[OAW]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

How is this any different from the first post I made in this thread?

I don't get it. Is the Nigerian "African-America" (which is where I went with Charlize) or is the Chicagoan "African-American"?

The guy from Chicago for sure. The guy from Nigeria ... it depends.

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Do you have to have been born in America to be an African-American, and American citizens who were born in Africa aren't "African-Americans"?

Basically yes. But it depends.

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I'm really not getting this at all.

Ok. I'll try again. As I said earlier the meaning of the terminology used is dependent upon its context. Indeed there is a certain degree of complexity involved ... filled with political, cultural, and identity issues. So it all boils down to how is the "hyphenated identity" being defined? You see the first component is one of Heritage or Ancestry. While the second component is one of Nationality. But that can get tricky because is one a citizen by birth or naturalization?

So if the "hyphenated identity" is defined as Ancestry-Nationality by birth ... then the black guy from Chicago is an African-American whereas the black guy from Nigeria is not. But if it is defined as Ancestry-Nationality by any means then the guy from Nigeria is an African-American as well.

I would argue that technically or denotatively speaking any black citizen of the US of African descent is an "African-American". However, connotatively speaking the term is generally used to refer to native born black citizens of the US. IOW ... in daily conversation that is what it means in the colloquial sense. And in that light, like I said earlier .... an "African-American" means a person of African heritage who was born in, and therefore is a citizen of, America. Just like Al Pacino is a person of Italian heritage who was born in America.

Now when it comes to our brothers born outside of these shores (i.e. Caribbean, Africa, Central & South America, etc.) it can get a little tricky because there are cultural and self-identification issues involved. And as Eug said before, there are some of those who take issue with being called African-American. Not all. But the sentiment certainly exists because many of them consider themselves to be ethnically distinct from the larger African-American population. Now personally speaking ... if a US citizen from Nigeria self-identified as an African-American I wouldn't take issue with it. I certainly wouldn't "correct" him. But if he preferred to self-identify as Nigerian-American I would most definitely respect that too.

Now if you think all this is confusing then try figuring out Latino vs. Hispanic vs. Chicano.

OAW

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Basically yes. But it depends.

So, basically, in defining the term "African-American" in the way you do you're discriminating against actual Africans? How peculiar.

Originally Posted by OAW 

Ok. I'll try again. As I said earlier the meaning of the terminology used is dependent upon its context. Indeed there is a certain degree of complexity involved ... filled with political, cultural, and identity issues. So it all boils down to how is the "hyphenated identity" being defined? You see the first component is one of Heritage or Ancestry. While the second component is one of Nationality. But that can get tricky because is one a citizen by birth or naturalization?

So if the "hyphenated identity" is defined as Ancestry-Nationality by birth ... then the black guy from Chicago is an African-American whereas the black guy from Nigeria is not. But if it is defined as Ancestry-Nationality by any means then the guy from Nigeria is an African-American as well.

I would argue that technically or denotatively speaking any black citizen of the US of African descent is an "African-American". However, connotatively speaking the term is generally used to refer to native born black citizens of the US. IOW ... in daily conversation that is what it means in the colloquial sense. And in that light, like I said earlier .... an "African-American" means a person of African heritage who was born in, and therefore is a citizen of, America. Just like Al Pacino is a person of Italian heritage who was born in America.

Now when it comes to our brothers born outside of these shores (i.e. Caribbean, Africa, Central & South America, etc.) it can get a little tricky because there are cultural and self-identification issues involved. And as Eug said before, there are some of those who take issue with being called African-American. Not all. But the sentiment certainly exists because many of them consider themselves to be ethnically distinct from the larger African-American population. Now personally speaking ... if a US citizen from Nigeria self-identified as an African-American I wouldn't take issue with it. I certainly wouldn't "correct" him. But if he preferred to self-identify as Nigerian-American I would most definitely respect that too.

Dude, it's no wonder you guys get passed over for jobs. It must take you until lunch to decide who everyone is.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Demolishing ethnic identity groups is a pipe-dream.

So is expecting everyone to acknowledge them, particularly the ones with an ever-changing nature contingent upon paranoid white folks.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

So is expecting everyone to acknowledge them, particularly the ones with an ever-changing nature contingent upon paranoid white folks.

I think the fretting of PC-conscious people over what words to include on a census form gets a little silly, but I don't see what is unrealistic about "expecting everyone to acknowledge" the existence of ethnic identity. An identity is not entirely contingent on what you see, but it's also continent on how the person in question feels about themselves. I don't know someone can expect to interact productively over the long term with another person if you won't acknowledge a basic tenet of their self-identification.

(That's what makes Colbert's "I don't see color, people tell me I'm white and I believe them because..." bit so entertaining.)

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Dude, it's no wonder you guys get passed over for jobs. It must take you until lunch to decide who everyone is.

