This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
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)
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]
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)
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)
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)
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))
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))
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)
I found:
WhisperToMe ( talk) 08:15, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
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)
But an oft-cited statistic among those who point out the existence of racism today is that while blacks are 13% of the overall population, they are nearly 40% of the prison population. Surely, this would merit inclusion as a notable fact under demographics?-- Louiedog ( talk) 18:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi, perhaps you'd like to discuss in here? Firstly, you mention WP:RS but the sources provided are all reliable as per WP:RS. Secondly, which sources in particular do you have an issue with? Thirdly, which part of my edit specifically do you believe to be untrue or unsourced? Thanks! :) Leaf Green Warrior ( talk) 19:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Actually, the lede is supposed to summarize the body of the article and it is inappropriate to introduce new material there. Some version of the material (if it can be based on reliable sources) MAY be appropriate to the section "Who is African American", but even if this is done it does not seem that this would merit a mention in the article lede. The POV that the term "is merely a social classification" ignores just how important that this particular "social classification" is in understanding American history. This importance is, and should be, the major focus of this article -- the fact that African Americans have a complex genetic make-up has had little if anything to do with the political, economic, and social history of African Americans. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 20:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Racism? whats that? you cant be racist. racism does not exist because race does not exist acording to the wikipedia page race. its a social construction. no african american have ever had any racism throughout history. not once. humans have been treating other people because they thought they were of a different race then humans. at least acording to the race pages implication. so either those sources are unreliable in the same way some sources here might be unreliable, or there is an agenda thats pushed and still pushed on this page. So, is there any agenda pushed here against some african americans. then again using malcom x in the portrait itself implies something about african americans as anti semetic. " In short the Zionist argument to justify Israel's present occupation of Arab Palestine has no intelligent or legal basis in history ... not even in their own religion. Where is their Messiah? –Malcolm X a.k.a. Al-Hajj Malik al-Shabazz, Sept. 17, 1964" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.225.100.198 ( talk) 04:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
WhisperToMe ( talk) 18:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
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))
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))
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)
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)
Some of the debate here is clearly getting out of control, with the discussion far too often descending into ridiculous circular logic, juvenile insults, personal attacks and edit-warring. Some people here (I don't want to single any of you particular warriors out) are taking their cause too far. The term African American is one that applies to tens of millions of people (or more). As much as it is a currently and widely accepted term, it will not be accepted by every single person who may fall within that group (to one degree or another). To argue that it is offensive when inadvertantly applied to either Black Americans who don't consider themselves of African descent or, to Africans who happen to be in America, but aren't American, is silly. It's silly because the term itself it not pejorative. Through political correctness, we've already seen terms like 'the N-word', negro, negroid, dark, coloured, brown and black come and go. African American is what we have until the next one comes along.
Also, some people here need to realize the article is about African Americans. African. American. Not Arfican-Native-American-White-European-Martian-East-Asians-who-may-or-may-not-be-American-citizens-or-tourists-or-other... The article is quite clearly about American citizens who are of African (sub-saharan) descent. Just because it doesn't include details of every strand of DNA that may be present from dozens of other races and ethnicities, doesn't make this article, or it's creators and contributors, "racist".
Some people here seem to think that not making prominent mention of other races, who may or may not make up a minor, partial percentage of African American geneology, is some kind of morally outrageous, racist insult to entire, multiple, ethnic communities. Yet, other that this single person, there just doesn't seem to any huge outcry from multitudes of offended people that one might expect based on these exhausting protestations. So, really, how much of an issue is this?
Perhaps some people here should simply consider writing their own article about the multi-racial make-up of some groups of Black people who may or may not be American and may or may not be of African descent. Then they can high-light the contributions of Native Americans, East Asians and White Europeans as much as they like. They can then list their article in the See Also section of the African American page. That really seems to be the only solution (that I can think of, other than leaving the whole thing alone) as there simply is no consensus for prominent inclusion in this article. (IMHO) - thewolfchild 23:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Discussion on this topic is found in many other Wikipedia pages related to this topic, but curiously not the actual article itself.
