|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
A1 |
I'm probably not understanding you, but it seems that the hyphen is a means to somehow distance yourself from your perception of your African identity? Help me understand!
 I'm starting here because is very important to be clear. I AM NOT TRYING TO DISTANCE MYSELF FROM ANY PART OF MY AFRICAN ANCESTRY. Back to the top: Yes. Yes. Yes. But there is distinction. "African" in African American more than just modifies "American." It combines with "American" to identify the person as person of "African America." Example: North Dakotan. North certainly modifies Dakota. But more importantly the two combined tells you the person is from/of a place called North Dakota. North is certainly the type of Dakotan, but that is incidental to the designation of place. North Dakota. This is why I had to add "American." Without that hyphenation, it is not clear that the kind of American is not African, but African American. It says the person/I am not simply an American who is African, but an American who is African American. An African American-American. The ethnicity is "African American." Thus, the hyphen establishing parity with all other ancestral nationalities. The difference is hugh. With the hyphen, the language of American society says the person's ethnicity, be it religion, ancestral nationality, etc is the descriptor preceding the hyphen. An African American is a person from/of African America. An African-American is a person from/of Africa. The first is ancestral nationality and heritage. An immediate connector. The second is ancestral origin. We are the only people on earth with the distinction. That break of heritage with origin does not seem to occur anywhere else I have looked. And I've looked a lot. The African American circumstance is an anomaly in the pattern world society. Our ethnicity does describe type of American we are i.e. African American is the type of American (we are.) (to use your pronoun. I am not telling anyone they have to do as I do, be as I be.) I was "thrown" by having to use "American" twice. It was to my mind to accept the repetition. I continued to have the difficulty until I became clear in my mind that the entity is African America. My conclusion is that we are Americans of African ancestry. It would seem to be the same as Americans who are of Italian ancestry. But to be the same those Americans who have to identify themselves as being of "European" ancestry. We have had to (until now) had to substitute a continent for the ancestral nationality taken from us. If they have no connection to Italy, why don't they identify themselves as European American. The answer is they don't because the KNOW they more than simply European. They are Americans of European ancestry, AND more specifically, Italian ancestry. Which would you use? Time here has nothing to do with ancestral nationality. Our circumstance has nothing to do with time either. Our's is about denial. Not plugging that "hole" leaves us only with the Africa of our ancestry. No ancestral nationality. The only one's who can plug that hole is us. How each of us does that determines the completeness of that identity. Which brings me/us back to the hyphen. The hyphen has to be between the two "Americans." And believe me I know it sounds and feels wierd. But consider "Negro". Consider "Colored." I am clear about the kind of American I am. That's why I was so taken with the title of board. African American.org. It can't get any better than that. PEACE Jim Chester You are who you say you are. Your children are who you say you are. |
|||
|
Founder |
I'm going to break up my responses to make sure that I focus on specific points.
quote: Aren't you interchanging ethnicity and geography when the two are not parallel? Saying that someone is North Dakotan references their location. IMO it does not reference their ethnicity. In your example the "North" is an adjective clarifying geography alone. There may be distinct North and South Dakotan cultures, but I see this as entirely separate from ethnicity - from terms like African American or Jewish American. I can be African American, but live in East Timor. Saying that I am African American does not necessarily indicate that I am "of" anywhere, just where my roots are. that is less than the one you are capable of living. - Mandela |
|||
|
|
Founder |
James, I know you hold these concepts very dear to you. I'm probing so I can better understand them. Please understand that my questions and comments are offered with all due respect to you and your freedom to identify yourself in any way that makes sense to you!
