Talk:African Americans/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Purpose of this page

Why is this talk page on this site? There is no white american talk page, no white talk page, no european american talk page. Makes me sick. sundance 09:21, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

White African American

I believe that the term African American is a tremendous dismeanor. Are Charlize Theron and Teresa Heinz Kerry both African Americans blacks? (one was born in South Africa and the other in Mozambique) I am proud of being BLACK AMERICAN, and I don't feel any links with Africa. (anonymously added 29 March 2005)

Please see the extensive discussion of just this matter on this page. I assume by "dismeanor" you mean "misnomer".

The short of the matter is, Wikipedia does not create common English-language usage, we simply describe it. Yes, as with many words (anti-semitism would be another example), the meaning is not exactly what might be suggested by the etymology. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:17, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Back to irrelevant nonsense

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So let's recapitulate:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"...or Caribbean heritage"?

Ed Poor changed:

African American (or African-American) is a term used to describe black Americans of African heritage. More broadly and less formally, it is sometimes used for any black person living in America.

to

African American (or African-American) is a term used to describe black Americans of African or Caribbean heritage.

Perhaps I'm misremembering my history, but isn't the black population of the Caribbean largely of the same origins as that of the US: descendants of Africans brought in and forced into slave labor during the colonial era? Ergo, Caribbean blacks are of African heritage? --Brion VIBBER

Exactly my point, Brion. But I couldn't figure out who to work that idea into the article. Would you please do that for me? --Ed Poor

Well, I'd have done it by not bothering to mention "Caribbean" in the first place. ;) --Brion VIBBER

Terminolgy, again

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

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

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

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

West Indies, again

Question: Would the term African American be used for Black American citizens coming from the West Indies? If a Black British person took US citizenship would they become an "African American"? I am interesed in how direct the link with America has to be. --Anonymous

In the early nineties I read an article in a linguistic journal. I think the title was "Self Reference Terms for Decendants of American Slaves". Published in the early 1990s or late 1980s. I'll see if I can find it. (Personally I don't like the term African American. I believe whites like to use it so they can put Black Americans in with the emigrant groups and forget about the middle passage and slavery.) Gbleem 20:42 Jan 19, 2003 (UTC)

I believe African American, like other positive terms before it, has become popular at the behest of African Americans, not whites. As for your other question, many leading members of the community have come from a West Indian background, including Marcus Garvey, Sidney Poitier, and Colin Powell, which pretty much covers the possible range, yet they are all known as American Negroes or African Americans. On the other hand, if Lenny Henry moved to this country, fascinating thought, I'm pretty sure we'd think he was English. Since race is a social classification, there isn't going to be a heck of a lot of logic about it.Ortolan88

I'm sorry. I'm Gbleem and I was trying to answer the West Indies question written by someone else. I took the liberty of adding an Anonymous signature to that question. The article I mentioned talks about the path of the term African-American. Sure Black people started it but it was introduced to most Whites by Jessie Jackson. The intention by Blacks may be to have a term that has the same status as Italian-American or Asian-American but the result is a loss of significant history in the minds of other ethnic groups.

The online database I found doesn't go back before 1995. I'll try to get by the UMKC Library next week and find that article. "Why Are All The Black Kids Sitting Together In the Cafeteria?" by Beverly Tatum might have some interesting insites. I read it a few years ago but I remember her saying she liked Black because she was in college when "Black is Beautiful" was a popular slogan. I most likely heard that slogan on T.V. when I was a kid. (I'm 34) Gbleem

I'm still reading this stuff, and it gets curiouser and curiouser. Dang, bwoi. You gotta go back nine years and dig up some article by a single individual who happens to be a writer for a black point of view?!! And you heard "black as beautiful" as a slogan on TV when you were a kid?!! lol If you're so isolated/segregated from black folks that this is all you have to draw on, perhaps you shouldn't be contributing to this particular article. Just a thought. deeceevoice

I didn't "dig up" the article. I first read it shortly after it was published and it seems to be a good source by someone much more qualified than myself. If you have a dispute with the content of the journal article purhaps you should contact its author or submit your own article. As for the term "Black is Beautiful" I would guess most blacks my age who live in the midwest first heard it on TV as well although I haven't taken a formal survey. Gbleem 14:34, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad you didn't bother. Not that I have a problem with it; I simply doubt its relevance. This article is already way off-point as it is. And, no. I needn't submit my own article -- thank you very much for the suggestion. I don't think there's a need to segregate black contribution -- just bomb the hell out of the garbage that's already been written and construct something useful and balanced. deeceevoice 15:15, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hi Gbleem, I took the further liberty of indenting our contributions to make it clear who's talking when. I really don't think anyone has ever forgotten that black people came here as slaves, regardless of the term used, from the most offensive to the most favored. And, if you've read memoirs by black Americans who have visited Africa, they almost always come back with a conviction that they are Americans, not Africans. Ortolan88

I hear that journalists are forced to use African American, and replace any use of black. One wonders how they will refer to Lennox Lewis. And anecdotally, I heard about a politician's office (Bay Area I think) which set up the word processor to automatically change the word. This led to the literal color black being replaced (...penguins are African-American and white)

"Forced" as in coercion? Ridiculous. Any publication of any merit has a style in matters such as this, so that there is consistency in format, spelling, word usage, etc. It's simply standard journalistic practice. YOu sign up with a publication, you follow the style manual.deeceevoice

"...the most punished race"

"The African American race is the most punished race in North America. African American males are more likely to be imprisoned than any other demographic group, especially between the ages of 20 and 39. African American public school students are most likely to be assigned to special-education classes."

I find this statement very POV, coming as it does, under the rubric of "Slavery and Oppression". One could just as well say "the African American race is the most criminal race" or "the African American race is the most criminally victimised race". All these facts are true, and their significance can only be determined by a deeper analysis. According to a Federal Report [Sentencing in the Federal Courts: Does Race Matter?] "Mearly all of the aggregate differences among sentences for whites, blacks, and Hispanics during 1989-90 can be attributed to characteristics of offenses and offenders that current law and sentencing guidelines establish as legitimate considerations in sentencing decisions." -- Daran 00:22, 5 Oct 2003 (UTC)

"...the most criminal race"?

WTF? And by whose twisted standards? (See my later comments about WHITE criminality.) When examined by true factors of what produces criminal behavior -- rather than by backwards notion of race (literacy/education level, socioeconomic background, rearing-family status, family history) -- one would see that rates of criminality are pretty much level across ethnicities. It is the disproportionate presence of factors that perpetuate social and economic disadvantage and militate towards criminal behavior, in addition to the racially skewed criminal justice system, that account for much of the imbalance.

And speaking of so-called "legitimate considerations in sentencing decisions" (that gave me a big laugh), let me offer for your consideration this, verbatim from the FAMM website:

• Cocaine is a powder which in its "cooked" form is called crack cocaine.

• The mandatory minimum sentencing laws established by Congress in 1986 reflect the belief that crack is more harmful than powder cocaine and penalize crack defendants more harshly than powder cocaine defendants. Defendants convicted of selling 500 grams of powder cocaine or five grams of crack cocaine receive five-year sentences. For five kilos of powder cocaine and 50 grams of crack, the penalty is 10 years. Thus there is a 100:1 ratio.

• Simple possession of any quantity of powder cocaine by first-time offenders is considered a misdemeanor, punishable by no more than one year in prison. Simple possession of crack cocaine is a felony, carrying a five-year mandatory sentence. [Add the three-strikes law, and you've got a recipe for what we have now -- scores of black and brown youth locked up for outrageous periods of time and then trapped in an endless cycle of recidivism for offenses for which other, more well-heeled (read "white") folks get taps on the wrist.]

• A 1995 report of the U.S. Sentencing Commission found little inherent difference between crack and powder cocaine and concluded that the 100:1 ratio was unfair. Congress rejected a subsequent amendment by the Sentencing Commission to eliminate the sentencing disparity between crack and powder. Other efforts to alter the ratio failed. Special Report to the Congress: Cocaine and Federal Sentencing Policy, February 1995.U. S. Sentencing Commission.

• Blacks accounted for 84 percent of the drug offenders convicted of crack offenses in fiscal year 2000, Hispanics 9 percent and whites 6 percent. Of the powder cocaine offenses, Hispanics accounted for 50 percent, blacks 30 percent and whites 18 percent. 2000 Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics, U.S. Sentencing Commission.

• No weapons were involved in 89 percent of the cocaine cases and 79 percent of the crack cases. 2000 Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics, U.S. Sentencing Commission.

• The mean average sentence length for powder cocaine is 77 months, compared to 119.5 months for crack cocaine. The median average is 60 months for powder cocaine and 97 months for crack cocaine. 2000 Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics, U.S. Sentencing Commission.

• Only offenders convicted of murder and kidnapping/hostage taking serve longer mean average sentences than crack offenders. Those convicted of robbery serve an average 108 months; arson, 68 months; sexual abuse, 65 months; and manslaughter, 25 months. 2000 Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics, U.S. Sentencing Commission.

• A 1996 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association finds similar physiological and psychoactive affects for crack and powder cocaine and challenges the basis of harsher crack sentences. Crack Cocaine and Cocaine Hydrochloride: Are the Differences Myth or Reality?," by Dorothy K. Hatsukami, Ph.D., and Marian W. Fischman, Ph.D. Journal of American Medical Association, November 20, 1996.

• An analysis of 36 studies on "crack babies" published in the Journal of the American Medical Association shows that poverty and the use of cigarettes, alcohol and other drugs during pregnancy are just as likely as cocaine to cause developmental problems in children. "Growth, Development and Behavior in Early Childhood Following Prenatal Cocaine Exposure," by Deborah A. Frank, M.D.; Marilyn Augustyn, M.D.; Wanda Grant Knight Ph.D.; Tripler Pell, M.Sc.; and Barry Zuckerman, M.D. Journal of the American Medical Association, March 28, 2001.

This is not an invitation to carry this discussion further. I find it irrelevant and distasteful.

I am of the opinion, however, that ranking oppression and disadvantage is not a terribly productive exercise. After all, such things are highly personal and subjective to those so affected, and there is no objective metric, no Richter scale for human suffering. I find the sentence -- and, frankly, much of this discussion (and, as a result, portions of the article itself) -- abysmally ham-handed, arrogant, inept and wrong-headed. And I mean that in a nice way. :-p deeceevoice 19:09, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

U.S. vs. UK usage

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

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

"a European" or "an European"?

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

or even a European nation

to this:

or even an European nation

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

IQ

Someone removed the fact that Af-Ams have lower average IQ (~80) than white or asian (~100). This is not in itself a racist comment. It seems to be politically correct to say that all races have equal intelligence, but this is simply not true. Consider dogs, for instance. There are many "races" of dogs, but some races are smarter than others. There is debate that IQ does not measure intelligence. Given this valid contention, it should be stated in the article that "Although African Americans have a lower average IQ compared to whites and Asians, it should also be mentioned that IQ tests have been criticized as being invalid measures of intelligence". Acornlord 10:28, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Acornlord, you're an ass. The fact that such a discussion ever even made it into print in this context is blatantly racist. That crap should have been deleted.deeceevoice 09:47, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Never mind the discussion of whether the purported differences arise from cultural irrelevancy of the questions or the test format, the unconscious bias of the testers, or other factors. Hrm.... Note to self (or interested others): Has anyone tried a comparison using the sorts of non-verbal/pre-lingual tests used with children who have language or cognitive impairments? I'm guessing those would come out with much closer averages, but don't know... and also wonder what happens when you normalize across economic, environmental (think "lead-based paint"), and other factors... I'd do a Google search here and now, but it's waaaaaaay past my bedtime. "Race in America" is a topic I've been slowly developing an interest in. pgdudda 06:15, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Black" vs "black"

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

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

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

Kaszeta 18:55, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Afro American

Doesn't the term Afro American (Afro-American) refer to people of direct or indirect African decent? (e.g. an American whose parents are Cuban and Jamican would be an Afro American as would someone straight from Africa) Dustin Asby 15:30, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

AN OBJECTIVE, COMMONSENSE EXPLANATION OF THE TERM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also deleted:

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

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

---

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

Anybody got any C4?

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

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

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

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

The Fuse is Lit

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

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

==Term criticism and alternative names==

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

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

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

deeceevoice 18:41, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

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

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

--- Also deleted:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rewrite?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another Suggestion

I've browsed the discussion and can actually see both points of view. Please forgive me for not defending or denigrating either. My suggestion is that those involved in the discussion look at other encyclopedic entries under the term African American.

I've browsed similar entries on Wikipedia itself and inserted comments in the discussion about how those ethnic groups have been treated. There clearly are glaring disparities, both in the article and in the discussion, in their treatment.deeceevoice 16:50, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I thought I signed the above comment, but apparently not. I've read the article once, but I'll read it again. I don't see any disparities as particularly glaring. It reads as awkward, and considering this discussion page its not surprising.

I'd like to offer a little insite. I call myself a Black Man and perfer to refer to "African Americans" as Blacks. My preference is based on the fact that White Americans are refered to as White and rarely ever British/German/Dutch/Spanish/French/Italian Americans unless they are recent imigrants. In an ideal world I'd like to be called an American on site and not have that qualified in any way, which is a liberty White Americans currently enjoy, but that will not happen today and probably not tomorrow. I never correct people who use the term African American, and other than making it a point to refer to myself and other Blacks as Blacks, I never address the issue.

I don't identify with the term African American, but I don't find it derogatory so I consider this article to be a discussion of a term that has been used as a device in the "Race Issue" in America, which is itself a device in the "Labor Issue" in America, which is a key device in the "Class Issue" in America.

