I look forward to Part II, Vic. I agree with what you are saying about culture mattering and America, particularly, having a mixed culture. For example, even though a couple Indians 'chiefs' have tried to make hay over OutKast wearing those quasi-Indian outfits at the Grammys, believe me, Indians rushed to the Sam Goody and bought that CD like everyone else. Because, in addition to our subcultures, we are part of the larger culture. I visit a rez monthly, and it is rap coming out of the stereos there, not traditional Indian music, 90 percent of the time.

But coming from a triracial isolate (blame the term on anthropologists, who have taken up studying us) I also know that 'race' matters. Lumbees have had continual problems with the Ku Klux Klan. (Here is an account of a legendary, but unusual, response.) Now, one could tell Kurt Klan, "say dude, we share a common culture. You like potato chips and I do, too,' but it wouldn't keep him from kicking one's ass. As long as 'race,' a social construct indeed, has real world meaning, it can't be ignored. Of more importance, as long as race is a correlate for poverty, the most affluent society in the world has a duty to improve conditions that involve race, such as poor health care in the rural South and on Indian reservations that is a legacy of segregation and discrimination.

Too often, the 'we share a common culture' rubric is trotted out as a rug to be thrown over a reality of gross inequalities among so-called racial groups. Though I agree that race is not real, I don't buy that at all.

I agree with much of what you say. Race is an artificial construct. Because it is a basis for discrimination, both on an individual level and on an institutional level, we still need to talk about it.

It is true that much of discrimination is based on culture. However, it becomes fuzzy when culture and race are overlapped to form stereotypes that are used as generalizations. You can say absolutely that it is wrong to hate or discriminate on someone because of his or her race. Is it always wrong to dislike or discriminate against a culture or an aspect of a culture? In this day of emphasis on multiculturalism and diversity, political correctness can lead you into a quandary. For example, I don't like the way Muslim women are treated in Pakistan (here I generalize, but I think the majority of women in Pakistan are treated as inferior (appy polly loggies if I am dead wrong and offend anyone)). In fact, I abhor the concept of honor killings--I mean a man killing his wife for supposed dishonor. Political correctness would tell me that I must respect such a man's culture and differences. If I voice my displeasure, some might call me racist against Pakistanis. For me, I will be okay with an aspect of another culture, even if it doesn't appeal to me, up to the point when it becomes a case of cruelty toward another.

As for those who claim certain heritage other than American, it is not so clear-cut. Culture doesn't just disappear when it crosses borders. There are all kinds of differences in households across America--obviously. Some might be significant in terms of values, attitudes and beliefs. Even in seemingly homogenous neighborhoods, you can often trace back simple, everyday household practices and family beliefs to culture. So I wouldn't write off culture in this sense. But I do understand what you are talking about. It's disconcerting to hear someone cheaply throw around their heritage like a twelve-year old throws around Hello Kitty toys. Too often, it seems that there is some sort of phony, pithy connection. But I don't want to be too judgemental. How do I know for sure what that person's heritage means to him or her?

I already cited the Prime Directive once today, but what the hell:

As the right of each sentient species to live in accordance with its normal cultural evolution is considered sacred, no Star Fleet personnel may interfere with the healthy development of alien life and culture. Such interference includes the introduction of superior knowledge, strength, or technology to a world whose society is incapable of handling such advantages wisely. Star Fleet personnel may not violate this Prime Directive, even to save their lives and/or their ship unless they are acting to right an earlier violation or an accidental contamination of said culture. This directive takes precedence over any and all other considerations, and carries with it the highest moral obligation.

Dirt, are you a Trekkie? (Yes, I know they prefer Trekker.) Surely, one of the more bizarre things I did as a reporter was attend Star Trek conventions. The forementioned anthropologists could have a field day with 'created' cultures like Trekkie World.

I also have difficulty with not being critical of other cultures when they do things I think are horrible. My wish is that people inside the culture see the problem and reform it, so that it does not end up being a case of outsiders meddling. But, that can be really slow. For example, activists in India, Bangladesh and Pakistan have made very limited progress in stopping unwanted wives being set on fire by their husbands. At the rate of change now, the practice will still be around at the end of this century.

Diva, I was just saying the same thing about not intervening and leaving it up to people to right themselves to Eric, Dan and Scooter at my post, Fight for Peace.

I am not a bona fide Trekker. A real one would dismiss my lack of Star Trek knowledge in an instant. I don't even know for sure how many episodes there were. Eighty? I have seen them all, I'm sure, and I have an annoying habit of citing the few Star Trek quotes that I know.

