Talk:African Americans/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Untitled

Black American Indian 15:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)Some African Americans have Native American ancestryBlack American Indian 15:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment re: African Americans with Native American Ancestry

OK I'LL RE-WORD THIS..........TO IMPROVE THE PAGE CHANGE THE PART ON THE PAGE THAT SAYS THERE ARE A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF AFRICAN AMERICAN WITH NATIVE AMERICAN ANCESTRY, BECAUSE LIKE I SAID THE FIRST TIME I KNOW FOR A FACT THERE IS NOT A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF THEM IT'S ACTULLY QUITE SMALL. PLEASE MAKE IMPROVEMENTS TO THIS PAGE A.S.A.P. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.53.21.112 (talk • contribs) 19:12, June 2, 2007 (UTC)

First of all, please take off your Caps Lock. There is no need to shout. Second, as it says at the top of the page, add new comments to the bottom of the page.

I'm glad that you "know for a fact" that there are not significant numbers of African-Americans with Native American ancestors. Are you a reliable source? Find a book or article from a credible source and your argument might have some weight. But so long as your only source is "I know for a fact," nobody else cares what you know.

Finally, whatever you "know for a fact" concerning African-American and Native American ancestry is probably wrong. Most scholars say the opposite. Africana, for example, says that "Today, many African Americans can trace their ancestry in part to an Indian tribe." You might want to take a look at one of the many books about the complex relations between Native Americans and maroons, Africans who escaped slavery and created communities of their own in the "wilderness," and who were sometimes merged into Native nations (see Black Indians and Black Seminoles). But whatever you do, make sure you stay away from BlackIndians.com, which names Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, Langston Hughes, and Rosa Parks as Black Indians. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 01:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

And escaped slaves in the Everglades with the Seminoles. Lots of 'mixed' descendants. --Dumarest 22:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Article Size

The history section of this article was far too long and there was a lot of content that was redundant so I pulled a bunch of it. But I feel that the article is still too big at 53 kb. More detailed content should probably go into separate articles with just a summary remaining in this one. Also, I think it's more important to get references for this article rather than more content. Please share you thoughts and effort to improve this article. CJ 23:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thats OK. Lets see if we can source what is left.--Sefringle 00:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Can't the History section really be removed? There's an article on African-American history, so we can just put a link to that and move whatever information we need to to that article. The article is much too big and that seems to be one section that we definitely don't need. Millancad 05:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't be. There should be a brief summary of the history of African Americans. That would be the encyclopediac thing to do. Almost every article has a history section. It is valid information for this article.--Sefringle^Talk 05:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

If you want to trim something down, how about that economic status section. If it's all relavant verifiable content maybe it can be moved to it's own article. But it doesn't need to be that big in this one. CJ 09:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Group Name

I know there's some disagreement on the naming of the African American ethnic group, but African American descendants of slaves are also called Black Americans. It's a standard from a number of official documents. It's the same thing with few exceptions and those exceptions should be discussed in the article. CJ 10:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Seriously people, stop changing the text in the lead until it gets discussed. For the record, I keep reverting that change because it's the official definition (ie: US Census) for the term and because opinions to the contrary are discussed in the criticisim section. CJ 20:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how you can argue this point. Not everybody black American is descended from Africans let alone African slaves, thus the phrase can't apply. SteveLamacq43 00:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I never said all African Americans were descended from slaves. I said that the US Census says that Black or African Americans are persons descended from the indeginous peoples of Sub-Saharan Africa. That includes descendants of slaves and voluntary immigrants. I've also said that the criticism section has been used to discuss different opinions on the naming of the group. CJ 01:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Good catch on the ref, I replaced it with another, also from the US Census that does define Black or African Americans as descended from the ethnic groups of Sub-Saharan Africa. Something you may not realize, The US government doesn't define race based directly on skin color. It's based on ancestry. And it's been a long standing tradition to associate colors with ancestry. All Whites aren't Europeans but that's how it's defined in the US. CJ 00:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

My problem with the article has been when the term "white" is used near "African American". There should be term equality. It isn't logical or fluent to say or hear "African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans, Native Americans, and Whites". You should use the term "European American", which describes the major region and has term equality. As such, I edited sections to reflect that. It doesn't matter if the US Census uses the term or not... they didn't use "African American", either until after it started appearing in print. I don't think there is anything wrong with the terms "white" or "black" but they should be used correctly when used in pairs. --Crxssi 02:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Economic Status Contradiction Tag

Would the individual who placed this tag care to comment on the contradiction they found? CJ 22:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I left a message on the editor's Talk page asking her or him to comment. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 23:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The claims about Black people benefitting financially from the civil rights movement and have having unprecedented access to higher education are totally out of line. For one, more people in the U.S. go to college these days. Have Black people trended upward relative to other ethnic groups, namely Whites. The financial gains of Black people being attributed to the civil rights movement suffers from a similar fallacy. This is assuming the cause. But in this case there may not even be a cause to assume. Why has nobody referenced a study or something empirical that concludes that Blacks have begun to close the income or wealth gap with White people in the U.S. since the end of the Civil Rights Era? I can answer that, it didn't happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.217.173.43 (talk)

Remember to sign your posts using ~~~~ and new comments go at the bottom.

