Talk:African Americans/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions about African Americans. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archived

While the term African-American has some geographic significance, it often doesn't deal with racism and discrimnation that occurs in America and the world. If a caucasian is born in Africa also has roots in America, that person is deserving of the term "African American" also. Further, there are some African Americans who, due to their light complexion, do not have the same negative challenges as their darker counterparts. Thus, although it may seem shallow, the term "Brown Americans", "Oppressed Americans" may be more significant and shed some light on the issue of discrimination.

White South Africans: Archived

Several past discussions on Talk:African American about White South Africans and whether the label "African American" would apply to them are now archived at Talk:African American/Archive:White South Africans. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:50, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

White South Africans are Europeans and should be addressed as such. They should be called Euro-South Africans or Dutch/German/etc., South Africans. [Nita 1:40 CST]

Caribbean/West Indies: Archived

Several past discussions on Talk:African American about people in the West Indies, or about people in the U.S. of African ancestry via the West Indies, including (but not limited to) whether the label "African American" would apply to them are now archived at Talk:African American/Archive:West Indies -- Jmabel | Talk 07:48, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Crime, punishment, social problems, and bigotry: Archived

I'm trying to continue to group related topics together. I've archived several past discussions on Talk:African American, mostly related to crime, punishment, social problems, and bigotry. Lacking a good name, I'm just calling this archive Talk:African American/Archive 1—if someone has a name that is both mnemonic and neutral, a move might be in order. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:09, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Further archive

The rest of this seems not to categorize easily. There are a few stray specific questions and answers—usually a paragraph or two—and reams of discussion on whether "African American" is the right term. I've made the arbitrary decision to try to archive the portions of this that haven't had comments added in a few months. I am placing these at Talk:African American/Archive 2. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:55, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC) Further archives:

Contemporary Issues (new)

I think the contemporary issues section is poor. It consists largely of controversial statements that are presented as consensus but that should be attributed to particular sources. African American contemporary issues also has some similar problems, but is better written, more complete, and more coherent. How about just deleting the text here, leaving either just the link to the contemporary issues article, or the link along with the first paragraph of that article? Then people who want to improve the verifiability of information on this topic can focus their efforts on one place. --Allen 21:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree 100% I'm happy to not be alone in this view. Kemet 13 April 2006.

We may have an edit war brewing in the Contemporary Issues section, so I'd like to head that off by engaging in discussion.

As for The Bell Curve, neither it nor other studies relating race and intelligence have been discredited. They do remain controversial, however, with both supporters and detractors (see also IQ and the Wealth of Nations). However, this section may not be the best place for references to such works, so I think they can be left out here. However, it might be appropriate to mention The Bell Curve in the African American contemporary issues main article. (Depends on the nature of that article; I haven't read it closely.)

deeceevoice, who has made many quality edits here, has made a few more edits recently. One of his edits implies that while white racist actions are on the decline, white racism itself is not. I imagine that this was unintentional, and have changed that passage back to be closer to its original wording, which said that white racism has declined.

The fact that African Americans are more likely to be incarcerated is at least partially linked to the higher incidence of criminal activity among African Americans as a group. The part that demonstrated this was excised. Without that information, the article is unbalanced, and that information needs to be restored. However, other figures, provided by Jmabel elsewhere on this page, make it clear that there are other reasons for higher-than-average incarceration rates, and that information also needs to be included to ensure balance and NPOV.

The recent additions referencing sports were shortened, perhaps too much. Could their editor share his reasoning?

Let's work together to make a better article, OK? Godfrey Daniel 18:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I doubt whether Deeceevoice made an unintentional edit (she is one of the most careful editors around) and while I don't know the US I think it unlikely that white rascism has changed unless there has been significant integration in recent years, though one could argue that in the Latino immigrants the red-necks have a new target though this of course, while it might be able to demonstrate that white rascist hostility towards blacks has declined it wouldn't indicate any reduction in rascism. Others also argue that a lot of liberal political policies are institutionally rascist in favour of black people, another indication that white rascism not only has not declined but is found within most sections of American society (not just the socially conservative), so I would tend to support Deeceevoice's original statement that white rascism hasn't declined though white rascist attacks have, SqueakBox 18:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

My apologies to Deeceevoice for misidentifying her gender.

As for her being "one of the most careful editors around," I would normally agree, but if you look at the change log, she introduced both messy formatting and grammatical mistakes. I assume that she was having a bad day, though, and am certainly not holding her "bad edit day" against her.

As for the issue of the decline of racism, you have very insightfully pointed out that many liberal policies are actually racist. However, as an American, I have noticed in my lifetime a huge decline in overt white racism, and I would like to think that it was accompanied by an actual decrease in white racist attitudes. (One particularly interesting example is the virtual disappearance of racial/ethnic jokes told by whites; the only people I hear telling "n-word" jokes are black.)

Since we can only know actions and policies, and can't know what people are thinking, I am looking for a way to factually represent the current situation. I look forward to hearing your suggestions to improve the article. Godfrey Daniel 20:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

So, uh... any other opinions on my proposal to take out the contemporary issues section here and just link to African American contemporary issues (possibly leaving the first paragraph of that article)? I'm hoping it will reduce the need for this very kind of conflict, by concentrating our opinions on controversial topics onto one page. Kemet supports. If I don't hear any voices against it, I'll go ahead and make the change in a day or two. --Allen 13:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree, with the caveat that much of the information in this section needs to be incorporated into the African American contemporary issues page. IMO, that page suffers from too many "blacks as victims" passages.

BTW, 69.110.32.130, if you're reading this, please do two things: refrain from calling other users names, and refrain from calling edits that you disagree with "vandalism." (FYI, I was trying to clean up a messy edit, made after someone else removed material, and in any case, I don't appreciate my efforts being called "vandalism.") Godfrey Daniel 23:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed the citation with regard to homocides because we're talking about crime here, so I say let's get some more statistics on crime in general instead of something more specific like homocide. I grabbed another source that backs up the one-third of African American males being involved in the criminal justice system. I also changed incarceration back to committing crimes because we conviction statistics really tell you who's incarcerated more, not who commits crimes more.

Inner City Blues 02:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The Revision as of 20:36, 24 June 2006 by Dynamicknowledge24

Economically, the median income of African Americans is roughly 65 percent [1] of that of "white" people, that is, "people having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa" [2] to Economically, the median income of African Americans is roughly 55 percent of that of European Americans.

Deletes facts and cited figures. Note the changes move from cited and reputable sources with accurate data to a figure with no sources at all. Census data has, for some time, lumped "white" in terms that differentiate the useage of "white" in this article, and its important and socially significant to put this out - seeing how the dichotomy is placed between white and black and how "white" is placed in a category. White, in this context of the census, is an amalgamation of various groups. I can find no data within the last two or three years that look at these differences.

Yet the census chooses to separate for 'hispanic' which connected to identity, not 'race'. To keep with this arbitrary distinction one must wonder why other forms of identity isnt separated, such as Jewish, Catholic, Persian, Arab, etc. Its a very arbitrary distinction and how do you choose what groups of "white" constitute what is acceptable for "white" in terms of this article. This is a very difficult question to answer, but to say that "hispanic whites" dont enjoy priviledges of identification omits the self identification with "white". If, for the consensus of this article, people do not feel that this is the case, then a evaluation of the other categories of "white" are necessary to avoid conflation. Otherwise, a use of the "white" category is applicable for the terms of the argument. Also, it will be as important to critically analyze the term "black" in the census. What conflations lurk within that data?

Using the provided data, you will need to use the highest people on the race/median income chart to arrive at a figure near a 55 percent disparity between African-Americans and group (x), http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p60-229.pdf

Asian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......57,518

White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......46,697

White, not Hispanic . . . . . . . . 48,977

Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......30,134

Hispanic origin (any race) . . . . .34,241

Here, Asians fit this 55 pecent claim much closer with an actual 52 percent figure. White non-hispanic is at 62 percent.

Asians top median incomes in decades past as well [3]

Id like to know where Ms/Mr Dynamicknowledge24 found the data to determine that contemporary African Americans earn 55 percent less than European Americans. It should also be clearly stated for purposes of controlling the quality of this article. Statistics are very, very easy to spin into what information you are looking to promote. However, from the figures I'm pulling from the recent census data, I'm not sure how Ms/Mr Dynamicknowledge24 is arriving at 55%. To sum up, using the data of "white" and "black" from the above data, it is clear that the economic disparity is 65% not 55%.

- Dynamicknowledge24 deleted the entire paragraph of data - Revision as of 08:31, 30 June 2006 - without responding to the comments above. Paragraph was reposted. Discussion of this matter should be posted here, DynamicKnowledge24.

I removed the sentence (not a paragraph) from Contemporary Issues and placed it in Economics because it relates more to the Economic section of this article. Now, if a person reads this article in its entirety, that piece of data is repeated twice, once in Contemporary Issues and once in Economics, therefore, I am removing that data once more from the Contemporary Issues section and leaving it in the Economics sections it relates more to African American Economics.

Political overtones

The first paragraph of this section seems terribly biased in the "whitey is evil" direction. Can we tone down the rhetoric and get something more encyclopedic? Godfrey Daniel 09:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Political Emancipation

The wiki page Political_emancipation could use some attention. Currently it is only a stub. Particularly the explanation of the term 'political emancipation' entailing 'equal status of individual citizens in relation to the state, equality before the law, regardless of religion, property, or other “private” characteristics of individual persons' is construed to be an 'opinion' and 'not delivering a neutral point of view.' Does anyone have more information on the word 'emancipation' also being used in the political context of establishing (or any step moving towards) equality in light of the law? Inserting the Voting Rights Act as such a step of political emancipation was repeatedly erased.

The question one could pose, is: When there have been only 3 African-American Senators in modern times (out of more than the 1500 Senators in total), would you say that political emancipation has been achieved? FredrickS 18:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Nomenclature section

There have been several recent edits to the "nomenclature" section. Some of them are probably OK, others seem wrong to me. No need to discuss what seems right; here are my issues:

"The term African American has only been used in popular speech since the late eighties…" - I presume this is the 1980s (Jesse Jackson, mentioned later in the sentence) wasn't around in the 1880s), but I don't think it's true. I'm pretty sure I remember hearing it used quite a bit as early as about 1970, although I'll say quite honestly that I can't remember when it became more common to hear "African American" than "Afro-American". Anyway, it's very hard to document popular speech as against printed usage or even recorded speech. I'm not sure how one could ever verify this, unless it's with survey data on preferred terms. While I suspect that one could find a survey on the most preferred term to refer to an ethnic or racial group, it's probably very hard to find such data on what others have made it into popular speech. If we want to talk about when it came into usage, I suggest that we should stick to what can be documented.
"…as well-known figures like Jesse Jackson pressed for the adoption of a term that was more meaningful than an inaccurate color and also had some cultural connotations, like the popular ethnic labels Irish-American or Polish-American..." Is there any evidence of Jesse Jackson specifically pushing this particular usage? I don't particularly recall him doing so in any way more systematic than simpy using it. "…had some cultural connotations…" seems vague and unverifiable. (The analogy to "Irish-American", "Polish-American", etc. is undoubtedly part of what made the term stick, but again it would be good to find some citation for that, as well.)
"African American has been criticized because of its imprecise cultural and geographic meaning." "…has been criticized…" are definitely weasel words. Either we can cite some criticism (and it would be very relevant from what quarter that criticism came: very different if it came from a Black Nationalist or a Midwestern Republican white guy).
"The term African American as originally advocated…": "advocated"? By whom? The issue isn't how the term was advocated, it's how it is used, and, indeed, it "refers to only those descended from a small number of black colonial indentured servants and the estimated 10 to 11 million Africans who arrived in the U.S. as slaves," etc. I think the phrase as originally advocated is a liability here.

Jmabel | Talk 06:26, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

"The term does not include white, Indian or Arab immigrants from the African continent, as they are not generally considered 'Africans' by English-speaking people.".

The above phrase seems plain POV and only relevant within the common useage of "African American" within the USA. British, Australians, Canadians, South Africans and the rest of the English speaking World use the term "African" as a geographical identifier and not as a racial label. Anyone born, raised and holding nationality status within a nation of Africa would be considered 'African'. I recommend removing the end of the sentence that states: "as they are not generally considered 'Africans' by English-speaking people." I was going to suggest otherwise rewording this to something like: "as they are not generally considered 'Africans' by Americans." but, even this does not reflect real World useage of the term "Africans". Dbnull 5:01pm 13th Dec 2005

I'm with you: just drop the phrase "as they are not generally considered 'Africans' by English-speaking people." The first half of the sentence is accurate. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Someone has reverted the paragraph back to the original text (after quite sometime), I'll remake the same edit again Dbnull 19:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

My question is a simple one. Has the term "Black" become so politically incorrect that it is regarded as offensive? If so, what is the proper way to differentiate "Blacks" in countries outside the U.S.? I'm writing from Canada, and I've noticed that some people here are so politically correct, that when a colleague of mine was trying to identify another colleague of ours who happens to be a Black-Canadian, he said something along the lines of "you know, the African-American woman". Really? I always thought she was Canadian! The political correctness reached the pinnacle of silliness when Jay Leno's wife, on speaking of the terrible treatment of women in Taliban Afghanistan, compared their plight to that of "African-Americans in Apartheid South Africa". Really? Are there really that many African-Americans in South Africa? If so, what are they doing there? Are they on vacation from the U.S.?Loomis51 11:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Well according to some US thinkers it is Mexico who is rascist not the US. Classic imperialist attitude. The new wall of shame is abundant evidence that you are wrong, Loomis, in that any black person born outside the US and in the US right now without the legal right to be there is most certainly not an Afro-American but a criminal. Political coorrectness is affecting all areas of modern anglophone life. We must remember for this article that we are an international encyclopedia and the American worldview should be treated precisely as that; a world view, and not as any kind of reality, SqueakBox 13:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

SqueakBox, I honestly, genuinely, sincerely, have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Really. Its not that I disagree with you. I'd have to understand you first to be able to disagree with you. Your statement (and that's all I can call it, it's certainly not an argument...arguments have to have at least some degree of coherence) is essentially a run-on string of non-sequiturs. What on earth does Mexico have to do with any of this? You say I'm wrong...wrong about what? I'm really having trouble deciphering what you wrote. I'm at a complete loss as to how my question in any way labeled Black-Non-U.S.-Citizens as "criminals". As I said, I'm writing from Canada, where the term "African-American" cannot logically apply because we're Canadians, not Americans. Does that make any sense to you or have I lost you already? I have nothing but the greatest respect for the "Black-Canadian" colleague I was referring to. What on earth are you talking about? Can someone else perhaps help me out by shedding some light on what SqueakBox is talking about, or are you all as confused as I am?Loomis51 15:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I should explain myself better. Indeed it wasn't you who were claiming that non-US citizens were Americans but those Americans who are, apparently, claiming that black people born and resident outside the USA are Afro-Americans should wake up to the fact that this is not so, and that black people from south of the border are not considered Afro-Americans but illegal Afro-Latin American immigrants or criminals according to US legislation. So my only argument is with those who falsely label non-US blacks as Afro-Americans. Kind of insulting don't you think? And I do fully realise that you weren't making that claim, Loomis, and if I implied you did I apologise. Hope this is clearer, SqueakBox 16:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, SqueakBox, no hard feelings. I appreciate a good friendly debate. I'm beginning to understand you, but only very slightly. If I understand you correctly, I think we may actually agree. Are you trying to say that non-American Blacks are mistakenly referred to as African-Americans? If that was your point, then I totally agree with you. I'm also a little confused about your mention of criminals. Are you for or against illegal immigrants being labeled criminals? Finally, I don't think its a case of American chauvinism when non-American Blacks are referred to as African-Americans. My earlier example was proof of that. The person who mistakenly referred to my Black-Canadian colleague as "African-American" was himself not American, he was Colombian. So basically, I don't think the misuse of the term "African-American" is an example of US imperialism, I simply think it's a combination of ignorance, political correctness and sloppy English skills. But my original question remains, perhaps you can help me with it SqueakBox: Is referring to someone simply as "Black" in any way insulting? If so, what should be the correct term for people that would otherwise be described as "Black", but are not American?Loomis51 17:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

There are other deeper questions such as what it means to be American (it means something very different in Latin America) but I would say Afro-American means a black United States person and that it would be more insulting to call a non US person an Afro-American than to call them black, unless maybe one meant Afro-Latin American. I put an Afd on the Afro-Latin article because I thought the name and the very concept to be entirely inappropriate given that a lot of black people in Latin American feel insulted to be called African, and this is especially so in the common situation where people have a partial and not a full African heritage, but the consensus was to keep the article. So I thought you have touched on an important issue. I am against the criminalisation of migrants in the US and I think the proposed wall sends a very strong message to those living on the other (non-US) side of the wall. I certainly know some black people who have been deported back to Honduras, where I live, after living for years in the states because this is where they were born, and I am not sure Afro-American would be an approriate description of people in that situation, SqueakBox 18:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

You've got me interested. How is the Latin-American definition of "American" different from that in the US? We both live on the American continent (Canada and Honduras) but "American" seems to be reserved for the US. Is that what you mean? Another comment that seems a bit odd: As you say, in Latin America, the more "politically correct" term for Black people is "Black", whereas African-Honduran, or whatever, would be an insult. It seems that the situation in the US is the exact opposite.Loomis51 19:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it fair to say my interpretation is disputed. Some people of African origin do adopt the name Afro-Hondurans or whatever, possibly adapting the American term to themselves while others reject it but the whole issue of race is much less consciously dealt with in Latin America where if one is fluent in Spanish or Portuguese (Brazil), ie not an indigenous person, one is a ladino, and the awareness of race that I found in the UK, and which clearly exists in the US, is not to be found here in the same way, SqueakBox 20:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Regarding

"The term does not include white, Indian or Arab immigrants from the African continent, as they are not generally considered 'Africans'."

I have a problem with this logic. The Nomenclature section basically says that the term African-American cannot include 'White Africans' because white immigrants to the African continent are not considered 'African'. By the same logic (i.e. non-indigenous people cannot be referred to as being 'African') surely non-indigenous people in the US are not considered 'American'. Obviously, this reasoning falls flat. The issue really is where is the justification for the original problematic sentence? Who says that non-indigenous people, born, raised and have lived for many generations are not considered 'African'? I simply don't buy the statement and first-hand experience shows that many white SAs identify themselves as 'African' and are accepted as such throughout most of the World.

