The Term African American

[Ch2tf]

Originally Posted by Sista

I was being sarcastic.


I think you know what you are talking about, in terms of knowing what you have been taught. I didn't mean at all that what you have been taught was the real deal. I understand deep down below, what this social construction is all about. That is why I asked you to tell me how is it right or socially acceptable for British settlers to get a way with renaming their self South Africans? It is not right for them to do that and if we let people get away with thinking that because they forced their way into someone else's country and been there for a long time that that makes it okay for them to now say they are original Africans, we would really be setting our self op for future damage.

Social Construction is seems to be a well put together sociological theory that was put together not only for good converstation and food for thought but also to justify the theft of other peoples land and to justify the same rights of the people who first occupied that land. Political rights, rights of ownership to land and so forth. Social Construction, it is a set up.


How many black people do you know that stole land and then wanted to claim they were the originals to that land? If black people went to Europe right now, without even trying to steal the land and just settling there, no way in the world would they be trying to claim original Europenas to that land and if they did, they wouldn't even be able to get away with it.

First of all the "title" South African is NOT a race but a NATIONALITY. We were speaking on RACE as a social construct (i.e. black, white, latino, asian, etc.) White people, descendents of British settlers, and anyone else born in S. Africa are South Africans (national identity), just like a person born in the U.S is an American, just like someone born in Mexico is a Mexican. What you are talking about, from what I gather from your post(s) is colonization issues not 'race' issues. It may appear to be a 'race' issue because the parties involved are of different 'races', but what you seem to be concerned with is colonization. In many cases a discussion of 'race' runs parallel to that of colonization but they are not one in the same.

[7thSonofOsiris]

Originally Posted by Ch2tf

First of all the "title" South African is NOT a race but a NATIONALITY. We were speaking on RACE as a social construct (i.e. black, white, latino, asian, etc.) White people, descendents of British settlers, and anyone else born in S. Africa are South Africans (national identity), just like a person born in the U.S is an American, just like someone born in Mexico is a Mexican. What you are talking about, from what I gather from your post(s) is colonization issues not 'race' issues. It may appear to be a 'race' issue because the parties involved are of different 'races', but what you seem to be concerned with is colonization. In many cases a discussion of 'race' runs parallel to that of colonization but they are not one in the same.

Ch2tf,

Hey buddy!!!! I just want to add that, when defining a white person born in South Africa, the ethnotype is defined as South Afrikkaner. This is done specifically to make the distinction between blacks born in South Africa and whites born there. Sista, I hope tha you don't mind me trying to help school your catamitish ass, cause I do so out of love.

7th

[Sista]

Originally Posted by Ch2tf

First of all the "title" South African is NOT a race but a NATIONALITY. We were speaking on RACE as a social construct (i.e. black, white, latino, asian, etc.) White people, descendents of British settlers, and anyone else born in S. Africa are South Africans (national identity), just like a person born in the U.S is an American, just like someone born in Mexico is a Mexican. What you are talking about, from what I gather from your post(s) is colonization issues not 'race' issues. It may appear to be a 'race' issue because the parties involved are of different 'races', but what you seem to be concerned with is colonization. In many cases a discussion of 'race' runs parallel to that of colonization but they are not one in the same.

Ah, but that is the subtle trick of this whole situation. Historically, South Africans are blacks, African people. In a sense, you could just say that South Africans are the blacks who indigenously occupy the southern part of Africa as well as West Africans are the black people who indigenously occupy the West part of Africa. American is not entirely the same as your parallel to South Africa in terms of national identity. If a West African visited South Africa, he would not be seen as a foreigner yet he would be seen as a black person coming from the West of Africa. He would not be able to come into South Africa or any parts of Africa as a white person and be seen as anything but foreigner.


Historically, Americans are Native Americans reddish brown people. As well as Egypt is historically black African people. However, we don't talk much about those indigenous people who once belonged to those lands and it is a no wonder why for years producers have been getting away with depicting Egyptian characters as anything but black people; to the point where it has gotten that people actually think that the real Egyptians were anything but black. However when one looks at the Egyptian Hieroglyphics, the majority of the people on the Hieroglyphics are black, brown or reddish brown people and the only people who are depicted as white are the invaders. Not to mention, the DNA test done on the Mummies showed that the Egyptians had high levles of melanin equating to present African black people.

Any way, we don't hear anything about the above in history. My point is, conquerors, settlers and people who go around stealing land, they are the ones getting the credit for everything original, they are stealing the land, stealing the benefits of the land and now they are stealing the race, ethnicity and contributions that those particular races and ethnicity's of people contributed through out history. Pretty soon, because America was conquered by the white man, any contributions any American made weather the American is black, brown, native American or Asian, history will argue that people like Martin Luther King, Tupac and so forth were white people. Some will argue that people like Tupac and Martin were native American and some will argue that people like that were black or probably Asian . This whole social construction thing just sounds like propaganda which will promote that the theft of contributions, land and identity is just one of those things.

I can't tell you how many present day Moroccans and Egyptians who are white argue that historical Egyptians were white as well. They really think life began in North Africa with their people. Or do they really think that?

