Black or African-American?
 

I'm not sure if this belongs here, or where it will go. I figure that we're a respectful group of people who can discuss this calmly, and I really just need an opinion generated by tonight, so I can change the wording on a paper I'm writing (if necessary.)

I'm writing about Toronto, Ontario, for a business project. For our research section we needed to include information on race, percentages, etc... and as the Canadian statistical website put it, "Black - 8.3%." Clearly, there is no option to call them African-American, but should we refer to them as African-Canadian?

In some instances, I've known people to want to be referred to as African-American, while others have met the description with disdain. As one friend put it, "I'm not from Africa, I was born in Georgia, and that makes it sound like I'm less American." Of course, that was only one friend. To that extent, we have an organization on campus called the Black Business Students Association. It's not African-American Business Students Association. Since neither is difficult to say, I'm assuming there was a preference made, but.. I'm just not sure.

What would you guys do?

According to Wikipedia

Double-checking the usage, Black Canadian seems to be it, per this Canadian gov't. site.

I'd just use "Black". I think the world is a little too PC. I don't mind being called "White". It's better than "Caucasian", because I've always wondered where "Caucasia" actually is. ;)

I believe, it being Canada, the correct term is, "Flanneled Africans".

Since it sounds like you're dealing with government statistical data, I would use the terms the government uses with any particular definition that they give. If the statistical terminology deviates from recognizable cultural pattersns, e.g., Latinos are deemed Caucasian, then note that.

Oh, sheesh, just use Black. Are black people everywhere going to have to be hyphenated? BlackFinlandians and BlackKasicstanians? Where will it end?


And, yeah, while we're at it ... what the hell is Caucasion anyway???



Also ... I wish the Asians would get off their high horse and let themselves be labeled Orientals without getting so upset. Or pick something else, because people of Japanese, Korean, Chinese or other such ancestry who were born and live in America (or other places outside of Asia) are not Asian.

I wonder if I had distant relatives that were black, that I could refer to my self at Black/White or Gray American.

I think they should just label everyone as Heinz 57, because no one is "purebred" nowadays anyway. If we researched it, we probably all have a bit of every race in us.

Haha! If it were up to me (and I have a feeling my OP was a little biased), I'd just say "black" but it was an international student in my group that brought it up.

I am going to go with Black Canadian... I rather like that.

(yes, and where will it end, iSm?!)

I'd also think that African American should suffice, as well, because Canada IS a part of America. We're all in the Americas. Though Canada probably prefers the disassociation. Heh.

From now on I want people to refer to me as an Irish-Welsh-Russian-Jewican.

That sounds like something you'd order at Sizzler...or maybe a pizza topping..

I'll have a Black Canadian:

1 oz. Black Label
1 oz. Canadian Club
4 oz. Molson
Rim a glass with bacon fat, then salt.
Mix and pour.

Is that a real drink?

I may have to forward that to someone if that's true hahaha...


But you know what sounds good... a black russian... or hell, a white russian for that matter. I'll take anything - I'm getting sick of working on coupons and stamp cards that people keep changing their minds over tiny details on.

I always wonder in these scenarios how, darker skinned folks of Caribean origin are classified, or white South Africans

I've pondered that as well, though if I understand correctly, many of our dark-skinned Caribbean friends actually arrived there as first-class passengers on the beautiful ship, Slave Trade. So, would they be African-Whatevercountry?

Or what of the very mixed heritage of the Puerto Ricans?

Perhaps, but how many generations do you go back? Technically we're all African American - or well, the Americans on this board anyway...

Except, of course, for you wife.

I think if your ancestors Mayflowered their way here, you officially get to go no further back than that as your heritage declaration point.

Pangea-American

Considering that on most Caribbean islands the native populations were pretty much completely eradicated and the non-black populations are in the extreme minority, I think in most of them just saying the nationality is more than enough.

Aruban = black. Jamaican = black. Haitian = black. Etc.

I personally don't understand the need to identify yourself by racial or ethnic groupings. In today's paper there was a column about a play in which a black mathematician is told that he is "forgetting his identity." This pass unremarked in the column but it struck me. Since in so many other areas we are told that our identity comes from within.

But then, being (extremely, if there are non-northern European genes in me they are very, very old) white means that I've been the beneficiary of the unlevel playing field and therefore it is easy to ignore it.

As for the original question, I'd say black (I'm not fond of African-XX because African is used to mean black when that isn't necessarily true) or black Canadian but if you're presenting this in some formal capacity then yeah, match whatever is expected within that organization.

Ask and ye shall receive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasus

Well, since I am from Canada, I'd probably go with the term Black Canadian, if writing from a research perspective.

