| Author |
Message |
    
Nels
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Nels
Post Number: 177
Registered: 07-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, December 17, 2005 - 03:12 am: | 
|
When Jesse Jackson stood before the press at a 1988 news conference and asked the world to refer to black Americans as African-Americans, was he justified in making such a blanket request? It’s becoming more and more apparent that he may not have been, in his then prosperous and morally unblemished life as a self-anointed co-leader of the black American constituency. Instead of advancing the struggles of a black America living without a unifying identity, it appears that his self-indulging and opportunistic talking-head efforts may have actually contributed to the isolation and factional infighting that is occurring with increasing frequency in the black constituency today.
Prior to 1988, black America was making successful and recognized gains in many academic areas ranging from education, finance, politics, medicine, law and much more. They freely operated across a wide range of society, achieving notable accomplishments in physics, engineering, etc. During this time, they had the ability to traverse virtually any segment of society without the burden of having to formally affiliate or be affiliated with any one particular racial, ethnic or cultural group. In other words, their hands weren’t tied.
Enter, African-American. For good or bad, a term that has been forced upon what is probably the most diverse group of people on the planet, people who have some type of ancestral lineage traceable to Africa, and sub-Saharan Africa in particular. Now, the black American community seems to be more divided within itself than ever. Everywhere they go, black Americans are now qualified as African-Americans first, thus injecting pseudo-chosen self-isolation into virtually everything they undertake. Their successes are now measured in basketball, football, hip-hop videos and bling. No longer can they play the neutral observer and be content on quietly easing up the achievement ladder without making so much as a blip on the screen, which would certainly give their detractors cause for pause.
Instead of being a unified group, they seem to be held in check by the baggage of “African-American” affiliation. Since when did any one group have to be affiliated before being recognized? In today’s world, they seem more fragmented than ever, continuously separating at the seams by phenotype (hair texture, facial features, body profile, diction, skin tone, etc.), social class and so forth. No longer is it a question of where you live. It’s now a question of do you live in a minority or challenged neighborhood, and so on, and so on and so on. Blacks in America are now being challenged with having to answer and account for “their” own kind, even though most of them have very little in common with each other, and maintain such by choice. There also seems to be much more self-hate within the black community, but whether that’s a result of post AA-proclamation friction is anyone’s guess.
It would seem that in Jesse’s zeal to steal (oops, I mean borrow) “African-American” from the continentals, he actually gave white America exactly what it wanted and had been looking for, for a long time. Blacks of all backgrounds running around proclaiming affiliation with Africa when nary a damn one of them would be caught dead cozying up to a nappy-headed “black” continental. The funny thing is that most if not all continentals don’t even identify with the term African-American, which is such and overly broad categorization of such a diverse group of people.
The broad brush of the “African-American” affiliation has now allowed the media to vilify with prominent negative connotations, virtually every adverse act committed by anyone affiliated with the category, African-American. Additionally, it has given white America and other non-blacks including foreigners an easy way to diminish and minimize the many great accomplishments achieved by such a broad and diverse black constituency. Now more than ever, it has become the standard to use African-American to evoke visions of being ignorant, dumb, unprofessional, unaccomplished, lazy, violent, inept, incapable, needing special accommodations, and much more. In other words, the term “African-American” is being used more like a club over the head than as an articulation of a non-surprisingly intelligent group of people who want nothing more than to earn and keep their slice of the pie.
As in TV and in life itself, white America in particular is now going out of its way to depict black Americans as overly ethnic, uncouth, criminal, more violent, irresponsible, undependable, (a bunch of) misfits, and much more. What some consider a crutch has now become a way to obfuscate the demographics of the census and theoretically deprive others of their just due. Ironically, black Americans have always had someone else (i.e., white America) “tell” them what they are and are not, only to have a black American with a questionable personal agenda come along and do almost the exact same thing, but only in a different context. Like black America can’t speak for itself. What stood to be gained may well be measured by what will be lost in the energy of conflict that precedes and follows virtually every reference to “African-American”.
African-American has emboldened numerous black organizations throughout the United States to capitalize on the commercial value of the term, particularly for those whose phenotype is sub-Saharan by perception. Whether it be Kwanzaa or something else, African-American still takes on a pseudo-authentic consistency, quite the contrary to something as unrelated as for example Cinco de Mayo, a (tangible) holiday recognized by many Latinos. Could it be said that Jesse Jackson’s African-American push has any correlation to Dr. Maulana Karenga’s founding of Kwanzaa in 1966? Probably. It could be surmised that these identifiers were conceived out of an identity crisis and a desire to affiliate with something other than the United States - something that could be controlled, regardless of its validity. Amazing as it is, quite a few blacks like to disparage the U.S., but yet you’ll never see any of them trying to catch a plane to go live in the jungles of Uganda for the summer. Two-faced? Maybe. Hypocritical? You betcha.
Think African-American, think everything that most black Americans don’t want to be, and that even goes for the purple-black crowd. African-American seems to qualify everything that blacks do from winning an Oscar to becoming Secretary of State. Hell, even Los Angeles’ preeminent black homeless activist is married to a white woman - and at first glance, you’d swear he was part of the ’69 Black Panther freedom movement. No, “Afro” wasn’t enough. Jesse had to f*ck around with the AA bullet, and the Negro will be dead and gone before someone really figures out that he may have made a mistake so big that it might set back black American progress for decades to come.
Unlike other hyphenated associations, African-American draws its namesake from an entire continent and cultural thinking, instead of a specific country. Thus, it seems to infer a psyche of confusion and misdirection that could trigger a case of mental diarrhea that even your current President couldn’t match. Its overuse is almost crying out for someone to say “hell, I don’t know where I’m from or what I am, so I’ll take the whole f*ckin’ map and try to figure it out on my own”. Sad. One common perception is that African-American conveys (a limited amount of ability or capacity) requiring exceptions in order to function properly. I doubt that that’s what Jesse wanted, thought more than likely, that’s what he got.
In closing, there are many assertions that can be made as to the effectiveness of the prescribed African-American agenda. The reflection however is that we can only wonder what life would have been like without the AA context. Even if JFK had lived, what would life be like today if Abe Lincoln had never been president? No Emancipation Proclamation and all of that jazz. Now that’s some serious sh*t.
|
Roxie
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Roxie
Post Number: 430
Registered: 06-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, December 17, 2005 - 08:13 am: |
|
Damn good probe Nels. |
Yukio
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Yukio
Post Number: 1073
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, December 17, 2005 - 11:22 am: |
|
hmmm....this is quite problematic, though provocative, rendering of the past. Speaking of a broad brush....
With that said, this piece gives too much credit to Jesse Jackson. He did not invent the term and folks have used it or derivations of it for at least since the early 20th century. Indeed, no term carries so much weight...it is always the meaning that people attach to the term...how it is used by folk in the realm of power relations. The history is off...whatever name we have had we have always been stereotyped and that have always been able to document us...be it ownership papers, convict labor records, freedmen bureaus records, census, criminal records...there has always been some kind of designation!
