Talk:African Americans

Have a question ....

Please help me . As far as I understand "African Americans(AA)" means those "Americans(Citizens of USA)" who had or whose parents had either African citizenship ,or ancestry . Then why make AA= Black Americans(BA)? The term AA is ethnic ?or based on skin?colour or based on ancestry ?

There are "black skin colour people" outside Africa too . So when we say AA why BA is automatically assumed. Example: "IF" a white south african citizen become usa citizen he will be AA but not BA . Similarly those from other continent who fortunately or unfortunately have black skin colour will be BA once become USA citizen even if they are not AA . Mike, the regular nose job (talk) 13:41, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Mike, the regular nose job. My understanding of the term African American, refers to decendants of enslaved people. Beyond that, I'm not sure. In UK it's generally Black British. This is because we have black people who originated from all over the world, especially the British colonies. I'm unsure what Americans use for white South Africans? Knitsey (talk) 14:34, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah that's the problem.

No disrespect to history of USA or its people or their struggles but the term AA and BA being used as interchangeable, which "I" believe is kinda dumb , you can't equal racial and ethnic optics , those are separate things or so I believe . Mike, the regular nose job (talk) 21:24, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

that is not what african American means. If someone is from africa their specific country is mention , example nigerian American. African American is the name of a specific ethnic group whose legacy goes back 400 plus years in the states. Danfranc37 (talk) 05:53, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Is there any source or writing , you can point me to ? Mike, the regular nose job (talk) 08:12, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2025

Request to add

See also: African-American leftism, African-American socialism, Black anarchism, Black liberalism, and Black populism

under African Americans#Politics

116.14.127.63 (talk) 11:25, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

That are a lot of links, but seeing how small this section is, I added them at your request. Friendly, Lova Falk (talk) 15:00, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

request a correction and clarification

Hello, I’d like to request a correction and clarification regarding the use of the term "African American" in this article.

The term “African American” specifically refers to Black Americans who are descendants of enslaved Africans in the United States—those whose lineage is directly tied to the legacy of chattel slavery, Reconstruction, Jim Crow, and the Civil Rights Movement. This ethnic group is distinct from Black immigrants and their children, whose cultural, historical, and social experiences are different.

Both Barack Obama and Kamala Harris are of Black heritage, but neither are descendants of American slavery. Obama’s father was Kenyan; Harris’s father is Jamaican and her mother is Indian. Labeling them as “African American” in the ethnic sense erases the specific history and legacy of U.S.-born Black Americans whose families were enslaved and systematically oppressed for centuries on U.S. soil.

This distinction is increasingly recognized in both academic and cultural conversations, and it is important for historical accuracy and respect for different Black identities.

Proposed edit: Replace “African American” with “Black” when describing their identity, or clarify that they are of Black immigrant descent and not African American in the ethnic or historical sense.

Supporting sources:

Gates, Henry Louis Jr. Who Is Black? One Nation's Definition

Coates, Ta-Nehisi. “The Case for Reparations,” The Atlantic

Wilkerson, Isabel. Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents

NPR: “Why Some Black Americans Are Rejecting the Term ‘African American’” https://www.npr.org/2020/07/06/887836148/why-some-black-americans-are-rejecting-the-term-african-american

This text was added on 11 April 2025 by user:Danfranc37 and given a section title and moved down by me. Lova Falk (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

As a response to user:Danfranc37, to replace “African American” with “Black” will not gain consensus because most black people (more than a billion) are not American. There has also been a recent discussion about changing the title “African American” into Black Americans (See Talk:African Americans/Archive 25#Requested move 27 March 2023) and the consensus was to not change it. Friendly, Lova Falk (talk) 07:55, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 20 April 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. There’s an overwhelming consensus to “not move”. Best, (closed by non-admin page mover) Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 05:11, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

---

African Americans → African-Americans – Wiktionary has wikt:African American as the alternative form of wikt:African-American. I guess Afro-American took off first, but now an incorrect/racistly avoiding the w:Hyphenated American controversy retronym was made. Lumbering in thought (talk) 02:51, 20 April 2025 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). Lumbering in thought (talk) 03:58, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I've taken a gander at the history and come away with the impression that debates have been had just with no one willing to put it to a vote/RFC. In 2004 deeceevoice(talk) who was in favor of the move to hyphenated dismissed the actual popularizer Jesse Jackson, because they seemed, tragically, more focused on winning the argument. It seems long overdue to make this change because of pages like w:African-American culture and my first reason. Lumbering in thought (talk) 03:58, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Support moving page to African-Americans

• Support When quantifying quotation amount on Wiktionary, w:African-American culture, and w:Anglo-American (the one I checked before I did this), it should change. However I indeed now checked w:German Americans and can see all the related ethnic groups on that page were formatted this new way, which was surprising. However, this still seems parochial to Wikipedia, especially since w:Anglo-Saxons seems to be left out simply because it's not on the American groups page yet a massively influential group historically, and they used to be hyphenated so much that Woodrow and Roosevelt made a federal case out of it. Lumbering in thought (talk) 17:54, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

  Note: Lumbering in thought is the nominator. Steel1943 (talk) 19:09, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

  And refactored the ongoing discussion to highlight this addition. Dekimasuよ! 04:37, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Oppose moving page to African-Americans