Paragraph 2 quote: I don't understand this. First, in your view, who is an "American" - warranting no adjective in front? Since we've done a great job of eradicating most of the "Native" Americans, doesn't everyone need a descriptor to most accurately define themselves? Aren't we a nation of immigrants? If we feel the need to define ourselves beyond "American", how is African different from any other ethnic or national or religious descriptor that every American would use? quote: Listen to your words applied exactly to another ethnicity. "I am not simply an American who is Italian, but an American who is Italian American. An Italian American-American." James, does that make sense? Why? If not, what is it about the Italian American that makes their ethnicity suffice just being "Italian American"? If your response has to do with nationality and parity, what does that have to do with ethnicity - which is a wholly different, although perhaps related, subject? IMO, black people in America are as "African" as Italian Americans are "Italian". Do you agree or disagree with that? IMO, the fact that we embrace a continent versus a country is irrelevant. What difference does it make? We all embrace the closest and most meaningful geographic descriptor that we can. If accuracy drives your thinking, again - it is far more accurate to say one is a New Yorker than an American. James, why aren't you an "African Pennsylvanian American"? Further, honestly, I'm having a lot of trouble with your contention about "convention". In your mind there must be something special about nationality. What is it? Honestly, if feels like its an insecurity about our inability to identify a specific nation. To that I say, who cares? I'm glad to be able to embrace an entire continent! Who else can do that (other than the Aussies! )quote: Again, this parity concept. Why, in your mind, is identity comprised of an ethnic and geographic descriptor? Why stop there? There are so many other meaningful ways that people describe themselves: son of God, father, male, son, athlete, business person, etc. PLUS - even with your convention, we still have no nationality to really embrace in a parallel way to others. Is "African American-American" really the same as "Italian American"? Really? Do you ever travel from African America to America? |
|||
|
|
Founder |
quote: Are you saying this literally? Where exactly is "African America"? What is its capital? Who is its president? What is its currency? quote: If this is true, why are you ignoring the presence of the word "America"? Isn't a person from/of Africa called an "African"? quote: 1) "ancestral nationality and heritage" 2) "ancestral origin" quote: James, isn't the break of "heritage with origin" precisely what every American communicates when they say they are "Italian American" or whatever they may be? Depending on semantics, isn't Tony Sopranos' heritage Italian and origin American? Isn't my heritage African and origin American? quote: Italian American is the type of American Tony Soprano is, yet he doesn't need the additional American behind that. Why? quote: Entity? In what sense? How does that entity differ from any other community within America? quote: quote: James, so what? Do you understand that the convention for most Asians is to identify with that continent? They are Asians or "Asian Americans". I live in Seattle, a city with a large Asian population and I rarely hear the specific nationality communicated, or if I do its after the broader descriptor. For example, "I'm Asian, Japanese". Is this wrong? quote: James, you use what is most meaningful to you. History has caused "African" to be most meaningful to us. If others choose to identify with other identities, God bless them! Who cares? quote: Denial?  quote: James, you're doing so artificially though. You are so fixated on convention, yet you create your own to try to identify yourself. Can you see this? What other people identify themselves in the way that you do? I've already offered an example of how Asians identify themselves precisely as we do. that is less than the one you are capable of living. - Mandela |
|||
|
|
A2 |
When I find a tall, handsome Massai Warrior or that handsome dude who walked along side that panther in the Janet Jackson video, years back, walking up in Norland's house, and I "snag" one of those men and he gives ME his last name legally, I'll consider myself an African American. Until that time, so many Misters have stepped up to the African Diaspora to conceive us; just call yourself "African Diluted". Only the European remains PURE. Ask him!! It's a trick I haven't figured out yet.
|
|||
|
|
A1 |
I need to learn how to put neat quotes in my posts like you do. It facilitates the response so much better.
You mentioned in you earlier post that I seem to place some importance on ancestral nationality, and not being able to identify that place in Africa. You are right. I do. It's not so much angst about not being able to located that place in Africa. I started this search because my grandchildren were coming hone with stories of being told they "biracial, "and "multicultural." These terms were being used identify them. They weren't simply "black". Their dual parentage was being recognized as a part of identity. My grandchildren are asking me, "What is it?" It was then I realized how ill-equipped I was. I was actually little better informed than my parents had been. That disturbed me greatly. I was "Black" with capital "b." I was African American, with apprehension. I was "Black" because of a decision my wife and made in the late 1960s. She stronly rebelled at being called "black.' she still resents it, although she uses it. The apprehension was attached to using "African American" because was aware of the euphemistic character of the term knowing it was being forced into the language of society to gain identity in the manner all other Americans declared their identity, e.g. German-American, Welsh-American. I had been challenged since my teen years as to who/what I was. "Jim, are you folks Welsh? Chester is Welsh you know. Are you Welsh?" They would ask with a wry smile. I would say, "No." Sometimes I would shoot back, "Do I look Welsh?" They would laugh. Occasionslly, someone, white, would explain that he knew/understood how I got my name for the slaveowners of my family. Which shamed me more. Then in 1999. After the first incident with my grandchildren, I learned that my family was never owned by anyone named Chester. And that no one knows where it came from. I always viewed "African American" as the latest manifestation of being "in the funk", the desparation of "not knowing." It was a euphemism. The latest act of desparation to gain foundation, a grounding. All immigrants to this country have that "grounding" except us. For reasons we all know. We are without it nonetheless. I/we embraced "African American." It was better to us than claiming our color as our identity. To us that was "dialing in" to the system that has bound us from the beginning. Which indeed was created