I don’t. I’ve always considered myself to be African American. There is no country called Black or White, or Negro for that matter.

Tar is black. Graphite is black. By not recognizing the continent or land that I come from, is a disregard to my ancestors and bloodline.

In the 80s, black activists met at operation Push, and they all decided that our population would no longer go by the phrase Black American. This is how the phrase or title African American came about.

The term Black became popular in the late 60s and 70s, because our population no longer wanted to be called Colored or Negro Americans.

Every other population is recognized by the name of the country or region they come from: Chinese American, Latin American or Mexican
American, etc.

What is your take?

away from any slur (Negro and Nigger were too close). For a long time it was the unofficial title of of the ethnicity of people from the United States who descended from Africans and had been enslaved on this soil. It worked just fine until large numbers of people from the diaspora started to come to the US in the 60s. I get the fact that we are not the only black people, but we are the only people who chose Black, for a time, as our demonym. I'm all for it.

to identify our culture or existence when we were slaves. It derives out of degradation, and we basically adopted the title out of habit/ignorance.

to anyone's ears now.

Just like how african-americans use the word nigga, it's a slur but not one when african-americans use it as positive term with each other, or like how we use negative terms like "bad", "dope", "funk", "ill", "that's sick", "that's my shit", "chillin'", and so on; we use these terms in a positive way, lol.

Also how come the name african-american describes a whole continent but not a country, especially when the name Africa is named after a caucasian Yemenite chieftian named Africus?

https://youtu.be/rZHwGnGrm_k

I’m Black

Origin like Kemmenu(kemetic)

NO!

Black was given to us by frivolous, childish, greedy, devilish, object oriented Eurasians to be the antithesis to their mythical whiteness(pinkness) in their global caste system of imperialism and exploitation.

It shows no cosmic or creation story origin, no land origin, etc etc.

Damn right!

kev

If you ask me my race, it’s black.

Simple really. Don’t overthink it.
Just stay black. Be Black. Represent African American. And be proud.


"Get ready....for your blessing....."
"Bury me by my Grand-Grand and when you can come follow me"

US Slavery/ Black ADOS/ Black American DOS title(s)?


Disclaimer: I'm pretty open about being lowercase black/daughter of immigrants (for lack of a better term, literally) and hesitated about responding... but I do use the term Black American and/or Black ADOS pretty frequently in my posts here (in part because one or more of these terms are what the Black Americans in my life strongly prefer to be called), and would hate for anyone to misconstrue or feel offended by my doing so. I do have my own views on all this (and, tbf, think the ADOS folks' quantitative argument on this issue is pretty airtight), but I'll only engage further if it's cool. I'm asking first and foremost to learn.



>I’ve always considered myself to be African
>American. There is no country called Black or White, or Negro
>for that matter.
>
>Tar is black. Graphite is black. By not recognizing the
>continent or land that I come from, is a disregard to my
>ancestors and bloodline.
>
>In the 80s, black activists met at operation Push, and they
>all decided that our population would no longer go by the
>phrase Black American. This is how the phrase or title African
>American came about.
>
>The term Black became popular in the late 60s and 70s, because
>our population no longer wanted to be called Colored or Negro
>Americans.
>
>Every other population is recognized by the name of the
>country or region they come from: Chinese American, Latin
>American or Mexican
>American, etc.
>

I’ll follow up tomorrow. Caught up in sports at the moment. So I don’t want to treat your post like a magazine.

I don’t concur with ADOS, for the simple fact that no other culture describes themselves as descendants of slavery. It’s not a true identity. Slavery is a tool and a byproduct of war. When people are captured or conquered, they are basically war captives, and are either killed, enslaved or traded to be enslaved.

And every culture on earth has been through slavery, some cultures longer then others.

During the Shang dynasty, 5 percent of China was enslaved. That was for like 500 years. The Arabian slave trade existed for 7 centuries. There was a Native American slave trade. Incas, Myans, Aztecs all had slaves. Aztecs used their slaves for human sacrifice. And we all know about the Holocaust

All of those forms of slavery were unique in their on way, but slavery is slavery. However, descendants of those cultures are not identifying themselves as descendants of those slaveries. That is a dark history, that degraded their true existence. They recognized it and got compensation or reparations for it, but they didn’t and don’t identify themselves as such.

