Which is politically correct-Black or African-American?

I am an equal supporter of both Hillary and Barack so I am a happy camper.

But now that race and gender are part of the political discourse, I don't want to offend anyone.

I hope this isn't a stupid question, as I've noticed the MSM uses African-American mostly and it comes across a bit negative to me and I would like to know from those who really know what is the preference?

Please believe me when I say this is an honest question from me. Am I the only one wanting to know?

I know it use to be okay to say black guy, but it seems that has changed and I missed the memo?

Is there a preference? Please set me straight. Thanks.

•  tips

  "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones"

  by roseeriter on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 08:46:02 AM PDT

  •  Not a dumb question at all

    Fascinating discussion.  I think this goes right to the heart of the discussion on race in this country, and we should be having more of it.

    by CA Libertarian on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:09:52 AM PDT

  •  i grew up in the 60's....

    admittedly i was young being born in 1961...but i did live in california and my mom took me to all the peace rallies, even in  a stroller, and i, as a skinny white boy, hung out with the black panther set and had a poster of angela davis on my wall...

    black power, black pride, black panthers...

    i still use and prefer the term black...will use the term african american sometime with people i don't know well as it seems more current and politically correct...but Black will never mean anything to me other than power and pride and strength and beauty...

    g

    by thegelding on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:17:14 AM PDT

  •  Oddly small number of recs for this diary

    It wasn't a stunning piece of writing or research but stimulated a great discussion and - I think - quite an insightful thing to bring up in these days when we are coming to terms that Barack may very well be the next President of the United States.

    Race will be at the core of many discussions on this election.

    Somehow, we're going to have to come to terms with how we talk about it - without the constant feeling of walking on eggshells whenever it comes up.

    by CA Libertarian on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:25:55 AM PDT

    •  Which brings me to my own thoughts on the matter

      With due respect to American Indians, the United States was built by immigrants.  Immigrants from Europe, from China, from Mexico, from Africa - from all over the world.

      What has made this country great is not who was here first, or who had more power when, or who has occupied which positions of political leadership, but rather than great, indomitable American spirit of independence, freedom, and the ability to seek out success no matter one's race.

      We have not always been perfect in achieving this ideal.  Over time, through battles hard-fought by courageous leaders (include examples here), we have become more enlightened in creating a level playing field where ideas and ability matter more than gender or ethnic heritage.

      This is what continues to draw people to this country, the land of opportunity.

      This mission is not yet accomplished.  But it is one that we should continue to aspire to.

      Yeah, that's what I would do.  I would totally abstract out the African experience and talk about in terms of immigration and equality - from Plymouth Rock to present day.

      I think it would set a fantastic tone for the presidency.

      by CA Libertarian on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:38:43 AM PDT

      •  You're ignoring one thing...

        ...there is a power dynamic at work.  The "African" experience you're talking about is really the American experience of dark skinned people.  This is a historical experience that includes capture, the Middle Passage, slavery in perpetuity (American slavery, where descendants of slaves were slaves forever, is unique in human history in its severity), broken promises of freedom and political franchise, white supremacy, lynchings, segregation, a historic (and continuing) struggle for freedom that is unparalleled in human history, and the current pervasiveness of racism/white privilege.  I can claim none of these facets of historical identity.  How do you "abstract" that out of cultural identity?

        From a non-white perspective, cries that "ideas and ability matter more than gender or ethnic heritage" sound like an effort to shirk responsibility for the awful legacy of white privilege.  Whiteness in our culture confers privilege; there is no equality of opportunity.

        by Matt W on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:03:13 PM PDT

  •  I Don't Do PC

    But I do prefer the term Black.  So does everyone I know.  

    by shanikka on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:49:48 AM PDT

•  Same question re "Hispanic" and "Latino"

  Is one preferable to the other, and why?

  by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 08:47:37 AM PDT

  •  I Prefer "Latino"

    ...just think it sounds less mechanical...

    by serrano on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 08:55:12 AM PDT

    •  It also has a wider

      focus and less geographic connotations.

      by Rolfyboy6 on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 08:56:53 AM PDT

    •  Me too plus its what my Daddy used...