Agreed. I'm curious as to your opinion about Arab North Africans, not only have they been there a lot longer than White South Africans, but they form the vast majority in all African countries north of the Sahara. Further, the indigenous peoples conquered by the Arabs, the Berbers, are not considered Black either. Loomis51 23:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

In my mind the term African is a geographical/cultural identifier rather than a racial identifier. There are black/white/arab Europeans, black/white/arab Americans, black/white/arab Africans. There are some terms that are confusing when it comes to nationality/race/religion; Jewish being one such term. African really isn't. It seems that the term 'Arican American' causes problems because people want it to mean something that it literally doesn't mean. People seem to want it to mean someone who is black, from West Africa and is ancestrally related to the struggle of slavery within the US. What the term actually says (in keeping with all other xxxxxx-American phrases) is someone who has US citizenship and has an ancestral link to country/region xxxxxx.

The problem here is that it's a little late in the day to rebrand African-American to something that more logically matches the intended meaning. So, the explanation of the intended meaning becomes more and more tangled as the obvious shortfalls for this phrase become more and more apparent in an ever globalised community.

If you could source what you just said you should add it to the article as we have to reflect the reality of how things are rather than some ideal, SqueakBox 21:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Oxford English Dictionary -

African - noun

1 a person from Africa, especially a black person.

2 a person of black African descent.

African American (chiefly US)

• noun an American of African origin.

So, in the prior definition, African means both a person from Africa and, also, a black person from Africa. In the latter definition, an African-American is an 'American of African origin'. The wikipedia article is full of language that is trying really hard to redefine 'African' to exclude huge sections of population from the continent of Africa. If 'African' means (I'm simplifying here) a black person from Africa then 'African American' literally means what the current article tries to describe. However, it doesn't mean that, the term 'African' primarily means 'a person from Africa', irrespective of colour, race or religion. So, I feel that the sentence below is unfair and incorrect -

"The term does not include white, Indian or Arab immigrants from the African continent, as they are not generally considered 'Africans'."

Unfortunately, I fear that the removal of the sentence will cause other flare-ups as it weakens the desired definition currently in the nomenclature section.

Loomis, for Canada, I'd user Black Canadian or Afro-Canadian. I don't think I've ever heard "African Canadian" though I'm sure some people use it.

Black is not generally counted as offensive in the U.S. It would probably be the second-most-favored term today, and was the most favored from about 1966-c.1990. It has a certain connotation in the U.S. of Black Power and Black militancy. "African-Americans in Apartheid South Africa", unless one is referring to visitors from the U.S., is simply somebody's reflexes kicking in at the wrong time. And I agree that SqueakBox's initial remark was incomprehensible. If it hadn't been for the date in the sig, I wouldn't even have considered that this might be intended as a response to your question. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Jmabel. I think I'll continue to use the term "Black-Canadian" or just simply "Black". For one, its much more accurate than "African-Canadian" or "Afro-Canadian" for reasons discussed above. Second, in Canada, we're proud of our multi-cultural heritage, and so there isn't anywhere near the same degree of racial tension as there is in the U.S. Finally, although I'm not Black, as they said in the '60s, "Black is Beautiful", and I agree.Loomis51 01:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

So what are black people called in France, England, Spain, Peru, etc., etc.? And why do African Americans want to be called that rather than just "American" and/or "black"? I am of Irish, Scottish, English and German ancestry. Should I call myself a "Scots-Irish-Anglo-German-American"? ~MDR

Getting this article featured.

This article is almost ready to be nominated as a featured article. The three things I see it needing before then are

A longer and more detailed list of references and external links
More images
A longer introductory paragraph that sums up the major points of the article.

If we get these done, I'd say it's ready. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 21:17, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Comment:

To my knowledge, the term african-american originated around the time of the founding of the organization of african american unity, established by malcolm x, el hajj malik el shabazz. according to his own words, the organization was to be patterned letter to letter, from the organization of african unity. now when the oaau was established in 1964, the term african american denoted a political term, including all descendants of african slaves brought to the new world, including northern, central, southern america, as well as the carribean. even to this day certain africans of a more clarified political thought consider the term african american to represent this more inclusive definition.

i have never came across this particular page in wikipedia speaking on the topics of african-americans, the african diaspora, or the Maafa (swahili term for great tragedy, to describe slave trade that brought africans to america; many african-americans refer to themselves as survivors of the maafa.)

i think that asides from mentioning jesse jackson as the individual popularizing the term,'african american', (a grave historical error indeed), the article is educational,fair,and quite good.

references include: malcolm x speaks, any works on the maafa (especially from the afrocentric school of molefi asante), and the all african peoples revolutionary (one of their economists wrote a whole geopolitical piece on the term african american)

for fairness and objectivity i include the following comments. if you think these comments are helpful to finalizing the article, very well(i could more accurately give citations if you email me at eastside360@yahoo.com)

otherwise forgive me taking up your time.

sincerely, ramal lamar

gymnastics

The term does not include white, Indian or Arab immigrants from the African continent, and they are not considered Africans on the continent.

Boy, it's fascinating to watch the convoluted mental gymnastics invoked to justify the common usage of this term. As the statement stands, it is patently false. (An "African", by several dictionary definitions, is simply a "native or inhabitant of Africa".) I believe what you mean to say is that they are not considered to be indigenous Africans. But, by the same logic, it would be wrong for African Americans to consider themselves to be American, because they are not, after all, indigenous to North America. And of course, there are indigenous Africans who are not "black" (e.g. Berbers), so their specific excision from what is considered "African" only reveals the political intent. You can't have your indigenous cake and eat it, too. Revolver 19:00, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

At the risk of feeding a troll: usage of a term is not necessarily identical to its etymology. As far as I can tell, the "gymnastics" are here because a bunch of either dense, condescending, or outright racist white people wish to deny African Americans the right to determine their own designation, so it's been impossible to keep this simple. This is just like the fact that "Lithuanian American" doesn't include me as a descendant of Lithuanian Jews, and "Norwegian American" doesn't include my cousin who happens to have been born in Norway while her parents were there on her dad's Fulbright scholarship. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:16, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Nomenclature

'The term does not include white , Indian , or Arab immigrants from the African continent , and they are not considered Africans on the continent .'

What is the evidence for this statement?

These people are all considered as Africans in the demographics section of the Wikipedia article on Africa. Wikipedia is , therefore ,contradicting itself.

Morocco , Algeria , Tunisia , Libya , and Egypt are all African nations with Arabic populations . More than one hundred million North Africans are denied being recognised as Africans by whom?

The use of the term African American seems to be restricted to people of West African origin . Perhaps the term West-African American would be more appropriate . As it stands , the term African American is promoting ignorance of the ethnic diversity of the African continent.

--213.122.31.235 11:46, 30 August 2005 (UTC)ian29cent

We are writing an encyclopedia, not a manifesto. We are not here to judge what would be better terminology. We are here to describe the terminology actually used in the world. -- Jmabel | Talk 16:01, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

"Blacks from other countries such as Nigeria, Haiti or Cuba are most commonly referred to by their nation of origin and not African American. African American means the descendants of slaves brought to America in 1619." The veracity of these sentences is debatable--where are the sources for this assertion other than the author's opinion? Kemet 29 Nov 2005

Separate note

There is also a new term, "Afrimerican", created by an Afrimerican, and introduced in 1989 in reaction to the various terms, and levels of ambiguity of terms used to describe and define the race/ethnic group, and it is gaining acceptance, popularity, and more widespread use among Negroid and non-Negroid people in America, Germany, and other countries.

Just saw this added by an anon under "Nomenclature." My question is "huh?"

— <TALK JNDRLINETALK> 18:38, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Not the first time this has appeared, presumably the same anon. As I said whe reverting it about 10 days ago, "The less than 700 Google hits on "Afrimerican" (about half to a musical group) cast enormous doubt on the claim that any significant number of "African-American people... are adopting a new term..." -- Jmabel | Talk 04:46, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

By the time white people, and white owned, or white run institutions know what's going on in the Afrimerican communities, the whatever "it" is, has usually been dissed, and dismissed as is done here in favor of what's acceptable to, and given the race by whites, and when said whatever does gain wider acceptance, and exposure, it's only given such after whites have found a way to steal it, and or make a profit from it, or can find a social and/or moral negative to attatch it to to poison it's value,and to falsely validate their negative racial profiling and stereotypecasting of the race, and while this act is not prevalent everywhere, it's rampant in the United States, and sadly because the power and influence this country exerts worldwide, the world is influenced and engages same, or a similar attitude about or toward Afrimericans per a subtle brainwashing,... conditioning. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.138.96.68 (talk • contribs) 16 Oct 2005.

Large removal

This anonymous edit removed quite a bit of material, mostly about mixed race people. I'm not entirely sure of the merits of the material that was removed, so I'm not restoring, but others may want to look more closely. Among the material removed was quite a bit about Native American ancestry and a passage about "passing for white". -- Jmabel | Talk 15:57, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

I put some of it back in under ethnicity but I'm not sure I like the way it is written. --Gbleem 21:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

My definition of African -American

African American: A person born in America who's indigenous ethnic origins are in Africa, I believe that this definition is appropriate since i dont know specifically what area in Africa my ancestors are from ,due to the fact that poor records were kept of the enslaved african people,though i do believe that I am part KHWE or "bushmen",do to my physical features of course today there are methods to genetically test specifically what area of the world your peoples originate (which i plan to take,then i can say im KHWE as opposed to just african)now if u have a white person who can take one of these test and the results and say the majority of their genetic material points toward african heritage and theyre born in america, then by all means you are an african - american, however if u move a polish community to the heart of the congo and they breed only with the polish there for 400 yrs there is no way in hell they would ever become indigenous africans! i mean what line of logic would lead anyone to believe such rediculous tripe?! black people in america are of african origin, as much as an irish american proudly displays their heritage and italians and welsh or chinese we also as african people are proud of our origins and history,why wouldnt we be ?we are the oldest people,discovered fire,created art,language,religion,and tools, we colonized europe, asia, and the americas and cultivated humanity IN AFRICA for the first 225000 yrs of the 275000 years modern man has existed on earth. So why would i want to be fool enough and deny my proud african heritage,or my american heritage for that matter? maybe a better question is why would anyone want me to deny my heritage? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.18.38.73 (talk • contribs) 31 Aug 2005.

Ancestry

Recently removed, with a complaint about lack of citation, but with the comment "I believe you.": "Virtually all of them also have some European ancestry, and/or Native American ancestry."

Usually, if you think a statement is accurate but uncited, you don't start by deleting. You ask for citation, or look for it yourself.

This, from www.ancestrybydna.com, asserts that "the average African American has considerable European ancestry (actually, it’s 19.6%)", which tends to suggest that the comment was not way off base.

Does someone else have something more solid on this? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:54, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

This doesn't need an obscure citation, and there won't be a mainstream one for a while. I do believe you, but to believe is not to claim for fact. (Tee-hee, but God!) --VKokielov 06:03, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

whether you believe it or you don't, it doesn't make it any less of a fact nor does sufficient or lack of documentation. there are some things that are just apparent. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 160.94.66.188 (talk • contribs) 19 Sept 2005.

Links

It doesn't seem to me like Neo-Black.com deserves two links, bolded, in a separate section. I'm not even sure it deserves one link. But I leave it to someone who has been more actively working on this article to actually make the call. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:29, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

And I see that the section keeps growing. Again, just noting that someone may want to keep more of an eye on this: I can imagine it turning into a link farm. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:32, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

A plea for references and citations

Please, please add references to this (apparently well written) article supporting its statements. Remember that the criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia is not truth, but verifiability—it greatly weakens the article that we cannot source its facts and (especially) interpretations thereof. See also Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Cite sources. —Steven G. Johnson 23:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I disagree greatly that this article is "apparently well written" if it cannot include a single citation. There is not one.

AND when you do attempt to add to the body by including a citation from a reputable liberal think-tank (that obviously has invested greatly, resources and research into African American issues) it is deleted. The intended citation and associated material is not improved upon and it is not open for discussion but deleted because it offers a fuller perspective that isn't acceptable, emotionally.

As far as I am concerned there should not be one word expressing causation if it cannot apply an appropriate citation. What's relied upon in this article is a stereotypical view again and again. In order for this article to be objective and not biased, it needs to be mainstream and readable by a majority of people thus including differing and conflicting perspectives. Because a perspective is not palatable to African American readers does not mean the information is wrong or irrelevant.

At this stage, in comparison to what finds elsewhere in Wikipedia and in scholarly research, this article is real mickey mouse for what are some explosive topics that are not identified, not allowed to be identified. In an article such as this, without citations, wikipedia is going to get a black eye and a bad name and not taken seriously. I mean, My God!, my 12 year old could have written this in an afternoon as it would be about 2pgs long.

1964

There are no "African Americans" because there is no nation named Africa America. In 1964, U. S. Presidential candidate Barry M. Goldwater claimed that (if elected) he would assign Negroes to a land of their own out west where the State of Oregon is located. Thomas Jefferson had advocated that Negroes be assigned to "the Pacific coast" (where Oregon and the State of Washington were created). In 1964, people in the United States began to say that Presidential candidate Barry M. Goldwater was crazy. He had been adored for ten years, but he lost his attractiveness after he promised that (if elected) he would, in his words, "separate the races."

The creation of "African Americans" resulted from the determination of the American landowners to re-name their slaves. Generally, Presidential candidate Barry M. Goldwater upset the caucasoid people who own the United States. The landowners still have not recovered from shock.

There are Indonesians because there is a nation called Indonesia. There are Lithuanians because there is a nation called Lithuania. There are Australians because there is a nation called Australia. There are no African Americans because there is no nation called Africa America. Colored people in the United States live in dilapidated buildings called slums. BoxOurEars 11:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC) The only edit by this user.

What a load. Don't waste our time with this ridiculous trollop. If you're not a troll, you're certainly behaving like one. "Only edit"? You're clearly not serious. And this is not amusing. deeceevoice 07:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I am not attempting to "amuse" people. U. S. Senator Barry M. Goldwater was the most widely admired U. S. Senator of the 1950s, which is the reason why he became the Republican candidate for President in 1964. I was already an adult when the Civil Rights Act of 1957 was being discussed, so these submissions to Wikipedia are based on my memory, not on what some other person has told me. I observed how the landowners created "reverse discrimination."

U. S. Senator Barry M. Goldwater went from being a wise man to being an ogre. The caucasoid land-owning people in the United States cited the fact that he was a Ham radio hobbyist and, therefore, a quirky person who kept awake at night talking on his long-distance radio to other strange people. They attacked him after 1964 for several years. Many of his admirers became his detractors. He never came close to recovering his former nation-wide adulation.

The voters really wanted him to be a "Ron" Reagan sort who would never ship the Negroes off. "Ron" Reagan told the colored people to "work your way out of poverty." People gushed all over "Ron" Reagan, claiming that he was a superior President, even suggesting that his image ought to be carved into Mount Rushmore.BoxOurEars 13:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I am likely as old as you are, so there's no need to recount "ancient history." The hawkish Barry Goldwater, as well as the infamously masterful Democratic TV spot featuring the mushroom cloud flat-out scared a lot of people sh*tless -- and not just whites -- which is why he lost the election so resoundingly.

Your initial assumption is entirely bogus. White people accepted the term "African American" only after black people insisted we were no longer "Negroes." And, yes, we do exist.

"African-American" is in the tradition of what used to be called "hyphenated Americans": Italian-Americans, Lithuanian-Americans, Irish-Americans, Chinese-Americans, Polish-Americans, etc. One of the most fundamental aspects of human organization is group membership -- family, clan, ethnicity, community, nation. It is not enough to see oneself as part of the broad range of humanity. There is a desire for smaller group identifications, which is played out again and again throughout history. At some level, people always group or characterize themselves by shared history, language and other aspects of culture, physical attributes, etc. By virtue of the impulses which gave rise to nation-states, most nations, historically, certainly, provided a general framework for demographic homogeneity on some level (shared history, culture, language), but still being comprised of smaller, ethnic communities with similarly shared characteristics. Still, in the most stable nations, the larger national identity generally prevails. When it does not, there are usually deep-rooted divisions, conflict and sometimes violence involved. There were/are Angles and Saxons, Goths and Visigoths, Croatians and Serbs (in Bosnia), Basques (in Spain), Catholics and Protestants (in Northern Ireland), Tutsis and Hutus (in Rwanda), etc. No one would argue, as you have, that there is no such thing as a Tutsi because there is no "Tutsiland." Such an argument is ridiculous on its face. A nation-state is merely a manifestation of human group identity organized, politicized, militarized and reified -- and certainly not proof of the existence/legitimacy of that identity.

The U.S. has a history, perhaps, unlike any other nation on earth in that its most defining characteristic demographically is not its homogeneity, but its diversity. It is largely a nation of immigrants. The initial immigrants came from all over Europe. Defining themselves as simply "American" has never been sufficient; the universe of membership in the club, so to speak, is too broad, too disparate, too different, too foreign in which to be entirely comfortable among such a motley agglomeration. There is a need to belong, to fit in, yes, but into a smaller, more manageable, more familiar space. While it is easy to plege allegiance to a flag and a nation on one level, on an everyday level of human interaction -- dining (foodways), conversing (language), fraternizing (all elements of culture) -- one's first contacts and often first preferences are characterized by homogeneity. Sameness. And it is this sameness which forms the basis for primary group identity (beyond smaller levels of organization, such as the smallest, which is family). And certainly the indigenous peoples of the land for a very long time resisted the label "American" and also choose to identify themselves by Indian nation/tribe and federation. Would you say there is no such thing as a Native American because there is no NativeAmericaland? Or Cado, because there is no Cadoland? Cherokee because there is no Cherokeeland?

Thus, many people became "hyphenated Americans." Whites still refer to themselves by those hyphenated group identifiers. It is commonplace. It speaks of shared values, shared history, shared language, shared culture, often shared physical characteristics (broadly speaking), and a common geographic point of origin -- defined by nation-state. Not only that, it is common in places like Philly and Chicago and Baltimore and other places where there are large numbers of particularly working-class, urban ethnic whites for, say, Italian-Americans whose families have been here for generations to refer to themselves as simply "Italian" -- no "American" whatsoever; just "Italian."

African-Americans, of course, (and I'm speaking here of the term used in its original and most limited context) are not immigrants, but descendants of slaves. However, we share the same impulses, the same tendencies when it comes to group identification. Historically, however, we were called all sorts of names not of our choosing. We decided, as we had often done in the past over the centuries, to rename ourselves -- one of the classic steps in the process of self-identification and self-determination/empowerment. This time, however, it was a term of our choosing. "Negro" had acquired too much baggage. We rejected that term of our former masters and of modern-day segregators and discriminators as we had rejected "nigger", "darky", "coon", "colored" -- you name it.