e.g. see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiracial_American#African_Americans specifically the 2nd paragraph and the next section on Admixture
"A 2003 study found an average of 18.6% (±1.5%) European admixture in a population sample of 416 African Americans from Washington, DC.[43]
Based on Mark Shriver's research, historian Henry Louis Gates, Jr. put African American ancestry in these terms: 58 percent of African Americans have at least 12.5 percent European ancestry (equivalent of one great-grandparent); 19.6 percent of African Americans have at least 25 percent European ancestry (equivalent of one grandparent); 1 percent of African Americans have at least 50 percent European ancestry (equivalent of one parent); and 5 percent of African Americans have at least 12.5 percent Native American ancestry (equivalent to one great-grandparent).[64]"
etc
I find this highly racist - the complete neglection of other race's contributions to the African American population is simply sickening, as if they are somehow worse less than the African contributions. Leaf Green Warrior ( talk) 21:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Just an FYI that I will be applying for some form of protection status for this article. I see deep and obvious racism here, with East Asian/Native American/European ancestry being sectioned to a dark corner and African ancestry being put in the spotlight. Leaf Green Warrior ( talk) 00:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Allow me to add my two cents. Leaf Green Warrior, you obviously don't know what racism is. If you did, you wouldn't be using the word so liberally here. Second, any admixture that has occured in the past is just that - in the past. Is it historic? Sure, but what does that have to do with the contributions AAs made to the U.S. and the world? Nothing. I agree with everybody else that has commented on why you're wrong, but I wanted to add my voice to the chorus. B-Machine ( talk) 18:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
tl;dr of the above posts: "only black-african ancestry matters, asian/european/native american ancesry doesn't". So whilst Asian/European/Native American ancestry plays a large role in the make up of African Americans (there are estimates of over 30% of African American Ancestry being non-African), they aren't mentioned once in the WP article. This is racism - no one ancestry matters more than the other, and you cannot simply neglect any mention of East Asian/European/Native American ancestry because that's racist. Leaf Green Warrior ( talk) 10:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
tl;dr of the above posts: "only black-african ancestry matters, asian/european/native american ancesry doesn't". So whilst Asian/European/Native American ancestry plays a large role in the make up of African Americans (there are estimates of over 30% of African American Ancestry being non-African), they aren't mentioned once in the WP article. This is racism - no one ancestry matters more than the other, and you cannot simply neglect any mention of East Asian/European/Native American ancestry because that's racist. DO NOT SPAM THIS SECTION - DO NOT DISCUSS IRRELEVANT THINGS/AD HOMINEM ATTACKS - IF YOU WISH TO REPLY THEN DO SO WITH AN ON-TOPIC, RELEVANT EXPLANATION OF WHY YOU BELIEVE THE OTHER ANCESTRIES OF AFRICAN AMERICANS LESS NOTEWORTHY THAN AFRICAN ANCESTRIES. Just thought I'd make that clear, the spam in here is getting ridiculous. Leaf Green Warrior ( talk) 12:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
For reasons stated and opposed by only one person, the disputed material does not belong in the article lede. I offer the following as proposed text for a subsection under the section The term "African American". The references, with the exception of the Davis one which I added, all come from another article.
Admixture Historically, "race mixing" between black and white people was taboo in the United States. So-called anti-miscegenation laws, barring blacks and whites from marrying or having sex, were established in colonial America as early as 1691. [1] The taboo among American whites surrounding white-black relations can be seen as a historical consequence of the oppression and racial segregation of African-Americans. [2]Historian David Brion Davis notes the racial mixing that occurred during slavery was frequently attributed by the planter class to the "lower-class white males" but Davis concludes that "there is abundant evidence that many slaveowners, sons of slaveowners, and overseers took black mistresses or in effect raped the wives and daughters of slave families." [3] Racially mixed marriages have become increasingly accepted in the United States since the Civil Rights movement and up to the present day. [4] Approval in national opinion polls have risen from 36% in 1978, to 48% in 1991, 65% in 2002, 77% in 2007. [5] Scientific analysis indicates that current African Americans inherit about 14-17.7% of their ancestry from Europeans. [6] |
I think you mean "the disputed material does not belong in the article lede". Otherwise your suggestion looks fine to me. —
Malik Shabazz
Talk/
Stalk
15:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
This looks like an addition that is both necessary, and good. I agree with the other 2 comments above though - the Gates quote? And anything about Native American/Asians? Additionally, even with this addition, the second paragraph in the lead would still be entirely 100% focused on African ancestry, which is virtually the whole point of why I had a problem initially. Not at all am I saying that there should be an indepth genetic analysis or anything of the sort, but if the African ancestry is mentioned (as it obviously should be), then I think other ancestry should very briefly be mentioned also. What about a small sentence that says something like "<snip>...entify with the term.[3] Alongside the predominantly African ancestry, African Americans on the whole have experienced high amounts of admixture <with a link to your section added in subtly>." Leaf Green Warrior ( talk) 18:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't beat around the bush. This Leaf Green Warrior person is a foolish troll. As Malik Shabazz mentioned, there is a significant amount of African contributions to the genome of Italian people. Will you go after those that dismiss that and say they're "racist"? This person sounds like one of those folks who want to deblacken Afro-American people and culture. Sounds like you're the racist, LGW. B-Machine ( talk) 14:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
I have taken a couple of suggestions from above and added a paragraph to my original proposal.
