The obituary in the NYT on the late Donald Payne got me a-thinking about the difference between Adjectives and Nouns. I have an interest in obituaries because through them I get to know people I wouldn't have otherwise known. I am impressed by the variety of people featured by the New York Times columnists. However what intrigues me most are the comments that people post online against some of the columns. This week Mr Donald Payne who passed on at 77 caught my interest. Now you may ask, why this interested me. The title initially read something along the lines: "Donald Payne, the First Black Elected to Congress From New Jersey, Dies at 77".
It is not his achievements which drew me to muse about him but the ire by readers on the utilisation of the word "black" as a noun as opposed to an adjective in the initial posting. This drew fiery comments from some indignant readers and some interesting discussions. Before reading the comments, I had noted with amusement that the New York Times juxtaposed Black with Italian-Americans. I wondered silently, whether Italian-Americans has a "short cut" or why the writer chose not to use the longer form for "BLACKS" for equity's sake. Apparently the title was updated in the subsequent online versions to use the word "BLACK" as an adjective and not a noun! What would the NYT refer to Henry Thierry as? Is he 'French', 'Black French', or 'Black' or mixed? How would they refer to Phillip Leakey? Is he 'White Kenyan', 'Kenyan' or 'White'?
It has always puzzled me why Americans are fixated with race. Black-Americans, African-Americans, Italian-Americans, Irish-Americans, Caucasian-Americans, Latin-Americans... Do we have English-Americans , German-Americans, French-Americans, Indian-Americans, European-Americans etc. After all, it appears that apart from the 'Native' Americans, everybody migrated from someplace else and thus it would only be fair in such an egalitarian society to then describe all people (and not just some) by where their ancestors came from. And which ancestor would be chosen if two sets of ancestors came from two different places?
Which brings me to some confusion I have had over the years. Apparently African-American is now the politically correct term referring to citizens or residents of the United States who have at least partial ancestry from any of the native populations of Sub Saharan Africa. It isn't clear to me whether this excludes the peoples from Tunisia, Egypt, Morocco, Algeria, Libya and Mauritania who may be citizens or resident in the US but may or may not have a black hue since these nations are 'North of the Sahara'. What would one call a South African 'Boer' with American Citizenship? Would they be African-American? After all they are African....born under the African skies.
During the American Election, I argued that Obama was as much Black American as he was Caucasian American. I didn't understand why he had to be dumped in either set actually. In the country I come from, we would solve this 'confusion' by referring in street speak to him as "point five" (0.5) meaning Half/Half. However sometimes the real mix is not always so neat. They are often 0.75/0.25 or some other percentage. The Southern Africans have tried to resolve this problem by referring to children of mixed races as 'coloured'. Apparently in the United Kingdom anybody 'coloured' is one who is not 'white. Now this also has its own issues. My understanding is that both Black and White are colours and referring to people of mix race as coloured is a misnomer. I have also heard a group of Americans calling themselves 'People of Colour' which implies that others are 'People of no Colour'.
I recently asked a fellow the usual Kenyan question "where are you from?". He answered that he was Half/Half.....To my puzzled looks he added, Half Kenyan/Half Ugandan. Of course we burst into laughter because he knew that for him to qualify to be Half/Half...the colour of his skin would really have to be of a totally different hue.
A friend attended a 'black' meeting in the USA and noticed that some of the participants were 'white'. Someone explained to her that these 'white' people had some 'black' in them. It didn't make sense to her because she was unable to differentiate them from from 'pure' white folks in the streets.
This brings me to the use of the word "mzungu". It appears that the origin of this term was to refer to the white people (initially Portuguese explorers, I suppose) who had a penchant for exploration. Or was it the British trying to find the source of the Nile? Anyway, to the natives, these people appeared to be wandering from their lands to other lands without a purpose. For some strange reason the term wasn't used to refer to the Omani Arabs who came to the East African Coast in their dhows. Perhaps the Bantu Tribes didn't think the Omani Arabs were aimless in their wanderings. That they were more focused and had a purpose! History says the Omani Arabs were looking for the spice route. The 'aimless wandering' may be deemed a misnomer as every migration has a purpose be it:- Spices, Gold, Ivory, Source of Nile, Slaves, Timber, Oil, Plantations, Space, fleeing war, Looking for space...
In hotels, the word 'mzungu' often refers to a white tourist, despite the fact that tourists come in all hues. I once asked a waiter, since I was a-touring, whether I would qualify for a 'mzungu' and we laughed at the banal suggestion. Would an African American be referred to as a 'mzungu' if they came in as a tourist? Would we refer to Barack Obama as a 'Mzungu' or a 'point five' if he came a-visiting? Would a child of British Settlers in Kenya be a 'Mzungu' in the true meaning of the word since they are settled and not 'wandering aimlessly'? In Swahili, the word 'Watalii' often refers to Tourists. Watalii appeared to derive from the Italians whether tourists or not and it would be questionable to dump all tourists under the 'Watalii' banner since most are not Italians. 'Wageni' - 'Visitors' may be the more appropriate term since anybody can fit the description...Italian or not, aimless wanderer or focused person....
Anyway.....I must say that trying to group people by the colour of their skin or ancestry or where they are apparently from (they may be from nowhere) is a slippery slope. Really! As Michael Jackson famously sang '....Neither black nor white'.
No comments:
Post a Comment