      Hispanic seems to be an "English" term. I never remember my parents calling themselves Hispano or Hispana when they were talking in Spanish. They would only used the term when they were speaking or writing in English.

      by MariaSquared on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:01:10 AM PDT

    •  But then when people start saying "Latina"

      is sounds stupid.

      I prefer Hispanic.

      by hlvs on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:12:05 AM PDT

      •  it's not stupit to native Spanish speakers

        My wife is a Latina, not a Latino. My son is Latino.

        She doesn't use the term hispanic.

        by jeffinalabama on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:25:54 AM PDT

  •  I've heard that...

    "Latino" is preferred these days because this term includes people from Latin American countries (Brazil, Haiti, Suriname, etc.) in which Spanish is not spoken. (Except for places such as Jamaica, other Caribbean islands, and Guyana in which English is spoken, which fall into a different category.)

    "Hispanic," on the other hand, refers only to those nations in which Spanish is spoken.

    by Louisiana 1976 on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 08:57:17 AM PDT

    •  Thanks for the explanation, everyone! (n/t)

      by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:27:10 AM PDT

    •  I think you would get push-back...

      ...from my Haitian students if you referred to them as Latino.

      by rserven on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:30:08 AM PDT

      •  That's interesting....

        what would they prefer to be called--I mean, other than Haitian, which is obvious, but if you don't know where they're from?

        by Louisiana 1976 on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:36:08 AM PDT

        •  The problem stems...

          ...from their French history, as opposed to the Spanish history of the Dominican Republic.  Haitians have historically been mistreated, in their view, by Dominicans.  While both nations have histories involving dictatorships, it was the Dominicans which expelled Haitians from land Haitians may have owned in the DR and who have limited the number of Haitian workers and the kind of employment Haitians can pursue in the DR.

          Complex issue.  I find it is best to ask if it is necessary, although the name often indicates the ancestry, as does the native language, which is often Creole.

          by rserven on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 01:11:13 PM PDT

    •  Haitians are Latino?

      I had no idea. They speak French, so that wasn't obvious to me.

      I learn something new every day...

      by malharden on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:43:04 AM PDT

    •  I was just going to ask this question -

      wondering how non-Spanish-speaking Latin Americans fit into the equation.  Thank you for clarifying.

      by lineatus on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 08:34:17 PM PDT

•  They are interchangeable

  Though African American has become the norm in mainstream speech and presentations, Black is equally acceptable. I am not the voice of all peoples of African descent in the US and my thoughts should be interpreted as the gospel truth but I have not heard of anyone getting mad about being called Black since 1964.

  by Sansouci on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 08:49:03 AM PDT

  •  Thats what I thought. Thank you

    "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones"

    by roseeriter on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 08:51:28 AM PDT

    •  There is a convention

      in writing articles and such.  Use "African-American" in the introductory part and at important highlight spots thereafter, then thereafter use of "black" works once the ballpark being played in has been shown.  It also works as writing as you lessen the "word repetition" problem known to writers.

      by Rolfyboy6 on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 08:55:23 AM PDT

      •  Yeah...

        I work in a field where we have to make racial differentiations all the time (civil rights), and we typically use "African-American" the first time around and "black" subsequently -- mostly because "African-American" takes too long to type over and over and over again.

        by DC Pol Sci on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:03:33 AM PDT

        •  Simple demonstration of respect

          and then the writer can get back to the homely Anglic short word tradition.

          by Rolfyboy6 on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:05:30 AM PDT

        •  To be more specifc

          in distinguishing Black people historically rooted in the US vs. Black people with in the US with non US roots I have tried to introduce the nomenclature Afri-US. Though I tried it in a dailykos diary and people paid more attention to that word than to the issue addresssed. It is a good way to avoid US exceptionalism. The US is not exclusively America. It is one country in the Americas. Afri-US reminds me of the fact of the African presence across the western hemisphere.

          by Sansouci on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:38:21 AM PDT

          •  Nice point

            And of course, Non-Us Americas history is known to few, it's as if those places don't exist.  "Who's Bolivar?"  "Who's Toussaint?"

            by Rolfyboy6 on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:26:14 AM PDT

      •  Nicely replied....

        by sp0t on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:59:48 AM PDT

    •  Actually, I prefer African American.