Admixture Historically, "race mixing" between black and white people was taboo in the United States. So-called anti-miscegenation laws, barring blacks and whites from marrying or having sex, were established in colonial America as early as 1691. [7] The taboo among American whites surrounding white-black relations can be seen as a historical consequence of the oppression and racial segregation of African-Americans. [8]Historian David Brion Davis notes the racial mixing that occurred during slavery was frequently attributed by the planter class to the "lower-class white males" but Davis concludes that "there is abundant evidence that many slaveowners, sons of slaveowners, and overseers took black mistresses or in effect raped the wives and daughters of slave families." [9] Harvard University historian Henry Louis Gates, Jr. wrote in 2009, "African Americans ... are a racially mixed or mulatto people—deeply and overwhelmingly so." [10] For example, after the Emancipation Proclamation Chinese American men married African American women in high proportions to their total marriage numbers due to few Chinese American women being in the United States. [11] African slaves and their descendants have also had a history of cultural exchange and intermarriage with Native Americans [12] although they did not necessarily retain social, cultural or linguistic ties to Native peoples. [13] There are also increasing intermarriages and offspring between non-Hispanic blacks and Hispanics of any race, especially between Puerto Ricans and African Americans (American-born blacks). [14]
|
Comments? Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 17:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
PS For some reason, the footnotes for the 2nd paragraph which I copied directly from other articles, did not show. To correct that I had to remove the reflist from my original proposal. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 17:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Since there was no further discussion I went ahead and added the material. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 14:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
This article should mention the Baha'i Faith. 67.175.103.146 ( talk) 18:10, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
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)
I as a black man, agree whole heartedly with this statement, as would many, many more. I too would like this to be added. thanks. P.S. what kind of source would be credible on an issue like this? I would like to know, so I could possibly make suggestions? thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.46.104.252 ( talk) 21:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
One would think that most of these arguments would not necessitate the need for sources. Does one need a source to describe the color gray to be a mixture of black and white? One should not have to cite the fact that whites that come from africa would be African-American, and that blacks that come from Haiti would not be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.46.104.252 ( talk) 21:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
The term "African American" clearly does not refer to people of Super Saharan (Morocco, Libya, Algeria etc.) descent, though this regions are fully part of Africa. These people have indeed their own denomination ( Arab American) So perhaps the term "African American" should be changed to " Sub-Saharan American" to avoid any confusion. -- Tavernsenses ( talk) 08:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
In the lede of the Arab American article, it is stated: "Over 1/4 of all Arab Americans claimed two ancestries, having not only Arab ancestry but also non-Arab." This is a very similar comparison to African American. African Americans are an even more mixed group than Arab Americans, yet there is no mention of the mixture in the lede of African Americans, I suspect due to racism. Leaf Green Warrior ( talk) 13:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
"The whole discussion is best summarised with a neutral example. Broad "Group X" is composed of peoples A, B, C, D. You belong to "Group X" if you have at least partial A in you. However, Group X on the whole has large amounts of, for example, C, in it, and thus should definitely be mentioned in the lede of the article (as it's done with Arab American). However, this is not done in the African American article, I suspect due to racism (i.e. people trying to propagate a false illusion that "African Americans" are purely African, which is completely untrue and is highly racist). Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 13:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)" Here's an idea - instead of talking about irrelevant things, how about actually having a civil, intelligent discussion and trying to refute what I said above, instead of just talking around it? Leaf Green Warrior ( talk) 15:53, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Ok, clearly after the length of this discussion, this is going nowhere. I'll let you guys keep this (in my opinion) racist page without further argument, perhaps I'll go for formal dispute resolution later on. At any rate, is the proposal above going to be implemented? Leaf Green Warrior ( talk) 16:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Before we go any further, can I point out a major difference between this article and Arab American? It is in the very text quoted by User:Leaf Green Warrior: "Over 1/4 of all Arab Americans claimed two ancestries, having not only Arab ancestry but also non-Arab."