Ok, What I'm getting from all this is that you feel the clams made in a largely unsourced section of the article are innacurate. That's not what that tag is for. Your best bet for contributing to this article is to find independent and verifiable references that accurately explain the situation. If you don't want to actually write anything you can just provide the article and someone else will make use of it. Furthermore, I feel it's appropriate to note that while the article is more than a bit disorganized, it does point out that blacks are disproportionately poorer than other Americans. I'm going to remove the contradict tag and replace it with one that questions factual accuracy. CJ 00:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The "the claims about Black people benefitting financially from the civil rights movement and have having unprecedented access to higher education are totally out of line" isn't worthy of comment, namely because the article clearly contains sustained proof of the opposite. I left the contradiction tag because the majority of the economic status maintains this vein, and cites its sources. The section after I left the tag, while sometimes citing its sources, treats a variety of subjects that not only have nothing to do with economic status, but contradicts the material preceding it. It should either be prefaced with a transition to point to a change in focus (since the beginning of the section suggests this), or be placed in a more germaine section. Also, there should be more citations, particularly when the points made contradict the preceding section. Virtually all of the points from the preceding section are cited with verifiable sources. I am very happy that I was contacted about my tag, and asked to explain my reasoning.....some people simply delete the changes and then contact the editor, if at all. Kemet 14:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Well that's how I like to do things. Unless it's just blatant stupidity. CJ 15:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Americo-Liberians

Is is appropriate to describe Americo Liberians as African Americans? Do broad sections of Americo Liberians describe themselves as African American? Aside from slavery, it seems that the histories of the two groups have diverged too much to identify them as the same cultural group. It is because of this logic that it is inappropriate to identify other populations of known African descent in the Americas as African American, particularly when broad sections of these groups don't self-identify as such. Kemet 14:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I've wondered about this too but I don't know enough about Liberia to make a call on it. CJ 15:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

"African-American, as I see it applies exclusively to the descendants of freed slaves. Others should be known by nationality, like Nigerian American, Ethiopian American, etc.. The only reason "African-American" is so all encompassing is because in most cases, the descendants of freed slaves cannot conceivably trace back their origins to any specific pre-colonial country or state.Taharqa 20:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Americo-Liberians are the descendants of American slaves. At the very least, they are former African Americans (if such a thing is possible). --D. Monack | talk 04:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Adding a paragraph to the lead

I'd like to add the following paragraph near the beginning of the article:

Scientists generally agree that modern humans migrated out of Africa.[1] Therefore, it is sometimes asserted that all Americans are African-Americans.[2][3][4] However, the term African-American is usually limited to people of brown to black skin color.[5]

[1](ref)Fox, Maggie. "Artifacts trace humanity’s early migration", Reuters (2007-01-12).(/ref)

[2](ref)Ponte, Lowell. "The Longest Race", FrontPageMagazine.com (2002-10-04).(/ref)

[3](ref)Scales-Trent, Judy. Notes of a White Black Woman: Race, Color, and Community, page 140 (1995).(/ref)

[4](ref)Medterms.com.(/ref)

[5](ref)The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (2003), definitions of African-American and black.(/ref)

Is this okay?Ferrylodge 23:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's off topic. That's why I pulled it out earlier. This article is specifically about Americans of African descent as defined by the US Government. Not about the whole world which may or may not have descended out of Africa 100 - 200 thousand years ago. There's a whole article on the Out of africa theory. CJ 23:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's relevant, and thought-provoking. Maybe we could put it in the section on "Criticisms of the term"? The point is, if we take the US government's definition literally, then all Americans are African-Americans. And many authors have pointed this out (e.g. see the references I provided).Ferrylodge 23:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I say no. While I agree it is very interesting, but not relevant to this article at all. IMHO. Also the argument of the US Government is speculative. Anyway it is way off topic. Human genes have mutated many times over those 100s of thousands of years, and there is no way that every Amercian can be traced back to Africa, whatsoever. Even those who actually have had their DNA tested after growing up looking and believing they were African Americans have been proven to not have any African DNA at all. I can't think of his name off hand, but he was very upset. - Jeeny ^Talk 00:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

If you think it's irrelevant that all Americans are descended from Africans, then we won't mention that well-established fact in the article. However, it does seem relevant to me, and to the others whom I cited. Cheers.Ferrylodge 00:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

If you want to write "thought-provoking" things, they belong on bulletin boards or blogs. This is an article about the people who are commonly known as African-Americans. It's not a debate about whether homo sapiens sapiens originated in Africa, or whether we can all claim African ancestry "if you go back far enough." — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 01:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Look, not saying that the origins of humanity are irrelevant. Just saying that we have racial distinctions because there have been several signifigant biological and social changes over the past 100 thousand years that have created modern racial groups. Discussing that in a scientific article is one thing, but in anthropology and other history articles it smells like revisionist history. Like, there's no such thing as race, or any of the distinct cultures and social/political issues that go along with it, because everyone's from Africa. That's why it's not relevant to this article. CJ 01:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I hear you. I never meant to suggest that there's no such thing as race, or distinct cultures and issues. I hope you'll take a look at reference [4] that I cited, if you haven't done so yet. The assertion in reference [4] is that the definition of "African-American" is problematic, and needs to be clarified. How far back must all of a person's African ancestors be in order for that person to not be an "African-American"? If you say, for example, a thousand years, then does that mean that the descendants of today's African-Americans will no longer be "African Americans" after another thousand years has elapsed? You may view this as a bunch of irrelevant musings, but at least you can't say that I didn't provide cites!  :-)Ferrylodge 02:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say it was irrelevant. It's very relevant. Just not in this article.CJ 11:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Ferrylodge, it sounds like you have some sort of grudge. Yes, humanity started in the CONTINENT of Africa hundreds of thousands of years ago. However, we are NOT the same. If you're white, you're of European descent. If you're black, you're of African descent. Plain and simple. When humans migrated all over our planet, thier racial and genetic makeup changed. Therefore, the places where they migrated to became their "racial marker", meaning their descendants, when researching their history, will find their ancestry in a specific geographic area. I know it sounds confusing, but it is what it is. Fclass 13:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

There's no grudge. I was saying what you're saying. Take a look at the first comment in this section: "the term African-American is usually limited to people of brown to black skin color." It's no big deal if people wish not to include the stuff I suggested in my first comment into the article, but there's no need to say I've got some kind of grudge. Have a good weekend.Ferrylodge 14:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Not any mention of european-caucasian/caucasian-american ancestry in lead paragraph

According to recent DNA testing, roughly 30% of Americans of African descent who have taken DNA tests have found they have european-caucasian/caucasian-american ancestry as well. There has not been shown to be as large a link to either native americans or asians as there has been to european-caucasian/caucasian-american.

This DNA research has helped Americans of African descent to identify general tribal regions in Africa they likely have descended from, but also that some may have connections to european-caucasian/caucasian-american ancestors through their maternal and/or paternal ancestral lineage.

