OPINION OF T. M'CANTS STEWART, NEW YORK CITY.
I invariably use the term "Afro-American" to designate our race residing in the United States. No stronger article has come under my eyes than the one which recently appeared from the pen of Prof. DuBois, showing that our term "Afro-American" can only be adhered to as an ark of refuge from the term "Negro," which is too apt to be written with a small "n" and too frequently with two "g's."
We are seeking by our term to designate a race, not a locality, and therein lies the difficulty. If a person should refer to Lobengula's son as an African, he would be correct, so far as fixing his habitat; but if an inquirer should be as great an interrogation point as Li Hung Chang, and should desire to know more about Lobengula, he would properly ask: "But to which one of the African races does he belong?" And the answer would be: "He is a Negro." Now if Lobengula should come to reside in the United States, he could be properly called an "Afro-American" (but this is a very indefinite designation), meaning a native of Africa residing in America. To be strictly accurate, we would call him a Negro Afro-American. We have Italo-American, Franco-American, German-American, Russo-American, Spanish-American, but each of the terms covers an individual who is of foreign birth. These terms are not applied to the children of immigrants; at any rate, these children do not so describe themselves. Even where there is amalgamation between any two of these race varieties, no name is sought to cover the mixture of blood. These children call themselves Americans, and if you press for a blood analysis, you will be told that they are Americans of English and French descent, or some other descent, and if you ask for the name of their race, they will say: "We are Caucasians."
There goes an Italo-American. He is an Italian (born in Italy) who now resides in America. That is the limit of this term. If two or more distinct races were inhabiting Italy, that would be a very indefinite term; but as only one race covers that land, the term is definite. There goes an Afro-American. When such a man is pointed out he should be a native of Africa residing in America; but the term as applied to him does not convey conclusive information to the scientist. He desires to know something more definite; and if the person is of black complexion and woolly hair, we say that he is a Negro Afro-American. No escape from this logic. But if one should say, "I am not a Negro; I have the blood of both races in my veins. What will you call me?" I answer: "Why, you are an American." If you push me for a scientific term to fix your blood relationship to other American race varieties, and if you spring from the blood of a black and the blood of a white person, I would call you a "Negro-American," since your blood is a mixture of that of those Africans called Negroes and that of the white Americans; but if, like the great Bishop Payne, the blood of three races (including the Indian) courses through your veins, then you are a Negro Indo-American.
It is difficult for us to get a scientific name. We are a mixed-blooded animal; we have no distinct race, no race name. The only people who have any right to establish race names and define them are the ethnologists. They have the human race divided into several distinct classes. If there is no houseroom in any class for the man of several different bloods, then we must get a new name. But certain principles must guide us. We cannot escape them without incurring the censure of such scientific minds as Prof. DuBois.
While I agree with Prof. DuBois that our term "Afro-American" lacks precision and is somewhat high sounding, yet I prefer it, because it rids us of the word "nigger," and it has within itself an element of dignity and solidity which helps to promote aspiration in ourselves and to command respectful mention from others. And I think that the name is growing in use. I find it in a late standard dictionary and I notice that public speakers and writers in our best American publications are using it. But, although I rejoice in the fact, I cannot stand against the logic of the scholar who argues that the term cannot be defended upon scientific principles.
OPINION OF P. BUTLER THOMPKINS, NEW YORK.
In the last edition of the "Age" Prof. DuBois argues at considerable length why we should be called "Negroes," and not "Afro-Americans." I read his article with much interest, because the Professor advanced the best reasons why we should be called "Afro-Americans." He admits that the term "colored" is a misnomer, and therefore meaningless.