>They recognized it and got compensation or reparations for it,
>but they didn’t and don’t identify themselves as such.
>

^I think they do in the transitional justice process tho, no? I'd be curious to know whether you too share Nonaime's aversion to doing so even in legal contexts then, where the trauma serves to define a legal/protected class, describe injuries and damages, justify reparations sought, etc.

My ancestors could've been indigenous or from somewhere else for all I know.


>I don’t. I’ve always considered myself to be African
>American. There is no country called Black or White, or Negro
>for that matter.



There's no country called Africa or African either.



>Tar is black. Graphite is black.



So are the cosmos.



>By not recognizing the
>continent or land that I come from, is a disregard to my
>ancestors and bloodline.




Are you doing country or continent? You said country first, now you're saying continent. That said, do you know what country in Africa you hail from? People born on the continent tend to refer to themselves by the country they come from.



>In the 80s, black activists met at operation Push, and they
>all decided that our population would no longer go by the
>phrase Black American. This is how the phrase or title African
>American came about.
>
>The term Black became popular in the late 60s and 70s, because
>our population no longer wanted to be called Colored or Negro
>Americans.



And in 2016 or so, many began referring to themselves as ADOS for political reasons. We all have the freedom to self-identify. Given our unique history, that can only be respected.




>Every other population is recognized by the name of the
>country or region they come from: Chinese American, Latin
>American or Mexican
>American, etc.
>
>What is your take?



My take on that last part is every other population has a very different history from us. They usually aren't anymore than 3 generations removed from a homeland that they can visit and be welcomed in by relatives with whom they are in contact with or at least know of them. That ain't us, so it's a bad comparison imo.

by the worst thing that has happened to them?)

but jewish people have done a pretty good job making the Holocaust something you will never forget.

Even as they, rightfully, make sure that folks don't forget what was done to them. We should certainly take the same stance with respect to our atrocities...but to use that to define who and who isn't Black in THIS country? I'll pass.

seems to be restitution, not just branding?? As in, the branding is a means to a desired end: reparations.

For example, that reparations task force bill (AB 3121) just signed into law in California a few weeks ago (due in part to tireless advocacy from ADOS California). The language "Special Consideration for African Americans Who are Descendants of Persons Enslaved in the United States" is used multiple times in the law:

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB3121

Which, quantitatively, is kind of a critical distinction to make no? Because at this point in time in America, there *are* both naturalized and native-born Black "African" descended people who are also "Americans" who are "Descendants of Persons Enslaved", but who are *not* "African Americans Who are Descendants of Persons Enslaved in the United States." If or when reparations are administered by any gov on US soil, there will need to be some form of indisputable classification - some box that can be checked by Black American DOS and Black American DOS only - to ensure provisions are correctly formulated, designated, and delivered to the rightful beneficiaries.

Does your issue with DOS labelling extend even to legal contexts, like pursuit of class action?

I don't see how you can ignore immigrants who were just as impacted by redlining, aggressive policing (see: A. Diallo) etc just because they weren't also victims of slavery. And I am certain that this will be a conclusion drawn by any taskforce.

If Black/Brown folks get a check cut in Cali, it'll because of something like the rampart scandal in LA that affected Black and Brown folks. How would you prove that so called ADOS were more impacted than non ADOS?

There's no need to rebrand ourselves as ADOS.

Tbf, there's a more exclusive focus on slavery in the federal bill (HR40 https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/40/text), which kind of addresses your critique a bit better. You're probably right about the broad scope of AB 3121 being problematic; I'm not well-versed in Californian history.


But since you bring up incorporating black immigrants re: reparations, being one myself let me just ask: say HR40 was revised (as I've seen some calls for) to examine Black American justice claims from the founding of the republic to the passage of the civil rights act i.e. the slavery and jim crow eras (which, despite the broader scope of AB 3121 and narrower scope of HR40, seem to be the eras most frequently addressed in the policy dialogue on this issue)... The proportion of free black immigrants impacted during this period is microscopic, no?? Or at least, certainly not large enough to invalidate reparations altogether?

Because I've got to say: I truly see zero reason to center or include us in reparations for Black Americans whatsoever. (This isn't to say I disagree black immigrants suffer in a racist society; we absolutely do. But off top there's at least 4 parameters I think disqualify us completely).

I feel like humane immigration reforms would be more transformational for us than reparations.




>
>I don't see how you can ignore immigrants who were just as
>impacted by redlining, aggressive policing (see: A. Diallo)
>etc just because they weren't also victims of slavery.