"Black" generally was acceptable, but a growing social and political consciousness demanded an association with our homeland, as well. Further, it was precisely in keeping with the broader American custom. Because of the circumstances of our arrival in America, however, identification with particular nation-states was problematic, if not impossible -- so Africa would suffice. We became "African-Americans."

And that is the real history of the term. We don't need anyone's permission to call us what we call ourselves, and the opinions of outsiders to the group matter not one whit. So, don't waste your time. There is no debate. The term is here to stay -- unless and until we decide to change it. deeceevoice 10:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Persians??

People of caucasoid origin or appearance, including whites, Persians, Indians, and Arabs, are traditionally not considered African American though they or their ancestors may have emigrated from the African continent after uncountable generations of residence.

Given that there are no particularly significant number of Persians in Africa, why are Persians listed here? Indians I understand, because of the small merchants in former British colonies. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Given the lack of response in about 24 hours, I am removing. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:53, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I think the editor was saying that all people came from Africa originally. If so, the point could be better made elsewhere. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality?

As an 5th generation African-American, I find this page to show signs of racism. I'd also like to see quotes from contemporary African-American scholars (Kanye West, Rev. Al Sharpton).

The two individuals named (West, Sharpton) are individuals who are in the U.S. media and are in the public eye as a rapper and a politician and advocate. They are not academics. Academics are those who have obtained a credential from a recognized institution of higher learning. Chriscarlos

Thanks. Reparaizins 20:43, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I hadn't been aware that either was a scholar, but that question and the matter of quotes aside, what signs of racism do you see here? -- Hoary 22:53, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

The contemporary issues needs to be changed and updated; there is a bit more to African American life than the negative, trite generalizations that infect this section. Kemet 15 Nov 2005

Uhuh. For the record, Kanye West isn't a scholar, nor is Sharpton much of one either. So way to go with the stereotype breaking. --66.229.183.101 09:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I think they were just kidding...I hope they were...

Poetry lounge?

I leave it to someone African American to make the ultimate determination on online community links on this page, but the "Mr. Africa Poetry Lounge" strikes me as a pretty dubious inclusion. I can't think of comparable links for other ethnicities. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I see now that Alabamaboy has removed the exact same link, added by the same person at African American literature. I now definitely believe this to be linkspam. I recommend deletion. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

The recently added Cocoa Lounge Forum strikes me the same way. This is turning into a link farm. I believe these should all be removed, but, again, I believe that someone of the ethnicity in question should do the removing. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

While I'm not "of the ethnicity in question" [such delicacy of phrasing!], I don't think this would disqualify me from judging the suitability of an external link, just as I'd be happy if African Americans worked on articles related to, er, the ethnicity reflected in my shaving mirror. I took a quick look at the content of the "Cocoa Lounge Forum" and much of what I saw seemed stunningly banal. But then that's what I'd expect from a message forum with a "market" of millions. "Online communities", as they're grandly titled in this article, don't pertain to any of the kinds of sites that should be linked to; I recommend deletion of the lot. But as long as my pasty complexion and alien dialect are regarded as disqualifying me from this, I shan't delete them myself. -- Hoary 08:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Could the author of this paragraph please reword?

Recently added paragraph:

In addition, the term gained a significant following among academics and scholars for its more neutral demographic connotations. In this regard, one could write or discuss African Americans throughout American history without being anachronistic about Black or Negro political implications. Such a neutral context allows for a more accurate and free exploration of the differences between African American groups, political philosophies, cultural and religious practices. This usage has become politically charged because it counters the Black Nationalist theme of black unity.

I think I follow what this means to say, but it's not very clear:

"…more neutral demographic connotations" ("its demographic connotations are more neutral") or (as I suspect) "…more neutral, demographic connotations" (its connotations are more neutral, more suggestive of demography).
"In this regard, one could write or discuss African Americans throughout American history without being anachronistic about Black or Negro political implications." I think this means "The use of the term African American avoids the anachronistic political implications that might arise from using Black or Negro". But maybe it means something else.
"Such a neutral context allows for …" I think this means "The lack of historical burden on the term allows for …" But, again, maybe it means something else.
"This usage has become politically charged because it counters the Black Nationalist theme of black unity." I literally do not know what this is intended to mean. What usage? Politically charged among what groups? What is being said to "counter the Black Nationalist theme of black unity"?

In short, the writing is so mushy that I can't make sense of it. Please, could you try rewriting this with less ambiguity? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

It's been a week and this has not been fixed. I'm removing it. If someone can reword it coherently, feel free to reword and restore. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:30, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Slaveowners did not own Americans

The chart in the article lists the "Black American" population from 1790 to 1860. Slaves were not Americans. Slaveowners did not own Americans. Also, the Free Negroes were not Americans. The population figures should be titled "Number of non-Americans, enslaved and free."

You are disingenous; clearly people whom we identify as African America weren't identified as "Americans" during the time in question, nor were they identified as fully human. Do you seriously suggest that we completely avoid retroactive labels and call them partial humans for the sake of historical pedantry and application of your logic? They were enslaved Americans; we can debate about semantics later. Kemet 15:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that I'm fighting an uphill battle with people who are determined to distort the history of slavery.71.240.46.120 18:16, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I haven't read this piece in ages, but I agree with the above comment regarding the chart. They were enslaved Africans. I've tweaked the wording to make it accurate. deeceevoice 18:26, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Page or link needed

Does a Wikipedia entry on the subject of African-American names exist? In particular, I am referring to the distinction between Americans of most other ethnicities giving children preexisting names and African-Americans, to a greater extent, creating new names. I was unable to find such a page but I am not confident in asserting that none exists because I don't know how best to phrase a search. If no page exists, one should be created. If one does exist, it should be given a link at the bottom of the African-American page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.85.88.211 (talk • contribs) 12 Jan 2006.

I don't think we have such an article. The likely title would be African-American naming conventions. It probably has potential, but could be a lightning rod for trouble, so if you are going to start it, I suggest that you be very conscious of citing sources. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

"Online communities" -- Why link to any?

Perhaps in a fit of pique, a user who's been attempting to insert links to an "online community" whose name resembles his or her own username has deleted links to two other "communities". I've already said above (in "Poetry lounge?") that I see no reason why any should be linked no matter how good they might be, but I decided to see for myself what the remaining ones actually were. Here they are, with my comments in italics.

Mr. Africa Poetry Lounge Online community of Black Poets. I'll refrain from commenting on the quality of the poetry. But if this is worth linking to, surely the link should be from an article on black poetry or similar.
NeoBlack.Com - African American Online Community: Web portal and information resource for black communities worldwide. General news. Not bad looking, but a lot is not about America. To put it politely, "advertising-heavy". (More directly: full of advertising junk.)
NeoBlack.Com - Gallery Of Black Celebrities A nightmare of advertising. I was astonished to see some black person (too small a graphic for me to recognize) standing next to that great, great black celebrity George W Bush. (Really!) I clicked for a bigger pic but was assaulted with a more intense level of advertising, and gave up.

This stuff is pretty bad. If an "online community" is really noteworthy, WP can have an article about it. If a site is very informative about African Americans, link to that too. But I suggest cutting a section of links from this article to "online communities". Again, these don't pertain to any of the kinds of sites that should be linked to. -- Hoary 08:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Removed from the article as completely inappropriate

The following clearly does not belong in the article and is more appropriate here. Frankly, I doubt seriously that Malcolm X coined the term. If you wish to challenge the veracity of the claim, then do so here -- and not in the article itself. All you have to do is delete it, pending verification -- or simply excise it permanently and provide substantiation for your claim that it was used in early U.S. Census reports. But please don't clutter the article with "I" this and "I" that. Do not inject your personal opinions in the article; it is unencyclopedic -- and, frankly, no one cares what you (or any one of us) thinks. This is a reference work.

Deleted:

"Once again I am compelled to provide correction, and it is hoped the administrators heed, and make corrections per the facts, not popular opinion, not the Orwellian, white supremist, miseducation of Afrimericans agenda.

"The claim that Malcom X coined the term African-American is a LIE, an UNTRUTH, that follows and feeds the thread of miseducation of Afrimericans, and the world about Afrimericans, the term African-American came about in 1863 when then President Abraham Lincoln performed a public swearing in ceremony of newly imported slaves as naturalized American citizens, calling them African-American, and publicly announcing all that wanted to stay in America would be allowed and given the means to do so, and all that wanted to go back to Africa, would be given passage to do so. Furthermore, the United States Census Bureau, also adopted and OFFICIALLY used that term in 1863 to 1870, and it was taken out of use when Afrimerican leaders of the time, and the general populace of Afrimericans at the time, rejected the term based on the fact the majority of Afrimericans in America, had not come from Africa, and were generations removed from their African ancestry, with said direct ancestry practically abolished per ones tribal family and land being obliterated, and annexed by others decades earlier, thus they wanted and were GIVEN a new term, Negro, which was the official term sanctioned by the United States government, and accepted by the people up to the 1960's, nearly a hundred years later. But, unbeknownst to them, Negro was given the same LEGAL definition as African-American." deeceevoice 19:16, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd tried doing this before (I haven't really been following this article, nor have I read it in its entirety recently.) But I rewrote the verbiage about Malcolm X. It's so much easier and productive than ranting about it. We'll see what happens to it. Peace. deeceevoice 19:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I've also deleted a second rant. It's completely counterproductive to put such comments in the article. They will not stand because they are not completely on point and highly POV. If you're not going to write anything suitable for the article, but simply expound on your own personal opinions, you're of little use. Few will be inclined to read your comments.

If you have something of substance and NPOV to include in the article, then please do so. The changes I made to the Malcolm X thing could just as easily have been made by you; you certainly write well enough. Why didn't you simply change it, instead of just bytching about it -- and in the wrong place? Leave all your other non-pertinent comments and certainly your opnions for this, the discussion page, where they can be discussed and possibly used to inform the article itself. Otherwise, please just keep them to yourself. You're wasting our time. Peace. deeceevoice 02:17, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Another dubious link

African American Sovereign Nation: To create an Independent Nation on the land of our Ancestors.

I think this should be removed, but I'd like to hear whether others agree. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I was about to remove it, but I didn't feel qualified to judge its relevance. I would remove it simply under the topic of "Wikipedia is WP:NOT a link directory". —HorsePunchKid→龜 07:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. But why stop there? I recommend the removal of any link to any "online community": see two or three screenfuls above, under the heading '"Online communities" -- Why link to any?'. -- Hoary 08:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Feel free, as far as I'm concerned. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I feel the adrenaline rush preparing me for being bold. -- Hoary 23:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with removing the section. An earlier version of my comment included that as a parenthetical, but I thought it'd get shot down, so I removed it. :) —HorsePunchKid→龜 00:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

It's gone. But I'm sure we'll soon see the same or similar links readded. -- Hoary 01:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Good evening Gentlemen, I am the founder of the International African American Caucus and would like to say the link to our site is relevant. African American, for those that are reading this encyclopedia, should not just be about the past, but the present and future - the term is dynamic.

Our goal is to create and Independent Nation in Africa on a small piece of land that will give opportunities for our people and future generations to develop themselves, community and Nation. We are not a religous organization but made up of professionals. There is nothing wrong with us working towards creating a clean, safe environment for our people within the framework of a Democracy. I hope you will reconsider and judge the content of our site objectively. The World needs to know a people that represent the 11th largest economy in the World have the right to control their destiny if they so choose. Warmest regards, David Alexander Hitt —This unsigned comment was added by 24.107.67.248 (talk • contribs) 27 March 2006.

Agreed that there's nothing "wrong" with your goals. But there is also, as far as I can tell, nothing of encyclopedic significance about the fact that you are trying to do this. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Lenny Wilkens

Recently anonymously added: "Former NBA player/coach Lenny Wilkins is another who used the term as a teenager when filling a job application." Does anyone have a citation for this? If true, probably worth keeping, because Wilkins as a teenager would mean the 1950s, a pretty early usage of the term. Oh, and while we're at it: I pretty much don't do sports article, but surely Lenny Wilkins shouldn't be a red link! -- Jmabel | Talk 07:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I stand half-corrected: it was redlinked because it was misspelled (should be Lenny Wilkens). But I stand by my request for a citation. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:19, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Contemporary issues

some one (anonymously) put an NPOV tag in this section & posted this as to the reason for their edit.

"I do not believe this article is NPOV, nor correct. Blacks are often favored because of racial quotas...so with decent eductation will actually get a job over a white person"

I know of absolutely no racial quotas that currently exist in the United States, and even if they did exist, I'm not sure they'd be strong enough to say that blacks in the USA are in any way "favored." But, if that anonymous poster wants to back up his claims with citations or even personal experience, here is the place to do it.Reggaedelgado 06:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Racial quotas are illegal in the U.S. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Excellent. Should be added. Many non-Americans are under the illusion that there are racial quotas, SqueakBox 14:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I think these statements need to be qualified. While the establishment of numerical quotas is illegal, Affirmative Action explicitly favors less-qualified minority applicants over more qualified whites. See Grutter v. Bollinger.

There are still problems with this section. First and foremost, it needs citations. Second, while no one can dispute the historic fact of discrimination, this section makes it sound like "whitey" is to blame for all the ills that affect African-Americans. While it may be gravely non-PC to say this, are no African-Americans responsible for their own problems? For example, the article says African-Americans "are also more likely to be incarcerated." Isn't this because the percentage of African-Americans committing crimes is disproportiate to their percentage of the population? I'm just saying that at least some of African-Americans' problems are of their own making, and the article needs rewriting to reflect that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 160.133.1.6 (talk • contribs) 13 Jan 2006.

Actually, at least in some areas, there is evidence that it has little to do with the number of crimes actually committed. For example, 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. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

If you have citations, please put them, and text like what you've written here, in the article. Godfrey Daniel 22:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm having trouble coming up with absolutely clean statistics, but please have a look at #Towards a citeable set of statistics. - Jmabel | Talk 01:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

As a matter of record and argument, I added the following passage to the African American page. My gut tells me that someone will gut this passage. If not, the passage then serves as a model for further exposition needed on this page.

This section of the African American page is particularly one-sided. I am attempting to add another side. Which incidentally appears to be a concern of others as I read the above comments for this section. One, there should always be both sides: 'what happens to you' and 'what you do to yourself.' The page is exclusively external and is only concerned with 'what happens to you.' Two, there should be statistics and references accompanying claims for support.

One more note: An added twist to the debate on the status of African Americans is the perennial comparsion to caucasians or whites and never a corollary examination with other ethnic groups. Which to me is ironic since that is the better comparison. If one argument is ever the status of minorities relative to the majority then an examination and comparison of minorities is necessary. Sadly, these analyses are always missing.

(passage) "On the other hand, there is also a wide argument that African Americans are not fully accepting opportunities that other minorities, such as overseas immigrants unfamiliar with U.S. culture and language are able to utilize. Additionally, this argument and criticism extends to the oft comparison of African Americans to whites but limited examination of African Americans relative to smaller, less representative and presumably less powerful minority groups. Examples of lost opportunity are a high percentage of prison population that are African American and unreflective of any other ethnic group that too has the possibility of discrimination and subsequent incarceration.[4]

African Americans also have an out-of-wedlock birth rate relative to the general population that greatly exceeds any other ethnic group. This rate has been almost 70% for years but has been a long standing problem among African Americans. [5][6] Out-of-wedlock births and rates of marriage and levels of poverty are extremely correlated and another explanation that economic disadvantages experienced in the African American community are in part, their own doing."

Your are trying to make a logical conclusion between 2 facts that isn't vallid. Because marriage artes are low is not, logically speaking, a proof that Afro-Americans are in part responsible for their ecopnomic plight. Such shoddy thinking should not play a part either in wikipedia or any civilised debate. So i haver reverted. Please don't add original research that is your own opinion in order to try andf prove the rightness of your beliefs. Please source any claims that the AA pop is responsible for their own plight, SqueakBox 14:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

"Shoddy thinking." Wow. That's interesting. Well, I am surprised you didn't delete the discussion as well. This article will always be biased..and ill-formed with such edits. Read the citations they're excerpted from a very liberal, pro African-American think tank. Got it? You probably don't get it. But to someone else, there needs to be some effort to represent a body of opinion that does not fall down on the side of the same diatribe that African Americans are exempt from all personal responsibility, which is what the article is made to sound like. Ie., read the "Asian American" article for reference. Furthermore, there needs to be sound economics introduced into this article, a subject that defines better and introduces a more logical approach rather than an emotional one, as the editor above clearly functions from. The citations used and edited out point to the economics and the reason behind that "shoddy thinking." Read the citations and learn.

This is the only material that has even attempted to reference sources and its edited out instead of improved upon. Admittedly, some of the argument many be novel and fall under the guidelines of 'original research' and I accept that. But there are also parallel arguments profoundly substantiated as evident in the citations. Nonetheless, this article is biased if its allowed to only support a perspective that is mainstream only in the African American community. And that is an abhorrence!

I added back some of the out-of-wedlock birth stuff above, but edited out some parts that might be POV. I also added the DOJ references and discussion, and a references section. I also split the first paragraph in two, and expanded both parts. I hope this section is more NPOV now. Godfrey Daniel 21:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Towards a citeable set of statistics

Godfrey, in trying to comply with your suggestion, here are some citable statistics, all from "White Kids Are Much More Likely To Be Using (And Selling) Drugs! Black Kids Are More Likely To Go To Prison!" on the site of Common Sense for Drug Policy. As you can see by following up the link, their numbers are well-cited; all come from federal government sources.

Chance of a white person ever trying an illicit drug in their lifetime: 42%
Chance of an African-American person ever trying an illicit drug in their lifetime: 37.7%
Percent of felony drug defendants in state courts who are white: 37%
Percent of felony drug defendants in state courts who are black: 37.7%
Percent of white drug felons sentenced to prison by state courts each year: 27%
Percent of black drug felons sentenced to prison by state courts each year: 43%

These statistics aren't quite the ones I encountered before (in a source I can't recall) and paraphrased above, and they omit federal courts and misdemeanors. Still, they accord with the pattern I described. It's a little hard to run really solid numbers here, because they only give statistics for blacks and whites, not other racial classifications, but using these numbers, along with the fact that blacks are 13% of the population and whites are about 70% of the population, a black person is:

90% as likely to use illegal drugs: ${42\% \over 37.7\%}=90\%$
550% as likely to be a felony drug defendant: ${{37\%/70\%} \over {37.7\%/13\%}}=550\%$ ${{37\%/70\%} \over {37.7\%/13\%}}=550\%$
- 611% if we limit the population to drug users and consider the slightly smaller likelihood of being a drug user in the first place: ${550\% \over 90\%}=611\%$
There is a missing step here: there is no statistic on whether blacks who are tried on felonies are more likely than whites to be convicted. I'd make a strong conjecture that the answer is "yes". I imagine we can all agree that it would be astounding if they had a lesser rate of conviction. Assuming that they conviction rate is equal (a conservative estimate, I believe), then they are 876% as likely to be sentenced to prison by a state court for a drug felony: ${550\% \over {43\%/27\%}}=876\%$ ${550\% \over {43\%/27\%}}=876\%$
- 973% if we limit the population to drug users and consider the slightly smaller likelihood of being a drug user in the first place: ${876\% \over 90\%}=973\%$ .