to bind us. However, we observed the social convention, and acknowledged both. Ancestral nationality is method of identity, the convention of not only American society, but every society I know of. Jews being the occasional exception. I say occasional because they will, if pressed, invoke the nationality of the Jewish Diaspora, e.g. Polish, Russian, Hungrian, etc. I am saying that there is a place that is delineated for African of unknown African ancestry. And this post is going to be much too long, but there is not place to stop. Its capital is Washington, D.C. Its president is the President of the United States, Its currency is the dollar. African America is the suzerain entity created by the founders in the process of writing the rules of law, 1789, for the new republic. Literally, African America is wherever America is. African America is valid wherever America is valid. African America is as real as America is real. In going back to look for you next quote, I see there are several postings. The reference to North Dakota was to compare language. I think you knew that. Surely, you are milking the issue. With a hyphen In place "African-American says a person is from/of Africa. This is about language. It is true in the same manner that an "Italian-American" is from/of Italy. I think I said that as the context of that excerpt. The term "Italian-American" absolutely does not connote a "break." The hegemony of our society says such terminology is used to indicate the ancestral nationality of the user, or referred person. I also think you know that. You are being sneaky in the next quote. Trying to trick me are you? You dropped the hyphen. Tsk! Tsk! But I'll play your game. In our society the two words "Italian" and "American" are never used together WITHOUT a hyphen. If you have examples, please show them. I have to leave for breakfast. It's 7:30. I'll be back. (as Auhnold says) You are who you say you are. Your children are who you say you are. |
|||
|
|
A1 |
MBM:
Item: The Dakota example was about language and the prevailing use of the hyphen. Not ethnictiy. Item: I'll accept "where my roots are." I understand the point of your discussion. I also have a problem that comes with identity. How do I do it without using second-person pronouns. Otherwise it might seem that I am imposing my decision on others. It's sort of like the "born again Christian" when ask whether everyone who is not a "born again" Christian going to hell. What do you say? Item: An "American" is any person who is of native-born, or naturalized citizenship. Item: African is different because: 1. Continent of origin is typically used to describe Asians. That's geography not ethnicity. 2. You will notice you didn't list "continent" as a descriptor. I think is more than simply not wanting to continue the list. South America, Central America, North America, Antarctica are rarely used to describe a kind of "American." 3. Africans who are immigrant to America typically claim their ancestral nationality when they gain citizenship. They say "African American" to accommodate our convention. 4. If we feel the need to define ourselves beyond "American" our distinction is "African American" rather than "African." Wouldn't you agree that there is collision in language when a person newly immigrated from African is the same "African American" as a person is descendant for generations of native-born Americans. If that person is African what is the distinction from the native-born group. None? If you wish, I suppose. You are who you say you are. I say there is a distinction. That distinction enables me to have identity unique to me, and people like me. Item: The African American (no hyphen)construction does not apply to any other ethnicity, or ancestral nationality. Little Italy, Chinatown, Germantown, Little Viet Nam, etc is/are sociologically different from the circumstance of African America. You are playing the game of omitting the hyphen to say it is like African American. Remembering this is about language, there is no societal language using the two words "Italian" and "American" without a hyphen. If you know of such construction please give an example. Item: I disagree that "black" people in America are as "African" as Italian-Americans (you did that hyphen thing again) are "Italian." Italian-Americans (with the hyphen) are citing their ancestral nationality. But if you want the two to be at parity, please feel free. If that substitution happens logically in your mind, claim it. To me it is without logic. Not without reason, bacause the reason belongs to you. But it is without logic. Item: I think I just answered this. Item: It is insecurity about our inability to specify a specific nation. And everyone, you as well as, is allowed to say, "Who cares?" Many didn't care about being called "Negro." Many didn't care about being called "Colored." I didn't, in either case. And you are wrong about the "Aussies" being the only ones who can claim a continent. In fact, every people can claim an entire continent. With the "Aussies", however, the continent is their nation. Huh??? Italians, of every description, can claim Europe. They simply prefer to claim Italy. It's closer. It's personal. It's their family. It's their heritage. And you should care. As Americans of unknown African ancestry, we are somewhat limited in our options. Some of us opted for the continent. Some opted for color. Some opted for both. I opted for both and discovered, to my extreme pleasure, that I had the option of ancestral nationality as well. In the process of shaping power for themselves our European founding fathers delineaated a place for Americans of unknown African ancestry. It is quite specific. It is wherever America is. It is as real as America is real. Didn't I say this earlier? I think so. Item: I'll skip that part where you want to attach a list of descriptors. You can do that if it helps you. Item: I do travel from African America to America. sometimes I take you with me. Item: No. the hyphenated "American" is not about breaking, but rather combining, claiming. Your heritage is whatever you say it is. Your origin is wherever you say it is. Item: For entity, I refer you to the dictionary. Pick the definition you like. Some your sequenced items, I am skipping because they've been answered. Item: Artificial? Of course. What other people identity themselves in the way you do? Michael, go to the map of the world. Take you pick. Throw a dart. Every detemination of identity is arbitrary!! Do think God did it? You are invoking God in other place in this discussion. Do you really think identity is about an thing other than self-declaration. You surprise me. Identity is inherently man-made. You are who you say you are. Your children are who you say you are. |
|||
|
|
Founder |
James, first, I assure you that I haven't attempted to "trick" you in any way. I think you referenced that somewhere. I'm just exploring the basis of your ideas here. Nothing more. Frankly, I find your thinking fascinating and merely want to try to understand it fully.