The point of the statement is that Arab Americans identify themselves with more than one ancestry. When Leaf Green Warrior can provide reliable sources that show a significant portion of African Americans identify themselves as multiracial, that's when this discussion will become relevant. Until then, I think it can be ignored. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 17:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Like I said earlier, this is another attempt by some to deblacken African-American people and culture. First of all, why the hell should we honor the white slaveowners who raped their female African slaves? Second, American Indians also had Africans as slaves. Should we honor them, too? Third, why would they claim black people as their own? The overwhelming majority of us AAs find stuff like what you're doing, LGW, offensive. This Leaf Green Warrior person is very ahistorical when it comes to slavery in the United States as if everybody was holding hands singing Kumbaya. Crazy. B-Machine ( talk) 16:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
At this point, your accusations are becoming funny. I never implied or typed that blacks are superior. As for my other point, why should white slaveowners be honored with the brutality they enacted on blacks? Clearly, you're out of your league here and you know nothing. I suggest you pack it up because you're not accomplishing anything. And you still don't know what racism is. B-Machine ( talk) 16:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
The term "African American" clearly does not refer to people of Super Saharan (Morocco, Libya, Algeria etc.) descent, though this regions are fully part of Africa. These people have indeed their own denomination ( Arab American) So perhaps the term "African American" should be changed to " Sub-Saharan American" to avoid any confusion. -- Tavernsenses ( talk) 08:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Just an observation, there is no controversial section of this page. Where the bias and more sadistic acts of african american history would be put.
99.104.185.17 ( talk) 18:18, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
The whole episode of adding an admixture section and adding "partial ancestry" in the lead paragraph is ridiculous. What does that have to do with the cultural contributions AAs made and AA history other than slavery? Nothing. I say get rid of the admixture section and the "partial ancestry" words in the lead paragraph. Go to back where it was. B-Machine ( talk) 17:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I still say they should be removed. B-Machine ( talk) 13:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
IN COMBINATION According to the U.S. Census only 12.8% of Americans are Afroamerican. 13.6% adds "Afroamerican in combination", something which is excluded in the White American section of Wikipedia. Why?-- 79.156.196.252 ( talk) 02:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
As it stands it just sounds like speculation when in fact there have been ample DNA studies. The contribution of Chinese Americans and Native Americans to the gene pool have been so negligable that I am surprised it is even mentioned here
EDIT REQUEST
RECOMMEND AFTER
"Harvard University historian Henry Louis Gates, Jr. wrote in 2009, "African Americans ... are a racially mixed or mulatto people—deeply and overwhelmingly so." [
ADD
Henry Louis Gates summarizes recent genetic studies on African Americans as follows:
58 percent of African Americans have at least 12.5 percent European ancestry (equivalent of one great-grandparent); 19.6 percent of African Americans have at least 25 percent European ancestry (equivalent of one grandparent); 1 percent of African Americans have at least 50 percent European ancestry (equivalent of one parent); and 5 percent of African Americans have at least 12.5 percent Native American ancestry (equivalent to one great-grandparent).[3]
^ Gates, Henry Louis, Jr. In Search of Our Roots: How 19 Extraordinary African Americans Reclaimed Their Past, New York: Crown Publishing, 2009, pp.20-21.
You can qualify it with "
Due largely in part to rape of African American woman slaves in the antebellum era"
or leave it out, it doesn't matter. But the numbers SHOULD definitely be there. Numbers are important not just pure speculation and "Chinese blah blah blah" although that had less than 1 percent effect on the AA gene pool. Gates also summarize the Native American DNA but it was not very significant (although still traceable) the overwhelming impact on the AA gene pool after they were forced into the US was EUROPEAN due to rape and explotiation of slaves common throughout the New World (case in point brazil)
This is rather important, thanks. If you refuse please explain why as this is rather easily verifiable :) I know it makes white people feel bad but as an African immigrant the EYES DON'T LIE. and happily with DNA, we don't NEED EYES.
(as any african immigrant to the united states, such as myself, can see, african americans are definitely a "new people") It is nothing to be ashamed of. It is nothing to be proud of. It just is what it is. Keysbusyggh ( talk) 19:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Here is also a good data http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091221212823.htm
"The rich mosaic of African-American ancestry. Among the 365 African-Americans in the study, individuals had as little as 1 percent West African ancestry and as much as 99 percent. There are significant implications for pharmacogenomic studies and assessment of disease risk. It appears that the range of genetic ancestry captured under the term African-American is extremely diverse, suggesting that caution should be used in prescribing treatment based on differential guidelines for African-Americans. A median proportion of European ancestry in African-Americans of 18.5 percent, with large variation among individuals. The predominately African origin of X chromosomes of African-Americans. This is consistent with the pattern of gene flow where mothers were mostly of African ancestry while fathers were either of African or European ancestry."
