Interesting.

What also needs to be considered are non African American Blacks. For instance, when I arrived in this country in the early 70's at 5yrs old, there were hardly any Africans where I lived. The ones that were here were single, West African males , students who had families back home. Because of their distinguishable appearance, they did not meld into the AA society. They were just as critical of Blacks as everyone else because they did not interact with the Black community.

My family didn't "look African". Also, being from South Africa we were very Westernized. We were taken to be African American from the onset (although "proper"..you know what I mean) However our melting into the culture caused us to have an understanding of the intricacy and perverse nature of the issues that affect AAs (I supposed partially because we got tossed in).

What I see now is a large number of people who are African that people don't realise are African. The representation of Africans in professional positions and academia is extensive by proportion to their population in the US. Looking at sports off course, you see that phenomenon. What is missing though are the scares which produce the signature African American behaviors (some which make us all cringe if we are honest). You wont see the excessive bravado, crystal and largely striped suites on those athletes. They will give a simple and pointed interview without a minstrel show taking place or dramatic episode (a la Michael Irving, Terrel Owens and company).

This will also change how Blacks are perceived. As these individuals intermarry, as they are doing, into the African American community, those characteristics will become defined as Black. The relationship with education and this community is different than that of AAs. Africans view education the same way as Asians. Their children do well in school (are required to). Those Black faces multiplying in the advanced courses will change the perception of Blacks and intellect.

You are correct, Blackness as perceived by the larger society and internally, is changing.

I went to a Nigerian wedding a few years back and was surprised to see the children of these Nigerian. None of them "looked" Nigerian. Off course none of them sounded Nigerian either. These kids are, as I was, considered just Black. However they will come into society with their own cultural ethics, scares or lack of scares.

Why should races be divided into "communities" in the U.S.? After a fashion, talking and thinking in terms of the "black community" sets one group apart from the rest of society -- which is separatism. Of course, by no means do only some African-Americans think this way.

I guess I have a hard time with this sort of "group think" as my own English-German-Italian-American community is so unorganized. Yet the so-called Black Community has little cohesion or consistency -- there is about as much agreement within the "Black Community" as there is agreement within the "White Community" -- which is to say, not much. But where we agree, race is transcended, Bear in mind, success of the black civil rights movement would have been impossible without the assent of a majority of non-black Americans. The key is to work together rather than apart -- but maybe I'm just an idealist.

Sisyphus

We can't ignore people's ethnicities.

Italians enjoy their culture HERE in the US. Heck if we ignored their "Italianness" we wouldn't have stromboli. The same is true for the Irish and Germans.

Ethnic groups should self examine and evaluate who they are and where they fit in. That does not signify disunity with the rest of the nation it is a realistic evaluation of the uniqueness of that group.

I often wonder why no one cares when Filipinos have groups (which they do) or various Europeans have groups, no matter who divers they are.

In a family, no matter how different the members are, everyone comes home and when they do, it feels good.

"We can't ignore people's ethnicities."

Zedd, I'm not suggesting that ethnicities ought to be ignored. Certainly, the great variety of traditions and cultures that comprise our society should be embraced by all -- and not only by the members and descendants of the respective ethnic groups, which are responsible for those traditions and cultures.

I guess I was speaking broadly, but my contention is with the preoccupation of ethnic identification to the point of self defeat. It is a conflict between the goal of integration and the desire for ethnic segregation -- and the struggle of the Black Community to find a consensus as to how these needs should be balanced. It is also about how society will adapt to absorb the integration and deal with the segregation, which is what the author is writing about.

Sisyphus

Italians make up 5.6% of the American population, Jewish Americans make up about the same percentage of the population.

Looking at sitcoms and movies one would think that Jews for instance are the largest ethic group. You would think that Italians are closer in representation.

We here and see a lot about these cultures. We take them for granted almost as being part of the fiber of us.

However, Blacks are far more represented. More than twice.

The real problem is not that Blacks highlight their ethnicity, its that our society doesn't want to acknowledge it for some reason. Everything that is related to Blackness is discouraged. We are continuously asked to forget our past, our history, our identity, and our interests. Its rather odd. We celebrate "Italianness". There are Italians that behave as if Sicily is mecca and they are not discouraged. We love that devotion and passion about their heritage. We love the flavor that they bring into our culture. We love the Irish. We don't discourage the culture or ask them to forget Ireland. They sing pained songs about a longing for Ireland and we feel the longing with them. But for some very strange reason African Americans, who actually have shaped American culture possibly more so than a lot of these groups, are asked to forget their uniqueness. They are told that it is detrimental. Why? No one says. They are told that their acknowledging their culture is divisive. Strange!

Perhaps you can tell me.

"Everything that is related to Blackness is discouraged."

That is not true. The influence of Black culture on American society is enormous -- and celebrated! Just within the sphere of music -- everything from gospel to blues to jazz to soul to hip hop and more is everywhere!

But most, if not all, of important Black culture in America was born in America -- not Africa. And here is the major difference from the Italians and Irish and other developed cultures. Africa was comprised of thousands of distinct and non-distinct tribal cultures -- comparatively primitive and virtually pre-historic -- unlike Irish or Italian or Jewish cultures, which were well-formed and highly literate. The Irish brought their literature and history and traditions with them to America, whereas the Africans were brought here forcefully with nothing but immediate memories and few traditions that could be practiced.

