Are Africans and people of African descent who aren't AA black?

[IllmaticDelta]

I was laughing because you moved the goalpost from the 1930s to one occurrence of the usage of 'black' in 1782 to prove a non-existent point. You're a very guy, son.

I never once said afram's first usage of the term "black" was in 1930's....in fact, I made it clear that it was used earlier in this post

Black Americans have used various names—African, colored, negro, Afro-American, Black, and African American—to identify themselves. Sometimes these terms were used interchangeably, but, more often than not, one term predominated during a particular historical period.

Historically, then Afro-Americans have called themselves “colored,” “Negro” and “Black,” but even in the earlier periods race leaders, particularly the proponents of militant racial protest, consistently used “Black” as a term of ethnic identification. For example,

David Walker (1829) “ . . . the world may see that we the Blacks or Colored People are treated more cruelly by the white Christians of America.”

Nat Turner (1831) “ . . . it had been said of me in my childhood by those by whom I had been taught to pray, both white and black, . . . that I would never be of any use to anyone as a slave.”

Frederick Douglass (1852) “There are seventy-two crimes in the State of Virginia, which if committed by a black man, subject him to the punishment of Death; while only two of the same crimes will subject a white man to the like punishment of death.”

W.E.B. Du Bois (1903) “Away with the black man’s ballot, by force or fraud—and behold the suicide of a race.”

Marcus M. Garvey (1923) “Let white and black stop deceiving themselves. Let the white race stop deceiving themselves. Let the white race stop thinking that all black men are dogs and not to be considered as human beings.

Langston Hughes (1926) “The road for the serious black artist, then, who would produce a racial art in most certainly rocky and the mountain is high.”

Malcolm X (1960) “As a collective mass of Black people we have been deprived not only of civil rights, but even our human rights. The right to human dignity . . . the right to be a human being.”

Thus, the term has political connotations, for it expresses militant opposition to racial oppression through its association with black nationalism, “ . . . a body of social thought, attitudes, and actions ranging from the simplest expressions of ethnocentriam and racial solidarity to the comprehensive and sophisticated ideologies of Pan-Negroism or Pan-Africanism,” according to John H. Bracey et al in Black Nationalism in America. It is not by chance that W.E.B. Du Bois, perhaps the greatest theoretician of Black nationalism in the twentieth century, entitled his seminal work The Souls of Black Folk in 1903.

A Black By Any Other Name

.
.
.
and

Use of ‘African-American’ Dates to Nation’s Early Days

The term African-American may seem to be a product of recent decades, exploding into common usage in the 1990s after a push from advocates like Jesse Jackson, and only enshrined in the Oxford English Dictionary in 2001.

The O.E.D.’s entry, revised in 2012, traces the first known occurrence to 1835, in an abolitionist newspaper. But now, a researcher has discovered a printed reference in an anti-British sermon from 1782 credited to an anonymous “African American,” pushing the origins of the term back to the earliest days of independence.

“We think of it as a neutral alternative to older terms, one that resembles Italian-American or Irish-American,” said Fred Shapiro, an associate director at the Yale Law School Library, who found the reference. “It’s a very striking usage to see back in 1782.”

Mr. Shapiro, a longtime contributor to the O.E.D. and the editor of the Yale Book of Quotations, found the reference last month in one of his regular sweeps of various online databases that have transformed lexicographic research by gathering vast swaths of historical texts — once scattered across the collections of far-flung libraries and historical societies — in one easily searchable place.

One day, Mr. Shapiro typed “African American” into a database of historical newspapers. Up popped an advertisement that appeared in The Pennsylvania Journal on May 15, 1782, announcing: “Two Sermons, written by the African American; one on the Capture of Lord Cornwallis, to be SOLD.”

With the help of George Thompson, a retired librarian from New York University, Mr. Shapiro found one of the titles — “A Sermon on the Capture of Lord Cornwallis” — and located a copy of it, a 16-page pamphlet, at Houghton Library at Harvard University.

The sermon, which crows about the surrender of the British Army at Yorktown the previous year, was acquired by Harvard in 1845 and seems to have been all but uncited in scholarly literature. Its author — listed on the title page as “an African American” — is anonymous, identified only as “not having the benefit of a liberal education.”

“Was it a freeman?” Mr. Shapiro said. “A slave? We don’t know.”

Black people in the Colonial period, whatever their legal status, were most commonly referred to as “Negro” or “African.”

But in the years after the Revolution, various terms emphasizing their claim to being “American” — a label which was applied to people of European descent living in the colonies by the end of the 17th century — came into circulation.

“Afro-American” has been documented as early as 1831, with “black American” (1818) and “Africo-American” (1788) going back even further.