Thanks for your thoughtful post Ms. Tek. My view is quite simple actually. I believe race is irrelevant or at least ought to be. We all belong to the clan of Homo Sapiens. That is our roots and the bottom line. I have a mixed race family and I am proud of that. We are a family and love each other and that is all that is matters. That is what we as the human race should be focussed on. Who the hell cares about the fanatics out there. Some people are hung up, fixated, or make careers out of race. That is their neurosis and ought to be seeking professional help. Bottom line is that is their problem and they should keep it to themselves because most reasonable people are just not interested.

Anyone see the irony?

Responding to a post on the myth of race and how obsolete a racial view is in today's world, MD immediately mentions that she's an "Indian".

Tek: "This is why I hate it when people in America, especially second and third generation ones say "I am Irish American.", "I am African- American", "I am Japanese-American". No, you are not. You are American."

Funny, I hate it when people say, "I'm an American."

Shouldn't that, in an ideal world, be:

"I'm an Earthling."--?

or "...a human"--?



"I love my country too much to be a nationalist." ---Albert Camus

For some reason, it seems that people are programmed to look for *difference* rather than sameness. Race usually makes differences easy to find: you can see them. It will take a loooong time before people [everywhere] stop seeing skin and hair-level differences and assigning some sort of "nature" to them.

Even in societies where there was little racial diversity, such as in England, difference was artificially created where it could not be seen, in the classes.

We've got a lot of work to do to get rid of this desire to separate ourselves from each other.

I am sure the intelligent people on the thread understand what I mean by saying race will not be an obsolete concept as long as it correlates with poverty and discrimination.

I believe that if an immigrant woman marries an old, ugly, stupid, abusive, bigoted man it is because:

*She has children and needs someone to support her and them,

*She needs a green card,

*She (if she is savvy) will stay in that marriage only long enough to get citizenship.

To me, a situation like that screams domestic abuse waiting to happen. I don't perceive it as something to be applauded at all.

MD: "I am sure the intelligent people on the thread understand what I mean by saying race will not be an obsolete concept as long as it correlates with poverty and discrimination."

I'm not that intelligent.

Someone please to explain:

"...race will not be an obsolete concept as long as it correlates with poverty and discrimination."

?????

I do think currently established racial categorizations are valid(major four races etc). It is does help to find effective cures of deseases, dealing with social trends etc. But I do think it is just one of hundreds of ways of categorizations, and there are many more accurate ways to categorize for those kinds of purposes also.

For example in one categorisation, if Italians & British were the same 'racial category' then it should be separated and Italian should be in the same categories as Mongolians and East Indians for blood type analysis as those nationalities have very high % of blood type B. Other examples; Americans want to put all Germans or Dutch same "white race", yet I saw many that are somewhat dark skinned/hair/eye as pure Germans/Dutch. At the same time I saw blond blue eyed Turkish and least blue eyed Iranians/Pakistanis(although dark hair & somewhat dark skin) ? they are definitely not ignorable portion at all. I know there are at least one million Chinese in China that are blue eyed.

I remember in Japan they compared skin color of Northern Europeans and different small regions of Japanese and in some Northern Areas they found almost the same completion on average and there are many individual Japanese(although all black hair/ brown eye) that are "whiter" skin than Nordics(needles to say lot whiter than large portions of Central and South Europeans). Out of Central Africans, there seems to be a large difference in athlete ability of East(good long distance runners), Western(sprinters), yet Americans treat those two races and another race ?Mulatto?(so-called African Americans) all the same.

I am a Tartar, and I know in many countries including some academics circles in Japan, Tarter, Fin, Estonian, Hungarian are categorized same as East Asian race often because of high ratio of Mongolian spot in babies and other biological traits. Yet amonst Tartars, many think Bashirs and Bulgarians and Tarters are basically the same race, historically speaking.

Problem we have currently is racial categorization is too crude and only roughly one method is supposed to be ?true? and it is rather used exclusively to 'create' as many difference as possible based on that one division out of nothing(yet ignore or hide all other differences like listed above). So distorted pictures of reality is projected to the world and everyone accepts it that is the only truth. Also it is completely impossible to segregate every person into different races as virtually all people are mixed race. Needless to say if we think about it is not possible to draw a line of race especially division is crude, and large portion of people cannot be categorized as one pure race.

So we do need far more different categorization of races than just one ? or not use it at all. Perhaps this racial category is one of the biggest looked over issues and most people accept as true in the world today.