The census, which goes back to the nineteenth century, is responsible for placing all of us in a category...not the term African American. Before that, once we were "freed" (is that the word that I should use?) they created black codes, and to make sure that we worked legally there was the freedmen's bureau, and illegally there was convict labor. And, of course, skin and our features, if you will, as well as the masters' documents also identified, bracketing all of us (Where's ya manumission papers nigga?).
Thus, we have never been free, neither literal sense nor documentation.
African American is indeed too broad. And it is true, it has been commodified, even by Africans. Ironcally, some Africans who benefit from affirmative action since many programs are targeting Africans and foreign students, are quick to call themselves African American for monetary reasons and at the same time call descendents of the enslaved (not slaves) Americans...this is quite interesting, no?
Many older folk prefer colored and negro...they don't even accept African American as a viable identifier. Thus, as it regards black folk themselves it is quite subjective...and in terms of the white community, the government, and white media....this is only the most recent version of the past...we have always be sterotyped, viewed as lazy, criminal, etc...This is documented, as the nomenclature, nationally speaking, has shifted and changed and returned from colored, negro, Afro-American, black, and African American. Names change but our relationship--in terms of stereotype--has remained the same!
|
Nels
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Nels
Post Number: 178
Registered: 07-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, December 17, 2005 - 02:16 pm: |
|
Yukio --
Yes, I'm well aware of the original census, the history timeline and the like. What I was getting at was the modern-day capitalization of the term African-American for political gain and more. Accordingly, Jesse's true motives are still unaccounted for, and subject to intepretation. |
Kola_boof
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Kola_boof
Post Number: 990
Registered: 02-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, December 17, 2005 - 03:21 pm: |
|
Of more than a hundred Africans I know in this country, I don't know a single one who calls themselves "African-American".
I am Sudanese-American.
Chris Abani is Nigerian-American.
Iman (who I don't know) is Somali-American.
Akosua Busia ("Nettie" in Color Purple) is Ghanian-American.
Barack Obama was born here to a white American mother. Therefore, he calls himself "African-American".
My heart breaks for you "African Americans", and I can only pray that you'll come to realize that it really doesn't matter what name you're called by at this point.
You have not redeemed your ancestors and you are killing everything they worked so hard to create and have just to themselves.
You seem to hate your ancestors and work overtime to erase their rich culture and defame their humanity.
You give away their riches like they were nothing at all.
And like Martin Luther King, I too, have a dream---and mines is that you'll wake the fuck up.
Your OBSESSION with White people is getting to be like syphilis on the brain. It paralyzes you.
You keep imploring me that I should return to Africa--"oh, they need you so much more, Kola"...because of the crap you see in repetition on television.
Camelshit. The people in Africa are much better off than the Black Americans.
You really think material wealth and sleeping with white people means a damn thing if you no longer have a soul?
I'm tired of trying to prove my love for you, because it's becoming clearer and clearer that you don't love your damned self. Which means you hate me....for being the root of you.
I didn't come here to die.
|
Kola_boof
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Kola_boof
Post Number: 996
Registered: 02-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, December 17, 2005 - 04:19 pm: |
|
You should also understand that----the only time Africans consider themselves "African" is in the presence of OUTSIDERS (non-Africans).
When Chris Abani (author of Graceland) talks to lets say Kwame....he is an "Ibo" speaking to an "Ashanti".
They are fiercely proud of their "Country" and "Tribe", which they will name---
----before AFRICA.
Only with outsiders will they own up to being "Africans"--the entire continent...or "the bloodberry" (those of its blood).
And Africans DO call themselves "Black" just as much as Black Americans....and West Africans DO refer to themselves as "Negro".
Clearly, Black Americans are both "African" and "Black"----your country is "America".
|
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 3166
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, December 17, 2005 - 05:32 pm: |
|
I, too, am inclined to think that Nels' treatise is attributing too much power and influence to Jessie Jackson who, instead of gaining stature over the years, has seen his prestiege diminish to the point of ridicule. No one really takes him that seriously anymore. And even at the peak of his popularity, he was viewed with a jaundiced eye by his many detractors of both races. Like lost children wandering in the wilderness, American-born people of color in their ongoing search for an identity readily latched on to the term "African American". This was an idea whose time had come, especially since this pseudo hyphenation resonated with the Afro-centrism that was taking root in this country, reinforced by Alex Haley's book, "Roots". If Jessie hadn't anointed this title, somebody else would've. I agree that rather than being an honorable distinction, the term has evolved into a dubious label. I also agree that white America was amenable to this designation because it was a convenience for them, and a pacifier for its querlous black stepchildren. And, yes, once one group defines another group with a label, the latter is restricted and categorized by the former's definition of such a label. So, indeed the term African-American can in a figurative sense be regarded as an invisible prison that white America is the warden of, - a warden who gives time-off for good behavior to some, grants probation to others, denies parole to a few and the death penalty to too many. What all of this really proves is the immense power of language when managing the masses. And this power is also manifest when we try to encapsulate the black dilemma in terms of words; once we fall into a conspiracy mind-set and think "The Man" really is pulling all of the strings and controlling a body of people whose only common trait is that its members are all moreorless descended from slaves, then all manner of sinister scenarios can be applied to what's happening in this country. That's why if I was to sum up the condition of the black condition, I would do it in one word. "Nebulous". And the fact that what I say is both contrary to and in agreement with the esteemed opinions of Nels and Yukio bears this out. If I were pressed to elaborate on the situation, the best I could up with would be to say that "it is, what it is." If scoffed at I would shrug and as a final resort, invoke a play-on-words, and simply suggest that as time marches on, the word "individual" can take on a life of its own. Just a few random thoughts. |
Tonya
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Tonya
Post Number: 1109
Registered: 07-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, December 17, 2005 - 06:13 pm: |
|
Cynnique, Nels, Yukio: please suggest some books (or other lit) which explains your positions on the term "African-American."
Tonya |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 3167
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, December 17, 2005 - 06:23 pm: |
|
I didn't get my position from a book, I expressed an opinion based on my observations and recollections. I have been a witness to history. |
Yukio
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Yukio
Post Number: 1075
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: 
Votes: 3 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 11:24 am: |
|
Kola: This rhetoric about your dream et al is problematic. Not only have I heard it from you, read it in books, and have heard the same from a FEW African colleagues of mine, but it is incorrect. Now, I have heard a variety of perspectives from Africans; yours is only one of many. This theme--one of many--is what I want to address.
All of what you have written here can be said about Africans. If this is the case, then there is no difference, as regards to "self-hate." Consequently, it can be said that our people have both loved ourselves and hated ourselves...
To chastise AA and not Africans is hypocritical.
1.You have not redeemed your ancestors and you are killing everything they worked so hard to create and have just to themselves.
2. You seem to hate your ancestors and work overtime to erase their rich culture and defame their humanity.
3.You give away their riches like they were nothing at all.
4.And like Martin Luther King, I too, have a dream---and mines is that you'll wake the fuck up.
