The Changing Definition of African-American
How the great influx of people from Africa and the Caribbean since 1965 is challenging what it means to be African-American
- By Ira Berlin
- Smithsonian magazine, February 2010, Subscribe
Some years ago, I was interviewed on public radio about the meaning of the Emancipation Proclamation. I addressed the familiar themes of the origins of that great document: the changing nature of the Civil War, the Union army’s growing dependence on black labor, the intensifying opposition to slavery in the North and the interplay of military necessity and abolitionist idealism. I recalled the longstanding debate over the role of Abraham Lincoln, the Radicals in Congress, abolitionists in the North, the Union army in the field and slaves on the plantations of the South in the destruction of slavery and in the authorship of legal freedom. And I stated my long-held position that slaves played a critical role in securing their own freedom. The controversy over what was sometimes called “self-emancipation” had generated great heat among historians, and it still had life.
As I left the broadcast booth, a knot of black men and women—most of them technicians at the station—were talking about emancipation and its meaning. Once I was drawn into their discussion, I was surprised to learn that no one in the group was descended from anyone who had been freed by the proclamation or any other Civil War measure. Two had been born in Haiti, one in Jamaica, one in Britain, two in Ghana, and one, I believe, in Somalia. Others may have been the children of immigrants. While they seemed impressed—but not surprised—that slaves had played a part in breaking their own chains, and were interested in the events that had brought Lincoln to his decision during the summer of 1862, they insisted it had nothing to do with them. Simply put, it was not their history.
The conversation weighed upon me as I left the studio, and it has since. Much of the collective consciousness of black people in mainland North America—the belief of individual men and women that their own fate was linked to that of the group—has long been articulated through a common history, indeed a particular history: centuries of enslavement, freedom in the course of the Civil War, a great promise made amid the political turmoil of Reconstruction and a great promise broken, followed by disfranchisement, segregation and, finally, the long struggle for equality.
In commemorating this history—whether on Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday, during Black History Month or as current events warrant—African- Americans have rightly laid claim to a unique identity. Such celebrations—their memorialization of the past—are no different from those attached to the rituals of Vietnamese Tet celebrations or the Eastern Orthodox Nativity Fast, or the celebration of the birthdays of Christopher Columbus or Casimir Pulaski; social identity is ever rooted in history. But for African-Americans, their history has always been especially important because they were long denied a past.
And so the “not my history” disclaimer by people of African descent seemed particularly pointed—enough to compel me to look closely at how previous waves of black immigrants had addressed the connections between the history they carried from the Old World and the history they inherited in the New.
In 1965, Congress passed the Voting Rights Act, which became a critical marker in African-American history. Given opportunity, black Americans voted and stood for office in numbers not seen since the collapse of Reconstruction almost 100 years earlier. They soon occupied positions that had been the exclusive preserve of white men for more than half a century. By the beginning of the 21st century, black men and women had taken seats in the United States Senate and House of Representatives, as well as in state houses and municipalities throughout the nation. In 2009, a black man assumed the presidency of the United States. African-American life had been transformed.
Within months of passing the Voting Rights Act, Congress passed a new immigration law, replacing the Johnson-Reed Act of 1924, which had favored the admission of northern Europeans, with the Immigration and Nationality Act. The new law scrapped the rule of national origins and enshrined a first-come, first-served principle that made allowances for the recruitment of needed skills and the unification of divided families.
This was a radical change in policy, but few people expected it to have much practical effect. It “is not a revolutionary bill,” President Lyndon Johnson intoned. “It does not affect the lives of millions. It will not reshape the structure of our daily lives.”
But it has had a profound impact on American life. At the time it was passed, the foreign-born proportion of the American population had fallen to historic lows—about 5 percent—in large measure because of the old immigration restrictions. Not since the 1830s had the foreign-born made up such a tiny proportion of the American people. By 1965, the United States was no longer a nation of immigrants.
During the next four decades, forces set in motion by the Immigration and Nationality Act changed that. The number of immigrants entering the United States legally rose sharply, from some 3.3 million in the 1960s to 4.5 million in the 1970s. During the 1980s, a record 7.3 million people of foreign birth came legally to the United States to live. In the last third of the 20th century, America’s legally recognized foreign-born population tripled in size, equal to more than one American in ten. By the beginning of the 21st century, the United States was accepting foreign-born people at rates higher than at any time since the 1850s. The number of illegal immigrants added yet more to the total, as the United States was transformed into an immigrant society once again.
Subscribe now for more of Smithsonian's coverage on history, science and nature.
Related topics: Black History Immigrants African Americans Late 19th Century USA
Additional Sources
“Historical Census Statistics on the Foreign-Born Population of the United States: 1850-1990,” by Campbell J. Gibson and Emily Lennon, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Feb. 1999









Comments (16)
+ View All Comments
"Black" because it's a significant experience; very specific generationally. I am thankful that our government recognizes February as a month of reflection...Property, Negro, Colored, Black... I am born and raised Black in America. I am black history. I am not an African living in America nor are Africans "Black" and living in America. You get me? Specific to the struggle. Recognize.
Posted by I. Dville on February 1,2011 | 03:30 PM
to tma sierrahills....actually convincing each human on this earth to procreate only one to replace oneself or less would be the best solution for an earth that has more than met the limits of human encroachment on the vastly diminishing resources and diversity of this planet. I find your approach falls a bit short of the real necessity of less humans born could be better. You might seem somewhat selfish with the simplistic anti immigration view point; because we as a U.S. culture are hoarding the majority of the wealth of the world to the polutional detriment of the natural world.
From a wider view point grama (with no grandchildren except 4 step grandkids to love and cherish our environment for.)
I agree with your words, "just plain common sense tells us there are earthly limits to human consumption. Today everything from fresh water shortages to atmospheric pollution demonstrate that we are now hard up against those very limits".