      It, like Irish American, Asian American etc. speaks to my origins.

      by Blogvirgin on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:06:09 AM PDT

      •  another question, then--

        What if you don't know if someone is Jamaican or African at their family roots?  Is black then a more general term as well?

        (Pardon me if it is a stupid question....)

        by qwerty on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:09:27 AM PDT

        •  Yes

          and also African descent is appropriate. Appropriate for the obvious reasons with a person having continental African roots but the prefix Afro- or Afri- are added to Caribbean, Latin American and European based groups of Africans. Though Afro- is becoming anachronistic as it was more popular in the 1970s. Complex, you bet. But necessary. The populations of continental Africa and its Diaspora are almost infinitely variegated and it is necessary to have the language to understand that variety to avoid confusion and show proper respect for people's backgrounds.

          by Sansouci on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:33:01 AM PDT

      •  It'd be too long

        for me to write out German-Polish-Swiss-English-Scotch-Irish-American.

        by Drewid on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:13:43 AM PDT

        •  I'm an American

          It strikes me as overly self-indulgent to bore people with the details of the heritage of my family.

          If it comes up, it comes up.  But why bother?  Why should I lean on such a label?

          Labels breed divisiveness.  We need less of that in this country.

          by CA Libertarian on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:23:03 AM PDT

          •  Of forms that ask for race

            I alway put "Human"

            by beaukitty on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:54:20 AM PDT

            •  Perfect! n/t

              by CA Libertarian on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:56:53 AM PDT

          •  See- that's the thing

            when one compares "African American" to just plain old "American", it comes across- I think- as somehow "less" American, which isn't true. It's as if the people of European descent get to be the "real" Americans and everyone else is a hyphenated American.  

            However, because we in the US have divided ourselves along these lines for hundreds of years it makes sense that we search for appropriate names to describe ourselves and each other- like "African American" or "Asian- American", along with names that reference our skin color- like Black and White- which are also not really accurate either. ( We're more like browns and pinks!)

            I suppose the important thing is that remain aware of our own limited perspectives concerning people with a differing ethnic background from our own,  and therefore respect the name or names that the people choose for themselves.

            by Zulia on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:59:07 AM PDT

  •  mistake

    my thoughts should not be interpreted as the gospel truth.

    by Sansouci on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:27:07 AM PDT

  •  In most cases they are (except)

    I prefer to be called Black. My family is from Jamaica. In states Like NY, MA (actually all of New England),NJ, FL about 30% of the Black population are decendents of Caribbean or African immigrants. Now we are Black, but we do have a different culture then African-Americans. Now I don't mind be called African-American but this is one exception that should be noted. This matters in politics, in these areas, which is why I bring it up.

    As I like to tell people, the MSM likes to make immigrant equal Latino, but about 12% of the US Black population is Carib/African Black! Check the census. The Carib/African component is also much more heavily weighted at Colleges (Cosby actually has talked about this). I guess this would be like calling and Irish-American and Italian-American. But ethnic politics is a whole other ballgame.....

    In anycase in most cases Black is OK in everyday speach, but in formal writing I think African-American is the preferable term.

    by dopper0189 on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:22:45 AM PDT

•  Correct...

  ...would be not to care or notice

  by Bobjack23 on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 08:49:37 AM PDT

  •  Agree

    "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones"

    by roseeriter on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 08:51:47 AM PDT

  •  It is wrong not to notice

    Clearly I don't know your demographic, but this is the type of statement that generally arises from priviledge.  Race is a real phenomenon in our culture.  As a white person, I have absolutely benefited from my color.  And I'm sure any black person will tell you that they get daily reminders of their blackness in the form of more traffic stops, assumptions of lower intelligence, white expressions of fear and distrust (especially of young black men), continuing discrimination in employment, education, and housing, and stereotyped media portrayals.  Saying that you shouldn't care or notice invalidates the experience of people of color and suggests that white responsibility for combating racism extends no further than each individual's own actions and perception, which is a lie.  It's like saying that the best way to combat alcoholism is to deny that alcohol exists.  Racism (i.e. white privilege) is a white disease whose effects are felt most by people of color.  Non-white people have to deal with it every day; white people need to take responsibility for recognizing it and combatting it with every fiber of our beings.

    by Matt W on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:05:41 AM PDT

    •  You are right. you do not know me...

