African-American

[Brian Hitchcock]

(Wilson Gray posted, on Thu, 9 Feb 2012  at 01:29:18)
-------------------------------------------------
I don't know who you are, but " 'White' person" tells me more than I need to
know about you and your "thought-processes" - I use the term advisedly -
given that you've sent me what you yourself define as an "insult," a term
which you use quite loosely, given that, in order for me to take your e-mail
as other than a demonstration of asininity, I'd have to have at least a
modicum of interest in your expression of your unsolicited personal  opinion
of my post.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Gray has already demonstrated more than a modicum of interest, by his
attempt to out-civilize me with the carefully constructed syntax and
quasi-academic tone of his essentially puerile counter-insult. He focuses on
the insult and fails to address the substance of the points I raised. This
tends to confirm my original assessment of his essentially
pseudo-intellectual posture in this discussion.  And, yes, Mr. Gray knows
who I am; I am a member of ADS-Listserv, just as he is. No more, no less.
(By the way, I mentioned that I am *white*, only to make sure that Mr. Gray
realized that I am not one of the *colored* people he mentions, and that
therefore I am not defending Rev. Jackson on the basis of a common racial or
ethnic heritage.  But I see that Mr. Gray takes my self-designation only as
an opportunity to discount my intellect and devalue my opinion.)

To reiterate (or rather, to state for the first time to most of you):  I am
concerned about the manner in which Mr. Gray re-constructs both the meaning
of Rev. Jackson's words  (Every ethnic group in this country has a
reference...  which he reconstructs as ... every *white* ethnic group...)
as well as Rev. Jackson's underlying intent (which he reconstructs by
paraphrasing Elmore James, and citing the *great White Way*). Thus, by
figuratively putting other people's words in Mr. Jackson's mouth, and other
people's thoughts in Mr. Jackson's mind,  Mr. Gray attempts to bolster the
claim that Jesse Jackson, by championing the use of the term
*African-American*, was calling on *colored* people to take on themselves a
badge  of subservience, of *lick up behind them and take their mess*. When
Mr. Gray, having thus purportedly proved this claim, proceeds to dismiss the
term *African-American* as *utter nonsense*, he implies that he himself is a
better arbiter of what *way* (i.e., which word) the *colored* should use as
a *standard by which to define themselves.*  In short, Mr. Gray makes an
essentially POLITICAL/SOCIOLOGICAL argument,  leading to an essentially
MORAL conclusion, in what should be a LINGUISTIC (specifically, a Dialect)
forum.  Let me be clear, I do not applaud all Rev. Jackson's colorful
figures of speech, nor am I am defending his politics here.  He has turned
many a memorable phrase in his day, and coined a few -- mostly by stretching
the truth to make a point, as all successful advertising/political theater
does.  But if, as Mr. Gray suggests, Rev. Jackson was largely responsible
for popularizing the term "African-American", which gained significant
currency, even if only for a short while, that in itself seems noteworthy in
terms of dialect history.

I, as it happens, am an American, the majority of whose ancestors came from
England to North America, some of them at a time when no countries, in the
European sense, existed here.  I choose not to identify myself as an
*English-American*, but I feel it would be accurate to describe me as such.
How and when my ancestors came to America does not seem relevant in this
determination.  If they had come as indentured servants (as some English
immigrants did) would that fact have made me any less of an
English-American?  Poppycock, folderol and piffle!
Speaking of  *unsolicited personal opinion*:   Posting on ADS-listserv is
ipso facto an invitation for comment.  And as far as I know, ALL opinions
are personal, including mine and Mr. Gray's, whether they be made in public
or private, and whether the bias is succinctly and simply stated, or laden
with luxurious intellectual language and interleaved with literary
allusions.
My point is this: Rather than distorting Rev. Jackson's  views and impugning
(or defending) his  motives, in an attempt to prove him unqualified (or
qualified) to contribute to the popularization of a term in the American
vocabulary; and rather than  insulting one another, shall we instead examine
Rev. Jackson's actual influence on the dialect? Wouldn't  that be more in
the spirit of a discussion on the ADS-L?  So let's see if we can avoid
polemic, and keep our discussion on the subject of  dialect.
 1) Did Rev. Jackson propose the usage *African-American* as  a  moniker for
people of African and American descent? And did it gain some currency in
America? When, and for how long, and how widely was/is it used, and among
which sub-groups?  What factors have influenced the term's waxing and
waning?
2)  If the term "African-American" is utter nonsense, does this mean that
the terms "European-American" and "Asian-American" are likewise utter
nonsense? Should we shun any hyphenated-American construction, on linguistic
grounds? That is, should we take issue with these terms' semantic
inaccuracy? And if so, is it the inaccuracy of the first part of the
compound, or of the second part ("American") that we should take issue with?
Or is that more of a semantic, rather  than a Dialect, concern?
3) If we are to consider semantics, how should we deal with the absurd
inaccuracy of the terms "white", "black" and "colored" as applied to human
beings?    These terms are all  more imprecise, and potentially more
misleading, than "African-American".

Brian Hitchcock
Torrance, CA

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org