In other words, a black person is slightly less likely to use drugs, but at least 8.7 times more likely to do prison time for it. I realize that theere are traces of original research in my calculations here, so I am not just carrying this into the article, but I think this should demonstrate that I wasn't just blowing hot air.

Can someone suggest how to move this forward and get something into the article. - Jmabel | Talk 01:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

That's some impressive work you've done there. I'd agree that you need to avoid incorporating original work, but citing the statistics themselves is not original. It may be that while a simple listing of some of these statistics could properly be included here, the best place for the majority of them would be on the African American contemporary issues page. Godfrey Daniel 00:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

There's a bit of a slight-of-hand here where we go from drug users to people arrested for drug offenses. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I would imagine that the latter largely consists of people selling drugs. Granted, the source cited does try to establish a connection, saying "According to the US Justice Department and the Office of National Drug Control Policy, drug users typically buy their drugs from sellers of their own racial or ethnic background." But "typically" is not a statistic. Why doesn't CSDP just come out and say what the proportion of drug dealers is in both populations? - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 08:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

It's very hard to tell whether the majority of people with drug convictions were selling. Certainly only a small minority are convicted of selling, but dealers will often plea bargain to a lesser possession charge, and, of course, possession is much easier to prove than intent.

Another statistic that would be nice to have, and which we lack, is the relative likelihood that Black and White defendants are represented by private counsel rather than a public defender. I would guess that is where a good chunk of the post-arrest disproportion arises: private counsel will generally fight a lot harder for their client (yes, there are exceptions, but if the pattern were not there, what criminal defendant would hire private counsel?).

I don't think there are any good statistics for who sells drugs (that is, statistics based on something other than criminal conviction, which—for the reasons just discussed—is a poor measure). It is much more straightforward for pollsters, guaranteeing anonymity, to get reasonably straight (no pun intended) answers on drug use than on drug dealing. A lot of people will willingly tell anyone but a cop or an employer, "Sure, I toke up about twice a month, but far fewer will say to anyone but their closest associates, "Well, when the bills are due and I don't have any cash, I call up Dave, and he fronts me 10 grams to go sell out back of Hot Licks."

FWIW, here are another set of at least reasonably citable statistics, similar to the ones above. Ira Glasser, writing in The Nation ("Drug Busts = Jim Crow", July 10, 2006 issue) cites the Sentencing Project to the effect that "only 13 percent of monthly users of illegal drugs… are black, about their proportion of the population. But 37 percent of drug-offense arrests are black; 53 percent of convictions are black; and 67 percent of all people imprisoned for drug offenses are black. Adding in Latinos, about 22 percent of all monthly users are black or Latino, but 89 percent of people in prison for drug offenses are black or Latino. Even in presumptively liberal New York State, 92 percent of all inmates who are there for drug offenses are black or Latino." - Jmabel | Talk 18:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Running these numbers, like the ones above, just counting Black vs. non-Black (including Latino), and assuming that any difference in rates of drug use is negligible (so we'll use the 13% also as a percent of population):

Arrests: ${37\% \over 13\%}=2.84$ vs. ${63\% \over 87\%}=0.72$ . Dividing through, ${2.84 \over 0.72}=3.94$ or $394\%$ .

Convictions: ${53\% \over 13\%}=4.08$ vs. ${47\% \over 87\%}=0.54$ . Dividing through, ${4.08 \over 0.54}=7.56$ or $756\%$ .

Incarceration: ${67\% \over 13\%}=5.15$ vs. ${33\% \over 87\%}=0.38$ . Dividing through, ${5.15 \over 0.38}=13.55$ or $1,355\%$ .

Even if we make the generous assumption that the police are evenhanded, that the arrest rates really do reflect a higher rate of black dealers (which, by the way, does not get non-blacks off the hook: those dealers must be relying on a heck of a lot of white, Latino, and Asian customers) we get:

Incarceration compared to arrests: ${(67\%/37\%) \over (33\%/63\%)}=3.455$ or $344.5\%$ , which is remarkable enough. The only way for this to indicate a fair outcome in the courts is if police were 3.455 times less likely to unfairly arrest Blacks. - Jmabel | Talk 20:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Who is African American

A friend has asked me to correct some glitches in three paragraphs under "Who is African American." But before I do so, I wanted to ask a question. In the following paragraph:

Caucasoid peoples, Indians, Asians and Arabs are traditionally not considered African American, though they or their ancestors may have emigrated from the African continent after generations of residence. In relatively rare cases when South African whites, Caucasoid North Africans or Asian immigrants from Africa living in America have self-identified as African American in an attempt to benefit from Affirmative Action or other entitlement programs, their claims generally have not been upheld.

What is meant by Caucasoid? The only definition I know of is by Carleton Coon in The Origin of Races (New York, 1962). But this was based on skull shape and included the people of Ethiopia, Senegal, Gambia, Mali, Upper Volta (nowadays called Burkina Faso), and many other populations who look utterly Black to Americans (indeed, some of whom have the darkest skin tone on the planet). Is the word merely intended to mean "White-looking" (to Americans)? FrankWSweet 18:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Caucasoid is a (pretentious, in my view) anthropologists' term, meaning exactly the same in racial terms as "Caucasian", which is to say, it is pretty darn imprecise. It predates Coon by a long time. And, in this case, it basically means "not black". "Non-black" would probably be as good a word, or better. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I have made the changes and "Caucasoid" no longer appears. The biggest problem with the prior text was in the two sentences: "During slavery, there was also a strong economic incentive to maximize the number of individuals who could be owned, bred, worked, traded and sold outright as human chattel. The designation of anyone possessing any trace of African ancestry as "black", and, therefore, of subordinate status to whites, guaranteed a source of free or cheap labor during slavery and for decades afterward."

The problem with those two sentences is that no court case ever ruled that someone was a slave merely because of their "race." Slavery was matrilinealy inherited. Hundreds of people of sub-Saharan phenotype were routinely freed following case law set by Higgins v. Allen, 1796 Maryland by proving that a matrilineal ancestor was free. Indeed, having mixed ancestry was useful because, ever since Gobu v. Gobu, 1802 North Carolina, Hudgins v. Wrights, 1806 Virginia, and Adelle v. Beauregard, 1810 Louisiana, the law of the land (subsequently followed in hundreds of cases) was that biracial individuals were presumed to be free unless proven otherwise. Furthermore, the one-drop rule (that a person of utterly European appearance and White ethnic self-identity is involuntarily Black nonetheless due merely to a known trace of African ancestry) was not widely known nor legislated until the 20th century (1910-1930). See one-drop theory and http://backintyme.com/Essay040811.htm for detailed sources.

The rest of the changes are intended to smooth out the narrative and to show when, where, how, and why perceived membership in the African-American community changed over the centuries. -- FrankWSweet 15:15, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I know I am stumbling into a subject about which I knowe nothjing but was fascinated to read here that some white Africans have claimed to be African Americans but have been rejected because they are not black. Is this in the article? I couldn't see it. I would strongly suggest putting it in the Whos is African American? section, as it is both interseting and extremely relevant, giving we non Americans an idea of what you Americans actually mean by the term, (ie you don't mean African you mean black/negroid), SqueakBox 15:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry. The only African immigrant that I have researched who applied (and was rejected) for Affirmative Action benetics is Mustafa Hefny of Detroit. But I cannot say that he is "really White," only that he was ruled to be legally White by the courts. He definitiely looks Black to most Americans. See his photos and a news story here [7]. -- FrankWSweet 03:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

At a quick read, the rewrite looks like a vast improvement. I think one other thing deserves mention, but I don't remember the details offhand. I know that at some point in the late 1600s or early 1700s there was a court decision (I believe it was either a Virginia or North Carolina case) that first made the distinction between (white) indentured servants and (black) chattel slaves. It isn't in our article on slavery. It probably belongs both there and her. Unfortunately, I can't recall the details offhand, and I suppose I could be mistaken; does someone have details on this? If not, I'll do my best to research this. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that you are asking about the first evidence of the enslavement of Africans in British North America. Unfortunately, there is no unambiguous anser. There are three obstacles to answering this: one semantic and two substantive.

1. The semantic obstacle is that the current historiographical canon uses the term indentured servant when referring to forced laborers of mainly European descent and slave only when speaking forced laborers of mainly African ancestry. For example, see <http://www.pbs.org/wnet/slavery/timeline/1619.html>. Notice the first words: "1619 At Jamestown, Virginia, approximately 20 captive Africans are sold into slavery in the British North American colonies." Note carefully the three elements of this factoid: 1619, sold into slavery, and Virginia. Got it? Now turn to the very next page at <http://www.pbs.org/wnet/slavery/timeline/1641.html>. Read the first words: "1641: Massachusetts is the first colony to legalize slavery." Wait a minute, how were 20 Africans sold into slavery 22 years before slavery was legal? Now turn to the next page at <http://www.pbs.org/wnet/slavery/timeline/1662.html>. Read the first words: "1662: Virginia enacts a law of hereditary slavery meaning that a child born to an enslaved mother inherits her slave status." Now we see that Virginia did not even have the concept of slavery (lifelong hereditary forced labor) until 1662. So how were those 20 Africans sold as slaves to Virginia colonists 43 years (two generations!) before their grandchildren invented slavery? The answer is that they were involuntary forced laborers of African descent and so slaves by the modern usage. Conversely, the 25,000 Irish who were sold by Cromwell to plantations in Nevis, St. Kitts, and Montserrat (see <http://republican-news.org/archive/1997/February20/20stkt.html>) are referred to as indentured servants in the literature, even though they went into permantent, lifelong, hereditary forced labor. The reason, again is because they were Europeans. (Interestingly, the same histories that call those Irish servants, call their biracial children slaves.)

Primary sources are of little help in resolving the semantic problem because servant (or servitude) and slave (or slavery) were used interchangeably until the U.S. Civil War. The best non-racialist definition of slavery (as opposed to the semantic problem above) is, "involuntary labor that is both (A) lifelong and (B) hereditary."

2. The first substantive obstacle is that it is unclear when the Chesapeake colonists first legalized lifelong indenture (traditionally, it was for a maximum of seven years). See Paul Finkelman, "The Crime of Color," Tulane Law Review 67, no. 6 (1992): 2071 for a good discussion of this, along with pointers to Breen & Innes (1980), Morgan (1975), and Jordan (1968). Everyone seems to agree, however, that it was in the 1660s.

3. The second substantive obstacle is that the first mention of hereditary forced labor in British North America is the partus sequitur ventrem law of 1662.

Whereas some doubts have arisen whether children got by any Englishman upon a negro woman should be slave or free, be it therefore enacted and declared by the present grand assembly, that all children borne in this country shall be held bond or free only according to the condition of the mother. [--See William Waller Hening, The Statutes at Large: Being a Collection of all the Laws of Virginia, from the First Session of the Legislature in the Year 1619 (Richmond [Va.]: Printed by and for Samuel Pleasants Junior printer to the Commonwealth, 1809), 2:170; Kathleen M. Brown, Good Wives, Nasty Wenches, and Anxious Patriarchs: Gender Race and Power in Colonial Virginia (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 1996), 132; or Paul Finkelman (1992, cited above).]

There are two reasons for doubting that this law was the first acceptance of hereditary forced labor. First, it implies ("doubts have arisen") that the law was meant only to resolve the status of biracial children, and that the slave status of colonists of overwhemingly African ancestry were not an issue. Second, Jamestown was a benighted backwater surrounded by a vast New World empire comprising over a million European colonists in huge commercial cities that rivaled those of Europe, and with universities that had been in operation for over a century. It seems likely that, since the 1650s, the grandchildren of the original British colonists had succumbed to the surrounding Iberian hegemony, which had employed slavery in the modern sense since Las Siete Partidas del Rey Alfonso X (1265).

If you want to learn the details of this confusing period, I recommend the above references (Morgan, Finkelman, etc.). Finkelman is probably the best place to start, since he summarizes everyone else's conclusions and clearly recognizes the major historiographical disagreements spawned by the saemantic problem. -- FrankWSweet 14:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Still, if nothing else, this would seem to demonstrate with certainty that hereditary slavery was institutionalized no later than 1662. Right? -- Jmabel | Talk 04:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Other British colonies may have been a bit later than Virginia (Maryland legislation usually lagged Virginia by a year or two). And other cultures were much earlier. Dutch New York had the Spanish system. Indeed, the first African-Americans in British North America were offloaded in 1619 Jamestown from a Dutch ship carrying them from Saint Domingue to New Amsterdam. Christians and Muslims had enslaved each other since medieval times and this system continued in the New World with Africans. But, when it comes to English-speaking North America, I would say that 1662 Virginia was definitely it. -- FrankWSweet 11:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I alway thought one had to be born in Africa to be African. African is not even an ethnic group. Nigerian American I can understand, but African? --Vehgah 18:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read the article. No, African is not an ethnic group. Yes, African American is an ethnic group. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

What does African American mean? I know the answer but I would like to hear it from someone else. African American implys that one was born in Africa and moved to America. But most people called African American never even set foot in Africa, let alone knows their ancestors. "White" Americans are never called European americans --Vehgah 16:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

It may imply one was born in Africa but it clearly doesn't mean that, it means one has a recent racial heritage that is black, SqueakBox 16:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

So African born whites aren't African American, even if they lived in Africa for many generations? The Term African American doesn't do Black Americans justice. --Vehgah 17:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely not. This term isn't about logic or a concise use of English, SqueakBox 17:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Systemic bias

This is anice example of systemic bias. All over wikipedia "African American" is used in place of "black" for the sake of political correctness. But the term is simply wrong in referring to most of the blacks in the world, as most blacks (including their ancestors) have never set a foot in "America." The term is simply incorrect as a generic term for blacks. Nathan J. Yoder 04:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I cannot speak to "all over Wikipedia," but this particular article is tightly focused on African-American ethnicity—the U.S. ethnic community that arose in the Jacksonian northeast (see The Black Yankees) and whose customs merged with Southern freedmen and Creole traditions after the U.S. Civil War. Specifically, it is about the U.S. ethnic community of mainly African origin whose ancestors came to North America due to the transatlantic slave trade before the Hispanic and West Indian immigrations of the 20th century. Although this article references British West Indians and Hispanics of African heritage, these are not the main focus. Many other Wikipedia articles describe, at different levels of categorization, other groups of the African Diaspora (1500-1850) including: Afro-Brazilian, Afro-Cuban, Afro-Ecuadorian, Afro-Latin American, Afro-Mexican, Afro-Peruvian, Afro-Trinidadian, and Black Canadian. There is even an article Black People that describes the popular idea that there are many "Black people" all over the world who have no African ancestry (Dalits, Melanesians, Australian Aborigines). As that article points out, it is a hard to describe just who is included under this label. Frank W Sweet 13:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

When referring to black people from America, African American is used. When referring to black people from Canada, Black Canadian is used. "African American" should never used to identify black people as a whole, and if I see it used in such a way, I correct it. --FuriousFreddy 05:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

It is used as a generic term though, that's the whole point. Nathan J. Yoder 05:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Could you cite three examples? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I will when I come across them again. This is just something I remembered from browsing articles in the past. I don't remember which ones specifically had the problem. Nathan J. Yoder 11:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

FurriousFreddy--

It is improper to assume that blacks from America should be defines as African American. West Indians and Afro-Latino's do not share the same cultural and ethnic identity with black Americans with origins in the antebellum South. I know from experience that Blacks in the North East that have origins in Latin America and the West Indies, clearly define themselves as a distinct group separate from "African-Americans".

I'm African-American, and my heritage come from the American South (North Carolina) and the West Indies (Trinidad). Black people in America and the West Indies share very similar cultural traits that traces back to Africa. I have never met an American of West Indies decent who had a problem being called African-American. - QzDaddy 13:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I think what he meant was: Can you cite three quotes from the article that refer to British West Indians or Hispanics of African heritage as "African American? -- Frank W Sweet 11:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

West Indians and Afro-Latino's do not have a problem with being called African-American, however the term African-American over-simplifies their culture and beliefs in favor of a generalization. At the annual parades that celebrate cultural identity in New York City, there are both African-American and West Indian, Dominican, and Hation parades. Some institutions of higher-learning have taken notice to differentiate African-Americans from West Indian and Afro-Latino's. A recent study found that although West Indians make up only 3.3% of the U.S. black population, they account for 41% of the black population at 28 of top U.S. colleges. http://hcs.harvard.edu/~bsa/bguide_article1.html

Exactly what part of my West Indies "culture" and "beliefs" are being over-simplified by the term African American? Futhermore, do "you" have heritage from the West Indies or from the antebellum south? Just because Harvard did this study (which I happen to agree with), it doesn't mean my heritage (southern and West Indies) is being over-simplified. I'm pretty sure there have been other studies that showed the many similarities between black southerners and blacks from the West Indies (Haitians, Trinidadians, Bahamians, Jamaicans, etc). Also, when I go to parades and Carnivals (whether they are in New Orleans, New York, DC, or Trinidad), they're all heavily themed around "African roots". - QzDaddy 02:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

There's no reason to get deffensive. I'm simply trying to make the point that their is a clear difference between African-Americans and West Indians, Africans, and Afro-Latino's (even the term Afro-Latino is not always appropriate). The mere fact that blacks choose to celebrate their ethnic identity sperately, indicates that simply having "African roots" is not enough to bind them into a single group. To illustrate, whites in the U.S. with origins in Europe do not call themselves European-Americans because that term ignores the cultural, linguistic, and tradtions that difine their ethnic identity. I think the person that wrote the Afro-Latino page illustrates my point the best:

"Concepts of "Black", negro or "African" are vastly different in Latin America than how they are applied within the English-speaking nations of America, since the one-drop theory was never used. Latinos believe the term "Afro-Latino" is not necessary as the term "Latino" itself ecompasses and includes a melée of various ethnic heritages that includes Indigenous, African and European bloodlines. Many in Latin America feel that certain allegedly politically-correct citizens of the United States lack a thorough understanding of what it actually means to be a Latino in America. They feel that many U.S. persons are trying to impose their views on how to define Latino culture by viewing and comparing everyone's history through their own cultural and racial experiences in the United States and not through the cultural and ethnic lens of Latino America itself."