5.Your OBSESSION with White people is getting to be like syphilis on the brain. It paralyzes you.
Africans have done the same....Africans are 5 for 5, Kola.
Tonya
If you read the Delany sisters book, they call themselves Negro and colored. If you real early twentieth century speeches, writings, from various black leaders, they also use the term Afro-American, and Afamerican. When I return home, I will give you some citations...
If you look at Census material, I have only looked at such from 1890-1930, but it use words like color, negro, etc...and it explains the usage in the introductions...
Political scientist Michael Hanchard has a problem with African American, as I do, because it is too broad. It is often restricted to US blacks, but it should encompass the America...which is why the use of America is also problematic, since it also excludes S. American, etc....now, I am certainly, simplifying his essay.
Nels, I got your points. Your essay says more than the commodification of African American. Also, I agree that it has been commodified, but that was not Jesse's doing...he doesn't have that kind of power...the white media and whites have taken over the term |
Kola_boof
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Kola_boof
Post Number: 1001
Registered: 02-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 02:20 pm: |
|
But Yukio, my King (I know how you hate that)...a good 60% of my posts on this board over the last 4 years...have been to chastize Africans.
So your entire post makes no sense.
And the self-hatred is NOT the same. It is NOT on the same level, it's impossible to be on the same level, simply because Africans have not endured the same extent of abuse, brainwashing, and even with all their publicized skin bleaching and colorism, still outnumber AAs about 300 to 1 and have a much tinier ratio of these incidents in comparison to the way these issues engulf AA communities.
The very HUGEST part of the continent is not even exposed to the "self-hating messages" that AAs are inundated with, and thus they aren't reacting to them as some very small numbers of Africans in cities are. So it's not nearly on the same plain.
AAs on the other hand, are in very REAL danger of losing what little culture, identity and respect they have left...and it's at their own hands.
Your problem is that it's an OUTSIDER pointing this out (although much of what I say comes from listening to my AA parents).
You've never read any of my books.....ALLLLL of which are about continental Africans and their myriad troubles and self-destructiveness---far more than AAs. So your post is ridiculous.
And my point is this---you don't need any more name changes. THAT is not the problem.
"Black" and "African-American" are EXACTLY what you should be called and they would benefit you if you ever learned a thing or two from say...
Jewish-Americans
or
Japanese-Americans
Stop scratching your own eyes out just because you're frustrated.
|
Kola_boof
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Kola_boof
Post Number: 1002
Registered: 02-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 02:37 pm: |
|
And by the way Yukio....I really love Black American people and their culture and I'm just hyper-worried, because I am HERE...and not in Africa.
Would that make any sense, daddy?
|
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 3171
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 02:53 pm: |
|
That's still your version of the situation, Kola. For one thing the influence of black americans is discernable through out American culture. We are not being phased out into oblivion. You continue to insist that we reach back further than is necesssary. You never want to acknowledge the unique culture that has its roots in America. You are still insisting that we embrace the heritage of some vague, far-removed ancestors whose experience or history is not ours. What do we owe them. Deep at the core of your angst dwells the idea that if we reject Africa, we reject you. You want to supplant all of the brave black women who had their origins in the slave quarters of America and who forged their own identities and history. You want to make us over in your image but you can't do that. We are not you, we are us. Yes, we have a battle to fight but it's not about reverting to Africa it's about becoming independent. |
Kola_boof
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Kola_boof
Post Number: 1003
Registered: 02-2005
Rating:
Votes: 3 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 04:13 pm: |
|
Africa and your blackness is not something you "reach back" to.
It's something you reach IN to.
Africa and blackness is not backwards.
|
Kola_boof
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Kola_boof
Post Number: 1004
Registered: 02-2005
Rating:
Votes: 3 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 04:21 pm: |
|
I don't want you to be in MY IMAGE Cynique.
But yes, I do prefer Bessie Smith, Malcolm X and Denzel Washington
...to Michael Jackson, Alicia Keys and the Mixies and folks who don't eat fried chicken in public, but do eat SUSHI in public.
Your portrayal of me as some foreign demon child makes me very sad, because it shows how fearful you are.
I want you to exist AS YOURSELVES. Not become watered down drones whining about they're "mutts" without a culture. I love Black Americans....as THEMSELVES.
And yet Mary J. Blige will claim that her blond hair and blue eyes....is "the real Mary".
Sometimes, those looking into a window can see the living room better than the people in the livingroom.
People who love you...confront you.
Even at the risk of being despised by you for caring.
|
Nels
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Nels
Post Number: 179
Registered: 07-2005
Rating:
Votes: 3 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 04:38 pm: |
|
Kola --
I’m not even going to try and rationalize what you’ve said (collectively), because it makes absolutely no sense and comes across as virtually baseless. Even more so, it’s not even an observation, it’s more like a knee-jerk response. When emotion supplants logic and reason, then perspectives become distorted and maligned, as in your case.
And by the way, black America doesn’t owe you, its African ancestors, its European ancestors, its American Indian ancestors, or any other God Damn soul on this planet (past or present) an explanation or an apology of any kind. Black Americans are Americans “first”, and they don’t need to be qualified by some hyphenated identifier crap (dreamed up by a bunch of ethnically insecure perverts) just to prove who they are. So, if you can’t stand the smell of your own convoluted “pro-whatever the f*ck you are” bullsh*t, then do the world a favor - stop retorting like a dysfunctional lunatic and join your ancestral comrades in Sudan.
p.s., If you really want to go toe to toe on this one, I’m ready. I haven’t bitch-slapped King Kong in a long time.
|
Roxie
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Roxie
Post Number: 437
Registered: 06-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 06:05 pm: |
|
God, it makes my day every time you put those three in their place Kola. |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 3172
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 06:30 pm: |
|
That's because you are a Kola Clone programmed to believe that anybody who challenges her pontificating has been put in their place. Obviously it requires very little to have your day made. tsk-tsk. Poor Roxie. |
Roxie
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Roxie
Post Number: 439
Registered: 06-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 06:39 pm: |
|
And it clearly takes very little to piss you off and trigger a response. Poor insecure old woman. :P |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 3173
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 06:53 pm: |
|
Once again, you have resorted to putting your spin, on things Kola, rebutting issues that no one raised, elevating yourself the role of an oracle, casting yourself as a martyr, accusing others of demonizing you when all they've done is "put you in your place" by pointing out to you what your place is. But I forgive you because you are incapable of thinking any other way. You are stuck in a mental rut, at the mercy of the mind-set that is the glue that holds you together, and prevents you from unraveling. Your cannot fathom the idea that your truth is not the only truth and that,in fact, may not even be a truth at all. Just a wish. |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 3175
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 07:04 pm: |
|
You sound exactly Kola, Roxie. No surprise there. Now, go somewhere and pick out your Afro, - Rockola. LMAO. |
Roxie
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Roxie
Post Number: 440
Registered: 06-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 08:25 pm: |
|
[*Yawn*] An entire paragraph just to take your personal weaknesses out on a student who is getting bored with all this. TEE-frickin-HEE. |
Tonya
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Tonya
Post Number: 1114
Registered: 07-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 08:56 pm: |
|
***Africa and your blackness is not something you "reach back" to. It's something you reach IN to. Africa and blackness is not backwards.***
Soooo true!
