I've been complaining about the hyphenated American thing since I was in high school 30 years ago. Of course back then it was equally (more?) verboten to say such things as it is now but back then even black people weren't quite sure how to handle it. Some sucked right into the langauge games, others did not, but the confusion was palpable regardless.
Then of course the progressives - as we know them now - tried to crowbar me into self-labeling as Italian/German/French-American, which afforded me the opportunity to illuminate the absurdity. Today, as a therapist, I actively resist labels altogther because they are limiting by their own design, which stifles personal growth. The cultural Marxists, however, need us to be atomized and living in disunity because that makes us easier to control, especially when we're fighting one another based on differences rather than similarities.
Thanks for writing this, it's long overdue, and we need the message to be louder and wider spread.
I participated in a study abroad program in Bristol, England, during my last year in college in 1979. Back then, I was a say-it-loud, I'm black, and I'm proud, them-versus-us young afro-wearing woman, and all that it embodied. However, my rude awakening occurred when, throughout my nearly 4-month stay in England, I was always introduced as an American. The word "black" was never, ever mentioned. As the years progressed and I evolved, I realized that other groups were no more American than former slaves and their descendants who labored and made considerable contributions to America. Blacks should happily say it loud, I am American and proud!
Mr. Qualls almost (but not quite) makes me want to move to Minnesota, so I can vote for him.
I guess I could do a mail-in ballot and lie about my residency. That's easy enough to do, thanks to the democratic party, but I'm cursed with an honesty streak.
I'd like to add a tweak to this well-said understanding of Black American identity from a different angle. I was at a conference several decades ago in Southern California. At a UC campus. A Black American law professor told of his experience visiting Africa. He was asked what tribe he belonged to. He said he was an African-American. Still, the questioning was insistent. 'What tribe are you from?' After several go arounds, the questioner came to the conclusion, "Oh, you are from the African-American tribe." What I think my tweak adds is a reminder that while we may have a well-grounded understanding of who we are (which is important), others may, and will, put us into their identity boxes. I never took this as derogatory when I was a cultural anthropologist and an obvious "gringo," but as an opening to a broader conversation. I took that as a positive instead of just staring at each others' identity boxes.
I hope you win this election. Minnesota needs common sense and you seem to have plenty to share. Great read, reminding us what it is to be part of a nation.
Great post. There’s a longstanding legacy of leaders making this argument back to the Founding. Richard Allen, James Forten, Benjamin Banneker, and many others have all rightfully made the same point. There is no separating “black America” from America - we’ve all been in this together from the start.
It is understandable that Blacks have had difficulty forming an identity within a society that had exploited them for centuries—and yet, any real, durable identity had to be formed from that adulterated raw material. What other choice was there? Identities must be forged from the stuff of actual experience, otherwise they are abstractions that cannot perform the functions of identities. (Which is why adopting an "African" name, wearing kente cloth, or adding African to one's demographic description does not make one an "African.") Black Americans did form a coherent identity despite all of the contradictions that might've been inherent in it. As individuals, we have all sorts of parts to our personalities and identities that we feel do not fit, and yet they do because we exist as whole people: we are who we are; the problem is how we choose to think about that reality, whether we accept it or remain conflicted about it. Much of the confusion arises from one of the most quoted—and I argue the most misunderstood—passages in all of Black American intellectual history, one penned by W.E.B Du Bois in "The Souls of Black Folk":
"After the Egyptian and Indian, the Greek and Roman, the Teuton and Mongolian, the Negro is a sort of seventh son, born with a veil, and gifted with second-sight in this American world,—a world which yields him no true self-consciousness, but only lets him see himself through the revelation of the other world. It is a peculiar sensation, this double-consciousness, this sense of always looking at one’s self through the eyes of others, of measuring one’s soul by the tape of a world that looks on in amused contempt and pity. One ever feels his two-ness,—an American, a Negro; two souls, two thoughts, two unreconciled strivings; two warring ideals in one dark body, whose dogged strength alone keeps it from being torn asunder."
