the USA. Indeed, EVERY person in the USA today is from somewhere else. Even Native Americans once migrated to what is now the USA from other places.

So what's our cut-off for "native" status? How many generations must a person's family have lived in the USA, before they are to be considered just plain old "Americans"? Or are we really supposed to add the stupid European- or African- or Asian- prefixes for every single American citizen?

Exactly. The only people that are Asian-Americans are those that were born in Asia and then came to the US, etc etc. If you were born in the US, you are simply an American.

A clarification is in order. I. I could get behind it, me being an American that moved to Europe.

Wouldn't that make you an American-European, but maybe if you became a citzen of say France, renounced your US citzenship, then became an American citizen again, you could become an American-European-American.

Why?

I'm not from Europe. My parents aren't from Europe. We were born here, in the USA. Indeed, EVERY person in the USA today is from somewhere else. Even Native Americans once migrated to what is now the USA from other places.

So what's our cut-off for "native" status? How many generations must a person's family have lived in the USA, before they are to be considered just plain old "Americans"? Or are we really supposed to add the stupid European- or African- or Asian- prefixes for every single American citizen?

A clarification is in order. I. I could get behind it, me being an American that moved to Europe.

*sticks toungue out* Sez you. You're not the one with the Dymo labeler. Only I get to do that.

HA! I got a P-Touch. not only can I label in different colors, but I can make nicer ones! :p

Exactly. And if you're not willing to wear the politically correct identifier, the very same people will call you Uncle Tom.

The hell? Most don't even know what Uncle Tom means, much less use it. When's the last time that happened?

The hell? Most don't even know what Uncle Tom means, much less use it. When's the last time that happened?

State Sen. Lisa A. Gladden, a black Baltimore Democrat, said she does not expect her party to pull any punches, including racial jabs at Mr. Steele, in the race to replace retiring Democratic U.S. Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes.

"Party trumps race, especially on the national level," she said. "If you are bold enough to run, you have to take whatever the voters are going to give you. It's democracy, perhaps at its worse, but it is democracy."

Delegate Salima Siler Marriott, a black Baltimore Democrat, said Mr. Steele invites comparisons to a slave who loves his cruel master or a cookie that is black on the outside and white inside because his conservative political philosophy is, in her view, anti-black.

During Steele's campaign, there were attacks against the first black man to win a statewide election in Maryland include pelting him with Oreo cookies during a campaign appearance, calling him an "Uncle Tom" and depicting him as a black-faced minstrel on a liberal Web log.

Note that the attackers were Democrats, and they felt it was justifiable to do so.

Exactly. The only people that are Asian-Americans are those that were born in Asia and then came to the US, etc etc. If you were born in the US, you are simply an American.

Wow, I've a few friends that should be informed the issue has been convieniently decided for them.

A clarification is in order. I. I could get behind it, me being an American that moved to Europe.

Ahh. Well, see, that makes perfect sense. :D

I've got a friend who is African-American. She has pale skin, however, so she gets lots of crap for identifying as African-American. She grew up in South Africa and lived in several other African countries before moving to the USA, so when she is asked to fill out forms she selects "African-American." I've got no beef with that.

I work with a European-American. He's from Bulgaria (and Germany), and has lived in the USA for 7 years. I also work with two Chinese-Americans. They've been here since 2001 and 2002.

But me, I'm just a boring old American. Never lived in another country, though I hope to do so one day.

Wouldn't that make you an American-European, but maybe if you became a citzen of say France, renounced your US citzenship, then became an American citizen again, you could become an American-European-American.

*shrug* I can say it in either order, depends on how I feel like doing it at the time.

Wow, I've a few friends that should be informed the issue has been convieniently decided for them.

I can call myself Qin Shi Huang Di too doesn't make it so (should be quite apparent since Qin Shi Huang died in 210 b.c.).

Your friends can consider themselves African-Americans all they want--just don't expect me to agree with their dilusions.

State Sen. Lisa A. Gladden, a black Baltimore Democrat, said she does not expect her party to pull any punches, including racial jabs at Mr. Steele, in the race to replace retiring Democratic U.S. Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes.

"Party trumps race, especially on the national level," she said. "If you are bold enough to run, you have to take whatever the voters are going to give you. It's democracy, perhaps at its worse, but it is democracy."

Delegate Salima Siler Marriott, a black Baltimore Democrat, said Mr. Steele invites comparisons to a slave who loves his cruel master or a cookie that is black on the outside and white inside because his conservative political philosophy is, in her view, anti-black.

During Steele's campaign, there were attacks against the first black man to win a statewide election in Maryland include pelting him with Oreo cookies during a campaign appearance, calling him an "Uncle Tom" and depicting him as a black-faced minstrel on a liberal Web log.

Note that the attackers were Democrats, and they felt it was justifiable to do so.

Remind me why would I note their political alignment?

And, moveover, this decides how any black person would treat you then? Cuz, you know, i've never done that. Maybe your previsous statment needs some clarification, or qualifiers, I dunno. Something like "And if you don't...These particular people will call you Uncle Tom".

I can call myself Qin Shi Huang Di too doesn't make it so (should be quite apparent since Qin Shi Huang died in 210 b.c.).

Your friends can consider themselves African-Americans all they want--just don't expect me to agree with their dilusions.

Actually, I was talking about the Asian ones. Course, it seems I've lost all but one's e-mail adress...how unfortunate...

P.S. Oh, right, we were talking about something. *points at dead guy* Should I call myself an African-American, that shall be what I am. If we want to go into what this label will mean to others, that's an entirely different topic. I chose my titles.

Ah, its another of those strange parochial uses of the term 'American'.

well, the problem there is that we didn't choose an actual name for this here federation back at the beginning - we just mentioned that there were some states in the americas and they happened to be united. we even originally explicitly wrote in that should any part of canada want in, they could join up no questions asked.

Remind me why would I note their political alignment?

And, moveover, this decides how any black person would treat you then? Cuz, you know, i've never done that. Maybe your previsous statment needs some clarification, or qualifiers, I dunno. Something like "And if you don't...These particular people will call you Uncle Tom".

Because Democrats aren't being racists when they do it. None of the Democrat officials in question were reprimanded, punished, or even castigated in the media.

If you're not willing to side with the people who thought up the politicall correct terminology, they will have a very old name ready for you.

Umm...Sure...Whatever you say.

*turns to the side* The hell is he on about?

I've already posted the proof. What more do you want?

Because Democrats aren't being racists when they do it. None of the Democrat officials in question were reprimanded, punished, or even castigated in the media.

If you're not willing to side with the people who thought up the politicall correct terminology, they will have a very old name ready for you.

Umm...Sure...Whatever you say.

*turns to the side* The hell is he on about?

When slavery was practiced in the New World, there were almost no African countries in existence.

Nigeria, Kenya, etc all became independent states after WWII. Be quite silly to call oneself a Ghanese-America simply because 200 years ago your family lived on the land that would one day become Ghana. In any event, simply because your great great great great grandmother came to Carolina in 1705 doesn't make you an African. I note that I have yet to see a checkoff on any form for "European-American." I think most "European-Americans would find that phrase quite silly.

true but it changes nothing about my post.

I've already posted the proof. What more do you want?

I'm still trying to figure out what it has to do with the topic...

I still think Charlize Theron should count.

I'm still trying to figure out what it has to do with the topic...

African-American is a ridiculous appellate given to anyone who happens to look "black" even if they were never from Africa.

It's one of the five official categories of race, as defined by the US Government.

It's not quite as ridiculous as "Asian-Pacific Islander", which translates as anyone who has a steady diet of rice.

Racial categories are ridiculous - they have no scientific basis, and the fact that the Government makes them official is an outrage.

I'm still trying to figure out what it has to do with the topic...

I'm wondering why you are even involved in this topic. Honestly. The rest of the world will confer about what to label you. Just sit back until the results come through.

African-American is a ridiculous appellate given to anyone who happens to look "black" even if they were never from Africa.

It's one of the five official categories of race, as defined by the US Government.

It's not quite as ridiculous as "Asian-Pacific Islander", which translates as anyone who has a steady diet of rice.

Racial categories are ridiculous - they have no scientific basis, and the fact that the Government makes them official is an outrage.

