Talk:African Americans/Archive 8

message: ; See the long closing sentence : Blacks from African and predominantly black, non-Hispanic countries such as Haiti, the Bahamas, and Jamaica, though often referred to by their nations of origin and not culturally defined as African American socially, are demographically classified with black/African American by the U.S. Census; however in general, the cultural assumption is that if a person is black, native English-speaking and living within the United States, he or she is African American.
; That should be rewritten as a second paragraph : Blacks from African and predominantly black, non-Hispanic countries such as Haiti, the Bahamas, and Jamaica are classified as black/African American by the U.S. Census.
Full stop. (Here I rely on others that the US Census does use the classification "black/African American" with slash and no hyphen.) Anyway, then somehow complete the second paragraph with content related to the two other pieces.
:though often referred to by their nations of origin and not culturally defined as African American socially, . . . 
:however in general, the cultural assumption is that if a person is black, native English-speaking and living within the United States, he or she is African American.
--P64 21:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Census demography v cultural, social 

message: African-American describing someone with African descent residing in America seems to be incorrect. Africa being a continent and America being a country should encourage persons wanting to express their heritage through title to research which particular country in Africa they are descended from. ie German-American, Irish-American, Mexican-American etc if that is your certain way of thinking. But, if picking a nation to pledge allegiance to, true identity is where your citizenship is. I AM AN AMERICAN and Proud of my country. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.192.73.97 (talk • contribs) 2 September 2006.
: I can't tell if this is serious, trolling, or what. Do you understand how most sub-Saharan Africans arrived in America? They were forcibly brought as slaves. It is nearly impossible for a particular African-American to trace his or her ancestry through slave times, let alone work out where in Africa some ancestor may have come from. Not to mention that none of the modern (post-colonial) countries of the parts of Africa from which slave were taken existed at the time. Not to mention, either, that Wikipedia here is simply following existing usage, not inventing a new taxonomy. - Jmabel | Talk 19:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Seems to be incorrect

message: "the journal article "The Politicization of Changing Terms of Self Reference Among American Slave Descendants" in American Speech v 66 is 2 Summer 1991 p. 133-46."
It's been a long time since I read through this journal article or visited this African American page. I don't have my copy handy but I think everything from the journal article has been taken out of this article. If someone has a copy handy maybe we can put some stuff from the journal article back in. --Gbleem 03:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jesse Jackson 

message: "Whilst not as common as "mixed", "biracial", or even "multiracial", mulatto is rarely used to refer to people of mixed parentage because many consider it inherently derogatory."
Something is wrong with this sentence. I'm not sure what it is saying. I'm confused. --Gbleem 03:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whilst 

message: After doing quite a bit of the initial writing on this article a long time ago, I'm finally getting around to revisiting it.  I've skimmed/read some portions of it and made some changes -- which were summarily reverted, wholesale, by an editor going by the name of User:Dynamicknowledge24. Here is a rationale for some of the changes, which were reverted -- automatically, clearly without even examining the changes.  Perhaps we can discuss those at issue here.
===First paragraph===
# I removed the reference to "Latin American" ancestry, because it makes no sense in the context of racial designation.  Latinos can be of any race.
# I've reverted the language and pared it down even further.  The definition states that African Americans are those "whose ancestors, usually in predominant part, were indigenous to Africa" [emphasis added].  "Indigenous" is the key here.  The only other non-black people considered indigenous to Africa (and, IMO, erroneously) are Maghreb Berbers (as opposed to eastern Berbers, who are black).  There need not be anyone else specifically excluded from the category of "African-American" in the opening paragraph, which is a general statement of what follows in the article.  Other, non-indigenous groups who do not fit the category are addressed at length later on in the article as the definition is refined(under "Criticisms"), a fact which made the material previously in this paragraph -- which I deleted -- redundant.
#"Have" is unnecessary and implies something recent or only those still living -- when past immigrants, living and deceased, fit the category also.
#The final sentence changed was simply unnecessarily long.  Semicolons to join independent clauses are overused.  It's better to simply make two sentences out of one.  deeceevoice 08:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the reverts were a problem as well, especially since "rv" or "revert" are not used by this editor in the editor summaries, with space in the edit summaries entirely reserved for scolding other editors.  I have declared my intentions to improve the format, style, and sourcing of the article.  I would think these types of edits would be relatively free of controversy.  I have no interest in arguing over Halle Berry's ethnicity or race, aside from making sure that all discussions (in general) are made in a civil manner.  Let's see how this whole thing evolves.  Thanks.  Ufwuct 15:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rationale for recent changes

