To add to the never-ending debate on race here on E2, I humbly present a note on the psycholinguistics of "black" and "white" as racial identifiers. The two words have --and not merely as a result of two centuries of racial strife in this country-- some very harsh overtones. From our own Webster 1913, observe:

Black: Dismal, gloomy, or forbidding, like darkness; destitute of moral light or goodness; atrociously wicked; cruel; mournful; calamitous; horrible. Expressing menace, or discontent; threatening; sullen; foreboding.

White: Having the color of purity; free from spot or blemish, or from guilt or pollution; innocent; pure. Regarded with especial favor; favorite; darling.

Obviously, these descriptions are not for the racial definitions of the two words. However, they still demonstrate a dramatic positive and negative slant between the terms. Also, obviously, if African skin was blue, and European skin was green, we would now be bemoaning the socioeconomic separation between the Blues and the Greens. Africans are called black and Europeans are called white because, well, their skin pretty much looks that color. Call it coincidence, but it doesn't change the fact that in this culture "black" and "white" are two very powerful symbols --one positive and one negative. Powerful beyond their racial definitions, but which (I shall presume) do effect our expectations and perceptions based on their psycholinguistic weight.

Yeah, it might be a stretch. But it is exactly this (rather old) argument which gave credence to the euphemistic African-American and Caucasian replacements, and why I don't really like to refer to myself as white, much preferring some less slanted and symbolic euphemism.

Amongst other atrocities performed in Australia against Aboriginals, the use of "black" and "white" as racial identifiers was taken dangerously literally. Not all Aboriginals are dark brown; some are very pale or even albino. Families and tribes were split into different cultural roles due to their different colouring - the "white" ones were taken into Anglo-Saxon society and forced apart from their "black" counterparts, who were forced into slavery and institutionalisation.

In light of this bizarre discrimination, it is now politically contentious to refer to racial differences as "blackness" and "whiteness". The more "correct" terms are "Aboriginal" and "non-Aboriginal".

Racism is colour-blind ?

Look closely at a "white" person. Look at something white, i.e. a sheet of white paper. Compare.
Do the same with a "black" person. Look at something black, i.e. a piece of anthracit coal. Compare.

I am what people call white - but I am not a Georgian, people living in the caucasus usually have a slightly darker complexion than north Europeans. Also, I am German but not "aryan", whatever the Nazis said - people on the Indian subcontinent look different from me.

I spend a lot of time outdoors - so my skin is brown, more so and Michael Jackson would look white by comparison.

In South Africa, many restaurants had signs saying "No Blacks !". Nowadays, they say "Right of Admission reserved".
Different sign - same meaning ? Sometimes, yes - but in some place it translates as "No matter what colour your skin is - if you behave like any colour of trash, according to our standards,we won't let you in."
Not perfect - but this attitude can be seen as an improvement.

Germany, however, let me tell you - it's looking grim nowadays.
After exposure to only a very few people who are "black", especially in the former GDR, a part of the uneducated and stupid (for some reason also often unemployed) chooses to believe that foreigners are guilty of taking their jobs, future, wives and space. Anybody not looking German can expect bodily harm or loss of life as a result.
Combined with the local attitude of If I look away, I won't get involved (remember how well it worked during the Nazi regime), the conclusion can only be that, if you are black, you are safer in South Africa than in Germany.

The problem with replacing the term "black" with "African-American" is that not all people who consider themselves black are African-American.

I witnessed an instance of this first-hand, when, in an attempt to be politically correct, a woman standing near me asked someone: "Who is that African-American gentleman who's speaking?" To which the other person replied, "He's not African, he's Haitian." But he still considered himself "black."

Therefore, rather than use the word "African-American" as a cure-all for the so-called "slur" of calling someone black, people should realize that everyone needs to have some kind of label applied to them, otherwise it would be impossible to distinguish one person from anyone else (Even the term "person" is a label, differentiating a human being from another piece of matter).

Perhaps for the sake of sanity, the terminology for describing someone previously referred to as "black," "white," "brown," "pink," whatever should be altered so as to describe explicitly the person's skin-color, rather than their race or their personality (i.e., to identify someone who looks "white," one could say "that guy with light skin," instead of "that white guy"). Of course it's all relative, but I think you'll find it's much less problematic than trying to find a simple definition for a person based on their skin color.