Of course, many Americans regardless of race believe they are somehow descended from native americans, so I can see how people will add it uncited to this article, but genetically, the facts aren't really there to back it up. There is some ancestry to native americans for a small portion of Americans of African descent, but nothing at all significant when it comes to asian ancestry.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/genetics/2006-02-01-dna-african-americans_x.htm —The preceding signed comment was added by recorderofbehavior (talk)

I don't discount the scientific evidence. But the fly in the ointment is that many native american tribes adopted non ethnic-native americans into their tribes. There are some blacks and whites who were and are legal members of native tribes. Take the Seminoles for example. The whole tribe is a blending of ethnic native americans and runaway slaves. I'd wager it's possible to have native american ancestry and not have a drop of native american dna in your blood. So I'm thinking that for now it's better to leave that text. CJ 19:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Black Inventors in Article Section

The inventors section of this article is majorly flawed. Charles Drew did not perform the first open heart surgery and Garrett Morgan did not invent the first traffic signal or gas mask. Even Garrett Morgan's wiki entry verifies that. His inventions had no influence on modern day designs, nor where they the first. I do not know how to change things on that article but someone needs to do it. Here is my citation for anyone who wants to alter that section: http://www33.brinkster.com/iiiii/inventions/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.226.219 (talk • contribs)

You do realize that isn't a reliable source.--Sefringle^Talk 05:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Not a reliable source?? The site I listed list hundreds of sources! If you don't think it's reliable enough for you why don't you get off your lazy duff and confirm the information with supposed "reliable sources". What do you want? http://www.ideafinder.com/history/inventions/trafficlight.htm http://www.freewebs.com/trafficlightsignals/historyofsignals.htm Pick a source, what source do you want? Look it up in an encyclopedia if you want. You wiki people really crack me up. Even wiki contradicts that information about Morgan in Garrett Morgan's wiki page and the page for the traffic light.

I didn't read beyond "your lazy duff." If you have something legitimate to say, don't make personal attacks.--Sefringle^Talk 05:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The very first paragraph I wrote was "legitimate". Then you came at me with some ridiculous statement about my source not being reliable even though it list plenty of its own sources like patent numbers, newspaper articles, other historical documents, etc. I should be the one asking you to say something legitimate. You just don't want to accept the truth. Hell, you're probably the one that put that inaccurate junk in there aren't you? The simple fact is, either this wiki page is wrong or Garrett Morgan's and the traffic signal wiki pages are wrong. All three can't be right. So, suck it up and fix it already and stop coming at me with ridiculous statements that don't even make sense.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.226.219 (talk • contribs) 23:03, August 23, 2007

Need comment at deletion discussion

Please see the discussion here -- this needs more input from editors who actually work in this area. Badagnani 16:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Intellectualism

The Anti-intellectualism article presents anti-intellectualism as a problem in the African American youth community, however, it is not mentioned here. Since it would obviously contribute to the educational and social problems experienced by many African Americans, wouldn't it be notable in this article? 70.146.31.251 00:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC) ==

Question I was wondering what defines African American. How do you determine if someone is black or not. If my great grand parent was from africa does that make me black? Does it make me less black then someone who has a black grandparent? Where does the line get drawn now that people are able to get benificial consideration for college based on race? I'm not commenting about or questioning the morality of this practice, but I was just wondering what, if there is one, determines one's ability to claim being part of a race? And, if there is anyone with knowledge of biology, where does a person's race get place? Is it a subgenius? Does it get a nomenclature classification?

69.1.59.67 05:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)2007-08-11 ID

Any American with known sub-Saharan African ancestry who self-identifies as African American, is African American---it doesn't matter how "purely" African he or she is (even if this "purity" exists and could be proven). That is why African Americans contain all varieties of human shades and shapes. Kemet 13:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kemet (talk • contribs)

There are three sorts of lies (perhaps)

Disraeli may be the man who uttered these words: "There are three types of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." I do not believe that a typical negro in any county in the United States earns $62,000 per year on average.

MtAvarice 09:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

What is your point?--Sefringle^Talk 05:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It is easy to collect statistics (facts) which are misleading. The census bureau collects statistics which indicates that there are millions of "blacks" living in the United States by limiting the checkboxes to one checkbox. Everyone who checks the Black/African American/Negro checkbox is placed into the record book with "blacks." All of the people who believe that they are "Negro" or "African American" or "colored" (etal.) are ommitted from consderation. Statistically, they are "blacks." That is why some people claim that Negroes "self-referably" began to call themselves "blacks." The census bureau does not recognize any other term. When the census reports are issued, only "blacks" appear in them, though the streets of the United States are awash with "colored" people who have descended from slaveowners. The same tactic is employed to bloat the income levels of "the blacks." Very poor people with a small income or no income may not be included or considered. Insurance companies manipulate the awards that they will pay out to injured people by not placing the high awards into their database. To do so would raise the average payout, so they collect the moderate and the low awards, and then cite the average amount being paid out to people who had suffered injuries. When an insured person suffers an injury and submits a claim, insurance companies cite their database to determine the amount of money that should be awarded. Since they have collected figures from moderate and low awards, their database reflects a lower figure than it would have had the high awards been included, too. That's why "stastistics" are often misleading. They depend on the sort of materials that have been collected. MtAvarice 12:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

And your (misguided) point is...Kemet 13:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kemet (talk • contribs)

Removial of fact tag next to original research

Malik Shabazz, can you please explain why you removed the fact tag I added next to Michael Jackson, without adding a source. This list is, after all, origional research and lacking citations.--Sefringle^Talk 20:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought the tag was a joke. What is the original research? That Jackson was among the 100 Greatest Americans, or that he is an African-American?

The former can be confirmed by looking at the list.