      ...or my circumstances, social class or race and life history. Do you as an evident self proclaim Ned actualized person have any other interesting theories about people whose experiences you have not lived through?  

      by Bobjack23 on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 01:05:16 AM PDT

      •  Please don't hesitate to correct me

        You're right.  I don't have the experiences - my theories stem from conversations with friends, participation in workshops, books I've read, and a careful ear to my own preconceptions.  But that doesn't mean that I don't still have tons to learn.  And, as an American white person, I am undoubtedly a recovering racist and always will be.

        by Matt W on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 08:03:35 AM PDT

•  I'm sure there will be a difference of opinion

  about this.  But since no one speaks definitely for either "black or African-American" people or "Latino or Hispanic" people, I suspect there is no correct answer, politically or otherwise.

  We could just call them "people."

  by Kevvboy on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 08:49:41 AM PDT

  •  Sounds good to me:-)

    "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones"

    by roseeriter on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 08:53:19 AM PDT

    •  Again...

      ...there are some fields (I work in one) where the distinctions have to be made, because when you're talking about majority-minority voting districts and minority voting rights, you have to make the differentiation.  And in our workplace, either is acceptable.

      by DC Pol Sci on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:04:36 AM PDT

  •  True story

    A senior woman approaches the security guard at the supermarket.

    She states: "When I was young, we referred to you as 'negros'.  Then, it was changed to 'black'.  Now I understand it's 'African-American."

    Then she inquires: "Which do you prefer?"

    The guard smiles and points to his name-badge: "I go by 'Steve'."

    by Dawgbro on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:16:03 AM PDT

•  Both are fine.

  I find African-American too awkward and long, and one time my friend (who is black) said, "Just say 'black.'  That way it doesn't sound like you being careful when you speak to me."

  by Delaware Dem on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 08:49:42 AM PDT

•  Just be respectful...

  don't  "the Blacks" as Bob Beckle did on Faux news last night.  I tend to use Black when talking about a person and AA when talking about the group.  But I'm probably not consistent

  by Hope08 on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 08:50:11 AM PDT

  •  Probably best

    not to use "Black" as a noun!

    by SloMoDem on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 08:59:20 AM PDT

    •  Yes.

      "Black voters" or "black elected officials" is pretty standard in my field; "African-American" is generally used as the noun.

      by DC Pol Sci on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:05:40 AM PDT

•  When speaking to an African-American friend,

  I used the term black and was corrected. Yet, black seems to be often used and not at all offensive to many African Americans.  So...good question.

  by Fury on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 08:51:25 AM PDT

  •  I was corrected once, too.

    I corrected him back. No big deal. I went to a predominantly black high school. I'm comfortable using either term. There is no good reason to be offended in a casual context by someone using the term "black." Unless you're using it as a singular noun. Calling someone "a black" is as ridiculous as calling someone "a gay."

    by Michael D on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 08:56:47 AM PDT

    •  The correction

      People below are commenting on the same point on which I corrected someone back.

      I told him that "African-American" presumes you're both African and American. I don't know that.

      by Michael D on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:38:37 AM PDT

•  I think black is more useful

  why distinguish between black people from America and Black people in Europe? But then it's not really down to me as a "white British Celtic".

  by Grass on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 08:52:40 AM PDT

  •  Yeah, I've often thought it was silly too.

    Like Black Americans are the only ones worth talking about... like Black Europeans or West Indians, or Brazilians don't make contributions to humanity.  Once again, there's more that divides us than unites us!  Yay Jesse! (see below)

    by ultrageek on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 08:55:47 AM PDT

    •  It's meant to create immigrant equivalence

      It's unique to America (really the United States of America), where we talk about Irish-Americans, and Italian-Americans, and even the paradoxical, oxymoronic Mexican-Americans.

      It seems to me you can still speak of blacks or people of African descent, to refer to blacks world-wide.

      As to why it should be insulting to call Americans "blacks", I don't know why it's any more insulting than "whites."

      by FischFry on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:06:09 AM PDT

      •  Well, but that's just it.

        "White people", by and large, are not white.  Sure, there are albinos out there, but they're rare.  And "Black people", by and large, are not black.  Again, there are some people out there of incredibly dark skin, but very rarely do you find anyone who is really black.  