[Sista]

Originally Posted by 7thSonofOsiris

Ch2tf,

Hey buddy!!!! I just want to add that, when defining a white person born in South Africa, the ethnotype is defined as South Afrikkaner. This is done specifically to make the distinction between blacks born in South Africa and whites born there. Sista, I hope tha you don't mind me trying to help school your catamitish ass, cause I do so out of love.

7th

I am trying to find a source as we speak but you haven't heard about Whites residing in South Africa who are fighting for the right to be seen as African? These same people, most who were prominent figures in the apartheid movement, refuse to fill out census forms in which they would have to identify themselves as either African, White, Indian or Chinese. The same people who, back then during the apartheid regime, wanted nothing to be associated with blcak people and their cultures. Now that the tables have turned they want to be called the sons and daughters of the soil. What a joke!

[RU OX Alum]

here is a question....

why would the current south african government let anyone associated with the apart-tied (when even close friends were tied away from each other by instutionalized racialism [racism is different]) government stay in the country after the regime change?

also, do they still have three capitals?

[Wolfman]

Originally Posted by RU OX Alum

here is a question....

why would the current south african government let anyone associated with the apart-tied (when even close friends were tied away from each other by instutionalized racialism [racism is different]) government stay in the country after the regime change?

also, do they still have three capitals?

Remember this: economically, there was not a revolution per se. Whites were and still are the monied elites in the nation. The govt. has had to work with this reality, while attempting to open economic opportunities for blacks and other groups. Case in point: a brother in my present graduate chapter went to South Africa a few weeks ago on vacation. When he was Johanessburg, he went to an upscale restaurant. The only blacks there were the wait staff. When he entered the door the hostess warmly welcomed him and went out of her way to cater to him, remarking she was glad to see a black person there as a patron. So, in many ways, economically and socially, there is still de facto apartheid.

[Ch2tf]

Originally Posted by Sista

Any way, we don't hear anything about the above in history. My point is, conquerors, settlers and people who go around stealing land, they are the ones getting the credit for everything original, they are stealing the land, stealing the benefits of the land and now they are stealing the race, ethnicity and contributions that those particular races and ethnicity's of people contributed through out history.

And again I'm going to tell you that a substantial portion of your 'issue' is one that deals with colonization and its consequences. Race is often, if not always intertwined with said issue, but what you are speaking of needs to be dissected beyond the race factor. I personally do not have enough substantial knowledge of this particular situation, and I feel that your descriptions and diatribes do not come with enough background for me to make an informed statement on the facts of the case, but I will get back to you when I can.

Originally Posted by Sista

Pretty soon, because America was conquered by the white man, any contributions any American made weather the American is black, brown, native American or Asian, history will argue that people like Martin Luther King, Tupac and so forth were white people.

I Personally take issue with you comparing MLK to Tupac.

Originally Posted by Sista

I can't tell you how many present day Moroccans and Egyptians who are white argue that historical Egyptians were white as well. They really think life began in North Africa with their people. Or do they really think that?

There are a lot of people who believe a lot of things that may not be true. Even when informed and educated, people will often take a position on something that many others cannot fathom. It is a part of life. The only thing that can be done is to educate others. After that, it is up to the individuals. Hell the KKK still believes in killing Af-Am, that we don't belong here, etc. And as long as they exist they will, no matter what is done, how we progress, etc.

[macallan25]

Originally Posted by Sista

Any way, we don't hear anything about the above in history. My point is, conquerors, settlers and people who go around stealing land, they are the ones getting the credit for everything original, they are stealing the land, stealing the benefits of the land and now they are stealing the race, ethnicity and contributions that those particular races and ethnicity's of people contributed through out history. Pretty soon, because America was conquered by the white man, any contributions any American made weather the American is black, brown, native American or Asian, history will argue that people like Martin Luther King, Tupac and so forth were white people. Some will argue that people like Tupac and Martin were native American and some will argue that people like that were black or probably Asian . This whole social construction thing just sounds like propaganda which will promote that the theft of contributions, land and identity is just one of those things.

Did you just put the "contributions" of Tupac up there with those of Martin Luther King?

Aside from putting those two together in the same sentence......this whole paragraph is borderline ridiculous.

[Lady of Pearl]

Originally Posted by macallan25

Did you just put the "contributions" of Tupac up there with those of Martin Luther King?

Aside from putting those two together in the same sentence......this whole paragraph is borderline ridiculous.

[OOhsoflyDELTA#9]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Ooookay, so Sista is a complete idiot and needs to go to the lunatic farm.

Moving on...this was a good discussion.

old quote but just made me spit my drink on my work computer...thanks soror!!!!
LMAO!!!

[Sista]

Originally Posted by Ch2tf

And again I'm going to tell you that a substantial portion of your 'issue' is one that deals with colonization and its consequences. Race is often, if not always intertwined with said issue, but what you are speaking of needs to be dissected beyond the race factor. I personally do not have enough substantial knowledge of this particular situation, and I feel that your descriptions and diatribes do not come with enough background for me to make an informed statement on the facts of the case, but I will get back to you when I can. .

