African american,irish american.why not just american ?

[CTGuy]

Originally Posted by pstoller

There are three issues here: nationality, ethnicity ("race"), and culture. It's the last that gains clarification from the hyphenates. "Asian-American" only describes the nationality of a few with dual citizenship, and it's meaningless as an ethnicity, since "American" is meaningless as an ethnicity. Asian-American culture, however, is distinct from both Asian culture and American culture. The same applies to all the other hyphenate-Americans who have any connection with the cultures of their forebears. Yes, all these subcultures are part of the greater fabric of American culture, but they can be"”and frequently are"”discussed separately.

There are also many who find the terms "black" and "white" historically, socially, and politically problematic, since we don't generally refer to other ethnic groups by color except when being derogatory. (It would not go over well to call a group of Chinese-Americans "yellows," or Mexican-Americans "browns.") Using the terms "African-American" and "European-American" can help raise the level of the dialog about race. Awkward and annoying as it may be, the benefits outweigh the detriments.

Good comments.

 

[pstoller]

Originally Posted by Huntsman

I'd claim that the persistence of "black" and "white" descriptors are less a legacy of those 'historical, social, and political' roots than the simple reality that humanity falls into 'more or less Black' and 'more or less White' categories. Chinese people really don't look yellow in tone, nor did Native Americans really look red. But there are darker 'white' people who are still white, though not nearly as white in tone as whole populations in Russia and the former SSRs, just as many 'black' people are really a mid-brown in tone and not nearly as black in tone as many Nigerians or Ghanans. Yet those two descriptors fit most of humanity well and thus will probably always persist.

Divorced from the comparatively minor role as a cultural descriptor, I think the hyphen-American terms actually lower, if not merely the the level of dialog about race, but the manner in which racial relations are practiced in America, by reinforcing the mindset of a distinct separation other than cultural. Instead of it merely being, "I'm Black, he's White, we're both Americans, both humans," this awkward artifice builds a temple to the notion of The Other, and the more that notion is glorified in such a manner is the more it will serve fear and mistrust and hate, and the less open we will all be to the glory and joys of difference.

Regarding color as a way of identifying people, the problem isn't merely, that the colors aren't Pantone-accurate (even the whitest "white people" are pinkish, even the blackest "black people" are very dark brown); the problem is, as you put it, dividing people into "more or less white" and "more or less black." This creates a sort of ethnic scale that puts one group of people on each end and distributes everyone across the middle. There is a strong tendency for people who look at ethnicity this way to attach values to where people fall on the scale.

It also casts race relations in"”both literally and figuratively"”black and white terms. That is, it implies that the "real" issues are between black and white, and everyone who is neither is of lesser significance in the dialog, being more or less empowered or oppressed according to how close they are to one end or the other of the spectrum. Ultimately, in reducing discussions of ethnicity and culture to a matter of skin tone, it diminishes everyone in the discussion. There will probably always be contexts in which we lapse into the colloquial shorthand of "black" and "white," but I think we can at least be conscious of how different contexts are affected by that choice.

I understand your point about the "temple to the notion of the Other," but, since the hyphenates are primarily cultural, I don't see how they "reinforc[e] the mindset of a distinct separation other than cultural." Rather, by saying, "I'm Black, he's White," you make a distinction that is far less clearly cultural. And, again, how is the Japanese-American to enter this discussion?

In the broadest scheme of things, all distinctions drawn between groups of people can be regarded as divisive: "American" itself separates people one group of people from, for example, those called "Chinese," and a host of assumptions"”many accurate, many not"”are heaped upon each group and its individual members. (Likewise, it implies a connection between people within a given group who may in reality be no more connected than those in different groups.) Nevertheless, we can't celebrate the glory and joys of difference without acknowledging difference. That acknowledgment requires a terminology as unladen with bias as possible, so as to give minimal service to fear, mistrust, and hate.

I maintain that hyphenation, while awkward, is otherwise the best of the flawed choices on the menu. It's no more artificial than any of the other methods of distinguishing cultural groups, clearer, and less prone to hierarchical interpretation.

 

[pstoller]

Originally Posted by Piobaire

My wife actually dislikes being referred to as an "Asian-American." She says that, for instance, the differences between Japan and VietNam are so great, that to lump them together is silly. Oddly enough, I have always felt the same about the term "white," that to lump the typical phenotypes and cultures of say, Nordic and southern Italian is silly.

I think that really, most attempts at such catch-all labelling is just to give some general indication of a person's physical appearance. It does not always work, i.e. Nordic vs. Mediterranian, but IMO, that is the point of the catch-all.

It's definitely a valid criticism of hyphenates that they are frequently over-broad, to the point of not just being meaningless, but creating a distortion (such as that Japanese and Vietnamese culture are fundamentally linked.) However, "Asian-American" is no more overly broad than "Asian" or "American." The question is, when using the term, what are you trying to say? Does the term really communicate your meaning, or would it be clearer to use another (or omit the distinction altogether?)

Also, good point that the labeling is useful as a physical descriptive.