-t

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Indeed it can be somewhat confusing. I would just direct you to my earlier post where i outlined how this identity issue among African-Americans originated. In the meantime, you asked me what I thought and I told you. If you choose to accept that or not is your decision.

Fair enough.

Ok. "Latino" is an ethnic group based upon language. It is not a "racial" group insofar as that even exists. So there are Latinos who are black, white, indigenous American and all kinds of mixtures thereof. So given the description of your friend she very well is African-American. And she's a Latina too. And she has white ancestry just like nearly all other African-Americans. What you have to keep in mind is that "race" as we think of it today is not a biological reality. From a DNA perspective there is more diversity within so-called racial groups than between them. The concept of "race" is actually more of a social construct.

Agreed on the "social construct" and that's likely why it bores me to death.

And in that light if your friend appears to African-American then that is how she will be perceived. Look at Soledad O'Brien on CNN. She's African-American and Latina too. She happens to be fair-skinned. But from an ancestry perspective I wouldn't be surprised if she was very similar to your friend. Yet despite her appearance she's still considered to be black in America because her mother is black. Even if her dad was an Australian of Irish descent. Even if it was a grandparent or great grandparent that was black, in America we have a society rooted in the One Drop Rule which says that any black ancestry makes you black. And let's keep it real here. White people started all that. And for the most part that's still how they see the world today. Halle Berry is "bi-racial" … but her mother had sense enough to tell her as a child that she was "a little black girl with a white mother". Because that was how she would be perceived in America. Tell the truth. How many of your white friends think of Halle Berry as a white girl? Do you? President Obama is "bi-racial" too. But he came out of the oven much darker than Ms. Berry. Now because of who he is some white people want to embark on this "intellectual" exercise and try to claim that he's not African-American. But real talk … if he was just a regular dude he'd have just a hard of a time catching a cab in NYC as me or any other black man. And his white mother wont mean a damned thing then now will it?

I've even stated that I thought these labels were originally penned by paranoid white people. That's why I think the African-American preference is odd. It is blacks who get discriminated in the US, not African-Americans. On Obama, if he was an African-American white person... he likely would not have garnered 98% of the black vote right? I mean, it works both ways.

Why would blacks have a difficult time catching a cab? What is the stereotype that triggers the flight response in a cabby who I suspect needs money as much as the next guy?

How people "perceive" me around here is the least of my concerns. What I deal in are FACTS. So in that light let me ask you this …

Did I start the thread?

No.

The thread topic involved race did it not?

Yes. The post you were responding to however, had nothing to do with mistreatment of blacks. Much like your response to me. Did I ask you the level of difficulty in catching a cab as a black person?

The thread title has a rather interesting reference to Rahm Emmanuel's ethnicity that was in no way related to the OP. Yet that gets a pass by nearly all involved in the thread right?

I read his as a quirky attempt at humor related to Rev. Meeks' subject matter. Yours I read as a more serious plea against perceived social injustice; a social injustice that can never be resolved for those who need it for the associated podium.

There are those who've made their life's work peddling and perpetuating racial tensions and in some cases you appear all too eager to lap it up. In case you haven't noticed, the overwhelming majority of white people not guilty of racism, bigotry, soft or otherwise get tired of hearing about it. In many cases their fathers weren't bigoted, their father's-father wasn't bigoted, in some cases fought side-by-side with African-Americans for their social progress, etc... and they are tired of hearing about the injustices perpetuated by a minority of people who happen to share the same skin-tone. I would think this would make sense to you. Fat people get it. Long-hairs get it. Poor or poorly-dressed people get it. Ugly men or women get it. Zit-faced people get it. A minority of people can be cruel, no doubt about it. It is the minority.

Turtle made his snide remark directed at me. I'm sure you saw it. The only thing I said regarding discrimination was to present FACTS to back up why I said I understood The point Rev. Meeks was trying to make. Facts that have thus far gone unchallenged let alone refuted.

And I was merely citing why it is these perceptions exist with regard to your posts. 74% are either indifferent or prefer black and you're among the 24% who prefer African-American.

Crash goes on one of his typical rants that for the most part is completely off topic. And as usual, even when he makes some valid points he's convinced himself that being an asshole in his manner of expressing them is some sort of badge of honor.

But I'm the one tripping though right?

Wait a minute. I'm tripping for being more interested in what you had to say on this issue than him? No disrespect to crash, but... I didn't read his post.

I could suggest that you review the thread history around here and see just how these conversations get started. I start some. But any honest assessment would show that the vast majority aren't started by me. I'm generally responding to one of the usual suspects. I mean there have been threads where some pretty blatant race baiting comments have been made. And for the most part, not a peep out of you guys. But let me respond and check that individual and then I'm the one "fixated". But it's cool. And it's certainly not unexpected.

If I were to find every example of what you deem blatant race-baiting, then posed the question to this forum; Is this an example of blatant race baiting? Do you suppose you'd be in the significant minority "yes" vote in that poll as well?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by ebudy

The post you were responding to however, had nothing to do with mistreatment of blacks.