You still haven't convinced me that my West Indies "culture" and "beliefs" are being over-simplified by the term African American. But, lets take a real world example. The last two U.S. Secretary of States were both African-American: Colin Powell, an African-American of Jamaican decent (West Indies) and Condoleezza Rice, an African-American from Alabama (antebellum south). They both call themselves African-American, everyone in the world calls them African-American, and neither of them have a problem with term or definition for African-American. They both had families that instilled the same "belief" that if you work hard you can accomplish anything, along with many other similar beliefs. They're both well educated and accomplished individuals. So, which one is not/less African American? What culture difference to they have?

You still don't understand, but we'll agree to disagree. Nevertheless, it is still not your place, or anyone else for that matter, to assume a person's ethnic or cultural identity based on the color of their skin.

You don't speak for all West Indians either. I know MANY blacks from the Carribbean who don't consider themselves 'African-American', it usually depends on whether they were born in the west indies or if their parents were, or if their grandparents were.

Piratescat 19:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC) Sure, a person of genetic European descent born in an African country who immigrates to the USA can call themselves African-American, but then a person of genetic African descent born in a European country who immigrates to the USA can do the same. I actually do call people like Theresa Hienz Kerry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teresa_Heinz_Kerry, African American. But when I do so, know that I may also call someone like Adrian Thaws http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tricky, a European. I'd call Mabel Mercer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mabel_Mercer a European American as well because even though her father was of African descent by way of the United states- she was born in England and grew up in England and Paris.

Who is African American?

I removed the following recently added paragraph because it needs rewording.

To be considered African American one has to be either a Black American of African ancestry [8], or, a black person born in Africa who immigrates to the United States, and becomes an U.S. citizen by meeting the requirements of The U.S. Citizenship and Naturalization Agency. [9]

The problem is that the added paragraph is circular. The first stated criterion "a Black American of African ancestry" relies entirely upon the highlighted adjective. If it merely said, "an American of African ancestry," it would clearly be incorrect. First, many Americans (about 5 percent) who are socially accepted as ethnically African-American due to family history in fact have no detectable African DNA markers. See E.J. Parra and others, “Ancestral Proportions and Admixture Dynamics in Geographically Defined African Americans Living in South Carolina,” American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 114 (2001), 18-29, figure 1. Second, about one-third of White USAmericans carry detectable African DNA markers from ancestors who passed through the U.S. endogamous color line. See [10].

The second criterion is even more heavily dependent upon the adjective black because in this case, the term does not refer to appearance. Mostafa Hefny, an African immigrant from Africa (Egypt) was ruled to be legally White despite his very dark sub-Saharan appearance. (See his photos at [11].) And, as explained in the article, Mary Walker of 1988 Denver was ruled to be legally African-American, despite fair complexion, green eyes, straight light-brown hair, and no documented family history of African-American heritage.

Finally, an immigrant can willingly become African American despite having been born in neither Africa not the U.S. Place of birth is irrelevant. No one would deny African American status to a black immigrant of sub-Saharan ancestry who happened to have been born in Jamaica, say, or in France.

What the paragraph comes down to is, "To be considered African American one has to be black and American." But, as the court cases show, one is black if one is accepted as such by the African-American community, whatever your ancestry, whatever your appearance, and one is not-black if rejected by the African-American community, again whatever your ancestry, whatever your appearance.

In the end, the paragraph is saying nothing more than, "To be considered African American (by African Americans) one has be considered African American (by African Americans)." This is circular.

If there is any other meaning in the paragraph, I suggest that it be rewritten to focus on that other meaning. As it stands, I cannot see that it adds anything to the article. -- Frank W Sweet 13:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I always thought that one must be born in Africa to be African. BTW, African is not an ethnic group. --Vehgah 18:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

That is a good point. In some ways, the term "African American" is a historical accident that makes as little sense as calling Native Americans "Indians." We (incorrectly) call Native Americans "Indians" because Columbus was convinced that he had found a route to India, and so the people who lived there were Indians. Similarly, Africa is a continent with many nations and many diverse peoples. It is larger and more populous than Europe. The geographic triangle bounded by Cape Town, Casablanca, and Cairo is a vast kaleidoscope of thousands of cultures, religions, and mutually unintelligible languages.

The people who were caught up by the transatlantic slave trade were mainly of the Bantu-speaking cultures of West Central Africa, although a few came from other regions. As explained in African_American_history#Early_History, most came from eight regions of Africa and comprised about 40 different ethnic groups. But in the United States, they were all thrown together. Since they lacked a common language, religion, or cultural tradition, they essentially had to reinvent themselves as a single ethnic group. As explained in African_American_history#Origins_of_Today.27s_African-American_Ethnicity, shortly after the American Revolution they adopted the term "African-American" for themselves because African ancestry was the only thing that they had in common. -- Frank W Sweet 19:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

What about Moroccans

Goujagou removed a reference to Moroccans as an example (along whith Boers) of Africans who are not considered "Black" in the United States, in the sense of being eligible for African-American ethnicity. His comment was that there are black Moroccans.

Goujagou is correct. If you define "Black" by appearance (dark skin tone, kinky hair, etc.) then there are many Black Moroccans, just as there are Black South Africans, Black Japanese (members of the African Diaspora living in Japan), Black Chinese, and so forth. Nevertheless, in the context of the article the question is: "Who is seen as being on the Black side of the color line upon immigration"? Any immigrant who is seen as a descendant of the African Diaspora is usually assigned to the Black side of the U.S. endogamous color line, no matter what country they immigrate from. Any immigrant seen as "White" (more precisely, seen as non-Black) is assigned to the White side of the U.S. color line.

The problem comes down to who is doing the "seeing." The issue is complicated by the fact that federal courts have ruled that no one from Morocco (or anywhere in North Africa) is eligible for EEOC civil rights enforcement or affirmative action entitlements as "Black," no matter what they look like. See the Mostafa Hefny case, discussed in the body of the article, for the most recent precedent. The issue is further complicated by the ephemeral nature of the sub-Saharan phenotyoe, which can vanish in descendants after just two or three generations of out-marriage.

The issue is a hotly contested one within the African-American community and usually comes down to conflicting opinions on whether someone "looks black," on the one hand, versus family history "born into the African-American community," on the other. The debate is probably worth expanding into a paragraph or two in the article. For now, guided by federal case law, I would suggest leaving the Moroccans in there as an example of non-Black Africans. I would also remove aboriginal Australians from the paragraph since they are not part of the African diaspora. -- Frank W Sweet 13:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Definition

Here is a question from an ignorant Englishman. Were I, a white man, to have a child with my black partner in the US would that child be considered black, wouldf s/he be considered black or would s/he be considered both black and white? It seems from thae article that said child would be considered black and would not be considered white. Is this the case? (as I believe it would be in England), SqueakBox 15:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

The short answer is that such a child in the United States could probably self-identify however he or she wishes. As a quadruple grandfather of mixed ancestry, I have reached the conclusion that children are born with opinions. The long answer is that it depends upon the child's appearance which, in turn, depends on the random recombination of the parents' genes. Consider three possibilities:

A U.S. child of in-betweenish or ambiguous appearance in a region with a large Hispanic population would be accepted as White or Black, depending upon the circle of friends, but would likely be seen as unremarkably "Hispanic" by passers-by. My latest grandson falls into this category.
A U.S. child of definite European appearance would in practice be allowed to choose his/her own ethnic self-identity by most Americans. A few zealous Eurocentrists and Afrocentrists might insist that one drop of Black blood makes one Black (as they say about Peter Ustinov, Carol Channing or Alexander Siddig, for instance), but U.S. society as a whole is rather tolerant of such personal ethnic choice if the person "looks white."
Finally, a U.S. child of strongly African appearance would be under extreme pressure from friends, teachers, police, and all the coercive powers of government to self-identify as Black or be involuntarily assigned to the U.S. Black endogamous group, like it or not. (See Afro-European Admixture in the United States for demographic genetic evidence of such involuntary assignment.) -- Frank W Sweet 15:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I concur. For example, I know two brothers, both of no more than 25% Black African ancestry; both have generally African-looking bone structure and hair, but quite light skin, certainly within the range normal for many European ethnicities. The younger brother identifies as African American, and systematically dresses in ways that signal that identity. The other calls himself German American (which reflects half his ancestry, a larger component that the African part); he occasionally gets some flak about this self-identification (especially from his brother's friends), but he is generally accepted as such by people who know him. If they care at all. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

true meaning of ethnic group?

Contributor 68.62.196.167 added the following two sentences to the opening paragraph:

although in the true meaning of ethnic group African Americans are not an ethnic group. The ethnicity for most has been obscured by how they arrived in the Americas.

I have removed these sentences because they imply a difference between "real" ethnicity in the land of origin and "synthetic" or "umbrella" ethnicity in the United States. In fact, all U.S. ethnicities are umbrella-like socio-political groups embracing diversity under a common self-identity in order to achieve recognition and political clout through bloc voting in the United States. See ethnic group. For recent essays in this, see Werner Sollors, The Invention of Ethnicity (New York: Oxford University, 1989). For the classical definitions, see Werner Sollors, Theories of Ethnicity: A Classical Reader (Washington Square NY: New York University, 1996). For a recent analysis of census data, see Mary C. Waters, Ethnic Options: Choosing Identities in America (Berkeley: University of California, 1990). -- Frank W Sweet 17:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree; African Americans are part of the nation-state of the United States, and as American as apple pie and baseball; that African slaves were not willing to emigrate centuries ago changes nothing. Kemet 15:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

ethnicity v. culture, 500,000 v. 1,000,000

I reversed two of the changes made by 86.134.167.216. First, technically speaking, I do not think that one can say that the African-American community is a "culture." The term implies serious differences in language, religion, folklore, costume, etc. Ethnicity, on the other hand, implies self-identity within a larger mainstream. "Ethnicity" is to "culture" about like "dialect" is to "language." In each case, the former term denotes a group within a larger nation, the latter term applies to an entire nation. Second, the latest best estimates of the international slave trade are in Appendix 3 of Hugh Thomas, The Slave Trade: The Story of the Atlantic Slave Trade: 1440-1870 (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1997). Pages 861-862 summarize the different computation methods. There seems to be no dispute that Africans shipped to British North America numbered about half a million in all (including illegal importation after 1807). -- Frank W Sweet 23:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Is there always this much vandalism?

I just started contributing to WP a few weeks ago and I am utterly astonished by the frequency of vandalism here. I do not mean casual one-time stuff, but repeated deliberate over-and-over stuff. Is it always like this? Is it like this in all WP articles. -- Frank W Sweet 23:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I think there is more vandalism than there was and there are websites where peopkle claim they are trying to destroy wikipedia by making it uncridible, and it is all over the place though some articles are obviously more vulnerable (George W.Bush et al, nation state articles etc), SqueakBox 23:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

There's vandalism, and there's promoting a view (i.e., making a non-NPOV addition), and there's editing out the bias in an article, and there's expanding an article so that it includes other approaches to an issue. Some people see all of them as vandalism; only the last two are appropriate for Wikipedia. (Sorry for posting anonymously.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 160.133.1.6 (talk • contribs) 13 Jan 2006.

african american link

I was going to repair the african american link.

sorry, I meant to edit the link from atlanta

Didn't realize I'd jumped to the african american page by mistake.

I am an African American...

I must say, as an African American, great article. I'm speaking of the article reverted by Mike. I've found that there tends to be quite a bit of biased opinions and pure speculations embedded in articles dealing with us. Great work! Definitely deserves to be featured.

I'm glad you like it.Cameron Nedland 02:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm one too.--Always Gotta Keep it Real, Cute 1 4 u 17:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

One drop rule = forbidden original research

Half the article was posted by an amateur racial thinker who cites only his own self-published essays on the One Drop Rule--articles that have not been accepted by the thousands of scholars who work on the topic. This violates Wiki rules against original research, and has to be removed. I also added parts of full bibliography (covering 1860-1954). Rjensen 07:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The text that I contributed is far from original research, being merely a summary of peer-reviewed journal articles and monographs. If Rjensen prefers that my contributions to the WP article cite its sources in the footnotes, rather than simply point the reader to sites where the sources can be found, I shall be happy to do that. Give me a couple of hours. Also, I am hardly "an amateur racial thinker," See a summary of my CV at my user page and details at [12]. -- Frank W Sweet 12:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Moved to talk for NPOV by Mytwocents 17:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC) This is to show the work of Frank W Sweet for further discussion;

The Rise and Triumph of the One-Drop Rule

The one-drop rule of invisible Blackness arose in the mid-1830s in the Ohio Valley and spread to the south after the Civil War.^{15, 16} Those who advocated the notion that you could look completely European and self-identify as White, but still be involuntarily Black due to an undetectable trace of Black ancestry, were a minority at first, and the idea was rejected both by popular culture and the law.¹⁷ But as 19th century was ending, the one-drop rule became increasingly accepted in the South.¹⁸ By 1900 it had become the law of the land in court cases.¹⁹ In the 1910-1930 period its acceptance spread throughout the nation, and it was made statutory and enforced in most states.²⁰

Incidentally, not everyone uses the term one-drop rule thus. To some, the term is synonymous with Marvin Harris’s “hypodescent,” meaning that Americans who look slightly African are considered Black, even if their African admixture is less than 50 percent.²¹ This differs from the Caribbean, where you are White if you look preponderantly European.²² To others, one-drop rule refers to the U.S. folkloric belief that anyone who has even one drop of African blood in his veins is marked by some subtle physical trait, a clue that reveals the African ancestry. Some say that it is revealed in the color of the half-moons at the base of the thumbnails, or in the shape of the heels, or in blue or purple marks at specific locations on the body.²³ To them, one-drop rule is the belief that no matter how diluted African blood may be, a residue of visible evidence will always remain, generation after generation.²⁴ This is nonsense, of course, since about one-third of White Americans have detectable recent African genetic admixture in their DNA from ancestors who passed through the color line.²⁵ The one-drop rule, on the other hand, is the idea that you can look completely European and self-identify as White, but still be involuntarily Black due to an undetectable trace of Black ancestry.²⁶

Why were Americans the only society to adopt such a strange rule of group membership (undetectable and intangible by definition)? The question has interested anthropologists and historians.²⁷ The four most popular theories are: that it maintained and expanded the agricultural labor force, that it was embraced by Black leadership to enhance ethnic solidarity, that it was used by White supremacists to support the notion of White racial purity, and that it was wielded as a threat to keep compassionate White families in line by exiling them to Blackness if they defended or befriended Blacks during the Jim Crow period of White-on-Black terror and oppression. Of course, these explanations are not mutually exclusive, and may have operated in combination.

The first theory is that the one-drop rule maintained or expanded the labor force by subjecting those of mixed ancestry to forced labor. Its strength lies in explaining why the one-drop rule triumphed in the early 20th century. This was the very period when much of the South's Black agricultural labor force fled to the North in the Great Migration. The one-drop rule shifted the color line pale-wards, trapping many who had been previously seen as White. The theory's weakness is that it is sometimes erroneously applied to slavery. This is an error because no court case ever ruled that someone was a slave merely because of his or her "race." Slavery was matrilineal. Hundreds of people of sub-Saharan phenotype were routinely freed following case law set by Higgins v. Allen, 1796 Maryland by proving that a matrilineal ancestor was free. Indeed, having mixed ancestry was useful because, ever since Gobu v. Gobu, 1802 North Carolina; Hudgins v. Wrights, 1806 Virginia; and Adelle v. Beauregard, 1810 Louisiana, the law of the land (subsequently followed in hundreds of cases) was that biracial individuals were presumed to be free unless proven otherwise. But most importantly, the one-drop rule was not adopted—indeed, it was virtually unknown—in the South until long after slavery was dead.²⁸ (Also, see Race.)

The explanation that the one-drop rule was embraced by Black leadership in order to enhance ethnic solidarity matches the timing and direction of the rule's spread. The rule was advocated by both Martin R. Delany (1812-1885) and Frederick Douglass (1818-1895) before the Civil War. It was carried south after the war by the Black Yankees who built the schools, printed the newspapers, and opened the businesses that taught the newly freed to flourish as Americans. It was defended and supported by Black political leadership throughout the Jim Crow terror. The one-drop system of racial designation was a significant factor in African-American ethnic solidarity since antebellum times. African Americans generally shared a common lot in society and, therefore, common cause—regardless of their ethnic admixture and social and economic stratification. This theory's weakness is that it cannot stand alone. It seems unlikely that a minority population (Black) could somehow cause mainstream society (White) to adopt and impose a law that helped only Blacks. After all, one-drop rule was enforced by White elites through the judicial system.²⁹

The theory that the one-drop rule was used by White supremacists in order to support the notion of White racial purity has the advantage that it reflects the excuses given by the very legislators who wrote the laws and the judges who enforced them. They claimed that they wanted to preserve the "purity of the white race" from being "polluted" by Black blood. White supremacists, whose motivation was racist, considered anyone with African ancestry tainted, inherently inferior morally and intellectually and, thus, subordinate. The theory's drawback is that articulate public figures, such as lawmakers and judges, do not always tell the truth, even to themselves.³⁰

The theory that the one-drop rule was used to keep compassionate White families in line is psychologically compelling and matches court evidence of how the rule was enforced. Between 1900 and 1920, over a hundred court cases were held to decide whether an accused family was truly White or unknowingly Black. About forty of those cases were then appealed to state supreme courts. In not one of those forty cases was any genealogical evidence produced. In no case did an accuser reveal an ancient birth certificate, marriage license, school record, or the like. Instead, the testimony was that: An aunt was seen laughing at a joke told by a Black maid. An uncle was seen shaking hands with a Black carpenter who had been hired to build a chicken-coop. A 15-year-old niece was seen flirting with a Black boy of the same age. The testimony that banished families to Blackness was always about establishing one-on-one family-to-family relationships across the color line. The theory is compelling because it is a well-known law of group psychology that when a powerful group bullies a weak group, any member of the bullying group who befriends and tries to defend a victim will be expelled to the bullied group and become a victim himself. During the Jim Crow wave of terror, the White community bullied the Black community. And so, any White family that befriended a Black family was expelled from Whiteness and made legally Black.³¹

(1) Why remove all the footnotes? I added them because of the complaint that the section lacked sources. (2) Where is the POV in the removed section? It summarizes every single current theory of the one-drop rule and includes footnotes to each theory's author and each one's peer-reviewed, scholarly published work that proposes the theory. Please explain what the problem is, and I shall try to fix it. But stop yanking out text without explaining the problem. -- Frank W Sweet 17:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay. You removed the section because you (erroneously) said that it lack sources. So I added sources. Then you removed it because you (erroneously) said that it was POV. So I explained that the section gives equal weight, with sources, to every competing theory. Then you removed it because you (erroneously) said that the information is in one drop theory. This is my last revert. Remove it again and I shall wash my hands of the article. If anyone else wants to include the facts of the one-drop rule in this article, rather than the fantasy that was in there when I was asked to fix it, they can argue it out with you. I am done with it. -- Frank W Sweet 17:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I will refrain from reverting the text. It's obvious you have a passion for the one drop issue, and on re-reading the one drop theory page I can see NPOV there as well. The bulk of your text my be changed or trimmed(or moved to the talk page to provide a POV sub-text) by another editor(s) for NPOV or because the issue is covered on another Wikipage(my reasons). Also, this page is getting very long. Wikilinking to subpages helps to keep a main page within the 36Kb page length guidelines. Mytwocents 18:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't think this article is the place for a lengthy disquisition on the one-drop rule. It should be mentioned, maybe even at paragraph link and a separate article linked to. For an analogous issue, look at Jew, where the question of Who is a Jew gets a single section, which, in turn, links to the article Who is a Jew?. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Hyphenation

Why was this article recently moved from African American to African-American? I'm active in Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups and am unaware of any article with parallel naming. Contrasts would be Italian American, Polish American. Usually this is hyphenated as an adjective, but not as a noun, and article names are normally nouns. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Why was this article moved from African American to African-American? And why has the person who did this not answered the question above (or, indeed, submitted this move for discussion before doing it)? Badagnani 06:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Asian Ancestry

Just wondering why the sentence:"Some have Asian ancestry too" was removed, anyone know why?