But remember, you're arguing with a bunch of poeple who believe, deep down inside (and one who make no bones about telling you straight up), that the majority of their beloved "brothas" and "sistahs" here at home are BACKWARDS.
Insulting Africa is not a long stretch for them, unfortunately.
Tonya
|
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 3176
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 09:03 pm: |
|
Ohhhhh, Lord! LMAO. If I wanted to take my personal weaknesses out on anyone I'd certainly pick somebody more mentally stable than you. You sound delusional, Rockola. Are you off your meds??? Now do us both a favor by acting like someone who really is bored and find something better to do. Gotta go watch the Bears play. Wasting anymore of my time on a giraffe just doesn't cut it. |
Yukio
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Yukio
Post Number: 1076
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, December 19, 2005 - 01:18 am: |
|
This is amusing...i go on a one day trip and ya'll actin up!
Kola, my queen, I must admit...I have not checked if your criticisms of Africans is 60% or 58.29%. This much is true. But this admission, does, however, suggest that my post does make sense. I never claimed that it was the same, just that the act--self hatred--was prevalent among Africans. And you have agreed.
You know not what of you speak, Kola. My comments have nothing to do with the content. My post, on the other hand, had to do with the fact, as you have confirmed, that self-hatred is prevalent among Africans, African Americans, and I'll add West Indians.
The problem, of course, is the question of the self...what is it?
I wont speak for other African Americans, but I am black first...whatever that means...not American. I think this is debatable...but this is my position. My memory and notion of self is beyond these land...
|
Yukio
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Yukio
Post Number: 1079
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, December 19, 2005 - 08:22 pm: |
|
tonya...i can't find the michael hanchard article...will look some more.
Throughout Claude McKay's Harlem: Negro Metropolis (1940), he uses a derivative of African American..Aframerican. The other book i was thinking of is entitled, Having Our Say: The Delany Sisters' First 100 years. |
Renata
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Renata
Post Number: 297
Registered: 08-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, December 19, 2005 - 11:55 pm: |
|
If we reject Africa, we don't even reject just Africa; we really reject ourselves. We just don't see that.
To Nels: Where ever I may go in the world, I will always be recognized as a descendant of AFRICA, whether they learn later if I'm African-American, African-Brazilian, etc., whatever. They will need to observe my mannerisms, language, attitude, to find my NATIONALITY. But all they have to do is look at us to know we're African. No matter where we're born. (I'm sure Oprah was denied entry into that french store because she looked so "american").
We're no less African (by blood) than a Korean-Japanese is KOREAN who just happens to live in Japan. A lot of Koreans live in Japan, have for generations, could probably blend in more with the Japanese than we can blend with everyone else in this country. But, to their credit, they still know and acknowledge that they're Korean.
To me, saying I'm African American isn't about being confused about what country I may have originally descended from. I'm not confused at all, I just DON'T KNOW. But I'm willing to admit that much, and still acknowledge that I'm still African.
And speaking of everything that OUR ANCESTORS went through. They were stripped of their homes, languages, culture, and now we're willing to GIVE AWAY the pride that we once had in it all, by preferring to not even be associated with Africa, not even in NAME ONLY.
So, we'll have a lot of light skinned, blue-contacted, blond hair wearing people who don't consider themselves at all AFRICAN. But they're not Japanese, Polish, Jewish, etc., etc. (But they're not African-American...there's no such thing. shhh) You THINK we're confused now.
Why the hell did our ancestors fight to hold onto to anything, if we don't want it anyways? |
Renata
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Renata
Post Number: 298
Registered: 08-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 12:02 am: |
|
This all reminds me of a friend I had in college. He was Chinese-Venezuelan, third generation.
He took a Spanish class for an easy A. I asked him one day why he would do that. He told me, "who's gonna figure some CHINESE guy speaks Spanish?"
Instead, he could have bitched about us 'thinking' he's Chinese, just because he 'looks Chinese', when he's actually Venezuelan. But he KNOWS Venezuela is just the place where he happened to be born. He's still Chinese. |
Yukio
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Yukio
Post Number: 1083
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 02:15 am: |
|
Renata: you bring up good points...identity is difficult, for it can entail more than one's nationality, as you state. Now, I think you are off as it relates to "blood," but I get your point. The blood issue is a tricky thing...so, scientifically speaking, I think you are off. It also mattters what people think and feel, so that a Japanese person would look at a Korean-Japanese person and suspect that the person is not "pure." This is true with Africans...and I don't want to open a can of worms, here. So one has to take care with (1) how you view yourself and (2) not only your skin or socalled race, but also the cultural meaning of this and (3) of course the place, as in country, continent, and or island,where this is an issue...Kola, throughout the years, has provided a bevy of examples as well as perspectives about how one's identified can be viewed different as they move throughout the world.... |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 3177
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 02:20 am: |
|
Can a person be so sure that when white people look at you, they perceive you as an African American? You really don't know how their psyche processes your appearance. When they look at you they could very well be thinking of you as a nigger. Especially if they find you offensive. It's easy to give yourself a title but it's much easier for others to give you a negative one based on a stereotypical image. Bottom line is that all people have to earn respect as an individual, not as a hyphenated entity. Of course, those in favor of the African-American label are entitled to maintain this position, but they shouldn't be so miffed by those who are having second thoughts about this term, or should they delude themselves into thinking that what you call yourself really makes a difference to other groups. Bottom line, acknowledging one's African blood is not a choice. But embracing the continent of Africa is like carrying a torch for someone who rejected and betrayed you 400 years ago. The question rises, then, as to what slave descendants should call themselves. Most likely, time is the only thing that will sort out this dilemma. Like it or not. IMO. |
Nels
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Nels
Post Number: 180
Registered: 07-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 02:36 am: |
|
Renata --
"I will always be recognized as a descendant of AFRICA"
Despite the skew of your response, you actually managed to identify a key element in the entire originating argument. "Descendant", as in XYZ of African descent. Smart move(?), knowingly or not. That in of itself is "the" crucial distinction between being confused and not knowing at all. "American of African descent" is a lot different from "African-American". The prior accommodates a broad range of ancestral possibilities, but the latter can be intepreted as strictly isolationist - i.e., African (in the continental sense) and [absolutely] nothing else. Thus, the AA tag may be wholly appropriate for some black Americans, but not all. But then, some folks are just slow, you know.
One thing's for sure - talking in circles certainly won't solve the problem.
p.s., Keep on drowning in African sympathy while American history passes you by.
|
Tonya
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Tonya
Post Number: 1118
Registered: 07-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 02:38 am: |
|
Thanks, Yukio. What's up guys! |
Yukio
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Yukio
Post Number: 1085
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 02:39 am: |
|
interesting...I don't feel rejected at all. people of like group sell themselves all the time, AND...I think it is much more complicated than that! If it was someone then that would be easy...but it is not, is it?
