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