Seems too obvious to me (I didn't delete it). It is self-evident that African Americans have ancestries from all other racial groups that exist in such a vast community of people as the Afro-Americans are. We must be careful not to state the obvious because when we do we assume our readers are fools, SqueakBox 15:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

well if you go by that reasoning then there is no need to include that African Americans have European/Native American ancestry too, or even to clarify who is considered to be African American, i mean since that would be stating the obvious...i didn't write it, but either way, your explanation that it states the obvious doesn't warrant its removal.

Do any homogeneous African-Americans exists?

looks like the majority of them are obviously of mixed ancestry, 11% of the population is said to be "black" how much of that is full-blooded?

I heard 95% of blax have something else in them.Cameron Nedland 02:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Likely relatively few blacks. I once read in the New Amsterdam News that the percentage of African-Americans with Native American blood was in the mid-upper 80th percentile. But, then, a lot of so-called "white" Americans were mixed with nonwhite blood before they even arrived here. Deeceevoice 05:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't know how long this misunderstanding will continue, but scientifically there is no "black", "white" or "native american" race, so there's no logical definition of "full-blooded", "pure", or "mogrel". Researchers have tried to make it work out genetically, but the data just won't nicely divide into a small number of distinct groups. Plug Pakistani genotype data into a computer and the computer will tell you you've got an individual who is 30% Native American.[13] Justforasecond 06:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I've been living and dealing with issues of race and ethnicity all my life, so understand fully that all terms are relative. I made the comment above, but I still refer to white folks as white folks. (Duh.) Deeceevoice 12:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Which just shows science doesn't dominate culture and language, SqueakBox 14:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Hardly. :p Both predate and supercede it. Science never did and never will. Deeceevoice 14:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

"Homogeneous X" is meaningless if you can't/won't define "X". There aren't and never were any pure races, as any one who has spent more than fifteen minutes reading about the subject knows. Talking about "nonwhite" blood as if there is such a thing as "white" blood or "black" blood is outdated thinking. Justforasecond 21:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

"Black" vs "African-American"

The article says that African-Americans are people of African origin as long as they are not Arab, Berber, or basically non-black. Since humans evolved in Africa, that would mean all Americans are African-Americans. So why don't we use the term Black or Black-American? I'm not trying to offend anyone here, it just seems akward.Cameron Nedland 21:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

the race-nationality model is more accurate as black is a color with no homeland and basically no meaning African America gives a geographical and a racial description of someone, it is clear who you are refering to . African is a race America is a place. black means too many things, black man if taken back to Africa 500 years ago would have no meaning, Africa is a word that relates to a geographical location, even if it had a different name like Nubia it would still reference the same landmass (black doesnt). genetically we may all be from Africa but their is only one African race, the people who are native to this land after the modern "racial" groups were formed. --Halaqah 15:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Well of course humanity is originally from Africa, But we all know that "African-American" means those of slave descent, who were enslaved in West Africa, and in modern english everyone pictures a black person when they hear the word "African", but in anthropological/evolutionary/biological cases everyone can be referred to as an African. Digitalseal 16:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

By that standard, would you say that no ethnic groups are from Europe? - Jmabel | Talk 00:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. I see your point. But, the term African-American is 1. Long 2. Ambiguous (not all people of African descent [such as Arabs] living in the US are African American). And as a further note, black is less confusing, because all black people are black, but not all people of African descent living in the US is nessesarily an African-American.Cameron Nedland 01:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, by "we" do you mean Wikipedia, or who? Wikipedia uses "African American" because it is the prevailing dominant usage among the people in question, who are an English-speaking ethnic group. Period. - Jmabel | Talk 19:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh. And "Italian-American" isn't just as long? Besides who cares? This article isn't about debating the validity of a term. It doesn't matter what you think of the term -- or anyone else, for that matter. The term has legitimacy because it has been adopted as a self-referential term by a group with the right and the power to name themselves. Are you going to argue with Latinos because Latinos don't speak Latin? American Indians because they aren't from India (the result of a misconception by some lost white guy in a boat)? The name is what it is. And your protestations aren't going to change it one whit. How you feel about the term has absolutely nothing to do with the article. It's not like we're asking you (or anyone) for permission to call ourselves what we will. Deeceevoice 19:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Not all blacks are African American. Cburnett 19:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. But this article isn't about 'all blacks'. It's about African-Americans. Sigh... The Singing Badger 20:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Did you miss this? "So why don't we use the term Black..." <?> Not all blacks are african american — that's why. Heck, not even all black-americans are african. African-american != black-american != black. Cburnett 01:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Africa is the geographic origin of ALL "blacks", so "African" is an appropriate term. Again, what you think of the term isn't of interest or relevance here. Deeceevoice 05:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

You don't have to be hostile.Cameron Nedland 02:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

His argument (correct me if I'm wrong Cburnett) is its usage elsewhere on Wikipedia. This is just a good home for the argument instead of arguing in the discussion pages of each article that uses the term.

kewl

this is so kewl.

Please name yourself after submissions.Cameron Nedland 00:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Other uses of the term

At the end of this BBC article the words African American ae used in reference to Venezuela, indicating a wider usage of this term than just a US-based person of African descent, SqueakBox 02:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Not really. The article could have been written by an American correspondent for the BBC. Moreover, there is no such thing as an African American machette. --[[User:]] 03:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

North Africans

The article implies that North Africans are not indigenous to Africa, which is false. The article implies that North Africans are "Arab immigrants", even though pretty much all North Africans are simply Arabised Berbers, and thus indigenous. Furthermore, Berbers are certainly indigenous to Africa, and are Caucasoid, and "Arab" is not a racial term.

Habib --83.72.194.208 17:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The great thing about wikipedia is you can go change the article! "Be bold"Justforasecond 19:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not cool to change the articles without there being some sort of consensus on the edit. --83.72.194.208 03:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

This article is not about Africa, SqueakBox 04:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The people of North Africa speak the "African" languages, while the rest of Africa speaks other types of languages, largely of the Bantu family. There is a similar physiologic division that follows along the same lines, although racial intermingling to either side of the line is quite extensive. From geographic perspective, all people indigenous to the continent Africa are Africans. But from a linguiracial perspective, the North Africans are more correctly called "African" than those further south. This derives ultimately from the fact that the name "Africa" was originally the name of the Berber country specificly, and not the name of the whole continent. Because Africans from further south predominate in America does not change the historical, geographic, and linguistic facts of the matter. Nor should it allow the North Africans to be effectively deprived of their racial identity when they immigrate to the USA. If the Americans descended from African slaves imported from west, central Africa wish to have a peculiar identity all to their own, more thought needs to be put into the name they will give to their identity. Appropriating the names "African" or "Black" for themselves is not an effective answer. The latter is even more ambiguous than the former. "Aframerican" would be a reasonable choice, implying their strong conexions to the histories of both continents, rather than that of a more immigrant group. "Afro-American" was originated for similar reasons, although the word is poorly formed.Arrabbikum 17:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Quality of Life

I have added this section in an attempt to begin a presentation of African Americans in a more positive, verifiable manner (as a replacement for the Contemporary issues section, which I removed for lack of sources and neutrality). I have merged this section with the demographics section. Hopefully others will add to this, with citations from reliable sources and avoid editorials. 2 April 2006 Kemet

I see that someone has anonymously reverted the article back to include the pessimistic, unreferenced "contemporary issues" section, and deleted the suggested "demographics and quality of life" section, which by the way was full of reliable sources. I will re-insert my changes which are verifiable. The rest of the article needs a stronger integration of facts and references, and a less editorial tone. Please explain further alterations of the changes I suggest rather than simply revert to the original article, which needs work. 3 April 2006 Kemet.

Afro-American

The article claims that Afro-American lost currency because the Afro-Americans did not want their name to be "abbreviated" or too closely associated with the afro hairstyle. Perhaps these were their motives. I can't say. But I think some clarification on these points needs making.

Afro-American is not an abbreviated form. Afro is not an abbreviation of "African". Afro- is a New Latin prefix that refers to the African race. It is formed from the Latin root Afr- + the Greek copula -o-. The purpose of the copula was originally to ease pronunciation between combined parts, although in New Latin it is used simply to indicate morpheme (word particle) divisions. The Latin root Afr- is from the Latin word Afer, "African". The name "Africa" is derived from "Afer", and means "Land of the Africans". In Latin proper, the copula would be -i-, if Afr- was prefixed to a word starting in a consonant, whcih "American" does not. So formed according to traditional Latin rules, the word would have been Aframerican, a word much more euphonious and sounding less like a label one might see on a specimine jar.

My only comment regarding the association of Afro-American to the Afro hairstyle is that if the word was formed more normally, as "Aframerican", this relationship would be lost. Afro-American, if it could be salvaged, perhaps in the form "Aframerican", would be idealogicly preferable to the newer terms "African American" or simply "Black", since it would be specific to slave-descended Black Americans. And the name itself implies a fusion of African and American elements, whereas "African-American" bespeaks only the transplanting of an African to America. Arrabbikum 17:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Arrabbikum, thank you for this clarification. I'm adding "fact" templates to this and some other points in this section of the article. Because issues relating to how American minority groups are named are controversial, I think these points should be deleted in a few days if they still are unreferenced.

Besides adding the fact tags, I'm deleting the sentence about Malcolm X using the word "Afro-Americans" because it seems to contradict text just a few sentences up, where it says Malcolm X preferred "African-American". This sentence can be replaced if sources are found, but even then the word "aped", which has negative connotations, should be changed to something more neutral, like "followed the lead of".

Finally, I'm deleting the two instances of "talkative", referring to JFK and Malcolm X, because it is an opinion and would be inappropriate, and possibly irrelevant, even if citations for these statements are found.

--Allen 01:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Contemporary Issues

I deleted this section, which has not been improved since it was tagged last year. It was highly editorial, with virtutally no listing of sources to substantiate its assertions. In its place, I have augmented the demographics section which is now more contextualized and the assertions are BACKED UP with reliable sources. Kemet 4 April 2006

SOURCES

What are the SOURCES for these assertions (I won't include the un-supported assertions that others have already identified for their lack of SOURCES)???

"Beginning in the 1980s, many blacks began to abandon the term "Afro-American", which had become popular in the 1960s and '70s, for "African-American," because they desired an unabbreviated expression of their African heritage that could not be mistaken or derided as an allusion to the afro hairstyle." "African-American culture now views prison as a 'right of passage' to manhood, on the street credibility and respect is given to those who have 'served' (served prison time for a crime)." "Furthermore, the absolute number of African-American murderers has exceeded the absolute number of European-American murders in every year since 1986. The victim rate for African-Americans is also high, with African-Americans six times more likely to be murdered than European-Americans." "The belief of education [4] as a means for African-Americans to get ahead has been in a strong decline since at least the 1970's. The African-American community now in large views education as a European-American or Asian-American instutution with the exception of sport programs, sports has replaced education as the means by which African-Americans can get get ahead."

Kemet 4 April 2006

See below message for sources. they indicate across multiple articles how rip-hop culture and prison culture are merging. Also states how almost all rap role models have been incarcerated and how a criminal proceeding will skyrocket their albulm sales. Its valid.

NPOV and citing sources

Kemet, thank you for all the time you are devoting to this article. You are citing reliable sources, which is great. Ultimately, though, citing sources isn't always enough to meet Wikipedia's neutral point of view and no original research standards.

With respect to NPOV: Because the economic well-being of African Americans is controversial (with some saying African Americans are generally doing well and others saying they are not) we need to describe this debate as a debate, rather than attempting to determine which side is correct.
With respect to NOR: Even the most reliable source isn't enough if it's being used to back up a novel interpretation of that source's data. In this case, I know that your interpretation of the data is not novel; that is, other people have published interpretations of the data that agree with yours. But those interpretations have not reached consensus, so we need to attribute them to those other people specifically. Instead of citing raw census data, we should cite authors who have drawn various conclusions from these data.

--Allen 01:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I never suggested that by citing sources, one makes his argument more neutral, but more substantial, which is ultimately what matters. As for attempting to determine which side of the debate is correct, its a naive proposition; what both sides should do is BACK UP their assertions with reliable sources (personal editorials just aren't good enough). Concerning census data, almost all of my material from those sources was paired with interpretations of the raw data, which informed my interpretations. The risk we run with relying too heavily on the interpretations of others without consulting the sources is to over-generalize already generalized conclusions: this works counter to informing oneself and others. You will not find in any reputable institution of higher learning a peer review that takes the author at his word---the original sources from where the author draws his material will be the items to be judged. If the sources are reliable, then the author's interpretation is given more weight. Wikepedia's contributors should aim for this. After reading through this article for several times over the past several months, I was very frustrated by the overall low quality and highly editorial (but unsubstantiated) tone--too much of the conventional "whoa is me, poor down-trodden black person" and not enough balance with a presentation that showed the great diversity within the group, and collective advancements made over the past century. I'm doing my part to change this, and I hope others will as well. Kemet 5 April 2006

lots of sources really, just try to use google instead of creating your own biased view of the situation kermet for your own politics. PLEASE STOP RUINING THE ARTICLE!!! http://www.afsc.org/pwork/1200/122k05.htm, http://www.globalblacknews.com/Jail.html, http://gadflyer.com/articles/?ArticleID=158, http://gadflyer.com/articles/?ArticleID=158, http://www.sabes.org/resources/fieldnotes/vol12/f23paquette.htm, http://www.socialistaction.org/news/199904/prison.html, http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761587467/African_Americans.html, http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:vVNXjqqKkBcJ:weber.ucsd.edu/~rfrank/class_web/ES-193/SannaIntro.doc+prison+effect+on+african+american+culture&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=4, http://www.city-journal.org/html/13_3_how_hip_hop.html, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0465029787?v=glance, http://www.blackenterprise.com/ExclusivesekOpen.asp?id=1565 the second to last link for a book goes in depth about how the hip-hop culture and prison culture are feeding off eachother, and the destructive effects its having on aftican americam culture. How many big time rap artists have been murdered and how many have been in prision and rap highly of it. Dont anwser that, just read...

I have looked at the sources you suggested, but I think your point is moot. I do not dispute that there are serious demographic problems among African Americans as a group, but there are also MANY positive trends, even when taking into account the large lower and underclasses. The purpose of my additions is to balance the conventional, pessimistic (and often unverifiable) claims. If one makes a claim, then he needs to use a RELIABLE SOURCE (personal opinions alone just AREN'T enough when they are in a document whose purpose is to inform. I have cited my RELIABLE AND TESTABLE sources, I challenge my challengers to do the same, and the article will benefit from this. Kemet 7 April 2006

I'm still waiting for your reliable source for the more black in college than whites claim. If they are unverifiable claims then thats fine, but the trends you are adding have been written with rose colored keys. FatP 4/8/06

I never made that claim---you should closely re-read the text, and scroll down....as for rose-colored keys, that's a valid opinion, but the fundamental point is that I didn't simply make claims without reliable sources. If you wish to challenge my claims, by all means, please do so, but with reliable sources, that has been my point since the beginning. Kemet 8 April 2006

The falicy in your last statement is the word 'opinion'. Wikipedia's neutral point of view and no original research standards

Isn't it fallacy? In any event, I don't follow your reasoning; what does my acknowledgement of the validity of another's opinion have to do with the standards you listed? Kemet 10 Aprill 2006

HA! Is that all you have... to point out a spelling mistake. Your a joke. FatP 4/14/06

Correction: YOU'RE a joke. Double meaning intended. Kemet 19 April 2006.

Question, regarding NPOV, the section which discusses Afr.Am. demographics does so by comparing the data with the standards of living of nation states around the world. This is an artificial comparison since African Americans are not a nation state but rather a national unit within a larger state. The standards of living of blacks can be better comprehended when understood in context to Anglo Saxon living standards. If it had been done in this way it would be obvious that blacks are 10 times more likely than whites to die a violent death, that their life expectancy is roughly 5 years less than that of whites and that there are large disparities between black and white infant mortality and infant malnutrition (both poverty indexes). My question is, is it possible to reframe the demographics section to either present black demographics alone or to compare them to a more relevant group? Peace. Kobaincito. 05/13/06

African American men are not more likely to complete high school

"African American men are more likely to complete high school and some college than white American men"

This statement is false according to the cited pdf: http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p20-541.pdf (page 4)

The graph does state that African American men vs Non Hispanic White men 'complete high school' (35% vs 31%) and 'some college' (27% vs 25%) at a higher rate.