Scholars have regarded this passage as the perfect explanation of the relationship between Blacks and America. Blacks have a divided soul and cannot form an identity without filtering that identity through negative white perceptions. The most problematic sentence is this one: "One ever feels his two-ness,—an American, a Negro; two souls, two thoughts, two unreconciled strivings; two warring ideals in one dark body, whose dogged strength alone keeps it from being torn asunder." Exactly what are these separate souls, thoughts, unreconciled strivings, and warring ideals? What is the difference between being an American and a Negro? In other words, what does the Black American want that is the polar opposite of what the real, "White" American wants? Most scholars interpret this as Black people not being able to enjoy all of the benefits of citizenship and belonging that White Americans enjoy, but that is not the same thing as saying that Black people and White people want antithetical things, as the passage argues. That is both groups sharing ideals, goals, etc. What are these different desires that are so powerful that it is only the strength of Black bodies that keep them from being torn apart?
Du Bois never says in this writing or any others. The passage is powerful rhetorically but is confusing analytically. Nevertheless, it has been the most consistently used intellectual justification for this feeling of Black alienation from American culture. In my view this alienation is unnecessary. American culture is a powerful fusion of African, European, and Native American elements in its foundations, which were further expanded and strengthened over centuries by other groups. The role that Blacks have played in the creation of America in all of its myriad aspects—for good and for ill— is undeniable. All we have to do is claim that. What prevents us from doing so is the notion that America is a "white country" and not really ours. (This would be a shock to everyone from Frederick Douglass and Harriet Tubman to Martin Luther King and Ella Baker.) For most of the nation's history, most White people certainly thought that but that didn't make it true. Ralph Ellison captures this delusion beautifully in "Invisible Man." In the novel, the protagonist works at a paint factory whose most popular color is "Optic White." It is a white paint that is so potent that it can completely cover a lump of coal without leaving a trace of its blackness. And yet, the key ingredient in this paint is a single drop of a mysterious black chemical. To apply the metaphor to this essay, Optic White has been used to paint American history white, and far too many people—Black and White—have fallen for the optical illusion, resulting in division and identity confusion. It is time that we snap out of it and see ourselves and our country clearly, both as it was then and as it is now.
I do salute the writer for focusing on what, I think, is really slowing our progress as black Americans, a rejection of our full heritage as Americans. America is no longer rejecting us as it was for my generation when I grew up under Jim Crow. Most of the pathologies that block us from the Promised Land are self-inflicted, stemming from the fractured black family that improperly socializes our youth, spurring social problems. Too much so, we project many of our failures onto the country, avoiding self-reflection.
We are full citizens whose families have lived, worked, struggled, and sacrificed in the United States from the beginning of America. This nation is ours as much as anyone else’s.
And we are biologically akin to the European culture in which we live, as evidenced by the fact that 75 percent of us have European DNA.
How is African American any different than Italian American, Polish American, Irish American, etc. with or without the hyphen? Perhaps I live a sheltered life, but I don’t know anyone who believes that those other ethnic descriptors make those groups any less American. Or, now that I think of it, do all of them indicate the subtle arrogance of upper class WASPs, who are never called English Americans!
Thank you for taking the trouble to articulate this so well. I understand it's a challenge to those who have suffered or been genuinely disadvantaged by racism (as opposed to the oft-poor claims of disparity-mongers), to adopt the country and its tenets fully, if they see eternal minority-ship and eternal racism as inevitable. But I agree 'African' is not an optimal descriptor.
Also, language structure partly determines meaning. The order of adjectives is always fascinating to me, plus in French and some other languages, the adjective usually comes after the noun. In English and German, it comes before. So in English I might have a rusty, blue car. This is a pain for the listener who must hold on to the list of adjectives before knowing what the thing is! In French I have a car, blue, rusty (which makes a lot more sense). The sequence is instructive about priority of nouns and adjectives. African-American at least prioritises American in our language structure. But new terms would do well to take linguistic priority structures into account.