From a writers point of view the article could use some smoothing over. It doesn't seem to flow. I'll read it again and look for glaring disparities. Atticus 12:41, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)

Race Riots

Ortolan, I didn't mention Tulsa or Bowley, Oklahoma, because neither occurred during the Red Summer. Yep, I could've mentioned both, as well as Rosewood and a whole lo-oong list of others, but that's not the focus of this article. I don't see any point in reciting the litany of atrocities committed against black folks in this entry. In my extensive rewriting of this piece I've made a conscious effort not to dwell on the depravity of racist whites or on blacks as victims. Again, IMO, that's not the central point of this piece. However, if you'd like to mention Tulsa or any of the other cities where white folks savaged blacks in mob violence, be my guest. Throw it up against the wall, and we'll see what sticks.  :-p deeceevoice 00:48, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I guess maybe it should go in race riot, an article currently not much good at all, an incomplete list with no serious information. For instance, it make no distinction between the mass lynching riots you're talking about here -- attacks by whites on black communities -- and the riots of the 60s -- which were quite different. I don't really know much about the subject, but as a reporter I covered the Chicago and Detroit riots in the 60s. Ortolan88 02:33, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, that's what I was thinking -- that such info would be more appropriate there, which is why I made passing reference to one notable summer. But I didn't bother to even check if there was an article on race riots. I almost hate reading anything on Wikipedia that deals with black folks. The abysmal ignorance, arrogance and sometimes outright racism are ridiculous. Virtually every article I've visited on this site dealing with black folks is just terribly written, with all kinds of idiotic, erroneous notions or just mind-numbing naivete. And I don't have the time or the patience -- or, frankly, the will -- to deal with it. Wikipedia needs to somehow attract more knowledgeable people of color; because, clearly, it is greatly lacking in this regard. deeceevoice 18:25, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Maybe I can do some preliminary work on the article, clear the ground a little, but you obviously know more about it than I do. I will put in what I know or can put together, perhaps move or copy a little of what's here over there. Ortolan88 22:53, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ortolan, without a talk link on your personal page, how do I contact you? Sent you an e-mail via the link provided, but it bounced back.deeceevoice 09:55, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Utterly Appalling

This is outrageous. I was checking that a link I used in another article went to a pertinent page; all I can say is that I will not be linking here in a hurry.

Although there is some good writing and interesting information here, the general feel is that the article is cluttered, difficult to follow and full of tangents and incorrect statements. As for the comments on this discussion page--I'm flabbergasted. I can't even follow who's saying what--or when. I certainly will not engage in debate with anyone who is not willing to 'sign' their statements.

I would suggest that, at the very least, this entry be drastically shortened and some of the concepts moved to their own articles. At least then people could fight away about specific subjects.

Quill 10:04, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Is BLACK a Race or Ethnic Group in America?

I don't know if its too late to be posting this but the topic looked interesting and being Black myself i couldn't resist.

Is it possible for race to be so entrenched in a society like America which has stressed the differences between Blacks and Whites so far that race in this country at least is equivalent to an ethnic group? Cultural Blacks are very different from Whites and history shows this. Whites see this country from one perspective and the experience of Blacks in this country has showed their view of this country and the world.

I personally believe that Black, Black-American, Afro-American, African-American, or even New Afrikan are all acceptable regardless of political correctness. These are far more up to dates and not nearly as deterogatory as Nigger, Nergo, Colored, and Anglo-African.

Black-Americans are different from other members of the African diaspora because we share a Native-American, European, as well as African hertitage and that separates us. We are our own ethnic group though it is an ethnic group without a name it is one nonetheless. African-American is generic and the afrocentricity of the term makes me think its an attempt to drown out everything else and only acknowledge the African aspects.

-Eurytus

The fact that blacks are a separate ethnic group in the U.S. has little to do with how "far [America] has stressed the differences between Blacks and Whites." Ethnicity has certain intrinsic characteristics related to culture and, yes, shared history that exist outside of external factors. Our African-ness is something that has been with us since the beginning -- and, in fact, persists in great part despite white efforts to the contrary. And what do you mean we are an "ethnic group without a name"? "African-American" is meant to speak to our origins and the very seminal point that it was our African ancestors who survived the Middle Passage -- a truly "defining" moment in our history as a people. What? Would you rather we do some ridiculous Tiger Woods thing and call ourselves "Cablanasians"? deeceevoice 10:25, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Now, THIS is an article.

Thanks, Eurytus, for your turnaround of this piece. I was too lazy to do it comprehensively and made primarily reactionary comments to the crap written previously. I eventually started on the historical stuff, but you've done an admirable job of writing an overview. It's got some ways to go and a bit of correction, but this is head and shoulders above the previous incarnation -- a ridiculous discussion of the term "African American" instead of the people so named. Will return with more info/edits/comments. Again, thanks/peace. :-) deeceevoice 10:25, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

To be included

Notes to self (or anyone else with time to contribute): Noble Drew Ali's Moorish Scientists (religion), Juneteenth (holidays), Congressional Black Caucus (political empowerment), disparities in sentencing & sentencing guidelines--three strikes (issues), fleshing out of Culture to include mention of and links to jazz, rhythm & blues, etc. And subheads!deeceevoice 08:40, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Number of Blacks in America

The Census provides lots of different figures for the Black population. Blacks not counting Hispanic-origin Blacks (35.6 million), Blacks counting Hispanic-origin Blacks (37.1 million), Blacks in alone or in combination with some other race (38.7 million) -- All numbers are as of July 2003. I revised the article to include the 37.1 million figure which includes Hispanic Blacks, although it probably makes most sense to use the 35.6 million figure . BSveen 06:47, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)

3/5th of a person

We should write about the fact that the American constitution set African-Americans as 3/5 of a person when counting representation. Bogdan | Talk 15:46, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Agree. Someone has spoken to this at African American history. It's working already....Quill 19:53, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Major Move

I had two good reasons for the edit:

1. There was a Wikipedia warning about the size--in excess of 31 KB, recommended condensing and move.

2. The article was becoming cumbersome again. Notes of preachiness and bias were creeping in. In my experience, Wikipedians tend to throw up their hands and walk away when the editing task seems to large. This way, people with interest or expertise in a specific area can give energy to a specific topic. This article should have a good definition and description of African Americans (which it does) and passing reference to other topics.

Quill 22:53, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If "notes of "preachniness and bias" were creeping in, then they should have been addressed. So, hacking the article fixes your concerns? Don't think so. If "passing reference" is what you seek, then this is the venue in which to express such concerns BEFORE unilaterally deciding to truncate a piece, IMO making it a far less effective and comprehensive overview of a subject -- which is what one EXPECTS in an encyclopedia (note wikipedia treatments of other subjects like "jazz" and "race". Interesting that no such criticisms of "preachiness" and "bias" resulted in the chopping up of the earlier version of this piece when it basically was a useless, ad nauseam examination of the history of the term "African American" instead of a treatment of the subject itself. deeceevoice 18:51, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Again, on this issue of "bias" and "preachiness," it would be useful if you (Quill) and others who believe any of the information presented is, indeed, biased, if you would direct people to the specific passages so that they can be examined further. Blanket and vague allegations are not at all helpful. Assuming that, Quill, you merely chopped up the piece and changed nothing else, presumably, the "bias" still exists. What, in your view, needs to be changed? If we hear nothing from you, we will assume you have reconsidered your comment and now think otherwise. deeceevoice 09:50, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• "We" who?

If we hear nothing from you, we will assume you have reconsidered your comment and now think otherwise. What you are really saying is that if I do not drop everything I'm doing and respond to Deeceevoice within 24 hours, you will feel satisfied that I had nothing of substance to contribute.

I'm perfectly willing to discuss this or any issue, I'm just not willing to enter into a Wikipedia dogfight with any person who doesn't listen. I brought this up several weeks ago--no response. I gave people time to comment; there were none.

You're right; various incarnations of the previous article were a mess; so were the arguments on this page.

As a matter of fact, the problems with the entry do still exist, and I will be working on them - particularly on maintaining a NPOV - as I hope many Wikipedists or Wikipedians will. When I see statements that are in my view unsubstantiated, ill-thought out or biased, I will change them to the best of my ability. In the meantime, you're certainly at liberty to work on what interests you, which I have noticed you have begun doing.

I will say again for the benefit of those who haven't seen my comments elsewhere; I do not see why the main entry at African American should try to be all things to all people. Why on earth a main entry contain a discussion of chitterlings and what was traditionally called The Black Church, which should probably rate its own entry? You cannot compare jazz. That's a very narrow subject and of course it should be examined at length in its own article. If you want to make a true Wikipedia comparison, consider parallel entries at Irish American and Italian American. Short and to the point. Actually, too short, I think, but I don't wish to digress. The Italian American entry doesn't pause and have a discussion of pizza, gelato and spaghetti, or the Roman Catholic church. (It does have a list of "Famous Italian Americans" that needs moving. This tendency to put lists within articles is a Wikepedia pet peeve, but that's another issue.)

These main articles on American ethinicities are points of departure for many other articles and subcategories, and I think that makes sense. I think you're right in that the main articles should provide an overview, but not in-depth treatment. What happens then is repetition at several entries. It's already happening: one of the sections, now moved to African American history discusses the Civil Rights Movement, which has its own entry. Of course I believe that there should be a reference to the Civil Rights Movement in a discussion of African American history, but not two or more in depth discussions at different entries.

These are works-in-progress and none of this is going to be settled in one day.

Quill 20:45, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think that the Japan article might be a good model for the African American article. If you look at its history, it had a major problem before with having lots of poorly-organized (and often inaccurate) information crammed into one article. As it stands now, there's a brief summary of all the major points, and links to other articles that examine each area in much more depth. The African American experience is incredibly broad and there's no way to write it all up in 32 kilobytes; it might be a better idea to summarize it within 32 and then broaden the concepts in articles about African American history, African American music, African American society, African American literature, etc (which could all be subheadings under this article). - Sekicho 21:57, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

Quill, who said anything about "within 24 hours"? Certainly not I. And "we" is anyone interested in the article. If you make a claim about a problem, it's reasonable to expect some sort of substance to that claim. If something about the article needs fixing, then it's helpful to know precisely what those problems are. Otherwise, your opinion is useless; you give us absolutely nothing to work with. Asking someone to specify (even a single example would be helpful) what they've stated in only the most general of terms is wrong with a piece is certainly not the same thing as expecting or demanding that the person offering the criticism fix it immediately. If you see something wrong with the article, then tell us. Perhaps others of us will see it also. And those who have the time and inclination can set about correcting/rectifying it. Assuming that because you don't have time to fix the entry it should remain as is -- with, by your account, "bias" and "preachiness" -- until you can get around to it makes no sense -- unless, of course, you believe you're the only one capable of approaching the subject matter with intelligence and fairness. :-p deeceevoice 23:13, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Deeceevoice, you came back to your same comment in less than 24 hours with another statement. I took that as preremptory and demanding. On re-reading, perhaps you didn't mean it that way, but it certainly sounded to me as though you were complaining that I hadn't responded to you. And your last sentence, directly above, is unjustified, unworthy and unfair. Please reread my fourth paragraph of Nov. 10. Enough already. Quill 23:31, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

First you conclude that I'm branding you a racist. Then you say I'm being demanding and threatening you! I agree. "Enough already." :-p deeceevoice 15:47, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

With regard to alleged "preachiness" and "bias," I went to the African American culture piece (Christianity and Language) and did some reading. I found some things wrong with it myself (hadn't read the entire AA article completely before it was chopped up -- still haven't -- so my questions were genuine). But I really don't see any "bias" or "preachiness" -- or that your "corrections" on that topic were substantial. I made some additions, and tweaked it a bit and added a nod to historians -- in the event that is what you were referring to (the Muslim thing), if that's what concerned you. But the piece is essentially the same. I deleted that business about "some people even going so far as to suggest" (or whatever you wrote). It's a well and widely known historical fact that songs were used as code. Slaves even used homemade quilts slung across fences or hung out to air with arrows (or geese -- anything) -- pointing the way to safehouses and freedom. It's simply not in dispute. deeceevoice 15:55, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikiproject?

Would folks consider a WikiProject on African Americans, Africans, the African Diaspora or an umbrella topic of all of these?

It would provide a venue for discussion, categorizing, provide suggested structure and format, and give direction to the creation and revision of articles.

It works very well for some Wikipedia categories; seems to me this is a good candidate for one. Quill 20:38, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Considering the kind of ill-informed, naive, silly or just plain racist crap one has to wade through on Wikipedia when dealing with issues pertaining to black people and the aparently relatively few contributors with real knowledge and sensitivity on the subject, I think you'd better leave well enough alone. deeceevoice 18:56, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Remember Matthew 7:1-5 before you go waving the "racism" flag. Blacks can be just as racist as Whites (if not moreso, from my experience), and this article does indeed seem to be biased. An article should be written from more than one perspective, not just from a pro-Black or pro-White (or pro-Eskimo) persepective, and i dont see why there should be any objection to a "wikiproject". BSveen 19:27, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

Actually, we have a disagreement there. "Bigoted"? Yes, unfortunately. "Racist," very rarely. But that's another discussion. Again, if there are instances of bias, then raise them, discuss them, fix them. Some nebulous, blanket allegation of "bias" means absolutely nothing. Further, after visiting your page, the fact that you readily characterize yourself as "anti-Muslim" doesn't provide too much in the way of positive expectation that you would know bias if it bit you on the rump. :-p deeceevoice 19:53, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think a Wikiproject is a great idea; this is an area that needs a lot of attention, and a good community to steer it in the right direction. - Sekicho 02:31, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Sekicho, here and above. I did look at Japan and this seems to be the way Wikipedia is handling country articles. I had in mind Egypt when I suggested this, and United Kingdom follows the same pattern. Of course, ethnicities in the U.S. aren't the same as countries, but I thought that a WikiProject here could serve as a model. I have no idea how many people there are at Wikipedia who are interested in or would get involved with organizing a project on African American issues; this remains to be seen. There don't seem to be dozens jumping on the bandwagon thus far! One good thing would be that if a core got together to organize and write, support in the way of editing and formatting would come from all over the Wikipedia. Quill 21:10, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

Is it necessary to place an awful slur in the introduction to this article. "Nigger" was never an accepted moniker for blacks like negro and colored. Indeed it's negativity is pointed out by the writer, but it's inclusion may be inappropriate.Ramsquire 19:30, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would agree with this. Other entries on American ethnicities do not include ethnic slurs. Suggest revert. Quill 20:15, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This may be a stupid question, if so, I apologize. But how would I suggest a revert?Ramsquire 22:27, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's not a stupid question at all, it was my poor writing. I should have typed, "I suggest a revert". I think that's Wikislang for 'reverse/remove' the new addition. Quill 23:55, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I included the word, simply because it's a very well-known word and someone looking for info about african-americans should know about it. Of course it's offensive, but other offensive words such as f*** or s*** are also included in wikipedia. Wikipedia is supposed to be unbiased, a clear account of all human knowledge, without shying away from vulgar or offensive words. I don't think someone reading the page would receive very much "emotional damage." It's quite simply part of human culture, like it or not.