How would you prove that so called ADOS were
>more impacted than non ADOS?
>
>There's no need to rebrand ourselves as ADOS.

is to broaden the scope. It can’t be just for injustices during slavery. As you know, this reparations bill has been introduced for quite some time now. Until we have true equal protection under the law, as guaranteed by the 14th amendment, we shouldn't make the Civil Rights era as the endpoint either. That’s why my opinion is that Black immigrants are part of the fight, too.

If you and I are in the same situation that’s about to go south because of our skin color...we Black. All this “b” vs “B” or ADOS vs non is silly noise. This country doesn’t split hairs about any of that when it comes to how it is currently not living up to its own ideals with respect to race.

>there's at least 4 parameters I think disqualify us completely).

What are those, if you don't mind answering?

but I imagine *clearly* defining the class, injuries, and restitution sought might be especially important when seeking damages from a gov, no?

Like, if class action for reparations turned into this broad sweeping referendum on the general impact of racism as you suggest... wouldn't it be tougher for a task force to even begin to scratch the surface?? Not to mention a case for why *only* Black people should receive reparations v. other groups likely to claim a history of discrimination (which, tbf, seems partly your point).

On the other hand, a tighter scope might at least lead to a stronger evidentiary base... right? For example, say a class is specified as all Africans enslaved on US soil and their descendants; and a time period is specified as say, 1776-1968 (*to at least restrict to slavery and jim crow under the US gov and not Crowns of former colonies). And when assessing damages, a task force can point to actual proclamations or federal and state legislation eg. the order to appropriate and distribute assets to the formerly enslaved that was later scrapped; or specific benefits denied to the formerly enslaved and their descendants like wages, pensions, disability income, GI bill provisions, farm assistance, etc; and other relevant damages shared by class members eg. excess injuries and mortality due to terrorist and/or sexual violence, and destruction of property, businesses, neighborhoods and so on.

Isn't part of the goal in this sort of proceeding to not only justify a settlement, but demonstrate that the atrocities and disposession suffered during slavery and jim crow were so severe that the effects persist inter-generationally to current and future descendants of those enslaved? Or do you feel that in addition to broadening class membership, reparations should serve a different purpose altogether? like a sort of reset on racism? honest question


> That’s why my opinion is that Black immigrants are part of
>the fight, too.
>


I understand. We can be allies without being beneficiaries too tho.


>>there's at least 4 parameters I think disqualify us
>completely).
>
>What are those, if you don't mind answering?


I feel like I've been so long-winded already lol, but sure:

*proportionality - historically, black immigrants have accounted for such a small proportion of African-Americans compared to Black Americans. Statutory quotas enacted in the early 1900s capped (legal) immigration flow to like 2-3% the population size of whatever foreign-born population already resident in the US the immigrant would belong to (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_immigration_to_the_United_States#Quotas_enacted_between_1921_and_1924) and remained in effect until their repeal in the '65 INA. The vast majority of black immigrant lineages in the US began in the last few decades (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/01/24/key-facts-about-black-immigrants-in-the-u-s/ft_18-01-24_blackimmigrants_us_pop/) and we account for only ~10% of all African-Americans in the US (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/01/24/key-facts-about-black-immigrants-in-the-u-s/).

*relative exposure (both length and severity) - since most black immigrant lineages in the US are only a few decades old (and at most a few generations deep), we've endured much less cumulative exposure to racism in the US than Black American DOS lineages. The timescales (decades v. centuries) and number of generations affected (1-3 v. at least 10+) differ by an order of magnitude. Additionally, and it may be controversial to acknowledge this but, the severity of racism experienced by black immigrants is much different since most of us arrived after the civil rights era, when numerous statutory protections and enforcement measures became law (tho I concede these protections obv haven't eradicated racism altogether for either group).

*relative risk - even if we focused exclusively on higher order effects of institutionalized racism like mass incarceration, poverty, etc, black immigrants account for a smaller proportion of the African-Americans in these populations. For example, incarceration rates for black immigrants (incl. undocumented immigrant detention) has historically been much lower than those of native-born Black people (www.nber.org/papers/w13229.pdf#page=36). Furthermore, almost 30% of Black Americans live below the poverty line (higher than all other immigrant groups) in contrast to 20% of black immigrants (https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2015/04/ST_2015-04-09_black-immigrants-15.png) which, given that we account for ~10% of all African-Americans in the US, translates to just a 2% chance that an African-American one encounters will be a black immigrant living in poverty (*We definitely exist tho, make no mistake. My family experienced a number of financial blows growing up).