        It is technically correct that the people who are considered "white" are of European descent and the people who are "black" are of African descent, and, let's go there, the people who are "red" are of Native American stock, and the people who are "yellow" are of Asian stock.  But, as with everything else in this brave new age, there is a melting pot effect where people of various heritages blend together into an amalgam which is neither purely one or the other.

        What is, in Jesse Jackson's view, more important is the connotations associated with various colors.  If people of Asian descent were commonly called "Yellow People" and if the word "yellow" was still commonly used as a synonym for "coward", I would understand that, as a people, they might stand up and demand that people stop referring to them as Yellow.

        Black, historically and nearly universally, had negative connotations.  White, historically and nearly universally, had positive connotations.

        Interestingly, when I was growing up, blacks were called Negros and whites were called Caucasians, though neither was strictly accurate, both were way more accurate than either black or white.

        by ultrageek on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:21:13 AM PDT

        •  Except

          I understand the other point, and it did play a role in what Jesse was saying back in the day -- even though it contrasted with the "Black and Proud" slogans of years past. Today, it's different.

          Black, in today's society, is the epitome of cool. "White bread" and "vanilla" are frowned as tasteless and pale compared to the broad palette of flavors and authentic breads made from a variety of grains. "Black" is still the "new black", in fashion. Nothing replaces it for cool -- neither in clothes, nor in movies. Critics and audiences seek out dark, black visions, rather than saccharine sweet, unrealistic happy start-to-ending-type movies.

          Even in pop culture and sports, blacks (African-Americans, if you must -- but what about whites who come from Africa? I dated a gal in high school, who was from South Africa, in 1981, before the term came into our parlance -- she was more African-American than any of my so-called African-American friends, even though she was a pale-skinned Jewish girl) -- even in pop culture and sports, blacks are much cooler. Tiger Woods is virtually the only golfer in ads, Michael Jordan is long retired, but still is the no. 1 or no. 2 sports advertising icon -- Tom Brady's won 3 Super Bowls and I think he's done one national commercial, contrasted with Donovan McNabb and Michael Vick who haven't won anything but did more commercials.

          Admittedly, we no longer refer to Asiatics as "Orientals" or even "Asiatics", which is undoubtedly the best term -- though it fails to differentiate between East Asians and South Asians. We now call them "Asians," though they may have been here for generations. There ought to be a word to identify folks whose color clearly reflects African heritage, but distinguishes them from people living in Africa. If not "Negro", or "black", then we need something else, since African-American cannot apply to English blacks, but calling them "African" would deny their native Britishness. Even British-African would fail, since it differentiates them from English whites, but doesn't unite them with fellow members of the African diaspora.

          by FischFry on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:06:03 AM PDT

          •  Yeah. I think we should just call 'em...

            PEOPLE

            And be done with it.  :)

            by ultrageek on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:32:57 AM PDT

            •  True dat.

              by FischFry on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 02:00:59 PM PDT

        •  How is Negro more accurate than black?

          Interestingly, when I was growing up, blacks were called Negros and whites were called Caucasians, though neither was strictly accurate, both were way more accurate than either black or white.

          Negro was first a term used by Portuguese explorers to refer to people from the African continent.  It means.. ummm.. black.

          Caucasian is a term that originated from 19th century attempts to achieve a typology of human races.  They thought that the "white" races originated in the Caucasus mountains, a since discredited theory.

          Since race is a social contruct, based mostly on skin color, white and black seem to be accurate enough to me.

          by Matt W on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:14:51 PM PDT

          •  How 'bout...

            just paler and darker?

            by ultrageek on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 01:07:18 PM PDT

  •  I've never heard anyone say "African-British"

    in the United Kingdom.  Is the hyphenated phrase approach unique to the US?

    by DustyinMemphis on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:36:30 AM PDT

    •  asdf

      Eddie Izzard self-identifies as British-European.

      by droogie6655321 on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:50:44 AM PDT

    •  At least in everyday speech

      On census forms you might be asked to qualify yourself as Jamaican-British(because of the large number of Jamaican immigrants in the 50s and 60s). Same with Pakistani-British etc.

      by Grass on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:56:34 AM PDT

      •  Yes

        in Canada it's Afro-Canadian, they also have another slang term I keep forgetting.

        by dopper0189 on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:24:56 AM PDT

    •  That says a lot, actually

      I've found that in Britain, "British" = "white/ethnically indigenous".  Everyone else is Asian (ie, ethnically Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Indian, etc) or Afro-Carribean or some such.