To remove all mentions of it, as if it never existed, is even counterproductive because humanity needs to learn from its past faults to progress.

Also, there's a specific entry on "nigger". Should someone look for a page on racism against blacks, and especially the use of ethnic slurs such as this one, the best page to begin with would be that of African Americans, and from that page one should be able to go to the "nigger" entry. saturnight 00:43, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Disagree. Your discussion is logical, but does not speak to the issue at hand, which is its appropriateness in this particular entry. Offensive words may have their own discussions, but they are not listed in every context in which they are used.

Unless you're going to add 'Yid', 'Hebe', 'Towelhead', 'Spic', 'Mick' and so on to all other American ethnic entries, there is absolutely no reason for it to be entered here. Why should 'African American' be singled out as a repository of abuse? The point is not whether or not a discussion of 'Nigger' at some place in Wikipedia has merit, the point is that 'Nigger' is a slur; it is not a synonym for 'African American' and therefore should not be in a defining article.

Quill 05:49, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I see your point and I do think that the word is related to the topic. But I agree with Quill, slurs don't have any basis in an article that is supposed describing what the term African American is. Nigger is not the equivalent of Negro, colored, or black since it has always been a slur, not a descriptive term. However, to try to come to a consensus, you could do a link to the article on nigger. Maybe you could throw in a parentethical quote under the History of African American link to both the Wiki entry on racism and the word nigger, and remove it from the introductory paragraph.Ramsquire 20:10, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think the word could be briefly mentioned in a section on racism against African Americans; including it in almost any other context is inappropriate, gratuituous and probably misguided. -Sean Curtin 01:41, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

I see the correct decision was reached in this matter, but to me it's amazing that it even needed to be discussed. Talk about clueless and insensitive. deeceevoice 06:38, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

'Neutrality Disputed?' There's an understatement! Biased Hodgepodge

The way to improve this article is to start from scratch, not simply to revert to confusion.

Where does one start with this mess? Any piece that contains this sort of unsubstantiated claptrap: 'In the last decade, a growing movement has developed, spearheaded mostly by white mothers of African-American children....' cannot be taken seriously.

Quill 03:07, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I second that! "The Term African American" section seems to have a Black-Panther-style "Whitey's-tryin'-to-keep-the-black-man-down" streak running thru it at times. At least that's how it comes off to me. it needs to be revised for NPOV . BSveen 03:17, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

I deleted the business about NPOV -- because the history/rationale of the term African-American is not in dispute. If that business about "biracial" bothers you (even though the information is factual), then remove it. I basically wrote this section, and it doesn't matter to me if that remains or not. And if the section seems to you to have such a "streak" running through it, IMO, that has less to do with the content of the piece and more to do with biases the reader may bring to it. deeceevoice 06:34, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Restored NPOV notice. I still don't think this is neutral, DeeCee, sorry, can't give you that one. Quill 19:52, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Fine. If folks, in their ignorance, want to insist on keeping it that disclaimer, there's not much I can do about it. But anyone in the black community who was part of the discussion about the term back in the day will uphold the rationale presented herein. Folks can disagree with it. Folks can dislike the term for any number of reasons -- but, hey, them's the breaks. After all, self-referential terms don't need the imprimatur of anyone outside the group and comment -- especially ill-informed comment -- is useless. The how and why of the term has been amply explained, so there should be no confusion. deeceevoice 00:12, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Gbleem's restoration of much of old text and a reconsideration of Quill's "hack job"

Thanks to GBleem for restoring a lot of what was useful in the first major revision (deleted by Eurytus) of the old article. Good call. After Quill's decision to break up the article into numerous smaller segments, a lot of that text seems to fit. And, Quill, I'm warming to your decision to chop the article up. I thought what remained of the original article looked (and read) like crap. (And it kind of did.) But with the restoration of some of the other information, hey, it's better. Not perfect, but better. And, more importantly, your edits allow for expanded treatment of some subjects that received merely passing mention in the second major revision of this piece. Another good call. deeceevoice 07:06, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mulatto

The article as it stands makes it seem as if "mulatto" is no longer in use. I would dispute this. I have heard (in more than one US state) in recent memory, the term being used to describe someone with one "white" parent and one "black" parent. Also, I've never heard anyone assume the "implication" that mulattos are, like mules, sterile, or a product of two different species. This does not seem to be an inherently derogatory term and I haven't heard it used as such. I suggest someone make a change unless I'm way off base here. Comments? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:59, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

I think you're misreading the section. It does not say these terms are defunct -- merely that they are no longer in common use, which is correct. Further, I take the passage explaining the origin of the word as doing just that. I don't see a problem with any of it. While the origin of the word may be derogatory, there is nothing that says the word as it was used in the U.S. context was considered inherently derogatory. deeceevoice 04:44, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

One could similarly say that the word "superfluous" is not in common use because people say "excessive" more often. I still think that the article gives the impression that the world isn't being used. It also seems to cast a pall over the word because of its origins. The implication is clearly made that it would be a deragatory term and nothing contradicts that. I'm not about to get all huffy over the issue, I just think that the relevant passage as it stands is misleading. Not intentionally so, mind you, but confusing at least. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:22, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

I didn't write the passage, so rest assured I haven't even the remotest personal stake (ego) in seeing it remain as is. And I understand what you're saying. However, explaining the unfortunate origin of the word seems appropriate. For me, "mulatto," because of its history of use, has no negative connotation as a result; I see no such "clear implication." But, hell, what's being discussed here is the ugly matter of "racial" classification by hybridization so as to make clear which human beings might bring a higher price on the auction block. IMO, a "pall" is cast over the entire subject -- and I'm not being flippant. It was all a very nasty, ugly business. As far as "mulatto" not being in common usage, I think you're simply splitting hairs. Clearly, the word is not commonly used nowadays to refer to "biracial" or "mixed" individuals. deeceevoice 22:30, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I wasn't saying the origin shouldn't be discussed, just that it shouldn't imply that the connotations were current. I've added to the section to address my concerns. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:24, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

I tweaked your entry a little -- to get rid of the parentheses. I'm fine with your addition. Glad you came up with something you were comfortable with. deeceevoice 23:44, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

West Africa

The article states that African Americans have dominant ancestry from West Africa. However, I would imagine that if black Africans from e.g. Kenya or Angola came to America and had children, the children would be considered African American despite the fact that they had no ancestry from West Africa. Am I missing something, or is "African American" actually reserved for descendants of West Africans? - Sekicho 03:14, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

We've had this discussion ad nauseam. See paragraph two of the article and then "A Commonsense Explanation of the Term" in the discussion thread. The rewrite doesn't mention all that, but "African-American" is meant to describe a very specific ethnic group in the U.S. Does that answer your question? Perhaps some of the old verbiage that was expunged from the article explaining this should be reinstated?deeceevoice 08:01, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I had to poke through this mess for a few minutes to find that thread. Still, this goes against both the official usage of the word, e.g. the Census definition, and established definitions of the word such as American Heritage Dictionary's. While I respect your contention that the term should be limited, it's still POV to ignore the common usage and misusage of the word in favor of what you THINK is the proper definition. Politics should not enter this article unless they're being viewed from a distance. - Sekicho 13:43, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

Also, African-American is not a "very specific ethnic group" in any case. It's a broad ethnic group at best; I would call it a cultural entity more than anything else. - Sekicho 14:03, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, the discussion IS a mess. But the subhead is there and the pertinent passages should be easily accessible. If you read the excised section carefully, it does mention that other such groups often are referred to as "African American," but that the term is more an external one. The purpose of this article is to discuss the group of African descendants in the U.S. (not elsewhere, not Canada, not Jamaica, etc.). As I suggested in my response to you, perhaps some of the earlier verbiage regarding other groups should be included -- or revised. I directed you to that section to catch you up on the discussion. Of course, you're more than welcome to make a passing mention of other groups you think should be included and include a redirect to links dealing with those populations. And, yes, African-Americans are a very specific ethnic group, with a specific culture, a specific history, even a specific dialect -- whether you -- an exchange student from Osaka, Japan (lol) -- wish to call us that or not. deeceevoice 14:27, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Now, Deeceevoice, were you intending to be dismissive? We welcome Sekicho's comments whether s/he is an exchange student from Japan or the planet Klingon--that's immaterial.

This is an example of why I'm supporting the NPOV notice for the entire section. It's written as if cut-and-dried and statements of fact rather than opionion. Needs revision. How can I get this point across without being accused of 'ignorance'? Example: 'African-Americans are a very specific ethnic group, with...even a specific dialect....' Well, yes...and, no. There is a great commonality, but there are differences as well, that is, historical and cultural differences exist among African Americans. That's not to say that you are "wrong"; are you taking my point? For instance, no one would deny you are correct in saying that there is a specific dialect, but it's regional and class-based; not all 'African Americans' speak African American Vernacular English.

Quill 20:59, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Do what you will. For someone from Japan to try to tell me who and what my people are is presumptuous at best. And that African Americans aren't an ethnic group within the U.S.? ROFLMBAO. Ignorant presumptuousness -- and with an attitude. So, hey, I reciprocated. (Always more than happy to return a gesture. :-p)

And what you characterize as "dismissive," I see as trying to be helpful. I pointed the contributor to the appropriate section (because he/she clearly hasn't a clue if he/she thinks black folks in the U.S. aren't an ethnic group) and then suggested she could include appropriate language to address her concerns and then links to articles about populations she felt were not being dealt with in this particular article. There's plenty that's already been written and chopped away (by Eurytus) and lots of food for thought in the discussion. It's there if our presumptuous friend wants to use it -- verbatim or as a point of departure. (After all, this is the kind of advice I'm constantly getting from other Wikipedians. Or, oh, my bad! I'm a newbie. Guess those kinds of comments are acceptable coming only from those who've been on wiki for a year or more. Did I forget my place?) :-p ROFLMBAO (again).

Perhaps you'd like to include in this piece similar information about any and all other groups who even remotely possibly could be included in this piece -- so that you then can come behind and divide up the article again.  :-p Hey, NPOV the whole freakin' encyclopedia if that's what floats your boat. :-D Have at it!

deeceevoice 22:03, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Just saw this: "That's not to say that you are "wrong"; are you taking my point? For instance, no one would deny you are correct in saying that there is a specific dialect, but it's regional and class-based; not all 'African Americans' speak African American Vernacular English."

WTH? No, AAVE is not exclusively regional. AAVE is spoken and understood in Sookie Bottom, Alabama (a real place), and Dee-troy-it, Michigan; in Compton and Kalamazoo. It's spoken by black folks all over this nation. You think you're schoolin' me on AAVE, like you've got something to tell me about it being class-based? Let me direct you to the sentence I WROTE under AAVE: "AAVE is most commonly spoken exclusively among southern, rural African-Americans and those with working-class roots (emphasis added). Many African-Americans, however, regardless of their socioeconomic status, educational background, or where they may live, use AAVE in informal and intra-ethnic communication."

Time for a reality check, bwoi. Get a grip. deeceevoice 22:12, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So DON'T YOU TALK DOWN TO ME.

That said, you're still missing the point. Your definition of "African American" is not the only one in use. Nor is it the only one in common use. Nor is it the most widely accepted. By your reasoning, Barack Obama and Colin Powell are not African Americans, even though a great many Americans (black, white, and otherwise) would call them that (and Wikipedia even calls them both African American!).

"African American" is a broad designation. The aspect of it you're focusing on, descendants of slaves in the South, hardly encompasses the entire population. Many people would argue that any black person from the United States is African American, whether their ancestors came through Jamestown or JFK.

You can ignore this if you want. Wikpedia should not ignore it. Sekicho 21:35, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

Wow. I've restored the above entry. It's amusing. (The previous post was entered and then deleted by Sekicho -- with the notation "Sekicho (never mind... this is in the article anyway)" Gee, Sekicho. First, I'm not the only who wrote this article. There were lots of people who contributed and who debated your issue ad nauseam before you ever showed up. I told you this had already been covered -- and pointed you to the pertinent material. Not only didn't you read the article before your first comment, you apparently didn't bother to read the debate. Since you're so quick to hand out advice, I've got some for you: try reading stuff first before you go ballistic. deeceevoice 22:47, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oh. And another thing: DON'T YOU SHOUT AT ME.  :-p deeceevoice 09:21, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Let's try this again

deecee, I know you absolutely believe that an African American is necessarily of West African ancestry. I'm not contesting that this is one way to define the term. But this is not the only way to define it.

Everyone and their brother is saying that Barack Obama might be the first African American president. But is he West African? No. Does he have a drop of slave blood in him? No. Is he "African American?" According to a LOT of people, yes.

