Ask the White Guy: Is a White Person From Africa an African-American?
Q: A reader commented on our article ‘You Must Have Voted for Obama’: 5 Things NEVER to Say to Blacks. He quoted a portion of that article and made an observation that makes for a good teachable moment.
“Don’t assume all Blacks are African-American; there also are people who are African, Afro-Latino, Afro-European, Afro-Caribbean, etc.”
Thank you for posting that. One of my best friends in high school was Black but traced his ancestry back to France. It bothered him whenever someone referred to him as “African-American.”
On the flip side, one of my son’s best friends in high school was born in America, but both of his parents were born and raised in Africa. He could legitimately be called “African-American” but probably never will be since all of them are Caucasian.
Just goes to show, you can’t judge a book by its cover … or a person by his/her color.
A: Yes and no. I acknowledge that you posted your comment with positive sincerity; however, I agree with your first point, but not the second.
“African-American” refers to descendants of enslaved Black people who are from the United States. The reason we use an entire continent (Africa) instead of a country (e.g., “Italian-American”) is because slave masters purposefully obliterated tribal ancestry, language and family units in order to destroy the spirit of the people they enslaved, thereby making it impossible for their descendants to trace their history prior to being born into slavery. This was all in an effort to prevent enslaved people from organizing and revolting their bondage (look up Nat Turner).
Enforcing illiteracy of enslaved people (by law, with severe penalties—including death in some cases—for teaching an enslaved person to write) and obliterating any sense of history or familial ties was a tradition in our country starting in 1619 (before the Revolution) and ending after the Civil War. (One can argue that this practice continued into the 20th century.) This is why our African-American fellow citizens cannot trace their heritage past the continent of Africa. I’ll re-emphasize this point: Their personal and family history was purposefully obliterated by people who enslaved other people.
For purposes of respect, as well as providing context to current-day events and economic realities, it is important to acknowledge and understand this part of American history. America is unique in having people who are African-American. For a personal insight into what all this means, I suggest you read Frederick Douglass’ autobiography My Bondage and My Freedom. In addition to learning history in a very real and first-person way, you‘ll also learn things about our language—for example, the bone-chilling origin of the common phrase “sold down the river.” For an outstanding overview of the repercussions of slavery in the modern-day era, I most strongly recommend Michelle Alexander’s recent book The New Jim Crow. She will be speaking at our next DiversityInc event.
In the case of your son’s friend, post-slavery immigrants from a country in Africa can readily identify themselves by where they came from—it’s on their passports. Black immigrants from Africa can identify themselves by country and tribe (keep in mind that country boundaries in Africa are chiefly colonial constructs). A modern-day immigrant from Africa may refer to him- or herself by a hyphenated identity—“Sudanese-American,” for example.
A special note for the people who email me about their white ancestors who were enslaved: Virginia codified slave laws to be exclusive to Black people in 1705 (establishing white supremacy), and indentured servitude was ended by the early 1800s. Comparing indentured servitude of white people to the history of African-Americans is insulting, in my opinion, and I won’t entertain it in this publication.
11:05 am
Thank you for writing this piece, as I believe many people are misinformed on this topic. I’m interested, however, to hear your thoughts on people from northern African countries claiming to be Black just because they are from the continent of Africa. To me, Black Africans typically are from sub-Saharan countries of Africa, and not from Morocco or Libya, etc. And in fact, most people from those northern African countries do NOT want to be identified as Black. What are your thoughts on this?
11:30 am
I’m glad you asked this question. In my opinion, this situation is encapsulated by the history of Sudan. European (Christian) and Arab (Muslim) colonialism instituted a great deal of evil practices, including racism, into the continent of Africa. The latest neocolonial opportunists are the Chinese, who have come under increasing criticism for carpetbagging business projects in several African countries. Look up the term “pigmentocracy” for some very interesting reading. Luke Visconti, CEO, DiversityInc
3:54 pm
The answer is rubbish good intentioned or not. Any post slavery immigrant from ANY African country who identifies as African-American is afforded 100% of all benefits (albeit not much, and albeit not enough) offered as part of the white guilt that has taken over the USA. When good intentioned people honestly try to right a wrong that can never be made right, they unintentionally create bad policy. Nobody, regardless of race, ethnicity, color, creed, sexual preference or any other trait that one is born with or into should be discriminated against. However, none of the above should be treated better than or different than any other person. Period. To do so is merely sexist, racist, homophobic, low class, ill conceived and just, well its just dumb if you’re honest with yourself
4:10 pm
What crap. With your reasoning, if someone robbed your house of something of negligible value but, in the process of the crime, left you a paraplegic, then the judge should not take that into consideration because your disability had no remedy. This kind of garbage could only be said by someone who is in the majority culture.
