The Scarlet & Black

The Student News Site of Grinnell College

The Scarlet & Black

The Scarlet & Black

How linguistics can alter racial perceptions

Following the election of a man raced as the first “black” president, many Americans suppose America is “post-racial” all of a sudden. But, Grinnellians—don’t forget about race just yet. Most Grinnellians anticipate the day when we can forget about race, but we don’t want to move to that ideology for the wrong reasons. We need to use race to target the problems precipitated by a history of codified or implied discrimination, disproportionately forced or prison labor, eugenic and cultural subordination.

The existence of these three historical phenomena in some capacity or their debates surrounding them in the present discourse demonstrates this need. Social theorists, though, have used racial categories to slowly heal historical ailments with racial implications. Institutions like Grinnell have used race to promote cultural and experiential diversity. But we know the categories are not perfect. In and of themselves, they have some negative effects on the populations they describe and divide. The division that race causes is evidence enough.

Americans haven’t quite leveled the playing field. To incrementally improve a system of classification I find necessary in this institution’s approach for the indeterminate future, I suggest a new term—“Afrodescent”—to describe Americans of African descent to improve the accuracy of our term, to elude the implications of black’s denotations and for something I call the “linguistic aesthetics.”

The term “black” is inaccurate because there are very few black Americans—or people for that matter. Most so called “black-people” are brown in color, of various complexions, and some are tan or a sort of yellow-tinted pale pigment common in people of European descent. I think people who can actually be classified by the word “black” are either severely burnt or suffer from a skin disorder. Given the translation of “negro” from its native Spanish to English, my disruption of using this term is identical to that of my aforementioned reasons to forget “black.” “Afrodescent” accurately encompasses the people included in the United States’ present use of black. The broad entanglement of the “one-drop rule” has led me to maintain the generalizing character of the term I hope will help this society to a point of racial equality.

Though more accurate than “black,” the term “African-American” is also inaccurate because in 2010 many African immigrants and their children live in America. The term “African-American” certainly applies to them but also describes Americans of African descent that may have been in the Americas since 1502. Yet these are distinct groups and products of very different historical circumstances. Sure, they are of African descent too, and would therefore fall under the term Afrodescent, but our society might find more accuracy in reserving “African-American” to describe Africans—that is, people from Africa and their children. After all, many so-called “African-Americans” today only have ties to Africa as a place from which their ancestors descend. Hence, this article suggests Afrodescent.

The word “black” has come to denote Americans of African descent, but the authoritative guide to the English language also defines the word as “blunder,” “soiled,” “horribly wicked” and a host of other negative definitions. People of African descent should not carry the moral depravity of what else the term for their category signifies. But they do. Since “Afrodescent” is a word fashioned in this article and academic papers I have submitted in the past year, could not bear the vileness of, say, the fourth, fifth, ninth or tenth definitions of “black.” Furthermore, the term’s tendency to bestow a lexical disadvantage on the people deemed “black” when juxtaposed with people therefore deemed “white”—a word which is alternatively defined as “pure,” “holy” and “celestial”—gives charge to “black’s” abandonment.

Part of the reason for the negative connotation comes from how bad the word sounds. While sound’s effect on any given word is more debatable than the word’s alternative definitions, it is reasonable for a reader to find some words generally more pleasant than others. Does “Afrodescent” remind you of iridescent, a word synonymous to shimmering, shining and gleaming? These synonyms are diametrical to common synonyms of black—dismal, nefarious, and vile amongst others.

Furthermore, I think people will associate “Afrodescent” with iridescent because the former is unfamiliar and the memory of the latter’s sound serves as a reflexive point of reference. Remember, the word sounds like a light bulb. In your hoodwinked auditory memories, the word glows. Light emanates from the mouths of its users. Thus, the new term transcends the present term, which seems to represent all things bad. An improved terminology would improve the function of race.

Race affects almost all spheres of everyday life in America. Many of those spheres are lop-sided. To get rid of race would be to set racist doctrine free, and it would be to ignore the historical implications for race in our society. We still need race to think critically about the racial dimensions of social inequalities and prejudices. And we still need race because we all should learn a bit more about the vitality of human unity through this framework—in the face of threats against our entire species.

