On Thu, 12 Feb 2004, Sean Barrett wrote:
use. Supporters of "African-American" argue that term is better because it puts more emphasis on the culture rather than just the skin color,
Except that neither of my friends who were born in Africa and are now naturalized citizens of the United States (America) can call themselves African-American. You see, one was born in Cairo and the other in Johannesburg. "African-American" most emphatically does not mean "American from Africa" -- it is nothing more nor less than a seven-syllable synonym for "Negro," "black," and "descendant of natives of central Africa."
Ethnic labels are never tidy.
There is the issue of "Black Cherokees", the descendents of the slaves owned by Cherokee Indians. They consider themselves Indians, due to arguments of culture; the Cheorkees consider them African-Americans due to their racial ancestory. From what I've read, there is an issue of money involved.
But then money is also at the root of the disagreement over whether the Chinook Indians are extinct or still have descendants alive in Southwestern Washington State. The BIA is disinclined to recognize Native American groups that it has declared gone.
Finally, racial origins make the Lumleys of North Carolina remarkable: AFAIK, they are the only group in the US who are the descendants of African-American, Native-American & European-American origins. I wonder if Wikipedia has an article about them, or at least a mention under [[Lumberton, North Carolina]].
Geoff