[IonCable]

I've been watching the news lately (CNN,FOX,MSNBC and other shows) and one thing I've notice is the number of times I hear African-American, Asian-American, (fill in the blank)-American. It's my opinion that these labels just contribute to racism. They create divisions by classifying people. I am also wondering do the media or people in general use terms like these in other countries? This is my curiousity.

[Sherwin]

Yep, this prolongs racism by segregating people.
However, people will always try to segregate themselves - observe how the goths never hang out with the surf boys and the jocks never hang out with the geeks. This will always happen in any place with a population of more than about 250,000 (from observation, I figure this is just about the maximum number before people start self-segregating).

The most interesting variation of this I heard was a African-decent person being referred to as "African American" when (1) they weren't African and (2) they weren't American.

[funkboy]

It continues racism. Labels split people apart and make people concentrate on differences, instead of just considering them "people."

Miles Davis had the best idea, I think, when he hated critics who slapped his music into one particular category, no matter what he was making. Miles said he just considered it all "music." He didn't segregate music into one style or another, he just heard what was there, and did with it what he could.
It was peculiar to note, though, that Miles also worked with many white people, but also seems to have a bitter attitude towards them in his autobiography.

Still, I just think "people" should replace silly labels. Does it matter what ethnicity someone is? No.

[Millennium]

There are some African ethnic groups -mostly from the north- whose skin is as pale as any European's. I wonder what would happen if an American descended from one of these groups were to try and adopt the African-American label for himself. While it's a correct use of the label, I'd imagine the response would be accusations of racism.

[chabig]

Originally posted by Millennium:
There are some African ethnic groups -mostly from the north- whose skin is as pale as any European's. I wonder what would happen if an American descended from one of these groups were to try and adopt the African-American label for himself. While it's a correct use of the label, I'd imagine the response would be accusations of racism.

Good point. There are caucasian people in South Africa. What fun it must be for them to describe themselves as "African-American".

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by Millennium:
There are some African ethnic groups -mostly from the north- whose skin is as pale as any European's. I wonder what would happen if an American descended from one of these groups were to try and adopt the African-American label for himself. While it's a correct use of the label, I'd imagine the response would be accusations of racism.

At a previous job, a white co-worker of mine from Zimbabwe referred to himself as African-American, just to prove this point. He got a bit of heat for it but every time someone tried to argue with him about it he just mentioned his 20+ years growing up in Africa and his current status as am Anerican citizen. People would get pissed but logically, and linguistically, he was correct.

Labels do serve to segregate people. Some people use labels as a means of exclusion, others use it as a means of inclusion. Sometimes the label is used to identify a racial group, other times a socio-cultural group. I don't how how to fully address the concernwithout getting into free-speech issues.

But, if you ask me, it is kind of a gimmick for someone who has never stepped foot into Africa to be calling themselves African-American.

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by IonCable:
I've been watching the news lately (CNN,FOX,MSNBC and other shows) and one thing I've notice is the number of times I hear African-American, Asian-American, (fill in the blank)-American.

welcome to 1994

/and no, it does not contribute to racism. that's because "racists" are stupid and don't (want to) understand what is important in life (let alone how to "classify" human beings).

//from what i can remember, these labels were introduced to replace such euphemisms as "******" or "chink"...to remind the people who were referred to of their cultural heritage.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
/and no, it does not contribute to racism. that's because "racists" are stupid and don't (want to) understand what is important in life (let alone how to "classify" human beings).

//from what i can remember, these labels were introduced to replace such euphemisms as "******" or "chink"...to remind the people who were referred to of their cultural heritage.

So were the Irish and Italians being called by alternate derogatory names? I mean, you've got "Irish-American" and "Italian-American", right?

Oh, and maintaining one's "cultural heritage" simply because one's great great grandaddy came from somewhere else is just about one of the stupidest things ever.

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
So were the Irish and Italians being called by alternate derogatory names? I mean, you've got "Irish-American" and "Italian-American", right?

you betcha. and if you're not a racist, it really shouldn't bother you what other people want to be known as. for all i care, i'll refer to somebody as an indo-germanic african asian american, if it makes them happy.

Originally posted by Sherwin:
Oh, and maintaining one's "cultural heritage" simply because one's great great grandaddy came from somewhere else is just about one of the stupidest things ever.