The diet in North China is actually more wheat based--e.g. mantou, baozi, jiaozi, mian, etc. than rice.

this "there shouldnt be hypenated americans" and "everyone came from africa" crap is getting on my nerves.

the fact is that black people in america ARE labelled and have ALWAYS been labelled. for most of our existence as a country they have been called "******" and if in very polite country "negro"

so, in the fullness of time black people decided that they needed to take control of how they are labelled. they rejected the impolite "******", the reasonably polite "negro" and the commonly used "colored". the preferred label has been in flux for the past 40 years going back and forth between black, afro-american and african-american. at the current time the chosen lable is "african american"

DEAL WITH IT.

you do not get to decide what the polite phrase is for black american. they do. if the phrase that the majority of black americans want to use is african american, then the polite thing to do is to use it. perhaps its inaccurate, unimaginative, or silly in your mind. too bad.

you do not get to decide what the polite phrase is for black american. they do. if the phrase that the majority of black americans want to use is african american, then the polite thing to do is to use it. perhaps its inaccurate, unimaginative, or silly in your mind. too bad.

Technicaly, the majority doesn't make it polite, just smarter. You're more likely to run into someone that will allow that label if it's the majority.

Polite is on a case by case basis, should a person have a label they prefer, it's polite to use that for them.

The diet in North China is actually more wheat based--e.g. mantou, baozi, jiaozi, mian, etc. than rice.

Just trying to make the point - if you're from China, and you're in America, the government calls you "Asian-American".

Same for anywhere in the Pacific, except Australia (for some reason). Same for India, Pakistan, Mongolia, etc.

It's kind of a government catch-all - and I believe it's ridiculous.

I still think Charlize Theron should count.

How nappy-headed is she? ^_^

Seriously though, since when did she want to be African American?

African-American is a ridiculous appellate given to anyone who happens to look "black" even if they were never from Africa.

It's one of the five official categories of race, as defined by the US Government.

It's not quite as ridiculous as "Asian-Pacific Islander", which translates as anyone who has a steady diet of rice.

Racial categories are ridiculous - they have no scientific basis, and the fact that the Government makes them official is an outrage.

...You're silly, you know that? ^_^

this "there shouldnt be hypenated americans" and "everyone came from africa" crap is getting on my nerves.

the fact is that black people in america ARE labelled and have ALWAYS been labelled. for most of our existence as a country they have been called "******" and if in very polite country "negro"

so, in the fullness of time black people decided that they needed to take control of how they are labelled. they rejected the impolite "******", the reasonably polite "negro" and the commonly used "colored". the preferred label has been in flux for the past 40 years going back and forth between black, afro-american and african-american. at the current time the chosen lable is "african american"

DEAL WITH IT.

you do not get to decide what the polite phrase is for black american. they do. if the phrase that the majority of black americans want to use is african american, then the polite thing to do is to use it. perhaps its inaccurate, unimaginative, or silly in your mind. too bad.

Sorry. Don't expect me to use a term for someone that has never been to Africa, doesn't know anything about Africa and could probably not name a single African country if his or her life depended on it--or even answer how many African countries they are (54 if you are curious) that includes the word African in it.

Same goes for Asia and Europe too. And I really don't care if this gets on your nerves either. And while I am on the subject there is nothing offensive about the term Oriental. It is geocentric and for Americans incorrect (since Asia is to the west, not the east), but there is nothing offensive about the term.

And I really don't care if this gets on your nerves either.

This should clear up any remaining confusion in the discussion.

Technicaly, the majority doesn't make it polite, just smarter. You're more likely to run into someone that will allow that label if it's the majority.

Polite is on a case by case basis, should a person have a label they prefer, it's polite to use that for them.

good point.

one could be a real asshole by insisting on calling someone african american if they ask to be called black.

I actually view the word african american more offensive and isolating then just calling someone black.

Just trying to make the point - if you're from China, and you're in America, the government calls you "Asian-American".

Same for anywhere in the Pacific, except Australia (for some reason). Same for India, Pakistan, Mongolia, etc.

It's kind of a government catch-all - and I believe it's ridiculous.

You can simply randomly selected races (or more than one if allowed) on government forms to put "noise" into their data. If enough people did this it would make their data on racial categories so unreliable as to be useless.

You can simply randomly selected races (or more than one if allowed) on government forms to put "noise" into their data. If enough people did this it would make their data on racial categories so unreliable as to be useless.

I thought his point was that it was already meaningless.

I actually view the word african american more offensive and isolating then just calling someone black.

are you african american?

to me your all yanks, so no worries

are you african american?

Yes please tell us what African nation you emigrated from. And that question goes out to all other "African-Americans" as well.

The post didn't mention Ashmoria, not that it matters. I don't find that the term of African-American for American-born blacks is offensive, I find it stupid.

to me your all yanks, so no worries

Well, some in the American South would find that offensive. Only Yanks are those from "up yonder in de North."

I thought his point was that it was already meaningless.

But that still doesn't stop government entities from gathering data using race as a unit of analysis and pumping noise into the data will undermine these efforts.

Yes please tell us what African nation you emigrated from. And that question goes out to all other "African-Americans" as well.

The post didn't mention Ashmoria, not that it matters. I don't find that the term of African-American for American-born blacks is offensive, I find it stupid.

i didnt ask you nor do i give a damn about your opinion of the usage of the term african american.

I thought his point was that it was already meaningless.

i dont know why the government feels the need to keep racial and ethnic data but the hoops that have to be jumped through just to get everyone tacked down to some category or other is crazy.

as evidenced by the census form that someone posted a pic of.

Yes please tell us what African nation you emigrated from. And that question goes out to all other "African-Americans" as well.

The post didn't mention Ashmoria, not that it matters. I don't find that the term of African-American for American-born blacks is offensive, I find it stupid.


I guess that would explain why you don't apply it to yourself then, huh? I mean, I wouldn't refer to myself with a label I thought was stupid, so it only seems normal, aye?

are you african american?

no

But that still doesn't stop government entities from gathering data using race as a unit of analysis and pumping noise into the data will undermine these efforts.

But the efforts should already be undermined, according to him. You can't add meaningless nonsense if something's already devoid of meaning.

i didnt ask you nor do i give a damn about your opinion of the usage of the term african american.

You seemed to care enough to respond. And if you want to continue to use this stupid term, the first letter in both words should be capitalized.

Just so you know.

i dont know why the government feels the need to keep racial and ethnic data but the hoops that have to be jumped through just to get everyone tacked down to some category or other is crazy.

as evidenced by the census form that someone posted a pic of.

Hoops? Are you talking about the little bubble you fill in? That's never been very difficult for me, but eh.

I guess that would explain why you don't apply it to yourself then, huh? I mean, I wouldn't refer to myself with a label I thought was stupid, so it only seems normal, aye?

Only apply it to myself when I want to add noise to the data collection.

Well, some in the American South would find that offensive. Only Yanks are those from "up yonder in de North."

Whereas in the english speaking world outside of the US, yank is a colloquial term to refer to US citizens.
So as i see it there are 2 options.
1. Use a term that some might find offensive but many use to describe this group.
or
2. Allow said people to choose they're on designation and show due respect.

The broadest definition would be any person of African descent living in the United States, although it tends to be narrowed down to specifically black Americans of African descent (since the white Africans originally came from Europe).

Well, just to correct you, North Africans (mixed Arab/Berber, and then the Egyptians as well) are native to North Africa. Arabs are not, but in the North African countries, while most speak Arabic, most are also of Berber descent. In any case, those groups are Mediterranean in appearance.

Only apply it to myself when I want to add noise to the data collection.

Right right, noise.

You know, you don't really need a title for every post...Espcially when we're just going to read the same three words within the post. It might save you some time to skip it.

Hoops? Are you talking about the little bubble you fill in? That's never been very difficult for me, but eh.

lol *smack* do you feel smart NOW?

anyway

no, i mean the convoluted way the last census form was worded. as i recall, the first question was "are you hispanic?" then it moved on to racial and ethnic categories. after all there are black hispanics, native american hispanics and white hispanics. but the flow of questions made is seem as if being hispanic or not was the most important consideration of your ethnic status. and other complicated ethnic and racial mixes werent given the same consideration so if you were pacific islander and african american you didnt really have a spot.

the need to keep track of hispanics instead of .....germanics... is kinda weird.

You seemed to care enough to respond. And if you want to continue to use this stupid term, the first letter in both words should be capitalized.

Just so you know.

lots of things should be capitalized. i seldom bother.

But the efforts should already be undermined, according to him. You can't add meaningless nonsense if something's already devoid of meaning.

