Posted on 06/28/2008 12:22:25 AM PDT by flowerplough
Any discussions about the terms used to describe African Americans as a group must begin by understanding the historical context within the United States in which these terms were used. It is a history that encompasses more than 300 years, when Blacks were brought to the United States against their will. During the subsequent three centuries, many terms were used to describe African Americans as a group in the United States.
During the 1950s and 1960s, common terms "negro" and "colored" were used, often disparagingly. Today, these two terms are unacceptable and are almost never heard, with the exception of old books and movies.
Raymond Arroyo is the chief diversity officer of Aetna, one of DiversityInc's 25 Noteworthy Companies. This column was first published on Aetna's intranet ...
(Excerpt) Read more at diversityinc.com ...
Can you jump ?
I would agree the near approximation is vulgar. However “Negro” is not. Throughout our language, the Greco-Latin derived words tend to be the “upper class words” while the Anglo-Saxon derived words are the common terms. Cf. lavatory and bathroom, pagan and heathen, boreal and northern.
I suspect “Negro” will come back some day, probably for the wrong reasons.
I always thought it was victim.
Like P8triot1, I was born in The United States, and am therefore, a native American.
If I'm not mistaken, and I don't think I am, I recall the Reverend Jesse Jackson coining the the term African-American in the 60's. It was during what they called their cultural identity crisis in which he said that they "weren't Americans, they were African-Americans."
Well there you have it.
While around in the 60's (mostly serving in the USAF overseas, including 18 months in Nam) I was not especially paying attention to the likes of the phony reverend preaching hate and discontent amongst the natives.
Gee, can I say that??
But if you are right, then it would stand to reason that having his imprimatur, would have given it legitimacy--though I'm convinced that MLK would not have agreed and don't ever remember him making any such distinction.
You are absolutely correct.
HOWEVER, this practice by some of the "hyphenated" groups you refer to, (and which I would suggest are probably libs) did not begin until AFTER the African-American moniker was pronounced to the the riguer and an acceptable moniker.
Madagascar was first settled from people from what is now Indonesia or Malaysia—the Malagasy language is a member of the Malayo-Polynesian family. After Madagascar was settled, some people were brought there as slaves from mainland Africa, so some of the people may have some African ancestry, but the Malayo-Indonesian element predominates.
But not "European-American", whatever that means. "African-American" lumps a vast number of peoples from an entire continent into a single ethnic group.
This is all part of a larger goal by the Left, the subjugation of America. So is feminism, gay rights, political correctness, etc. The idea is to divide and conquer by sowing confusion and resentment among the various groups resulting in fragmentation rather than cohesion.
Clemenza,what was your girlfriend’s take on the whole”Are Egyptians black”controversy?
I ask that because I have had several Egyptian co-workers of various hues and facial shapes,ranging from very European to one dude who was dead on Mike Tyson!
From what I can gather,the further south you go toward Thebes and Aswan,the darker complected people become more numerous.Seems that there has historically been a lot of mixing between these southern Egyptians and the Nubians of the area.
I noticed that when they made the movie on Anwar Sadat a while back,Lou Gossett played Sadat.And it was sure an eerie resemblance.
I work around blacks every day.I almost never hear honky,cracker or whitey.
But I sure hear nigga a lot!
“Lot of white Americans refer to themselves as Italian-American, German-American or Irish-American.”
Of course it depends on what the ambiguous term “lot” means but I dispute that anyway. Maybe my friends and associates are unique. We may on occasion talk about our heritage but I don’t know anyone who refers to themselves as a English-American or Italian-American or whatever.
Nubians would be considered "black" by appearance, although they have more delicate (for lack of a better word) features than west Africans. Back in the days of racial junk science, they were categorized as "Hamitic/Semitic", like the Ethiopians, the latter of which STILL believe they are the descendants of Solomon and Sheba.
Ann is a Coptic Christian, olive skinned and semitic in appearance like most Arabs from Lebanon through Yemen. Nevertheless, Copts claim to be the direct descendants of the "pure" Egyptians who lived there prior to the Arab conquest (ie descendants of the pharoahs).
I concur with your analysis of the Egyptian”racial”strain.It is interesting to look at busts and paintings of some of the ancient Egyptians.Nefertari looks very European but check out Tut’s grandmother,Queen Tiy sometime.She looks like Maxine Waters.
Poor child!
You are completely wrong. German-American and Irish-American were in use in the 19th century before the term African-American came into vogue. Do so some research before making up false assumptions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.