Out of what I guess to be hundreds, Thousands of people that visit this site, I am comforted by the fact there are only two people that seem to have a major problem with what I have presented. One persons tries to establish a foundation for their disagreement based on misconstrued, convuluted pseudo-facts that are not facts because whats used has no continuos thread of uniform continuity. The other person tries to trivialize moot points that detract from the bigger picture, and serves to do no more than create a pointless debate of these moot points that are really no more than a means to self convince oneself the lies they believe are true.

The Willie Lynch Syndrome, The post traumatic slavery stress disorder is in full effect.

I started not to respond to the triviality, but for the record, there are no people called "Africanamerica" . The point I was making was not about websites per se, but about the race and relative issues of treatment, but since the trivialization is on the table, anyone, and anything that feeds the European/Western White supremist Nazi-istic agenda, no matter how miniscule, will curry favor. It's like I wrote before, they depend on this because the race, not all, but many have been conditioned to fight for that agenda despite it not being in their favor, and the sad reality is, the ones doing it think they are serving themself, proving themselves right when the ideology is not even theirs, it is what was given them.

Someone one wrote the race has went thru five name changes in the last forty years, and that's my point, the race has, and the irony is even though the name changed, the legal definition remained of a person native(born in) Africa.

The bigger question is twenty years ago African-American was not being used, who were you? Claiming African, to be African, alludes to some directness very few Afrimericans have. Africans don't readily call themselves Africans, they identify by their tribe name, what tribe are you? The average African speaks at least three languages fluently, how many do you speak? How many dialects of Swahilli do you speak? What specific geographical area of Africa can you claim affinity to? Who are it's elected officials? What is it's currency?

If one is not African born, to claim being something one is not and has very little direct experiential knowledge of is foolhardy.

Africanamerica as a website is cool. and it's great to have it's boosters, and supporters, like cheering on your favorite sports team.

My presentation was/is about ethnic nomenclature of Afrimericans and the legalities, and subsequintial matters relating to same. Afrimerican stands on it's own merits as claimed.

Anyone can claim any identifying term they like, anyone can reject Afrimerican or adopt it.

Just to show how moot the debate is, I've stated and given directions on how to prove that African-American legally defines a persons born in Africa, legal Statues in various federal agencies establishes such, based on that, why claim a legal identity not you.

(If you are African born it's you, if not,it's not)

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Afrimerican,

I am comforted by the fact there are only two people that seem to have a major problem with what I have presented.---Afrimerican

I don't know how your calculator works, but I've stated repeatedly that I don't agree with your defintions.

Maybe I'm one of the two.

You defintions cause your construction to be ill-conceived, and unable to withstand the esamination of simple logic.

I thought I was clear.

An African-American is a person born in Africa, an Afrimerican is a person born in America.

Barak Obama and I have only two things in common. Color as defined by America's sociey, and an African ancestry.

His is known. Mine is unknown.

I am an American who is African American.

Barak Obama is an American who is Kenyan-Irish.

Don't you get it????

We cannot both be African-American, OR African American.

PEACE

Jim Chester

quote:

Africans don't readily call themselves Africans, they identify by their tribe name, what tribe are you?

And the same goes for claiming "America". Again, I ask WHICH one. Again, your ideas are riddle with the same problems and limitations of language, not to mention a historical circumstance which your comments seek to disparage (the consequence of that circumstance) instead of legitimately accounting for.

Again, these things you note (and, again, try to disparage) are irrelevant. They are moot points if they ever were points to begin with. They are prime examples of CONDITIONING regarding things AFRICAN and what was unmistakeably "FORCED" and dictated.

Most AFRICAN-Americans don't know their ancestral "tribe" because of the American CIRCUMSTANCE. It's rather ironic that the basis of your idea is predicated on disparaging the phenomenon and reality that are the results, product and function of the American CIRCUMSTANCE. It's rather ironic that you would insist that that CIRCUMSTANCE be honored because of something that CIRCUMSTANCE created. In other words, in keeping with the Anti-AFRICAN conditioning your "White Masters" created, you would rather keep that distance, that loss, that lack of memory intact as much as possible. As stated, yours (idea) is to stay as far, far, far, far away from the AFRICAN and things AFRICAN as possible. Again, in keeping with that given (and imposed and foreign) CONDITIONING.

quote:

How many dialects of Swahilli do you speak? What specific geographical area of Africa can you claim affinity to? Who are it's elected officials? What is it's currency?

IRRELEVANT... All points moot.

Many Blacks began to abandon the term "Afro-American", which had become popular in the 1960s and '70s, for "African-American," because they desired an unabbreviated expression of their African heritage that could not be mistaken or derided as an allusion to the afro hairstyle.

That expression and acknowledgement has what to do with being intimately familiar with Swahili, etc.? Please say something that's RELEVANT.

quote:

Europeans represented Africa as a dreadful place whose characteristics justified the enslavement of blacks. To blacks, Africa was no place to identify with, and many soon perceived enslavement as schooling in civilized existence. From the beginning, therefore, blacks struggled desperately for a new identity within what was presented to them as a superior and civilized European order. They aspired to become fully American, and avoided identification with the shameful and debilitating African ancestry. Since the African homeland and identity were associated with negative qualities, blacks sought new identity and homeland within America.

Why is your promotion of AFRImerican an extension of that European IMPOSED Conditioning? Why is it, yet, another manifestation of Internalized Racism and this age old programmed desire to get as far, far, far, far away from the AFRICAN as you can?

Again, as stated/quoted, AFRICAN-AMERICAN is an "expression of an acknowledged AFRICAN heritage." It need not be specific to express that acknowledgement and the languages we know, too, (as you alluded to) are functions of the American CIRCUMSTANCE. It makes you such a big man to disparage that CIRCUMSTANCE to the point where you hold those upon whom the CIRCUMSTANCE was/is imposed responsible for what are essentially consequences of that CIRCUMSTANCE.