*outcomes - if we look at key social and economic development domains like health, education, and income, Black Americans are in far greater need of investment than black immigrants. Post-secondary educational attainment is almost 10% lower among Black Americans than black immigrants, for example, and almost half that of African immigrant post-secondary educational attainment specifically (https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/04/09/a-rising-share-of-the-u-s-black-population-is-foreign-born/st_2015-04-09_black-immigrants-12/). Median annual household income is also ~10k higher among black immigrants (https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/04/09/a-rising-share-of-the-u-s-black-population-is-foreign-born/st_2015-04-09_black-immigrants-13/).

I'm sure this isn't exhaustive and there are probably other relevant contrasts to draw, but my argument basically boils down to: Why should black immigrants share membership with Black Americans in a legal and/or protected class seeking reparations when a) we've historically been and continue to be such a small proportion of Black African-descended people in the US and are mostly recent arrivals; b) the nature of any racism we've experienced in the US is fundamentally different than the atrocities endured during Slavery and Jim Crow, due in part to statutory protections that weren't available to those suffering then; and c) we're in better shape across many of the socio-economic domains reparations are being sought to improve? It's also probably worth noting that there doesn't seem to be a huge clamor for reparations among black immigrants (or at least, I've not heard of any immigrant groups demanding reparations from the US gov yet).

I do get the tension between the pan-african and ADOS camps on this issue. But tbh, I feel like pan-african sentiment underpins my perspective as well. Because aside from reparations simply being the ethical thing to do, it's almost *because* I see Black Americans as my fellow African-descended brothers and sisters that I hope yall recieve the justice and restitution you deserve. Not unlike how I'd feel if an immediate family member of mine was abducted, experienced unconscionable trauma, and we later reconnected after they regained freedom. Of course I also experience pain in the situation, but how or why would I even compare??? My family member hasn't even received the care they need yet. So yes I agree black immigrants also contend with racism, but I can't emphasize enough how extremely ok it is to focus exclusively on the families centuries deep in the shit first.

I never said they did it by name.. they’ve done it by
action. 

They have been extremely good at making sure we never forget. 

>I never said they did it by name.. they’ve done it by
>action. 

What action? 

>
>They have been extremely good at making sure we never
forget.

Are they dropping leaflets by your house or something? Stop
denying the Holocaust and you won't have that problem, I
guess. They've been good at rebutting folks who deny the
Holocaust happened. Otherwise, what are you talking about? 

	
Even as they, rightfully, make sure that folks don't forget
what was done to them. 

That’s the action I’m talking about. All that denier stuff
you added just shows you are in your feels. 

leading to a rebranding of Jewish identity. I specifically
said "Jews didn't rebrand themselves" in the same
post.

That's what we're talking about. and just shows that you can't
have an honest discussion.

Try telling someone Jewish that the Holocaust is in the past
or something they should get over and see how that works for
you. 

How often do we hear “that’s how it started with the
Jews” when discussing the media, censorship, gun rights,
etc.. they have done an incredible job branding the Holocaust.


But WE need to get over the past, slavery was a long time ago,
etc. 

>Try telling someone Jewish that the Holocaust is in the
past
>or something they should get over and see how that works
for
>you. 

Try telling any person/group that the horrible thing that they
went through should be gotten over and see how it goes. And it
wouldn't mean that the person/group is rebranding themselves
either.

If people would stop denying that the Holocaust happened,
Jewish people wouldn't be put in a position to have to remind
folks...this isn't a rebranding attempt.

>But WE need to get over the past, slavery was a long time
ago,
>etc. 

Yet we have the nmaahc, there seems to be a slavery/struggle
themed movie/TV series that comes out every other year...and I
would hope that folks don't see this as an attempt to tie our
identity to only being about suffering, even as we never
forget the suffering that we went through. Which was my
original point about not wanting to be called ADOS.

It has nothing to do with denying it. 

And as long as you keep talking about Jewish folks are trying
to rebrand themselves, I'll be here.

ADOS isn’t rebranding, it’s part of our history just like
the Holocaust happens to the Jews. 

Did your people immigrate here or were they descendants of
slaves? 

change their name. But this was never meant to be a drawn out
discussion about something that Jewish people didn't do.

We as a group have gone through several rebrands: Black – we
were letting folks know that we were rejecting the massa’s
label of colored / negro; 
African American – we were letting folks know that we were
robbed of our roots...but we know where those roots are.

