Why white people favor “African-Americans”

The word "Black" can be disruptive, disarming and political. Here's what it really means when I choose to use it.


"It’s the Blackness that scares everybody": Why white people favor "African-Americans"Tamir Rice, Oprah Winfrey, Mike Brown, Barack Obama (Credit: AP/Reuters/Jordan Strauss/Saul Loeb)
A new study from professor Erika Hall of Emory University’s Goizueta Business School suggests that white people have a far more negative view of the term “Black” than they do of the term “African-American.” For instance, study participants routinely concluded that a person had a higher level of education and job status, if that person was referred to as African-American rather than Black.  “Only 38.46% of participants in the Black racial label estimated that the target was in a managerial position, while 73% of the targets in the African-American racial label condition estimated that the target was in a managerial position.” When the study controlled for the alternate use of “white” versus “Caucasian,” there was no significant perception of difference. Study participants also concluded that targets identified as “African-American” were perceived to have a higher socioeconomic status, to generally be more competent, and to have a “warmer” personality.
“Black” was the first racial label I learned, perhaps because my mother was a child of the 1970s. I was never taught to refer to myself as African-American, and must have intuited that this was the “proper” way to refer to myself after checking boxes on a school form.
In one of our many on-the-playground-at-recess conversations, my white childhood best friend told me that her mother taught her to refer to Black people as “African-American,” and white people as “Caucasian American.” One of my mother’s old boyfriends always referred to white people as “Caucasians,” and the term never caught on for me. Since I didn’t particularly like him, his use of the term always struck me as him trying too hard to “talk proper.”
To this day, if I’m not being really deliberate, or really formal, I refer to myself and other African Americans as “Black.” Blackness rolls off the tongue in just that certain way when I say it loud and proud. I sometimes notice white eyebrows raising when I dare to say the word “Black,” sitting around a boardroom table. It is disruptive. And disarming. And political.
As a kid, I thought “African-American” sounded like a mouthful. Now I’m glad my best friend’s mom taught her to say it.  I don’t have a problem with white people using the term “Black.” But sometimes I do, when it rolls off white tongues like an accusation.



