At some point won't African immigrants just become AA?

[mbewane]

Indeed it is, going back to the 1960s with the efforts of the Republic of New Afrika movement and also taken up by the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement.

I definitely do not try to create any more distance than there already is between us and Africans (and I strongly disagree with those in this thread pushing that angle), I think that we in the diaspora need to reconnect with our roots as much as possible. Continental Africans also need to accept us more though. But yes, the differences between so-called AAs and Africans, aside from some cultural distance, is in the inability of most AAs to trace roots directly to Africa or to a single place in Africa, and in the mixing that occurred.

You're 100% correct that it doesn't make sense for someone who wants to establish AAs as very different from Africans to use the term "African-American"

THANK YOU, at least one breh that gets my point lol. This is what I was trying to say the whole time

 

[Poitier]

THANK YOU, at least one breh that gets my point lol. This is what I was trying to say the whole time

Its dumb logic. Why not just call all Africans Africans then and get rid of the 1000s of names for the various ethnic groups on the continent?

Saying you are ethnically different has nothing to do with race or ancestry. I don't see how someone can be so dense as to continually miss this point.

 

[JBoy]

Usually when subgroups don't get absorbed (no group gets completely absorbed but y'all get the point ) by dominant cultures they do so because they either end up becoming the dominant subculture or stay so segregated that they are able to practice their culture without as much dominant influence so yes most will probably be considered as non distinct from generations that have been here 300 plus years.

 

[mbewane]

Its dumb logic. Why not just call all Africans Africans then and get rid of the 1000s of names for the various ethnic groups on the continent?

Saying you are ethnically different has nothing to do with race or ancestry. I don't see how someone can be so dense as to continually miss this point.

I'm less inclined than you to call other's people arguments "dumb" and "dense", but I remember that in some other thread you had to resort to throwing ad hominems for whatever reason. Which is too bad because I see your interesting threads in The Root etc, but once someone doesn't agree with you you just can't help but feel some kind of way and have to personnaly attack the person you don't agree with. Don't bother ignoring me, I was answering to that other breh anyway

 

[315]

edit

 

[Karb]

I have no clue why people are even confused about this

Why would you want to lose your own unique heritage, culture and history? It's alright to respect and appreciate AA culture and admire icons like brother Malcolm, but to give up your own heritage and claim theirs is a sign of an identity crisis.

It's also kinda disrespectful to AA's as a group. It's like everyone who lacks a sense of identity latches onto their culture and tries to identify with it. And if everybody has access to your culture, it loses its uniqueness. This is precisely why most cultures are hard on impostors. You need clear lines. An in-group and an out-group.

AA's are a people with a shared history that's unique to them, a shared struggle, etc..

 

[Yehuda]

I have no clue why people are even confused about this

Why would you want to lose your own unique heritage, culture and history? It's alright to respect and appreciate AA culture and admire icons like brother Malcolm, but to give up your own heritage and claim theirs is a sign of an identity crisis.

It's also kinda disrespectful to AA's as a group. It's like everyone who lacks a sense of identity latches onto their culture and tries to identify with it. And if everybody has access to your culture, it loses its uniqueness. This is precisely why most cultures are hard on impostors. You need clear lines. An in-group and an out-group.

AA's are a people with a shared history that's unique to them, a shared struggle, etc..

"But why they put 'African' on their name if they want to be different from Africans?

"

 

[IllmaticDelta]

Indeed it is, going back to the 1960s with the efforts of the Republic of New Afrika movement and also taken up by the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement.

the term/identity "afro american" is way older than the 1960s

You're 100% correct that it doesn't make sense for someone who wants to establish AAs as very different from Africans to use the term "African-American"

it doesn't make sense because it's 100% false what you're claiming as true. Aframs came up with that term to simply acknowledge that they were "americans of african descent", something that reflected their reality/history, not that, they were trying to separate themselves from continental africans.

Breh...I know damn well Africa is not a monolith lol come on...and since indeed it isn't a monolith, why use "African" American? That's as vague as you can get

it's not vague at all...it's pretty straight foward

I agree with all the post, like I answered to this other breh above you I think the real difference here is all the mixing that happened, and indeed the fact that you cannot trace where it is you come from. But it's interesting that some precisely want to distinguish themselves from Africa, while calling themselves "African American"...I see this is not your case though, while acknowledging the specific nature of Black Americans you use "New Afrikans"

again, see my above post

 

[JahFocus CS]

the term/identity "afro american" is way older than the 1960s




it doesn't make sense because it's a 100% false what you're claiming as true. Aframs came up with that term to simply acknowledge that they were "americans of african descent", something that reflected their reality/history, not that, they were trying to separate themselves from continental africans.

