• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Is the term "African-American" Prejudicial (albeit subliminally)?

What makes one an American?

  • A person of European descent.

  • Someone who is born in the US.

  • Anyone who has proof of American citizenship.

Results are only viewable after voting.
Baasha

Baasha

Golden Member
The other day I was watching the news and the reporter kept using the term "African-American" to describe blacks who were born and brought up in the US.

This got me wondering whether this term is a cleverly veiled epithet to discredit the blacks in the US; that they are not really "American"; whatever that means.

This also reminded me of that episode of that girl in UCLA who made fun of Asian-Americans in the library talking too loudly on their phones; in the video, she implies several times that "Americans" to her, means European-Americans (those of european descent).

So, the question is, should whites in the US be called "European-Americans" to equalize the terms or should everyone who is born and brought up in the US be called just "Americans"?

I find it dubious that many blacks play eagerly into this game of calling each other "African-Americans" when they don't even know which country their ancestors were abducted from. Their identities have been shattered and they have adopted European habits, names, food, and even religion. Of course, I'm not talking about the "sheniquas" and "deshawns" out there. Then again, those names are uncommon even in Africa.

In other words, what makes one an American? It is strange that many people who are born and brought up here are not called Americans if they are not of European descent. Is this prejudicial? Not that everyone wants to be American however. Yet, there are some who would feel excluded at the seemingly innocuous label.

So, is an American defined by the qualities of his character; importance of freedom, self-definition, etc. Or is it defined merely by ethnicity?

Depending on what you choose, you will either be an American or an AmeriCUNT. 😀

*EDIT: I forgot to add to the first poll option "A person WHO IS BORN IN THE US and is of European descent."
 
Last edited:
The terms African-American and European-American are silly because they suggest some sort of double nationality or double identity. There are people out there with two nationalities. It makes sense to reserve hyphenations for them. (The worst is something like Italian-American. A quick visit to Italy quickly shows that Americans of Italian descent are no longer very Italian. Someone with an Italian passport and an American passport is a true Italian-American.)
 
There was a white kid who was suspended from school for entering the African American of the Month contest. He was born in South Africa and moved to the US, gaining his citizenship here.

Out of everyone at the school, he was the only ACTUAL African-American.
 
For my money it's a rather leaden, fussy word for a group of people, but I don't see it as remotely prejudicial.

Frankly I find the seemingly endless cycle of new ways of referring to black people (each of one of which is considered racist once it falls out of favor) kind of fatiguing. It wouldn't be my preference to put so much energy into something as arbitrary as a non-derogatory name for a group of people, particularly given the many other challenges faced by African-American people. That being said, I am not black and I don't think it's for me to decide. I will call people whatever they want to be called.
 
Infohawk said:
The terms African-American and European-American are silly because they suggest some sort of double nationality or double identity. There are people out there with two nationalities. It makes sense to reserve hyphenations for them. (The worst is something like Italian-American. A quick visit to Italy quickly shows that Americans of Italian descent are no longer very Italian. Someone with an Italian passport and an American passport is a true Italian-American.)
Click to expand...

Agreed. To exemplify how silly it really is, what say we take things a step further and pick a person who is of multi-mixed ethnicities. Shall we be politically correct and describe them as being, for example, an African-Euro-Asian-Polynesian-Native-American?

But then, I suppose there are those special Americans who prefer to distinguish themselves from all the "other" Americans and call themselves "_ _ _ _ _"-Americans to give them the ability to look down their noses at everyone else.
 
What about recent immigrants who are citizens but barely speak English and are disconnected from American culture. Kind of silly to just call them "Americans". 🙂
 
Yes...I'm that guy who always checks "Other" and writes "Black" on those forms that presents "African-American" as the only option for me to select.

Why? I'm not sure, but the word "African-American" seems to have a negative connotation to it like the OP mentioned.
Many foreigners(Both those that are born in the US with foreign parents and those born abroad) differentiate themselves from the ones born in USA(the Shaniquas, Tayshawna, Lakeisha, and the like) by calling themselves either "African", "whatever African country they're from with an at the end" or "Black".
I have Nigerian, UK, and US passport.

I have never heard of a person from Africa or the Caribbean with a US passport ever refer to themselves as "African-American". Never.
Ideally though, it should be the way described by Infohawk.
 
Don Vito Corleone said:
For my money it's a rather leaden, fussy word for a group of people, but I don't see it as remotely prejudicial.

Frankly I find the seemingly endless cycle of new ways of referring to black people (each of one of which is considered racist once it falls out of favor) kind of fatiguing. It wouldn't be my preference to put so much energy into something as arbitrary as a non-derogatory name for a group of people, particularly given the many other challenges faced by African-American people. That being said, I am not black and I don't think it's for me to decide. I will call people whatever they want to be called.
Click to expand...