""We were also able to show that there is little genetic differentiation among African-Americans in the African portion of their ancestry, reflecting the fact that most African-Americans have ancestry from several regions of western Africa. The greatest variation among African-Americans is in their proportion of European ancestry, which has important implications for the design of personalized medical treatments." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keysbusyggh ( talk • contribs) 20:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
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)
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]
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)
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)
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)
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))
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))
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)
I found:
WhisperToMe ( talk) 08:15, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
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)
But an oft-cited statistic among those who point out the existence of racism today is that while blacks are 13% of the overall population, they are nearly 40% of the prison population. Surely, this would merit inclusion as a notable fact under demographics?-- Louiedog ( talk) 18:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi, perhaps you'd like to discuss in here? Firstly, you mention WP:RS but the sources provided are all reliable as per WP:RS. Secondly, which sources in particular do you have an issue with? Thirdly, which part of my edit specifically do you believe to be untrue or unsourced? Thanks! :) Leaf Green Warrior ( talk) 19:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Actually, the lede is supposed to summarize the body of the article and it is inappropriate to introduce new material there. Some version of the material (if it can be based on reliable sources) MAY be appropriate to the section "Who is African American", but even if this is done it does not seem that this would merit a mention in the article lede. The POV that the term "is merely a social classification" ignores just how important that this particular "social classification" is in understanding American history. This importance is, and should be, the major focus of this article -- the fact that African Americans have a complex genetic make-up has had little if anything to do with the political, economic, and social history of African Americans. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 20:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Racism? whats that? you cant be racist. racism does not exist because race does not exist acording to the wikipedia page race. its a social construction. no african american have ever had any racism throughout history. not once. humans have been treating other people because they thought they were of a different race then humans. at least acording to the race pages implication. so either those sources are unreliable in the same way some sources here might be unreliable, or there is an agenda thats pushed and still pushed on this page. So, is there any agenda pushed here against some african americans. then again using malcom x in the portrait itself implies something about african americans as anti semetic. " In short the Zionist argument to justify Israel's present occupation of Arab Palestine has no intelligent or legal basis in history ... not even in their own religion. Where is their Messiah? –Malcolm X a.k.a. Al-Hajj Malik al-Shabazz, Sept. 17, 1964" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.225.100.198 ( talk) 04:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
WhisperToMe ( talk) 18:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
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))
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))
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)
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)
Some of the debate here is clearly getting out of control, with the discussion far too often descending into ridiculous circular logic, juvenile insults, personal attacks and edit-warring. Some people here (I don't want to single any of you particular warriors out) are taking their cause too far. The term African American is one that applies to tens of millions of people (or more). As much as it is a currently and widely accepted term, it will not be accepted by every single person who may fall within that group (to one degree or another). To argue that it is offensive when inadvertantly applied to either Black Americans who don't consider themselves of African descent or, to Africans who happen to be in America, but aren't American, is silly. It's silly because the term itself it not pejorative. Through political correctness, we've already seen terms like 'the N-word', negro, negroid, dark, coloured, brown and black come and go. African American is what we have until the next one comes along.
Also, some people here need to realize the article is about African Americans. African. American. Not Arfican-Native-American-White-European-Martian-East-Asians-who-may-or-may-not-be-American-citizens-or-tourists-or-other... The article is quite clearly about American citizens who are of African (sub-saharan) descent. Just because it doesn't include details of every strand of DNA that may be present from dozens of other races and ethnicities, doesn't make this article, or it's creators and contributors, "racist".
Some people here seem to think that not making prominent mention of other races, who may or may not make up a minor, partial percentage of African American geneology, is some kind of morally outrageous, racist insult to entire, multiple, ethnic communities. Yet, other that this single person, there just doesn't seem to any huge outcry from multitudes of offended people that one might expect based on these exhausting protestations. So, really, how much of an issue is this?
Perhaps some people here should simply consider writing their own article about the multi-racial make-up of some groups of Black people who may or may not be American and may or may not be of African descent. Then they can high-light the contributions of Native Americans, East Asians and White Europeans as much as they like. They can then list their article in the See Also section of the African American page. That really seems to be the only solution (that I can think of, other than leaving the whole thing alone) as there simply is no consensus for prominent inclusion in this article. (IMHO) - thewolfchild 23:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Discussion on this topic is found in many other Wikipedia pages related to this topic, but curiously not the actual article itself.