I'm going to have to ask you to actually read the article that was linked in the OP my friend. Because in that article it says this ....

MEEKS FOR MAYOR CAMPAIGN RELEASES STATEMENT REGARDING SENATOR MEEKS' COMMENTS ON THE CITY'S MINORITY AND WOMEN-OWNED BUSINESS PROGRAM

December 16, 2010 (Chicago) - "Senator Meeks strongly believes all minority and women-owned businesses deserve their fair share of City contract opportunities."

"But there's no pretending that Chicago has a history of systemic corruption in its minority and women-owned business program and that African-American owned businesses are the most underrepresented among city contractors. Lucrative contracts have repeatedly gone to companies disguised as minority- or women-owned, resulting in multiple investigations, firings and imprisonment on this issue."

"This completely violates the intent of the City's minority and women-owned program and has contributed to African American businesses receiving a disproportionately low number of city contracts, a fact that is widely known and has been reported extensively in the media."

"As mayor, he would put an end to the corruption and lack of accountability that has been allowed to go unchecked."

My very first post in the thread was in response to the OP ... which linked to this above. And clearly it is in reference to "mistreatment of blacks". That's the very context of Rev. Meeks' fumbled statement! And in that post all I said was that I understood the point that he was trying to make. And I do ... because the numbers speak for themselves. After that I responded to Turtle's little comment ... and that is where I cited what the numbers actually are. You know ... just to show that I'm not pulling this out of my ass. And along the way I went down Doofy's tangent and got caught up in his entire "hyphenated identity perpetuates racism" argument ... and I cited examples to the contrary.

So I'm pretty confused as to how this statement is justified based upon the flow of the 3 conversations I was engaged in this thread?

Originally Posted by ebuddy

You compounded this by invoking racial oppression and discrimination in response to posts that had nothing to do with this detestable aspect of human nature.

Go back and look at my posts PRIOR TO you making that statement and see if you can show how my characterization of the conversation flow is inaccurate. Which post did I respond to that had nothing to do with racial oppression and discrimination?

OAW

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

How is this any different from the first post I made in this thread?

Yeah, I'm not seeing how the lovely Charlize isn't African American, unless some people just doesn't want to include her because of her color.

[subego]

Emanuel on ballot ruling: 'We'll prevail' - chicagotribune.com

Courts say he's not a resident, so he can't be on the ballot.

[OAW]

This is a very unfortunate ruling. Would the appellate court have said that Mr. Emanuel wasn't a "Chicago resident" if he had been a soldier stationed in Afghanistan for the last 18 months?

OAW

[subego]

That's certainly a good question.

I actually think Chico would make a better mayor, and this helps* him, but that doesn't make it any less dodgy.

Unfortunately, I don't see how he can beat the time factor. The election will be long over by the time the appeal is decided on, not to mention the issue of certain judges who should recuse themselves as this goes down the line.


*Putting it mildly.

[besson3c]

Poor guy is unemployed now!

[subego]

"Hey Barry, good to talk to you. Listen... Can I have my job back?"

[subego]

"Hey Larry, good to talk to you. Listen... Can I keep that 11 million dollars I raised?"

[Oisín]

So, basically, in defining the term "African-American" in the way you do you're discriminating against actual Africans? How peculiar.

Not really, he’s just (in that particular case) using a definition where your ethnic group is defined by your birth/heritage, rather than current location (or citizenship). This happens to be the same definition that I would normally use.

If I up and move to China (again), that won’t make me any more Danish-Chinese (or Chinese-Danish) than it did the first time around. I’m still just Danish. If, on the other hand, I up and move to China (again), and while there perform some unthinkable acts with a local of the female persuasion, enabling me to father a child there (heaven forbid!), that child would be Chinese-Danish (or Danish-Chinese). But I still wouldn’t, nor would the poor female who mothered the child.

Similarly, I wouldn’t call Charlize Theron African-American. I might call her German-African (though not really, since apparently it’s a few generations out), but she hasn’t got an American bone in her body, as far as I know.

And ultimately, I wouldn’t really want to call her (or myself) anything, because it really doesn’t matter an ounce whether she’s South African, American, Greenlandic, Kamchatkan or from Surrey, as long as she continues to be a good actor (which I personally think she is).


Side note:

I heard a black guy from the Netherlands describe himself (in English) as African-American a few days ago. I nearly vomited from political hypercorrectness overload syndrom.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

Similarly, I wouldn’t call Charlize Theron African-American. I might call her German-African (though not really, since apparently it’s a few generations out), but she hasn’t got an American bone in her body, as far as I know.

But she's now an American citizen. That makes her the perfect definition of "African-American".

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

I don't understand the objection to 'African American'. It's a fact that people often feel a need to identify with a cultural heritage and ties to a 'homeland', and let's be honest- that was stolen from a lot of black people. Why shouldn't people want something of that back, if only in a name?