From an anthropological point of view, the concept of race is silly. However, the government uses the concept for various puposes and thus why I like the idea of generating noise in their data and the more noise the better.

As for as the Census is concerned, they only need to know one thing--how many people live in my house in order to properly redistrict the House (Article I, Section 2).

However, the government uses the concept for various puposes and thus why I like the idea of generating noise in their data and the more noise the better.

Yes, yes, you're a wonderfully spiteful person. Anyhow, this seems to disagree with the post you quoted earlier...Unless that poster would like to make some clarifications?

Yes, yes, you're a wonderfully spiteful person. Anyhow, this seems to disagree with the post you quoted earlier...Unless that poster would like to make some clarifications?

Please show me the post I quoted before and my own post in this regard and see how this disagrees with my more recent post.

And if it bothers you for me to put a subject heading I suppose I can dispense with that for every post. Happy now?

Yes please tell us what African nation you emigrated from. And that question goes out to all other "African-Americans" as well.

The post didn't mention Ashmoria, not that it matters. I don't find that the term of African-American for American-born blacks is offensive, I find it stupid.

Let me guess:

You are the kind of asshat that insists on calling someone "Robert," even though they prefer to be called "Bob."

From an anthropological point of view, the concept of race is silly. However, the government uses the concept for various puposes and thus why I like the idea of generating noise in their data and the more noise the better.

As for as the Census is concerned, they only need to know one thing--how many people live in my house in order to properly redistrict the House (Article I, Section 2).

As I've already said early in this thread, race is a socio-political concept. It has little if any validity as a matter of anthropology or biology.

That doesn't mean, however, that race and racism don't exist.

Simply trying the Colbert approach of "I don't see race" doesn't really fix the problem.

BTW, it is a crime to willfully provide false answers to the census. But then you're a rebel, so you don't care.

"African American" means black person.

It doesn't mean people descended from Africa in the same way as "Japanese American" or "German American" because to be considered an African American you don't actually have to be descended from any Africans, just like being descended from Egyptian or Lybian ancestors doesn't make you African American.

The actual result of this phrase is a further widening in the cultural gap between "African Americans" and well... everybody else. Think about it: What designates a person as an African American? Skin color. Nothing else. Nothing. It's no different from saying "black" or "colored" or "negro."

I'd personally like to see the end of divisive language like this. Political Correctness needs to get out of its own way and let us, as an American culture, move on.

Personally, I have a great respect for actor Morgan Freeman:


Freeman has come out publicly against the celebration of Black History Month and does not participate in any related events, saying that "I don't want a black history month. Black history is American history." He says the only way to end racism is to stop talking about it, and he notes that there is no "white history month." Freeman once said on an interview with 60 Minutes' Mike Wallace: "I am going to stop calling you a white man and I'm going to ask you to stop calling me a black man".

As I've already said early in this thread, race is a socio-political concept. It has little if any validity as a matter of anthropology or biology.

That doesn't mean, however, that race and racism don't exist.

Simply trying the Colbert approach of "I don't see race" doesn't really fix the problem.

BTW, it is a crime to provide false answers to the census. But then you're a rebel, so you don't care.
how does it not have biological value? there are plenty of examples of genetic traits prevalent among some 'races', e.g., low alcohol tolerance among asians. it has lots of value in anthropology since it ties the origins of cultures together. i do not understand your statement.

African American: A generally incorrect label that is somehow politically correct.
or
African American: An individual of African descent who holds citizenship within the Americas.

So what term is used in America to describe a 'dark-skinned person of African descent' who wasn't born in America?

Umm, African?

[...] (since the white Africans originally came from Europe).

These are European African Americans.:rolleyes:

Personally, I am European American. Or more specifically...

A German-French-Irish-Scottish-Mohawk-Canadian:D

As I've already said early in this thread, race is a socio-political concept. It has little if any validity as a matter of anthropology or biology.


Most biologists agree that human race is a valid concept. I don't know about anthropologists, but that's the case with biologists.

Most biologists agree that human race is a valid concept. I don't know about anthropologists, but that's the case with biologists.

Really? Care to offer proof?

Here is just the tip of the iceberg of scientific articles I have regarding the nonexistence of so-called "race" except as a socio-political construct.

Changing the paradigm from 'race' to human genome variation (http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1454.html)
Implications of biogeography of human populations for 'race' and medicine (http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1438.html)
Basically, we are all the same (http://www.pulitzer.org/year/1998/explanatory-reporting/works/2.html)
GENOMICS AND SOCIETY: The Human Genome and Our View of Ourselves (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/291/5507/1219?ijkey=z/aJLHX5GkJnA&key)
Race, Ethnicity, and Genomics: Social Classifications as Proxies of Biological Heterogeneity (http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/full/12/6/844)

Also, here is the American Anthropological Association Statement on "Race" (http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm)

In the United States both scholars and the general public have been conditioned to viewing human races as natural and separate divisions within the human species based on visible physical differences. With the vast expansion of scientific knowledge in this century, however, it has become clear that human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups. Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that most physical variation, about 94%, lies within so-called racial groups. Conventional geographic "racial" groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of their genes. This means that there is greater variation within "racial" groups than between them. In neighboring populations there is much overlapping of genes and their phenotypic (physical) expressions. Throughout history whenever different groups have come into contact, they have interbred. The continued sharing of genetic materials has maintained all of humankind as a single species.

Physical variations in any given trait tend to occur gradually rather than abruptly over geographic areas. And because physical traits are inherited independently of one another, knowing the range of one trait does not predict the presence of others. For example, skin color varies largely from light in the temperate areas in the north to dark in the tropical areas in the south; its intensity is not related to nose shape or hair texture. Dark skin may be associated with frizzy or kinky hair or curly or wavy or straight hair, all of which are found among different indigenous peoples in tropical regions. These facts render any attempt to establish lines of division among biological populations both arbitrary and subjective.

.....

Personally, people can all put whatever they want on the census forms, it wouldn't really matter. The census uses some amazingly out-dated terms, and what one considers themselves might not be what the government would consider that person. But in the end, it doesn't really matter. African American is a pretty vague term anyways. I could really see what Morgan Freeman was talking about. Things like Black History Month(Which should be African American History month, anywho), and other ethnic-based months, don't make any sense from a country where everyone is supposed to be equal. Why not have a Hispanic Month, or an Asian Month? Then you'll need to have a White month, and the Native Americans and Native Alaskans would likewise need one.

Besides, shouldn't black history month be "unequality month"? Since thats really all its about. It have nothing to do with Africa itself, or Africans who weren't slaves.

...asshat that insists on calling someone "Robert," even though they prefer to be called "Bob."

serious question time... which is better? someone who does that, or a person who assumes that everyone named "Robert" should be called "Bob"?

Most biologists agree that human race is a valid concept. I don't know about anthropologists, but that's the case with biologists.

According to the study below only 16 % of biologists felt that race was a valid concept and only 40% of phyiscal anthropologists did. See Lieberman, Hampton, Littlefield, and Hallead 1992 "Race in Biology and Anthropology: A Study of College Texts and Professors" in Journal of Research in Science Teaching 29:301-321

Really? Care to offer proof?

Here is just the tip of the iceberg of scientific articles I have regarding the nonexistence of so-called "race" except as a socio-political construct.

Changing the paradigm from 'race' to human genome variation (http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1454.html)
Implications of biogeography of human populations for 'race' and medicine (http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1438.html)
Basically, we are all the same (http://www.pulitzer.org/year/1998/explanatory-reporting/works/2.html)
GENOMICS AND SOCIETY: The Human Genome and Our View of Ourselves (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/291/5507/1219?ijkey=z/aJLHX5GkJnA&key)
Race, Ethnicity, and Genomics: Social Classifications as Proxies of Biological Heterogeneity (http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/full/12/6/844)


Your latest links are from 2004. A lot of new interesting information has surfaced since then. Even in the controversial area of differential brain evolution there are patterns correllated with race. The full significance of these findings are not yet known, but in the years to come they may potentially revise the Am Anth Society's position.

Don't have the links to these but if you have access to an academic library they should have these journals handy:

Mekel-Bobrov N, Gilbert SL, Evans PD, Vallender EJ, Anderson JR, Hudson RR, Tishkoff SA & Lahn BT. Ongoing adaptive evolution of ASPM, a brain size determinant in Homo sapiens. Science, 309:1720 (2005).