I do think it makes a difference to other groups...be those other groups white or black.
If you are white, don't assume that I embrace this country and its history. If you are African don't expect me to embrace this country and its history. Don't assume that I have not part of your history...on an indivual and group level this, to me, is significant! |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 3178
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 10:11 am: |
|
Do black people look at an Italian-American and even if sure of his nationality connect him to Italy and Roman history? No, they probably associate him with spaghetti and the mob. No other group really takes great pride in the heritage of another group. The "we" and "they" mentality is the one common heritage all people have and this attitude is what spawns the dislike-for-the-unlike conflict among groups. All adopting a hyphenated nationality will assure is that one group will secretly look down on another. And - get insulted all you want - but what great fulfillment can be derived from passionately identifying with a continent that sold you out and is, along with its European counterparts, responsible for all the misery that has befallen Americans descended from slaves. Phooey on Neferti and Cleopatra and King Solomon and Hannibal. What have they done for me lately? All hail Harriet Tubman and Sojourner Truth and Frederick Douglass and Nat Turner and my great-grand parents! And, Nels, you were really on point in making the distinction between Americans of African descent and an African who lives in America. |
Yukio
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Yukio
Post Number: 1086
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 12:45 pm: |
|
Nels and Cynique:
This question of a broad range of ancestral possibilities of the socalled "strictly isolationists" position still are related to political issues not socalled truth and this question of land, though the latter are relevant. The term African American and even African are social constructs....
It is not what is, but what language people use and the meanings that are attached to it. When I say language, I mean nationalist language, or internationalists language, etc....
Also, US history is American history is African history is Caribbean history is european history is asian history....; if you limit yourself to imperialist notions of nations history will pass you by.
If this conversation is circuitious it is because that is the nature of these threads...lmao!
Cynique: You address (a) how others see you and (b) how one sees herself. (a) If the some one broaches this question of identity...I would say that I am black and move on...if, however, I am having an intellectual conversation...I would say that I am a pan-Africanist, etc... (b) I don't believe Africa rejected me...I believe Africans, as in those who benefitted from the slave trade and then were sold themselves, did so. I don't equate this small act with an entire people, an entire continenet. There is that small though important act, which last for 200 years...and that was Africans shipping Africans not shipping African Americans or people of African descent but Africans...so even if we were/are rejected we are still Africans. It is a matter of choice...and you pick non-African because of this act of being sold...for me the act does not change who I am...I am African...I the African was sold...not the person of African descent...
I also hail Tubman, Douglass, and Turner, but I would also include Africans and West Indians...what about Toussaint L'Ouverture? But there is a long history of cooperations among black people, from here, the continent, and the Caribbean...what about Martin Delany, Alexander Crummel, our very own DuBois, Marcus Garvey, Claude McKay, Richard B. Moore? All of this is missing from this conversation...Thus, while of of us feel rejected as Cynique suggests, some of us feel welcomed.
I am in the middle. I used to be a romantic panAfricanist until I was told that I was an American with black skin. Once I proceeded to tell this person their own history, which he himself knew very little of, then we almost went at it ol' school to his detriment...lmao. I felt rejected, but I did not think of the slave trade as Cynique does. What I had to learn or should I say relearn was (a) tribal or ethnic issues (b) the education of the African (c) the ideology of the African (d) the Africans knowledge of black people here...not just this question of interpersonal racism, but their knowledge of the global social movements that included these people of color....all of this matters!
The moral of my story is, that there is no one truth...these things are socially constructed, as it the term African American...it is a construct like others, as it race, as in American.
Consider how a native American feels when she sees a WASP waving a flag...consider how South Americans and Central Americans feel when US citizens call themselves "American" and the SA and CA foreigners...the fact that many US citizens claim the notion of American is itself imperialists and others call us American as well, no? But is it a national identity or a continental identity...this too Nels is the poverty of this discussion!
remember: US history is American history is African history is Caribbean history is european history is asian history...if you limit yourself to imperialist notions of nations history will pass you by.
|
Tonya
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Tonya
Post Number: 1120
Registered: 07-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 01:06 pm: |
|
Funny. I don't get the feeling that the people who complain the most have a problem with the "American" half of the hyphen -- In fact, I'd bet my bottom dollar that they'd jump for joy had they the choice to simply be called Americans. Only, I don't think simplicity is what they're really aiming for -- Distancing themselves from Africa and aligning themselves with white America seems to be the real objective. Here's the funny part, though. Those who they wish to become comfy with did a lot more than just sell them out; hell, selling them, along with far worse notorious things, was the name of the game for white America. And what's more, White America has been blowing off, or more frankly, giving blacks its ass to kiss ever since the last Negro was sold....
So that's the funny part. But not funny "ha ha!". It's actually more pitiful than anything else. I mean.. talk about boot lick'n lackey. And it don't even appear to be no shame in their game, neither.... Mmm, Mmm, Mmmm.
And, as far as other groups taking pide in our heritage, other people's approval was not the focus for most when we decided to name our selves, for the first time, I suspect. Taking pride was more so for us to do.... Go figure.
Tonya |
Tonya
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Tonya
Post Number: 1121
Registered: 07-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 01:10 pm: |
|
My bad. I meant to say, "ever since the last 'SLAVE' was sold." |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 3179
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 01:29 pm: |
|
There was one aspect you neglected to mention when breaking down this issue, Yukio and that's the one having to do with romanticizing Africa. You have intellectualzied and politicized this issue but Afro-centrism is more of an affectation than anything, about wearing exotic clothes and adopting African names and paying homage to great African Kings and Queens and warriors, all of which is superficial. And there is a difference between feeling rejected and being rejected; one has to do with denial. But maybe rejection is too harsh a word. Continental Africans really are "condescending" to black Americans who reach out to them. And this is worse than rejection because it is patronizing. I agree that we are what we think we are, and that this differs from person to person. And, Tonya, I don't align myself with America. As America is today, I really don't like this country.
|
Yukio
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Yukio
Post Number: 1089
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 01:56 pm: |
|
Cynique, I did address this question of romanticization, not as you did. I said that I was in the middle. Yes, some people do romanticize Africa and Africans...and this can prolematic since these people are often so superficial that they incredulously call Africa a country...this is unacceptable. On the other hand, when people want to know and learn this is beautiful...I seek to know and learn and embrace Africans in the US history, my immediate descendants to the fullest.
Yes, continental Africans can be condescending, but so can and are African Americans. As I've said in the past, we don't know each other...
many African Americans only know Africans from television or the street vendors...Africans similarly only know the same...television, if they have one, and if they come here...they only know what they see...this is why i broke it down as I did, because some based on ideology alone embrace African Americans, and I have felt this...others do it based on our long intertwined history...you can never know...it is a mixed bag...I have often defended Africans among my nativism and limited African American friends and vice versa....