You're imposing your own definition of the word on this article. I am not opposed to your definition. In fact, I am not opposed to using it as the basis for this article. (If we never mention Ethiopians or Zulus in America, I will still be able to sleep at night.)

However, I am very opposed to stating that African American means American of West African ancestry, when that is clearly not what it often means in common use. The article has to start with the broad construction of the word, since it commonly refers to all Americans of sub-Saharan descent, and then focus on the ethnic/cultural meaning of the word, which refers to Americans of slave descent.

Do you see the issue? It's not a question of which definition is "right" or "wrong." It's a question of what "African American" means to people. Clearly, it means different things to different people. I grew up with Jamaicans and Haitians and even Nigerians who considered themselves African American and who were part of the broader African American community. They would define the word differently from how you define it.

Again, I am not debating the validity of your definition. I am simply stating that because it is not the only common definition, it should not be placed at the top of the article and treated as though it is the only common definition. - Sekicho 00:44, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

First of all, "I" am not "imposing" anything. This article/issue is not about me or "my" anything. This article is a compilation of contributions.

Second, common usage of a term does not mean accurate usage. Peruanos called Japanese-Peruvian ex president Alberto Fujimori "el chino," but that didn't make him Chinese.

The text as constructed by numerous individuals -- not just me -- explains quite clearly that other groups are sometimes included in the definition. However, historically and formally, the term is one of self-designation by so-called "American/U.S. Negroes." And that is, quite obviously, the focus of this article. As a matter of fact, this piece briefly examines the naming issue -- which you deleted and I restored -- and states that the tag "African American" also is used to refer to other ethnic groups. This information was deliberately included because of such concerns by virtually everyone who participated in the crafting of this piece in its current incarnation.

The restored, nuanced definition is necessary, because this article focuses on this specific group. It is not about the history of every other group who might call themselves, or be called, "African American."

My suggestion -- again -- is a separate subhead about other people who may call themselves "African-American" (many of my friends from the Caribbean and Africa do not commonly do so) with links to stubs/articles about those separate groups. IMO, this is the best way to approach the subject matter. The article as constructed already introduces the idea of other groups as "African-American." If you wish additional information to be included, then by all means do so. But truncating the definition in this piece and over generalizing is not terribly helpful to an article, the intent of which is to treat people traditionally considered "African-American" and no one else. It simply makes no sense.

The current approach, which gives a nod to other groups, but which focuses on the use of the word (or words, depending on whether or not one hyphenates it) as it was originally conceived (and not as appropriated by other groups as a term of self-designation, or as used inappropriately by the ignorant and clueless), describing the history and culture of that specific group -- and no other -- IMO, makes more sense. I again point you to information in earlier permutations of this piece and to the discussion, portions of which could be included by way of introductory information (in terms of who is and who is not "African-American") under such a new subhead as I have suggested.

Alternatively -- and, perhaps, more effectively -- a brief introductory, italicized paragraph could explain the focus of this article and direct the reader to links to pertinent immigrant or extranational groups at the bottom of the page. (You will note that the "see also" and "external links" of this article already make reference to other such groups.) Another, more elegant alternative might be simply to include this info in a single sentence at the end of the second paragraph. deeceevoice 09:08, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Is the United States government "ignorant and clueless?" Is every major dictionary editor "ignorant and clueless?" Is every journalist who calls Colin Powell African American "ignorant and clueless?" This is nothing like calling Fujimori el chino: there are lots and lots of reputable people who are using the broader definition.

Also, I didn't delete anything. I moved most of the first two paragraphs to the first subheading ("definition") and expanded on them quite a bit. (They're still there, by the way, so we have a lot of information in the article twice now.) The first section of the article is far too long; the table of contents should be visible when you load the page. - Sekicho 17:27, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

"Is the U.S. government 'ignorant and clueless'"?

Do you really want me to answer that. LOL Well, yes. Just take a gander at the half-wit at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. He's wrong all the time. (I couldn't resist.) :-p

But, seriously, yes. It is. And it's completely inconsistent when it comes to these matters. The FBI apparently classifies indio Latinos as "white," when they are "racially" no different from Native Americans, who are classified as "Mongoloid" -- and when indio Latinos, themselves, refer to themselves as such. They are completely different from whites/blancos.

But when I have time, I'll take a look at your comments. I think it's a good idea that you condensed the material that was arbitrarily completely excised by Quill, though I think it may need a little work. No time today, though. Perhaps someone else will do something with it. Good work in that regard. deeceevoice 19:57, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What happened here?

I've noticed that there is a lot of repitition in the introduction and definition sections of this article. Also, if the term is so disputed as to who is included, we should probably delete the census info in the opening paragraph, or explain who the census bureau considered African American. But all in all the additions made in the article has made it a confusing and repetitive mess.Ramsquire 21:24, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I know it's a mess. I've been saying it's a mess. Even the discussion is a mess. No argument out of me, IMO it's a mess. Quill 22:05, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Lot's of the discussion on this page refers to things that are no longer in the article and sometimes people add to a comment about a resolved issue. I think that's one reason the talk page is so messy. I kinda wish the talk pages worked more like usenet. As for the article itself I think it's pretty good now. It's an understatement to say race in the United States is a mess and therefore I expect an article about anything having to do with race to look and feel messy. When I do any editing I try to pretend that I'm explaining it to someone from another country or that someone hundreds of years in the future is reading it. --Gbleem 04:36, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I never realized that black American has never been an accepted term. I use it to identify myself all the time. I find it more accurate, since I am black and American, and have almost no connection to African culture or history. Well I guess that's why Wiki is important. Ramsquire 22:21, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

foodways

Does "foodways" include agricultural methods. I vaguely remember reading about african rice and rice farming techniques in a book on South Carolina. Should you add "crops and agricultural methods" or something like that? --Gbleem 10:56, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Good point. Actually, no, it doesn't. You might want to add it. Most definitely. African slaves were responsible for the tremendous success of rice cultivation in the South -- which had failed dismally before they brought their expertise to bear. Also, my edits are really kind of quickie things in response to things that jumped out at me as being off. I haven't finished reading the synopses. I'm hoping others will also take a good look at them. deeceevoice 14:17, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Social Problems

The article says crime and substance abuse are high among African Americans. Are they higher than among the general population?

African American History/Emancipation Proclamation

As far as I know it was the 13th Amendment that abolished slavery and not the Emancipation Proclamation. I think it is erroneaous to keep stating that Lincoln (Emancipation Proclamation) freed the slaves when in fact it was an act of Congress that accomplished that. How could Lincoln have freed the slaves in the south when the north did not have control of the southern states at the time the proclamation was enacted? I think this statement needs to be changed.

South African whites in America

Why was the section on white South Africans currently living in America excised?? I have known some of these people, and they personally take offense at Americans (and yes, Americans are not the only people in the world) use of the term, because (understandably) they see no reason why the term should not apply to them. After all, they are African and they are American. Moreover, they find it very strange and peculiar that most Americans don't understand their argument. Another thing, why was the section next to it moved, about Africans themselves? Here is what is missing from this article — any indication that the term "African American" as it is used in America is an American-specific terminology, and that the vast majority of the rest of the world does not recognise the commonly accepted usage as used in America. This is the English Wikipedia, not the American Wikipedia. This section, by excising anything that doesn't subscribe to a particular conventional American wisdom, is highly POV and biased. I'm not asking that the conventional wisdom be excised, but certain people (I won't say who) need to recognise that African American is a contested term, and that this is true no matter how many people would like to think that their usage of the term constitutes the only accepted usage. Statements such as "African American and black American are often used interchangeably, although incorrectly" is a perfect example of this. This may be the case, but such a statement assumes there is a universally accepted "correct" usage of each term, which is not the case. I'm moving the NPOV header to the top of the article, because it seems not just to be this particular section that has a problem. Also, the Emancipation Proclamation did not legally free the slaves, if I remember correctly. Revolver 21:57, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Deecee, I wish you stop acting as if you speak for all blacks/African Americans. You tend to use the term "we" a lot. I know many blacks/African Americans who primarily refer to themselves as "black" and rarely use the term "African American". According to you, they do not know their own ignorance of themselves, and they are bigoted and prejudiced against themselves, rather than simply choosing to identify by a different term than you. You may not like that many African Americans identify themselves as "black", but you can't erase this fact. Revolver 22:02, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Revolver, contrary to your ridiculous assumptions, I am not the sole author of this article; quite the contrary. (Have you read any of it?) I am removing the NPOV caveat. Your specific concerns have been addressed, explained and resolved in the discussion. No credible authority classifies white South Africans as African Americans. If anything, that specious and intentionally argumentative contention is POV. deeceevoice 23:17, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wikiproject?

Would folks consider a WikiProject on African Americans, Africans, the African Diaspora or an umbrella topic of all of these?

It would provide a venue for discussion, categorizing, provide suggested structure and format, and give direction to the creation and revision of articles.

It works very well for some Wikipedia categories; seems to me this is a good candidate for one. Quill 20:38, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Considering the kind of ill-informed, naive, silly or just plain racist crap one has to wade through on Wikipedia when dealing with issues pertaining to black people and the aparently relatively few contributors with real knowledge and sensitivity on the subject, I think you'd better leave well enough alone. deeceevoice 18:56, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Remember Matthew 7:1-5 before you go waving the "racism" flag. Blacks can be just as racist as Whites (if not moreso, from my experience), and this article does indeed seem to be biased. An article should be written from more than one perspective, not just from a pro-Black or pro-White (or pro-Eskimo) persepective, and i dont see why there should be any objection to a "wikiproject". BSveen 19:27, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

Actually, we have a disagreement there. "Bigoted"? Yes, unfortunately. "Racist," very rarely. But that's another discussion. Again, if there are instances of bias, then raise them, discuss them, fix them. Some nebulous, blanket allegation of "bias" means absolutely nothing. Further, after visiting your page, the fact that you readily characterize yourself as "anti-Muslim" doesn't provide too much in the way of positive expectation that you would know bias if it bit you on the rump. :-p deeceevoice 19:53, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think a Wikiproject is a great idea; this is an area that needs a lot of attention, and a good community to steer it in the right direction. - Sekicho 02:31, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Sekicho, here and above. I did look at Japan and this seems to be the way Wikipedia is handling country articles. I had in mind Egypt when I suggested this, and United Kingdom follows the same pattern. Of course, ethnicities in the U.S. aren't the same as countries, but I thought that a WikiProject here could serve as a model. I have no idea how many people there are at Wikipedia who are interested in or would get involved with organizing a project on African American issues; this remains to be seen. There don't seem to be dozens jumping on the bandwagon thus far! One good thing would be that if a core got together to organize and write, support in the way of editing and formatting would come from all over the Wikipedia. Quill 21:10, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Neutrality

Just because opinions are 'shouted down' doesn't mean the underlying issues have been resolved. Replacing NPOV message. Quill 00:29, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Quill, I remember only one concern being raised in the past w/regard to POV in this piece. I assumed it had been resolved, since the notice had been removed. The business about white South Africans is absurd on its face. What issues remain outstanding? deeceevoice 01:02, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi Deecee,

I do not have the time or inclination to pick out every issue that every person might find contentious in terms of neutrality, but here are some that jump out at me. Some could be fixed by a sentence tweak, I think, some are more problematic:

• First and last sentences of article are oppositional
• African American, black and, to a lesser extent, Afro-American, are used interchangeably today but often incorrectly. This reads as POV unless explained.
• What are African citizens living in or naturalized in US properly called if not ‘African American’ and who says?
• A minority of African Americans reject the term.
• DEFINITION—wha?
• Sentence tweak needed: Persistent social problems for African Americans include inadequate health care delivery; institutional racism and discrimination in housing, policing, criminal justice and employment; crime; and substance abuse.
• This is not completely true: Previous terms used to identify American blacks were conferred upon the group by whites and were included in the wording of various laws and legal decisions which became tools of white supremacy. Negro, e.g. has been a term of choice in times past.
• I just don’t think this is true: The descriptive term Black American has never been common in the US. The second part of that final sentence is probably true today.
• This is unsubstantiated and just plain offensive: In the last decade, a growing movement has developed, spearheaded mostly by white mothers of African-American children, towards the adoption and acceptance of the term bi-racial.
• Misplaced: For many, African-American is more than a name expressive of cultural and historical roots. The term expresses black pride and a sense of kinship and solidarity with others of the black African diaspora -- an embracing of the notion of pan-Africanism earlier enunciated by prominent black thinkers such as Marcus Garvey, W.E.B. Dubois and, later, George Padmore.

In general, though, I think the whole thing is much improved. I'm not embarrassed to link here now.

Just MHO, since you asked.

Quill 07:47, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Quill, thanks for your lengthy response. I haven't read this piece or contributed to it substantially in ages in its entirety, and it's undergone all kinds of changes since. When I have time, I'll go back through it and read it again -- and then I'll go back and read your criticisms in their entirety. (Right now, I'm crunching a deadline.) I skimmed as far down the list to the business about the use of biracial. (That's the one section I do recall as having previously been flagged for being POV, but I don't remember how or when that little icon was removed.) I don't know why you find it offensive; it's a fact. The movement for the adoption of the term was started by white mothers of black children. If you'd like substantiation, I'm sure I can dig some up. Anyway, like I said, I'll return to this piece when I have more time. deeceevoice 11:25, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, well--you're not expected to drop everything and single-handedly fix this.

To answer your specific question--I don't think that white mothers have black children--to me, that's eugenics and inherently racist and I reject it. The only white mothers I have read of in this context call their children 'black'--Hettie Jones springs to mind, and it seems her attitude had a deleterious effect, from Lisa Jones's writing the poor girl was messed up for a while--hope she's gotten it together since. I don't think I've ever discussed the matter with any black fathers of white children ;). I have heard support for the term from white fathers, actually, and stong support for 'multiracial' or 'multiethnic' and the like from black persons (i.e. people identifying themselves as such) who, while not rejecting their blackness, nevertheless want their whole identity recognized.