You have learned well from your White Masters...

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Nmaginate,

____________________________________________

http://nquest2xl.wordpress.com/

quote:

Barak Obama is an American who is Kenyan-Irish.

And such is the lunacy of those who try to disparage the AFRICAN-American nomenclature.

At once they want to claim that AFRICA is so diverse that there is no one thing "AFRICAN" to claim heritage and affinity to... and yet (motivated strictly by a desire to disparage) they turn around and say there are people from the AFRICAN continent who complicate the term AFRICAN-American as if those native "Africans" are excused from that diversity the disparager, himself, once cited.

Yes, Barack's and other [native] Africans' ethnicity are tied to their respective "tribe" and/or country. Funny how when the motive is to disparager, many a sliding scale is used just to have reason to disparage.

And such is the lunacy of those who try to disparage the AFRICAN-American nomenclature.---Nmaginate

Though not specified, and since the quote is from my post, I am responding to ask, 'What is disparaging in comparing two persons fitting Afrimerica's defintion, i.e. 'born in America'

PEACE

Jim Chester

quote:

Though not specified, and since the quote is from my post, I am responding to ask, 'What is disparaging...'

JWC, the WHOM and WHAT as to what I called motivated by a desire to disparage was clearly specified by both the context of what you said and my paragraph after that sentence you quoted from me.

quote:

At once they want to claim that AFRICA is so diverse... and yet they turn around and [speak] as if those native "Africans" are excused from that diversity the disparager, himself, once cited.

Now, AFRImerican, the poster, has made those conflicting claims here in this thread. By way of highlighting AFRI's own contradictions, I was agreeing with your observation that there is a clear distinction to be made (though I know we differ in how we regard the overall differences and "what we have in common" - continential Africans and those in the Diaspora).

In fact, I was highlighting how AFRI's own disparaging remarks about the diversity of continential AFRICANS (listed at the top of this page; referencing the multitude of "tribal" identities, languages, etc.) contradicted his earlier statement claiming "an African-american is a person born in Africa that immigrates to and becomes a Naturalized American."

To the extent that you agree mindless ideas like that, it reflects on you. And I have no idea what your question was suppose to be asking. I made it clear what I deem to be statements said merely to disparage. If you got questions, read over what I said and the entire context again.

You said:
Barak Obama is an American who is Kenyan-Irish.

I said:
Barack's, etc. ethnicity are tied to their respective "tribes"

Now what is the source of your problems with what I wrote? Note, again, that was a statement wherein I agreed with what I quoted from you. Whatever other issues you have (because you'll allow others to define things for you - Teresa Heinz Kerry), those are things you need to reconcile on your own... That is unless you've made the argument *HERE* (in this thread) that Africa is too diverse for Black people in the U.S. to ever think about identifying with Africa.

quote:

Originally posted by Afrimerican:

Out of what I geuss to be hundreds, Thousands of people that visit this site, I am comforted by the fact there are only two people that seem to have a major problem with what I have presented.

This, about a thread that has been viewed 339 times at this writing... and since I know I've visited this thread around 7 times myself, it's a sure bet that only a few dozen people have read any of this. But of that few dozen, where are your supporters?

quote:

The research has been done, and the information can be found by anyone willing to find it, and by anyone that knows how to properly conduct a research study, and said research definitely goes beyond what can be found on the internet or books published within the past 20 years, go back 40, 60, 100, 200 years, and don't be surprised to find information from the different eras completely rewriiten and altered to fit present mindsets.

I asked you to provide evidence, and this cop-out is your response???

Won't be wasting anymore of my time on this thread...

It's just so easy.

AFRIMERICAN AF/RI/ME/RI/CAN-NOUN


DEFINITION; A MEMBER OF A RACE OF MANKIND BORN IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DESCENDED FROM AFRICAN IMMIGRANTS, CLASSIFIED AND CHARACTERIZED ACCORDING TO PHYSICAL FEATURES SUCH AS SKIN TONE, HAIR TEXTURE, AND SKELETAL BUILD (I.E. NOSE, LIPS, ETC...)

It seems to me that a genocide or two was started in Africa as a result of this kind of classification.

If a person was born in america w/o those features would they still be able to claim your term? Would they have to use less of the African and more of the american? (Afamerican???)

It also seems to me that if you are really concerned about historical accuracy as it relates to naming a people, you would not use the term american (or any part of it) at all. There were groups of people here before it was called america... right?

The term African american is about claiming and making a link to a past that was stolen from us... who gives a damn what the "legal definition" is.

I have mentioned before you qoute wikipedia and wikipedia is a bad source, it's repute is not of quality.

I again am amused in the attempt to have a battle of whits, the real funny thing is you proved my point with;

"Again, as stated/quoted, AFRICAN-AMERICAN is an "_expression of an acknowledged AFRICAN heritage." It need not be specific to express that acknowledgement and the languages we know, too, (as you alluded to) are functions of CIRCUMSTANCE. It makes you such a big man to disparage that CIRCUMSTANCE to the point where you hold those upon whom the CIRCUMSTANCE was/is imposed responsible for what are essentially consequences of that CIRCUMSTANCE."

You state emphatically you are claiming an identity given, or imposed on the race by CIRCUMSTANCE, thats my point exactly.

The Afrimerican word and definition moves one from circumstances to choice.

Afrimerican doesn't deny ones African heritage, it just brings a new paradigm, it puts it, and those of African descent generations to the 100th power removed from Africa, to a here and now realistic perspective.

"You have learned well from your White Masters..."

I take it you were applying that to me, but it seems to be more a description of yourself.