I know plenty of (for example) Irish-Americans who've never set foot in Ireland, but still want to identify with some (possibly imaginary, but whatever) cultural heritage that's important to them. Good for them. Why should I care? I don't.

Likewise, I don't care if someone wants to call themselves African American. Great.

Likewise, if a white person from Africa recognizes that calling themselves African-American will probably come off as smartassed and silly -since the term has mostly come to identify black Americans- then that's great too. Forcing a title on someone seems equally stupid. How about we just call people what they ASK to be called? (Side note: just make up your mind on it, and please don't change the term every other decade and then insist the 'old' term is now racist or something. Anyway, sorry, I digress...)

My wife is an American citizen, has been for many years, but she wasn't born or raised here. She has a very distinct accent (and might I add gorgeous) and people ask her all the time what nationality she is. Now, she could answer "American" but that'd be the smartass answer, because obviously that's not what's being asked. Despite being an American, her answer to what nationality she is will always be Finnish. That heritage doesn't just magically disappear. Why would it? Hell, if she ever magically ceases to be Finnish and morphs into some generic 'American' person, I'll be pissed. Who is this person, and what is she doing in my house?

This idea that people -even after becoming American citizens- just jettison all trace of their previous identities is brain-dead. It's not realistic. People DO still identify with where they came from, their culture, their heritage. What's the big deal? Why is it any different that blacks want to do the same thing -especially in light of being robbed of the chance throughout history- that whites, Asians, and everyone else does?

And if someone else's country is so generic that everyone just calls themselves 'X', then bully for it- welcome to Boringland. Why is that supposedly such a great thing anyway?

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

But she's now an American citizen. That makes her the perfect definition of "African-American".

In one sense of the word, yes. I wouldn’t say becoming a citizen in a country makes you ‘from’ that country, though. I have a few Norwegian and Finnish colleagues at work who’ve been living here for ages and are actually Danish citizens—but both I and they still identify them(selves) as Norwegian and Finnish, respectively.

[subego]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Likewise, I don't care if someone wants to call themselves African American. Great.

I'm with you on this, I've just never met a black person who calls themselves that. Not that they don't exist.

OTOH, I have met loads of white people who use the term, and I find that to be a little stupid considering the former.

It should be said though, most of these people have been actors, who are generally stupid and ingratiating, so that's colored my opinion.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

This is a very unfortunate ruling. Would the appellate court have said that Mr. Emanuel wasn't a "Chicago resident" if he had been a soldier stationed in Afghanistan for the last 18 months?

I'm somewhat surprised at this myself. If you're called into service by the POTUS, you're called into service by the POTUS. How on earth does this not satisfy the statutory exemption to the residency requirement?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

I don't understand the objection to 'African American'. It's a fact that people Americans often feel a need to identify with a cultural heritage and ties to a 'homeland'

Fixed.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

I know plenty of (for example) Irish-Americans who've never set foot in Ireland, but still want to identify with some (possibly imaginary, but whatever) cultural heritage that's important to them. Good for them. Why should I care?

...because it's divisive. You don't see this from the inside but it's there.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

And if someone else's country is so generic that everyone just calls themselves 'X', then bully for it- welcome to Boringland.

Oh purlease. You know you only do it because your country has no history to speak of and hyphenated people feel the need to associate themselves with something older than 250 years.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

In one sense of the word, yes. I wouldn’t say becoming a citizen in a country makes you ‘from’ that country, though. I have a few Norwegian and Finnish colleagues at work who’ve been living here for ages and are actually Danish citizens—but both I and they still identify them(selves) as Norwegian and Finnish, respectively.

But do you ever call yourselves "Norwegian-Danish" or "Finnish-Danish"?
And would you do it if you were fifth generation and had never been to Norway/Finland?

You actually *are* Norwegian. Unlike the countless guidos running around New Jersey who think they're Italian because they've seen The Godfather fifteen times. There's the difference - you're not attaching yourself to a subgroup because of where your great, great granny was born.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'm somewhat surprised at this myself. If you're called into service by the POTUS, you're called into service by the POTUS. How on earth does this not satisfy the statutory exemption to the residency requirement?

The Election Board and, later, the circuit court, ruled that Emanuel actually met the residency requirement of having "resided in" Chicago for the one year prior to the election by virtue of the fact that in their view Emanuel never established residency anywhere else (he still owned a home in Chicago, paid taxes, etc., and never indicated that the would not return to Chicago after serving the President). In that ruling the exemption clause never really enters into it. The recent appellate court's ruling was that Emanuel was not a Chicago resident and that the exemption clause for an "elector or spouse" who has left the precinct or district on "business of the United States or of this state" only applies to voters, and not candidates. The dissenting opinion agreed with the earlier court ruling about his established residency.

By the stated intention of both parties, this would have gone to the Illinois Supreme Court either way. The Court should hear this on an expedited basis, so this isn't over yet.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Fixed.