*duh* what the hell is wrong with knowing your heritage? you always "maintain" a bit of your past as well as assimilite into the culture you moved to.

[deomacius]

While I think there may be the potential for a negative connotation to those labels, I don't think they are inherently bad. I see nothing wrong with people identifying themselves by a particular label for the sake of seeking out others of like mind, interest or skin color. I DO take exception to people that would use that label to ridicule or exclude that group or for that group to exclude others who are not the same. It's all in how you use it.

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by deomacius:
While I think there may be the potential for a negative connotation to those labels, I don't think they are inherently bad. I see nothing wrong with people identifying themselves by a particular label for the sake of seeking out others of like mind, interest or skin color. I DO take exception to people that would use that label to ridicule or exclude that group or for that group to exclude others who are not the same. It's all in how you use it.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
you betcha. and if you're not a racist, it really shouldn't bother you what other people want to be known as. for all i care, i'll refer to somebody as an indo-germanic african asian american, if it makes them happy.

Right then. It would make me happy if from now on if you would address me as "******". If you're not racist then it won't bother you to call me this.

See how that doesn't really work?

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
*duh* what the hell is wrong with knowing your heritage? you always "maintain" a bit of your past as well as assimilite into the culture you moved to.

We're not talking about people who've "moved to" somewhere. We're talking about people who've been in America for generations yet still refer to themselves by whatever label their great-great-grandaddy chanced to have.

It's stupid and generally only an American thing. You don't get the children of Irish immigrants calling themselves "Irish" in the UK if they were born here, for example.

Yes, learn about your heritage if you want to. But don't label yourself by it - it makes you look like you haven't achieved anything for yourself and have to rely on genetic hand-me-downs.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
We're not talking about people who've "moved to" somewhere. We're talking about people who've been in America for generations yet still refer to themselves by whatever label their great-great-grandaddy chanced to have.

It's stupid and generally only an American thing. You don't get the children of Irish immigrants calling themselves "Irish" in the UK if they were born here, for example.

It's not only an American thing. To take just one example, ethnic Turks in Germany call themselves Turks, and Germans certainly tend to regardless of where they are born. Argentina has a whole separate Welsh minority in Pategonia. They have maintained quite a distinct identity for several generations. British ethnic minorities also have multiple identities, and don't forget are identified with labels. And lets not get into the obvious examples of transnational ethnicities like the Kurds, or Romany, who have maintained a separate identity for literally hundreds of years (probably longer).

Remember, the idea of a nation state is quite new. For the most part it only goes back a couple of hundred years. But ethnicity goes back earlier than that, and an awful lot of ethnicities in the world aren't contiguous with the borders of the countries they are in.

For most Americans, their hyphanated identity is low down on the scales of things. We don't go to war over them, and the primary identity remains American. Indeed, the US is perhaps the only country in the world where you can declare yourself to be culturally part of your new country the minute you get off the boat and be taken completely seriously in that. Most places in the world in my experience will consider you a foreigner for life. And probably your kids too.

The reason for all of this is that America is an immigrant country. What makes America America and Americans Americans is a shared ideology, not shared ethnicity. After all, there is no ethnicity called American (other than Native American, but their identities are split up into tribes).

What you are reacting to is the stereotype of the American tourist who goes to Europe and tells a Scot (or Irishman, or whatever) that he is "Scottish" or "Irish" or whatever. That stereotype would be stupid, and I have seen it in reality occasionally (complete, in a couple of really embarrassing occasions with the tourist donning tweeds). But it shouldn't be confused with the way most Americans regard their ethnic heritage. In most cases it is much more subtle than you imagine.

[nath]

Originally posted by Sherwin:

It's stupid and generally only an American thing. You don't get the children of Irish immigrants calling themselves "Irish" in the UK if they were born here, for example.

Actually the reverse is true; I've met many English people who exaggerate their Irish roots because they think it's cool.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
It's not only an American thing.

Hence the use of the word "generally".

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Remember, the idea of a nation state is quite new. For the most part it only goes back a couple of hundred years.

I don't get that. A couple of hundred years?

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
What you are reacting to is the stereotype of the American tourist who goes to Europe and tells a Scot (or Irishman, or whatever) that he is "Scottish" or "Irish" or whatever. That stereotype would be stupid, and I have seen it in reality occasionally (complete, in a couple of really embarrassing occasions with the tourist donning tweeds). But it shouldn't be confused with the way most Americans regard their ethnic heritage. In most cases it is much more subtle than you imagine.

This may be so. However, I believe that the sooner all Americans start calling themselves "Americans" instead of "*-Americans", the sooner a lot of problems are going to get solved.

Here, the problem is shown with Asians (UK definition of Asians, not US definition). For example, way way too many people born here support the sports team of their grandaddy's country, not the team of their own country. Lessens the integration, keeps people separate. What you get is multiple-mono-culture, not multi-culture - not a good thing.

However, as I stated earlier, it's human nature. No way is it ever going to go away 'coz people generally need to group themselves into a pre-set subtle-identity (it's easier than making their own).

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
Hence the use of the word "generally".

I think you are generalizing in the wrong direction. A few countries are homogenous. Most aren't.

I don't get that. A couple of hundred years?

'Tis true. Here is one of the most famous scholars on the subject.

This may be so. However, I believe that the sooner all Americans start calling themselves "Americans" instead of "*-Americans", the sooner a lot of problems are going to get solved.

What problems? Americans by and large don't divide on ethnic lines.

I think you are confusing ethnic pride with ethnic loyalty. It's not the same thing. Maybe also you misunderstand where I think people instinctively put the stress. I think mentally, people see themselves as (for example) Irish-American, not Irish- American. Do you see the difference? The identification is with America, far more than with Ireland.

That is why so many hyphenated Americans went to war with their former countries without a sense of divided loyalties. For example, in WW-II, despite the suspicion of their fellow Americans, Japanese Americans won more medals fighting the Japanese than any other ethnic group. German Americans fought against Germans by the millions. Indeed, the invasion of Germany was lead by a German American (Eisenhower). And of course, there was that little spat between a bunch of British Colonials and the British Army (plus your Hessian mercenaries). Americans have always had other identities other than plain old American, and it doesn't seem to have done anything to divide the country.

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
Right then. It would make me happy if from now on if you would address me as "******". If you're not racist then it won't bother you to call me this.

sure, i'll call ya a "******" if you want.

Originally posted by Sherwin:
We're not talking about people who've "moved to" somewhere. We're talking about people who've been...

moved somewhere. right. i take it that's what started this whole thing.

face it, african-americans were robbed of their cultural identity for centuries and are now slowly reclaiming their heritage. can you imagine germans, or the irish or the italiens not having any impact on american culture? no, that's simply not the way it played out.

anyway, once again, you have to keep seperate things seperate. and there is a hell of a difference between "including" cultural definition in a largely descriptive term, or plain "slander". see how that works.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
'Tis true. Here is one of the most famous scholars on the subject. The idea of the nation-state is pretty recent.

I'm not going to buy a book just to argue a point on the Internet.

Define nation state? I was under the impression that England, for example, had been a nation state since the 10th century. Likewise France from the 5th century.

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
What problems? Americans by and large don't divide on ethnic lines.

So this thread is pointless then? There's no racism? No divide?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
I'm not going to buy a book just to argue a point on the Internet.

Define nation state? I was under the impression that England, for example, had been a nation state since the 10th century. Likewise France from the 5th century.

Take a look at where that border travelled over the centuries. Half of France was "England." It's because the loyalties that surround medieval monarchies aren't the same as those that surround the modern nation-state.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Take a look at where that border travelled over the centuries. Half of France was "England."

According to the English. Perhaps not according to the French.

[Athens]

Originally posted by IonCable:
I've been watching the news lately (CNN,FOX,MSNBC and other shows) and one thing I've notice is the number of times I hear African-American, Asian-American, (fill in the blank)-American. It's my opinion that these labels just contribute to racism. They create divisions by classifying people. I am also wondering do the media or people in general use terms like these in other countries? This is my curiousity.

In Canada usally media calls a black man black, a asian man a asian male, and so forth. I never say my friend john is a african american, I just say oh hes black, and orginally from Jamacia. He hates being called African American because hes not from Africa. The only exception to this seems to be East Indians, they are usally called IndoCanadian, but im guessing that is to not cunfuse with First Nations.

[Chuckit]

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
face it, african-americans were robbed of their cultural identity for centuries and are now slowly reclaiming their heritage. can you imagine germans, or the irish or the italiens not having any impact on american culture? no, that's simply not the way it played out.

What is a cultural heritage except the perceived right to brag about things that actually had nothing to do with you? Quite frankly, the cultural background of most black people in America is purely American. This whole "heritage" idea — like culture is somehow genetic — is just ridiculous. Culture is how you were raised, your environment. Unless you just sprung up fully grown out of the earth, you don't have to seek it out. Those who seek out culture are just posing.

Beyond that, if white Americans characterized black people the same way that many "African-Americans" do when "reclaiming their heritage," everybody would throw a hissy fit over the ridiculous racism of stereotyping someone just on their skin color. Unless I have the right to call you a cannibal if you come from a people that has been cannibalistic in the past, you have no right to call yourself and others like you Africans if you've never set foot outside California.

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by Chuckit:
What is a cultural heritage except the perceived right to brag about things that actually had nothing to do with you?

riiight, that's why they have about a gazillion different "oktoberfests" in pennsylvania alone. that's why people celebrate "st. patricks day" or "columbus day"...

[Athens]

Originally posted by Chuckit:
What is a cultural heritage except the perceived right to brag about things that actually had nothing to do with you? Quite frankly, the cultural background of most black people in America is purely American. This whole "heritage" idea — like culture is somehow genetic — is just ridiculous. Culture is how you were raised, your environment. Unless you just sprung up fully grown out of the earth, you don't have to seek it out. Those who seek out culture are just posing.

Beyond that, if white Americans characterized black people the same way that many "African-Americans" do when "reclaiming their heritage," everybody would throw a hissy fit over the ridiculous racism of stereotyping someone just on their skin color. Unless I have the right to call you a cannibal if you come from a people that has been cannibalistic in the past, you have no right to call yourself and others like you Africans if you've never set foot outside California.

I think you said it best

[Chuckit]

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
riiight, that's why they have about a gazillion different "oktoberfests" in pennsylvania alone. that's why people celebrate "st. patricks day" or "columbus day"...

Two of the three are just excuses to get drunk, and the third is something that nobody I know actually celebrates, per se (even though Columbus actually is somewhat relevant to modern American culture). I'm part Irish, but I don't look at St. Patrick's Day as an opportunity to find some "heritage" that somehow got shoved in among my genes like loose change in a couch. It's just a chance to party.

And please note that I did not dismiss the idea of culture altogether. I dismissed the idea of "cultural heritage" — that there is some sort of hidden culture buried inside us, beyond the culture with which we were raised, just waiting to be discovered. It sounds like racist nonsense to me. If you appreciate ideas you find in some other culture, that's cool, but don't pretend like they're somehow "yours" just because your long-lost great-great-great-grandaddy belonged to that culture, when you didn't even realize that culture existed until you read about it in a book when you were 12.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Chuckit:
I dismissed the idea of "cultural heritage" — that there is some sort of hidden culture buried inside us, beyond the culture with which we were raised, just waiting to be discovered.

Unless you were adopted, your cultural heritage is the culture in which you were raised.

[nath]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Unless you were adopted, your cultural heritage is the culture in which you were raised.

Malcolm X would probably beg to differ

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by nath:
Malcolm X would probably beg to differ

Macolm X might or might not differ. It would depend on how you put it to him. The X implies that which was taken from him by slavery. But I think he would have agreed that the American slave experience is a defining cultural experience, and not one to be buried and forgotten by their decendents. That also is the point of the X in his name.

[nath]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Macolm X might or might not differ. It would depend on how you put it to him.

My assumption was that you would put it to him as follows:

"Unless you were adopted, your cultural heritage is the culture in which you were raised."

Since, you know, that was the statement I was responding to!





(with which he would certainly disagree)

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by nath:
Malcolm X would probably beg to differ

Malcolm X was a racist dick though... ...which proves the point Simey and Chuckit were making.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by nath:


My assumption was that you would put it to him as follows:

"Unless you were adopted, your cultural heritage is the culture in which you were raised."

Since, you know, that was the statement I was responding to!





(with which he would certainly disagree)

I think you misunderstood. To take this very narrow example, African Americans are raised in a family culture that is very much informed by their specific history. The same is true for pretty much everyone, of course.

The exception might be an adopted child. If a black kid is raised by white parents, then the specific cultural cues that black parents could have passed to that kid have been severed by the adoption. There he might need to go looking for his culture elsewhere. But most of us imbibe it from our parents.

[nath]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
Malcolm X was a racist dick though

That's what the white devil wants you to believe!!

Originally posted by Sherwin:
...which proves the point Simey and Chuckit were making.

No it doesn't. Simey's point (that I replied to) was:

"Unless you were adopted, your cultural heritage is the culture in which you were raised"

I would maintain that if your presence in a culture is due solely to your ancestors being forcibly transported away from their home, you should have the right to re-acquire your [stolen] cultural heritage and have that assumption accepted by others, should you so desire.

YMMV.

[nath]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I think you misunderstood. To take this very narrow example, African Americans are raised in a family culture that is very much informed by their specific history. The same is true for pretty much everyone, of course.

The exception might be an adopted child. If a black kid is raised by white parents, then the specific cultural cues that black parents could have passed to that kid have been severed by the adoption. There he might need to go looking for his culture elsewhere. But most of us imbibe it from our parents.

Yeah, I think you need to make a distinction between 'family culture' (from this post) and 'cultural heritage' (from your initial statement). Those are very different (albeit related) concepts.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by nath:
I would maintain that if your presence in a culture is due solely to your ancestors being forcibly transported away from their home, you should have the right to re-acquire your [stolen] cultural heritage and have that assumption accepted by others, should you so desire.

Point is, if you're assuming a heritage because your great-great-grandaddy happened to be from another country (whether it was forced migration or not), then you're buying into racist BS. You're attempting to assume a cultural identity based on the colour of your skin or your genes. To do such a thing is both absurd and racist - you're attempting to define yourself based on genetics which you had no control over; isn't that what racism actually is, defining people using genetics which they had no control over?

If you're exploring the culture of another country because you're merely interested in that culture (i.e. a white person exploring African culture or a black person exploring Chinese culture) then you're just someone with an interesting hobby.

I realise that there's a difficulty in judging where the absurdity stops and the hobby begins - particularly when a black person is exploring an African culture. Maybe the changeover point is when you start defining yourself by the hobby? (i.e. calling yourself "*-American")?

How many in the US define themselves as "Mac-using-Americans"? Is this an option on government census forms?

[nath]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
Point is, if you're assuming a heritage because your great-great-grandaddy happened to be from another country (whether it was forced migration or not), then you're buying into racist BS.

No, point is, one person telling another what cultural heritage they should and shouldn't identify with, even when they have clear ancestral links with such a heritage.

Personally I don't feel it's my place to do so, but as I said before, YMMV.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
Point is, if you're assuming a heritage because your great-great-grandaddy happened to be from another country (whether it was forced migration or not), then you're buying into racist BS. You're attempting to assume a cultural identity based on the colour of your skin or your genes. To do such a thing is both absurd and racist - you're attempting to define yourself based on genetics which you had no control over; isn't that what racism actually is, defining people using genetics which they had no control over?

If you're exploring the culture of another country because you're merely interested in that culture (i.e. a white person exploring African culture or a black person exploring Chinese culture) then you're just someone with an interesting hobby.

I realise that there's a difficulty in judging where the absurdity stops and the hobby begins - particularly when a black person is exploring an African culture. Maybe the changeover point is when you start defining yourself by the hobby? (i.e. calling yourself "*-American")?

How many in the US define themselves as "Mac-using-Americans"? Is this an option on government census forms?

You are assuming that culture = the culture of another country as if that culture didn't travel when people emigrated from that other country. Not so. The culture we are talking about is a diaspora culture. It's the culture of those people who left that country (willingly, or unwillingly) and went somewhere else, taking parts of their heritage with them, and fusing them with others. Those stories are pretty compelling, and make us all what we are. They shouldn't be erased.

Your argument seems to be that once you get on a boat, your entire past is erased. Language, customs, religion, traditions, all nullified. That's just not true anywhere. People have always held on to important parts of their culture when they emigrated. Not just in America, but everywhere where people have migrated. Why do you think your language has all its different roots? How do you think religions moved about the globe? How do you think customs moved from culture to culture, continent to continent? It's all because people hold on to their cultures.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Your argument seems to be that once you get on a boat, your entire past is erased. Language, customs, religion, traditions, all nullified. That's just not true anywhere. People have always held on to important parts of their culture when they emigrated. Not just in America, but everywhere where people have migrated. Why do you think your language has all its different roots? How do you think religions moved about the globe? How do you think customs moved from culture to culture, continent to continent? It's all because people hold on to their cultures.

No, my argument is that defining yourself by your ancestors' culture is keeping racism alive.
You leave somewhere, you take your culture with you. You put some of your culture into your new place, you absorb some of its culture. Your kids take a little of your old culture, a lot of the new. And so on. It's the melting pot.

Trouble is, if nothing is actually "melting" because generations are strongly holding onto their former culture, it doesn't work and you get to maintain racism. Most racism is based on lack of cultural integration, not skin colour. If one seeks to highlight that lack of integration by purposefully choosing to identify yourself as "different" because of your cultural heritage, you contribute to ongoing racism.

So, in the context of the question asked at the top of the thread, labelling oneself as "*-American" does help racism continue.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
Trouble is, if nothing is actually "melting" because generations are strongly holding onto their former culture, it doesn't work and you get to maintain racism.

But nobody is doing that. Nobody doubts that the different ethnic groups in America aren't all Americans first. The cultural identity stuff is at the fringes. Indeed, most of us can claim several such identies.

Your argument falls apart because it is so overstated.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
you betcha. and if you're not a racist, it really shouldn't bother you what other people want to be known as.

What a load of crap.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
But nobody is doing that. Nobody doubts that the different ethnic groups in America aren't all Americans first. The cultural identity stuff is at the fringes. Indeed, most of us can claim several such identies.

Your argument falls apart because it is so overstated.

This may be somewhat true of America (i.e if you don't count the American soldier who decided to throw a hand grenade into the mess tent because of the evil the Americans were doing to "his people").
However, it's not true of the UK. The reason why those UK peeps recently released from Gitmo were in Afghanistan in the first place is because the cultural identity thing is a major problem for quite a few people here. Try walking around Manchester at the end of ramadan and you'll see exactly what I mean.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
This may be somewhat true of America (i.e if you don't count the American soldier who decided to throw a hand grenade into the mess tent because of the evil the Americans were doing to "his people").
However, it's not true of the UK. The reason why those UK peeps recently released from Gitmo were in Afghanistan in the first place is because the cultural identity thing is a major problem for quite a few people here. Try walking around Manchester at the end of ramadan and you'll see exactly what I mean.

So why do you keep commenting on "-American" if your model is a situation in a different country?

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
No, my argument is that defining yourself by your ancestors' culture is keeping racism alive.

the problem is that you are ignoring the fact that most of the people who live in a "monoculture" take these things for granted.

the us is unique in this respect, because (aside from the 1st nation) there really is no indigenous culture. i'd say about 90% of american culture is european based (in terms of ethics, religion, language, laws, govt. etc.)

otoh, most people who were forcefully deported to the us, and sold into slavery, were specifically stripped of their cultural heritage, and forced to assimilate, - there is a BIG difference there!

some historians and ethnologists have (quite successfully) linked a lot of problems within certain american communities to this lack of "cultural identity" (many racist stereotypes are built into language already)

of course this flies straight into the face of a lot of the "personally and individual responsibility" theory so popular with conservatives today, - but that is pretty much only half of what makes a "person".

and, no, racism has nothing to do with it. it's all about self identification and how one lives his or her everyday life. there are actually a lot of studies on this out there...

[Millennium]

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
you betcha. and if you're not a racist, it really shouldn't bother you what other people want to be known as. for all i care, i'll refer to somebody as an indo-germanic african asian american, if it makes them happy.

If I'm not a racist, then surely I can be offended at being accused of racism, can I not? This is precisely what political correctness is all about: accusing people of racism without any cause or evidence.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
So why do you keep commenting on "-American" if your model is a situation in a different country?

Because that's how the original question was phrased. If you take the theory behind it (self-segregation according to cultural heritage) you can apply it to what's going on in other places.
Same underlying deal in other places, just a little bit harder to talk about because as far as I can tell nowhere else has adopted the easy, consistent titles ("*-American") that America has.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
the problem is that you are ignoring the fact that most of the people who live in a "monoculture" take these things for granted.

the us is unique in this respect, because (aside from the 1st nation) there really is no indigenous culture. i'd say about 90% of american culture is european based (in terms of ethics, religion, language, laws, govt. etc.)

otoh, most people who were forcefully deported to the us, and sold into slavery, were specifically stripped of their cultural heritage, and forced to assimilate, - there is a BIG difference there!

some historians and ethnologists have (quite successfully) linked a lot of problems within certain american communities to this lack of "cultural identity" (many racist stereotypes are built into language already)

I got news for you. If you were born and raised in America you have an American cultural identity. You were never "stripped of your cultural identity" because you never had one - other than "American". You are not your grandaddy.
Any problems relating to your "not having a cultural identity" are BS caused by being torn between your existing cultural identity (American) and the supposed cultural identity of your great-great-great-great-great-great-grandaddy.
The problems are caused by being told you're "*-American", not simply "American".

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
and, no, racism has nothing to do with it. it's all about self identification and how one lives his or her everyday life. there are actually a lot of studies on this out there...

As I stated earlier, it's a lot easier to slip yourself into a pre-made subtle identity than create one for yourself.

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by Millennium:
If I'm not a racist, then surely I can be offended at being accused of racism, can I not? This is precisely what political correctness is all about: accusing people of racism without any cause or evidence.

no, it's not. it's actually just a term. pointing out how things work isn't calling anybody "a racist".

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
I got news for you. If you were born and raised in America you have an American cultural identity. You were never "stripped of your cultural identity" because you never had one - other than "American". You are not your grandaddy.

There you go again. Nobody is saying they are their grandaddies. "Irish-American" is not the same thing as Irish, and nobody is saying it is. Nor is "African-American" African (and indeed, there is no single African identity).

Irish-American and African-American are exclusively American identities, and are the product of uniquely American history. There is nothing there for you to get all proprietary about.

Stop telling Americans how to analyse their culture. It's not something you are equipped to do.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Nobody is saying they are their grandaddies.

So, if they didn't get the genes from their grandaddies which allow them to call themselves "*-Americans", where did they get them from?
Are Hispanic guys going around calling themselves "African-American"? Why not? 'Coz their grandaddies weren't African, that's why. You still think nobody's saying they're their grandaddies?

Honestly Simey - I thought you were more intelligent than this.

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Stop telling Americans how to analyse their culture. It's not something you are equipped to do.

Someone posted a question asking for people's opinions. This is what I gave. You argued it. Your loss.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
So, if they didn't get the genes from their grandaddies which allow them to call themselves "*-Americans", where did they get them from?
Are Hispanic guys going around calling themselves "African-American"? Why not? 'Coz their grandaddies weren't African, that's why. You still think nobody's saying they're their grandaddies?

Honestly Simey - I thought you were more intelligent than this.

It's really very simple: An Irish-American is an American decended from at least some Irish ancestors. Those Irish ancestors weren't themselves Irish-Americans. They didn't become Irish-Americans until they left Ireland, and travelled to the US, at which point their history became quite distinct from the Irish still in Ireland. There is also a fairly distinct difference between the history of Irish-Americans as opposed to the English, Finnish, Germans, Welsh, Italians, Scots, Scots-Irish (what you would call Ulsterman, though many were originally English border people who were only briefly in Ulster), etc. Certainly quite different from the experience of the decendents of African slaves.

All of these different stories in toto add up to the current version of American culture -- if such a flat and uniform thing could be said to exist. But it doesn't, and never did. And nor is it ever going to exist because new groups keep arriving. We therefore don't have to believe in a myth, and prevent people from expressing a perfectly normal interest in their own families and communities.

Any confusion seems to be entirely on your part. But since you don't live in this country it really doesn't matter how much it bothers you or however much you don't understand it.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
All of these different stories in toto add up to the current version of American culture -- if such a flat and uniform thing could be said to exist. But it doesn't, and never did. And nor is it ever going to exist because new groups keep arriving. We therefore don't have to believe in a myth, and prevent people from expressing a perfectly normal interest in their own families and communities.

And this is why racism (which is really culturalism) will continue.

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Any confusion seems to be entirely on your part. But since you don't live in this country it really doesn't matter how much it bothers you or however much you don't understand it.

Arh... Playing the "you don't live here" card to a discussion of what is, in essence, a universal characteristic. Read my first post in this thread about the goths not hanging with the surf dudes.

Oh. and for the record - it's doesn't bother me. You do understand that people can have actually have discussions without the subject matter bothering them, right?