Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BoxOurEars (talk | contribs) at 11:43, 2 October 2005 (→A plea for references: 1964). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archived

White South Africans: Archived

Several past discussions on Talk:African American about White South Africans and whether the label "African American" would apply to them are now archived at Talk:African American/Archive:White South Africans. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:50, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Caribbean/West Indies: Archived

Several past discussions on Talk:African American about people in the West Indies, or about people in the U.S. of African ancestry via the West Indies, including (but not limited to) whether the label "African American" would apply to them are now archived at Talk:African American/Archive:West Indies -- Jmabel | Talk 07:48, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Crime, punishment, social problems, and bigotry: Archived

I'm trying to continue to group related topics together. I've archived several past discussions on Talk:African American, mostly related to crime, punishment, social problems, and bigotry. Lacking a good name, I'm just calling this archive Talk:African American/Archive 1—if someone has a name that is both mnemonic and neutral, a move might be in order. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:09, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Further archive

The rest of this seems not to categorize easily. There are a few stray specific questions and answers—usually a paragraph or two—and reams of discussion on whether "African American" is the right term. I've made the arbitrary decision to try to archive the portions of this that haven't had comments added in a few months. I am placing these at Talk:African American/Archive 2. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:55, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC) ... and Talk:African American/Archive 3, Talk:African American/Archive 4. Jmabel | Talk 20:56, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Purpose of this page

Why is this talk page on this site? There is no white american talk page, no white talk page, no european american talk page. Makes me sick. sundance 09:21, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Gee, poor thing. :( Here's a stomach discomfort bag. Actually, I think you misunderstand. You want a White American or a European American talk page? Then begin an article on White American or European American. deeceevoice 05:12, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To be included

Notes to self (or anyone else with time to contribute): Noble Drew Ali's Moorish Scientists (religion), Juneteenth (holidays), Congressional Black Caucus (political empowerment), disparities in sentencing & sentencing guidelines--three strikes (issues), fleshing out of Culture to include mention of and links to jazz, rhythm & blues, etc. And subheads!deeceevoice 08:40, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wikiproject?

Would folks consider a WikiProject on African Americans, Africans, the African Diaspora or an umbrella topic of all of these?

It would provide a venue for discussion, categorizing, provide suggested structure and format, and give direction to the creation and revision of articles.

It works very well for some Misplaced Pages categories; seems to me this is a good candidate for one. Quill 20:38, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Considering the kind of ill-informed, naive, silly or just plain racist crap one has to wade through on Misplaced Pages when dealing with issues pertaining to black people and the aparently relatively few contributors with real knowledge and sensitivity on the subject, I think you'd better leave well enough alone. deeceevoice 18:56, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Remember Matthew 7:1-5 before you go waving the "racism" flag. Blacks can be just as racist as Whites (if not moreso, from my experience), and this article does indeed seem to be biased. An article should be written from more than one perspective, not just from a pro-Black or pro-White (or pro-Eskimo) persepective, and i dont see why there should be any objection to a "wikiproject". BSveen 19:27, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

Actually, we have a disagreement there. "Bigoted"? Yes, unfortunately. "Racist," very rarely. But that's another discussion. Again, if there are instances of bias, then raise them, discuss them, fix them. Some nebulous, blanket allegation of "bias" means absolutely nothing. Further, after visiting your page, the fact that you readily characterize yourself as "anti-Muslim" doesn't provide too much in the way of positive expectation that you would know bias if it bit you on the rump. :-p deeceevoice 19:53, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think a Wikiproject is a great idea; this is an area that needs a lot of attention, and a good community to steer it in the right direction. - Sekicho 02:31, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Sekicho, here and above. I did look at Japan and this seems to be the way Misplaced Pages is handling country articles. I had in mind Egypt when I suggested this, and United Kingdom follows the same pattern. Of course, ethnicities in the U.S. aren't the same as countries, but I thought that a WikiProject here could serve as a model. I have no idea how many people there are at Misplaced Pages who are interested in or would get involved with organizing a project on African American issues; this remains to be seen. There don't seem to be dozens jumping on the bandwagon thus far! One good thing would be that if a core got together to organize and write, support in the way of editing and formatting would come from all over the Misplaced Pages. Quill 21:10, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

west africa

do african americans know much about african culture? I have a Nigerian friend and she says african americans are so different from their roots that to call them "west african" culturally would be an insult. Do they actually speak bantu, swahili, or any of the african languages? Or is it all made up, like the juneteenth holiday instead of christmas. She said african americans have more in common with people from southern states than with people actually from africa. She said dressing up in colorful tribal clothing and headbands is an insult to african heritage. She's from africa so I'm not really sure how african americans would make any of this.