(And, EH1812...technically, you're right, as in we're part of NORTH AMERICA, but we're individuals, darn it. We say EH! EH!!!)

I'm Mayflowerian.

Re: African American: The "American" supposedly refers to "The Americas" which is basically the Western Hemisphere. So, Canadian Blacks should be called African American. The term is to distinguish ethnicity, not nationality, so Canadian whatever shouldn't be used IMHO.

My StepMom (who is) prefers Black. Adamantly. And yes, I asked.

Holy hell. Well, I'm not from that region either.

So, from now on, I'm checking off "other", if Caucasian is the only "white" option.

As used in the United States, "caucasian" simply refers to skin color not region of origin. In Europe "caucasian" refers to people from that region.

How the name for that region came be used as the descriptive term for white people is an interesting bit of racist science history. Without going into details, the term was used because that's where early 19th science though the skull features of northern Europeans would ultimately be traced.

But to a degree it is all moot since race doesn't exist in an objective sense and in general usage people aren't at all rigorous in distinguishing race, ethnicity, and nationality. Or even the order in which they are important (the idea that the third of those should be primary is a relatively recent concept).

As much as I like Bacon, the thought of licking greasy bacon fat off the rim of my drinking glass makes me ill.

I think the term Caucasian is a niceity that is trying to describe a race without using a "color" term the same way "African American" is avoiding the lable of "Black'. Frankly, I prefer the "Black" "White" Lables just because they are simple.

But if Latinos don't like brown, and American Indians don't like red, then what? And if the American Indians drop the first part, they may be confused with those from India.

And if the Black Canadians don't know they are in Canada, all is lost anyway! So why bother? ;)

That said, I have no problem with any group or race prefering a lable, of which I would gladly use. I just wish someone would standardize, and all agree on. But making 100% of any one happy is impossible, now isn't it?

Wow! You must really mean that, Rstar! ;)

On that note, I know a number of Latinos that refer to themselves as "brown" but in Spanish... "Soy moreno!"

Oh, but don't call a Latino "brown"... like, ever. You may as well use any number of less-savory euphemisms. ;)

I know I'm tired, but can euphemisms be savory?

If they're brown(ed)......in butter.

Savory Euphamisms

4 Euphamisms
1 piece of toast
Anchovy Butter

Butter the toast with the Anchovy Butter.

Cut into triangle quadrants and place a Euphamism (smooth side down) on each toast triangle.

Best drink to serve with this would be a Black Canadian :cheers: .

Serve your Savory Euphamisms ar your next party and watch 'em snap them up !!!

You lost me at anchovy butter.

I was just sure there would be Vegemite involved in that recipe.

Just to explain, because it's no longer there, but RStar's post came out double.



But, he was the one who pointed out the obvious to blueerica .... a drink recipe that calls for rimming the glass with bacon fat is not a real drink recipe.


:cheers:

Well, truthfully, I was referring to the second portion of his post.

As for meat-rimmed drinks... Well, I've seen a drink or two garnished with meat in my time, not from a bartending guide and certainly none that I'd ever drink. Ever. Because that's just gross.

http://www.liquorsnob.com/archives/2..._the_flesh.php

Define real.

I think of the endless cocktails I used to knock back & I physically get ill. The thought of a martini these days makes me sick. Add a piece of floating fat-back or ham dicings into that vermouth and..I think I'm going to luge right now. No, seriously. :(

Oh my *gag* golly..

If only I knew back then what I know now, I could have subsituted my swizzle stick with a piece of beef jerkey. Or, skip the sauce altogether & just pour an entire can's worth of ground sirloin grease into a jumbo martini glass and enjoy the artery clogging fun. Hardened orange waxtini.

No, seriously. I'm going to hurl my intestines, both large and small, across my office. :(

As for race labels, I'm going to write my own in next time, and see what their response is to Seriously in Need of a Tan. :evil:

Before I even got to Alex's post I was reading this.

I swear, I'm almost insulted that my supposed grouping was created due to such subjectively prejudiced pseudo-science. I'm not insulted by much, either, but I'm rather horrified that I've been putting "one of the beautiful people" on every form I've filled out.

I know it doesn't really mean that any more, but the origin leaves me with a sullied feeling. I'd rather be called white.

In that regard, I actually dig the idea of calling myself Eastern European, though that's only half my ancestry. I identify as an Eastern European Jewish American, I guess. Not that it matters.

We all have the same color flesh. We just have different color skin.

