First they were called colored, then negro, then afro-american, then black and now african-american. Next thing you know, "african-american" will no longer be used as the politcally correct term for black people. It's rather silly how we have to keep coming up with euphemisms. I wonder why this happens.
What ever happened to "Afro-American"?
>>First they were called colored, then negro, then afro-american, then black and now african-american. Next thing you know, "african-american" will no longer be used as the politcally correct term for black people. It's rather silly how we have to keep coming up with euphemisms. I wonder why this happens.<<
The main thing is that it still seems like the term most common in *actual* everyday usage outside the contexts where institutionalized euphemistic usages are prevalent is "black", with "African-American" being rather obvious as a such an institutionalized euphemistic usage.
The main thing is that it still seems like the term most common in *actual* everyday usage outside the contexts where institutionalized euphemistic usages are prevalent is "black", with "African-American" being rather obvious as a such an institutionalized euphemistic usage.
If I need to refer to anyone's ancestry I call them people of Italian ancestry or French ancestry or African ancestry. That keeps it nice and neat and true and sans that annoying hyphen.
It's true that in the US, most people, when asked "what they are," say, "Oh, I'm Irish" or "Spanish and French with a little Dutch thrown in for good measure" or whatever. It's not true of course, if they were born here they are Americans or more specifially US citizens. It would probably be more appropriate to call ourselves USers but then the rest of the world would have a laugh.
I wonder if Americans are the only people who have the peculiar trait of identifying with foreign ancestors.
It's true that in the US, most people, when asked "what they are," say, "Oh, I'm Irish" or "Spanish and French with a little Dutch thrown in for good measure" or whatever. It's not true of course, if they were born here they are Americans or more specifially US citizens. It would probably be more appropriate to call ourselves USers but then the rest of the world would have a laugh.
I wonder if Americans are the only people who have the peculiar trait of identifying with foreign ancestors.
>>If I need to refer to anyone's ancestry I call them people of Italian ancestry or French ancestry or African ancestry. That keeps it nice and neat and true and sans that annoying hyphen.<<
At least here, I don't really hear the term "ancestry" used that much; for some reason, at least to me, it comes off as just one step below going and overtly hyphenating such things, with respect to overall tone with respect to some superficial civic "multiculturalism".
>>It's true that in the US, most people, when asked "what they are," say, "Oh, I'm Irish" or "Spanish and French with a little Dutch thrown in for good measure" or whatever. It's not true of course, if they were born here they are Americans or more specifially US citizens. It would probably be more appropriate to call ourselves USers but then the rest of the world would have a laugh.<<
The matter here is that "American" is a political designation, not an ethnic designation, and what is being spoken about here is the latter, not the former. There is no such thing as being ethnically "American" (you cannot say such even about the aboriginal population, since such was never any kind of single ethnic unit at all).
One note you must remember about the US, though, is that in many areas immigration is actually quite recent, all things considered, and that there may still be people still alive, albeit in many cases quite old, who still speak immigrant languages other than English or who had such as their native language, even if it has been wholly supplanted by English. Furthermore, social cohesion amongst immigrant groups may have been quite strong until relatively recently (that is, about a generation or so ago), or in some cases, with more recent immigrants, may still be so, which of course would reinforce self-identification ethnicity-wise.
>>I wonder if Americans are the only people who have the peculiar trait of identifying with foreign ancestors.<<
Probably this is relatively common in any areas which have relatively recently (< 120 years or so) received very large quantities of outside immigration from other areas which differ ethnically from that preexisting in the area being immigrated to, and in particular if the communities set up by said immigrants are rather close-knit and or if said immigrants manage to effectively replace or significantly dilute the preexisting population at least on a local level in places.
At least here, I don't really hear the term "ancestry" used that much; for some reason, at least to me, it comes off as just one step below going and overtly hyphenating such things, with respect to overall tone with respect to some superficial civic "multiculturalism".
>>It's true that in the US, most people, when asked "what they are," say, "Oh, I'm Irish" or "Spanish and French with a little Dutch thrown in for good measure" or whatever. It's not true of course, if they were born here they are Americans or more specifially US citizens. It would probably be more appropriate to call ourselves USers but then the rest of the world would have a laugh.<<
The matter here is that "American" is a political designation, not an ethnic designation, and what is being spoken about here is the latter, not the former. There is no such thing as being ethnically "American" (you cannot say such even about the aboriginal population, since such was never any kind of single ethnic unit at all).
