Talk:African Americans/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions about African Americans. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

→

Early Smells and not-in-the-US

First of all... Why "Early Smells"? Dunno the sense of that title and all I can guess is it is some sort of veiled offense or something... Now... America and Africa are whole continents... So why the centrism? I mean... A Canadian caucasian whose grandparents come from South Africa and are also all caucasians and Colombian descendant of the non-black not-purely caucasian inhabitants of Egypt... They are african americans too... Really the neutrality of this article must be checked with magnifying lenses...Herle King 02:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the article is supposed to be about those who are commonly referred to as African Americans. In addition to your point, it is also interesting that Jamaicans and black people would be labeled African Americans by pretty much everyone. 70.121.100.65 09:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

African American or African-American with a hyphen??

Why is it that a hyphen is always used with Irish-American, German-American, Mexican-American, etc. but it's not used in the title for this article? I see "African American" more often without the hyphen than with it, although it would seem to me that the hyphen belongs, if only to make the style uniform with similar labels. Even contributors to this discussion page have often used the hyphen. So does anyone know why there's no hyphen in the title of this article or elsewhere? Noroton 02:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

So use a hyphen if it makes you feel better.Fclass 00:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Move to African-American? -- Maethon (talk) 21:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe the hyphenated version is definitely the correct term and grammar. – Quoth 11:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

i use to hyphenate it but i dont bother anymore but from a grammatic place it makes sense, from a political sense, well thats another debate.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 17:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

What comparison??

Why does the writer compare the earnings of african americans to eastern european countries? And conclude this as a significant point?? Why doesn't the writer compare the earnings of african american to a sub saharan country, for instance Nigeria? What would be the conclusions you could draw then? Surely the idea is ridiculous that this can be done with so many factors involved.........

Bubble 25 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bubble25 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

"white" people, that is, "people having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe[6

This sentence directly contradicts the source listed.

The source states directly on the first page that The term “White” refers to people having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa. It includes people who reported “White” or wrote in entries such as Irish, German, Italian, Lebanese, Near Easterner, Arab, or Polish.

The sentence should be changed to read "people having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa." as originally posted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.227.202.15 (talk) 18:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

Ok, found when it was changed Revision as of 03:47, 6 January 2007 (edit) 71.146.6.74 Please correct this error to include the appropriate reference and quote from the source. "people having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa."

Thanks128.227.202.15 18:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Barack Obama and African -American?

I wonder if it is completely accurate to list him as the only AA member of Senate, when 50% of his ethnicity is not identifiable as AA? I know he refers to himself as such, but in the context of this entries definition of AA, does he fit? Wouldn't he more accurately be defined as multiracial? ARMeck 13:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

80% of AA are multiracial, --HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 17:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I remember seeing an african-american commentator on a TV news pundit show calling Obama an african-african-american and not a real african-american, because he did not have enslaved african ancestors who were sold into America, and his racial mixing was not with other Americans. But these cultural issues bring up some things. Immigrants from Africa, whose children assimilate into african-american culture, and are for all their behaviour, language and personality, typical of non-immigrants, would they qualify in the more restrictive sense of african-american? 132.205.44.134 02:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, here in America, mixed blacks are African-American to most people. It's still left over from the One-drop rule. My son, is "mixed" or multiracial, (his father calls him a "breed" tsk) and he is always considered as African-American, but does not self identify as such, he has a tattoo on the back of his neck, like the check boxes on forms, for "other"; check box and all. :( There were no "multiracial" boxes to check. There may be soon. And now, on the census form, one can choose from more than one box. It's silly and It's very complicated, it's not easy to catagorize or explain. I see it and experience it all the time. Probably half the "black" American people don't know where their ancestors originally came from, because of slavery. Plus, some do not have the money for the expensive DNA tests they are now doing, or else do not want to, because it is their identity, and it's a sense of belonging for the long history of prejudice that still very much exists here in the USA. (Many do not believe they are prejudiced either.) Although, it's getting better, but not fast enough. - Jeeny ^Talk 04:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The term "Mulatto"

It is important to note: the term "mulatto" was not only designated to people of half pure African blood and half pure European blood. In the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries the term "mulatto" was also used to define American people of mixed African and Native American blood; mixed European and Native American blood; as well as people who were descended from any one of these unions, or a mixture of all of them. Incidentally, the term "mulatto" was also used to describe many Native American groups who have origins in North Carolina and Virginia. [I.E. the Saponi Nation, etc].

