Talk:African American

Small typo

"Some of these were. Slavery, reconstruction, development of the African-American community, participation in the great military conflicts of the United States, racial segregation, and the Civil Rights Movement."

There should be no colon after "were". Could someone fix this?

Problem with Obama not a real African-American by the definition

per all the debate of refining the definition why now is Obama including in African-America when we just excluded the entire immigrant Africans who do not come out of slavery. " when Barack Obama has been elected as the 44th and current President of the United States." And on another note do not explain confusion with confusion. Black people is even more complex as it relates to African than African-American (as a term). Notice they are not called Black-African - American. We do not need to over qualify the majority at every single turn. Africans do not run around defining themselves by sub-Saharan and supposed skin Blackness (one or the other). In other words Westernized ways of classifying people by skin color.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 19:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Barack Obama is not a descendent of the enslaved Africans that were brought to the Americas; he should not be included in description used to describe people considered African Americans because of their relationship to those Africans that were enslaved in the U.S.Bklyngurl (talk) 16:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)blkyngurl

Actually the page reads immigrants and their decendents --may or may not-- identify with the term African-American. I purposely left the black immigrant question open to interpretation for readers to come to their own conclusion as opposed to just broadly categorizing them all as AA. No where in that sentence did it say Obama is African-American, it simply stated he was elected the 44th Prez of the U.S (even though he does identify as AA)..I again think its best for the reader to decide on thier own if Obama is African-American or not. There is an entire section called "African-American Experience" which further devolves into the topic towards the end of the page. As for the "black" thing I'm not sure what the issue is. I commonly hear Africans refer to themselves "black", even on the African continent, that whole thing about apartheid was about "black" Africans and "white" Afrikaners. It's just a descriptive term, I wouldn't mind using the caucasian equivalent --Negro, but everyone would be in an uproar about that too.Therock40756 (talk) 22:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

you do not understand what I have written. Black OR African. Is enuff. The two do not need to be combined. like Red Indian And as for South Africa do you realize Afrikaan is not the same as African. As for "commonly heard" are you talking about Somalia, Ethiopia, Sudan, Chad, Mauritania, Niger, or even Nigeria? Sure in America they will adopt American color conventions. But not in Africa. Go read the Nigerian Guardian and see where this term pops up. SA rightly so, and almost only so. But Never is SA has the term "White Afrikaan" Afrikaan means White. Italian-American means WHITE. Chinese-American means Asian. African-American OR Black-American means African. It is not just a descriptive term it is a silly un encyclopedic classification. black Sub-Saharan Negro African. And to deal with your example (because I was going to get there) In South Africa (where interestingly I have lived). Indians are also Black and now Chinese. You should use Negro because it is just SPanish for Black.

P But I came here to press a point about WHY. African-American came into being. Which is exactly to challenge what you said "descriptive term" it was African-American to reject a color label (Jesse and Malcolm).And this should be in the lede. Because the entire term was/is an evolution of African-American self-determination. Black people is casual, African American is official (per recent surveys).--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 06:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I changed it back to therock version as I feel it better reflects the realities. This is the African American page so I wouldn't expect the thoughts or opinions of Africans to be on this page at all. If Africans have a problem with the term black it should be taken to the African immigrants in the U.S. page. In addition Id prefer that Obama be removed as one of the pictures as he does not fit the definition of an African-American.Sourcechecker419 (talk) 21:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Your anti-Wiki habits are not welcomed. You are one editor Sourcechecker419 or Therock40756. Is still one editor. It makes no difference to what you feel better reflect. Thats not how this place works. You use the talk page and do not revert multiply edits made by multi-editors. If you have an issue you do bring it here. What Africans are you discussing? Discuss the article and not your trivial opinions on "African immigrants". You are putting junk statements in the article without any valid explanation.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 22:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Why is African American notable above all?

I would like please to understand why African American is more note worthy than any other race. If a person is Hispanic and African American, mostly they are called African American/black. If they are White and African American, they are called African American/black. If they are Asian African American, they are African American/black.

why does African American blood take higher order than any other race. Is this not a form of racism/racist exclusion in it's self? one example: Barack Obama. He is known by most as being African American while in reality he is "Mixed race" Would it not be more proper, more unbias to use the word "Mixed Race" to define those who have mixed race?

and then to possibly give a list of those known races within the Wikipedia Articles?