Second, I thought about this and want to try to summarize in effort to focus the discussion. It seems that your objective with this is to reach some kind of "identity parity" with others who have a nation of origin that they can ultimately call home in addition to America. Yes? If that's so - this is where I end up on the issue as I write this. "national" identities. That's just reality and we have to come to grips with that. Even if one agrees to your parity idea, there is no way to apply that condition to us in this way. I am perfectly fine with that fact however. That fact harms me in absolutely no way. It may sadden me - that I don't know more about my African history - but it diminishes me in no way! Further, I'm not sure that nationalities even existed in Africa when we many of us left there in the way that you are conceiving of them. You are applying a 19th century concept to 17th and 18th century events. That is - didn't we leave before most of the existing nations (in current form) were created? Now, of course, ethnicities and tribal groups etc. existed for millenia before. If anything, shouldn't we be trying to attach ourselves to those? IMO, we are Americans who are African. Despite the fact that we have to combat both our ignorance about the details of our history PLUS the mighty scourge of white racism that makes us want to abdicate our Africaness: our heritage is clear and African. We are Americans who are of African heritage. Please help me understand how we could be anything but that. IMO the only difference between an African who comes here on 2003 versus one that came here in 1703 is time. IMO time has no bearing on our ethnicity. that is less than the one you are capable of living. - Mandela |
|||
|
|
A1 |
Item: I've answered the Asian thing. Twice I think. And discussed personal choice always being the preferred way.
Item: Michael, my post was about language. I wasn't trying to impose my will. What does "If others choose to identify with othe identities, God bless them! Who cares?" What does that mean? A simple comment on language became a quite interesting discussion of.... something. But it was good. It is always interesting to see where identity and the language of identity takes us. I would hate to have such a discussion on that other site you guys visit. PEACE Jim Chester You are who you say you are. Your children are who you say you are. |
|||
|
|
Founder |
quote: Tony Soprano may have come here in the 1800s, while Guiseppe Provenzano may have just passed his citizenship yesterday. Are they both not Italian Americans? that is less than the one you are capable of living. - Mandela |
|||
|
|
Founder |
quote: Google has 194,000 examples of entries listing "Italian American". Here's but one example: The National Italian American Foundation Moreover, you seem to be stressing now that this is just about language. Well its not. Language merely expresses ideas of the people that use it. This is about identity. It's about embracing an identity that is meaningful. that is less than the one you are capable of living. - Mandela |
|||
|
|
A1 |
"Without regard to your intentions, suggesting that we are "African American-American" does, IMO, distance oneself from their African identity. It says that my heritage is "African American" when in reality that's only the most recent part of the story! It seems to consider only the history of our families and people since arriving in America. James, our families have been around for thousands of years prior to our cruise here. The fact that we may be ignorant of that history has no bearing on this fact. Just because we've lost touch with our thousands/millions of years history of our families does not give us the right to look only at the last couple of hundred in defining ourselves. Does that make sense?" -- Michael
Yes. I agree with all those facts. I've read almost all of your current post which I discovered as I was signing off. I think it's great you don't need the things you listed. I find nothing wrong with that. I certainly wouldn't challenge any part of it. It is personal choice. I have a friend who insists to the point of anger that she is a "Negro." She states, adamantly, "I am not African American. I am not "black." I am a Negro." I always find it funny she never, ever says, "I am Negro." It's always "a Negro." I don't know what going on in her head. My driving force is to protect my family. I see Multiculturalism as the threat. My concern is have my grandchildren be able to defeat the protocols that would diminish them. I do know that the basis of my conclusion is correct, and documented. Your discussion is tremendously appreciated. No one else, but a person who shares my heritage, could challenge my position in such a way. Great. I'll leave you, for now, with this. With all the points to resolve, you never challenged the validity of my conclusions about the creation and development of African America. And by the way, why didn't you put a hyphen in your site's URL??? I'm glad you didn't. I might never have stopped to look. PEACE Jim Chester You are who you say you are. Your children are who you say you are. |
|||
|
|
Founder |
