Black or African-American? Need some style input

[Holly K.]

Our copydesk chief asked me to ask you all which style your newspaper uses, and why: black or African-American. I guess we are contemplating a style change. Thanks in advance for your help.

[(sic) 'em]

"My" paper defers to the Associated Press, whose two entries I (for once) agree with:

black Acceptable for a person of the black race. African-American is acceptable for an American black person of African descent. (Use Negro only in names of organizations or in quotations.) Do not use colored as a synonym.

and

African-American Acceptable for an American black person of African descent. Black is also acceptable. The terms are not necessarily interchangeable. People from Caribbean nations, for example, generally refer to themselves as Caribbean-American. Follow a person's preference.

I prefer using "black" in most cases because it avoids agenda-driven labels and has a direct counterpart that is widely employed in place of alternatives: White. If it's in a quote or if I'm told the subject prefers it, African-American. As far as our current president goes, I think the limits of the second entry could be stretched to apply (but the first time we elect a woman to the highest office in the land, I suspect I'll be changing references to the accurate "first female president").

[bthrock]

We have our own stylebook, with parts of it inspired by or copied from numerous other sources. Here's the entry:

African-American: If the source state a preference for "African-American," that is acceptable.
"Black" is still preferred in the following instances:
--If that is the source's stated preference.
--If the source's preference is not known.
--In headlines to save space.
--In general references, such as in stories about polls and surveys.
--In proper names, such as Black History Month.
Please note that some black people, such as Haitians and Cubans, are not African, so "African-American" cannot be used indiscriminately.

[editer]

Please note that some black people, such as Haitians and Cubans, are not African, so "African-American" cannot be used indiscriminately.

Here's one of the tricky areas: Most (all?) black Haitians and Cubans are in Haiti and Cuba because their ancestors were taken there from Africa. The same is true of most blacks in the United States. So this alone doesn't seem like sufficient reason not to apply the African-American label to black Americans most recently from the Caribbean.

The AP note that many such folks prefer "Caribbean-American" is a better reason, and sufficient.

Apart from that, I agree with the approach in bthrock's post. (I think "African-American" is too imprecise to use regularly; we don't apply it to all Americans with African heritage, just the black ones, and not white people from South Africa or most people from North Africa. It also treats the continent as an undifferentiated whole, which is not desirable.)

[Dan Puckett]

Moreover, many dark-skinned people in Caribbean nations aren't descended from people who came from Africa, but rather from South Asia. In Trinidad and Tobago, for example, 40 percent of the population is ethnically South Asian, more than the 37.5 percent of African descent.

I always figure it's up to the source to describe his or her race or ethnicity, if that's an issue.

[mbrooky]

I also like bthrock's guidelines.

However, AP itself is breaking its rules right and left — at least here in Michigan. Just today an AP brief called a tribe Native American for a casino story, while the AP stylebook states American Indian is preferred. Last week, AP had African American. These were not inside quotes.

Of course, my beef with AP briefs has not been met with improvements; if anything, it's getting worse. They are so obviously written/edited by someone who only has TV journalism training!!! (And so I rant on........)

[redactor]

We have our own stylebook, with parts of it inspired by or copied from numerous other sources. Here's the entry:
Please note that some black people, such as Haitians and Cubans, are not African, so "African-American" cannot be used indiscriminately.

Neither are most African-Americans. The "African" has less to do with origin and more to do with descent.

[redactor]

I prefer using "black" in most cases because it avoids agenda-driven labels and has a direct counterpart that is widely employed in place of alternatives: White. If it's in a quote or if I'm told the subject prefers it, African-American. As far as our current president goes, I think the limits of the second entry could be stretched to apply (but the first time we elect a woman to the highest office in the land, I suspect I'll be changing references to the accurate "first female president").

"African-American" is widely accepted, so I'm indisposed to dismiss it as an "agenda-driven label." I'm not sure exactly what the agenda is. Of course, some do object to it, primarily because they argue they are not African.

It also has its own direct or near-direct counterparts (e.g. "Italian-American" or "Asian-American").

I don't find the "undifferentiated whole" argument persuasive. It seems that way only because history has made U.S.-born blacks largely an undifferentiated whole ethnically. Slavery has impeded blacks' ability to trace their roots beyond the continent itself, so that naturally became the focus instead. It's only practical since the national origin of ancestors is generally unknown and unimportant and the group that has become one. It is also an expression of pride in African heritage. The term still has less to do with defining the continent, though, evident in our reluctance to use it of African immigrants. Because of American history and culture, the "undifferentiated whole" argument could apply to anything linking U.S.-born blacks and Africa generally, which amounts to little more than trying to ignore the obvious. I don't think recognizing the connection between U.S.-born blacks and Africa impedes an understanding of Africa as diverse. This is the least of offenses in language and thought that drive a monolithic view of Africa, and avoiding it will not even begin to eradicate such ignorance.

I guess I prefer black because it sounds less formal and stiff. It's shorter, fewer seem to oppose it, and it avoids the risk of misapplication.

I think "black" and "white" would be better capitalized. They refer to races of people. I'm sure some would reject that as retrograde insofar as it appears to lend more import to race as we enter this "post-racial" society.

At one paper, "black" could be an adjective but never a noun. I never understood that, although I will concede that a nounal use in the singular would be odd. I've never referred to someone as "a black" or "a white."

[mbrooky]

This is a question that I don't think will ever be solved, but rather evolved. Right now, I go with black, as keeping with the traditional AP style — whether AP editors do or do not themselves.

Capitalizing Black and White doesn't seem to work; although it is a race, it is not a region or country that we/they/us come from — yet Indian or Hispanic is not exactly a region or country anymore.

Funny, though, you wouldn't use Red for Indians or Yellow for Asians or Brown for Hispanics.

So more questions than answers on this one!