Or, is it better to push this bias and racist tone and keep calling mixed race men and women "African American"?

the scales are tipped as it stands, it is not unbias.

50.47.140.236 (talk) 12:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

What does your personal (and uneducated) opinion have to do with improving the article's topic? This isn't Facebook or some other social networking site. These discussion pages are for explaining how to make an article's topic better, not personal opinions. By the way, Hispanic is not a race (see Afro-Latin American), you don't know what racism is, and many folks say race isn't real. B-Machine (talk) 14:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Certain outward physical characteristics, phenotypes, such as hair texture and facial features, appear to be genetically dominant: that is to say they show in the new generation whereas those non-African features, not so often or as much. This means that most mixed race people appear more "black" than they appear "asian" or "white" or whatever. So people look at mixed race people and, in most cases, see mostly African external features. Chrisrus (talk) 14:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot, you sound like you're anti-black. B-Machine (talk) 21:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't get it

Why is it this article is the only article about an etnic group that has a health section? No other article about an ethnic group has a heath section except this one. And who's to say those stats are 100% correct? Just because it's from government agencies doesn't mean it's true. I propose deleting the health section. B-Machine (talk) 15:20, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

If true - Now that might be an issue if it is the only group. Unfortunately some of those stats are true. But my issue is you are saying no one else got their HIV rank blasted everywhere.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 15:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly what I'm saying. B-Machine (talk) 17:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

That section is under the heading "Contemporary issues", and it starts with a discussion of lower life expectancy and lower access to medical care. Those issues are probably relevant to an article about African Americans, although I'm not sure that herpes and HIV infection rates are. I think the section should be kept, but cut significantly. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:58, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how that part is relevant to the article, especially since no other article about an ethnic group doesn't have those things. White Americans don't have a health section, neither does Asian American. And there's a user named Hoping To Help who always adds negative stuff to this article. If nothing is done about this, I'm going to delete that section. B-Machine (talk) 17:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

You don't see how shorter life expectancy and worse health care is relevant to an article about African Americans? What about racism? Is that relevant? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the principle issue (as I understand it) is less about the stats and why only African-Americans articles get this stuff pasted in their article. It kind of makes you think AIDS, disease, low health, single momma, everything negative is the exclusive domain of African-Americans. i can think of some articles (even if true) you would never see this stuff in. But it is hard to avoid the facts. I think some balance is needed to link WHY this is the case. i.e. Racism and exclusion. I have just seen the ip comment Malik just deleted about "high drop out and going back to Africa", it is because these people see these types of stats without realizing WHY these stats are so. But if you live in the hood and experience racism 24/7 off-course your health and prospect going to be shot. but Some would say "What racism"--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 06:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

What I'm saying is if you're going to have a health section here, don't post negative stuff only concerning government statistics. The Asian American article contains contributions concerning health. Why not have that along with the negative? I'm just asking for a balance, not a one-sided talking point. And as for racism, of course that still exists, but I was not talking about that. B-Machine (talk) 15:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

B-Machine, the solution to your observation might not be to remove the section from this article, but to add it to the other articles. For example, you could use this to help improve the Asian American article, this to help improve the article on Hispanic and Latino Americans, this for Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders. That would be most helpful to Wikipedia. I hope you consider taking up this charge. Let me know if you have any questions, Kingturtle = (talk) 15:35, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Political overtones :

The section on political overtones should be more detailed, the current phrasing is too vague for many people unfamiliar with the US.

The political overtones alludes to "Earlier terms". Which is relevant to this article/section. But such a vague allusion can be confusing for any non-US residents (of which there are very, very many, myself included). The current sentences are simply alluding rather than explaining : "Earlier terms used to identify Americans of African ancestry were conferred upon the group by colonists and Americans of European ancestry. The terms were included in the wording of various laws and legal decisions which some thought were being used as tools of white supremacy and oppression"

A few examples could be included, especially the N-word itself, which, after all, has its own wiki page (I'm just trying to help and will abide by the consensus, I don't want to start a controversy). The use of laws as a tool of white supremacy refers to precise thinkers and laws (Jim Crow ?) that many non-US residents will not be able to identify with certainty.