What is not taken into account, however, is that the African-American men have a much higher drop out rate (22% vs 12%) and much lower college completion rate (16% vs 32%.)

Those that drop out must be considered when determining the percent of men that complete high school.

Likewise, 'some college' does not include those that have completed college - and everyone that has completed college obviously has completed some college.

A more accurate statement would be: "African American men are less likely to complete high school and college than white American men." Assuming this fact needs to be indicated.

A more accurate statement would be, "Among those who complete high school, a higher percentage of black men and women have had some college," as the graphs indeed show in the cited reference. The graphs do show that a higher percentage of whites complete college, which is why I did not assert the contrary. Kemet 7 April 2006

More in college than whites is just plan out false, this is wishfull thinking. While there is some debate in articles to the exact number, here is a good one 'Already, the U.S. Justice Department itself projects that 32% of African-American men born in 2001 will spend time in prison. That's one in three black men, folks. One in three. 'http://gadflyer.com/articles/?ArticleID=158

I just had the statistic for whites then lost it but its like 60% end up with a college degree! So again no, this is just flat out wishful thinking.

"More [blacks] in college than whites" IS false, which is why I did not assert the opposite. As for the data you cite from the Justice Department, that information should be in another section, one that balances the positive information I stressed---perhaps you would like to expand the contemporary issues section with more references---God knows the section needs work. Kemet 7 April 2006

If your acknowledging that statement is false and its in the article and you put it there, dont you think that mabey you should remove it?! FatP 4/8/06

There is nothing to remove, since I never made the claim in the first place...PLEASE CLOSELY READ the text before critiquing it. Kemet 8 April 2006

The first instance of that statement i can find was added on apr 2 2006 at 19:17 by you. And no your doing something far worse, your picking and choosing without using the most significant facts in that article. An employeer (or anyone else ) looks for if you had some college over a completing college?! HA. I havent ever seen a job posting stating there looking for someone with some college. Some college could mean a single class, or an AP class in high school, or one class away, but really who cares if you had some college if you dont have a degree. The important fact to look at is the number that COMPLETED college, those that can put on their resume that they complete college, theres a 10% diff in your own source between black and whites. FatP 4/8

This is becoming pedantic...Anyway, I removed that reference, as I see that someone vandalized it (I wonder who...hmmm--probably among the non-college-educated among any race), and it was only a very minor part of the overall presentation. Kemet 10 April 2006

Ah yes, I vandalized it to be more accurate based on your own sources. Now the real reason you no longer want it is because its accurate based on your own sources, and more relevant.

"Among those who complete high school, a significantly lower percentage of African Americans have a bachlor degree or better than their white counterpart[14], and" FatP 4/14/06

The horse is DEAD, stop beating it....Kemet 19 April 2006

Economic Status

"African Americans have made significant advances in the United States (particularly when compared to other minority groups in the United States), collectively enjoy a standard of living higher than that of most other people in the western world, and virtually all other groups in the former Second World and Third World. "

Where are your sources Kermet?! Blacks are doing better than Asians, Indians, and Mexicans (Latinos)?!?! Do they enjoy a higher standard of living in the US because of the safety net our nation provides or because of the average amount of income produced by aa's? I dont dispute 3rd world since it could be argues that almost all citizens of a first world must be significant higher than a 3rd.

I suggest that you closely re-read the text I wrote---I will restore it shortly, AND closely review the sources I cited. I am careful with my wording and the accuracy with which they reflect the sources I cite. As for the assertions you make (including those about safety nets--by the way, EARNED INCOME is no safety net), I advise you to substantiate them with sources; editorials and armchair opinions just aren't good enough. Kemet 7 April 2006

Your precise, not accurate, those words have different meanings. I will be awaiting your source for the topic of this discussion. FatP

I am beginning to sound like a broken record: CLOSELY RE-READ THE TEXT [and citations] before your critiques. Kemet 8 April 2006

They say thats the difference between those with faith (you!) and science. Those with faith keep on repeating the same thing over and over and over and over and over again. Its a form of self-brainwashing. FatP 4/8

I'm atheist and secular. Science rocks. Kemet 10 April 2006

I question the utility of the current Economics section. It focuses on a very small economic elite which is hardly representative of ANY American population, black or non-black. Moreover, the older section has been deleted (which I'll reinsert shortly). The section needs balance. Kemet 18:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone keeps placing the section "economic status" as a subset of "contemporary issues," but this is an illogical placement: the tone of the former is not an elaboration of the latter (in fact it contradicts it more often than not) , so I have listed the former as an independent section. If one intends to revert to the old structure, then he should justify it. Kemet 18:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

politics

Any information on the link between African-Americans and the U.S. Democrat Party? I understand it is an anomalous phenomenon, vote something like 90% Democrat, more than any other ethnic group, regardless of income etc. Should this be included in this article?

I think that African Americans as a group tend to vote for Democrats because the party is perceived to have been more devoted to issues that particularly affect African Americans as a group in recent history (affordable and quality healthcare, lowering the unemployment and poverty rate, civil rights legislation [particularly during and after the 1950s and 60s], and so forth). The Republican has not had a strong civil rights reputation since the New Deal when the parties seem to have switched key playforms and attracted different constituencies. This should be mentioned, but only if mentioned in context. I'm not qualified to expand on this, so I hope someone else who is more knowledgeable does. Kemet 13 April 2006.

pictures

does anyone realize that there is only one picture in this entire article in this entire article? could somebody please add one? thank you. Later!!!! User:70.124.132.176 02:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Afric"an" American?

African American is incorrect. The proper use in English is Afro-American, even though African American is often used by politicians and community-leading people. --Andrelvis

According to who? The proper way is to identify people with the terms with which they identify themselves; prescriptive "suggestions" are meaningless. If few people call themselves Afro-Americans, then neither should you. Kemet 19 April 2006.

Your logic is faulty. By your logic, we shouldn't call the Dutch Dutch because that's not as they call themselves. Isn't this "English" wikipedia? Then the language should be used correctly. --Andrelvis

According to who is it more proper to say Afro-American vs African American?Cameron Nedland 22:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

According to WHOM :) Just kidding. I think he's referencing the fact that it is two adjectives in a row, like how we don't say "Southern American" for "South American," etc. It probably would be more grammatically correct, but it's a lilttle too late for that, I believe. Reggaedelgado 02:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Population trends

Is there a reason why the black population went down until the great depression and then started coming back up?Cameron Nedland 22:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

To be clear, the total black population did not decrease at any point. It decreased as a percentage of the overall population because a large number of immigrants were coming into the country, mostly from Europe. There was a lot less immigration after the Immigration Act of 1924, so that was no longer a factor. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 22:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

So blacks tend to have more children than other groups?Cameron Nedland 02:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I think so, but I'm not sure. Don't quote me on that. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 01:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Nat Krause wrote: "because a large number of immigrants were coming into the country, mostly from Europe." This is not supported by the evidence. First, as one can see from a graph of Immigration as a percentage of population, there was no "large number of immigrants" percentage-wise at the time. Second, the decline continued after the Johnson-Reed act and did not reverse until 1950. There are better explanations. -- Frank W Sweet 11:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the graph you link to, it does indeed appear that there was a larger number of immigrants before 1924. Whether or not one considers that to be large is, I suppose, a matter of opinion. Also, the table at African_American#Black_American_population plainly shows that the African American population increased, both as an absolute amount and as a percentage of the total population, between 1930 and 1950 (and after). - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 01:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Merger

I think that this article should be merged with Black people since it is the same race and ethnicity. Also, you cannot have African-Americans since there is no such thing as African-America1028 00:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Not true; as a sociolological concept Africvan American clearly exists in a substantially notable way so I oppose, SqueakBox 01:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but they are the same people.Cameron Nedland 02:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

No, they're not. Would you move United States to White people? User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I have some complaints with regard to your fallacy:

1. The U.S. refers to a country, not a fictious race.
2. Africa is a continent having nothing to do with Africans besides being their continent of origin.
3.The people native to to the U.S. are the American Indians. Why would we put white people in a continent they didn't come from?
4.White people aren't the only people living in America. The U.S. belongs to White people as much as it belongs to Black people.
5.Just because I live somewhere (the U.S.) does not change my race or ethnicity (white).

As you can see, you were building a straw man argument. - 1028 00:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I think Zoe's point was that not all black people are African Americans. "African American" is a subset of "black people"; to wit, African American is the set of all black people who are Americans. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 00:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like to say that there is no category for "African Germans" or "African Italians", so why should we have a category regarding "African Americans"? Are African Americans superior to African Germans? Also, lets just say that they are a subset and not just people inhabiting America. If African Americans are a subset of Blacks, shouldnt it be a subset of the Black article? Another thing is if we call Americans of African descent African Americans, why don't we call people living in Liberia African-American-Africans? 1028 02:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there are categories for Afro-Germans and Afro-Italians. I don't know why it's Afro- for those two countries, and not African-; perhaps it reflects common usage, or perhaps it's just an accident. As for the subset issue, that's not a line of logic that we follow on Wikipedia in general; it's not just these two articles. For example, Square has its own article, even though all squares are Rectangles. Finally, about the Liberian case, I suspect that the reason most people don't use the phrase "African-American-African" is because they feel it's too cumbersome to use in everyday conversation. Maybe people should use it anyway, but that's not Wikipedia's concern. We try to describe language as it's used, not as we think it should be. --Allen 03:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we have a category for Square even though it is a rectangle, but do we have a category for squares drawn in America? 1028 23:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

We don't have a category for Square; we have an article for Square. That aside, I'm not sure where you're going with this line of argument. --Allen 02:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm saying that if we are going to have an article about Blacks in America called African American, we should have a category for squares drawn in America called "American Rhomboid Rectangular Quadrilatteral Polygons"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1028 00:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The current article focuses on a U.S. ethnic community with roots in African slavery, while the Black (people) article leans more towards a global "Black" identity associated with resistance to European colonization and exploitation, and which includes people whose ancestors were neither slaves nor from Africa (eg: Australian Aborigines, Indian Dalits, etc.). Merging the articles would result in one overly long article trying to cover two different topics. -- Frank W Sweet 17:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay then. Let's say that in the 1700s one African is taken into slavery and his brother is not. Then they had descendants in today's world. Why would the guy whose ancestor was a slave be an African~American and the guy whose ancestor wasn't a slave be an African when they are actually 6th cousins?1028 00:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Because one is an American and one isn't. Unless the brother's descendents moved to America at some point. What's complicated about this? - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 00:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm against merging the articles. I think part of the confusion is that 1028 is interpreting "African-American" as a purely ethnic label. If it were, 1028's arguments would make sense, but it isn't. It's a label that makes reference both to a person's ethnicity and to their nationality. --Allen 01:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it redundant to call a black person who lives in America "African-American", because if you are in America, it is quite obvious that he would be African American and not just African. That would be like calling squares "rhomboid rectangles". 1028 23:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

If we're talking about someone in the United States, and we say that they are "German" or "Korean", we usually mean that they are citizens or residents of that other country who are only temporarily visiting the US. We say "German-American" or "Korean-American" to make it clear that the people we're talking about have immigrated to the US permanently. "African-American" is a bit of a special case, because it is often used to refer specifically to people who are the descendants of American slaves, rather than people whose ancestors immigrated from Africa to the US after the Civil War. Still, when people refer to someone in America as an "African", they are often talking about someone whose permanent home is in Africa. I know there are some people who feel that "African" is a more appropriate term for all Americans of African descent. Perhaps you are one of those people. This view, if sourced and worded in an NPOV way, could be added to African_American#Criticisms_of_the_term. --Allen 02:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

This article contradicts another article.

Section "Who is African American?" contradicts:

-- Frank W Sweet 15:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Please do not write passages in Wikipedia articles such as, "Some people think that the one-drop rule dates from U.S. slavery and that it determined whether you were a slave. For example, a Wikipedia article erroneously claims, 'The designation of anyone possessing any trace of African ancestry as "black", and, therefore, of subordinate status to whites, guaranteed a source of cheap labor during slavery and for decades afterward.' Reality was the exact opposite." It's bad enough for one Wikipedia article to refer back to another, but awful for one article to cite another as incorrect. If there are errors in this article, please fix it. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 18:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. It seems pretty clear that, legally, African American is wrong. Unless there are other opinions, I'll delete the passage

"During slavery, there was also a strong economic incentive to maximize the number of individuals who could be owned, bred, worked, traded and sold outright as human chattel. The designation of anyone possessing any trace of African ancestry as "black", and, therefore, of subordinate status to whites, guaranteed a source of cheap labor during slavery and for decades afterward."

JanSöderback 13:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Too many fibs

President Kennedy began to say that colored people were Blacks in 1961 when he spoke in front of the National Press Club. He is the person who initiate all of this baloney. Negroes did not "self-referentially" begin to say that they were "black." That is the opposite of the truth. Anyone who is old enough to remember the United States of 1949 to 1959 as I can knows that "Colored" people were "brown-skinned" like Joe Louis, "dark-skinned" like Martin Luther King, or "light-skinned." Some others were called "black," and still others were called "light, bright, and damned-near white." Many of that last group "passed for white." Today (this is strange) people "pass for black" (my quote).

"Black" used to be the "derogatory" and "pejorative" word (prior to the pronouncements by J. F. K., the inventor of the word "blacks" in the U. S. A.).

71.240.42.109

I don't care what Malcolm X said. Why is Malcolm X prominently cited? He had a criminal record. He's being deified despite the convictions and the time spent behind bars in prison for his criminal activities. Malcolm X was a politician, IMHO. He wasn't the Pope, the Dalai Lama, the Buddha, Mohammed, and Jesus Christ rolled into one. He was a convicted hoodlum who was explaining that negroes are bereft of a nation of their own. Had he said: "you are landless peasants," he would've been forgotten by now. Superslum 08:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Cut apparent "original research"

I cut the following recent addition:

or the newly coined phrase "of original descent". "African American" allows for members of the Anglo or Caucasian groups born in Africa (especially South Africa) to use the term "African American" once they become citizens of the United States, hence "Black American" or "of original descent" is preferable. The "Original Descent" label is derived and based on the origins of all mankind (Biblical and scientific) being located in Africa and based on the physical characteristics and genealogy of the continent's current indigenous population, which is predominantly Black.

This looks to me like someone's idiosyncratic view, not a description of common usage. If I'm wrong, and someone has appropriate citation, fine, but otherwise it does not belong in the article. - Jmabel | Talk 16:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, whether for consideration or not

I question whether Haitian Americans are "sometimes" referred to their country of origin rather than African Americans. There is a rather large Haitian community in my area, and it has been in my experience that by and large, Haitians and Haitian Americans are generally indignant when you refer to them as "African-Americans." I'm sure it would be more appropriate to substitute "sometimes" with "generally" in the beginning of the article.

It probably is a matter of how close one is culturally to the "mother" island, as well. I'm sure that the prevalence of Jamaican-Americans in Lauderhill, Florida, would preclude the use of African-American to describe them, but a second generation Jamaican-American in, say, Kansas City, is undoubtedly less inclined to dispute the term.

Just some thoughts. Bastique▼^parler_voir 23:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms of the term

Khoisan people are linguistically, culturally, physiologically, and genetically distinct from black Africans. Pygmys are culturally, physiologically, and genetically distinct, but have adopted the languages of the more dominant peoples around them (i.e., black Africans). I'm sorry if this doesn't fit into your notions of who is included in the term "black African," but AFAIK, this taxonomy is generally accepted by anthropologists, biologists, and linguists. In fact, because the Khoisan mtDNA shows the greatest diversity among all human groups, it means that they split off from the common humand tree earlier than any other group (and, of course, stayed more or less intact as a separate group). If anything, saying that there are five distinct groups demonstrates the diversity of Africa, and conflating pygmys and Khoisans with black Africans is no more appropriate than conflating Tais (a group which includes Thais) and Japanese with Chinese. Just because they "look the same" doesn't mean that they are. Godfrey Daniel 20:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The entire black race split off the human family tree earlier than other races. Within the black race pygmys and Khoisans then went on to split off from the black family tree earlier than other black ethnic groups but they're still part of the same larger branch that includes other black people. They are genetically FAR closer to other black people than they are to any non-black race. It's not even a close call. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.1.195.4 (talk • contribs) 18 May 2006.

Anonymous user 72.1.195.4 has three vandalism warnings and two "thanks for experimenting" comments on his talk page. I'm sorry, but you're just not very credible.

In any case, splits within a family can still be seen as separate. "Closer to other black people" doesn't mean part of the same group. Godfrey Daniel 22:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

See this is the kind of stupidity I am talking about. Khosian people are another KIND of Black people. They are not distinct FROM black africans, they are simply another distinct KIND of black African. I don't see anyone in here talking about how the Basque and Greeks aren't "white" even though they also exhibit the same distinct characteristics from other White people. Fu-- mtDNA. I am so sick of mtDNA being used as an excuse. I see twin dopplegangers, one from Nigeria, and another from Indonesia, they both experience the same cultural struggle for being who they are... BLACK. If you want to confuse diversity with distinctness, that's your problem. I am sure that Khosians are not the same as ZULU, but to call the Zulu "black" but not the Khosian.... that's an example of divide and conquer. Why not then call the Khosian Black and the Zulu (and all other related people) non-black Africans? --Zaphnathpaaneah 03:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see biology is a "kind of stupidity." Very interesting approach. Ever read anything by Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza? The godfather of modern geneticists, he and his collaborators found that North Africans, Sub-Saharan Africans, Khoisans, and Pygmies were distinct. But I guess that this world-acclaimed scientist's widely-accepted findings are "stupid" and therefore inappropriate for Wikipedia. </sarcasm>

You can cut the science and math from this article all you want; eventually, someone will put it back in.

