> ravi wrote:
>
>> with regard to your response: what do you mean when you say "black
>> americans are americans"? what does "american" mean? are you using
>> the term in a purely formal sense based on citizenship and physical
>> presence? (i am implying that there is a different sense in which
>> the term can be used - say cultural - but going into that seems not
>> necessary for the purpose of my question and might distract).
>
>
> Every sense - citizens, physical presence, economic actors, participants
> in and creators of culture (in both the sense of art and other cultural
> products, as well as the set of practices and understandings by which
> people live their lives), you name it. The contribution is obviously
> often disparaged and overlooked, but it shouldn't be.
>
doug, your thoughts seem to make an excellent case against the exclusion of blacks from american mainstream culture (and politics and identity, etc), but the question is whether america can appropriate black culture and contributions as its own, isnt it? it is true that black culture influenced america in the long run, but only so through its presence as the "other", isnt it? if that be the case, then how valid is it for america today to appropriate these contributions as "american", since they were not, at the time they were made?
i have a lot of "if"s in the above that i hope readers will notice, since i want to make clear that i do not have a thorough enough knowledge of black or american history to make statements out of these questions,
--ravi