One note you must remember about the US, though, is that in many areas immigration is actually quite recent, all things considered, and that there may still be people still alive, albeit in many cases quite old, who still speak immigrant languages other than English or who had such as their native language, even if it has been wholly supplanted by English. Furthermore, social cohesion amongst immigrant groups may have been quite strong until relatively recently (that is, about a generation or so ago), or in some cases, with more recent immigrants, may still be so, which of course would reinforce self-identification ethnicity-wise.
>>I wonder if Americans are the only people who have the peculiar trait of identifying with foreign ancestors.<<
Probably this is relatively common in any areas which have relatively recently (< 120 years or so) received very large quantities of outside immigration from other areas which differ ethnically from that preexisting in the area being immigrated to, and in particular if the communities set up by said immigrants are rather close-knit and or if said immigrants manage to effectively replace or significantly dilute the preexisting population at least on a local level in places.
"African-American" sounds like an arbitrary term for referring to Black Americans. Then, what would you call black people from India living in U.S.? Are they also called African-Americans? Of course not. I would call them black people living in U.S. or Black Americans.
"at least here, I don't really hear the word 'ancestry.'"
Where is "here," Travis?
"American is a political designation"
Yes I suppose you might be right, Travis, and that's why I decided USers might be better or United Staters but that's awkward so I guess that's why we say Americans but of course people from Peru are also Americans but we always call them South Americans, never just Americans. I suppose it's a conceit of ours.
But I suppose you think that United Staters are just political and not ethnic. Makes us sound like a bunch of men and women without an identity, which is harldy the case. Listen to all the "real Americans" spouting off against what I can only guess are "faux Americans."
Your ideas on the immigrants make sense but in New England the "old families" of which I am partially one, consider themselves yankees and I guess that's about right. They rarely if ever call themselves English as the Irish call themselves Irish. Maybe that's because they became enemies of England.
"there is no such thing as being ethnically American."
I also wonder, given the history of the world, if in any country one can consider himself ethnically this or that. Look at how many countries were conquered time and again by Romans and Alexander the Great etc. and the soldiers settling in with the natives, albeit sometimes only on a temporary basis, but enough to produce offspring. Then there was migration as well.
Where is "here," Travis?
"American is a political designation"
Yes I suppose you might be right, Travis, and that's why I decided USers might be better or United Staters but that's awkward so I guess that's why we say Americans but of course people from Peru are also Americans but we always call them South Americans, never just Americans. I suppose it's a conceit of ours.
But I suppose you think that United Staters are just political and not ethnic. Makes us sound like a bunch of men and women without an identity, which is harldy the case. Listen to all the "real Americans" spouting off against what I can only guess are "faux Americans."
Your ideas on the immigrants make sense but in New England the "old families" of which I am partially one, consider themselves yankees and I guess that's about right. They rarely if ever call themselves English as the Irish call themselves Irish. Maybe that's because they became enemies of England.
"there is no such thing as being ethnically American."
I also wonder, given the history of the world, if in any country one can consider himself ethnically this or that. Look at how many countries were conquered time and again by Romans and Alexander the Great etc. and the soldiers settling in with the natives, albeit sometimes only on a temporary basis, but enough to produce offspring. Then there was migration as well.
<<Then, what would you call black people from India living in U.S.?>>
How about American Indians?
Seriously though, I remember when I was very young being both geographically and racially confused by the proliferation of the word "Indian". It could pertain to "red indians" from North America, to "west indians" from the caribbean or even strangely enough to "east indians" from er....India. None of whom, I consequently learnt, were related nor close together.
How about American Indians?
Seriously though, I remember when I was very young being both geographically and racially confused by the proliferation of the word "Indian". It could pertain to "red indians" from North America, to "west indians" from the caribbean or even strangely enough to "east indians" from er....India. None of whom, I consequently learnt, were related nor close together.
Good point, Rick. None of them seem to be related at all. Of course there's the old Chris Columbus story of thinking he had gone around the world and therefore mistaken America for India. But the rest I am at a loss to explain as well.
Any enlightenment on this subject would be appreciated.
Any enlightenment on this subject would be appreciated.
>>"at least here, I don't really hear the word 'ancestry.'"
Where is "here," Travis?<<
Here is southeastern and southern Wisconsin, I being from the Milwaukee area, but currently being in Madison.