Tonya...I hear you, but there are those who call themselves plain ol' black, who neither embrace Africans nor white socalled americans. Thus, their condemnation of African American is not a desire to be or affliate with white AMericans. |
Tonya
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Tonya
Post Number: 1123
Registered: 07-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 02:12 pm: |
|
Yeah.. Yukio. I kinda understand your perspective. I was talking about the other views I've heard. |
Nels
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Nels
Post Number: 181
Registered: 07-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 04:33 pm: |
|
Yukio --
"This question of a broad range of ancestral possibilities of the socalled "strictly isolationists" position still are related to political issues not socalled truth and this question of land, though the latter are relevant. The term African American and even African are social constructs...." (so-called)
(Social constructs) is not the issue here, it’s the (interpretation and application) of “what is” African-American, African, etc. that are at odds with each other.
"If this conversation is circuitious it is because that is the nature of these threads...lmao!" (circuitous)
This conversation is circuitous because there are no clearly defined answers as to what constitutes (perception and interpretation) in relation to the use of the term African-American. One would have to evolve a treatise on all aspects of black cultural and ethnic indifference in order to attain even an iota of empirical justification for sufficiently addressing the roiling conflict(s) within the so-called “African-American” constituency.
|
Yukio
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Yukio
Post Number: 1101
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 02:34 pm: |
|
Nels:
(Social constructs) is not the issue here, it’s the (interpretation and application) of “what is” African-American, African, etc. that are at odds with each other.
Is not the "interpretation and application of 'what is' African-American, African, etc." it self a social construct? The fact that there is conflict, or as you say what is "at odds", means that indeed there is no "truth" here, which we use to make any substantial conclusions. When people wit varied interpretations of the term African American attach a meaning to it and proceed to make decisions, implement policies, they are no doubt contributed to and represent this dialectic that you have posed. Hence, you claim that this conversation is circuitous.
You will not find a socalled "clearly definded answer," for you are addressing the real of human relations, where meaning is derived from what is believed rather than what is....
Could you explain this to me?
One would have to evolve a treatise on all aspects of black cultural and ethnic indifference in order to attain even an iota of empirical justification for sufficiently addressing the roiling conflict(s) within the so-called “African-American” constituency
The word "indifference" has thrown me off...
At any rate, there is already empiricial evidence that addresses this question of the conflicts among "african Americans" as related to the term African American. What do you mean by "empirical," are you talking about scientific evidence or sociological, anthropological, and/or historical evidence?
I don't think any of this matters...it has been known for generations that there is no such thing as race, but people still use the term and still attach meaning to it...as I said these terms are embedded in social and power relations, and it is here where these conflicts will find a negotiated resolution. |
Nels
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Nels
Post Number: 182
Registered: 07-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 01:45 am: |
|
Yukio --
"Social constructs", in this context...
Interpretation (and) application collectively are not social constructs, they are tools that are used to achieve something (e.g., effect, result, etc.).
An (interpretation) is the representation of the meaning or significance of something (or in this case, the subject at hand - AA), that is arrived at by the (application) of some standard, rule, unit of measure, etc.
An (application) is the use of something.
By definition, a (social construct) is a social mechanism, phenomenon, or category created and developed by society; a perception of an individual, group, or idea that is `constructed' through cultural or social practice.
Perception by definition is the [recognition (and) interpretation] of sensory stimuli based chiefly on memory. In the case of AA, memory is limited to the first known use of the term as it applies to (cultural or social practice).
The [interpretation (and) application] of ‘what is’, is the derived representation of African-American and the use of term, nothing that the resulting “state” of that derived representation may not always be uniform.
The conflict I am referring to is the wide disparity in the perceptions of ‘what is’ African-American and how those perceptions are used when the result is not uniform. Unfortunately, that can be interpreted as the prevailing cultural or social practice, which we all know causes “disagreement”.
=====
“clearly defined answers”
In this context, “clearly defined answers as to what constitutes (perception and interpretation)” refers to “clearly defined answers as to what constitutes [a valid] (perception and interpretation)” - meaning the inability of the AA constituency to come to a consensus on validity, and ‘what is’ both valid and acceptable.
=====
“(The word "indifference" has thrown me off...)”
i.e., How can the conflict of ‘what is’ African-American be properly addressed (and possibly resolved) if the scope of African-American apathy toward the issue is not identified, recognized and for that matter, understood? One could say that only three camps exist: those that are for it, those that are against it, and those that could care less. To its own detriment, the latter may never come around on the issue until “African-Americans” themselves ceases to exist.
=====
“empirical”
i.e., On what basis can a valid argument for and against the term “African-American” be made? This also applies to the ensuing conflict of identity crises within the black community as it pertains to the convergence of culture, ethnicity and race when leveraged by some to the detriment of others.
|
Yukio
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Yukio
Post Number: 1102
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 02:26 am: |
|
Nels:
Ok. You have not convinced me that African American is not a social construct. Your definitions of interpret and application do the work of constructing...in order to create, my friend, you must interpret; in order to develop, my friend, you must apply. You definitions lack vitality and an appreciation for process.
There will be no resolution, for these issues are within the realm of the ideology, heart, culture, and history....units of measure have no place here... |
Nels
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Nels
Post Number: 184
Registered: 07-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 04:13 am: |
|
Yukio --
"Ok. You have not convinced me that African American is not a social construct."
African-American was never the issue with respect to being a social construct or not, and no attempt was ever made to convey otherwise.
"[the (interpretation and application) of “what is” African-American]" - (my post)
Only the [interpretation and application] of ("African-American") was the issue at hand. Accordingly, convincing you was never the goal.
"You definitions lack vitality and an appreciation for process."
The definitions are quite precise, but you are free to "interpret" them any way you wish. As for the "appreciation for process", where’s the merit of your assessment?
"units of measure"
Everything that is quantified and qualified in life is based on a unit of measure. Units of measure can't be abstracted from anything; appropriateness has no bearing. Even the fundamental process of thinking depends on units of measure. Didn't you take Psych in undergrad? You know, the brain, synapses, neurons, and all of that sh*t? Physics? Length, mass, time, density - the ability to discern, which can deny a continuum? A continuum having the capability to shield a unit of measure? Oh well. It's 'what is' a (unit) that makes the difference. UOM's allow comparisons based on physical properties and more. Standards, rules... - all compared against something, even if it's a null comparison.
|
Yukio
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Yukio
Post Number: 1103
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 09:39 am: |
|
Nels:
This is a thread, not an experiment where you can choose how things should proceed. I know for you, "African-American was never the issue with respect to being a social construct or not, and no attempt was ever made to convey otherwise," but I have chosen to conceptualize this way...lmao!
Are you trying to engage me or question my intellect, again? Perhaps both...What you describe "You know, the brain, synapses, neurons, and all of that sh*t? Physics? Length, mass, time, density - the ability to discern, which can deny a continuum? A continuum having the capability to shield a unit of measure? Oh well. It's 'what is' a (unit) that makes the difference. UOM's allow comparisons based on physical properties and more. Standards, rules... - all compared against something, even if it's a null comparison" all I know.
