J South, American does not designate a nationality - it designates that you 
were born anywhere in the Americas.

Slaves that were born in America, would be Americans - the designation 
African-Americans only denotes that they are Americans of color. Africans 
are those born in Africa, and to add Americans is dubious, although they did 
live in America whether they liked it or not.
Anne

Anne Pemberton
[log in to unmask]
http://www.erols.com/apembert
http://www.educationalsynthesis.org
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tarter, Brent (LVA)" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 12:31 PM
Subject: Re: Monticello Recives NEH Grant


I have also wondered why historians writing about slaves or free Negroes
in the early American period now refer to them as "African-Amercans."
They were not "Americans," at least in a legal or constitutional sense.
In a historical and legal sense, they were "Negroes" or "blacks" or
"mulattoes." There is obviously a cultural sensitivity to pejorative
terms for different nationalities, but is that the reason? Even if it
is, can the historian continue to use the terms that were current during
the period about which she is writing? Is there now a rule that this
issue can't be discussed? To which group was Holder referring, those who
are willing to discuss it, or those who will not?

Richard E. Dixon

Editor, Jefferson Notes

Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society


<blocked::http://www.lva.virginia.gov/>

______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html

______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html