I have concerns about this proposal. I want to WP:BIKESHED the design before agreeing to anything. Lumbering in thought (talk) 17:47, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:DASH. I indeed support the page move, but NOT the proposed title. I prefer this page to moved as African–Americans (with en-dash), or if unnecessary, create that redlink as a redirect to proposed title. 103.111.102.118 (talk) 04:26, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. Normally the hyphenated form is an adjective, and the non-hyphenated form is a noun. The current title follows WP:NOUN and is WP:CONSISTENT with other articles in Category:Ethnic groups in the United States, such as Asian Americans, White Americans, and Hispanic and Latino Americans. The hyphenated form would be appropriate if the title were African-American people, which would be consistent with Category:African-American people, but I don't see a particular need to make that change. (For what it's worth, I closed what was probably the most recent move request at Talk:African Americans/Archive 25#Requested move 27 March 2023, where there was consensus against a move to Black Americans.) Dekimasuよ! 06:54, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

  Like real-time and real time, interesting. However, I would argue it's possible to view it as African-American person, and it leaves room for that to work. Lumbering in thought (talk) 17:54, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. As Dekimasu says, it is consistent with other articles. Lova Falk (talk) 07:46, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per Dekimasu, somehow we don’t have an article on Compound adjectives but see this. Article titles are nouns (WP:NOUN) Kowal2701 (talk) 15:43, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per Dekimasu, Kowal2701. I agree the title is a noun; another way to look at this is African here is the adjective and it modifies American(s), much like it can modify other nouns, as in African diaspora or African studies. Compound modifiers are discussed at MOS:HYPHEN; any concerns regarding African-American culture and the like should be taken up separately. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 18:22, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

  First, everything in the manual of style is geared towards language that hasn't evolved yet w:Manual_of_Style#Contested_vocabulary. This language has clearly evolved already, for the reason that American people exist. It should be dawning on everyone how messed up "American people" exist but "American person" doesn't in this rubric. Lumbering in thought (talk) 19:17, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

  I think you meant to link WP:Manual_of_Style#Contested_vocabulary but I don't follow how this applies. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 14:12, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose: To hyphen or not. No hard and fast rule. Usage differs between the US and UK. Although the word is considered a complex compound adjective it is also a noun. More specifically it is a compound noun. It has long been established it is written without a hyphen. It is a single unified adjective rather than a phrase. An example is "African American history". As a combination of two proper nouns, even when used as a compound adjective the two are commonly not hyphenated. Wikipedia gives a good argument: "African American", as a hyphen is seen to disparage minority populations as a hyphenated ethnicity." A point to consider: I have not studied in-depth the usage in British English, but the combined words are not hyphenated like American English, even though hyphens are used considerably more. Words such as pre-trial as opposed to pretrial, co-operation rather than cooperation. Usage of a hyphen, not normally used in American English, would be acceptable on articles written in British English. However, African American is not hyphenated in either. Capitalized proper nouns used as an adjective needs no clarification as there is no ambiguity because the combined words are considered a "single descriptive unit". -- Otr500 (talk) 13:09, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

  This is my assessment, as well. African American is usually not hyphenated but some sources do. It is more likely to be hyphenated as a modifier (African-American literature) than as a standalone noun, and is more likely to be hyphenated in British sources than in American sources, but I can't find any evidence that hyphenation is the norm even in these situations. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 15:18, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Discussion of moving page to African-Americans

Anglo-Saxon people = Anglo-Saxon people

Anglo-Saxons = Anglo-Saxon persons

Anglo-Saxon = Anglo-Saxon person Lumbering in thought (talk) 19:46, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

wikt:/wiki/alien#Noun As a noun, the use is sometimes derogatory? So wouldn't it be wiser to treat it less like a noun, say, by not having it be illegal alien, and instead illegal-alien? So I would argue it's better to treat it not as a substantive noun but as a noun adjunct. Admittedly it IS a noun in both cases. wikt:Appendix:Glossary#attributive Lumbering in thought (talk) 20:36, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Anglo-, Afro-, Franco-, Sino-, etc. are combining forms and always take a hyphen. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 14:14, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for correction

It is asserted in the genetic section that "...Historians estimate that 58% of enslaved women in the US aged 15–30 years were sexually assaulted by their slave owners and other White men." The citation for this being a paper (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6167003/) which substantiates its assertion with another citation, this time from a vawnet.org pamphlet (https://vawnet.org/sites/default/files/materials/files/2016-09/AR_SVAAWomenRevised.pdf). Our 58% figure is credited to historical book, 'Rape and Race in the Nineteenth-Century South' by Diane Somerville in the pamphlet, which (after reading the introduction and first chapter) seems to be about how enslaved Black men were given due legal process in rape accusations by white women, despite popular perception. Given this, I think the 58% figure should be jettisoned or a better source should be found. Thoughts? DakiniSlayer (talk) 23:13, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Very nice work tracing the number back! I will remove that sentence, without it the text still makes sense. Lova Falk (talk) 05:19, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Black American vs African American

Black American: Those that came to the US during enslavement (and their decedents), thus, they don’t historically know their ancestry, ie. exact location. Can be determined via dna tests but the culture and connection has been severed years ago.

African American- came to the US in the 1990s when there was an influx of Africans. These immigrants know where their grandparents are from.

It is just as important to distinguish these two groups as it is to distinguish Japanese from Chinese. Culturally they have no ties to each other. Itsemi (talk) 16:10, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia will use the "African American- came to the US in the 1990s" definition when most universities and mainstream media do. Perhaps that will happen soon. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:17, 16 June 2025 (UTC)