I've been complaining about the hyphenated American thing since I was in high school 30 years ago. Of course back then it was equally (more?) verboten to say such things as it is now but back then even black people weren't quite sure how to handle it. Some sucked right into the langauge games, others did not, but the confusion was palpable regardless.
Then of course the progressives - as we know them now - tried to crowbar me into self-labeling as Italian/German/French-American, which afforded me the opportunity to illuminate the absurdity. Today, as a therapist, I actively resist labels altogther because they are limiting by their own design, which stifles personal growth. The cultural Marxists, however, need us to be atomized and living in disunity because that makes us easier to control, especially when we're fighting one another based on differences rather than similarities.
Thanks for writing this, it's long overdue, and we need the message to be louder and wider spread.
I participated in a study abroad program in Bristol, England, during my last year in college in 1979. Back then, I was a say-it-loud, I'm black, and I'm proud, them-versus-us young afro-wearing woman, and all that it embodied. However, my rude awakening occurred when, throughout my nearly 4-month stay in England, I was always introduced as an American. The word "black" was never, ever mentioned. As the years progressed and I evolved, I realized that other groups were no more American than former slaves and their descendants who labored and made considerable contributions to America. Blacks should happily say it loud, I am American and proud!
Mr. Qualls almost (but not quite) makes me want to move to Minnesota, so I can vote for him.
I guess I could do a mail-in ballot and lie about my residency. That's easy enough to do, thanks to the democratic party, but I'm cursed with an honesty streak.
I'd like to add a tweak to this well-said understanding of Black American identity from a different angle. I was at a conference several decades ago in Southern California. At a UC campus. A Black American law professor told of his experience visiting Africa. He was asked what tribe he belonged to. He said he was an African-American. Still, the questioning was insistent. 'What tribe are you from?' After several go arounds, the questioner came to the conclusion, "Oh, you are from the African-American tribe." What I think my tweak adds is a reminder that while we may have a well-grounded understanding of who we are (which is important), others may, and will, put us into their identity boxes. I never took this as derogatory when I was a cultural anthropologist and an obvious "gringo," but as an opening to a broader conversation. I took that as a positive instead of just staring at each others' identity boxes.
Boom 💥
I hope you win this election. Minnesota needs common sense and you seem to have plenty to share. Great read, reminding us what it is to be part of a nation.
Bravo!!! Spread this far and wide!!❤️❤️❤️
And all of God’s children say, “AMEN!”
Beautifully stated. Thank you and I hope you win MN!
Great post. There’s a longstanding legacy of leaders making this argument back to the Founding. Richard Allen, James Forten, Benjamin Banneker, and many others have all rightfully made the same point. There is no separating “black America” from America - we’ve all been in this together from the start.
Absolutely. Thank you for taking the time to put this out there.
It is understandable that Blacks have had difficulty forming an identity within a society that had exploited them for centuries—and yet, any real, durable identity had to be formed from that adulterated raw material. What other choice was there? Identities must be forged from the stuff of actual experience, otherwise they are abstractions that cannot perform the functions of identities. (Which is why adopting an "African" name, wearing kente cloth, or adding African to one's demographic description does not make one an "African.") Black Americans did form a coherent identity despite all of the contradictions that might've been inherent in it. As individuals, we have all sorts of parts to our personalities and identities that we feel do not fit, and yet they do because we exist as whole people: we are who we are; the problem is how we choose to think about that reality, whether we accept it or remain conflicted about it. Much of the confusion arises from one of the most quoted—and I argue the most misunderstood—passages in all of Black American intellectual history, one penned by W.E.B Du Bois in "The Souls of Black Folk":
"After the Egyptian and Indian, the Greek and Roman, the Teuton and Mongolian, the Negro is a sort of seventh son, born with a veil, and gifted with second-sight in this American world,—a world which yields him no true self-consciousness, but only lets him see himself through the revelation of the other world. It is a peculiar sensation, this double-consciousness, this sense of always looking at one’s self through the eyes of others, of measuring one’s soul by the tape of a world that looks on in amused contempt and pity. One ever feels his two-ness,—an American, a Negro; two souls, two thoughts, two unreconciled strivings; two warring ideals in one dark body, whose dogged strength alone keeps it from being torn asunder."