Keith J. Adkins Keithjosef 14:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The word "mulato" is a common Portuguese word, meaning "1-Son of a white father and a black mother or a black father and a white mother; 2-Dark man" (Aurélio Buarque de Holanda dictionary). The common use is for someone having a skin color that is lighter than a pure black. To give an exemple, in many regions of Brazil, Barack Obama would not be called "negro" or "preto", portuguese words for black, but "mulato". It must be noted that in Brazil the miscigenation between european origin people ("white") and african origin people ("black") is much larger then in North America, so makes little sense to speak in terms of afican-american or euro-american, because the majority of Brazilian people can be called african-euro-american (or euro-african-american). Unfortunately, the plague of pollitically-correctness-at-all-costs is creating the use of african-american as the "correct" word for black skin; Brazil's major TV network used african-american to refer to Nelson Mandela.

Marcelo Bertoluci; Curitiba-Brazil 201.14.27.228 20:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

'one-drop rule' citation

I found a citation for the 'one-drop' rule. This might help with the needed citation under the Heading "Who is African American?".

Block quote start:

In the southern United States, the social construction of race was known as the "one-drop rule." This traditional stipulated that if a person had even a single drop of "Black-blood," that person was defined and viewed as Black.

Block quote end:

Bibliographic Info Start:

Main Author: Schaefer, Richard T. Book Title: Racial and Ethnic Groups, Tenth Edition. Editor: Leah Jewell Copyright Year: 2006. ISBN: 0-13-192897-X. Trademark holder (think publisher) Location: Upper Saddle River. Page Reference: Page 13. Date Accessed: 2_6_2007

Bibliographic Info End:

Unfortunately the book doesn't mention a date of when this rule started. I would appreciate if someone could put my bibliographic info into an MLA citation. I need a librarian or English/writing teacher to get it correct. The MLA citation would be useful to me for other research paper citations of a textbook. I don't find the Internet information on citation particularly clear.

User8402740 04:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

According to the Out of Africa theory, all humans are descended from African human forebears... so would this rule mean that everyone is black? 132.205.44.134 03:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't be stupid. Racial identities were established in various parts of the world. If you're white, you are of European ancestry. If you're black, you're of African ancestry. Plain and simple.24.185.49.151 17:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

New page needed for racism

I think we need a seperate page which just deals with Racism, anyone intrested let me know. Basically the page would expand on this but focus on the legacy of racism against African people globally. talk2 me--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 17:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Please Fix/Adjust Photo Collage To Represent The Sexes Equally

I know that this may seem trivial to some, but I'm trying to have men and women represented equally on the various photo collages representing ethnic/racial groups found throughout Wikipedia. This African American photo collage features 6 people, yet only 2 of them are women. In the interests of fairness and equality, please include another woman in the collage so that the collage is balanced (3 men and 3 women). Also, standard procedure is to alphabetize the names in the collage in order to avoid undue preference and bias. I would do this myself, but since I'm semi-computer illiterate when it comes to the 'complicated' stuff here on Wikipedia I don't know how to work with photos or anything like that. Thanks! --WassermannNYC 00:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

What about the Somali people currently living in the USA?

Because of the problems that Somalia has had over the years (particularly from about 1990-present time), many Somalis have immigrated to the USA as America has opened its borders to many needy (mostly persecuted) Somalis since it was controversially 'involved' in the politics of the country. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the people from Somalia are mostly/generally considered "Black" or "African" rather than Arab/Semitic, right? Wouldn't they then be considered a sub-set of the African American as opposed to the Arab/Semitic American? Actually, it seems that the more Black/African type of Somali predominates in the south of the country, while there is quite a bit of Arab/Semitic admixture in the northern half of the country (with considerable amounts of African/Black and Arab/Semitic admixture throughout much of the entire country).