Though entitled to her own opinion, your friend is tragically, abysmally ignorant. I'm not certain who "them" refers to ("...that to call them 'est frican' culturally would be an insult."). Presumably, you're referring to our roots -- which most definitely are in West and Sub-Saharan Africa. There can be no debate on this point; Africa is where our ancestors originated. In claiming our African heritage, we are simply saying, "We are an African people"; we are of Africa.

Frankly, your "friend"'s uninformed opinions on the matter are not terribly important to me as an African-American; we are who we are. And we can dress as we choose. I mean, really. Consider the fact that a hell of a lot more Africans wear Western clothing than African-Americans wear African-inspired attire. Further, your "friend" needs to get a clue and educate herself about African-American culture. Many Africans who are familiar with it readily see many similarities in our cultural traditions. Perhaps you should direct your friend to read some of the articles on Misplaced Pages which treat African-American culture: jazz, blues, African American Vernacular English, for example -- and then challenge her to repeat the same ignorant opinions (which to me sound colored by resentments/biases, rather than informed by concrete knowledge). deeceevoice 06:29, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And, no. I would venture to say that many African-Americans probably don't know much about African culture(s) -- probably about as much as anyone might know about a continent about which they've learned only vicariously and whose ancestors left that continent's shores centuries before.

One correction of a misapprehension implicit in one of your comments: Juneteenth is a celebration of Emancipation that originated in Texas and Louisiana, and is celebrated -- as the name clearly suggests -- in June. The December, week-long, African-American holiday celebrated immediately after Christmas is Kwanzaa. deeceevoice 14:21, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That's why I prefer Black American because were aren't Africans. The African was bled out of us centuries ago. Your friends assinine and contemptuous comments show the schism that exist in the African diaspora. We are our own people with our own culture and our own history. Yes we have more in common with white Southerners because that is where the majority of our ancestors lived in bondage and developed thereafter. We have no ties with Africa other than our forefathers originated from Africa and don't need or desire any connection with a forsaken land that only have ill will for the most prosperous and affluence branch of the diaspora. Eurytus

Repeating the same ill-informed opinion citing the ignorance of otherss doesn't make your comments any less wrong. It sounds like you, too, could benefit from a reading of some of the articles treating African-American culture on this website. deeceevoice 05:36, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The article I think is inaccurate in stating "African-American culture is an amalgam of influences, the most persistent of which has been the cultural imprint of Africa." There may me traces of African culture remaining but the fact is, Africans brought to America often spoke different languages and were not taught to write. Because of this it was incredibly difficult to maintain their African culture (which I'm not sure there is an 'African' culture anyway, there is a bantu culture, swahili culture and shona culture for sure, but often the Africans brought to America had little in common anyway) especially when you're a slave more concerned with surviving and not getting beaten than preserving a cultural heritage. I'm not saying African Americans don't have a distinct culture, they clearly do as someone else has made a list of African-American cultural achievements, however the current line in the article is an overstatement if not outright false. --138.253.235.112 14:58, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

No. The statement is completely correct as I carefully crafted it. Read it again. To speak of the "cultural imprint of Africa" is not to speak of a singular culture. Secondly, "persistent" is defined variously as:

Main Entry: per·sis·tent Pronunciation: -t&nt Function: adjective Etymology: Latin persistent-, persistens, present participle of persistere Date: 1826