Breh... why the hell are you taking my posts out of context and misrepresenting what I was addressing?

I wasn't referring to the term "Afro-American." I was referring to "New Afrikan."

I view "African-American" as a colonized identity and concept because I don't consider us Americans and don't think that conceptualizing ourselves in that framework is conducive to our liberation on any level whatsoever.

There are people in this thread arguing that "AAs" should consider themselves as very different from Africans and treat Africans as a total outgroup. Read @CharlieManson 's posts for example, that is his position. That is what @mbewane and myself were talking about -- people who take that position are undermining their argument by even using the term "African-American." They should just use "Black American" or something like that if that's their position.

I hope that cleared up the confusion...

 

[Karb]

I'll go a step further and say that if we're going to be totally honest, many non-AA's take too many liberties commenting on AA issues and interjecting themselves in debates that should be exclusively AA. I think it's due to the popularity of AA culture and the fact that many of us empathize with their struggle and have an admiration for their icons, we feel like we have a stake in what goes on in their community.

It's mostly coming from a good place, but it can come across as preachy or even downright condescending. Instead of focusing on our own communities, we're preaching to others as if we are any better off in the great scheme of things

I've even noticed this in myself, so I've recently stopped commenting on issues that are exclusively AA. Wenching, feminism, etc are universally shared between all people of African descent tho so I'll keep commenting on those

 

[IllmaticDelta]

There are people in this thread arguing that "AAs" should consider themselves as very different from Africans and treat Africans as a total outgroup. Read @CharlieManson 's posts for example, that is his position. That is what @mbewane and myself were talking about -- people who take that position are undermining their argument by even using the term "African-American." They should just use "Black American" or something like that if that's their position.

I hope that cleared up the confusion...

Ok. I agree with you on extreme examples like @CharlieManson

 

[IllmaticDelta]

I have no clue why people are even confused about this

Why would you want to lose your own unique heritage, culture and history? It's alright to respect and appreciate AA culture and admire icons like brother Malcolm, but to give up your own heritage and claim theirs is a sign of an identity crisis.

It's also kinda disrespectful to AA's as a group. It's like everyone who lacks a sense of identity latches onto their culture and tries to identify with it. And if everybody has access to your culture, it loses its uniqueness. This is precisely why most cultures are hard on impostors. You need clear lines. An in-group and an out-group.

AA's are a people with a shared history that's unique to them, a shared struggle, etc..

the funny thing is alot of these types aren't exactly giving up their own culture but they want to big up their own culture while claiming aframs have no culture while at the same time, appropriating the hell out of what they claim doesn't exist...

 

[BigMan]

I'll go a step further and say that if we're going to be totally honest, many non-AA's take too many liberties commenting on AA issues and interjecting themselves in debates that should be exclusively AA. I think it's due to the popularity of AA culture and the fact that many of us empathize with their struggle and have an admiration for their icons, we feel like we have a stake in what goes on in their community.

It's mostly coming from a good place, but it can come across as preachy or even downright condescending. Instead of focusing on our own communities, we're preaching to others as if we are any better off in the great scheme of things

I've even noticed this in myself, so I've recently stopped commenting on issues that are exclusively AA. Wenching, feminism, etc are universally shared between all people of African descent tho so I'll keep commenting on those

What are examples of what you're talking about? What are things that affect AAs that don't affect his first/second gen Caribbean or African American counterpart?

I agree if you are talking about the Hispanic Canadian and British posters on here

 

[How Sway?]

I have no clue why people are even confused about this

Why would you want to lose your own unique heritage, culture and history? It's alright to respect and appreciate AA culture and admire icons like brother Malcolm, but to give up your own heritage and claim theirs is a sign of an identity crisis.

It's also kinda disrespectful to AA's as a group. It's like everyone who lacks a sense of identity latches onto their culture and tries to identify with it. And if everybody has access to your culture, it loses its uniqueness. This is precisely why most cultures are hard on impostors. You need clear lines. An in-group and an out-group.

AA's are a people with a shared history that's unique to them, a shared struggle, etc..

rep

 

[AlainLocke]

"But why they put 'African' on their name if they want to be different from Africans?

"

Why the hell we gonna call ourselves Black American...formally?

There are multiple non-African descent groups that are called Black...

All being Black means is having dark skin and curly hair...

At the end of day...Native Born people of African descent in the Americas are Africans of slave origin.

We shouldn't have to call ourselves a color...shyt doesn't even make any sense.