And now ADOS...African Descendants of Slaves. REBRAND – we
don’t want to be lumped in with the more inclusive people of
color. And we want folks to know that we Blacks are different
than you other b/Blacks. So when these reparation checks come
in...don’t have your hands out. 
Everyone: How are y’all different? Cuz you all look Black to
me. 
People who want to be called ADOS: Ummm...uhhhh...cause our
great great great great great...great granddaddy were enslaved
and that makes us different. 

>Did your people immigrate here or were they descendants of
slaves? 

Yes to both and against their wills in both cases.  Even
though both are true and are both part of history, being
forced to do something against my will isn't how I would
describe myself...but hey...that's just me.

so why do you keep asking me that question? 

I said they did a great job reminding people of their hardship
and atrocities in regards to the worst thing that ever
happened to them. 

Folks who want to rename themselves as ADOS want to rebrand
the Black identity. There is no other reason for the name
change. 

Nigger, nigga, colored, negro, black, afro American, African
American. It's been done before. 

Everybody else gets to use specific language to identify
themselves. Have you asked by the LGBTQ community needs an
identifier for every specific iteration of sexual and gender
identity/orientation?

.

The reason we use any of these terms are to differentiate ourselves from others.

I am not a fan of the ADOS movement but I get why its important for them in a reparations conversation to distinguish Africans who were never descendent of slavery from Africans who were.

It has little to do with defining a people by their worst atrocities that happened to them or more to do with who is entitled to reparations and not.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

You do know slavery comes out of tribalism, right?
You do know African tribes had slaves and sold those slaves to Europeans and Arabian right?

There is no distinction...There have been slaves or slavery throughout the world through the existence of mankind.

What ADOS cares about is reparations from America for the crimes committed IN America. What happened in Africa, is for Africans to figure out. What happened in South America is for South Americans to figure out.

No other race has to deal with this bullshit oppression olympics and it’s sad to hear our own people (if your Black) say stuff like that.

“You weren’t the first race to be slaughtered or oppressed.. y’all will be alright”

Same people saying this shit to us are quick af to cape for other races. All that energy but when we start talking about our shit them people are exhausted and want to move on.

How many people against ADOS are actually descendants of slaves? What’s the reason they don’t approve of reparations for ADOS? Usually it’s financial.

a. They wouldn’t receive a check
b. Their kids or SO wouldn’t receive a full check due to the obvious.
c. They are already financially secure due to their “bootstraps”

>It has little to do with defining a people by their worst
>atrocities that happened to them or more to do with who is
>entitled to reparations and not.

If my family immigrated to this country in the 60s (or even now) and this country started cutting checks (to be quite frank...I don't think this is how any reparations would be handled...so it's really a moot point). But anyway, if this country started cutting checks and told me that, in spite of all the crap that my family has gone through since the 60s, that we weren't entitled to anything since our family was never enslaved. I would file a lawsuit so quick asking the government to prove that the current plight of Black people is directly tied to slavery and not to failed modern/current policies (e.g.; war on drugs, stop and frisk, etc).

Or supposed, oth, that Reconstruction was allowed to run its course...13th, 14th and 15th amendments were take seriously. No jim crow. No need for Brown vs Board of Education. We're fully integrated into society just like the Irish. (no...they weren't enslaved or treated as we were).

Would we be asking for reparations due to slavery if we were well off and treated equally now?

I don't think we would. Just like the Irish and Chinese aren't (both were treated poorly by this country...back then).

The only reason we can talk about reparations now is that this country hasn't fulfilled its promises to Black folks...all Black folks. Current policies,rooted in slavery for sure, but current policies nonetheless are the cause of our ills.

You don't get to lecture the people who were brought here involuntarily.

We don't even need to get into the rest. Slavery was plenty enough.

No need to keep moving the goalposts.

Money will be given to fund Black institutions, not individuals, that were impacted by slavery. And that will be where the bulk of the money goes.

If there are any checks issued to individuals, those will be for wrongs individuals suffered due to policies that *they* endured...unless it can be proven that a parent's hardship affected the child (and you can certainly make this case). But that hardship xfer isn't going to be traced all the way back to slavery.

"You weren't enslaved and I didn't enslave you" so all of that is over with.

I see yall.