• 1 : existing for a long or longer than usual time or continuously: as a : retained beyond the usual period <a persistent leaf> b : continuing without change in function or structure <persistent gills> c : effective in the open for an appreciable time usually through slow volatilizing <mustard gas is persistent> d : degraded only slowly by the environment <persistent pesticides> e : remaining infective for a relatively long time in a vector after an initial period of incubation <persistent viruses>
• 2 a : continuing or inclined to persist in a course b : continuing to exist in spite of interference or treatment <a persistent cough>

per·sis·tent·ly adverb

Certainly, the word clearly applies to the imprint of African culture on Africans in the New World, which has persisted through the centuries, despite concerted attempts to obliterate it. deeceevoice 17:57, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually, that may be accurate. But in that case, I think it is misleading. It gives the impression that the biggest contributor to African culture is indegenous African culture. Which I would strongly dispute. I would support keeping the statement, but perhaps rewording it so as not to overemphasize things. --CJWilly 22:07, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

This talk page

I recently, and with great difficulty, cleaned up this talk page. About 2/3 of the sections were duplicated, in whole or in part, in no terribly obvious pattern. I some cases, one of the two versions of a section contained remarks not in the other. I've tried hard to preserve everything. Sincere apologies if anything got removed in the process, feel free to restore it. And I'm sure that the sections are no longer all in chronological order, but I'm pretty sure they haven't been in some time.

Anyway, it would be appreciated if someone would archive some of this. It might make sense to do archive a page just on the discussions of (1) whether African American is the most appropriate term and (2) whether recent white South African immigrants, Ethiopian immigrants, etc. are African American. Then when, inevitably, someone asks these questions again, we would have a single archive page to refer them to for the exhaustive, exhausting discussion. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:29, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I was going to suggest an archive; you beat me to it. I don't know how to do it myself. I think a note at the top of the TALK page indicating what the consensus is and where the archived discussions can be found would do wonders.

I also think it would be good to start this TALK page afresh from and request that people sign and date their comments and use indenting, to keep that type of chaos from happening again. Your cleanup efforts are appreciated.

Quill 23:00, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've been archiving (tediously: once pages get this big, Firefox chokes); I'm pretty far along. As for keeping the talk page clean: no notices will ever do that, but people should feel free (for example) to add a pseudo sig ("anon" plus a date) to newly added anonymous remarks, add a new section heading when the topic changes, etc. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:32, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Kudos to ya, darlin', for a job well done. If I had a medal, I'd definitely award it to you -- and it wouldn't be a rusty ol' barn star, either. Somethin' wit' bling. :) deeceevoice 18:04, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Give this man a medal

I've seen barn stars and all sorts of virtual hardware being awarded around this site to this or that Wikipedian for this and that thing. The archiving of this talk page is quite an effort. (((Somebody!))) Give this man (User:Jmabel) a medal! deeceevoice 05:47, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

racial profiling

Racial profiling needs a citation -- a line in there says afr.americans are more likely to be pulled over based on race alone. Without a citation I'm removing it.--172.191.103.186 20:45, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• "Racially Biased Policing: Determinants of Citizen Perceptions", by Ronald Weitzer and Steven Tuch, George Washington University, Washington, DC, published 2004 based on a survey conducted December 2002, estimates that 47% of victims of racial profiling are African American. I don't have access to the original, but it is cited online at in a document from Amnesty International. Will that do, and if not, what exactly are you looking for by way of citation? -- Jmabel | Talk June 29, 2005 01:05 (UTC)

• Those numbers are based on an "opinion poll" (the questions asked are not available). It also defines racial profiling as "....the targeting of individuals and groups by law enforcement officials, even partially, on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion, except where there is trustworthy information, relevant to the locality and timeframe, that links persons belonging to one of the aforementioned groups to an identified criminal incident or scheme." The statement you keep reverting says they are stopped due to race alone, not partially. The poll respondants also presumably have no way of knowing why they were stopped by police. A police officer will not pull you over and say "do you know why I'm stopping you? because you're <some ethnicity>" If you want to insert qualifications stating that a disproporionate # of african-americans believe they've been stopped due, in part, to their ethnicity, it is fine with me, but as it is the foundations don't support the strength of the statement. --155.91.19.73 29 June 2005 22:35 (UTC)

