If you interpret the term “American” to only refer to white people, maybe you’re the one with racial problems.

You're missing the point. "American" can be interpreted as racially neutral, but then why is "african-american" very common, but using "european-american" is almost non existent?. Same as "native-american".

The fact is that there already exists a racial default, I didn't make it, it simply exists due to the nuances of our society, its history and/or its media.

I didn't invent either term and I am not THE dictionary.

This is how these terms are interpreted by the world and also through simple logic. I am not the one who interprets these terms and their usage.

American society and culture is still severely segregated due to how crappily it dealt with the consequences of its racist history.

White americans are considered american and black americans are considered african americans. It is not a mutually exclusive truth, but it is the norm, and that's what we're talking about.

We're not talking about pure logic of meaning, we're talking about social usage of terms.

▲

philipallstar 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

> You're missing the point. "American" can be interpreted as racially neutral, but then why is "african-american" very common, but using "european-american" is almost non existent?. Same as "native-american".

Or Italian American.

> White americans are considered american and black americans are considered african americans. It is not a mutually exclusive truth, but it is the norm, and that's what we're talking about.

African American is an alternative to "black". It was not invented to make a lesser form of "American". Your simple logic is just wrong, as these things frequently are.

▲

Atlas667 2 days ago | parent [-]

> African American is an alternative to "black". It was not invented to make a lesser form of "American".

Man, I'm not saying its lesser. I'm talking about how its used.

I think you want to assign morality to my arguments when im being as neutral as possible.

In some widespread contexts "american" is racially defaulted to white. Full stop.

Like I said were not talking about the pure logical meaning of words were talking about how society uses them.

▲

philipallstar 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

> In some widespread contexts "american" is racially defaulted to white. Full stop.

Can you say what these widespread contexts are? Question mark.

▲

Atlas667 a day ago | parent [-]

When you need to specify what kind of lineage a person carries people will commonly say a person is "african-american" or "native-american", but never say "european-american".

As another comment pointed out this is in part due to racial majority being defaulted into the non-specific term "american". As in: most americans are white so "americans" is thought of as refering to the biggest group of americans.

And in part due to historical subjugation of those other "americans". As in: less than 80 years ago the term "americans" was used almost exclusively to refer to white americans due to systemic racism.

This context is still particularly prevalent in media headlines.

▲

philipallstar a day ago | parent [-]

> When you need to specify what kind of lineage a person carries people will commonly say a person is "african-american" or "native-american", but never say "european-american".

Well, as I say, Italian American is another one, and that's for white people. But more generally: these categories are (mostly) self-imposed (although I hear people who progressives would call "native American" actually call themselves "Indian"). African American is a substitute for "black", and driven by black Americans and progressives. It's a deliberate choice to enforce the label, just as it's a deliberate choice to have the n-word be, as they'd say, "our word". "people of color" is the same, although that's more an excluding category than an including one. This isn't coming from "systemic racism". It's coming from progressive academia, determined to re-divide America, and transitively everywhere else, in order to create some lovely social sciences problems to "solve".

	▲	Atlas667 a day ago \| parent [-]
		You say its "progressive academia" but unless people are reading sociology research papers the way nearly all people come upon this is through mass media. Is it now your theory to say that "progressive academia" controls mass media? Or do you think its fine to say that somehow viewers themselves control mass media? The truth is advertisers and shareholders control mass media. Your statement also hinges on the assumption that america was united, at least on racial issues, and is now trying to be divided. Back to the media. Your argument also uses the same rationalization as anti-DEI folks who blame a diversity-conspiracy when in reality it was just corporations (capitalism) trying to appear cool and understanding for more shareholder value. Every minority knew it was mostly a marketing gimmick by corporations (i knew). The analogy here is that you take something the media did for money and externalize it as a social-sciences conspiracy. The biggest mistake the masses do is thinking what the media and corporations do for money actually represents the will of the masses. That is the culture war. The fact of the matter is that there is a racial-default bias within mass media and little plastic toy companies (lego) due to historical contexts. There's also racial tip-toeing to avoid being seen as racist due to company reputation and shareholder value. You are focused on the latter.

▲

philwelch 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> In some widespread contexts "american" is racially defaulted to white. Full stop.

No, this is a personal problem on your part.

▲

Atlas667 a day ago | parent [-]

I'll just copy part of my other comment:

It is still particularly prevalent in media headlines.

I don't know why you think I would make this up, lol.

▲

philipallstar a day ago | parent | next [-]

> I don't know why you think I would make this up, lol.

You're in far less danger of being accused of originality than you are of regurgitating banality.

	▲	Atlas667 a day ago \| parent [-]
		Non comment. Disregarded.

▲

philwelch a day ago | parent | prev [-]

> I don't know why you think I would make this up

Because it's false, as I demonstrated in my other comment.