You qoute the following;

"quote:
Europeans represented Africa as a dreadful place whose characteristics justified the enslavement of blacks. To blacks, Africa was no place to identify with, and many soon perceived enslavement as schooling in civilized existence. From the beginning, therefore, blacks struggled desperately for a new identity within what was presented to them as a superior and civilized European order. They aspired to become fully American, and avoided identification with the shameful and debilitating African ancestry.
Since the African homeland and identity were associated with negative qualities, blacks sought new identity and homeland within America."

First, that came from Wikipedia, which brings several tirades to mind. Number one, per your accusation, Wikipedia is definitely white supremist european centered and written, even if you, or anyone can edit, the final edit is done over by it's european administrators, thus you are qouting the "white masters" very words that are written to fuel and feed that misconstrenation. I have edited That African-American article at least 15 times, and if you read my writings in the talk section, the racism section, you'll come accross my writing them about how I put the correct factual information there and they rewrite it, reversing my points to reflect the misinformation Afrimericans have been conditioned to see as true.

I am going to go through that qoute sentence by sentence, not to convince you of your error, but for other readers that want to know the truth.

"Requote:
1."Europeans represented Africa as a dreadful place whose characteristics justified the enslavement of blacks."(That sentence represents the reasoning whites/Europeans used to justify slavery to the world outside Africa, Wikipedia edited that sentence and left out the part that they represented Africa, and Africans as dreadful, in fact the word the used to describe Africans was Heathens, and they sold the/that idea they were doing Africa, and Africans a favor by enslavement to the world, not to Africans---That reasoning and that promotion lasted three hundred + years, and it reflects a mindset that faltered as nation after nation abolished slavery in the 1600-1700--the United States was the last to abolish slavery nearly one hundred years aftr everyone else had)

2. To blacks, Africa was no place to identify with, and many soon perceived enslavement as schooling in civilized existence.( This were the ambiguity begins, of which you so adamantly uphold, the "To Blacks" is in refernce to Afrimericans, i.e. those of African descent that had been born in America and of who direct ties to Africa had long died, There was also/ still a large, newly arrived number of Africans that did identify with Afica. The Afrimericans that did not identify lost that identity for reasons stated, and by reason they knew when the slavers stole their foreparents, the slavers also destroyed all evidence of their tribe, burned the village, and built white settlements, so they basically had nothing to go back to..., per the second half of that same sentence, you selectively want to use what fits your delusion and ignore the whole, the totality of what's being said, the second half of that sentence is a twist of the first sentence taken out of context, it's a sly(lie) way to say or leads one to assume that Afrimericans wanted to be slaves. It's actually part of the reasoning they used to justify slavery to begin with, and after slavery, they started using that lie again. After the Emancipation law, Afrimericans choose to stay wherever they were, not because they wanted to be slaves, but because they didn't know what else to do, or how to do anything else, and they had nowhere to go, and no means to get there, and they were still subject to being killed on site if they went beyond certain boundaries of familiarity, thus they were in a catch-22.)

3. From the beginning, therefore, blacks struggled desperately for a new identity within what was presented to them as a superior and civilized European order.( You qouted the white supremist european lie, "From the beginning... Blacks struggle desperatedly for a new identity...",WRONG,in the beginning of slavery, and or the begininning of each Africans enslavement, they struggled desperately to hold on to their native/Africa/African born identity at the peril of death and dismemberment, until a time of generational transition took place to which the stolen African native had children , and those children had children, and the direct African connection died or was killed, when that happened, the American born descedants of African natives struggled not to have an identity, they then, like now, were given one and accpted it, and all they struggled for was to stay alive and to avoid being brutalized.)

4.They aspired to become fully American, and avoided identification with the shameful and debilitating African ancestry.(You must have missed the white supremist statement in this sentence of"...the shameful and debilitatating African Ancestry" The writer of that is saying African ancestry is/was shameful, not me,so don't try to twist me up in the lie. Also, this too is taken from a differnt period in time , specifically around 1903 through 1930+, and it began with W.E.DuBois's writing "The Talented Tenth", and it was something whites used to establish a twisted validation that Afrimericans liked and wanted subjegation. Another consideration was when Marcus Garvey began financing back to Africa trips along with the KKK, many went and came back and spoke of the horrible atrocities that were taking place there per the partitioning of Africa by all the european nations which as said before had Africa in a condition that was not welcoming because of the european violence against Africans that put what had or was happening to Afrimericans to shame for the totally barbaric brutallity taking place in Africa, again a catch-22 situation, but Afrimericans were more trying to assimilate peacefully, per that time in history(1900's) when they were American born, long estranged from Africa by centuries but still denied most American Liberties, and as said before this is of a different historical era, with different factors, and like all the rest, it has been enmeshed with other misinformation to create a mindset, or feed a mindset thats not real per chronological and fact-based order all-inclusive of variuos activities in and outside the race.)

5.Since the African homeland and identity were associated with negative qualities, blacks sought new identity and homeland within America. (Any scholar/reader of any evolved ability beyond simple literal interpretation can see statement 5. is the same as sentence 4., just rewritten in a different way, I forget what they call that, but again, it too is misnomistic, "The African homeland...", is homeland for those born there. I'm from Kansas City, Mo. so that's what I call home, if I were traveling in france, or Japan, I would call America my homeland because it's the nation where my home of birth is, my homeland. Take note of the simple mind game propogated by the use of African homeland, which should have been followed with the ethnic term African, not Black, but Black is used as a catch all term, not nativity specific, to feed the delusion already implanted as fact, African homeland is primarily, and per this dialog, specifically the homeland of a person born there, an African, the exchange of African to Black is a propganda word mind game.)

we are speaking the "white Masters" English, But there is a major difference, You use it, and quote them verbatim from the "masters" mouth, I use inductive/deductive logical dissemination of it all, the words, the history, and the intent, and see what's applicable per fact, and what's not, and I come to a fact based conclusion I find, not one given me.