Common knowledge. There's more, but I won't waste my time. If you really want to know the truth, rather than are simply interested in reverting completely accurate text, then you'll search online yourself. I'm restoring the text. Again. *x* deeceevoice 30 June 2005 02:47 (UTC)

• The phenomenon of racial profiling has been reported on widely, but it is not common knowledge that people are pulled over on the basis of race alone. If it were I think you'd have an easier time showing some real numbers. Your link says that 12% of "blacks" and 10% of whites were pulled over in 1999. That additional TWO PERCENT could have been pulled over due to race alone, but there is no evidence of that whatsoever in the article other than the initial anecdote. My guess is that the cops have some excuse, however lame, to pull over almost all of those people: tail-light out, expired tabs, tinted windows, mud on a license plates, 26 in a 25mph zone, etc. It is also entirely possible that there is some other bias responsible for the 12% vs 10% difference. African Americans tend to live in urban settings, where there are more police to hassle everyone. If you want to adjust the statement to say that in 1999, 12% of blacks and 10% of whites were pulled over, but the statement that black folks are puled over for race ALONE remains unjustified. I did google for racial profiling statistics and didn't find anything to back up the statement and, anyway, if someone points out a possible unjustified statement in a page, the onus is on the creator/maintainer to prove it. Reverting, again. --172.196.0.97 30 June 2005 15:24 (UTC)
  • You have not indicated what you would consider acceptable for a citation. And I don't see anything in the sentence you deleted that is specific to being "pulled over" while driving. The sentence you removed said "They are more likely to be stopped by police simply because of their ethnicity." A "stop" is the initial contact by police that can, potentially, lead to an arrest; it is not limited to a "traffic stop". -- Jmabel | Talk July 1, 2005 06:52 (UTC)

Nomenclature section

There have been several recent edits to the "nomenclature" section. Some of them are probably OK, others seem wrong to me. No need to discuss what seems right; here are my issues:

• "The term African American has only been used in popular speech since the late eighties…" - I presume this is the 1980s (Jesse Jackson, mentioned later in the sentence) wasn't around in the 1880s), but I don't think it's true. I'm pretty sure I remember hearing it used quite a bit as early as about 1970, although I'll say quite honestly that I can't remember when it became more common to hear "African American" than "Afro-American". Anyway, it's very hard to document popular speech as against printed usage or even recorded speech. I'm not sure how one could ever verify this, unless it's with survey data on preferred terms. While I suspect that one could find a survey on the most preferred term to refer to an ethnic or racial group, it's probably very hard to find such data on what others have made it into popular speech. If we want to talk about when it came into usage, I suggest that we should stick to what can be documented.
• "…as well-known figures like Jesse Jackson pressed for the adoption of a term that was more meaningful than an inaccurate color and also had some cultural connotations, like the popular ethnic labels Irish-American or Polish-American..." Is there any evidence of Jesse Jackson specifically pushing this particular usage? I don't particularly recall him doing so in any way more systematic than simpy using it. "…had some cultural connotations…" seems vague and unverifiable. (The analogy to "Irish-American", "Polish-American", etc. is undoubtedly part of what made the term stick, but again it would be good to find some citation for that, as well.)
• "African American has been criticized because of its imprecise cultural and geographic meaning." "…has been criticized…" are definitely weasel words. Either we can cite some criticism (and it would be very relevant from what quarter that criticism came: very different if it came from a Black Nationalist or a Midwestern Republican white guy).
• "The term African American as originally advocated…": "advocated"? By whom? The issue isn't how the term was advocated, it's how it is used, and, indeed, it "refers to only those descended from a small number of black colonial indentured servants and the estimated 10 to 11 million Africans who arrived in the U.S. as slaves," etc. I think the phrase as originally advocated is a liability here.

Jmabel | Talk 06:26, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Getting this article featured.

This article is almost ready to be nominated as a featured article. The three things I see it needing before then are

1. A longer and more detailed list of references and external links
2. More images
3. A longer introductory paragraph that sums up the major points of the article.