“We want dancing and raree-shows and ramadans to forget miseries and wretchedness as much as the Africo-americans want the Banjar” — banjo — “to digest with their Kuskus the hardships of their lives,” a correspondent wrote to Thomas Jefferson in 1788. (“Kuskus” is a variant of “couscous.”)

Katherine C. Martin, the editor of United States dictionaries at Oxford University Press, said the O.E.D.’s researchers were in the process of confirming Mr. Shapiro’s discovery.

“It’s very exciting,” she said. “Once we have it nailed down, I would expect we’ll update our entry.”

The sermon, one of the earliest surviving ones by a black American, may also attract interest from historians.

In it, the speaker boasts about the capture of Cornwallis and decries the British assault on “the freedom of the free born sons of America” while nodding toward the fact of “my own complexion.”

“My beloved countrymen, if I may be permitted thus to call you, who am a descendant of the sable race,” one passage begins.

The speaker also addresses fellow “descendants of Africa” who feel loyalty to Britain, asking: “Tell me in plain and simple language, have ye not been disappointed? Have ye reaped what you labored for?”

The other sermon mentioned in the ad, Mr. Shapiro said, may be “A Sermon on the Present Situation of Affairs of America and Great-Britain,” which had been previously known to scholars. Both refer to “descendants of Africa,” he said, and have dedications invoking South Carolina, whose governor had been held in solitary confinement by the British for nearly a year.

But curiously, the title page of the other sermon attributes it to “a Black.”

“In other words, the bifurcation between the terms African-American and black, the two leading terms today, was present from the very beginning,” Mr. Shapiro said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/21/arts/use-of-african-american-dates-to-nations-early-days.html?_r=0

Are Africans and people of African descent who aren't AA black?


the only thing I posted about the 1930s was this

Although the word "Negro" became a generally acceptable designation in the l930s, there was strong opposition from militant radicals like Adam Clayton Powell, who continued to use the word "black," and from militant nationalists like Elijah Muhammad, who continued to speak of "so-called Negroes." This opposition, inchoate and unorganized, was sharpened in the '50s and '60s by the rhetorical artistry of Malcolm X and the emergence of the Black Power movement. But MalcoIm X and the Black Power movement were reflections of a general crisis of identity which is similar in tone and urgency to the crises of the 19th century and the first decades of the 20th.

It appears, from this short historical sketch, that the word "Negro" has been a generally acceptable term in the black or, if you prefer, the Negro community for relatively short time. It appears also that there has been continuous and sustained opposition to the term. Contemporary critics of the word "Negro" say Booker T. Washington was primarily responsible for the campaign in which the word "Negro" supplanted the the words "black," "colored," and "Afro-American." There is truth in this -- the Negro Year Book and the Negro Business League were Washington projects -- but it is not the whole truth. The movement for adoption of the word "Negro" was also given a strong impetus by militant radicals like W. E. B. Du Bois, who was one of the founders of the American Negro Academy, and militant nationalists like Marcus Garvey, who used the word "Negro" consistently and named his organization the Universal Negro Improvement Association.

 

[Bonk]

I never once said afram's first usage of the term "black" was in 1930's....in fact, I made it clear that it was used earlier in this post




A Black By Any Other Name

.
.
.
and

Use of ‘African-American’ Dates to Nation’s Early Days



http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/21/arts/use-of-african-american-dates-to-nations-early-days.html?_r=0

Are Africans and people of African descent who aren't AA black?


the only thing I posted about the 1930s was this

Where did the language Americans speak come from and where did most of the slave owners come from?

So isn't it pretty much straight-forward that since there were people of African descent in the place where the language and slave owners came from, the usage of the term also travelled with them from Europe to the US? There were slaves in the UK before the US and you also had the blackamoors (what the Brits called the Moors in medieval English) from medieval England.

You shouldn't even be debating this since there's no language called, 'American', and the US was founded by the Brits.

 

[IllmaticDelta]

Obviously, I know some of them were slaves on plantations in the US and were born in the US, before moving to London. Olaudah Equaino was a classic example although he lied about being taken from Nigeria. He was actually born in Virginia but he stole the story from another slave that was born in Nigeria and used that to create a new identity for himself.

However, that isn't what the topic is about. It's about the term "black" and its usage. Aframs were called "Negroes" for a long time until the 20th century. The usage of "black" to describe people of African descent has been common in Great Britain from the medieval period, way before slavery started. And in the modern era, the usage started with black poor/britons.

I already touched on that

 

[Bonk]

I already touched on that

What language do you speak, breh?

 

[IllmaticDelta]

Where did the language Americans speak come from and where did most of the slave owners come from?