I was introduced to a distinguished Indian professor who opined that injustices due to the caste system might take hundreds of years to rectify—and that people needed to be patient. I told him he was lucky that Dalits don’t have access to our Second Amendment, because a time period that might be reasonable for upper-caste people might not seem so reasonable to someone who isn’t. Luke Visconti, CEO, DiversityInc
11:24 am
Nope.
An African-American is a person of African ancestry who was born and raised in the United States. Most African-Americans have never been to Africa, but are the descendants of African slaves born here.
President Obama is one of the unique African-Americans who was born here, but knows of and is close to his African ancestors and relatives and has been there to visit with them; which makes him more AFRICAN American than those of us who don’t have a clue where, in Africa, our ancestors came from.
We are the descendants of African slaves brought, sold, bought, and born here in America even if not born in Africa proper.
11:49 am
Luke, this article hits on all cylinders, thanks.
12:36 pm
I totally disagree with the definition “”African-American” refers to descendants of enslaved Black people who are from the United States.” I have never subscribed to the term African-American and exclusively use the term “black” to describe myself and others who look like me. The term describes geography, not race, and is improperly used. A person with caucasian features whose family was born and raised in an African country but lives here now is far more “African American” than I.
9:20 am
I’m a black man (african descent), from south america and I agree with you, here we were just blacks but one day all this “political correctness” came from US and now we’re all afro-this or afro-that, now we’re not blacks anymore.
2:28 pm
African-americans introduced the term “Afro” into the language–not to be “politically correct”, but to ACKNOWLEDGE and RESPECT the AFRICAN contribution and/or component of the country. and its population. This was in contra-distinction to the Euro-american historical practices of DENIAL of African/Black heritage or origins of not only Black PEOPLE, but also, Black innovation in the SCIENCES and TECHNOLOGY, Black ART FORMS, as well as the history of BLACK PEOPLE IN THE CARIBBEAN AND ALL THE AMERICAS.
1. Unfortunately, the history of Blacks in the New World is taught in a fragmented, “piecemeal” manner. The trans-Atlantic slave trade affected
ALL of the AMERICAS (not just the United States) and is an integral part of New World history. Consequently, many people are “shocked” to discover that, yes, BLACK people live in every country in the “New World” and have been doing so since at least the 1500′s.
The AFRICAN contribution to New World countries
and cultures is HUGE, but you’d never know it
by how the trans-Atlantic slave trade is written
about in our history books.
2. A case in point is the use of the term “AFRO-LATIN MUSIC.” I freely use this term to
distinguish African musics of the Americas/Caribbean from European and Indigenous
musics of the Americas. When I was a young child,
Afro-brazilian, Afro-cuban and Afro-rican musics were being marketed as “Latin music.” The only
thing “Latin” about these musics was the use of
the Portuguese and Spanish languages. But White
American recording studios and white PR firms
marketed these musics as “Latin”, EVEN THOUGH THE ARTISTS THEMSELVES ALWAYS CALLED THEIR MUSIC
“AFRICAN.” This was done to make the music “acceptable” for Euro-american audiences and
Euro-american nightclub owners, who promoted “Latin dance bands”–dance bands filled with BLACK musicians who invented the music.
3. Although you POSITIVELY identify yourself as a “Black man from South America”, many of your
Black counterparts in the Caribbean and Central
and South America DON’T identify themselves as
BLACK, because the rigid, racist CASTE system of
“Latin America” has made them ASHAMED of their BLACK AFRICAN heritage. This is the result of
decades of “blanciamento” policies–official government approaches to literally “whitewash” and remove both the indigenous and Black contributions to the history and culture of these countries.
4. Latin American media rarely show the BLACK people of their countries doing anything other
than criminal activity, playing soccer or maybe being musicians/dancers. It’s “OK” for BLACK Brazilians to dance in Carnaval, but rarely are Black Brazilians ever shown on broadcast media as teachers, politicians, bankers or anything OTHER
than poor folks in the favelas partying during
Carnaval.
