What is an "African-American"?

[macmeal]

Originally Posted by Wild Style

the problem with this whole theory is Zulus are AFRICANS, as were their fathersssss.... from Africa. The Dutch settlers are Europeans as are their forefathers.

Zulus' ancestors were from Africa, true. So were the ancestors of Berbers and Libyans and Egyptians and Ethiopians. You're suggesting that somehow a "continent" shows up in one's DNA, and makes some "invaders" OK, because they have the proper genes? Hmmmm.....news to ME. That would disqualify about 98% of the human race from the "right" to live where they live...that's a pretty tall order.

My wife is a "native American" (prefers "Indian" though.) Should ALL blacks, whites, and Asians "vacate" the Western Hemisphere? Should ALL blacks LEAVE the Caribbean, since they aren't indigenous to the area? Obviously, their ANCESTORS didn't live there.....If my wife "lets" me stay here, as her spouse, is that OK? Or do we need to 'split up' iin the interest of fairness? What about our kids, and grandkids? Go or stay? Go WHERE, exactly?

Aren't whites "human" (at least, KIND of human?)...doesn't that mean their ANCESTORS came from Africa?

Bottom line is, the Zulus were not 'native' to present-day South Africa, and neither were the whites, nor the Asians (Indian South Africans). So lets vacate the WHOLE PLACE, and turn it over to the Hottentots....am I missing something here?...

The Japanese aren't indigenous to Japan--the Ainu are. THe Chinese aren't indigenous to Taiwan..the aborigines are. And the Navajo aren't indigenous to Arizona...Should they be 'kicked out' of these places? Are YOU going to suggest this to them? What do you think will be their reaction?

[Wild Style]

macmeal

Zulus' ancestors were from Africa, true. So were the ancestors of Berbers and Libyans and Egyptians and Ethiopians.

Zulus ancestors were from Africa: correct

Berbers: Verdict is still out on that one

Libyans: There are Arabs and Berbers in Libya, the Arabs came in from the mid east.

Egyptians: same thing

Ethiopians: Correct

You're suggesting that somehow a "continent" shows up in one's DNA, and makes some "invaders" OK, because they have the proper genes? Hmmmm.....news to ME. That would disqualify about 98% of the human race from the "right" to live where they live...that's a pretty tall order.

Ummm your going off on a tangent here. What we are talking about here is who is African and who isn't. Not who has the right to live in a particular location.

My wife is a "native American" (prefers "Indian" though.) Should ALL blacks, whites, and Asians "vacate" the Western Hemisphere? Should ALL blacks LEAVE the Caribbean, since they aren't indigenous to the area? Obviously, their ANCESTORS didn't live there.....If my wife "lets" me stay here, as her spouse, is that OK? Or do we need to 'split up' iin the interest of fairness? What about our kids, and grandkids? Go or stay? Go WHERE, exactly?

This has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation, not sure where you are going with this.

Aren't whites "human" (at least, KIND of human?)...doesn't that mean their ANCESTORS came from Africa?

Irrelevant

Bottom line is, the Zulus were not 'native' to present-day South Africa, and neither were the whites, nor the Asians (Indian South Africans). So lets vacate the WHOLE PLACE, and turn it over to the Hottentots....am I missing something here?...

Yes, yes you are.

The Japanese aren't indigenous to Japan--the Ainu are. THe Chinese aren't indigenous to Taiwan..the aborigines are. And the Navajo aren't indigenous to Arizona...Should they be 'kicked out' of these places? Are YOU going to suggest this to them? What do you think will be their reaction?

Ummm not sure what this has to do with who is African and who isn't.

[macmeal]

Originally Posted by Wild Style

macmeal


Zulus ancestors were from Africa: correct

Berbers: Verdict is still out on that one

Libyans: There are Arabs and Berbers in Libya, the Arabs came in from the mid east.

Egyptians: same thing

Ethiopians: Correct

Ummm your going off on a tangent here. What we are talking about here is who is African and who isn't. Not who has the right to live in a particular location.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation, not sure where you are going with this.

Irrelevant

Yes, yes you are.

Ummm not sure what this has to do with who is African and who isn't.

What it has to "do" is this---you seemed to suggest that the Afrikaners "shouldn't" have settled in South Africa, because their ancestors hadn't lived there, but the Zulus were somehow more "worthy" of settling there, because even though they weren't 'locals', their ancestors had come from elsewhere in Africa. In essence, you're saying ancestry can "legitimize" behavior that might otherwise be disallowed. It's somehow "all right" for advanced tribes of Africans to overwhelm and conquer less-advanced Africans. The "victims' won't mind, I guess, as long as they're defeated by fellow Africans. Doesn't make much sense to me.

MY POINT was that MOST societies on earth are comprised of people who came from ELSEWHERE, and I fail to see what the difference is whether that is on another continent, or just a few hundred miles away...it's STILL "elsewhere". The Zulus didn't ORIGINATE in South Africa any more than anyone else did. Is it OK to be "invaded" by Africans, but not by others? Did whites universally 'brutalize' Africans, while OTHER Africans treated them "nicely"? Is it OK to be slaughtered, as long as the "slaughterers" are 'locals'?

Somehow I'm not getting the concept of "continental origin' here. When people INVADE a place, the locals suffer..no matter WHERE the invaders are from.

[Wild Style]

macmeal

don't worry about it. Seems we are having two totally different conversations.

[Marya]

"African American" is awkward, but I think it's a useful term when used restrictively to mean black Americans whose ancestors arrived in the United States by the early 1800s. There's no specific name for this group, but there are lots of descriptions that can be used for most other "African Americans." In most cases, plain "American" and "black" work fine, but when they don't....

[savvyd20]

I am glad that someone asked this question. I am an immigrant and for the last several years I have asked my husband why are blacks in the US referred to as "African-American".

The white population is generally referred to as American irrespective of their roots (Italian, Irish, German etc.)

You will often here this term on most news channels and to me it is disgusting. Why can't all who are born as Americans just be referred to as "Americans".

[rlchurch]

Originally Posted by Haaziq

I am black, and I hate the term to be honest. Usually, your nation of origin is only in your title if you were foreign born. We don't call whites European Americans. We call them white Americans. Why can't we just be black Americans? It's offensive to be addressed as if you're an immigrant, but whites weren't always here.

By the way, if you come from Africa, regardless of color, you're an African-American.

There are a lot of Irish-Americans and Italian-Americans floating around so I don't think you quite right. IMO most people from Europe don't think of themselves as European. They are more nationalistic about their origin.

[LML]

I only call myself Irish American during the week of Irsh Fest. During that week I even catch some people who I know darn well are "German Americans" or "Norwegian Americans" pretending to be Irish Americans.

[Faithi]

Most people who call their selves African American who not even look in the direction on Africa. The connection to Africa in not strong enough for Black in America to be know by this term. I am black. If I were to visit Africa I would see it the same way as if I were to visit China. I am a tourist experiencing another culture.