Most of what you said is fair and true, but you're missing a few points of historical and social context.
- The term African-American is being phased out of American culture, because, as observed by yourself, the term doesn't really fit the larger ticket anymore. Most traditional "African-Americans" (e.g. "Blacks," "Negros" etc) are now more distanced from Africa than they are from America. With much of the turbulence of Black family structure and culture (due to Slavery, Segregation, absent parents and so on) it's difficult for the average Black kid in the Bay, or Houston, or Harlem, to trace his lineage back to any particular or distinct African origin. Most new generations of Black (specifically African-American decendence) have little remaining true cultural or familial connections to the African continent or culture as well.
My point? As you're saying, the term African-American doesn't fit. I've noticed over the past couple years (throughout my lifespan, and the past decades in history) the term "Black" is becoming far more accepted by both the traditional "African-American" community, and by others in the US. The Black community, as I've seen, has begun to recognize and accept the fact that it's now its own distinct entity and culture, and no long ties itself to the African population. For all intents and purposes, I believe this is a step in the right direction, as it is obvious that the Black community here in the US of A is distinctly different from the modern day peoples or even immigrants of Ethiopia, Eritrea, Kenya, and so on.
The confusion comes in when self-righteous advocacy groups come in with political agendas and start tearing up healed wounds over frivolous **** like being called "Black" instead of "African American." Surprise! Just like a misspelling of the vulgarity "nigger" gave hip-hop an alias, a redefined "black" gave the Black community a name to define their cultural identity beyond the colour of their skin, but not forgetting it. In either event, people that bicker over titles instead of doing something productive don't give much credit to the content of their character, and don't really deserve much attention.
Another interesting perspective on race you may relate to, and prominant in politics is that of Barrack Obama, who had an interesting take on the "African-American" label in his book
The Audacity of Hope. In short, Obama's father is a Kenyan-immigrant, and his mother American. In the most literal sense, he is as African American as one can be. Yet, he doesn't really relate to the traditional "African American" culture of the 300 years in the US at all. He describes himself as being very much African, and being very much American, but not African American at all. Interesting.
So i came to a conclusion. And this conclusion, as racist as it sounds, i think is completely true. And there are exceptions. To every rule in society, there are exceptions, but I think to the majority of black/African-Americans living in the United States, MOST of them hold chips on their shoulders. You still see lawsuits today... black people trying to sue other people and governments because their GRAND FATHER was a slave. They're trying to screw the government or some poor individual or organization out of money for the suffering their GRAND FATHER, who they NEVER KNEW OR MET, went through. W. T. F...
This chip on the shoulder extends to all aspects of life and communication. You get in an argument with a black person? Eventually... sooner or later... the race card is going to be pulled out. Watch. Always happens.
- So, after the Civil War, with the 14th Ammendment, and African-Americans (the term correctly being applied in the context of history) supposedly being free people, they were promised by Lincoln and General Sherman the famous "40 Acres and a Mule" as reparations for generations of slavery, and the destruction of the African slaves' society as they knew it (although they had created and will soon build upon their own unique and distinct society, as mentioned above.) Returning to Africa was largely out of the question, though it was attempted with the founding of Liberia. Most African Americans (yes, even back then) truly had lost their African roots, knowing no currently living people, and having no connections left to Africa other than what they've heard of their ancestors. So, the best the US Gov. could do was provide them with reparations.
Well, thanks to Andrew Johnson's presidency and his Supreme Court, the 40 Acres deal was vetoed, and African Americans were kicked to "Seperate but equal" status commonly known as "segregation" that officially ended with MLK.
So, history lesson aside, why the hell should Blacks today have any right to ask for compensation for the mistreatment of their African American ancestors? Well, for one, their families never got to keep their 40 Acres, or their mule. The land alone, if passed down from generation to generation, could be worth a great deal, not to mention the profit that each family could have earned over the years working the land, developing it, selling it, etc. Secondly, the fact remains, despite time, that the culture of the African slaves was destroyed by the policies and economics of those in the US. This was never truly repaid by the government that supported those policies. Easily arguable, the status and particularly, wealth, of the Black community today could be vastly different had they not been enslaved as they were, had they even been paid after the Civil War, as they should have.
On the flipside of it, I'm sure there are plenty of people out there looking to make a quick buck at the government's (taxpayer's) expense and cry about Great Grand Daddy's hardships, and how that lead to growing up in the Projects which ultimately led to a ****ty life, not really giving a damn about his culture's suffering, and completely avoiding any sense of self-reliance. They get paid because the US legal system in this case, is based more upon evidence and fact than feeling.
- As far as your feelings on "Hate Crimes," there was an episode of
The West Wing where a man's son was killed by four teenagers, supposedly because his son was gay. The (fictional) Bartlett Administration wanted to use the crime as a reason to push through a Hate Crimes Bill, and wanted the man to step up and publically support and endorse it. He refused. The Administration thought it was because he was embarassed of his son being gay. In reality, the man, while grieving the loss of his son, didn't "believe that it's right for government to punish someone for what's in their head while they commit a crime."
True enough, the creation of the "hate crime" idea implies that when a gay, or black, or jew, or muslim is murdered, it's not simply because the murderer didn't like them, or was insane already, but because he murdered them specifically because they were gay, black, jewish, or muslim, and as such, is a worse crime. While perhaps progressive towards a secure society, this obviously conflicts with the liberties of the first ammendment.