>>"American is a political designation"
Yes I suppose you might be right, Travis, and that's why I decided USers might be better or United Staters but that's awkward so I guess that's why we say Americans but of course people from Peru are also Americans but we always call them South Americans, never just Americans. I suppose it's a conceit of ours.<<
I didn't mean "Americans" in that sense of people living in the Americas, but rather more specifically referring to nationals of the US.
>>But I suppose you think that United Staters are just political and not ethnic. Makes us sound like a bunch of men and women without an identity, which is harldy the case. Listen to all the "real Americans" spouting off against what I can only guess are "faux Americans."
Your ideas on the immigrants make sense but in New England the "old families" of which I am partially one, consider themselves yankees and I guess that's about right. They rarely if ever call themselves English as the Irish call themselves Irish. Maybe that's because they became enemies of England.<<
Things here are the complete opposite way around, in that most families here are quite "new", and the notion of ethnicity outside of vague notion of American-ness is far less abstract, considering that people here only really became English-monolingual around my parents' generation, and likewise, ethnic-based social groupings seem to have been quite strong here until about the same point in time. Consequently, it's hard to speak of just being "American" here, unlike in cases like that of much of the northeast of the US.
>>"there is no such thing as being ethnically American."
I also wonder, given the history of the world, if in any country one can consider himself ethnically this or that. Look at how many countries were conquered time and again by Romans and Alexander the Great etc. and the soldiers settling in with the natives, albeit sometimes only on a temporary basis, but enough to produce offspring. Then there was migration as well.<<
The main thing is that much of the population of the US has only been here since the late 1880s, which is a quite short period of time if one is to speak in terms of such being agglomerated into a single overall unit with a single general group identity, like such in the case of the Afrikaners, who, while originally being a mixture of people from different parts of Europe (Dutch, Huguenots, Germans, etc.), are generally referred to as a single ethnicity today.
Where is "here," Travis?<<
Here is southeastern and southern Wisconsin, I being from the Milwaukee area, but currently being in Madison.
>>"American is a political designation"
Yes I suppose you might be right, Travis, and that's why I decided USers might be better or United Staters but that's awkward so I guess that's why we say Americans but of course people from Peru are also Americans but we always call them South Americans, never just Americans. I suppose it's a conceit of ours.<<
I didn't mean "Americans" in that sense of people living in the Americas, but rather more specifically referring to nationals of the US.
>>But I suppose you think that United Staters are just political and not ethnic. Makes us sound like a bunch of men and women without an identity, which is harldy the case. Listen to all the "real Americans" spouting off against what I can only guess are "faux Americans."
Your ideas on the immigrants make sense but in New England the "old families" of which I am partially one, consider themselves yankees and I guess that's about right. They rarely if ever call themselves English as the Irish call themselves Irish. Maybe that's because they became enemies of England.<<
Things here are the complete opposite way around, in that most families here are quite "new", and the notion of ethnicity outside of vague notion of American-ness is far less abstract, considering that people here only really became English-monolingual around my parents' generation, and likewise, ethnic-based social groupings seem to have been quite strong here until about the same point in time. Consequently, it's hard to speak of just being "American" here, unlike in cases like that of much of the northeast of the US.
>>"there is no such thing as being ethnically American."
I also wonder, given the history of the world, if in any country one can consider himself ethnically this or that. Look at how many countries were conquered time and again by Romans and Alexander the Great etc. and the soldiers settling in with the natives, albeit sometimes only on a temporary basis, but enough to produce offspring. Then there was migration as well.<<
The main thing is that much of the population of the US has only been here since the late 1880s, which is a quite short period of time if one is to speak in terms of such being agglomerated into a single overall unit with a single general group identity, like such in the case of the Afrikaners, who, while originally being a mixture of people from different parts of Europe (Dutch, Huguenots, Germans, etc.), are generally referred to as a single ethnicity today.
I think the reason the names for black people keep changing is because black people are a stigmatized minority. Each new term, over time, acquires this stigma as well, and is then discarded for a new term that has none. Over time, that term too acquires stigma, or becomes pejorative, and has to be discarded and replaced ... and so on and so forth. The same phenomenon has not happened with white people's designations because there is little stigma attached to whites. But you do see it in other minorities, such as hispanics ("latinos", "chicanos", etc.) or Indians ("American Indians", "Amerindians", "Native Americans", "First Nations", etc.) It's a never-ending quest for a polite and PC term....
(Not saying that I condone these social ills, just that they exist.)