I agree, but I also do not see any racial insult in calling a black man a black man. He is black, after all. I am white, and I can be called a white man without any problem.

But not being black, I readily admit I am not qualified to make the judgement on whether it is a racially charged phrase to use.
 
Not enough poll options...

Lothar's only requirements to be considered an American:
-Your parents must be Americans.

1.) Having proof of citizenship alone is not enough. There are people that have citizenship to multiple countries.

2.) Being born in USA alone is not enough unless you're one of those foreigners that have largely forgotten their roots, language, food, and traditions. There are plenty of people born here with foreign parents that haven't forgotten that and I wouldn't regard them as Americans even though they may have proof of US citizenship.

I made this for dinner today. Mom and I ate. My brother made his "pasta" as usual.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eba
 
Well it doesn't make sense, because every other -American is used for immigrants or children of immigrants. A 5th generation Latino isn't referred to as "Mexican-American" for example.

And you know it makes no sense because Barack Obama is referred to as "African-American" just like descendents of slaves are. Just plain "black" makes more sense.
 
Throckmorton said:
Well it doesn't make sense, because every other -American is used for immigrants or children of immigrants. A 5th generation Latino isn't referred to as "Mexican-American" for example.

And you know it makes no sense because Barack Obama is referred to as "African-American" just like descendents of slaves are. Just plain "black" makes more sense.
Click to expand...

Maybe not in Hawai'i but in other, more "PC" parts of the country they are. For example, the local news in California might refer to people in America whose ancestors lived in Mexico as "hispanic", "Mexican-American", "hispanic-American", or "descendants of Mexican immigrants" no matter how long they were here but you'd never hear them referred to as "Mexican" even if they had just crossed the border illegally that morning.

Fill out a job application and do the voluntary disclosure nowadays and you might be asked to pick between "Caucasion (White)", "Hispanic- White", "Hispanic Non-white", "African-American", "Asian" (or "Asian-American"), "Alaskan or Native Eskimo", "Native American" or "Other".

Saying "He's white" is ok.
Saying "He's black" used to be ok but now it's not.
Saying "He's African-American" is now ok if the person used to be called "black" even though most people in America to which that descriptor is applied have never been to Africa, have never been within 4000 miles of Africa, and haven't had descendants who lived in Africa for 7-10 generations.
Saying "He's African-American" is not ok if the person looks white but actually is from Africa and just happens to be a descendant of a South African Dutch imperialist.
Saying "He's Oriental" used to be ok but now it's not.
Saying "He's Asian" is ok if you know the person or parents lived in Asia during childhood but is becoming questionable beyond that.
Saying "He's Asian-American" is now ok if the person used to be called "Oriental" and their family has been here for at least 2 generations.
Saying "He's Asian" or "He's Asian-American" if the person looks white (Russian), Indian, or Middle-Eastern is not OK even though Russia, India, the Middle-East, and the -stans comprise something like 90% of the landmass of Asia.
Saying "He's Indian" when referring to a descendant of the indigenous peoples of North America during the 1400's used to be ok but now it's not.
Saying "He's Indian" is still somehow ok when referring to someone who is a fairly direct descendant on the Maya/Inca/Aztec/Olmec tribes even though they are "native" to the "American" continent.
Saying "He's Native-American" is now ok even though most "Native-Americans" are 1/8 or less, don't affiliate with a tribe, and the tribes have dropped their blood % requirements.
Saying "He's Native-American" is not ok if the person has no blood tie, no matter how small, to the indigenous people of North America during the 1400's even though most Americans have been here for 5 or more generations and are for all intents and purposes native to this land.
Saying "He's Mexican" used to be ok but now it's only ok to use when you know the person is a Mexican citizen and still lives in Mexico.
Saying "He's Mexican-American" is now ok even though most people to which it is attributed are not from Mexico.
Saying "He's Hispanic" is also ok even though it is also used for people from Central and South America who have little or no Spanish blood in them, being more closely descended from the native peoples of those regions.

and so on...
 
Back when "Afro-American" started being used, Irish American, Italian American, German American, WASP, etc were commonly used to described segments of the US population.

Before the use of Afro-American, dark skin Americans of African heritage were called colored, Negroes, etc. These labels were considered to be reminants of US's slave culture and history.
The use of Afro-American was considered to be positive and put this group of people on an equal level with other American groups.
 
Don Vito Corleone said:
For my money it's a rather leaden, fussy word for a group of people, but I don't see it as remotely prejudicial.

Frankly I find the seemingly endless cycle of new ways of referring to black people (each of one of which is considered racist once it falls out of favor) kind of fatiguing. It wouldn't be my preference to put so much energy into something as arbitrary as a non-derogatory name for a group of people, particularly given the many other challenges faced by African-American people. That being said, I am not black and I don't think it's for me to decide. I will call people whatever they want to be called.
Click to expand...

I think the continuing rotation of names is a reflection of the continuing derogatory use.