e.g. see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiracial_American#African_Americans specifically the 2nd paragraph and the next section on Admixture
"A 2003 study found an average of 18.6% (±1.5%) European admixture in a population sample of 416 African Americans from Washington, DC.[43]
Based on Mark Shriver's research, historian Henry Louis Gates, Jr. put African American ancestry in these terms: 58 percent of African Americans have at least 12.5 percent European ancestry (equivalent of one great-grandparent); 19.6 percent of African Americans have at least 25 percent European ancestry (equivalent of one grandparent); 1 percent of African Americans have at least 50 percent European ancestry (equivalent of one parent); and 5 percent of African Americans have at least 12.5 percent Native American ancestry (equivalent to one great-grandparent).[64]"
etc
I find this highly racist - the complete neglection of other race's contributions to the African American population is simply sickening, as if they are somehow worse less than the African contributions. Leaf Green Warrior ( talk) 21:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Just an FYI that I will be applying for some form of protection status for this article. I see deep and obvious racism here, with East Asian/Native American/European ancestry being sectioned to a dark corner and African ancestry being put in the spotlight. Leaf Green Warrior ( talk) 00:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Allow me to add my two cents. Leaf Green Warrior, you obviously don't know what racism is. If you did, you wouldn't be using the word so liberally here. Second, any admixture that has occured in the past is just that - in the past. Is it historic? Sure, but what does that have to do with the contributions AAs made to the U.S. and the world? Nothing. I agree with everybody else that has commented on why you're wrong, but I wanted to add my voice to the chorus. B-Machine ( talk) 18:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
tl;dr of the above posts: "only black-african ancestry matters, asian/european/native american ancesry doesn't". So whilst Asian/European/Native American ancestry plays a large role in the make up of African Americans (there are estimates of over 30% of African American Ancestry being non-African), they aren't mentioned once in the WP article. This is racism - no one ancestry matters more than the other, and you cannot simply neglect any mention of East Asian/European/Native American ancestry because that's racist. Leaf Green Warrior ( talk) 10:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
tl;dr of the above posts: "only black-african ancestry matters, asian/european/native american ancesry doesn't". So whilst Asian/European/Native American ancestry plays a large role in the make up of African Americans (there are estimates of over 30% of African American Ancestry being non-African), they aren't mentioned once in the WP article. This is racism - no one ancestry matters more than the other, and you cannot simply neglect any mention of East Asian/European/Native American ancestry because that's racist. DO NOT SPAM THIS SECTION - DO NOT DISCUSS IRRELEVANT THINGS/AD HOMINEM ATTACKS - IF YOU WISH TO REPLY THEN DO SO WITH AN ON-TOPIC, RELEVANT EXPLANATION OF WHY YOU BELIEVE THE OTHER ANCESTRIES OF AFRICAN AMERICANS LESS NOTEWORTHY THAN AFRICAN ANCESTRIES. Just thought I'd make that clear, the spam in here is getting ridiculous. Leaf Green Warrior ( talk) 12:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
For reasons stated and opposed by only one person, the disputed material does not belong in the article lede. I offer the following as proposed text for a subsection under the section The term "African American". The references, with the exception of the Davis one which I added, all come from another article.
Admixture Historically, "race mixing" between black and white people was taboo in the United States. So-called anti-miscegenation laws, barring blacks and whites from marrying or having sex, were established in colonial America as early as 1691. [1] The taboo among American whites surrounding white-black relations can be seen as a historical consequence of the oppression and racial segregation of African-Americans. [2]Historian David Brion Davis notes the racial mixing that occurred during slavery was frequently attributed by the planter class to the "lower-class white males" but Davis concludes that "there is abundant evidence that many slaveowners, sons of slaveowners, and overseers took black mistresses or in effect raped the wives and daughters of slave families." [3] Racially mixed marriages have become increasingly accepted in the United States since the Civil Rights movement and up to the present day. [4] Approval in national opinion polls have risen from 36% in 1978, to 48% in 1991, 65% in 2002, 77% in 2007. [5] Scientific analysis indicates that current African Americans inherit about 14-17.7% of their ancestry from Europeans. [6] |
I think you mean "the disputed material does not belong in the article lede". Otherwise your suggestion looks fine to me. —
Malik Shabazz
Talk/
Stalk
15:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
This looks like an addition that is both necessary, and good. I agree with the other 2 comments above though - the Gates quote? And anything about Native American/Asians? Additionally, even with this addition, the second paragraph in the lead would still be entirely 100% focused on African ancestry, which is virtually the whole point of why I had a problem initially. Not at all am I saying that there should be an indepth genetic analysis or anything of the sort, but if the African ancestry is mentioned (as it obviously should be), then I think other ancestry should very briefly be mentioned also. What about a small sentence that says something like "<snip>...entify with the term.[3] Alongside the predominantly African ancestry, African Americans on the whole have experienced high amounts of admixture <with a link to your section added in subtly>." Leaf Green Warrior ( talk) 18:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't beat around the bush. This Leaf Green Warrior person is a foolish troll. As Malik Shabazz mentioned, there is a significant amount of African contributions to the genome of Italian people. Will you go after those that dismiss that and say they're "racist"? This person sounds like one of those folks who want to deblacken Afro-American people and culture. Sounds like you're the racist, LGW. B-Machine ( talk) 14:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
I have taken a couple of suggestions from above and added a paragraph to my original proposal.