Not really. You're simply wrong.

For example, I was in Finland not long ago; a good number of the street signs anywhere you go are in Swedish. The population of Fins of Swedish decent cling very heavily to their Swedish roots, and call themselves Finlandssvensk, which is roughly Finland-Swedes.

People of German decent there are German-Scandinavians.

Just to cite a single example.

Your other assertions in this thread have been dead wrong- I've met people of North African origin from France, who identify (of course) with their African country of origin, not refer to themselves as French. Irish from the UK still refer to themselves as Irish, and likewise Scots.

Just about every place I've ever traveled to, one can easily find sub-groups of people within the larger culture that still identify heavily with an original culture that they came from. I know you've probably traveled a bit, so I won't make the obligitory 'You need to get out more' jab, but I am pretty surprised that you've failed to notice this.

It's not a big deal or in any way unusual that when foreigners come to America (and OF COURSE since we're a younger nation than most others we're going to be made up mostly of legal immigrants) that people still have cultural identities tied to somewhere else. It's the WORLD norm, because it's a trait of actual human beings not just to be generic carbon-copy robots of each other, and to value a unique sense of origin. You just somehow haven't noticed.

...because it's divisive. You don't see this from the inside but it's there.

Right, because no one's ever heard of Europeans being divisive over ethnic and regional identities.... no, wait, that's pretty much the origin of EVERY SINGLE major conflict of the last two or three centuries!

But in the Doofyverse, only Americans are divisive because of hyphenated-Americans. Riiiiight.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Irish from the UK still refer to themselves as Irish, and likewise Scots.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Just about every place I've ever traveled to, one can easily find sub-groups of people within the larger culture that still identify heavily with an original culture that they came from

Not really. Excluding yer muslims (who're a religion, not a race or nationality, after all) I don't think I've met anyone who prolongs it past the second generation. Original immigrants will obviously hold to their original culture, then they teach their kids about it. By the time their grandkids graduate, everything's forgotten - unless it's religion-based.

It really is only Amaraka where fifth-gen "Irish" think they're Irish. "Ooo, I have a freckle, so I must be Irish. Let's go wear green and get drunk on Guinness. La de da".
(In the meantime, the actual Irish are wearing whatever they feel like wearing and drinking lager)

And anyway, if we're talking culture rather than skin colour, why aren't millions of "African Americans" living in mud huts in "Africatown"? Face it, this shite is about skin colour and bloodlines alone. Thus, it's racist bollocks.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

But do you ever call yourselves "Norwegian-Danish" or "Finnish-Danish"?
And would you do it if you were fifth generation and had never been to Norway/Finland?

As for the former: my Norwegian and Finnish colleagues wouldn’t call themselves that, no. But I have other colleagues who are the children of, for example, one Danish and one Norwegian parents. They call themselves Norwegian-Danish (depending on the context, of course—in some cases, they’d just call themselves either Norwegian or Danish, for simplicity).

As for the latter: no, never.

For example, I was in Finland not long ago; a good number of the street signs anywhere you go are in Swedish. The population of Fins of Swedish decent cling very heavily to their Swedish roots, and call themselves Finlandssvensk, which is roughly Finland-Swedes.

That’s a rather skewed way of looking at it. Finlandssvensk is not so much a cultural thing as it is a language thing. Most Finns who have Finnish as their native tongue don’t much like Swedish (it’s compulsory in school, therefore it’s not liked) and don’t speak it all that fluently; and many finlandssvenskar feel the same about the Finnish language. But culturally, there are loads of Finland-Swedish places that are far more Finnish than Swedish. (And of course, everything in Finland is heavily influenced by Swedish, both language and culture)

[finboy]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

...annnnd that's how to perpetuate the racism.
You're not special or different just because your great great great granny was African/Italian/Irish/etc.. It's nothing. It's bullshit. Just a label you all use to separate yourselves into little groups (so the Irish can hate the Italians, etc.), instead of all trying to get along.

But wait, Doof-man! We gotta have RACE or nobody's plight can be blamed on RACISM. Makes perfect sense in LeftWorld.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by finboy 

But wait, Doof-man! We gotta have RACE or nobody's plight can be blamed on RACISM. Makes perfect sense in LeftWorld.

Bingo!

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Don't put words in my mouth, OAW.
I've had amusing arguments with "Irish Americans" by telling them that I'm more Irish than they are, and they're simply "Americans".

If you weren't born in Africa, you're not an African-American. You're an American, period. Same goes for the Irish, Italians, Chinese and Anglos.

Like to add, not every one of dark skin color has direct heritage to Africa either. Cubans, Hatians get really offended with the term African American. Best term the rest of the world seems to use is Black (insert nation). Use that term in Amerika though and you offend African Americans who are 4+ generations removed from Africa. Go figure.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Best term the rest of the world seems to use is Black (insert nation). Use that term in Amerika though and you offend African Americans who are 4+ generations removed from Africa. Go figure.