Personally I don't "identify" myself by my ancestors at all. The fact that my maternal grandfather was born in Norway is of zero interest to me and how I live my life. I'm no more a Kansan because my paternal grandparents were born there than I am a German because my great-great-great-great-great-granparents were born there. If it turns out that my great-grandmother was actually Malaysian, that makes me no more Asian.

My skin is "white" because my ancestors were white. I am not German because they were German. Ethnicity, race, and nationality are not passed through DNA.

Plus, pretty much all groups assume their look is the most beautiful. Is it Koreans that have a folktale about how when God was finishing the people of the earth, the white people came out of the oven too soon, the black people were in too long, but the Asians were just right? (I know I've heard that somewhere but now it will turn out to be from some horrible source.)

No, but who you were raised by tends to matter. I doubt it's coincidence that both I and my sister ended up with spouses whose families are from Chicago (our family is from Chicago), even though neither she nor I were raised there or had even visited there. As a matter of fact, of the 4 of us (myself, my wife, my sister, and her husband), only my brother in law was actually raised in Chicago. But there is no doubt that part of the reason we we all get along so well is a certain amount of commonality based on the Chicago connection. It's a cultural thing.

That's why I still, and likely will always, identify as "eastern European Jew", even though I've never been to Eastern Europe and I'm 3 generations removed from anyone who lived in Europe and am closer to agnostic than a practicing Jew. Because I know that when I meet someone else connected to an eastern European ancestor, there is a high likelihood that we will share a certain commonality of culture.

Culture, race, ethnicity, and nationality are imprecise, overlapping, and routinely misused. But they are also quite interleaved. It's true that in the end, culture is the main thread that binds any people together. It just happens that the other "traits" are often a convenient shorthand, imprecise as they may be.

Then explain why I (first generation Californain from OLD East Coast stock, Mayflower decendent, and pure Brit Mutt even in America) married Chris (first generation American, from old German family with White Rissian roots)? There is no common cultural connection between us at all......unless you count punk rock. ;)

You, me, and Iggy Pop - "I'm a punk rocker, yes I am"

Nothing's absolute. Even identical twins don't come out with the exact same personalities. Shared culture is one of many factors. But it's one that, on the average, plays a significant role. When you're talking average in a large sampling, you'll always be able to find examples of outliers, but that doesn't negate the importance (e.g., One dude living to 115 on a diet consisting wholly of unflavored yogurt and cigar smoke doesn't change the fact that the same diet would kill most people).

But yes, I would count punk rock. Culture is a malleable thing, we all belong to and are influenced by different cultures and subcultures. And we're all more likely to have things in common with people whose cultural context contains something that matches our own.

In my case, living in the San Fernando Valley, there is no shortage of people of eastern European Jewish cultural decent, nor a shortage of people of Chicogan cultural decent. Geographic/national and religious culture is pretty strong and often the easiest to connect with, so given a large sampling it's likely people sharing those will be drawn together. Absent that (I can't imagine there are too many Mayflower descendants around LA), something like aesthetic culture makes for a good second tier connection.

I run into the PC thing all the time when dealing with people who can't hear well or at all. Some prefer deaf, others Deaf, others 'hearing impaired', and still others 'hard of hearing'. Some view their hearing loss as a more descriptive term (deaf), while others are Deaf culture hardcore and it is a statement about them as a whole. Ironically, these persons are often the most intolerant of others who are different and can be a big PITA. (They are right now in the process of ruining Gaulledet University). Tori prefers the term 'hearing impaired', as 'hard of hearing' seems so geriatric.

Right now in Spokane a member of the Parks board is in hot water for referring to a former board member in a not PC way- he said 'colored', and one of the groups making the biggest stink is The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.:rolleyes:

Did you catch the episode of Scrubs re: cochlear implants? The kid in it was the son of a family friend. Pretty terrible episode that did a horrible job of addressing the issues of either cochlear implants or parental rights.

Doc: Hey deaf dad, your son's a perfect candidate for implants
Dad: No
Doc: You're a terrible parent, so we're going to call the kid's mom who actually has custody and have her sign the consent (which just kinda happened with no further discussion)

- later, after mom signed consent -

Doc: So, deaf dad, why didn't you want him to have the surgery?
Dad: Because being deaf was the only connection I had with my son. I'll get over it.
Doc: Aww, see, aren't you glad we ignored you and forced you into doing the "right thing"?


?!?!?! Horrible.

When I worked at the University of Washington's serials collection in Suzzallo Library there was one thing you could learn just by scanning the collection of journals over the past 150 years: The shifting landscape of preferred social grouping names over time. I remember one single journal that did the full Negro --> Colored --> Black --> Afro-American --> African American migration over its long history. Many other racial and ethnic groups have made similar journeys.

