Both “Blacks” and “African American” have problems for identifying the new world peoples of African descent and are Liberal distortions. “Blacks” because people-ness is not denoted simply by color (mulatto question), and has been weaponized on behalf of Colonizers (see: DR vs Haiti). “African American” because the latter half simply denotes citizenship and which only became standard after the civil rights era (which prior excluded us from full citizenship, and it still does today…). Contestations for the first half come from two directions: assimilating into “Americanism” and self-distancing from the colonial struggle in Africa, and recognizing that the new world is our home. Neither term is sufficient and both have Liberal/Imperialist distortions. When I speak historically I use the term US Negroes, or Mainland Negroes. Many Black radicals adopted the term New Afrikan (which I also use) to denote our roots in Africa, but our belonging to the so-called new world. Distancing ourselves either from Africa or our new home brings Imperialist distortions to our self-identity, and are a product of Assimilationism that Haywood was predicting.
For a comparison. The Dominican Republic should not be seen as a nation-people, even though they largely speak another language than Haitians under the Haitian state. The Dominican Republic is a European occupation of Haiti, and all of the island’s Indigenous inhabitants (whether native or African) belong to the Haitian nation of peoples. The DR survives as an empire backed apartheid state, that necessarily privileges lighter skinned Haitians and discriminates darker skinned Haitians to maintain a buffer for the European settlers and monopolies. In the Haitian state, race ideology is abolished and white and mixed/other background individuals are all considered Blacks, and the Whites are the Imperialist classes that seek to dominate Haiti.
Both “Blacks” and “African American” have problems for identifying the new world peoples of African descent and are Liberal distortions. “Blacks” because people-ness is not denoted simply by color (mulatto question), and has been weaponized on behalf of Colonizers (see: DR vs Haiti). “African American” because the latter half simply denotes citizenship and which only became standard after the civil rights era (which prior excluded us from full citizenship, and it still does today…). Contestations for the first half come from two directions: assimilating into “Americanism” and self-distancing from the colonial struggle in Africa, and recognizing that the new world is our home. Neither term is sufficient and both have Liberal/Imperialist distortions. When I speak historically I use the term US Negroes, or Mainland Negroes. Many Black radicals adopted the term New Afrikan (which I also use) to denote our roots in Africa, but our belonging to the so-called new world. Distancing ourselves either from Africa or our new home brings Imperialist distortions to our self-identity, and are a product of Assimilationism that Haywood was predicting.
For a comparison. The Dominican Republic should not be seen as a nation-people, even though they largely speak another language than Haitians under the Haitian state. The Dominican Republic is a European occupation of Haiti, and all of the island’s Indigenous inhabitants (whether native or African) belong to the Haitian nation of peoples. The DR survives as an empire backed apartheid state, that necessarily privileges lighter skinned Haitians and discriminates darker skinned Haitians to maintain a buffer for the European settlers and monopolies. In the Haitian state, race ideology is abolished and white and mixed/other background individuals are all considered Blacks, and the Whites are the Imperialist classes that seek to dominate Haiti.