	▲	Atlas667 17 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Like I said in the other chain: What were civil rights issues about if not that "american" literally didn't apply to all of us on a constitutional/federal/state and cultural level? You seem to be fixated on pointing out that ultimate neutrality has always existed when referencing the term "american" when everything proves otherwise. And on top of that you want to say I'm biased because I'm pointing out that neutrality hasn't always existed around that term. Chill out, dude.

▲

account42 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> You're missing the point. "American" can be interpreted as racially neutral, but then why is "african-american" very common, but using "european-american" is almost non existent?

Because in the current ((zeitgeist)) Europeans are not allowed to have a racial identity.

	▲	AlexeyBelov a day ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Your comments are becoming really tiring, it's like reading certain parts of Reddit or 4chan.
	▲	freehorse 3 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		"European" is a racial identity more in the americas than in europe.

▲

philwelch 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> why is "african-american" very common, but using "european-american" is almost non existent?

You’re a couple decades out of date. “African American” isn’t that commonly used anymore; the much more commonly used term is “black”. Or if you want to make a finer distinction, I’ve also seen the term ADOS (American Descendant of Slaves).

“Native American” is a neologism white liberals made up in the 1970’s because they didn’t like the term “American Indian”. It turns out almost all of the American Indians at the time preferred “American Indian” to “Native American”, but nobody actually asked them.

“European American” isn’t commonly used because at the same time that “African American” was popular, so was the idea that white people shouldn’t have a racial self identity at all so there was zero impetus to try and push a politically correct euphemism for “white”. Even today a common style decision is to always capitalize the term “black” but not the term “white”.

Furthermore, whenever we do talk about people in terms of nationality, such as during the Olympic Games, black Americans are consistently referred to as “Americans” rather than “African Americans”.

Finally, what do you think was the internal logic of referring to black Americans as African Americans in the first place? It was to remind everyone that they are also Americans. It’s just like whenever people talk about Japanese-American internment during WW2, they add “American” to underscore the injustice of treating US citizens that way. A Japanese national who wasn’t a US citizen could more justifiably be detained, just as Germans and Italians were, but treating Americans that way is beyond the pale.

What you’re doing here is taking a phrasing that was intentionally designed to use American patriotism to improve public perception of black people and twisting it around into yet another insidious form of crypto-anti-black racism using insane troll logic. And in that respect, you are the one missing the point.

▲

Atlas667 a day ago | parent [-]

And so how does this relate to legos?

I was explaining reasonings for lego defaulting yellow into white.

The defaulting of "american" into white does happen frequently in news headlines by simple fact of often referring to black people as "african americans" and white people simply as "americans".

And like someone else pointed out in the thread there have also been studies who have researched this topic. I think it's a real bias people/media seems to have.

You may have a point with your retelling of the history of terms, I dont really know and I wont pretend to know. Though i sense some racial resentment in you with your statement that white people shouldn't, or weren't allowed to, have a racial self identity. But that is beside the point.

> Finally, what do you think was the internal logic of referring to black Americans as African Americans in the first place? It was to remind everyone that they are also Americans.

I don't think it was to subjugate them I think those are after effects of this country who systemically subdued other races and identified itself as white. In part that will never go away because the majority is still white. But there is a latent bias in there. And that's what I'm pointing out.

You're trying to accuse me of "crypto-anti-black racism" when I point out that we come from a racist society. Like I said before: 80 years ago+, 2-3 generations min, "americans" was meant to refer to white americans only. And that was almost 100 years AFTER slavery was abolished. The country was incredibly racist till relatively recently.

I am simply pointing out how the bias of a white nation still lives on in some way today and can be seen in the racial defaulting of little plastic figurine colors.

▲

philwelch a day ago | parent [-]

> You're trying to accuse me of "crypto-anti-black racism"

No, I'm saying you're accusing the people who coined the term "African American", or perhaps the term itself, of crypto anti-black racism.

> Like I said before: 80 years ago+, 2-3 generations min, "americans" was meant to refer to white americans only.

80 years ago was 1945. Let me quote from the Richmond Times-Dispatch on August 5, 1936, reporting on the performance of Jesse Owens in the Olympics. If you have access to newspapers.com you can follow this link to a clipping I created: https://www.newspapers.com/article/richmond-times-dispatch-j...

> The weather turned blustery with the day's usual shower but Reichsfuehrer Adolf Hitler and another capacity crowd of 100,000 jammed the big concrete stadium most of the day with Owens as the main magnet.

> Der Fuehrer joined in terrific applause accorded the American ace whose performances now have thrilled upwards of 300,000 spectators three straight days and given the Olympic games their most outstanding individual performer since Paavo Nurmi's exploits of 1924 when the "Phantom Finn" won three gold medals.

> After fouling on his first trial in the finals, Owens jumped 26 feet 39-64 inch, finally 26 feet 5 21-64 inches while the stadium echoed with a roar that could be heard all over the Olympic plant.

89 years ago, an American newspaper--one in the south, no less--referred to Jesse Owens, without any further qualification, as "the American ace".