Landing in America is the starting point of African-American culture, I would argue, not the African continent, except for a point of reference.

Sisyphus

You know full well that on the onset, what is Black is always held with disdain by the larger society. It is always after years that the value of Black contribution is valued. Actually it has been the secret of those who project trends to look at what the African American community is doing and saying in order to project what will be going on in the nation then later the world. However as it is being done, White America fears it, is disgusted by it or behaves as if it is inferior. Lets be honest.

There is not such thing as spontaneous generation. Begins from nothing. I know that you know that.

You are mistaken in your ideas about African Americans and their Africanness. The manner in which Blacks speak and express themselves comes from African language, not slavery. Their lingering reverence for the aged comes from Africa. Their attachment to family, extended family, even with slavery working to deserve such bonds, is their Africanness proving its deep imprint. The improvisational nature of jazz and Black language has its roots in Africa. Your thinking is irrational on this subject. Spend more time contemplating it.

As for the primitive nature of Africans vs the Italians including the use of the written language is neither here or there. Most poor people in those nations were illiterate or poorly educated peasants or slum dwellers in the late 1800 and early 1900s. The Italians and Irish that arrived were not the sophisticated icons of European culture. Illiterate is illiterate regardless of who may not be in your society.

Africans had very complex structures that were different from Europeans that don't diminish their sophistication by any means. What was undeveloped was the manner in which Europeans assessed their knowledge base. Its evident that that notion still lingers based on the ignorance and insulting nature of your statement.

Sysiphus

You still haven't explained to me why it is that African Americans should not fully live and celebrate their culture. Why they shouldn't be a subgroup like the strongly loyal and in many cases exclusive Italians or Irish.

Why do you think that it is divisive for them to be themselves and not Italians or the Irish.

A contributing influence and a distinct culture are two different things. You've suggested only vague elements of culture that may or may not be attributed to African roots. Musical improvisation, for example, is by no means uniquely African. Attachment to family is universal. To suggest that "attachment to family" is a distinctly African concept is ridiculous. Language, well, some pronunciation might be traced to Creole or even African roots but again, you're talking about vague influences that have filtered down and not language, per se. Hardly any African-American speaks Kikongo or Swahili or anything other than English -- or a variant thereof that is distinctly American. This is much different from languages such as Italian or German or Polish, for example, that maintained an integral part of one's cultural identity in the first and later generations. Africans spoke diverse languages and as slaves, were artificially kept apart so as to make a cohesive language and culture much more difficult.

As for the complexity or sophistication of African cultures, I am not making anthropological value judgements, but there is little argument that culture is, in large part, a function of the environment and conditions under which it arises. Our industrialized civilization is simply not conducive to hunter-gatherer cultures. Another example of this clash would be with the Native-American cultures, whose histories I don't need to repeat here.

"You still haven't explained to me why it is that African Americans should not fully live and celebrate their culture."

I didn't say they shouldn't. I asked why races should be divided into "communities." As another example, the "Asian-American" community -- is an artificial construct. There are many Asian cultures that have immigrated to America: Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Filipino, Vietnamese, et al. But these are not a single Asian culture nor a single community and neither is the "White-American" community.

There are many Asian cultures that have immigrated to America: Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Filipino, Vietnamese, et al. But these are not a single Asian culture nor a single community and neither is the "White-American" community.

Nor is the "Hispanic" community.

Clavos

You should know better.

Hispanics had a challenge coming up with what they wanted to be called. In the 60s and 70s they were Chicanos. There have been various debates about what Hispanics want to be called. It has been only in the past 10 years that the term "Hispanic" has been standard. Before, the different groups were called by their place of origin. Because Mexicans were most represented, people from Latin America were all being called Mexican and finding offense with that as well.

How is that different from African Americans wanting to be called a name that THEY are comfortable with.

Irish Americans, Chinese Americans, ALSO Mexican Americans (don't forget I live in Texas) and other groups are fine using their place of origin in their self identification.

Because AAs don't know what country their ancestors come from but know that they are from the continent of Africa, they CHOOSE to us that name. What is the big deal really? How does that affect anyone? It seems to me that there is a need to control African Americans. There is a need to decide for them everything that they should do, like, eat, enjoy, value, etc. No group can flourish under such circumstances.

I think that the pent-up guilt of this country because of never having faced and dealt with the issues of this population propels this obsession with controlling and suppressing everything about these people. Its as if, if they say too much something is going to happen to us as a nation.

Sisyphus#9

This post reflects a shallow understanding of every point that you attempted to make. I'm sure that we are just not going to be able to take our conversation even deeper, which I was hoping for us to do.

No people come from nothing OFF COURSE. Those individuals who came from those shores came with their understanding of the world and imparted that understanding to their children. Their world view was different from the Europeans that they encountered, hence the different world view that exists TODAY. In the Carolinas some rituals and craft work from certain parts of Africa still exist, untouched. Look it up.

