> 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.