4:49 am
It isn’t just political correctness, and there is a valid difference – “black” refers to skin color (some people call it race) and “African-American” is an ethnicity. Ethnicity is really, at heart, an outcome of shared experience. African-Americans are American in the same sense that most of what we call “Anglo-Americans” are – like me. I’m white, and my ancestors have been in America for several hundred years. Before that, they came from all over Europe. “African-Americans” also have deep roots in America, and like me their pre-America heritage is also lost to them… but their *American* heritage differs from mine. Their ancestors were developing different coping strategies (cultures) for different experiences on the same soil. Not only slavery, but post-slavery segregation. Like parallel Americas.
12:36 pm
Thank you so much for your thoughtful and cogent response to what can be a very tricky question. I especially appreciate the way your response was informed by the historical context for current realities. I have these words written on the wall in my office “Historical context matters!” Sometimes we try to approach the realities of diversity work today with being informed by the historical context that shaped those realities. This in turn almost always leads to mistakes in dealing with the current realities. So thanks again.
12:56 pm
I am going to have to agree with Reginald. I am not African-American. I am of mixed ancestry. You are correct that I cannot trace my origins to any particular location in Africa. Therefore, I cannot claim to be African-American. What about Asian-American and European-Americans? This is about geography and about staking claim and holding firm in knowing who you are. We might not be able to trace all of origins, but we can find strength in knowing where we are capable of going. Let’s not waste time or energy trying to oppress anyone else.
12:51 pm
If you get the genetic testing done, you can trace your ethnic origins as you share specific genetic material with particular ethnic groups. Most (not all) of us African-americans–estimated at 60% or more–have Igbo ancestry. If your family/relatives came from Virginia or Georgia, you are most likely a descendant of Igbos, who are from Southern Nigeria. If you start to google “IGBO” and “IGBO-Americans”, you will find a wealth of information that has been taken from slave ship manifests and historical documents.
2. If your relatives came from the Carolinas, you have a strong chance of sharing genes with ethnic groups taken from Sierra Leone, Ghana, Senegal, Cameroon, Togo, Benin, Sao Tome, Principe and other Western coastal countries.
3. However, it is equally possible that you share
North African, Northwest African and Central African
genetic intermixture, because these groups were ALSO being captured and sold to slavers by Muslim raiders operating in those areas as well.
4. You may have several African lines of ancestry,
due to how the plantation system worked to force
Africans of various ethnic groups to “breed” and work together.
1:04 pm
My comments are in no way meant as any type of political statement (I voted for Obama both times he ran). By your definition “African Americans are descendants of enslaved people brought here against their will” therefore Barrack Obama is not an African-American, I think this would come as a big surprise to a lot of people. By your taxonomy the president would be a Kenyan-American, just as JFK would be an Irish-American. The same can be said for Collin Powell, by your definition he is a Jamaican-American This is not a big deal for me one way or the other, but I think African-American has become the default name for black people in the states. When I travel outside the US I often catch myself referring to local black people (i.e. in the UK) as African-American when they clearly are not. It seems funny referring to people of African descent as blacks outside the US and African-Americans in the US
1:12 pm
This article raises many excellent points that are worth exploring in detail. It might help to remember that:
1. “African-americans” born in this country are an amalgam of African, European and Native American populations of the 1500′s–1900′s. Our genetic heritages
also contain multiple combinations of African, European and Native American ethnic groups.
2. Many North Africans share genetic ancestry with sub-Saharan African populations–they were just “taught” by the racist Arab hordes during the Islamic invasions of the 700′s that they were “not black” and something OTHER than African. North Africa is NOT “Middle Eastern” and North Africans are AFRICANS, not “Middle Easterners.”
These populations are not “Arabs”–Arabs are inhabitants of Saudia Arabia.
Therefore, many North Africans can and do claim “black”
ancestry, because:
A. Many DO share genetic heritage of sub-saharan Africans; and
B. According to the US census definition of “Black”, they
have African ancestry.
3. Africans brought to the New World via the trans-atlantic slave trade were NOT only from West Africa.
Many were from North, Northwest, Central and East
Africa in addition to West African coastal populations.
They were shipped from West African ports, but hailed from many other countries on the African continent.