Evans PD, Gilbert SL, Mekel-Bobrov N, Vallender EJ, Anderson JR, Tishkoff SA, Hudson RR & Lahn BT. Microcephalin, a gene regulating brain size, continues to evolve adaptively in humans. Science, 309:1717 (2005).

Gilbert SL, Dobyns WB & Lahn BT. Genetic links between brain development and brain evolution. Nature Reviews Genetics, 6:581 (2005).

Summary of those papers:
http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/050922/brainevolution.shtml

"A Map of Recent Positive Selection in the Human Genome" - differential brain evolution among three "races":
http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0040072

Why not have a Hispanic Month, or an Asian Month? Then you'll need to have a White month, and the Native Americans and Native Alaskans would likewise need one.

Besides, shouldn't black history month be "unequality month"? Since thats really all its about. It have nothing to do with Africa itself, or Africans who weren't slaves.

There is an Asian Pacific American Heritage Month in May and a Hispanic Heritage Month from Sept 15 to October 15 each year. But unlike Black History Month, you don't see these covered really. I have never seen on local or even national broadcasts ads dealing with APAH, but this is not the case with BHM.

According to the study below only 16 % of biologists felt that race was a valid concept and only 40% of phyiscal anthropologists did. See Lieberman, Hampton, Littlefield, and Hallead 1992 "Race in Biology and Anthropology: A Study of College Texts and Professors" in Journal of Research in Science Teaching 29:301-321

Actually, Liberman et al. asked 1,200 scientists how many disagree with the following proposition: "There are biological races in the species Homo sapiens." The responses were:

biologists 16%
developmental psychologists 36%
physical anthropologists 41%
cultural anthropologists 53%

So in fact 84% of biologists felt that race was a valid concept, at least according to this survey (which is a little dated).

Actually, Liberman et al. asked 1,200 scientists how many disagree with the following proposition: "There are biological races in the species Homo sapiens." The responses were:

biologists 16%
developmental psychologists 36%
physical anthropologists 41%
cultural anthropologists 53%

So in fact 84% of biologists felt that race was a valid concept, at least according to this survey (which is a little dated).

You're right I misread that. So, as my original assertion most cultural anthropologists disagreed with the concept of race. I will say that the phyiscal anthropologist that I studied under in undergrad believed that race was not a valid construct but rather a sociological construct.

There is an Asian Pacific American Heritage Month in May and a Hispanic Heritage Month from Sept 15 to October 15 each year. But unlike Black History Month, you don't see these covered really. I have never seen on local or even national broadcasts ads dealing with APAH, but this is not the case with BHM.

If you think about it though, if you have a month for one minority, you should have them for all of them. Then again, that has all the white people being grouped together. I mean, its not as if Asian and Africans Americans were the only ones to ever be discriminated against. And if thats the only criteria to have a month, it seems a bit odd. Shouldn't having a month dedicated only to a visible racial ethnicity be somewhat racist in itself unless theres one for every single one?

If you think about it though, if you have a month for one minority, you should have them for all of them. Then again, that has all the white people being grouped together. I mean, its not as if Asian and Africans Americans were the only ones to ever be discriminated against. And if thats the only criteria to have a month, it seems a bit odd. Shouldn't having a month dedicated only to a visible racial ethnicity be somewhat racist in itself unless theres one for every single one?

Well what would be considered a minority that should be honored with a month (or week, day, etc).?There are 55 "ethnic groups" in China should each that have come to the US get one or just all lumped together as "Asian Pacific Islander?"

Solution: Human History Month

Your latest links are from 2004. A lot of new interesting information has surfaced since then. Even in the controversial area of differential brain evolution there are patterns correllated with race. The full significance of these findings are not yet known, but in the years to come they may potentially revise the Am Anth Society's position.

So now you've gone from claiming the majority opinion is that race is meaningful to claiming that cutting edge science will make race meaningful in the future. Note the difference.

Nobody is denying there are genetic differences and groupings within humans. What is being denied is that human genome variation correlates with races.

Don't have the links to these but if you have access to an academic library they should have these journals handy:

Mekel-Bobrov N, Gilbert SL, Evans PD, Vallender EJ, Anderson JR, Hudson RR, Tishkoff SA & Lahn BT. Ongoing adaptive evolution of ASPM, a brain size determinant in Homo sapiens. Science, 309:1720 (2005).

Evans PD, Gilbert SL, Mekel-Bobrov N, Vallender EJ, Anderson JR, Tishkoff SA, Hudson RR & Lahn BT. Microcephalin, a gene regulating brain size, continues to evolve adaptively in humans. Science, 309:1717 (2005).

Gilbert SL, Dobyns WB & Lahn BT. Genetic links between brain development and brain evolution. Nature Reviews Genetics, 6:581 (2005).

Summary of those papers:
http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/050922/brainevolution.shtml

Um. Without links, I can't check the papers you cite directly, but the summary of those papers you provided does not show that race is a meaningful concept in biology. To the contrary, the article warns:

Lahn and his colleagues stress these studies only examine two genes, and that the genetic variations within a population often are almost as great as the differences between groups.

"A Map of Recent Positive Selection in the Human Genome" - differential brain evolution among three "races":
http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0040072

Again, the article does not support the spin you put on it.

If you think about it though, if you have a month for one minority, you should have them for all of them. Then again, that has all the white people being grouped together. I mean, its not as if Asian and Africans Americans were the only ones to ever be discriminated against. And if thats the only criteria to have a month, it seems a bit odd. Shouldn't having a month dedicated only to a visible racial ethnicity be somewhat racist in itself unless theres one for every single one?

*sigh*

African-Americans (or blacks) occupy a unique place in our nation's history.

This nation was built on the backs of African-American slaves -- about 240 years of slavery. Then we had about 100 years of legally enforced segregation. We've only had about 40 years of anything else.

*sigh*

African-Americans (or blacks) occupy a unique place in our nation's history.

This nation was built on the backs of African-American slaves -- about 240 years of slavery. Then we had about 100 years of legally enforced segregation. We've only had about 40 years of anything else.

the entire Nation? and everyone else just sat back and made them do all the work?

the entire Nation? and everyone else just sat back and made them do all the work?

Did I say that African-Americans were the only ones that contributed to our nation?

I merely pointed out the unique place of African-Americans in our history. Do you deny it?

serious question time... which is better? someone who does that, or a person who assumes that everyone named "Robert" should be called "Bob"?

Your question isn't serious because it has no real-world analogy.

The only ones saying that someone that prefers to be called "X" should be called "Y" are those who are claiming we shouldn't use the term African-American.

the entire Nation? and everyone else just sat back and made them do all the work?

even in the north slave labor was a key ingredient in getting the to-be nation going.

even in the north slave labor was a key ingredient in getting the to-be nation going.Washington state? Michigan? I don't believe all the states were founded on the backs of one minority.

i do believe that the Chinese also had it tough, so did the Irish, Spanish, American Indians, etc...

including the discrimination... that is still going on today...

add to that the down trodding of women today... so again, why just focus on ONE minority. either focus on all or none at all.

Washington state? Michigan? I don't believe all the states were founded on the backs of one minority.

i do believe that the Chinese also had it tough, so did the Irish, Spanish, American Indians, etc...

including the discrimination... that is still going on today...

add to that the down trodding of women today... so again, why just focus on ONE minority. either focus on all or none at all.

Ah, we're back to the close our eyes and act like racism doesn't exist school of conservative thought.

Your question isn't serious because it has no real-world analogy.

The only ones saying that someone that prefers to be called "X" should be called "Y" are those who are claiming we shouldn't use the term African-American.I've seen people introduce themselves as Robert and immedately others call that person Bob. when corrected, their reply, Robert = Bob and honestly can't understand the difference. wether or not Robert likes to be called bob or not. so a dark skinned person is automatically an African-american? I know people who would preferre not to be called African American, person of color, colored, or what have you.


Did I say that African-Americans were the only ones that contributed to our nation?

I merely pointed out the unique place of African-Americans in our history. Do you deny it?you inferred it.

If you think about it though, if you have a month for one minority, you should have them for all of them. Then again, that has all the white people being grouped together. I mean, its not as if Asian and Africans Americans were the only ones to ever be discriminated against. And if thats the only criteria to have a month, it seems a bit odd. Shouldn't having a month dedicated only to a visible racial ethnicity be somewhat racist in itself unless theres one for every single one?*sigh*

African-Americans (or blacks) occupy a unique place in our nation's history.

