Wikipedia talk:African American

message: I think we are getting a little carried away with attempting to discard the term African American (and also defending the status quo) completely. There is the cultural distinction of African American; one that is particular to the United States. The greater majority of black Americans have lived in the USA for many several generations, some from a time when ancestors were taken as slaves. It is understood that their African culture(s, since not all came from the same African identity) was forcibly discouraged and they were instructed in the practices of Euro-American culture. However, aspects of their original cultures did survive and were incorporated into the new social systems. Evan after emancipation the social standing of black Americans, and the legal distinctions promoted through segregation, resulting in hardships and poverty, meant that the majority remained within their own social class and continued to evolve a different, although complementary, culture than all the European orientated derived types of American. Today African American is a part of the cultural diversity of the USA, but also stands separate from other black cultures throughout the world. This aspect of culture is properly titled African American as it specifically deals with a group of people with a unique history within a nation, who continue to express and conduct themselves according to that tradition. In short African American, meaning black Americans of a perceived social and economic grouping, is a cultural definition and everything derived from that culture is itself African American.
This distinction also argues that African American is entirely inappropriate in identifying any other group of African descent. LessHeard vanU 20:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I essentially agree with everything you have to say here.  It is the misuse of the term that has caused issues and I have yet to hear anyone argue that Seal (musician) should be properly called an "African-American".  He shouldn't because he simply isn't.  I do think that this policy could simply be a subset of something like Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias.  I also think that unsupported assertions about the history and validity of the term (such as exist in the proposal now) are unnecessary and a bit inflammatory.  All that needs to be said (and I'm not sure there needs to be a whole policy to say it) is: Don't call black citizens of other countries African-Americans because they are not Americans.  Which is essentially the same thing as "write stuff that is accurate or other people will change it."  Cheers. Dina 21:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A subset of Countering systemic bias does seem an appropriate place. LessHeard vanU 21:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From reading the essay, it does sound as if you want to get rid of the term completely rather than just avoiding misuse of it. Perhaps it could be made clearer when it is OK to use the term. Recury 13:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good suggestion, made some changes. What are your thoughts? --Maniwar (talk) 14:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where African American '''is''' appropriate 

message: :The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this page. 
vote one of these below.
*Keep Discussing     *Further develop article first     *Take consensus     *Take consensus at Village Pump —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maniwar (talk • contribs) 14:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Please familiarize yourself with the text of , as well as Consensus and How to create policy. More specifically, I'm wondering why this is on a separate page instead of on the talk page of one of the existing pages in the manual of style. >Radiant< 11:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: First consensus call

message: It appears that no consensus has been reached or will likely be reached.  It seems that this should be marked as rejected ASAP. --Kevin Murray 01:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. It might be worthwhile having it as an example at WP:CSB as it is a potentially sensitive subject, but it is not notable enough to have its own policy or guideline. If the original author wished to make it an essay (linked from CSB) I would have no problem with that. LessHeard vanU 08:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree. Dina 11:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rejected proposal