Phew! How interesting. I was actually reading through every line so excited to get to the next post. See what that person had to say:) Very good. Ofcourse, I skipped one or two of the resident irritants but all in all, this is some interesting stuff. I agree with Ms Tek's initial premise. Trying to distinguish b/w race and culture. Susequent posts further expantiating on her point, I also agree with.

I shall venture my opinion on criticism of cultures. I do not like the Muslim culture. Some do not like the black culture. Some do not like the white culture. I use colours as I can't think of a simpler and clearer way to put it. Now, is this wrong? To not like these cultures? In fact, I think gay people have a certain culture. I am not a fan of it either. Is that "racist" to say that? I do not think so. Where it leads to discrimination is when people from the culture you dislike are prevented from equal opportunities. I have a friend who refuses to eat anything served by Indians or any Muslim she can identify. Times like that is when culture blends with racism.

Although, I did see this old woman yesterday on ABC news refusing to have anything to do with her daughter because she married a black man. She was glowing with praise for the black man and the multi racial kids, and simply was as blunt as possible. it's just the colour of his skin, she said.

I know those who are racist due to something they hate about the culture. Should we differentiate? This topic raises far too many questions.

In addition, that whole African American thing is a nonsense. Black Americans discriminate towards Africans. I know many South Africans, Nigerians, Ugandans, etc who have mentioned about the treatment they got from a Black American in the States. Infact, you find some of their more prominent comedians not doing anything to dispel the myth some of the white people have of African countries or cultures.

This idea that wild animals are walking the streets and if you look out your windows you may come face to face with an elephant or a lion is complete rubbish. The idea that people live in huts or tents or zinc houses is complete poppycock. The other day an idiotic journalist was trying to explain the concept of a suspended ceiling to a Nigerian..LOL. It was hilarious when the Nigerian told him to go and broaden his horizons and then come back to him. White people who visit Africa have probably seen more wild animals than the African residents have seen in all their lives. Why? The white people go to the safaris. That's where the animals are. They are not on the equivalent of 5th avenue or Oxford street. Usher, Eve, Dmx, shaggy, etc have all been to Nigeria to do shows. Did they sleep in tents and did they move around on the backs of elephants? Jamie Foxx, Will smith etc shot a film in South Africa? Did they not enjoy the same luxuries as they do in the States?

It's this sort of thing that adds to the problem. Nobody wants to dispel the myth about certain things. Yet, they shout about the motherland every chance they get and pronounce African American like it is a medal of honour.

I have a friend who refuses to eat anything served by Indians or any Muslim...

Ah, how wonderful to have the luxury to be a racist pig!

(If there is a God, He should arrange it so she starves to death at Hindi banquet.)

The fact that a fool like you has been allowed access to a computer to exhibit mutterings of a man deep in the jaws of mental infirmity no doubt, and dementia raises doubts in my head that there is a God. So, do not worry about my misguided ignorant friend. She will find food somehow during the Hindi banquet. If not, knowing her, she will munch the goddamn indian food.

What should be of more interest to you, is how you cure yourself from excessive levels of ignorance, poor judgment and stupidity caused by the deterioration of your intellectual faculties if they ever existed. Dementia is caused by or is an organic disease or a disorder of the brain. This is where you need the miraculous intervention of God. IF there is a God, ofcourse.

The bad news first:) My prognosis is that you were born and bred that way, and this is how you will remain. The good news is that, in the broad span of things you are of no significance to anything or anyone except maybe in your household. Even then, I recommend they get their heads checked. Head issues seem to be running rampant in the Shark household a.k.a sanatorium

Sandra, the whole African American thing started because in some circles it was not PC to say Black American.

Tek, I look forward to part 2.

Shark wrote:

Tek: "This is why I hate it when people in America, especially second and third generation ones say "I am Irish American.", "I am African- American", "I am Japanese-American". No, you are not. You are American."

Funny, I hate it when people say, "I'm an American."

Absolutely!!! Human, period.

Natalie, people can not go around saying they are human. Americans, British, African, Indian. People are allowed to say what they are or where they are from. What is PC coming to when people can not be allowed to identify themselves by where they are from? You would prefer for identification based on species?

In that case we should not be allowed to categorise genders. We are all human.

Lomu: "People are allowed to say what they are or where they are from. What is PC coming to when people can not be allowed to identify themselves by where they are from? You would prefer for identification based on species?"

1) Lomu, first of all, you said that people are "allowed" to say where they are from -- which, beyond being incredibly OBVIOUS, says little else.

2) Then you said 'what's pc coming to when people can not be allowed...' You just said it's allowed. Which is it?