This nation was built on the backs of African-American slaves -- about 240 years of slavery. Then we had about 100 years of legally enforced segregation. We've only had about 40 years of anything else.

yep... your reply about spotlighing all ethnicity is to say that African-Americans are unique and that the nation was built only on their backs. I for one, would like to hear how the Mexican/Spanish, Irish, Chinese, Japanese, Noreigen, French, German, etc... also contributed in building this Nation. I wouldn't a month celebrating the differences in the people that make up this Nation. Not just focusing on one minority, but embracing all minorities.

Washington state? Michigan? I don't believe all the states were founded on the backs of one minority.

i do believe that the Chinese also had it tough, so did the Irish, Spanish, American Indians, etc...

including the discrimination... that is still going on today...

add to that the down trodding of women today... so again, why just focus on ONE minority. either focus on all or none at all.

dont make me roll my eyes at you.

you know full well that slavery in the north was phased out well before washingtion and michigan were settled by white people.

youre in the wrong thread. this thread is ABOUT african americans. thats why focus on them here.

you cant FOCUS on all minorities eh? focus requires... well, focus.

Ah, we're back to the close our eyes and act like racism doesn't exist school of conservative thought.

So much for Martin Luther King's dream.

his dream was that all men, despite physical differences, could stand together and call each other brother. inorder for that to happen, those differences have to be made insignificant. how can those differences be made insignificant if they are spotlighted every year for a month to the exclusion of all other things that make us different?

so yes, cat-tribe, So much or MLK's Dream as long as you and your like minded people keep reminding everyone that they are different.

So much for Martin Luther King's dream.
Watch The Boondocks' episode Return of the King.

dont make me roll my eyes at you.

you know full well that slavery in the north was phased out well before washingtion and michigan were settled by white people.

youre in the wrong thread. this thread is ABOUT african americans. thats why focus on them here.

you cant FOCUS on all minorities eh? focus requires... well, focus.

then why focus on ONE minority?

Punish discrimination and those who practice it.

but don't spotlight one minority to the exclusion of all others. I for one would like to see other Ethicities spotlighted to show what they have contributed to this Nation.

Wouldn't you like to learn what and how the Irish helped build this nation? what about the Chinese, other ethnic groups?

I've seen people introduce themselves as Robert and immedately others call that person Bob. when corrected, their reply, Robert = Bob and honestly can't understand the difference. wether or not Robert likes to be called bob or not. so a dark skinned person is automatically an African-american? I know people who would preferre not to be called African American, person of color, colored, or what have you.


i dont care about people who immediately rush to nicknames. they are fools.

but, if a person is black and a white stranger has some good reason for referring to their race/ethnicity, and that person uses the term african american it indicates a certain level of respect no matter what our black friend prefers. if he gets insulted by being called african american he is an ass.

if, however, he indicates that he prefers a different term, say "black", and the white stranger continues using the term african american, HE is an ass.

black americans are automatically referred to as african american because that its the current most accepted term and as such it is polite to use it. we have no way of reading each other's minds to find out linguistic preferences before we speak.

i dont care about people who immediately rush to nicknames. they are fools.

but, if a person is black and a white stranger has some good reason for referring to their race/ethnicity, and that person uses the term african american it indicates a certain level of respect no matter what our black friend prefers. if he gets insulted by being called african american he is an ass.

if, however, he indicates that he prefers a different term, say "black", and the white stranger continues using the term african american, HE is an ass.

black americans are automatically referred to as african american because that its the current most accepted term and as such it is polite to use it. we have no way of reading each other's minds to find out linguistic preferences before we speak.
what's a good reason to refer to anyone's ethnic background?

I've seen people introduce themselves as Robert and immedately others call that person Bob. when corrected, their reply, Robert = Bob and honestly can't understand the difference. wether or not Robert likes to be called bob or not. so a dark skinned person is automatically an African-american? I know people who would preferre not to be called African American, person of color, colored, or what have you.

You are just being silly. If you know how a person prefers to be referred to, then you should usually refer to him/her by that name, right?

So people that prefer to be called African-American should be called African-American.

If someone objects to being called that, fine.


you inferred it.

The word you are looking for is implied. I didn't imply, however. You mistakenly inferred.

yep... your reply about spotlighing all ethnicity is to say that African-Americans are unique and that the nation was built only on their backs.

The history of African-Americans is unique and central to our nation's history. Do you deny it?

I did not say -- and do not say -- the nation was built on the backs of only African-Americans. You added the word "only," not me.

I for one, would like to hear how the Mexican/Spanish, Irish, Chinese, Japanese, Noreigen, French, German, etc... also contributed in building this Nation.

So would I. Where did I say otherwise?

I wouldn't a month celebrating the differences in the people that make up this Nation. Not just focusing on one minority, but embracing all minorities.

Again, the history of African-Americans is unique and central to our nation's history. There is nothing about a month highlighting that history that excludes the learning of the rest of this nation's history.

And to imply that somehow recognizing Black History Month causes racism is absurd.

what's a good reason to refer to anyone's ethnic background?

Describe the importance of Jackie Robinson without referring to his ethnic background.

Same for Medgar Evers, Martin Luther King, Jr., ect.

Explain slavery and segregation without referring to anyone's ethnic background.

I believe it was the great President Franklin Roosevelt that said "There is no such thing as African Americans, Latin Americans, Italian Americans, etc. Either you're American or you're not."

The history of African-Americans is unique and central to our nation's history. Do you deny it?
I deny they are African.

what's a good reason to refer to anyone's ethnic background?

i dont know. if i had a good example i might have used it. i dont think ive ever referred to someone's race when talking to them. why would i?

it only comes into play when there is some reason to talk about an issue important to a particular ethnic group or maybe when you are describing someone to another person who doesnt know them and it seems relevant for some reason.

The history of African-Americans is unique and central to our nation's history. Do you deny it?so is the history of Chinese in America, Spanish in America, Japanese in America, French in America, yet you would prefere only one minority getting spotlighted.

I did not say -- and do not say -- the nation was built on the backs of only African-Americans. You added the word "only," not me.Correct me if I'm wrong, but did you post this?
This nation was built on the backs of African-American slaves
that IMPLIES that only African American Slaves nothing about the Irish, French, and other ethnic groups that also contributed.

So would I. Where did I say otherwise?same quote.

Again, the history of African-Americans is unique and central to our nation's history. There is nothing about a month highlighting that history that excludes the learning of the rest of this nation's history.oh, so it's not called BLACK HISTORY month? I would preferre American History, or as someone else suggested HUMAN HISTORY month... oh and love the word central. you just again, dismissed all other minorities and what they struggled and contributed to this country.

And to imply that somehow recognizing Black History Month causes racism is absurd.same as your implication that promoting the insignificance of such differences promotes racisim.

what's a good reason to refer to anyone's ethnic background?

*shrug* What's a good reason to refer to anyone's hair color? Since when did I need one?

then why focus on ONE minority?

Punish discrimination and those who practice it.

but don't spotlight one minority to the exclusion of all others. I for one would like to see other Ethicities spotlighted to show what they have contributed to this Nation.

Wouldn't you like to learn what and how the Irish helped build this nation? what about the Chinese, other ethnic groups?

really because black americans have contributed so much to american history and culture.

except for perhaps the chinese, who do get short shrift when it comes to us history, i feel that i have learned alot about the contributions of minorities, especially european americans. other groups do have "history months". i guess they are more important in some places than others.

Describe the importance of Jackie Robinson without referring to his ethnic background.

Same for Medgar Evers, Martin Luther King, Jr., ect.

Explain slavery and segregation without referring to anyone's ethnic background.

And its because of people making a big deal about ethnic and racial backgrounds, that we had such problems. If the Europeans saw Africans as humans, instead of lesser beings, because of skin color, might there not have been no slave trade?

i dont know. if i had a good example i might have used it. i dont think ive ever referred to someone's race when talking to them. why would i?

it only comes into play when there is some reason to talk about an issue important to a particular ethnic group or maybe when you are describing someone to another person who doesnt know them and it seems relevant for some reason. exactly. there is no Good Example to refer to anyone by their ethnic background.

and what issue outside of history is it importnat to refere to a group by their ethnicity? when is it Relevant to refer to anyone by their ethnicity?