I don't see how colonization could interfere with the idea of Social construction when in fact, we were talking about Social construction in reference to the way blacks in America are viewed as, in terms of race.

Originally Posted by Ch2tf

I Personally take issue with you comparing MLK to Tupac..

I'm sorry, I should have made my self a bit more clear. I used Martin Luther King as an example because he got involved in a struggle where he struggled for all people, not only that, in the future, it could and would be easy to construe his full name for a name belonging to a European. Also, White people love to take credit for doing something as courageous as Martin did. I mentioned Tupac in the same sentence with Martin because I don't know if you have noticed but pretty soon, young blacks will get bored with Rapp music, as black people tend to get bored with many of their creations hence, moving onto something else. When that happens, white people hapily will pick it up and they have already been preparing to do so. White people have been observing how blacks tend to create and create over and over, hence leaving behind what they previously invented. White people will love to be the ones who take over and take full credit for rapp music. Next thing you know, Mackavelli will go from who he originally was, that being a white man, to Tupacs altered ego back to Tupac, in the futre of course, originally, being white. When that happens, of course, white people will have taken over and the black Tupac won't be anything but a myth whereas the true Tupac will be a white man. All of the urban Rapp movies will feature white Tupac...

Ha, ha, ha

[Ch2tf]

Originally Posted by Sista

I don't see how colonization could interfere with the idea of Social construction when in fact, we were talking about Social construction in reference to the way blacks in America are viewed as, in terms of race.

I'm sorry, I should have made my self a bit more clear. I used Martin Luther King as an example because he got involved in a struggle where he struggled for all people, not only that, in the future, it could and would be easy to construe his full name for a name belonging to a European. Also, White people love to take credit for doing something as courageous as Martin did. I mentioned Tupac in the same sentence with Martin because I don't know if you have noticed but pretty soon, young blacks will get bored with Rapp music, as black people tend to get bored with many of their creations hence, moving onto something else. When that happens, white people hapily will pick it up and they have already been preparing to do so. White people have been observing how blacks tend to create and create over and over, hence leaving behind what they previously invented. White people will love to be the ones who take over and take full credit for rapp music. Next thing you know, Mackavelli will go from who he originally was, that being a white man, to Tupacs altered ego back to Tupac, in the futre of course, originally, being white. When that happens, of course, white people will have taken over and the black Tupac won't be anything but a myth whereas the true Tupac will be a white man. All of the urban Rapp movies will feature white Tupac...

Ha, ha, ha

I now see how, no matter how much it is explained to you, and no matter how many sources you are referred to with regards to colonization and race as a social construct, you are not going to get it. I'll ask someone to pray for you because I don't even have the patience to do that.

[ChildoftheHorn]

I think wanda sykes has a good take on the whole matter....

[Sista]

Originally Posted by Ch2tf

I now see how, no matter how much it is explained to you, and no matter how many sources you are referred to with regards to colonization and race as a social construct, you are not going to get it. I'll ask someone to pray for you because I don't even have the patience to do that.

If people didn't integrate, there wouldn't be a such thing as colonization and there wouldn't be a such thing as racism, hence, there would not be a such thing as racial distinction. Maybe a such thing as class, higher and lower but not racism hence racial distinction. If not for colonailsim, theft of land and intergration, we would not be talking about Social Construction. Do you understand that? I don't care if you try and turn this around to make it seem as though I just don't get it. Bottom line, Social construction wouldn't have been thought of, if there wasn't some type of underlining propaganda to detour the not well thought out futurisitic/present results due to colonialism, integration and theft of land. Perfect example, South Africa.

Social Construction:
A social construction, or social construct, according to the school of social constructionism, is an idea which may appear to be natural and obvious to those who accept it, but in reality is an invention or artifact of a particular culture or society. The implication is that social constructs are human choices rather than laws of God or nature

• en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_construction

[macallan25]

Originally Posted by Sista

I'm sorry, I should have made my self a bit more clear. I used Martin Luther King as an example because he got involved in a struggle where he struggled for all people, not only that, in the future, it could and would be easy to construe his full name for a name belonging to a European. Also, White people love to take credit for doing something as courageous as Martin did. I mentioned Tupac in the same sentence with Martin because I don't know if you have noticed but pretty soon, young blacks will get bored with Rapp music, as black people tend to get bored with many of their creations hence, moving onto something else. When that happens, white people hapily will pick it up and they have already been preparing to do so. White people have been observing how blacks tend to create and create over and over, hence leaving behind what they previously invented. White people will love to be the ones who take over and take full credit for rapp music. Next thing you know, Mackavelli will go from who he originally was, that being a white man, to Tupacs altered ego back to Tupac, in the futre of course, originally, being white. When that happens, of course, white people will have taken over and the black Tupac won't be anything but a myth whereas the true Tupac will be a white man. All of the urban Rapp movies will feature white Tupac...

This is one of the most insanely fucking idiotic things I have ever read on this board. Shut up and get off of your high horse. You are an incredible moron.