Reparations based on current policy failures is the better strategy. It's something that happens all the time; people who are directly impacted by bad policy get checks: farmers, Japanese, etc, etc...they don't cut checks directly to the third, fourth and fifth generation descendants of impacted folks. When has that ever happened?

But hey, y'all keep pushing a strategy that isn't working...pretty soon it'll be too late to get reparations based of civil rights era issues too.

at least the strategy I'm suggesting would actually work.

to slavery...and have been saying that for the past 30 odd years. but y'all can keep trying this draw up the middle. Good luck!

non-specific.

If I knew specifically that I was Igbo, or Yoruba, Wolof, any of the other myriad people groups, i'd rep that.

If I knew that i came from a particular geographic area, i'd rep that.

what's the actual etymology of Alkebulan?

KMT is land of the Blacks.

nah. frfr, i'm good on what people wanna call themselves. the claiming of 'Africa' is similar to the claiming and repping of 'Black' as an empowering, de-stigmatizing move.

i feel like Black do what it need to do and is contextually expansive and specific (can reference the entire diaspora or refer to the af-am experience).


peace & blessings,

x.

www.twitter.com/poetx

=========================================
I'm an advocate for working smarter, not harder. If you just
focus on working hard you end up making someone else rich and
not having much to show for it. (c) mad

from you. The name of the region and country that you come from was suppressed, and you were re-identified as Negra or Black, to be presented as an existence that was less than European Caucasians.

Black isn’t even a color. It is the non-existence of color. Black absorbs all of light wavelengths and reflects nothing but darkness. White reflects all of light, which is why white is perceived. It is basically describing something that is nothing, or something that is non-existent.

You have African-Americans who don’t even know that. They are just repeating what they have learned, and choosing to accept it, or rebrand it as some type of honorable identity.

Africa exists, and my blood descends from it. My people descend from it, so that must be reflected in my identity.

It’s not a theory. It’s actual color science . Black doesn’t reflect light. It absorbs all of light, which is why you get hotter when wearing black material.

So the identification with the word black to reflect a skin color is incorrect,
because black isn’t even a color. Black and white are representations of light wavelengths being absorbed or reflected.

Why accept a name that we didn’t create, and was used to degrade us , and the
term isn’t a reflection of color?

It’s truly illogical.

>It’s not a theory. It’s actual color science . Black
>doesn’t reflect light. It absorbs all of light, which is why
>you get hotter when wearing black material.
>
>So the identification with the word black to reflect a skin
>color is incorrect,
>because black isn’t even a color. Black and white are
>representations of light wavelengths being absorbed or
>reflected.
>
>Why accept a name that we didn’t create, and was used to
>degrade us , and the
>term isn’t a reflection of color?
>
>It’s truly illogical.

science isn't the determining factor in what we're called or been called previously. neither is science the reason for others being called white.

these are societal descriptions meant to separate and oppress. we all know that. so the color vs non-color debate doesn't fit this discussion since that's science issue. not a social or political issue.

I prefer Black to AA. AA never made sense to me. None of the terms really work, but to me, Black designates american born black people with some similarities in experience. but again, nothing really fits the whole body of black people.

.

Where do you think you descend from?

After the Civil War, some freed African American slaves and Africans of the Caribbean went back to Africa, re-settled and created the country Liberia.

There is nothing unusual about the truth of our identity or where we come from. ....if you chose not to accept it or associate with it , then that is on you.

You know where the word black comes from, but chose to use it?

it doesn't makes sense 4-5 hundred years later. we don't have that level of connectivity to the continent.

and as was said earlier, the name of the continent wasn't named by the people that lived there. so how is that any different than black?

if we're going by the non-euro desciptions, isn't everybody Akebulan? are we Akebulan-Americans instead?

my bigger point, its that none of it make sense from a science perspective. ultimately, it matters less what we're called vs how we're treated.

So I guess you would be cool with Nigger-American, huh?

Why would you go there?

As if it doesn’t matter, so I want to know, would he be okay with that terminology?’

It is a fair question based on the subject and context of the matter.

And the question is not for you, but for the user I asked

That doesn’t mean it doesn’t matter at all.

matters less doesn't mean it doesn't it doesn't matter at all.

at the airport?

I have no connection to Africa.

Which is to say, perhaps the reason "Black" and "White" have been adopted (and persisted) as ethnoracial descriptions so successfully is because so many Americans are not the descendants of "pure" (for lack of a better term) ethnic unions, talk more of pure racial unions, and thus have a mix of heritage lines that they may or may not know of (or were robbed of knowing in the case of Black American DOS). For example, a White American may actually be Norwegian-Dutch-German American, right? Likewise, a Black American may actually be a Mandinka-Fante-Bamileke American, and so on.