Interestingly, I agree the use of the term 'biracial' is problematic--is it merely the recognition of having two heritages or does it smack of not wanting to be identified as 'black'--but that's another discussion.

Quill 23:11, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, regardless of what you think [echoes of the exchange with the no-name guy below who wants to classify white South Africans as African Americans], I've got to advise a reality check. This is not about what should be; the fact of the matter is in the context of the legal racial classification of peoples in this nation (and the customary black acceptance of "mixed-race" individuals as our own and their customary rejection by whites), white mothers (and white fathers) do, indeed, have black children! And it was white mothers who made, I suppose understandably, a big deal out of forcing/lobbying for the use of "biracial" when referring to children of mixed black/white parentage. That's simply fact -- and is correct as so stated. If changing the "black" to "mulatto" or some other such term would make it less offensive to you, then fine. But it's certainly historically accurate. This from the Internet:

It took a lot of angry mommas to force the U.S. Bureau of the Census to deal with reality: Some people are white. Some people are black. Some are Hispanic or Asian or Native American. And some are a mix of two or more ethnic backgrounds.

In 2000, for the first time, the forms distributed by the Bureau of the Census to millions of households across America gave biracial and multiracial individuals the option of marking more than one category under the section of the survey marked "Race."

This was seen as a major victory for both biracial persons and the white mothers of biracial children, who had lobbied for years for separate categories on census and other state and federal documents [emphasis added]. But it didn't address underlying issues of how biracial men and women choose their individual racial identities or how they deal with a society that wants to pigeon hole individuals as either one thing or the other.

deeceevoice 23:25, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And, since you mention it, there are so many more horror stories of children whose heads have been screwed sideways by inept white mothers who haven't had a clue about raising whole, healthy, black children (who often end up raising their mixed children alone for various reasons), who've told them, in effect, "You aren't black" -- even when, by all outward appearances, they clearly are of African ancestry and may not appear to have any "white blood" at all; they've got brown skin, nappy hair and African features -- or simply look like millions of other African-Americans who have two predominantly black parents, but who have white or Native American ancestry somewhere along the line. Try that one on for size! Or, these misguided women tell their confused offspring, "You're not a member of the black race or the white race; you're a member of the human race." In a world where ethnic affiliations are important to apparently everyone but these mothers of biracial children, and in a society such as ours deeply polarized along racial lines, this is sheer nonsense -- and downright irresponsible parenting. Just about any black person you may encounter can recount more than a few of those, myself included. I must admit I don't have a clue who the people who mention are. I don't spend much time mulling over the angst of mixed black folks (not to suggest you do, either). One person of mixed parentage does immediately come to mind, though, who appears to be fairly healthy, who readily identifies herself as a black woman: Halle Berry. deeceevoice 00:07, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

...er...'fairly healthy' Halle Berry (even Ms. Berry isn't sure--her words) has a white mother, doesn't she?

Plenty of black parents have screwed up their children, black, mixed, undecided and clueless, WRT race. There are black parents who tell their children they're not black, they're black but they're not black, black; they're not 'that kind of black'; they've got 'bad hair', 'good hair', they're too dark, too light.

Well, we can debate that one over coffee sometime but meanwhile, good edits!

Quill 00:04, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, uh, yes. Halle Berry has a white mother (duh) -- who, apparently understanding the dynamics of race and racism in American society, raised her daughter to recognize herself as a black woman, recognizing that that is how she would be seen by people. Unlike the examples I gave of some idiotic white mothers I've known (and known of) who taught their (obviously) black children to deny their blackness. Sad and pathetic -- and the eventual cause of all kinds of problems with the kids.

And, yes, just as some white parents get it right and wrong, some black parents get it right and wrong. The thing about the sickness of racism/white supremacy (both projected outward and internalized as self-loathing) is that it can cripple whites and blacks and make them equally incompetent as parents, equally incapable of raising whole, healthy, loving human beings.

About the edits, yes, I thought mine useful. I wish I could say the same for your tweaking. Frankly, I thought it somewhat superfluous. I don't agree that the original wording said the black middle class was a new phenomenon. You (and, possibly, others) may have read it that way, but that's not what it says. But since, apparently, there may have been room for misinterpretation, I've got no real problem with it.

The movement for the use of "biracial" was in supremely predominant part a movement of white mothers. Interesting you wrote you'd never had a similar discussion about terminology with black fathers. There's a good reason for that. Black fathers generally weren't egaging the issue at all. As I said earlier, black folks have lived -- and continue to live -- with the understanding that being black in this nation is to be a "mongrel." It's hardly a news flash. What was new was that white mothers were becoming less and less stigmatized by their relationships with black men (or simply less cowed by that stigmatization) and the resulting offspring. For the most part, they were (are) the ones left to raise the children on their own and, for various reasons (some reasonably legitimate from their perspective, some for purely racist or just off-the-wall), didn't want their "black" children classified in such a manner. And, no. If you find your wording less "offensive," even though it is substantially less accurate/more misleading (at least as misleading as the passage about the black middle class that you felt compelled to change), then I'm not gonna make a big deal about it. I feel I've substantiated my original wording. I'm sure if I searched further, I'd find even more evidence. I simply don't have the inclination. deeceevoice 13:52, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Now, with regard to the POV caveat, are there any remaining concerns that need to be addressed? (I still haven't read the present article in its entirety.) Otherwise, the blurb can be disappeared. deeceevoice 14:15, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A small point: I'm wondering one would phrase this: The term African-American refers only to United States citizens, but is often applied to black residents who are not citizens. to include the practice of referring to people outside the US as African-American, as there have been several reports of people complaining about being described that way (For instance, Trevor McDonald), as they don't want to be referred to as American. Is it worth including this? SimonFr 10:56, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Page title change?

From my perspective the term “African-American” is someone who was born in Africa and moved to America gaining U.S citizenship. This could apply to ANYONE (Black, White, Asian, etc.) who was BORN in Africa. If I’m born in Japan and move to America am I a Japanese American? Yes, and in ignorance terms, no. Yes, if I’m born in Japan I’m a Japanese citizen. If you say Japanese means Asian then that is ignorance because all Asians are not from Japan. All Black people are not from Africa so in reality “African-American” only applies to a small group of people with citizenship in an African nation. Which would make them Nigerian-American, or Sudanese-American, etc. Unlike our light-bulb bright President, we all know that Africa is a continent and not a country. So what are we to do? Do we go with 1. (Continent of origin)-American, 2. (Country of origin)-American, or 3. (Race Group)-American? If we go with (1) then we need to have Wiki pages for South America, Europe, Asia, hell even Antarctican-Americans, regardless of race. We could “Native” Americans and just call “Indians” Americans since everyone else migrated (or were slave traded here). If we go with (2) then we have hundreds of (country of choice)-Americans regardless of race. Or we can go with (3) which would be calling all spades “spades” regardless of where you come from. I can take this a little bit deeper since there are no literally “black” people, hell black isn’t even a color. So I think it’s up to “Brown” people to decide what “Black” people are going to call ourselves and quit letting “White (pink)” people give us these pacifying, hypocrisy filled labels.

This point really has been discussed adequately. Have you read the above discussions? I really think the overwhelming majority understands the term 'African American' as being the latest and preferred term for persons of African descent born in the US. Whether or not it should properly be applied to African citizens living or naturalized in the US is touched upon in the article, and could probably be expanded upon. Quill 07:05, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hey, no-name. You clearly haven't read the discussion regarding this matter. And though your opinion may be strongly held, you're most certainly not in the majority on this one. White folks are NOT African Americans. lol The notion is utterly ridiculous. Further, the term is one of self-designation. Black folks chose the term. Were you even around when the discussion about the term was going on 30 or so years ago? If you were, then you most certainly missed it. Get a clue. And, no, let's not take this to "there are no literally 'black' people.'" It's been done, and it's pointless. deeceevoice 11:30, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Some coments on deeceevoice's comments

I was interested in some comments from deeceevoice, which underline the cultural differences between being White English and African American.

deeceevoice said:

And, since you mention it, there are so many more horror stories of children whose heads have been screwed sideways by inept white mothers who haven't had a clue about raising whole, healthy, black children (who often end up raising their mixed children alone for various reasons), who've told them, in effect, "You aren't black" -- even when all, by outward appearances, they clearly are and may not appear to have any "white blood" at all; they've got brown skin, nappy hair and African features -- or simply look like millions of other African-Americans who have two black parents, but who have white or Native American ancestry somewhere along the line.

I was wondering whether you would hold the view in the opposite situation, where a child of mixed race appeared to be white, would it be wrong for the parent's to tell them they are not white? This is of particular interest to me, because I have a grand-parent of middle-eastern origin, and it was never suggested to either me or my father that we were anything other than "White English". I think there may also be a UK/US difference here, because in the UK if someone who appeared white has a black ancestor we would refer to them as white, whereas in the US, despite their obvious appearance I think many people would refer to them as black. (I have a Texan wife, and I was very confused when she once told me that she had "discovered" that a work colleague was black!).

deeceevoice said:

...Or, these misguided women tell their confused offspring, "You're not a member of the black race or the white race; you're a member of the human race." In a world where ethnic affiliations are important to apparently everyone but these mothers of biracial children, and in a society such as ours deeply polarized along racial lines, this is sheer nonsenses -- and downright irresponsible parenting.

As a white person I find it interesting that in a white family the same thing would be seen as positive and progressive. I *do* tell my kids that they, and all people, are members of the human race. If someone were to say "you are a member of the white race, not just the human race" to their child I would see that as racist. Of course I can see that the situation is very different if you are not a member of the majority culture, and don't have the luxury of being able to "assume" your cultural identity as the default. -- Chris Q 07:44, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ugh. So many typos in my original comments! But my opinions, of course, are "colored" by my own cultural and historical experience in an American society. And, no. I don't believe it would've been wrong for the same parent/s to tell their child he/she was not white. He/she wouldn't be. That same child could grow up, marry and bear offspring with very Africanoid features. It might be nappy hair only. It might be dark skin only. It might be a broad nose and full lips features only. Or it might be a combination of any two or more. And then what do you say to that child, who may have grown up with no contact whatsoever with the black side of their family and, believing they were, in fact, white, married white? And what do you say to the (likely) mortified in-laws? "White" in this society means white. "Black" in this society can mean any combination of ethnicities, as long as there is a fairly predominant (even if not necessarily obvious at first glance) African bloodline.

Now, as to whether one stance or the other is "racist," that depends entirely upon the rationale behind the tag. White folks observing the one-drop rule generally did so for racist reasons. Black folks, on the other hand, did it as a matter of acceptance of the reality that, no matter if they were "light, bright, almost white," "yellow and mellow," "brown and could stick around" or "black and had to get back," we were all "knee-grows" and, thus, subject to the same discrimination, the same violence, the same indignities and injustices. And in that common oppression was common cause, was a solidarity and strength -- nd, because of segregation, more times than not, shared cultural experiences (in addition to historical ones). It had nothing to do with accepting that bullshyt about any "white" being tainted by "inferior black blood" being somehow unfit to be a member of the white race. One rule, yes -- but radically different reasons for accepting it. deeceevoice 14:06, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I had to return to add the most obvious and powerful rationales for the one-drop rule: economics and power. It amplified and consolidated white power. If one owned slaves, the one-drop rule made it easier for one to add to one's wealth. Typical language in bills of sale for female slaves (much as that in contracts conveying livestock, which is pretty much what we often were considered) was that the woman "and her increase [offspring]" were conveyed. A philandering, rapist crakkka son-of-a-bitch could get a two-fer: a fun-filled night forcing himself on his "black/nigger wenches," and then he got to work and bullwhip the "increase" -- his own progeny -- from can't see to can't see. The South's "gentleman planters" and other whites of privilege were not threatened by the growing numbers of mulattoes and "'roons"; they were enriched by them. Even out of slavery, the numbers of human beings who could be kept functionally illiterate, ragged and poor, used as fieldhands/sharecroppers, manual laborers and domestics, and terrorized for sport based on race was far vaster under the one-drop rule --a windfall for a system based on white power and privilege and black disadvantage and oppression. And although free or dirt-cheap black labor competed with poor whites, even white trash could gain some satisfaction/comfort from the fact that, although they were destitute, illiterate and hungry, too, "at least we ain't nigruhs." deeceevoice 12:57, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And about being a "member of the human race." As far as I'm concerned, that's a given and need not be stated -- unless, of course, someone was raised by wolves, barks like a dog and howls at the moon. Embracing the universal does not mean one need repudiate the specific. One can be African-American, or Serbian, or Japanese, or Afghan, or Inuit and still find kinship with other humans of different ethnic backgrounds. Those things needn't be ignored or devalued as though they somehow get in the way of being human; indeed, such diverse ethnicities are the threads that comprise the fabric of humanity. The particulars of ethnicity, of culture, of human experience are what give that fabric depth and richness, and what also form the foundation of human family/community. It is only by embracing the individual, the self, that one can embrace the whole; that one sees the universal. Otherwise, there is no meaningful thread connecting one to another/others. The connection is superficial/shallow/cerebral rather than visceral/spiritual; it is a sham. Aime Cesare recognized this in his enunciation of negritude. Connection to small, like groupings -- community -- is a basic human need. Approached without hatred and suspicion, accepted without shame, claimed without chauvinism or a sense of entitlement, ethnicity defines, roots and grounds us. IMO, one cannot be a true citizen of the world without a clear understanding and appreciation of the history of one's people and the burdens, blessings and responsibilities that go with that unique history. I think we lie to ourselves when we pretend otherwise -- not to mention rob our progeny of a rich legacy that is their birthright. deeceevoice 06:58, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Might makes right

Apparently this has turned into a "those who shout loudest shall win" discussion. I'm not going to keep pushing the same point, if the only response is going to be "Revolver, this was discussed and settled long ago." The simple verifiable fact is that "African American" is a contested term. Evidence for this fact is the fact about a recent controversy over whether Obama is "African American", among other things. The whole notion of the term is self-contradictory. The term, as I understand it by the above discussion, is meant to encompass black Africans living in America descended from slaves. The term ends up getting applied to most blacks, regardless of whether anything is known in particular about their geneology. The culture of blacks whose ancestors have lived in the US since the 1700s owes far more to their time in the US since the 1700s then to any African origins before this. Anyone who denies this is just blind. The fallacy of the reasoning is apparent when considering "European Americans" (a term I don't normally use, but what the heck...) By the same logic, if one is allowed or required to stretch so far back in one's ancestry, the demographic wave of "Hispanics" and "Latinos" should more accurately be called "Spanish Americans", because after all, this is their ultimate origin. Yet this is not the case, because Spain is in Europe, not Africa, and so it is not politically correct to point out that Hispanics ultimately trace their culture to Spain. This is the fundamental contradiction of the Afrocentrism driving the term – one is only authentic to the extent that one can distinguish oneself from European culture. Since black Americans trace their geneology ultimately back to Africa, they can start there because this is distinct. Yet, Hispanics are not allowed to trace an equal amount back in time, because to do so would fail to distinguish them from European culture. The moment they split from European culture, they are authentic and deserve a new name for themselves.