message: # I removed the reference to "Latin American" ancestry, because it makes no sense in the context of racial designation.  Latinos can be of any race.
# I've reverted the language and pared it down even further.  The definition states that African Americans are those "whose ancestors, usually in predominant part, were indigenous to Africa" [emphasis added].  "Indigenous" is the key here.  The only other non-black people considered indigenous to Africa (and, IMO, erroneously) are Maghreb Berbers (as opposed to eastern Berbers, who are black).  There need not be anyone else specifically excluded from the category of "African-American" in the opening paragraph, which is a general statement of what follows in the article.  Other, non-indigenous groups who do not fit the category are addressed at length later on in the article as the definition is refined(under "Criticisms"), a fact which made the material previously in this paragraph -- which I deleted -- redundant.
#"Have" is unnecessary and implies something recent or only those still living -- when past immigrants, living and deceased, fit the category also.
#The final sentence changed was simply unnecessarily long.  Semicolons to join independent clauses are overused.  It's better to simply make two sentences out of one.  deeceevoice 08:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: First paragraph

message: As I indicated in my edit notes, it is Wiki style not to use quotation marks when referring to specific terms.  Italics are used instead.  Quotation marks are used for direct quotes.  Many of the changes under this section are simply no-brainers.  The reverts seemingly were made by someone who appears to take a proprietary view of the article and simply did an automatic revert -- again, without really examining the changes.  They restored a typo, grammatical and syntactical errors, etc.  The others are editorial/copy edit changes that clarify, pare down or fix verbiage.  They are improvements in the syntax or structure of sentences, or corrections of typos.  There is one passage that seemingly credits Jackson with single-handedly bringing about the change in terminology to "African-American." This is simply a gross over simplification and cannot be substantiated.  If the author believes he/she can subtantiate such a preposterous claim, then I invite him/her to provide an appropriate citation should they decide to revert the text again. No one (at least no one who is educated or who carries any weight) considers any white people indigenous to Africa, so that clause has been deleted.  The only non-black peoples even remotely considered to be indigenous to the African continent are Maghreb Berbers.  Period.  Reverted.  Please read the edit notes before making blanket reversions.  deeceevoice 09:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the reverts were a problem as well, especially since "rv" or "revert" are not used by this editor in the editor summaries, with space in the edit summaries entirely reserved for scolding other editors.  I have declared my intentions to improve the format, style, and sourcing of the article.  I would think these types of edits would be relatively free of controversy.  I have no interest in arguing over Halle Berry's ethnicity or race, aside from making sure that all discussions (in general) are made in a civil manner.  Let's see how this whole thing evolves.  Thanks.  Ufwuct 15:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Nomenclature," etc.

message: I was interested in tracking down the photo cited in the New York Post article. I quickly searched on Google and found instead an article claiming the slave hypothesis to be an urban myth. 
http://www.snopes.com/history/american/liberty.htm
Before I research further, can anyone else cite evidence in support of this claim?
Johkc 21:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll poke around a little... but if it can't be verified, I'm thinking the section should be deleted. --Ling.Nut 04:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statue of Liberty formerly an image of a black slave? 

message: I thought my addition of Tiger Wood's photo did a good job showing the range of controversies regarding this issue, using a very notworthy figure, who's been very influential in redefining what it means to not be Black, however if others really dislike the addition, I wont push it.  It just seems very relevant to the article, that's all Timelist 08:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What about Tiger Woods?