Most of my notes per the qoute you used came from the top of my head based on what I know of the multi-facets of the matter, the history, the laws, and different writings, and styles of writing, what I wrote above is what I use in general conversation, which is not said to diminish you, you do that without my help, it's said to demonstrate how you used that Wikipedi B.S. as the be all, end all proof of your point, and it's not.

What you accuse me of is you, and and I created a term that is void of all this debate. I am American born, I am of African descent from Africans brought here who knows how many tens, or hundreds of years ago, I have/had been given and/or adopted various ethnic terms created by and given me by the white supremist western/european powers that be, when I found they did not legally describe or define me as an American born/native person, which I am, I created a term and definition that did.

on another level I know more about America per my life history, than I do about Africa, but if I was so adamant about having a purely African identity I would go there, I would sell all my stuff, empty my bank accounts, and move to Africa, I don't have a purely African identity, and I'm not going except to visit.

Africans in Africa call Afrimericans the lost children, and or the lost tribes...;

When the slavers went to Africa and stole the people, they also stole the land of the people they stole, they burned down the village, they killed all the elderly, and young they thought wouldn't survive the trip, they wiped out any evidence that tribe even existed, thus while many Afrimericans have an African Ancestry/descendancy, the tribe Afrimericans came from are long gone, thus it could be said we are new tribe.

I'll close with this...

If your frame. or frames of reference is wikipedia you dishonor yourself and the topic, also, many people claiming African-American use the one qoute of Malcom X using African-American, and ignore the hundreds of times he self described as Negro.

African-American, personal affinity aside, is a term the United States government defines as a person born in Africa. Period, thats fact, thats law. Contact the Census, contact the Naturalization dept, ask them, go to the nearest office and ask for the regulations on ethnic identity.

I'm done here.

To Audio guy.

Thank you. you asked good questions

I am concerned with historical accuracy to the extent much of what I've read herin is grossly inaccurate, tantamount to lies, and if one bases ones conclusions on lies, the result is another lie.

About the American comment, it is relevant to the here now facts of establishment of same, but to talk about the people here before here was America, they refer to themselves by tribe, then and now. Go join one, or go try to join one and see what happens.

Per not caring about the legal aspects, oh well, that's your right. I care, and I know from news from around the world, and from having various government and corporate associations, the legal status of every person in America matters. And even if the term doesn't fully sheild me from wharever misapplication of law they engage when they do, it gives me more to work with than handing over my citizenry by the simple usage of African-American. As a whole, things are not getting better for Afrimericans, and there is more to just Name calling that won't be discussed herein because the topic at hand seemsto be beyond comprehension so...

What I will do is share more Afrimerican Definitions.

AFRIMERICAN 3. AF/RI/ME/RI/CAN – NOUN
Definition; A member of a race of mankind born in the Americas', descended from Adam and Eve.
AFRIMERICAN 4. A/FREE/ME/CAN - VERB
Definition; A Free Me Can...

In addition...

Any definition of identity cannot exclude all those Africans of unknown African ancestry who have chosen, or may choose, to immigrate to the United States, AND then choose to become citizens.

To deny these descendants of The Atlantic Slave Trade inclusion in the defintiton of such Americans is an insult to them as well as those of us who are native-born. It is also a diminishing of us as a people to exercise such and excludion.

Georgia, Virginia, Maine, and all the other colonies were of comparable political stature as Brazil, Surinam, Columbia, Hispaniola, etc.

And for that matter, any destination in Europe, the second leg of that triangle.

All were of the same history, experience, and circumstance.

It is a kind of intra-ethnic apartheid to be exclusionary within ourselves.

UnAmerican even???

PEACE

Jim

quote:

I have mentioned before wikipedia is a bad source, it's repute is not of quality.

No worse than anything you say which has never been supported by anything but the BS that comes from your mouth. Nevertheless, especially the last quote (and most if not all) were not citations used for support or authority. You would know that if you cared to consider the context in which it was used.

The Wiki-quote was used because it captured, perhaps even authoritatively, the reason and impetus for the adoption of AFRICAN-AMERICAN and relayed the sentiment behind the adoption. Now, unless you have, oddly, a more "reputable" source that expresses the reason, motivation and impetus for the adoption of AFRICAN-AMERICAN then you absolutely have no argument. That is, you must say something RELEVANT and something that actually shows how Wikipedia was not [as] accurate in relaying the mood, reason and change from AFRO-American (or Negro, etc.) to AFRICAN-AMERICAN.

Again, Wikipedia reported:
Many Blacks began to abandon the term "Afro-American"... for "African-American" because they desired an unabbreviated expression of their African heritage.

Please cite a source, a more reputable and relevant source, that disputes that Wiki-statement. But before that, please detail what you find inaccurate or what you feel is misrepresented in that Wiki-quote. And, no, speaking Swahili, knowing one's ancestral tribe, etc. are not relevant objections/contentions. Wikipedia relayed the thinking that went behind that historical moment. Either you can illustrate how they got something confused or wrong... or you can put that "it's not reputable" BS to rest until you can figure out how to say something relevant. So far, that's been much too much of a problem for you.

Note: The ability to find something to disparage does not give (and in this case is not) reason or cause to attack the legitimacy that you obviously cannot dispute.

Were there or were there not Black people, some Black people, many Black people (also called Negro, Colored, Afro-Americans, etc.) who "desired an unabbreviated expression of their African heritage" and consequently chose AFRICAN-AMERICAN as a nomenclature to embody that expression??

What part of that is not reputable?

Unlike you, I can cite relevant sources all day:

quote:

The 1970s and 1980s gave birth to the many hyphenated terms... The Black community chose Afro-American, which had been used in writing since the beginning of the century. In an attempt to put the two components of the term on equal footing, Afro-American gave way to African-American and later African American. The hyphen was deleted as it implied the idea of a sub-category. Other suggestions did not catch on, such as AfriAmerican, AfraAmerican, Afrikan or even more creative inventions such as Afrindeur American (short for "African-Indian-European" in reference to the multiracial origins of most Black Americans) or Dobanian (short for "Descendant of Black African Natives in the American North"), which found few supporters.