"Legal decisions" is also ambiguous btw : is it actually legal and therefore voted on by (federal or state) Congress, not decided, or is it actual decisions, and therefore from the exectutive or the judiciary rather than actual law changes.

I know that this subject may be controversial, but this paragraph is so unusually high-context that it does a disservice to those who need it most : people with little knowledge of the subject. JanvonBismarck (talk) 17:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Definition

The current definition of African-Americans stands as "citizens or residents of the United States who have at least partial ancestry from any of the native populations of Sub-Saharan Africa and are the direct descendants of enslaved Africans within the boundaries of the present United States." And the source for this information is sourced to a study done by the Lewis Center in Albany. The page doesn't define African-Americans at all, much less as what the article describes them as. I suggest we quickly find a reliable source that actually has a clear definition of who an African-American is. I also question the definition in that it says "direct descendants of enslaved Africans", does that mean that if a black person native to Africa were to immigrate to the United States today, they wouldn't be considered an African-American? What would you call them?--174.49.24.190 (talk) 19:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Now the citation is to a dictionary definition that directly contradict the text in wikipedia. I have therefore copyeditted the text to reflect what the source actually says

African Americans[3] (also referred to as Black Americans or Afro-Americans, and formerly as American Negroes) are citizens or residents of the United States who have at least partial ancestry from any of the native populations of Sub-Saharan Africa.[4] Most African Americans are of West African descent and are descendants of enslaved Africans within the boundaries of the present United States.[5] However, some immigrants from African, Caribbean, Central American or South American nations, or their descendants, may also self-identify with the term.[4]

Please note that it is NOT the function of wikipedia to DEFINE what a term means, but merely to recognize what it means from external sources.

Note also that the definition that excludes Barack Obama is being cited on [[1]] to support denying that he is African-American. rewinn (talk) 23:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Afrikaners

Are Afrikaner immigrants in the U.S. considered "African Americans" even if they are white? They should because they were born in Africa and during the last three centuries their ancestors lived in Africa while the ancestors of black Americans lived in the U.s.....--83.54.106.17 (talk) 20:05, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

The answer is no. First, let me repeat that it is NOT the function of wikipedia to DEFINE what a term means, but merely to recognize what it means from external sources. Thus while there is some formal logic behind calling Afrikaners "African American", the authorities do not. See, for example, the US Census Bureau. [2] Part of the problem seems to be the name "African" is somewhat confusing, but that is true of "Caucasian" as well; the vast majority of Caucasians have nothing to do with that mountain range. rewinn (talk) 07:25, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Size of ancestry

AFRICAN AMERICAN AND EUROPEAN AMERICAN ANCESTRY It is not correct that "African American" is the third largest ancestry in the U.S. after German Americana and Irish Americans, because Germany and Ireland are nations while Africa is a Continent. The correct answer would be "Senegalese Americans" or "Sierra Leone Americans" or "Nigerian Americans"...Not "African Americans". That is ridiculous and even a 10 year old child knows that Africa is a Continent, not a nation. In fact, in North Africa most Africans are white Berbers, Arabs, Kopts and Greek, and in South Africa 9% of the population is white (Afrikaner and English basically).....--83.54.106.17 (talk) 20:10, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

As above, it is NOT the function of wikipedia to DEFINE what a term means, but merely to recognize what it means from external sources. "African American" is a term in common use, even if it meets with your personal disapproval; see, for example, the US Census Bureau. [3] Basically, your argument confuses the term "ancestry" with "nationality"; you may well be correct about the latter but this article is about the former. rewinn (talk) 07:25, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