Now that racial politics in the U.S. South are not my only frame of reference, my investment in the term “Black” also has to do with being in solidarity with the many other Black people in this country and in the world, who are not American, who hail from the Caribbean or the Continent or other European countries, too. Though racial politics play out differently in all those locales, what we share in common is the global problem of white supremacy. And it is because of these shared political histories, and because of the political legacy of Blackness, that I capitalize this word, even though I frequently do not capitalize “white.”
But what does it mean that white people prefer the politically less-charged term “African-American”? Why are white people so invested in how Black people refer to themselves? I mean, isn’t all the external policing about why Black people get to use the “N-word” — as though it’s some sort of prize, mind you– just white people being entirely too concerned about how Black people choose to refer to themselves?
Perhaps the adoption of an American identity, even a hyphenated one, makes Black people feel safer to white people. Perhaps adoption of that moniker signals that we are willing to fall into step and into line with what America says about us. Perhaps Blackness really does conjure visions of insurrectionary dark-skinned people ready to revolt against the violent machinations of whiteness.
I don’t know. At least not fully.  But I know two things.
I want each and every name that belongs to me. And I want the power to decide what to do with them, when to use them, and what to let you call me. For the ability to name oneself is power—a power too long denied to African-American people.
To be clear, Black people have been obsessed with how we refer to ourselves ever since we had the freedom to choose. In her 1904 essay “Do We Need Another Name?” Fannie Barrier Williams outlined the existing debates between Black intellectuals over whether we should call ourselves “colored,” “Negro” or “Afro-American.” W.E.B. Du Bois, said, “I am a Negro. And a Negro’s son.” But a Dr. T.R. Abbott of Toronto argued, “ a new and distinctive name is required. I know of no other so appropriate as Afro-American.”
In the 1960s, Pauli Murray patently refused to call herself “Black,” preferring the term “Negro.” For her, the struggle to have newspapers capitalize “Negro” was a hard-fought battle, and one she didn’t want to give up to adopt the more militant “Black.” One of her students even begin to keep a tally in her lectures at Brandeis in the late 1960s of how many times she used “Negro” versus “Black.”
This current debate, then, is not new. Black people have long known that the terms by which we refer to ourselves have political implications, and influence how white people understand and interact with us.
Second, I know this study officially demonstrates something that the #BlackLivesMatter movement has been implicitly telling us for months now. You can hold great respect for individual African-Americans and still be deeply invested in anti-Blackness as an ideology and a way of life.
African-American (Black) exceptionalism won’t cure anti-Blackness. Oprah Winfrey and Michael Jordan are exceptional African-Americans. Barack Obama is an exceptional African-American. But Mike Brown and Tamir Rice were just Black boys in the hood.
These differing Black realities can co-exist because of the paradox at the heart of American exceptionalism. This country’s grand “experiment with democracy” was built on the fundamental contradiction of meaning only some men (and no women) were created equal when it said all men.
W.E.B. Du Bois referred to our hyphenated identities as a “twoness,” a double-consciousness at the intersection of African identity and American identity. He wrote famously that these were “two warring souls in one dark body threatening to rip it asunder.” Blackness, to me, feels like singularity, like wholeness, like clarity. I do not want my Black body to be at war, and I do not consent to it being ripped asunder.
Over the weekend, I traveled to Harvard Law School to participate on a panel at the Harvard Black Law Students Association Spring Conference. These students are all summarily impressive – whip-smart, polished and poised to become leaders and powerhouses in their own right. And they know it. So when during our “Black Media Matters” panel, the question of positive representations of African-Americans on television came up, as it inevitably does in gatherings of this sort, the students were shocked when I told them that I am not particularly invested in all or most Black shows being “positive.”
Black lives are messy, complicated, difficult, brilliant, tragic, comedic, exasperating and awe-inspiring, often at the same damn time. I want to see all this on the screen, not just the good, positive parts. That is never the whole story.
But I was reminded how much young African-American strivers hold dear the belief in their own exceptionalism. My exceptionalism was a part of my personal legend as a young Black girl with dreams that took me far beyond my working-class, semi-rural Southern community.
I knew that it was precisely because I was “not like other Black people,” as my white friends used to tell me, that I had the opportunity of a fighting chance. I spent far too much of my childhood trying to figure out and navigate the terms of my sameness and my difference with other Black children, because while I did not want to be different than them, everyone – even them – told me I was.
The thing is, I never fully bought into the lie, though. I am a Black woman, formerly a Black girl, always a Black person who is proud of – because I was taught to be — my own Blackness. Because it is my Blackness – my kinky hair and dark brown skin and round posterior—that white supremacy devalues, not my “African-Americanness.”
This is why we must affirm that Black lives matter. It’s the Blackness that scares everybody. Especially if you embrace it. To be clear, I am an African-American, too. Whether conjoined by a hyphen, I carry both these places and these peoples in my veins and in my name.  But in affect, comportment, culture, politics and disposition to whiteness, I am unequivocally and unapologetically Black. Real Black. Now say it loud.

salon.

Popular posts from this blog

UK GENERAL ELECTIONS:Inquiry announced into memo alleging Sturgeon wants Tory election victory.

Ebola Outbreak: Guinea Declares Emergency As Overall Deaths From Ebola Rise To 1,069