African American did not gain acceptance without arousing debates, even if these disputes aroused less passion than those surrounding the change from Colored and Negro to Black. African Americans were quick to adopt the term. Problems arose with the 1990 census since many Blacks did not identify as black and added African American as a category instead. Jesse Jackson defended the new term, which he used and explained at a press conference in December 1988:

"compared to Black, African American expresses a sense of belonging to a culture and, more important, creates a bridge with the African continent. It evokes slavery and acculturation while claiming an African heritage. African American emphasizes an African Diaspora rather than an American minority."

Roughly ten years after the new name was first promoted, it is now accepted and used by all. Africa is once again part of the name of Black Americans, as if the quest for identity had ended where it began. Returning to cultural origins that should never have been renounced, Black Americans have come full circle.

http://www.africultures.com/anglais/articles_anglais/41cremieux.htm

quote:

Names for the race have been a continuing issue since Jumpstreet, 1619, when the first slave ship landed at Jamestown. From African to Colored to "negro" to Negro with the capital to Black to African American, with side trips to AfroAmerican, AfriAmerican, AfraAmerican, and Afrikan...

{{{ Hmmm... }}}

http://www.houghtonmifflinbooks.com/catalog/titledetail...t&titleNumber=681818

quote:

In one of his stage routines, comedian Richard Pryor once said that when a black American would refer to another black American as an "African," fights would break out. The same was true during different periods of American history with the terms Negro, colored and black. At one time or another, all of these terms were held in contempt by the descendants of slaves, who now refer to each other as African-American, the hyphen symbolically bridging them back to Africa. Today, the descendants of slaves embrace "African" American as the designation that best expresses not only their past, but also, their hope for the future...

The journey to "African American" has been a 300-plus-year odyssey that started with Negro, colored, black and finally, African American. "It actually started from the time we were taken as slaves", says Joe Madison, national Black Talk Radio host...

What Madison believes changed the opinion of the term "Africa" is when blacks began to define their existence...

quote:

You state emphatically you are claiming an identity given, or imposed on the race by CIRCUMSTANCE, thats my point exactly.

And you're an emphatic LIE.

YOU CAN READ. I don't have a hang-up, an Identity Crisis. You do. Again, there is no company for your misery here.

quote:

You qoute the following;

"quote:
Europeans represented Africa as a dreadful place whose characteristics justified the enslavement of blacks. To blacks, Africa was no place to identify with, and many soon perceived enslavement as schooling in civilized existence. From the beginning, therefore, blacks struggled desperately for a new identity within what was presented to them as a superior and civilized European order. They aspired to become fully American, and avoided identification with the shameful and debilitating African ancestry.
Since the African homeland and identity were associated with negative qualities, blacks sought new identity and homeland within America."

AFRImerican: First, that came from Wikipedia, which brings several tirades to mind.

And yet ANOTHER LIE.

What's your problem with what I cited with a clear citation that was not from Wikipedia??

http://www.cishsydney2005.org/images/AdelekeMT2a.doc

I mean, I cited the link to that DOC file on both pages 1 and 2 along with the quote that you now hope you can diparage with a pathetic and see-through Straw Man technique.

quote:

you are qouting the "white masters" very words that are written to fuel and feed that misconstrenation.

Silly Rabbit!!!

The quote comes from a piece written by Tunde Adeleke from the University of Montana's Department of African American Studies -- a piece entitled "Mythologizing History and Identity: Africa, Black Americans and Afrocentricity." Googled for your convenience. You can choose to OPEN the Wordpad file/document or not. But suffice it to say, you're ranting and raving about something, erroneously as you can, all because your poor little ego is crushed.

NEXT!!!

quote:

we are speaking the "white Masters" English, But there is a major difference, You use it, and quote them verbatim from the "masters" mouth, I use inductive/deductive logical dissemination of it all...

Ummm... Speaking of quotes and REQUOTES... I've yet to see a response from you to my Anti-BS, "If you were really serious..." statement:

quote:

Now, on to meatier things... Let's go to the Lincoln thing and your concept of things dictated, determined, chosen, selected and "forced" by "The White Man" aka Massa, etc., etc.

Now, you're making a name thing out to be something pretty damn big but you don't have a thing to say about how citizenship itself, let alone the overall relationship of African-Americans as a people (with the history and circumstance that produced this Name Game) to the [North] American state, is and was determined by "The White Masters", Lincoln included...

Now, it's rather ironic that you focus your attention on something much more superficial in nature (a "fitting" and original nomenclature) but seem to have no qualms with the so-called AMERICAN citizenship that was more or less "forced" of AFRICAN-Americans via the coercion of circumstance and acculturation.

I mean, no comments from you about African-Americans, even Frederick Douglas et al not being involved in some process that determined the African-American relationship and the terms of citizenship. No. It's cool to leave that stuff up to "The White Man" to determine and dictate while you strive so hard to get some cookies over a got-damn name... strictly because of your own personal IDENTITY ISSUES and crisis.

AFRI?? Your comments?
What do you have to say about my charge that your idea, your pretense is "Much More SUPERFICIAL." My charge that "if you were serious" that you would have something to say about The Terms Of Citizenship and/or the overall relationship of a people, an AFRICAN people, an AFRICAN-American people to the "American" state.

Note: Native Americans have a relationship that to the American state that goes beyond mere citizenship. Now what's your problem with trippin' over a name and an identity that has, for many if not most, been resolved or otherwise reconciled?

Simply, YOU ARE NOT SERIOUS. Don't fake like you want to talk about Things Dictated To Black People (whom you would call Afrimericans) when, by definition, your acceptance of the "American" is, itself, an acquiescense to how "American" is legally, politically or otherwise defined, not by or with input from Black people, but by your "White Masters" whom you have no apparent questions or issues with over what is and what constitutes being an "American", much less an AFRICAN American -- i.e. a virtual kidnapped and subject(ed) people.