4. It is possible today to obtain accurate portraits of your genetic lines through genetic testing. Genetic tests can determine:
A. Percentage of genetic admixtures; and
B. Which African ethnic groups share your DNA/genetic
traits.
The US racial classification system produces the confusion, as this system is not biologically or genetically accurate. It was an artificial construct
created to determine who was eligible for slavery.
2:05 pm
I totally disagree. Look at a country like Egypt. Yes, Egypt sits on the continent of Africa, just like Iran sits on the continent of Asia; however, both Egypt and Iran are Middle Eastern countries, and identify as so. Most Egyptians do not identify as black, just like Persians do not identify as Asian. If you really want to get technical about genetic heritage, then let’s just say that all people around the world are African, since man originated from Africa.
3:06 pm
You are correct that humans originated in Africa. Egyptians are geographically NORTH AFRICANS and Persians are geographically WESTERN ASIANS. Many Egyptians have East African, Sub-saharan, and North African genetic heritage–in addition to Middle Eastern and Western Asian genetic traits.
By the United States census definition of “black”–having ancestry in Africa–many North
Africans are “black”–regardless of whether or
not their country/group/culture identifies as such–and that certainly includes Egyptians, who are AFRICANS.
You are right that some Egyptians deny that they
are African/North African–but their denial of
geography does not change the fact that they are
AFRICANS.
Persians may not “identify” as Western Asian, but Iran is in Western Asia, not the classical Levant.
Persians also have tremendous genetic intermixture, but a denial of being Western Asian is just that–a denial–that is NOT based in geographic reality. Persians are ASIANS, and
inaccurate “media designations” or broadcast propaganda does not change Iran’s WESTERN ASIAN
placement on the continent.
People may choose to identify with a nation, country, socio-political entity, ethnocultural group or tribe, but their “choice” does not nullify their genetic heritage or “cleanse” it of whatever group they “don’t want to be identified as.”
Nor does their “choice to identify” nullify their
geography or geno-geography. The African continent is a PLACE, and inhabitants born there
are AFRICANS (of whatever ancestry)–the Asian continent is a PLACE, and those born there are ASIANS. You are right that some Persians may believe they are “Middle Eastern”, but this belief
does not nullify their geographic reality.
I am a NORTH AMERICAN by virtue of my birth on this continent–AND my genetic heritage is African, European and Native American. I may “choose to identify” with any/all groups that
constitute my genetic background, or choose NOT to identify with these groups–but my “identification” is irrelevant to the fact that
I am a NORTH AMERICAN by virtue of PLACE of birth.
“Genes are genes” and “geography is geography”.
3:23 pm
I think you misread my initial comment, which was that people from northern African countries are not black Africans, not that they aren’t Africans at all. I’ve never questioned whether they are African — clearly they are. However, they do not identify as black. They are Arab nations. And for the record, Arab people are not only descendants of Saudi Arabia, as you claimed earlier. The term Arab does not come from Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, since when is the US Census the Bible when it comes to race? To apply a definition set forth by the US government to people around the world is a very narrow and “Western” way to view the world.
12:31 pm
Luke Visconti’s original question centered on how “African-american” is defined by its historical context. However, the current legal definition of “Black/African-american” is the definition provided by the United States Census–and by that definition, “having African ancestry” qualifies you to check the designation “Black”, even if you don’t “appear” to have Black/Sub-Saharan
ancestry.
1. While it is true that many Egyptians
don’t identify as Black Africans, their “identity choice” does not correspond to their genetic reality–and millions of them certainly possess sub-Saharan African DNA.
This is also a reality for the multitude
of ethnic groups and nations of North
Africa, and you can literally “see” the
Black/Sub-Saharan African contribution in
Google image files, YouTube videos and photographs in books. There are Black Egyptians, Libyans, Algerians, Moroccans, Tunisians, Mauritanians, and Black Tuaregs, Black Berbers, etc.
2. While they may have some “Arab” intermixture, the North African populations–just like their Iranian counterparts, are not “Arabs.” This “pan-Arab” association is primarily a Western designation that Western media tends to use–but it is inaccurate.
North Africans, like most Africans, identify primarily by their nation and/or
ethnic group.
3. Modern Standard Arabic is typically NOT spoken by these nations and when you study Arabic, you must ALSO study the major indigenous or colloquial language of the country you wish to visit.