This is not about socalled definitions and tools of measurement, but method and epistemology. I don't think what you want to measure can be measured, properly.
According to you, you want to get "at...the modern-day capitalization of the term African-American for political gain and more African American was more." And you're interested in JJ's motives, as well as the socalled interpretation and application of African American that results in conflict...
I have said that is wont happen. While identity is something that one feels internally, it is not really palpable...
This is why your definitions though precise, according to you, lack vitality and an appreciation of process. This is also why units of measure fail to address this issue.
Here is a hypothetical example:
I am a descendant of the enslaved in North America. My people have been here for hundreds of year. I am African descent but my country African American.
My friend is a descendant of slaves in Barbados. She considers herself an African Americans not in the US sense, but as a continental identity. For her, the American part includes the Americas. To only include the US is imperialist (lmao!). She has traveled around the world but especially the socalled new world and can see both differences and similarities among African Americans (read as cultural continental identity).
My other friend was born in Senegal, but he received his US citizenship a year a go. He tells me that he is a "real" African American, and I am just an American. And the second friend is a West Indian. Who is correct?
Vitality- my notion or construct of African American is embedded in a long history of struggle by Africans in this country, which goes back to Maroon societies, and emotional attachment to the continent. There is a process here(or as you call social mechanism and development) that is related to my sense of history, my friends and family (continental Africans, West Indians, etc) and this emotional attachment that reacts to the news about conflict in the streets of the US or the streets of Brixton or the streets of Dakar...
My Sengalese-American has his own understanding of African American...and to him, I am sure it has valid. socalled African American history has no significance for him.
My Barbadian friend, who was born in the US, but her parents are Barbadian. She celebrates her island holidays and others.
I can't speak for him, but one was to determine genetically, though this is not possible, that I was not "African American."
My feelings wouldn't change, my sense of history wouldn't change...this issue wouldn't be resolved...I grew up in Harlem where we have annual African American day parades...I celebrate Kwanzaa, I celebrate emancipation day, black solidarity day, etc...these can not be measured...this fact, as I''ve argued, is embedded in historical, political, and social processes...constructs!
|
Nels
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Nels
Post Number: 185
Registered: 07-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 01:46 pm: |
|
Yukio --
"This is a thread, not an experiment where you can choose how things should proceed. I know for you, "African-American was never the issue with respect to being a social construct or not, and no attempt was ever made to convey otherwise," but I have chosen to conceptualize this way...lmao!"
"not an experiment where you can choose how things should proceed"
"an experiment" - Was never implied.
"but I have chosen to conceptualize this way" - It's obvious.
As far as the balance of your reply; hypothetic(s) aside, it appears to be heavily influenced by personal preference. Opinionated? Yes. Valid? Well, we all know that that's subject to interpretation.
Since we’ve been engaged in a two-way on this thread, what’s your take on this?
Prior note: No one here is validating the show or its concept.
On last night’s Trading Spouses (mom/wife swap show) on network TV, a black family and a white family swapped moms for a week. After the moms arrived at their temporary host residences, they were asked a few questions about their backgrounds and the like. A member of the white host family asked the black mom what nationality she was. The black mom responded, “African-American”. The white questioner then asked, “what nationality are you?” - (as in, from what African country do you claim heritage, etc.). The black mom appeared surprised, dumbfounded and somewhat angered by the question, and then she tried to laugh it off.
|
Yukio
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Yukio
Post Number: 1105
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 03:31 pm: |
|
Of course an experiment was implied when you see to control the meaning and application--phenomena--of language...it's obvious...lmao! Your treatise is also quite opinionated and interpretative since you choose to conceptual words a particular way to fit your position.
All is subject to interpretation.
Regarding trading spouses:
This is the same program where the white women did not know who Malcolm X was, right?
I don't quite know the context. There are many conclusions one can arrive at...to ask such a question suggests that the white host family may not have considered the black woman an US citizen...another could be they were interested in her socalled ethnicity, or that they know nothing of US history, particularly that which narrates the story of people of color...on the black woman's side...who knows? She may have never thought of what constitutes African American...particularly the African component. She may have thought duh...our people (black people in this country) were enslaved and you don't know we wish to embrace our African and American ancestry...or she may have never thought about term in general...who knows? What do u think? You watched the program. |
Nels
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Nels
Post Number: 190
Registered: 07-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 10:37 pm: |
|
Yukio --
It appeared to be more of an embarassment to her than anything else. What is interesting was that when was the last time you heard anyone ask (a person who identifies as African-American) what their nationality was? That's regardless of whether or not they had suspected that person to be an AA or not. I certainly can't recall hearing anything like that somewhere else recently or otherwise.
It might lead some to believe that the questioner was prep'd and that the odds of an affirmative reply to it would be minimal. Either way, I think that the entire exchange underscores the importance of being prepared, especially when you claim an affinity to something as widely recognized as the term African-American.
Yes, interpretation reigns, or so we think. |
Yukio
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Yukio
Post Number: 1106
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 11:41 pm: |
|
Well, as I said, it could be the assumption, on the part of whites, that like Irish-Americans....African Americans can identify a particular nation...this could suggest being prep'd or ignorance in the sense that we can not, unless we (or pay someone to) do the necessary research, identify our country of origin. |
Yukio
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Yukio
Post Number: 1108
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, December 23, 2005 - 01:39 am: |
|
Name Games
The folly in the attempts to define "African-American."
By Richard Thompson Ford
Posted Thursday, Sept. 16, 2004, at 3:21 AM ET
Among the many indignities racial minorities must endure are the perennial debates over the meaning of racial identity. Are the people formerly known as "Negroes" or "colored people" to be called people of color, black, Afro-American, or African-American? Are people of Mexican and Central-American ancestry Hispanic, Latino, Chicano, or Latin-American? Is it still OK to call people "Oriental," or is that a term best limited to rugs and geographic locations? More urgent than the nomenclature itself are the questions about who "counts" as a member of these groups, with their ever-increasing string of aliases.
A recent version of this controversy involves immigrants from Africa or the Caribbean and whether they are "African-Americans." Harvard professors have publicly worried that over half of Harvard's "black" students did not descend from American slaves but are, rather, immigrants or the children of immigrants from Africa or the Caribbean. Though it started off on the right track, this debate predictably became as much about the "identity" of these immigrants as the direction of Harvard's admissions policies.
Meanwhile Republican Alan Keyes complained that the Democratic Party's rising star, Barack Obama—the son of a Kenyan immigrant—"[wrongly] claims an African-American heritage." In reaction to which UC-Berkeley linguist John McWhorter quite reasonably pointed out that immigrants from, well, Africa, who are now residents of the United States of America, have a stronger claim to the term "African-American" than most American blacks, whose connection to Africa is generations old. Others worried that defining "African-American" as rooted in geographic origin seems to suggest that Teresa Heinz Kerry, born in Mozambique, and Charlize Theron, born in South Africa, are "African-American."
The nation anxiously awaits the answers to these urgent social questions.
