A post I made on Yahoo on story "Some blacks insist: 'I'm not African-American'"

[unblock]

5. while i generally respect anyone's wishes in terms of self-designation, this term is imprecise.

"african-american" is problematic for me because both my wife and my boss are caucasians born in africa who now live in american and are now american citizens. i don't think anyone would say they were meant to be included in the designation.

this is the obvious flip side of blacks who have been in america for umpteen generations before even maybe being able to trace their ancestry back to africa. somehow the term "african-american" is meant to encompass them, but not my wife and my boss?

the division, it seems to me, is based on a cluster of certain expressed genes more than heritage or location. that said, once the division has been drawn, one's location and heritage are often determined by the social rules regarding the arbitrary division along certain expressed genetic lines.

the whole thing seems silly, and an historical accident. why do we discriminate on the basis of skin color, etc., and why is the dividing line where it is? why not discriminate, if it is necessary to discriminate at all, on the basis of eye color or hair color or (more explicitly) on the basis of height, e.g.?

personally, i don't get it, never have, never will.

i'm dying for a presidential candidate to say "too many people see reasons to divide us; i see reasons to unite us. too many people see blacks, whites, hispanics; men, women; gays, straights; able-bodied and physically- or mentally-challenged; jews, muslims, christians, atheists. i see only americans".