The issue of naming those of African descent caused quite a stir this week in class. This is a very important question because it leads to another important issue raised by this weeks discussion leader of who should be included in the Black Liberation Movement. These two important questions are essential to issue of education as a vehicle of social justice for Blacks in the US. I tend to shy away from taking on these very two controversial issues because I don't feel I have a well established knowledge base to make an informed argument as to what to call people of African descent and who should be included in the "fight for Blacks".
Hilliard gracefully took on the discourse on the past, present and future naming people of African descent. Although our class discussion pointed out the flaws of his argument and "troubled" his terminology of choice as the AHS would say, I do not necessarily see a need to do so. From our conversation, I have found validity in the use of the term African based on Hilliard's argument. It is in this discourse that we can being to define and find our place in the cosmos as Hilliard put it and then work towards utlizing a transformed education as a method of social justice.
And so this brings me to the evolution of the naming of people of African ancestry. Beginning with the term "colored" which was interchangeably used with "Negro" before the 1960's. And then a shift took place towards "black" then "Black" and even more recently the term "African American" joined the lineage of the multiple names of Africans. And as this weeks' facilitator brought up we can ever forget the the enduring and malicious term "Nigger" which has been ever-present in eveyr era as a term whites used to refer to Blacks in the US. Along with these, we have the wonderful adjectives that describe people of African heritage: "minority", "inner-city" "at-risk" and the list goes on.
Understanding this heritage of being named and possessing little autonomy to chose a name for themselves, I can understand Hilliards' position in using African. He argues that his main reason for using the term African is "African fits our actual historical, cultural, and even political circumstances more precisely than any other name... The African continental name reflects that reality of common cultural heritage and a common political need." Taking this assertion literally, I would have to question the use of certain terms and phrases such as common cultural heritage. But taking a step back and remembering a statement that was stressed in class I can too, say this may be a viable term in the debate of naming Africans.
Prof. Smith brought to the forefront the experience of being Black. Although we know there is no cookie cutter mold of what it means to be black, we can identify a common thread.Prof. Smith stated where are Blacks located that oppression doesn't exist or hasn't existed. This is such a deep question. From imperialism to slavery to modern day "inner-city" living we see examples of oppression. Could this not qualify as that common political need mentioned by Hilliard. Can the many variations of a "Black experience" be the very reason why we can be called Africans? I hope to get the chance to examine this issue more in-depth. But if I were to answer today, I would say based on this Hilliard may have validation in his choice to name people of African descent Africans. And if we were to accept this as a valid argument, we could move onto the Black liberation movement and in turn influence education for social justice.
We began to discuss the stereotypes and perceptions of Blacks in America. It is sad what is broadcasted over the media. This video is disturbiing, and shows the impact the media has in perpetuating negative images of Black America.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UY04gIruZ4E&feature=related