Again, nothing from you decrying how "The White Masters" determined and dictated The Terms Of Citizenship. Instead, you want to disparage Black Identity because of your own PERSONAL ISSUES even as you echo BS that comes from the mouth of so many White Americans, etc.

After this short exercise, it is clear that it is YOU who needs "to consider how you are not as qualified to hold discourse on this matter." I mean, when I cite a reference twice and you, with some uncontrollable urge to disparage, willfully attribute the quote to the wrong source (Wikipedia), thinking you have shown how Wikipedia is not credible... then you have shown yourself ill-equipped and desperate. You have shown you don't have the stuff to step inside this arena where it takes more than just a premise and assorted rhetorical themes to make a case.

Seriously? WHY DID YOU LIE??
Why would you LIE about something that's easy to dispute (and for you, Mr. Research, easy to verify) by merely going back to place where the quote was first listed??

It's really sad. It shows you're pretty sad to have that much ego invested that you would even dare to try to perpetrate a fraud and falsehood so easily dispelled.

FYI... I cited that quote you wrongfully attributed to Wikipedia, complete with the actual hyperlink TWICE:

Posted December 24, 2005 07:09 AM

Posted December 24, 2005 04:24 PM

The quote, as I listed it (TWICE) appears like so:

quote:

Two critical issues have historically dominated discourses on the future of black Americans: identity and homeland. Who is the black American? Where is her/his homeland? The foundation of these questions is rooted in slavery and racism; institutions built on the de-Africanization of black consciousness, that is, the devaluation of Africa, and denial to Africans of a tradition of history, culture and civilization. Africa was the "Dark Continent," inhabited by barbarians. Slaves were thus socialized with what Samuel DuBois Cook called a "tragic conception" of their history. They were raised with negative images of Africa. Europeans represented Africa as a dreadful place whose characteristics justified the enslavement of blacks. To blacks, Africa was no place to identify with, and many soon perceived enslavement as schooling in civilized existence. From the beginning, therefore, blacks struggled desperately for a new identity within what was presented to them as a superior and civilized European order. They aspired to become fully American, and avoided identification with the shameful and debilitating African ancestry.

Since the African homeland and identity were associated with negative qualities, blacks sought new identity and homeland within America.

http://www.cishsydney2005.org/images/AdelekeMT2a.doc

Exactly how did you miss that? Exactly why would you want to LIE about that?

Also, again, WHERE ARE YOUR SOURCES?
VOX posed 1 of 4 questions to you, that one (#3) being specifically about you quoting sources to support what you've said. And you've failed.

quote:

3) Provide any evidence, links, books (not written by you) that support your claim that Lincoln came up with the name African-American, or that the census used that term to denote blacks during the 19th century.

Not that it's relevant to anything I've had to say or even my references to the Wikipedia quote... but it would substantiate your unsupported claim(s) if you actually practiced what you try to preach or rather demonstrated the authenticity and/or authority you claim Wikipedia lacks. And whenever you get through... you can actually detail how what I quoted from Wikipedia was actually wrong instead your self-absorbed little character assasination of Wikipedia which is neither here nor there - i.e. says nothing about the veracity of what was quoted. The question, again, is:

Were there or were there not Black people, some Black people, many Black people (also called Negro, Colored, Afro-Americans, etc.) who "desired an unabbreviated expression of their African heritage" and consequently chose AFRICAN-AMERICAN as a nomenclature to embody that expression??

quote:

I'm done here.

Don't quit now. I'm just getting started.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Nmaginate,

____________________________________________

http://nquest2xl.wordpress.com/

quote:

Originally posted by Afrimerican:
I am concerned with historical accuracy to the extent much of what I've read herin is grossly inaccurate, tantamount to lies, and if one bases ones conclusions on lies, the result is another lie.

The term america is a lie... So the basis of your argument must also be so - according to your logic.

quote:

...Go join one, or go try to join one and see what happens.

I know a few people of African descent, who were accepted quite readily by various "tribes". I am not quite sure what you are getting at.

quote:

Per not caring about the legal aspects, oh well, that's your right. I care, and I know from news from around the world, and from having various government and corporate associations, the legal status of every person in America matters. And even if the term doesn't fully sheild me from wharever misapplication of law they engage when they do, it gives me more to work with than handing over my citizenry by the simple usage of African-American. As a whole, things are not getting better for Afrimericans, and there is more to just Name calling that won't be discussed herein because the topic at hand seemsto be beyond comprehension so...

Legal aspects are unimportant because white folks have been known to change the law in order to accommodate their needs - without regard for the legal status of those who are impacted...

quote:

What I will do is share more Afrimerican Definitions.

AFRIMERICAN 3. AF/RI/ME/RI/CAN – NOUN
Definition; A member of a race of mankind born in the Americas', descended from Adam and Eve.
AFRIMERICAN 4. A/FREE/ME/CAN - VERB
Definition; A Free Me Can...

You are just makin' shit up. How can you expect anyone to take you seriously??

I gave you more credit for having more sense than you do/deserve.

According to you the term America is a lie, which would mean, the nation thus called, officially, is non existent. While it may have been called something else 200,300, 400 years ago, as a result of various wars, treatise, theiveries, America is very much in existence today...what planet are YOU on.

In the here and now, America is.

Per the "tribe " reference, the discussion was about the native tribes of/in America, the Cherokee, the Blackfoot, etc...,you jumped from them to African tribes (in a subtle subversive covert manner) when you can't prove your point,and these native American tribes as they are called in general have a procedure of inclusion most Afrimericans can't pass, and even with African tribes, sure you can go join various African tribes, most you can't. And depending on what African lineage they attribute to you, they may kill you.