The latter is true because he is a "citizen of the United States whose ancestors, usually in predominant part, were indigenous to Sub-Saharan Africa". Do you honestly need sources to that effect, or do you trust your own eyes? — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 01:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It was the first that needed a source. I know he is black. Wasn't sure about the 100 greatest Americans. Some of these entries were a little suprising to me.--Sefringle^Talk 03:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the snippy tone. I'm always surprised by the silly people who "win" these beauty pageants. Tiger Woods, Michael Jackson, and Michael Jordan just don't belong in the same company as Martin Luther King and Frederick Douglass. When their pictures were added to the article, I checked them out by clicking through to The Greatest American and then to the Discovery Channel. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 04:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Question about lead paragraph

The lead para contains the following words: In the United States the term is generally used for Americans with predominantly Sub-Saharan African ancestry. Why are the words "In the United States" necessary -- where else would the term be used? --ukexpat 13:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a good question. Elsewhere in the world, somebody might use the term African-American to refer to any person originally from Africa who has moved to America. That usage might include Egyptians or white South Africans, for example, and exclude Blacks whose families have been in the U.S. for centuries. But that's not how the term is used in the United States. Hence the phrase "In the United States". But if the meaning isn't clear to the reader, maybe we need to think about how to improve it. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 20:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Sources in Economic status section

I converted some of the links into footnotes, but a lot of the links seem similar, yet they are not. Someone should go through the links and see which ones are relevant, which ones sould go, and convert them to proper ref format.--Sefringle^Talk 05:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Health issues

I removed "and a higher rate of out-of-wedlock births relative to the general population. 56% of African American children are born into families where the mother is not married to the biological father. In 1998, single women headed 54% of African American households. ref name="CharacOfFam" because this has nothing to do with health issues (or more to the point, there is no cited evidence to link out-of-wedlock births to negative health results). That information is also already covered in the Economic Status section. I also added a transition between the life expectancy and later subsection to account for the contradiction. Kemet 14:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of African Americans. Badagnani 02:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Subsaharan Africa

The citation User:Jeeny removed on this edit to the 2000 US Census ancestry codings has everything to do with racial classification on the 2000 US Census. Jeeny claims in her edit summary that it has nothing to do with African Americans. However, it is a detailed explanation of which ancestries get categorized into which races on the 2000 US Census. Its section called "Subsaharan Africa" describes where blacks or African Americans are from.----^DarkTea© 21:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It has everything to do with what people ticked on the form. It says nothing about African Americans are only those with origins in Subsaharan Africa. Your link was a spreadsheet! The real definition is at this link. Look where it says "A person whose origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa". This is from the US CENSUS. Please read it. Although I did make a mistake and used a wrong link before, but I changed it to the one I post here. - Jeeny ^Talk 22:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Jeeny made this reversion with the edit summary of "messy". The reason for reversion I cannot be discern.----^DarkTea© 08:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, it's a restatement of something that's already been stated in the article. Secondly, it's poorly written. This is something that we've been through a thousand times. Leave it, please. CJ 11:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Category deletion discussion

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 September 16#Category:United States communities with African American majority populations. Badagnani 21:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Johnathan Stevenson

Iseebias asks "who are you to decide what opinions are notable, & since when is 1 paragraph undue weight?"

According to sociologist Johnathan Stevenson, the language is evolving and Black American is no longer synonymous with African American. While a Black American is an American of predominantly sub-Saharan African descent, an African American is an American with any known sub-Saharan African ancestry. Based strictly on ancestry, the African American population is about 90% black and 10% Afro-multiracial. According to Stevenson "it's possible to be an African American who isn't black, but it's not possible to be a black American who isn't African American"[ref]Race in America, 2005, by Johnathan Stevenson[/ref]

Google: "Johnathan Stevenson" "Race in America" No results

Google: "Johnathan Stevenson" sociologist No results

Google: "Johnathan Stevenson" sociology 1 result

Since you think that Johnathan Stevenson is notable, would you care to explain who he is and why we should care what he has to say? — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 05:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Johnathan Stevenson is a professor of African American studies. He writes for a very academic readership, which makes him not very famous, but extremely influential. You should care what he has to say because he's an authority on this topic, and because wikipedia gives extra weight to academic sources, but you should also care what he has to say because he's offering a fresh perspective that brings this topic into the 21st century. I agree that for the most part, African American and Black American have equivalent meanings but as a wise man once said, there's no such thing as a true synonym in the english language, that is, no matter how similar two terms appear to be, there's always a subtle distinction that inevitabley emerges. In the case of black American vs African American, the subtle distinction I've noticed is that American Afro-multiracials who are not considered black, are still always considered African American. Of course this trend is so incipient that it's hard to prove, but I find the distinction fascinating because it allows Afro-multiracials to assert a multiracial identity instead of being pigeon-holed as black, while still embracing their African diasporas ancestry. Why completely deprive our readers the chance of considering this emerging school of thought, especially when it's cited? Iseebias 04:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Please excuse my snarkiness, but where is Stevenson a professor of African American studies? Why is his profile so low that he and his book don't have a single Google hit? Surely the work of an "extremely influential" professor would be cited on websites and in academic papers. And yet...

Google: "Johnathan Stevenson" "African American" No results

Google: "Johnathan Stevenson" "Afro American" No results

In any event, you acknowledge that Stevenson's work is a "fresh perspective" and an "emerging school of thought". Please read Wikipedia:Fringe theories, a guideline that concerning "which non-mainstream 'theories' should have articles in Wikipedia, and to an extent how those articles should approach their subjects":

In order to be notable, a non-mainstream theory should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major mainstream publication or by another important mainstream group or individual. Even debunking or disparaging references are adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents. (italics in original)

The only reference you cite is Stevenson's own book, and then only by title. Has it actually been published? reviewed? cited?

Finally, if a "trend is so incipient that it's hard to prove", it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 22:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Most serious academics don't have their books splashed all over google. He writes for graduate students, not the general public. 90% of the books in most universities are obscure scholary texts that would not generate a single google hit. But wikipedia does not define reliability as a function of google hits, just the opposite. People come to wikipedia to get away from all the crap you read on the web, and get quality scholarly sources from people who are experts in their specific field. And you may consider his work fringe, but wikipedia gives extreme weight to academic scholarly sources, and any view point expressed by a scholar who is an authority in the field at hand, is by wikipedia's definition, a reliable source, and certainly worthy of a single paragraph in article as long as this one. Any particular reason why you feel so compelled to keep this idea out of wikipedia? Iseebias 03:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

"He writes for graduate students, not the general public." Is that a roundabout way of saying that the work you're citing hasn't been published? Is it just a paper Stevenson distributes to his graduate students?

