Are African-Americans more African in attitude and speech? I hardly think so. In fact from my experience Africans are dramatically different from American blacks in their attitude, speech, and a lot of times in their facial features as well. In this case it's problem of terminology. African-Americans do not have culturally African influences like Swedish-Americans have culturally Swedish influences. Perhaps ex-slave-Americans would better capture the cultural heritage, but African-American has become the term. I think a lot of the problem with this issue comes from the seemingly intentional American confusion between nationality and ethnicity/race. If I moved to China and became a citizen then I would most certainly be Chinese, I simply wouldn't be Asian or Oriental in ethnicity. Just because populations of certain countries may be more homogeneous than ours, that doesn't make it accurate to call an Asian a Chinese person or a Hispanic a Mexican. Sure. You would be Chinese by nationality, but still mostly American by culture. You may call yourself American-Chinese to verbalise this reality. Is it any different in the US? Aren't Mexican-Americans simply acknowledging the fact that they have strong culturally Mexican influences?
And part of that Republican form of government is allowing people to have their own cultural traditions, no? [/B][/QUOTE] Unless you were brought here via a slave ship or were an Native American...then you were not alloted the oppurtunity to have your own cultural traditions. I think you are on the right track, Major...must be a UT grad.
<b>grizzled</b>: I champion multi-culturalism as an add-on not as a dilution of American culture. Dilution may take place over time in a natural fashion but it should not be posited from the outset. Too many multi-culturists celebrate their hyphenation more than they do their Americanism.
RR So it's not the principle you oppose, just the degree to which it happens. This can be a problem, especially when people come from strong, homogeneous cultures to the North American one. It's very hard for them too, especially if they are older. Some of the older ones aren't going to change, so there may be some friction there. They still work, often doing jobs that you and I wouldn't want to do, and they contribute to the economy. But their children learn, and the younger ones learn to adapt. I think tolerance is needed on both sides, so that the divisions don't become entrenched. If the youth are alienated, perhaps by discrimination, and don't choose to adapt, then the problem is passed on to the next generation, with a personal animosity element introduced.
PC police? This is not knee-jerk PC reactionary-ism. This is strategic thinking. Shades of grey … not black and white, left or right, ill thought out reaction.
Thought I might give you a hand with that term you oh so enjoy throwing around: politically correct adj. Abbr. PC Of, relating to, or supporting broad social, political, and educational change, especially to redress historical injustices in matters such as race, class, gender, and sexual orientation. Being or perceived as being overconcerned with such change, often to the exclusion of other matters. My beliefs are in protecting your right to call me, or anyone else, anything you wish. I have no interest in redressing historical injustices...just protecting what rights we have now. Now if you would like to call me the multicultural police...than I am guilty as charged.
Grizzled: It's all this thread deserves. Both sides are hard-set in their beliefs, and neither side is going to change their opinions on the subject. Why bother with a well thought out post when the dialogue is illusory? This is just as pointless as discussing religion. Festeral Otto: OK, 'multicultural police'. Same thing.
<b>Festeral Otto</b>: Sure they have the right to, but let's not empower them. When we do we weaken them as Americans and therefore we weaken America. We need to stake our being on who we are now not where we (or even where our ancestors) came from.
If you equate empowerment to investing with authority...then I agree with you. If you equate empowerment to permitting..then I disagree. Good point...
I agree RichRocket. Who cares if I'm Afro-Indian-Chinese-German? Who cares if I'm gay or heaven-forbid a Jazz fan? Who cares if I'm a Right Wing nut or a Democrat? I'm American first. That doesn't make me a bigot for believing so.
Originally posted by Grizzled In this case it's problem of terminology. African-Americans do not have culturally African influences like Swedish-Americans have culturally Swedish influences. Perhaps ex-slave-Americans would better capture the cultural heritage, but African-American has become the term. How about just American? I realize African-Americans struggle with their identity as a people because of their history in this country but with their several generations of being in this country they are more American than I am, if there is such a thing as more American. Sure. You would be Chinese by nationality, but still mostly American by culture. You may call yourself American-Chinese to verbalise this reality. Is it any different in the US? Aren't Mexican-Americans simply acknowledging the fact that they have strong culturally Mexican influences? Actually, as an American I choose to invoke my trendy right not to be recognized as an American so I'd be a South American-Chinese and hopefully someone would slap me around for using such a dumb term.
Central founding premises of our country was that America was to respect diversity and protect minority rights from a potentially tyrannical majority. It is no accident "freedom of religion" didn't specify that it really meant freedom of religion as long as it was a protestant one (e.g., Puritans, Quakers, the moderate early Rhode Island folk, etc. are only welcome) or even a Christian one. Also, while the founders as far as I know didn't speak directly on more general cultural issues or languages do you think the founders really thought protecting diversity in religion was good but diversity in other forms of culture (religion and culture are often intertwined) is bad? Truth is, immigrant bashing has been full throttle in America for well over 150 years. Many Eastern Europeans with different languages and different religions than the mainstream were exploited in mills and mines and discriminated in all realms of society (housing, loans, etc). Chinese were used to build the railroads then asked to leave (where could they go?). However for many of the former by a generation or 2 many were integrated and assimilated into mainstream society because they could blend in. However, if you physically look different from the mainstream, you are never really going to blend in despite what speech, mannerisms and attitudes you develop if discriminatory people are rampant in society. Thus you get people going to enclaves and speaking their original language in no small part to protect themselves from widespread discrimination and exploitation. So if you really want integration, part of it most come from people who look/speak different being accepted by the mainstream--then they will be motivated to share such values, norms and traditions of the mainstream. One final thought, if you think states for instance can mandate English only because that is what the majority in the state wants and the rest just have to live with it regardless of their views or current language profeciency there is risks to this perspective. Soon there will be majority Latino states (New Mexico is not that far away from this), and you have set up a dangerous precedent. The majority of that state can then say, nay, we want this to be a Spanish only state, the rest of you can adapt, get out, or feed on scraps from the dominant group. In short, all of us should respect minority rights less some day you find yourself not in the majority and you have decimated the constitutional protections that otherwise would protect you.
<b>FO</b>: Where do you stand on things such as quotas which are racially designed? How about diluting our resources by making us function as a bilingual national? Shouldn't our new citizens be learning English? <b>timing</b>: Doesn't it strike you that continually referring to onself as an African-American is ill-advisedly focusing on a past that is ugly-- maybe even criminal but is long, long gone. Get with the current situation, I say! No reason in girding up your identity as victim. What good is it-- except to elicit sympathy from some?
treeman: It's all this thread deserves. Both sides are hard-set in their beliefs, and neither side is going to change their opinions on the subject. Why bother with a well thought out post when the dialogue is illusory? I disagree. I think I heard RR say that he accepts the principle of multiculturalism, but (I'm extrapolating) he has concerns about the rate of integration. I can accept that, in general. So this is a move toward a common understanding. We may still be a long way from agreeing on where the trade off should be, but we seem to be agreeing on the principle, which is a start. Blastoff ... and I don't thing it makes someone unAmerican if they are Mexican-American.