As far as the legal aspects being unimportant, if you live in America what you can and cannot do is by legal decree in same way or another, and laws can be effective in the interest of Afrimericans which is why we don't have to sit in the back of the bus, or go to the backdoor of a restuarant to eat, the legal aspect is important, but if you don't think so that's your choice.

As for the person that said they were not qouting from Wikipedia, you are, and may not even know it. Wikipedia articles are carried on over 100 sites.

In any case it's ancient history, old news, which, while having meaning, it has very little direct bearing on the here and now.

I have a question. if you are so adamant about being African why don't you live in Africa, why are you here? If you do live in Africa, why does my suggestion anger you so.

As a psychology major treating mentally ill persons one of the first things we are taught is to recognize and accept that the patient is going react and exhibit signs of denial in various ways when presented with truths that question a belief system they've had that they thought was real.

The main disenters here to what I've written prove my point, and then shroud it with denial. It's ironic because the two reputable sources given to investigate have been ignored for some, he said, she said mumbo jumbo from people who are caught up in the Matrix too, and while you drop names, I can't say I'm impressed because non of the names mentioned have brought anything new to the table, I have, and I am just as important as any name dropped, thus I leave you with your faulty ideologies until such time as you evolve to a higher intelligence.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Afrimerican,

quote:

Originally posted by Afrimerican:
I gave you more credit for having more sense than you do/deserve.

Insults will not bolster your argument.

quote:

According to you the term America is a lie, which would mean, the nation thus called, officially is non existent. While it may have been called something else 200,300, 400 years ago, as aresult of various wars, treatise, theiveries, America is much in existence...what planet are YOU on.

Here and Now America is what it is.

Be that as it may, it is still based upon lies... which, according to an argument that you presented;

"I am concerned with historical accuracy to the extent much of what I've read herin is grossly inaccurate, tantamount to lies, and if one bases ones conclusions on lies, the result is another lie.

-Afrimerican

makes any premise that you give, on the basis of the term "america", invalid.

quote:

per the "tribe " suggestion, the discussion was about the native tribes in America, the Cherokee, the Blackfoot, etc...,.

I understood what "tribes" you were referring to... maybe you have heard of the Seminole Nation??

quote:

...you jump from one to ther when you can't prove your point, and even with African tribes, sure you can go join various African tribes, most you can't. And depending on what African lineage they attribute to you they may kill you...

What are you talking about??

quote:

As far as the legal aspects being unimportant, if you live in America what you can and cannot do is by legal decree in same way or another, and laws can be effective in the interest of Afrimericans which why we don't have to sit in the back of the bus, or go to the backdoor of a restuarant to eat, the legal aspect is important, but if you don't think so that's your choice.

Again, using the term African as a part of one's self description has nothing to do with legality and everything to do with identity. People who are irish, no matter where they are born, are irish. People who are chinese, no matter where they are born, are chinese... The same applies to Africans.

quote:

I have a question. if you are so adamant about being African why don't you live in Africa, why are you here?

I do not live in Africa because it would cause a great deal of distress for members of my family, to whom I am very close and I respect - otherwise I would be there...

quote:

The term america is a lie... So the basis of your argument must also be a LIE.

Not only is the White Man's ice colder but the White Man's LIE must be sweeter to the ears and so much more truer, Whiter (and therefore, not really a lie at all) than any Black "lie."

It never ceases to amaze me how people can talk about the impreciseness of some terms while [WHITE] PRIVILEGING terms that are also not 100% Adequate/Accurate. And it's always looks rather ignorant for someone to claim they have problems with the AFRICAN in African-American while they have no such elaborate concocted rationales against the AMERICAN in African-American which is problematic and imprecise much like the term "AFRICAN" is.

quote:

I care, and I know from news from around the world, and from having various government and corporate associations, the legal status of every person in America matters. And even if the term doesn't fully sheild me from wharever misapplication of law they engage when they do, it gives me more to work with than handing over my citizenry by the simple usage of African-American.

Two things there...

[1] AFRImerican "The LaughEEmerican" (How's that for Name-Calling!? ) keeps talking about "Legal Status" but has never and will never produce information that details how the adoption of the term-name "Afrimerican" will change the "Legal Status" (and hence the relationship) of AFRICAN-Americans with the "American" state; aka the United States.

AFRI also has not referenced what our current legal status as "African-Americans" is, the "status" category it falls under now, as to contrast it with the prospective "status" AFRIMERICAN would afford us. For example, there was a clear legal status issue and question over Katrina survivors. Legally, there was reason to consider the wisdom of whether Katrina survivors were considered "refugees" vs. "evacuees" or internally displaced persons, etc.

With all his talk AFRI, however, has never even alluded to how "Afrimerican" would amount to an actual change in legal status. And like the "refugee" thing, there are, no doubt, legal status terms/definitions that can be referenced. Instead, at best, AFRI is "just making shit up" to make it appear as if he has a reason and argument FOR the name "Afrimerican" when all he really has is a weak argument AGAINST African-American. Again, contrary to what he tried to pawn off on others (me) here, he is the one ill-equipped and grossly under-qualified to hold discourse on this type of topic. I mean, at the very least, he could have long since referenced any number of UN Conventions on Human/Cultural Rights, etc. But, per usual for his type, nothing but the most vague and empty allusions are made...

[2] We've already mentioned the "citizen" thingy... Apparently, having the Terms Of Citizenship Dictated & Determined By, For and Of WHITE PEOPLE is another one of those WHITE PRIVELEGES. Not only is "America" to go untouched and unexamined in this supposed Identity Terms scrutiny but the White "Right" to establish the Terms Of Citizenship must not be questioned... apparently. And we've (I've) mentioned that too, of course with no response from Mr. You-Have-Been-Conditioned.