If we get these done, I'd say it's ready. – Quadell 21:17, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Comment:

To my knowledge, the term african-american originated around the time of the founding of the organization of african american unity, established by malcolm x, el hajj malik el shabazz. according to his own words, the organization was to be patterned letter to letter, from the organization of african unity. now when the oaau was established in 1964, the term afican american american denoted a political term, including all dscendants of african slaves broght to the new world, including northern, central, southern america, as well as the carribean. even to this day certain africans of a more clarified political thought consider the term african american to represent this more inclusive definition.

i have never came across this particular page in wikipedia speaking on the topics of african-americans, the african diaspora, or the Maafa (swahili term for great tragedy, to describe slave trade that brought africans to america; many african-americans reer to themselves as survivors of the maafa.)

i think that asides from mentioning jesse jackson as the individual popularizing the term,'african american', (a grave historical error indeed), the article is educational,fair,and quite good.

references include: malcolm x speaks, any works on the maafa (especially from the afrocentric school of molefi asante), and the all african peoples revolutionary (one of their economists wrote a whole geopolitical piece on the term african american)

for fairness and objectivity i include the following comments. if you think these comments are helpful to finalizing the article, very well(i could more accurately give citations if you email me at eastside360@yahoo.com)

otherwise forgive me taking up your time.

sincerely, ramal lamar

gymnastics

The term does not include white, Indian or Arab immigrants from the African continent, and they are not considered Africans on the continent.

Boy, it's fascinating to watch the convoluted mental gymnastics invoked to justify the common usage of this term. As the statement stands, it is patently false. (An "African", by several dictionary definitions, is simply a "native or inhabitant of Africa".) I believe what you mean to say is that they are not considered to be indigenous Africans. But, by the same logic, it would be wrong for African Americans to consider themselves to be American, because they are not, after all, indigenous to North America. And of course, there are indigenous Africans who are not "black" (e.g. Berbers), so their specific excision from what is considered "African" only reveals the political intent. You can't have your indigenous cake and eat it, too. Revolver 19:00, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

At the risk of feeding a troll: usage of a term is not necessarily identical to its etymology. As far as I can tell, the "gymnastics" are here because a bunch of either dense, condescending, or outright racist white people wish to deny African Americans the right to determine their own designation, so it's been impossible to keep this simple. This is just like the fact that "Lithuanian American" doesn't include me as a descendant of Lithuanian Jews, and "Norwegian American" doesn't include my cousin who happens to have been born in Norway while her parents were there on her dad's Fulbright scholarship. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:16, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Nomenclature

'The term does not include white , Indian , or Arab immigrants from the African continent , and they are not considered Africans on the continent .'

What is the evidence for this statement?

These people are all considered as Africans in the demographics section of the Misplaced Pages article on Africa. Misplaced Pages is , therefore ,contradicting itself.

Morocco , Algeria , Tunisia , Libya , and Egypt are all African nations with Arabic populations . More than one hundred million North Africans are denied being recognised as Africans by whom?

The use of the term African American seems to be restricted to people of West African origin . Perhaps the term West-African American would be more appropriate . As it stands , the term African American is promoting ignorance of the ethnic diversity of the African continent.

--213.122.31.235 11:46, 30 August 2005 (UTC)ian29cent

We are writing an encyclopedia, not a manifesto. We are not here to judge what would be better terminology. We are here to describe the terminology actually used in the world. -- Jmabel | Talk 16:01, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Separate note

There is also a new term, "Afrimerican", created by an Afrimerican, and introduced in 1989 in reaction to the various terms, and levels of ambiguity of terms used to describe and define the race/ethnic group, and it is gaining acceptance, popularity, and more widespread use among Negroid and non-Negroid people in America, Germany, and other countries.

Just saw this added by an anon under "Nomenclature." My question is "huh?"