As I've long felt, so long as there is derogatory intent in referring to a group, it doesn't matter how often you change the name since the new word will just come to be viewed that way as well.

Yeah, it is amusing that the NAACP would protest colored. But the United Negro College Fund doesn't make that word any more appropriate for general use. It is equally amusing that an adult in a remotely political position wouldn't realize that colored is off limits.

GD: I understand the shorthand of shared experience. I don't understand it being an "identity" that needs to be preserved, protected, rejoiced, worshipped, or otherwise as objectively important. If you hadn't been raised the way you were (say your parents ran away from home and started a peach farm in rural Georgia) would you (and more importantly should you) still identify as East European Jew?

Didn't catch that one, GD- I don't think I've ever seen Scrubs.

It just seems to me that changing what's acceptable every decade and even then it's only acceptable to a certain percentage of the group being addressed.....well, it's confusing and frustrating and a lot of hard feelings happen unnecessarily. The gentleman I referred to is by all accounts a really nice guy and certainly meant no harm. He falls into the ignorant but probably not racist category, and I suspect a lot of others do as well. In his day (he's older) that was the accepted term. My MIL is always saying 'Oriental' instead of Asian, just out of habit and not due to any malicious intentions, because that's what was said the majority of her life.

Oh, I understand getting left behind and not knowing what's current and among which groups. But colored hasn't really been well accepted for almost 40 years. You'd think it might come up before now.

Oh, he doesn't get a total pass in my book, but I am trying to be a little bit understanding. Here's the story that provides more background. It may have been a slip, but now it's becoming politicized and many of the players in this particular story have no right to throw stones. Spokane is not very diverse, although we are becoming more so, and these old white dudes that have run this town for so long are having a rough go of it. Oh, and 'colored' was a term used very much in the Deep South when I lived down there 20 or so years ago, and not just by white people. It's not okay in my book and wasn't then, but I was shocked by how many people did use it.

Honestly, that's a hard question for me to answer. I've seen both sides of the coin on that one. I guess for me, the bottom line is that I do see value in it, but I don't see it as something to get as angry about as some people do. I understand, and participate in to an extent, the desire to preserve and promote that kind of trans-generational cultural identity. But I'd never consider someone a "traitor" or disown them for "deserting" said community as some would. That's just silly.

Really, it's about how we identify ourselves, right?

I was raised by my very Japanese Grandmother. Though I identify myself as Caucasian, there is a part of my upbringing that is very much Japanese, as untraditional as it may be considered by anyone. Though I have difficulty speaking Japanese, I still understand a great deal of it, and the rice and tofu was the "meat and potatoes" of my upbringing. Please, give me meat and potatoes! ;) (OK, so I do like rice and tofu, too....)

Race or no, there are things we've come to understand, know and respect about one another that are a product of our experiences, whether they're from our childhood or from our adulthood. They affect who we choose as a mate, who we choose as friends; they affect how we think and feel, as logical as we may be from time to time (some of us more than others). I think it's pretty truthful to what I've come to know.

Race remains a mere identifier, only there when a simpler term isn't available (IMHO).

And I've recently been wondering why, despite having 50 or so active friend and acquaintenships .... everyone I know is white. There's an Asian or two in there. Lots of straights and gays mixed. But no blacks. No Latinos. No Middle Easterners.

Is it a matter of staying among my own kind? Or is it simply that only whites (and a spattering of Asians) have been drawn to Disneyland, The Renaisance Faire, Rocky Horror and Star Wars?

I live in a city that's the melting pot of the modern world. But no melting is ever going to go on if people raised in differing cultures have zero common interests.


Interestingly, if I'd been a normal guy into sports - - I might have more interracial friends. But perhaps a lack of gay pals.




Sorry, I know this is not really the topic at hand, but it's been on my mind of late ... and this is the LoT thread where I can squeeze it in most plausibly.

Good point, iSm. I've been putting together the Song of the South episode of the MousePod, and to prepare, I've been reading many threads on various boards and listening to other podcasts (there were two SotS "Zip-a-dee-doo-pods"). The conversation about the controversy surrounding the movie is similar to this thread - a bunch of mostly well-meaning, mostly white folks talking about what black people might find offensive. I decided to include some first-hand perspectives from black people, and I realized that while that a great percentage of my work associates are black, I currently don't have any black friends. I'm not sure if it has to do with common interests - I do know that it feels odd...

I don't have any black friends, but I do'nt particularly care that I do'nt have any black friends. I don't have any Canadian friends either. Nor Arabic.

