The terminological problem arises precisely here:

[Tom wrote, with my emphasis added:]

>A lot of African-Americans are as interested in their
"heritage" as are 
>White-Americans or European-Americans or SOME OTHER
EQUIVALENT PHRASE.

In colloquial language, there is not any equivalent term to
"African-American."  When the term came into common usage, in
the 1970s (I think), the folks who coined it and used it
assumed the hegemony of the dominant race. Thus, there were
"Whites" and "African-Americans."  The "American-ness" of
"Whites" could be assumed, whereas the "American-ness" of the
descendents of slaves could not be.  The reason that the
"American-ness" of the descendents of slaves could not be
assumed was because the argument I described in an earlier
post--that many Americans denied the capacity of black people
to exercise self-government--was still alive and current. 
Thus, it was important to emphasize the claim that black
people are just as American as white people.  

Today, I would guess, everyone in this conversation agrees
with this claim, and so in that sense "African American"
represents something of an historical legacy.  On the other
hand, there are lots of us here who can remember what our
country was like in the years prior to the 1970s.  For us, the
memory of the struggle to establish the notion that black
people are just as American, and just as capable of exercising
the obligations of American citizenship, is still fresh.  Its
only in living memory that the Dred Scott decision was
actually interred.

When the original poster wrote those words, she encountered
this problem.  "White folks" was her effort to say what she
needed to say, while at the same time acknowledging that there
is no good EQUIVALENT word to describe the dominant racial group.

All of this is made considerably more ambiguous and difficult
because today neither the group of people signified by
"African-American" nor the group of people signified by "White
folks" is monolithic.  Irish, Italian, and Polish immigrants
to our country faced racism within living memory, if not quite
in such a virulent form as that faced by Asians of by blacks.
 And similarly, the situation of recent immigrants from Africa
is different that that of the descendents of slaves, precisely
because they have different historical experiences shaping
them.  Our common language captures neither of these realities.

Taking all of this into account, I find Tom's argument that
there is a double standard in play to be a bit simplistic. I
perceive an honest, and inoffensive, attempt to communicate by
the original poster, using an historically derived language
that is imprecise, imperfect, and historically contingent.  I
do not perceive any underlying "Political correctness," or any
hidden agendas, in her use of language. Her actual *argument*
may well be a different matter--but not so her choice of terms
to describe race.

I have spent considerable time defending my perceptions,
because I think it is important, especially in a list-serv,
where miscommunication is easy, to take people's arguments at
face value.  It is true that the particular terms that we use
MAY be indicative of underlying agendas, and Tom is by no
means incorrect to suggest so.  But it is also the case that
in trying to communicate nuanced positions, and while writing
informally, in haste, as we do on this kind of medium, we
often write with imprecision, or with the terms that are most
readily available to us.  I think we are much better off
trying to assess and critique the arguments that people
acutally make, rather than the particular terms that they
choose to make them, which are indicative at best of
dispositions within the author that she may or may not in
reality possess.  In that sense, this entire conversation is a
distraction from the discussion of Virginia history to which
the original poster was trying to make a contribution.

All best,
Kevin
Kevin R. Hardwick, Ph.D.
Department of History
James Madison University

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