Please read the relevant Wikipedia policies, including Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Per WP:PROVEIT (part of Wikipedia:Verifiability):

"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.[footnote omitted] The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question." (emphasis in original)

Rather than ask why I want to keep a fringe theory out of Wikipedia, maybe you should consider your inability to produce a single published source to support your assertion. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 04:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I did a couple of other searches. In google books and in google scholar. No hits. Perhaps you could share what university or research group he works for. Maybe the name of a journal he's published in. Even if an individual is not well known in general society, affiliation with a notable entity can provide credibility. I'll also look for other individuals sharing this opinion who may also lend credibility. CJ 10:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Could the spelling of the first name be a typo? Johnathan --> Jonathan. I found these results on Google, but didn't look at any of the pages. Jeeny 21:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I took a look at them several weeks ago, and they don't seem to have anything to do with Iseebias's Stevenson. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 21:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

No thanks. I have better things to do with my time. deeceevoice 10:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Jonathan Stevenson

Well, I find Jonathan Stevenson as a Professor of strategic studies - does this specialty include ethnic origins??--Dumarest 22:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

What a piece of crap of article

"African Americans or Black Americans are citizens or residents of the United States who have origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa."

Yeah? and what with blacks in Cuba or Venezuela. Where are they from? Japan? Guess what? there are more countries in America than just the United States. This is a wiki in ENGLISH, not a wiki of the United States.

And BTW, the term "african american" is just plain stupid an typical of the United States. So what's a person born in Moroco and moved to America? an australian? What if a spaniard was born in Oran and then moved to the Americas?

Most idiotic article of the wikipedia and tipical of a USA mindset, really. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.126.1.243 (talk) 10:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

First of all, that is the language of the U.S. Census (which I'll admit can be fairly dismally uninformed; I generally don't use the term "race"). Secondly, if the use of the term "America" for the U.S. offends you, then change (preferred) it or disambiguate it. "America" is distinct from "the Americas."

Secondly, as an African-American, I/we couldn't give a flying fig what you think of the term. We exercise the right to define ourselves in the manner which is meaningful to us. What outsiders think doesn't matter one whit. *x*

Finally, take your intemperate remarks and your b.s. attitude elsewhere, (expletive withheld). deeceevoice 10:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh just so you know, Blacks in Cuba are typically referred to as Afro-Cuban, A person from Moroco that moved to the United States probably would self identify as Moroccan-American. That's pretty much the pattern for the entire African diaspora. Have a nice day. CJ 13:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks like "diaspora" is the new way to avoid saying "slavery." (Go ahead, delete this statement, too).EmperorVelocicaptor 18:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

No actually diaspora is a scholarly term. Not all members of the African diaspora are descendants of slaves. And the word doesn't specifically refer to Africans. CJ 19:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I wouldn't dream of deleting your statement, VC. It's a great example of the kind of ignorant, obnoxious presumptuousness and anti-black antipathy that are rampant on Wikipedia. Thanks for sharing. deeceevoice 20:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

You should have deleted Velocicaptor's message. He likes to leave troll-bait at various articles about African-American subjects. Look at the history of Talk:Gabriel Prosser, this edit at Gabriel Prosser, or his contributions to Talk:Ralph Bunche#Darkened image and Talk:Ralph Bunche#An accurate photograph would make improvement. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 00:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not Velocicaptor any more because someone placed a permanent block on poor old Velocicaptor after Velocicaptor put a photograph of Adolf Hitler on the talk page. People deleted the image and words that poor old Velocicaptor had written on that talk page. They substituted their own words on the talk page of poor old Velocicaptor, which I thought was very rude. I never expected those curve balls. Adolf Hitler is old news to me. Why would anyone become agitated just because I placed an image of Adolf Hitler onto a talk page? I suppose they called it "troll-bait," too. I'm simply old enough to remember when "black" was somewhat of an insult in the United States. Today, "black" is supposedly something to be proud of. My response to that folly follows: HO HUM! (Haven't you all ever heard of Rush Limbaugh?EmperorVelocicaptor 05:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Charlize Theron

I believe she is a rather poor example to illustrate the point about White "African-Americans" as I doubt she is even a US citizen or would refer to herself as an American. In her Oscar acceptance speech she referred to South Africa as "home". Roger 20:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

If that's the case then I agree with you. Who would you suggest as a replacement? CJ 22:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow! I didn't think it would be so hard to do! I've managed so far to find Ivor van Heerden, Allan McLeod Cormack and Robert Lange. Not quite as well known as Charlize, but everyone can't be Oscar winners! Roger 16:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Tiger Woods

Why is Tiger Woods in the list of 100 greatest? I love Tiger Woods but he doesn't consider himself to be black and from reading his wikipedia entry it's listed that he is a mix of a wide range of groups. Is it really approprate to have him in the list of African Americans among the 100 greatest Americans? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koft (talk • contribs) 15:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Red, Black, Green significance?

What is the significance of the colors of the CONUS map in the infobox? Roger 07:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Pan-African flag -- CJ (talk) 18:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

American of African descent

As it seems to me (and I'm not an authority), most African-Americans have no duel citizenship with any African country and are only citizens of the United States, Canada, etc (whatever that home nation might be in the Americas) and have no relatively recent family history of citizenship ties to any African Nation; so, why is the more accurate term "American of African Descent" not preferable to use in-place of African-American which implies a legal or citizenship tie to that continent? If one were to say "I am an English-American" then the logical thought would be "where in the U.K. do you have dual citizenship?". Personally, I believe that "American of African Descent" is not only a far more accurate self-description to choose but it also acknowledges the fact that a "Black" individual may also have other heritage (such as Native American, British, etc) in their family; more importantly, this term does not alienate the individual from all of the GREAT Americans who just happen to have ancestral ties to Africa, this term asserts ownership to the "Black" person's rightful place in the America experience and the overall American identity which has been earned by many generations of "Black" Americans by blood, sweat, tears, and devotion. Please think about this and consider changing your verbiage before identifying yourself again as "African American". Sure, "American of African Descent" might be a mouthful, but it is also an earful and a mindful and is well worth saying. Peace