So isn't it pretty much straight-forward that since there were people of African descent in the place where the language and slave owners came from, the usage of the term also travelled with them from Europe to the US? There were slaves in the UK before the US and you also had the blackamoors (what the Brits called the Moors in medieval English) from medieval England.

You shouldn't even be debating this since there's no language called, 'American', and the US was founded by the Brits.

I already smoke about the term blackamoors and why it's not the same as "black"

 

[Bonk]

I already smoke about the term blackamoors and why it's not the same as "black"

What language do you speak, breh?

 

[IllmaticDelta]

What language do you speak, breh?

 

[Bonk]

You can't answer that.

Well, the usage of the term came from the country the language you speak came from.

 

[IllmaticDelta]

You can't answer that.

Well, the usage of the term came from the country the language you speak came from.

na son....I already came with those receipts

 

[An ashy lil fap hand]

Sounds like all of this comes from the fact that Black Americans consider their definition of "Black" to be the one and only true one. Lilke we've said before, the word has been used for centuries, before Black Americans were even called Black, and the language itself (english) is European. I really don't know what it is that makes some of you brehs act like you're some kind of authority on who is Black and who isn't.

...

If I'm having a conversation and I define the terms, whoever particpates in it has to abide by that. Lol. For the sake of any argument, my definition of ANYTHING is the 'true' one. X=x until the problem is over.

 

[BigMan]

...

If I'm having a conversation and I define the terms, whoever particpates in it has to abide by that. Lol. For the sake of any argument, my definition of ANYTHING is the 'true' one. X=x until the problem is over.

That not how real conversations/debates/arguments work

 

[An ashy lil fap hand]

That not how real conversations/debates/arguments work

Actually, it is. But Most debates are won off the strength of a fallacy. Lemme elaborate. This OP came from a conversation I was already 10 minutes into. So the terms are already set up. If you show up late you can't just demand that the terminology changes. That is a different problem that can be discussed. Instead, a strawman named "but we're all black" is created to take away from my initial point. So any addition to my stance is now set up to be seen as divisive. And how could I be right if I'm divisive?

But...if we were to just let the problem play out into error, then we could potentially fix it. So, yes, while its not how debate conversation works, it is how it is supposed to work. Or...

Maybe I'm wrong. How does it work?

 

[BigMan]

Actually, it is. But Most debates are won off the strength of a fallacy. Lemme elaborate. This OP came from a conversation I was already 10 minutes into. So the terms are already set up. If you show up late you can't just demand that the terminology changes. That is a different problem that can be discussed. Instead, a strawman named "but we're all black" is created to take away from my initial point. So any addition to my stance is now set up to be seen as divisive. And how could I be right if I'm divisive?

But...if we were to just let the problem play out into error, then we could potentially fix it. So, yes, while its not how debate conversation works, it is how it is supposed to work. Or...

Maybe I'm wrong. How does it work?

i have no idea what your original point is
but if one parties defines "x", what is there to argue about?

 

[An ashy lil fap hand]

i have no idea what your original point is
but if one parties defines "x", what is there to argue about?

Nada. This question didn't come from one of the parties. It came from someone interrupting.

My original point was how African nationals, as immigrants, interact with African Americans. I said AAs would be black for the purpose of conversation. I said African nationals would be referred to as Africans.

So with that defined, I said some Africans pick and chose when they want to be black. They also have the privilege of excluding black people if their own events and gatherings. Black people don't get to exclude anyone at all. Everything black people do is co-opted, if not completely written off. We don't get to fully rep our nationality or culture without being looked down on. Even as immigrants, Africans are above us in the social hierarchy for a number of reasons (tradition, conservatism, more conviction in Afrocentrism). And I went on from there...because everybody wants to be down with black people, Africans included, until it's time to be treated like a nikka. And if anyone doesn't know what I mean...then they clearly aren't black.

But some people had a slight problem with my terminology.

 

[BigMan]

Nada. This question didn't come from one of the parties. It came from someone interrupting.

My original point was how African nationals, as immigrants, interact with African Americans. I said AAs would be black for the purpose of conversation. I said African nationals would be referred to as Africans.

So with that defined, I said some Africans pick and chose when they want to be black. They also have the privilege of excluding black people if their own events and gatherings. Black people don't get to exclude anyone at all. Everything black people do is co-opted, if not completely written off. We don't get to fully rep our nationality or culture without being looked down on. Even as immigrants, Africans are above us in the social hierarchy for a number of reasons (tradition, conservatism, more conviction in Afrocentrism). And I went on from there...because everybody wants to be down with black people, Africans included, until it's time to be treated like a nikka. And if anyone doesn't know what I mean...then they clearly aren't black.

But some people had a slight problem with my terminology.

i completely disagree with your assessment and wholly understand the issue others may have with it
the issue is folks do not agree with your definition so any further discussion doesn't matter