Sandhurst's sheikhs: Why do so many Gulf royals receive military training in the UK? A parade outside the building at Sandhurst Continue reading the main story In today's Magazine The death list that names 5,000 victims Is this woman an apostate? Voices from a WW1 prison camp The Swiss selfie scandal Generations of foreign royals - particularly from the Middle East - have learned to be military leaders at the UK's Sandhurst officer training academy. But is that still a good idea, asks Matthew Teller. Since 1812, the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst, on the Surrey/Berkshire border, has been where the British Army trains its officers. It has a gruelling 44-week course testing the physical and intellectual skills of officer cadets and imbuing them with the values of the British Army. Alongside would-be British officers, Sandhurst has a tradition of drawing cadets from overseas. Many of the elite families of the Middle East have sent their sons and daughters. Perhaps the most notable was King Hussein of Jordan. Continue reading the main story Find out more Matthew Teller presents Sandhurst and the Sheikhs, a Whistledown production for BBC Radio 4, on Wednesday 27 August 2014 at 11:00 BST It will be available on iPlayer shortly after broadcast Four reigning Arab monarchs are graduates of Sandhurst and its affiliated colleges - King Abdullah of Jordan, King Hamad of Bahrain, Sheikh Tamim, Emir of Qatar, and Sultan Qaboos of Oman. Past monarchs include Sheikh Saad, Emir of Kuwait, and Sheikh Hamad, Emir of Qatar. Sandhurst's links have continued from the time when Britain was the major colonial power in the Gulf. "One thing the British were excellent at was consolidating their rule through spectacle," says Habiba Hamid, former foreign policy strategist to the rulers of Dubai and Abu Dhabi. "Pomp, ceremony, displays of military might, shock and awe - they all originate from the British military relationship." Sheikh Hamad Bin Isa Al Khalifa, King Abdullah, Sultan Qaboos Sandhurst alumni: King Hamad of Bahrain, King Abdullah of Jordan and Sultan Qaboos of Oman It's a place where future leaders get to know each other, says Michael Stephens, deputy director of the Royal United Services Institute, Qatar. And Sandhurst gives the UK influence in the Gulf. "The [UK] gets the kind of attention from Gulf policy elites that countries of our size, like France and others, don't get. It gives us the ability to punch above our weight. "You have people who've spent time in Britain, they have… connections to their mates, their teachers. Familiarity in politics is very beneficial in the Gulf context." "For British people who are drifting around the world, as I did as a soldier," says Brigadier Peter Sincock, former defence attache to Saudi Arabia, "you find people who were at Sandhurst and you have an immediate rapport. I think that's very helpful, for example, in the field of military sales." The Emir of Dubai Mohammad bin Rashid Al Maktoum with his son after his Passing Out Parade at Sandhurst in 2006 Sheikh Mohammad bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Emir of Dubai, with his son in uniform at Sandhurst in 2006 Her Majesty The Queen's Representative His Highness Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al-Thani, The Emir of Qatar inspects soldiers during the 144th Sovereign's Parade held at The Royal Military Academy Sandhurst on April 8, 2004 in Camberley, England. Some 470 Officer cadets took part of which 219 were commissioned into the British Army Hamad bin Khalifa Al-Thani, the Emir of Qatar until 2013, inspects soldiers at Sandhurst in 2004 Emotion doesn't always deliver. In 2013, despite the personal intervention of David Cameron, the UAE decided against buying the UK's Typhoon fighter jets. But elsewhere fellow feeling is paying dividends. "The Gulf monarchies have become important sources of capital," says Jane Kinninmont, deputy head of the Middle East/North Africa programme at the foreign affairs think tank Chatham House. "So you see the tallest building in London being financed by the Qataris, you see UK infrastructure and oilfield development being financed by the UAE. There's a desire - it can even seem like a desperation - to keep them onside for trade reasons." British policy in the Gulf is primarily "mercantile", says Dr Kristian Coates Ulrichsen, of the Baker Institute in Houston, Texas. Concerns over human rights and reform are secondary. The Shard at dusk The Shard was funded by Qatari investors In 2012 Sandhurst accepted a £15m donation from the UAE for a new accommodation block, named the Zayed Building after that country's founding ruler. In March 2013, Sandhurst's Mons Hall - a sports centre - was reopened as the King Hamad Hall, following a £3m donation from the monarch of Bahrain, who was educated at one of Sandhurst's affiliated colleges. The renaming proved controversial, partly because of the perceived slight towards the 1,600 British casualties at the Battle of Mons in August 1914 - and partly because of how Hamad and his government have dealt with political protest in Bahrain over the last three years. A critic might note