I forget what I was reading not too long ago, some article about something going on in France... But I remember being struck by how unfamiliar it felt to read them say French v. other, meaning their default when talking about their native "White" people/descendants is to say French not White because that is their indigenous European identity (which itself is a blend of tribes from the area or conquered in it eg. Frankish, Gaul/Gallo-, etc). One tends to come across similar media language from Britain (eg. Britons) and other European countries (eg. Swedes).

Tbh, "White" tends to only be a popular label in nation-states which are:

*multi-ethnic (where there's a constant and diverse population of "others" to juxtapose against each other),
*wealthy (and thus attracting a steady and dynamic stream of "others" through migration, tourism, etc),
*post-colonial (and thus have a foundational legacy of oppression which shaped social stratification from jump and its accompanying labels/categories)

right? Like US, Canada, Australia, etc (I'm sure somebody somewhere has studied this). Similarly, "Black" tends to only be a popular label in post-colonial nation-states where institutionalized enslavement of Africans was a key antecedent to the state's founding (eg. Black Americans, Black Jamaicans, Black/Afro- Brazilians, Black South Africans).

*not denying the racist/oppressive elements of the labels by any means, but do think the sociological aspect might play a role too









>It’s not a theory. It’s actual color science . Black
>doesn’t reflect light. It absorbs all of light, which is why
>you get hotter when wearing black material.
>
>So the identification with the word black to reflect a skin
>color is incorrect,
>because black isn’t even a color. Black and white are
>representations of light wavelengths being absorbed or
>reflected.
>
>Why accept a name that we didn’t create, and was used to
>degrade us , and the
>term isn’t a reflection of color?

so this ain't so much of an absolute to me as it is me picking my offramp (as w/ music, fashion, whatever) and saying, this is what i rock with, good, bad or indifferent.

>from you. The name of the region and country that you come
>from was suppressed, and you were re-identified as Negra or
>Black, to be presented as an existence that was less than
>European Caucasians.

i know this, man. (i know you know i know, but still, it needs saying).

there's nothing magical about 'Black', and it certainly exists within a whole ass eurocentric worldview replete with negative connotations and denotations. but idgaf.

when Black people said, we know all that shit. but Black is Beautiful, that was cool.


>Black isn’t even a color. It is the non-existence of color.
>Black absorbs all of light wavelengths and reflects nothing
>but darkness. White reflects all of light, which is why white
>is perceived. It is basically describing something that is
>nothing, or something that is non-existent.

i know. don't care.

>
>You have African-Americans who don’t even know that. They
>are just repeating what they have learned, and choosing to
>accept it, or rebrand it as some type of honorable identity.

i think there's more intentionality to it than that, but grant that that's an interpretation.

>Africa exists, and my blood descends from it. My people
>descend from it, so that must be reflected in my identity.


this is like indians, i mean, American Indians, i mean, Native Americans (who never gave a fuck about Amerigo Vespucci, really)... they are Sioux, they are Cree, they are Iriquois, they are Wampanoag, they are Lenni Lenape, they are Lumbee. and yeah, there are gonna be some who were snatched from their people and miseducated and have no idea to which nation they belong. (i like 'First Nations' as a designation, don't know how universally they rock w/ that).

Black to me is like the X in Malcolm X (or Louis X, or Clarence 13 X or whatever X you prefer).

it's a signifier, a placeholder, a vessel into which we've poured the contents of our culture, our pain, our history. i can put it in the African American bag, too. i don't like having to tack on American to add specificity. 'African' / 'Afrikan' (why it feel more 'Black' to spell it with a k? ) is coo, but only my pan african ppls feel me on the definition and i don't be having time to explain to everybody else.

it's a tragically interesting ass conversation to even have.

peace & blessings,

x.

www.twitter.com/poetx

=========================================
I'm an advocate for working smarter, not harder. If you just
focus on working hard you end up making someone else rich and
not having much to show for it. (c) mad

for AA's and Black folks from the rest of the world. a way of signifying our shared struggle.

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

Peace,

Spirit (Alan)
http://wutangbook.com

simply for defending black men,aAnd yall got mufuckas in here using the "other cultures had slaves", "black people sold/enslaved other people", and other full on white supremacist talking points arguments?