There is also a sizable population of Somalis that came to the USA not only through Somalia once the USA accepted some of them (those fleeing war, strife, poverty, etc.), but some of them also came through Kenya since a large chunk of them live(d) there, and most of the population of Kenya is clearly African/Black. I don't want to seem like I'm indulging in a bunch of 'ethnic and/or racial theorizing' here, but I teach college in NYC and have had quite a few Somalis in some of my classes, and they clearly share more than a few physical features with Africans/Blacks (though often their skin color is often a few shades lighter than a very dark sub-Saharan African which presumably reflects their partial Arab/Semitic heritage: and they are of course almost always Muslims). Would they then qualify mostly as an Afro-Semitic people (kind of like Ethiopians), but with the 'Afro' part generally predominating? I do hope that I don't offend anyone with this semi-rant and half-question/half-statement because I know this might seem a bit ridiculous, but I just thought I'd inquire about this since I've been very interested in Somalia and the Somali people lately and am trying to find out more about their country and ethnic origin(s); most especially though I would like to know if the Somalis currently living in the USA 'qualify' as African Americans (or at least some of them)? --WassermannNYC 01:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Ethiopians are African American, Haile Gerima et Gigi all are called AA, so i dont think it would be any different for Somali people. Somali people are not Semitic like Ethiopians lets be clear about that, I say it again Somali people are not semitic by any definition of the word. they do not speak a semitic language, they are not racial semitic (actually no one is). Somali is an Afro-Asiatic language like Hausa. It is Chadic not semitic. rumor control there is no more Arab mixture than that found in Kenya or TZ, Somali people like AA had a hard time and still like to identify with their slave masters lineage. Like the school daze issue of boasting about white blood.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 02:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

WassermannNYC the Somalis living in the US are Africans Americans and they carry E3b wich is East African in Origin and there phenotype is indiginous Cameroonians carry a higher frequency of Eurasian lineages than Somalis and it didn't alter their phenotype, User:Halaqah you need to quit your b.s Somalis never had any Slave masters so get your facts straight, that two clans wanted to be closer to the Prophet is no different than all those other Groups in Asia and West Africa claiming the same and the clans ultimatly go back to Irir Samaale, and didn't the Ethiopian royals claim ancestry from Solomon? by your logic Middle Easterners are the Masters of Ethiopians because there kings claimed Solomonic blood your logical thinking is ridicilous so quit it. the Somali language is Cushitic not chadic RoboRanks 13:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

What is wrong with you people? I don't get this. Why are you people saying a Somali immigrant is Afro-American? Is a German immigrant Euro-American? The person is German-American. As for the Somali, he or she is Somali-American. What did I say about nationalities? They apply to countries, not continents. The person is African because the person is black, indigenous to the land and part of an ethnic tribe. The AA term applies to black Americans whose African ancestors were brought to the USA as slaves on slave ships during the Alantic Slave Trade. In other words, blacks who are descended from American slavery. You people are really getting on my nerves. Here's what I want you to do: look up the history of the AA term. If you do that, you might learn something and stop posting crazy comments. Also, learn about geography. You will know the difference between a continent and a country, and know that nationalities (country of birth) applies to countries, not continents. BTW, the black Africans know that the AA term applies to American blacks.24.185.49.151 13:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

