Is my childhood friend's baby an African-American?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

She is a half-Sioux and tribal member who originally lived in Standing Rock when I did (her family also moved to Bismarck later too, though her mother still works there and commutes more than an hour each way.) Meaning she's actually an "American" literally, as opposed to someone of European descent (OK she's half-European but a lot more "American" than most people living here.) Her husband is a white South African she met while he was working in the US on the oil fields, and they got married in South Africa and she lives there now, in a rural area on the Cape. She had her baby two weeks ago in South Africa, obviously the baby has dual citizenship and would be eligible for tribal membership.

I suppose she would actually be an American-African, the baby though, I dunno, I suppose either designation could go first.

[Donerail]

US definition of African-American basically equals black, so racially no. Geographically, yes.

[Simfan34]

This is why I dislike the term African American to refer to black people. If I had my way, I'd say yes.

[minionofmidas]

No.

[Platypus]

American-African, maybe.

[opebo]

I'd have to see a photo.

[minionofmidas]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's the census short definition. To make it workable, obviously you need to be aware of the following understood bits: Known, recognizable origins - usually visible origins. The census definition of Native American actually makes reference to applying only to people maintaining "tribal affiliation or community attachment", and that doesn't stop whites from going "oh, my great-grandmom was rumored to be part Cherokee on account of Black hair and highish cheekbones, so I'm mixed race!", but please be aware that these people are strictly speaking lying on their census form.
A person in the US of A. This follows, for one thing, from this being the US Census definition. Though you can stretch it to include all countries using similar constructions of race and sharing a similar history, ie much of the Americas - and also to include people elsewhere in the world descended from African-Americans as opposed to direct immigration from Africa, a valid distinction and one drawn by the British Census definitions.
"Black racial groups of Africa" is also highly vague - seems to rule out Berbers as well as immigrated Arabs and Boers and other South Africans, but I don't think they mean to exclude Khoi people. (And what about people who look Khoisanid but speak a Bantu language and would be recognized as "African" - formerly "Native" - in South Africa?) Mostly though, I think they just meant to point out that Papuas, Melanesians, Australian Aboriginals and even the darkest Dravidians are not "Blacks".


This person is in South Africa, a country quite without a history of Blacks being shipped as slaves from another continent, and with its own racial issues (understatement much?) and definitions.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Note that "race" has been pc-renamed "population group". I would assume that your childhood friend's baby is White, but it might also be Other. Before 1994, it would probably have been legally considered Coloured (though maybe not, I'm not really sure), but things have changed in that regard.

[Hatman 🍁]

No, because white people from Africa are not African, they're Europeans who settled in Africa (or had ancestors that did). So, she'll be Dutch-American or some such.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

My friend may be "Other", but I don't see why her 3/4 white son wouldn't be "white". I suppose someone 3/4 white and 1/4 black would be "Coloured", but to consider him Coloured considering the normal makeup of the group is quite odd.

And I wonder how many here would dispute his eligibility to run for President?

[Simfan34]

No, because white people from Africa are not African, they're Europeans who settled in Africa (or had ancestors that did). So, she'll be Dutch-American or some such.

Pure drivel. African is a geographic denonym, not a racial one. And calling Afrikaners Dutch is even sillier. They've had their stake in South Africa for centuries now, most before there was a US. It's like calling Canadians "British". It might not be the census's definition, but the child would logically be an African American in the manner of Asian Americans. Really she'd best be called South African American, but that sounds stupid.

Again, calling Black people African Americans is stupid, because there's very little that's African about them. Calling people in the South (where many identify as ethnic Americans) European-American sounds like something from the ramblings of an Ethnocentrist.

Perhaps I'm so sensitive to this because as a Ghanian-American and an Ethiopian-American, African-American would be the best descriptor of my background but the term has been misappropriated. Instead, I'm left with cumbersome terms.

[Hatman 🍁]

No, because white people from Africa are not African, they're Europeans who settled in Africa (or had ancestors that did). So, she'll be Dutch-American or some such.

It's like calling Canadians "British".

I don't see the problem here, most Canadians are of British descent. Although I'd prefer to be more specific such as saying "English" or "Scottish", just like I'd prefer those of African descent to use a tribal or national qualifier (and not something made up by westerners such as the Tutsis and Hutus.

Although, I suppose a case could be said that the Afrikaaners have been in South Africa long enough to qualify as their own ethnic group. But, that doesn't make them "African". African is a code word for Black, just like European is code word for white. It may not be politically (or even very accurate) correct, but that's the way it is in language. 

[MaxQue]

No, because white people from Africa are not African, they're Europeans who settled in Africa (or had ancestors that did). So, she'll be Dutch-American or some such.