3) re. PLACE and IDENTITY -
"Where they are from" is relative. You are from city, state, nation, continent, hemisphere, planet, solar system, etc.

ie Pick one and find a new friend.

ie. the farther one expands one's sense of "identity", the less one kills fellow humans for stupid reasons.

All this buttoning and unbuttoning.

Well, I think the whole prefix problem is only an issue in the States.

You do not hear, African British, Indian British, Asian British. You just hear British. Not English. British. Clearly, the English can only be the sons of the land itself. Others, results of inter-racial marriages or birth, etc, just call themselves British. Some, give further explanations of half this/half that.

I think everyone is getting too sensitive. At this point in my life, I am not bothered by what box I tick. I will only have a problem if I m discriminated against BECAUSE I ticked a certain box. I don't care if there is no multi-racial box. I'll tick black. I'll tick whatever. I have far more important things to worry about than what freaking box I am ticking or how I identified myself to Joe Bloggs down the street. I'm human, I'm a woman. Hey, whatever floats your boat.

I choose to tick no box at all. If I lower myself to tick one, it is the one that says "other," and I write in "human." Human is what I am -- it is the only honest and dignified answer for me to give. YMMV, but mine is human all the way.

This is part of an article called "White Men Can Jump" I've written for Suite 101. You can find the rest of it and others on the same topic.

I recently saw a remake of "The Longest Yard", in which the characters lament that their football team lacks speed because they "need some brothers". I switched it off in disgust. How can a man like Chris Rock support the defunct myth of different biological "races" that are somehow suited to different physical activities? I am always shocked to find that there are so many people out there who still believe such things, and who still utter phrases like, "They're a very musical people." I can hear them out there now - "But it's true! They do run faster!!" Right. Tell that to Emmanuel Lewis and Gary Coleman.
Dark skin is caused by high levels of melanin, a chemical which certainly has never been linked to athletic or musical ability, as is evident in the works of Michael Jackson. Throughout his career his skin has gone from very dark to very light, arguably without affecting his musical ability or athleticism. However, this does affect his credibility when he sings, "It don't matter if you're black or white." It is interesting to look at the language used here, especially the phrase "you're black or white". In most pop culture texts, a person is not described as having black or white skin, but is black, or is white. This states clearly what they are, in social terms, as defined by their physical traits. So, in Western popular culture, people's genes represent not only their physical abilities, but also their social standing, as "blacks" or "whites".

However, this of course does not extend to the peoples of the so-called "causcasian" group. Redheads are not referred to as "oranges", and Mediterraneans are not referred to as "olives". My father-in-law's people are so white they have a bluish tint, but I don't hear anybody calling them "blues". What about all the other shades of European skin tone - stucco, eggshell, cream, pink? It's the same with "black" people. There's brown, dark brown, blue-black, light brown, yellow, and so forth. So what's all this rubbish about "black and white"?

Another article on this topic from Suite 101.

Master Race Science

Racism is not a belief, but a science. This science is called eugenics. All over the world this science of "racial purity", mixed with religious ideology about a mythical "caucasian race" as being "God's chosen" has been used to justify the some of the most horrific events in human history. This mingled scientific and religious discourse was apparent in many political and popular cultural texts of the colonial era. One of these was a diagram called "The Great Chain Of Being", which placed races in order, with God and white people at the top, and monkeys and Aboriginal people at the bottom. The science of eugenics, through texts such as these, informed public opinion and government policy regarding Aborigines.
The White Australia policy, the basis of Australian federation, was based on eugenics. Its founder, Edmund Barton, publicly proclaimed, "I don't think the equality of man was ever intended to include racial equality". Policy documents and correspondence of the early 1900's used a lot of language such as the sinister word "finality" to advocate the ultimate destruction of genetically "inferior" Aboriginal peoples. A policy of breeding out "inferior races" is a piece of Australia's silenced history around the "stolen generations" that has been recently reexamined in popular cultural texts such as "Rabbit Proof Fence".

These policies of genocide shaped the science of the day. When Charles Darwin stated that the human race was a "polymorphic species" taking many shapes with no actual biologically separate races, he was ignored. However, he gained much publicity when, in "The Ascent Of Man", he compared "low" races such as "the negro or Australian and the gorilla", and asserted that, "The civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace the savage man throughout the world."

I love this post. I was always wondering why we couldn't all just be just Americans and why we all have to have other continents/countries added on when everyone hasn't even been there. My maiden name is Irish and people asked me if I was Irish and quite honestly, I told them I wasn't. I couldn't locate Ireland on a map. My father-in-law, however is Polish-American because he was indeed, born in Poland and immigrated here as a child during WWII.

I'm proud to be American. Why can't everyone else be?