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.173.226.235 (talk) 

Please start discussions at the bottom of the page and sign your comments. To answer your concerns, the use of African-American as opposed to anything else anyone could come up with is due to the wikipedia policy on names. It is the most common term. It is the official term. It is what this group of people has in large part chosen to define themselves as. In the spirit of neutrality the article does cover the various issues people have with the term. In short if you don't like it then don't use it outside of wikipedia. But within wikipedia, for now, live with it. -- CJ (talk) 18:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Will do, but just wanted to put this thought out there for consideration. Thanks

Again, the term means, "a black American or American of African descent." It applies exclusively to blacks who are descendants of American slavery, not blacks from foreign countries. Racially same, ethnically different. Malcolm X was the first dude to use this, along with black pride. It's just of expressing our pride in our heritage.Fclass (talk) 19:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC) Oh, I forgot, some whites do refer to themselves as Italian American or just Italian.

Regions of significant population

The info on this table (on the right of the page) seems misleading - yes, most African Americans live in the South, but there are substantial populations in urban areas in the Northeast, Midwest and West. The fact that they are concentrated in urban areas in those regions doesn't mean they are not significant in those regions.--Parkwells (talk) 01:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

White African Americans

Why aren't there references to White African Americans...I mean what is the South African portion of Americans that are white classified? South African Americans? Blacks are negros..that isn't offensive- since when is Black or White racist? Im called white I am not offended. Add South African Americans or South Africans who live in America to the list of peoples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.166.108.50 (talk) 16:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of what you call them, this article is about African Americans who are descendants of free Negros and slaves. The title of the article is African American because that's the most common name used in the United States. The article African immigration to the United States is about more recent African immigrants. That's the agreed upon but still contentious breakdown. CJ (talk) 20:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the intromission, but in my objective look over the theme, i think the difference between "afroamerican people" and "white people" is pure politic tube-looking. The thing is that you have to look around and to not see black and white; take a look around and see that the things, the people, the plants and the animals have many colours and the colour is irrelevant on what they are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.166.108.50 (talk)

Well think what you like but there are differences. They exist in shared historical and cultural experiences. To deny that is the same as trying to say that we're all clones of one another. Identifying a historical or cultural distinction is only a division if you make it one. It's easy to be "colorblind" if you're pretending that everyone is the same. It's much harder to be multicultural and accept everyone for who they are without making them be you. But unless you have a suggestion for improving this article this topic is over.CJ (talk) 17:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a response to the first commenter who wanted to be anonymous. There is nothing offensive about the term black. I'm black and proud. The term negro is offensive and no longer used. If you or anybody else, regardless of race, called me a negro, you will have a bloody lip and a black eye. The term African American applies to American blacks, like me, who are descendants of freed black American slaves or American slavery. If you don't want to use it, fine. But don't tell people what they should or should not be called. Now, a person's nationality refers to there country/nation of origin/birth. Africa is a continent, not a country/nation, just like Europe is a continent, not a country/nation. American is my nationality because I was born, raised, and bred in the United States of America. A person (white or black) from South Africa, a country/nation, is South African. That's there nationality. I could go on, but I don't have time to educate dumb people. Have a nice day. Fclass (talk) 21:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Wait so are you saying that a white south african who lives in the US isnt african american even though they are south african? African American is a heritage not a race. Just like egyptians who tend to be what we would classify as arabs are still african american even tho they are not black. African American does not only include people with dark skin.71.174.200.210 (talk) 22:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

No but it does only include people who are descended from slaves. A black jamaican has more claim to the term african american than does a South African. A South African is a South African American. 193.129.64.154 (talk) 11:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Fclass, I'd like to point out that you're an excellent representative of your race, causing someone physical harm because they called you a nasty name is always a plus in my book. 76.25.115.99 (talk) 06:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, that they say "I'm proud to be black". Sounds like a racist to me. I don't go around saying "I'm proud to be white". Thats called...oh, what's its name...uh...oh yeah, White Pride.

I'm not proud to be anything because I simply do not see myself as "White". I'm just Me.

It's funny really, that the people with the most racist hangups are generally black, not white. And if you've got to use a term for either, that's what they should be. I actually AM from different places, so I don't respect Americans who claim to be from Africa when they have no connection to it whatsoever. Sure, I could say Im a "European American". But I don't. Because Im simply not a European. I really don't care. And people who grew up in New York City simply are not from Africa. I think the only reason this term ever got popularity is because white people are so mortally petrified that they'd be labeled as a racist, so they let black people call the shots. And some of those black people are abusing that. A lot.

Basically, I agree completely with everyone in this section who doesnt have a username. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.65.242.154 (talk) 07:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it doesn't work like that. Black pride is not racist. It is a response to all the racism black people had to suffer through. White pride, however is; it is just a sanitized version of white supremacy. Since when do black peoplr "call the shots" as you claim. I suppose you have some point in commenting here? Yahel Guhan 07:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Picture

I noticed that all six of the people in the picture were political activists. Do you think that is a good thing? Steve Dufour (talk) 12:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that all African-Americans aren't political activists?!? Brooke was a politician, not an activist, but you raise a good point. I'm not sure whether this or Template talk:African American ethnicity is the appropriate forum for this discussion, but we should try to balance the photos. There has been a similar discussion at Template talk:Infobox Jew#Emma Lazarus v Rabbi Lau; that template has four photos: two women and two men; a rabbi, a political leader, a scientist, and a poet. We might want to consider the same concept: African-Americans from all fields, not just the political. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd like to nominate Stevie Wonder. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 03:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