It's like calling Canadians "British".

I don't see the problem here, most Canadians are of British descent.

The Quebecois people would say they aren't happy of that sentence.

[Simfan34]

No, because white people from Africa are not African, they're Europeans who settled in Africa (or had ancestors that did). So, she'll be Dutch-American or some such.

It's like calling Canadians "British".

I don't see the problem here, most Canadians are of British descent. Although I'd prefer to be more specific such as saying "English" or "Scottish", just like I'd prefer those of African descent to use a tribal or national qualifier (and not something made up by westerners such as the Tutsis and Hutus.

Although, I suppose a case could be said that the Afrikaaners have been in South Africa long enough to qualify as their own ethnic group. But, that doesn't make them "African". African is a code word for Black, just like European is code word for white. It may not be politically (or even very accurate) correct, but that's the way it is in language. 

But Canadians are not British. They're Canadian. As a Canadian, I would be offended if someone called me British.

[minionofmidas]

Canadian, in the early history of Canada, meant what's now called Québecois. As a result, of course, of their ancestors having been in the Americas far longer than the Anglos. (Also, as a geographic term "Canada" originally meant the Saint Lawrence Valley.) Then later, the Anglos started considering they too were Canadian, and the Francophones were named "French Canadian". Then along came the new style of Québec nationalism, and rather than reappropriate their name, they picked a new one.

There are parallels between the history of the Québecois and that of the Afrikaaners, of course.

(And yes, I see the issue with the term African-American blocking a natural term for 20th/21st century African immigrants.)

[MaxQue]

Then later, the Anglos started considering they too were Canadian, and the Francophones were named "French Canadian". Then along came the new style of Québec nationalism, and rather than reappropriate their name, they picked a new one.

To be more exact, I learned in my literature course than the people now know as Québécois used another expression between French Canadian and Québécois, in the 60's. After they stopped using French Canadian but before Québécois rose. I should check in my books tomorrow.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Wasn't Charlize Theron an African-American too? (Well, strictly speaking she's an Afrikaner-American, I suppose ).

[Hatman 🍁]

No, because white people from Africa are not African, they're Europeans who settled in Africa (or had ancestors that did). So, she'll be Dutch-American or some such.

It's like calling Canadians "British".

I don't see the problem here, most Canadians are of British descent. Although I'd prefer to be more specific such as saying "English" or "Scottish", just like I'd prefer those of African descent to use a tribal or national qualifier (and not something made up by westerners such as the Tutsis and Hutus.

Although, I suppose a case could be said that the Afrikaaners have been in South Africa long enough to qualify as their own ethnic group. But, that doesn't make them "African". African is a code word for Black, just like European is code word for white. It may not be politically (or even very accurate) correct, but that's the way it is in language. 

But Canadians are not British. They're Canadian.

By nationality, not by ethnicity (not necessarily, anyways... I suppose some of us have had ancestry here long enough to be considered "ethnically Canadian", whatever that means)

No, because white people from Africa are not African, they're Europeans who settled in Africa (or had ancestors that did). So, she'll be Dutch-American or some such.

It's like calling Canadians "British".

I don't see the problem here, most Canadians are of British descent.

The Quebecois people would say they aren't happy of that sentence.

I said most. I think we can agree that Quebecois are not most Canadians. To be more accurate, Canada is a nation of nations, with many different ethnic groups, the main ones being English, Irish, Scottish, French and Aboriginal.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Are Acadians considered Quebécois?

Also not all those who migrated to Cape Colony during its century plus of Dutch rule were actually Dutch. "Afrikaaner-American" would probably be a more appriopriate term tbh.

[Hatman 🍁]

Are Acadians considered Quebécois?

No!

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Are Acadians considered Quebécois?

No!

Then most of things said about Canadians in this thread aren't valid...

[Хahar 🤔]

The Montreal Canadiens are referred to as such because they were the French team of Montreal back when it had two teams.

[Hatman 🍁]

Are Acadians considered Quebécois?

No!

Then most of things said about Canadians in this thread aren't valid...

I do not follow. Acadians and Quebecois are very ethnically similar. Quebecois is more of a political label anyways, I prefer to refer to them as French Quebecker (or Franco-Quebecois if you will).

[J. J.]

My friend may be "Other", but I don't see why her 3/4 white son wouldn't be "white". I suppose someone 3/4 white and 1/4 black would be "Coloured", but to consider him Coloured considering the normal makeup of the group is quite odd.

And I wonder how many here would dispute his eligibility to run for President?

I have a far larger percentage of European ancestry, but list myself as mixed.

BTW, I think you would find a fairly high percentage of black Americans to be the descendents of Charlemagne.