I have very few friends (less than a dozen, I'd say) but I've accumulated them randomly and they are what they are.

When I first started this reply I actually began with "all my friends are white as well" but then I realized "no...Lani's Asian." And then, "no...Shannon's Puerto Rican." and then "no...Kevin's Pacific Islander (Hawaiian)" and "of course, Paola's Mexican" and so on. While none are black, my circle of friends is actually pretty diverse but their race is so far down the list of relevant characteristics I don't think I'd ever noticed before just how diverse it is.

What categories go into having a properly diverse circle of friends. Is Stas, my guy from from Russia diverse or just white?

I very rarely think about the ethnicity of my friends. It seems we are all just a munch of mutts anyways.

Huh... I'm quite the mutt and haven't really paused to think about who my friends are. My closest tend to be white, asian and latino, but that probably has more to do with who lives around me. At school, I have friends of all races, but I don't think it's something I've chosen... I'm just a product of my surroundings.

Besides, who actually goes out of their way to make friends with a certain "race" of people? Well, I'm sure people do, but that's downright creepy.

Stepping off the plane I was amazed at how diverse London was; Indian, Pakistani, African, etc. But I realized, someone growing up in London must feel the same way landing in LA; Chinese, Latino, etc. - we get used to our surroundings and they seem less foreign I suppose.

One advantage of the school I currently attend is that the student population is more diverse than other places I've been. My law school buddies really are a wide assortment of ethnicities, backgrounds (family, geographic, educational, economic, etc...), whatnot. I hadn't really thought about that before, but it is kind of nice to feel like I have connections with an assortment of different groups. I should remember that for interviews.

The downside is that many of my friends were recruited from elsewhere and plan to leave ASAP because they feel so unwelcome here.

I say eh! I say eh too! Of course, I learned it from listening to you guys. Heh.

Reading a pretty nifty historical fiction right now called Southland, that links a bunch of characters in the past and present, who all came from the same L.A. neighborhood, Angeles Mesa (what is now the Crenshaw district). Completely fascinating to read about how Crenshaw was once a spacious, rural paradise, where Japanese and black families lived happily together...until WWII...internment camps...eventually the Watts riots, etc. It's almost a study in how a city was on the right path to becoming very integrated (at least amongst the minorities) and how it became increasingly segregated as time past.

Oh, I wonder what happened?

Thanks for fixing it..... and for the explination iSm!

I'm going to have to find that book and see if I can fit it into my reading schedule. :)

Here's the deal.
You can't use African American for everyone who is black. I have a Jamaican friend who doesn't like to be called AA because he's not from an African country.
Also, Dave Matthews calls himself African American.
It's all gray... so to speak.

That is absolutely true.

There's an exception to every rule. Except this one.

Several weeks after I started my new job, HR sent me a form asking me if I could please identify my race and send it back to them. It appeared to be optional, and as I understand the law, it has to be. I ignored it. They sent it again. I continued to ignore it. They sent it again and then copied my boss and explained that I must complete this and get it back to HR. My boss sent me a note telling me to do whatever HR wants. I sent a note back to my boss telling her that I disagree with it in principle and I therefore refuse. I also called the head of HR and politely inquired into the situation. She was gracious and let me know that she understood my POV and I would not be required to submit it, but if I didn't, she would then ask my boss what race she "thinks" I probably am.

I found the whole situation offensive and wholly unnecessary. They claim it is a state requirement to make sure we are meeting our quotas. The whole issue of quota's is also offensive to me. So long as we will continue to officially make race a formal issue on legal documents and such, I believe it will be nearly impossible to look past it and recognize how ridiculous it is to judge upon such a basis.

What did I do? I sent a note saying I respectfully decline to answer the questionnaire. Not sure what happened after that. I was on the fence as to whether I should decline or just outright lie and say I was a mixed-race or something like that. I think I made the right call for myself.

So black or AA? Umm, who cares. Really. It's some dude, or some chick, or whatever.

Normally, that's exactly how I feel, however when talking about demographics for a paper I had to write, it came up in the course of races being labeled Black, Filipino, White-European, White Non-European, Japanese, Chinese, South Asian... Which I thought was odd, as well.

Anyhow, regarding HR asking your race, I find the whole practice really odd. I always understood it as an "according to the law" thing, that prospective employers can't do things like ask your race or ethnicity, age, etc - since hiring or not hiring could be construed as discrimination. I would have figured the same practices would continue once hired. By knowing your ethnicity, if you were to be fired or lose your job in the near future, could you potentially accuse them of firing you because of your race (and the whole quota thing)?

What kind of place do you work at?