American Pied
Sep. 29th, 2013 01:48 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Recently I was reminded by a
linguaphiles post of the habit in the USA of calling any person of African extraction, no matter their nationality, "African American". The most egregious example I ever witnessed (and I wish it had been preserved on Youtube, because it would have made a lovely pair for the Dalai Llama pizza joke moment) was when an interviewer asked Nelson Mandela his opinion, "speaking as an African American". That was a few years ago now, but here's a mint-fresh example from a post on Disney movies, which mentions The Color of Friendship (2000). In this movie a white, politically-complacent, apartheid-era South African girl, Mahree, goes on an exchange trip to the USA, where she stays with the family of an American girl, Piper - not realising until she arrives that her hosts are black. In true Disney style, she learns some important life lessons through friendship, and eventually goes back to South Africa with very different opinions from those with which she arrived. In the words of the post: "When Mehree returns to South Africa an enlightened girl and shows Flora, her African American maid, the freedom flag she had sewn into her coat , it is very moving." Needless to say, Flora is South African.
Well, it's fun to stand and point at the insularity, of course, but I'm more interested in the way language is working here. I'm assuming (perhaps rashly) that whoever wrote that sentence doesn't actually believe that the maid Flora is American. In that case, the obvious inference is that the individual semantic components of the phrase "African American" have become fused into one, purely racial epithet, the "American" functioning semantically as "person originating from place that I just mentioned". But does this happen with any of the other double-barrelled epithets in common use? Do Italians in Italy ever get referred to as Italian Americans? Or Chinese people from China as Chinese Americans? I don't think so - at least I've not seen it. It seems something else is going on, then.
Another comparison might be with the way Americans talk about white people as Caucasian (where did that come from, by the way?) without implying that they're from the Caucasus - unless of course they're Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. But my impression is that "Caucasian" is used as a semi-technical word - I've mostly heard it in police descriptions - not in ordinary conversation.
Looking closer to home, a comparison might be with English people saying "English" when they mean "British" - which is of course a reflection of English dominance of the Union and the privilege-cum-complacency that that engenders. Perhaps we can extrapolate something similar for "African American", re. American dominance of the entire planet? But that still doesn't explain why this usage is restricted to people of African origin. For a while I wondered whether it might have something to do with the fact that Africa is a continent rather than a country - but then, Asians don't tend to get called Asian Americans, do they?
I still don't have a satisfactory answer to this. Thoughts?
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
Well, it's fun to stand and point at the insularity, of course, but I'm more interested in the way language is working here. I'm assuming (perhaps rashly) that whoever wrote that sentence doesn't actually believe that the maid Flora is American. In that case, the obvious inference is that the individual semantic components of the phrase "African American" have become fused into one, purely racial epithet, the "American" functioning semantically as "person originating from place that I just mentioned". But does this happen with any of the other double-barrelled epithets in common use? Do Italians in Italy ever get referred to as Italian Americans? Or Chinese people from China as Chinese Americans? I don't think so - at least I've not seen it. It seems something else is going on, then.
Another comparison might be with the way Americans talk about white people as Caucasian (where did that come from, by the way?) without implying that they're from the Caucasus - unless of course they're Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. But my impression is that "Caucasian" is used as a semi-technical word - I've mostly heard it in police descriptions - not in ordinary conversation.
Looking closer to home, a comparison might be with English people saying "English" when they mean "British" - which is of course a reflection of English dominance of the Union and the privilege-cum-complacency that that engenders. Perhaps we can extrapolate something similar for "African American", re. American dominance of the entire planet? But that still doesn't explain why this usage is restricted to people of African origin. For a while I wondered whether it might have something to do with the fact that Africa is a continent rather than a country - but then, Asians don't tend to get called Asian Americans, do they?
I still don't have a satisfactory answer to this. Thoughts?
(no subject)
Date: 2013-09-29 01:16 pm (UTC)In the UK, we do have Anglo-Irish and Anglo-Welsh, though used more in terms of talking about history and literature rather than everyday identification of ordinary people.
(no subject)
Date: 2013-09-29 01:18 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-09-29 01:27 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-09-29 01:48 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-09-29 01:24 pm (UTC)While I don't think that those who use it without consideration assume that the entire world is American, I wonder if they run mentally up against African-Engish? African, uh. South African? Is it okay to say African? Zzzzzt! Brain short-circuit!
(no subject)
Date: 2013-09-29 01:31 pm (UTC)In the example
(no subject)
Date: 2013-09-29 01:48 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-09-29 01:31 pm (UTC)On a related topic, I rather wish we'd retained "Japhetic languages", to go along with Semitic and Hamitic. The philological equivalents of your anthropologist decided to divide the linguistic world up using the three sons of Noah: Japhet was however quickly ousted by the less Romantic "Indo-European".
(no subject)
Date: 2013-09-30 02:07 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-09-30 06:53 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-10-25 02:05 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-09-29 01:30 pm (UTC)Caucasian is a real puzzler.
(no subject)
Date: 2013-09-29 01:54 pm (UTC)I think what's happened is that students like mine have been corrected ("Say African-American!") frequently, in the name of accepting racial diversity in America, but they haven't understood the nuances of race and national identity that support the term "African-American." Asian-American identity is at least theoretically less fraught in America than African-American identity, so the term Asian-American is less likely to be emphasized in schools. (Note also that the unmodified term "Asian" in America usually means "East Asian," especially Chinese, Japanese or Korean, rather than South Asian.)