In the same way that most other Americans don't speak the native tongue of their ancestors including the children of current African immigrants, the slaves lost their languages BUT they still identify with their ethnicity. We all speak English don't we? What was your point? Not all Italians speak Italian nor do Germans or Chinese. Big deal????

I am a person who came here as a small child. I fully identify with my original culture. I also feel a love and affinity with African Americans. They are my people. Not only are they not removed from me geographically, I originated from South Africa. There is no way that we are related. But I see the African in them. There are aspects that exist within them that don't exist within White Americans that I just get.

As for your comments about Africa, they need to be tempered. Your ignorance is abysmal. Just stop yourself. You are no more developed in your world view than the ignorant Social Darwinists of our pitiful past. Please feel free to ask question. Your statements only embarrass you.

Zedd #12,

You missed my point completely.

I was not addressing nor comparing anything with AAs.

What I WAS referring to is that "Hispanics" DO NOT like to be lumped together into one single group. They are not now, nor have they ever been a single group.

Chicano, which you reference, refers ONLY to Mexican-Americans; no other Latin Americans are (or were) Chicanos.

Latin Americans come from more than 20 separate and unique cultures, which, though they have a common historic origin, have nevertheless been distinct from each other for more than 500 years.

Additionally, the etymology of the word Hispanic is from the Latin hispanicus, referring to residents of hispania, the ancient name of the Iberian peninsula, which is the location of modern Spain and Portugal.

New World Spanish speaking people are Latin Americans (or, if the individual prefers, Cuban-Americans, Mexican-Americans, etc).

The word hispanic is a complete misnomer for anyone not from the Iberian peninsula; and it's unfortunate that the US Census Bureau and federal government use that term officially to designate Latin Americans.

Clavos

Thank you for explaining the meaning of the word Hispanic. I've often wondered what it means and what it's parameters are. I remember the debate about "Chicano" as a child. My Dad was an information buff and we often watched shows that were about such matters.

The debate over the name has occurred and its difficult for people outside of a group to know what to call a group unless the group defines itself. From what I understand, it is the "Hispanic" community that rested on that term. "Latino" it seems would be more accurate but it doesn't bode well because it doesn't flow well within an English sentence. It sounds pretentious. Its like throwing French phrases in your speech. It just sounds goofy and show offy if you are not French.

From what I understand, it is the "Hispanic" community that rested on that term.

No, the government imposed it.

Most call themselves Latinos or a hyphenated (e.g. Mexican-American) name.

Here in Miami, because there are so many different nationalities represented, the preferred term is Latino.

Ah Ok. Thanks.

I definitely think we always need to question the labels we place on groups -- either other groups or the groups we personally identify with.

Race and ethnicity are difficult to discuss mostly because the definitions are confusing. I'd always learned that race was what determined the color of your skin and maybe whether you had a higher chance of getting tay-saches disease or sickle cell anemia.

Now, maybe this definition is wrong. I have no way of knowing. But since humans are the ones who define words, until someone gives me a better definition, I'll stick to this one.

Ethnicity, I'm not as sure about. Is that the same as race or is it more of a cultural thing. Or is ethnicity more linked to nationality? Like heritage?

For the very reasons listed in the article above, I usually write "black" and "white" in quotations. They only describe a color, not a culture. Culture is changeable. Race, I thought, was only changeable by intermarriage(ok, i really mean interprocreation).

So, I guess what I think is that since blackness is so diverse and whiteness is so diverse, maybe the higher order of identity should be what we have in common. Like, in the US, all being American(and I know that that term can be unPC sometimes as well) and all of us owning both its beautiful and ugly history, whether or not our great great grandparents were born here or we moved here yesterday.

"Their world view was different from the Europeans that they encountered, hence the different world view that exists TODAY."

No. "World view" is neither genetic nor hereditary. Even MY world view is quite different from that of my parents. World view is learned and shaped by your experience and environment. Your world view has virtually nothing to do with ancestral Africa if you're African-American. It has to do with contemporary American society. Cultural differences -- and world view -- have much more to do with economics than with skin color.

Sysiphus

Okay

But a few years from now. Review your thoughts and see what you think.

I'm hoping you are just young. You are arguing concepts that don't require debate.

BTW. Side note: Do you know why African Americans have greater risk of sickled cell anemia?

Do you know why the body developed sickled cell anemia?

QED

"I'm hoping you are just young. You are arguing concepts that don't require debate."

My age is not germane to the facts (how old is "just young?" I'm 52.), Concepts can be debated -- facts cannot.

"Do you know why African Americans have greater risk of sickled cell anemia?"

Certainly. Some areas of Africa are among the several world populations having a high incidence of the disease, which is genetic.

"Do you know why the body developed sickled cell anemia?"

The theory goes that sickled cells offer greater protection against malaria, which is advantageous in areas where malaria is common. Thus, populations in such areas tend to inherit the disease (sickle cell) by natural selection.

But you may as well ask why African-Americans have greater risk of being born with dark skin. It is a physical characteristic, not a cultural one.

My whole point here has been that African-American culture, such as it is, is roughly 99% American and, at best, 1% African. I'll give you the 1%.