A German immigrant would be classed as a White American African Americans are also known as Black Americans, Somali and other Africans groups fall in that category RoboRanks 14:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay So what is the racial classification for Somali people in the UK. I didnt want to bring this up. In addition Ethiopian people legacy is not to White Arabs as Solomon is African according to their history. U might be ashamed but like AA, Somali people like everyone in Africa have identity issues. Yeah i meant Cushitic. In UK Somalia people are not in the black classification (despite being black people) they have a seperate racial box. look it up! while Ethiopians Dont!--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 14:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

first, allthough they don't affect me please stop your ad hominems projected at me your breaking WP:NPA. second Somalis in the UK are classified as British Somalis the way Nigerians are classified as British Nigerians you can't compare the US census with the british system, if Middle easterners and Latin American (recent) migrants can fall under the White American category why can't black africans who migrated to the US fall under the Black American category? RoboRanks 15:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Please dont try that with me i am a seasoned editor here i Know what ad hominen and WP:NPA, none of which applies. I am agruing that they r African American. what is your issue. In the UK however there is a black box and then a somali box. this is a fact. (africans) in (america) African-American.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 15:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

As a seasoned editor you should know this discussion page is about improving the article in question not making a psycho-analysis of a wiki editor comments like you might be ashamed is unneccessary brother and usually lead to pointless flamewars. I see we both agree that Black African immigrants to the US fall under the African/Black American category that's good, in the UK the system is different to the US see Census 2001 Ethnic Codes RoboRanks 16:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

This is crazy. How many times do I have to say it? A white immigrant from Italy is Italian-American, not Euro-American. People know this. A black immigrant from Somalia is Somali-American, not Afro-American. The AA term applies to black Americans like me (blacks who are descended from American slavery whose African ancestors were brought to the USA as slaves on slave ships during the Atlantic Slave Trade). Look at the history of the term, who created it, why it was created and who it apllies to. Foreign blacks know the term applies to American blacks. Nationalities apply to countries, not continents. This argument is ridiculous and you people are getting on my nerves. One more thing, black American and AA are the same, not matter what anybody says.24.185.49.151 17:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Again an Italian American falls under White Americans, Japanese Americans or Chinese Americans fall under Asian Americans therefore it is correct to classify Black africans who migrated to the US and have build a life there as African Americans or Black Americans. Nobody is forcing you to discuss this issue if it as you say is getting on your nerves i suggest you took a break from Wikipedia and came back when your calmer RoboRanks 19:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

U also have to look at trends, the majority of people in America are White. If the majority where AA i bet you would find that a Somali in US would b Somali American. this is how classification works. Somali-African American for clarity. All of these Africans are natives of Africa. this is why i hate the word black African, because all Africans are black as someone said you dont get green Africans or White Chinese. if they are the majority they dont bear the adjective. like American-Human, they all human (save Bush and condi)--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 20:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

what about the example i gave you about the Japanese and Chinese people who have their own categories(J/Americans C/Americans) but eventually fall under the larger Asian American category? RoboRanks 20:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Newspapers in the United States describe Nigerians living in Nigeria as "African-American." They use it as a (ridiculous) substitute term for "Black." There's no science or reason that will make sense of this, and no absolutes. We could get some precision if we were to discuss "people discriminated against in the United States for their (apparent) (at least partial) African (usually Bantu) heritage" or "people discriminated against in the United Staes for their (apparent) descent from slaves" ... but those are not options editors are likely to flock to. Jd2718 16:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Blacks in the US are not "usually Bantu" in heritage. As I understand it, there's a fair amount of Bantu heritage, but at least as much, if not more, from the non-Bantu peoples of West Africa like the Yoruba, Akan, Wolof, etc. john k 20:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Nigger?

Why is the term nigger not mentioned in the "Terms no longer used" section? If this is to be politically correct or sensitive, Wikipedia is not censored (WP:CENSORED). --Sarcha 45 18:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

because mayb it is still in use?--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 20:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It was never used as a term for the entire race. It's always been derogatory. ɱўɭĩє ^{What did I do}_wrong 02:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You're wrong, RoboBanks. A Somali immigrant is African because he or she is black, indigenous to the land and part of a tribe. The person is NOT an AA. Period. I know a black guy from St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands. He considers himself West Indian (whatever that means). He checks "other" on applications. The Africans know the AA term applies to black Americans. It's not my fault you don't understand. You're the one that can't comprehend this, not me.24.185.49.151 02:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Economic Status