Admixture Historically, "race mixing" between black and white people was taboo in the United States. So-called anti-miscegenation laws, barring blacks and whites from marrying or having sex, were established in colonial America as early as 1691. [7] The taboo among American whites surrounding white-black relations can be seen as a historical consequence of the oppression and racial segregation of African-Americans. [8]Historian David Brion Davis notes the racial mixing that occurred during slavery was frequently attributed by the planter class to the "lower-class white males" but Davis concludes that "there is abundant evidence that many slaveowners, sons of slaveowners, and overseers took black mistresses or in effect raped the wives and daughters of slave families." [9] Harvard University historian Henry Louis Gates, Jr. wrote in 2009, "African Americans ... are a racially mixed or mulatto people—deeply and overwhelmingly so." [10] For example, after the Emancipation Proclamation Chinese American men married African American women in high proportions to their total marriage numbers due to few Chinese American women being in the United States. [11] African slaves and their descendants have also had a history of cultural exchange and intermarriage with Native Americans [12] although they did not necessarily retain social, cultural or linguistic ties to Native peoples. [13] There are also increasing intermarriages and offspring between non-Hispanic blacks and Hispanics of any race, especially between Puerto Ricans and African Americans (American-born blacks). [14]
|
Comments? Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 17:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
PS For some reason, the footnotes for the 2nd paragraph which I copied directly from other articles, did not show. To correct that I had to remove the reflist from my original proposal. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 17:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Since there was no further discussion I went ahead and added the material. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 14:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
This article should mention the Baha'i Faith. 67.175.103.146 ( talk) 18:10, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
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)
I as a black man, agree whole heartedly with this statement, as would many, many more. I too would like this to be added. thanks. P.S. what kind of source would be credible on an issue like this? I would like to know, so I could possibly make suggestions? thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.46.104.252 ( talk) 21:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
One would think that most of these arguments would not necessitate the need for sources. Does one need a source to describe the color gray to be a mixture of black and white? One should not have to cite the fact that whites that come from africa would be African-American, and that blacks that come from Haiti would not be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.46.104.252 ( talk) 21:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
The term "African American" clearly does not refer to people of Super Saharan (Morocco, Libya, Algeria etc.) descent, though this regions are fully part of Africa. These people have indeed their own denomination ( Arab American) So perhaps the term "African American" should be changed to " Sub-Saharan American" to avoid any confusion. -- Tavernsenses ( talk) 08:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
In the lede of the Arab American article, it is stated: "Over 1/4 of all Arab Americans claimed two ancestries, having not only Arab ancestry but also non-Arab." This is a very similar comparison to African American. African Americans are an even more mixed group than Arab Americans, yet there is no mention of the mixture in the lede of African Americans, I suspect due to racism. Leaf Green Warrior ( talk) 13:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
"The whole discussion is best summarised with a neutral example. Broad "Group X" is composed of peoples A, B, C, D. You belong to "Group X" if you have at least partial A in you. However, Group X on the whole has large amounts of, for example, C, in it, and thus should definitely be mentioned in the lede of the article (as it's done with Arab American). However, this is not done in the African American article, I suspect due to racism (i.e. people trying to propagate a false illusion that "African Americans" are purely African, which is completely untrue and is highly racist). Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 13:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)" Here's an idea - instead of talking about irrelevant things, how about actually having a civil, intelligent discussion and trying to refute what I said above, instead of just talking around it? Leaf Green Warrior ( talk) 15:53, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Ok, clearly after the length of this discussion, this is going nowhere. I'll let you guys keep this (in my opinion) racist page without further argument, perhaps I'll go for formal dispute resolution later on. At any rate, is the proposal above going to be implemented? Leaf Green Warrior ( talk) 16:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Before we go any further, can I point out a major difference between this article and Arab American? It is in the very text quoted by User:Leaf Green Warrior: "Over 1/4 of all Arab Americans claimed two ancestries, having not only Arab ancestry but also non-Arab."