Moreover, I know many readers cannot wait for the post-racial age because we know that race is imprecise, divisive and self-deprecating. But the consequences of embracing a racially-blind society too soon could draw even greater societal rifts between Americans of different races. Just ask scholars familiar with Gilberto Freyre—a Brazilian sociologist who advocated a “Racial Democracy” that resembles the racial blindness the Tea Party Movement espouses. Although he ultimately sought to get contest racist ideas like eugenics and sterilization, Freyre precipitated a racially unequal Brazil. Policymakers from his country now combat the challenges of stark social disparities along racial lines. The dark people of his country deal daily with the implications of racial-blindness ideology people credit him for starting. At the beginning of the 21st century, the school reported a student population at the highest-ranked school in Brazil was less than 8.5 percent Afrodescent and more than 70 percent white. The country consists of at least 45 percent Afrodescents.

To prevent such homogeneity and exclusion, Grinnell has invested immense resources to cultivate a diverse community. Its newly diversified environment challenges a tradition of segregation, bias-motivated behavior and the provinciality that would hold any society back. Race works as a critical cog in the mechanism this institution uses to fight battle its own history—largely a consequence of this nation’s history. If we embrace a post-racial society preemptively, we could negate decades of progress. A system of race is necessary right now. Maybe further inquiries will help us realize that the problem is not race, but the nomenclature that categorically devalues different groups. In another article or a survey of greater length, I will expand on my disruption of the term “African-American” in its present use. I will also continue to make a detailed case for why it is imperative that America, as a society, to make this change.

View Comments (9)
More to Discover
Donate to The Scarlet & Black
Our Goal

Comments (9)

All The Scarlet & Black Picks Reader Picks Sort: Newest

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • R

    Rashawn S.Jan 18, 2011 at 3:23 am


  • M

    MarcusDec 28, 2010 at 2:03 pm

    If you pronounce it properly, they rhyme. I conducted a poll that strongly supports the claim I originally made only to give people an idea about pronounciation. Perhaps you did not get that point?

  • S

    scott fieldsDec 28, 2010 at 1:41 am

    actually, afrodescent doesn’t probably remind anyone of iridescent.

  • [

    [eaganmar]Dec 13, 2010 at 8:39 pm

    Thanks a lot man. Don’t ever forget that there is a coherent ideology behind the terms used to classify.

  • T

    TairiDec 7, 2010 at 3:17 pm

    Yo man it took me a min to actually take the time to read this but i just did and this is a very thoughtful and insightful piece right here. Very well written as well, I can appreciate this a lot because I have some African friends that very much are opposed to people like myself calling myself this gives me a different way to think about it and I’m going to send this to my boy. Also, I agree we MUST, we MUST not be racially blind. As a student of the Word my opinion and understanding is that these thing are very important! Look at the Bible with Jews and Gentiles..check out Galatians 2 and how these things can be divisive for even the apostles themselves. So, I think that they are very important however if you belong to Christ it is not the utmost point of identity because of its potential to divide. However, it still should be acknowledged as Paul does throughout his epistles where he reaches out to various cultures and always decides what is gainful to people of God and what isn’t. Sorry this is so long but this blends to particular issues I am passionate about. Faith and culture. God bless bro and thanks for your insight

  • M

    Marcus A EaganNov 23, 2010 at 11:27 am

    well, I am working within the legalistic and cultural frameworks of the United States. Our classification, understanding and perception of race is rather broad so keeping within the Census-like categories, Eurodescent works far better that your suggestions. They complicate the process of equalizing by creating more distinctions, and that is not what we want.

  • W

    wordsmithNov 19, 2010 at 9:31 pm

    Naw, Scandescent for those Norwegian/American cats. My German/English/Scottish self would like to be referred to henceforth as Germangloscotescent.

  • M

    Marcus A EaganNov 8, 2010 at 11:44 pm

    Thank you for your compliment. For Americans of Norwegian descent, I use the term Eurodescent.

    The term white is a bad term for describing one group of humans.

  • E

    Elizabeth SkarieNov 7, 2010 at 11:03 pm

    Marcus–great article and love the term! I consider myself to be Norwegian/American and actually don’t think the word “white” is very inspiring either, but I think I know what you mean.