Does anyone find the the income of the African American total compared to the incomes of countries such as Brazil laughable? To compare two populations with no historical, cultural, or geographical similarity is beyond stupidity. If it were an attempt to barg about African Americans, the author did a pretty bad job of it. It could be said in the White American article that the collective income of White Americans is greater than ten times Africa's GDP to show you how senseless it is. African Americans can only be compared with other groups in the United States. I propose removing such ridiculous comarisons. 07:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The section also uses various sources to construct an argument. See Wikipedia:No original research which states "Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research." Below is the removed section.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 08:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

...it is still comparable to rates found in France and Spain,^[1] [1], and is slightly higher than the overall rate of the European Union [2]. When compared to populations outside of the United States and European Union, the collective affluence of African Americans is even more striking and disproportionate. Based on worker income alone (excluding purchasing power parity and extra wealth, both of which would accentuate the comparative affluence of African Americans), African Americans produced $586 billion in 2004[3],[4], slightly smaller than the GDP of Brazil in 2006 (even though Brazil's population is about 5 times the size of the African American one) [5], and approximately 80% the size of Russia's 2005 GDP (even though Russia's population is nearly 4 times the size of the African American one [6]. In 2004 this amount would have been ranked as the 15th largest GDP internationally (out of 177 ranked) [7], compared to a population ranking of 33 in 2005[8]. In 2005, the populations of Poland and African Americans were roughly equal, but the 2004 earnings of the latter group would have been nearly 2.5 times the size of the former's GDP in 2005[9]. In 2005, the Ukraine's population was approximately 10% larger than the African American population, but its GDP was over 8 times smaller than the 2004 earnings of the latter group. Argentina, arguably the most developed country in Latin American (with an overwhelmingly European population (97%)), has an unemployment rate slightly higher than that of African Americans as a group, the poverty rate is almost twice the rate [10], and the 2004 earnings of African American workers were nearly 3.5 times the size of Argentina's 2005 GDP, even though Argentina's population is slightly larger than the African American population [11]. In Mexico, whose human development index is comparable to those of most former Second World countries, and whose economy ranks as a mid-income one, the poverty rate is twice the rate of African Americans as a group [12], and even though its 2005 population was nearly 3 times the population of African Americans, Mexico's GDP from the same year exceeded the 2004 earnings of African American workers by only 25%[13].

Picture

Why does our picture show three prominent African American Republican political figures from the latter half of the 20th century? This seems highly disproportionate. Rice, in particular, as being neither the first black nor the first female secretary of state, seems like a stretch to justify on quasi-objective grounds. Why these three and not, say, Robert C. Weaver, the first black cabinet secretary, or Thurgood Marshall, the first black Supreme Court Justice (both Democrats)? The choice of images seems intended to push a political agenda. john k 20:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Y is condi in that picture???????

I take offense to this, what is her grading to be in that picture with King? Y not put in a real African American like the man that came up with the term MALCOLM X. I am changing that picture and dropping condi. letting u know. U must be kidding, put AA that people rally behind not the white mans mouth piece. Yeah those two house negroes are history, AA have a legacy and we put forward the tokens to represent OFFENSIVE. even if you dispute that, i think u will find people put forward those that championed the cause. it is impossible not to add Malcolm X, he coined the term, Douglas over Condi, i think we can agree. Powell isnt even really Black (per his own statements)--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 00:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Although this is a couple of months old, I'm just reading it. And your comment offends me!!! and is a big part of the problem, and no where near a solution. Keeping stereo-types alive and such, by using terms such as "house negroes"!! Do you not know that there are young black youth that are so pressured to not succeed because of comments such as these??!!! Afraid to be consider "white" and therefore a "race traitor". Knock this shit off. Cut it out, dammit! Geez. - Jeeny ^Talk 04:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Blacktress