 

[pstoller]

Originally Posted by Dakota rube

I can't imagine a scenario under which Tiger Woods' children will have any problem in life.
That's just a lack of imagination. Tiger Woods' children won't have any problems in life caused by a lack of family money or lack of fame. They will have problems caused by family money and fame, and, although insulated to some degree, they will still have problems caused by racial prejudice. They'll probably have better lives than most of us, but that's not the same as being problem-free.

 

[Southern-Nupe]

Originally Posted by dkzzzz

I always use "Canine American " when referring to dogs in my neighborhood.
lol

 

[academe]

This may echo some of the other poster's points. I think because the US is a nation of immigrants (except for Native peoples), the "hyphenation" is a way to retain some sense of their cultural identity and way to remember where they have come from. I think it can be alienating for recent immigrants in America; they're separated from their "home," extended families, culture and traditions. The self-identification as an "XX"-American might also help them to easily identify others that might share similar experiences or cultural practices. By and large, I think the US is not necessarily as culturally homogenous as parts of Europe or smaller countries like the UK. Then again, there are very strong regional identities in the UK, e.g., one would never call a Welshman or Scotsman English, on pain of getting a fist in the face!

It will be interesting to see how things change in Europe in the future, particularly in countries that now have growing immigrant populations. I understand that >10% of the Irish population is non-Irish born. There are many eastern European (Polish) emigres in Scotland now, and the numbers seem to be growing.

 

[academe]

Originally Posted by haganah

Yeah. You just put all your immigrants into the ghettos, deny them educations and jobs, and then constantly remind them that they're not Europeans. They're North Africans, Arabs, Turkish, etc. For all our faults, we try to integrate people into our society (not always perfectly). Please let your governments know that they should do the same. Thank you.
Haganah, I'm not sure why you're getting so bent out of shape. This isn't the case in all European countries. The UK has had relatively good history of trying to integrate recent immigrants into the broader fabric of social life. I just thinking these are the "growing pains" of countries that, up until recently, have experienced net emmigration, rather than immigration. They are still trying to figure-out how to deal with immigrants because they haven't had to in the past. The US itself had a pretty nasty immigration history in the past, with successive waves of immigrants and African-Americans being housed in ghettoes, suffering discrimination, lynchings, etc. etc.. There are many of these ghettoes in the US today; take a look at the westside of Chicago or east Oakland, for example.

 

[WestIndianArchie]

In country, it's important for many to distinguish.
Even if you don't self identify, others will identify you as such.

Outside of the country, we're all Americans.

 

[Southern-Nupe]

Originally Posted by WestIndianArchie

In country, it's important for many to distinguish.
Even if you don't self identify, others will identify you as such.

Outside of the country, we're all Americans.
Very true.....

 

[Nonk]

Perhaps the world's best example of this, Conne, could answer?

I too find it a rather amusing practice, especially this 'African-American' thing.

Its even worse when US people start to use it to refer to black people who are not even from the US. (As has happened here before)

 

[GreyFlannelMan]

Originally Posted by tiecollector

It wasn't until recently that immigrants started demanding we cater to them. Becoming a US citizen used to be their crowning achievement, now it is seen as an entitlement.

Very true. When my mother immigrated to the US from Austria via Paraguay and the UK, she was very eager to "become American." She lost her accent (except when we traveled to the mother countries or was a bit tipsy) and embraced this country.

In fact, she may have taken things too far. She was opposed to teaching my brother and I German, which we were regularly exposed to when she talked with her parents and siblings.

She never called herself "Austrian-American." Just American. And that's the way it should be. If I moved to the UK and became a citizen, would I call myself "American-British?" I think not.

 

[Bill Smith]

We have this in Canada too. I prefer to be just called Canadian as opposed to the ethic groups my ancestors came from which is pretty much Scots, English and Swedish. So put simple, I hate hyphens.

 

[life_interrupts]

On the census you have white/Caucasian and then multiple break downs for every person of color. Defining by ethnic/racial affiliation is just a new twist on the old attempt by the federal government to define who isn't white (and ostensibly who is black and later a person of color). It dates back to the Naturalization Act of 1790, when citizenship was first tied to ethnicity/race (two years residency and a free white person). Ever since, the federal government has issued laws to narrow and more tightly define who that is. We deal with ethnicity and race as a binary in the US. You're either white or black. Everyone wanted to be white, so the government had to better define what/who white was. Out when Chinese, then Japanese, the eventually all Asians; Latinos/Hispanics once they realized that many were black or indigenous (Indian) and looked it. The one-drop rule (one drop of black blood makes you black; also used for Native Americans/Indians) is another attempt example.

Office of Budget and Management Directive # 15 on race and ethnic standards spells it out and is the most recent attempt in the process, yet there is no breakdown for those of European ethnicities. That's because it's still part of the bureaucratic and legal framework that white=American. Everyone else, save perhaps for African Americans, has to prove it. It may not be necessary, but we as a nation still hold on to it, so it means something to someone.

So, many of us hyphenated people are so by choice, but really we have no choice since the government will do it for us. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy and the American Way.

 

[Southern-Nupe]

Why is this even an issue? I've rarely encountered minorities getting upset about this, it always seems to be those of European descent. What would be a better way to describe someone of a different ethnic group when discussing race?

 

[RyJ Maduro]

I consider myself a Gaelic-Teutonic Papist-American.