All black people in america are not african americans

Identity is everything. Without it one ceases to exit. It seems to be a popular thing now days to be called an african american, when not long ago, all of the other factions of the black race all over the globe didn't even want to be associated with the term african american, or negro. Now the the term is used loosely to describe any, and every black person that sets foot here in america, distorting and stripping us african americans of what little identity we do have. So, this is to set the record straight. I can't help but be passionate about this issue, my ancestors were "ENSLAVED" in "THIS" country. They fought and died in "THIS" country trying to protect, and preserve what little identity they had left after having most of it beat out of them. Thus trying to set up a system where our future generations would be proudly recognized with our own unique identity. "MY" ancestors fought for civil rights in this country, that other blacks from all across the globe come here to enjoy, without giving any respect or thanks. ie, west indies, africa, south america etc. All black people in america are not african americans. An african american is a person who's "FAMILY" ancestors were enslaved, and suffered through that slavery here in america. Not in jamaica, or trinidad, etc. The term african american comes from a long lineage of ugly muttated descriptions attributed to the slave and their ancestry here in america. We've come a long way From being known as coons, niggas, jiggaboos, monkeys, etc. Anything that one could think of that was bad or negative, that's what we were called in this country. My ancestors fought, fought, fought, fought, and shed their blood, and gave their lives, for the right to be called AFRICAN AMERICAN. That is why those of us who are african americans should always be passionately selfish when it comes to our identity, our culture, and traditions protecting and guarding it with our very lives,and never letting anyone, anywhere define, or defile it. Identity is everything, without it one don't exist. Therefore, I am proud to say, I am "AFRICAN AMERICAN". Who are you? James jr.24.47.233.26 (talk) 05:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I came to this article from the one on Barack Obama. Although he is certainly a black American, his identity as an African American is often debated on that article's talk page. A lot of people don't understand the points you are making. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me educate all the idiots who don't know anything about the term. The term African American means a black American who is a descendant of African slaves that were brought to the United States of America on slave ships during the trans-Atlantic Slave Trade. In other words, blacks who are descendants of American slavery, like me. It's like the terms Irish-American or Italian-American]]. It doesn't apply to any immigrant from an African country because the term African is not a nationality. Nationality refers to your country of birth, origin, or citizenship. Africa is a continent that's made up of over 50 countries. A person born in Kenya is Kenyan because Kenya is a country and Kenyan is a nationality. If the person emigrated to the USA, the person is Kenyan-American. Egypt to the USA: Egyptian-American. This is a term Afrocentric black Americans created. It's a way of recognizing our American nationality and patriotism and our African past and history (the history of all blacks in the Western Hemisphere began in West Africa). Fclass (talk) 02:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Well its a stupid term and it should be purged. Once you change your nationality to American then you are American, where you came from is irrelevant and you should take no pride in something you had nothing to do with. Take pride i what you do (and your immediate family) - all this "we are special" really means "You are inferior" and perpetuates the hate between "races" (and I put it in quotation marks since there is no scientific basis for dividing humans into race, its an old way of supressing those who looked different http://www.understandingrace.org/) if Amerca is going to settle its problems they need to accept at their core, they are one people, not just a lot of strangers who happen to camp there for a while. --IceHunter (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

So, IceHunter, you're one those morons that believe we're all the same? Well, we're not. Why do you think the U.S. is called a "melting pot?" It's because this country is diverse in many ways. I don't know if you're an American, and I don't care, but you have absolutely no right to tell people they shouldn't celebrate their cultures. In New York City (my hometown), we have a lot of ethnic parades: West Indian Day Parade, St. Patrick's Day Parade, Mexican-American Day Parade, Dominican Parade, German-American Day Parade, Columbus Day Parade, Pakistani Parade, Puerto Rican Day Parade, and others. Now, these people are not saying, "We don't want to be Americans." They're just celebrating their heritage and culture, and they have every right to do it, whether your closed-minded moronic ass likes it or not. They're proud to be Americans while at the same time proud of their heritage and culture. That is why all the people who say, "We're all the same," are dead wrong. The human species, not human race, are different in every way. If we were the same, planet Earth would be dull and boring. People like you need to embrace the fact that we are different. And the real reason racists like you exist is because racists don't accept things that are foreign to them. They look at so-called "minorities" (a term whites invented) and think they are superior to them because of who they are and where they come from. Racists look at diversity as a threat. If America is going to solve the hatred problem, some Americans are going to have to accept that the U.S. is a diverse, multi-ethnic, multi-cultural nation. There is no such thing as a real American culture because most of it came from other nations. As for African American, it's obvious you're too stupid to know what it means, so I am done with you. Go celebrate your stupidity and ignorance.Fclass (talk) 21:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Without the bellicosity, I'd like to agree with FClass. It upsets me endlessly when people call Barack Obama African-American. And the link to that senate webpage is no verification whatsoever that "most people consider Obama to be African-American". He is a black man. He is a Kenyan American. He is NOT African American any more than Tony Shalhoub is an Asian American or Paula Abdul is a South American American or Mike Meyers is a North American American. 193.129.64.154 (talk) 11:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree. I am sorry, but just because people are called black, doesn't take away their families' identity. I think that African-Americans are people who come here from Africa. Plus Asians are not called Asian-American like one other person said. The Japanese lost sooo much before they were treated just like the Africans were a long time ago. It's time to let go. I'm anything but racist, I grew up around every race under the sun. It's just that the term African-American bugs me. A lot of Africans are actually European too because a lot of Africa was occupied by the French and British. And why can't you be proud to say that you're black, you still get respect from people. It makes no difference to anyone else if people say black or African-American. so yeah. DLWDWFreek (talk) 04:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• This is not an open forum for general opinions about the concept "African American". This is a talk page for improving the article "African American". Please restrict your comments to those relevant to writing an encyclopedia article. --Lquilter (talk) 22:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • True, I agree that this conversation isn't particularly productive. The question we should be asking here is, does the article address and reflect the fact that not all black persons in the US are American, and that not all of them have a majority of African ancestry? It'd be like calling every white person on US soil "Caucasian British." Personally, I feel that in everyday situations, most people are smart enough to understand that exceptions and distinctions exist and apply, but as an objective publication, WP should address this issue. So please, let us come to an agreement, bearing in mind that this isn't a forum for debate about the appropriateness of the term, but for discourse about how the term should be represented in a neutral encyclopedia. --85.5.159.13 (talk) 12:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for recognizing this isn't a chat forum. As for the specifics on the use of the term, the article addresses the sourced, common usage of the term "African American". Naturally, we wikipedia editors aren't in the business of determining how people "should" use the term; that would be original research and non-neutral point of view, both of which are not appropriate in Wikipedia. However, if an editor wants to propose some draft language (supported by references) that could be inserted in the article to address a specific lack in the article, we could discuss whether it would be helpful. --Lquilter (talk) 22:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Title