In this day and age, you are unlikely to offend anyone of African descent in the United States by calling them black.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

But I have other colleagues who are the children of, for example, one Danish and one Norwegian parents. They call themselves Norwegian-Danish (depending on the context, of course—in some cases, they’d just call themselves either Norwegian or Danish, for simplicity).

But, of course, that's a whole other ball game (and perfectly acceptable and non-divisive). It's when the children of those people call themselves "Norwegian-Danish" that we have a problem.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

In this day and age, you are unlikely to offend anyone of African descent in the United States by calling them black.

Here's an idea. How about, unless describing said person to the authorities for official purposes that warrant it, you call them "asshole", "dude", "bro", "Doctor", "Mr", "mate", etc., etc., depending on circumstances?
There were way too many commas in that sentence.

Amerika is way too fixated on race.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

I don't understand the objection to 'African American'. It's a fact that people often feel a need to identify with a cultural heritage and ties to a 'homeland', and let's be honest- that was stolen from a lot of black people. Why shouldn't people want something of that back, if only in a name?

Explain how it was stolen from current generation black people. I don't see how thats any different for them then any one else who is born in a different country from their parents. My families back ground is Polish and French. Does that mean I have had something stolen from me for not being born there? How is a blak mans cultural heritage more lost then every one else who has grown up in a different land from the parents.

I know plenty of (for example) Irish-Americans who've never set foot in Ireland, but still want to identify with some (possibly imaginary, but whatever) cultural heritage that's important to them. Good for them. Why should I care? I don't.

Here is the problem, you are talking about Cultural heritage and race at the same time. If its a cultural issue then being called African American is just as wrong as calling a Irish American a European-American. For cultural reasons a Black man would have to define it a bit more like Congo-American or a Botswana-American.

So either call all White people European-Americans and Call all Black people African-Americans which is basically just distinguishing people by skin color or break it down culturally IE British-American, Irish-American, Botswana-American, Jamacan-American.

Likewise, if a white person from Africa recognizes that calling themselves African-American will probably come off as smartassed and silly -since the term has mostly come to identify black Americans- then that's great too. Forcing a title on someone seems equally stupid. How about we just call people what they ASK to be called? (Side note: just make up your mind on it, and please don't change the term every other decade and then insist the 'old' term is now racist or something. Anyway, sorry, I digress...)

Why don't we just drop the labels period because they are useless. If your born in Amerika your American. If your born in Canada your Canadian. If your born in Australia your Australian. If you move to another country your still what ever you where born as. If I moved to the US and became a citizen I would still be Canadian until I die. The most proper way to say it, im a Canadian with American Citizenship.

This idea that people -even after becoming American citizens- just jettison all trace of their previous identities is brain-dead. It's not realistic. People DO still identify with where they came from, their culture, their heritage. What's the big deal? Why is it any different that blacks want to do the same thing -especially in light of being robbed of the chance throughout history- that whites, Asians, and everyone else does?

There you go again about being robbed. Robbed of what? Explain.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

But, of course, that's a whole other ball game (and perfectly acceptable and non-divisive). It's when the children of those people call themselves "Norwegian-Danish" that we have a problem.

Saying that the practice is okay when the person is one generation removed, but not two generations removed, seems incredibly arbitrary. I think you need to loosen up and understand that some people find ancestral kinship important for whatever reason and it doesn't necessarily lead to Bad Things.

Originally Posted by Doofy

Here's an idea. How about, unless describing said person to the authorities for official purposes that warrant it, you call them "asshole", "dude", "bro", "Doctor", "Mr", "mate", etc., etc., depending on circumstances?
There were way too many commas in that sentence.

Amerika is way too fixated on race.

And you are way too fixated on American culture in a way that seems to completely discount actual history. Guess what? We had a bit of slavery problem a while back, and then a bit of a civil rights problem. It was kind of a Big Deal. Now, that doesn't mean that I will habitually refer to Paul as "my black friend Paul," but it does mean that when Paul refers to some aspect of his personal background or some perspective that he has that is linked to his identity (both self-described and externally-attributed) as a black man, that I can conceive of what he is talking about without becoming confused or appearing to be a oblivious simpleton ("Wait, you're black? I guess I don't really see color").

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

LOL everything is just so simplistic in the Doofyverse. In the Doofyverse, there's not even a conflict between Irish and Brits over some useless dispute dating back to god knows when.

Heck, there aren't even whole wars fought over 'Ethnic Cleansing' because some bunch of euroweenies can't live within an area the size of Delaware without committing genocides against each other. We'll pretend you didn't start world wars (that you whined for the US to come bale you out of after you did), commit holocausts, start every single last stupid 'ism' that still plagues the world today with death and destruction, and try and have stupid little empires that circled the globe over all your petty ethnic/racial/religious/bullshit.

Because in the Doofyverse, it all never happened. Indians ****ed over by invading Brit assholes just rolled over and now somehow don't call themselves Indians or have ties with their mother country. Riiiiight.

