Intellectually, you may be right. But factually? It's just been the blanket designation for black peoples. And some black activists have really weird arguments put forward (example: "only descendants ofn slaves should be called black").
Irish-Americans, etc... All steem from a nationality or a country. Africa is neither. Hell, last time I checked, there was a big lot of non-black people living in American. Will you call Morrocans, Algerians and Egyptians African-Americans too?
Nah, you call them Arabs (which irks the pedantic part of me when Maghrebian countries are adressed), or Muslims (which is 100x worse).
The whole issue was simply streched as yet one more issue black activists could protest and raise up against, and it made the whole civil rights issue lose a lot of focus, IMHO..
While I believe the entire African-American thing is silly for completely different reasons, the post you are commenting on, was spot on. As a group, the blacks of the US have designated that distinction for themselves. Who am I or you as white people to question that, especially a native Canadian? What do you know about their culture or identity except what you read in a book or studied in a Cultural Studies class? It's not up to us to decide anything for anyone else of this nature nor criticize it.
From what I understand, because so many slaves were brought over from the various areas in Africa, it was/is impossible to determine where alot of folks precisely came from. So, a blanket term was used as it was the most applicable term to use, to encompass the whole. It's not a big deal at all. It works and the answer that you are trying to complicate is very simple.
What civil rights issue? What are you talking about? Jim Crow Laws are over, so is the African-American fight for civil rights and it ended a long time before the African-American term was ever used. There are other issues that are being addressed but they are not civil right ones. Maybe enforcement of those hard fought civil rights but the actual battle has been over for a long time.
1/5 having a preference to African-American and slightly less preffering black. But the vast majority having no preference.
So basically there should be no controversy on using either "black" or "african-american". To me though, the latter is a very clumsy expression, that is long, and doesn't fit with many cases such as non-black africans, or blacks from the Caribbean or Latin America.
ESPN has to be pretty hurting for stories if they are quoting me, LOL.
To set the record straight, I was defending Subban in one of those 'disrespect' threads. My point is that IMO the NHL old boys club doesn't like a hockey player acting with the bravado, brashness and attitude of an American black athlete. I actually love Subban's personality on the ice and love that he keeps on smiling. My only quarrell with him this season is that I wish he'd play better.
Point is, there is a double standard when people talk about the stuff Subban does vis a vis other players. Everything he does is blown out of proportion in comparison to other players.