Posted by Grama Sylvia Holmes on July 3,2010 | 01:43 PM
Freedom and Migration--and Ira Berlin:
What could be more important than everyone in the world continually journeying toward greater freedom? Well, the natural resource base upon which it all rests. America is no longer a wide-open frontier to be endlessly exploited, as fascinating and worthwhile as it might be to observe and intellectually dissect the process of European Americans, original African Americans, native Americans and others being demographically displaced by the never-ending "great influx." Scientists, true liberals, true conservatives and just plain common sense tells us there are earthly limits to human consumption. Today everything from fresh water shortages to atmospheric pollution longages demonstrate that we are now hard up against those very limits.
- - - -
Border Enforcement + Immigration Moratorium = Job, Crime and Eco Sanity
Posted by tma_sierrahills on March 8,2010 | 02:38 PM
THE ONE THING THAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND ABOUT THE BLACK RACE IS AFRICAN AMERICAN IS A PERSON WITH TIES TO 2 CONTINENTS SO WHAT IS THE BEEF CARRIBBEAN BROTHERS AND USA BLACK BROTHERS.ONE LOVE
Posted by EDDIE on March 5,2010 | 04:30 PM
I have to say, I am completely bewildered by the need to isolate one's ancestors from someone else's. As I have read, and re-read this article - I come away with the concept that only African-Americans can identify themselves, and to presume that someone else is of the same descent is racist? Did I read that right? Because, unless someone has a remarkable gift of being able to scan another's DNA at a glance - this is just political correctness gone wrong.
I do not deny anyone the right to have a culture they identify with, a history to celebrate or mourn. I question the need to seek out differences to create exclusions. "Discovering our Ancestors" in March's issue shows us that we all share the same ancestors. Can't we celebrate that, and respect our slight differences, without creating further divisions?
Posted by L Rowe on February 27,2010 | 01:28 PM
I don't understand something. Why migrations free and forced?
Posted by dub on February 17,2010 | 12:22 PM
I would think that the term will eventually change if African Americans thought outside the box and get their DNA tested. I did that. I found out that I am of Akan descent on my Paternal side and of Tikar, Hausa, and Fulani descent on my Maternal side.
Posted by David Coleman on February 16,2010 | 04:32 PM
Many historical documents from the early 1900's show that the influx of native peoples of the Carribean as far more prominent than those brought over from Africa in the 1700-1800's, and more numerous.
Using the facility of population demographics, it is likely to be able to estimate the number of Africans in America whose roots involved slavery. It is likely that far less of today's population are counted in that group, as compared to later immigrants from Caribean nations imported or arriving later.
Statistical significance shows that most of the slaves had no leadership without the Caribean imports able to lead because of not having been associated with slavery. Oppression cannot produce entrepreneurs, a reality important to political and social philosophy in any nation even today.
Posted by Pat on February 11,2010 | 09:47 AM
Burell,
Although you or your ancestors did not own slaves, you can bet that they profitted and kept their mouth s shut under the invisble sphere of entitlement of white racism.
They did nothing for the People of color who were enterd into chattel slavery and by living in housing and eating food that was denied Black children and famies showed a moral compass that is as skewed as your arrogance is today., so please before you arrogantly state that you and your ancestors had no hand in the injustices, search keenly for the trace of blood that may still be underneath your denial. And ask them and yourself what have you done to make it right.
Posted by constance toomer on February 9,2010 | 05:35 PM
"Migrations Forced and Free" was revealing on a number of levels. While illuminating the complexity of the modern "African-American" moniker, I couldn't help but sense an underlying frustration aimed at recent immigrants who are "stealing" the term. Granted, the experience of slavery has left deep and sometimes festering wounds. But a comment towards the end of the piece was illuminating in a shocking, altogether different way. While claiming that recent black immigrants "quickly discover the racial inequalities of American life..." the author goes on to say that "they have subjected themselves to exploitation by working long hours for little compensation and underconsuming to save for the future."
These supposed "racial inequalities" are practically nonexistent, as the majority of new immigrants will tell you. The notion of subjecting one's self to exploitation is a patent oxymoron, and the concept of "underconsumption" too absurd to warrant much discussion.
Working hard to save for the future while ignoring the shreds of a bygone racism seem to be commendable traits, not deplorable. I fear this article represents a growing "victim" dogma which justifies entitlements at the expense of personal responsibility.
Paul Schwennesen
Posted by Paul Schwennesen on February 5,2010 | 09:54 AM
Brad Johnson, your comment is a bit ignorant. Sir, we are all connected in some way or another. And while you're a direct descendant of people who came here in 1918, how can you possibly know what happened to every other relative before them? Whose to say that some of your relatives were not separated from their families and enslaved?
Posted by Le' Terris on February 4,2010 | 08:52 AM
In response to brad johnson's post. I am a 48yr old African American male. My great grandmother was a slave. Slavery ran from 1654 until around 1865 in much of the present United States. That is 211yrs of slavery, with over 4 million slaves by 1860. How then, can it be said that slavery has nothing to do with most people in this country? Your people were blessed, and arrived in America the right way, as immigrants. The majority of African American's descendants; in my age group, came as slaves.
Posted by Burnell Brown on February 3,2010 | 02:37 AM
As an American of African ancestry, I agree with Ulrich's point to a degree. First and foremost, the notion of "race" has already been disproved. There is only one race and that is the human race. However, I agree that African-American is an ethnicity rather than race.
Posted by Dujuan on February 3,2010 | 07:59 PM
Wouldn't it be best to think of "African-American" as an ethnicity and "black" as a race? The difference being one of culture and history versus some notion of biology.
Posted by Ulrich on February 1,2010 | 08:55 PM
+ View All Comments