Scholars have regarded this passage as the perfect explanation of the relationship between Blacks and America. Blacks have a divided soul and cannot form an identity without filtering that identity through negative white perceptions. The most problematic sentence is this one: "One ever feels his two-ness,—an American, a Negro; two souls, two thoughts, two unreconciled strivings; two warring ideals in one dark body, whose dogged strength alone keeps it from being torn asunder." Exactly what are these separate souls, thoughts, unreconciled strivings, and warring ideals? What is the difference between being an American and a Negro? In other words, what does the Black American want that is the polar opposite of what the real, "White" American wants? Most scholars interpret this as Black people not being able to enjoy all of the benefits of citizenship and belonging that White Americans enjoy, but that is not the same thing as saying that Black people and White people want antithetical things, as the passage argues. That is both groups sharing ideals, goals, etc. What are these different desires that are so powerful that it is only the strength of Black bodies that keep them from being torn apart?
Du Bois never says in this writing or any others. The passage is powerful rhetorically but is confusing analytically. Nevertheless, it has been the most consistently used intellectual justification for this feeling of Black alienation from American culture. In my view this alienation is unnecessary. American culture is a powerful fusion of African, European, and Native American elements in its foundations, which were further expanded and strengthened over centuries by other groups. The role that Blacks have played in the creation of America in all of its myriad aspects—for good and for ill— is undeniable. All we have to do is claim that. What prevents us from doing so is the notion that America is a "white country" and not really ours. (This would be a shock to everyone from Frederick Douglass and Harriet Tubman to Martin Luther King and Ella Baker.) For most of the nation's history, most White people certainly thought that but that didn't make it true. Ralph Ellison captures this delusion beautifully in "Invisible Man." In the novel, the protagonist works at a paint factory whose most popular color is "Optic White." It is a white paint that is so potent that it can completely cover a lump of coal without leaving a trace of its blackness. And yet, the key ingredient in this paint is a single drop of a mysterious black chemical. To apply the metaphor to this essay, Optic White has been used to paint American history white, and far too many people—Black and White—have fallen for the optical illusion, resulting in division and identity confusion. It is time that we snap out of it and see ourselves and our country clearly, both as it was then and as it is now.
I do salute the writer for focusing on what, I think, is really slowing our progress as black Americans, a rejection of our full heritage as Americans. America is no longer rejecting us as it was for my generation when I grew up under Jim Crow. Most of the pathologies that block us from the Promised Land are self-inflicted, stemming from the fractured black family that improperly socializes our youth, spurring social problems. Too much so, we project many of our failures onto the country, avoiding self-reflection.
We are full citizens whose families have lived, worked, struggled, and sacrificed in the United States from the beginning of America. This nation is ours as much as anyone else’s.
And we are biologically akin to the European culture in which we live, as evidenced by the fact that 75 percent of us have European DNA.
How is African American any different than Italian American, Polish American, Irish American, etc. with or without the hyphen? Perhaps I live a sheltered life, but I don’t know anyone who believes that those other ethnic descriptors make those groups any less American. Or, now that I think of it, do all of them indicate the subtle arrogance of upper class WASPs, who are never called English Americans!
YES!!!!!
Thank you for taking the trouble to articulate this so well. I understand it's a challenge to those who have suffered or been genuinely disadvantaged by racism (as opposed to the oft-poor claims of disparity-mongers), to adopt the country and its tenets fully, if they see eternal minority-ship and eternal racism as inevitable. But I agree 'African' is not an optimal descriptor.
Also, language structure partly determines meaning. The order of adjectives is always fascinating to me, plus in French and some other languages, the adjective usually comes after the noun. In English and German, it comes before. So in English I might have a rusty, blue car. This is a pain for the listener who must hold on to the list of adjectives before knowing what the thing is! In French I have a car, blue, rusty (which makes a lot more sense). The sequence is instructive about priority of nouns and adjectives. African-American at least prioritises American in our language structure. But new terms would do well to take linguistic priority structures into account.