I noticed this article, and it seemed likely to me that there must be another article already on this topic which this could be merged with... but I couldn't find one anywhere. Perhaps someone here can merge this with another already existing one, or if not, expand it, as there must be more to say about it. And Blacktress can't be the best title for it. --Xyzzyplugh 20:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrofitting of history books

There were no "African Americans" in the United States in 1790. There were (legally) slaves. More than ninety percent of the Negroes in the United States in 1790 were (legally) slaves. No slaveowner ever said that his slaves were any sort of "Americans" — George Washington, e. g., never said that his saves were "Americans." People should quit re-writing American history books. It makes Wikipedia seem like an ongoing soap opera. GhostofSuperslum 19:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

WHO CHANGED THE CHART?

IF YOU "SMART" PEOPLE READ, THE CHART SAID METROPOLITAN AREA NOT THE CITY LIMITS. SO WHOEVER CHANGED THAT NEEDS TO GO FIX THAT.

75.21.211.254 00:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Quotes Section

I think the entire section is not necessary. There's a different Wiki for that, Wikiquote. The section should be transwikied there, and erased here. Every single one of the quotes is from a black person, that's Afrocentric and obviously POV. They aren't very encyclopedic anyway. ɱўɭĩє ^{What did I do}_wrong 04:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I deleted the section. I transwikied it to African American. I think that's where it should stay. ɱўɭĩє ^{What did I do}_wrong 20:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

New part of "Criticisms of the term" section

An IP adress user, 67.173.6.76 added some things from someone named "Maddox" to the section. here it is:

Maddox stated, in a post on May 6, 2006:

"Every time you call someone an "African American," you're making at least two assumptions about the person:

1. That the person is an American...

2. That the person is African (because it's inconceivable that black people could come from Haiti, India, Trinidad, Dominican Republic, Brazil, Australia, or Jamaica). Nevermind that; BLACK PEOPLE ONLY COME FROM AFRICA.

Not to mention that every time you give a black person the distinction of being "African American" out of a mixed group, you're making an assumption about an entire continent; not everyone from Africa is black. I guarantee all you politically correct morons out there have never called a white person an African American. Of course you could avoid all these problems by using the same standards on blacks as you would on whites by simply assuming that all whites are from Africa just as you do for all blacks, but that might be too forward, and in a polite society like ours, people would be all too pleased to point out which of the 192 countries you didn't guess they were actually from."

The Maddox links to a disambiguation page. If anyone can find out who this Maddox is and if the person is a good source, we should be able to use some of the information, but it's really unnecessary. I just wanted to note that I was deleting it, beause at this point, none of the information is NPOV or even from a reputable source. ɱўɭĩє ^{What did I do}_wrong 19:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Contemporary issues

Aids in African American Community are still the most racial group affected by HIV/AIDS -- please clarify 67.180.140.169 00:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Where is this sentence? The article is huge and it would be inane to search it in its entirety for a sentence. If you know where it is, change it to something like African Americans are still the racial group most affected by HIV/AIDs please. ɱўɭĩє ^{What did I do}_wrong 01:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

"MAddox" runs a web page called "The Best Web Page In the Universe" it's funny, but not a good source

"You People"

Why does the term "you people" redirect to this article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tazzy531 (talk • contribs) 03:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

Problems of assumed omniscence

Often articles relating to black people define parameters which are assumed to be universally agreed upon. Upon doing so, we reaffirm those assumptions which are false. At the very least we continue to support the kind of thinking from which these false assumptions gained their strength. For example, in the first paragraph in the history section. The statement "The accurate number (of slaves) will never be known because they were not considered human beings and were not "counted" as such."

The assumption is that universally, they were not considered human. Or to be more bluntly... since whites at that time did not consider them human... they were not considered human. Or the implication is that only the white opinion of them mattered. This is what I call "assumed omniscience". We assume that the white opinions of black people at that time were the "all knowing" defined facts of them. Blacks were considered human by other blacks and certainly by many other ethnic groups. Therefore it is false to say "they weren't considered human" because it misleads younger readers into thinking that all over the world, black people simply weren't recognized as humans. What should be done is to illustrate how erroneous the whites were who did NOT consider blacks to be human.