that the third term of Sandhurst's Officer Commissioning Course covers counter-insurgency techniques and ways to manage public disorder. Since tension between Bahrain's majority Shia population and minority Sunni ruling elite boiled over in 2011, more than 80 civilians have died at the hands of the security forces, according to opposition estimates, though the government disputes the figures. Thirteen police officers have also lost their lives in the clashes. "The king has always felt that Sandhurst was a great place," says Sincock, chairman of the Bahrain Society, which promotes friendship between the UK and Bahrain. "Something like 20 of his immediate family have been there as cadets. He didn't really understand why there was such an outcry." David Cameron and King Hamad David Cameron meeting King Hamad in 2012... A protester is held back by police ... while protesters nearby opposed the Bahrain ruler's human rights record Crispin Black, a Sandhurst graduate and former instructor, says the academy should not have taken the money. "Everywhere you look there's a memorial to something, a building or a plaque that serves as a touchstone that takes you right to the heart of British military history. Calling this hall 'King Hamad Hall' ain't gonna do that." Sandhurst gave a written response to the criticism. "All donations to Sandhurst are in compliance with the UK's domestic and international legal obligations and our values as a nation. Over the years donations like this have saved the UK taxpayer a considerable amount of money." But what happens when Sandhurst's friends become enemies? In 2001, then-prime minister Tony Blair visited Damascus, marking a warming of relations between the UK and Syria. Shortly after, in 2003, Sandhurst was training officers from the Syrian armed forces. Now, of course, Syria is an international pariah. Journalist Michael Cockerell has written about Libyan dictator Colonel Gaddafi's time at the Army School of Education in Beaconsfield in 1966: "Three years [later], Gaddafi followed a tradition of foreign officers trained by the British Army. He made use of his newfound knowledge to seize political power in his own country." Ahmed Ali Sandhurst-trained Ahmed Ali was a key player in the Egyptian military's removal of Islamist President Mohammed Morsi That tradition persists. In the 1990s Egyptian colonel Ahmed Ali attended Sandhurst. In 2013 he was one of the key figures in the Egyptian military's removal of Islamist President Mohammed Morsi, now rewarded by a post in President Sisi's inner circle of advisers. In the late 1990s there were moves by the British government under Tony Blair to end Sandhurst's training of overseas cadets. Major-General Arthur Denaro, Middle East adviser to the defence secretary and commandant at Sandhurst in the late 1990s, describes the idea as part of the "ethical foreign policy" advocated by the late Robin Cook, then-foreign secretary. Tony Blair and Robin Cook Tony Blair and Robin Cook at one point planned to end Sandhurst's training of overseas cadets The funeral of King Hussein in 1999 appears to have scuppered the plan. "Coming to that funeral were the heads of state of almost every country in the world - and our prime minister was there, Tony Blair," says Major-General Denaro. "He happened to see me talking to heads of state - the Sultan of Brunei, the Sultan of Oman, the Bahrainis, the Saudis - and he said 'How do you know all these guys?' The answer was because they went to Sandhurst." Today, Sandhurst has reportedly trained more officer cadets from the UAE than from any other country bar the UK. The May 2014 intake included 72 overseas cadets, around 40% of whom were from the Middle East. "In the future," says Maryam al-Khawaja, acting president of the Bahrain Centre for Human Rights, "people will look back at how much Britain messed up in the [Middle East] because they wanted to sell more Typhoon jets to Bahrain, rather than stand behind the values of human rights and democracy." "It's one thing saying we're inculcating benign values, but that's not happening," says Habiba Hamid. Sandhurst is "a relic of the colonial past. They're not [teaching] the civic values we ought to find in democratically elected leaders." line Who else went to Sandhurst? Princes William and Harry, Winston Churchill, Ian Fleming, Katie Hopkins, Antony Beevor, James Blunt, Josh Lewsey, Devon Harris (From left to right) Princes William and Harry Sir Winston Churchill Ian Fleming, creator of James Bond (but did not complete training) Katie Hopkins, reality TV star Antony Beevor, historian James Blunt, singer-songwriter Josh Lewsey, World Cup-winning England rugby player Devon Harris, member of Jamaica's first bobsleigh team line Sandhurst says that "building international relations through military exchanges and education is a key pillar of the UK's international engagement strategy". Sandhurst may be marvellous for the UK, a country where the army is subservient to government, but it is also delivering militarily-trained officers to Middle Eastern monarchies where, often, armies seem to exist to defend not the nation but the ruling family.