"Caucasian" is unfortunately mandated by government paperwork; the US Census has its racial terminology stuck in the eugenic past. As a Jew of Eastern European descent, classified in "white" according to present-day American standards, I suppose I probably do have some ancestors who came from around the Caucasus. But that doesn't make it any less ridiculous for me to check the "Caucasian" box when I'm perfectly well aware that the people who invented that box wouldn't have thought of me as belonging to their race in the first place.
(no subject)
Date: 2013-09-29 02:12 pm (UTC)Also that IIRC, 'Caucasion' or rather 'Caucasoid' is a similar level of description, in a technical sense, as 'Negroid' and 'Mongoloid' and we certainly don't use those.
To be honest, 'white' confuses me a lot of the time, too. I mean, my Scandinavian/Celtic-descended self is pretty easy to box up, but people like my Colombian former housemate, who is technically Latino or Hispanic (a term he hates) but in practice has paler skin than I do, and definitely paler than a lot of South America--we did the last census together and had no idea what to put in the ethnicity box. (Actually I had trouble with that one too--I automatically put 'American' but that is really not an ethnicity unless you are actually Native American, but 'some Norwegian and Scottish and other stuff' is not really an availabe box either.) Or my half-white-half-Japanese cousins. Or some (but certainly not all) of the Jewish people I know, who come in a wide variety of skin tones. IDK. It's all weird and confusing.
(no subject)
Date: 2013-09-29 02:50 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-09-29 02:52 pm (UTC)I've been caught out by that one once or twice myself.
(no subject)
Date: 2013-09-29 02:59 pm (UTC)It doesn't happen with other hyphenated-American terms because those don't carry the same historical baggage.
However, I must correct one thing: "Caucasian" was old-fashioned anthropological terminology. If it ever was US Census terminology, it hasn't been so for a long time. The US Census uses "White" and also "Asian" (which means, to them, South Asian every bit as much as it does East Asian). But it also used "African American" in the last census, having changed from "Black or African American" in the previous one. You see the problem?
(no subject)
Date: 2013-09-29 03:11 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-09-29 02:18 pm (UTC)FWIW: As a general rule, I say 'black,' 'Asian,' and 'Indian' (meaning native American, in this case) just because those are the terms preferred by the overwhelming majority of people within my personal friendship circles who fit into said categories. If specific people or circumstances (like addressing a larger audience I don't know personally) require other ones, I'm pretty flexible. But when it's a habit you can still trip up.
(no subject)
Date: 2013-09-29 05:06 pm (UTC)Linaeus had four divisions - homo Americanus, Europoeus, Asiaticus, Africanus - and Kant had four, maybe five, divisions.
I recall hearing Winnie Mandela being described as an African American person of gender, which feels more like a spoof on PCness.
(no subject)
Date: 2013-09-29 06:35 pm (UTC)I'd not heard that one before - though I suppose it's no different in principle from "person of colour". Can calling gays and lesbians "people of sexuality" be far behind?
(no subject)
Date: 2013-09-29 09:10 pm (UTC)What an interesting assumption of marked and unmarked categories.
(no subject)
Date: 2013-09-30 07:30 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-09-29 05:19 pm (UTC)Tangentially, it's interesting how the wheel of euphemism has nearly come full circle in the last half-century, in that "colored person" is now as far outside the sphere of civilized discourse as "person of color" is à la mode. (Of course the categories are different, though.)
(no subject)
Date: 2013-09-29 06:36 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-09-29 06:03 pm (UTC)It's always made me wonder that we are called "white" when we are pink and beige, and black people are called black when they are mostly brown.
And literally speaking we are all "people of colour". Pinky beige is a colour too.
(no subject)
Date: 2013-09-29 06:38 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-09-29 07:02 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-09-29 09:21 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-09-30 09:25 am (UTC)Indeed!
This all started here: http://petrusplancius.livejournal.com/265096.html#comments btw.
In Sweden, a black friend of mine, or maybe I should say brownish (his mum was from Stockholm and his dad from Kingston) used to say exactly what you point out about the idea of any "white" skin colour (not making a possible exception for what Michael Jackson later paid dearly for because back then he was still wearing his skin more brownish, in a strict colour sense): There are no white people anywhere, there are only pink people! Especially, when he pointed this out to them or as one might add: quite a few grey ones, too. I suppose those ought to form a nation nowadays, complete with nationalism and an army.
What we "white caucasians" or whatever we are by such definition can´t do however hard we try, is grow an afro as a blues fan I know dreams of doing "so high, I couldn´t sit upright in a car" and as my friend always did his hair til the day he died. Another Stockholm friend whose dad was a diplomat from Abidjan on the Côte d´Ivoire n'est-ce pas used to tie his up in knots before going to the next churchyard to talk to the dead "it´s expected of me and I find their conversation very interesting" after visiting northern light discos in blue plastic pants. In the 1970s too but that´s all in my biography, parts of which are posted here, thanks to
(no subject)
Date: 2013-09-29 11:03 pm (UTC)I think there's an underlying assumption of where certain people come from, and we stick to our guns on this despite evidence.
(no subject)
Date: 2013-09-30 06:52 am (UTC)That really surprises me! I don't have figures, but my assumption would have been that there are probably as many Jewish native English speakers as Jewish native speakers of any other language. (Half my friends list consists of Jewish native English speakers, for one thing!) Is that situation different in Australia?
On your other point, though - yes, I think people tend to use perceptual schemata as a convenient alternative to actually listening, and if their default assumption is "American" then you have to step quite grossly beyond the parameters of American speech for them to reconsider.
(no subject)
Date: 2013-10-01 10:18 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-09-30 02:14 pm (UTC)The one-l lama, he's a priest.
The two-l llama, he's a beast.
(no subject)
Date: 2013-09-30 02:37 pm (UTC)