The sentance should therefore say "The accurate number will never be known because the Europeans and Americans and their societies who enslaved them refused to recognize black people as human and no reliable records were kept. (or something to this effect).

I don't know a better term to use besides "assumed omniscience", but this is a core problem in various disciplines (including here in Wikipedia). Can someone change this appropriately and discuss here this issue? Is there a term for this we can use in Wikipedia which will minimize the unnecessary edit warring or debating that comes from 1. People being aware of this problem and 2. Many whites (as well as others) who seem to not notice.? --68.60.55.162 06:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

In all communication of any sort, people leave information out for the sake of brevity. If I tell a friend, "I'll meet you at Taco Bell for lunch Thursday", I probably don't have to specify which taco bell, as we tend to eat at the same one regularly. In addition, as I didn't specify which Thursday, my friend will assume that it is the next Thursday, and not a Thursday weeks or months or years from now. I also don't have to specify which part of the Taco Bell, did I mean the dining area or the roof?, as my friend will know I didn't mean the roof or the walk-in freezer.

Anyone reading this article will understand that in the sentence, "The accurate number (of slaves) will never be known because they were not considered human beings and were not "counted" as such", it is the slaveholders, or the larger white society, which didn't consider the slaves to be human. It's not necessary to specify who it was who didn't consider the slaves human beings, it was clearly the ones counting them. "Assumed intelligence" is what is actually going on here, the assumption that sentences don't have to contain every single bit of information they are trying to convey, because readers are intelligent enough to fill in the missing pieces. --Xyzzyplugh 22:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Including a teenager from say Outer Mongolia [Wikipedia is all over the world]. True, and Americans or probably Europeans would understand these lines as you have indicated, but one who does not have the advantage of growing up in the culture wherein these facts happened would not have that advantage/knowledge, and hence a more 'complete/correct' wording would be preferable. --Dumarest 18:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

JANIRA MARTINEZ

AFRICAN WERE NICE PEOPLE.SO AM I SO WE NEED KNOW THAT POEOPLE ARE BALICK DOSE NOT MEAN THAT THEY AER NOT NICE AND MEAN+I AM NICE TOO.IWE SHOUD BE NICE TO THEM.JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE BACLK.I AM NOT BALCK BUT I SEE THE WAY THEY TREAT THRM. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.80.129.211 (talk) 15:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

Contradiction

I think that the opening sentence of this article contradicts the rest of article with regards to who is African-American and who is not. For example, the article agrees that Afro-Latinos and blacks from the West Indies prefer to use Latino, Afro-Latino, or their nation of origin over African-American. The first sentence however states that an African-American is anyone with sub-Saharan ancestry living in America. In my opinion, the article should therefore endorse the fact that the term African-American should not be used in lieu of black or used for all black Americans. The recent controversy over Barak Obama's "blackness" raised by African-American (i.e. those whose descendants are from the Antebellum South)political commentators illustrates the need to lessen the broad definition of who is an African-American and who is not. One also needs to remember that there are very distinct cultural differences between blacks migrants to the United States and African-Americans, the most important being that one group voluntarily migrated to the United States and the other did not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.165.203.103 (talk) 17:15, April 29, 2007

You raise very good points. I would note however that the article is, or ought to be, descriptive and shouldn't "endorse" anything or be prescriptive ("should not be used").