MSA may be used in newspapers or broadcasting, but North Africans speak their own languages. These languages may have Arabic loan words (just as Spanish and Portuguese contain thousands of Arabic
loan words), but these languages are not “Arabic.”
4. You bring up a good point that the US Census designations are not “the Bible on
race”; originally, the designation of
who/what constitutes “BLACK” was created to determine eligibility for slavery. By that definition, ALL AFRICANS were “eligible” for being enslaved. By official US definitions, you can considered “BLACK” just by virtue of African ancestry, even if you “don’t appear” sterotypically “Black”.
1:31 pm
Unfortunately, this article as well as many people’s thinking blurs the difference between race and ethnicity. African American as used in the US is not a race, it is an ethnic group classed by race (black). The race is Black. this is important because when the term is used as a race, it irritates many blacks who either are not americans, or whose ancestry traces back to other places. We should aim at educating not obfuscating the situation.
Additionally, a white african who naturalizes as a US citizen is an african american, even though he is not black. If a French citizen who naturalizes is a French American, and an Italian who naturalizes is Italian American, how is an African who naturalizes not an African American.
If you understand the difference between race and ethnicity this is clear, if you think of African American as a race, it its confusing.
1:55 pm
Your last statement is flawed in that Africa is a continent, not a country. France and Italy are countries, so someone from those countries can identify themselves as French-American or Italian-American. Just as white Africans can say they are from South Africa, Egypt, or whatever African country they come from. However, most black Americans do not know from which African country their ancestors came, so the only appropriate term is African-American. And in fact, most truly African (born on the continent) I know get offended when someone refers to them as purely “African”. They want to be identified with their specific country of origin, such as Nigerian or Ethiopian, and not just African.
6:53 pm
As a sociologist, I agree with Miguel. The point about continents vs. countries is mere semantics. The main point remains the nuances between race and ethnicity.
Take for example, Latinos. Is being Latino a race or an ethnicity? Cameron Diaz for example is of Cuban heritage. Although she is white when she talks about growing up and her family you see that she grew up in a culturally Cuban home. Zoe Saldana is also a Latina (her parents are Dominican and Puerto Rican)and also black. There are also Asian latinos (Brazil has the largest Japanese population outside of Japan). Ethnic groups can be multi-racial. Nationalities can be multi-ethnic.
On your second point, African-Americans say “African” because, as Luke explained, it’s the lowest level that they can identify. If they could identify a specific country or tribe, they would. African-America/Nigerian-American/Igbo is no different from Asian-American/Chinese-American/Hakka.
On your third point, Africans from Africa most likely get offended because their primary sense of identity is their national or tribal identity. Similar offense can be found in Switzerland between the French and German speaking Swiss. Let’s not forget also the British who see themselves more as British rather than European.
“African-Americans” is specifically an American ethnic group that has grown out of the specific historical experience that Luke has described.”Black” is a racial category/social status in the American system of caste that puts people of European origin at the top and people of African origin at the bottom.
1:43 pm
So, in your opinion, President Obama is not African-American. Interesting.
2:04 pm
He’s Kenyan-American. Luke Visconti, CEO, DiversityInc
3:36 pm
Thank you for this article.
7:42 pm
Regarding the use of “American”: originally this was a term used exclusively for the race of people from the continent known as America and has become a term to refer to the citizens of the United States.
8:49 pm
To be crystal clear: An African American by intended definition is a person of color and descendant of Africans brought to this country as slaves, all of whom are of multi-ethnic heritage, generally in some combination of African, Anglo and/or Native American, as well as Asian and Latino to some lesser degree.
5:14 am
I always find this discussion interesting. The notion of race, at least in terms of how it is used in the western world today, is a construct … a means of delineating oneself from others. It seems to follow a n arch, beginning with tribe,moving through region to nation to continent. It seems that once that was exhausted, race was the next delineator.
I was born in the late 40′s as my parents, and our people, were transitioning from calling ourselves “Colored” to “Negro”. I am a product of the 60′s, when calling someone black evolved from a fight-causing epithet to a statement of pride … with a capital B. The arc of that evolution included Afro-American and eventually landed (though it never seemed to have totally settled) on African American.
Personally, I prefer Black American to African American … my roots are deeper in Black culture than in African culture. In the purest genealogical sense I have African, European and Native American ancestors … but it is the Black Experience in America that most defines me.
