Name game - designations for racial groups

Christian Century, Nov 22, 1995 by Martin E. Marty

WHAT SHALL I call you? I don't mean you individually but you in groups. Many people derive their identity from the groups they align themselves with, and they care about what they are called. The New Yorker observed the Million Man March on Washington last month and noted what the speakers called themselves and their people(s).

The editors recalled that seven years ago Jesse Jackson produced a "linguistic conniption" by announcing that the term black" was "baseless" and henceforth blacks wanted to be called African-Americans. Those of us who are hung up on hyphens followed him, out of fear and a concern for etiquette. The New Yorker reported that Jackson has made a switch, so we should go back to "black," as in "black men," "black women," "black voters" and other terms with which Jackson broke his own rules.

All through the march, "black" was back, except with a few notables such as Rosa Parks. Louis Farrakhan spoke 15,000 words (it only seemed like I 555 x 19 3 trillion), and avoided "African-American," except in two references to the National African-American Leadership Summit. From the left Roger Wilkins and from the right Glenn Loury implied that we are free to use both words. Alvin Poussaint of Harvard said that "African-American" excludes West Indian blacks, so we should go back to "black" for them. ... Black' is just more accessible," explained Maulana Karenga of California State University.

So we will use "black" again. But that does not solve other problems. Sometimes one can say "Hispanic-American" and get belted for not saying "Latino" or "Latina," and vice versa. I wish that Mexican-Cuban-Puerto-Rican-Spanish-etc.-Americans would have a Million Person March on Washington and clarify that confusion. What shall I call my Native American friends? Some are back to wanting to be called "Indian" and others scowl at that. What signals tell us which and when? In my dream world, I'd just as soon not be called a "Euro-American." I'd just as soon be a person, or a Christian, or a U.S. citizen or something that expresses commitments, not the stigma that "Euro-American" is supposed to impose.

One problem for those of us who speak and write is that news of the change from one permanent absolute designation to the next day's permanent absolute designation does not reach all leaders and audiences at the same time. What if I had not read the October 30 New Yorker? What if the eight people who form opinions on the basis of this column don't see this and learn they can say "black" again?

I spent years learning to say "Hebrew scriptures" out of respect for Jews (and to be somewhat accurate), only to be told more than once recently, "Aw, call it the Old Testament; that is, after all, what it is to you Christians." So I do, and then get clobbered by sensitive Christians who haven't yet received this permission. One may have spent years learning to say B.C.E. and C.E., substituting "common" for Christ" or "Dominus" (though no one knows what the initials mean anyhow). Then a Jew (or a Muslim) will say, "Oh, forget it. The years had a B. C. and A. D. designation since just about the Year Zero. We can live with it."

I don't know what to do about this name game. I'd like to ask God, but 1 am not sure what to call God this month. I wanted to ask Catholic sociologist and novelist Andrew Greeley, but I knew he'd say that in respect to the pesterings of confused Protestants like me at the moment, She's too busy forgiving us our verbal trespasses.