The continued assertion that "African American" is simply a neutral term arrived at, just masks its inherently politically charged essence. Similar comments go for "Native American", another misnomer. ("Native Americans" migrated from Russia. In any case, the term "native" should refer to any person born in America. Again, the term serves as a PC point of reference to mark a divergence from European culture.)

I would suggest the collective authors of this article travel outside the U.S. Most black Africans (and all Africans) are startled and perplexed by the term, and even take offense at it. I still say, for the record, that was is missing from this article is any mention of the fact that the usage of the term given is only rarely recognised outside the U.S. (I get the impression from the article that there is no world outside the U.S.) The fact that the term has been "chosen" by those who use it does not erase its fundamental contradictions and politically charged nature.

Revolver 23:54, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't know about the entire world, but I can certainly tell you that in some parts of it outside the US, the "African-{foo}" terminology is in fact catching on. E.g. I'm from Bermuda, which having had (like the Caribbean islands) substantial importation of slaves, now has a majority black population, and the preferred formal term these days for black Bermudians is "African-Bermudian". True, Bermudian culture is heavily influence by the US, but they aren't clones by any means, and have long had some negative feelings about their large neighbour (e.g. I was there during 9/11, and was astounded to meet people who expressed satisfaction at the attacks). Noel (talk) 14:24, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Copied from Hispanic:

• In the US some people consider Hispanic to be too general as a label, while others consider it offensive, often preferring to use the term Latino, which is viewed as a self-chosen label. The preference of Latino over Hispanic is partly because it more clearly indicates that those it is referring to are the people from Latin America, and not Spain.*** (my emphasis)

Precisely! One is authentic and deserves a new name the moment one can distinguish oneself from European culture. Revolver 00:06, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Aw, man. You're so full of it, your eyes are brown! lol. First of all, the contradictions inherent in the use of the term already have been noted. Second, regarding your assertion, "The culture of blacks whose ancestors have lived in the US since the 1700s owes far more to their time in the US since the 1700s then to any African origins before this": I suppose the same can be said for Italian-Americans, too -- many of whom, incidentally, who are generations removed from Europe still refer to their families as "Italian." As I stated in "A simple, commonsense explanation of the term," such simply has been the custom in this nation of immigrants. Further, it is undeniable that there are a great many things about African-American culture that are not "American," or "European," per se, but distinctly African in origin. We are not simply darker Americans. And "anyone who denies this is just blind!" IMO, the label is fitting and proper. Further -- one mo' gin :-p -- none of your assertions changes the fact that the term is one of self-designation, as opposed to one having been selected for us by white America, as you originally charged.

Second, your point about the use of "Latino" versus "Hispanic" rings hollow. "Hispanic" simply means of or pertaining to Spain." The term is technically correct for only some Latinos, given that Brazilenos' European heritage is Portuguese. "Latino" is actually short for "latinoamericano." And guess what? "Latin" is a dead language spoken by mostly white folks. Does that also somehow make the label invalid? I don't think so. What gives the name "Latino" legitimacy is the fact that it is a term of self-assertion, of self-designation. And, yes, as someone who's spent time on MiGente, there is still considerable debate and confusion over these terms in the Latino community, as well.

"...the demographic wave of "Hispanics" and "Latinos" should more accurately be called 'Spanish Americans', because after all, this is their ultimate origin." That contention is ridiculous on its face. Whose screwy version of history have you been reading? Most Latinos are Indio-Latinos and Afro-Latinos -- not blancos. Indio-Latinos, who comprise the majority of Latinos are indigenous to the Americas -- not Europe. Further, not only is it "not politically correct to point out that Hispanics ultimately trace their culture to Spain," it is also not historically correct. Yes, there are distinct European influences in Latino culture, but just as Africans had their own culture when they arrived here in holds of slave ships, so, too, did -- and do -- Indio and Afro-Latinos have distinct and rich cultural heritages that have been retained and strengthened and that pervade the whole of Latin American culture. I'm sure Dominicanos (who are almost all Afro-Latino) and aficionados of bachata, merengue, perico ripiao would be surprised to read they, their music and other aspects of their culture are the result of "European" origins. By the same token, I'm sure Indio and Afro-Latinos -- who, again, comprise the majority populations of Latin America -- would be greatly amused find they owe their origins to some white folks across the ocean. I bet you also believe Christopher Columbus "discovered" America, too, huh? (Bwoi, what you been smokin'? :-p)

Another false argument is your so-called "fundamental contradiction of the Afrocentrism." You've simply erected a strawman. A people and the way they choose to identify themselves are not somehow magically rendered "authentic" because they suddenly decide to distinguish themselves from Europeans (or any other group). They are already cuturally, historically and existentially distinct. The name change is simply an outward manifestation of an internal self-identification process that naturally occurs/evolves once a degree of self-empowerment and self-determination have come to the fore. In these populations, the felt necessity to define oneself as separate from those who have subjugated/oppressed them is particularly strong and, IMO, particularly and pointedly legitimate/authentic.

And this isn't about what people are "allowed" to do. This is not about being granted permission to call oneself something. This is about, again, self-designation, people who traditionally have been defined/named by an external culture appropriating/crafting terminology which they find acceptable in order to define themselves. "Afro-centrism"? I would wage that most everyday black folks who use the term African-American or Afro-American (IMO, unfortunately) have not even considered the political implications of the term. It is merely an expression of pride in one's culture, in one's heritage -- no different from "Polish-American," "Italian-American," etc.

If you've read the previous discussion to which you repeatedly have been referred, you would recognize that the political nature of the term African-American is evident; it has been discussed in the archived section -- and, again, in my comments herein.

And, "Most black Africans (and all Africans) are startled and perplexed by the term, and even take offense at it" [emphasis added]? I don't know. I haven't polled "most" black Africans, but none of my African friends or acquaintances has expressed any puzzlement or offense at the use of "African-American" by previously so-called "American Negroes," or "black Americans." And, dang, bwoi! You must have taken the Armstrong Williams-Whoopi Goldberg excursion to Africa. Wrong. Again. I've never been, but friends of mine who have tell me that those Africans on the continent who initially may be confused by the term, once it is explained to them, embrace it wholeheartedly. They see us as long, lost "cousins." ("Omowale," or "the one who has returned to us," is a common name given by Nigerians to brothers who make the trip "home to Africa.") But one thing is important here and must be noted: for a term of self-designation to have legitimacy, the only requirement is that it be widely accepted by the population to which it refers. And that means we don't need the imprimatur of folks like Whoopi Goldberg, or white folks, or even native black Africans. Hell, we can call ourselves "Moonpies," if we want, and cain't nobody say a mumblin' word (that has any significance or import). deeceevoice 07:09, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

West Indian/ Caribbean input

For what may be construed as a NPOV: I am a citizen of a Caribbean/ West Indian island, British colonial background, with two (black)(African) grandmothers, one white local grandfather and one white grandfather of US origin(he came and left!). No details of whether the two grandmothers came directly from african slave origins, free african, or via US slave origins. Local blacks are mostly of former British slave owners, especially Loyalists who fled US during War of Independence from Britain, and freed slaves released from intercepted ships (eg. Amistad and Creole) still engaged in slave trade with countries which had Emancipation after Britain. I am a (biracial)(half-breed)(mixed)(mulatto)who is often confused as hispanic ie. cuban, puerto rican or dominican when I travel to US by ALL in US. Locally, as the population is about 80%black, 10% white and 10% mixed, asian, east indian, etc., I am often called white boy, reds (=redbone) and a few other local appellations which you would not recognize. We have no indigenous amerindian population. The south Florida Hispanics? assume that I am one of them when I walk in, but opinions are visually apparent when my accent is heard. The US blacks (my usage) accept me a little more, but I am not black enough, etc. White Americans seem to treat me a little different I think, as a foreigner, meaning a little more positively than I feel they talk to African-Americans. I have family, friends, schoolmates in and from USA, and resided in various areas for school and temporary work assignments. Many African-Americans become upset at us in the Caribbean because we, decendants of a slave system, do not dwell on the topic as much, and sometimes appear indifferent. As majorities, we have taken over the politics of our countries, with some whites involved in appropriate percentages. Most would not vote for a white President or Prime Minister yet, but we are on the way. Mixed black/white with 'blacker' hair texture are black, whereas mixed with "softer" hair textures and "hispanic" features are white, red or local appellations. (See conchy-joe or redlegs). Most West Indians and Caribbean islanders are so engrossed in our our albeit newer cultures that we often do not know or care to know our African roots. We identify locally, and feel at home and at ease that we do not long for Mother Africa, or its identity. we definitely are not moving back. We are so laid back until we are horizontal. We still use the equivalent of racial slurs at each other in general mixed conversation, but everyone knows when and where. Yes, some get upset, but we are growing out of it, and sometimes it still hurts when it gets heated. We are on our way to some of the first world standards, and sometimes we wish some of the first world standards would slacken up a bit. Call me what you want, but do not call me Collect.

Manowar

Like practically all New World Africans, I'm a mongrel, too: African (from possibly Angola or thereabouts, since I was born in Louisiana; Caddo; Cherokee; Irish). In my multicultural, multi-ethnic, multilingual community, I'm often mistaken for Latina, myself -- especially when I speak Spanish. Also, E. Indian/Bangladeshi; Ethiopian; Egyptian -- you name it. But that's because many Latinos have African ancestors, and people of color look pretty much the same the world over. I remember taking a trip to British Columbia as a young child (1960s), and as we were entering a restaurant, the local white folks started counting as we passed by. When they got to one of my sisters, they exclaimed, "Look! There's an Eskimo!" But, IMO, black is black. Such curiosity/cases of mistaken identity on the part of others are pretty much par for the course.

I appreciate your contribution -- but are we supposed to do something with this, article-wise? Serious question. (You may want to take a look at black Canadian, if you haven't already done so.) deeceevoice 21:33, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Black American Ancestry

"Many African Americans also claim European, Native American, or Asian ancestors."

The the last time I checked Blacks were just European, Native American, and African. That is what composes the modern Black American. So where did this Asian part come from?

-Eurytus

My guess would be that the author was (rightly) including African Americans of Caribbean and Latin American descent, a number of whom have Chinese and/or indian ancestry. And/Or the author might have been considering American Indians as being of Asian orgin. Quill 22:48, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What? You've never heard/don't know of any of black men having children with Asian women? These offspring are also African-American. deeceevoice 02:37, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think your talking about Blacks have kids with Asian recently. I'm talk about the large scale mixing of African, Europeans, and Native Americans to form the collective gene pool that is the modern Black American. Asians were not included in this process. Asians haven't even been in this country that long to have contributed anything the development of Blacks. And West Indians are not African American. It doesn't matter that a couple of folks did out West I'm talking about the people as a whole.

-Eurytus

Sorry, but you don't have a clue. Asians helped build the nation's railroads. They've been in this country in significant numbers since the 1800's. And, particularly black GI's have been marrying/having kids with Asian women (Japanese, Korean, Cambodian -- you name it) for decades. What? You don't know any black-Asian folks? Tiger Woods ain't the only one. Further, the article doesn't say anything about who has or who hasn't "contributed anything [in] the development of blacks," vis-a-vis this issue. This is simply about who is and who isn't African-American. And the folks I know who have Asian ancestry (including some of my cousins) are most definitely African-American. deeceevoice 10:51, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I seem to recall reading somewhere (sorry, no idea where, now) that many of the "Buffalo soldiers" (African-American soldiers in segregated regiments, used in wars against the Plains Indians) took up with Chinese or Native American partners while out there. So the Asian mixture started quite a while back (although my guess would be that it has accelerated post-WWII, for the reasons you mention - also add Filipinos). Certainly the Chinese immigration to the West started quite a long time ago - they were already there on the ground in large numbers when the Southern Pacific started recruiting them to build the SPRR, during the 1860's (Chinese labourers did much of the tunneling and other rock work to get over/through the Sierra Nevada). (And in fact white Californians were so worried over Chinese immigration that restrictions on their immigration were put in place in the late 1800's - don't recall when, alas, should be easy to research, though.) Noel (talk) 14:12, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I hadn't addressed the Native American thing, because Quill already mentioned it. But blacks and Native Americans have been "mixing"/intermarrying since the beginning. NA's often took in runaway slaves. There is a long and interesting history about blacks and Native Americans coming together to fight white folks and of blacks joining NA tribes. The Seminoles, Choctaw, Creek and Chickasaw are notable in this regard. Cherokees, too -- though some held black slaves after the Confederacy offered some tribes the right to hold black slaves as a quid pro quo for strategic access to Indian land during the Civil War. Many Native Americans despised the white man for his treatment not only of their own people, but because of slavery. One notable chief (whose name escapes me) essentially said that African slavery was a true sign that whites were despicable and morally bankrupt, that they could not be trusted or respected.