Wow.

you’re trying to make.

Please elaborate.

Your “both sides had slaves” argument is a trash take that white problem use when discussing reparations

and rjcc said dude was white in another post.. and then followed up with “oh, I dont actually know, I was just bullshittin’”

has nothing to do with reparations or the argument for or against it.

That statement is in regards to the ignorance that people have when it comes to what slavery is, and the history of slavery in this world. And it is that ignorance that people become self-centered when it comes to the burdens of their cultures.

I have studied the history of slavery for different cultures and tribes, and all that shit is BAD, no burden is greater or heavier than the other.

So with that being said, the term ADOS, or the African Descendants of Slavery has no definition when all cultures have been through slavery. It is not an identity. Africans over in Africa are also descendants of slavery because Africans had slaves, which is how Africans American became salves. It’s an illogical definition.

I believe in reparations on the mere facts that we were never paid for the labor we provided, because that labor was implemented involuntarily. Also that labor was exercised to build properties and lands of tremendous value that we have never received royalties or payments for, and the 40 acres and a mule that was promised to each feed slave was rescinded.

You think ADOS means African Descendants of Slavery.

It don't.

It means AMERICAN Descendants of SLAVES.

Perhaps now you'll rethink this position.

It’s still the same thing, and my argument still stands.
The history of man have been through slavery....

So no matter if it’s American or African...descendants of slavery title
still remains illogical.

Descendants of slavery is a generic term because almost every culture has been through slavery throughout their history.

Native Americans were slaves for awhile in this country, but they refused to remain slaves. So by them being the original people of this land, that would also apply to them, would it not?.

It's not descendants of slavery. It's American (specific place) Descendants of SLAVES (specific people).

That's not illogical unless you desperately want it to be.

Even grammatically it is illogical..

By that logic, a Chinese person, who descends from slaves of the Shang dynasty could
Move to America, become an American , and say that he is an American Descendent of Slavery. He is now American, and he also descends from slavery.

It should actually be Descendants of American Slavery....if we want to be grammatically correct.

But even still it’s a generic term that does not acknowledge my indigenous blood or my roots.

Also American is a nationality, not an ethnicity. So stop treating it like it’s an ethnicity.

This is why African- American is used...African being the ethnicity and American being the nationality.

Just like American isn't. But the "American" in ADOS is very important because America, the country, actually enslaved us.

So if a Chinese person wants to claim ADOS, so be it, more power to you. But America don't owe you anything. ADOS is claiming that America owes us a quantifiable debt based on our status.

And why does it need to acknowledge your indigenous blood?

American.

An ethnicity is a social category, to distinguish a group from another group in a region or area.

The ethnicity African American distinguishes us from other Americans in this country....similar to that of black American, which I do not agree with.

American as itself is simply a nationality.

Slaves, not slavery. It's not a concept or an abstract idea. A real thing that happened to real people that we can identify.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

What I miss?

you just helped him up this for no reason...as did I. lol

he said he wasn't. I took him at his word for it.

then he said that he's not a white man because I can google him and see that he isn't. so I did.


didn't find anything.


ipso facto,

mans is white

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

And dude has been obsessed with harassing me all year. OKP allows it so, I guess this is the toxicity I'm forced to endure.

"Get ready....for your blessing....."
"Bury me by my Grand-Grand and when you can come follow me"

The Caribbean is an area, territory or land that people inhabit or originate from. Now people may ask what island or area in the Caribbean you come from, or if you are Latin or African, but at least it is an area or region.

I wouldn’t define it an ethnicity.... but it would let me know that you are either African or Latin, and your language would be be specific about that.

that "Every other population is recognized by the name of the country or region they come from: Chinese American, Latin American or Mexican
American, etc."

While it's true that those ethnic/national groups have maintained a self identity, America has always "whiteness" (as opposite of blackness) and disregarded ethnonational origin.

Starting with the Naturalization Act of 1790, it restricted citizenship to "any alien, being a free white person". Not free Chinese person, not free Latin person, etc. White.

And groups, such as the Armenians, have gone to court and fought for their whiteness, and won.

So we didn't create blackness out of thin air.

We didn’t have a choice, but now we do.

It baffles me how people want to run away from their true ethnic identity, or
being related to African

And again your basing your actions on the actions of people who disliked and disregarded you. This is why that entire foundation gets stripped, and you go back to your true , original identity.

In America?