Talk:African Americans/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Another Suggestion

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

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

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

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

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

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

Utterly Appalling

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

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

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

Quill 10:04, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Is BLACK a Race or Ethnic Group in America?

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

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

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

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

-Eurytus

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

Now, THIS is an article.

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

Number of Blacks in America

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

3/5th of a person

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

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

Major Move

I had two good reasons for the edit:

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

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

Quill 22:53, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

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

• "We" who?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quill 20:45, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Opening paragraph

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quill 05:49, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quill 03:07, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mulatto

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

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

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

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

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

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

West Africa

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quill 20:59, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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

deeceevoice 22:03, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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

So DON'T YOU TALK DOWN TO ME.

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

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

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

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

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

Let's try this again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The following was added 31 Aug 2005, long after this discussion was archived to Talk:African American/Archive 3.

Seikico if ur parents and ethnic group come from asia and your born in america what does that make you....?

ASIAN - AMERICAN it dosent matter if ur grandparents were bombed in hiroshima or segregated in detention camps your ancestery is still ASIAN ,it dosent matter if they were chinese immigrants or a chinese emporors theyre ehtnic group is still ASIAN,that is the origin of their ancestory it is asian,now Barak Obama was born in hawaii,but he is not an ethnic hawaiian,his father is from the same africa my ancestors are from,see diagram below:

baracks ancestors<----africa----->my ancestors

now his mother is caucasian and part cherokee many african americans share this same lineage.Not necessarily a direct white parent but the other two major ethnic groups in america white and indian somewhere in their geaneology,this is quite a common phenomenon among the african american community MALCOLM X and MUHAMMED ALI also possess a partially IRISH ancestery they like most african americans of mixed heritage however dont awknowlede their caucasian part for obvious reasons .they simply dont make a federal case out it.

Now pay attention cause this is the impotant part AFRICA IS A CONTINENT,KENYA IS A PART OF THE CONTINENT OF AFRICA it dosent matter if his grandfater had "slave blood" whatever the hell that means?!He is still of african descent.

just like YOU and Bruce Lee are of ASIAN descent even though hes from China and you are Japanese you are both of ASIAN.

simply because u physically move a group of people dosent make them instant americans with no history of anywhere else.Barak Obama is obviously of AFRICAN descent as am I obviously of african descent,just because one group is taken to another country and oppresed and another group is oppresed in their own land dosent make them no longer descendants of that land.

If u need me to explain in simpler terms or need me to draw anymore pictures just let me know ill be happy to oblige :)

oh and one more thing the slave trade was pan-african,they came from all over africa the slaves were simply shipped out of west africa because its closest to the U.S. coastline but most slaves are from the waest africa region. DPJ

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10