Talk:African Americans

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?

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.

"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.""

"Even though it may not apply as offensive to some, it will to others."

I disagree. If the section is reinserted, and if it does mention that blacks have a lower life expectancy than whites, and if it cites various reasons, then this particular reason should be included, as these statistics are highly notable.

Claiming that this information is "offensive" and "distasteful" is your opinion. But wikipedia is not supposed to exclude information just because someone finds it "offensive" or "distasteful."

To say that it is "totally unnecessary" to include this information is also an opinion. The truth is that of all the reasons why the black life expectancy is lower than the white one, this is one of the biggest. When so many blacks die at such a young age, it has a huge impact on the average lifespan. To not include this information would be to deny readers important information about why life expectancy is so much lower for blacks than for whites.

6ty4e (talk) 03:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not that some found it offensive. And no one is saying the stats are false. It's just that if you're going to do this to this article, do it to other articles. One ethnic group should not be singled out when it comes to statistics while others don't get the same treatment. B-Machine (talk) 15:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

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))

Opposition to the term "African American"

I would like to add a subsection under the section "The term 'African American'" containing dissenting views against the use of the term "African American", as many black people are opposed to the use of this term. I don't feel qualified enough to write it though, and I don't have citations, so I am posting it here in the hopes that it will generate discussion that will improve the article.

There are two potential problems with the term "African American". The first is the use of the word "African", and the second is the use of the word "American".

First, the term African American is applied to all black Americans, regardless of their nation of origin. Many people from countries like Haïti, for example, are opposed to being called "African". While it is true that their ancestors were from Africa, they more closely associate themselves with Haïti than Africa. There are cases of dark-skinned people from all over the world whose relationship with Africa is much less clear, such as Australian Aborigines, who may be mistakenly called "African American". At the root of all of these issues is the use of skin colour and ethnicity to determine one's cultural and geographic heritage. This generally does not happen for other groups; Caucasians are not immediately called "European American", for example. There is also the issue of Caucasians who have lived in Africa for many generations; should they be called "African American"? And finally, all human beings can trace their ancestry to Africa at some point, making the distinction confusing.

Secondly, the use of the term "African American" as an identifier of ethnicity causes Americans to use the term to describe black people who aren't American at all. Black tourists and guest workers are often called "African American", to their bewilderment. The term is also used liberally by Americans on the Internet to refer to ethnicity, which causes great confusion. The term "African American" has even been applied to Africans living in Africa.

The biggest issue that many people have with the term "African American" is that the label is generally applied externally, and often incorrectly, as a label of ethnicity. Other groups, such as "Irish American" or "Chinese American" require people to self-identify as belonging to those groups. It would be considered offensive to apply the terms without first learning the history of that person's genealogy. While there is nothing inherently wrong with the term "African American", the push to use this term as a more politically correct synonym for the term "black" is seen as misguided by many black Americans. 99.241.132.241 (talk) 23:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

If you can find reliable sources that discuss the subject, by all means it should be added to the article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

What's the definition of black races of Africa used by the US census?

Not a troll - actually curious. Does it include Bushman/San people and North African (groups often excluded from the black category in Africa)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.57.148 (talk) 00:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I am also curious about another thing: which countries include racial queries in their census taking? I have the hunch they must be very few, possibly none other than the US.

Include Richard B Moore who was part of the Push to drop negro

Richard B. Moore is left out of the push to adopt African American vs. Negro. Please include him. I am an ip editor and cannot edit. [4] Also the article mentions Jackson as popularizing the term but forgets to mention Malcolm X "coining" the term. --41.177.100.196 (talk) 15:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Article about African Americans and politics

I found:

• Walters, Ron. "Blacks and the Democratic Party: Voters Felt Devalued and Heard No Message, so Many of Them Stayed Home." The Nation. December 16, 2002. Volume 275, Issue 1, Page 18.

WhisperToMe (talk) 08:15, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Who is African-American?

The Wikipedia articles on human migration all state that homo sapiens originated in Africa. Therefore, are not all Americans "African-Americans"? This is serious contradiction between Wikipedia articles. In spite of what the US government says, all Americans are African-Americans. The article should reflect this reality. Wikipedia is about truth, not about what certain governments say. --Westwind273 (talk) 05:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

As above, 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, even if they are governments. Thus while there is some formal logic behind calling all Americans "African American", no authority does so and Wikipedia is not about conducting original research. Whether or not Americans did or did not come from Africa is completely irrelevant; after all, the vast majority of Caucasians have nothing to do with that mountain range. rewinn (talk) 02:31, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Spanish pronunciation

The very last paragraph expands on pronunciation in Spanish and Portuguese: "In Latin America, negro, which translates as black is the term generally used to refer and describe black people and, similarly to mulatto, it is not considered offensive at all in these regions. However, it is pronounced differently, with the e (a mid front unrounded vowel in American Spanish: [ˈneɣɾo], and a close-mid front unrounded vowel in Brazilian Portuguese: [ˈneɡɾu]) being closer to a sound that it is intermediate between phonemes found in English words such as pay and egg (in Spanish) or day, city and item (in Portuguese)." It fails to mention, however, that in Spanish the -g- is also pronounced differently, although this is indirectly indicated in the IPA rendering ([ˈne'ɣɾo]).