It shouldn't. Arguments about the correct definition of racial identity are this century's version of medieval scholastic theologians' debates about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. They seem to be of vital moral and spiritual importance, involving many contested terms, conceptual puzzles, and facts not in evidence. They're a great way for smart people to pass the time until the bartender pours the next round. But there's no way to resolve these questions or even to agree on common grounds for debating them.
Do we even need official definitions of racial identity to apply antidiscrimination laws or race-conscious policies? Actually, no. Antidiscrimination law prohibits decisions driven by suspect motivations. What matters is the intent of the decision-maker—not the racial identity of those affected by the decision. An employer who discriminates against an employee based on a mistaken belief about that employee's ancestry is just as liable for discriminating as if he had been correct.
In some instances the plaintiff in a discrimination suit must nevertheless establish that she is a member of a protected racial group—raising the possibility that formal racial definitions actually matter. But it's telling that neither Congress nor the courts have ever established official membership criteria. Instead, courts successfully rely on uncontested social conventions in most cases, and when those social conventions fail, the identity of the plaintiff as a member of a protected group is determined by the courts on a case-by-case basis.
We frequently rely on self-reporting to establish racial identity as well. The U.S. Census Bureau, for instance, has long abandoned any attempt to assign individuals to a racial group based on objective criteria—relying exclusively on the self-identification of individuals. The same is true for affirmative-action purposes—the obvious subtext of the Harvard controversy. Although it would seem that institutions must first agree on a definition of racial identity to administer such race-based policies, they needn't and haven't. Like the Census Bureau, those universities that consider the race of applicants rely largely on self-reporting. Of course, a university might rescind the admission of a student who made an obviously disingenuous claim to an underrepresented racial group, just as it could with respect to a student who claimed to be from an unrepresented region of the nation but in fact had only visited there on vacation. But universities need not and do not apply specific objective criteria to racial identification.
As such, in the Harvard controversy the real question was never who is or isn't "African-American." The real issue is the narrower—and more answerable—question of whether African and Caribbean immigrants and their children—whatever their "race"—should enjoy affirmative-action preferences. There are real dilemmas here, but they simply don't involve the correct definition of "African-American." They involve the correct rationale for affirmative action.
So, let's consider three rationales commonly advanced:
1) A selective university might want a system of affirmative action to educate the future leaders of discrete, established communities. "African-Americans" are a large, established, and fairly discrete community. Here the question is whether immigrant blacks have become or are likely to become plausible future leaders of that community—are they similar to native-born blacks for purposes of community leadership?
2) A university might believe that racial discrimination is an important social issue that merits academic study and want to be sure that some people who have experienced that discrimination are represented in its student body. (Sandra Day O' Connor's opinion in Grutter v. Bollinger—the recent Michigan affirmative-action case—endorses such a rationale: "By virtue of our Nation's Struggle with racial inequality, [minority] students are both likely to have experiences of particular importance to the Law School's mission and are less likely to be admitted in meaningful numbers on criteria that ignore those experiences." [Emphasis added.]) Here we'd want to ask whether immigrant blacks are likely to have experienced the same or similar types of discrimination as native blacks.
3) A university might believe that racial discrimination has depressed the grades and standardized test scores of black applicants and wish to correct for this bias in the available data. (O'Connor's Grutter opinion also suggests this rationale: The quotation above indicates that minority students "are less likely to be admitted in meaningful numbers" because of "our Nation's Struggle with racial inequality.") Here, we'd want to know whether discrimination has had a similar adverse effect on the performance of the immigrants as on native-born blacks.
None of these questions are answered or even clarified by any abstract definition of "African-American." And conversely, the answer to the affirmative-action question may not be relevant in other contexts in which race is at issue. For instance, suppose you decided that immigrant blacks don't count as African-American (of course I'd discourage you from putting it this way) for affirmative-action purposes. You could arrive at this conclusion—under rationale No. 3 above—based on a belief that whereas high-school grades and standardized-test scores typically underpredict the potential of native-born blacks, they are an accurate predictor of the potential of immigrant blacks. That position would still not commit you to agreeing with Alan Keyes that Barack Obama—the child of an African immigrant—is not African-American. It would be perfectly consistent to say that although Obama doesn't qualify for affirmative-action preferences, you consider him "African-American" in the context of his candidacy for the U.S. Senate.
Here, the real question is whether Obama's experience as someone whose appearance will have exposed him to his share of antiblack racism (regardless of his cultural or ancestral heritage) is likely to make him more sympathetic to the political concerns of others victims of racism. Frequently, the words "African-American" are just shorthand for such a presumption.
Arguing about who qualifies for a racial label is not only unnecessary, it also flirts with perils best left in the past. For instance, while Harvard's controversy focused primarily on immigrant blacks, to a lesser extent it called into question the identity of the children of interracial couples. Such an inquiry threatens to revive—under a new rationale—the odious 19th-century ideas of "blood quantum" and racial purity.
Perhaps what's most unfortunate about these pointless debates about the meaning of racial identity is their sloppy and volatile mix of the personal and the political. For instance, Keyes (channeling the spirit of liberal multiculturalism to perfection) emotes: "My ancestors toiled in slavery in this country. ... My consciousness, who I am as a person, has been shaped by my struggle, deeply emotional and deeply painful, with the reality of that heritage." This might be a moving first sentence in an autobiography, or an important revelation to one's psychotherapist, but in the context of national politics, who cares? Subjective accounts of personal identity are at best distractions from more tangible and objective issues of racial injustice—such as employment discrimination, residential segregation, and an often racially biased criminal justice system. At its worst, the narcissism of identity politics threatens to mire the struggle for racial justice in intractable conceptual debates and ineffectual emotionalism.
The correct definition of racial identities seems important to a lot of smart people. But that doesn't make it at all important in fact. Maybe if we argued about it long enough, we could all agree on an omnibus definition of racial identities. And maybe there are angels, they do dance on the heads on pins, and if we thought about it long enough, we could figure out how many could crowd on before one would topple off the edge. Because nothing whatsoever depends on the answer to the latter inquiry, we've all quite reasonably stopped caring. I expect the angels will forgive us. And soon enough the nation's blacks, whites, Latinos, Chicanos, Hispanics, Asian-Americans, Orientals, Negroes, colored people, and African-Americans will thank us, if we stop caring about the terminology and definition of races and get on with the important work of fighting racism.
Richard Thompson Ford teaches at Stanford Law School. He is the author of Racial Culture: A Critique.
|
Yukio
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Yukio
Post Number: 1109
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, December 23, 2005 - 01:48 am: |
|
Ok Tonya, here is the article:
Michael Hanchard, "Identity, Meaning, and the African-American " in Dangerous Liaisons: Gender, Nation, and Postcolonial Perspectives. eds. Anne McClintock, Aamir Mufti, Ella Shohat, editors.
|
Nels
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Nels
Post Number: 192
Registered: 07-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, December 24, 2005 - 02:51 am: |
|
http://volokh.com/posts/1129307991.shtml
Whut choo say? Smack that boy!
|
|
Email This Page