I would have to agree that I don't consider "American" to be an ethnicity, only a nationality, as we have no common ancestry. Modern-day Europeans may not either (and I know plenty of migration and intermingling has happened there in the past as well) but we still "consider" things like "Italian", "Spanish", "Scandinavian", "Slavic", etc to correspond to ancestral ethnic groupings -- whether that's strictly true or not.
(Not saying that I condone these social ills, just that they exist.)
I would have to agree that I don't consider "American" to be an ethnicity, only a nationality, as we have no common ancestry. Modern-day Europeans may not either (and I know plenty of migration and intermingling has happened there in the past as well) but we still "consider" things like "Italian", "Spanish", "Scandinavian", "Slavic", etc to correspond to ancestral ethnic groupings -- whether that's strictly true or not.
"Things here are the complete oppostie way around, in that most families here are quite "new", and the notion of ethnicity outside of a vague notion of American-ness is far less abstract . . ."
I see what you mean, Travis. New Englanders came in the early 1600's of course so that would make a difference. And the immigrants who came later were probably forced to assimilate faster.
I hadn't really thought about how new the Mid-Western states are or about the immigrant population being so dominant but I suppose it must have been. Our country is so big, the differences in culture, accents and even language usage and expressions are so varied by region.
I had a schoolgirl friend from Wisconsin, Green Bay, as I recall. She had a terrible time adjusting to Boston. She thought we were all snobby,even me when she first met me. She said people kept backing away from her rudely when she talked to them. I had to tell her to stand further away when she spoke to us as we don't like people so close.
She of course made fun of our accents and we of hers, you know how teenagers are. But she was horrified by our "bad language." I've since learned that people from Boston are known for their use of swear words. It means nothing to us though. We got a kick out of all her "gosh-darn-golly-gees." We were like, why don't you just say shit or Jesus fucking Christ like everybody else does? But she never did and she never completely assimilated, although she did learn to keep a bigger social distance and that helped her.
I see what you mean, Travis. New Englanders came in the early 1600's of course so that would make a difference. And the immigrants who came later were probably forced to assimilate faster.
I hadn't really thought about how new the Mid-Western states are or about the immigrant population being so dominant but I suppose it must have been. Our country is so big, the differences in culture, accents and even language usage and expressions are so varied by region.
I had a schoolgirl friend from Wisconsin, Green Bay, as I recall. She had a terrible time adjusting to Boston. She thought we were all snobby,even me when she first met me. She said people kept backing away from her rudely when she talked to them. I had to tell her to stand further away when she spoke to us as we don't like people so close.
She of course made fun of our accents and we of hers, you know how teenagers are. But she was horrified by our "bad language." I've since learned that people from Boston are known for their use of swear words. It means nothing to us though. We got a kick out of all her "gosh-darn-golly-gees." We were like, why don't you just say shit or Jesus fucking Christ like everybody else does? But she never did and she never completely assimilated, although she did learn to keep a bigger social distance and that helped her.
>>"Things here are the complete oppostie way around, in that most families here are quite "new", and the notion of ethnicity outside of a vague notion of American-ness is far less abstract . . ."
I see what you mean, Travis. New Englanders came in the early 1600's of course so that would make a difference. And the immigrants who came later were probably forced to assimilate faster.<<
This depends, as different immigrant groups assimilated faster than others here. Probably the slowest was the German population here, with the main thing which really triggered such assimilation being the destruction of German-language institutions in the Upper Midwest around the time of World War I, and with German usage persisting up until about my grandparents' generation (considering that German settlement here began in the 1850s). (Note that while Polish usage appears to have survived until about the same period of time, much Polish immigration was later than most German immigration here.) However, Norwegian is still spoken (and not just amongst very old people, as is the case with German and Polish today) in pockets in North Dakota (and most likely Minnesota), even though it is slowly dying out; one note is that Norwegian immigration has been relatively recent overall, and that stronger ties have been maintained overall with the "old country" than with many other groups.
>>I hadn't really thought about how new the Mid-Western states are or about the immigrant population being so dominant but I suppose it must have been. Our country is so big, the differences in culture, accents and even language usage and expressions are so varied by region.<<
The most significant period of immigration to the Upper Midwest was during the period from the 1880s to the 1920s, even though there was significant amounts of immigration to the area since the 1850s. And when you speak of the immigrant population being dominant, I assume you are referring to populations which are not descended from the population which originally settled along the eastern seaboard of what is now the US. Also note that people of English descent are very much in the minority here, generally outweighed by people of German, Irish, Polish, and Scandinavian descent (varying, of course, with location, with, for example, Scandinavian populations being concentrated on the northern end of the Upper Midwest).