      Says a lot about the idea of the nation to me - we've been a country of immigrants all along, they traditionally were not.

      by sarac on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 07:41:36 AM PDT

•  I've often thought

  ...that the usage African-American subjects to hyphenation a group of Americans who have roots going back hundreds of years (under unfortunate circumstances), helping to build this country at every step of the way (i.e., as American as apple pie), whereas many of the unhyphenated just plain Americans are johnnies-come-lately in comparison.

  by jmknapp on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 08:52:59 AM PDT

  •  But I will refer to friends as

    Italian or Jewish.. Me, I'm a WASP.  My husband is Scandanavian.
    We are all at least second generation Americans.
    It is a descriptor, a way to reference someone's background or heritage.

    by empathy on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 08:57:36 AM PDT

    •  But take, say, some family coming over in 1800

      By now, 7 generations later, the descendants would probably just consider themselves "Yankees" (or American). Africans were transported to the Americas as slaves starting in the 16th century.

      by jmknapp on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:06:04 AM PDT

      •  Recent African immigrants

        often don't self-identify as African-American.

        There's a hilarious Colbert interview about all this and its relation to Barack Obama here.

        by Michael D on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:42:56 AM PDT

•  I use black.

  If whoever I'm speaking to wants me to use something else, I do.

  I also use Hispanic, once again welcoming corrections.

  Haven't had any problems.

  by TheBlaz on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 08:53:07 AM PDT

•  Both...

  Different histories, but both are widely embraced by black leaders.  

  The term "Blacks" is a slightly different story...

  My understanding is that black should generally be used as an adjective, as in "black people" or "black women," rather than a noun, as in "blacks."  

  by seabrook on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 08:53:07 AM PDT

  •  Seems to be true, this usage difference..

    I wonder how it came to be-- I can't see the logic in it, the differentiation, but it certainly seems to be true.  

    by qwerty on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:13:04 AM PDT

•  Both can be fine.

  It can depend on the context, too. Obviously, if you're talking about black people not of African descent, or black people not in the US, black is the preferred term. If the topic at hand is a sensitive one, or if you're in a formal environment, you might want to stick with African-American. There are certain phrases, like "black churches," "historically black colleges," etc., where one is preferred over the other.

  Cubans are not Latino, fwiw, but Latino is preferred by many Latinos, especially in the West.

  And Indians don't call themselves Native Americans. You don't have to either. For clarity, you can use American Indians, whereas Indian-Americans are from the subcontinent.

  by Michael D on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 08:53:13 AM PDT

  •  Great explanation!

    "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones"

    by roseeriter on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 08:54:45 AM PDT

    •  Also

      I might as well talk about my own minority's demonyms.

      Use "gay." Don't ever use "homosexual." It's not offensive so much as just awkward and suggesting no social contact with gay people. I also prefer "gay people" to "gays," (and "black people" to "blacks"), just because it subtly includes everyone in the same category of "people."

      Use "queer" only if you're comfortable using "queer." It's totally OK if you are or aren't. Some (usually older) people might be offended by this, but feel free to tell them you're embracing and redefining the term, but are happy to use "gay" in their presence instead. There are terms where "queer" is preferred, such as "queer studies," and you'll hear "queer" used a lot in activist circles.

      Leave "fag" and "queen" to gay people to refer to themselves ;-)

      by Michael D on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:06:51 AM PDT

      •  Also,

        there's "LGBT," which is inclusive of bi and trans people. It's not used so much casually, but it's handy formally when you don't want to use "queer."

        I don't really have any usage notes for "lesbian." I can't think of any ways to misuse it.

        by Michael D on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:09:44 AM PDT

        •  Now in transition

          I'm seeing some support for LBGTI.

          by The Raven on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:11:32 AM PDT

          •  I've seen some monstruous initialisms.

            Like this one. They seem to be mainly among youth organizations.

            By the way, "LGBTTI2QQAP," the term used in the example above, stands for... (you can try to guess first)...

            Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, intersex, two-spirit, queer, questioning, asexual, and pansexual. At least I think that's what it stands for. You could also add a second G for genderqueer.

            by Michael D on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:24:02 AM PDT

            •  Woah

              I'm for inclusiveness as much as the next language user, but maybe that's starting to get a bit awkward.

              by The Raven on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:30:05 AM PDT

            •  jeebus

              that's just too many letters

              by terrypinder on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:52:20 AM PDT

        •  Apreciate this too thanks.

          "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones"

          by roseeriter on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:18:55 AM PDT

          •  Well

            If you're well-meaning, I wouldn't worry too much about it. Just go with what you think sounds common-sense and normal, and be open to suggestions.

            by Michael D on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:25:43 AM PDT

      •  And isn't "homosexual"

        a buzzword for the anti-gay, religious right crowd?

        by Aug6PDB on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:31:18 AM PDT

        •  Yeah

          And putting "gay" in quotes, when not in the context of talking about the word itself, is something you'll find in right-wing publications. That has to do with a couple arguments -- that gays ruined what had been a perfectly good word, and that the word implies gays are happy, which they definitely are not, even if they try to convince you otherwise.

          by Michael D on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:48:11 AM PDT

      •  I had often used "queer"

        having had many gay and bi friends in an academic environment-- where indeed that was the preferred word.  But I notice that, now that I live in Montana, "queer" definitely makes people flinch.  I guess it just drives home that, in many of these naming issues, there isn't just one right way that people are comfortable with all across the country and in all circles.  

        by renaissance grrrl on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:32:20 AM PDT

        •  It's a tricky word with a trickier history,

          and I've had much the same experience.  But now that I've started using the word "queer", it's hard not to - it's much more embracing of a complex set of ideas than the narrower words we have for gender or sexuality.

          by pico on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:12:03 AM PDT

  •  I did get corrected once for

    using Native American or American Indian to refer to north Americans.  I was gently reminded that there is also a South America that has a large population of indigenous peoples.  

    I get confused sometimes too.  I, like the diarist, don't want to offend anyone.  

    by martydd on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:00:42 AM PDT

    •  1491 is a great book

      by Charles C. Mann, about what scientists are uncovering about settlements of the first (probably actually third wave of people coming from Asia) peoples of North and South America. The impression the early Europeans had of these settlements was not accurate - according to the book- because the populations had suffered huge losses from disease shortly before.

      Anyway - it's a fascinating look at these huge cities, waterways, complex civilizations, even early "writing" that consists of string knots--all severely diminished by the time the Europeans arrived.

      by Zulia on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:21:19 AM PDT

  •  My daughter's second grade teacher...

    ...once, in an abundance of over-political correctness, announced during Black History Month that there was a high probability that Beethoven was "African-American."

    Uh, African-German maybe, but to my knowledge, he never even set foot on American soil.

    by DC Pol Sci on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:07:07 AM PDT

    •  Wait, what?

      African-German? Black? Beethoven? That's just not true. Surely?

      by leberquesgue on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:27:03 AM PDT

      •  Hm

        I've read a lot of examples of people trying to appropriate long-dead figures as belonging to minority groups, but usually it's gay people. Lincoln may have been gay, for example.

        And then there's the controversial practice of religious groups anointing dead people as members of their faith. You know, for the dead person's benefit and salvation only.

        by Michael D on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:33:09 AM PDT

        •  Gay makes a lot more sense

          It is much easier to read something into a particularly effeminate painting, or a knowing look (painter's projection, perhaps), than it is to say "Hey, Beethoven looks a bit black in this picture".

          If Beethoven had been black, there would have been various references to "that talented Negro boy" in his earlier days, and there is no way he would have attained the heights he did. But Beethoven's family history is well-documented, as I recall, and it ain't African.

          by leberquesgue on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:39:55 AM PDT

          •  Well

            There's the fact that Lincoln slept with his very good male friend and was away from Mary Todd an awful lot.

            The claim that Beethoven was black is without evidence, though.

            by Michael D on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:51:14 AM PDT

        •  I've seen this...

          my gay sister-in-law is constantly telling my wife and I that such and such historical figure was gay... usually on some very shaky evidence.

          I usually tell her that, while I am sure there were some gay historical figures who were in the closet, I find it difficult to believe everyone she claims was gay actually was.  