I would suggest adding a second paragraph to the lede summarizing the facts in your comment. Be bold and add it. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 19:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The beginning of this article states "An African American (also Black American) is a person in the United States whose ancestors, usually in predominant part, were indigenous to Sub-Saharan Africa." The Wikipedia article "Human" states that "The most widely accepted view among current anthropologists is that Homo sapiens originated in the African savanna around 200,000 BP (Before Present)." Doesn't this then imply that all humans in the United States are African-Americans? Westwind273 20:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Dubious statements

I question the following statements in the article, and would like somebody to produce a source that can support them:

White Americans forcibly bred African American sons and daughters with their own mothers and fathers
[White Americans] forced them to wear mouth bits like horses in order to break their spirits

I'm not looking to minimize the savagery of enslavement and American apartheid, but these statements seem over-the-top and inconsistent with anything I've read on the subject. These "facts" aren't even mentioned in History of slavery in the United States. If somebody thinks there's any truth to them, I'd appreciate some verification. Thanks. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 00:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

African-American organized crime

Please take a look at African-American organized crime. The problem with the title is that it is ambiguous, it appears to link African Americans with the notion of "organized crime" implying guilt by association. A better heading may be African Americans and organized crime or some other more neutral heading you may wish to suggest. I have tried to do the same with Jewish-American organized crime by changing it to American Jews and organized crime but I was reverted, see Talk:Jewish-American organized crime#Recent page move. Only three articles in Category:Organized crime groups have this kind of "title": African-American organized crime; Greek-American organized crime and Jewish-American organized crime. So will there be 134 articles in the future about "Foo organized crime" for all 134 categories in Category:American people by ethnic or national origin and indeed for every class of human on Earth without hypocrisy??? Note how there is no article for Italian American organized crime as it's simply and correctly called Mafia. African Americans and Jewish Americans are not connected with organized crime as "representatives" or "symbols" of their race or religion. Every group has its criminals. So what else is new. Sure there are "gangs" just as there are Category:Mafia gangs in Category:Mafia groups (and by the way, if there are such African American or Jewish American gangs or groups then name them, but let's not leave it as if "guilt" is being laid at the door of all African Americans or Jewish Americans etc), but the titles African-American organized crime or Jewish-American organized crime makes it sound, way, way bigger than it is in reality, and could easily slip into racism and antisemitism if not handled in a scrupulously WP:NPOV manner 100% of the time! The job of Wikipedia should not be to magnify the problem which is called POV editing, but to depict things accurately as they are. Please add your views. Thank you, IZAK 00:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Oprah image

Can we compromize a bit? My ageing vision can hardly recognize her at 200 px. --Dumarest 14:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Addition Please

These would be good to add to the page under maybe: "Others of the African Diaspora"

User:JohnCByrdIII

Obama image

I removed this because Obama is not technically an African American. He is an American of African descent, but not African American.--Sefringle 02:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Would you care to explain why not? — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 02:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

According to this article, "African Americans are considered primarily descendants of enslaved Africans." His mother is white, and his father is from Kenya [14]. Since his father is from Kenya, Obama's ancestors could not possibly have been descendants of enslaved Africans. He would fit more accurately in the article: African Immigration to the United States.--Sefringle 02:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

There are three sentences in the article that aren't entirely in agreement with one another, but that's largely because "African-American" as used by most people isn't a precisely defined term:

Lede: An African American is a person in the United States whose ancestors, usually in predominant part, were indigenous to Sub-Saharan Africa.

Early history: African Americans are considered primarily descendants of enslaved Africans

Definition and nomenclature: African Americans descend primarily from enslaved Africans brought to the United States, especially the American South, between 1565 and 1807, the majority of whom were brought in the 18th century.

Obama fits the first definition. He doesn't fit the second or third, but they both say "primarily" and not "exclusively." If you'd like, you can take the picture out. In light of what the article says, I could be swayed either way.

Ironically, Obama is, without a doubt, African-American, even if this article (and general usage) excludes him. He has an African father and an American mother. They don't come much more African-American than that. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 03:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I think he'd be more accurately described as African and American or an American of African descent. But African American, not by the second two definitions.--Sefringle 03:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Besides. I think an image of Jessie Jackson or some other black polition discussed in that section would be more appropiate there anyway.--Sefringle 04:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

XXX-American actors categories nominated for deletion.

A bunch of Ethnicity-American actors categories have been nominated for deletion, for example, Category:African American actors, etc etc. If you have an opinion on the matter, please comment here - Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_May_25#Category:American_actors_by_ethnicity. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)