In the end, it appears that these delineations have been and are a moving target … who knows what they will become?
1:04 pm
You bring another interesting dimension to this discussion–how we African-americans have historically chosen to identify ourselves. If you survey our history, we originally called ourselves “AFRICANS.” You can see this by glancing at our historic church cornerstones and church names, which had designations such as:
First African Baptist
First African Presbyterian
Two of our historic denominations retain an African
designation:
African Methodist Episcopal
African Methodist Episcopal Zion
It is worth noting that these groups were found in the late 1700′s, and they were not the only churches who
called themselves “African.”
We have always retained this sense of historic connection to Africa, in spite of the Euro-american
agenda to suppress knowledge of our historic African roots. We called ourselves AFRICANS before using terms such as “colored” or the Spanish term “negro”, which means “Black.”
9:57 am
I enjoyed the article but I also must point out a few facts that might have been overlooked. Although their numbers were few there were Free men of color who owned slaves.
Even though such laws existed on the “books” forbidding the teaching of Blacks to read and write, it was a law that many ignored. Teaching to read and write was essential when teaching the Bible. The great Stonewall Jackson was one of those individuals who both taught and financed the teaching of enslaved peoples to read and write.First hand reports from the Sanitary Commission in the north stated that 3000 blacks were included in Jackson’s Army in 1862.
The tragedy of this continent is not just the fact that slavery was enshrined in the original Constitution but that the history of African-Americans has been lost both prior to and immediately following the Civil War.
We tend to demonize the South soley for the institution yet it was the North who passed strict “black code” laws forbidding free blacks to settle in their state. Free state didn’t mean free of slaves, in most cases it meant Free of blacks Period!
When we talk about those who died during the Civil War we will never know how many blacks died during and especially following the war. Many to disease and starvation.
Truth be told the underground railroad helped less than 3000 enslaved peoples to freedom. We must also never forget that it ended in Canada not in the North as many believe.
So as we try as a country to move forward, it is up to us, black and white, not to demonize but to understand the tragedies and injustices commited by all and by the country as a whole.
10:56 am
Stonewall Jackson was a general officer in the Confederate Army, which fought to preserve the right to enslave people. One quasi-fact does not change the larger picture.
Further, I do not think the behavior of enslaved people who were beaten into submission provides an insight into people at large.
Finally, the estimate of people helped into freedom via the Underground Railroad runs from 5,000 to 100,000. Considering the UGRR was organized by cell (to limit damage to the system by a loss of any one cell) and was illegal in most of the areas in which it operated, there was very little documentation. The best book I’ve found on this subject is The Underground Railroad: From Slavery to Freedom, written by Wilbur Siebert, a professor at Ohio State, in 1898. His book is available online at Dickinson College’s website. Professor Siebert was Black, by the way.
Even if the UGRR liberated only 5,000 people, I’d rather be counted in that number than not. I’d also prefer to be remembered as a fan of Sojourner Truth, Frederick Douglass and John Brown rather than of Stonewall Jackson.
I do not believe in forcing a moral equivalency to make people feel better. It only results in a dilution of the lessons learned and further oppression of the oppressed. I reject your argument. Luke Visconti, CEO, DiversityInc
4:59 pm
As a part-Irish american descentant of slaves, I take great offense to the ridiculous comment on indentured whites.
Some of the first slaves in America were, in fact, Irish. These slaves (not indentured servants). Because of the personal hatred fely by the British towards the Irish, these slaves had even less value as human beings and endured treatment as bad or worse than African slaves.
Irish girls were forcibly mated to African males to produce mullatos, demeaning both races.
I would appreciate it if you would not demean the abuses of the Irish civil rights in attempts to shore up the African-only viewpoint of slavery.
You might want to add some reading material to your own library. Cromwell, James II, and Charles I would be a good place to start.
Regards.