*shrug* What's a good reason to refer to anyone's hair color? Since when did I need one? exactly. there is no good reason to refer to anyone by their eithnic background.

really because black americans have contributed so much to american history and culture.

except for perhaps the chinese, who do get short shrift when it comes to us history, i feel that i have learned alot about the contributions of minorities, especially european americans. other groups do have "history months". i guess they are more important in some places than others.I don't deny the contributions made by any minority, but why focus on one?

Describe the importance of Jackie Robinson without referring to his ethnic background.He was inducted into the Baseball hall of fame in 1962, he struggled against racism and worked hard to remove the binds of discrimination that hampered society in the mid 40's.

He worked with such people as Martin Luther King and Malcom X. he used words and his skills as a baseball player to win the hearts of Americans.

Due to his actions, he was posthumously awarded a Congressional Gold Medal and the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Same for Medgar Evers, Martin Luther King, Jr., ect.short form, They fought to remove the discrimination that was so imbedded in the society of America. They spoke and fought for freedom for all reguardless of the differences that formed the basis of discrimination.

Explain slavery and segregation without referring to anyone's ethnic background.slavery and segregation are time periods of history, not refering to anyone in particular.

And its because of people making a big deal about ethnic and racial backgrounds, that we had such problems. If the Europeans saw Africans as humans, instead of lesser beings, because of skin color, might there not have been no slave trade?

i think it was slavery that caused euopeans to think of african as less than human rather than the other way around

i think it was slavery that caused euopeans to think of african as less than human rather than the other way around
You underestimate the "uncivilized barbarians live outside our borders" mentality held in Europe since the height of Greece.

You underestimate the "uncivilized barbarians live outside our borders" mentality held in Europe since the height of Greece.

Sadly enough its transformed into "uncivilized barbarians live outside our neighborhood/race/class/country/political ideology/ etc"

exactly. there is no Good Example to refer to anyone by their ethnic background.

and what issue outside of history is it importnat to refere to a group by their ethnicity? when is it Relevant to refer to anyone by their ethnicity?

exactly. there is no good reason to refer to anyone by their eithnic background.

A'ight. Now you've got me confused. Are you trying to make a point here, and if so, what is it?

A'ight. Now you've got me confused. Are you trying to make a point here, and if so, what is it?

that my theory [alas, one I cannot put to the test without a massive amount of volunteers and a looong period of time] is that Racism exsist as long as the differences are continuously pointed out. As long as there is a double standard as to who can say what baised off of physical differences, Discrimination will still exsist.

Black History month? why not a Human history Month, or American History month. the same points and purpose will be covered, but each enthic group can then dispell the sterotypes, the myths and even the fears that encircle their ethnic group.

embrace all the things that make us unique or none at all. but don't focus on one minority and expect things to 'get better' for all.

In other words, I don't refer to my friends as Asian-American, Philipino-American, African-American, or what not, I refer to them by their names. if someone wants to meet them, I will either call them over, or walk the person to them and introduce them by name, not by ethnic group.

exactly. there is no Good Example to refer to anyone by their ethnic background.

and what issue outside of history is it importnat to refere to a group by their ethnicity? when is it Relevant to refer to anyone by their ethnicity?


uh, its impossible to refer to an ethnic group without referrring to their ethnicity. as long as we make distinctions based on ethnicity and race, its relevant.

there was a time when european ethnicities mattered very much in this country. the difference between english and irish was the difference between being employed or not. mothers wouldnt let their irish daughter date an italian boy. that has mostly faded away. (not completely but mostly)

maybe someday all distinctions between americans will fade away, until they do, ethnicity is relevant.


I don't deny the contributions made by any minority, but why focus on one?


its standard to focus on one at time. the people and events are different with different groups.

that my theory [alas, one I cannot put to the test without a massive amount of volunteers and a looong period of time] is that Racism exsist as long as the differences are continuously pointed out. As long as there is a double standard as to who can say what baised off of physical differences, Discrimination will still exsist.

Black History month? why not a Human history Month, or American History month. the same points and purpose will be covered, but each enthic group can then dispell the sterotypes, the myths and even the fears that encircle their ethnic group.

embrace all the things that make us unique or none at all. but don't focus on one minority and expect things to 'get better' for all.

In other words, I don't refer to my friends as Asian-American, Philipino-American, African-American, or what not, I refer to them by their names. if someone wants to meet them, I will either call them over, or walk the person to them and introduce them by name, not by ethnic group.


it is my theory that only interbreeding will stop racism. just as it is no longer a problem for an irish girl to marry an italian boy, some day it will not be a big deal for a white girl to marry a black boy.

when everyone has relatives of all racial groups, there will no longer be a THOSE PEOPLE, it will all be US.

And its because of people making a big deal about ethnic and racial backgrounds, that we had such problems. If the Europeans saw Africans as humans, instead of lesser beings, because of skin color, might there not have been no slave trade?

I doubt it. We were happily forcing our own people into the navy. So it's quite possible we would have tricked/forced them into becoming workers on the farms for tiny wage, probably just about enough for them to afford food etc.

uh, its impossible to refer to an ethnic group without referrring to their ethnicity. as long as we make distinctions based on ethnicity and race, its relevant.

there was a time when european ethnicities mattered very much in this country. the difference between english and irish was the difference between being employed or not. mothers wouldnt let their irish daughter date an italian boy. that has mostly faded away. (not completely but mostly)

maybe someday all distinctions between americans will fade away, until they do, ethnicity is relevant. and how much focus is there on the differences between English and Irish in America now? would you say it is anywhere near the same as any African-American? what about Asian-Americans?

How can those differences dissappear when people keep shining the spotlight on those differences?

it's like picking at a scab and wondering why it's not healing.

its standard to focus on one at time. the people and events are different with different groups.the problem with focusing on one group? you ignore the others. On one hand, the intergration of those ignored groups is done easily and faster, but on the other hand, the focused group gets shit upon.

it is my theory that only interbreeding will stop racism. just as it is no longer a problem for an irish girl to marry an italian boy, some day it will not be a big deal for a white girl to marry a black boy.

when everyone has relatives of all racial groups, there will no longer be a THOSE PEOPLE, it will all be US.
LOL... sorry, but Interbreeding gave me a whole different picture...

I agree with you on this.

and to get to this point, people has to be blind to those differences... or at least not care about them.

how does it not have biological value?
Among other similarily flawed notions, "race" referred to God given breeds of humans some of which were derived from early biblical misbehaviour. It's really not much help biologically.

As knowledge developed the concept underwent reformation in various guises, but all have historically either included the errors of the original concept or have inserted new errors. These errrors are an integral aspect of the meaning of the concept. At its heart the concept relies on what we now know to be untrue for most if not all of humanity - specifically a lack of gene flow and an absence of continuous flux.

The purpose and intent of the concept 'race' is that humanity can be divided into discrete categories that describe both their own biological heritage/lineage and their degree of relatedness to all other humans (and initially all concepts of race also included the notion that variation in human behaviour at an individual and group level could be attributed to and correlated with race, and most latter uses of the concept continued this error). It's in fact a load of bunk that completely ignores the implications of gene flow and the fact of continuous flux both within and between population clines.

there are plenty of examples of genetic traits prevalent among some 'races', e.g., low alcohol tolerance among asians. it has lots of value in anthropology since it ties the origins of cultures together. i do not understand your statement.
It's of course of some interest to various fields of interest/study within anthropology, (much as relgion is of interest), but as an object to be studied, not as a tool for aiding in the study of humanity.

Race /= heritability/lineage/relatedness and it is the latter that is the heart of issues such as increased health risks within an ethnic group comparitive to some other group/s. Ethnicity has to an extent replaced 'race' in terms of a useful concept for describing and/or analysing issues such as shared and/or discontinuous heritable biological traits, as well as for analysing shared/discontinuous socio-cultural complexes. Race is not very useful in anthropology as a analytical/descriptive tool because anthropological methodology excludes the possibility of accepting as scientifically verifiable truth, the notion that biological differences between obviously diverse clines arose because Ham saw his dad naked.

And while I am on the subject there is nothing offensive about the term Oriental. It is geocentric and for Americans incorrect (since Asia is to the west, not the east), but there is nothing offensive about the term.

Asia is to both the west and the east, no?

In other words, I don't refer to my friends as Asian-American, Philipino-American, African-American, or what not, I refer to them by their names. if someone wants to meet them, I will either call them over, or walk the person to them and introduce them by name, not by ethnic group.