Blacks were respected members of Indian nations, some becoming tribal leaders: e.g., John Horse was one of Seminole chief Osceola's closest lieutenants. In fact, Andrew Jackson's brutal forced march of southeastern tribes to the West was a calculated attempt to dismantle the alliances between Africans and NA's, because they were killing too many white folks. Together, blacks and NA's were formidable opponents to white territorial expansion, NA genocide and slavery. Lots of "black Indians" went West on the Trail of Tears, and there are lots of them still out in Oklahoma, Kansas and thereabouts. Also, there was tremendous debate in some NA tribes/communities who had black tribal members regarding the Civil War. Out West, notably some Choctaw and Chickasaw voted to join the War and fight for the Union because of slavery. The issue of slavery and the Civil War split the tribes. As the article states, in the 1970s, the Amsterdam News reported that blacks w/Native American ancestry numbered in the upper 80th percentile. My people are from Louisiana, and I myself am Caddo and Cherokee on both sides of my family, with my "Mama Jane" (my paternal great-grandmother) being a "full blood" (Cherokee). So, "racially" speaking, I'm Asian, too. And I'm as African-American (culturally and politically) as we come. deeceevoice 14:52, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I only mentioned the Native American connection in passing in my comments above because I was mostly commenting on the Asian connection (but didn't want to leave the mistaken impression that the Buffalo Soldiers only took up with Asian women). I did know of the long-standing connection between African-Americans and Native Americans, but some of your details are new to me - the thing with the Civil War splitting the tribes was very interesting. Noel (talk) 15:26, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, you didn't give that impression. I'm counting Native Americas as, technically, ("racially") "Asian." But I did suspect that someone reading your comments might think that Buffalo soldiers were the first Africans to intermarry w/Native Americans. Just wanted to put the black-NA interface in historical perspective. 'S all. deeceevoice 15:45, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There are 36 million Black Americans in the United States and only 2 million claim some sort of other heritage. Your arguement are invalid because to be valid they have to go back hundreds of years not decades and have to apply to the Black population at large. There have never been enough Black out West for a long enough time to make Asian important to the development of Black Americans. Just because your family is mixed like that doesn't mean it applies to all Black people and does mean your scenario applies to everyone. The modern Black American is African, European, and Native American and this can be traced back to the early history of America. Native Americans are not Asians in any form. I know all about the "Five Civilized Tribes" and how the Cherokee and other owned slaves and treat them just as badly as whites did. I know about the Seminoles and how they took in runaway slaves. These are the root of the NA mixture in Black heritage. But you can't just write whatever you think is right in your mind they page is subject to the opinions of other and the majority of people don't think Native Americans are Asian and not enough Black people are mixed to have the passage "Most African Americans also have other ancestry such as European, Native American or Asian ancestry." 2 million isn't most Black people and the fact that Black by default are African, European, and Native American makes its irrelevant. -Eurytus

What's with you? The article simply says "most" have ancestors other than indigenous Africans. And that's accurate. A website AncestrybyDNA says: "High levels of admixture are highly characteristic of recent admixture events and various populations show systematic types of admixtures. The average African American shows 20% European admixture..." One needn't resort to DNA testing to verify that African-Americans are a bunch of mongrels. Just look at us. How many mahogany brown brothers and sisters do you come across -- especially above the Mason-Dixon Line and out West? And I know personally many more black folks with Native American ancestors than white ones. What does that tell you about the percentage of African Americans with NA ancestry (and keep in mind the article in the 1970s in the black newspaper the New York New Amsterdam New, which mentioned numbers in the upper 80th percentile). YOur objections to the statement are not grounded in fact. The majority of African-Americans in this nation ARE, indeed, mixed with other ethnic groups. There are precious few, if any, pure Africans in this nation whose ancestors survived the Middle Passage. deeceevoice 01:35, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm saying its inaccurate to say Black people are only one when we are all three. Black people have interbred with one another to the point whereall of us have European and Native American. I just wanted to have it hcanged to something like "The majority of African Americans are of an African, European, and Native American mixed ancestry." Since you seem to be big on facts like that I figured you agree. Black people didn't just mix with Indians or white and go there seperate ways they jump back in the gene pool hand down these treats the the rest of us. You just make it seem like we're suppose to be pure African when its this distinct ethnic cocktail that makes us a seperate ethnic group from Jamaicans or Mau Mau. I didn't delete it I altered it. -Eurytus

I tweaked it ever so slightly. It works for me. Far better than simply just repeatedly deleting something you don't like. :-) deeceevoice 07:08, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Bias dressed up

The sections you're trying to delete from African American -- U.S. Lexicon are a legitimate discussion of the history of black and white relations in the United States, and it's not appropriate to delete these valid paragraphs. RickK 07:28, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

It is NOT legitimate for non-AA's to comment on slang used for a minority in an encyclopedia. This is not scholarship, but bias dressed up. When the European American page starts getting edited by Quill, RRick and the other biased, fanatically oriented watch-list based posters (not authors), then I'll believe you. objective 07:36, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC) ....actually posted not by "objective" but by Gearle0521

Well as expected, two administrators, RRick and Gadfium, staff engineers in Silicon Valley have started using their deleting power on a newbie. Because they have to make sure African Americans are constantly denegrated and under attack, they will maintain their unbelievable attention to this stupid page, which only race oriented people would use ask their definition guide! ....at 08:17, 2005 Jan 26 69.107.115.110 forgot to add four twiddles to that comment.

Gearle, you're way off the mark. How the hell do you know who's an AA and who isn't? Besides, the passages you've tried to expunge are, indeed, valid. Your deletion of the discussion page is vandalism, plain and simple -- and you're in violation of the three-revert role. Get a grip. Thanks, by the way, to RickK for restoring the talk page via a redirect.deeceevoice 09:25, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't know where Gearle got the impression that I'm a staff engineer in Silicon Valley. It's not true, but even if it were, so what? RickK 23:47, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? Please do not simply chuck my name about out of context, particularly not slinging unfounded insults--what on earth does this mean "...biased, fanatically oriented watch-list based posters (not authors)...."?? Quill 01:41, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ancestry

I made an edit of the ancestry in the beginning to explain what I meant. deeceevoice had confused me with the Asian part. So I changed it to reflect the the African, European, and Native ancestry instead of dee's European or Native. The Asian he put in there through me off. Just wanted to clear that up.

west africa

do african americans know much about african culture? I have a Nigerian friend and she says african americans are so different from their roots that to call them "west african" culturally would be an insult. Do they actually speak bantu, swahili, or any of the african languages? Or is it all made up, like the juneteenth holiday instead of christmas. She said african americans have more in common with people from southern states than with people actually from africa. She said dressing up in colorful tribal clothing and headbands is an insult to african heritage. She's from africa so I'm not really sure how african americans would make any of this.

Though entitled to her own opinion, your friend is tragically, abysmally ignorant. I'm not certain who "them" refers to ("...that to call them '[W]est [A]frican' culturally would be an insult."). Presumably, you're referring to our roots -- which most definitely are in West and Sub-Saharan Africa. There can be no debate on this point; Africa is where our ancestors originated. In claiming our African heritage, we are simply saying, "We are an African people"; we are of Africa.

Frankly, your "friend"'s uninformed opinions on the matter are not terribly important to me as an African-American; we are who we are. And we can dress as we choose. I mean, really. Consider the fact that a hell of a lot more Africans wear Western clothing than African-Americans wear African-inspired attire. Further, your "friend" needs to get a clue and educate herself about African-American culture. Many Africans who are familiar with it readily see many similarities in our cultural traditions. Perhaps you should direct your friend to read some of the articles on Wikipedia which treat African-American culture: jazz, blues, African American Vernacular English, for example -- and then challenge her to repeat the same ignorant opinions (which to me sound colored by resentments/biases, rather than informed by concrete knowledge). deeceevoice 06:29, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And, no. I would venture to say that many African-Americans probably don't know much about African culture(s) -- probably about as much as anyone might know about a continent about which they've learned only vicariously and whose ancestors left that continent's shores centuries before.

One correction of a misapprehension implicit in one of your comments: Juneteenth is a celebration of Emancipation that originated in Texas and Louisiana, and is celebrated -- as the name clearly suggests -- in June. The December, week-long, African-American holiday celebrated immediately after Christmas is Kwanzaa. deeceevoice 14:21, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That's why I prefer Black American because were aren't Africans. The African was bled out of us centuries ago. Your friends assinine and contemptuous comments show the schism that exist in the African diaspora. We are our own people with our own culture and our own history. Yes we have more in common with white Southerners because that is where the majority of our ancestors lived in bondage and developed thereafter. We have no ties with Africa other than our forefathers originated from Africa and don't need or desire any connection with a forsaken land that only have ill will for the most prosperous and affluence branch of the diaspora. Eurytus

Non-African blacks, non-black Africans

How can there be NO comment in this article on the fact that African American is used as a blanket term for black people? I don't see one. Colin Powell, it may shock some to know, is not directly of African descent; his family is Jamaican. Yet most people still erroneously refer to him as African American. (Are black Jamaicans descended from Africans? Based on the minor mention on the Jamaica article, yes. If my family moved from Italy to Spain, had a child, that child married, moved to America and had me, am I Italian-American or Spanish-American? And what if that first child's family spent several generations in Spain before coming to America?)

This was all humorously summed up an exchange on a forum. The topic was "ridiculous things you've heard in class." One of the ones submitted was "Someone in my literature class called Othello 'African American'".

Someone then responded to the thread, "uh, he was african american."

It took some replies to point out how instantly we Americans link "black" and "African American". To that, the politically correct forces have succeeded. It's also important in the way that it has affected our thinking. "African American", as a term, may be inaccurate, but it is what we instantly use for anyone who is black, whether it is geographically or chronologically accurate.

And then there is, of course, the fact that "African American" doesn't apply to a large portion of African Americans - those of Arab descent from northern Africa, and those of European descent from the southern countries, South Africa in particular. (Is Charlize Theron the second African American woman to win the best actress oscar? If not, why? What makes her, born in Africa, less African from Halle Berry, who is many generations removed from her African heritage, AND THEN only on one side of her family?)

I am shocked that there is no mention of this intellectual divide in this article. I'd add it myself, except I don't know how best to express it. Maybe we can chat about it. --Golbez 21:38, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

This has all been discussed before ad nauseam. And just because white Americans refer to all black folks as African-Americans, that doesn't make it correct. Peruse the discussion threads (some archived) for more info. deeceevoice 21:52, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't care what discussion says - I care that there is no mention of this whatsoever in the article. Even a cursory mention of this would be sufficient. Are you saying the discussion, ad nauseam, came to the conclusion that people shouldn't be told about this, and that they should have to browse through archives of discussion to find any mention of it? --Golbez 02:02, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

"I don't care what discussion says"--then you need to rethink your attitude.

There are no archives and I just browsed through. I see few civil arguments about anything. --Golbez 08:54, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

"Are you saying the discussion..." No, I think s/he's pointing out that Wikipedia etiquette is to read the discussion on controversial articles before demanding or making changes. This article has quite a history, including NPOV messages several times. I also think s/he might be saying that Wikipedian authors and editors are not necessarily going to monitor every article and repeat every thought they've ever had for the benefit of people who have just discovered the issue. Sometimes, of course, the former discussions were so long ago that the original players have moved on, in which case you can rehash away..... Quill 08:43, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Do you have any idea how difficult that discussion is to read? :P --Golbez 08:54, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, actually, I do--having had to wade through much of it myself (and giving up on the most incoherent bits). I also know how intolerant and unreasonable some of the contributors are. You have my sympathy. Quill 20:59, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Several comments.

1. Etymology is not necessarily definition. Just like "anti-semitism" means being opposed to Jews, not to Semites, "African American" is a social construct and does not simply mean that a person happens to be of African descent and live in America. It would be odd to call Charlize Theron "African American"; it is unlikely that someone would do so other than polemically.
2. For what it's worth, yes, Jamaican descendants of slaves (and Brazilian, and Peruvian, etc.) have ancestry from essentially the same parts of Africa as African Americans. The degree to which a person of African descent living in the U.S. would be called "African American" would ty[ically reflect the degree of that person's assimilation into the African American community and identity. Yes, I think it is appropriate to call Colin Powell an African American, but there are other people of Jamaican descent in the U.S. where this would be a misleading term.
3. Similarly, many relatively recent immigrants from Ethiopia, Eritrea, etc., and even their children born in the U.S., do not generally identify as "African American"; they may identify as "Ethiopian American", "Eritrean American", etc. (1) Their immigration was, unlike the descendants of slaves, voluntary and recent; (2) they retain strong and direct cultural ties to a specific African country; and (3) Their descent is not from the same African ethic groups that make up the ancestry of most African Americans. Note that all of these statements would apply equally to Charlize Theron.

-- Jmabel | Talk 07:05, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

As I've already said, every point you've raised (including bringing up white African citizens) already has been discussed, and the article you see before you is the result of pages and pages of such give and take. The definition of "African-American" is precisely that stated in the article. It does not include people of other nationalities -- any more than "Italian" includes Swedes or Chinese. Addressing people's ignorant, misguided, or intentionally provocative and often equally silly misnomers for all the people not included in the category of people under discussion apparently became a casualty of editing; it simply is not central/critical to the subject at hand. (The article was far too long and has been edited and split up into various subcategories as a result.) After all, it is certainly more effective and useful to define what something is than what it is not, the space better allocated to dealing with the subject at hand than those who are irrelevant to it. Presumably, there are articles in Wikipedia on other related (or unrelated) groups who are not strictly included in the category "African-American." If not, perhaps someone will author one. (Note the links at the bottom of the page.)

