What's in a Name?

AT the same time that other minorities are refusing to be viewed as monolithic blocs, Blacks appear to be stereotyping themselves by insisting that those who answer to Black be called African-Americans.

Hispanics, it seems, have decided that this vague term does not adequately describe all of those it attempts to describe. And Asian-Americans have successfully lobbied to delineate Asian groups in the 1990 census, adding Samoans and Guamanians to the list.

But Blacks have been debating changing the race's identity to African-American, as suggested by the Rev. Jesse Jackson two months ago.

This movement is an old one, and it has been embraced by some of the nation's 30 million people who could be described as Black. Black-run newspapers and radio stations have been using the term with regularity, while the Boston Globe is allowing its individual writers the freedom to choose their preferred term.

Personally, I won't mind being called an African-American. I've been called worse. But I have questions about the need for a change. Just how important are semantics in motivating people?

For at least a century now, Blacks have sought an identifier which truly defined a diverse race of people and their past. Blacks have answered to colored, Negro (with and without the capital N), Afro-American and, of course, Black.

Clearly, there are problems with each term, but there will be problems with just about any term that Blacks choose. Names applied to a people oppressed will eventually be seen as a device used by others to continue to keep them down.

"Colored" implied that white was the correct color, and that one was colored, say, with a crayon, incorrectly. "Negro," because it was widely-used in the 19th century along with the other "N"-word, recalls the days of slavery and oppression. "Afro-American" reminds Blacks of the Afro hair styles worn in the 70s.

"Black" has also developed negative connotations, but there is no real reason to use the term "African-American" other than to provide a motivational tune-up. Chances are that a decade from now "African-American" will develop its own negative imagery and will have to be cast on the heap of bad identifiers.

THE term "African-American" is not sufficiently inclusive because it refers to only those groups which identify with Africa and leaves out those originating in the Caribbean. There may have been a time when all Blacks in this country could call themselves African-Americans, but after almost 400 years here that day has probably passed. Blacks here are more than just "African-Americans." They are a different type of people--different from any other, and this is something not to be ashamed of.

Blacks have intermarried and have had children of mixed race. Should these people, with an even split of, say, African and European ancestry, be considered as African-Americans only? This would force people who are part Black and part white to choose between their identities, and to deny part of what they are.

The debate over semantics shows that the entire system of racial identification is flawed. America, the melting pot of the world, has simply had too much "racial mixing" for some of its citizens to be considered members of only one race.

Perhaps there should be a choice between Black and African-American. Or, maybe there could be several choices, such as Black/White, Black/Native American, Black/Asian, Black/Australian, Black/African-American, etc.

The movement to change the term to "African-American" attempts to give Blacks more awareness about themselves, and to become more concerned with Africa. But it is a move with more feeling to it than logic. For better or for worse, America is the only home Blacks have known.

If Blacks are going to be called African-Americans from now on, we might as well as call all people here African-Americans since, if scientists are correct, all people originate from an African woman.