The first bit's all well and good, but what does this have to do with it? Refering to my friends as brown-haired, black, blonde, and such does nothing to propagate hairism. Do you mean to say that "Oh, my friend James, the Asian kid over there, with the red shirt" propagates rascism?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but did you post this?

This nation was built on the backs of African-American slaves

that IMPLIES that only African American Slaves nothing about the Irish, French, and other ethnic groups that also contributed.

Nope. You may very well INFER that, but nothing in that sentence IMPLIES it.

it's like picking at a scab and wondering why it's not healing.

Or ignoring a gash in your leg and wondering why you're feeling light-headed. Not everyone would agree that it's scabbed over yet, or that simply mentioning the wound constitutes picking at it.

Hmmm?

If you believe the "out of Africa" hypothesis wouldn't everybody in the US technically be "African American?"

LOL... sorry, but Interbreeding gave me a whole different picture...

I agree with you on this.

and to get to this point, people has to be blind to those differences... or at least not care about them.

yeah theres nothing like talking about people as if they were livestock.

you and i (and maybe most of the people we know) might have no problem treating people as individuals but there are still many people who cant. that is what makes racism an important social problem. some day, it wont matter.

BUT, to extend the topic a bit farther, while your (or my neighbors) ethnicity might not matter to ME, it almost certainly matters to YOU. ethnicity is a part of our individual identity and i see nothing wrong with that. i dont want to homogenize our culture so much that you cant tell the difference between pennsylvania dutch and miami cuban.

Hmmm?

If you believe the "out of Africa" hypothesis wouldn't everybody in the US technically be "African American?"

Totally been there done that. Let's not again.

So what would one call a white baby adopted by African Americans?

Hmmm?

If you believe the "out of Africa" hypothesis wouldn't everybody in the US technically be "African American?"

no

what happened 100,000 years ago is irrelevant to today's ethnicity.

So what would one call a white baby adopted by African Americans?

probably african american but i guess id leave it up to the adopted child to define herself.

probably african american but i guess id leave it up to the adopted child to define herself.

So the term 'descent' is being used in the loose sense here?

I guess this just leads on to the question of an African American child adopted by... oh... Irish American folks.

So what would one call a white baby adopted by African Americans?

What's with you and these hypotheticals? Popping in every so often to say "Well, what would you call THIS?"

So the term 'descent' is being used in the loose sense here?

Who's using the term descent? I didn't use the term. Did you use it, Bwo?

What's with you and these hypotheticals? Popping in every so often to say "Well, what would you call THIS?"

Why? Because I don't fully understand how the term is being used. Some are advocating that it can only really be applied to those who have a genetic descent from actual slaves, while others are using it to describe a cultural grouping irrespective of any actual historical slavery in any given bloodline, while others are using it as a synonym for 'black'.

And that's just on the side of the defenders of the term.

As to why the particular line of approach with slightly odd or problematic hypotheticals - because I'm just naturally drawn to these weird no mans land kind of cases.

Who's using the term descent? I didn't use the term. Did you use it, Bwo?

Kryozerkia and Vetalia used it on the first page. Entropic Creation used the phrase 'with some an (sic) ethnic background of...', which is as near as damn the same despite the surplus word in there, also on the first page.

Why? Because I don't fully understand how the term is being used. Some are advocating that it can only really be applied to those who have a genetic descent from actual slaves, while others are using it to describe a cultural grouping irrespective of any actual historical slavery in any given bloodline, while others are using it as a synonym for 'black'.

And that's just on the side of the defenders of the term.

As to why the particular line of approach with slightly odd or problematic hypotheticals - because I'm just naturally drawn to these weird no mans land kind of cases.

I'd've thought it made simple. :p
I say I am, therefore I am.

Now we could discuss the practicality of specific labels in a case-by-case sort of manner, taking into consideration what meaning these labels carry to other people, but as far as "What is an African Amercan?", the answer is "One that considers oneself African American"...Or some more grammatically correct way of saying that.

Now we could discuss the practicality of specific labels in a case-by-case sort of manner, taking into consideration what meaning these labels carry to other people, but as far as "What is an African Amercan?", the answer is "One that considers oneself African American"

Must we then also accept that the definition of Irish in the US is 'one that considers oneself Irish'?

So the term 'descent' is being used in the loose sense here?

I guess this just leads on to the question of an African American child adopted by... oh... Irish American folks.

of course. sometimes a person who self identifies as african american actually has less much than 50% african descent. its a personal thing.

plus its complicated by the question of adoption. some people are more convinced by nature, some by nurture.

plus its complicated by racism. so that a child raised by irish american parents might think of himself as irish american and yet still get put into the african american category by virtue of the % of african american blood he carries. if its obvious.

plus its complicated by the outlook of the groups you might belong to. for example, 3 or 4 years ago, that years "miss navajo" was half black. but since the pagent focuses on cultural purity instead of genetic purity, it was no problem since she was by far the best contestant in terms of navajo traditions.

Kryozerkia and Vetalia used it on the first page. Entropic Creation used the phrase 'with some an (sic) ethnic background of...', which is as near as damn the same despite the surplus word in there, also on the first page.

Well, why are you asking us how the word is being used? Ask them.

I'd've thought it made simple. :p
I say I am, therefore I am.

Now we could discuss the practicality of specific labels in a case-by-case sort of manner, taking into consideration what meaning these labels carry to other people, but as far as "What is an African Amercan?", the answer is "One that considers oneself African American"

this is the best answer. although i suppose it *I* were to declare myself african american, other african americans might rightly challenge my claim.

Sure, why not?

...because there already exists a non-identical group called the Irish who are defined by other methods.

TW!

Must we then also accept that the definition of Irish in the US is 'one that considers oneself Irish'?

Sure, why not?

Well, why are you asking us how the word is being used? Ask them.

I'm addressing these comments to whomever reads them, although I may be quoting you, for example, in a given post sometimes that is just to contextualise where I'm coming from.

Also as Americans you have much greater experience of the term than I do sitting on the other side of the pond.

its not like there is a committee in the US that decides who is and who isnt irish american. if someone claims it, he is normally taken at his word.

Yes, but we were talking about 'Irish' here, not 'Irish American'.

TW!

Must we then also accept that the definition of Irish in the US is 'one that considers oneself Irish'?

its not like there is a committee in the US that decides who is and who isnt irish american. if someone claims it, he is normally taken at his word.

...because there already exists a non-identical group called the Irish who are defined by other methods.


Uuuh...So what? It's some kind of forum registration? "This cultural identity has been taken, please try another". Yes, that's it, they can be _Irish02_.

Uuuh...So what? It's some kind of forum registration? "This cultural identity has been taken, please try another". Yes, that's it, they can be _Irish02_.

So you wouldn't distinguish between someone born in Ireland with an Irish passport and Irish citizenship and some dude from Queens with a Dropkick Murphy's fixation?

Yes, but we were talking about 'Irish' here, not 'Irish American'.

TW!

no american counts as irish unless he has somehow obtained dual citizenship

So you wouldn't distinguish between someone born in Ireland with an Irish passport and Irish citizenship and some dude from Queens with a Dropkick Murphy's fixation?

Sure, I'd find a way. Like, "that crazy Irish guy from Queens" and "That Leprechaun from Dublin". *shrug* They're both Irish, assuming they say they are. As I've said repeatedly, we can discuss these labels practicality, but we must be aware we moving on to another topic, as the question of the previous has been answered.

I think we should define the word 'African' first. Africa is a pretty huge continent and is also pretty diverse.

So you wouldn't distinguish between someone born in Ireland with an Irish passport and Irish citizenship and some dude from Queens with a Dropkick Murphy's fixation?

the irish in ireland get the say over who is ireland irish. i can no more claim to be irish than i can claim to be the queen of england. (meaning that i can claim it but no one will believe me)

anyone can claim to be irish american (if they are american), if they are obviously asian, they might have a harder time with it.

I think we should define the word 'African' first. Africa is a pretty huge continent and is also pretty diverse.

If you just want the definition of the word, that's easy. Be cautious, however, of how you use that definintion to enter into the discussion.