          If so, it would appear that, statistically, gay persons would be incredibly more likely to produce great historical figures than straight persons, based on their relative numbers.  I'm just not buying that any one group is more likely to produce that many great historical figures in huge disproportion to their population size as a whole.

          Matt

          by Cixelsyd on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:01:59 AM PDT

          •  It's kind of like the person

            who believes in re-incarnation was always Cleopatra, or a Russian nobleman.  No one is ever a peasant-- which most of my ancestors were!

            by Zulia on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:08:30 AM PDT

            •  lol!

              I was burned at the stake according to one channeller, so I guess I was a witch.

              "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones"

              by roseeriter on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:18:19 AM PDT

      •  His father was a Moor Mercenary

        That of course depends on what you think when you say Moor. Was he an Arab (White), Berber(somewhat Biracial but mostly White) or Black (the Moors used Black soldiers at times). This is what gets discussed about Othello. Did Shakespeare mean him to be African-Black, or Berber???

        by dopper0189 on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:29:17 AM PDT

        •  Really?

          Wikipedia has nothing on this. It says he came from a family of Flemish musicians, no mention of any ancestry from outside of the Low Countries/Germany. Unless I'm blind.

          by leberquesgue on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:01:54 AM PDT

          •  here are some wiki links

            http://en.wikipedia.org/...

            I guess it was his Grandfather who was a moor.

            Beethoven 1/16 Black

            by dopper0189 on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:08:24 AM PDT

            •  Thanks

              I don't find the link you provided that convincing, seeing as it is a stub of an article on a collection of short stories by Nadime Gordimer (admittedly a fine writer) of the same title. But I'll believe the claim that one of his grandparents on a maternal line was a Moor. Interesting. Regardless, to use that to argue he was black seems a bit strong.

              by leberquesgue on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:30:33 AM PDT

              •  yeah, I think it got stretched

                BTW I had heard this before, if you google it, you will find more on it.

                by dopper0189 on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 01:24:21 PM PDT

  •  I am Lakota-Oglala and I prefer

    American Indian... but even I get confused with all of the PC-ness sometimes.  

    by LucyMO on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:29:24 AM PDT

    •  Heh. My wife...

      My wife is part Mohawk, and that side of her family seems to mostly prefer either Indian or Native -- either way, without "American" attached -- possibly because the reservation they're tied to is in Canada.

      by kenboy on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:53:30 AM PDT

      •  But isn't Canada in North America?

        That's where I get confused.  What is American?  Isn't South America just as entitled to be American as North America?  Does that make the indigenous people of Peru Native Americans?  Does that make Mexicans Native Americans rather than Latinos or Hispanics?  Why does the US get the sole claim of being "American?"

        This is a really interesting discussion that reminds me of how complex descriptions can be.

        by martydd on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:45:59 AM PDT

•  African American...

  ...was the brainchild of Jesse Jackson, who thought that "black" necessarily had negative connotations, as in "blackheart" or "black and white" or "black hats".  He introduced it at Operation Push, I think, in 1976 or so, and, as I recall, he was roundly ridiculed, as there were much more important issues facing the African American community at the time... poverty, lower life expectancy, higher incarceration rates, black-on-black crime, educational differences, etc.  But, JJ prevailed... and it's "African American" now.  And still, there are issues of poverty, lower life expectancy, higher incarceration rates, black-on-black crime, educational differences, etc.  

  Yay Jesse!

  by ultrageek on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 08:53:49 AM PDT

  •  Yeah but

    At least well-meaning whites can talk about those issues now without risk of causing offense.

    \snark

    by leberquesgue on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 08:57:20 AM PDT

  •  Initially it was "Afro-American"

    which is actually, etymologically speaking, more apropos, but that came and went pretty quickly, probably because of the image of an "afro" hairstyle which was inseperable from the term.

    by PBJ Diddy on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:05:55 AM PDT

  •  I was in college in the early 80's...

    and I remember some of my black classmates objecting on the grounds that "African-American" set them apart from other Americans.  "I am an American, just like any other American."  That's probably the reason I never took to the term much, myself.  That, and I think the unintentional comedy of watching newscasters refer to Canadian or British black people in the news as "African-American" has made the term seem like a bit of a joke to me.

    by