Ultimately it's the intent behind the name.

Blacks don't make it any easier when groups of them use the N-word freely with each other. It's either insulting or it isn't.

'We can say it but you can't' gets old. It is strictly insulting by whites, though.

I think African-American is clumsy and problematic as well though, in the absence of some universal group-American used for all Americans, which would still be clumsy.

'Blacks', however technically inaccurate, seems fine - we don't have one for 'mixed', though. Just 'mixed race'. Which is going to keep increasing until it approaches universal.
 
BTW, I live in New Haven, CT which has very visible groups who consider themselves Italian Americans and Irish Americans. In fact even though they were born in the US, they usually call themselves Irish and Italian. But I have noticed that this particular conversation that is the basis of the OP is usually centered around Afro-Americans.
 
the term is stupid, I never refer to people as african american, but rather black. The other is a euphemism of arguable accuracy.
 
I don't think it's prejudicial. However, it's stupid to call anyone "African-American" in part because at least 4/5 of them have been over here longer than at least 3/8 of my bloodline.

It's just another one of those labels invented by liberals.
 
sactoking said:
Maybe not in Hawai'i but in other, more "PC" parts of the country they are. For example, the local news in California might refer to people in America whose ancestors lived in Mexico as "hispanic", "Mexican-American", "hispanic-American", or "descendants of Mexican immigrants" no matter how long they were here but you'd never hear them referred to as "Mexican" even if they had just crossed the border illegally that morning.

Fill out a job application and do the voluntary disclosure nowadays and you might be asked to pick between "Caucasion (White)", "Hispanic- White", "Hispanic Non-white", "African-American", "Asian" (or "Asian-American"), "Alaskan or Native Eskimo", "Native American" or "Other".

Saying "He's white" is ok.
Saying "He's black" used to be ok but now it's not.
Saying "He's African-American" is now ok if the person used to be called "black" even though most people in America to which that descriptor is applied have never been to Africa, have never been within 4000 miles of Africa, and haven't had descendants who lived in Africa for 7-10 generations.
Saying "He's African-American" is not ok if the person looks white but actually is from Africa and just happens to be a descendant of a South African Dutch imperialist.
Saying "He's Oriental" used to be ok but now it's not.
Saying "He's Asian" is ok if you know the person or parents lived in Asia during childhood but is becoming questionable beyond that.
Saying "He's Asian-American" is now ok if the person used to be called "Oriental" and their family has been here for at least 2 generations.
Saying "He's Asian" or "He's Asian-American" if the person looks white (Russian), Indian, or Middle-Eastern is not OK even though Russia, India, the Middle-East, and the -stans comprise something like 90% of the landmass of Asia.
Saying "He's Indian" when referring to a descendant of the indigenous peoples of North America during the 1400's used to be ok but now it's not.
Saying "He's Indian" is still somehow ok when referring to someone who is a fairly direct descendant on the Maya/Inca/Aztec/Olmec tribes even though they are "native" to the "American" continent.
Saying "He's Native-American" is now ok even though most "Native-Americans" are 1/8 or less, don't affiliate with a tribe, and the tribes have dropped their blood % requirements.
Saying "He's Native-American" is not ok if the person has no blood tie, no matter how small, to the indigenous people of North America during the 1400's even though most Americans have been here for 5 or more generations and are for all intents and purposes native to this land.
Saying "He's Mexican" used to be ok but now it's only ok to use when you know the person is a Mexican citizen and still lives in Mexico.
Saying "He's Mexican-American" is now ok even though most people to which it is attributed are not from Mexico.
Saying "He's Hispanic" is also ok even though it is also used for people from Central and South America who have little or no Spanish blood in them, being more closely descended from the native peoples of those regions.

and so on...
Click to expand...

see, this is just too confusing. let's simplify it for everyone. let's just call white people whites, and refer to all o' dem other people as colors.
 
Anyone that is a citizen of the United States is an American as far as I'm concerned no matter whether they were born in Des Moines or Harare.

As far as the hyphen goes I agree with Teddy Roosevelt regarding them:
What is true of creed is no less true of nationality. There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans, Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated American is not an American at all. This is just as true of the man who puts "native" before the hyphen as of the man who puts German or Irish or English or French before the hyphen. Americanism is a matter of the spirit and of the soul. Our allegiance must be purely to the United States. We must unsparingly condemn any man who holds any other allegiance. But if he is heartily and singly loyal to this Republic, then no matter where he was born, he is just as good an American as any one else.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
A couple of years ago I saw a video between a black person and a white person debating what was "african-american".

The white person was from south africa, so they considered themselves african-american.

The black person said only blacks could consider themselves african-american.

When someone uses the term african-american, does that include people from egypt? Egypt is in Africa, right? What about libya? Are people from libya african-american, or they middle-eastern? Libya is in africa, right? What about south africa?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top