—  <TALKJNDRLINETALK>     18:38, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• Not the first time this has appeared, presumably the same anon. As I said whe reverting it about 10 days ago, "The less than 700 Google hits on "Afrimerican" (about half to a musical group) cast enormous doubt on the claim that any significant number of "African-American people... are adopting a new term..." -- Jmabel | Talk 04:46, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Large removal

This anonymous edit removed quite a bit of material, mostly about mixed race people. I'm not entirely sure of the merits of the material that was removed, so I'm not restoring, but others may want to look more closely. Among the material removed was quite a bit about Native American ancestry and a passage about "passing for white". -- Jmabel | Talk 15:57, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

My definition of African -American

African American: A person born in America who's indigenous ethnic origins are in Africa, I believe that this definition is appropriate since i dont know specifically what area in Africa my ancestors are from ,due to the fact that poor records were kept of the enslaved african people,though i do believe that I am part KHWE or "bushmen",do to my physical features of course today there are methods to genetically test specifically what area of the world your peoples originate (which i plan to take,then i can say im KHWE as opposed to just african)now if u have a white person who can take one of these test and the results and say the majority of their genetic material points toward african heritage and theyre born in america, then by all means you are an african - american, however if u move a polish community to the heart of the congo and they breed only with the polish there for 400 yrs there is no way in hell they would ever become indigenous africans! i mean what line of logic would lead anyone to believe such rediculous tripe?! black people in america are of african origin, as much as an irish american proudly displays their heritage and italians and welsh or chinese we also as african people are proud of our origins and history,why wouldnt we be ?we are the oldest people,discovered fire,created art,language,religion,and tools, we colonized europe, asia, and the americas and cultivated humanity IN AFRICA for the first 225000 yrs of the 275000 years modern man has existed on earth. So why would i want to be fool enough and deny my proud african heritage,or my american heritage for that matter? maybe a better question is why would anyone want me to deny my heritage? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.38.73 (talk • contribs) 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Ancestry

Recently removed, with a complaint about lack of citation, but with the comment "I believe you.": "Virtually all of them also have some European ancestry, and/or Native American ancestry."

Usually, if you think a statement is accurate but uncited, you don't start by deleting. You ask for citation, or look for it yourself.

This, from www.ancestrybydna.com, asserts that "the average African American has considerable European ancestry (actually, it’s 19.6%)", which tends to suggest that the comment was not way off base.

Does someone else have something more solid on this? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:54, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

This doesn't need an obscure citation, and there won't be a mainstream one for a while. I do believe you, but to believe is not to claim for fact. (Tee-hee, but God!) --VKokielov 06:03, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

whether you believe it or you don't, it doesn't make it any less of a fact nor does sufficient or lack of documentation. there are some things that are just apparent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.94.66.188 (talk • contribs) 19 Sept 2005 (UTC)

Links

It doesn't seem to me like Neo-Black.com deserves two links, bolded, in a separate section. I'm not even sure it deserves one link. But I leave it to someone who has been more actively working on this article to actually make the call. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:29, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

• And I see that the section keeps growing. Again, just noting that someone may want to keep more of an eye on this: I can imagine it turning into a link farm. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:32, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

A plea for references

Please, please add references to this (apparently well written) article supporting its statements. Remember that the criterion for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is not truth, but verifiability—it greatly weakens the article that we cannot source its facts and (especially) interpretations thereof. See also Misplaced Pages:No original research and Misplaced Pages:Cite sources. —Steven G. Johnson 23:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

1964

There are no "African Americans" because there is no nation named Africa America. In 1964, U. S. Presidential candidate Barry M. Goldwater claimed that (if elected) he would assign Negroes to a land of their own out west where the State of Oregon is located. Thomas Jefferson had advocated that Negroes be assigned to "the Pacific coast" (where Oregon and the State of Washington were created). In 1964, people in the United States began to say that Presidential candidate Barry M. Goldwater was crazy. He had been adored for ten years, but he lost his attractiveness after he promised that (if elected) he would, in his words, "separate the races."

The creation of "African Americans" resulted from the determination of the American landowners to re-name their slaves. Generally, Presidential candidate Barry M. Goldwater upset the caucasoid people who own the United States. The landowners still have not recovered from shock.

There are Indonesians because there is a nation called Indonesia. There are Lithuanians because there is a nation called Lithuania. There are Australians because there is a nation called Australia. There are no African Americans because there is no nation called Africa America. Colored people in the United States live in dilapidated buildings called slums. BoxOurEars 11:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)