There is a reference to people's various misconceptions regarding the term: "The term African-American refers only to United States citizens, but is often applied to black residents who are not citizens."

That has been deemed sufficient.

If, after reading the discussion regarding this matter, you still feel strongly about whatever it is you may feel strongly about, then have at it -- and we'll see what sticks. deeceevoice 08:33, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Done. Also, y'all might want to know that there's a page doubling up there. --Golbez 08:54, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Nasty, nasty page doubling at that. Perhaps it's time to archive this and move on. Also, you'll note I don't have the moronic view that there should be articles on "white american", etc - I know African American is a widespread, valid term - but one that, on its face, is used perhaps inaccurately at times. It was that disconnect between the words and the meaning that I wanted to express, and I think I have. However, thanks to our short chat here, and the article itself, I have withdrawn all associated objections and questions. However, I still think that clause, in some form, needs to remain. It's there; what happens now is up to y'all. --Golbez 09:06, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Golbez, I appreciate your attempt to address this issue, but, unfortunately ... deleted:

"Many Americans who are not of directly African descent (for instance, from Jamaica) are called African Americans, and many Africans who come to America (Arabs from north Africa and European descendants from various nations in Sub-Saharan Africa) are not typically called African American. Many recent emigres, particularly from east Africa, identify more with their home country than with the continent as a whole. Therefore, the term should be considered a label, rather than a descriptor. The previously favored terms, like black, were both labels and descriptions."

Black Caribbean-Americans are already included in the definition of "African-American" as presented in the article, because they are decendants of indigenous sub-Saharan/West Africans. North Africans (even though some are clearly Afro-Semitic) are not from West or sub-Saharan Africa and are automatically excluded from the definition, so there is no conflict there. Europeans are automatically excluded, because they are not. The only people indigenous to these portions of Africa (and, incidentally, I would argue, indigenous to the entire African continent) are blacks. Further, your comments certainly do not belong under "Political Implications" (or whatever that subhead is). At one time, there was some commentary on African emigres, and your point about their customary identification with specific country-of-origin has been duly noted in earlier discussion; but the fact is that emigres from Africa often do both. And while I personally confine the use of the term to those blacks whose ancestors (historically American or from the Caribbean) who survived the Middle Passage, if you're black and you're an American citizen, you're generally considered an African American. Peace. That's the way the U.S. government sees it. That's the way, I think, most people see it. deeceevoice 10:17, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The US government says a lot of things, so do most people, that doesn't make them right. :P I will not challenge the deletion; the header, I suppose, includes enough information, if in a vague fashion. ("The majority of African Americans are of African, European and Native American ancestry." Yet there is only one future mention of blacks with a European ancestry later on in the article, and then only in the context of explaining mulatto) I still think a mention of the disconnect between the words and the meaning should be mentioned, but I won't force the issue. I am a considerate chap, after all. :) I've already reverted my changes to a couple other articles. Your arguments are persuasive.

In the meantime, that doubling really must be fixed. I'm going to take a stab at it, don't take it personally if I somehow screw up. :) --Golbez 17:53, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

My favourite in this regard: I heard an American speaker explain the significance of Soweto by calling it a place where "the African Americans rioted against the ruling apartheid regime". See how many things you can find wrong with that one sentence. DJ Clayworth 18:03, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Perhapse it would be appropriate to have an article Who is an African American?, parallel to Who is a Jew?. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:53, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Why is it that the term can't just be the descendents of American Slaves? That inlcudes Blacks in America, some in Canada, and you could also say Americo-Liberians. However everyone insist on grouping us in with Africans, West Indians, and Latin American Blacks. How do we differentiate between a Black in the United States that is the descendent of American slaves and a pure African or some guy that just got off the boat from Jamaica. Is there something wrong with being our own people or something? -Eurytus

The term could be just about anything, but the point is the term is what it is. Many black folks, including myself, would object to a term such as "decendants of American slaves -- first, because it uses our subjugation as a primary identifier. (How 'bout calling Native Americans "descendants of indigenous Americans who got their land snatched out from under them"?) Besides, your suggested tag is just too damned long! :-p

Personally, I use the term African-American to refer only to those whose descendants survived the Middle Passage; that was the way the term originally was intended, as a more dignified term containing a geographic marker as a manifestation of ethnic pride in our blackness and in our African roots, as one that parallels the titles other ethnic groups in this nation -- the salient, defining characteristic of which is that it traditionally has been comprised by peoples from all over the world -- traditionally meant to replace "American Negro." But language being what it is, traditions of use also change the meaning of words over time. But I draw the line at people's ignorance or purposeful obtuseness or just plain silly arguments for the hell of it: e.g., white people. I don't care if their families have been in Africa for centuries. They cannot be African-Americans. Traditionally in this country -- as I explained months ago in "A commonsense explanation of the term" -- the "American" part of a what used to be called a "hyphenated American," because the words commonly were hyphenated (e.g., "Italian-American," "Irish-American," etc.), is a function of nationality. We are American citizens. The specific country preceding "American" referred to country of origin. Because of the circumstances of our ancestors' arrival in this nation, specificity in that regard was impossible. So, we did the next best thing and claimed the whole damned continent! I got no problem with that. IMO, it's fitting and proper. Much of our cultural expression, who we are, is suffused with Mother Africa; we are not simply darker versions of white southerners or white Americans, generally. No one familiar with our history or who truly understands the nature of African-American culture would dare say such an absurdly wrong-headed thing. What separates us from our Caribbean brothers and sisters is the use of "Caribbean-American" (which I just don't hear), or simply the use of the name of the island from whence they originated. People are "Jamaicans," "Bajans," etc. -- or, again, according to American custom, "Jamaican-American" and such -- which I also rarely hear. The same goes for people from the continent. They are "Ethiopian" or "Nigerian" -- never Nigerian-American, etc. (though that would be proper). I never hear them referring to themselves as "African-American." That's generally something ignorant white folks do; to them we're pretty much all the same, anyway. They tend not to attach any importance to our specific nations of origin; we're often just "those black people." IMO, such ignorant lumping together of everyone black into an amorphous mass is a product of our (blacks' and whites') distance from one another, of a society which remains, still, heavily segregated -- not to mention polarized -- along the lines of "race." As well, it is a product of just garden-variety, "ugly American" ignorance about anything other than America. I don't think the average American could name ten African nations if their life depended on it. deeceevoice 08:05, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hear, hear. (100% endorsement of the above) -- Jmabel | Talk 20:40, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Crime statistics

SS88 (aka SS-88 or NSM88) has added a section on crime statistics, stating:

According to the US Department of Justice, 28% of African American males will enter prison during their lifetime as compared to 16% of Hispanic males and 4% of white males.

This seems to come from [1], a report from 1997 that has been superseded by a newer report [2] from 2001. Both reports essentially confirm these numbers.

Of the state prison population in 1991, 65% are either African American or Hispanic. The figure from 1986 was 60%.

Not sure about this one, since the 1991 statistics don't seem to be online. However, the most recent such statistics I found is [3] from 1998, which, according to its table 5.6, gives the numbers as 41% White, 47% African American, 10% unknown, 1% miscellaneous (American Indian, Inuit, Asian, Hawaiian).

Of people convicted of drug trafficking in US courts in 1990, 85% were male 42% were white, 57% black, and 1% of other races

No source found. Maybe the author could give one?

So much for fact checking. Now, whether these statistics belong in this article or whether there is a more suitable place elsewhere is another question. Lupo 12:27, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have deleted:

==African-American Crime Statistics==

According to the US Department of Justice, 28% of African American males will enter prison during their lifetime as compared to 16% of Hispanic males and 4% of white males.

Of the state prison population in 1991, 65% are either African American or Hispanic. The figure from 1986 was 60%.

Of people convicted of drug trafficking in US courts in 1990, 85% were male 42% were white, 57% black, and 1% of other races

Gee, I wonder if, in a general article on Lations, or Jews, or whites there are crime statistics. Hell, no! There is a subhead on contemporary issues (or something of the sort) wherein there is a reference to a yet unwritten article on African American - Contemporary issues (or something). Apparently some people thought such a subject was essential, so such statistics belong --if at all -- there, in the context of an intelligent discussion of related issues, where some kind of context can be established for them. However, I would expect the same kind of treatment of other ethnic groups on Wiki w/regard to challenges of education, crime, substance abuse, etc. For my money, I'd leave it alone. Not that I'm sensitive about any of that; I just don't trust Wiki to be able to produce something that isn't riddled with incredibly naive or outright racist bullcrap. But, then, that's just me. :-p deeceevoice 15:47, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm. I think the disproportionate imprisonment of African Americans, especially African American males, belongs in the article, but to call it "crime statistics" is extremely misleading. For example, studies have shown that drug use among African Americans is about the same as in the general population (maybe a tad below average), but at each stage of the criminal justice process, African Americans fare worse than others. I've seen (but cannot cite) statistics to the effect that African Americans are roughly 13% of drug users (that is, about proportionate to their numbers), 35% of those arrested on drug-related charges, over 50% of those tried, and 75% of those given prison time. deeceevoice, would you agree that if we can find a good citation on something along these lines it belongs? -- Jmabel | Talk 18:57, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Not unless you're going to add in crime statistics to the articles of every other 'hyphenated-American'.

And why is there a photograph of Ali in a fight? This is hardly representative of African Americans?

Quill 20:55, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I would suggest addressing the second question to the person who put it there; I for one think it's neither the best nor the worst possible choice (we could certainly do worse than a person who is probably the most admired athlete of the 20th century on a world basis).

Again, though, on imprisonment statistics, I think it is utterly misleading to call them "crime statistics", and I think the disproportionate arrest, prosecution, and punishment of African Americans belongs here, as does the disproportionately mild sentencing of those, African American or not, who are charged with crimes against African Americans. This is an important constituent of institutional racism in America. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:40, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Insitutional racism? Why not just add a section on "blame whitey"? Wareware 03:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think Wareware's remark speaks for itself, and many of the things I could say in response would violate the policy against personal attacks.

Let's see: within my lifetime (I'm 50) there were laws in many states against "Negroes" (as they were then called) marrying Whites. Lynching was fading out, but in my own Long Island, New York neighborhood, the first time an African American family moved in some idiot, presumably white (never caught) poured gasoline in the shape of a cross on their front lawn one night and lit it. In Connecticut, my closest African American friend in college, now a Hegelian scholar of some note, was arrested one night simply walking back from downtown to campus: this never happened to me or any of my white friends.

To take this away from my personal anecdotes, a piece of PBS reporting from about four years back, while characterizing police shootings of civilians as "rare", says that "Blacks and Hispanics... report violent or potentially violent encounters with police at twice the rate of whites." Current African American unemployment rates run about twice those for Whites (I lack a cite on that, but the numbers are roughly 11% and 5.5% respectively). At the risk of troll-feeding: do you think these things are coincidence? Do you think that African Americans just have a cultural tendency toward getting in the way of police bullets and staying away from prospective employers? How about infant mortality rates, as bad in some of the predominantly African American inner city ghettoes as in a third world country? Don't you think that might have, oh, a little something to do with the U.S., institutionally, not concerning itself with the problem? -- Jmabel | Talk 18:47, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Oh really? I'd rather listen to what Ward Connely and Bill Cosby have to say about it than some liberal PC-police who like to taut the culture of dependent victimhood. Oh look, we're all really poor and innocent victims exploited by the system [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1340801/posts have a laugh] Wareware 20:47, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Since you bring up Bill Cosby, here's a piece by his wife, entitled "Prejudice Permeates American Culture". Or does your comment that you'd "rather listen" to what such people have to say stop when they say something with which you disagree? -- Jmabel | Talk 23:56, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah I'm sure America teaches ppl to kill blacks Really ludicrous. And yes I brought up Cosby because he said something the liberals wouldnt say, like stop portraying black criminals as "political prisoners." Wareware 00:04, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wareware's choice of source speaks for itself. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:12, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Back on the topic we were discussing before. Deeceevoice, I'd appreciate a response to my earlier remarks, though if you just want to leave it here I won't scream; I agree that the removal you made improves the article, but I still wonder if similar material, differently handled, would be an improvement. Right now, the article barely acknowledges (and really doesn't document) that African Americans today still have to contend with... well, with attitudes like the ones just expressed by our recent interlocutor. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:12, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

This talk page

I recently, and with great difficulty, cleaned up this talk page. About 2/3 of the sections were duplicated, in whole or in part, in no terribly obvious pattern. I some cases, one of the two versions of a section contained remarks not in the other. I've tried hard to preserve everything. Sincere apologies if anything got removed in the process, feel free to restore it. And I'm sure that the sections are no longer all in chronological order, but I'm pretty sure they haven't been in some time.

Anyway, it would be appreciated if someone would archive some of this. It might make sense to do archive a page just on the discussions of (1) whether African American is the most appropriate term and (2) whether recent white South African immigrants, Ethiopian immigrants, etc. are African American. Then when, inevitably, someone asks these questions again, we would have a single archive page to refer them to for the exhaustive, exhausting discussion. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:29, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I was going to suggest an archive; you beat me to it. I don't know how to do it myself. I think a note at the top of the TALK page indicating what the consensus is and where the archived discussions can be found would do wonders.

I also think it would be good to start this TALK page afresh from [date] and request that people sign and date their comments and use indenting, to keep that type of chaos from happening again. Your cleanup efforts are appreciated.

Quill 23:00, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10