quote: Well, I wonder how many people here would agree with you equating the term "Negro" with "African American"? That respectfully makes me chuckle a bit. quote: Language will not defeat them. Language is a function of thinking and behavior. Does creating a "protocol" of your own achoeve your objective? quote: quote: I'm not understanding you here. I did, however suggest that it does not exist in the political way that you say. "African America" is not a nationality in the way that "Italian" is. The country of Italy creates the foundation for there to be an Italian nationality. Of course there is also an Italian ethnicity (which of course actually preceded the nation). "African American" is an ethnicity IMO, but not a nationality. quote: IMO there is no difference. Using a hyphen or not using a hyphen does not change the meaning of the words. that is less than the one you are capable of living. - Mandela |
|||
|
|
A1 |
Michael:
She doesn't see herself "equating" one with the other. She looks upon "African American" with great disdain, if not disgust!! And she means it. Don't believe the old adage of "sticks and stones". Words are what was/is used to steal our identity. O.k. backed up by force. But, after a while, no force was needed. And we adopted those words to continue the subjugation into our progeny. Just words, and of course, the fear of chastisement by European America. Achieving a protocol of my own does, indeed, achieve my objective. I give every teacher, and the chief administrator of the facility where my grandchild attends a copy of my book. I tell them what African America is. That my granchildren are African American-Americans. That if they must refer to them in class as "multicultural" or "biracial" it should be explained to the class, each time it is used and at that time, that those terms are not WHO my grandchildren are, but rather WHAT they are. I'm told the teachers opt to not use the terminology rather than go through the "drill" of explanation. I was recently invited to be on one of the institutions' advisory boards, but for other reasons. I'm currently working on a local "diversity institute" financed by local business and industry. There's a dinner on the 16th. I cited the U.S. Constitution for creation of the containment for Americans of unknown African ancestry. Do think that is right or wrong? For it is my contention that the containment (THE PLACE) was what has been developed by my ancestors, and yours of course, into that the place called African America. Hey! I like the URL with no hyphen. For me it is the difference between knowing and not knowing. I know you would say, "Caring and not caring." P.S About "Asia American": I do not believe the people from Asian nations elected to call themselves "Asian-American as their identity. That term originated as one the protocols of Multiculturalism. It enabled all the people from that continent to "lumped" together for the convenience of categorizing. So "Asian American" is not about identity. It is about "what" like "black" and "biracial" and "multicultural." It is a term that is about the language of race, color, and geography used by the protocols of Multiculturalism. PEACE Jim Chester You are who you say you are. Your children are who you say you are. |
|||
|
B2 |
In Africa we call ourselves, “black people” to differentiate ourselves from the Arabs and Ethiopians who see themselves as better and superior to we the blacks even though we are all African.
We call black people in the US; black Americans, those from the Caribbean, West Indians. Collectively we call all of you across the Atlantic, “WESTERN BLACKS” We don’t mean any disrespect just a means of identification that is all. When the world says Africans, it is referring to black people in Africa. I know this because when the world wants to refer to the Arabs the world says North Africans or to the horn of Africa it says Ethiopians, not Africans as it does in the case of black people in Africa. What I am getting at is the name African has evolved to the world at large to mean black people of BLACK African origin _____________________________ Is it just talk or are you for solutions? If you are GENUINELY interested in solving black problems? Then join us at http://www.theguidedog.com/index_nation.html |
|||
|
|
A1 |
Thanks henry38 for the perspective, and of course the information.
I've notice for years how "the Europeans" refer to Africa, and Africans versus Europe, Europeans. To many it sounds "picky", but it is as you have pointed out, the reality. African and Africans are referred to in political terms, e.g. "North" Africa, "West" Africa, "Central" African "Sub-Saharan" Africa" "East" Africa with a bit of a collision with "South" Africa since South Africa is a nation. In Europe, it is "Western" Europe, "Northern" Europe, etc. I know this is because of how European "see" Africa as political entity as a whole. The world has picked up the terminology. America has swallowed it whole. It is a part of the language of identity as THEY see it. Thanks again. P.S. And in my mind all of Africa is of black African origin. And simply based on the Leaky discoveries. From Memphis forward were civiizations of and by black people. PEACE Jim Chester You are who you say you are. Your children are who you say you are. |
|||
|
|
A2 |
Let's call ourselves African-Connecticut, African-Nevada, African-Pennsylvania, African-New York, African-Mississippi, African-Georgia, etc. How's that? Sounds good to me!!!
|
|||
|