I think we should define the word 'African' first. Africa is a pretty huge continent and is also pretty diverse.

africa is pretty well defined.

however, there are many countries in africa that your ancestors might be from that wont qualify you as "african american"

Or ignoring a gash in your leg and wondering why you're feeling light-headed. Not everyone would agree that it's scabbed over yet, or that simply mentioning the wound constitutes picking at it.and what do you do with a gash? you bandage it up... otherwise known as "Covering it" why? to keep out infections and other nasties that would impair healing. the wounds that heal quickest are the ones that are not fussed over, nor picked at.

yeah theres nothing like talking about people as if they were livestock.

you and i (and maybe most of the people we know) might have no problem treating people as individuals but there are still many people who cant. that is what makes racism an important social problem. some day, it wont matter.which is why we need to teach people not to focus on the differences but to downplay those differences (i.e. skin color, Sexual leanings, Ethnic differences) even on a group scale. Yes, that means that there is a risk that some cultural traditions will be lost, but it can also means that there is a greater chance that those cultural differences can live on, being taught to not only one ethnic group but to all willing to learn.

I, myself consider my knowledge of cultrual traditions a blending of American, Hawaiian, Chinese, Japanese, and some Korean, Phillipino and Vietnamese and very little of American Indian (can't say what tribe tho.)

BUT, to extend the topic a bit farther, while your (or my neighbors) ethnicity might not matter to ME, it almost certainly matters to YOU. ethnicity is a part of our individual identity and i see nothing wrong with that. i dont want to homogenize our culture so much that you cant tell the difference between pennsylvania dutch and miami cuban.and while I agree that keeping one's culture alive is both desired and needed, it shouldn't be the boundaries that keep people seperated. Would you deny a member of the Asian ethnic group the value of teaching your Ethnic traditions because they are not part of your ethnic group? (this is assuming they are willing and have expressed an honest desire to learn.)

and what do you do with a gash? you bandage it up... otherwise known as "Covering it" why? to keep out infections and other nasties that would impair healing. the wounds that heal quickest are the ones that are not fussed over, nor picked at.

That's not what you recommend. You want the injury's existence and anything related to it completly wiped from the collective mind. You'd recommend we forget we have a leg.

And who knows, you may need stitches.

That's not what you recommend. You want the injury's existence and anything related to it completly wiped from the collective mind. You'd recommend we forget we have a leg.

And who knows, you may need stitches.
no, read my posts again, I never said to ignore it, I said don't spotlight/focus on it. beeg difference.

which is why we need to teach people not to focus on the differences but to downplay those differences (i.e. skin color, Sexual leanings, Ethnic differences) even on a group scale. Yes, that means that there is a risk that some cultural traditions will be lost, but it can also means that there is a greater chance that those cultural differences can live on, being taught to not only one ethnic group but to all willing to learn.

I, myself consider my knowledge of cultrual traditions a blending of American, Hawaiian, Chinese, Japanese, and some Korean, Phillipino and Vietnamese and very little of American Indian (can't say what tribe tho.)

and while I agree that keeping one's culture alive is both desired and needed, it shouldn't be the boundaries that keep people seperated. Would you deny a member of the Asian ethnic group the value of teaching your Ethnic traditions because they are not part of your ethnic group? (this is assuming they are willing and have expressed an honest desire to learn.)

i dont think its necessary to downplay anything. we need to learn to respect other people and to accept them as one of "us".

but its not people of goodwill who are the problem. its the people who DO hate others and who take their chance to do them wrong when they can. or at least assume the worst about them based on whatever group we put them into (which is not always racial/ethnic eh?)

and those people who think of ...lets use african americans as an example...african americans as THOSE PEOPLE and who take every bad thing done to them or someone they know by an african american as proof they they are bad. one bad experience with an african american can set a person like this onto a lifetime of prejudice. (as my ex-sister in law once said to me "you dont live around them" *shudder*)

no, read my posts again, I never said to ignore it, I said don't spotlight/focus on it. beeg difference.

Well apparently there's no good reason to mention a person's ethnicity. You even explicitly pointed out how you wouldn't say the ethnicity of a friend of yours. That's just a step beyond "don't spotlight". There's a difference between saying "No Black history month" and "No saying ethnicities".

Anybody who immigrated from or is descended from immigrants from Africa to America. I don't care what skin color they are. If you want "African-American" to be the term used, it has to be accurate.

I, for one, am going to begin insisting on being called a "Scottish-Irish-Godknowswhatelse-American"

I still think Charlize Theron should count.

Hell yeah she's African-American. :) Look where she grew up!

Well, some in the American South would find that offensive. Only Yanks are those from "up yonder in de North."

Which makes the point, "You call people what they want to be called."

Anybody who immigrated from or is descended from immigrants from Africa to America. I don't care what skin color they are. If you want "African-American" to be the term used, it has to be accurate.

I, for one, am going to begin insisting on being called a "Scottish-Irish-Godknowswhatelse-American"

if you know where in africa your ancestor came from, and you probably should if youre not descended from slaves, then you are <that country> american. you are zimbabwean-american not african american (although that can be complicated by the country/colony your ancestor came from no longer existing or changing its name.

charlize theron is southafrican-american (if she is american)

**edit**

oh i checked, shes not african american at all. she's south african.

serious question time... which is better? someone who does that, or a person who assumes that everyone named "Robert" should be called "Bob"?

I think anyone who calls you a name that you do not recognize as your own is wrong.

i dont think its necessary to downplay anything. we need to learn to respect other people and to accept them as one of "us".

but its not people of goodwill who are the problem. its the people who DO hate others and who take their chance to do them wrong when they can. or at least assume the worst about them based on whatever group we put them into (which is not always racial/ethnic eh?)

and those people who think of ...lets use african americans as an example...african americans as THOSE PEOPLE and who take every bad thing done to them or someone they know by an african american as proof they they are bad. one bad experience with an african american can set a person like this onto a lifetime of prejudice. (as my ex-sister in law once said to me "you dont live around them" *shudder*)actually you see that nowdays with Muslims/Middle Eastern persons/etc... sad when the actions of a few can taint anyone even remotely similar... yes, I am also including religious/political fanatics.

on a tangent. My sister and I were in college and a Haole (caucasian) was happy that my sister spoke to her. she had some image of all Asians being haughty and aloft. she confided in my sister that she now knew what it felt like to be a minority, as she looked around and realized that she was surrounded by various different Ethnic groups that, litterally had her feeling... outnumbered. she became good friends with my sister and her outlook really changed after a couple of months.

Well apparently there's no good reason to mention a person's ethnicity. You even explicitly pointed out how you wouldn't say the ethnicity of a friend of yours. That's just a step beyond "don't spotlight". There's a difference between saying "No Black history month" and "No saying ethnicities".I never said the ethnicity of my friends because it doesn't matter to me. that's why I gave my definition of African-American as yet another label that is made "acceptible" because it's "Politically Correct"

I support either NO [ethnicity/group] month, or one that supports all ethnicities/groups. not one that focuses only on one minority group.

I think anyone who calls you a name that you do not recognize as your own is wrong.

"well, that's gonna cause a bit of confusion... mind if we call you 'Bruce' to keep things clear?" :D

...definition of African-American as yet another label that is made "acceptible" because it's "Politically Correct"

And what does that say?

And what does that say?

That's it's just another label in a whole line of labels.

"well, that's gonna cause a bit of confusion... mind if we call you 'Bruce' to keep things clear?" :D

:p

I totally love you (as a friend) :D

...And? I could've told you it's a label, what's the point?

it answers the poster's question. What Is An African American?

That's it's just another label in a whole line of labels.

...And? I could've told you it's a label, what's the point?

"well, that's gonna cause a bit of confusion... mind if we call you 'Bruce' to keep things clear?" :D

Monty Python reference FTW.

his dream was that all men, despite physical differences, could stand together and call each other brother. inorder for that to happen, those differences have to be made insignificant. how can those differences be made insignificant if they are spotlighted every year for a month to the exclusion of all other things that make us different?

so yes, cat-tribe, So much or MLK's Dream as long as you and your like minded people keep reminding everyone that they are different.

*sigh* I deleted that line so that you wouldn't have this reaction.

Your view of Martin Luther King, Jr. is inaccurate. He believed in affirmative actions to intergrate our society. He did not believe in blindness as a solution to reach color-blindness.

For example, The Forgotten Teachings of Martin Luther King (http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/mlk3.html)

As Dinaverg has pointed out, your solution to the bleeding wounds of racism is to act like they aren't there and hope they go away.

I support either NO [ethnicity/group] month, or one that supports all ethnicities/groups. not one that focuses only on one minority group.

Conveniently it would be impossible to teach about all ethnicities/groups at the same time so your answer is not to teach about ethnicities/groups at all.

*poof* they just vanish with JuNii's magic eraser