To the person that is too cowardly to create a username, let me address your comments. First, this is not about nationality, this is about ancestry. Everybody knows Africa is a continent that's made up of 54 sovereign countries. If a person from Nigeria would become a U.S. citizen, the person is Nigerian-American. Same thing with Sierra Leonean-American, Senegalese-American, Ghanaian-American, Ethiopian-American, etc. However, that's not what this is about. This is about ancestry, not nationality. You're confusing the two words. Second, the continent of Africa did not have national borders when the Atlantic Slave Trade was occuring. Back then, people were separated by ethnicity (Yoruba, Fulani, Igbo, Ashanti, Fon, etc.). National borders were created in the late 1800s by the European powers due to the Scramble for Africa conference in Berlin, Germany. Third, what makes a person white or black? There are plenty of dark-skinned South Asians that are just as dark or darker than people of African descent and indigenous Africans and there are plenty of fair-skinned East Asians that share the same skin tone of indigenous Europeans or European descendants. Fourth, why the hell do you care about how someone identifies themself when it comes to ethnicity or race? It's none of your business. Take your stupidity and ignorance somewhere else. B-Machine (talk) 18:29, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Please remove Health section for now. Until/If we are going to add it one every other race.

Sorry for a long read, but I need to address this in this manner, as it seems like it's starting to be ignored...

I agree with B-Machine, and have recently noticed that the last talk on the issue regarding the notion of the negative health facts on African Americans (AAs) has been addressed two months ago, but still I haven't seen any changes in regards to his/her request. I believe that what was said was very valid and I myself have looked on the other races to see if there was a Health section, but indeed there is still none. As this site is supposed to provide users with sound and valid information (though these facts may be true), it is still supposed to be a place where there can be absolutely NO GROUNDS for one race to see themselves as superior to another, or any differentiated groups for that manner. True, a lot of what is said on blacks verses whites can be sourced, but blowing up an article with this information only excludes the group with negative stigmas that only "rubs salt in the wound" of an already frowned-upon race.

Some examples taken from the article on Health as examples of generalizing blacks as more inferior to whites which will stir up controversy:

-African Americans continue to have lower life expectancies on average than whites in the United States. Even with rates adjusted for age, African Americans are 1.6 times more likely to die from one of the 10 leading causes of death in the United States than European Americans.

-At the same time, the life expectancy gap is affected by collectively lower access to quality medical care. With no system of universal health care, access to medical care in the U.S. generally is mediated by income level and employment status. As a result, African Americans, who have a disproportionate occurrence of poverty and unemployment as a group, are more often uninsured than non Hispanic whites or Asians. For a great many African Americans, healthcare delivery is limited, or nonexistent. And when they receive healthcare, they are more likely than others in the general population to receive substandard, even injurious medical care. African Americans have a higher prevalence of some chronic health conditions.

-African Americans are twice as likely to have diabetes as whites, and twice as likely to die from the disease.

-African American men are twice as likely to have diabetes induced end-stage kidney disease, and twice as likely to die of it than white men of the same age. African Americans are 1.7 times more likely to have a stroke and 60% more likely to die from it. Two reasons for poorer health are lack of routine preventative medical care, such as mammograms and colonoscopies, and lack of a primary care physcian.

-While 1 in 6 Americans (16.2 percent) between the ages of 14 and 49 is infected with herpes simplex virus type 2 (HSV-2), the infection rate is more than three times higher among blacks (39.2 percent) than whites (12.3 percent). The most affected group is black women, with a prevalence rate of 48 percent.

-African Americans are the American ethnic group most affected by HIV and AIDS, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Black men are six times more likely to have HIV than white men and black women are nearly 18 times more likely to have HIV than white women.

-It has been estimated that "184,991 adult and adolescent HIV infections [were] diagnosed during 2001–2005" (1). More than 51 percent occurred among blacks than any other race. Between the ages of 25–44 years 62 percent were African Americans.

Also totally unnecessary and distasteful to put in a Health section

-Crime also plays a significant role in the racial gap in life expectancy. A report from the U.S. Department of Justice states "In 2005, homicide victimization rates for blacks were 6 times higher than the rates for whites" and "94% of black victims were killed by blacks.

I'm not saying that this information is not true. Though these may be facts, I am simply trying to say that if we are to blast this race in their shortcomings concerning health, then we should also blast the negatives with EVERY OTHER race on this site. Otherwise you must remove the section completely. There's a place and time for everything, and this isn't it. It's like visiting a friend who will soon die of cancer. Even though you are FULLY AWARE that this person doesn't have much longer to live, would you be cruel enough to spend a large chunk of your time with that person stating facts on how people get cancer, how many years people with his condition are expected to live, etc? Not everyone will think of this section as "just facts" and it will give racist individuals another tool to use against them in claiming themselves as superior. Even though it may not apply as offensive to some, it will to others. This is why it should be either removed or added to every other race.

