> Referring to someone as African-American may be accurate when tracing their roots back. But if it goes back a ways, we might not be able to identify a *country* of origin. So, it seems that, for the most part, using the term "black" is still acceptable for race.

If you trace *anyone's* roots back far enough, they'll lead to Africa. And, of course, no-one uses "African American" to refer to Egyptians or Libyans (these would be "Arabic-Americans", despite not coming from Arabia); or white South Africans.

> However, most Asians in America know exactly what countries their roots go to, so they can be referred to as Korean or Laotian or Chinese, etc. But, when referring to a racial makeup, Asian is the term that covers more and seems equivalent to black. And in reference to another part of your post, using the term "Yellow" has seemed to take on that encompassing negative connotation, so Asian is used instead. Where that starts and ends, I'm not sure. Also, Asian does not equal Oriental, so that term is frowned upon by my Asian friends.

As a comparison, in Britian, "Asian" refers to people from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and so forth; and people that would be described as "Asian" in America are "Oriental". It makes sense that the term "Asian" describes the largest racial grouping of Asian immigrants, in each case, but it seems interesting that Chinese, Korean, &c people have a problem with the term "Oriental" in one country, but not the other.

> Fer"pale"rick

winter"African about 5,000 generations ago"mute