(Before I start: as a mere European, can I ask for clarification: is “ass munch” an American PC term of endearment or a colourful term of opprobrium?)
Political Correctness. Wonderful idea, but it is a catch-all term which includes a lot of good stuff (don’t say “n***er” or “poofter” or “wog”) and a lot of silly stuff (“chairperson”, when “chair” was perfectly acceptable) and most of all a lot of fictitious stuff - urban legends - like “personhole cover” instead of “manhole cover”.
In America, you (they) say “African American” and you mean “negro” or “black”.
“African American” = 7 syllables, two words. “Black” = 1 syllable, 1 word.
And although “black” is a poor descriptive word, covering a range of shades and appearances, we all pretty much know what is meant by “black”, “brown” or “white”.
But take “African American”. For a start, if you see a man on the other side of the street, how do you know he’s American? “Look at that African American over there. That one: the tourist from England.”
Then there’s the African bit. The American Civil war was when, around 1840? So allowing a generation every 20 years, that means that someone born in the ACW could have great great great great great great grandchildren born in America. A so-called African American could easily be from the 10th generation born in the USA. But (s)he’s still “African”?
So, not only is African American 7 syllables and 2 words in the place of “black”, but it is less accurate, potentially misleading, and potentially divisive.
Is it my business as an Englishman? Yes, because some politicians are trying to introduce a similar set of labels here: Pakistani British, Caribbean British, etc. Such labels are clumsy, potentially divisive, and often inaccurate.
In the early 1980s, a friend of mine went on a racial awareness course with his job, and returned from it to tell me that “they” should all be called “blacks”. Nice short word. Unambiguous? No, because according to his course tutors, “black” was anyone who wasn’t “white” - which would lump “Afro-Caribbeans” (ahem!) with Pakistanis and Indians.
There are many racial tensions in this country. I have met people of Caribbean descent who despise people of direct African descent. There are huge cultural differences between Caribbean and African (and no doubt some similarities). Pakistanis and Indians dislike being mistaken for each other for the simple reason that their two countries have been at war or on the verge of war for as long as anyone can remember. Pakistanis are predominantly Muslim; Indians predominantly Hindu. Very different cultures. They can’t all be happy to be called “black” and lumped together on the basis of one poorly-defined physical characteristic.
Negro, as a word, comes indirectly from the Latin, meaning black. Niger (with one “g” is Latin for black. There is no rational reason why a word derived from Latin, but meaning “black” should be more or less offensive than the Old English equivalent (“blaec” is the root of “black”) It is people that have made the words offensive by context and tone.
Fashions change. Amongst themselves, many young black males are “reclaiming” “n***er” in an ironic but inclusive way. Homosexuals are doing the same with the word “queer”. Eventually, “African American” will become a term of derision amongst white racists, if it hasn’t already.
As an outsider, it seems to me that Americans use terms like “African American” because it is almost but not quite inclusive. “American” is the best thing you can possibly be, and “UnAmerican” is just about the worst thing you can be. “African American” implies good, but qualifies it. I don’t like that.
Then of course you have “native Americans”. But scientists will tell you that all homo sapiens originated from Africa. The distinction between “native” and someone whose family has ony been in the country since 1492 is a difficult one for me to grasp. Why not use their own words and tribal labels, if they still feel these to be relevant? If I were an Apache or Cheyenne or whatever, I would probably be much happier to be called an Apache or Cheyenne or whatever than to be called a “native American”. Or I might think, “That was generations ago; I’m just an Amercian.”
In the UK, we have white people whose backgrounds might be Celtic, Norse, Saxon, Mediterranean… we’ve been invaded and taken over by Celts, Romans, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Vikings, and Normans, and we have a germanic royal family. Only a certain type of person makes a point of referring to their origins as “Celtic” or “Anglo Saxon” and they are often factually incorrect. (My Nazi brother calls himself Anglo Saxon, but it is clear that he is wrong. Otherwise I’d be an Anglo Saxon too.)
.