(Gigafrost (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC))

It seems to be a cool way to reinforce every negative stereotype. But we could do it for Jews (but you cant), you could do it for every ethnic group. Isolate everything which cast them in negative light and put it in an article. I means "Black on Black crime" I think most Whites in America are killed by other Whites. Is that then called White one White crime. It is questionable facts in a strange context. if anything it should have some balance, but it is all bad news. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 17:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. As what was said before, I believe that the fact that it was displayed the way it was was honestly very poor. In all seriousness, due to the fact that Asians, Whites, Jews, Germans, heck even Irish and the Native Americans are described and recognized in neutrality, I feel that there is simply no need to add fuel to the fire by adding a stigma focused on one race in general. It just makes us [wikipedia] look very bad. (Gigafrost (talk) 15:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC))

@Gigafrost I hear that and personally agree the only issue is to get something taken out of wiki we have to have a argument in-line with wiki policies. And like a court case you know stigma, adding fueling, making wiki look bad will not hold up- another editor can say "Wikipedia is not a censor on facts". Therefore I am trying to argue the only thing that will NPOV and notability. We know it you will never see it with certain groups. I have taken out the black on black thing. I have also tagged it to say it is slanted by using stats to create a POV. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 17:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Strong Agree. I have implemented the change. The entire "Health Issues" section is excessive long and badly organized. While Health Issues Among African Americans is an interesting topic, it's not worth more than 3 paragraphs in African Americans. Also the section as it existed was a hodgepodge of racial disparities in health problems, addressing less than half of the issue. e.g. efforts to remediate known problems are a significant part of any fair discussion of issues. If there is a felt need for such a section, it should start small and be at most 3 paragraphs, linking to a full article if more detail is needed. rewinn (talk) 02:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Strong Agree. It is borderline racism. the kind stat abuse the Far right would use. and it reminds us of the danger of stats in a vacuum. best eg "black on black crime is 90% of the fatality of Black males"- And what about white males- what kills them if not other white males? --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 10:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Stronly Agree Guys, this is exactly what I was talking about two months ago. I'm glad somebody stepped up and removed the section. Nothing abbout it was encyclopedic. If a health section is necessary, even though it really isn't because other ethnic group articles don't have a health section, it should be three paragraphs long at the maximum and talk about solutions rather than stats that most likely could be bias against blacks. B-Machine (talk) 12:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Stronly Agree Just wanted to say thanks to Halaqah and Rewinn for the prompt changes and B-Machine and the others for their hawk-eye observance and starting discussion on this topic in the first place. Whether or not this Health section will stay out of the article is another story. Hopefully this will be the end of that.

Contemporary Issues: Some changes and maybe adding it to others?

Also wanted to say that the Contemporary Issues portion was nicely written in my opinion and basically summed up the said Health section without the added controversial facts. I will say though that maybe the first sentence of the last paragraph which says:

"One of the most serious and long standing issues within African American communities is poverty."

Should be changed to say instead:

"One of the most serious and long standing issues within African American communities, as with most underprivileged races within a society, is poverty."

I say this because if I am not mistaken, African Americans weren't the first race struggling with poverty and low education. In North America alone for example, it was the Native Americans who've had similar struggles (if not more) before African slaves were even introduced into the country, and in China's history foreigners were forced to become more like themselves through assimilation, so imagine how these cultures were treated if they didn't comply.

Back on the topic, This portion (Contemporary issues) is also seen in Native american article. I am wondering, why not add this to every race? Or would I be asking to much? I strongly think it is a very interesting thing to note in these articles as it gives each race a neutral viewpoint on their current struggles as of now. This can be very informative on learning current issues dealt by majority races too - which the average person (who is of a different nationality) wouldn't normally think about, mind you. Any thoughts on this? (Gigafrost (talk) 19:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC))

Countries from which blacks came

The following table was removed from the immediately previous version of this subject:

    Origins and Percentages of Africans
    imported into British North America
    and Louisiana (1700–1820)

I think that this is valuable information and should be in the material here, if proper reference is given, and it should not have been removed. (Dumarest (talk) 01:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC))