I did think about that issue. In this case, the word Georgian is immediately followed by the phrase African American in the title. That should be sufficient to make it clear it's the US state we are talking about, not the country.
I found it a little garden path. I think "African American Georgia newspapers from..." is slightly clearer.
That slightly alters the meaning by not using the demonym: newspapers published by African Americans from Georgia vs newspapers published in Georgia by African Americans.
I guess you could also go with African American Georgian Georgia newspapers to be explicit that it's newspapers published in Georgia by African Americans from Georgia.
But the reality is that HN has some guidelines concerning titles (plus a character limit). So I did the best I could within the constraints as I best understand them, but I will certainly keep your remarks here in mind for any future titling challenges.
There may have been African Americans or at least some of African heritage in Georgia of eastern Europe during that time period[1] and a little later[2].
Right, but I would bet that even today African Americans make up a very small miniority of people of African heritage in the country of Georgia and African Americans were certainly not numerous enough there in the 1890s to have their own newspapers.
This is not wrong if you consider Abkhazia part of Georgia. There are definitely recorded African descent families speaking Abkhaz and pictured in Abkhaz clothing. You are being unfairly downvoted.
I've noticed that in desperately searching for the polite term to refer to local black people, a lot of Europeans and Asians accidentally and humorously land on "African-American."
No but their going to America was not out of the realm of possibility if they had Russian documents. I’m just saying it’s not as facially impossible as it sounds