>>She of course made fun of our accents and we of hers, you know how teenagers are.<<
Well, of course, the this area being clearly accentless, even as much as others may say we sound weird. ;)
>>But she was horrified by our "bad language." I've since learned that people from Boston are known for their use of swear words. It means nothing to us though. We got a kick out of all her "gosh-darn-golly-gees." We were like, why don't you just say shit or Jesus fucking Christ like everybody else does?<<
That's interesting, as such generally old-fashioned euphemistic terms are not used amongst younger individuals here, and probably the only euphemisms of that sort being used today being the newer "frickin(g)"/"friggin(g)"/"effin(g)".
I see what you mean, Travis. New Englanders came in the early 1600's of course so that would make a difference. And the immigrants who came later were probably forced to assimilate faster.<<
This depends, as different immigrant groups assimilated faster than others here. Probably the slowest was the German population here, with the main thing which really triggered such assimilation being the destruction of German-language institutions in the Upper Midwest around the time of World War I, and with German usage persisting up until about my grandparents' generation (considering that German settlement here began in the 1850s). (Note that while Polish usage appears to have survived until about the same period of time, much Polish immigration was later than most German immigration here.) However, Norwegian is still spoken (and not just amongst very old people, as is the case with German and Polish today) in pockets in North Dakota (and most likely Minnesota), even though it is slowly dying out; one note is that Norwegian immigration has been relatively recent overall, and that stronger ties have been maintained overall with the "old country" than with many other groups.
>>I hadn't really thought about how new the Mid-Western states are or about the immigrant population being so dominant but I suppose it must have been. Our country is so big, the differences in culture, accents and even language usage and expressions are so varied by region.<<
The most significant period of immigration to the Upper Midwest was during the period from the 1880s to the 1920s, even though there was significant amounts of immigration to the area since the 1850s. And when you speak of the immigrant population being dominant, I assume you are referring to populations which are not descended from the population which originally settled along the eastern seaboard of what is now the US. Also note that people of English descent are very much in the minority here, generally outweighed by people of German, Irish, Polish, and Scandinavian descent (varying, of course, with location, with, for example, Scandinavian populations being concentrated on the northern end of the Upper Midwest).
>>She of course made fun of our accents and we of hers, you know how teenagers are.<<
Well, of course, the this area being clearly accentless, even as much as others may say we sound weird. ;)
>>But she was horrified by our "bad language." I've since learned that people from Boston are known for their use of swear words. It means nothing to us though. We got a kick out of all her "gosh-darn-golly-gees." We were like, why don't you just say shit or Jesus fucking Christ like everybody else does?<<
That's interesting, as such generally old-fashioned euphemistic terms are not used amongst younger individuals here, and probably the only euphemisms of that sort being used today being the newer "frickin(g)"/"friggin(g)"/"effin(g)".
<<That's interesting, as such generally old-fashioned euphemistic terms are not used amongst younger individuals here, and probably the only euphemisms of that sort being used today being the newer "frickin(g)"/"friggin(g)"/"effin(g)".>>
I'm not sure I would count "frigging" as a euphemism. I've always tended to think of it as quite an old term for (mainly female) masturbation.
I'm not sure I would count "frigging" as a euphemism. I've always tended to think of it as quite an old term for (mainly female) masturbation.
"Also note that people of English descent are very much in the minority here."
I didn't know that. For some reason I was under the illusion that everybody left the east in those wagon trains and headed out there. And since so many people in the east during that time were either English (or I suppose Dutch in New York) I thought that most of the Mid-West was settled by these people. I did know about the Scandinavian and Geman influx of immigrants there but I guess I didn't really see how important it was. It's fascinating.
I didn't know that. For some reason I was under the illusion that everybody left the east in those wagon trains and headed out there. And since so many people in the east during that time were either English (or I suppose Dutch in New York) I thought that most of the Mid-West was settled by these people. I did know about the Scandinavian and Geman influx of immigrants there but I guess I didn't really see how important it was. It's fascinating.
most anyone I know who remembers being called "colored" considers it an insult. I hear the word "Negro" only when a latin person says it in spanish.(ex I heared:in which they are saying.."the kid isnt mexican he's half white and half black")