The Cleveland Plain Dealer, on the same date: https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-plain-dealer-owens-cl...

> AMERICANS ROUT WORLD IN OLYMPICS > Owens Cracks Broad Jump Record as U.S. Wins Four Events. ... > The United States track and field forces put the athletes from the rest of the world to rout today in one of the greatest field days any nation ever experienced in Olympic competition. > Four times the Stars and Stripes waved triumphantly from the victory flagpole as Uncle Sam's stalwarts staged a smashing exhibition of sprinting, leaping, and hurdling before a crowd of 110,000. > Americans made a clean sweep of all championships in the men's division, retaining their broad jump supremacy with a record-breaking Olympic leap by John Cleveland (Jesse) Owens, 22-year-old Ohio State Negro...

The story does state Owens' race in a dated and uncomfortable way. (Remind me, which one of us is arguing that it's awkward and uncomfortable to emphasize someone's race?) But note that prior to doing so, the article twice includes Owens in statements about "Americans" routing the world and making a clean sweep of championships, and lauds him as one of "Uncle Sam's stalwarts". I'm not saying that racism didn't exist in 1936 or that Jesse Owens was treated fairly, but there was no inhibition against referring to him, or any other black American, as an American whenever it was relevant to do so.

> And so how does this relate to legos?

I would be justified in asking you the same question. Legos are Danish. It's not actually clear how the history of American racism or the applicability of the term "American" to black people prior to 1945 has any bearing on the creative intent of a Danish toy manufacturer, and if anything it's a little ethnocentric to judge it in that context.

▲

Atlas667 18 hours ago | parent [-]

Jesse Owens example is literally one example and one where they would have the obvious inclination for him to be in-group.

> (Remind me, which one of us is arguing that it's awkward and uncomfortable to emphasize someone's race?)

I don't think its awkward or uncomfortable to emphasize someones race. I'm mixed and I identify as both black and white, purposefully.

I can tell how deep you are into the culture war because you seem to be arguing right past me and with some imaginary figure of me that you have in your head.

Tell me what do you think the civil rights issues were/are about? Nah, ill tell you: That "american" didn't actually mean all of us on a constitutional/federal/state level and even cultural level.

I'm not gonna pretend I'm a sociology expert for internet points but there are many papers that show evidence of what I'm saying and they are not hard to find at all. Literally put a small amount of effort and you'll see at least 5 pop up. You can analyze their results if you want.

> Legos are Danish. It's not actually clear how the history of American racism or the applicability of the term "American" to black people prior to 1945 has any bearing on the creative intent of a Danish toy manufacturer, and if anything it's a little ethnocentric to judge it in that context.

Hilarious, dude. You totally lost the plot. I was using "american" vs "african american" bias as an analogy to explain the "yellow was universal" but that lego then decided to add brown lego figures. Yellow wasn't actually universal, yellow was white. White was then implicitly seen as universal.

The culture warrior has ended themselves.

▲

philwelch 7 hours ago | parent [-]

> Jesse Owens example is literally one example

He wasn’t even the only black American gold medalist from that day’s track and field competition. Regardless, you made the claim that the term “American” was never used, without qualification, to refer to black people prior to 1945. One or two counterexamples is enough to disprove such a claim.

> I don't think it’s awkward or uncomfortable to emphasize someone’s race.

And I do. That’s part of the disagreement that we’re working through here.

> Tell me what do you think the civil rights issues were/are about? Nah, I’ll tell you: That "american" didn't actually mean all of us on a constitutional/federal/state level and even cultural level.

I already addressed this. Repeating for clarity: I'm not saying that racism didn't exist in 1936 or that Jesse Owens was treated fairly, but there was no inhibition against referring to him, or any other black American, as an American whenever it was relevant to do so.

You made the very specific claim that the term “American” was not used to refer to black people prior to 1945. Now that I’ve demonstrated that this claim is false, you are using figurative language to retreat to the claim that black people were not historically treated equally to white people. But I have never disputed this. You are the one arguing right past me and with some imaginary figure in your head.

Furthermore, as I’ve already said, this is exactly the reason that the term “African American” became popular at one point: because it emphasized that black people were also Americans. Contrary to your false claim that it was meant as a backhanded implication that they weren’t Americans.

> The culture warrior has ended themselves.

Uncalled for and unnecessary.

	▲	Atlas667 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I'm not retreating into a wider claim. The civil rights issues were literally about "american" not meaning all of us legally. That is my example for prior usage of the word "american" being biased. It was so biased that people willfully forgot the law and the constitution. Why does it not suffice? Here is one more I recall: “When I say all Americans — I mean all Americans...” President Truman when ending segregation in the army I could keep looking up examples but I feel these are fundamental enough. Yes african american emphasizes it, there was a need to do that. I wonder why? Also I should add that I specifically dont give a damn about emoji color. I always leave default yellow cause i rarely use em anyways.