It's the penetrating contrast that Malcolm X made highlighting the difference between...
Civil Rights [i.e. *citizenship* "rights" and privileges] and Human Rights [i.e. universal, inalienable rights]:

quote:

Whenever you are in a civil-rights struggle, whether you know it or not, you are confining yourself to the jurisdiction of Uncle Sam.

No one from the outside world can speak out in your behalf as long as your struggle is a civil-rights struggle. Civil rights comes within the domestic affairs of this country. All of our African brothers and our Asian brothers and our Latin-American brothers cannot open their mouths and interfere in the domestic affairs of the United States. And as long as it's civil rights, this comes under the jurisdiction of Uncle Sam.

But the United Nations has what's known as the charter of human rights, it has a committee that deals in human rights.

...The Negro problem is never brought before the UN. This is part of the conspiracy. This old, tricky, blue eyed liberal who is supposed to be your and my friend, supposed to be in our corner, supposed to be subsidizing our struggle, and supposed to be acting in the capacity of an adviser, never tells you anything about human rights. They keep you wrapped up in civil rights. And you spend so much time barking up the civil-rights tree, you don't even know there's a human-rights tree on the same floor.

When you expand the civil-rights struggle to the level of human rights, you can then take the case of the black man in this country before the nations in the UN. You can take it before the General Assembly. You can take Uncle Sam before a world court. But the only level you can do it on is the level of human rights.

Civil rights keeps you under his restrictions, under his jurisdiction. Civil rights keeps you in his pocket.

Civil rights means you're asking Uncle Sam to treat you right. Human rights are some thing you were born with. Human rights are your God given rights. Human rights are the rights that are recognized by all nations of this earth...

It's just too funny how those who huff and puff the most (selling Wolf Tickets) never take the time to examine their underlying assumptions and always fail to subject the very things that form the basis and foundation for their position (in this case "America" and, by extension and clear reference, "American" - i.e. predetermined by somebody else - CITIZENSHIP) to the same scrutiny that want to apply to the things that draws their ire or criticizing attention.

quote:

I have a question.
If you are so adamant about being African why don't you live in Africa, why are you here?

How come this sounds remarkably like something someone White would say?

"America! Love It or Leave It!"

Funny how you're talking about how have the nerve to come to this forum and decry the reception you've received here but, somehow, even though you really wanted to... you just couldn't follow your own advice (of sorts) and just LEAVE!!

But more importantly, you actually tried fake like you were cool with the AFRICAN when we knew you were not:

As to why I used AFRI, well I know what African means, and I know I am far, far, far, far removed from that aesthetic, but I still have part of it [The AFRICAN], if not consciously, then genetically, (genetic memory), and I choose those letters to represent I am part African and I choose the remaining letters to represent I am part American, and to together, these letters make a new word, that represents a new paradigm in Afrimericans existence and position, and self/ethnic Identity.

Now, was that NOT an "adamant" declaration? Or were you faking the whole time?

I mean, it makes it rather clear by your questioning ("If you're adamant about being "AFRICAN"...? - I'm like weren't you, too? In part?) that the purpose of your comment there and your overall position is as Sunnubian described in my thread:

quote:

This 'afrimerican' is merely just another Black person in America of African Descent (African American) that wants to disassociate himself and his anscestry with Africa or being African, which I might add is the reason for a lot of African Americans contiually insisting on being merely called 'Black.'

Given that that is the demonstrable case, WHY DID YOU LIE or otherwise fake like you wanted to acknowledge the AFRICAN part in you when obviously have some serious issues when someone, AUDIO-G in this case, wants to express their AFRICAN side?

Why is it that you have to LIE TO YOURSELF and everybody else about the true source of your ISSUES here? No one is confused, deceived or otherwise fooled by what it is that drives your ISSUES -- this YOUR Identity Crisis.

Just come straight out and say what Sunnubian put into words for you and stop trying to Fake The Funk. Stop trying to misappropriate the rhetoric and themes of "AFRICANS" (aka "Blackness") as you try to shield your self-imposed, self-torment over YOUR Identity Issues and how you will do any and everything to get as far, far, far, far... so far away from The AFRICAN as you possibly can. Perhaps you should take the suggestion offered to our resident Identity "ISSUES" member, James Wesley Chester:

quote:

Why don't you just pass? The fact that you probably look black shouldn't matter. It's just a mere coincidence of fact that you can ignore - like all the others. You create these elaborate neurotic justifications to distance yourself from the place of your ancestry... Being black in America must really really hurt you.

As respectfully as I can say this, I feel sorry for you.

And even more direct to the uber ignorance about the multitude of "tribes" and African cultural/ethnic diversity, etc... from that same Black Identity and Unitythread:

quote:

You can't "know" which "ones" [tribes] specifically, our specific individual ancestors came from. But we know logically that they came from any & all nationalities that slaves were brought here from. We can't hyphenate a dozen-odd different African ethnicities, so we can distill all of them into "African." I fail to understand the difficulty in grasping (or... accepting??) that.

I do believe a new ethnicity began here, consisting of us, that we can place on par with the Ewe and the Igbo. But I don't understand why we can't all be "black," and why we can't cull some unity from the fact of our Africanness.

For an interesting look back at some of the numberous "Identity" threads, here are a few:

Are You An "African in America"?

Ancestral Nationality: African America

Black and White

On a side note? AFRI? Did you ever tell us what the original definition of AFRICA was/is?? (Sunny? Without Cold? "The Land of *AFRI*? Derived from Leo Africanus?) I must have missed it and I've never knew why it was relevant. It's not like you've come up with a wholly original term (at least in appearance) like the Rastarfarian "AKEBULAN."

Anyway... Since I've linked to Wikipedia yet again... Here's a little nugget for your "They're not credible" pleasure:

Wikipedia vs Brittanica is a close call, research finds

A study by the science journal Nature found the online encyclopaedia [Wikipedia]
to be close to Encyclopædia Brittanica in its accuracy...