Like I said, very simplistic place that Doofyverse. It's sure as hell isn't in our solar system, but wherever it is, it must be nice.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

In this day and age, you are unlikely to offend anyone of African descent in the United States by calling them black.

I wouldn't know, I would never bring up the topic with any Black American. Its to dam easy to offend people in the US. I can tell you from my observational point of view, there is a world of difference between Black Americans and Black Canadians and part of it his this victum mentality which is strong there. Our Blacks, this includes first generation immigrants from Africa, Haiti and other black nations and old timers who's families settled in Canada 150 years ago originally from slave families fleeing the US have a very strong and negative opinion on US blacks and the constant victum mentality they have. If a Black kid ever told me he was a victum because his people where slaved 200 years ago I would punch him out for being stupid. The only people who have any right to feeling that way are those who's the very least parents suffered directly.

My point is Black Canadians don't have this victum mentality so they don't need to identify with Africa the same way American blacks do. Im African, Im Proud.. blah blah its just incorrect because all people come from Africa. There is no Africa country. Its a way to identify with the slave trade, thats how I see it. Its also why it seems to be only in the US the term African is used. Every other country seems to be ok with the term Black.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Explain how it was stolen from current generation black people.

Because many people can't trace their actual ancestry back (because their enslaved ancestors were taken from wherever they came from), and for many people to know where they came from is important to them. It may not be important to YOU, but it's important to THEM.

If you don't know enough about other human beings to have learned by now that the world doesn't revolve around you and only what is or isn't important to you, then what can I say? That's your issue, not mine. You can live in your own little universe like Doofy, but it doesn't really have any effect on the REAL world.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Athens 

I wouldn't know, I would never bring up the topic with any Black American. Its to dam easy to offend people in the US. I can tell you from my observational point of view, there is a world of difference between Black Americans and Black Canadians and part of it his this victum mentality which is strong there. Our Blacks, this includes first generation immigrants from Africa, Haiti and other black nations and old timers who's families settled in Canada 150 years ago originally from slave families fleeing the US have a very strong and negative opinion on US blacks and the constant victum mentality they have. If a Black kid ever told me he was a victum because his people where slaved 200 years ago I would punch him out for being stupid. The only people who have any right to feeling that way are those who's the very least parents suffered directly.

My point is Black Canadians don't have this victum mentality so they don't need to identify with Africa the same way American blacks do. Im African, Im Proud.. blah blah its just incorrect because all people come from Africa. There is no Africa country. Its a way to identify with the slave trade, thats how I see it. Its also why it seems to be only in the US the term African is used. Every other country seems to be ok with the term Black.

Yes, it's amazing what 90 years of Jim Crow laws will do to a group's victim mentality and their perception of being linked ancestrally to the slave trade. Remember that in the United States, there are still people who were alive as children in the 1950s and earlier, and certainly people who remember parents or grandparents being victimized by institutional racism.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Because many people can't trace their actual ancestry back (because their enslaved ancestors were taken from wherever they came from), and for many people to know where they came from is important to them. It may not be important to YOU, but it's important to THEM.

If you don't know enough about other human beings to have learned by now that the world doesn't revolve around you and only what is or isn't important to you, then what can I say? That's your issue, not mine. You can live in your own little universe like Doofy, but it doesn't really have any effect on the REAL world.

Sorry the real world is where Doofy and myself live, its Amerika thats in its own little box. So you have any idea how many people have problems tracing back heitage beyond a few generations. This isn't a Black persons problem. I know way back my family came from Europe. Stops at about there. I guess I should feel robbed because I can't trace it back further.... Hell for all I know I should be Irish and should be celebrating everything Irish because 400 years ago a relative lived in Ireland. .... OMG I'VE BEEN ROBBED I guess im African American because I just don't know where my people come from.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

That’s a rather skewed way of looking at it. Finlandssvensk is not so much a cultural thing as it is a language thing. Most Finns who have Finnish as their native tongue don’t much like Swedish (it’s compulsory in school, therefore it’s not liked) and don’t speak it all that fluently; and many finlandssvenskar feel the same about the Finnish language. But culturally, there are loads of Finland-Swedish places that are far more Finnish than Swedish. (And of course, everything in Finland is heavily influenced by Swedish, both language and culture)

The point is, Doofy is ignorant of the fact that all over the world there are plenty of places where people hyphenate themselves in the native country, and have ties to another 'homeland' where they came from. One can't possibly have done much traveling with their eyes open not to have noticed this.

Of course, one has to travel the earth that's located in the MILKY WAY galaxy/KNOWN Universe to notice this. Imaginary earths in other galaxies/ alternate universes etc. are a different story.

And for god's sake, how ridiculous is it anyway for euroweenies to lecture anyone else about racial/ethnic/religious/regional unity? It's so laughable it's not even funny.

