Back to "black"

Wisdom of the week

[Reprinted from Issues & Views September 20, 2004]

The Manhattan Institute's John McWhorter, author of several books and articles on aspects of black identity, suggests that American blacks let go of the descriptive term "African-American." In "Why I'm Black, Not African American," he discusses the fact of Africans currently arriving from the continent, who are becoming American citizens, and claims that, for this reason, the use of the term "African-American" to refer to American blacks is becoming "increasingly strained."

About the multitude of Africans who immigrate here, he writes:

Their cultures and identities are split between Africa and the United States. They have last names like Onwughalu and Senkofa. They speak languages like Wolof, Twi, Yoruba and Hausa, and speak English with an accent. They were raised on African cuisine, music, dance and dress styles, customs and family dynamics. . . .

Living descendants of slaves in America neither knew their African ancestors nor even have elder relatives who knew them. Most of us worship in Christian churches. Our cuisine is more southern U.S. than Senegalese.

Citing blacks, who, like politician Alan Keyes, have made the ridiculous assertion that only America's slave descendants are the "real" African-Americans, McWhorter suggests a reason for such a claim:

To term ourselves as part "African" reinforces a sad implication: that our history is basically slave ships, plantations, lynching, fire hoses in Birmingham, and then South Central, and that we need to look back to Mother Africa to feel good about ourselves.

What McWhorter does not point out is that immigrants from the continent of Africa will most likely be identified with reference to their native country. They will be identified as Nigerian-Americans, Ghanaian-Americans, Somali-Americans. Although the continent of Europe is referenced when generalizing about all descendants from that region, European-Americans specifically identify as Italian-Americans, Irish-Americans, and so on. When asked about his ethnic background, who calls himself a "European-American?"

McWhorter's points are well taken. However, since white elites eagerly jumped on the Jesse Jackson bandwagon, when their black-leader-of-choice insisted that "African-American" be added to the popular lexicon, it is probably here to stay as a description of the descendants of those first Africans, who were forced to become Americans. Since American blacks do not know their regional origins, and since so many place names have changed over time, the generalized "African-American" might be appropriate in their case.

It should be pointed out, however, that to millions of blacks, the term "African-American" has always sounded pretentious and even a bit fatuous, and they have never adopted its use.

McWhorter concludes:

Since the late 1980s, I have gone along with using "African American" for the same reason that we throw rice at a bride -- because everybody else was doing it. But no more. From now on, in my writings on race I will be returning to the word I grew up with, which reminds me of my true self and my ancestors who worked here to help make my life possible: Black.

Copyright © 2010 Issues & Views