10:21 pm
The only references to enslaved Irish in America I could find online were unsupported by research. However, you are right and there is plenty of documentation about Cromwell and the bigoted slaughter and expulsion of Irish Catholics—the horrible living conditions imposed on the Irish in Ireland and the forced deportation of Irish and enslavement of Irish to and in Barbados. If you have references about enslaved Irish in America (not indentured servants), I’ll be pleased to publish them. I apologize that my closing paragraph was not sensitive to the facts about the Irish. Luke Visconti, CEO, DiversityInc
11:43 am
There was a white classmate of mine in college from Cameroon who had applied for a scholarship. It was specifically for African Americans. Because of his skin color, he was denied. The requirements didn’t say you had to be a Black African American. It only stipulated African American. He fought it and won, albeit too late for the scholarship to do any good, but at least they revised the rules for future iterations of the scholarships. Had his skin been of a darker hue, then he never would have been denied. So, yes a White person can indeed be African American.
11:59 am
Just because someone makes a mistake doesn’t mean the facts change. No, he is not an African-American. Luke Visconti, CEO, DiversityInc
4:54 pm
So let me understand. A man from Cameroon who moves to the US is not an African-American if his skin is not black. A man with a father from Kenya, whose skin (the father’s, that is) is black is also not an African-American because his ancestors were not enslaved (at least, not enslaved in continental North America; their possible enslavement in their geography of origin is irrelevant). But a man with ancestors who were brought from Africa to bondage in Virginia, but who today identifies one hundred percent with American culture, has never even been to Africa and has no desire whatsoever to go there, is, now and forever, an African-American? Tell me, Luke, do words have any meaning at all to the diversity crowd?
5:29 pm
A man from Cameroon is Cameroonian-American, regardless of his skin color. What about American history and being an African-American is eluding you? And if you’re Black and choose not to identify yourself that way, good for you! Now here’s a W. C. Fields quote for you: “If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again. Then quit. There’s no use being a damn fool about it.” In other words, go away. Luke Visconti, CEO, DiversityInc
3:51 pm
Oh, I hate these caption tests. I never remember to save copies of my posts, then have to entirely retype them. What is the practical utility of hyper-technical racial classifications? A growing number of social scientists are concluding that the entire concept of mutually-exclusive races is a myth. Humankind arose in Africa, making us all Africans if you go back far enough. True, “African-American” is most commonly used to connote descendants of U. S. slaves, but race is normally self-identified, and if the President chose to self-identify that way — as opposed to Kenyan-American, or simply American — technically, he would be correct. So would anyone with ancestors both in Africa and the entire Western Hemispheres, “the Americas.”
5:44 pm
We are working on simplifying that test. I recognize its flaws. Thank you for persevering. Luke Visconti, CEO, DiversityInc
5:05 pm
During my time employed in an HR office (as a training manager), I happened to assist a white woman from South Africa complete a job application. She checked African-American as her ethnicity. Another woman working there told her she could not do so because that would identify her as black, however, there was no appropriate ethnicity on the application. The HR rep wanted her to check Caucasian while the South African applicant insisted that she was African-American. It became a really big deal and was quite uncomfortable. Not being familiar with that area of HR,I didn’t think an HR rep could tell an applicant what ethnicity they should identify with.Even if what the applicant checked didn’t seem appropriate, it was not my place to address the issue. Interesting article by the way.
12:45 pm
I am puzzled by this statement, “America is unique in having people who are African-American.” On a strict reading that is absolutely true because it’s America and that’s where the Americans are, but from the context of the article it seems to be saying that only in America was the “personal and family history” “purposefully obliterated by people who enslaved other people.” And that strikes me as complete nonsense.
I have a hard time believing that in the Latin America countries, England and the Caribbean islands there was no similar practice of obliterating personal and family history of the slaves brought into the country. In fact, I would be far more surprise if there was a slave holding nation where this wasn’t the practice…
9:08 am
You’re right. But, for example, if we’re talking about someone who was born in Haiti and is a descendent of enslaved people from Haiti, then that person would be Haitian, not African-American. The history of purposeful obliteration of African ancestry may be similar, but it’s not identical. Many majority people express exasperation at this discussion, but the success of heredity and lineage websites tells me that this exasperation is hypocritical at best.
I want to make a point: Fred asked his question with respect. We should all encourage questions—but not when they’re mean spirited. The cruelest bigots want to put people “in their place” by making meaningless their quest to retake their history, identity and humanity. When you hear a dismissive “what’s the big deal” or “get over it,” you’re hearing someone who is ignorant at best, but often you’re hearing a sadist. My advice is to educate, and if the behavior doesn’t change, fire them with alacrity, as you would any other disruption to the workplace. Luke Visconti, CEO, DiversityInc