I don't want to sound racist, because I'm white, but like the title, African Americans, refers to only people that come to America from Africa. Also Black American just sounds weird. We're like the only country that doesn't call people of African Background Black, I know, I've been to Europe, and they are greatly respected, as they are here.DLWDWFreek (talk) 03:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we define the title fairly well. See African American#Who is African American?. I'm not sure quite what your objection is. Yahel Guhan 04:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yahel, DLWDWFFreek is an ignorant fool. You give people the knowledge and data about something, but they will keep ignorance as their guide. DLWDWFFreek is not a racist, he or she is just plain dumb. I am very proud to be black. I'm not ashamed of that. As the late James Brown(RIP) once said, "Say it loud, I'm black and I'm proud!" However, I'm also proud to be an American of African ancestry. I explained the term's definition above where it says, "user talk:Fclass." I also explained nationality. Africa is a continent, not a country. African is not a nationality because a person's nationality refers to their COUNTRY OF BIRTH. I'm an American becaause I was born in the USA, as were past generations of my family. If I move to Canada, I would be an American-Canadian. Nigeria to the USA: Nigerian-American. Namibia to the USA: Namibian-American. Got it? Fclass (talk) 19:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Excuse ME!!!!!!!!!!! Yeah I'm an ignorant fool. I just know a lot more than you probably, but anyway I have nothing against you personally, idk u, but anyway if you are proud to say you're black, then why do insist on people calling you African American? I just don't get it! And when you ,move to canada, you do not become Canadian- American, you are still American, just living in Canada. Oh yeah and people say they are African American, when they are not either from Africa or the definition you gave. And half the people on this page aren't. That's why I think that the page should be renamed or greatly refashioned.DLWDWFreek (talk) 05:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

As the header at the top of this page says, This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the African American article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. If you have any specific suggestions for improving this article, please share them. Otherwise move along. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Malik Shabazz, but I want to respond to this dumbass. I don't know you, but I know stupidity and ignorance when I see it. And from the way you think, I think it's safe to say I'm a lot smarter and articulate than you. DLWDWFreek, you need a lesson in geography. Africa is a continent, just like Europe and North America. The continent of Africa is made up of 50+ countries with their own nationalities. Ghana=Ghanaian, Ethiopia=Ethiopian. I could go on, but I want to make this short. If I, an American, move to Canada, I would still be an American, but I would be Canadian because I'm applying Canadian citizenship. Duh!!! And black Americans(or African Americans) aren't descendants of American slavery? Somebody needs to educate you on American history. Why don't you do us a favor, and leave this operation to people who know what their talking about. I'm done with you. Fclass (talk) 21:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I think both of you should seriously take a look at WP:NPA before commenting. To clarify for DLWDWFreek, there are people known as White Africans. These people are not African Americans, and never can be if they move to America and become American citizens. Yahel Guhan 06:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

To clarify for Yahel Guhan I'm not just some idiot who just got a computer and started using it.. I'm one of the top students in my US History class. I made an educated Italic textObservation not just some guess.DLWDWFreek (talk) 02:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I never said you were an idiot. Still, educated people can still make mistakes. Yahel Guhan 05:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Well ur snotty. And don't even think about answering because I will not reply. DLWDWFreek (talk) 02:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

hyphenated African-American

The OED and M-W Unabridged, both online, and NYT spell African-American with a hyphen. Throughout Wikipedia, at least that which I have read, African-American is not hyphenated. Is this policy? I'm somewhat new to the subject of Wikipedia editorial policy. If this issue has already been discussed and decided upon would someone refer me to the policy pages (or whatever) that discusses and explains this. Thanks. Messier110 (talk) 10:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The correct usage would be to have it unhyphenated when it stands alone ("The doctor is (an) African American") and hyphenated when modifying another word or phrase ("An African-American doctor"). I have got the Oxford American Dictionary in front of me, which supports that view, and I would be surprised if the O.E.D. were different. Salopian (talk) 15:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment

I always wondered why black people are the only race considered African Americans. I seems like it's a derogatory term because it seems like when it is said it's classifying all blacks in the country to slave roots. The American definiton even says that African Americans relate to the Sub-Saharan groups of Africans which isn't true because black people now come from all over the world. Also no other race seems to be put towards one specific area on a continent or even considered towards a continent. Whites are caucasain, Asains are Oriential, and so on and so forth. I feel the definition needs revising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.22.63 (talk) 03:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

<Incivil comment removed. — Malik Shabazz [African American] applies to American blacks, not blacks in Haiti or Jamaica or any other country. The roots of black Americans is in American slavery. That's something that can't be denied. It's our history. Also, blacks in the Western Hemisphere are descendants of African slaves that were victims of the trans-Atlantic Slave Trade. So yes, all black people are of African descent, just like all white people are of European descent. Oriental is a term for Chinese people, but it's considered to be offensive. Fclass (talk) 21:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Please. No personal attacks! Also, keep in mind that this page is intended for discussing improvements to the African American article, and it is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm a quarter Japanese and Oriental isn't offensive.DLWDWFreek (talk) 02:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

As the header at the top of this page says, This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the African American article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. --Lquilter (talk) 03:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

British North America

The first paragraph calls the 1619 colonies "British North America", however there was no "British" state at the time, although King James was a Scottish king of England and did claim to be King of "Greater Britain". At this time however settlements like Jamestown were English, although there would have been Scottish and Irish settlers and indentured workers as well as Germans, Poles and Dutch. But would the colonies have been called "British North America" in 1619? If not, perhaps this could be changed, or alluded to? Benson85 (talk) 07:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)