As for your rhetorical question, let me pose one to you: why not call roses "cabbages" and vice-versa? Two reasons: (1) because that's not what they're called, and (2) because roses aren't cabbages. (Though they "would smell as sweet" even if we did (Shakespeare, Romeo & Juliet, Act II, Scene III).) Godfrey Daniel 00:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Who is Godfrey Daniels? is he an African? Is he San? The above is extremely Eurocentric, what on Gods earth is a black African. are there yellow chinese? Linguistics doesn’t determine race? MDNA doesn’t determine "race" if DNA determined race then they would be no races. Who said they were 5 groups? Prove there are 5 groups in Africa? This thinking is outdated. THe concept of the Negro and the Khoisan is one fashioned by ignorant Europeans, it is not only offensive and regressive it is actually baseless and has no foundation outside of European racism. Khoisan, Bantu are native to Africa. There are hence African people, not mixed not related to anyone else. Next they would say that Ethiopians and Hausa are another race because they speak a Afro-Asiatic language. I have deleted this note because i think African people are getting quite sick and exhausted of what and who Europeans think we are, telling us you are this and not that. and on the note of looking the same, Looking the same is your racial bias to "all African or Chinese look the same" they dont see themselves as all the same. A Afar and an Amhara "all look the same to an Igbo (another African). But the Afar can tell an Amhara from a mile away. So looking the same or not looking the same is far from science. Maybe they dont look the same and they are the same, but what is same? It is a pointless statement because whoes standard of "same" are you using? Khoisan are African poeple just like Bantu and the rest --Halaqah 07:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

DEAR GOD

Wow, this article should be deleted and redone. The general public should not be allowed to touch it. Let informed registered users who understand the differences between anthropological classifications, political correctness, and ethnicity write this. DuBois' double consciousness should also be noted.

I understand the frustration but please remember that the point of Wikipedia, as I understand it, is that it is a "people's encyclopedia" of sorts. If informed users want to correct perceived or actual errors they may encounter in any article, not just this, they are free to do so within the official rules. The constant flow of review, posting (sometimes of inaccuracies), and correction makes for a solid article that is informative and can be a springboard for deeper research into any subject, IMO. --Msr69er 20:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

CAN SOMEONE CHANGE AN ARTICE ABOUT A PERSON (ON WIKIPEDIA ,LIKE A CELEB) TO AFRICAN AMERICAN IF IT'S TRUE?

i SAY YES BUT ANOTHER USER NAMED Yamla is being racial and says no.so I want your opinion please.Thanks!

Gemini531 22:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

This personal attack is unwarranted. Gemini531 is well aware that I have, in actuality, encouraged her (here and here) to note that people are African American if they are. I simply asked that she link to the correct article. --Yamla 22:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

"African American culture also gave rise to pop culture notions cool that have transcended American culture to become an international phenomenon."

Ummm...not really international..I think it's more of a downtown urban phenomenon. And African Americans didn't give rise to pop culture. And how could a minority judge the culture of the U.S.? What is your idea on American culture anyway? Because it sure isn't "rap" and "hiphop".

One Drop Rule question

Should I, and many other African American renounce our blackness and "not" be black so that the white contributors here at Wikipedia can feel like the Black racial/ethnic and African-American group makes sense to them? I mean, just let me know guys, I want to make sure that your minds are at ease. I will go to the Census and get the other 4-5 million Black people (the ones the whites identify as not necessarily black enough to be acutely black) whose skin is not more than halfway between the lightest and darkest skinned human, i will gather them up and we will renounce our blackness and not give a $hit about our heritage, ancestry, the struggle that made us, and our loyalty to what is ultimately important. It seems that there is too much interest as to WHY the "onedrop rule" should not be used. Obviously the "white" concept of Black is one of purely surface, shallow, superficial value. Where the Slavic, Germanic, Arabic, Jewish, and other ethnicities are respected past any one superficial characteristic, the issue here especially with non blacks (and especially bi-racial people) insist on relegating Blackness to a superficial meaningless nuance of skin color. I also find it offensive as to how many want to credit the white race for inventing blackness. So I am here as a black man, with straight hair, and light skin (a black man who would ultimately make biracial mulattos jealous for looking more white than they do), i would come in here and tell you all: No, I do not wish to renounce any iota of being Black. I do not care if my skin is not dark. I do not care if my hair is straight. That does not make me any more or less Black. There are millions like me in Africa, and America and the Caribbean. We are officially telling you what it means to be Black. The Wikipedia articles "Black (People) and African-American are not "white perceptions of Black people" nor "What bi-racial people have come to dislike about the lable African-American". I am African-American Black, forever, with no exceptions. I, nor anyone in my family (neither side) cares about the origin or intent of the one drop rule. We unanimously renounce, with every fiber of our being, the notion of being white, or "part white", regardless of the fact that biologically we obviously are of Caucas-- (no, i do not recognize that word for those people) European ancestry. And let me educate you white people about something. You have your own ethnicites, and nowhere does your irish, or german, or any of that, dwell so much on straining itself to distance those who are not "exclusively of this extraction". Many French people are not french but are in fact Slavic. Many whites are hispanic and mixed with Native, Black, and Asian. Being Black is not one of detrimental leftovers. You don't strain out the nutrients (the mixtures across the world) and leave whats left as "black"... the "non-interesting darky side of the family tree". That is the other side of this "one drop rule complaint" nonsense. I cannot trace my African ancestry to the Dahomey kingdom, or to the Ashanti kingdom. I do not know if my African ancestors were kings or subjects, if they lived in Kumasi or Ougadagou or Timbucktu. Thank you slavery for that. So THAT is the reason so many of us hold on to being black despite the statistical odds. I rather be a part of the group that is honored for being dishonored, than to be a part of the group that dishonors itself by dishonoring other people. Being Black already entails being mixed, whether or not you wish to accept your blackness as the defining aspect of your ethnicity is up to you. Do not compel the readers on Wikipedia to reject the legitimacy of accepting blackness regardless of some arbitrary white reasoning to do so (or not to). --Zaphnathpaaneah 03:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh and let me tell you again, so there is no confusion. Being Black is to recognize the dark skinned people as the default identity of my background, my ancestry and heritage. That is to respect the contribution of people who do not necessarily look like me as the people who ultimately made me who I am. I do not need to LOOK like Harriet Tubman to know that Harriet Tubman is my ancestor and my heritage. Nor do I need to reinvent Blackness to be "lighter" and "more appealing" to the ignorant people who believe that everyone lightskinned must be in charge of everything meaningful in humanity. So I think this whole complaining about the one-drop rule is a side step around why it really is meaningful to be black. I should not have to look a particular way to be accepted and respected as Black. And the Black race/ethnicity should not be defined strictly by the superficial qualities of it's members. No other race of people experience that kind of defining ignorance. --Zaphnathpaaneah 03:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

This article conflicts with Ku Klux Klan

This article offers citations that the Klan is/was terrorist yet the article on the Klan says it is not, and that POV is being vigorously defended on its talk page. Skywriter 19:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

My error. The conflict tag belongs on African American History which describes Klan terror. Skywriter 20:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

One drop theory conflict question

How could the term African-American CONTRADICT with the term ONE DROP? One drop is a theory that is inherently RACIST/DISCRIMINATORY. Why would WIKIPEDIA TAG African American using a racist theory as part of the argument??? It's like saying the term IRISH AMERICAN is questionable because a group of racist persons have a term they created called GREEN DROP which states that if a person has one drop of Irish blood that person isn't HUMAN!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.19.87.161 (talk • contribs).

I can see why you're concerned, but the notice at the top of the page means that this article may conflict with the Wikipedia article on One-drop theory, not with the theory itself. Click on the blue link to read our article about one-drop theory, and please improve it if you feel like it... it sure could use improvement. --Allen 22:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I've cleaned up BOTH One-drop theory and this article. There were two points of contention: 1) That the one-drop rule was used to increase the supply of slaves. This idea is no longer presented in either article and therefore is moot. 2) That Plessy v. Ferguson affirmed the rule. This was stated as fact in this article and denouced in the other one. I did some research on this, and found several quotes saying that while the State Court did rule on race classification, the Supreme Court did not and merely took it as read that Plessy was black since he identified himself as such. The court took the view that "you are black if the black community accepts you as black." This is a far cry from the one-drop theory/rule and therefore I dropped that graf from this article as uncited and unverifiable with counter-citations. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 22:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

African American Inventions

I researched some of the inventions allegedly created by African Americans, the toilet and Peanut Butter. According to these two articles,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_closet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peanut_butter

Neither was invented by African Americans, which leads me to suspect that others weren't as well. This isn't a racist statement, all I'm interested in is the truth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.152.186.52 (talk • contribs).

I don't know where the water closet thing comes from. As for the peanut butter thing, there's no ref given in the peanut butter article, but the same claim (that he didn't invent it) is made in George Washington Carver. But the ref points to here, which actually does suggest that Carver invented peanut butter, but didn't patent it because he was against patents. I'll remove the did-not-invent claims from those two articles unless anyone can come up with a citation. --Allen 17:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Question

Is one an African American based on his/her culture (African American culture) or based on his/her skin color? Is a white person raised in an African American family an African American? Is a black Irish man who immigrates in the US considered an Irish American or an African American (or both)? Or put differently: is it possible for a black person to be anything else than an African American? (If not, isn't that some kind of seggregation?) Sijo Ripa 12:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Read the first sentence of the article. A.G. Pinkwater 14:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The first sentence is a little bit simplistic, though, and papers over a large debate. In particular, there is considerable debate whether recent immigrants from Africa are "African-American" in the same cultural sense meant here (they clearly are in a literal sense), or constitute an ethnic/cultural/social group separate from black Americans who aren't recent immigrants. --Delirium 00:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Another distinct group are the Afro-Latin Americans who form a small part of the large influx of recent latino immigrants into the States and whose language and culture is again unquestionably different from that of Afro Americans. I have been led to believe that these people often find it easier to cross the border because they look like Afro Americans and not like Latinos, I have also been told of Afro Americans helping out Afro Latinos because the essentially see them as other Afro Americans, SqueakBox 02:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I remember going to Mexico a few years back and being warned with a smile by the Mexican immigrations guy at the border not to lose my passport, because I'd have trouble getting back in. I looked like a Latina to him. And I'm clearly black.

I guess it cuts both ways. The fact of the matter is people of color resemble one another, particularly a large number of Afro-Latinos and African Americans. After all, the "racial" mix is the same: white, black and indigenous American.

But the fact of the matter is the majority of Afro-Latinos don't self-identify as African-American. Heck, many of them don't identify as "Afro" or "African" anything. A lot of them think they're "white," even though they may have brown skin and frizzy hair, and/or self-identify as "Latino." That's why they're not included here. Rosie Perez, for example, though she has close ties with the African-American community, self-identifies as Latina, when without opening her mouth and revealing her accent, she'd be assumed to be an African American by just about everyone.

And of course Afro-Latinos traditionally have been accepted (in my experience, at least) in the African-American community -- as are Latinos, generally. (Ever been to/hear of Spanish Harlem?) Growing gangs, economic concerns and certain demographic trends, though, have put that long-term peaceful coexistence in jeopardy. But there's a general acknowledgement that we face the same challenges: discrimination in jobs, housing and banking; substance abuse; crime; police profiling; failed public school systems; lousy access to healthcare; etc. But, no. I wouldn't include them here -- except with, perhaps, nod of a sentence or two and a mention of the main article Afro-Latin American deeceevoice 10:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Why is this article so long?

It goes into extremely unnecessarily long detail about some topics that should have their own articles dedicated to them. Zorath 23:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Condy Rice

Isn't Condoleeza Rice an African American? Why is she not mentioned in the article? WikiSceptic 15:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Possibly due to embarrassment over her inadvertent "my husband" remark when referring to Dubya. :p deeceevoice 19:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Brown Caucasians

Since George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and a host of other Caucasians fathered mixed-race children, it would be more accurate to call their descendants Brown Caucasians. Superslum 13:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

george washington fathered mixed-race children? i've never heard that before. --Colorfulharp233 18:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

A man whose last name was Ford was buried in a vault close to George Washington. Supposedly, he was the son of George Washington and his slave. I had heard of him decades ago, but simply forgot about him because many slaveholders kept concubines. His body has been removed from the vault, and destroyed. A television station recently spoke with several of the descendants of Mr. Ford. I think that the Today show talked with them. One of the people bore a resemblance to George Washington; and all of them were Brown Caucasians. Superslum 21:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever been called a brown causasian, and I'm not sure I'd want to. Much of what I am is how I'm identified. People don't look at a person of mixed race that they see on the street, and identify them as a 'brown causasian', but as 'African-American'. There are a myriad of terms which identify people of mixed race, but this certainly isn't one of them. --TransNique 23:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

William Archer wrote a book in 1910 that is titled Through Afro-America. His book marks the earliest use of that term that I have seen. Eugenics was a big deal in 1910. Superslum 16:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Difference between Black American and African American

Hi there. I am not american and was looking for some information on black americans but was redirected to this page. From what I can make out, 'African American' is a euphemism for 'Black American'. Are the two terms equivalent? Is there anyone who fits one group but not the other? When I am in America, is the term 'Black American' now considered rude/unacceptable? How do Americans describe blacks from other countries? Do they say African Germans or Black Germans?Curtains99 10:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

African Americans = Black Americans (NOT north African Arab Americans). Depending on your POV it's a rather misleading euphemism, or a term in line with other hyphen Americans (Italian-Americans, Asian Americans etc.) The US does not have a systematic way of referring to Blacks of other countries, usually one just follows local usage (Black Britons, for example, is not the same as African Britons, which excludes Carribean Black Britons). There was at least one case on US media of referring to French Arabs of north African descent and Blacks as "African Americans", but that was a gaffe. --CJWilly 17:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The above paragraph, which was clearly written in a respectful and thoughtful manner, is proof, IMO, of just how silly we've all gotten with our labels. It's absurd to think, in light of all the different expectations of different groups, that anyone should be able to keep up with what is and is not rude today. I think everyone should just self-identify, if its important to them. I should never be expected to know what the "proper" label for someone is, but I should accept and respect whatever they tell me they are, if they so wish to be identified. Unschool 20:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Curtains, "African American" is probably the most polite, but some people prefer to be called "black", "negro" (older folks, mostly), or "African" (radicals, mostly). "Black Americans" is probably just fine and will work better if you are discussing Black Americans vs Black Germans vs black Africans, but I find "blacks" (as opposed to "black people") is a little rude. You have to be careful though and it depends on what town you are in. I witnessed a barfight in San Francisco that ended with people handcuffed in police cars when an Irish man used the word "oriental", which is offensive to folks who now go by "Asian" (but this term doesn't include over a billion folks from India and Pakistan). For all I know, oriental is the appropriate term in Ireland. It does get pretty crazy after a while. A white girl from my high school was born in Rhodesia (Zimbabwe nowadays) and technically "African American". She was also "Hispanic" as her grandfather had lived in Mexico for some time and was a naturalized Mexican citizan. She, btw, grew up in France. Justforasecond 19:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Justforasecond, that's very useful. Never knew that 'orientals' was rude. Thanks Curtains99 15:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I just want to make sure everybody knows this. We all know the definition of the term but some individuals do not get it. Well, here is my definition of the term. An African American is a black person born in the United States of America who is of African descent or ancestry. Immigrants from other countries refer to themselves by their home country and American citizenship (i.e. Irish-American and Italian-American). A black person from a Carribean country like Haiti who is an American citizen is Haitian-American. A black person from an African country like Senegal who is an American citizen is Senegalese-American. A caucasian person from a nation like Zimbabwae is Zimbabwean.That is because that caucasian person was born in Zimbabwae. However, they are not African. The same thing goes for other people. The black African people are native or indigenous to the continent of Africa. They do not consider white people or anybody else to be like them. The only reason that is the case is because of the European colonization of Africa. Ancestry, geographic origin and science is involved, too. Just so you can know, I am black. I was born in the United States. I am an American. However, American is my nationality. African American is my ethnicity. A person's nationality refers the country or nation (not continent) that person was born in or come from. A person's ethnicity refers to their ancestry and race. I hope I was able to clear a few things up. August 4, 2006 tttttttttttt

If white Zimbabweans are not African because they are not 'native or indigenous' to the continent of Africa, does that mean that white citizens of the USA are not Americans as they are not native or indigenous to the continent of America because of the European colonisation of America? Curtains99 13:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Whether white Zimbabweans are African is neither here nor there, at least as far as this page is concerned. What is relevant is that if they move to America, they are still not African American. Etymology is not definition. - Jmabel | Talk 00:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Explain this edit

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=African_American&diff=prev&oldid=67766063 Is that legit? --DevastatorIIC 05:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it's no good, certainly not without discussion. Someone will need to change it back. Good catch, seeing how many edits are done on this page daily; sometimes things like this slip through. Badagnani 06:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

History of Nomenclature

I believe that this article is quite accurate as regards to the timeframe in which "African American" became popularized. Yes, there were some who used the term as early as the 1950s, but Jesse Jackson brought the label to great prominence in the 1980s, and it shortly there after became the norm. However, the article truly needs to be edited as to the implication of what "African American" replaced. "Afro-American" did not give way to "African American". For the most part, "Afro American" was unheard of by the mid-1970s. Of all the labels affixed to Americans of African ancestry (colored, Negro, black, etc), "Afro American" had the shortest life-span. (I'm not sure why that is; for my part, I suspect it may have just been before its time.) No, in the mid-1980s, before Jackson started his campaign, the term du jour was simply "black". That term in of itself had not been easily accepted by white America—I distinctly remember a reporter from 60 minutes in the late 60s or early 70s (I think it was Mike Wallace) doing a story on this "new" label (our Spanish-speaking neighbors must laugh at all the contortions we put ourselves through), and watched him shocked as he could not bribe ten-year old children with a $20 bill to refer to themselves as "Negroes". So anyway, what I am saying is that "African American" replaced "black", not "Afro-American", and I propose an edit reflecting this. Unschool 20:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Moved to where the discussions are taking place. Unschool 06:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- One of the problems with this article is the unwillingness of parties to discuss the subject material on the talk page. I have waited three weeks for comments on this topic, and there was none. So I went ahead and made the changes. Now I don't have a monopoly on truth. If someone believes that there are factual errors in these nomenclature edits, then let's discuss it. As to the subheadings, I really don't care. I thought those made it easier to read and follow. I ask that Badagnani, Dynamicknowledge24, and any other parties please quit just calling for use of the discussion page, and rather, actually use it yourselves. Unschool 06:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  Sorry, didn't think to pipe in to say "yes". I usually respond more to things I disagree with; it's not usually all that useful to say "yes, me too."
  
  May I suggest that a good way to work with something like this is to end your talk page comment with "I'll give a few days for response, and if no one objects I will edit accordingly"? - Jmabel | Talk 04:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  - Of course you're correct; I usually try to do that. My intentions were definately not as clear as they should have been. Thanks for the comment. Unschool 05:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Which business?

Colored people do not own businesses here in the "super-slum." Why do people insert statements relating to "businesses" owned by Negroes? I see monkey business every day, but little else. People are trying to tell me that my eyes are not working right. Where, oh where, are the (supposed) "black" "businesspeople?" The article is a sham. Superslum 22:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Click here for a few: Category:African_American_businesspeople. Can you be more specific about why you're so angry? 142.167.161.190 02:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)