The point of the statement is that Arab Americans identify themselves with more than one ancestry. When Leaf Green Warrior can provide reliable sources that show a significant portion of African Americans identify themselves as multiracial, that's when this discussion will become relevant. Until then, I think it can be ignored. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 17:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Like I said earlier, this is another attempt by some to deblacken African-American people and culture. First of all, why the hell should we honor the white slaveowners who raped their female African slaves? Second, American Indians also had Africans as slaves. Should we honor them, too? Third, why would they claim black people as their own? The overwhelming majority of us AAs find stuff like what you're doing, LGW, offensive. This Leaf Green Warrior person is very ahistorical when it comes to slavery in the United States as if everybody was holding hands singing Kumbaya. Crazy. B-Machine ( talk) 16:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
At this point, your accusations are becoming funny. I never implied or typed that blacks are superior. As for my other point, why should white slaveowners be honored with the brutality they enacted on blacks? Clearly, you're out of your league here and you know nothing. I suggest you pack it up because you're not accomplishing anything. And you still don't know what racism is. B-Machine ( talk) 16:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
The term "African American" clearly does not refer to people of Super Saharan (Morocco, Libya, Algeria etc.) descent, though this regions are fully part of Africa. These people have indeed their own denomination ( Arab American) So perhaps the term "African American" should be changed to " Sub-Saharan American" to avoid any confusion. -- Tavernsenses ( talk) 08:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Just an observation, there is no controversial section of this page. Where the bias and more sadistic acts of african american history would be put.
99.104.185.17 ( talk) 18:18, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
The whole episode of adding an admixture section and adding "partial ancestry" in the lead paragraph is ridiculous. What does that have to do with the cultural contributions AAs made and AA history other than slavery? Nothing. I say get rid of the admixture section and the "partial ancestry" words in the lead paragraph. Go to back where it was. B-Machine ( talk) 17:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I still say they should be removed. B-Machine ( talk) 13:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
IN COMBINATION According to the U.S. Census only 12.8% of Americans are Afroamerican. 13.6% adds "Afroamerican in combination", something which is excluded in the White American section of Wikipedia. Why?-- 79.156.196.252 ( talk) 02:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
As it stands it just sounds like speculation when in fact there have been ample DNA studies. The contribution of Chinese Americans and Native Americans to the gene pool have been so negligable that I am surprised it is even mentioned here
EDIT REQUEST
RECOMMEND AFTER
"Harvard University historian Henry Louis Gates, Jr. wrote in 2009, "African Americans ... are a racially mixed or mulatto people—deeply and overwhelmingly so." [
ADD
Henry Louis Gates summarizes recent genetic studies on African Americans as follows:
58 percent of African Americans have at least 12.5 percent European ancestry (equivalent of one great-grandparent); 19.6 percent of African Americans have at least 25 percent European ancestry (equivalent of one grandparent); 1 percent of African Americans have at least 50 percent European ancestry (equivalent of one parent); and 5 percent of African Americans have at least 12.5 percent Native American ancestry (equivalent to one great-grandparent).[3]
^ Gates, Henry Louis, Jr. In Search of Our Roots: How 19 Extraordinary African Americans Reclaimed Their Past, New York: Crown Publishing, 2009, pp.20-21.
You can qualify it with "
Due largely in part to rape of African American woman slaves in the antebellum era"
or leave it out, it doesn't matter. But the numbers SHOULD definitely be there. Numbers are important not just pure speculation and "Chinese blah blah blah" although that had less than 1 percent effect on the AA gene pool. Gates also summarize the Native American DNA but it was not very significant (although still traceable) the overwhelming impact on the AA gene pool after they were forced into the US was EUROPEAN due to rape and explotiation of slaves common throughout the New World (case in point brazil)
This is rather important, thanks. If you refuse please explain why as this is rather easily verifiable :) I know it makes white people feel bad but as an African immigrant the EYES DON'T LIE. and happily with DNA, we don't NEED EYES.
(as any african immigrant to the united states, such as myself, can see, african americans are definitely a "new people") It is nothing to be ashamed of. It is nothing to be proud of. It just is what it is. Keysbusyggh ( talk) 19:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Here is also a good data http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091221212823.htm
"The rich mosaic of African-American ancestry. Among the 365 African-Americans in the study, individuals had as little as 1 percent West African ancestry and as much as 99 percent. There are significant implications for pharmacogenomic studies and assessment of disease risk. It appears that the range of genetic ancestry captured under the term African-American is extremely diverse, suggesting that caution should be used in prescribing treatment based on differential guidelines for African-Americans. A median proportion of European ancestry in African-Americans of 18.5 percent, with large variation among individuals. The predominately African origin of X chromosomes of African-Americans. This is consistent with the pattern of gene flow where mothers were mostly of African ancestry while fathers were either of African or European ancestry."
""We were also able to show that there is little genetic differentiation among African-Americans in the African portion of their ancestry, reflecting the fact that most African-Americans have ancestry from several regions of western Africa. The greatest variation among African-Americans is in their proportion of European ancestry, which has important implications for the design of personalized medical treatments." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keysbusyggh ( talk • contribs) 20:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)