People living in spaces the size of our smallest states have historically not been able to get along with each other for longer than two seconds before inventing some horrible new attrocities to commit against each other. Oh, but in the Doofyverse, everyone just calls themselves the same thing, and gets along, rainbows and sweetness. Since the F when? Give it a rest already.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Yes, it's amazing what 90 years of Jim Crow laws will do to a group's victim mentality and their perception of being linked ancestrally to the slave trade. Remember that in the United States, there are still people who were alive as children in the 1950s and earlier, and certainly people who remember parents or grandparents being victimized by institutional racism.

And I would never aruge there right to feel the way they do because they actually lived it and seen it. There is still a lot of healing that needs to be done.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Sorry the real world is where Doofy and myself live, its Amerika thats in its own little box. So you have any idea how many people have problems tracing back heitage beyond a few generations. This isn't a Black persons problem. I know way back my family came from Europe. Stops at about there. I guess I should feel robbed because I can't trace it back further.... Hell for all I know I should be Irish and should be celebrating everything Irish because 400 years ago a relative lived in Ireland. .... OMG I'VE BEEN ROBBED I guess im African American because I just don't know where my people come from.

I think the point here is just that America is different from Canada or the UK, and that's fine. There is a reason for it.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Sorry the real world is where Doofy and myself live, its Amerika thats in its own little box. So you have any idea how many people have problems tracing back heitage beyond a few generations. This isn't a Black persons problem. I know way back my family came from Europe. Stops at about there. I guess I should feel robbed because I can't trace it back further.... Hell for all I know I should be Irish and should be celebrating everything Irish because 400 years ago a relative lived in Ireland. .... OMG I'VE BEEN ROBBED I guess im African American because I just don't know where my people come from.

YOU can feel however you want about YOUR situation.

Once again, it's impossible for a non-narcissist to explain to a complete narcissist (such as yourself) the way the world works for other people who *gasp* don't revolve their existences around YOU. There are several BILLION such people.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I think the point here is just that America is different from Canada or the UK, and that's fine. There is a reason for it.

CRASH just needs to understand the rest of the world isn't like the USofA, but like a typical Yank is ignorant of anything 10000 feet from his front door, let alone the next county, next State, or the rest of the world.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Says the guy who proves his ignorance of the world outside his mom's basement with virtually every post.

And notice the irony here; the only people offended and getting thier panties in a bunch over what other people choose to do, is you and Doofy.

"Oh noes! Someone chooses to call themselves -American! I'M SOOOOO OFFENDED!"

Get over yourselves. I've pointed out before that PC disease works in both directions. Some here suffer from the more usual affliction, for certain, but you people whining about 'African Americans! oh noes!' are suffering from some bizarre 'reverse' form of it as well. That combined with malignant narcissism. Not an attractive combination.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

YOU can feel however you want about YOUR situation.

Once again, it's impossible for a non-narcissist to explain to a complete narcissist (such as yourself) the way the world works for other people who *gasp* don't revolve their existences around YOU. There are several BILLION such people.

OMG you know there is more 311 Million people on this planet, that impresses me. *Gasp* wonder if you believe the world is round and billions of years old too. Anyways your post needed a correction.

" it's impossible for a non-narcissist to explain to a complete narcissist "

to

" it's impossible for a complete narcissist to explain to a non-narcissist "

[Athens]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Says the guy who proves his ignorance of the world outside his mom's basement with virtually every post.

You still live in your parents basement... sad

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Saying that the practice is okay when the person is one generation removed, but not two generations removed, seems incredibly arbitrary.

It may seem incredibly arbitrary, but it's actually incredibly valid when one observes society.

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I think you need to loosen up

I'm loose already. Why are you thinking I'm wound? Problem with your country's culture perhaps?

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

and understand that some people find ancestral kinship important for whatever reason and it doesn't necessarily lead to Bad Things.

History says otherwise.

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

And you are way too fixated on American culture

No, I'm not. I'm having a conversation. No need to be so defensive.
If I have a conversation about grapes am I fixated on grapes? No - it's just a conversation.

Your responses, of course, stem from Amerika's other main social disease - patriotism.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

LOL everything is just so simplistic in the Doofyverse. In the Doofyverse, there's not even a conflict between Irish and Brits over some useless dispute dating back to god knows when.

I was laughing at your perception of Scots.

Which conflict between Irish and Brits are we talking about? Last time I looked, the troubles were between two factions of people who were both Irish and Brits.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Like to add, not every one of dark skin color has direct heritage to Africa either. Cubans, Hatians get really offended with the term African American.

My favorite example of this is "The Haitian" character from Heroes. He never spoke, but no one called him "The Black Guy," he was just "The Haitian."

Use that term in Amerika though

Originally Posted by Athens 

If your born in Amerika your American.

Originally Posted by Athens 

its Amerika thats in its own little box.

Oh good, now you're doing it, too.

Originally Posted by Athens 

You still live in your parents basement... sad

Sick burn.